Welcome To Modernity, Ireland

Ireland finally legalized abortion, which was previously banned per their Constitution. Wow Ireland, welcome out of the dark ages! Congratulations on your long-awaited recognition of women as human beings. You deserve a real gold star and a pat on the back for finally elevating the rights of women above that of embryos and fetuses.

In other news, I unfriended a “libertarian” on Facebook who likened this legislative act to legalized murder. Ugh, I cannot handle the drivel of people who think governments should force 10-year old rape victims to give birth and/or condemn women to death for the sake of human reproduction.

Robert E. Lee: Douchebag of Epic Proportions

I came across this disgusting post today. Of course, you never know whether quotes are accurately attributed on the internet, but it appears D’Souza did in fact say this in an interview:

“Historically illiterate” sure sounds elitist and incisive, but you know what’s fucking worse than being “historically illiterate”? Just being the regular old type of illiterate. Hey Dinesh D’Souza, have you ever heard of like, a dictionary? He may have missed the entry, but “integrity” is defined thus:
the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness.
Synonyms include honesty, probity, virtue, morality, decency, sincerity, and righteousness. It would seem to me, perhaps a “historically illiterate” woman, that a man whose loyalty to the state of Virginia caused him to lead a fucking army to wage a war in support of two causes he allegedly opposes is literally the exact opposite of someone who has “integrity.”

Do people even listen to themselves when they say retarded shit like this? Hey, this Nazi really is against murder, but he murdered a bunch of Jewish people, because you know, loyalty to Germany and such. Of course, obviously very much a man of “unimpeachable integrity.” And if you disagree, you’re definitely historically illiterate.  

It’s not because I am a “historically illiterate” leftist that I feel this way. I grew up in Lee’s home state of Virginia. I’ve been immersed in all the fun confederacy stuff, including plantation tours, visiting Lee’s house, touring Stonewall Jackson’s house, etc. While I sincerely enjoyed and appreciated those historical lessons, believe me when I say I’ve heard to no end that Lee really hated slavery and didn’t even want to secede but DERP DERP LOYALTY TO HIS HOME STATE. That fairy tale sounded plausible to a TEN YEAR OLD but then you know, I grew a brain and realized it was bullshit logic. It may be a legitimate point to make about moral dilemmas a man may face in his lifetime, or the ethical quandaries entailed in war, but it is inaccurate to herald Lee as man of great moral resolve. If loyalty to your state causes you to compromise two of your (allegedly) closely-held values, you are by definition NOT someone who has particularly strong moral principles. 

Putting petty issues of definitions and logic aside, Wikipedia provides an enlightening account of Robert E. Lee’s attitude toward three of his slaves, who escaped but were forced to return to Arlington:

Wesley Norris himself spoke out about the incident after the war, in an 1866 interview printed in an abolitionist newspaper, the National Anti-Slavery Standard. Norris stated that after they had been captured, and forced to return to Arlington, Lee told them that “he would teach us a lesson we would not soon forget.” According to Norris, Lee then had the three of them firmly tied to posts by the overseer, and ordered them whipped with fifty lashes for the men and twenty for Mary Norris. Norris claimed that Lee encouraged the whipping, and that when the overseer refused to do it, called in the county constable to do it instead.
 “Unimpeachable integrity” indeed.
 

Libertarians Who Think Women Are More Prone to Socialism Are Fucking Idiots

Idiotic misogynists, to be precise.

If people harboring such sexist opinions took just two seconds to think about history and everything that is completely obvious to any non-comatose human, they would instantly conclude there is absolutely no credibility to the claim women prefer big government, authoritarianism, socialism, or collectivism, when compared to men.

Let us start by reviewing the entire concept of government, shall we? Last I checked, governments all over the world, for most of human history, have been instigated, operated, and perpetuated disproportionately by men. Kings, emperors, lords, monarchs, and other rulers of all sorts have almost exclusively been men, with exceptions being in the minority. Generals, armies, conquerors, and marauders throughout all of human history have also mostly been people with penises. Thus, it’s safe to say men pretty much fucking invented the concept of government-related war and violence.

In the United States, women did not even have any uniform right to vote until 1920, much less have any power in government. We all know voting is useless anyways, so to ignore all of American (and human) history and claim women are prone to favor government and are somehow more responsible for irreparably contributing to its current gargantuan form is a special kind of unprecedented absurdity.

