Star Trek: Voyager’s anti-false rape allegation episode. No really.

[Image source, no affiliation with atavisionary.com]

[There will be spoilers, I will note where they start]

Star Trek has long been known to be thinly concealed propaganda for the left. In almost every episode (and movie) there is a “moral” of the story which (almost) always coincides with some popular leftist cause at the time. This harkens back to the original series such as in episode “Let that be your last battlefield” where the people from an alien species had a black colored half and a white colored half with two different races. Each race was basically the mirror image of the other, where one had black on the right side and the other had white on the right side and vice versa for the left side. This was obvious commentary on the contemporary civil rights movement with the (verifiably false) “moral” that we are all the same and differences between races are only skin deep. In the subsequent series this pattern of leftist hugboxyness only became more pronounced.

However, there are the occasional and sometimes hard to fathom exceptions. For example, Klingons transformed from a vaguely hispanic and relatively reasonable race (though also treacherous and full of guile) to a black race full of directly confrontational and violent barbarians. Perhaps this was some thinly veiled semitic racism? Could it be a result of greater interaction between the entertainment community and black musicians during the 70s and 80s between the end of the first series and the beginning of the movie franchise? One can only guess…

Of all the series, Star Trek: Voyager is known to be one of the worst offenders with their not so subtle promotion of left-wing values. The captain is a woman, the first officer is a native American, the chief engineer is a miscegenated half Klingon-half Human (played by a Hispanic woman), an Asian science officer (actually, that one is pretty legit), and the security chief is black. Quite the diversity utopia. There were only two white male main roles, and one of which was an unresponsible man-boy (Tom Paris). You can imagine what the plot lines were like in general. Voyoger was also really bad at using nonsensical technobabble.

So when I say that there was actually an episode which came out AGAINST false rape accusations I can understand why you would be incredulous. That sort of thing is incredibly out of character for Star Trek. However, the 1998 episode “Retrospect” does just that. I was a bit too young to retain an understanding of the contemporaneous cultural atmosphere of the time, but something tells me that false rape accusations were happening. Also, feminists might not have quite achieved the cultural hegemony necessary to prevent something like this from going through. Either that, or it was the writers choice to replace “rape” with “unwanted examinations” which allowed it to slip by the admittedly low-iq feminist commissars at the unofficial ministry of culture. [Spoiler alert, watch the episode now if you don’t want to see the plot first]

So let me give you a run-down of the plot. Voyager is at a trading planet looking to purchase better weapons since despite their 100% peaceful and reasonable intentions they always seem to piss off everyone they come into contact with. There is clearly something wrong with every other alien species in the galaxy. They enter into a trade negotiation with a merchant named Kovin. During the negotiation, Seven of Nine goes to Kovin’s workshop to look through some of his merchandise. Seven of Nine was basically the hot chic used as fan service for all the fat, lonely star trek nerds. The choice of her in the role of “non-consensual, physical examinee” really emphasizes the episode as a false rape allegation allegory. Anyway, while she is looking at a rifle, something overloads and she is hit by a gratuitous discharge. This causes some damage, but otherwise she is ok. Or so we think.

Later, after agreeing to purchase a new weapon for the ship, Kovin and Seven of Nine are working at a console in engineering and get into a bit of an argument about technobabble configurations. Kovin is a passionate guy so he moderately pushes seven out of the way to get to the console. She gets pissed and clocks him right in the nose. This leads to an investigation and the Doctor scans Seven to see if anything is amiss in her female borg brain. Unsurprisingly there is. As he is trying to perform the scans she starts p.m.s.-ing (anxiety attack) about medical procedures and makes the doctor let her up. He ends up having to sedate her to do the scans. It turns out that she had a neurotransmitter imbalance or some other nonsense which might “be a result of suppressed memories.”

The Doctor decides to take it upon himself to become a psychologist and do some sort of hypnotic regression therapy to see what these suppressed memories are. With the Doctor’s “help” Seven “discovers” that the incident in Kovin’s lab wasn’t an accident at all, but that he had intentionally shot her so that he could do invasive medical procedures to recover borg technology from Seven’s body in the hopes of creating new weapons to sell.  It seems that even in the 24th century, humans will still have yet to accept the fact that suppressed memories “uncovered” during therapy sessions are almost certainly crap. This alleged non-consensual and physically invasive examination was the clear stand in for rape.

With the help of the local authorities the Voyager crew begins an investigation into the incident. Kovin is understandably quite distressed and angrily professes his innocence. He also distrusts the objectivity of the crew, and explains how according to his local government’s policy or maybe just culture that even an allegation proven to be false could ruin a man. He frantically worried about his own life and livelihood being over. How no one would ever trust him again. Of course, the Voyager investigator promises him a fair shake at things. Since this is fantasy fiction, we can believe this promise.

