A Message from the Patriarchy: Possible Trigger Warning

We recently began monitoring the blog, “Women, Sex, and Other Hot Topics.” The latest post deserves critical review.


The blog post may be found here. Comments and brief quotes follow.

To begin, we will not debate the “statistics.” Others have reliably dispensed with most rape statistics. We will address, instead, the evil advocated by the blogger.

Please pay special attention to the standard of care advocated by this blogger.

“There is a wide range of what is actually sexual violence or sexual abuse. This can range from a boyfriend pressuring his girlfriend to do things she’s not ready to do yet, to a man getting women drunk in order to get them to sleep with him, to the actual stereotype of the man in the alley.”

The definition of rape is vague and subject to post-hoc adjustment. What constitutes “pressure” in an intimate relationship? Exactly what “things” might a woman be unready to do? Kiss? Grope? Copulate? Copulate among others copulating? Copulate with prophylactic? Copulate without prophylactics? Are particular positions forbidden? Is Sunday sex unacceptable? The mind boggles. We anticipate the objection: “That’s not what we mean!” or its companion, “You know what we mean!” Actually, no. We don’t. As we have written elsewhere, the Patriarchy advocates vaginal penetrative sex, among other sexual encounters. If you have something else in mind, please enlighten us.

Regarding mind altering drugs, including alcohol-induced inhebriation, we have established much common and statutory law to address forced intoxication. Where forced intoxication has been factually determined, the law generally absolves the victim of responsibility for actions while intoxicated and applies criminal sanction upon the perpetrator of forced intoxication. Perpetrators of the crime of forced intoxication who succeed with that initial crime motivated by the further crime of sexual assualt, which is – generally – sexual contact with a person not lawfully able to consent, can be pursued by the criminal justice system and by the victim within the civil justice system upon the premise that forced intoxication occured. It is important to note that consent to intoxication does not usually confer innocence of the consequences of intoxication; intoxicated operation of a motor vehicle is a common example, as is assualt, lewd and lascivious conduct, theft, and murder. One would be obliged to demonstrate a reasonable expectation that personal competence would not be impacted by voluntary intoxication.

In other words: if you choose to get drunk, you are obliged by law to accept the consequences of your intoxicated decisions. We only exempt those we deem generally incompetent from such obligations. We judge women generally competent. The alternative is the system of law similar to those practiced in the the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

“…it has come to my attention that someone I know has been guilty of getting girls drunk in order to get some action (or at least having sex with them when they’re drunk/high and not in control of themselves). Now, I tried talking to him about this and he admitted to this, but quickly said ‘I’m not a rapist….I wouldn’t be sexually aggressive if I were sober….I just made some mistakes. I’m not perfect. Everyone makes mistakes.’ “

We must begin by noting the following important observations. 1) The blog author has knowledge of incidents of rape. 2) The blog author has confronted the alleged rapist. 3) Alleged rapist has confirmed circumstances which blogger would define as rape. 4) The blogger does not claim to have reported the rape.

Upon receiving knowledge of an alleged rape, member of the Patriarchy are obliged to report rape. Rape is a crime. Failure to report a crime leads to lawlessness and the collapse of civil society. Lawlessness is not a modest and tolerable ill. It is the rot that destriys civilization and leads to cultural collapse.

The blogger continues…

“…If someone doesn’t give enthusiastic, non-coerced consent while sober, then it is not consent.”

The Patriarchy can endorse this message. We call this “enthusiastic, non-coerced consent while sober,” marriage. Each party to a marriage consents to sexual intimacy for life. The contract may be voided by divorce and suspended by a legal separation. Regretably, we do not believe the blogger advocates for this magnitude of “enthusiastic, non-coerced consent while sober.” Further, we do not believe she argues for similar written contractual obligations. We suspect she advocates for less formal arrangements that permit men to be accused of criminal malfeasance. We’ve spent millenia building the legal and cultural framework necessary to provide equity at law for marriage, and that framework is still adequate for those who observe the ancient customs. Sadly, recent innovations threaten the framework so badly that many within the Patriarchy advocate it abandonment pending resolution of the cootie war. While these men are presently within the minority, this balance is subject to change. Most advocates for change hypothesize that a transactioanl relationship may enlighten those who believe the marriage contract outdated or inequitable. The majority concurs: transactional relationships will favor members of the Patriarchy such that some women may not survive. Therefore, the Patriarchy opposes change on humanitatrian grounds: too much needless suffering may result.

The blogger continues further with a discussion of the concept called “victim blaming.”

“This victim blaming is a cause of entitlement that we humans seem to have towards things we view as “objects,” particularly male feelings of entitlement towards women’s bodies.”

The Patriarchy has repeatedly addressed this accusation. We do not treat with unwilling partners. We require long-term commitment and unambiguous contracts. We do not treat women as objects. We find this thread of logic distressing and disturbing. Why does this blogger think men would perceive women as “objects?” Men perceive women as partners or non-partners. The blogger’s examples are depraved [enumeration ours].

“No, you [1] cannot touch her just because she’s being friendly. No, you [2] can not dance with your dick against her ass just because she’s dancing next to you at a party, no [3] you cannot have sex with her just because you are alone in a room with her and she was flirting with you. ‘Well, [4] she was dressed like this,’ ‘[5] We had sex before,’ ‘[6] She sleeps around’… “

The Patriarchy has prepared the legal framework to address the concerns you discuss. If you would observe it and adopt it, you would live long and prosper. Alas, you do not listen.

Don't bother.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s