JTarrou
8hr ago
A lot of words to say that it is men's responsibility to police both their own and female sexuality, which they are banned by law, custom and vicious political organizing from having any capacity for. Men are agents, women objects. Even in deep, deep blue Cornell, even in college with a supermajority of non-straight-men, even in the most liberal enclaves in the most liberal states in the union.
So must we all as men control our evolutionary imperative at all times and even in the face of aggressive female sexuality. Because they will never, ever take responsibility for their choices, and society will never, ever force them to.
My response would be that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. Equality has two edges. If I grant your premise, then women must be stripped of the vote and all public responsibilities, removed from most workplaces, monitored by trusted relatives, etc. etc. Freedom means nothing if not the right to make the wrong choice. If women are incapable of this in a legal manner, then they can have the full panoply of negative human rights, but none of the citizenship privileges of a free person in a democratic society.
So whaddaya think? Create an actual patriarchy from scratch, or just accept that the young lady made a poor choice that affected her reputationally? And none of it was the fault of evil dudes, who seem to have acted with puritanical exactness the consent rituals of the modern state religion.
JTarrou
6d ago
Most of all this fighting is not about the bulk of human relationships. It's about dating, which is heavily selected for people who are bad at relationships and good at getting laid. Most people dip into the dating pool a couple times, then settle down. People who stay in the pool for a long time, and thus do the most dating, and thus make up a majority of most people's failed dating relationships, are not the norm. The Professionally Single are a small and pathological part of Heterosexuality, but they get a lot of press.
The whole structure of dating is not some eternal truth, it's a specific social ritual invented in the last century and fast outrunning its usefulness. It's a sort of conspicuous consumption.
JTarrou
6d ago
It's two separate things, morality and risk mitigation. "Victim blaming" begs the question, the answer in many cases is that there is no victim, just two people in a weird situation created by hormones, drugs and alcohol. Which is why most moral systems have a web of rules about that sort of thing that don't make much direct sense but serve to reduce such craziness.
If there is a clear crime, the victim is not morally responsible for it, but may have contributed by carelessness or sheer idiocy. We shame them for being dumb, not for provoking the crime. The criminal bears the moral responsibility. The equivocation between the two papers over the differences between and holes within moral systems.
No reputational harm from being suspended and/or expelled, publicly named as a rapist in your school's newspaper, sued, and hounded on social media for years now? No, they want some more specific sort of reputational harm? Or, rather, you do.
Because men as a whole do not feel revulsion about guys who have consensual kinky sex with attractive coeds? I don't see a reasonable way of making that happen from our current state church sexual morality. Maybe not from any system.
More options
Context Copy link