larvatus | Entries tagged with sex

The essential predicate for a charge of sexual assault of an adult is a lack of consent on part of the victim. Nothing in Charlotte Waters’ original complaint, which has been modestly removed from Reddit, but happily remains available via the Wayback Machine, even begins to allege that she had failed to consent to any sexual act, any photo opportunity, or any other aspect of her modeling encounter with Terry Richardson. Interestingly enough, as any journalist ought to know, actual malice as the essential predicate of liability for libel is defined as “knowledge that the information was false” or that it was published “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not” (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)). Thus in failing to align his accusation of Terry Richardson with the content of published allegations against the latter, Justin Jones acts with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, and therefore willfully commits libel on behalf of The Daily Beast.

Emily Bazelon’s impassioned assault on the First Amendment, made in the names, and on the behalves of, receptive parties in failed romantic relationships, publicly shamed by their former mates, characteristically misses its mark. If speech is actionable, its kind will always already have been chilled, e.g. by statutes that penalize libel or invasion of privacy. The problem with banning “revenge porn” is that in the typical instances its content is true and its subject’s rights to privacy will have been waived through her voluntary communication thereof, by word or by deed, to the alleged tortfeasors who subsequently disseminate it against, or regardless of, her will. Under these circumstances, anti-SLAPP statutes designed to penalize the filing of lawsuits that aim to curtail protected speech, will typically require the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s legal fees and costs upon the ensuing showing that her lawsuit is unlikely to succeed on its merits in view of its Constitutional protection. Put simply, a reasonable expectation of privacy is generally waived through its subject’s voluntary disclosure of the underlying facts to any other party not bound by the duty of confidentiality. And it gets worse: if the former recipient of your sexual ardor wronged you in a way whereby she may wrong others, e.g. by infecting you with an STD, or even by screwing around behind your back in a way that exposed you to the mere likelihood of contracting an STD, your public disclosure of these facts would not be subject to liability under the privacy statutes, in virtue of being of legitimate concern to the public. Arguably, you have a duty to disclose it the general public, in proportion with your good faith belief that your perfidious ex represents a danger to others.

A fine survey of the remains of privacy’s disclosure tort can be found here.

I thank the social media commentariat for clarifying that school slashings perpetrated in China by mad people, are providentially mitigated by good laws that forbid civilan gun ownership, curtail political dissent, subdue public assembly, ban weird religious worship, and harvest valuable organs of executed enemies of the state. But in light of my brief career as a dissident in a totalitarian state, using China as a moral or jurisprudential authority for honoring and upholding our Bill of Rights appears on a par with advocating sex with virgins as a cure for AIDS.

Methinks the homophiles are protesting too much by resolving to ignore the obvious charitable reading of Justice Scalia’s insistence on submitting law to moral scrutiny. Consider that their most compelling current jurisprudence calls for equal protection of homosexuals as distinguished by immutable characteristics of their sexual preferences. Suppose that tomorrow, psychiatrists declare the preferences of coprophagia, apotemnophilia, or kleptomania to be equally immutable. Would it be reasonable to demand that restaurants served excrements on par with conventional nutrients; that surgeons be compelled to amputate healthy limbs on their owners’ demand; or that bankers and shopkeepers surrendered their stock to anyone organically beholden to the advantages of theft over honest toil? Might it not make more sense to submit equal protection to moral judgments? Anyone who thinks this far-fetched is welcome to contemplate the immutability of schizophrenia as grounds for mandating equal treatment for its patients.

