If the genders were flipped, I bet there would be massive spam of hate comments.

[–]TheOneWhoKnocksBitch 122 points123 points124 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheSacredParsnip 35 points36 points37 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Tamen_ 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]loganizer 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]callthebankshot 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ottawadeveloper 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

shrugs I think if you want to talk about rape culture, you have to talk about it from a gender neutral perspective. It's not surprising that most statistics show rape affects women most because most of the time, rape is defined in a way that it affects women more (forced penetration is a common definition). We need to talk about sexual assault, not rape, if people are going to keep using that definition.

The sexual assault statistics are much closer to equal and, as Tamen_ says, women live in fear of being raped and men are taught they can't be raped. That means that male sexual assualt is likely far more under reported than female sexual assault is. It's fair to postulate that these are likely about equal (maybe slightly higher rate for men once you include the prison system which is male dominated). If you look at some studies on sexual assault as a whole where the rates are better reported (like for domestic partnerships), the female sexual assault rate is only slightly higher than the male (2.3% and 2.6% of the population).

In a culture where approximately 1 out of 50 people are sexually assaulted by a partner each year regardless of gender (based on 2010 numbers), you can say we might have a problem and you might describe that problem as rape culture (I prefer to simply look at it as a sexual assault issue in our society, considering culture implies it's a large % of our culture). But you can't say it's a female problem or a male problem in particular.

Now, the real problem that men face is ignorance of the fact that this is equally a male problem, which is a common problem men face. It's far more common to see denials that men have problems or that they should suck it up (let's be honest, Barney is a great example of this and he would be saying "Dude, you had sex with BRITNEY SPEARS! What are you complaining about?" if she assaulted Ted). It's also a common view for men to be perceived as sex-crazed almost (thinking with their dicks?) and thus, always wanting it.

I know a decent number of men and women and, while men are more comfortable discussing their desires, women have just as many and roughly the same percentage of them are just as shallow in terms of what they want as some men are.

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

[–]goodknee 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheOneWhoKnocksBitch 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]goodknee 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheOneWhoKnocksBitch 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]DackJ -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points35 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bucketh3ad 43 points44 points45 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]corbyworld 61 points62 points63 points 13 years ago (76 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 39 points40 points41 points 13 years ago (75 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (72 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]5eraph 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]agiganticpanda 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]fashraf 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[permanently deleted]

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

[–]akuta 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]Jimm607 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Jimm607 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]kinyutaka 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Jimm607 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[+]CaptainVanderdecken -12 points-11 points-10 points 13 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

[–]AlphaEnder 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago* (33 children) | Copy Link

"narcissistic sociopaths by nature"

Just how like all men are rapists by nature, right? /s

Edit: below me, one person holds to an idea that everyone of one gender acts the same, or even most while not linking any sort of source that strongly defends his ideas. Again, this is like subscribing to the idea that men are rapists (we'll say "most"), or wife abusers. Or that blacks are criminals, and Jews excellent bankers, or single mothers lazy whores. Extrapolating personal experiences into an entire group based on interactions with a few is a dangerous thing to do.

Are >all< women cuddly and warm and would never hurt anyone? Of course not. To say that would be ridiculous, just as ridiculous to say the opposite or near the opposite. From personal experiences, I've seen multiple divorces of friends and family (luckily extended family, not my parents). Out of all of those divorces, I've seen exactly one predatory marriage where the wife married him to get free tuition for her kids. After that, she didn't touch his house or his money. Also, that's just one of those marriages.

Now, would it be fair for me to extrapolate that information from my personal experiences and say, oh, one in 20 divorces are bad but the rest are made with reasonable demands? Of course not. That doesn't fit everyone else's experiences, nor does it likely fit any statistic showing the amicability of divorces. But I can certainly use it to debunk the idea that all or most (I consider most to be a large majority, say 75%, although 50%+ could be considered most) women marry for predatory reasons.

