Listen to Robby Soave Talk About the College Sex Panic on Real Clear Radio Hour

Back to school with the Title IX inquisition.

|

Radio
Wikimedia Commons

I was recently interviewed by Bill Frezza's Real Clear Radio Hour program for a back-to-school special on the campus rape adjudication crisis and Title IX. The College Fix's Greg Piper talked for the first half; I joined Frezza for the second half.

Listen here. (Trigger warning for: The sound of my voice.)

NEXT: NCAA Punishes College Athletes for Fantasy Sports Betting

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “College sex panic”
    That was a cool band.

    1. Fact: it was my nickname in college.

      1. Nobody calm down

      2. Like most panics – vastly overstated.

    2. i can very easily imagine a band with that name, but i bet they’re terrible

  2. Don’t listen to Robby, his voice is almost as smooth and seductive as his hair.

    The program date is Sep 18, and Robby’s part starts around 23 minutes in.

  3. You raped me with your voice.

  4. What if someone gave an orgy and nobody came?

  5. Adam Savage does a podcast i listen to every week. This week (have not listened to whole thing yet) he refers to the “Hoax Clock” by the moozie kid… and I was surprised he (being the kind of SF superliberal guy*) seemed to frame it that way.

    Curious what he has to say. I’m not there yet.

    (*to be fair, he’s sort of half-libertarian when it comes to certain things, then a complete prog on others. A la carte politics)

    As to the robby podcast…. The trigger warning was insufficient. You need to get a Barry White plug-in for your recording software.

    1. Yeah, that was not Suave at all.

      1. I SAW WHAT YOU DID THERE, RHYWUN. I SAW IT.

    2. Yeah, nothing surprising re: the Clock. I thought they’d talk more about the silly celebration of the kid, but they seemed to focus on the hysterical fear people have of DIY electronics when brown people are near them.

    3. “LOL at these stupid adults who think Ahmed’s amazing homemade clock looks like a bomb” is my new favorite smug.

      1. Oh, indeed.

        As I’ve said elsewhere, I think it’s a troll operation along the lines of the “Flying Imams” case. The idea is to do something intentionally provocative but ultimately “innocent” in order to provoke a reaction from the authorities, so that you can then scream “Islamophobia! Racial Profiling!”, file a lawsuit, etc. One commenter/TSA source says this sort of trolling/probing is not uncommon among Muslim airline passengers: add a few wires to a book binding, act innocent and outraged at the “profiling,” get some yucks wasting everyone’s time, and maybe some $$$ from a legal settlement. In this case dad gets new ammunition to use against the mayor, plus some good PR for his next campaign as president of Sudan, and the older sister (expelled for a bomb threat a few years ago) gets revenge on the school system.

        1. I don’t have any idea if the dad was in on it beforehand, but I’m 99.9% sure it was intentional trolling at this point.

          this sort of trolling/probing is not uncommon among Muslim airline passengers

          Teenagers too. In 9th grade a friend (and known pothead) came across some green stuff (don’t remember what), tied it up in his sandwich bag from lunch, and left it visible in the outer-most pocket of his backpack. He got sent to the principal and eventually convinced her to call the soul brotha PE teacher who verified that it wasn’t pot. These people with this “clock truther” nonsense are calling the equivalent of what my friend thought up on the fly (probably with a flickering light bulb above his head a la Butthead) for some 2400-baud-era lulz an elaborate conspiracy requiring great foresight.

    4. Yeah I’m also surprised that a decent guy like Savage would use a demeaning word like moozie. That seems like a term that only a crypto-racist xenophobe would use.

  6. Fap fap fap fa*Robby’s Voice*

  7. Before the audio got cut off, I got to the point where Rico Suave (a) mentions the shenanigans of Harvard Sex Week (how to do a menage a trois, etc.) and (b) calls modern campuses neo-Victorian.

    Although of course there were menage a troises during the Victorian era, the universities and other institutions weren’t *promoting* such behavior, certainly not to students.

    Try this on for size: The colleges realize that the sexual climate of their institutions is hardly ideal, but politically-correct dogma, and fond memories of the college years, precludes them from encouraging the students to keep it zipped until marriage (repression! sexism! hereronormativity! blaming the victim!)

