~ archived since 2018 ~

I just read about the Southern Poverty Law Center's post saying that r/MensRights is misogynistic. Here is my response. Thoughts?

Exilarchy

December 26, 2012

31 upvotes

Here is what i sent to the SPLC. I will update when/if I get a response.

Hello SPLC!

I had a quick question for you regarding your article titled "Misogyny: The Sites." Here is a link to said article: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/misogyny-the-sites . I was wondering why you classified reddit's Men's Rights subreddit as a misogynist group. Full disclosure, I do subscribe to this subreddit and I do agree with many (but by no means all) of the things posted there. The article mentions conspiracy theories espoused by "/u/Kloo2yoo," a moderator of the subreddit. How do the views held by one member of the subreddit make the group as a whole a hate group? I can guarantee that the majority of the members of this community do not agree with these views. Furthermore, the majority of the subreddit does not engage in misogynistic behavior either. In this ( http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/15eil1/my_sons_mother_canceled_his_christmas_with_me_is/ ) post to the subreddit, a man complains that his ex wife has taken advantage of the court system and has not granted him the visitation days with his children that the divorce settlement granted him. He says that he will get "revenge" on the wife through legal means. There is an overwhelming response in the comment section saying that this man should not be getting "revenge," as that is a very negative thing. Instead, commenters say he should be seeking "reparation" or "reprisal." They go out of their way to make sure that this does not come across as misogyny. While I understand that a minority of members of the Men's Rights subreddit do engage in misogynistic behavior, the same can be said for almost any equal rights group. There are/were fringe movements of the civil rights movement and the feminist movement that cross a figurative line, but this minority does not represent the whole of the movement. Why should the same be said about the Men's Rights movement?

Thoughts?

Edit: Since someone asked, you can contact the SPLC here!

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	I just read about the Southern Poverty Law Center's post saying that r/MensRights is misogynistic. Here is my response. Thoughts?
Author	Exilarchy
Upvotes	31
Comments	57
Date	December 26, 2012 8:37 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/15he27/i_just_read_about_the_southern_poverty_law/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/i-just-read-about-the-southern-poverty-law-centers.1005721 https://theredarchive.com/post/1005721

Comments

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Exilarchy 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JackMarquis 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sarstan 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm glad you made it so clear that not everyone has such extreme views in MR. Just because one person here does something over the top doesn't mean we're all supporting that, much less doing it too.

This made me take a quick look over /r/mensrights again. Something I haven't done in a while. It's nice to see the more aggressive and potentially offensive items in the sidebar are gone. I remember how unhappy I was with the mention about "receiving scorn from Feminists" as a badge of honor in the subreddit. It helps to highlight that we are not like those who oppose us. We're open to discussion and fair reasoning. We want fair treatment and are not here to attack people.

At least personally I don't view women as the enemy. I think that's asinine to do so. The enemy are the ideas that are against men. Not even the people who would say such things are the enemy, but only their words and views. Keeping that distinction as well really helps.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Exilarchy 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JackMarquis 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iamaom 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rightsbot 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Crimson_D82 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Crimson_D82 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mikesteane 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]seedofcheif 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Exilarchy 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (53 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Wizzad 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]JackMarquis 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

OK- I'm not misogynist and wouldn't upvote it. Yet you will go back to your friends and say that "MRA" and the "MRM" are misogynist.

Besides the logical fallacy of hyperbole and generalization, what about me? I am being good, yet you still must and keep attacking us.

Yes there is stupid on all sides. If you ever like to go testify at city councils or boards you will see that sometimes you wish someone on your side was on the others- they're just stupid and make your side look stupid.

There's nothing that can be done about that- it's up to intelligent information consumers to know things like logic (e.g. hyperbole is illogical), and to see both the good and the bad.

For example- if you are a good person, you believe in men's rights! Do you think that prison rape in the US prisons is a bad thing? Great, so do we! Do you think attitudes towards male rape might make males blame themselves, not come forward or be blamed when they report? Great, so do we. Great, pull up a chair, would you like some coffee?

