Appropriate sexual behavior

I agree with the sentiment that society and culture must push harder to the Right, with religious conservatism. If sex-before-marriage was explicitly discouraged or punished then ex-boyfriend rape would plummet. There is a strong correlation to liberal-leftist degenerate values, promiscuous sex, and fake rape. It’s much more clear-cut, obviously wrong, and real rape when women are taken advantage of in a conservative-right society. Right-ism knows how to value and protect women. Left-ists do not.

That’s a false analogy.

Women should be blamed, in general, for poor dating choices and failed male screening process. If a woman chooses to date murderers and rapists then that is HER CHOICE. Women and liberal-leftists can’t have it both ways. Either women are self-responsible, or, they’re not. How much babying and coddling is owed to modern women?

You’re basically saying that a woman who CHOOSES to date a drug dealer, gets hooked on meth, is innocent when she winds up dead or in the hospital. That’s wrong.

No it’s not a “clear distinction”.

Traditionally marriage, and today modern extra-marital relationships, imply sexual consent on behalf of the male. When two people are “dating” it’s presumed they’re sexually engaged (in modern liberal left terms). Or when two people are married it’s implied they’re having sex. It’s only recent, and a fad, that modern-liberal-left-feminists are saying that “everything is rape and harassment”. Technically, traditionally, court and general society would discount and ignore such outrageous claims that “my ex-boyfriend raped me 10 years ago”.

You’re ignoring the fact that women need some self-respect and accountability. The further society goes, trying to maintain that “all women are innocent angels”, the more damage is going to be done. Women cannot seriously claim “to be respected” while wallowing in such victimhood. Quit being a victim. Defend yourself. Quit fucking drug dealers, murderers, criminals, and rapists.

Oh, but you see, women will continue to do so anyway.

Are you holding women and men to different standards? It seems like you want to hold women and men to different standards (e.g. woman victim is responsible for the actions of man attacker).

This is irrelevant. We’re talking about marriage now, for which the social and legal understanding is that both partners retain their individuality and autonomy.

Yes, women should be held to different standards than men, and men different standards than women.

Isn’t it obvious that the challenges that a man faces in life, is not equal or even remotely similar, to a woman?

And likewise for women, their challenges are nowhere near nor relevant to men’s?

What is the “challenge” of a woman’s life, other than, choosing a suitable male? Women’s lives revolve around sex. Men’s lives revolve around doing things, working, warring, accomplishments, etc.

Are you open and honest about that belief with the women in your life? How do they respond?

I generally don’t tell anybody what I think because I know how they would respond.

People hate the idea of imposition upon them, that they are judged by the highest standards.

However I never expect that others should live up to my standards. Because I believe in objective moral standards. If somebody impressed me then it would be out of their own accord and their own nature. They would have done what I approve of, naturally, without coercion and without previous knowledge. For example, if a woman is prudent, loyal, makes a good home, makes a good wife, and makes a good mother, then I praise her because that is what her nature is. She is rare, and deserves my respect, and of others, because of what she is without subjective moral imposition. She does not act as she does because I, or anybody else, deems it so. But rather because she already knew in her heart that it was the best thing for her. Because the rewards of a noble nature is always self-evident.

Furthermore the improprieties and degeneracy of the rest of average, mediocre society, will not stain her. Thus nobody should ever hold “the same” standards for everybody, as if we could expect from the lowlifes, scum degenerates, prostitutes, and the promiscuous, that they would be fit to make good wives and good mothers. Or that every woman is “equally worthy” of protection and sanctity, of positive attention and affirmation, as-if women who are noble had not paid a higher cost, and made higher sacrifices???

No, to Each their Own.

These promiscuous women in Hollywood want to make a stink about an ugly movie producer sexually harassing them…it’s apples and oranges. Fake rape compared to real rape. It’s dishonorable to women out there who are real victims, not fake victims. It’s furthermore a dishonor to women most worthy of protection and admiration.

