People Who Accuse Others of Victim-Blaming Are Demeaning Women

Victim Blaming: Accusing someone on the receiving end of some calamity to be responsible for its occurrence. 

ex: "Telling women not to put themselves in situations where they might be sexually assaulted is blaming the victim. The only thing that causes rape is rapists."

Often heard from: feminists, "social justice warriors," change advocates of various kinds that are commenting on violence or gender related issues.

Please see my treatise on why this argument is only half true, and ultimately hurtful despite its being (maybe) well-intentioned: Treatise: Third-Wave Feminism's Irresponsibility Double-Standard

*  *        *  *        *  *

So how does accusing someone of "victim-blaming" demean women?, I'm sure you're dying to know.

I'll answer. But first let me clarify that it's certainly possible to be legitimately at fault for blaming victims, which is wrong.

Scenario A: "She should have known better. By getting wasted drunk around a bunch of frat guys, she brought this on herself."
Verdict: Victim Blaming. Disgusting assertion that she's responsible for someone else's sins against her.

Scenario B: "Rapists bear the full responsibility for their own actions. Even so, it's wise to be aware of risks and take action to mitigate your exposure to them. Please consider the way you dress, the people you socialize with, whether you walk alone, whether you carry mace/air horns/a gun, and whether you overtly sexually entice men around you, as ways to help protect yourself."
Verdict: Not Victim-Blaming. You can take action to protect yourself without implying that you're responsible for what others do to you otherwise.

And yet, this is often attacked as "blaming the victim" by feminists in online fora. I submit that this could be because the feminists a) really have no clue how to solve the problem and don't want to believe that they can fix it because that makes them feel uncomfortable and morally conflicted, and b) really resent men and want all the attention and responsibility to be theirs (men's).

1. Teaching someone how to drive is not blaming the victim if they are involved in a car crash.
2. Police officers wearing bulletproof vests are not blaming the victims of homicides for their gunshot wounds.
3. Teaching wilderness survival, gardening, hunting etc doesn't "blame the victims" of famine, starvation, or those who die of thirst or exposure to the elements.

Giving someone tips for how to protect themselves from getting hurt is not asserting that they are responsible for undesirable outcomes, when something happens that hurts them, which are out of their control.

Now that that has been emphasized, there are some direct consequences of this.

When someone discusses rape prevention in the vein of scenario B above, and someone responds to accuse them of "blaming the victim," then that person is actually demeaning women and promoting sexist attitudes that contribute to rape.

Say whaaat? Let me guide your thinking:

Paradigm shift 1
Taking away someone's responsibility takes away their ability. Taking away their ability takes away their power to effect change. Taking away their power takes away their freedom of choice, and makes them helpless victims of circumstance, at the mercy of their abusers.

This is what denying women their right to prevent rape (by denying that they have the ability or responsibility to protect themselves) accomplishes.

Paradigm shift 2
By asserting that rapists are the sole factor in rape**, advocates are denying the woman's responsibility over herself. By denying her responsibility, they assert that women are incapable of doing anything to protect themselves that might actually decrease the chances of getting raped. This makes women out to be defenseless. This view is sexist because it portrays women as weak and ineffective compared to men, who always get what they want because they alone have the power and are the sole determinant of what they will be able to do.

Paradigm shift synthesis
Taken together, the logical conclusions of accusing "scenario B men" of "blaming the victim" is the promotion of the belief that women are incapable, and men are capable. That women are irresponsible, and men are responsible*. That men can rape, but women cannot stop rape. That women don't have the freedom of choice, to choose their own destinies, in the context of whether they will be raped or not. That women are victims, and that men, by contrast, must be victors. That women are helpless and defenseless and at the mercy of the decisions that men make. That men get what they want, when they want it, from whom they want it. The buildup of all these contrasts encourages the subconscious prejudice in both men and women to see women as weak and inferior and men as strong and superior. It is the very epitome of sexism.

Therefore, though promulgated in the name of feminism and the defense of women, any attacks against the character or motive of a man, or the impact of his statements, if he encourages women to seek to protect themselves from the sort of men who would take advantage of them, nevertheless has the effect of PROMOTING SEXISM.

Feminism = sexism. Against women, no less. I could not be clearer.

Women, think twice about attacking any man that disagrees with you about some issue that touches on gender relations.

Men, take courage, and be careful to make sure you speak wisely on this issue. Sexism rules on "both sides," and it is your responsibility, as someone who seeks to honor woman, to fight against the things that hurt her even when it's what she believes with all her heart to be in her best interest.

~ Rak Chazak

* note the equivocation in these terms. It's nevertheless the impact of using these words without clarification and therefore the conclusion is sound.

** Rapists are solely responsible for their choice TO rape. But rapists don't exist in a void and strike at random. This is evidenced by the fact that most rape is "acquaintance rape." Rapists must CHOOSE their targets, and to do that they need motive and opportunity. You have the ability to deny them the opportunity, and to some extent their motives. If you have this ability, should you act on it? Then that is the same as saying that you're responsible for your own actions that can mitigate or exacerbate the risk of being raped. Please read this treatise to see that there are two senses of the word 'responsibility': culpability and personal governance. To say that you're accountable for yourself is not to say that you are to blame for what someone else does to you. The consequences of denying personal responsibility over your choices leads to absurdity.

Texting Treatise: Different Responses to Temptation

Texting Treatise: Different Responses to Temptation

The first section contains the types of responses or non-responses to sin, where a person rejects the idea that they should be repentant about it.

Blindness

Lack of Awareness: unaware of what you are doing

Qualified Unawareness: aware of what you are doing, but think it is good. Unaware that it is sin

Incorrigibility

Apathy: aware it’s wrong but don’t care to change it

Minimization: aware it’s wrong but deny the severity of it

Defiance: aware of the wrongness and severity and willingly indulge it anyway without contrition

In this next section are different types of responses to sin that contain a measure of contrition (feeling sorry) or repentance (genuinely desiring to flee from or overcome the temptation). For the sake of making it seem more interesting, psychologically, I’ve arranged them in a potential ‘maturity scale’ that the hypothetical average sinner might progress through while dealing with recognized temptations to sin in their life.

