At least one party gets screwed
April 25, 2018 § 6 Comments
Our society positively celebrates and encourages fornication, to the point where any undesired consequences of fornication – even consequences to which the perpetrator has explicitly agreed ahead of time in writing – are considered merciless tyranny; the perpetrator, a victim.
At the same time, modernity views consent as what determines justice. Because of this, precisely (and only) because of the absence of consent, rape is still considered a terrible crime (as long as women are not spending millions of entertainment dollars fantasizing about it). And of course the scope of “consent” continues to expand, to the point where any foreseen or unforeseen regret for making a free choice, or any subjectively perceived pressure at all to choose one way rather than another, is thought to retroactively nullify consent.
This leads many conservatives to join forces with sexual libertines when it comes to campus rape hysteria, #metoo, and the like. Because when consensual sex that the woman later regrets is defined to be rape, at least one party to fornication – the man – suffers real consequences.
Combox cray cray makes a great negative moral compass, eh?
Given the noted connotations of the word “consent,” it seems that the word might need to be dropped and replaced with “intent.” Consent seems to muddy the rhetorical waters.
Also, in case you were unaware and in case it makes a difference, the interlocutor has said in previous comments that he is (some level of) autistic. Not that it detracts from anything you were saying, but it might provide some insight into his online behavior.
[…] Source: Zippy Catholic […]
All the logic-chopping about consent is beside the point. And, Zippy, whether the man or the woman comes out the “winner” is also beside the point. The point is that running counter to God’s plan, whether on sex or on anything else, leads to ever-increasing disaster. DOWN WITH THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION! It is a war against humanity, and I personally know some of the war-wounded, and so does each of you.
We as Catholics need to lead the counter-attack against the sexual revolution, and not waste energy on the miserable business of shifting blame. We are for weddings! We are for lasting marriages! God created them male and female, and God is love!
This “always blame the man, women are always victims” shibboleth is not only an intrinsically unjust lie: it is also one of the core driving forces of the sexual revolution.
So people in authority should or should not treat rape and fornication as distinct? In addition to being intrinsically unjust in particular cases, this also leads quite directly to the very things you pretend to be against.
If fornication is handwavingly treated the same as rape (no horrifying consent logic chopping!) then women are always treated as sexual victims, even when they are in fact sexual perpetrators.
This creates a growing class of high status sexual perpetrator females (sluts) who are treated as victim-heroes by society.
See Dalrock’s Gilligan post for how that plays out:
Thanks for the intrinsically unjust and counterproductive advice, Little Buddy.
[…] conflation of rape and fornication is just the kind of rhetorical shield from responsibility that craven cowards need. Cowards and […]