Please, take her children.

This is one of the most stomach churning things I’ve read in a long time.  As a man who is about to become a father to a son, I find myself desperately wanting to reach through the internet and choke this bitch.

Parenting continues to be a difficult task.  Each day the unhusband and I must labour to ensure that our children are not internalizing inappropriate ideas that construct oppressed bodies as other.  As per our usual super conversation, last night we asked Destruction how his day was and he began to regale us with the tale of a “girl/boy” who is in his class.   As I listened to his over enthusiastic story my mind began to work on how to delve into the fact that he was repeatedly saying “girl/boy” while viewing my obvious discomfort. 

Translation: each day, the man I divorced and I must spend at least half an hour brainwashing our son to exist in the fantasy world of compulsive “equality” in which because everything the same, nothing is different, and therefore nothing can be said about anything.

Funny.  This makes me picture those loud speakers that are installed by the Jong-Il dictatorship in every apartment in Pyongyang which broadcast party propoganda every night.  The speakers can’t be shut off.  A woman with a charming voice tells North Koreans everywhere that theirs is the best, most advanced, most prosperous nation in the world despite the fact that right outside the city limits, thousands are starving because they ran out of birds, frogs, and snakes to eat.

As a parent deeply committed to equality on all fronts one of the greatest challenges I face is undoing the work that the education system and his peers teach him on a daily basis.

Translation: I am going to fuck with my son’s head to the point where his entire worldview is inconsistent with all of his peers, guaranteeing that he will be a social misfit and have no friends.  It’s more important that he ascribe to our perverted version of equality than be a happy, healthy, normal kid who fits in and has fun.

 For Destruction, though we have continually spoken about the fluidity of gender, he clearly still views it as a binary. 

Even little kids know the difference between a boy and a girl.  You don’t need to teach a kid how to tell the difference.  They can figure it out all by themselves.

At times we have been encouraged when he will state that there is no activity that is specifically for girls or boys and yet with just a little encouragement from his peers he returns to the understanding that if one does something that slightly deviates from gender norms suddenly you are a “girl/boy”.

Boys are born not wanting to be called sissies.  Quick!  Hurry!  Let’s undo all that instinct and force our son to be something he isn’t – namely, a sissy!  That will do wonders for his psychology.  Not to mention his social standing as all of his classmates mock him relentlessly for coming to school in a pink backpack, forced upon him by his idiot mother so that she can selfishly make a statement about her politics on gender equality.

I find the “girl/boy” label that he has adopted to be both transphobic as well as sexist.  We began again from scratch, to have a discussion about why it is inappropriate to refer to someone by a pronoun to which they do not identify, as well as reminding him that there is no specific activity that is male or female.

Translation: I’m going to teach my son from an early age that his observations are worth nothing and only what he is told about the world from others matters.  This will surely heighten his critical thinking skills and boost his confidence in his own ability to interpret the world.  We’ll force him to believe something he doesn’t naturally believe, even though the vast majority of humans who live now, have lived before, and will live in the future, and he himself do in fact believe the exact opposite of what we’re teaching him.

When I speak about parenting being a radical act it is these conversations that we engage in to which I am referring.

You stupid bitch.  Seriously.  You stupid bitch.  You’re using your own child as a social engineering tool?  You think parenting is about poltiics?  You think it’s about making a fucking statement?

I wonder in how many households a term like “girl/boy” would have been ignored or treated as perfectly acceptable?  When we refuse to teach children to respect all people all we are doing is allowing the perpetuation of idea that our harmful to our society.

I have news for you, “Womanist Musings” – in my household, not only will it be treated perfectly accetably, it will be encouraged, because that’s how you raise a son into a man.  When a boy acts like a little girl you call him a sissy and laugh at him until he stops acting like a little sissy.

I have news for you, “Womanst Musings” – I fully intend to teach my son the reality of this world, not a social fantasy that I wish were true.  The reality of this world is that not all people deserve respect.  Respect is something you have to earn, not something you automatically get for no other reason than existing.  And therefore, if my son rightfully does not respect sissy boys, then he will be free to mock them as I would mock him if he were acting like a little pansy.

As a concerned and engaged parent I am constantly looking for ways to reinforce the messages of social equality that we are trying to impart. 

Fuck you.

  I have been held up to ridicule for this.

Rightfully so.

 “You are taking this thing to far”, I have been told.