Meanwhile, the Doctor spends time with Seven and asks her how she feels about the whole thing. At first she has no feelings at all, but then the doctor gives the following impassioned speech:

Doctor: How are you feeling?
SEVEN: I am undamaged.
Doctor: But how do you feel? Seven, your physical scars have healed, but the psychological effects are still there. You’ll have to deal with them.
SEVEN: For what purpose?
Doctor: In order to heal. Kovin attacked you, violated your rights as an individual. It’s important that you recognise that, so you can understand any hostility or resentment you might be feeling.
SEVEN: Resentment is a human trait. It has no structure, no function. I want no part of it.
Doctor: You’re going to have to begin accepting the fact that your human feelings exist, and that suppressing them can damage you.
SEVEN: If I am not aware of these feelings, how can I express them?
Doctor: Let me ask you this. What would have happened if Kovin had tried to take Borg technology directly from the Collective?
SEVEN: He would have been assimilated.
Doctor: Precisely. Which is why he chose you. He could get what he wanted without running any risks.
SEVEN: It was my individuality which made me vulnerable.
Doctor: Exactly. He violated that individuality. What he did is an affront to everything you are, Borg and Human.
SEVEN: It was the act of a coward.
Doctor: Yes! Someone who was willing to use you in the cruellest way so that he could create new weapons and sell them.
SEVEN: I believe I’m beginning to experience anger. Anger toward Kovin.
Doctor: Good. That’s a perfectly healthy, normal response. And when Kovin gets what he deserves, you’re going to feel much better.

So the Doctor takes a non-emotional Seven and convinces her to become an angry, accusatory bitch. And this after he helped her “find” these examination memories through psychoanalytical hypnotic regression. Replace “Doctor” with feminism and “seven” with the average woman and you have our culture writ large. How the hell did the commissars miss this thought-crime?

The rest of the crew continues the investigation in Kovin’s laboratory and come up with only circumstantial evidence. The only thing remotely supporting Seven’s story (or is it the Doctor’s?) is some borg nanobots which were still active when they shouldn’t be. (That part is just technobabble they made up for plot convenience, don’t think too hard about it.) The doctor then tells Kovin he must have done it because of this “evidence” which causes him to go insane, grab a gun, and try to escape in his ship.

While pursuing the ship, they do an additional test on Seven to see if the active nanobots which should have been inactive could have unexpectedly become active from an accidental discharge of the weapon in question. If so, then they would have literally no evidence to support Seven’s story. The test confirms that an accidental discharge could have led to the spurious state of the nanobots. Everyone at this point except Seven, who was still under the influence of the Doctor’s incompetence, accepts that whatever Seven was remembering it wasn’t something that happened with Kovin. Probably it was something she experienced or witnessed while still part of the borg because they do that kind of stuff all the time.

Voyager catches up to Kovin and Captain Janeway tries to explain that they made a mistake and that they know he is innocent. He doesn’t have to run. Kovin replies and says he thinks it is a trick and that they just want to capture him to put him through the wringer. He lashes out and starts firing on voyager. Voyager doesn’t return fire and tries to beam him off his ship, but can’t for technobabble reasons. Something overloads on his ship and boom, no more Kovin.

It is at this point where Janeway, Seven, and the Doctor all start to feel remorse for what happened. Thanks to their actions, they end up destroying an innocent man’s life. Fictional leftists are far more self-aware and reflecting than their real-life counter-parts. At the end the doctor (AKA feminism) describes himself like so:

“I became a self-righteous advocate and didn’t stop to think for one second that I might be wrong.”

Captain Janeway consoles him somewhat in this way:

“We all rallied around seven, doctor, myself included. I wanted her to know she was part of this family. That we would support her, fight for her, no matter what. We let our good intentions blind us.”

I honestly can’t think of another instance off the top of my head where a Star Trek episode tries to give a cautionary moral lesson about the leftist tendency to engage in manic episodes of moral self-rightiousness. In fact it is difficult to think of any episodes which are tacitly non-leftist. And it was in Voyager of all things. Quite extraordinary. For all the problems with the utopianism in Star Trek, you have to give credit where it is due. This was an exceptionally well done exploration of false allegations and the potentially lethal negative consequences they might have. It might even be worthwhile to show this episode to someone who can’t seem to “get it” that there are false rape accusations and that they are the epitomy of injustice. Given the leftist tendency for purely emotional thinking, the fact that they get to know the characters as people might help them learn something new through their thick skulls.