Most of all, the idea that all/most/many women marry solely for predatory reasons screams bias and paranoia, much like that all men are rapists or, to fit a more prevalent issue, all men are abusers. One women is physically abused by her husband or partner every 15 seconds: www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/domviol/facts.htm . This statistic also ignores other types of abuse. 1 out of 3 or 4 women, depending on agency conducting research, will be physically abused by a partner at one point in their life. However, even though the statistics say it is obviously a problem, approaching relationships with the set idea that he is going to beat you or that she is going to take everything from you is not a healthy way to live, nor is it fair to judge someone you don't know solely based on their gender.

Do I believe men have it shitty? In some cases, absolutely. Same for women. Our equality between genders needs a lot of work. But equality comes from mutual understanding of something we find foreign to ourselves, not from hating the other group and refusing to let go of old ideas.

That being said, don't go into relationships not knowing that predatory marriages do happen, or that abuse can happen on either side of the gender line. Be aware of it, and know your legal standing. Put yourself in a good position, and continue to work with non-radical MRAs and non-radical feminists to make our lives more balanced, but don't come in automatically assuming bad things will happen.

[–]CaptainVanderdecken 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

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

"Narcissistic Sociopath" is not a mental diagnostic, it is a description of behaviour which ranges from 60% in young women to 90% in feminists. It is not nice behaviour but the shoe fits. This is nothing new, it is part of female nature

If there are women who don't have it, I wouldn't like to call it a part of female nature. Or do we define female nature only by what most tend to be? In that case I suppose it's not in 'female nature' to be a lesbian? shrug

Also why 'young women'? Are there segments of the female population where you think narcissism exists in less than 50%?

TBH I don't see the merits in arguing about a 'description of behaviour' like this when it's so vague. I'd prefer to stick to more concrete subject matter. Especially when it comes to stuff (self-love) which isn't even bad. Men would benefit from narcissism if it leads to us sticking up for ourselves.

[–]CaptainVanderdecken 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I will defer to experts. Go to ashrinkformen.com "re thinking female Sociopathy" Go read Dr Dre, read the DSM definitions.. Just to start.

Now also LEARN statistics. This exception to the rule, NAWALT is grammatical games. To keep the thought police at bay I would have to say something like "80 to 90 percent of the female subjects presented in the bell curve representing a sample size of N thousand correlated with minimal variance or errors to a behavioural pattern of Axis 2 Custer B Personality Disordered behaviour existing in a manipulative self serving relationship prioritizing themselves before everyone." As far as the choice women, these few are so desirable they are removed from the domain of potential relationship partners very quickly. What remains is "all women" in the sample space. (Not 100% but it would sound something like that & unfortunately many or most would not get it)

These grammatical games & Boolean logic statements (one woman is different therefor women aren't like that). Mmm NOPE.

Woman = individual Women = more than one Women = all female individuals Women = an abstract statistical description involving behaviours (note roles or cultural norms excluded)

These are not interchangeable in the same conversation without causing distortion & noise. Expanding the full context may be necessary, I have noted a female tendency to play a semantical she'll game of sorts. Some call this superior communications skill, I call it BS because they conflate so many contexts of words together that any rational logic is destroyed. I am still wondering if this is intentional & brilliant or if they are simply retarded (the behavioural bunch that is).

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

LEARN statistics. This exception to the rule, NAWALT is grammatical games.

No... exceptions disprove rules.

To keep the thought police at bay I would have to say something like "80 to 90 percent of the female subjects presented in the bell curve representing a sample size of N thousand correlated with minimal variance or errors to a behavioural pattern of Axis 2 Custer B Personality Disordered behaviour existing in a manipulative self serving relationship prioritizing themselves before everyone."

That much disclaimer isn't warranted. You could still substitute 'most' for 'all' and be more accurate.

These grammatical games & Boolean logic statements (one woman is different therefor women aren't like that). Mmm NOPE.

I would never say 'women aren't like that' since some are. Just 'some women are' and 'some women are not'. Modifiers are always good.

We shouldn't define all women by something if there are women who don't do that something. If 60% of black people in an area were in jail for stealing (random percentage for example purposes) I wouldn't just say 'blacks steal!' because even if it were the majority, it's spoken like a rule for all which even condemns the innocents.