Current Mood: artistic

As savvy politicians are wont to observe, victory has a hundred fathers but defeat is an orphan. The progenitors of WebEx number four: high-powered financier Scott Sandell, salesman extraordinary Subrah Iyar, brilliant engineer Min Zhu, and his bodacious daughter Erin Yier Bargeld. Here is a graphic representation of their relationship:

The best reason not to have sex in public is to avoid exposure to well-meaning second-guessers. Thus the late Robert Hughes ably illustrated the stupidity of judicial censure of sexual deviance:

Why so few [sodomy] convictions? Ernest Augustus Slade, who had been superintendent of the convict barracks at Hyde Park in Sydney from 1833 to 1834 (his resignation was forced by sexual scandal, though over a woman), testified that “among [the lower] class of convicts sodomy is as common as any other crime.” It was an ineradicable part of jail culture. But only about one case in thirty could be proven. Molested youths lodged complaints but then prevaricated in court; and other evidence tended to be vague, since “shirtlifters” were rarely caught in the act of buggery. “If you had it proved” Slade told the Molesworth Committee in 1838, “that men were found with their breeches down in secluded spots, and they stated that they had gone there to ease themselves, and upon examination it was found that they had not done so, what could have occurred?” But no jury would convict on such grounds. Out in the bush, the dreaded act became more obscure still, as there was nobody to watch the assigned convicts. Bishop Ullathorne believed that sodomy was less frequent among the shepherds, who tended to live alone, than among stockmen, “a much more dissolute set” who practiced “a great deal of that crime” and even taught it to the formerly innocent Aborigines. And if the Man from Snowy River’s convict forebear was not content with the brusque embraces of Jacky-Jacky, there were always sheep. “As a juryman,” one witness told the committee, ”I have had opportunities of hearing many trials for unnatural offences, with animals particularly. … I think they are much more common than in any other country inhabited by the English.” “That is, among the convicts?” interjected one committee member. “Yes,” said the witness, dispelling the thought of the colonial gentry practicing abominations on their own merinos.
—Robert Hughes, The Fatal Shore: The Epic of Australia’s Founding, Vintage Books, 1988, p. 267

Would that the indicters of WikiLeaking condoms took heed of rapidly dwindling chances of securing a jury conviction of Julian Assange.

If crimes of sexuality were confined to the human species, we should not have an opportunity to study the biological beginnings of crime as observed in curious instances of criminality in animals, which raises doubts as to whether these inversions of the genesic instinct are with them unnatural phenomena, or rather an outward manifestation of an imperious functional want. Without exposing the details of the analogy upon which is founded the presumption, we are warranted in saying that as many of the lower beings in the zoölogical scale show virtues having analogy to those of man, we must expect to find parallel vices. It is an error to suppose that aberration of the genesic instinct is confined to our species, time, or race. Evidence shows that unnatural crime exists under all latitudes. It extends from the prehistoric time of the troglodytes up to Hippocrates, who stigmatizes it in his oath, and from his time to the present. I have observed common instances of sexual perversion in dogs and turkeys. A short time since, at the Washington races, a celebrated stallion was the favorite on whom the largest bets were made. A friend of mine, having ascertained from the groom the day before the race that the horse had procured an ejaculation by flapping his penis against the abdomen, accordingly risked his pile on another horse, who, by the way, came in ahead. Only a few days ago, to escape a shower, I took refuge in the elephant house in the Washington Zoölogical gardens, where are confined two male elephants, “Dunk” and “Gold Dust.” To my astonishment they entwined their probosces together in a caressing way; each had simultaneous erection of the penis, and the act was finished by one animal opening and allowing the other to tickle the roof of his mouth with his proboscis after the manner of the oscula more Columbino, mentioned, by the way, in some of the old theological writings, and prohibited by the rules of at least one Christian denomination.

—Irving C. Rosse, “Sexual Hypochrondriasis and Perversion of the Genesis Instinct”, Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, whole series volume 19, new series, volume 17, number 11, November 1892, pp. 798-799

My summer digs are at 1766 Sand Hill Rd # 207 in Palo Alto, CA 94304. I can be reached at 650-485-2752 (land) or 323-363-1860 (mobile). My home will be open, and liquid cheer will be provided to all virtual and realspace friends and neighbors from noon till midnight on Sunday, May 20.

I welcome contest entries pursuant to the following rules, to be submitted until the closing of festivities. I will award the winner’s choice between a crisp likeness of Benjamin Franklin published by the U.S. Mint, or dinner with me at a Bay Area restaurant of my choice, to the entrant able to identify the greatest number of performance art props displayed in this photo:

In the event of a tie, preference will be given to the entrant able to answer the following questions:

How old was Erin Zhu when her father Min Zhu first raped her?
When did Min Zhu resign from WebEx and flee the United States as a result of being outed as an incestuous paedophile?
How long thereafter did it take Scott Sandell of New Enterprise Associates to fund the next venture of his publicly disgraced protégé?