The truth is if you don't support equal rights for women, you're a dick. And if you don't support equal rights for men, then you're a dick. If you do, you can be said to be both feminist and a supporter of men's rights. They are not mutually exclusive, unless you're a sexist.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JackMarquis 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]JackMarquis 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

OK, I don't really know reddit theory, but imagine it is in some ways skewed. Overly young, middle-class & up, first-world, and, due to the monitors, shallower than real-life conversation.

Perhaps "/mensrights," not "men's rights," IS skewed in unpleasant ways you describe. I don't know though; I'm not spending lotsa time on this, and I do see upvoted commenters bringing outliers to task, calling them out for stupidity or bigotry.

This is the internet- we can always find trolls and crazies! How fun! You're right- it is a tried and true practice to find examples of crazies on the other side and discuss. Stupid, human nature. We see it in news and "mature" human politics all the time. What's that called? Not ad hominem, but irrelevant examples. Strawman, I guess?

I do say "there is stupidity on both sides," but generally I look at these as diverting stories of crazies getting internet beat-downs; Because "men's rights" are not accepted as a thing, the "look at at this crazy MRA guy posts," seem to have a tone of "This is 'men's rights', they are all like this, they're crazy and dangerous," whereas "look at at this crazy feminist woman" posts have a backdrop where all the (sane) ones of us know our mothers and sisters and friends and already see it as non-representative of feminism, unless it is a national policy. It is the stupid and desperate who paint themselves in a corner trying to tar "all women," "women," "all feminists," or "feminists." I suppose there's always room on all sides to speak out and tailor a groups message to brush away the burrs of bigotry. Or we can just have reddit-drama fun!

The biggest common enemy to sex equality (in the first world) is not one sex, but shameless pop culture and societal messaging, including business practices. I hate how Disney & Nick & MTV & magazines & news are not safe for younger folks- it's just more profitable to be a dick when selling, and imply that boys are weak but can be tougher if they listen to rap, and to imply that girls are ugly and worthless and stupid, but will be more intelligent and smart when they wear size 2 brand names and make-up.

The bad guy has big scars on his face. I guess we should all try to limit tv and have more talks with our children.

Good luck, see ya, love ya, bye!

[–]Cid420 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

but in the end, the upvotes don't lie.

Votes don't mean shit, and if they did how about you take into account that when people make misogynistic comments they get downvoted 99.9% of the time? Or would you rather disregard that fact so you can judge an entire community by a single comment? And by the way, a misogynistic comment being heavily upvoted sounds suspicious. I wouldn't even be surprised if it was a troll that made a decent comment, then later changed it once it got a lot of upvotes to make it look like a highly upvoted misogynistic comment, because, well, that's happened quite a few times in the past (actually that tactic was used enough times in regards to self-posts that the moderation has had to take precautions against it).

So please, tell me more about how upvotes don't lie.

[–]Exilarchy 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Exilarchy 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AryoBarzan 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AryoBarzan -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AryoBarzan -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Paul Elam is a misogynist. Source: Paul Elam's YouTube username is TheHappyMisogynist.

Wow, you cannot be this stupid. You obviously have never looked up the word "irony" or "satire" in your life. I guess if I wrote "asshole" in my username, it would totally make an asshole! YouTube username's are serious business!

You are truly an idiot if you claim to be an MRA and not even know that one of the most prominent MRA figureheads openly labels himself as a misogynist.

Well, Ms. LadyLuq... if you're so certain that Paul Elam here is such a rampant "misogynist", then I'd imagine it wouldn't be very hard for you to give me examples. I mean, it's not very hard for me to find evidence of prominent feminists promoting male genital mutilation, downplaying men's issues or slandering the MRM (just as YOU are doing) so I'd imagine Mr. Elam would be saying equally hateful shit. Let's hear it.

Also, I'm still awaiting to hear how Warren Farrell (literally, one of the MOST soft-spoken and kindest people in this movement) is a "misogynist". Let's also not forget that "misogynist" Warren Farrell over here was CHAIRMAN (yes, you read that right) of the National Organization of Women. God, what a misogynist!