Contrition

                Sub-set: Vain Heroics

Halfhearted Abstinence: an attempt to break from it, but not strong enough in conviction to persist. Likely followed by binging on the particular temptation (shopping, drinking, sexual activity, surfing channels/websites, abandoning healthy eating or exercise, etc) upon crashing

All or Nothing: can lead to longer sustained abstinence, but more often leads to more time in between attempts, because of the fear of failure. Successive failure leads to disillusionment with pure abstinence and leads to a variety of different attempts to deal with the issue:

                Sub-set: Allowances

Hesitation: failing with abstinence doesn’t immediately lead to abandoning that method, but can cause a person to rationalize not trying right now, while they’re waiting for the perfect moment to start. They tolerate giving in to the temptation because they tell themselves that they’re planning to try to abstain from it soon

Banking: sinning more in the short term to satisfy an imagined quota that your flesh desires, so that you can hope to have better success in your abstinence effort. This leads to an expectation of high indulgence, which produces a cycle of periodic abstinence followed by binging, which is worse than the initial ‘halfhearted abstinence’ program.

Putting it Out of Mind: not thinking about it, in the hopes that it was one’s focus on trying to deal with the temptation so strongly that led to the catastrophic failures in the past. When this inevitably fails, it is modified to

Tolerance: not keeping track, and letting yourself get away with indulgence in the hope that by not “banking” it, you’ll end up indulging in it less, and that by not trying to abstain all-or-nothing-wise, you won’t have a “crash.”

                Sub-set: Searching for Loopholes

Rhythm/Scheduling: when tolerance doesn’t end up diminishing your gratification of your sinful desires, and you catch yourself, you may try to “out-think” yourself, by intentionally planning to give in to the temptation at certain points, but insert periods of focused abstinence in between. It’s basically a modified “banking/all-or-nothing” approach with shorter periods of abstinence that make success more likely. When the periods are extended in the effort of “weaning” yourself off of a dependence on the indulgence, you reach the level of

Gradual Improvement: this can be reached with or without the “scheduling” stage; it’s basically an attempt to “play a long game” and start comfortably with a high tolerance for your indulgence, gradually decreasing how much of an allowance you’ll give yourself. This is basically a more intentional version of

Fatalism: aiming for less than perfection because you can’t get it. Whereas the “gradual improvement,” “scheduling” and “banking” approaches tolerate sin for the sake of trying to build some sort of spiritual immunity to it (doesn’t work, by the way), fatalism is the final resting place of many people (note that this scale does not have to be limited to Christians). They decide that they’ll accept a certain amount of giving in to temptation over a certain length of time, indefinitely, because they’ve decided that they’ll never have victory over it. Such thinking can lead a person from being contrite  to becoming incorrigible. However, some people may make a few further desperate steps to dealing with the issue of their temptation

AWPATT XII: September 17-December 17 (Thoughts 109-200)

A Woman Provokes A Thousand Thoughts: Hub Page

Will mention sexual subjects in connection to marriage.

109 Okay, recap: I’ve criticized veils, expensive dresses, wedding cakes, floral arrangements and hiring a band. Now, is it fine to play music? Certainly. I like music. Note, I didn’t say I like noise. Not all sound constitutes music, and then not all music constitutes pleasant music, or music that would be fitting for a wedding celebration. I would definitely stock a playlist of songs that would preach the Gospel and talk about marriage from a Christian theological perspective. Dave Barnes’ God Gave Me You, Andrew Peterson’s Dancing in the Minefields and World Traveler, Sanctus Real’s Lead Me, and other songs like Love is Not a Fight, Children of God, You Belong to Me, Beloved, and many more, and those are just a sampling of songs remarking on marriage. The wedding is first and foremost an opportunity to preach the Gospel to people who may never willingly sit still and pay attention or visit a church of their own accord. What more powerful way to display the truth of God’s love and grace in salvation than via the single most powerful representation of His nature that there is in this world?

110 One way that the wedding will be a witness to unbelieving family members or friends is by the absence of worldly or otherwise religious traditionally included aspects of the celebration. I’ve already mentioned veils. But the music played and the ritual parts, like traditional words spoken by the officiant and spouses, when not included, will tend to jar those who expect a catholic wedding, or a jewish wedding, or a secular wedding. And that will get their attention. Then the alternative will be presented, and everyone left with a choice.

111 Secular folks (here including those who consider themselves members of churches, and who are probably nominal believers) will probably expect a dance. No dancing at a wedding would be a shock to this culture, which has come to take sensuality for granted to such an extreme that people go to weddings trying to hook up with someone of the opposite sex, or to have fun – really? The wedding of someone else is for the purpose of you having fun?? Not allowing people the chance to exercise this narcissism will be a witness enough to some.

112 Many people are so blind these days that they think priests officiate every wedding. The only major American religion that has “priests” is the Roman Catholic Church, which, since before the 1500s, has been an apostate, anti-Christ religion. The term “priest” is a term that means someone who speaks to God directly. Prior to Jesus’ incarnation, the Israelites had a high priest who would sacrifice for the sins of the people once a year, but when Jesus came, He, functioning as our High Priest, sacrificed once and for all for the sins of those who would believe. Now, the book of Hebrews says, we His followers are a royal priesthood—every one of us. There is no priestly class within Christendom, and the idea that someone else has greater access to God than my bride and I is an offensive and anti-Biblical notion!

113 I struggle with the symbolism of the ringbearer. I don’t see where it’s useful, but it also isn’t clear what it’s supposed to represent in its present use, so it’s unlikely that I’ll be in favor of utilizing such a fixture at my wedding. The rings themselves represent continuity and wholeness and union, more on that below. But if this comes from somewhere, then it is fitting that the union of marriage be symbolized as coming down as a gift from God, so it would make more sense for the pastor to give it to the spouses, or for the rings to be sitting prominently at the front of the church for the whole time until they are put on the bride and groom’s fingers.