You respect all people.  Do you respect this opinion?  Or are you a hypocritical fuck, like I strongly suspect you are?

My question is why should there ever be a limitation to justice? 

Because your interpretation of “justice” and mine are two different things.  The very idea that you could even be capable of understanding justice is sheer folly because your views actively negate the very essence of the word when you flit through life specifically avoiding passing judgements.  How can you tell us in one breath that you are brainwashing your son to never pass judgement on anyone else for behaving “differently” and then preach about justice in the next?

Justice is about judging.  The two are inextricably connected.  If you don’t believe in judging anyone, you don’t believe in justice.

Why do we get to decide that some people get to be marginalized and others celebrated?

Ah yes, the very heart of the issue.  Did it ever occur to you that your moral relativism leaves this question perpetually unanswerable?  If everyone is spared from judgment by anyone else then there is no such thing as marginalization, there is no such thing as celebration, and in the end there is no such thing as anything.  When you are blind to any differences anywhere, you might as well just be blind.  You don’t see the world in black and white, you see the world in black.

The answer, you stupid bitch, is that you get to decide for yourself and I get to decide for myself.  You celebrate sissy “transwomen” or whatever the hell you want to call them for being brave enough to be themselves and I marginalize them as defective beings who were unfortunate enough that their brains or their genitalia did not develop properly and are mismatched.

We continually behave as though these systems of intolerance are natural when in fact we actively teach this to our children.

But you’ve already observed by your son’s own behavior that they are!  Nobody taught your son to treat a sissy like a sissy – he did that all by hismelf.  Nobody taught your son to view gender as binary.  The teaching is all on your side!  You have to actively teach your son not to chastise sissies.  You have to actively teach your son that gender is a social construct.  You have to actively teach him all the things you believe are natural when in fact by your own observation of your son’s natural tendencies you’ve seen yourself that they are in fact the complete opposite of nature.

You stupid bitch.

We would not allow a child to smoke and therefore I cannot understand why we continually infect them with a cancerous hatred of others to promote our imbalanced system.

Talk about a totally false analogy.  We don’t allow children to smoke because we know it impairs their biological health in a very obvious, very scientifically quantified way, and it’s addictive, but that’s not relevant.  Not allowing to a child to smoke is very different from forcing them to smoke.  Forcing them to smoke is analagous to “infecting” them with “cancerous hatred”.  Allowing them to smoke would be analagous to “allowing” them to develop a cancerous hatred for others.  In other words, passive is to passive as active is to active.  But since you’re a stupid bitch this basic SAT level of thinking is beyond you.

Our system is imbalanced and it will never be any different.  To think so is fantasy, and to teach your child that it could one day be balanced is being intellectually dishonest. 

In our imbalanced system there will be winners and there will be losers.  By teaching your son the way you are teaching him, you are severely handicapping his chances for coming out a winner.  Life is a game, and you’re not teaching him the rules.  You’re teaching him what you want the rules to be, not what they are.  As a result, how can he possibly compete against my son, who will grow up fully understanding the world as it is, not how I want it to be?  The answer is he can’t.

If you think you’re doing your civic duty by raising a tolerant little world-citizen liberal foot soldier, remember that for every disadvantaged sissy raised by ideologues like you, there are 3 people like me raising our children to believe in the real world and who will probably tormet your little sissy and make his life more difficult than it would have been if you just let him live in this world instead of the one in your head.  While you might piss and moan that I should be raising my son to be tolerant of yours like you’re raising your son to be of everyone, why do you get to declare that unconditional tolerance is a virtue?  The answer, by your own admission, is that you don’t.  And unconditional tolerance is not a virtue.  It’s a cancer.

Have you ever heard the expression “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em?”

You’re setting your child up for a lifetime of confusion and frustration.  This in my view amounts to child abuse, and you should have your children taken away from you.  No, I’ll take it a step further.  You should be sterilized.  If I were ever in your presence and heard you preaching this crap to your son, I would be unable to stop myself from intervening and telling him right in front of your face that you’re lying to him outright and that mommy doesn’t know her ass from a hole in the wall.  I wonder how tolerant you’d be of me then.

Instinct Trumps Reason

Feministing Friday comes early this week with Feministing Thursday, or otherwise entitled, “women do not think with their heads.”

Men don’t either.  Let’s read on.

Did you know that 49% of pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended? I sure didn’t.