If you weren't so busy scraping to find "misogyny" in every little possible niche, maybe you'd be doing something useful as an "egalitarian". Like addressing the issues of men, which your less-criticized feminist friends seem to overlook mysteriously...

[–]Exilarchy 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iamaom 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]iamaom 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WiWiWiWiWiWi 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AryoBarzan -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It's amazing how you feminists go around posting any little smidgeon of supposed "misogyny" as some serious edition of "woman-hating". Why don't you go to your little feminist blogs and see the kind of hateful shit about MALES being upvoted on a routine basis? You think these bogus slight exaggerations here are evidence of "misogyny"? Maybe you should look up the word "misogyny" sometime rather than going on nit-picking witch hunts.

Oh and while you're at it, why don't you take a nice gander at your nice little feminist friends over at radfemhub discussing ways to abort baby boys and kill off men? For some strange reason, these fine, equality-loving ladies seem to fly right under the radar of the feminist-catering scumbag SPLC. I wonder why that is, LadyLuq?

But good job trying to locate these imaginary "misogyny" posts on r/MensRights instead of policing your own movement!

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AryoBarzan 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Really? I'm not a feminist, I identify as an egalitarian.

Which is why you're wasting your time over-exaggerating these posts to literally mean "misogyny"? Why don't you go over to SRS and see how well they treat your arguments towards their ACTUAL bigotry? Maybe then you'll realize how pointless it is sitting here and pretending we're the ones spewing bigotry.

Yeah, because calling women evil is not real misogyny.

I didn't see any posts literally saying all women are evil. This is just an example of you over-exaggerating posts because they're not catering to your gynocentric view of the world. Believe it or not, women are ALSO responsible for A LOT of the bad in the world. Recognizing this is NOT THE SAME as "hating women".

Imaginary? Lol, I didn't create these posts out of no where. You saw them.

You have to be VERY hard-pressed to call any of these posts true "misogyny".

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AryoBarzan 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Over-exaggerating? You saw the quotes. They were hateful, bigoted, and misogynistic, and somehow they got many many upvotes.

I saw the quotes and didn't see anything half as hateful as the garbage spewed by feminist groups. The quotes were VERY tame in terms of 'sexism'. When shit like this is posted on daytime television, you look like a real moron pretending any of the bullshit you posted is "sexism". Also, even these tame comments are VERY rare in /r/MensRights. Why don't you go visit the nice ladies over at radfemhub advocating aborting baby boys and androcide, rather than wasting everybody's time crying over supposed "misogyny" here?

"Thus, men are faced with the choice of either colluding to the evil of women or being childless." [+19]

Yes, there are "evil women" out there who can easily take advantage of a court system which caters directly to women and this man was probably a victim of one of them. It is very easy for the "evil" of any gender to come out when you have entire legislature catered to you. The comment certainly isn't the kindest comment, but it doesn't take a detective to understand why the individual is trying to caution others.

Take a look at the posts of /r/MensRights. Anything even vaguely anti-male is considered misandry.

Take a look at the posts of /r/SRS. Anything even vaguely anti-female is considered misogyny. In fact, I don't think anything "vaguely anti-male is considered misandry". Many links/posts here get called out as not being misandric, whereas feminists are always over-exaggerating any tiny claim. Maybe your time is better spend criticizing them rather than us?

I'd hope that if you consider "Men can stop rape too!" to be misandry, you consider posts stating that women are evil, women are liars, women happily destroy men, women are harots, promiscuous women are sluts, women actively seek out to destroy men's lives, women can't identify with others' feelings, women that say "no" to sex while appearing aroused are committing date fraud, women did not create anything in the entire world ever, etc. to be misogyny.