114 What would the father giving his daughter to her husband to symbolize? If it is ownership of another person a la slavery, then that's not Biblical, and it must be dispensed with. But actually having an understanding of female submission in the Bible, it's clear as day to me: until marriage, a woman is under the spiritual authority of her father. And when she marries, she comes under the spiritual authority of her husband. She submits to the one, and at a certain point, ceases, and begins to submit to the other as her first and foremost "prophet, priest and king" in the earthly realm, with each of them submitting in turn to God, our true Prophet Priest and King. This could be included in a wedding without having anything to do with ownership, but spiritual authority, and it shows that the bride is a godly woman willing to submit to her father before marriage and her husband in marriage, out of obedience to God.

115 Did you know that wedding rings worn on the finger are a custom popularized by Rome? Rings have been used for a long time to represent engagement, and as far back as Jacob’s marriages to Leah and Rachel, you can see that he gave his wife a nose ring. So rings are Biblical symbolism, and having it on the finger isn’t likely something strange, since nothing is implied to be evil about signet rings of kings, for example. So I have no beef with a ring being the symbol to represent that I am married to my wife.

116 But need it be gold? I think that’s fine, because it represents purity, but for me, personally, I prefer Tungsten. For maximum irony, it’s named after the Swedish words for “heavy rock” by its Swedish discoverer. But it’s one of the densest and strongest non-poisonous metals in the periodic table, and any metal can be pure so long as it’s not alloyed with another element, so the purity element still stands there. But what matters more to me is the symbolism of strength. Our union won’t be tainted by adultery, so it’ll be pure in that respect, but both my wife and I are sinners coming together, and so there is an inherent impurity in our souls, one that Christ has forgiven and is continually healing us from, while promising to remove it completely in the end—it is by His strength that we, two sinners, can come together as one and not be separated. So I like the idea of Tungsten because it will represent that it is God who keeps our marriage together, that He’s at the center of it.

117 Because I really don’t care, I’m not even sure which hand the wedding ring is “supposed to” sit, but I think it’s the right. There is equally valid symbolism for the right and left hand, the right being used in the Bible (‘the wise man’sheart is at his right hand’) to represent control, because most people are right handed, although the left hand is closer to the heart, and I know from Boy Scouts that it was used by Lenape Indians in handshakes to symbolize friendship for this reason. For me, I have spontaneous, occasional, yet persistent flare-ups of skin irritation (apparently a form of Eczema), which my right ring finger tends to bear the brunt of, so I might put it on my left hand for this proximate cause, and justify it with the reasons given.

118 On the other hand (hur hur), there’s a surprise benefit to having the wedding ring on the left hand, if it’s usually on the right—people might be more likely to respect your relationship if it has the appearance to them of being “new,” so that they wouldn’t doubt your passion for each other. Discouraging home-wreckers would be a practical benefit of having the ring on the left hand, without being openly deceitful about it.

119 White wedding dresses were popularized in Victorian England, but white is not the only color that can represent purity. Blue represents water, which hearkens both to water baptism and the Noachian Deluge as further symbols of the washing clean that God accomplishes for us through salvation. More to the point would be the color red, which represents the shed blood of Christ, which itself represents His death, that satisfied the price to be paid for our sins, and made us ‘white as snow’ in the sight of God the Father. I could see my wife perhaps wearing a white dress with a red sash and blue …shawl? Whatever something just covering her shoulders would be called. Or any of the colors by itself; explaining which symbolism is intended would be part of the ceremony and I’ll be curious what her personal choice would be.

120 Of course, there wouldn’t be any alcohol served at the wedding. No open bar, nothing of that sort. That would probably be a shock to some people. Mark this, I’m not among the fundamentalist-baptist sort who make it an article of faith that alcohol is evil. Hardly so, but it’s certainly not necessary nor is it always good for everyone. Besides, I have a preexisting concern for having full control over your mental faculties. Anything that interferes with my ability to think would be bad in my view, sin or not, because nothing good can come from handicapping my ability to make the best decisions with all the information available to me. Alcohol present at my wedding would provide some with an excuse to avoid hearing the Gospel by drinking enough to make them black out or otherwise lose awareness of whatever is being told to them. In this way, the presence of alcohol certainly would be a temptation to sin for some, and that’s why I would not include it.

121 I have no intention to ‘date,’ if dating is seen as a casual relationship with someone without the intention of marriage. If you have this sort of relationship, you’ve already decided that you’re not going to be with them forever (here meaning for the duration of your earthly life), and so you’ve already decided that you’re going to break up with them when you begin dating. What would be the point of such a relationship? “Practice?” Make sure you tell that to him or her when you go out the first time, that you “just want to practice what it’s like to have a real relationship, using this one for make-pretend.” I bet they’ll be thrilled. And if they go along with it, there’re two reasons: 1) they don’t believe you. In other words, they are accusing you of lying, so you already have a lack of trust, which is going to result in disaster 2) they do believe you, but are emotionally damaged and would rather be with someone who will hurt them in the long run rather than take rejection up-front. NEITHER of these situations are positive, and so no matter how you slice it, “dating” without any plan for commitment is futile, self-destructive, insensitive, sadistic, immature, emotionally calamitous and a stupid waste of time. So don’t date.

122 A relationship can culminate in 4 basic ways: stagnation, where it neither grows nor dissolves; break-up; death; or marriage. Seeing as none of the former three are appealing, what would be the point of entering a relationship you were expecting to be doomed from the get-go? Only marriage has any sustaining value to it.

123 So my approach to women is, initially, no different from my approach to men. Talk, see if they enjoy talking back. Get to know them. If you connect well, you can become friends because you build up history and trust (one way to define friendship). This can take place long-distance

124 After that point, the question becomes: do I know enough about this person that I can see them as 1) a desirable marriage partner in general and 2) as compatible with me, in particular? If those are true, courtship can be initiated, which is simply the expressed intent to get to know a person better with the motivation of pursuing marriage. Clear goals. And so it isn't outwardly much different to the world than a friendship. But where it leads is so different from where anything the world offers leads to.