That’s because what a woman says and what the reality of the situation is are two different things.  That’s not to say that women are liars.  On the contrary.  Many of these so-called unintended pregnancies were not intellectually desired.

However, you’d have to be a special kind of idiot to think for one minute that our species has survived as long as it has by virtue of the noble sacrifices of countless generations of females who consciously chose to become pregnant.

If pregnancy were intended to be something a woman could consciously choose to be or not to be, then it would be controlled like so many of our other necessary bodily functions.  A woman can consciously regulate her breathing and whether or not she voids her bladder, but she can’t consciously regulate her ovulation.  Why is that, do you think?

No.  The reality of the situation is that despite consciously believing and professing to others that she does not want to get pregnant, a woman will still do things directly in opposition to that stated goal, such as have unprotected sex.  They will of course tell you after the fact that said unprotected sex was “an accident” or that they were “caught up in the moment” but those arguments don’t usually work in a court of law when, for example, a man “accidentally” strikes his wife while “caught up in the moment” so why do we accept them here?

No.  The reality of the situation is that when given an opportunity – namely, when fertile males are present – fertile females will get pregnant.  It is not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when.  Our drive to reproduce trumps all reason.

I am not remotely surprised to hear that 50% of pregnant women claim that their pregnancies were “unintended,” or in other words, 50% of pregnant women are innocent victims of circumstance.  Since they didn’t mean to be pregnant, they’re not to blame.  This is a necessary segue in the justification of abortion, of course.  If a woman is somehow guilty of something when pregnant – namely, the indiscretion to allow fertile sperm into her fertile uterus – then that something is allowed to have consequences and said woman is accountable for those consequences.  It’s much easier for the mother-to-be to flit about uttering “who, me?!” when accused of getting pregnant intentionally or otherwise.  She, like all other healthy reproductive-age women, has a strong drive to have a baby whether she admits or not.

With studies indicating that lower-educated women and women in their 20s account for more than half of all abortions, the Stanford researchers want to know why more women in those groups are not consistently using birth control, especially when they don’t want to get pregnant.

Let me spare these Ivy League masters’ students the trouble and the expense (funded by you, the tax payer, contributor to federal research grants).  Women in these groups are not consistently using birth control because despite what they say about “wanting to get pregnant”, they do in fact want to get pregnant.

When confronted with facts such as these how can you conclude anything else?  Let’s put them together for a hypothetical female respondent who I guarantee will have statistically significant representation in the findings of this misbegotten “study”:

• Subject is competent in birth control measures that are available
• Subject has access to said birth control measures (seriously, condoms are handed out for free)
• Subject states that she “does not want to get pregnant.”
• Subject habitually subjects herself to sexual scenarios in which she could get pregnant, or put less delicately, subject is splooged in without protection

But how can this be?!  Why would a rational being who does not want to get pregnant, who knows how to not get pregnant, has the means to not get pregnant, still risk it (and frequently in fact become pregnant?)

There are only three conclusions one can draw:

1. The subject is not rationally intelligent enough to correlate the use of birth control to not getting pregnant.
2. The subject is too irresponsible to apply birth control techniques.
3. The subject is lying about wanting to get pregnant.

Take your pick.

Personally, I believe that #1 is out.  Even the least educated group of 20-something women in this country are not so stupid that they don’t know how babies are made and can’t figure out how to prevent babies from being made inside them.  So that leaves us with #2 and #3.  The conclusion I draw is a grey-area mix of these two choices.  The first is that the situations that lead to unprotected sex, e.g., “the heat of the moment” where birth control is not handy or rejected by the man are compelling enough to women that they lower their guard. 

I can speak from personal experience that on multiple occasions a girl has said, “shouldn’t you use a condom?” I simply smile, grip my tool, and say, as if she had asked the most ridiculous question ever, “No, of course not.”  She proceeds to put up zero resistance and lets me raw dog her until sunrise.  Why?  Because she’s horny.  Although she cares, she doesn’t care enough to put up a fuss and demand condom usage.  On a sanitary survey filled out in a dingy cinder-block graduate student lab at Stanford University, she’ll respond to the survey question by stating that she always demands her sexual partners use a condom.  But when she’s actually in the bedroom of a stud like me and her choices are demand a condom and be thrown out of my apartment or risk it and let me bone her, she lets me bone her every time.