I agree that many of the comments you posted are not in good taste. However, how many times do you see any of those comments or implications posted all over college campuses? How many times do you hear entire government organizations saying any of those things? Now, ask yourself how many times you hear "Men can stop rape" or see posters showcasing this all over college campuses? Most of the comments are not saying ALL WOMEN are like this, but that there ARE ALOT of women who do those things... and they're correct. Men AND women commit horrible crimes, but when feminists choose to ignore it when WOMEN do it. Let's not start blaming MRA's for showcasing that women ALSO commit heinous acts when feminists SOLELY slander men for these acts in the first place.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]AryoBarzan 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Right, that's why I'm not a feminist.

Then maybe it's time you went over and showcased their bigotry for a bit? They've certainly got FAR more than we do and they (for some straaange reason) aren't put on the SPLC's all-mighty "hate" list. Seems like THEY are the ones need exposing more than we do.

So is "Men Can Stop Rape." But that phrase is treated as serious misandry, while "women are evil liars" is apparently not misogynistic to you.

For one, "Men Can Stop Rape" is not really 'tame'. Somebody making posters parading around "Blacks Can Stop Crime" is not 'tame'. It's only tame to you because men are the ONLY group its okay slander/stereotype. Now, most of those quotes did NOT read "ALL WOMEN ARE...", but simply IMPLIED that many women do these things. Many women are "evil liars". Either way, even if it did say "all women are evil liars": for one, it wouldn't have received that many upvotes and two, who really cares? How often do you see "women are evil liars" posted all over university campuses? Maybe its time you looked at PRIORITIES rather than nit-picking sexism wherever you went?

The entire point of the OP's post was stating that there is no misogyny in /r/MensRights, and I posted examples of misogyny in /r/MensRights. We're not talking about feminism or radfem hubs. I'm not even a feminist, and this topic is explicitly about misogyny in /r/MR, so I'm not sure why you're bringing up these nontopical statements.

Because it's idiotic and shows that you're nit-picking as much as you can. Do you know what "misogyny" means? Misogyny means hatred of women, which there is VERY little of in the western world. The comments you posted mostly implied that women did bad shit, which they do. You chose, however, to interpret them as meaning ALL women are (insert stereotype here). Also, I don't know why you give a shit about this supposed "misogyny" when the opposite end has no problems posting misandric garbage all over university campuses. Maybe its time, once again, to look at your priorities than try to nit-pick "sexism"?

If a woman is raped, that doesn't give her the right to say men are evil. If a man is fucked over in court, that doesn't give him the right to say that women are evil.

Cautioning others of "evil" people within a particular demographic is not the same as saying every single person in that particular demographic is evil. However, I agree with your statement.

Actually, the comments that I posted refer to women in general, not "some women" or "a lot of women." Besides, you could make the same argument for "Men Can Stop Rape Too." According to your logic, that's not saying ALL MEN are like this, but that there are A LOT of men who do those things... and they're correct.

There are not "A LOT OF MEN" who rape. Especially in the Western world. Rape is something an EXTREMELY SMALL MINORITY of men (and women) do. It is nowhere near the norm. However, almost every woman I know has lied (even my good friends) and a LARGE majority have screwed over their husbands in court. Let's not pretend that the over-exaggerated rape claims from feminist "researchers" prove that rape is something A LOT of men do or anywhere near equivalent to the amount of women who lie or utilize a feminized court system to screw their ex-husbands. So no, LadyLuq, these are nowhere near comparable.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Woa, some of these are really out of context and appear worse than they are.

Women deliberately abuse PMS to be unreasonable and selfish [+3

Why is it misogynistic to talk about pms? And yeah, it would be wrong to accuse ALL or even many women of using pms to behave unreasonable and selfish.

But there are women who do this and men should know it.

I know of a serious case where a man got into real trouble at work because of a pmsing woman.

And seriously? Three (3) upvotes?

Women shamelessly lie; women actively seek out to ruin men's lives; women are harlots who happily destroy men; women are evil [+19]

So this guy went through some shit experiences with women and is fed up with it. Does that make him a misogynist? I thought misogyny was a patriarchy induced general hatred of women. But he didn't have a general hatred of women in the beginning. He had bad experiences with women and says "enough". It's not more misogynistic than "where are all the good men?" is misandrist.

