The Patriarchy Sucks for Conservative Men, Too

I don’t get paid enough to contemplate Stacey Campfield’s penis.  I’m not sure how much would be enough to make me willing to contemplate Stacey Campfield’s penis, but believe me, if I were paid to contemplate Campfield’s penis, I would go all in, with some kind of disguise and a fake penis myself and I would follow him into the bathroom and to local watering holes.  I would take pictures.  I would track down other people who had seen it and interview them about their feelings about it.  I would draw pictures of it and hang those pictures in the Frist Museum, while dodging the security guards.

I’m just saying, in general, that, I don’t want to contemplate Campfield’s penis, but, if I were paid to do it, I would go about it thoroughly and professionally and I would share my findings with the world.

Not being paid, though, and not wanting to contemplate Campfield’s penis, I’m stuck in the unpleasant position of having to consider Stacey Campfield having sex.  Which, as you may know, often invoves his penis.

And yet, as long as Campfield’s talking about having sex, I have to think about him having sex and… well… here we are.  I’m thinking about Campfield’s penis.

Via Tom Humphrey:

A review of a video recording of the committee session shows the exchange followed Richardson’s declaration that men who have sex with a woman have put themselves in a position of becoming a father.

“We need to be honest here. We’re not walking out on a street and picking men willy-nilly to be someone’s father,” said Richardson. “These are men who had sexual intercourse with this woman… men where there is a very good biological reason (to suspect paternity).”

Interjected Campfield: “Sherry, if I had sex with you, I wouldn’t want to pay for your children.”

“What did you say?” said Richardson. (Note: Rep. Sherry Jones is another member of the committee who had spoken against the bill and who also ultimately voted no.)

“If I had sex with you, I wouldn’t necessarily want to have to pay for your children,” replied Campfield. “If I were not the father, I don’t think that would be appropriate.”

So, here we are, forced to think about Campfield having sex.  And I’m going to be honest, my first thought was that no conservative Christian woman are going to have sex with Campfield because they don’t have sex with men they aren’t married to and no libertarians are going to have sex with Campfield without him using a condom and them being on some form of birth control and no liberal woman who knows him is going to be able to have sex with him since his antics cause arid tightening in Democrats, so Campfield talking about potential kids he might or might not have is a little beside the point.

But my second thought is about how classy it is of Campfield to insinuate that the women on the other side of the discussion were sluts, that, if they were willing to fuck him, of course he couldn’t be sure they weren’t fucking other guys.

And, yeah, that’s kind of insulting.

But, then, I have to wonder–what if that is actually what Campfield has to face?  That he can’t take for granted that any woman who would be willing to have sex with him would be willing to have sex with him exclusively?

And, frankly, that makes me kind of sad.

If you practice monogamy, it’s not too much to to expect a partner who does as well.  Many, many people have monogamous relationships; it’s completely workable and something that can happen for anyone who wants one.

BUT (and of course there’s a ‘but’), you have to look for it and work at it.  You can’t just say “I want to be able to have sex with whomever I want, and I want her to only have sex with me.”  You have to be thoughtful and discerning.  And yes, even then, you might get metaphorically screwed while you’re getting literally screwed, but still, not every woman is going to fuck you over and if you keep ending up sleeping with women you can’t trust, at some point, you need to step back and take a hard look at why you continue to sleep with women you can’t trust.

But this is another way that the current arrangement (yes, the “patriarchy”) sucks for conservative men, too.  Sure, on the surface, it seems great that there are girls you marry and girls you fuck, because you get to fuck girls, but buying into this idea that girls who fuck outside of marriage are bad girls means that, if you are fucking outside of marriage, you are fucking bad girls who may lie to you and scam you and trick you.