Should Hollywood actresses, selling their body’s out to the public, be praised and raised as social paragons? Compared to real mothers and wives? No. Of course, everybody know how long “marriages” last in Hollywood too. Hollywood is comprised of degenerate Attention-seekers. Their job and careers revolve around attention-whoring. Unfortunately that is what this whole issue seems about, attention-whoring. 15 more minutes of fame.

James…You have a list of black men who can’t get white women off their minds?

There are two possible explanations for the need to lie about one’s beliefs: 1) everyone else is wrong, or 2) one’s beliefs are wrong.

It’s not impossible that #1 is the case, but the conditions that need to hold for it to be right are pretty unlikely. Epistemic humility should strongly suggest that your beliefs about what the challenge is in women’s lives and what their lives revolve around are wrong when basically no women accept them.

Withholding your thoughts and beliefs from others, is not lying, as-if people in general are ‘owed’ the truth.

They’re not. Those who deserve to hear truth are those who most seek it out and fight for it, earn it.

Perhaps you need hints and tips. What people say and what people do are often very different. When you examine people’s behaviors, and throw out all the words, then people really expose themselves. No words, just actions. What people do says the whole truth. And so these Hollywood women and sex assault cases demonstrate the truth. Young girls and women go to Hollywood, want “the dream”, but that “dream” usually has a man standing in the way, blocking the door. A Hollywood producer, the price of admission is undressing, taking your clothes off, or more.

Some women pay the price. Others do not. This is the reality of Hollywood and California. The dream, of most women, is the lie. As-if things in life don’t have a price. As-if getting what you want, won’t have barriers and men blocking the way. So again, some women paid the price, undressed, performed. They regretted it ten years later. They complain about it a decade after the fact.

Not the next day. Not the next week. Not the next year. So again, what does this action say? Does it not say more than words ever can?

And what about those who change in the opposite direction? :stuck_out_tongue:

Women are blameless and innocent, and can do whatever they want.

However if they want to become men, and attach a fake penis, then they must be blamed for everything and must be held accountable for their actions.

Also women who become men, must also cut their (fake) dicks off, otherwise be guilty of sexual harassment and/or rape.

Yes, that’s why “The Boy who Cried Wolf” is a compelling fable. It wouldn’t be much of a story if there were no such things as wolves.

How far beyond the pale is it today? Jerry Seinfeld dated an underage girl and all it got him were a few magazine covers.

Who? Who does that? Lena Dunham? You? “Society”? We don’t have a cohesive society capable of coming to consensus on those sorts of things.

Of course the actual reality of the situation is that plenty of Republicans called out both Trump and Moore when those accusations were made, and they did it more consistently and more loudly than the Democrats did against Conyers or Franken- that is, until Trump endorsed Moore creating a political opportunity to be gained by throwing Franken and Conyors under the bus. For another thing, Republicans have been all over the media saying Franken didn’t need to drop out over this stuff- I don’t think the accusations against him amount to very much.

So here we are where Dems are on their high horse about how well you handle sexual assault accusations when you were working your damnedest to get Bill Clinton back in the White House and reacting with shock and horror to anybody who had the gall to even mention the 'bimbo’s that accused him of rape and assault. Until, once more, there was a political advantage to be had by throwing the Clintons under the bus in the name of ‘believing women’. It only took 20 years.

So how is politics supposed to function in any sort of honest way when folks manage to say “Trump needs to drop out for sexual impropriety so the Clintons can have another 8 years in the Oval Office” without a hint of irony?

The answer to the question is, candidates that laugh and scoff at such accusations begin to have an advantage. Unfortunately, even with the accusations are true.

Well, because their claims stand to ruin somebody’s life.

Depends on what you mean by ‘legitimate’. It’s certainly not an ethical move. But it is increasingly a move that gets you ahead in politics.