All About that Alto, No Soprano..."Empowering" Sexism in Mainstream Music

This is a lambast of the Main-Stream-Music song "All About That Bass." I recently read a TIME snippet where the song, along with a few others, was held up as an example of an uplifting message for girls about body image.


Talks about butts.

Ok.

Here are the lyrics from the chorus:

My mama she told me, 'don't worry about your size'
She said 'boys like a little more booty to hold at night'

WHAT?

Okay, let me get this straight: "(1)Don't care about your personal health, (2) because you're a sex object." Niiiice. Oh, and even better: "your personal worth lies in your rump's ease of being groped, and (sexism alert!) boys don't care about anything but sex, objectifying women, and being a pervert." And last but not least, it purports to lift up fat girls by dealing with their insecurity by telling them they're superior because of their body type. This is literally putting down skinny girls for the same reason, that they "don't have all that bass." Yay empowerment!

You don't improve someone's self image by telling them they're better than somebody else. That's the essence of what bullying is, putting someone else down to make you feel better about yourself. And that's even without the twisted fact that the thing that makes you better than the other person is your ability to be objectified and treated like a piece of ass, that you don't have value in yourself, only in being desired by immature sexually-obsessed boys!

Is this empowerment? No, this is an example of how messed up our culture is, when in the name of doing good for someone, the exact opposite is perpetrated.

Feminism is dung.

That is all.

~Rak Chazak

Statistical Vindication of the Superiority of Pre-Marital Sexual Abstinence

That sounds like a scientific paper title. If you ever write for a technical journal, basically your header will encapsulate the conclusion of your research. Goes to show I really was paying attention in my writing-intensive elective seminar.

As I scrolled through the latest argument about sex on my university forum, I saw that the resident third-wave feminist had levied a research study's conclusions against a guy commenting on the same "slut survey" I wrote about in this post. He had said that he couldn't see why anyone would take pride in 'owning' the word slut and expressed that there must be something wrong with them. Feminista Number One's response made use of data from a blogspot article by The Social Pathologist to claim that women who had several sexual partners were less likely to divorce than women who had had a few, or women who had had numerous partners. This was supposedly evidence of the superiority of having more than one sexual partner. 

Nevertheless, FN1 couldn't deny the results also showing that virginity prior to marriage was far superior to any number of sexual partners, in serving as a predictor for the success (non-divorce over an extended period) of their first/only marriage. Intrigued, I went on to click on the link and peruse the article.

Here are some quotes of interest from the article at the blog link:

"...divorce rates are the lowest for those with zero pre‐marital partners. That part is unambiguous. Virgin brides are the least likely to divorce, all else equal. But why do  divorce rates rise with one or two premarital partners only to reverse and drop after two or more sexual partners? And next, why do divorce rates reverse and climb back up after the pre‐marital partner count goes into the double digits?"

"My own hypothesis is that a higher partner count (up to 5‐9 or so partners) is correlated with age and maturity in dating experience....Specifically, I suspect it’s not the 5‐9 pre‐marital sex partner count per se that drives the relative drop in the divorce rates, but rather it’s the maturity and experience that women have acquired while they’ve dated more men."

From a table constructed by the analyst,

"One can see that the divorce rate is nearly 50% for women who had only one pre‐marital partner and if that partner did not develop into her husband. The divorce rate falls to half the above rate (25.6%) if a woman later marries her first and only pre‐marital sex partner. However, both these divorce rates are higher than the divorce rate for virgin brides. Pre‐marital sexual experience with one’s future spouse does not beat out having no pre‐marital sex at all."

Thanks, Feminista Number One!

I initially thought I was going to be led  to a pro-3WF site where I would have to read between the lines. As it turns out, that's what FN1 was doing, herself. Intriguingly, the study cited was called the National Survey of Family Growth and was published by the Heritage Foundation. So FN1 is reading research spearheaded by conservatives. One can only hope she doesn't fail to be persuasively influenced by her dabbling in the enemy's camp, over time.

It should be noted that it isn't the mere fact of virginity or sexual activity that has an effect on marital success, but what it implies, either in terms of the type of character or decision making that went into the choice to have or abstain from intercourse, or in terms of the type of effect that such a decision consequently has on that person. But if you're a foolish person, doing the right thing without knowing why is not morally wrong, it's just less beneficial to you; nevertheless, since it gives you time to figure out a coherent ethic justifying your choice, you will reap the reward for it over time, even if you do "the right thing for the wrong reasons." 

~ Rak Chazak

On the Word "Slut" and "Sexually Liberated" Third-Wave Feminism

A student at my university solicited the opinions of the general academic public in a study she was doing for a class paper. I was more than happy to oblige.

Q: "Why are women called 'sluts' for having multiple sexual partners but it seems men are respected for the same?"

Because of the sexist double standard perpetuated by third wave "feminism."

Personally, I don't respect promiscuous men, either, and even have less respect for them, because they're more apt to display an ignorant self-congratulatory attitude whereas most women I've interacted with seem to regret their past activities--whether they are presently sexually restrained or not--and are less likely to boast in the same way.

So if I don't respect males who are sexually immoral any more than females, why does it seem that most of society behaves in a different manner? I've wondered about this.

I sincerely believe it's because I reject the nonsense agenda of third wave feminism and most other people are influenced to think a certain way because of it, either consciously or unawares. Contrary to the claims of 3WF, it does not elevate women nor achieve any forward-steps of equality. It dehumanizes both men and women and that's why you see double standards remaining and perpetuated.

Why?

Simple. It doesn't matter what you say, if your actions demonstrate otherwise. The average woman would say she wants to be respected by men. But 3WF advocates for women to lay aside "antiquated" notions of sexual restraint and modesty, e.g. that it's acceptable to have multiple sexual partners, dress revealingly for explicitly sensual reasons, to engage in or view pornography, and to upend "traditional" roles--that she should pay for dates, that she should drive most of the time, that she should take the initiative in pursuing males in romantic endeavors, etc. I'm not saying there's anything inherently wrong with paying, driving, or showing interest. What I'm saying is that when you shift what is normative by actively striving to do the contrary to what is "antiquated/traditional" or as it is commonly called by 3WFs, "patriarchal," then you are bound to produce an effect.