But why?  Why would a woman do this?  Because of #3.  As much as a woman says she doesn’t want to get pregnant and even as much as she consciously believes that she doesn’t, her body will guide her on autopilot straight onto unprotected cock because millions of years of reproductive evolution has taken control of her actions and fuck what she wants.  An individual woman may not want a baby, but our animal species does want her to have one.  So she takes the chance.

And that’s why we have a lot of abortions.  Because while her reproductive autopilot will get the baby inside her, it won’t keep it there.  When the moment passes and a woman regains full intellectual control of her capacities, she quickly realizes the consequences of having a baby she may not want.

Personally, I believe very firmly in both my intellectual nature and my animal nature and I take responsibility for both, not just one.  I gather firmly from the fact that someone would even write this Feministing article, and that researches are “baffled” by these shocking pregnancy statistics, that these people belong to a particular subclass of humans, a group I particularly loathe.  These are people I like to call instinct denialists. 

These people are almost always hypereducated twats who love tacking letters to the ends of their names.  They do this because it’s all they have.  At some point in their lives they came to the conclusion that their intellect is their only being.  They make all of their decisions based on rational logic, observation rules, and conscious thought.  If they aren’t already they rapdily become atheists as fast as they possibly can.  Hyperintellectuals like these people also tend to have liberal tendencies because on paper it’s impossible to disagree with Marx.  The hyperintellectual can easily design an egalitarian society with the purity of a bee colony in which when a woman tells you she doesn’t want to be pregnant she is telling the patent truth and if said woman got pregnant anyway there must be some insidious reason, some flaw in the equation, some mysterious bug in the program.  It can’t possibly be that she’s lying to you.  Why would she lie?  It can’t possibly be that she is operating outside the parameters of the great society.  No, there’s some correctable justification for her actions.  The architect just needs more hyperintellectuals like herself to crack down and perform a “study” involving very serious business such as surveys and standard deviations.  For their efforts we reward them with some letters tacked onto their names so they too can be part of the club.

I call them instinct denialists because the rationale I just gave you which very simply and eloquently draws a conclusion that some Master’s student at Stanford will undoubtedly waste two years of her life exploring and still miss can’t possibly be accurate in their world because it implies that somehow intellect takes a back seat to a force over which we mere mortal humans can exercise no authority.  No amount of intellect in the world can overcome our instinct to grasp for things when falling or to take that terminal breath even when we’re drowning deep in the water or to shiver when we’re cold.  The idea that the same instinct might be at work in a major life decision like a pregnancy is too repugnant for the hyperintellectual instinct denialist, particularly the female hyperintellectual instinct denialist.

Don’t believe me?  Then ask yourself why these people are so up-in-arms about abortion rights.  Why do catch phrases like, “keep your laws off my body” resonate so firmly with these people?  “My body, my choice.”  Because these women, too, for all their denying, know what I know.  They know they are slaves to their instincts as much as you or I.  They know they are slaves to “the moment.”  They know they are slaves to that itch that they can only scratch by having a baby.  They hate to admit it because they are intellectuals and they have dominion over their world.  The idea that some primal force like instinct would drive them to become mommies thus derailing their thrilling and world-changing careers in social justice non-profits is as repulsive as the idea that a bearded man in the sky laid down the rules and will smite you if you disobey.  In a sense, instinct and God are one and the same, and these women hate them both the same.

Do you know why dogs often bark when they hear dog whistle?  They’re trying to drown out an unpleasant noise.  If you can’t cover your own ears, the next best thing is to make a louder, less offensive noise to drown out the one you’re trying not to hear.

“But Evan!  I’m a woman and I don’t need to have a baby!  You’re wrong!”

Of course, sweetheart.  There are women out there who truly don’t wish to have babies.  And I bet those women are the ones who also have the brass to tell me to go fuck my hand when I laugh at her request for a condom.

But you’re an intellectual.  Use it to analyze your own statistics.  50% of pregnancies are “unwanted.”  Why?  I proimse that you won’t find an answer from your Stanford study, but I’ve been gracious enough to give one to you already.  The truth is that you’re in the minority.  The significant minority based on global birthrates. 

When does it become okay for a minority such as you to speak for all women?

Wait, don’t answer that one.  The answer is at the same time a man like me is allowed to speak for all women.

Have a good weekend.

Commentator’s Disease

In a shameless act of link-stealing, I’d like to offer some commentary on one of the more interesting pieces I’ve read.  Credit to Roissy for posting this.