Ultimately, the take away is that the Doctor is the main villain here. If he hadn’t been such a self-righteous busy body, Seven would have never come to believe that she had been assaulted when she hadn’t. She also wouldn’t have progressed from believing in the assault to a start of anger with a desire for revenge. If the doctor hadn’t jumped the gun on what some piece of “evidence” actually indicated, Kovin wouldn’t have felt the need to run. A situation was created that didn’t need to exist, and was escalated far beyond reason thanks to the involvement of an ideologically rigid and corrupt third party. This is essentially how feminism behaves with respect to family law as well as rape. Domestic violence, divorce, alimony, child custody as well as other areas are all things that could be handled far more reasonably than they are now and the only reason they are not is because of the political involvement of feminism.

The part where Kovin goes belligerent as a result of the injustice of a false accusation is reminiscent of the relatively frequent lashing out by fathers forced through the family court system. I know it isn’t exactly the same thing, but it results from a similar sort of court bias which leads to excessive credulity of society and the courts with respect to false allegations. And honestly, I don’t even know if you could find any data about how common violent revenge is as a response to a false allegation of rape. This may or may not fit a similar pattern. Though all parts of the current family regime is problematic, the part of it which is closest to a false allegation of rape is false allegations of domestic violence. False allegations of domestic violence are commonly used by women in divorce and/or child custody battles against their husbands as a tactic to get favorable rulings. They are almost always believed no matter how baseless the accusation.

As far as I am aware, there aren’t any well put together studies on violence committed by men forced through the family court system, but legal professionals (judges and lawyers) seem to be aware of it and have wrote or talked with the media about it. One family court judge, who was shot in the chest with a sniper rifle an inch above his heart but survived wrote about the issue.

Eight years ago, while I stood in my chambers at the Family Court building in Reno, Nevada, a sniper shot me just above the heart from the upper level of a parking garage about 200 yards away. The shooter was a husband no longer content with battling his wife about assets and child custody in a divorce action. [talk about the mother of all understatements] I wasn’t his first target that morning. Before driving to the courthouse, he stabbed his wife to death at his suburban home during an exchange of their nine-year-old daughter.

Perpetrators of courthouse violence cannot be limited to one or more demographic profiles. They are mostly men, but of all ages, levels of educational attainment, employment histories, criminal histories, and experiences with substance abuse. They can be identified, not by their characteristics, but by their motivations… Two-thirds are motivated by a desire to take revenge. More than half of perpetrators seeking revenge intend to kill.

One-half of all court-related violence is family law related. It occurs in conjunction with cases involving divorce, alimony, child custody, child support, or domestic violence restraining orders.

Few judicial attackers suffer from mental illness. Nothing in the literature states or implies that perpetrators of court-targeted violence act under the influence of a mental imbalance or an irresistible impulse. They have not lost their free will or their ability to control their emotions. They act purposefully.

Forty years of record keeping show that the perpetrator is the person most likely to be killed in courthouse violence. Law enforcement officers are injured almost as often as perpetrators but are much less likely to be killed. Ex-wives and family members of the perpetrators make up the largest group of unarmed victims of courthouse violence, followed by members of the general public. Judges are not the most frequent victims of attack but, when they are, they are twice as likely to be killed as wounded. Court staff and judges’ families have also been victims, but with lesser frequency than these other categories of persons.

Courthouse violence also has a psychological cost. On May 5, 1992, during a divorce proceeding at the Clayton Courthouse near St. Louis, Missouri, a husband went on a shooting rampage. In less than 10 minutes, he killed his wife; shot his own lawyer and his wife’s lawyer; shot at, but missed, the judge; and wounded three other people who happened to be in the vicinity of the courtroom. A three-year longitudinal study was conducted of the consequences of the violence for courthouse staff, law enforcement personnel, attorneys, and others who were present during the attack. Two months after the incident, almost three-quarters were suffering a wide range of psychiatric symptoms including anxiety, difficulty concentrating, and substance abuse. Some continued to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder three years later. A study of the judges in my judicial district following my shooting found that my colleagues had responses that could potentially interfere with judicial functioning. Almost one-half expressed recognition that their fear of violence might affect their decision making. Courthouse violence causes continuing emotional effects and substance abuse. It can lower memory capacity, interrupt decision making, and increase stereotyping in decision makers.

So, unlike every other form of violent crime, attacks against family courts transcend race, economic status, educational attainment, and substance abuse (according to this judge, who presumably has enough credentials to be trustworthy). Now that is equality we can believe in. The only non-equal part of it is that it is almost always men, but that might have something to do with the overwhelming gynocentric bias of the family court system. Its funny that every time you read a lawyer’s take on this cultural phenomena they almost never ask whether or not there is something wrong with the system itself. Their main concern is how to conduct business as usual while reducing risk; so they typically just advocate for increased security. Can’t let this legal cash cow get away. They do admit that immediate concern for their own personal safety might prompt them to be less likely to dick over fathers, so there is that I guess. Completely unconsidered and selfish though that sentiment is.