And what is the effect?

If you show guys that they don't have to put in any effort into relationships, what do you teach them? They don't have to try. They become lazy. The result is women who are frustrated with boys who put little or nothing into the relationship. The women end up feeling used.

Further, combine the first part I mentioned: the loosening of sexual restraint. So now you've taught guys that they don't have to take any initiative in starting relationships, and you've taught women that they don't have to withhold (or even that there is no good reason to refrain from) sexual activity in a casual relationship. And so you have girls giving time, money, affection and their bodies to boys who won't --and have no incentive to-- exercise patience, thrift, respect etc. And the result is that the women are used, sexually, and they end up feeling upset and taking one or other course of action. They generally hate and blame themselves or they hate and blame men. They either refuse to believe that they could be happy in a submissive relationship with a man (and therefore now become domineering and emotionally unreasonable) or they desperately try to create what they wanted to have with that first failure, and go from bad relationship to bad relationship until they get jaded or worse.

Meanwhile, guys learn that there's no need to treat women as human beings, since by doing nothing they'll throw themselves at you and give you their bodies for your pleasure. These guys learn from their interactions with women that women may be people in theory, but functionally, in practice, they are not, and may as well be treated as objects, because that's all that the women treat themselves as, and that's what they're clearly tolerant of males treating them as.

So the notion that women are treated as objects isn't foreign to me. I think it's wrong, yes, but I can also see why with a level of clarity that the average male cannot, for the simple reason that the average male desires instant gratification of sexual desire, and I have decided to put off such gratification until I have found and created the commitment I desire, wherein which sexual activity can have the potential to be fully satisfying, in a way in which it cannot in casual, temporary relationships.

I don't think men are respected for having many sexual partners. Perhaps among some in society, but I doubt this is true among the "movers and shakers." Rather, in that class, I predict that the reason for any distinction is a judgment on the relative stupidity and naivety of the female who throws themselves desperately into hopelessly unfulfilling relationships versus the relative intelligence and scrupulousness of the male who utilizes such easy access to physical pleasure but never entertains in his mind the idea that it was anything more. I think that's where you may find the stratification; when your reasoning allows the judgment that women are stupid sexually, and men are not, then you can see respect for the male and disrespect of the female in the way we currently observe in society.

It's tragic. But that which explains the onesidedness of the observation is the fact that there is nothing like third wave feminism for men. There is nothing that promotes an act-first, think-later approach to sexual intercourse for men. There is for women. And the results are that the women that buy into it end up looking very stupid and very sexually promiscuous, whereas the males who take advantage of it look smart and oddly not as sexually driven. I think the illusion is because what really drives most women is not sexual desire but a stronger desire for emotional intimacy than most men have. But the women think that sexual intimacy with a man will achieve that emotional intimacy--blame third wave feminism's philosophy of sex. Consequently, when these women throw themselves at men in sexual pursuit, they appear to be the more sex-driven when that is not the actual case. It is the men who take advantage of these women who are the more sexually fixated, since they fail to in any way treat women as something more than objects of physical pleasure. But the person who takes advantage is in a position of control whereas the person who is taken advantage of is in a position of weakness. And control denotes strength and intelligence, whereas weakness ... denotes weakness. Of an intellectual and sexual-restraint sort. I think this explains why society at large has more respect for promiscuous men than women. Promiscuous men are seen as in-control and intelligent, whereas promiscuous women are seen as out-of-control and stupid.

These are not the private opinions I have. I know it goes much deeper than this. As I've indicated, I think the driving force is a mixture of deep-seated emotional yearning in women, harnessed by the tragically anti-productive social philosophy of third-wave feminism. All I've done is to the best of my ability explain how I think the thought process of the individual may play out and produce the disparate social stratification we see on a macro scale. And I think I've done so quite well.

Addendum: My response to the "Further thoughts?" question.

Or, How to Solve the Problem of the Sexual Double Standard

What makes me different?

Why am I not affected by 3WF in the way that I describe the 'average male?'

It's simple. The world is ruled by ideas. And if you don't subscribe to one worldview then you will subscribe to another. Instead of 3WF, I have a different philosophy that shapes my approach to love and sex.

But it's more than a philosophy. There is a level of thought involved in it but it's more than just an idea for approaching the world. It's unique in that it first changes how I see myself. The outward results in my thinking are the product of an internal revolution.

I'll be very straightforward. I don't think you can really solve the issue of social ills that operate in the realms of the hearts and minds of individual people without changing their hearts and minds. Money won't do it. Propaganda won't do it. Social programs won't do it, and teaching other people how to interact with them won't do it. 

The only thing that can actually change a person from an objectifying, misogynistic, sexually-unrestrained arrogant person into a person who respects men and women is the Gospel. I am well aware that you likely don't want to hear "religion is the answer." Well, religion isn't the answer. Religion is a set of rules that you tell people to follow, and then when they succeed, they become self-absorbed and prideful, which is bad, and when they fail, they become depressed and despair, which is also bad. Christianity has rules, but the success someone has with following the rules is not what determines if that person is a Christian.

Christianity is unique in that it isn't something that men do for God, it's something that God does in men. The individual's responsibility concerns solely how they respond to God's initiating action to save them.

Please detour to get a helpful, less-than-a-minute-in-length, explanation of what the Gospel is, here: http://singlechristian1.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-gospel-in-60-seconds.html .

To be saved, all a person needs to do is to acknowledge their sinfulness and ask God to take the punishment they deserve on their behalf. That way, the Crucifixion's effect gets 'credited to your account,' and your sin is legally dealt with, from God's perspective. You don't become sinless at that moment. But you become guiltless. And from that point, God's treatment of you begins to affect your treatment of others.

I now understand what love is. Contemporary wisdom says that "if it makes you happy, do it." That love is a feeling of happiness toward someone. But when that feeling subsides, people think "I don't love them anymore," and relationships are destroyed.