Next, let us review some of the worst (big) government leaders in the history of mankind:

  • Genghis Khan
  • Hitler
  • Kim Il Sung
  • Mao
  • Pol Pot
  • Stalin

This list is not comprehensive by any means, but when worst dictators and bloodiest leaders come to mind, NO women make the cut. You can google some more “worst dictator” lists here, here, and here, and if you undertake a simple CTRL+F function, you will observe that the word “she” does not appear on any of these lists. This is not to say there are none (e.g. here), but this point cannot be subject to any kind of serious debate.

It is also indisputable men have and continue to fill the ranks of the biggest, most violent, statist institutions in the world, i.e. the police and the military. The military and the police are the backbone of any government operation, as they wield the force to do the government’s bidding. Without military and police to forcibly subjugate people into succumbing to a government’s will, laws and regulations are completely meaningless. What is the percentage of women who occupy these professions? They are clearly in the minority in the United States, and I’d venture to guess a vast minority when taking the rest of the world into account. While women (unfortunately) increasingly seek employment in these fields, for most of history, these jobs were occupied by men. 

Even today, when women have made great strides and progress against sexism in the United States, as of 2016, women make up only 19 percent of all members of Congress, and less than 25 percent of all state legislators. They constitute 6 of the nation’s 50 governors (see here). Worldwide, women are also the minority when it comes to government power and control. If women “love big government,” they sure have a funny way of showing it, and if men love limited government, their actions sure as fuck aren’t in accordance with that professed affinity.

Any intellectually honest libertarian recognizes there is hardly any difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to big government. The parties differ only on petty issues when it comes to spending. When Democrats and Republicans alike favor huge budgets, huge government programs, a bloated military, and endless war, there is absolutely no merit to the claim that because women are more liberal, that they are more statist than men. So the fact women tend to lean Democrat and support liberal social policies speaks very little to the issue, as men in equal proportion favor other types of equally costly big-government programs. To claim women significantly embrace statism more than men is to ignore most of human history and use a shamelessly selective attention to facts to arrive at a misogynistic conclusion.

Libertarians often point to the disproportionate numbers of liberatarian men and cite the dearth of women in the libertarian movement as evidence women prefer statism. This is nonsense. The vast majority of Americans identify as Democrats or Republicans. How many libertarian anarchists do you personally know? It would be generous to suggest they might constitute 1 percent of the American population. To argue that because women constitute a disproportionately small pie of this 1 percent means women as a whole are more “socialist” and “love big government” is to embrace a stupidity beyond comprehension.

Put another way, a Pew poll has found that 15 percent of men identify with limited-government views, compared with 7 percent of women. In other words, 85 percent of men are statists, and 93 percent of women are statists; thus, the ostensible argument is that although men are overwhelmingly statist, because they are a few paltry percentage points less likely to be statist, they are prone to freedom, while women are prone to big government.  Are you really that stupid, or do you just hate women because you’ve lived in your mother’s basement too long, don’t get any pussy, and need someone to blame for your fragile ego?

Yes, shockingly, it is true that if one discards all data points indicating men are also statists in high percentages, one could indeed selectively conclude women are less libertarian. In fact, it is a universal truth that if one eliminates all the data serving as evidence against their argument, the remaining data will support their hypothesis. Who knew?! To limit the sample size to the small percentage of libertarians, and ignore the many (majority of) men who are statist in order to insist on the twisted conclusion that women particularly love  and support statism means only this: you’re really good at mental gymnastics and are a total embarrassment to humanity.

Obviously, libertarianism is about individualism, and there should be no blame game as to which arbitrary collective is more “responsible” for socialism, but if we’re going to play this game, let’s play it fairly. Putting aside political preferences, and returning to the more probative evidence, because fuck the preferences – the irrefutable truth throughout history demonstrates men are government. Who the fuck really cares if women like government more if men are the ones who invented it, and continue to operate, control, and perpetuate it in much higher proportions than women? For anyone to argue that women’s insignificantly slight preference for government (if it exists at all) somehow proves a gender disparity in attitudes toward government only reveals the depths of their delusion and idiocy.

Wonder Woman: A Step Backwards for Feminism

Wonder Woman isn’t a step forward for women; it’s a step backwards.

I haven’t seen the movie yet, but the entire culture surrounding it, including the contrived all-female screenings, hype about the female director, and hype about the “strength” of the leading lady, reeks of a patronizing and condescending appeal to my feminism. The lead is a woman! The director is a woman! Woman woman woman, vagina vagina vagina, girl power and stuff!