    So they channel their concerns into idiotic “rape culture” crap so as to give themselves the leverage to address the problem. Which is a retarded response, but hardly traceable to Victorianism.

    1. ” I got to the point where Rico Suave (a) mentions the shenanigans of Harvard Sex Week (how to do a menage a trois, etc.) and (b) calls modern campuses neo-Victorian.”

      Rico never actually said that =

      the host said that there were contradictory behaviors by college administration, encouraging open-minded sexual attitudes, yet maintaining these psychotically prudish attitudes about the dangers of “unwanted touching” or requirements for active affirmation for every single stage of interaction….

      … Robby offered the adjective “victorian” in relation to the latter, but i don’ think there was any actual intent to make compare/contrast examples with the actual Victorian age and its complex attitudes re: sex…. which were actually less prudish than popular history might imagine (see: Proust)

      1. Sorry about that, I may have confused host with guest.

        The use of “Victorian” is still a problem.

        I know the Victorians weren’t all about corsets and lying back and thinking of England, and I know about Fanny Wright and Victoria Woodhull and all that.

        I still stand by my remark that civil society wasn’t promoting nonmarital sex the way many institutions are doing today.

        And I also strongly suspect that the abuses of “rape culture” hysteria aren’t due to neo-Victorianism but because of an attempt to fit concerns about the campus sexual climate into the Procrustean bed of PC feminism.

        1. “The use of “Victorian” is still a problem.'”

          Pedantry isn’t contagious, fortunately.

          1. Call it pedantry if you wish, but “Victorian” fosters the moral-equivalence theme which Reason writers love to promote, so that discussion of left-wing nuttiness has to be balanced out with ritual denunciations of SoCons.

            1. My understanding of “Victorian” is prudish above all. The Victorians were prudish about sex; the modern offencerati are prudish about independent thinking. The comparison is very apt.

          2. I read “pedantry” as “pederasty”.

            Still works.

        2. “civil society wasn’t promoting nonmarital sex the way many institutions are doing today.'”

          And as Proust (and others) noted – the frequent use of prostitutes, and/or homosexual dalliances, were exceedingly common among the Victorian educated classes, if little-discussed over tea.

          1. Right, and civil society wasn’t *encouraging* it.

            Norms get violated. It’s what people do.

            If the norms change to encourage the behavior, you get more of it.

            It’s not binary – “it either happens or it doesn’t.”

            1. “civil society wasn’t *encouraging* it.”

              It wasn’t particularly discouraged either.

              Honestly, give it a rest. The idea that there were ever some “good old days” when people were more chaste because Society was shame-ridden and stuff isn’t really even accurate, much less something to praise and aspire to.

              I think its notable that despite all this bullshit about celebrating sex, that kids these days fuck a lot less than kids did when i was in college. And we were (sorta) worried about AIDS, even.

              1. “The idea that there were ever some “good old days” when people were more chaste because Society was shame-ridden and stuff”

                Who said anything about good old days?

                Why do you feel the need to impute “either/or” views to me which I never expressed?

                Thomas Sowell was right – if you even suggest that there have been negative developments in any area vis-a-vis a previous era, you’re immediately accused of believing in a golden age in the past when everything was perfect.

                1. “I think its notable that despite all this bullshit about celebrating sex, that kids these days fuck a lot less than kids did when i was in college.”

                  I don’t see how that’s responsive to my point – unless of course you went to college in the Victorian era.

                  1. “I don’t see how that’s responsive to my point'”

                    it wasn’t really.

                    unless you consider that “”civil society wasn’t promoting nonmarital sex the way many institutions are doing today.””…

                    ….and yet there was still more non-marital fucking *before* all the encouragement.

                    whatever.

    2. “So they channel their concerns into idiotic “rape culture” crap so as to give themselves the leverage to address the problem.”

      There is no problem.

      1. There’s a nice river in Egypt which might interest you.

        1. SKYDADDY SAYS NON MARITAL BAD! SKYDADDY NOT WRONG EVAR

          1. I always enjoy the following thought experiment:

            Go back a few decades and imagine some religious person saying, “only us God-believers are in favor of traditional sexual morality – all you secularists support extramarital sex, adultery, and so forth.”