True love is not an emotion but an intent: to do that which is in the best interest of another person, and sacrifice (put aside, as a lower priority) your own self-directed desires in order to accomplish their best interest.

With an understanding of love like that, I could never take advantage of a young woman's desire toward me, no matter how much of a gentleman I would be to her. I know that the act of sex produces an emotional bond, one that in its intended context produces satisfaction in a committed relationship that draws you closer and keeps you inseparable. But if you were never going to commit, when you separate that relationship, all that bonding, when it tears, wreaks emotional and spiritual havoc on the people involved. Damage like that to another person is not loving. Love is not something you can have for someone for a little while and then not any more. That isn't sincere love. It's a farce. An act. And this misunderstanding is at the root of so much pain in our society today.

I see sex as an important part of a committed relationship. But the only truly committed relationship is the one that doesn't have the entertained possibility of it ever ending. That's marriage! So a direct conclusion of simply knowing what love is is that I would never want to have sex with someone before marriage, no matter how good it might feel, temporarily.

I've been living this changed life for a few years now and don't mistake me as thinking more highly of myself than others. I am not more special, but with what I have been given, what I have been blessed with in being saved and having my life transformed day by day by the Gospel, I am specially privileged. And I can see now, after having observed many examples far and wide, that you can't change the culture by trying to change people's minds, first. You have to change their hearts. Therefore,

I would be doing a disservice if I didn't tell you that I think any and all approaches to a problem like the way this society views sex would be ultimately unsatisfactory and ineffective if it does not include the Gospel. It is only God's power to save and transform that can change a person's eternal destiny and current state of being, from a wretched self-interested person to a person who is fully satisfied in God, and who desires to help other people to live a good life now, but more importantly to attain eternal life to come.

Sure, go ahead and think of me as a raving religious lunatic. But I couldn't be content with myself if I didn't take the chance to try to tell you the truth. What you do with it is your business. I only hope that God will open your mind to receive what it is I've had to say here, insofar as I am speaking what He would want me to say.

Thanks for reading.

~ Rak Chazak

Anatomy Lesson: Major TMI Warning

This is the warning symbol for explicit details that may bother some people. Turn away now unless your curiosity is stronger than your stomach.

I learned something new about sexual anatomy that changes a few things. The content of this post will touch on a body part connected to people's expectations of intercourse, particularly when it concerns virginity.

Now that I've given enough advance warning, let's delve into it. When you get past the typical High School level Sex Ed, chances are you find out some further details on your own, and in this investigation might learn that 'penis' and 'vagina' are a bit simplistic, there's more going on down there. You might learn about something called the hymen, which the prevailing popular wisdom tends to say is skin that stretches across the walls of the vagina and is broken during first intercourse, resulting in the ubiquitous bleeding that is popularly associated with a woman 'losing her virginity.' I recall that in middle school, the 'vulgar tongue' referred to it as "popping the cherry." Different sources would give you different facts regarding how much blood was expected.

What I found in almost every instance of its description, be it in books, online articles or in casual (very casual) conversation, was that the hymen is supposedly a taut membrane of skin that completely occupies the space somewhere in the vagina, and rips off the vaginal wall, or at least rips straight through the middle, when it is penetrated, either by a penis or a tampon. It never grows back. 

This is wrong. Apparently there is a wide misconception about it, but this is anecdotal and I suppose my own experience isn't extensive enough to make this declaration objectively. Nevertheless, because of this misconception, it appears that the "popular wisdom," again, in terms of advice given to males who are having intercourse with a virgin, is to be quick, making sure to break through fast so that the pain doesn't drag out. Much like the notion that ripping off a bandaid quickly hurts less than pulling it off slowly.

Terrible advice, it turns out. In reality, the hymen is not a "single use tissue," but does in fact grow back. That's because it, like the labia majorae/minorae, is not something that just gets in the way and makes female anatomy confusing, it's a functional anatomical feature that, to my best understanding, helps keep the vagina sanitary by limiting dirt and debris or infectious agents from getting inside.

I wanted an image of filters arranged in a row. The concept is that a little less gets through each step.

And how does this happen? That's because it isn't completely closed off. You may encounter descriptions that say that it has holes in it. Whatever does this mean? Now it makes sense to me. Because it isn't a taut membrane but a sort of valve, and not an obstacle to tampons, fingers, penises etc, it has the ability to open and close depending on the frequency of sexual activity. Think of it more like one of those circular gates, like a lens cover on some cameras, [edit: a SHUTTER] and which you can see in the opening scene to James Bond movies:

It can open and close. And it does open, and stay that way with sustained intercourse over some time. So the prevailing opinion that guys should thrust real quick because it has to hurt, so get it over with, is misguided and hurts women. The reality is that it's better to go slowly. It doesn't have to be painful. And over a little time it will get to a point where it won't be an obstacle anymore. Patience is romantic, guys. 

I understand the idea of waiting doesn't make much sense if the cultural expectation is that you might only be having sex with a girl one time. But then, the whole idea of having sex with someone and being sexually intimate without being emotionally and intellectually intimate, and having a commitment that creates a basis for the physical ecstasy to be much more enjoyable and satisfying, doesn't make much sense, either.

This concludes the anatomy lesson. Let's hope it helps at least one couple, somewhere.

~ Rak Chazak

Stay Away From My Penis! What the Government Has Against Uncut Guys (Pics)

                This is shamelessly titled to hopefully show up in search queries by people looking for internet pornography. And yes, there are pictures. Here’s one:

                This is an image I created in Photoshop myself so as to avoid potential copyright issues, which I’ll use to identify posts which will discuss sensitive or personal subject matter. It will alert people who may be discouraged from reading something that they think is “TMI” (too much information) or that would make them feel awkward or uncomfortable. For extremely intensive (one could say ‘descriptively explicit’) blog posts, I’ll utilize a different image, one with an exclamation point instead of a period. 