I’m supposed to be excited because the movie outwardly promotes female empowerment (to call it an “unsubtle” effort would be a gross understatement). Right. Because my self-worth depends on Hollywood’s validation and interpretation of empowerment and female competence. Also, apparently I’m so fucking retarded I need Hollywood to beat me over the head with shallow and pretentious “feminist” messages to fully understand the issue.

Strong female leads have not been absent from Hollywood. Anyone remember Ellen Ripley from Alien, Sarah Connor from Terminator,  or “The Bride” from Kill Bill, just to mention a few? These characters, played by Sigourney Weaver, Linda Hamilton, and Uma Thurman, for whatever reason, have not remotely garnered the same kind of attention as “feminist” icons. Perhaps this is partly owing to the fact they were powerful, badass people not because they had vaginas, but because they simply happened to be women, unlike the new iteration of Wonder Woman. Alien, Terminator, and Kill Bill did not need all-vagina screenings, a female director, or a superficial marketing campaign to convey that women can get shit done, because the script, plot, and character development spoke for itself and unmistakably communicated female empowerment in a much more compelling and effective, yet underrated and subtle manner.

This is the essence of the issue. Ripley, Connor, and The Bride lead fantastic movies in which having a vagina is incidental, thereby faithfully and gracefully presenting the idea that women are human and equally capable of overcoming insurmountable circumstances. To contrast, Wonder Woman and its entire marketing scheme relies on segregating women as a special class of people and insisting on particularized treatment and accolade on the basis of the lead being a woman. There is nothing less feminist, simple-minded, and frankly, embarrassing than this in 2017.

It’s also notable that Ripley, Connor, and The Bride were normal human women who crushed opponents (be it alien, robot, or human) in a spacesuit, wife beater, and a ninja jumpsuit, respectively. This is to contrast with Wonder Woman, a superhero with perfect hair and special powers prancing around in a corset and miniskirt. I’m not about to knock corsets and miniskirts per se (because they are awesome), but if you think I’m going to unquestioningly accept Wonder Woman as a sign of progress, you’ve got to be fucking kidding me.

Film critic John Scalzi described Ripley best:

She’s not a sidekick, arm candy, or a damsel to be rescued. Starting with Alien, Ripley was a fully competent member of a crew or ensemble — not always liked and sometimes disrespected, but doing her job all the same. As each film progresses, she comes to the fore and faces challenges head-on — she’s the hero of the piece, in other words […] Ripley isn’t a fantasy version of a woman. Science fiction film is filled with hot kickass women doing impossible things with guns and melee weapons while they spin about like a gymnast in a dryer. As fun as that is to watch, at the end of the day it’s still giving women short shrift, since what they are then are idealized killer fembots rather than actual human beings. Ripley, on the other hand, is pushy, aggressive, rude, injured, suffering from post-traumatic syndrome, not wearing makeup, tired, smart, maternal, angry, empathetic, and determined to save others, even at great cost to herself. All without being a spinny killbot.

Can Wonder Woman top that? When I see the movie, I’ll decide whether it’s actually a good movie, but if it is, it will be despite its attempt at a feminist message, not because of it.

Never Fuck Men Who Are Anti-Abortion

The Brisbane Times reports a Catholic school teacher threatened  to send an email to the staff and parents of the school at which he worked with a colleague if the colleague went through with a planned abortion. He has been charged with 3 counts of rape for threatening to release explicit videos and mar the reputation of a colleague if she refused to continue in a relationship and have sex with him. The man, who remains anonymous (but shouldn’t – the media should let us know who this vile mother fucker is) pleaded not guilty and claimed he took these measures as a “last resort” to prevent the woman from “murdering” his child.

And this is why women should never, ever, ever have sex with men who are anti-abortion.

Men who are against abortion think of women as less than human, because they value clumps of unconscious cells over the mind, desires, preferences, and bodily integrity of full-grown human women. These are the types of men who would sooner sentence 9-year-olds and 11 year-olds to a lifetime of depression, anxiety, and irreparable health consequences than permit her to abort a fetus created out of rape.

Most people do not value the preferences and needs of plants, snails, chickens, or goats, all constituting one form of biological life or another, over the lives and happiness of other people. Essentially then, men of this ilk who have sex with women are comparable to men who engage in bestiality. They have sex with creatures they perceive to be subhuman, over whom they believe they have intellectual and physical dominion, because it is more comfortable and convenient for their insecure egos. To these men, women are human-like, but are primarily vessels for propagation of a man’s DNA. Therefore, when faced with a situation in which the subhuman creature does not yield and succumb to this caveman’s expectations or desires, these primitive men may resort to threats, extortion, and/or violence to get their way in the name of “morality.”

