Liberal anger at being human - Criticisms of California Senate Bill SB 967

Debunking the dominant paradigm - a never ending job.

Here, specifically, the State tells us exactly how to have sex:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

"...lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent..."

Who says?

This is the government of California telling everyone in colleges in California, exactly, how to have sex.

The abusers deserve to be locked up. But this goes too far. And wrongful accusers can be abusers as well.

More criticisms of the bill:

http://www.thefire.org/fire-statement-on-california-affirmative-consent-bill/

http://www.independent.com/news/2014/aug/11/affirmative-consent-u/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/churchformen/2014/09/men-the-sexual-revolution-is-over/

http://www.city-journal.org/2014/cjc0718bb.html

And sometimes even the libertarians are right:

http://libertarianviewpoint.com/blog/california-government-proposes-license-law-for-consensual-sex/

"...it is fundamentally abhorrent for the government to be in your bedroom..."

also check out:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/29/jerry-brown-signs-bill-telling-college-k

It's also abhorrent for the church to be in your bedroom as well (eg: your average Mormon bishop or Catholic priest).

http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/Mortal_Mormonism.htm

Rape laws are already on the books. But this new law goes way too far. Plus it's based on a lie - the one in five lie. More info:

1 in 5: Debating the Most Controversial Sexual Assault Statistic
http://time.com/2934500/1-in-5%E2%80%82campus-sexual-assault-statistic/

2.5% probably, not 20.

Quote from article:

"...This means that 2.5% of women are sexually assaulted in college, not 20%..."

In the military the risks to women are higher than in the general population that's true. In college the risks are less.

And dually-boozing partners who have buyer's remorse afterward should not be included in any rape statistics.

Politifact's take:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/02/are-20-percent-women-sexually-assaulted-they-gradu/

Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/05/01/one-in-five-women-in-college-sexually-assaulted-the-source-of-this-statistic/

Judgy Bitch chimes in:
http://judgybitch.com/2014/04/30/i-am-now-officially-sick-of-rape-culture-bullshit/

Interesting comments:
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_politics.htm

From the above:

"...a view held by many on the left that presumes man is born a blank slate..."

OMG! The Blank Slate! Remember that one!

Pinker debunks the blank slate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
...see related videos of Pinker talking about this on youtube & TED.

Humans are not born blank slates, and leftists work to deny human nature in huge ways. Righties deny human nature in other ways (& truth & facts). But it's sad to see that both sides are in denial.

From Wendy McElroy:
http://blog.panampost.com/editor/2014/04/14/the-big-lie-of-a-rape-culture/

From Caroline Kitchens:
Rape Hysteria & the Rape Culture Lie Must End
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/rape-hysteria-the-rape-culture-lie-must-end-jessicavalenti-rapeculture/

Anyway I agree that NFL jocks who hit their girlfriends & wives should be ejected. I agree that abusers who break the law should be locked up.

There *may* be "rape culture" in some hiphop music. But it's way too non-PC to be honest about that...

Also rape is about sex, not just about control. I have no idea why people say it's not about sex. How do they know? And what happens during rape anyway?

Is rape about control or sex?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/is-rape-about-control-or-sex

"...Evolutionary psychologists have been at pains to show that rape is actually a sexual crime through which men seek sexual gratification from women who would otherwise refuse them..."

related blog post:

Why do rapists rape? For power or sex?
http://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/why-do-rapists-rape-for-power-or-sex-lets-ask-a-rapist/

from apparently conservative blogger
http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2006/03/rape-is-about-sex-duh.html

"...Which leads in to the reason why we keep hearing that rape is not about sex. It is philosophically untenable to keep pushing the boundaries of the sexual revolution without making rape seem less and less violative by comparison, as the act which is coerced in rape becomes less and less private, personal, and valued in society. So the only way to retain the sense of horror at rape is to alter the rationale for rape being bad; that the goal is total violation, so that the violence becomes the issue; rather than the horror coming from the intimacy of the act which was forced upon the victim, which is the old rationale..."

---

A tough topic but it's important to be honest. There's fear mongering & inappropriate shaming on the left that needs to be debunked, called out, and resisted.

Forcibly imposed upon self, and all people, undue flagellation & shame, because yes some humans are criminals or abusers. But not everyone is and we all shouldn't be treated like we are.

Anger and hatred at being human, at all humans, because a few humans do bad things. Now that is a type of "rape culture," rape of a different kind.

Both the right AND the left seek to use & abuse students in colleges & universities for their own ends. Both sides tell them lies, about human nature, and the truth.

A portion of the "sexual revolution" has, can, and does destroy families (ie: advocacy for non-monogamy, for the "childfree" life, for disposable marriages, and for seeking to have a general disconnect between sexuality & reproduction - all incredibly abusive tenants of the revolution).

The parts of the revolution that advocate for honesty, education, having more fun with our partners, being less inhibited with our partners, and not shaming for adults viewing other adults sexual activities (eg: sexuality expressed in art & film) - yes those are some generally good parts. But seeking to outright deny human nature, and decouple sex from having babies is evil & abusive.

Both sides have an agenda: to hide the truth in their own ways.