It's okay to call promiscuous women sluts and promiscuous men studs; also, some more "a key that opens many locks is a master key, but a lock that can be opened by any key is a shitty lock" [+43] and [+3]

Again, this is not misogynistic.

First of all, everyone has different opinions on the matter of ONS and casual sex. And everyone is allowed to have an opinion.

Second, in reallife I don't see anyone going "she is a slut, he is a stud". Women who are promiscuous are far more likely to be seen as independent and strong and whatnot. Promiscuous guys are NOT applauded. (The only exception being rockstars and movie stars).

Try to find a man who says "wow, this guy is really great. He sleeps with a lot of women. He is a real stud!" Seriously, try to find someone who says that.

Promiscuity is seen as a bad thing in a man and you see that in movies. The evil guys often are promiscuous because the script writers know that this trait will trigger an automatic "I don't like this guy"-feeling in the viewer.

Fortunately, some of the newer shows and movies try to show male promiscuity in a different angle.

Third, he didn't say that it is okay to call a promiscuous woman a slut. He tried to point out where this double standard could originate from.

Fourth, how can one not understand that it really is easier for a woman to be promiscuous than it is for a man?

I see it this way: A promiscuous woman is a slut. A promiscous man is a slut, too. But on top of being a slut, he must have SOMETHING going for him, else he wouldn't be able to sleep with a lot of women.

Why can't you just accept the fact that whenever someone says something like "he is the master key" that it is admiration of his skills or looks but at the same time NOT AN APPRECIATION of what he is doing.

The only way to change women's bad behavior is by punishing them and making sure they know it hurts them; women don't care about hypothetical scenarios where other women might do the same thing to men; women can't identify with others' feelings, so you need to make it about THEM and THEIR feelings, because that's all they care about; women are emotional creatures [+19]

I remember reading that thread. And as far as I remember OP's story was a really sad one and his/her mother was abusive of her husband and the kid suffered. I think the advice was not misogynistic because it wasn't directed at all women, but clearly to the very bad mother of the story.

In the way you quoted, it sounds as if this was advice on general normal relationships. Like all man should punish and manipulate their wives.

Link expressing upset over rape kits being tested [+21]

Ok, the title reads: "11.000 "lost" untested rape kits found in Detroit. Rapist scare in Detroit as "21 serial rapists" already identified from 400 of those kits. Police department asks for more funding."

Where do you get "expressing upset over rape kits being tested" out of this title? If someone doesn't click on the link you provided he or she would think that MRA are generally against the use of rape kits.

Women who appear physically responsive to sex but verbally state "no" to sex are committing date fraud; pressuring women into sex when they say "no" is "fun" and "exciting" (some quotes from Warren Farrell) [+29]

This comment got upvoted because someone asked for the context of a Warren Farrel quote. So the poster provided the quote in context and got upvoted for providing the quote in context as requested. Not upvoted for saying "pressuring women into sex when they say no is fun."

And damn, Warren Farrell never said or wrote that it was okay to pressure a woman who says no into sex. That is a blatant lie. You should be ashamed to take an out of context quote and twist it even further. Have you no decency? Really!

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

Did you not read the quote? Literally the entire point of the quote that it's okay to have sex with women who say "no" to sex as long as you interpret their body language to be saying "yes." And he stated, very directly, that a man having sex with a woman after she says "no" but her body language appears to be saying "yes" is exciting. See the third paragraph, first line. This is essentially word-for-word. I'm not sure how you can interpet this quote any differently.

