Check out the TB2K CHATROOM, open 24/7               Configuring Your Preferences for OPTIMAL Viewing
  To access our Email server, CLICK HERE

  If you are unfamiliar with the Guidelines for Posting on TB2K please read them.      ** LINKS PAGE **



*** Help Support TB2K ***
via mail, at TB2K Fund, P.O. Box 24, Coupland, TX, 78615
or


OT/MISC The Sexual "Reign of Terror": How we got here and where we are goinig.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1

    The Sexual "Reign of Terror": How we got here and where we are goinig.

    http://www.bookwormroom.com/2017/11/...or-here-going/

    The Sexual “Reign of Terror”: How we got here and where we’re going* (by Wolf Howling)


    Today’s sexual “Reign of Terror” started in the 1960s, when the Left turned social mores on their heads — and it will get worse before it gets better.

    The Reign of Terror French Revolution Execution of Louis XVIThe original “Reign of Terror” occurred during the French Revolution, when socialism itself was fully birthed. It was a period during which the French Revolutionaries executed thousands of people, many of whom were themselves Revolutionaries, including the father of the French Revolution, Robespierre. We are seeing something akin to the Reign of Terror on the Left today with the sudden purging of stalwart Progressives who have engaged in sexual harassment and abuse. How did we get here and how will it end?

    Through the early 60’s, we had conservative culture that I think could be defined by two things — a general belief in the chivalric code and a restrictive, though amorphous, view of appropriate sexual conduct and morals that was half Biblical and half Victorian. Society at large called girls “sluts” if they engaged in any sex outside of marriage. Meanwhile, we boys called such girls . . . on Friday nights with no real opprobrium unless we got the girl pregnant. There was a double standard, but one dictated by biological realities.

    At its best, such conservatism comes from ancient Jewish and later Christian traditions aimed at creating and maximizing the strength of families, since families have, since time immemorial, been the foundational unit of civilized society. These traditions reined in men, whose biological impulse is to spread their seed far and wide. They made it clear morally that men should marry a woman, be monogamous during marriage, and raise the children of the marriage.

    Having these traditions in place protected women, for whom pregnancy is a life-changing event, and, most importantly, protected children from the scourge of single motherhood. Today, the risks are poverty for the girls and criminality for the boys. In olden days, the more extreme risk was starvation.

    Such traditions also promoted a healthy society, by limiting the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, many of which were potentially fatal in the long run. At their worst, such traditions were stamped with 5th century Augustinian notions that sex was evil, sinful and dirty.

    All of this set up a permanent tension in society. Perhaps most illustrative of this is American Puritan society during the century after their arrival on these shores in 1620. Despite being intensely religious, they also struggled with natural human impulse. True, they punished with fines and the lash unwed women who bore children (though Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter, written long after the demise of Puritan society, unfairly caricatures that time).

    But of all the discussions I have read in original sources, at least outside of the pulpit, the Puritan’s concern with unwed pregnant women was pragmatic, not biblical. They were concerned with the societal costs of unwed mothers and their children raised without a father.

    That said, Puritans were, perhaps surprisingly, fully human in giving in to their sexual impulses. Best estimates are that half of the women in American Puritan society between 1620 and 1720 went to the altar with a baby bump. The Left, in attacking Western civilization, ridicules that as hypocrisy. Actually it is nothing more than the aspirational goals on one hand and the reality of humanity on the other, with Puritan mores intervening to shape, as best as possible, the result of that tension.

    Fast forward to the rise of socialism and the socialist goal to remake the West into a utopian society. Ms. BWR, in an American Thinker article several years ago, pointed out that socialists have, since their inception, used sex as a tool to attack the Judeo-Christian religions and to sexualize children. In a related post of a few years ago, I traced the long effort of the socialist movement in this country to intervene in the family unit, inserting government (Leftist government) in loco parentis to strip sex of its moral and ethical dimensions for children. What began with the avowedly socialist Margaret Sanger in the early 20th century became part and parcel of the radicalized Third Wave feminist movement of the 60’s.

    Just as an aside, First Wave feminism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was concerned with voting and gaining equality before the law. Second Wave feminism of the first half of the 20th century was concerned with equality of opportunity and treatment. I know of no one who does not support the goals of First and Second Wave feminism.

    Enter the sexual revolution of the 70’s, driven by the availability of the Pill. As a child raised in this era, I deeply appreciate that the sexual revolution did away with the Augustinian gloss on sexual morality and notions of shame associated with sex. But once that pendulum started to swing, the Proggies / Third Wave feminists rode it far beyond that limited, long overdue good.