Woman = individual Women = more than one Women = all female individuals

You see the problem in 'more than one' and 'all' being represented by the same term tho, right?

I have noted a female tendency to play a semantical she'll game of sorts. Some call this superior communications skill, I call it BS because they conflate so many contexts of words together that any rational logic is destroyed.

Not sure I know exactly what you're getting at here. Words do have multiple contexts, that's all the more reason I'm for affixing clarifying modifiers them which make the context clear and avoid misinterpretations.

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

Well I think we have met just about mid way. I have a predisposition to think in probabilities, in multidimensional shades of grey. That is my educational background. Many, if not most engineering problems do not have binary solutions.. they are min / max problems. Minimize the negative & maximize the utility to try to create a stable sustainable solution. Applying these same methodologies to social structures in society is not a stretch. I look at psychology & the concepts of diads of interaction & I chuckle. You are seeing "network mesh & node analysis 101" (which is required for electrical circuits with + & - feedback loops, Internet packet switching, even structural analysis of bridges).

I look at social issues between genders with that same goal, maintaining stable , workable, beneficial networks. I don't think we can force a system better than that which NATURALLY or spontaneously organizes as seen in all of history. That is a patriarchal arrangement.

Feminists have insisted that this arrangement is oppressive to 1/2 of humanity. It may very well be in some aspects. At the core of their view is a "Just World Fallacy", nature & life are not playing by any such rule set. The only way most of feminism's ideas can be sustained is by adopting a tyrannical socialist state government. Governments have already exceeded tolerable power levels.

If matriarchal systems were self organizing & sustainable, they would have already been seen in history. No amount of "social engineering", or "mind control" or force can keep a population in this state of denial. So, as unpopular as it may be.. I propose actually looking directly at the nature of women operating as perhaps a race rather than a complementary gender.. what I see is actually monstrous.

Also I am not advocating for the status quo. Governments actually dissuade male-male organization out of terror for their own elite existence. As history has proven over & over, when men get together things actually get done.

[–]cabin5 -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]ottawadeveloper 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

On the contrary, I think it makes it less abstract.

If we discuss women in general, then we have the problem that our concepts are just as broad as those that are attempted to be applied to us (which is something we object to).

We have a serious discussion about the issues facing men by discussing the issues themselves, instead of attempting to discuss the people causing the issue at all. This means we don't say things like "women propagate X against men" (even if it's hypothetically mostly true), we say "X is propagated against men". Then we figure out how best to deal with that.

There is no more sense in discussing the nature of women than there is in discussing the nature of men. We are all people. We are mostly equal in every way (with maybe a few valid physiological and psychological differences). We are all capable of hateful acts against others based on differences, and we are all capable of being awesome agents of change in our society. We are all capable of rational thought (though some of us don't choose to exercise it as often) and of working through issues without having to slander one gender or another.

[–]cabin5 -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]cabin5 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]VoidPointer2005 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

I'm not exactly an authority on the subject, but let's see...

We don't say "women are..." for a couple of reasons. First, each woman is an individual. Any generalization about men OR women is going to miss some individuals. You can sometimes say "many women" or even "most women", but there are practically no traits that ALL women share, just like there are practically no traits that all MEN share. This leads into my second point, which is that most of these generalizations about men and women have little to no basis in science. People like to invoke evolution to say that men must naturally be X because that would confer an evolutionary advantage, but science is not concerned with logic, it is concerned with facts derived from controlled observation and experimentation. So unless you have a rigorous scientific study backing up your statement about what most men or women are like, then your assertion is just, like, your opinion, man.

And it is quite possibly incorrect, since most human beings are quite susceptible to biases of all sorts.

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

[–]VoidPointer2005 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]cabin5 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

You're forgetting culture. Culture shapes attitudes and I see some very, very consistent attitudes in women in the U.S. Ask the average woman if a wife who doesn't work is entitled to her husband's house & savings & there might one in a million who say 'no.' Just one example.

We're not really concerned about that one in the million- we're concerned about the vast majority.

