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.

A Message from the Patriarchy: Regarding Miss Tuesday Cain of Texas

Miss Tuesday Cain,

Your poster’s message, “Jesus isn’t a dick so keep him out of my vagina,” hurls an arguably clever but definitely vulgar curse toward your opponents. It doesn’t present an argument so much as an accusation: legal restrictions upon abortion procedures and abortion providers, and legal prohibitions predicated upon the gestational development of a fetus are based upon biased religious beliefs without reasonable basis in what we know about biology. In the case of a person opposed to all abortions whatsoever, regardless of circumstance, your accusation has merit, but this accusation does not apply to all who would support such legislation as passed into law in Texas, or similar legislation in states such as my own, Arkansas. The Patriarchy is an atheist supporter of such laws; in its particular case, the accusation is entirely without merit.

You wrote that you and a friend devised your accusation to “get people’s attention to protest the scary restriction that are happening in my state trying to take away a woman’s right to safe and accessible abortions.” You claim the sign worked. And now you complain the sign garnered you slurs you didn’t earn. We agree. You clearly explain that the slurs labeling you a whore were not received until you father defended the sign. Lest we forget, here’s some of what he said.

“After having been at the Capitol for four days, reading all of the anti-choice posters and seeing their pictures, my daughter made a sign which she and her friend held up during the protest… When I saw that the photo had been posted online, I knew there would be a firestorm. We have been reading comments online and have been flabbergasted at just how extreme people can be towards a young girl they have never met. I immediately posted my name and support online because I believe that people should stand up to bullies. The perception of anonymity that the internet seems to breed is often filled with hate and one-sided monologue… I was concerned about my family’s safety, and still am, but I felt it was more important to confront the hostility with measured debate.”

Your father, Mr. Billy Cain, by his own admission, made a decision to fuel a firestorm that, by your own admission, has put you, a minor, in the midst of a wedge-issue political debate. While we will not fault your father for exercising his freedom to debate with other citizens within his state about its governance and laws, he should have anticipated that your participation would draw exactly the slurs you received and will continue to receive until your public participation in protests at Texas’ capitol is forgotten. Any claim he makes for calm, while justified regarding the content of public discourse, is nonetheless willfully naïve.

We do not believe you when you write, “It’s hard for me to understand why adults would be calling me [whore].” People, even grown-up adult people, may be mean, vicious, creatures. We believe you know this. We do not believe a person who can devise and carry a sign saying, “Jesus isn’t a dick so keep him out of my vagina,” is incapable of comprehending the motivations behind vulgar language. We are confident you utilize and condemn such language when it suits you.

You assert “that abortion should be safe, legal, and accessible for women.” It is. You claim to “believe women should be in control of their bodies and should not ever have to put their lives at risk.” Women are in control of their bodies. Women are not required to put their lives at risk. We suspect you don’t believe us, so we’ll provide you evidence. Here’s what the law you protested does, in plain language.

1. It requires that the physician performing an abortion have admitting privileges at a hospital with obstetrical or gynecological health case services not more than 30 miles from the place where the abortion is performed or induced.

2. It requires that the physician performing an abortion provide 24-hour access to the woman’s medical records by phone, personally or by proxy, and the name and telephone number of a hospital that can treat complications arising from the abortion procedure.

3. It makes a failure to do either item 1 or 2 a misdemeanor that may be fined up to $4,000.

4. It requires that some determination of fetal age be made prior to an abortion. Reliance on the opinion of another physician is permitted.

5. It requires that for any fetus more than 20 weeks old, the pregnancy must be terminated by a method that provides the greatest possibility that the fetus will survive.

6. When a physician determines the life or health of a pregnant woman is in jeopardy, items 4 and 5 may be ignored.

7. When a fetus has a severe abnormality, items 4 and 5 may be ignored.

8. The law protects the privacy of a woman whose pregnancy is aborted, with exceptions only when “disclosure is essential to the administration of justice and there is no reasonable alternative to disclosure.”

9. Defines abortion so that several cases of non-viable pregnancies and non-pregnancy medical conditions may not be adjudicated such that women will be denied abortion of a pregnancy as a matter of law.

10. Defines abortion-inducing-drug so that drugs that are known to cause abortions may be prescribed and dispensed by doctors to treat other conditions.

11. Defines unborn child so that it’s meaning includes a fetus from conception through birth. Lest one be confused, this may reasonably extend the definition of “unborn child” both earlier and later than previously considered.

12. Defines other pertinent terms, such as physician.

13. Assigns several enforcement responsibilities and powers to the Texas Medical Board so that physicians much of the oversight of this law is managed by physicians.

14. Requires that facilities in which abortions be performed meet the standards for ambulatory surgical centers, that is, facilities where surgery is performed and the patient can get up and move about shortly or immediately after the surgical procedure.

15. Provides for severability of portions of the law that are determined to be unconstitutional without striking the entire law.

Miss Cain, we do not comprehend how these rules usurp a woman’s control over her body. This law does not further restrict her choice to have an abortion until 20 weeks after conception of a fetus. She is permitted to copulate and conceive without restriction: she may enjoy a dick in her vagina if she chooses. She may decline a dick in her vagina. She may choose another method of conception, or decline to conceive a child. Were she raped, this law provides more than four months to assess the reproductive outcome of the rape and choose to abort a fetus she has not chosen to conceive.