All answers to these questions are available online.

Thus spake the Deep Throat of Queer Studies:

This point may not be popular. It may not win me friends. But I must make it. Harpo, like most men, has a symbolic vagina, somewhere on his person. Harpo, a starry man, has many vaginas. One is his wig. Another is his silence.

Then again, yonder nerdy man of words may just be hankering for Harpo’s touch on his butt crack.

Wayne Koestenbaum

Fraudulent fucking is now a tort in Idaho.
So much for all being fair in love and war.

The prudent among us would henceforth discourage an understanding of fidelity on the part of their lovers.
DSK has it down pat. Not so Sarko.

Does the fact that Philip Larkin lost his virginity in 1945 enrich our understanding of his assertion that sexual intercourse began in nineteen sixty-three? or does it make his poetry less intimately connected with his life? And if Larkin found his immortality in the fear of death, does its deathless expression leave any doubt that he would have preferred to find it in not dying?

As Harry Callahan has taught us, man’s got to know his limitations.
Shills for asexuality are foredoomed to reenact Hitler’s favorite joke:
    Hitler: My dog’s got no nose!
    Soldier: How does he smell?
    Hitler: Awful!
It has been settled over two millennia, that “there are some eunuchs, who were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, who were made eunuchs of men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” But any kind of eunuch who won’t stop complaining about our inauthentic celebration of sex, wields no more authority than the blind grousing about our gaudy garb or the deaf clamoring against our cacophonous conversation.

Dr Thurgood: Larry!
Larry David: Hi. I know I don’t have an appointment, but I got a bill in the mail today… am I to understand that you charge me for talking to me on line in a baseball card show? Is that possible?
Dr Thurgood: Well yes, it is.
Larry David: Dr Thurgood, we spoke for all of three minutes!
Dr Thurgood: Let me just point out, Larry, that sometimes when people suffer with what I might call the more dramatic forms of narcissism, they have a hard time gauging how long they have been talking about their problems for themselves.
Larry David: You’re saying I’m a narcissist?
Dr Thurgood: Larry, maybe I can help you understand this way. I had a client, he was quite an illustrious, well-known director. I don’t want to reveal who he was, but he did direct Star Wars… And he enjoyed, in his repertoire of things that he liked, to see prostitutes. Now, in that particular situation, if he were to hire a prostitute, let’s say for an hour, which was normal for him…
Larry David: You might as well call him George Lucas, I mean that’s who directed Star Wars!
Dr Thurgood: Oh, well, I would never say that. I would never say that.
Larry David: Well, you just told me who it was.
Dr Thurgood: I merely alluded to the fact that he was a well-known director. Now, one of the things he needed to complete his work, it was important for him…
Larry David: Everybody knows who directed Star Wars!
Mr. Thurgood: Well, not everyone is in show business, Larry.
Larry David: Okay, good… all right, go ahead.
Dr Thurgood: My point is…
Larry David: God only knows what you’re saying about me!
Dr Thurgood: No one asks about you.
Larry David: I didn’t ask about George Lucas, but you just brought him up!
Dr Thurgood: I merely said “a well-known director”. And here’s my point: he used to frequent prostitutes. And very often he would hire them for an hour, which was their minimum, but it only took him three or four, maybe five minutes to complete the shot, if you understand what I’m saying. However! they considered it fair and he considered it fair to pay them for the full hour—that was the way they did business.
Larry David: First off, I am appalled by what you just said to me…
Dr Thurgood: He has a right to do what he wants. He is an adult.
Larry David: It’s supposed to be confidential!
Dr Thurgood: And it is.
Larry David: You’re not supposed to be telling people!
Dr Thurgood: It’s merely my way of illustration. My point is that people need various things to help them function, and my hope is that I was doing that for you. Well, it was good to see you.
Larry David: And congratulations, doctor, I think you’ve stumbled upon the perfect analogy for exactly what you do.
Dr Thurgood: Well, it’s somewhere between a hobby and a profession for me, just as it is for them.
Larry David: Uh huh.
Dr Thurgood: Good seeing you.
Larry David: Okay.

