I don’t write about sex and gender and all that because what do I know? The sum total of relationships I have had is one. I’m not an incel - except intermittently as a result of family purity laws - but I probably would have been an incel if Orthodox Judaism didn’t give me a cheat code. Also, I’m married now 16 years and I don’t understand my wife at all. Luckily, she’s pious and tolerant so I don’t have to deal with all the stuff that people complain about online. I have no idea how to navigate any of these issues and I have no incentive to find out. Plus, tznius.
However, my edge as a blogger is just not saying things that are obviously ridiculous and thus gaining arbitrage in intra-retardation debates. With that in mind, hero Michael Tracey has been extending his campaign to exonerate subjects of high-profile rape-accusations, leading to a split in the pro-Epstein community. Michael Tracey’s argument is summed up here:
Or, as distilled further by a commenter:
It is clear that large majorities of the public think that it should be illegal to be like Jeffrey Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, Puff Daddy or Russell Brand, that is to say dedicating substantial portions of your life to having sexual intercourse with hundreds of different women.
There is a perfectly good utilitarian justification for this. It’s basically impossible to have sex with that many people that quickly and not leave some proportion of them emotionally and spiritually damaged. The simplest way to make sure that your lothario exploits are not leaving a string of wrecked human beings in their wake is to lower the quantity and velocity of your sex life. (An additional reason is that this is demoralising to ordinary guys who struggle to land one woman and maintain her sexual interest if it’s all too out in the open that total jerks are getting multiple beautiful women to put out per day. This contributes to them becoming depressed and/or misogynists.)
The problem is that according to the law, as well as generally accepted ethical theory, (a) the only morally and legally relevant aspect of sexual intercourse is consent and (b) women are not emotionally or intellectually weaker than men and do not require special protection from harm caused by consensual intercourse. This leads to increasingly baroque attempts to define women who were willing participants as victims of rape, sex trafficking and other neologisms. This is bad for at least two reasons. First, it degrades the legal process in a way that could potentially spill over into other areas undermining basic civil liberties. Secondly, it leads to people believing that there is far more sex trafficking and rape in elite circles than there actually is, and some of them are going totally potty over this.
Consent is an absolutely terrible tool for regulating this sort of sexual behaviour. The ‘consentyness’ of these kind of interactions doesn’t correlate very well with their ‘traumatisingness’. Also, it’s extremely hard to prove whether or not consent happened, and once you move beyond the ‘rape-rape’ scenarios, it’s not clear it even makes sense in light of neuroscience. I don’t want to get all manosphere about the alarming numbers of women who have rape fantasies, but even the good ones don’t want you to gross them out by actually asking.
Therefore, if as a society we do not want this behaviour we should just ban it. Pick a number, let’s say 60 as a starting guess, and simply make it illegal to have sex with more than that number of women in any given calendar year.
This is a very good suggestion. One objection is that such a law would be very hard to enforce, but that is no objection at all when comparing it to rape, which is famous for exactly that thing. It would actually be a lot easier to enforce this law, but, crucially, you don’t even need to. No-one actually cares if some lowlife is trawling Tinder for hoes all day, they just don’t want these people to be famous celebrities on telly or friends with powerful politicians. Just as the BBC couldn’t employ Russell Brand if he was openly discussing being a drug dealer because that’s a criminal offence, so if this was the law, he’d either have to scale it back, or they’d have to fire him. And that’s what we all want, so why not just do it? Because you’re a lib? Well, just stop.
So far, we’ve been sticking to moderate and reasonable ideas. The median number of lifetime sexual partners for men in the United States 25-49 is 6.3, so a law like this will have no impact whatsoever on 99% of people unlike expansive definitions of rape that could theoretically lead to millions being imprisoned if their ex decides to be vindictive. However, I do have a controversial suggestion too.
In Jewish law, there is no such thing as rape as a criminal offence, but there is such a thing as rape as exempting the woman from criminal responsibility. In the classic example, if a betrothed or married woman has sex with another man, both parties incur the death penalty. If, however, he raped her, only he gets the death penalty. If there is no way to prove whether he raped her or not, then we assume he did. For the same reason it’s hard to prove there wasn’t consent, it’s also hard to prove that there was.
Heterosexual anal sex was illegal in most places until recently. It was legalised in the UK in 1994, in the United States as a whole in 2003, in Israel in 1988 (thanks Yitzhak Shamir), New Zealand in 1986, in Singapore in 2008. Only depraved freak-show country, France, legalised it all the way back in 1791.
The key Russell Brand allegation concerns anal sex and whether it was consensual in light of the circumstances. I will assume that either you have read the details or don’t want to (good for you if so). In any case, while I’m not 100% sure if anal sex should be illegal, it should definitely be illegal like that. Gross, WTF is wrong with you?
It is agreed beyond reasonable doubt that the incident happened. He says it was consensual and she says it wasn’t. Additional evidence points in opposite directions. If the offence being judged is rape, the burden of proof is on prosecution, and one may very reasonably doubt if this was cleared during the trial that ended in his conviction. However, if the offence is deviancy, then it’s easy. He gets 5 years in prison for being a pervert and she says it wasn’t consensual so she doesn’t. That’s the outcome you want, so just legislate it.
As a side-note, the claim that Russell Brand was persecuted for becoming right-wing is basically false. His conversion to Christianity and rightoidism happened after criminal investigations were opened. Before that, he was into generic apolitical health crankery conspiracy. The political angle here is that the Right are such easy marks that they don’t just welcome in someone who is clearly going to imminently crash out (like Kanye West), but even people who are already in the process of crashing out. It would actually be a good thing for the Right if retarded slopulist social media influencers who sell amulets were all put in prison. However, that isn’t going to happen. Even if there was a plan to do it, there are just too many of them anyway. It’s a demand issue, not a supply one.
While we’re at it, I also have a take about the Nvidia guy. On the internet, people are divided about whether he’s a bad person for cheating, or his wife is bad for not being attractive enough to hold his attention. Obviously, the second take is completely depraved. She’s 65 and looks completely fine. The first take, however, is unrealistic. It’s perfectly reasonable to use moral or religious arguments to persuade a guy with $155,000,000,000 net worth to keep to strict monogamous fidelity, even when his wife is old, but it’s not reasonable as a social expectation. If this is really the demand, then he’ll just get divorced. In all historical societies that enforced monogamy, this brute fact of human nature was dealt with by the institution of the ‘mistress’ or ‘concubine’. It’s not what you do if you are aiming for spiritual perfection, but it’s not a lot worse than eating factory-farmed meat.
Therefore, the CIA should assume that every rich citizen who is in possession of sensitive national-security information and flies around the world a lot has three mistresses and he must declare who they are so they can be vetted, or subject him to investigation to find out who they are. You might say that they are already doing this, but obviously they aren’t which is why this is a news story.
That’s all. It’s been a busy week. Starting a new job, wish me luck!
This seems very logical. I have no objections. It’s in the spirit of common law, mostly trying to discover the underlying folk law and make it explicit and procedural rather than impose a new mandate.
Not sure Zuckerberg has three mistresses but maybe it wouldn’t be bad to demand that he have three close female friends other than his wife.
your schizoest read in a while