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

Conservative Naturalism: Culture War General Commentary - 5-22-2014

(link to video - especially for iphone users)
General commentary on the culture war, and general advocacy for conservative naturalism.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Comedy? Yes indeed. At least it a.) amuses my wife sometimes - very important, and b.) pisses off people who very much need it.

Listen if you wish... And if it's too long for you, and that annoys you, then my mission has also been accomplished. If on the other hand it causes you to question your paradigm, then that's good also.

For adults.

5-22-2014

Listening to the NARTH guys - issues more complex than either side says

The NARTH guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb_mks65Gwg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKxYBch2LVM

Listening I am reminded of:

1. My gay uncle who died of aids leaving his straight family with no kids.
2. My gay nephew who leads a petty, shallow, dead-end type of life.
3. However and also: gay people I know who spend their lives helping others, in service oriented lives.
4. Gay people like Stephen Fry, who I largely admire.
5. The crappy crazy warped & perverse sexual morality in Mormonism & Catholicism.

Religion is a natural phenomenon, and so, like it or not natural human morality can be rooted in religion, even if religions also have built-in lies that their members are forbidden to speak against. And religions can go overboard, such as via equating masturbation with being gay.

Back in my fat bastard days I held up the book Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl.

But politically correct liberals engage in the naturalistic fallacy when they state that homosexuality is "ok" because it's natural. So what.

Related blog post:

Homosexuality occurs in nature? So what. Can I be a "black atheist" too? 

It's very true that Spencer Kimball and Boyd Packer were/are fucking perverts, as is the Pope. But, on the other hand so is my nutty gay nephew who constantly presents himself online in is underwear, and who has as a friend a convicted child abuser.

So, things ain't quite so easy to sort out as either side would have you believe.

Seeing first hand how things work can change your views. Yes it's quite true that the Mormon Church abuses children via their sexual masturbation interrogation interviews. But, there's also child abuse that happens at Stonewall centers too. Both sides are too extreme, too exclusive, too rigid, too dogmatic.

No I'm not gay. But I've been to enough gay parties & bars, and around the petty shallow stunted narcissistic friends of my nutty gay nephew to state that the "gay lifestyle" ain't all it's cracked up to be. But, don't change back to a fucking Mormon or Bible Beating Christian either - if you feel inclined to change.

And if you live a largely-abuse-free service oriented largely happy life as a gay man, that's ok too I suppose. Just don't cheat on your straight wife, get AIDS, die, and leave your family with no father. That's my advise to you.

American Atheists: Censoring atheist thought, taking a step back from all ideologies, and questioning 100% acceptance of gay marriage

On the facebook page for American Atheists they don't allow links to other sites to be posted. Science and human progress generally requires having a free and open exchange of ideas. American Atheists' main focus seems to be acting as props on Fox News, suing people over 10 commandment monuments, promoting the ultra-left social agenda, and not much else. Is this "atheism plus," or atheism minus?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Atheism_Plus

Maybe triple minus - more info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnBGeoJsFOk
and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ69BhfiC6g

Pedantic motto of American Atheists: "I'm an atheist and I fight for equality."

Just because a human activity is natural doesn't mean we should embrace it 100%.

Maybe homosexual married couples should be required to adopt. How about that?

Just because a person becomes an atheist after leaving a cult or an ultra-conservative religion, doesn't mean they automatically become an ultra-leftie.

Be careful of people who want to control you after you leave a religion. Atheist plus people want to control your speech, just as much as any ultra-leftie might.

Frantic censoring ultra-lefties: http://goo.gl/wQ5BkP

A secular case against gay marriage:
http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/a-secular-case-against-gay-marriage/

I'm still somewhat undecided in general about gay marriage, but I'm not just 100% "for it" just automatically by default. The inherently non-reproductive nature of gay sex IS an issue, as are built in human nature that may feel some amount of concern over gay sex. That's natural too. Not everything is equal. Let's take a step back and not just jump wholeheartedly into the arms of the ultra-left. Maybe, just maybe, conservatives have something useful to contribute, even if at first glance their motives are motivated by "religion." Since, religion is a natural phenomenon, we cannot just fully dismiss out of hand every single thing they're concerned about.

A brain can be trained by genetics, socialization, and a combination of the two. During the following talk Warren Farrell talks about how in ancient societies homosexual sex which didn't include reproduction was discouraged: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6w1S8yrFz4

An a fascinating article on the subject:
The End of Gays: Gay Marriage and the Decline of the Homosexual Population
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2011/08/01/the-end-of-gays-gay-marriage-and-the-decline-of-the-homosexual-population/
hmmm

I don't wish to see anyone harmed by the ideas people like past Mormon prophet Spencer Kimball, who equated masturbation and sex before marriage as sins akin to murder. That goes too far. And yet, even the happily free exmoron draws the line somewhere, between acceptable and unacceptable human behavior, regardless of the naturalistic status of that behavior. Of course it's all natural, and to some extent, so what. A better question may be: what do most people do, and what helps the species survive? Does this mean I advocate that gay couples separate? Not necessarily. But men who're in hetero relationships should not jump ship just because they find out they're gay. And already-gay couples maybe should adopt, or find other ways to have kids. And gay men, and rather self-centered straight no-children men & women, should find ways to not spend their whole lives in highly childish games chasing their own & other people's incredibly vain and shallow tails forever. Eventually we all have to grow up. Sex usually, even today, forces that upon hetero couples. It doesn't, automatically, do so for gay ones - and maybe that's the point.

I'm a social moderate, and an economic liberal.

Here's for an open discussion, and being free from censors.

June 30, 2013 afternoon