Please see my response. Thanks.
 

Cheryl, you are looking to blame conservatives for the current atmosphere on College Campuses and, say, Bars and Clubs. In other words, the night-life atmosphere of Young People.

But you know that the Right-Wing Arch-Conservatives of the 1950's never wanted any of this and would have railed against it like they did for a while. (BTW, I am not a conservative nor am I a Republican).

The Free Love, Never-Be-Ashamed-Of-Yourself, Express-Your-Feelings, Make-Yourself-Happy attitude is an absolute direct result of Leftist ideology.

And, if I can try to clarify what that blunt guy was saying:
Think of how Young Men act when they are left to their own devices and live without any shame...Maxim/FHM Magazines, Howard Stern, Frat Parties, Keggers, Strip Clubs, Racing Cars, Getting in Fights, etc.

Do you respect this? Of course not. No adult with any thought towards a more Just America would expect you to. But, back in the day, most of these things were kept in line.

The "Boys will be Boys" actions of yerster-year were relatively harmless.

But now, anything goes. It was meant to apply to Young Women who were being educated during the Feminist Revolution. They did not need to stay within the restrictive lives that were once proscribed (prescribed?) for them. But, equality is everything, and it was important that both girls AND boys be taught the same lessons.

Now, guys no longer feeled constrained by old-fashioned ideas. Hitler-Loving Bible-Thumping Bush-Supporters do that.

These young guys grow up watching the Real World and MTV Spring Break and see Girls as equal players in (sexual) world.

Think of how much respect the average young man has towards the Average Young Man? Not much.

We (I am one) tend to think of Guys as Dogs. Only to be trusted after they have proven themselves (you never know if your friends are going to back you up until they actually back you up). Think of how many guys do not want their sisters dating their best friends. Why? Because they know that those guys are dogs.

So, back to this guy at Lewis and Clark.

He showed himself in no uncertain terms, to her, that he was asshole. What does she do, she Text Messages him and puts on a Tube Top. Her friend, a Guy, told her, point blank, "Don't go. He is an Asshole"

I ask you, do you think that she was turned off or turned on by the fact that this guy pursued what he wanted without any guilt or shame?

So, she shows up at his dorm. He is drunk. He pulls down her shirt (a move I could never have even fathomed). Her reaction to this most gallant of gestures? Well, you know the rest.

Is this Asshole then going to respect her after she blows him? My guess, he will think no more or less of her afterwards. She will be to him what she had always been. But then again, he let her know that before hand.
 

Ian, I know many men who are decent and kind and who would never engage in such behavior. They are not "dogs," and I find the view--whether from feminists or conservatives--that men are all secretly animals disgusting.

I'm not blaming conservatives for hook-up culture, but I am blaming them for taking the attitude that the Sexual Revolution has somehow absolved men of the responsibility to behave honorably toward women. The fact that we have the words "slut," "skank," "ho," etc. (despite feminist orthodoxy), but nothing to suggest a man is dishonorable is a problem. (And clearly this is not the way of the world, since we once did: e.g., "cad," "rake," "heel," "bounder." Note too that in Jane Austen, the man is always considered more morally blameworthy than the woman when it comes to sexual misconduct.)
 

Ian, I know many men who are decent and kind and who would never engage in such behavior.

I believe you, you are talking to one.

They are not "dogs," and I find the view--whether from feminists or conservatives--that men are all secretly animals disgusting.

You know that it is just a saying. I, we, don't really mean that men are actual dogs, but that when left to their own devices and without any boundaries being set by anyone or anything else, then, yes, we will attempt to indulge our more basic needs and desires.

...but I am blaming them for taking the attitude that the Sexual Revolution has somehow absolved men of the responsibility to behave honorably toward women

Well, I will respond to this. But, I had a lot to say about what the Leftists did, and you did not respond to all, or, any of those points. I would love to hear your opinion.

I can still remember when the Culture War was raging during the 80's and 90's and remember very well the idea, put forth by conservatives, that Men's appetites and Energies needed to be routed into socially constructive behaviour.

They would rail that the best way for a Man to get a Woman and feel like a Man was to Produce, Provide, Protect...but these are all anathema to the "We are all exactly equal" Leftist ideology.

However, I will absolutely concede this. Some people who are certainly not Leftists (but, most likely not Bible-Thumping Bush-Supporters) are now gleeful that the horrible tables have turned and now Girls must deal with "primal" Guys.

In other words, Schadenfreude.