It’s not that these men respect “life” in general. These same men are not using extortion, violence, and laws to prevent people from killing goats or pigs for food, or hunting bears and elephants for sport, all of which have more mental capacity and consciousness than many early stage fetuses. They are not bombing in vitro fertilization clinics to protest the countless fertilized eggs idly sitting around, or even being destroyed in medical laboratories.

Rather, the highly selective concern for “life” is limited to clumps of cells that reside in women’s bodies, and their insistence on using violence, force, and threats in furtherance of propagation of that “life” is limited to coercing women into spreading genes. Disingenuously, the only time such a clump of cells matters, is when the burden, inconvenience, or threat to life and limb must be borne by a human woman. This convenient concern for otherwise indistinguishable cells is without any ostensible or reasonable basis compared to concern for the lives of lions, tigers, baboons, or zygotes in petri dishes, and can only be explained by misogyny.

These men believe that just as a pig or cow on a farm has no inherent right to determine the terms or circumstances of reproduction, neither do women. It is the farmer who has the right to decide whether and when to increase the size of his stock for the good of the herd, and it is men and/or society who have the right to tell women whether and when to reproduce for the collective good of the (human) farm.

Certainly, if one does choose to have sex with such a base man of this mentality, resulting in pregnancy, abortions can be procured in secret, but why even accord such a disgusting person the privilege to begin with? There is no reason on earth to ever fuck someone who first and foremost, does not even recognize a woman’s fundamental humanity and right to self-determination.

Thus, unless one is completely comfortable with fucking a man who fucks donkeys and sheep, one should be just as uneasy as fucking a man who is against abortion. Because to that kind of man, you are the donkey.

Is Your Daughter Going to Be a Slut? Take this Quiz To Find Out!

Desperate to know whether your little princess has a future as a ho-bag or slut in store for her? Take this simple quiz to find out. Keep track of your score for each question. At the end, give yourself 5 points for each “yes” answer, and 0 points for each “no” answer.

  1. Did your wife eat enough kale while pregnant?
  2. Did your wife consume too much sugar while pregnant?
  3. On a scale of 1-10, how good looking are you?
  4. On a scale of 1-10, how hot is your wife?
  5. Is your wife a hoochie?

Just kidding. This is not a real quiz. And the answer for anyone taking it is, “Who fucking cares?”

Men in their late twenties and thirties everywhere who slutted it up in their youth and find themselves expecting, or father to, a young daughter have this bizarre concern their precious princess is going to grow up to be a loose woman. I do not know where this fear comes from, as it takes two people to have sex, and if these men enjoyed slutting it up so much in their youth, they should view slutty women as a boon and source of great joy to men everywhere, not something to be feared. I love drinking beer, traveling, and eating. Therefore, I would not have any irrational fear of raising a son who becomes a lover of beer, traveling, or eating. See how that works?

Oh, wait. Sex is different. Women aren’t supposed to enjoy sex, so all those slooties these men slept with in their youth were defective, broken, or immoral. This mentality strains logic to the breaking point, yet is shockingly common. Men somehow want to constantly fuck different people, but cannot bear the idea the women on the receiving end might do the same and enjoy it. Why? I don’t know. Maybe because they are rapists at heart. I think it entirely fair to characterize it as such, if these men truly enjoy going around feeling like they’ve conquered a bunch of unwilling, unhappy, and begrudging participants, who obviously cannot possibly be moral, normal, or healthy individuals if they actually want the sex. There is no way around this logic. Every time a guy fucks a woman, hopefully, that woman is consenting to it and enjoying it. If a guy has consensual sex, there is presumably a woman on the other end who wanted to have it with him. This isn’t fucking rocket science.

Or maybe the real fear is just that – these men come to a realization that they were predating upon women they believed to be emotionally unbalanced, weak, not in the right mind, and/or semi-retarded, and fear their daughters may face similar predators. In that event, the men with these concerns should reflect upon their lifetime of asshole behavior, rather than project their fears into a sick need to obsess over their daughters’ sexuality. Additionally, maybe the focus should be on raising a happy, well-balanced, non-retarded daughter instead of fretting over the number of dicks that might go inside her vagina. The order of priorities could not possibly be more absurd here.