Fred Reed breaks down for us why neither side gets it right.  I’m unable to tell where Fred lands on the spectrum, though I gather he’s one of those guys who likes to imagine that he’s so original that his beliefs are perpendicular.  Either way, here are a few tidbits that caught my attention:

The commentators don’t realize that not everybody is like them. Those with IQs of 140 and up (130 gets you into Mensa, I think) unconsciously believe that anything is possible. Denizens of this class know that if they decided to learn, say, classical Greek, they could. You get the book and go at it. It would take work, yes, and time, but the outcome would be certain.

They don’t understand that the waitress has an IQ of 85 and can’t learn much of anything.

I guess since I write a blog which frequently touches upon isues that would qualify as political, that makes me a commentator.  I disagree with the sentiments expressed in the above, on simple grounds.  I have a post-140 IQ, and while Fred is right that I do believe that anything is possible for me, I am, despite Fred’s assertion to the contrary, unabashedly aware of how impossible even simple tasks are for the average person.  I don’t know if Mr. Reed is Mensa material or not, but if he is, then he surely had a similiar experience to mine, in life: I am surrounded by idiots.  All the time, constantly.  I am surrounded by people who defy possibility with their overall ineptitude.  I promise you: when you find yourself in the 99th percentile in anything – whether it’s intellectual pursuits, an athletic endeavor, hell, singing … unless you are also afflicted with a grotesque handicap of perception then you will be able to tell how much better you are than everyone else.

That said, Fred continues:

Conservatives think that people can rise by hard work and sacrifice as certainly many people have.

The tendency of the Beltway 99th to live in an imaginary world, of conservatives to think that everybody can be a Horatio Alger, of liberals to believe that inequality arises from discrimination, guarantees wretched policy.

I disagree, Fred.

No.  The wicked, horrible, frightening truth is instead this: I expect everyone, even the total nincompoops in our midst, to try to rise by hard work and sacrifice and I do not care whether or not they succeed.  In contrast to the reflexive liberal tendency to immediately rush to the aid of anyone who does not in fact succeed, I withhold my desire to pour tax money and other efforts into the “real” America that Fred Reed describes not because I believe it is unnecessary, i.e., that if only the poor would work harder they would not need help, but rather for no reason at all.  My generosity is not predicated on any expectation of success from the subject (however that is defined) nor on whether or not that subject deserves my generosity (however that is defined).

When the bottom feeders of society work their entire lives and end up with nothing, as a conservative I am not surprised.  It doesn’t bely the fantasy world of the 99th “Inside the Beltway” that Fred claims I’ve constructed around me to insulate myself from the reality of real America.  No, rather I expect that a great large portion of America will work their entire lives and end up with nothing.  Nothing, of course, measured in some kind of material progress, e.g., they died having failed to enjoy the same or a better standard of living than the one from which they came.

I’m a conservative because when faced with that reality my first reflex is not to ask “how can we change that?” but instead “how does this involve me?”

You would need to believe in a lot of things that most people who would insult me for my predilictions profess not to believe, such as that some higher power put me, a functional human being in this so-called 99th percentile, on this earth for no other reason than to mathematically balance some harmonious equation consisting of myself and the bottom 1%.  In other words, were I to assert that I was not born with my skills for the express purpose of using them to help those without them, in order to agree with me you’d have to believe that somebody decided to put me here and that was their reason.

Either that, or you’d have to admit that your intent is for that the most capable must devote a certain portion of their lives to the least capable in order to put everyone on some magic median you’ve invented in your mind.  Of course, why I should respect your intentions when you clearly don’t respect mine – which is to benefit no one but me with my labors – is a question you’d probably be unable to answer.

And this virtuous balancing act has been tried many times before and in each case the resulting population came out worse than before.  I’m not going to argue communism here but there’s a reason so many conservatives get so riled up when they see their countrymen trying to push us toward socialism and communism.  These systems violate our sense of justice to which we are entitled at least as much as you are to yours.

I’m not what I would call a particularly well read individual, certainly not in the areas of economics or philosophy.  I’m certain that the idea I’m about to espouse is not unique to me.  That idea is this: when it comes to policy, all national policies should cater to the 99th percentile.  The reason is as intuitive as it is natural.  The top performers in society are the ones who, by and large, accomplish the most, contribute the most, are relied upon the most, and usually benefit from it the most.