Yes. I am absolutely certain some leftist professor has found a way to define staring at somebody across a crowded room as ‘forcible rape’, such that now the reasonableness of forcible rape is being discussed. The whole thing is politicized. If there was an article on Vice or Gateway Pundit or wherever accusing a popular figure of ‘forcible rape’, my very first thought would be “Let’s see how they are mangling definitions of words to put that label on what really happened”.

When language is violence and men can become women by wishing, God only knows what you mean by ‘forcible rape’.

Right. When it’s 99% democrats and liberals being accused, it’s suddenly time to think very carefully about the credibility of accusations.

You’re talking all around the massive shitstorm of ‘toxic masculinity’ whining, and the brazen misandry that has been coming out of the press on your side of politics for years to focus instead on what you imagine to be the private motivations of mostly anonymous strangers. I’m sure the #metoo campaign is full of diverse people doing what they do for a multitude of reasons. But they aren’t the problem anyway. If anything, the revelation that ‘rape culture’ insofar as it exists seems to be limited to Hollywood, male feminists, and liberal journalists has been great for society.

I don’t really think there’s anything wrong with the #MeToo movement. Let them call out every abuser and burn Hollywood and mainstream journalism to the ground. Alternately, let them make false and frivolous accusations over and over, ruining people’s lives for no good reason until radical feminism loses all credibility for a generation. Ideally, a bit of both. The only thing new about it is that sacred cows to the left are getting the same treatment that the rest of us have had to deal with forever.

In my opinion, the closest thing to appropriate sexual behavior mentioned in this thread:

Yet, this too can be attacked as a poor choice

One can think of a drink as a gift - if sex is an outcome, this can be seen as exchanging sex for goods (i’d call it prostitution)

Or to attack it from another angle, the drink(s) may put people in a position to blame decisions on the alcohol rather than taking responsibility for ones own actions

Perhaps there is something more appropriate than this

That happens so rarely that it’s more of a hilarious meme than it is a real issue. Anyway, maybe if you treated people well you wouldn’t live in constant terror of some mythical woman who hates you trying to get even.

Alternatively, people are in bars to drink and socialize. Offering to buy someone a drink is an invitation to… drink and socialize. Sure, it would be a little less problematic to just strike up a conversation with someone. But social norms and all that, you know?

So who are some of the people who have been unduly harmed in the eyes of the public for actions they’ve taken? I want to see where you think that line is drawn. What are some real world examples? Is it the child molester state rep from Kentucky who killed himself this week because people called him a child molester? Is it Harvey Weinstein, the literal rapist, being accused of rape? Is it Louis C.K. who admits he did what he’s been accused of and is never going to live this down?

There is a real and dangerous problem with this “now what did we do!” bullshit. “Women are too dangerous to men socially so we might as well just avoid them”. This is sooooo lame. If someone is so socially inept that you can’t help but make women feel uncomfortable, maybe they should be looking at themselves instead of blaming everyone else for judging them.

I agree that this is uncommon enough that it does not present a general objection, but I disagree that the issue in the actual cases is that the accused is at fault so long as he angered some woman ever. First, that’s an impossible standard (see RBF on this point). Second, being someone that is annoying or hate-inducing is not the same as being a sexual predator.

I recently had a conversation about the Cat Person story that’s been making the rounds. SPOILERS FOLLOW:
[tab]Their reading was that the man, Robert, was clearly using “Pick Up Artist” (PUA) tactics, like ‘negging’, withholding approval, whatever. I was shocked to learn that, because as I read it, Robert pretty clearly had some sort of social disorder like autism. The author’s subsequent comments make clear both that 1) she intended Robert to be a PUA, and his tactics to be deliberate, and 2) that PUA tactics and social disorders like autism look very similar, and that she played on that similarity to sow doubt in the reader.

I’m reminded of that exchange now, where you are saying that being socially inept makes a person at fault for the way their are perceived. I don’t think that’s right either. Much social failure is sincere, and it’s just not useful to say “stop making people (including women) uncomfortable”.