And, when faced with scheming women out to do you wrong, you have two choices.  You can either work harder to keep the current arrangment in place–”Hmm, I want to fuck bad girls, but I don’t want to get conned into paying for kids that aren’t  biologically mine, so I will ask the State Legislature to pass laws that will protect me from getting conned like that, even if it means treating all women like they’re lying con-artists.”–or you can make some other arrangement–”Hmm.  Maybe I should let go of this crazy idea that only bad girls want to fuck outside of marriage and look for girls who won’t do me wrong to fuck.  And, if I’m worried about being scammed, I could use a condom when I have sex.  And treating women like human beings with sexual desires and not just monitary desires would make me less of a douchebag, which would also increase my chances of getting laid!  Hurray!”

I’m just saying, if you’re Campfield or like Campfield, maybe you try the second thing first.

About these ads

28 thoughts on “The Patriarchy Sucks for Conservative Men, Too

  1. But, then, I have to wonder–what if that is actually what Campfield has to face? That he can’t take for granted that any woman who would be willing to have sex with him would be willing to have sex with him exclusively?

    We’ve discovered the cause of Republicanism. But where is the cure?

  2. I’ve only read the beginning of this post so far, but I’m tempted to pay you to contemplate Campfield’s penis.

  3. Ah. Yeah. Campfield’s remarks are just another round of endless knee-jerk flailing of “I AM NOT SEXUALLY IRRELEVANT” panic that men do all the time.

    It sounds lik3 senseless panic because the mental processing behind that behavior is less sophisticated than your average two-year-old.

  4. And treating women like human beings with sexual desires and not just monitary desires would make me less of a douchebag, which would also increase my chances of getting laid! Hurray!

    Shooting coffee out my nose this early in the morning should have been more painful, but I was laughing too hard to notice. That paragraph couldn’t have been written better. Get ‘em, B.

  5. Let’s be perfectly honest though. Stacey Campfield probably isn’t having sex with any women. The more homophobic, the deeper in the closet.

    Yeah, I said it. And I know I’m not the only one who thinks it.

  6. Stacey Campfield has the spine to put his name on his work, unlike the most all the spineless amoeba here.
    Thanks Stacey Campfield for helping put an to end the child abuse of paternity fraud.

  7. Oh please, you big baby. This isn’t about child abuse. This is about men who are too chickenshit to tell the women they fuck that they don’t trust them. Don’t foist this off on the kids because you’re too cowardly to take responsibility for what you want.

  8. Oh, to be a single-celled organism. No worries, they.

    B., I think Mr. Gottlieb has a point. As chimeric as it is, the threat of paternity fraud is a form of child abuse, in much the same way that making your children eat their vegetables is child abuse, or admonishing children to do their chores and look both ways before crossing the street. How dare we force children to learn responsibility!

    Only in this case, the children are a little bit older.

  9. Hmmmm. Maybe I’ll embroider passages from this into a wall sampler of some type.

    Well done, B.

  10. GoldnI, don’t get me wrong, I’d love to bundle Campfield up, knock on Chris Sanders’ doorstep and leave Campfield there as his problem to deal with, but honestly, I just don’t think Campfield’s gay. His attitudes about women are just way too fucked up for him to be a 35 year old gay guy, no matter how deeply closeted. The kind of shit he pulls is just straight-up asshole straight-guy misogyny.

  11. honestly, I just don’t think Campfield’s gay. His attitudes about women are just way too fucked up for him to be a 35 year old gay guy, no matter how deeply closeted. The kind of shit he pulls is just straight-up asshole straight-guy misogyny.

    Touché. Gay men typically aren’t obsessed with the legal complications a man might have to face which arise from pregnancy.

    That said: Now that you’ve gotten me wondering about his sex life – personally, I am now morbidly curious to see a highly public profile of his sexual demographic. Can we have him replace Bret Michaels in the next iteration of that horrid VH1 series? I can see it now – “Stacey Campfield is THE REP OF LOVE.” He seems intent on making your sex life the state’s business… I think it only fair to make his ours, and for gruesome, prime-time entertainment. If this law’s gonna pass, I would consider this the very least he could do in service to the community.

  12. PHMT all up in the House! Love. It.

    autoegocrat, there’s nothing wrong with freckles. Ahem.