If a women says she doesnt want sex, but proceeds to give me oral sex, get naked and climb on top of me, thats sending mixed messages. Feminists have warped your mind. Not saying no doesnt necessarily mean yes, that is quite correct. But not saying yes, doesnt necessarily mean no either, and to deny that is to deny human behavior. Women are trained to be coy, men are trained to look past what a women says and instead how she acts. Women should be warned that if they really dont want sex they should make it very clear, because men have no way of knowing if the woman then continues to act some variation of the above. To him, she doesnt really mean no, or doesnt really mean she isnt sure, and instead wants to continue or wants to be seduced. Even in my own experience women have assumed i wasnt interested if I havent tried to go past what they claimed they didnt want or usually werent too sure about. Farrell was also making the point that it was seen as exciting to seduce a women in this way in films, books and other literature. Its this same literature that women buy and enjoy and are turned on by, such as 50 Shades of Grey. This is not misogyny, its fact. The same facts say that the better a women is at attracting men the more at risk she is at attracting men she won't like, men that might sexually harass her, men that may be violent towards her. Pointing that out is not misogyny either, but feminists claim it is. Feminists dont like facts.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

Sure, in that situation, yes. But it is not appropriate to apply that to every situation in which a woman says "no" but appears aroused, as Warren Farrell said. That's how rape happens. Appearing horny is not indicative of consent. Saying "yes" or "no" is much more indicative of consent.

If there is violence and force involved where the women has made it clear she really isnt interested, then its rape. I gave a more obvious scenario simply to show the claim that "no always means no" or another variation "if she doesnt say yes, she didnt consent", is simply wrong. You accepted above that I was correct. To concede I was correct means that there are things a women can do to show she really does want sex, even if she says no(, or doesnt say yes).

The problem feminists have is claiming something is rape even when there is no force and there is no violence. They like to use broad brushstrokes such as the aforementioned ideas about how if a women says no her body cannot say yes - - its always rape. They dont want to have to deal with the above issue, because its awkward and complicated and now means they have to say what behaviour from a women qualifies as being acceptable as consenting to sex despite what she says, its much easier just to say there IS nothing a women could do IF she says no. So unfortunately you made a mistake. The only response you could have made without having to tumble down this rabbit hole is that the scenario I gave earlier is still rape, I mean it would be absurd no doubt, but at least it would allow your argument to be more immediately consistent.

I find it quite a strange concept talking about it in these terms anyway, since Im not sure what kind of sex these people have but in my experience the initiation of sex is usually more or less unspoken and very rarely do you ever say something like "wanna have sex? I need you to say yes you do want me to have sex with you,I dont want to accidently rape you, baby" "are you sure you want me to put it inside you?", "are you double tripple pinky swear sure?" "are you enjoying this? Because I could take it out if you want, are you moaning because you're happy or because you think you're being raped?" "I need to keep checking because I know you can change your mind at any time and I want to make sure I know you have changed it" Im only half joking.

No, my mind is not warped because I want to be able to say "no" to sex without some guy assuming I mean "yes" and raping me against my will.

And no one is suggesting that, not me, not Warrell Farrell. You misrepresent me as you do him.

I guess saying "No" isn't clear enough to you? What the hell.

Not necessarily enough. I realise you have already forgotten you accepted this earlier.

Solution: When you try to have sex with someone and they say "no," don't have sex with them. How hard is this?

See above, you already accepted the argument that no doesnt always mean no, so you cant backtrack now. And as I said but will repeat, many women do not like it if you stop as soon as they act coy, and even act insulted because they say they thought you werent interested. This is the typical basis of courtship and flirting between men and women, it doesnt stop when you want to get naked and sweaty with each other. Women like it when a man takes control, not violent control, not forced sex when they show they really arent interested. Thats because its a masculine trait, and masculinity is attractive... well...at least it touches the primitive side of a womans brain whether they realise it or not, even if many are taught that masculinity is a bad thing. Unsurprisingly a submissive man rates very low on popular female fantasies, strangely however it is a role that men are interested in (strange in that feminists tell us men are just so eager to dominate)

Because that's what they are... fantasy. Fiction. Movies, films, and books are not real. Many women have rape fantasies. Does that mean they actually want to be raped? No.