    The Left began with an attack on all sexual and moral dimensions to sex. With that success, feminists moved towards changing the dynamic between male/ female relations, destroying the concept of chivalry for both sexes (men to act as protectors, women to act as desirous of and worthy of male protection) and, most recently, establishing a set of neo-Victorian, neo-Augustinian rules and attitudes regarding sex.

    As Third Wave feminists would have it, sex is no longer sinful and dirty in the Augustinian sense. Instead, it’s much worse: all heterosexual sex is presumed to be rape unless the woman does not complain.

    Even as men are no longer expected to act with chivalry towards women, since the rise of Obama, they are expected to abide by rules more strict than any Victorian era law in that they allow women to claim rape at any time during or after consensual sex. Men are presumed guilty and may or (preferably for radical feminists) may not be given any chance to prove their innocence. In the Third Wave world, though, women are free to be promiscuous without consequence and should exercise complete power in the world of sex.

    It is poetic that today’s justifiable “reign of terror” against un-chivalric men who have sexually harassed or abused women should begin with the iconic progressive, Harvey Weinstein, in the iconic home of progressivism, Hollywood, and with Hollywood’s infamous tool of sexual abuse, the “casting couch.” Conservative men who still believe in chivalry and in treating all women (including, and especially, those whom we would like to bed) with respect, must applaud and support this. Their support, however, comes with an important caveat: We must not automatically presume guilt based on accusations nor on the subjective feelings of a woman (or man) who engaged in consensual sex.

    Looking at today’s headlines (and predicting tomorrow’s) it is completely predictable that the vast majority of men being tied to the stake for burning are Progressive men, from Clinton to Weinstein to Charlie Rose, Kevin Spacey and others. For the past six decades, these men have lived in a world of their own making, one with no moral or ethical limits on their sexual desires, nor any expectation that they act with chivalry. Thus anything short of actual rape has been within their acceptable limits and, so long as they espoused progressive ideals, their fellow Progressives were content to give them a perpetual pass. There are no better examples than the three most powerful sexual predators, Harvey Weinstein, Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton.

    This is not to say that the problem does not occur on the right. Bill O’Reilly and Roy Moore may have engaged in sexual harassment, although that is not clear (and is becoming increasingly less clear in Roy Moore’s case). Regardless, I doubt that there is a red-blooded man alive on the right who hasn’t acted boorish on occasion. When it happens on the Right, though, these occasional behaviors have been a moral and ethical lapse. When it happens on the left, it is a day that ends in “-y.”

    So why this “reign of terror” now, after all these years of protecting Progressive men? Has the radical feminist movement, with its goal of making all men a subservient class, finally matured to the point that the movement’s loudest harridans no longer feel that they need progressive men? Prof. Jacobsen, at Legal Insurrection, has a theory:

    There is honest built-up resentment and anger among liberal women who have been the victims of predatory conduct by liberal men. They were expected to maintain their silence for the liberal cause, because to air their legitimate grievances would call into question the icons of Democratic Party history, the Kennedy’s and the Clintons, and the key funders of liberal causes in Hollywood and the entertainment industry.

    Trump’s victory over a Clinton, oddly enough, freed liberal women to stop being silent about liberal male abusers in a way not possible after the Obama victory over Hillary in the 2008 primary. .

    That explains why the women are coming forward, but it doesn’t explain the seeming pleasure of the liberal media in telling their stories, and even seeking out those stories. So there must be more going on.

    Major media, which has a vested interest in the success of the Democratic Party and the eventual defeat of Trump, knows that defeat of Trump cannot take place until there is a changing of the Democrat guard. The Clintons and vestiges of the Clintons must be purged, and what better way than to portray the party and liberalism as a coming to grips with the past abuses of Bill Clinton as covered up by Hillary. The major media now is acting as something of a truth and reconciliation commission, in which exposure of others in addition to the Clintons is necessary.

    Additionally, that purging of the Clintons is necessary for the progressive wing to take over. The Clintons, and all that the Democratic establishment represents, is entrenched even in defeat. The airing of grievances against the Democrat harasser/abuser in chief, and his henchwoman, is necessary for the party to move on to it next, more radical, phase. That more radical phase will have people like Keith Ellison, who is being promoted as a replacement for Al Franken, in leadership. . . .

    I’m not sure how this liberal purge ends. But it’s long overdue.

    I agree with all of that, but I think that how this “liberal purge ends” is quite foreseeable. The Progressive movement, and even all of its conflicting victims’ groups, have a single goal, attaining permanent power. At some point, when the progressive wing fully takes over the Democrat Party, the Progs will try their damnedest to expand this “reign of terror” to tarnish conservatives.