            Imagine the cries of indignation from the secular forces – “how dare he say that only belief in some sky daddy makes you moral!”

            Today the argument is shifted around so that some secularists agree with the religious person in the thought experiment – “yeah, he was right, only monotheism care about that morality stuff!”

            Which in some sense I wish were true, because that would be a strong argument for ethical monotheism.

            Sadly, I have to acknowledge that plenty of non-sky-daddy-oriented people have been supporters of sexual morality.

            1. Amidst this babble there is found no trace of support to the contention that there was any problem in the first place.

              1. Other than drunken hookups, STDs, unwed pregnancy, etc?

            2. Go back a few decades and imagine some religious person saying, “only us God-believers are in favor of traditional sexual morality – all you secularists support extramarital sex, adultery, and so forth.”

              Imagine the cries of indignation from the secular forces – “how dare he say that only belief in some sky daddy makes you moral!”

              Today the argument is shifted around so that some secularists agree with the religious person in the thought experiment – “yeah, he was right, only monotheism care about that morality stuff!”

              You’re the one equating “traditional sexual morality” with what secular forces also consider morality.

              Some of us actually think your way is…wait for it…immoral.

              1. Why can’t Reason threads be more like this?

                1. That may be your best link yet, HM.

                  80s hair!

                  1. Better yet, why don’t you ask your wife?!?

                    *throws napkin down and leaves the thread*

              2. I was making a specific point that you can’t simply assume that, on sexual morality issues, you have all the non-monotheists on one side and all the monotheists on the other side.

                And I was specifically rebutting the idea that *only monotheists* (or “religious” people) have any objection to extramarital sex, drunken hookups, etc. – the college stuff we’ve been discussing.

                There are non-monotheists on both sides, at least there *used* to be and I suspect there still are divisions in your ranks.

                So, sure, “some of” you may reject traditional sexual morality, but you certainly don’t represent all non-religious people in history, many of whom had the same kind of hangups as the sky-daddy bleevers about such things as fornication, adultery, etc.

              3. Eddie isn’t merely immoral, Nikki, you slut. Eddie is evil.

            3. I always enjoy the following thought experiment:

              Your “thought” experiment is based upon a false premise.

              As there is nothing immoral about sex between consenting adults.

              Fuck off slaver!

              1. You seem to have some difficulty following an argument.

                Again – there exist – or there *did* exist some decades ago – non-religious people who would have been *indignant* at the claim that, because they were non-religious, they were therefore against traditional sexual morality.

                So, argue with those people if you wish.

                1. I follow your ridiculous argument just fine and your point is immaterial.

                  there exist – or there *did* exist some decades ago – non-religious people who would have been *indignant* at the claim that, because they were non-religious, they were therefore against traditional sexual morality.

                  No shit. But those idiotic sexual norms stem from your hokey religion regardless.

                  Your assumption, that certain sexual practices between consenting adults are immoral, is patently false. Anyone believing otherwise is as wrong as the religious nut-jobs who concocted the idea to begin with. There can be no immorality without a violation of someone’s rights.

                  1. “There can be no immorality without a violation of someone’s rights.”

                    That’s utter horseshit. Whose rights are violated when a supervisor demands “sex or termination” of an employee?

                    Whose rights are violated when you commit an altruistic act that causes you serious detriment for the gain of others?

                    1. “That’s utter horseshit. Whose rights are violated when a supervisor demands “sex or termination” of an employee?”

                      I guess you’re not kidding, just stupid.
                      Was this sex part of the contractual agreement for employment? If so, fine. If not, it certainly is a violation of contract and therefore violates the employee’s rights.

                    2. “Was this sex part of the contractual agreement for employment? If so, fine. If not, it certainly is a violation of contract and therefore violates the employee’s rights.”

                      What? Most employees don’t have contracts.

                      What rights are violated? If you don’t like the terms of employment, you can leave, right? Isn’t that the standard line? No one is forcing you to do this.

                      And fine, let’s say it’s not in the contract. First of all, not each and every specific duty must be outlined in a contract, but never mind. So it’s not in the contract. Is a breach of contract a ***moral*** issue? So the employee can sue for breach of contract. That doesn’t mean it’s right to do it.

