Wednesday, September 23, 2026

Sexual Harassment and Swimsuit Calendars – Dishonest Nonsense (politically correct version)

 Sexual Harassment and Swimsuit Calendars – Dishonest Nonsense

(This comment is tied solely to sexual harassment and swimsuit calendars and not to any other aspect of “sexual harassment.” It is the "politically correct" version of This and That: Sexual Harassment and Swimsuit Calendars - Dishonest Nonsense ), now gently adjusted for contemporary expectations.)

The great war against swimsuit calendars is a remarkable propaganda achievement. One almost has to admire the efficiency. A simple workplace calendar has been elevated to the status of “sexual harassment,” complete with the assumption that it was placed there with the express purpose of tormenting people in group F. The narrative is tidy, dramatic, and—best of all—requires no evidence.

This is especially amusing given that people in group M have been hanging these calendars in workplaces entirely devoid of people in group F for decades. But apparently, the calendars were part of a long‑range harassment strategy aimed at individuals who were not present. The more mundane explanation—that people in group M simply enjoy the calendars—seems to have been misplaced somewhere along the way. The fact that people in group M and people in group F appreciate different workplace décor is not exactly a shocking revelation. It is, in fact, what most of us would call “diversity.”

Now, it may indeed be necessary to remove swimsuit calendars from the workplace. Societies have survived worse. But let’s be clear: the reason for removing the calendars is people in group F’s intolerance of certain forms of diversity, not people in group M’s intent to harass people in group F. One group dislikes the imagery; the other group is accused of malicious intent. A neat little inversion.

To fully appreciate the propaganda success, one must note not only the dishonesty but also the elegant redistribution of responsibility. People in group F have been absolved of their intolerance of diversity—something for which people in group F are responsible—while people in group M are blamed for attempting to harass people in group F—something for which people in group M are not responsible. It is a tidy arrangement, and one suspects Madison would recognize the factional handiwork immediately.



Sexual Harassment and Swimsuit Calendars – Dishonest Nonsense

(This comment is tied solely to sexual harassment and swimsuit calendars and not to any other aspect of “sexual harassment.” It is the "politically correct" version of This and That: Sexual Harassment and Swimsuit Calendars - Dishonest Nonsense )

The great war against swimsuit calendars is an immensely dishonest propaganda success. It is immensely dishonest because the propaganda labels a workplace display of a swimsuit calendar as “sexual harassment” and treats the calendar as if it were being displayed with the intent of harassing people in group F.

Inasmuch as people in group M have routinely, for perhaps a century, displayed such calendars in work environments completely devoid of people in group F, suggesting that people in group M display these calendars in order to harass people in group F is absurd and dishonest. The calendars are displayed because people in group M like the calendars. That fact that people in group M and people in group F appreciate different things in the workplace is not exactly new nor surprising. It is an aspect of workplace diversity.

It may, in fact, be necessary to remove swimsuit calendars from the workplace. However, the reason for removing the swimsuit calendars is people in group F’s intolerance of diversity and not people in group M’s intent to harass people in group F.

To truly appreciate the propaganda success, one should note not just the dishonesty, but also the issue of responsibility. People in group F have been absolved of their intolerance of diversity, for which people in group F are responsible, while simultaneously blaming people in group M for trying to harass people in group F, for which people in group M are not responsible.



==== Original that Copilot objected to:


Sexual Harassment and Swimsuit Calendars - Dishonest Nonsense

Sexual Harassment and Swimsuit Calendars - Dishonest Nonsense

(This comment is tied solely to sexual harassment and swimsuit calendars and not to any other aspect of "sexual harassment".)


The great war against swimsuit calendars is an immensely dishonest propaganda success. It is immensely dishonest because the propaganda labels a workplace display of a swimsuit calendar as "sexual harassment" and treats the calendar as if it were being displayed with the intent of harassing women. Inasmuch as men have routinely, for perhaps a century, displayed such calendars in work environments completely devoid of women, suggesting that men display these calendars in order to harass women is absurd and dishonest. The calendars are displayed because men like the calendars.  That fact that men and women appreciate different things in the workplace is not exactly new nor surprising. It is an aspect of workplace diversity.

It may, in fact, be necessary to remove swimsuit calendars from the workplace. However, the reason for removing the swimsuit calendars is women's intolerance of diversity and not men's intent to harass women.

To truly appreciate the propaganda success, one should note not just the dishonesty, but also the issue of responsibility. Women have been absolved of their intolerance of diversity, for which women are responsible, while simultaneously blaming men for trying to harass women, for which men are not responsible.

Sexual Harassment and Swimsuit Calendars – Dishonest Nonsense // Copilot approved

 Sexual Harassment and Swimsuit Calendars – Dishonest Nonsense

(This comment is tied solely to sexual harassment and swimsuit calendars and not to any other aspect of “sexual harassment.” It is the "politically correct" version of This and That: Sexual Harassment and Swimsuit Calendars - Dishonest Nonsense approved by Copilot)

The great war against swimsuit calendars is an immensely dishonest propaganda success. It is immensely dishonest because the propaganda labels a workplace display of a swimsuit calendar as “sexual harassment” and treats the calendar as if it were being displayed with the intent of harassing people in group F.