—Curb Your Enthusiasm, Season 8, Episode 9

Min Zhu Pedobear
爸爸朱敏变态熊

An Essay on Man	An Essay on Woman
Awake, my St. John! leave all meaner things To low ambition, and the pride of kings. Let us (since life can little more supply Than just to look about us and to die) Expatiate free o’er all this scene of man; A mighty maze! but not without a plan; A wild, where weeds and flow’rs promiscuous shoot; Or garden, tempting with forbidden fruit. Together let us beat this ample field, Try what the open, what the covert yield; The latent tracts, the giddy heights explore Of all who blindly creep, or sightless soar; Eye Nature’s walks, shoot folly as it flies, And catch the manners living as they rise; Laugh where we must, be candid where we can; But vindicate the ways of God to man.	Awake, my Fanny, leave all meaner things; This morn shall prove what rapture swiving brings! Let us (since life can little more supply Than just a few good Fucks and then we die) Expatiate free o’er that lov’d scene of Man, A mighty Maze! for mighty Pricks to scan; A wild, where Paphian thorns promiscuous shoot, Where flow’rs the monthly Rose, but yields no Fruit. Together let us beat this ample Field, Try what the open, what the Covert yield; The latent Tracts, the pleasing Depths explore, And my Prick clapp’d where thousands were before. Observe how Nature works, and if it rise Too quick and rapid, check it ere it flies; Spend when we must, but keep it while we can: Thus Godlike will be deem’d the the Ways of Man.
I	I
Say first, of God above, or man below, What can we reason, but from what we know? Of man what see we, but his station here, From which to reason, or to which refer? Through worlds unnumber’d though the God be known, ’Tis ours to trace him only in our own. He, who through vast immensity can pierce, See worlds on worlds compose one universe, Observe how system into system runs, What other planets circle other suns, What varied being peoples ev’ry star, May tell why Heav’n has made us as we are. But of this frame the bearings, and the ties, The strong connections, nice dependencies, Gradations just, has thy pervading soul Look’d through? or can a part contain the whole? Is the great chain, that draws all to agree, And drawn supports, upheld by God, or thee?	Say, first of Woman’s latent Charms below, What can we reason but from what we know? A Face, a Neck, a Breast, are all, appear From which to reason, or to which refer. In ev’ry Part we heavenly beauty own, But we can trace it only in what’s shewn. He who the Hoop’s Immensity can pierce, Dart thro’ the Whalebone Folds vast Universe, Observe how Circle into Circle runs, What courts the Eye, and what all Vision shuns, All the wild Modes of Dress our Females wear, May guess what makes them thus transform’d appear But of their Cunts, the Bearings and the Ties, The nice Connexions, strong Dependencies, The Latitude and Longitude of each Hast thou gone throu’, or can thy Pego reach? Was that great Ocean, that unbounded Sea Where Pricks like Whales may sport, fathom’d by Thee?
II	II
Presumptuous man! the reason wouldst thou find, Why form’d so weak, so little, and so blind? First, if thou canst, the harder reason guess, Why form’d no weaker, blinder, and no less! Ask of thy mother earth, why oaks are made Taller or stronger than the weeds they shade? Or ask of yonder argent fields above, Why Jove’s satellites are less than Jove?	Presumptuous Prick! the reason would’st thou find Why form’d so weak, so little and so blind? First, if thou canst, the harder Reason guess Why form’d no weaker, meaner and no less. Ask of thy Mother’s Cunt why she was made Of lesser Bore than Cow or hackney’d Jade? Or ask thy raw-boned Scottish Father’s Tarse Why larger he than Stallion or Jack Ass?
Of systems possible, if ’tis confest That Wisdom infinite must form the best, Where all must full or not coherent be, And all that rises, rise in due degree; Then, in the scale of reas’ning life, ’tis plain There must be somewhere, such a rank as man: And all the question (wrangle e’er so long) Is only this, if God has plac’d him wrong? Respecting man, whatever wrong we call, May, must be right, as relative to all.	Of Pegos possible, if ’tis confess’d That Wisdom infinite must form the best, Where all must rise, or not coherent be, And all that rises, rise in due Degree; Then in the scale of various Pricks, ’tis plain God-like erect, BUTE stands the foremost Man, And all the Question (wrangle e’er so long) Is only This, if Heaven plac’d him wrong? Respecting him whatever wrong we call, May, must be right, as relative to all.