Another article has some interesting quotes:

“There’s a saying that in criminal court, you have bad people at their best,” said Texas Supreme Court Judge Debra Lehrmann, who spent more than 20 years as a family court judge. “In family law, you get good people at their worst. In criminal court, dangerous people are in handcuffs. In family court, you don’t have any idea who is dangerous…”

“It’s not uncommon [to be threatened],” said Linda Lea Viken, a family law practitioner in Rapid City, S.D., and the president of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. “I’ve talked to women lawyers who have had guns pulled on them. I’ve talked to a lot of lawyers who were threatened. It seems like everyone has a story.” Viken has had her mailbox smashed and a golf ball sent through her office window; she suspects that both incidents were instigated by estranged husbands of clients. The only time she felt truly frightened for her safety, however, was when a man against whom she had obtained a protection order for a client followed her home from her office one night two years ago.


Todd Scott, vice president of risk management and member services for Minnesota Lawyers Mutual Insurance Co., began looking in 2010 for safety advice that he could pass on to his attorney clients and was surprised to find few formal resources. “I would go to these attorney panels and seminars, and almost everywhere I spoke, there was a local story about someone getting attacked or killed, and family law is at the top of the list.”

England has similar problems. Though the mail goes out of its way to avoid mentioning that it is mostly fathers aggrieved by the injustice of the system doing most of this.

If you take responsible, reliable, law-abiding fathers and totally shit on them in family court by taking their children away, giving his children and most of his assets to a woman who hasn’t worked in 5 years, then force him to pay 50-70 or more percent of his income to her on a monthly basis, it shouldn’t surprise anyone if this once decent and economically productive man feels he has nothing left to live for and decides to take out every dirty S.O.B. who screwed him over.

Share Button

Conversation with a Blue Pill Churchian

Though I am not religious, I do have some Christian friends. These friends tend to be more independently minded and have some serious gripes with the average church because of some commonly held, yet arguably unbiblical beliefs many church congregations share.

Last night, I was hanging out with these friends when we were all invited out to eat by some of their churchian friends. Knowing of my irreligious philosophy and reasonably high level of debating skills, my friends like to instigate debates between myself and churchians when the opportunity arises. They find it entertaining… However, as I have grown older I have come to realize that attacking the core beliefs of the tribe, assuming they aren’t self-destructive, is bad-form and unnecessary. John Derbyshire put this thought succinctly:

The sensible dissident should in fact practice a lot of self-restraint. He should in particular show a proper respect for the idols of the tribe. When I was a teenager back in England it was the custom at movie theaters that when the movie program ended, the National Anthem would be played. Everyone was supposed to stand up and be still for the duration. Well, of course, by the age of sixteen I had seen through all that stupid monarchy stuff — a bunch of rich people living in palaces and doing no useful work. Stand up for them? Not me! So I and some like-minded coevals would bravely sit through the anthem. This generated a lot of disapproval from other patrons, leading once or twice almost to fist-fights. We’d made our dissident point, though.

Now I know that the point was not worth making. Harmless tribal rituals are not to be objected to. They are part of the glue that holds a nation together. That’s a fundamental conservative insight. If you’re going to dissent, dissent about something that matters.

What matters? Truth.

So rather than indulging my friends in some heated argument about whether or not the bible is literal truth, I opted instead to focus on something that is arguable from within the Christian frame. This is of course that of proper gender roles, family values, and marriage.

I began by stating that I tend to agree with the Christian community that marriage is between a man and a woman. The intention of marriage is to force people, many of whom are deeply irresponsible, into providing the optimum environment for the raising of children and to keep birthrates high enough that there isn’t precipitous population declines. Most importantly, widespread traditional marriage works to reduce criminality and other social problems in that generation of children and this effect requires both a mother and a father.(1) Gay “marriage” does not contribute to this goal and thus is not a legitimate institution. It is an idea deprived of purpose and is thus meaningless.

However, overall I view gays getting married as trivial. There aren’t many of them to begin with, and even then only a small portion of them have interest in “marriage.” In terms of numbers, whether they marry or not probably won’t have much direct impact. (Kafkaesque enforcement by the Cathedral of twisted values will have much worse consequences, however). More important than that, though, is this fallacy that marriage in its current form is still a functional institution that is capable of further destruction. Marriage will not be destroyed by gay marriage. It was destroyed, past tense, in the 1970s with the introduction of no fault divorces combined with alimony and child support. The later is supported especially by the informal assumption that children should virtually always go to the mother such that she is the recipient of the child support. The results of these laws is the currently very high divorce rate in the US. The churchian community has not been immune or otherwise done anything significant to halt divorce surging among their members.