                      I note you inartfully avoided every other example I provided.

                    3. “What? Most employees don’t have contracts.”
                      Bullshit. Every employee has a ‘contract’.

                      “What rights are violated? If you don’t like the terms of employment, you can leave, right? Isn’t that the standard line? No one is forcing you to do this.”
                      The contract rights.

                      “I note you inartfully avoided every other example I provided.”
                      Yes, because your first example was sufficient to show you truly are an ignoramus.
                      Can we presume you’re an ignorant bleever by any chance?

                    4. Sevo, if you’re so dedicated to being a dipshit, then what is the point? Don’t like the employment example because you want to fight the hypothetical? Fine, address the others.

                      I’m an Objectivist and therefore an atheist. Pay attention.

                    5. “I’m an Objectivist and therefore an atheist. Pay attention.”

                      So you’re an objectivist ignoramus? Oh, goody. You’re still an ignoramus. Fuck off;

                    6. Sevo, I have to assume all this frustration is because you cannot understand the point. If you need help, please don’t lash out. I’ll gladly explain it using smaller words. I’m here to help!

                    7. The Tone Police|9.24.15 @ 12:12AM|#
                      “Sevo, I have to assume…”

                      You can assume what you please; ignoramuses always do.

                    8. FdA loves to soapbox hardest about that which he understands the least or not at all. It is no surprise that he as about as much understand as he does about rights and morals as Eddie does. Those two are made for each other. Throw in John and you’ve got The Three Stooges.

                    9. Cytotoxic|9.23.15 @ 11:49PM|#
                      “FdA loves to soapbox hardest about that which he understands the least or not at all”

                      Right, toxic, since you’re got everything figured out. Tell us you just won the thread and go to bed.

                    10. If you think anything that’s legal is therefore moral, you have a sad life. It’d be legal in Libertopia to overdose on heroin. That doesn’t mean such self immolation is moral or a wide decision. It’s legal to let yourself get walked all over and let yourself be destroyed by the takers and psychic black holes of the world; that doesn’t mean it’s moral. It’s legal to be a racist , Nazi piece of shit; that doesn’t make it moral.

                  2. “No shit. But those idiotic sexual norms stem from your hokey religion regardless.”

                    Back when the tribal mores were co-opted by those hoping to gain power over the populace (yeah, eddy, that’s your guys), most of those were valid. Kids without a ‘dad’ didn’t get family food, etc.
                    The bleevers tend to hang onto outdated norms and try to justify them in that they’ll find some secularist who agrees, but that’s cherry-picking.

                2. While there probably were, there were not enough of them to matter.

                  Hell go back past the 1920’s and you would have been hard pressed to come up with more than 1% of the population who would admit to not believing in some god or other and among those who were openly secular a pretty large majority of them did advocate some form of alternative morality

              2. There isn’t?

                What about adultery?

              3. “As there is nothing immoral about sex between consenting adults.”

                This is really bothering me.

                So, you would consider it moral for a boss to say, “BJ for good performance review? sex or you’re fired?”

                That’s consensual, is it not?

                Adultery? Consensual.

                Borderline retarded 18 year old and a predatory 50 year old? Consensual.

                None of them are moral, in my opinion.

                1. “That’s consensual, is it not?”
                  You’re kidding, right?

                2. 1. Extortion. Rights violated.
                  2. Breach of contract (with the spouse). Rights violated.
                  3. Yes, completely consensual. No rights violated.

                  1. Extortion? Extortion requires coercion. Where’s the coercion? She’s free to leave whenever she wants. You don’t have a property interest in a job.

                    Breach of contract with the spouse? So the spouse has a positive right to your fidelity? You said sex between consenting adults cannot be immoral. Here we have two consenting adults having sex. They happen to be married (to other people). How did two consenting adults become immoral? You made a flat pronouncement.

                    There are issues of morality that exist outside of the context of rights. It’s not moral to be a manipulative, shady piece of shit, even if you have the right to be one.