The fact that we have the words "slut," "skank," "ho," etc. (despite feminist orthodoxy), but nothing to suggest a man is dishonorable is a problem. (And clearly this is not the way of the world, since we once did: e.g., "cad," "rake," "heel," "bounder." Note too that in Jane Austen, the man is always considered more morally blameworthy than the woman when it comes to sexual misconduct.)

Well, Cheryl, we call them Dogs. It was meant to be an insult. I can still remember Lilith on Cheers calling Sam a Dog and, well, it was definitely an insult.

There is also Cad, but that is not as good.

But this reminds me of a converstion I had with a Young Woman some years ago in NYC.

We were working together and talking about this basic topic. We had another co-worker who was the definition of the unrepetant Frat Boy. Well, I asked my friend, Ariel (sweet girl), how should we react if I called her a "Slut". She said that she would probably Slap me and the go cry.

Well, a minute later, that Frat Boy showed up and I looked him right in the Eye and said "You are a Slut!" with no smile on my face. He laughed with a proud smile and gave me a High-Five.

I turned to her and said, "Men and Women are different".

This was at the height of all that "Anything a Man can Do a a Woman Can Do (if not better)" garbage.
 

Cheryl, I wanted to respond to something else that you said:

Lastly, might I suggest that if you find yourself frequently in situations where you "ma[k]e [your] partners feel disrespected during sex," you should probably feel ashamed and try to change your behavior

I completely agree. You are right on. But, and this is huge, kids nowadays have it drilled into their heads to "never be ashamed of who they are".

That piece of advice is given almost as often as the number one piece of adive, "Always be yourself".

Again, do you think it was Arch-Conservatives who decided that this was the kind of advice that should be preached.

The Death of Shame is a product of Leftist Thought, not Conservative thought.

(You might think that I am only willing to pile it on the Leftists. I am all to aware of how, at least back in the day, Conservatives could easily preach one thing while living another. I am not blind.)

BTW, I read a lot about Trauma and PTSD. And, for a long time many reasearchers were stumped because it seemed that there was one major basic emotion that seemed to have no upside: Shame.

It seemed to cause so many problems, within the Theraputic world at least, and never seemed to cause anything good or positive.

Lately, they have been finding something interesting in there research.

Shame may have one small thing going for it. It may be THE BUILDING BLOCK of a good society. That is, people stop themselves from doing all sorts of things because they are either ashamed or would be ashamed to do it.

Fascinating stuff.
 

Some people who are certainly not Leftists (but, most likely not Bible-Thumping Bush-Supporters) are now gleeful that the horrible tables have turned and now Girls must deal with "primal" Guys.

In other words, Schadenfreude.

This is exactly my point. I definitely think the cultural Left carries a lot of responsibility for the current culture, but I'm less interested in arguing with them because we don't share the same premises. Also, there are more than enough articles and blog posts about feminism and the hook-up culture. Clearly, I'm not a feminist who thinks "everyone is equal," or I wouldn't have written what I did about the inequality of the sexes when it come to sex. Why should we argue about something we both agree on?

As bad as the sexual liberationist ethos of feminism is, in some ways, I find the "schadenfreude" of so-called conservatives worse. After all, they are aware that this behavior is morally repugnant, but they cheer it on as the just desserts of radical feminism.
 

Also, "dogs" as you used it is not the same as "cad." The saying "men are dogs" is basically "boys will be boys," i.e., that men are unable to control themselves in certain situations. "Cad" suggests that there is a certain standard of honorable male behavior and this particular person is morally blameworthy.

you also right:

I, we, don't really mean that men are actual dogs, but that when left to their own devices and without any boundaries being set by anyone or anything else, then, yes, we will attempt to indulge our more basic needs and desires.

Of course. But everyone--man and woman alike--is this way. As children, we throw fits when we don't get what we want, we take things that aren't ours, and basically act like little tyrants. It's the process of education that makes us into decent, civilized human beings. Universities--and the culture at large--have given up on this moral education, which is why it's so important for conservatives to insist on it for both women and men.
 

I think we are actually arguing the same thing. However, you are focusing on my assertion that there needs to a female responsibility component as justifying any male actions.

This is not the case.

Every person has their own sexual preferences and turn-ons. To go back to my spanking analogy. Some women like to be spanked, others don't If a young guy, and we are talking about young guys when we are talking about college campuses, has a previous girlfriend who liked to be spanked, and then spanks his next partner I don't neccessarily think that means he attempted to violate her in someway. This means as people encounter more and more people, they will learn what to do and not to do. The fun-crime dichotomy blurs this process. During this process there will be times when somebody, probably the woman, may feel violated. What I am trying to suggest is that not all of these cases should be criminalized. We need to discuss the differences in how men and women approach sex. If a woman spanks a man, odds are he would not take offense to it, but there are women who do.