Yet you would deny this has any relationship with the sexual dynamic between men and women, which is why Warren Farrell even bringing it up is so immediately horrendous to you. This is denial of facts and denial of reality because it makes you uncomfortable. You realise many women have rape fantasies and like men to be dominant in sex, but find this reflects badly on your arguments about rape, so to you anyone discussing our sexual behaviours between men and women in relation to rape must be saying that women want to be raped by default of them even mentioning it.

TL;DR Attractive women are more likely to be raped and assaulted, blame the femininsts.

Blame the feminists?

Are you honestly going to sit there and claim its not true that the better a women is at attracting men the more at risk she is at attracting men she won't like, men that might sexually harass her, men that may be violent towards her?

Feminists want to claim that she doesnt increase her risk of that happening at all, because according to them men dont rape because of any sexual urge and that she might as well be a frumpy 80 year old. Much like claiming that me leaving my door open when I leave the house does not increase my risk of burglary, its denial of reality in much the same way.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Actually, "no" does always mean "no." That's pretty much the definition of rape right there. And, what, if there's no violence or force, it's not rape? Hmm..

You already admitted to me that no doesnt always mean no, go back and read what you wrote. I gave you a scenario where the women said no, but where you accepted it wasnt rape. I quote... "Sure, in that situation, yes. But it is not appropriate to apply that to every situation in which a woman says "no" ".... This means you concede there is a way for a women to show consent to sex with her behavior alone.

This is incredibly ignorant. You are literally saying that there is no such thing as non-violent or non-forceful rape, and if there is not violence or force, it is not rape. This is disgusting.

If there's no violence or force, then it isnt rape, no. The only addendum to that would be that coercion counts as rape, but only when we're talking about something serious. Blackmail for example, however I also wouldnt define all blackmail as rape, it would depend on how serious we're talking.

When I say feminists want to define rape even when there's no violence or force, Im referring to their definitions that allow a women to be a rape victim even if she consented, was dominant and he was submissive, enjoyed it, and was perfectly happy afterwards. How? Because if she was drunk then they call it rape.

Warren Farrell said. He, and you, are saying it's acceptable to continue trying to have sex with a woman after she says "no." That's rape. Sorry, buddy, but no means no.

You are in denial of human behaviour, and your own words. You yourself admitted earlier that no doesnt always mean no. Thats out there now, Im afraid Im going to hold you to it.

Dude, you literally just said "no doesn't always mean no." This is not misrepresentation. You said it.

We're talking about consent. What someone says isnt always what they mean. No doesnt always mean no, and FYI it might also blow your mind to realise that yes doesnt always mean yes either.

That's your own fault for thinking a clear "no" means "keep pressuring me to have sex."

No i gave you a scenario, you agreed it wasnt rape. In that scenario the women said no.

Okay, so what's worse? A woman acting insulted because you stopped after she said "no," or actually raping a woman? Seriously, which is worse?

By this logic we shouldn't have sex or date women at all, because what's worse? Not having sex or a girlfriend, or raping a women? Your argument is invalid.

You are deliberately misinterpreting my argument in order to create conflict. Women have rape fantasies, because they are fantasies, not real fucking life. Most women find it scary when they say "no" and the man keeps going, not sexy. This is not a denial of facts. In fact, you haven't presented any real facts so far.

I didnt misrepresent anything, I understand you said they are just fantasies. I agree. They dont really want to be raped. But you ignored my whole response. You dont feel its at all relevant to talk about this in relationship to the sexual dynamic between men and women and that additionally women are trained to play it coy in every other aspect of courtship, yet suddenly we're meant to think this stops when it comes to sex. We cant have a more intelligent conversation when you only want to be so superficial.

No, the burden of proof is on you. Please back up this "fact."

Can you give me a single reason why it would not be the case? We know from their own stats that 44% of rape victims are under age 18; 80% are under age 30. I suppose its just a coincidence that most rapes occur to women at what is considered their most attractive age range. But I didnt even mention just rape, I also said that the better a women is at attracting men also means she's more likely to attract men she doesnt like or men that may harass her. Yet you believe this needs "proving". If a women is invisible, is she more or less likely to attract men who may sexually harass her compared with a visible women? Stop being obtuse.