                    1. “Extortion? Extortion requires coercion. Where’s the coercion? She’s free to leave whenever she wants. You don’t have a property interest in a job….(followed by more bullshit)”

                      Are you familiar with the term “sophistry”, twit?
                      Guess what? You just won the gold for the evening of 9/23/15
                      Please go find someone as stupid as you with whom to argue. Maybe eddy; he’s sure stupid enough

                    2. I know you’re old and your brain is not the fastest, but you could have thought for a few more minutes and maybe formed a coherent argument instead of devolving into a nasty man who acts like a name-calling teenager.

                    3. The Tone Police|9.24.15 @ 12:09AM|#
                      “I know you’re old and your brain is not the fastest, but you could have thought for a few more minutes and maybe formed a coherent argument instead of devolving into a nasty man who acts like a name-calling teenager.”

                      meh

                    4. Where’s the coercion?

                      If you are holding something of value hostage to an act outside the agreed to duties, THAT, is coercion. A person may not have a right to a job, but they do have a right to decline sex for any reason whatsoever without fear of penalty.

                      So the spouse has a positive right to your fidelity?

                      Um…yes…provided you agreed to forsake all others. The consensual sex isn’t the immoral act The breaking of the contract with your spouse is.

                    5. You’re equivocating. There’s no penalty. You don’t have the right to a job. If I say, “have sex with me or I’ll break up with you”, that’s coercive, by your definition. no one is saying that he/she won’t be paid for work already performed, just that no pay is available in the future. That’s not a thing of value, as it has yet to be earned.

                      As for the adultery, you said consensual sex between two consenting adults cannot be moral. Now you’re saying otherwise.

                    6. That’s not a thing of value

                      Future pay (in exchange for service) has no value? Care to rethink that?

                      As for the adultery, you said consensual sex between two consenting adults cannot be moral. Now you’re saying otherwise.

                      I said sex between consenting adults cannot be immoral. And it isn’t. The breaking of the contract with your spouse is immoral, NOT the sex.

                    7. Future pay is not a thing of value. It’s speculative. A job can end at any time. there is no guarantee you’ll have a job from one day to the next. The twin pillars of American employment are “at will” and “a day’s work for a day’s pay”. Future earnings are not a thing of value.

                      Saying that sex between two adults is not immoral, but then saying the consequences thereof can be, is a distinction without a difference. Firing a gun at someone isn’t immoral; it’s the striking of the bullet that causes the problems! Sorry, but if two married people have sex outside of marriage with each other, that’s a totally immoral act, by your own words, even though it was totally consensual.

                    8. Future pay is not a thing of value.

                      You are incorrect.

                      Saying that sex between two adults is not immoral, but then saying the consequences thereof can be, is a distinction without a difference.

                      You are again incorrect.

                      The contract is required to make the act immoral. Just like eating candy isn’t immoral unless I contracted not to. There is nothing inherently immoral about consensual sex between adults, as Eddie claims. Breach of contract is immoral.

                      And we are done.

                    9. Francisco d’Anconia|9.24.15 @ 12:46AM|#
                      “Where’s the coercion?”

                      Have at it Frank. You got one on the line here who is every bit as stupid and dishonest as trueman.
                      I’ll check back to see how much time your willing to waste on this twit…

      2. So, to sum up what I’m hearing, only people with religious, sky-daddy views are against the hookup culture on college campuses.

        That is good to know. It’s a good argument for religion, thank you for conceding it.

        1. No it isn’t because there isn’t anything wrong with what you call ‘hook-up culture’. STDs and pregnancies are prevented with condoms.

          Your ‘morality’, if you can call it that, is arbitrary and reactionary. Doesn’t matter if it stems from religiosity or not it’s worthless.

        2. I am generally opposed to people engaging in any behavior they know they are likely to regret later, particularly when they do it repeatedly. I’d advise them not to do that if they asked my opinion.

          1. OK, so if you’re an atheist (as I speculate you are), then your position refutes that idea that *only* sky daddy bleevers could find anything wrong with collegiate hookups.

    3. “The colleges realize that the sexual climate of their institutions is hardly ideal, but politically-correct dogma, and fond memories of the college years, precludes them from encouraging the students to keep it zipped until marriage”

      There’s also the fact that no one wants to be told what to do in the bedroom by their university or anyone else.