    This inevitable effort to tar the conservative with the Leftist’s sleazy brush has already begun with the #MeToo movement, which makes every bit of boorish behavior by any and every man roughly equal to the very serious sins of Weinstein, Charlie Rose, Teddy Kennedy, Bill Clinton, etc., all of whom stand accused of behavior that far exceeds clumsy flirtation.

    Progressives are already pushing the meme that the GOP is the “party of pedophiles,” and at least one woman has endorsed others lying about sexual harassment to achieve her political goals. Progs are doing the “Reign of Terror” backwards because they began, rather than ended, with eating their own. They need to be stopped now that they’re trying to take their movement beyond sexual abusers and predators, and trying to restore Democratic hopes by tarnishing those on the right who are innocent of acting like Proggies.
    ____________________________________

    *Wolf Howling wrote this post, but was only able to email it to me before his internet went down. That’s why I’m publishing his post under my byline.

    One more point here from me, Bookworm. When I read Wolf Howling’s point about the fact that the Proggies are trying to say that flirtation and compliments from conservatives are the same as sexual assaults from Proggies, I suddenly knew where I’d seen that idea before — that is, the idea that flirting (not rape, but flirting) is a sin deserving of death (or a punishment almost as severe):

    I think there are some videos with this worth watching.
    "The misfortune of many is the consolation of fools" Ancient proverb

  2. #2
    Buy stock in a sex robot company. The millennials will never get over this. I was lucky enough to find a good woman, scarce enough 50 years ago, may be almost impossible now.
    White birth rates may go to near 0.
    In Honor of T/S R.L. Hare (Chief Sly)and the members of 322 BS

  3. #3
    "The Left began with an attack on all sexual and moral dimensions to sex."

    It isn't just the left doing that. We have so-called conservatives who, at the first sign of any sexual restraint whine "Don't force your beliefs and morality on me!" while they try and force their beliefs and immorality on us. The fact is, between sexually transmitted diseases and the problems of families without the father around, the public is picking up the bill for immorality. The Left and others cry "It is a need!" although I have never heard of anyone dying from the lack of sex. And of course the weak argument that "They will do it anyway," and so we should just accept it. That is the same argument the Leftists and Secularist have used in Europe to justify providing drugs and clean needles to dopers. Once again, by the Secularists forcing their immorality on all, we are all paying the tax bill.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    33,346
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderbird View Post
    Buy stock in a sex robot company. The millennials will never get over this. I was lucky enough to find a good woman, scarce enough 50 years ago, may be almost impossible now.
    White birth rates may go to near 0.


    That would fit in with what the elite TPTB want, but it comes without the profit they want.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    The Empire
    Posts
    3,231
    Another factor is that the Government has taken over the historical role of the father [as outlined above], in providing for the children of a couple. A divorced man almost automatically loses in the proceedings, either by the property division or child support requirements. Poor women can default to Federal largesse for programs to financially support themselves and their children. Men rarely can take advantage of these programs.

    Husbands have been reduced to merely biological sperm donors; their marriage can be terminated at the woman's choosing. Marriage has always been a leap of faith in the prospective partner; now it's an outright gamble and the house favors the women's odds.

    Previously, divorce was rather rare in the early 20th century primarily because men typically retained custody of the children. There were no child support payments. Property was divided and each went their separate ways. Accordingly women were cautious about suitors; could he provide for a family? Would he be monogamous? Couples would engage in courtship rituals to better determine each other's intentions and their compatibility.

    FA
    Fad saol agat, gob fliuch, agus bás in Éirinn!

    Christianity is the estranged descendent of a bizarre Jewish apocalyptic cult.

    Kein Krieg für Israel!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,499
    Unless the man knows the woman very (VERY) well and she's a high character person, he would be wise to have nothing to do with her. Never be alone with her, never have any interaction with her, nothing.

    The risk is too high today.

    The social mood will change, and we'll get back to something close to predicable and normal, but until then - no.
    The country has been conquered and is under occupation. That's a fact. Before you dispute it, gather your facts. Got any?
    "No one in this world, so far as I know, ...has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people." H.L. Mencken
    "Oh, the Drama!"

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Thunderbird View Post
    Buy stock in a sex robot company. The millennials will never get over this. I was lucky enough to find a good woman, scarce enough 50 years ago, may be almost impossible now.
    White birth rates may go to near 0.
    When you find one that's publicly traded, let the rest of us know.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    State of Jefferson - On the Darkside where the cookies are...
    Posts
    5,288
    When men stop acting like Gentlemen and women stop acting like Ladies then you get what we have now. When fathers don't teach their boys how to be men and mothers don't teach their daughters how to be Ladies....you get what we have now. When fathers don't demand that their daughters to be treated like Ladies and Mothers don't demand that their sons act like Gentlemen, then you get what we have now. When Gentlemen tolerate women who don't act like Ladies and Ladies tolerate men that don't act like Gentlemen then you get what we have now.