Yes, I've heard this elementary argument ad nauseum 100,000 times about 'you can't say that (X) are all like that' but what it sounds more like is a cop out- a way of trying to deny reality. My reality or yours in this country surrounded by these sharks didn't suddenly improve because you said any of that. I, like millions of other men, are faced with the grim every day reality that women as a rule are primarily interested in our incomes. I would think as adults we can somehow move past the elementary school lesson & have an understanding that when we say 'all' we know what we really mean.

This elementary insistence on arguing about 'not every single last one is like that' is a 2 dimensional idea. Yes, we are all individuals, but we also have 2 genders who do tend to behave in a very different & definite ways we can see right there in front of us (& we don't need some liberal university to do a 'study' on)- that would therefore be a THREE dimensional model.

But I digress- you're also forgetting people want to conform- & for the most part don't really deviate that much from the mainstream popular thinking or lifestyle. Again, CULTURE. The irony is that all of the stereotypes of men being rapists are utterly false, while the vast majority of women feeling entitled to everything a man has is actually true.

[–]VoidPointer2005 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

So, you're saying that we don't need science in order to make sweeping generalizations about an entire gender, because liberals are evil and we can just use confirmation bias instead of hard data?

Just because you "see something all the time" doesn't make it true. Feminists "see" men encouraging rapists all the time. They "see" all men as being abusers all the time. And I "see" many women in my own life who are reasonable and would never destroy a man as some would.

You can't look at a few women you know and assume that they're all like that, or even that most women are. If you want to do that, you have to PROVE it. Unless, of course, you're willing to accept as gospel the ratings of any idiot radfem who screeches that "everyone knows" that men are intrinsically oppressive rape-monkeys, because at that point, they have just as much "proof" as you do.

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

[–]cabin5 -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well besides the point there are mountains of scientific studies that show the differences between men & women, you have no idea that these women 'in your life' would not absribe to the modern American style of marriage- find a guy with a house & take it from him. The laws & court system also shape our cultural landscape. If it was legal to rob banks tomorrow, we wouldn definitely see a spike bank robberies, and our divorce court system is basically legal theft and/or extortion.

Women feel 100% justified & 'entitled' to what men men have because that is the way they have been raised in this country & besides the law & every other element of society reinforces that idea.

Simply because a woman 'says' she wouldn't do that means nothing- or if she is sweet & pleasant at dinner parties doesn't mean she won't ass rape you in court. When was the last time you saw/heard a woman being accountable? Never- women don't do that in this culture.

What I'm trying to tell you that is that I KNOW what you're trying to say- you're trying to say that generalizations are 'asinine' & stupid- fine. But this insane inisistence of always firing back with "well, not EVERY SINGLE LAST ONE is like that" is not just equally asinine, it's retarded.

Not every time I drink and drive am I going to jail, but the reason smart people don't do it is because the PENALTIES are too severe.

As far as every man being a rapist- that's easily disproved, even if you go ahead and don't even weed out all of the false accusations. Maybe what, 1 out of half a million men? Oh, but women who have taken their husbands to court and ass raped them? Countless- and the ones who haven't are prob just women who haven't had the opportunity.

Again, you are forgetting the CULTURE you live in. It's all around you.

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

[–]cabin5 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

'you can't say that (X) are all like that' sounds like a cop out- a way of trying to deny reality.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I think it's wrong to phrase things 'you can't say' (people can say whatever they want) instead of 'you shouldn't say' because it's acceptable to tell people they shouldn't tell lies that make people think badly of others.

It is wrong to say 'all' if not every member of a group is doing something. Can you tell me more specifically what you're objecting to?

One thing I try to hold some tolerance in though. If people say 'women do X' rather than 'all women do X' I think we should be less harsh. That's because it's somewhat ambiguous when there's no modifier. It might mean 'some'.

In those circumstances we should just be suggesting that a clarifying word be attached lest people assume all/some by inference.