      1. Except apparently they do, because Victims and their Professional Advocates (scaremongers) are inviting the university into the bedroom on an hourly basis.

        If nobody wants to be told what to do, explain the “enthusiastic consent” movement.

        1. “Victims and their Professional Advocates ”

          No, they are ordering the university into bedrooms on their behalf.

          1. Yeah, but you said “no one”. Apparently, a lot of people do want to be told what to do in the bedroom.

      2. Are you a sexual climate-change denier? For shame!

  8. I AM THE LAW!

  9. ITT virgins arguing about sex.

  10. On topic: I got sucked into watching clips of Veep on Youtube.

    This show is so mind-blowingly good.

    1. It’s entertaining, which is more than I can say about most television shows. I appreciate they can make a comedy about politicians in this day and age that is in no way ideological. I’ve enjoyed every episode I’ve watched. I wouldn’t call it “mind-blowingly good” but I’m not disputing someone else might as I would describe some of the Silicon Valley episodes as such.

  11. OT: Perhaps I’m getting neurotic as I lurch towards 40, but I’ve found it really difficult to take seriously any of my male colleagues who use emoticons in their emails. It’s just so goddamned effiminate.

    1. I love Smileys. I’d donate to Reasonif they enabled them in comments

      1. Love them all you want….but they’re effeminate as popping another man in the keister.

    2. What can I say? Except that it takes a lot of text before the squirrels allow me to post this next paragraph, which is all I intended to post in response.

      ?\_(?)_/?

      1. You’re dead to me. DEAD!

  12. I’d like to speak regarding the Notorious vs. Everyone Else thread above. I get it: traditional religion-based morality vs. “Your Sky Daddy can’t tell me what to do!” But I think there’s a sort of middle ground here: maybe the religiously-based advice is right, Sky Daddy or not. Maybe there are perfectly valid, practical reasons that make that advice valuable.

    In other words, something may well be “moral” (or at least “not immoral”) from a libertarian/secular/atheist view, but may still be a risky or non-optimum course of action. Maybe practical wisdom was turned into a message from the Sky Daddy, or maybe they were right by accident. That doesn’t hinge on the religious question, and allows both sides to be partly right.

    1. I’m not really opposed to this in practice. What’s bothering me is the assumption there is such a thing as libertarian “morality”. Libertarianism doesn’t tell you how to be a good person, or what’s right and wrong. It tells us the role (if any) a government should have in society. It’s perfectly legal to walk down the street catcalling and saying terrible things right to people’s faces; it violates no rights. That doesn’t make it moral.

      It’s perfectly legal to have sex with someone who you know is emotionally invested in you, even though you’re not planning on reciprocating that interest. That doesn’t make you a moral person. It makes you kind of an asshole.

      Hell, it’d be perfectly legal, even in Libertopia, to advocate the government do more and even go full Communist. Are Communists moral just because their advocacy is legal? Fuck no.

      1. I agree. Some people around here aren’t happy unless they can cram everything into their favorite ideological cubbyholes. To heck with nuance.

        And, of course, they also aren’t happy unless they can call people names. I wish the conversation around here tried more for insight and information and quips and interesting off-topic remarks, and less “No, you’re stupid and evil!!”

        1. “And, of course, they also aren’t happy unless they can call people names.”

          You wouldn’t mean me pointing out that our newest troll is an ignoramus would you?
          Sorry; one advantage of living a while is the ability to see stupidity a mile off and not wasting time engaging it.
          TTP is a sophomoric ignoramus and due every ‘meh’ s/he’s earned.

          1. I’ve been a member of this forum longer than you. I’m not a new troll of some kind.

            You know what? It doesn’t matter. You’re a bad person. consider your life and what you say to people here. Just read your comments to someone aloud.

            1. The Tone Police|9.24.15 @ 1:06AM|#
              “I’ve been a member of this forum longer than you. I’m not a new troll of some kind.”
              So I’m supposed to allow your stupidity since you’ve been stupid a long time?

              “You know what? It doesn’t matter. You’re a bad person. consider your life and what you say to people here. Just read your comments to someone aloud.”
              You know what? You’re an ignoramus, Fuck off.