    Bottom line....act like an animal, you get treated like an animal. Tolerate uncivilized behavior and you get uncivilized behavior. When you boil it all down, we're all to blame for this crap happening now.

    STAND UP AND DO THE RIGHT THING!
    We have done so much, with so little, for so long....We can now do anything, with nothing, forever.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    'murKKa - FEMA region IV
    Posts
    4,188
    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowMan View Post
    When men stop acting like Gentlemen and women stop acting like Ladies then you get what we have now. When fathers don't teach their boys how to be men and mothers don't teach their daughters how to be Ladies....you get what we have now. When fathers don't demand that their daughters to be treated like Ladies and Mothers don't demand that their sons act like Gentlemen, then you get what we have now. When Gentlemen tolerate women who don't act like Ladies and Ladies tolerate men that don't act like Gentlemen then you get what we have now.

    Bottom line....act like an animal, you get treated like an animal. Tolerate uncivilized behavior and you get uncivilized behavior. When you boil it all down, we're all to blame for this crap happening now.

    STAND UP AND DO THE RIGHT THING!
    HERE HERE!!!!!
    “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” REV 3:16

    Raging Deplorable - we do NOT forget; we do NOT forgive; we are LEGION

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    26,047
    KEY:


    Even as men are no longer expected to act with chivalry towards women, since the rise of Obama, they are expected to abide by rules more strict than any Victorian era law in that they allow women to claim rape at any time during or after consensual sex. Men are presumed guilty and may or (preferably for radical feminists) may not be given any chance to prove their innocence. In the Third Wave world, though, women are free to be promiscuous without consequence



    It reminds me of two things:

    A Peter Marshall sermon from the 1950's which I read long ago, where he talked about women "demanding the rights to be like a man....to smoke like a man, to curse like a man......"

    What women have demanded, as the article says, is the right to be promiscuous like a man---BUT---


    It reminds me of a SECOND THING---


    "Judge not, that ye be not judged...for ye that judgest DOEST THE SAME THINGS..."


    Women used to call men who used women sexually while expecting virtuous behavior FROM their women, "male chauvinist pigs" and decried it as a behavior to be condemned...

    And now women are DOING THE SAME THING---only in powers-of-ten ratios to what men previously did---


    now a man is put under far more stringent behavior guidelines than women ever were even in the Medieval or Victorian days---but women can be totally promiscuous (and then murder the natural result of their promiscuity) and that is just fine.



    wow.............

    You've come a long way, baby....."
    Be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled…Let no man deceive you by any means…..
    they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved….for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie….
    Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.


  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Countrymouse View Post
    ...now a man is put under far more stringent behavior guidelines than women ever were even in the Medieval or Victorian days---but women can be totally promiscuous (and then murder the natural result of their promiscuity) and that is just fine.
    I think this is why so many young people born in the 80s and 90s aren’t marrying like those born in earlier generations. I know for young men, many don’t want to feel as if they are missing out. If most guys find out their girlfriend was a freak for other guys, but isn’t so crazy in life with them, that is usually cause for arguments which can usually lead to a break-up, especially if the young woman hid her wild side from her current boyfriend. On the flip side, young women in some areas say that there are still so many singles in their 20s and 30s available that it seems as if the guys are never in any hurry to settle down at all. If the young women push for commitment the guys either just say they can only do casual or they commit for just six to twelve months and then want to move on.

    I am seeing some examples of young people settling down early in life, but I’m not sure if that will continue or not. Plus I wonder if those marriages will last long term. The future will be interesting.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


NOTICE: Timebomb2000 is an Internet forum for discussion of world events and personal disaster preparation. Membership is by request only. The opinions posted do not necessarily represent those of TB2K Incorporated (the owner of this website), the staff or site host. Responsibility for the content of all posts rests solely with the Member making them. Neither TB2K Inc, the Staff nor the site host shall be liable for any content.

All original member content posted on this forum becomes the property of TB2K Inc. for archival and display purposes on the Timebomb2000 website venue. Said content may be removed or edited at staff discretion. The original authors retain all rights to their material outside of the Timebomb2000.com website venue. Publication of any original material from Timebomb2000.com on other websites or venues without permission from TB2K Inc. or the original author is expressly forbidden.



"Timebomb2000", "TB2K" and "Watching the World Tick Away" are Service Mark℠ TB2K, Inc. All Rights Reserved.