Even in 2017, some men are unable to grasp the concept that individual women own their own sexuality; men – whether husbands, boyfriends, fathers, or brothers – do not. A woman is like, a human being and stuff. Women have sexual desires just like the other 50 percent of humanity. Men fail to understand they sound like total neanderthals when they talk about using guns to threaten their daughter’s boyfriends. They do realize this is the acceptable, westernized version of certain fundamentalist Muslims who treat their daughters and wives like property and guard their sexuality with head-to-toe covering, right?

Making violent threats of murder no less, against innocent young boys trying to date your daughter is not funny. It is not cute or merely being “overprotective.” It is fucking disturbed and psychotic. I have a nice brother, about 5 1/2 years younger than me, who is a good person, and whom I love. I was probably a gun-hating liberal in his early days of high school, but if I learned some deranged dad of some princess threatened him with a gun, I would have been on Google searching the fastest way to get my own fucking gun to threaten to blow that dad’s head off myself. If you think threatening to stone or beat women to protect their chastity is lunacy, you should find violent threats against innocent, young, male suitors for the purpose of protecting your daughter’s virginity equally insane.

It is literally the same concept. Male relatives who think they have a right to use violence to enforce their female family members’ chastity – whether against the woman herself, or against perceived violators of that chastity – do so because they feel entitled to control female sexuality, “purity,” and ultimately, reproduction. They likely can articulate no reasonable explanations as to why they feel compelled to control sexuality or reproduction, but it’s certainly traced back to the base and patriarchal construct that emphasizes the need for women to be virgins. This is 2017, people. Your daughter is not a piece of property; she owns herself, and by extension, she also owns her personality, her desires, her actions, and her sexuality. There are few things in existence in the United States in 2017 that are more embarrassingly unprogressive and backwards than this.

And please don’t insult anyone’s intelligence by arguing the “biology” card. While there are obvious biological differences between men and women, these are far too minor to justify society’s drastically disparate treatment of men versus women’s sexuality. Further, even assuming your bullshit biological “argument” is correct, biology does not dictate morality. Biology explains why children are more likely to be murdered by their stepfathers than biological fathers, but this says absolutely nothing about the morality of murdering stepchildren. Stepfathers don’t want to waste resources on children who do not pass on their genetic material, and are more likely to kill unrelated children. But even though biology explains this phenomenon, the explanation is nevertheless irrelevant to the ethics involving murdering children. Similarly, whether biology explains how women behave sexually is irrelevant to the ethics or morality of telling women how they should behave sexually.

If you want to dwell on biology, arguably, men invented this patriarchal idea that women love being virgins, hate sex, and only want it with one person because evolutionarily speaking, men want to pass on their own DNA (and no one else’s), and therefore wanted to guarantee they did not spend energy and resources being cuckolded and raising a child who biologically belonged to another man. But again, irrespective of what accurate or inaccurate biological explanations may exist, this is entirely irrelevant to ethics and morality. Also, newsflash: paternity tests were invented in the 1960’s, and there is no longer any excuse for a creepy obsession with seeking unmarred virgins under the guise of wanting to preserve your DNA. You can always find out with an extremely high degree of accuracy whether a woman is carrying your DNA or not. See e.g. Various episodes of Maury and Jerry Springer. It seems the classy, educated gentlemen featured on those shows are capable of grasping the benefits of a paternity test. Men who haven’t caught onto this nifty invention are a good 60 years behind the times. Let me emphasize that part about being “backwards” once more.

Then, there’s the crowd favoring the “emotional problem” argument alongside the “biology” argument. This group couches the thinly-veiled criticism of women who love sex in falsely sympathetic terms, in that they pretend they only shun or dislike sluts because they claim it is evidence of some kind of emotional or mental illness in women. Again, I fail to see how a man who loves having sex is normal, but a woman in the same situation is mentally or emotionally ill; regardless, this sentiment is nonsense for other reasons. Don’t think you can bullshit me with this kind of false concern about the emotional well-being of women, because I know the men pulling this lame excuse aren’t also irrationally and inexplicably concerned about their female fetus or 4-year old princess becoming an alcoholic, drug abuser, manic-depressive, narcissist, sociopath, or psychopath, which are equally if not more common, and much more serious and destructive emotional problems. Read: “I don’t care if my daughter is a half-retarded heroin junkie sociopath – just please don’t let it be the case that she loves sex!”