                Today’s discussion will require the latter identifier. From the title, you may have guessed that ‘uncut’ refers to someone who has not been circumcised. Circumcision is the process of cutting off the foreskin of a penis. For those who may not know what a foreskin is, imagine the texture of your cheek, inside and out, but with the thickness of the thin edge of your ear. It covers the whole glans penis (the purple/red part) but can be pulled back to completely uncover it, where it then can sit rolled up against the back edge of the head of the penis, quite similar to how a rolled-up pantleg or shirt sleeve is prevented from unfurling past the knee or elbow. The immediate benefit of a foreskin is that it protects the tip of the penis like a sheath protects a knife’s blade, or a cap protects lipstick. Both by reducing sensitivity and to a lesser extent by keeping dirt out. This is great for a guy who doesn’t want to use a restroom and have something splash back up and hit the vulnerable parts. That would be like getting something nasty on your eye, rather than on your eyelid, wherefrom you can then wash it off, since it just hit the skin.

                Now that the stage is set, with the reader understanding why the presence of a foreskin is more sanitary than the lack of one, it’s time to get to the point. Apparently some educated idiot has gotten the bright idea to claim, in alarmist tones, that having a foreskin makes you more at risk of STDs. The solution, they promise, is to promote circumcision among males, particularly in Africa (because of the HIV epidemic there).

                But wait. How does the presence of a foreskin make one more at risk of STD transmission than a ‘snipped’ guy? Doing a little digging reveals that the science behind the claim is thus: the foreskin has a lot of blood vessels, and since it has very thin and tender skin on the inside, small tears from sexual activity would allow infectious agents to enter the bloodstream and make the person sick. But wait. Where would these infections be coming from? An infected person. And how are they transmitted? Through sexual activity. So what is really going on here?

                A foreskin is only going to “put” a person at higher risk of contracting a disease if the uncut guy is having sex with someone who has a sexually transmitted disease! If you’re not having sex with STD-positive people—for example, if you’re not having sex with anyone at all—then no problem! It’s the wanton sexual activity that’s the risky behavior, having a foreskin isn’t what makes it risky. Snipping yourself is a non-solution that doesn’t make you immune, just reduces the chance that you’ll get what’s coming to you for doing the wrong thing. In that way, it’s just like a condom. It doesn’t make your unsafe behavior suddenly become “safe sex.” It just slaps a 98% chance rating on what was previously a 50/50 or 100% guarantee that you would become a victim of the consequences to your own bad choices. There is absolutely no need to get snipped if you aren’t, just like there’s absolutely no need to ever use a condom, if you’re doing it right. If you’ve gotten married to someone, after years of knowing them, and being totally confident that their sexual history is either nonexistent or at least hasn’t left them with a disease, then there is no necessity to adopt “risk-reducing” behaviors, because you aren’t “at risk” in the first place. Wouldn’t it be nice to not have to be afraid of that? That’s just one of the many wonderful benefits to submitting to God’s rules for human behavior. Sexual purity and monogamy. Risk-free sex with no strings attached.

PS So what did the government have to do with this? They’re promoting short-term fixes to a problem that requires a spiritual and not a medical solution. This government would NEVER recommend Biblical morality, that is to say, abstinence from promiscuous sexual behavior, as a way to avoid the spread of STDs. Instead they would recommend “safe sex,” which is code for minimizing, but not removing, the inherent risks that are part and parcel of sexual promiscuity. The only 100% guaranteed way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases is to not engage in sexual activity outside of a marriage that fits the Biblical model. This isn’t popular or politically correct. But people have always hated the truth when it gets between them and their personal gratification. This is nothing new. What would be new would be if people started rebelling against the norm and chose to refrain from the things that they weren’t expected to refrain from. Imagine the attention that such a divergence would garner. 

~ Rak Chazak

Proof I'm not making stuff up, with regard to the government-promoted circumcision program:

http://open.salon.com/blog/judy_mandelbaum/2012/07/27/africas_male_circumcision_crusade_boon_or_boondoggle -- hah, this site even criticizes the methodology of the tests that led them to conclude that circumcision reduces risk!

I kinda wanna leave it there. But here's the rest of the results of the google search:

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/12/01/circumcision-is-africas-best-weapon-against-aids/

http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/clinton-determined-to-push-28-million-circumcisions/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/14/1160451/-The-USA-Encourages-Genital-Mutilation

http://www.avert.org/male-circumcision.htm

http://allafrica.com/stories/201207130100.html

See, I gave you links favoring circumcision and links critical. That's what it means to be unbiased. Not that you have an objective view, but that you considered all views without prejudice, before making your own decision.

The Unfairness Trap: BSA On A Collision Course

The BSA National Council held a secret ballot vote to decide if the organization would allow openly gay boys into the organization. 757 voted for, 475 voted against. 

Timeless Values?

Albert Mohler summarizes this succinctly (link at bottom):

In 2000, the B.S.A. prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court when the nation’s highest court ruled that the Boy Scouts had a constitutional right to exclude openly gay boys and leaders from the organization, so long as that exclusion is based in one of the organization’s core convictions — an “expressive message.” The B.S.A. won the case because that is exactly what they claimed. They argued that excluding openly homosexual boys and leaders from Scouting was necessary and required by the Scout Oath. [emphasis added]

In my previous article about the BSA policy change, I said this:

If the Boy Scouts of America lifts the ban on homosexuals, then it will be saying that its rules were not based on timeless values, but on arbitrary prejudice. Arbitrary prejudice can be arbitrarily abandoned. Timeless values cannot. If the BSA is built on values, then it cannot compromise those values. If the BSA compromises on homosexuality, it will be admitting that it does not stand on values but will give in to pressure. An interesting consequence is that the BSA will open itself up to lawsuits alleging wrongful discrimination, since lifting the ban would necessarily mean that the organization discriminated against homosexuals in the past without any reason to do so.

So now we know the answer to that. The BSA National Council has decided that its creeds are not timeless, but arbitrary. It is thereby implicitly admitting to wrongful discrimination against homosexuals for over two decades, since the policy was enacted. Let the litigation begin!