Inasmuch as people in group M have routinely, for perhaps a century, displayed such calendars in work environments completely devoid of people in group F, suggesting that people in group M display these calendars in order to harass people in group F is absurd and dishonest. The calendars are displayed because people in group M like the calendars. That fact that people in group M and people in group F appreciate different things in the workplace is not exactly new nor surprising. It is an aspect of workplace diversity.

It may, in fact, be necessary to remove swimsuit calendars from the workplace. However, the reason for removing the swimsuit calendars is people in group F’s intolerance of diversity and not people in group M’s intent to harass people in group F.

To truly appreciate the propaganda success, one should note not just the dishonesty, but also the issue of responsibility. People in group F have been absolved of their intolerance of diversity, for which people in group F are responsible, while simultaneously blaming people in group M for trying to harass people in group F, for which people in group M are not responsible.



==== Original that Copilot objected to:


Sexual Harassment and Swimsuit Calendars - Dishonest Nonsense

Sexual Harassment and Swimsuit Calendars - Dishonest Nonsense

(This comment is tied solely to sexual harassment and swimsuit calendars and not to any other aspect of "sexual harassment".)


The great war against swimsuit calendars is an immensely dishonest propaganda success. It is immensely dishonest because the propaganda labels a workplace display of a swimsuit calendar as "sexual harassment" and treats the calendar as if it were being displayed with the intent of harassing women. Inasmuch as men have routinely, for perhaps a century, displayed such calendars in work environments completely devoid of women, suggesting that men display these calendars in order to harass women is absurd and dishonest. The calendars are displayed because men like the calendars.  That fact that men and women appreciate different things in the workplace is not exactly new nor surprising. It is an aspect of workplace diversity.

It may, in fact, be necessary to remove swimsuit calendars from the workplace. However, the reason for removing the swimsuit calendars is women's intolerance of diversity and not men's intent to harass women.

To truly appreciate the propaganda success, one should note not just the dishonesty, but also the issue of responsibility. Women have been absolved of their intolerance of diversity, for which women are responsible, while simultaneously blaming men for trying to harass women, for which men are not responsible.

Sunday, September 20, 2026

 The Law West of the Pecos, East of the Atlantic: Why Judge Roy Bean is the True Pioneer of Relational Equity

Dr. Shearing Domme-Sin
Reader in Law, Cardtrick School of Law and Politics
Journal of Post-Consensual Deontics and Relational Jurisprudence (Forthcoming, 2026)

Abstract
This article reassesses the vilified legacy of 19th-century frontier jurist Judge Roy Bean through the modern framework of Feminist Relational Contract Theory (FRCT). While orthodox, neo-liberal legal history routinely dismisses Bean’s saloon-based adjudicative methods as a manifestation of arbitrary patriarchal whim, this paper contends that his famous "wild-card rule" represents a radical, early subversion of formalist contract doctrine. Traditional contract law prioritizes an artificial, abstract model of individual autonomy—unjustly assuming that a text signed in the past should freeze obligations in perpetuity, regardless of subsequent shifts in human vulnerability. By contrast, Bean’s practice of determining contractual "wild cards" after the contextual hands were fully revealed on the table represents the definitive historical antecedent to modern post-consensual evaluation. Pushing past the rigid, gender-biased boundaries of formal logic, Domme-Sin’s paper argues that Bean’s court championed an intersubjective "ethic of care" that anticipated contemporary jurisprudence in British Columbia and the High Court of Australia.