In human works, though labour’d on with pain, A thousand movements scarce one purpose gain; In God’s, one single can its end produce; Yet serves to second too some other use. So man, who here seems principal alone, Perhaps acts second to some sphere unknown, Touches some wheel, or verges to some goal; ’Tis but a part we see, and not a whole.	When Frogs wou’d couple, labour’d on with Pain, A thousand Wriggles scarce their purpose gain: In Man a Dozen can his End produce, And drench the Female with spermatic Juice. Yet not our Pleasure seems God’s End alone, Oft when we spend we propagate unknown; Unwilling we may reach some other Goal, And Sylphs and Gnomes may fuck in woman’s hole.
When the proud steed shall know why man restrains His fiery course, or drives him o’er the plains: When the dull ox, why now he breaks the clod, Is now a victim, and now Egypt’s God: Then shall man’s pride and dulness comprehend His actions’, passions’, being’s, use and end; Why doing, suff’ring, check’d, impell’d; and why This hour a slave, the next a deity.	When the proud Stallion knows whence ev’ry Vein Now throbs with Lust and now is shrunk again; The lusty Bull, why now he breaks the Clod, Now wears a Garland, fair Europe’s God: Then shall Man’s Pride and Pego comprehend His Actions and Erections, Use and End. Why at Celaenae Martyrdom, and why At Lampsacus ador’d chief Deity.
Then say not man’s imperfect, Heav’n in fault; Say rather, man’s as perfect as he ought: His knowledge measur’d to his state and place, His time a moment, and a point his space. If to be perfect in a certain sphere, What matter, soon or late, or here or there? The blest today is as completely so, As who began a thousand years ago.	Then say not Man’s imperfect, Heaven in fault, Say rather, Man’s as perfect as he ought; His Pego measured to the female Case Betwixt a woman’s Thighs his proper Place; And if to fuck in a proportion’d Sphere, What matter how it is, or when, or where? Fly fuck’d by Fly, may be completely so, As Hussey’s Dutchess, or yon well-bull’d Cow.
III	III
Heav’n from all creatures hides the book of fate, All but the page prescrib’d, their present state: From brutes what men, from men what spirits know: Or who could suffer being here below? The lamb thy riot dooms to bleed today, Had he thy reason, would he skip and play? Pleas’d to the last, he crops the flow’ry food, And licks the hand just rais’d to shed his blood.	Heav’n from all creatures hides the Book of Fate All but the page prescribed, the present state, From boys what girls, from girls what women know, Or what could suffer being here below? Thy lust the Virgin dooms to bleed today, Had she thy reason would she ’skip and play? Pleas’d to the last, she likes the luscious food, And grasps the prick just rais’d to shed her blood.
Oh blindness to the future! kindly giv’n, That each may fill the circle mark’d by Heav’n: Who sees with equal eye, as God of all, A hero perish, or a sparrow fall, Atoms or systems into ruin hurl’d, And now a bubble burst, and now a world.	Oh! Blindness to the Future, kindly given, That each m’enjoy what fucks are mark’d by Heaven. Who sees with equal Eye, as God of all, The Man just mounting, and the Virgin’s Fall; Prick, Cunt, and Ballocks in Convulsions hurl’d And now a Hymen burst, and now a World.
Hope humbly then; with trembling pinions soar; Wait the great teacher Death; and God adore! What future bliss, he gives not thee to know, But gives that hope to be thy blessing now. Hope springs eternal in the human breast: Man never is, but always to be blest: The soul, uneasy and confin’d from home, Rests and expatiates in a life to come.	Hope, humbly, then, clean Girls; nor vainly soar But fuck the Cunt at hand, and God adore. What future Fucks he gives not thee to know But gives that Cunt to be thy Blessing now.