I thought I was slightly neurotic because I daydream of animal costumes for my fetus (cat ears! leopard print!) and have detailed mental debates on which classical instrument she should play (piano if we choose a traditional lifestyle, violin or cello if we decide to live a nomadic one), but I’m pretty sure being scared of how many dicks will one day see her vagina encompasses a crazy of epic proportions.

My parents basically never had any discussions about sex with me, and left that task up to public schooling and my friends. However, I recall one time in high school, when my friend joked in front of my mother that her mother thought she was a big whore. My mother raised her eyebrows and said something to the effect of, “Don’t worry about being a whore. Just don’t get AIDS and don’t get pregnant.” I probably laughed hysterically at the time, but in retrospect, this is practical and reasonable advice for a 15 year-old girl.

My husband and I are concerned about whether our future daughter will be intelligent, healthy, and happy. We do not give two donkey shits about whether one day many years down the road she might have sex with more men than the acceptable number set by society. If you do, your priorities might be in the wrong place.

Recent Trend: Sexist Family Photos

These types of pictures always make me cringe. The first time I saw a particular photo of this theme, I mistakenly believed it was an aberration. In fact; it appears to be a recent and unfortunate trend in family photography. To call this “unfortunate” might not be most peoples’ reactions to these pictures. A more common response might be, “awww…” but it is unfortunate, because these pictures are sexist. If you looked at these pictures and thought they were cute, you are sexist. Whether you are a man, woman, goat, or cat, if you think this is “adorbs,” you are sexist.

Maybe you don’t care; and that’s ok. However, when women are taught from the day they are born that they need big strong men to take care of them, protect them, and employ violence to further their purported interests, it is not to their advantage, but to their detriment. These pictures were presumably taken to celebrate or commemorate the arrival of a daughter. Yet, the salient theme for celebrating the inception of this human life is not what goals she may achieve or obstacles she may conquer, but the many things from which she apparently must be shielded. The inane little chalkboards do not say, “One day, she’ll discover the cure for cancer,” or “One day, she’ll out-lawyer you,” or if we want to keep with the theme of violence, “Don’t mess with her- because she defends herself and will fight back.” They say, “We will protect her.”

From day one, the expectations from a female are not that of decision and action; they are of helplessness and passivity. Sit still, be good, and let papa and brothers take care of you. This kind of attitude does not bode well for a sense of independence, freedom, or personal responsibility for anyone. From what, exactly, is it that she must be shielded? Historically and culturally, men beat their chests, grunt, and “protect” their female family members from sexual advances of other men – even when the advances are welcomed by the women themselves. These attitudes are rooted in the idea that women are property and the sense that it is pretty much the greatest humiliation and debasement ever if your daughter/sister exercises sexual independence.

The words “Don’t Mess With Her” and “We’ll Protect Her” immediately bring to mind the age-old stereotype of men threatening other men who dare approach their sisters and daughters. Fathers advising harmless potential suitors that he owns many guns. Brothers threatening to throw punches at an innocent prospect deemed to be unsuitable for their sister. I say “age-old,” but that’s entirely inaccurate. I was at a dinner party not 2 years ago where a man proudly declared that he menacingly advised his 16-year-old daughter’s boyfriend of the loaded shotgun he keeps in the house. He shouldn’t have been proud; he should have been embarrassed that he literally mentioned deadly force merely because a teenager dared take his daughter out on a date. This is not valiance; this is psychopathy.

The idea of men acting as the violent gatekeepers to the sexuality of their sisters and daughters is not funny or cute; it’s base, animalistic, and does women no favors. It’s time for men and women who perpetuate this nonsense to stop behaving like cave people. It may come as a surprise to some, but when inculcated appropriately, women are entirely capable of making their own decisions, with or without the approval from the men in their family.

There is clearly a gender divide here. There are no corresponding sibling photos featuring older sisters and a baby boy. The ridiculous “protection” motif is exclusive to females, perhaps because there is no dishonor when boys deviate from puritanical expectations, and because boys are not property.

Women are people too. Your teenage daughter is going to kiss, and/or have sex with whomever she pleases. So is your sister, your mother, and every other woman walking down the street, because if raised correctly, women recognize and embrace their volition. They not only make their own decisions, but accept the consequences thereof. Get used to it, and stop romanticizing a culture that grooms women from day one to fear sexuality and to accept a demoralizing and pathetic position as an object for male protection.