                1. The Tone Police|9.24.15 @ 1:13AM|#
                  “Ugh. Sad.”
                  Ya know, if you don’t want to be called on your bullshit, you really shouldn’t post it.
                  Fuck off.

    2. PapayaSF|9.24.15 @ 12:25AM|#
      “I’d like to speak regarding the Notorious vs. Everyone Else thread above. I get it: traditional religion-based morality vs. “Your Sky Daddy can’t tell me what to do!” But I think there’s a sort of middle ground here: maybe the religiously-based advice is right, Sky Daddy or not. Maybe there are perfectly valid, practical reasons that make that advice valuable.”

      A claim of ‘middle ground’ presumes there is some reason to examine sky-daddy comments for validity; there is none.
      Whatever ‘morality’ is offered by the bleevers is easily found in the tribal mores back when the bleevers co-opted those norms; they are obvious in any examination of history.
      I’m sure some are still valid, but most have been OTBE; we no longer have to avoid pork or shell-fish. So we can look to see what history has to say, but the parts co-opted by eddy’s progenitors have no special claims of ‘morality’ as a result of being so ; they simply tried to use it as a basis for power.
      So, yeah, history informs morality. Sky daddy claims are special pleading and can be ignored.

      1. OK, but my point is that it doesn’t matter whether they say it’s God’s Will or not, so it’s kind of pointless to focus on the religious claim. It generates bad feeling and results in an uninteresting conversation. I find the history/social science aspect much more interesting.

        1. “OK, but my point is that it doesn’t matter whether they say it’s God’s Will or not, so it’s kind of pointless to focus on the religious claim. It generates bad feeling and results in an uninteresting conversation. I find the history/social science aspect much more interesting.”

          Fine. Tell eddy et al that we don’t care what the sky daddy says; all they need to do is cite some historical reference, and we’ll look at that.
          Well, that isn’t what eddy does; he claims ‘it was right ’cause sky daddy said so and now some other people think so’.
          I’m all for it, and I’m sure eddy isn’t since it doesn’t support his claims of ‘specialness’. I’m tired of dealing with ‘specialness’.

        2. Historically, consanguinity was so important it’s almost impossible to grasp. You had monogamy because there were no DNA tests; you had to be monogamous to know those were your heirs. A lot of that has been blown up in the last 75 years or so.

    3. I mean, practically, there are a lot of bad ramifications that come from promiscuity*:

      Increased risks of fatherlessness in resultant children
      Sexually transmitted diseases
      and, the biggest one, I think: hurt feelings.

      No, seriously, the psychic damage that can be caused by partners with opposite expectations of the future can be devastating. It’d be inhuman to deny or marginalize how often this happens.

      1. I agree with you. Sometimes I think “how did we ever survive as a species before modern psychology “

      2. No, seriously, the psychic damage that can be caused by partners with opposite expectations of the future can be devastating.

        That’s why this “sex positive” stuff is so hilarious. Yo bitches, that’s what the patriarchy wants.

    4. “I’d like to speak regarding the Notorious vs. Everyone Else thread above. I get it: traditional religion-based morality vs. “Your Sky Daddy can’t tell me what to do!””

      I don’t think that’s a fair summary.

      I didn’t discuss God until Cytotoxic brought Him up, to suggest it was just benighted bleevers who had any kind of objection to campus hookups.

      Then I replied by contending that you *didn’t* have to believe in God to have a problem with campus hookups. I added that if this were true it would be a good argument *in favor* of religion.

      I actually didn’t express a view on whether traditional morals were religion-based or not.

      I think, once again, the voice of the Eddie in your head drowned out what I actually said.

      1. I didn’t discuss God until Cytotoxic brought Him up

        Please. Your implication was clear.

        Typical Eddie. Steer the conversation to religion without actually mentioning religion, and then claiming the other guy brought it up first.

        You are a mendacious cunt.

        You’d be a lot more interesting if you forthrightly argued your convictions instead of trying to pussy-fuck around them under some veil of quasi libertarianism.

        Nobody’s buying your bullshit.

  13. Fucking dirty Van gogh blurs those trains!

    1. Ah. Good morning, A C!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.