— Alexander Pope	— John Wilkes and Thomas Potter

“Ce qu’il y a d’ennuyeux dans l’amour, c’est que c’est un crime où l’on ne peut pas se passer d’un complice.”
“The tiresome thing about love is that it is a crime that one cannot commit without an accomplice.”

— Charles Baudelaire, Mon cœur mis à nu

Men have lower attention spans than women… except where they count:

20. Diversion during coitus. We have already pointed out (p. 384) that effective female responses during coitus may depend, in many cases, upon the continuity of physical stimulation. If that stimulation is interrupted, orgasm is delayed, primarily because the female may return to normal physiologic levels in such periods of inactivity. This appears to be due to the fact that she is not sufficiently aroused by the psychologic stimuli to maintain her arousal when there is no physical stimulation. We have pointed out that the male, on the contrary, may go through a period in which physical activity is interrupted without losing erection or the other evidences of his erotic arousal, primarily because he continues to be stimulated psychologically during those periods.

Similarly, because the male is more strongly stimulated by psychologic factors during sexual activities, he cannot be distracted from his performance as easily as the female. Many females are easily diverted, and may turn from coitus when a baby cries, when children enter the house, when the doorbell rings, when they recall household duties which they intended to take care of before they retired for the night, and when music, conversation, food, a desire to smoke, or other non-sexual activities present themselves. The male himself is sometimes responsible for the introduction of the conversation, cigarettes, music, and other diversions, and he, unwittingly, may be responsible for the female’s distraction because he does not understand that the sources of her responses may be different from his.

It is a standard complaint of males that their female partners in coitus “do not put their minds to it.” This is an incorrect appraisal of the situation, for what is involved is the female’s lack of stimulation by the sorts of psychologic stimuli which are of importance to the male. Such differences between females and males have been known for centuries, and are pointed out in the classic and Oriental literature. From the most ancient to the most modern erotic art, the female has been portrayed on occasion as reading a book, eating, or engaging in other activities while she is in coitus; but no artist seems to have portrayed males engaged in such extraneous activities while in coitus.

Various interpretations may be offered of these differences between females and males. Many persons would, again, be inclined to look for cultural influences which might be responsible. But some sort of basic biologic factor must be involved, for at least some of the infra-human species of mammals show these same differences. Cheese crumbs spread in front of a copulating pair of rats may distract the female but not the male. A mouse running in front of a copulating pair of cats may distract the female but not the male. When cattle are interrupted during coitus, it is the cow that is more likely to be disturbed while the bull may try to continue with coitus. It explains nothing to suggest that this is due to differences in levels of “sex drive” in the two sexes.²³ [23 As examples of the fact that the female is more easily distracted, see: [Frank A.] Beach 1947b[“A Review of Physiological and Psychological Studies of Sexual Behavior in Mammals”, Physiological Review, 27, 1947, pp. 240-307]:264 (bitches will eat during coitus, most male dogs refuse food in this situation; female cats may investigate mouse holes during coitus). Robert Bean, director of Brookfield Zoo, reports (verbal communic.) females of various species eating during coitus.] There are probably more basic neurologic explanations of these differences between females and males (p. 712).

— Alfred Charles Kinsey and the staff of the Institute for Sex Research,
Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, Indiana University Press, 1953, pp. 668-669

Joel Marks is concerned with the sort of desire that we would want if we were absolutely convinced that there was no such thing as moral right and wrong. He thinks that the most likely form of this desire unbridled by moral scruple would be pretty much the same as what we want now. Considering just one dimension of desire, Jim Harrison’s observation serves as a fitting complement to this surmise: “they say a hard dick has no conscience, but a scholar’s dick is a shy item full of question marks, guilt, ironies.” Mr Marks’ conscientious cock must fall well short of unschooled tumescence. For my part, the man claiming that none of his sexual urges are held in check by morality is a rapist, a eunuch, or a liar. And likewise for the remaining six deadly sins.

