CathInfo.com

Quote from: Caraffa

Quote from: Telesphorus

The vast majority of men are not ladies men.  I'm pretty sure most of us think that seducers should be in a certain amount of peril for their behavior, but the fact of the matter that very seldom happens these days, and that's because women empower them.  

This is something that no one brings up; it was the feminists who wanted the last of the remaining seduction laws to be either unforced and/or taken off the books.

Do you have a source for this?

Sure.
"Ironically, it was the first wave of feminists, beginning in the 1930s, who spearheaded the campaign to do away with seduction suits, says Mary Coombs, a legal historian and visiting professor at Boston University School of Law." Chicago Tribune, "Don Juan in Court," Jan 5, 1993.

What were the seduction laws about?

Seduction laws have to do with convincing someone to have illicit sex. The person doing the seducing may have used suasion or promises that they may or may not have intended to keep. A good example of a seduction law is in Scripture from Dueteronomy 22:28-29:

"[28] If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: [29] He that lay with her shall give to the father of the maid fifty sides of silver, and shall have her to wife, because he hath humbled her: he may not put her away all the days of his life."

He's right about wallflower. I didn't realize that till lately.  :judge:

Wallflower isn't totally wrong.  It would help a great deal if men, Catholic men, were more virtuous.  If I had been more virtuous I could have won the girl I loved.  However, women today very often treat virtuous men badly and reward bad behavior.  Under feminism men are hated more for being angry at injustices than women are for committing injustice.

I've heard many people, when excusing the impunity for feminine conduct, speak of "free will" - it reminds me a lot of the talk about "religious freedom" - at some level, there's a secret indifferentism there.  As has been said, the ideas of sɛҳuąƖ morality for women have been made into a purely theoretical matter, where judgment for sɛҳuąƖ sin is to have nothing to do with behavior in concrete circuмstances.  This is of course absurd, because sɛҳuąƖ sin violates the natural law.  Men are who have to raise cuckold children suffer a greater injury than women whose husbands spawn bastards.  They are both committing a grave sin, but the first sin is more serious.  It is a greater cause for outrage.  This is really obvious.  But when ideas about sɛҳuąƖ sin becomes merely a theory with no serious influence on behavior because of the fact of bad and presumptuous confessions being commonplace, and the reaction to any real check on the "free will" (ie, impunity for bad conduct) is hysteria, then there is a serious social problem.

Quote from: Graham

He's right about wallflower. I didn't realize that till lately.  :judge:

Wallflower isn't totally wrong.  It would help a great deal if men, Catholic men, were more virtuous.

Of course not, that's why I took so long to recognize the feminist influence.

WRT virtue, the issue is that the conservatives have subverted the meaning of manly virtue - now it refers to making women's lives "as pleasant as possible."

I've heard many people, when excusing the impunity for feminine conduct, speak of "free will" - it reminds me a lot of the talk about "religious freedom" - at some level, there's a secret indifferentism there.  As has been said, the ideas of sɛҳuąƖ morality for women have been made into a purely theoretical matter, where judgment for sɛҳuąƖ sin is to have nothing to do with behavior in concrete circuмstances.  This is of course absurd, because sɛҳuąƖ sin violates the natural law.  Men are who have to raise cuckold children suffer a greater injury than women whose husbands spawn bastards.  They are both committing a grave sin, but the first sin is more serious.  It is a greater cause for outrage.  This is really obvious.  But when ideas about sɛҳuąƖ sin becomes merely a theory with no serious influence on behavior because of the fact of bad and presumptuous confessions being commonplace, and the reaction to any real check on the "free will" (ie, impunity for bad conduct) is hysteria, then there is a serious social problem.

Yes, they can be sneaky, but eventually the details cease to add up, patterns emerge, and you realize that they really do have a lenient or liberal tendency.