For these people that Fred to a degree romanticizes in his essay, the Route 66 chamber maid, the nail driver, the truck driver, who work their whole lives and end up with nothing – his words, not mine – every resource we devote on them is wasted.  Every penny you take from me, transform into some tangible or intangible benefit for the lesser beings and subsequently give to those lesser beings, harms me but accomplishes nothing.  Because that waittress with an IQ of 85 is never going to better society no matter how much you throw at her, but I might.  If I paid no taxes, I could retire 10 years earlier and maybe invent something.  Or write something.  Or compose an opera.  Or lead a country, or a state, or become a senator.  Devoting resources to me has a much higher return on investment and is therefore the only correct answer.  The bottom half?  We as a society would be, mathematically speaking, better off if they had never even been born.

Unfortunately, the world isn’t that simple.  Intellectual ability is only one small facet of the individual.  That waittress with the IQ of 85 is not going to advance our understanding of theoretical physics, but maybe she is the mother of  someone who will.  Maybe she breeds purebred dogs when she’s not working.  Or maybe she’s jsut a good waittress who refills your drink before you ask and is always nice to the kitchen staff so her tables always get their food fast.  The world needs good waittresses, too.  Geniuses need to eat.

As a conservative I don’t imagine that the sky is the limit for the average American.  It isn’t.  That’s what makes him average.  But I do believe that everyone must work to their potential, whatever that potential may be.  If that means their lives might be materially and logistically harder than someone who is more capable, then so be it – life isn’t fair.  It’s not anyone’s job to change that.  Along the line some time, someone some where decided that it was their job.  Those someones are liberals.  Since the world is still not fair – not even close – they’ve so far failed rather pointedly.  While I’ll give them credit for their tenacity, I chalk that up more to generation after generation of liberals, in typical liberal fasion, ignoring the failures of previous generations.  They’re progressive, after all.  So they are content to repeat the same mistake over and over again: the mistake of believing that the fairness of life is something that is adjustable through political policy.  When you finally lose the illusion that any effort we take individually or collectively can make all lives equally easy or difficult, you become a conservative.

Feministing Friday: Analytically Inept

Meet Ann, a 27 year-old college-educated woman.  She looks like this:

Ann has a little problem.  Her problem is that she doesn’t know how to think.  She proves it with this piece.

Ann is a prime example of an idealogue whose mission in life is to derive one of a number of foregone conclusions that feminists before her have ingrained in her vacant and impressionable mind even from which no such conclusion could be reasonably derived unless the conclusions were known in advance, as is the case with everything in the entire world in which Ann lives, namely, the world of feminism.

Take, for example, relatively benign and meaningless statistics such as these:

Among females aged 18-24 whose first sex was before age 20, 10% “really didn’t want it to happen at the time” … 

For those who had 1st sex at 14 years or younger, 18% really didn’t want it to happen..

 Among those whose first partners were 3 or more years older, 19% reported that they didn’t really want it to happen at the time, compared with 5% among those whose first partners were the same age or younger.

These statistics, in the mind of Ann, reveal widespread Sexual Assault!

I don’t have to ask the questions you’ve already asked yourself because Ann muses for us, stating:

We don’t know a lot about this 10% and 18% and 19%. Based on this study, we can’t say whether or not these girls verbally said no or otherwise resisted. We don’t know whether they personally consider what they’ve experienced to be rape or not.

But, according to Ann, it’s rape irrespectively.  In Ann’s mind, a woman who in reflecting upon her first sexual experience as a young teenager, who was probably to an extent pressured into it in an earnest desire to please her boyfriend with whom she probably no longer consorts in any meaningful way concludes that she “really didn’t want it to happen at the time” was raped, even if that same woman would not call it rape and never at any time physically or verbally resisetd to sex.  No, in all likelihood, said woman has a few regrets about some choices she made when she was a dumb teenager.

Lack of consent means it was assault, and it’s important that the CDC explicitly classify it that way.

Come on, Ann.  Is it looking in the mirror every morning that gave you such a glass-half-empty outlook on life?  If the girl herself won’t call it rape, why do you need to?  Why do we need to invent a crime where none existed?  Why do we need to make a victim out of her and a rapist out of him?  To please your ideological view that women do no wrong, are not responsible for their vaginas, and that men exist to take advantage of girls who evidently are not allowed to make decisions they might someday regret unless they are allowed to blame it on someone else?

How can you possibly call yourself a feminist, Ann?  You’re in effect saying that women shouldn’t be responsible for their choices, good or bad.