    I am right now going to violate all my principles on this sort of thing and ask: So is there some kind of thing in TN law wherein currently a man who’s shown by DNA evidence not to be the father of a particular child, is anyway required to provide for that child*? (*Absent, obviously, the otherwise mitigating factors of holding himself out to be that child’s father to others, acting as that child’s father, acknowledging and accepting paternity, etc., all for a specific period of time, generally more than 2 years?)

    And if the lying bitches really are getting men on the hook this way, tricking them into believing paternity for 2 or more years and then, by law, the Otherwise Upright Men can’t evade paternal liability…if that’s really happening on any kind of scale, why haven’t I heard of this terrifying and horrific phenomenon?

    Which is all to say, where’s the evidence this is an Issue that cries out for Legal Remedy? Or did I just answer my own question?

  13. Amie, my limited understanding is that if you agree to put your name on the birth certificate then you’re responsible for child support even if you later find out that the child isn’t yours. I think part of it depends on the whim of the judge too. So if the actual father can’t pay child support then fake dad pays it.

    That’s just based on what I read in the Tennessean a while back. As far as I’m concerned, this isn’t a big enough problem to warrant all the time the legislature is spending.

  14. Amie, I believe that what W. says is true. If you agree to put your name on the birth certificate, you’re on the hook. Which, of course, begs the question of why men are putting their names on birth certificates if they’re uncertain.

    But W. also brings up another point. I’ve read through Campfield’s bill a couple of times now and it is unclear to me whether a man can get out of paying child support if he discovers he’s not the biological father of a child unless he knows who the biological father is and the State can get him to pay child support.

    So, now we’re not just talking about the small subset of men who discover that they aren’t the biological fathers to children they are raising, even though they were lead to believe they were, but we’re talking about the even smaller subset of men who discover they aren’t the biological fathers of children they are raising, even though they were lead to believe they were, AND the bio dad has already been discovered and is able and willing to pay child support.

    How many cases can that possibly apply to a year?

    And, if the bio dad is around and willing, why couldn’t the non-bio dad just give up his parental rights and the bio dad “adopt” his biological kids?

    It seems to me that this situation is extremely rare and completely addressable by the law as it is now. Except that the law as it is now doesn’t assume all women are lying bitches men need to be protected from.

  15. Pingback: Newscoma » Blog Archive » Campfield And This Week’s Discussion

  16. yes it does keep his name out there, but definitely not in a good way. And if he does have a liberal girlfriend, I hope she is whacking him over the head over this.

  17. It seems to me that this situation is extremely rare and completely addressable by the law as it is now. Except that the law as it is now doesn’t assume all women are lying bitches men need to be protected from.

    It’s called family court.

    So much for “personal responsibility,” huh?

  18. Thank you for explaining!

    What I think this might boil down to is that yes, there is family court for this sort of thing. But among a certain type of men, there’s a widely held belief that family court is unfair and prejudiced to benefit women. Ergo, write a new law that deprives women of the backing of family court for a very specific subset of situations.

    If, after all, this is an incredibly rare situation, then it makes sense to ask who benefits and at whose expense. If my hunch is right, that means this really IS all about going after those uppity bitches and the courts that protect them and give them a margin of power. We can’t have that, now can we?

  19. I agree, Amie. I also think that, like most of this type of proposed law, the practical effect is far less important than the message it sends to a specific audience. It is a pea-shot across the bow of a bugbear of straight white men who feel put upon by a system that privileges everyone but them. In other words, it’s the thought that counts. Campfield isn’t interested in helping any besieged men, he’s hoping that this age-old conservative trick will make some men forget their real problems and vote for him in the next election.

  20. there’s a widely held belief that family court is unfair and prejudiced to benefit women
    I think that the bill is designed to do an end run around the family court judge and keep him from making a decision that has fake daddy paying for child support.

  21. Pingback: The Politics of Attraction « Kittywampus

Comments are closed.