A Time to Tell

The BSA commissioned a video in the '80s which at the time I joined was required watching for all boys entering the program. This was called "A Time To Tell," and acted out 3 specific scenarios which were introduced through the context of a conversation between three friends after school. Its purpose was to educate the young boys (ages 10-12 when entering the program) to "Recognize, Resist and Report" sexual molestation. I think it might be worth introducing to the general public. It largely speaks for itself.

More info: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/boy_scouts_and_sexual_abuse_what_will_happen_to_it_happened_to_me.html

Unfairness

Now that the BSA has opened up its doors to homosexual youth, it's unfair to keep the doors shut to atheists any longer. It's actually ludicrous to allow the former and not the latter. Atheists can, at least in theory, be just as moral as any monotheist, with the only difference being their rejection of belief in a deity. Meanwhile, homosexuality is an evil in each of those religions, and so if those who break the law should be allowed in, by what standard do you aim to keep out those who do not break the law? Maybe one could suppose that even if "morally straight" has been abandoned, the BSA will still attempt to uphold "duty to God" as a point of the Scout Oath. This would exclude atheists, certainly. But isn't moral straightness part of one's duty to God? To purport that active homosexuals honor the God of any faith--Christianity, Judaism or Islam; even the Eastern religions (Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism) seem largely to oppose the notion that homosexual activity can coexist with religious piety -- to thus purport that homosexuals can honor the "duty to God" aspect of the Scout Oath is ludicrous, and therefore if they can be allowed into the program while rejecting this "timeless value," then so can atheists, by the same standard. We have thus utterly destroyed the Scout Oath. All that's left is this:

"Oh my honor, I will do my duty to my country, and to keep myself physically strong." 

Permit me to scoff derisively.

Prediction: the BSA will soon have to give in to further pressure and allow atheists to join. 

The question is, will atheist boys be allowed in first, or homosexual leaders? We could start a betting pool. Anyone interested? I'll stake my claim on homosexual adults. Any takers?

Further Reading 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2013/05/25/BSA-and-gay-phase1
http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/05/22/boy-scouts-at-the-brink-the-moment-of-decision-arrives/
http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/rip-boy-scouts-of-america/

~ Rak Chazak

The Chaos Theory of Impropriety

Chaos Theory encompasses the phenomenon known as the "Butterfly Effect," technically known as "sensitive dependence upon initial conditions." It's a mix of mathematical theory and philosophy that explains why it's difficult to predict the outcome of complicated systems. Weather, for instance. This is where the "Butterfly" analogy comes from. It supposes that the flapping of a butterfly's wings could alter the flow of the air molecules in its immediate vicinity, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale alterations of events farther in the future. If the butterfly had not flapped its wings at a moment in time, the event cascade leading to a particular future condition would be very different than in the case where the butterfly would have flapped its wings.

Tonight I thought to apply this to relationships. Particularly to moments where two people put themselves in a situation where they are alone, secluded and have a lot of time to kill. We often hear people explain their choices with the phrase "one thing led to another, and...", and this is the essence of Chaos Intimacy. 

As a single guy, I have been blessed to make very few mistakes of my own, and have gained a lot of wisdom by learning from other people's mistakes. That said, while my own experiences haven't been "as bad" (we have a tendency to compare ourselves to others), the sum message that I would give to young people is this: be warned. Don't put yourselves in situations where there's a possibility for "something to happen." You need not be of the opinion that you will do something. You don't need to be able to envision how it could occur. All that is necessary is for two people attracted to each other (or not even that--you only need to not be repulsed) to be alone in a place, where no one can interrupt you, and where there is no structure for your activity. If you haven't set clear boundaries, you're in trouble. There's no guarantee that you will do "something bad," but no matter how "good" you are, I'm writing to let you know, there's something mysterious about or human nature that practically guarantees that if we make ourselves vulnerable to impropriety in such a situation, that we'll have overestimated our fortitude, and we will fall. What may seem innocent at first could accidentally turn into something you didn't expect. Maybe you decide to box or wrestle and someone's privates are touched. This opens the door for further "activity." Your mind, when high on sexual hormones, has an uncanny ability to rationalize what you would "know better" than to do if you were thinking straight.

The Chaos Theory of Impropriety is simply that when something is left to chance, the outcome is unpredictable. Therefore make sure that you set boundaries when you spend time with someone you like. The best thing you can do is to avoid being completely alone together, particularly in one or the other's bedroom. But please also note, it's never too late to call it quits. Just because a line was crossed, it does NOT mean that you have to keep going, or that it doesn't matter if you do it again. You can always walk it back. Making a mistake does not doom you to remain in the place where your actions have landed you. Forgiveness is a wonderful thing. It's never too late to turn around and recommit yourself to purity.

That's my encouragement to young single people, and people in flirtatious relationships, this evening.

~ Rak Chazak

What Is Lust?

I have a remarkable tendency to produce profound statements in obscure Facebook chat conversations. I need to make a habit of copying these down more often. Here's something from a while back, in response to a question from another guy, about what I though lust was.

Well, theoretically, it comes down to "desiring someone sexually." The question of course, is, what does THAT entail? Is it visualizing them naked or in a sex act? Is it in not doing that, but getting turned on when you look at them? Is it in imagining them in a relationship with you, ultimately leading to marriage, no matter how unsexual the fantasy might be in your mind at that moment? Is it solely limited to masturbating with the thought of them in your mind? Is it so broad that it encompasses even simply wanting to be with them in a relationship though you are not?

Clearly you can see that I think about this all the time, as well. I tend toward thinking, if you gotta ask, God is probably stricter about it than He is lenient. It's a purity issue. You can look at it from a 'fruit' perspective, as well -- does dwelling on someone in your mind all the time result in good things for you, or does it distract you from academic pursuits and lead to emotional havoc? If the product of thinking about someone in a certain way does so, then that could mean that what you were doing was not good--and if not sinful, at least not beneficial.

Verses referenced:
Matthew 5:27-28 -- ²⁷ “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ ²⁸ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 
Matthew 7:18 -- A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.
1 Corinthians 6:12 -- All things are lawful for me, but not everything is beneficial. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be mastered by any thing.

~ Rak Chazak