Women’s health is explicitly protected by this act. Abortion providers must be more qualified, better situated geographically to capable hospitals, and better equipped than previously mandated. The law adds additional exceptions, previously absent, to safeguard a woman’s health and privacy if she chooses an abortion. The law does not require a woman to carry a non-viable fetus to term, carry a dead baby, or endure a pregnancy supporting a severely abnormal fetus. Further, the law requires physicians to determine the time since conception before performing an abortion. This is a reasonable measure meant to evaluate the present condition of the pregnancy and ensure an appropriate and safe procedure.

Pregnancy abortion in Texas is still legal, even 20 weeks after conception. Yes, you read that correctly, aborting a pregnancy is still legal 20 weeks after conception. The law requires that abortion of a pregnancy more than 20 weeks along must provide “the best opportunity for the unborn child to survive.” The law further requires that an abortion must have a medical reason: in the language of the law, “if there exists a condition that, in the physician ’s reasonable medical judgment, so complicates the medical condition of the woman that, to avert the woman ’s death or a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function,” an abortion is necessary. A physician may even disregard the life of a fetus if that physician determines that giving the fetus its best opportunity isn’t medically advisable for the mother.

The intent of the legislation just passed in Texas is clear. After 20 weeks, which is about half-way through the usual term of a pregnancy, the unborn child will be provided an opportunity at life, so long as that opportunity does not endanger the mother. Abortion of a pregnancy 20 weeks along for convenience is prohibited; a medical justification is required.

Finally, pro-choice advocates reasonably argue that a fetus cannot reliably be expected to survive merely 20 weeks after conception. This is correct. This, however, is not the thrust of your dispute and protest action against the Texas legislature, else you would have concentrated your effort upon that particular of the law. Were we to argue this point directly, one might propose 24 weeks since conception, or another reasonably established fetal age, rather than 20 weeks, for the prohibition against abortions for convenience. Timing at 24 weeks would provide a child roughly 50-50 odds. Instead, you have argued that abortion of a pregnancy without regard to the viability of a child or the justification for the abortion is the right of every woman.

This advocacy, we think, is why the ignorant call you “whore.” You are right. No person may justifiably call you “whore.”

The appropriate term is “liar.”

A Message from the Patriarchy: Abortion

It has come to the attention of the Patriarchy that certain females believe that the Patriarchy is responsible for the proscription of abortion. This is true. The Patriarchy opposes abortion. The important thing for you to understand is why.

The Patriarchy values all life. Women matter to us. Children matter to us. Why else do you think the honorable among us confine slaughter to one another? When you abort a pregnancy, you kill something. What is that something?

We leave you to make your own determination. We made ours. Now you know why.

A Message from the Patriarchy: Asian Women Sexualized

The Patriarchy was recently briefed regarding the Victoria’s Secret Geisha Controversy. Be advised that the Patriarchy will not follow the misguided leadership of a lingerie company. We value asian women and asian culture. Therefore, we sexualize and objectify asian women and asian culture. Absence of sexualization and objectification is absence of valuation. Asian women aesthetically please and asian culture inspires. These qualities in no means belittle asian accomplishments or intelligence. Proscription of sexualization and objectification does. Compare to proscription of sexualization and objectification of those mentally incompetent. We will not join in such an insult to asian people or culture.

Another Message from the Patriarchy: Page 3 Girls

We have recently become aware of increasingly loud complaints regarding the exposure of women’s breasts and general female nudity in public media, specifically print media. Among these complaints are those regarding a certain princess of the English. The Patriarchy disclaims these publications.

Female nudity is simple to obtain, as these publications have demonstrated. Women line up for the opportunity to be photographed nude so long as they believe themselves worthy, no matter how fleetingly, and on many a groundless pretext. Male participation in this endeavor is predicated on its monetary value. Men do not subscribe to gossip rags nor purchase such at news stands. Should we wish to see a princess topless, many such images may be obtained from free sources sans the superfluous details of her motivations, lifestyle, and despot-in-waiting husband. We care not one whit for her tits, and many superior examples may be personally inspected for as little as a few hours investment of flattery, time, and money.

Women are responsible for the display of nude women in media. Women revel in the disgrace of their competitors. Women seek humiliation of other women. Women agree to be displayed nude for admiration or ridicule. Women disrobe in public settings. Women succumb to the trickery IN HOPE OF GAIN without true effort or sacrifice. Women exchange their beauty for fleeting praise.

The Patriarchy can’t save you. You want freedom? This is it. Show us your tits. Show us your cunt and ass. Don’t you blame us for the derision you receive for doing it. We like tits, cunt, and ass. We know their purpose and power. We revel in it. It’s your “sisters” that fear their power. They fear the power it gives you when you’re willing to trade on what we value. Why else slander women who choose to marry men, bear their children, and raise them? We do no such thing. Women who partner with the Patriarchy earn our respect, honor, and favor. We care not where you show your tits, especially if you feed our sons and daughter with them.