If Ann were in charge of the CDC, she’d change the survey around to include some loaded questions, like this one, for example:

Yet the wording of this question leaves little doubt that the women who answered yes were actually raped:

“Would you say then that this first vaginal intercourse was voluntary or not voluntary, that is, did you choose to have sex of your own free will or not?“

Those that answered “no” should not have been categorized as having had “first sex.” If they did not make the chose of their own free will, it was rape.

First, Ann, I’m pretty sure rape still qualifies as sexual intercourse, regardless of whether it’s voluntary or not.  But more importantly, the legal qualification for rape is pretty clear.  In order for sex to be considered rape the woman has to demonstrably resist the act, verbally and physically.  She must prove that her attacker used superior force to subdue her into sex against her will.  That is a lot different than a girl who, years later, said offhand on an anonymous survey that yeah, she really didn’t want it to happen.

I’m sure if you asked my first girlfriend that question she would have said the same thing.  Why?  Because she came from a rather conservative family, we are no longer speaking, etc.  I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised to discover that she lied to her current husband and told him that she never had sex, although since we had some mutual friends and we dated for almost 5 years I think that might be a hard one to sell.  I admit it: I pressured her into it.  I made it pretty clear that I wanted to get laid and at the time I had several other options and she knew it.  She (correctly) determined that if she didn’t put out, I’d break up with her and date a younger, looser, and probably more attractive girl.  As this was not an outcome she wanted, she conceded to the inevitable. 

The study that Ann is referencing gave three options of responses to the “degree to which first intercourse was wanted by the respondent.”  Those options were “really did not want”, “mixed feelings”, and “really wanted.”  I could rephrase this quesion rather easily:

“When you had sex for the first time, was it something you wanted?”  Answers are yes, no, maybe.

By Ann’s reasoning, if my girlfriend answered “no” - which I suspect she would – then I qualify as a rapist and, additionally, my girlfriend did not have sex with me because she didn’t really want to have sex.  Instead, it was rape.  So, in Ann’s world, my girlfriend was a virgin when she married her husband.  Well, probably not.  I suspect that she cheated on me that summer in Atlanta, you know, for that internship which I helped her get from which she failed to secure a full time offer 3 months later… but that’s another story…

But what does that even mean?  Did she want to have sex?  No, if she had her way, she would have kept her precious little vagina free of my penis because good little indian girls don’t have sex with white boys in high school.  If her father knew definitively that I was boning her he probably would not have sent her to college with me (we went to the same school).  One time we stayed out until 12:00am and he was so pissed at her that he didn’t speak to her for like a month and a half.  But I pressured her and ultimately she chose that appeasing me was more important to her than bearing the guilt of disappointing her parents, were they ever to know.  Let me repeat that because it bears repeating: she chose.  She got naked and spread them.  She didn’t say no or try to stop me.  If she had taken this survey 15 minutes before I popped her, she might have answered that she “really didn’t want to” have sex, but that didn’t stop her from doing it.  And it certainly was not, by no stretch of the imagination, any kind of rape.  Neither was it particularly good, but it never was with that girl, even 3 years later… but I digress…

The problem with women in general when it comes to things like this is that in the mind of a woman she can both want to have sex and not want to have sex at the same time, and if you were to ask her the same question twice: “Do you want to have sex”, she could say yes the first time and no the second time and neither time would she be lying.  How does that work, exactly?  Because it depends on who asked her the question, under what circumstances, who the asker is likely to repeat her answer to, et cetera.

Compound that with the fact that this CDC survey is asking women about their desire for sex long ex post facto, long after they’ve grown old enough to possibly regret it, long after they’re old enough to live with the consequences of these decisions, and so on… how can you possibly derive any meaning from the answers these women give?  You pretty much have to take these responses with a grain of salt.

Not Ann, apparently.  No, because her agenda calls for all sex to be somehow demonstrative of a power dynamic and all men to be rapists, she’ll derive meaning where there is none as long as it furthers her cause.

You think a few thousand rapes per year is a blight upon society?  You think a few battered wives too weak to leave the son-of-a-bitch they married is a blight upon society?  No, Ann.  This ideological bullshit is the blight on society.  You’re the blight on society.  I hate people like this.  I hate Ann.  I like to imagine a world without douches like Ann, but they’re everywhere.  Oh well.  At least they give me material for my invective diatribes.  Happy Friday, folks.