This was my point about situations in which I have made women feel uncomfortable during sex. I haven't repeated this mistake, but it was nevertheless unintentional. We need to clarify for men that women do not usually view sex as just a physical act, but are emotionally involved as well.

Moreover, a woman who is drunk cannot have no responsibility whatsoever. She clearly has some if she gets behind the wheel of a car.

What I am saying is that we need to inform our college age women that getting drunk is dangerous, and that if you know a guy is an asshole he will probably be even more of an asshole if you go over to his house at 2am drunk and he is drunk. As you said, this was stupid. However, what the guy did was stupid too. I am not sure it is criminal.

We need to impress upon our young men that they must respect their partners as more than just a participant in a physical act, but also as somebody emotionally involved. As clear as this may be to women, this is not self-evident to young men. And we need to impress upon our young women that they need to take responsibility for their actions when drunk. This doesn't not mean they are "fair game" when drunk, but rather that they need to reconginze the risks before deciding to get drunk and to find ways to ameliorate those risks.

The sexual equality thing, and by this I mean the idea that there is no difference between men and women when it comes to sexual activity, masks this distinction. The result, or I fear the result, is to hold men criminally responsible for all acts that occur during a sexual encounter that make their partner feel violated. This does not mean a guy should continue to act in a manner that their partner felt violated, or that they should continue acting that way with subsequent partners, but that not all cases when a woman feels violated is a criminal act.

But to do this we need to awknowlege that women and men view sex differently. You do, but the driving force behind the sexual equality movement does not always. They want to say they are the same, and if a man does not understand that and makes a mistake that this is a criminal act that needs to be punished.

I think this sends a bad message to everybody about clear cut cases of rape. These women need our support, and a focus on events that a reasonable person could view as a misunderstanding, leads some to conclude that all rapes and sexual assualts are a misundertanding of some sort. This is clearly not the case, and we need to make a distinctinon somewhere or provide a framework for thinking about how we address the cases that are not clear cut. That is what I mean by a serious discussion. One that recognizes the inherent differences between men and women towards sex and comes to some understanding of what this means in the context of increasing sexual promiscuity by women. It can't be either she is a slut or it is rape type of argument. I hate to see anybody hurt, but my point is that sex results in emotional and physical pain unintentionally. Men can understand the physical pain part to some extent, but they are not always aware of the emotional part.
 

Why should we argue about something we both agree on?

I didn't argue that particular point. You copied that entire paragraph with the exception of the very first sentence, "However, I will absolutely concede this..."

I was conceding to that particular point.

As bad as the sexual liberationist ethos of feminism is, in some ways, I find the "schadenfreude" of so-called conservatives worse. After all, they are aware that this behavior is morally repugnant, but they cheer it on as the just desserts of radical feminism.

Cheryl, I made so many points to this topic. And, from all that, you can only say that you still don't like conservatives. Great.

Again, I am no conservative. But, of either the 1950's Arch-Conservatives or the now Bible-Thumping Conservatives, do you think either is responsible for the current atmosphere?

And do you not remember how those evil Conservatives railed against this kind of behavior. The Culture War ended. Say, some time in the late 90's. And the two sides went there seperate ways. The Leftists to the Coastal towns, Hip Neighborhoods and Cosmopolitan City Centers, and the Conservatives to the Red State Suburbs.

And, now, they just point at the other and blame everything on them.

Leftists wanted Sexual Liberation and they got it. And it came with so many other consequences. And, still, all they can do is blame the Conservatives.

I will say one other thing about this: What do you think that Asshole's politics were?

I mean, a young full of himself wanna be Actor...my bet, an absolute liberal.

My brother went to school in North Dakota. ND is either the whitest or second whitest state in America. It is also, probably, the most Conservative of all the Red States (unlike places like Utah and Idaho, they have no Liberal enclaves).

They consistently rank number 1 for things like Lowest Crime Rate, Lowest Homicide Rat, Abortion, Rape, etc.

You better believe that they still hold onto those old ideals of "A Man should act like a Man. And Boys should be prepared to be Men. Work Hard, Provide for your Family, and NO COMPLAINING".

These small town Red Staters are often vilified by the Left. Yet, it is them and their ethos that you are looking for.

Anyway, I think that I got off point.

Cheryl, what about all of the other points that I made?

And, yes, I agree, there is a certain amount of glee (from Right-Wingers) in seeing the Leftists get what they asked for.
 

Two points:
Please see my last and final post on the subject.

Second, it probably doesn't matter to you, but I am by no means a social conservative.

Thanks.