Yes evolution by natural selection did happen. No there is no god. But, on the other hand you can really fuck up your life if you "choose" to live a wastrel childfree life when you could have, and should have, had some kids. You can fuck up your children via adultery and believing you can easily bail on your husband or wife.

Separating yourself too far from the tree of life, and from basic human nature, can screw up your life & the lives of others.

Oh, and a certain percentage of humans will be naturally born criminals (sociopaths & worse). Lock them up, I very much agree...

---

p.s. Found this video;

http://youtu.be/1KQQ1bzQn0k

Philip Seymour Hoffman was a druggie who betrayed his family

Philip Seymour Hoffman was a great arrr-tiest (artist), who in my view was also (and most importantly) a druggie who betrayed his family. The guy had three kids and an ex-partner whom in my view he betrayed - and that's the most important thing we can say about the man.

What would we think of the guy if he were not a "great" actor? Just some man or woman who died of a drug overdose, with perhaps (according to news reports & the police) ~70 bags of heroin in his apartment? We'd rightly conclude they were incredibly petty, stupid, vain, shallow, and unfit to be a parent. A man or woman who betrayed his three kids & family.

This business of separating the artist from his or her supposedly-separate personal life  is wrong headed & immoral, but it's par for the course for liberal dogmatists who hold so very tightly to their relativism.

Roman Polanski, and possibly Woody Allen (as per claims by his ex-wife & some of his kids), are also examples of men who have acted in incredibly slimy ways. Oh, they're such great artists? Who cares, right? No. People shouldn't get a pass on such matters just because they won the Hollywood or Sundance popularity contest.

Perhaps Hollywood should just go trolling for new directors at the local prison and mental institute. Perhaps this is what they've already done.

Drugs can hijack your built in by evolution by natural selection brain reward circuitry. Also just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it's safe. Chemicals are chemicals, and "natural" plants and naturally-derived chemicals can F you up just as much as any man made chemical can. Thus harmful drugs such as marijuana & heroin should remain illegal, but people should not be locked away if they take them. Instead there should be mandatory treatment programs, and mandatory check ins and monitoring.

There are natural highs that are ok, such as sex, good & healthy food, positive social interaction, helping others, etc. But adding dangerous chemicals to your brain which force your reward circuitry into overdrive can permanently damage how the system works.

Perhaps the guy wanted to portray Truman Capote for a reason. Two peas in the pod. But self destructive people need proper intervention, and they should be properly called out when they're betraying their own family.

So you're a great artist, but also a druggie or worse? Who cares about your artistry. Get yourself cleaned up, and then perhaps we'll check out whether you've painted a pretty picture or not.

------------

February 7, 2014 addendum:

Comments posted in response to the following blog:

Phillip Seymour Hoffman did not have choice or free will and neither do you.
http://debbiebayerblog.com/2014/02/04/phillip-seymour-hoffman-did-not-have-choice-or-free-will-and-neither-do-you/
Comment 1:

I can see why Daniel Dennett considers the Harris view on free will insidious. Does the crack mom have a choice? Does the abusive father? Does the abusive Catholic Priest? Yes, absolutely they do have a choice. More choice than an amoeba. More choice than a carrot. More choice than a cat, dog, or lion. More choice than Sam Harris and presumably you will allow for.

Hoffman’s actions were no better than that of a crack mother in my view. He had three kids. He very much WAS responsible for his actions. Irresponsible. Abusive. Retrograde. And so on.
more thoughts:

------------

Someone then replied with mention of Jesus. Here's my reply to them - Comment 2:

1. Do abusers have a choice? Yes. Do they have free will? Yes, in the compatibilist sense that Daniel Dennett talks about & which I very much agree with. The level of choice, and the ability to make what could reasonably be stated to be good choices, varies depending on the individual. Regardless though dangerous people should be locked up. And non-violent druggies should be forced into treatment & mandatory rehab programs by the law (not into prison).

2. Mention of Jesus has little sway with me as I'm not a believer in him. The Biblical Jesus judged plenty of people, as do many of his followers in spite of the admonition to not judge. In fact for the past 2000 years they've done >nothing but< judge others, and in many cases to kill others for their lack of belief in Jesus.

But, we should judge people, reasonably. And we should be judged, in reasonable ways. We are judged by our peers all the time. That's how human society works. We're social animals. And cheaters, rightly, get called out for cheating. And dangerous outliers are locked up - and that's a good thing.

3. Rather than devote time to prayer, may I suggest devoting time to real things that will help. Intervention into the lives of people who're virtually drowning is one good task. More people should have intervened in the life of Phillip Seymour Hoffman. His neighbors. The police. A judge could have ordered him into treatment.

Who failed Hoffman? His sycophantic admirers, his fellow Hollywood druggie friends, and the press. Also the probably underpaid police for not catching him earlier. 70 bags of heroin is a lot. Rich & poor should be treated equally I agree - not prison. Instead all non-dealers should be routed to mandatory treatment & mandatory follow ups. Also mandatory inspections of the living quarters of affected people. It takes some tax money. Jesus isn't enough. Real flesh & blood in person people need to be there to do the work. But it's cheaper in the long run to pay for in person intervention than to pay for prison or to pay for the loss of someone.