Thus, the argument instigated was that while the church may have its heart in the right place, it has completely and utterly failed in its mission of being pro-family as judged by the consequences of its muteness or even support of divorce policies which destroyed marriage. These policies are several orders of magnitude more important than gay marriage. Moreover, the enthusiasm with which single mothers and sluts are readily accepted into the church causes huge problems when naive young men are encouraged to marry them because the church condones them as proper wife material when they are not. The churches’ stances on these issues demonstrate that in this respect they are hardly living up to what it is supposed to mean to be Christian. Such was my opening statement in the debate.

To this, our blue pill churchian responded that all sin is equal and that once Christ has been accepted people truly are born again on earth. Their past mistakes are washed away. Thus, the sluts are not just redeemed in a spiritual sense with respect to the afterlife but also in physical reality they are no longer sluts. This redemption process is capable of making them into suitable wives here and now in their lifetime and no harm could possibly come to pairing them off with Christian men who have actually been following traditional values.

I think I was about to have an aneurysm. As I told him, whatever he may want to believe about forgiveness of sin, we have clear evidence that forgiving whorishness does not make a slut a good wife. I have no problem with the idea of forgiving people their mistakes, but the idea that forgiveness can be equated with removing all consequences of mistakes within physical life is nonsense. I made the following rebuttal up without reference to any specific theology, but it supported my point and that is an important component of debate. I confidently stated that forgiveness of sin applies mainly to concerns of spiritual life after death. Forgiveness does not remove consequences of actions within a person’s lifetime, and can not make a slut into a non-slut. They will have to deal with the consequences of their sin even if forgiveness of said sin allows them to still go to heaven. There is no such thing as a “born-again virgin.”

Feel free to tell me I’m wrong on scriptural grounds. As I have stated previously, if scripture can legitimately be used to justify the born-again virgin position then it is just wrong and should be ignored. We know it is wrong based on studies and statistics that compare the marriages of sluts with non-sluts. Sluts making for bad wives is a reality of the world we live in and no faith-based arguments can overturn the evidence.

With this in mind, I iterated that most deplorable of all was that objectively good men who are good husband material were being thrown on the spikes for the sake sinful whores because of this faith in immediate transformation within a person’s lifetime. Unbelievably to me, he stated that we are all equally sinful. A practicing Christian man who follows abstinence before marriage and otherwise does a fair job at trying to be Christian is just as sinful (say he masturbated once) as the born-again virgin. There is no differentiation between the magnitude of different sins. Small mistakes of one are equivalent to large mistakes of the other. Ridiculous egalitarianism truly is a concept memetically descended from Christian theology. Since this faithfully Christian man is considered to be equally sinful with the whore, there is no reason to treat each one differently based on different degrees of sin. In fact, he stated that it was only right and proper to throw the poor guy under the bus because his suffering would bring him closer to god. Face palm. No wonder so few men go to church these days. They aren’t going to look out for your interests, that is for sure.

The churchian used two scriptural passages to justify these attitudes. He first paraphrased Hosea to support marrying sluts as well as handing money and resources over to them; the later being a justification of the current policies which facilitate wealth transfers from men to women during divorce. In Hosea, god commanded the prophet to marry a slut and have children by her. However, she eventually went back to whoring and she was to be hated and foiled. Despite this, god then commanded Hosea to literally buy her back and supposedly this command can be extrapolated to all men by the churchian’s view. See the paragraphs which he uses to justify his view:

When the Lord began to speak through Hosea, the Lord said to him, “Go, marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her, for like an adulterous wife this land is guilty of unfaithfulness to the Lord.”  So he married Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son.

[After gomer went back to whoring] The Lord said to me, “Go, show your love to your wife again, though she is loved by another man and is an adulteress. Love her as the Lord loves the Israelites, though they turn to other gods and love the sacred raisin cakes.”

So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and about a homer and a lethek of barley.  Then I told her, “You are to live with me many days; you must not be a prostitute or be intimate with any man, and I will behave the same way toward you.”

The above is from hosea 1 and 3 respectively. This is all extremely blue pill and seems to support his claim that the bible is in favor of marrying sluts. However, Hosea 2 is very, very red pill in how it treats the slut. So what we have is a sort of blue pill sandwich with red pill meat:

“Rebuke your mother, rebuke her,
for she is not my wife,
and I am not her husband.
Let her remove the adulterous look from her face
and the unfaithfulness from between her breasts.
Otherwise I will strip her naked
and make her as bare as on the day she was born;
I will make her like a desert,
turn her into a parched land,
and slay her with thirst.
I will not show my love to her children,
because they are the children of adultery.
Their mother has been unfaithful
and has conceived them in disgrace.
She said, ‘I will go after my lovers,
who give me my food and my water,
my wool and my linen, my olive oil and my drink.’
Therefore I will block her path with thornbushes;
I will wall her in so that she cannot find her way.
She will chase after her lovers but not catch them;
she will look for them but not find them.
Then she will say,
‘I will go back to my husband as at first,
for then I was better off than now.’
She has not acknowledged that I was the one
who gave her the grain, the new wine and oil,
who lavished on her the silver and gold—
which they used for Baal.

