Quantcast

James ‘Tarantosaurus Sex’ is still available. Take a number ladies, no pushing, no histrionics

By TBogg
Monday, February 10, 2014 21:20 EDT
google plus icon
taranto
 
  • Print Friendly and PDF
  • Email this page

If you were to take all of the byproducts and waste and stuff that falls on the floor at a sausage factory – things too disgusting to even put into a sausage – and you were to instead shove them into a large human-sized casing, and then left this man-sausage out in the heat for about seven days, you would have yourself your own personal James Taranto, Best of the Web editor at the Wall Street Journal.

For reasons that are all too apparent, Taranto (who refers to himself in the video below as “Tarantosaurus Sex” and I am not making that up) is obsessed with the idea that society is continuously trying to “criminalize male sexuality”. This is obviously explains why the ladies are not literally throwing their vaginas at James to do with as he pleases.

It was only last June when Taranto was Senator-slapped by  Claire McCaskill  after he criticized her  for putting a hold on the nomination of Lt Susan Helms after Helm’s overturned the conviction an officer under her command who was found guilty of aggravated sexual assault of a female lieutenant under his command with whom he had been drinking.

Taranto wrote:

To describe the accuser in the Herrera case as a “survivor” is more than a little histrionic. The trial was a he-said/she-said dispute between Capt. Herrera and a female second lieutenant about a drunken October 2009 sexual advance in the back seat of a moving car. The accuser testified that she fell asleep, then awoke to find her pants undone and Capt. Herrera touching her genitals. He testified that she was awake, undid her own pants, and responded to his touching by resting her head on his shoulder.

Two other officers were present—the designated driver and a front-seat passenger, both lieutenants—but neither noticed the hanky-panky. Thus on the central questions of initiation and consent, it was her word against his.

Taranto later added:

In the interim, another servicewoman, Staff Sgt. Jennifer Robinson, had come forward to accuse Capt. Herrera of sexual assault. In her case, the incident had occurred in his bedroom, where she voluntarily accompanied him. The court-martial acquitted him of that charge on the ground that she had consented. (Sgt. Robinson, who has since been promoted to technical sergeant, revealed her identity in a March interview with the Air Force Times.)

It’s fair to say that Capt. Herrera seems to have a tendency toward sexual recklessness. Perhaps that makes him unsuitable to serve as an officer in the U.S. Air Force. But his accusers acted recklessly too.

Also, too they had it coming.

Taranto  – for whom an evening  of soft candlelight, wine, and a continuous loop of “Why Don’t We Get Drunk And Screw” playing in the background is probably a first and last date with every women he has ever managed to lure into his sex den – is once again plowing the ‘one drink means yes, two drinks means buttsex’ field of male sexual privilege:

If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn’t determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver’s sex. But when two drunken college students “collide,” the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.

As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education notes, at some campuses the accuser’s having had one drink is sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt:

“Stanford’s definition of consent to sex imposes a concept that is foreign to most people’s idea of adult consent and inconsistent with California state law. Stanford policy states that sexual assault occurs “when a person is incapable of giving consent. A person is legally incapable of giving consent . . . if intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol.” In other words, any sexual activity while intoxicated to any degree constitutes sexual assault. This is true even if the activity was explicitly agreed to by a person capable of making rational, reasoned decisions, and even if the partners are in an ongoing relationship or marriage.”

In theory that means, as FIRE notes, that “if both parties are intoxicated during sex, they are both technically guilty of sexually assaulting each other.” In practice it means that women, but not men, are absolved of responsibility by virtue of having consumed alcohol.

Both sides do it, so let’s call the whole rape thing off. And ladies please stop drinking and sexually assaulting men with your drunk vaginas. Just stop it, right this minute.

For other refreshing insights on human sexual equality and love and relationships, such as “The basic social purpose of marriage is to control men. To domesticate men, to tie them to women and children”, please watch the video below, courtesy of Media Matters, as  James ‘Tarantosaurus Sex’ explains it all to you.

To restate an old TBoggism: ‘Some choose abstinence, others have it chosen for them.’

 
 
 
 
By commenting, you agree to our terms of service
and to abide by our commenting policy.
 
Google+