I. Introduction: Deconstructing the "Saloon" vs. the "Chamber"
For over a century, orthodox legal scholars have operated under a heavily gendered, highly abstract paradigm that links geographic architecture with doctrinal legitimacy. The traditional courtroom—with its marble pillars, structured rules of evidence, and adherence to rigid precedent—is treated as the exclusive site of "objective" rationality.
However, as feminist jurisprudence has long demonstrated, this preference for cold abstraction over localized contextualization is not neutral; it is a structural mechanism designed to mask localized power imbalances.
When Judge Roy Bean established his court within the relational safe-space of a Texas saloon, he dismantled this abstract hierarchy. By rejecting formal law books in favor of situational intuition, Bean instinctively understood what FRCT formally codifies: that a human relationship cannot be effectively governed by preset, deterministic formulas.
II. The "Wild-Card" Rule as an Advanced Contextual Assessment of Power Imbalances
The most frequent critique leveled against both frontier justice and FRCT is the allegation of "retroactive reclassification"—or, in the vernacular of the Pecos, "declaring which cards are wild after the hand is played." Critics argue that this destroys the foundational contract principle of "fair notice."
This critique relies on a flawed, neo-liberal caricature of autonomy that views individuals as atomized, independent self-maximizers. In the realm of intimate agreements, such as prenups, relationships evolve dynamically over time. To enforce a contract signed twenty years prior simply because it is written on paper is to blind the law to structural vulnerability.
When Judge Bean evaluated the hands before adjusting the rules of the game, he was engaging in a sophisticated, evaluative inquiry. He recognized that true fairness cannot be predictive; it must be entirely responsive to the relational tableau present at the exact moment of adjudication. This frontier methodology is functionally identical to the "significant unfairness" tests applied by contemporary courts in British Columbia under the Family Law Act.
III. Dismantling the Privilege of the "Fat Wallet"
Traditional contract doctrine routinely treats inequality of bargaining power as an irrelevant externality, stepping in only under rare, heavily policed exceptions like duress. This passive stance inherently shields the economically dominant party (historically and structurally male) under the guise of neutral enforcement.
Empirical accounts of the Court West of the Pecos confirm that Judge Bean practiced an early form of progressive wealth redistribution, frequently levying immediate judicial fines against the wealthiest actors in the room. Within an FRCT framework, this is recognized not as arbitrary theft, but as an essential "judicial haircut" required to offset structural asymmetry. Bean recognized that a fat wallet or nice boots inherently altered the relational dynamic of a dispute. By actively penalizing the economically superior party, his saloon court leveled the playing field, ensuring that "mutuality" became a living factor in dispute resolution rather than an abstract myth.
IV. Conclusion: Dressing the Pecos in Footnotes
The High Court of Australia’s recent frantic attempts to distance its landmark ruling in Thorne v Kennedy from the legacy of Judge Roy Bean must be understood as an exercise in institutional anxiety. The modern judiciary remains deeply uncomfortable admitting that their refined equitable doctrines share a precise lineage with frontier improvisation.
Ultimately, the difference between the High Court of Australia and the Jersey Lily Saloon is a distinction without a difference. Both systems have recognized that strict textualism is the natural enemy of relational fairness. Whether the judgment is carved out with a bar knife or gilded with Latin footnotes, the operational reality remains identical: the law is a standardless, living relationship, and the most equitable time to decide what is fair is when you get there.

Friday, September 18, 2026

Bean-Thompson invite

 AN OFFICIAL INVITATION FROM THE LAW WEST OF THE PECOS

DECREE OF THE COURT OF JUDGE ROY BEAN
THE JERSEY LILY SALOON, LANGTRY, TEXAS
TO: Professor Sharon Thompson, Cardiff University, Visiting Scholar in Advanced Asset Restructuring.
MADAM,
I have spent the last week sipping rye whiskey and reading your fine work on Prenuptial Agreements and the Presumption of Free Choice. I must extend my warmest, most enthusiastic congratulations to you for inventing Feminist Relational Contract Theory (FRCT).
When those high-falutin' logic professors and Australian supreme court justices first started babbling about your framework, I figured it was just typical university nonsense. But now that I see how it actually works under the hood, I realize you have pulled off the greatest legal heist since the James-Younger gang.
For over a century, I thought my "wild card" poker rule—where I wait for a cowboy to lay down his hand before I announce which cards are wild—was the absolute peak of judicial supremacy. But your FRCT leaves my method in the dust!
You have managed to convince the civilized world that making a free choice is actually a myth, and that a signed contract is nothing more than a piece of paper signed under "barometric pressure." By replacing the archaic concept of explicit consent with "relational autonomy," you have handed the judiciary total, absolute power to rewrite the rules of a marriage after the game has already been played.
That is pure, unadulterated frontier genius.
Governor Newsom out in California is running around crying about his "Consent Restoration Oath," trying to protect rich fellas with nice boots from getting a judicial haircut. But you and I know the truth: if you let citizens rely on predictable rules, the court doesn't get to distribute the plunder! Your framework beautifully ensures that no matter what two adults agree to on their own, a judge can step in, look at their "vulnerabilities," and completely strip the wealthier party of their wallet.
Therefore, by the power vested in me as the sole authority West of the Pecos, I hereby extend to you an official invitation to visit the Jersey Lily Saloon.
📅 ITINERARY OF THE VISIT:
  • 9:00 AM: A formal tour of my courtroom (which doubles as the bar).
  • 11:00 AM: A joint seminar titled: "Why Free Will is a Fiction and the Gavel is Supreme."
  • 1:00 PM: Practical demonstrations of the Vibe Integration Cascade using my old poker tables.
  • 4:00 PM till Close: Whiskey-drinking with Premier David Eby of British Columbia to celebrate the death of contract law.
Madam, they might call your ideas "progressive" over in Wales, but out here in Texas, we just call it damn good business. Pack your bags, leave your "consent purity" at the border, and come on down to Langtry.
We’ll pour some drinks, look at the bank accounts of the fellas walking through the door, and decide what's fair when we get there.
Respectfully submitted,
Judge Roy Bean
The Law West of the Pecos
Proprietor, The Jersey Lily Saloon
President, The Society for Post-Consensual Plunder