“Therefore I will take away my grain when it ripens,
and my new wine when it is ready.
I will take back my wool and my linen,
intended to cover her naked body.
10 So now I will expose her lewdness
before the eyes of her lovers;
no one will take her out of my hands.
11 I will stop all her celebrations:
her yearly festivals, her New Moons,
her Sabbath days—all her appointed festivals.
12 I will ruin her vines and her fig trees,
which she said were her pay from her lovers;
I will make them a thicket,
and wild animals will devour them.
13 I will punish her for the days
she burned incense to the Baals;
she decked herself with rings and jewelry,
and went after her lovers,
but me she forgot,”
declares the Lord.

Well, if the story was concluded with this passage, then I would say he was wrong in his interpretation. However, after this passage Hosea was ordered to take her back despite how depraved she was so in my view Hosea clearly supports his case. I suppose it could be argued that this was only meant to apply to Hosea in the particular and no one else because he was a prophet in a specific situation (Hosea’s relationship with his wife was a metaphor for the contemporary relationship between God and Israel), but even if that is true not everyone is going to understand that and confusion will be continual. In this instance the bible has proven to not be a good supporter of traditional values. It clearly opens the door for men to be thrown under the bus for whores based on scripture. This is a nasty strike against using the bible as the foundational text to support traditional values and gender roles. Criticism of the bible from the right, who would have guessed.

He also directly quoted Corinthians chapter 5 to consciously and purposefully support throwing men under the bus.  Let’s see if that fares as badly:

So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Yikes! During the conversation I was quite taken aback by this clear support of throwing men under the bus. Although I clearly don’t agree with what he is trying to support with this quote, I do find it entertaining that he inadvertently implied that sluts and whores are equivalent to the ultimate embodiment of evil. Anyway, thanks to smart phones, the context was made clearer then and there:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough?  Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”

To me, this passage does nothing to support the churchian’s argument. If anything, it clearly shows that the exact opposite of what he was saying was advocated. Though, the solution is to expel the sluts rather than accept them while avoiding promoting them as marriage partners. Fair enough, I have no objections with that. In fact, the bible’s solution is better than the compromise of forgiveness without encouragement of commitment I suggested during the argument. In this case, I believe his interpretation was wrong and that the bible is supporting traditional values here.

Is it just me, or does the actual consequence of the churchian thought pattern and action seem more likely to drive men away from the people who give them bad advice rather than bring them even deeper into Christianity? Regardless of its being justified by scripture or not, I have already addressed the belief in born-again virgins and the encouragement of good men marrying them in my “Chastity, Once Lost, is Forever Gone” post, so I guess I will just quote myself:

[The idea of a born-again virgin is] that if a girl repents her actions she can be forgiven and it will be like it never happened. Maybe this can be justified by verses in the bible, and maybe it can’t. Certain Churchians certainly made a persuasive stab at it. Not being a Christian, I will let you know you can save your theological arguments. As far as I am concerned, if this can be justified in the bible, then the bible is wrong. If it can’t, great. If some people can be legitimately and understandably confused on whether the bible supports this then Christian Traditionalists have a real problem. Even if it can be demonstrated through some convoluted means that “born-again virgin” isn’t a Christian concept, ambiguity here is a very big fault with using the book as the basis for the traditional family. That being a slut can’t be taken back should not be ambiguous in any way in the foundational religious document of a society. Chastity, once lost, is forever gone.

Back in my more red pill, less reactionary days it was widely known and accepted among my group of friends that the “born-again virgin” girls were easy prey. And yes, we occasionally went to “singles” church events to find these girls despite not being religious. Lots of them were single mothers. Most would get drunk and have premarital sex with you Saturday night before stomping off to church Sunday morning in hopes of tricking some poorly advised Christian beta into paying for her and her bastard children. The “born-again virgin” status of these so-called “Christian” women is a complete fabrication. Their facade is a purely Machiavellian attempt to maximize their Alpha Fucks/Beta bucks mating strategy. And like the rest of society, the Christian community is far too credulous of these girl’s crocodile tears of repentance. Worse yet, they gladly throw the legitimately Christian men under the bus by pressuring them into dating and marrying these skanks. No wonder men are leaving the church in droves. I would too if I was given shitty advice like “marry the sluts”. I would leave any such organization which thought that way and I would laugh when it was completely destroyed, as it justly should be.