Registrant:
larvatus prodeo

7576 Willow Glen Road
Los Angeles, California 90046
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: ABORTIONISTA.COM
Created on: 21-Aug-11
Expires on: 21-Aug-12
Last Updated on: 21-Aug-11

Administrative Contact:
Zeleny, Michael zeleny@post.harvard.edu
larvatus prodeo
7576 Willow Glen Road
Los Angeles, California 90046
United States
(323) 363-1860

Technical Contact:
Zeleny, Michael zeleny@post.harvard.edu
larvatus prodeo
7576 Willow Glen Road
Los Angeles, California 90046
United States
(323) 363-1860

Domain servers in listed order:
NS35.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
NS36.DOMAINCONTROL.COM

Registry Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Registry Status: clientRenewProhibited
Registry Status: clientTransferProhibited
Registry Status: clientUpdateProhibited

What is feminism? “Simply the belief that women should be as free as men … Are you a feminist? Hahaha. Of course you are.” But there is a relevant difference in freedom between the sexes. In a heterosexual population with their equal distribution, on the average men will have the same number of sexual partners as will women. In other words, the average heterosexual woman will be as free to be promiscuous as a heterosexual man. But female promiscuity will randomize biological paternity of offspring in the woman’s own family, whereas the male kind will randomize it in the families of other men. In other words, promiscuous women undermine family stability at home, whereas promiscuous men undermine it abroad. Women who are free to fuck mainly fuck up their own families. Men who are free to fuck mainly fuck up the families of others. How much of this natural inequality can be abolished through legislation remains an open question.

Since 1973, when the U.S. Commissioners on Uniform Laws proposed the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), which has been adopted by 18 U.S. states, the common law marital paternity presumption that holds that a child born during a marriage is the offspring of the husband, has been complemented by presuming the mother’s husband to be the natural father of a child if the child is born during the marriage or within 300 days after the marriage is terminated, unless his fatherhood has been rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. The revised UPA, published in 2000, retained all of the original presumptions related to marriage, but replaced the clear and convincing evidence standard for rebutting an assumption of paternity with the provision that the presumption of natural fatherhood may be rebutted “only by admissible results of genetic testing excluding that man as the father of the child or identifying another man as the father of the child.” Despite the new emphasis on genetic testing, both the newly revised UPA and most state laws and courts rely on the best interests of the child in determining paternity, whether by upholding the right to refuse genetic tests if it is determined they are not in the best interest of the child, or by requiring that the best interests of the child be taken into account after the genetic testing determines paternity. But other states have passed legislation that allows men proven by DNA testing not to be the father of a child to be released from child support payments.

In sum, promotion of the best interests of the child through the marital paternity presumption empowers feminism by underwriting female promiscuity with a guarantee of child support levied against the cuckolded husband. By contrast, fathers’ right movement that opposes legal accommodations of paternity fraud, qualifies as reactionary antifeminism. In so far as feminism is the belief that women should be as free from the economic consequences of their sexuality as men, no one can be a feminist without denying the interest of children to be supported by their biological fathers and the right of men to be free of supporting fraudulent paternity.

Profile

larvatus

Subrah Iyar Appreciation Society

2025

S	M	T	W	T	F	S

Syndicate

Page Summary

Style Credit

Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by timeasmymeasure

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Jul. 5th, 2025 04:21 pm

larvatus prodeo

HIC LOCUS EST UBI MORS GAUDET SUCCURRERE VITAE

Entries tagged with sex

sexual assault, my ass

chumps of the world, undefeated

stayin’ alive!

post-colonialist authorities

the advantages of sodomy over orthogenitalism

the origins of webex

the leaky vessels of state

unnatural crimes amongst pachyderms

open house on sand hill road

(no subject)

hoist that rag

dichtung und wahrheit

man’s got to know his limitations

the definitive reckoning of the man-hour

your child’s furry friend

essays on man and woman

your fucking attention span

dead from the waist down

great domains are still out there

feminism and freedom