Why do you keep bringing up feminism? I am not a feminist. Stop bringing this up.

I couldnt care less if you dont identify as a feminist, you are using all the same talking points they use and developed.

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Sure, if she's actively sucking your cock/riding you. But thinking it's acceptable to actively fuck a girl when she's saying no, is rape. End of discussion.

You conceded there is a way for a women to consent to sex with her behaviour despite what she may say.

But thinking it's acceptable to actively fuck a girl when she's saying no, is rape.

As I said and as you just agreed to again, no doesnt necessarily mean no. You do know what necessarily means, right?

So nonviolent or nonforceful rape doesn't exist? You're disgusting.

Since I went straight on to say that coercion counts as rape, which would be non-violent or not forceful (unless you count coercion as force), and then clarified what Im talking about what I say that, I literally said the opposite. Maybe read my whole post before you kneejerk an emotional reply that risks you putting words in my mouth.

Okay? I never made any of these claims, so I don't know why you're bringing this up, once again.

Im talking about the people you get all your talking points from.

Yes, I said specifically in the case where a woman is being the active participant, not the man.

No thats not what you admitted by agreeing to my scenario. You admitted the axiom that "no always means no" is false. Because by definition, if you accept my scenario was not rape, it is false.

So in other words, "I realize I'm being proven wrong and look like a total rape apologist, so now I'm grasping at straws to make it look like I'm not a total rape apologist."

lol, do get a grip. You claim Im saying things I am not, claim I believe things I do not. I tell you I dont believe them and yet you keep saying I do anyway, you dont get to claim victory by beating a strawman to death.

So it's okay to rape women because verbal consent doesn't exist, according to you.

As always you're completely wrong. Verbal consent does exist, but consent itself is more complex than that. Even yes does not always mean yes in various situations, yet I could easily say to you that you are fine with raping a women simply because she said yes despite her body language clearly showing she did not want to have sex. Clearly you're a rape apologist! /s

Your argument was that it's okay to rape a woman if she says "no" because she might get mad at you if you don't have sex with her. This argument is disgusting.

No that is not at all what I said or implied or what I believe. If you werent so interested in arguing against things I dont say maybe you'd notice that. Im talking about how women are trained to be coy in every area of the dating game, the idea that this stops when it comes to sex is denial of human behaviour. We know you think this because you believe bringing this up in relation to this topic is irrelevant and only done so to claim that victims want to be raped, rather than it being relevant to an intellectual discussion of human sexual behaviour. Farrell is all about making sure men and women are all truly consenting and happy with the situation, you cannot do that properly without looking at how men and women think about sex and the dynamic that goes on. Men need to be more aware of how women feel and women need to also be aware of how men feel. Of course if your opinion of men is all they care about is selfishly sticking their cock in something you're likely to miss the subtlety of the conversation.

Well, no shit. It shouldn't be news to you that you should stop trying to fuck a woman when she says no, regardless of how you think women are "trained" to be "coy."

Of course I'd stop. The whole point I'm making is that it isnt just about what she says, which is why a women can even say yes and using the same reasoning I can determine she doesnt really want to have sex and that its not okay to have sex with her anyway, despite the fact that she "said" yes. This is where using simplistic denialist understandings of this topic leads you, to claim that no always means no, it means you also have to defend the idea that yes ALWAYS means yes as well. The problem is you have to defend this idea if you're going to continue to argue this as black and white, because if there are scenarios where a women can say yes, but not mean yes, it means you are saying she cannot be a rape victim because she said those magic words.

Still don't see a source for your claim.

I gave you one, you ignored it, apparently. But I asked you a question... if you are invisible, are less people going to see you than if you were visible? What evidence would be acceptable for that? A physics text book maybe? Do i really need to get this simplistic with you?

So stop talking about feminism when I'm not a feminist.

I dont care what you say you are, if I point out that feminist arguments are XYZ, and you are using them, thats true, sorry