This was more or less the same response I gave our blue pill churchian in the argument.

I made sure to highlight the fact that modern churches are extremely emasculating and attitudes like those promoting the marriage of sluts were driving the trend of low male attendance at christian churches. To this the churchian informed me that the church does support masculine virtues. He obliged my request for him to describe masculine virtues and used adjectives like gentleness, kindness, meekness, tenderness, compassion and other similar things. All of these things aren’t masculine virtues, but feminine virtues. I should point out that he wasn’t using the right definition of meekness which is a synonym for timidness (I grilled him on that). Rather, he thought it meant “strength under control.” Strength under control actually isn’t that bad of a masculine virtue, but meekness does not mean that. I assume that he has absorbed all of these so-called “masculine virtues” from various sermons he has heard, including the incorrect definition of meekness.

With these weak and effeminate concepts of masculinity being preached in churches, is it any wonder that male attendance is down to 43% overall and as low as 35% in certain denominations and churches with female ministers. Female ministers is particularly ludicrous to me. If you claim to believe in the bible, you can’t allow women to even speak at church let alone establish them as leaders. Corinthians 14:34:

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.

The previous link elaborates on the feminization of the church that drives men away in droves. Here are some select quotes:

Yet, as Murrow (2005a, 8 ) points out, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam all have at least as many male adherents as female ones. Podles (1999, ix) also notes that, within Christianity, the Orthodox Church has a general [sic] balance. The implication is clear: it is not that religion or spirituality per se are inimical to men. Rather, it must be specific forms and expressions of religion or spirituality that alienate men and deter their participation.

‘Perhaps the main focus of those who criticise the Church for having become feminised is that its worship is too ‘touchy-feely’, overemotional or over-personal. This has been derogatorily called ‘Jesus is my boyfriend’ (or, more provocatively, ‘girlfriend’) worship. As Murrow (2005a, 187) argues, “today’s praise music invites the worshipper to assume the feminine role” and praise music can resemble the Top 40 love songs.’

‘It is a commonplace that masculinity is in crisis. Men are experiencing considerable confusion over their identity, in terms of who they are and what their roles are. As the end of the millennium approached, Roy McCloughry reported “a loss of definition and a confusion about what is expected of men… It is amazing how quickly men seem to have lost their confidence”

Clearly this crisis in masculinity in the church (and everywhere else) is quite rampant. This churchian has no clue what masculinity actually is and in fact seems to think a whole host of feminine virtues define what it means to be masculine. I don’t believe this is his fault, honestly. It is the fault of the church leaders who have adopted ideas from feminism (probably without quite realizing it) about the differences between men and women. They then teach these false beliefs to their flock which sets the men trying to do the right thing up for complete failure. At one point, after arguing that even if church leaders forgive sluts their sin when they repent, they should not support chaste men marrying them. It is their responsibility as elders to properly guide young men to proper wives and help them avoid mistakes. His response was that the blind could not lead the blind and these young men should just be allowed to make the mistake. At the time I argued against him. The leaders should be somewhat knowledgeable of proper morality (and consequences of certain actions) and it is their duty to guide men correctly. However, later consideration of his quip made quickly and without reflection has unintentionally won me over on this position. This churchian’s blatantly blue pill, misandric, and factually inaccurate understanding of the male condition clearly demonstrates that church leaders are blind and have no business guiding anyone. Its like someone gauged out their eyes with a pitchfork.

(1) The paper shown studied the differences between children raised in normal families vs. gay “families” and found that children raised by gays are worse off. You should be able to download it at the link provided, but if not go to /r/scholar and you can request it (make sure you read their instructions for how to get it before making a request). The paper is “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study” by Mark Regnerus. To view the anti-science response to this article by the cathedral, look for “Politicized science” by Richard Redding.

Share Button

Marriage as a business contract and the case for father custody

http://morguefile.com/archive/display/743116

Sunshine Mary stopped by to voice her concerns about the hypothetical traditional community I proposed in my “who is the true enemy of neoreaction” posts (part 1, part 2). First she brought up that premarital promiscuity in males increased the risk of men cheating.

Hello, I’m not neoreactionary but I’m interested in these topics, so I hope you won’t mind if I offer a few thoughts for your consideration.