Please, advertise. We’re always seeking new partners. Our cause could use a few good women. However, we recommend you choose other publications. We don’t read tabloids.

A Message from the Patriarchy: Modesty, Allure, and Nudity

The Patriarchy hears your protest against the restriction of fashionable women’s garments. Your right to wear as much or as little of whatever textile or alternative cover you choose is hereby recognized. Be advised that certain responsibilities accrue.

[The following list is my own. It is not transcribed or compiled. Do not use without permission.]

1. A woman dressed such that her physical beauty cannot be assessed will not be admired for her beauty. Do not expect compliments regarding the unseen and unobserved.
2. We prefer all women be nude, especially the ugly ones. Cosmetics are not excepted. Your beauty, or lack thereof, makes surprisingly little difference to us with regard to long-term commitment. How else are there still so many of you who are ugly? If you look in the mirror and despair, have hope. Your mother can’t possibly be that pretty, and somehow she managed you.
3. Allure may be a tempting mode. Do not be fooled: we see this as an invitation to remove your clothing. Why else show us any skin?
4. Bright colors may attract us, but shiny things lose their appeal if substantial maintenance is required. If we need to baby something, we purchase classic machines. Be practical and inexpensive. We respond to bargains.
5. We know you evaluate us based on income, capital, and potential; be not surprised if we conceal these when evaluating your potential loyalty. The most disappointing deadbeat may be worth millions if you play smart.
6. Show us your tits. Really.
7. Shave. We see plenty of hair already in the mirror. We don’t care if it’s unnatural. So are cosmetics, and you use those when it suits you.
8. You aren’t full-figured, you’re fat. We do evaluate you according to whether you can jog alongside us. That’s more likely if you’re height-weight proportionate.
9. Leave the hat or scarf at home. We are not impressed.
10. If you wear a “fuck-me” dress, do not be surprised if we invite you to fuck.
11. You may dress to impress one another. As a result, we may ignore you. Do not complain that you are ignored by us. See #10.
12. It is possible to engage us regardless of your attire. Please don’t be stupid. We already have enough of such among ourselves. If you are stupid, or do not wish to talk, see #10.
13. Some of us are loyal. If you are intent on overcoming such loyalty, don’t “skirt” the issue: that’s dishonorable. Sort it out among yourselves. Most of us are available to all comers provided you don’t expect one of us to pay for the pleasure of another.
14. Unbutton one more button than is comfortable. Do this also with your blouse.
15. We want to touch you. Do not be so delicately clothed that touching is prohibited. You will be ignored.
16. Bare shoulders is easy to accomplish. Do that more.
17. Crotchless panties are wasteful. Go commando.
18. Modest dress is deceitful. We know you want us. Show it.
19. Only the envious among you enforce modest dress. We are not to blame. We barely comprehend the motivation behind bras. Padded bras confound us.
20.  Don’t bother dressing young. We’re looking for the limbal ring in your eyes to gauge your age. Dress your attitude. See #10.
21. To our mothers: don’t ask us to judge your clothing. You don’t want our honest opinion, whatever it is. Think about it.
22. We use that public speaking trick whenever you join us clothed. It works. We feel much less intimidated.
23. Yes, you look fat in that. What are we? Blind?
24. Yes, we look fat in this. We know. That’s why we never ask your opinion.
25. You don’t care how we “look” except when you need to impress yourselves.
26. We don’t care how we “look”except when we need to impress you. After you see our financial statements, you don’t care, either.
27. Don’t dictate our clothing choices after co-opting ours. It took centuries to develop slacks and pants from primitive garments without crotches. The zipper is a magnificent feat of engineering for pissing with pants up. Go find your own solution to squatting and let us enjoy ours in peace.
28. If you wish to walk about topless, please don’t stop on our account. Don’t complain if we stare at your tits when you do. Wouldn’t you find the alternative disheartening? See #19.
29. Heels are a mixed blessing. Heels make you taller, which intimidates the weak and small among us. The strong and tall among us commend this effort for reducing competition and favorably displaying your ass.
30. If it clings to you when wet, it is a good choice.

A Message from the Patriarchy

I read a blog here at WordPress. I may link it later. Following is my response.

Speaking for the “Patriarchy,” penetrative intra-vaginal sex is not mandatory. I can assure you we aren’t interested in anything other than mutual respect. We establish partnerships with women interested in what we offer. Among our offers is penetrative intra-vaginal sex. We offer other advantages: mutual support, superior physical strength and stamina, time-independent emotional states, among other traits and advantages whose benefits you ceaselessly dispute. Relationships predicated on the guilt or shame of either party do not interest us. If you would rather not fuck, please take your vaginal discourse proclaiming that “a woman’s vagina is not for fucking” elsewhere. The patriarchy has addressed these false and misleading claims for six thousand years and we tire of this dispute. When you are prepared to join with us as you did thousands of years ago and build a civilization from scratch with nothing but your bare hands and the power of your mind, then we may negotiate sexuality, but don’t expect us to acquiesce to your demands without a just exchange. We will no more be your slaves than you falsely claim we have made you ours.