It’s not at all clear to me that people have a right not to be made uncomfortable.[/tab]

Without further delay, what part of 50% of the population cut in half do you not comprehend exactly? Do you think that is normal or inconsequential? Was it normal for when the Seminole tribe of Florida was cut in half by 50% in population? You will of course say it isn’t comparable but it really is. You might even say it is karmic justice taking the position of the anti white social justice warrior or virtue signaler.

Race and ethnicity plays a big important role in culture which family revolves around where your denial or minimizing the importance of race just strikes me of irrational political correctness.

Your artificial notion of civic nationalism versus ethnic nationalism does nothing in defending your position but instead sounds like rehearsed social propaganda of the period of time we find ourselves living in. I am not a supporter of civic nationalism especially when one group of people is destroyed so that all others prosper. I am also against civic globalism. You and James started talking about race at first where I merely chimed in adding my own thoughts on the subject.

It is all hysteria and useless accusations without evidence of an act. (15, 20, and 40 years after the alleged acts.)

I can easily conceive a world where political operatives bribe a bunch of women with significant amounts of money claiming sexual harassment or worse to take down a political opponent publicly.(Judging by the latest Alabama state election such a weaponized ploy was very successful in its intended goals.)

You on the other hand can’t imagine such a world where things like that happen because your moral idealism clouds your ability to see reality. For you such a world is inconceivable and incomprehensible where it cannot exist, a sort of normalcy bias of yours. Moreover it seems you have an inability to understand false rape accusations or that some women use such false accusations as precedent of elevating their own social or individual power over others.

Of course this is the era of cognitive dissonance and this will only increase with time. This is as they say just the beginning.

Seriously, in an abstract sense, there is no such thing as “Appropriate” sexual behavior. In nature, instinct compels mammals to mate. It is not until humanity that the mating process becomes most elaborate and complex. But sexual conduct is universal in such that a male takes a female’s innocence, her virginity. Female sex has great value; male sex does not. Therefore sex with women is universally wanted and demanded, desired.

The “Appropriate” ideal is such that women, generally, “Approve” of their suitors advances. But this is actually rare. Most women reject most men. And most of sexual conduct, advances, and behaviors are those of rejection. Women reject a lot of men, most, before final acceptance. And acceptance is contingent upon the seduction of a woman. If a woman is not seduced, then the male is rejected, not approved, and no longer [i]appropriate. Thus sexual “Appropriateness” is based upon the female’s judgment of male seduction. That’s it, all it is.

Thus modern people complain about all this “Inappropriate” sexual conduct, in such that, women are rejecting the advances of some men. Society then has a “free pass”, collectively, a collective judgment, to exact a price and punish ‘unwanted’ men. Men who have failed to seduce, and gain the approval, of some women.

Another note:

I don’t believe that it is until men and women, boys and girls, are strictly segregated throughout society, that this “problem” of sexual misconduct can be solved. A heavy push to severely conservative, rightist, values is the answer. Boys and girls should be segregated in school, in the military, in the office, and in many other areas of life. However segregation is a natural compulsion, so people choose of their own volition, to segregate anyway. Thus despite the “advances” of liberal-left values, and the urge to overturn nature, still does not win out. Men congregate with other men, in general. Women with women.

The reason and cause for all this, is putting men and women into environments where they are not supposed to be sexually advancing and harassing each other.

For example, if you are teaching a classroom of 16 year old teenagers, and the boys and girls are together, then how much will they be focused on each other, and sex, rather than being educated? It’s an imbecilic idea, that you can teach a bunch of students in an environment where their hormones physically dictate their primary focuses and directives. Same with war. War cannot really be conducted in the same sense when women, or children, are introduced to a battlefield.

Well, I work specifically with autistic males on how to be less creepy. They DO need to look at themselves, because they can’t expect the world to just go “oh he’s autistic, I guess I’ll marry him because it’s not his fault, and his awful creepy comments are therefore acceptable because he has a disability”

It’s not gonna happen, so we might as well forget pretending. Besides, plenty of creepy fucks don’t have autism and they need to analyze their behavior too.