First, the problem is that a man’s previous sexual history does, in fact, affect his marital stability. In the study that Social Pathologist cited, it didn’t affect divorce stats the way it did for women, but Susan Walsh compiled this data from the GSS data:

http://i0.wp.com/www.hookingupsmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/MMMN.png

If you’re going to build a community with a bunch of burned-out PUAs, statistically they’re likely to be all over each other’s women. I don’t think that’s going to make a stable society. (I wrote about this in an old blog post, if you are interested:http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/the-promiscuity-widower/ )

This is partially addressed here.  I fully concede that there are a variety of reasons to discourage male promiscuity.  However, as elaborated in that post, there hasn’t been much work on demonstrating that male premarital promiscuity leads to higher divorce rates and so I am not convinced that it should be on the list of reasons for male chastity. If premarital promiscuity does lead to greater male infidelity post-marriage, but not to increased risk of divorce, that would be an interesting finding to say the least. Though it would be consistent with the red pill understanding of female psychology as well as empirical evidence. If a man is attractive enough to be able to cheat, that demonstrates his high value to his frustrated, but now more interested, wife.

She then goes on to bring up a very important point about child support:

Second, I understand the impulse to eschew state-based marriage because it seems like that should clear up cash-n-prizes frivorce, but in fact it doesn’t do so if there are children present. Dalrock has concluded that the problem is primarily child support payments, and whether or not there was a legal marriage, a man (or theoretically a woman) will still be ordered by the courts to pay child support, which is the real incentive. So relying on the absence of legal marriage won’t work; you have to think through how you’d deal with child support issues.

I expanded a bit on my original reply for this post:

Though the label of the image isn’t very clear, it seems to be trying to indicate that more sexual partners increases the risk of men cheating during marriage and this may be true, but doesn’t necessarily mean the men will divorce their wives or stop providing for their families. That is the actual standard of importance for men in marriage.

The problem is the idea that men and women are equivalent and bring the same assets to the union. In marriage, women trade their sexuality for male resources and provisioning. This is to give him a guarantee that the children he is providing for are in fact his. Women do not trade their sexuality for male sexuality because under no circumstances will women ever be able to doubt that their children are theirs. On the contrary, many women seem to prefer men with previous partners because it provides evidence that he is high value. Without the potential cost of accidentally raising another woman’s child, women can afford to be more tolerant of their husband’s dalliances.

[assuming marriage 1.0] A woman’s greatest possible failure in a union is infidelity because when she married that is the resource she willingly traded to her husband. Post marriage, he owns her sexuality and the products thereof exclusively. A man’s greatest possible failure in a marriage is the abandonment or inability to provide for his wife and children. Post marriage, she (and her children) own his provisioning exclusively. Infidelity on the part of the wife is a breach of contract and forfeits any claim she has on the products of his labor.

As a matter of principle and in the interest of harmony it is a good idea to strongly discourage male infidelity, but the relative gravity of the transgression is not as large as female infidelity. This is why I stated in my post that for men, sexual history is more optional. Leniency here wouldn’t destroy the community in my opinion. Though this is technically true, I certainly understand principled rejection of PUAs from the hypothetical community. More likely than facing PUAs off, though, I suspect you will have to decide to accept or reject men with a few to moderate level of previous partners (not true PUAs), so it wouldn’t be as clear cut.

I agree that in the current situation child custody is a problem. The only way around it for this hypothetical community would be for them to band together and collectively resist any attempts by the state to enforce such payments, similar to how the farmers resisted the abduction of their cattle. A single man would not succeed by himself.

In marriage 1.0, it is the man’s duty to provide provisions for his wife and children, not the wife’s. Should a wife destroy the union, his biological children should be awarded fully to the father who will provide sole support as it was always his sole responsibility per the original marriage contract. When he married, the man purchased the ownership of his wife’s sexuality and any children that result from that sexuality in exchange for his provisioning. When a husband and wife separate in marriage 1.0, the wife has no claim on the children. They aren’t and were never hers. Does this place a significant burden on men? Yes it does, but living up to high expectations and prevailing in difficult situations is what men do. It is their traditional role. So long as they are systematically and fairly rewarded and acknowledged for their efforts, there is no reason not to expect men to shoulder a larger burden than women. In addition, fully ejecting the woman who destroyed her marriage from the community implies that she should not even be allowed to see the children. If this sounds harsh to you, keep in mind that this is SUPPOSED to be a disincentive, it has to be harsh.

Trying to pull some small amount of money from her isn’t worth the cost of the community continuing to interact with her. Even today where women are “liberated” men as a group generate most of the wealth so it is very unlikely that chasing after her will yield much anyway. It is better to simply accept that the man will have to shoulder all of the burden, but at least they get the full benefit of taking on the extra responsibility by having complete and sole access to their children.

Now, it is true that every situation is different and there are and would be cases where the husband is at fault. A competent arbiter would probably be needed to evaluate such situations and make rare exceptions when needed. However, without compelling evidence that a man had somehow failed his duties of material support, custody should be awarded to fathers by default.

 

Share Button