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

how in the Hell are you supposed to have any serious discussion about women - especially American women who ARE very different from women in other cultures without talking about any of this like you're all in some kind of vacuum where you can only speak of things directly related either to Feminists

Basically it's about the choice of language. It's fine to express general views about women so long as it's in perceived tendencies in the context of being 'opinion to the best of ability'.

Statements like "Women are all narcissistic sociopaths" or "all men are rapists by nature" both include 'all' which forbids exceptions, so they are wrong.

If people simply want to say that they think men are more drawn to want to rape, or that women are more drawn to engage in sociopathic behaviour, that'd be fine with me. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with their overall viewpoint, but at the least it's not so horribly irrational that it uses 'all' without exception.

When people make generalizations, it's not personal because people think "well, this person is just thinking about other people who have wronged them, and may not necessarily condemn me"

But when people say 'all' and make blanket rulings, it IS a personal attack, because then we're being called rapists, or then women (even MRA women) are being called sociopaths, and that's just wrong.

Plus I gotta condemn 'narcissistic' as an insult because I think loving yourself is awesome. I really have no problem at all with the whole 'love yourself' movement in feminism and think men would benefit from similar memes.

Where the line is drawn is when it becomes 'hurt others to benefit yourself'. Part of what people should love about themselves if having the honor and morality not to do that.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

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

Normally I'm all for that kind of dialogue. But when one of us goes off and says that "women are narcissistic and sociopathic (sic)", it does nothing to add to the conversation, the dialogue, and doesn't fix any of our problems. If you're upset with abortion, that's fine. I don't care, so long as you don't try to impose your views on others through public policy. But when you go and say that half of the population are sociopaths, you discredit every woman on earth who is actually egalitarian. It also discredits our cause greatly. Feminists aren't all the radical femininazis that want to euthanize men for having penises. We complain when radical feminists presume that all men are rapists or evil. We cannot allow our fellow men to say things like women are also somehow flawed or evil. That kind of rank hypocrisy is disgusting and is what is wrong with feminism in the first place.

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

when one of us goes off and says that "women are narcissistic and sociopathic (sic)", it does nothing to add to the conversation, the dialogue, and doesn't fix any of our problems.

I dunno: statements like that are a good opening for commentary by those of us who know better more realistic ways to comment on reality.

when you go and say that half of the population are sociopaths, you discredit every woman on earth who is actually egalitarian. It also discredits our cause greatly.

Why should this discredit our cause? The world will have men who say this anyway, can't pretend they don't exist, may's well confront'm constantly when they (or their pretenders) come along.

We cannot allow our fellow men to say things like women are also somehow flawed or evil.

Sure we can allow them to say that. That's the point of MRA I thought, to allow people to say stuff. Comments like that are no threat, because they're obviously so fucking dumb we can easily argue against them.

TBH for all the troll (people making false arguments to enrage) hysteria, perhaps feminists would worry that we'd troll our own community with easy-to-argue statements like that to give us a chance to white-knight?

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

And there you go, a valid discussion with the actual parameters brought forth. People from both sides resorting to name calling & shame tactics.

This NONSENSE of "you can't say that" because someone (possibly even a female) will pull the O-card, the M-card, the S-card is BS. I advocate retracting laws which are not implemented in gender neutral egalitarian language. I fight new laws vs modifying outdated ones. In Family Law.. children have rights, parents have responsibilities. That is my MRA work.

Now as far as feminists or MRAs here trying to dictate thought conformance or interfere with other sovereign states, other people's business (Nope). You may not like INTJ people like myself but

1) introspective indicates that I do weigh up all sides, trying to get at the base facts

2) judgemental. I do look at you (male leer) I do have my own opinions, I do have the right of free speech to express them & I do have a right as a member of society to both judge & hinder other people from interfering with me, my kids, my friends family & peers

And as you can see, being liked is not a priority. This is not a social club, it is a movement to get the state out of areas they should not be meddling in.

I also stand behind my words, from a biological, historical, psychiatric aspect. I don't hate them, I understand them with far more clarity than most. This does not imply the response of thinking men are not as flawed.

So if you want to hurl names, call me a human hater (misanthrope) with egalitarian viewpoints.

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]CaptainVanderdecken -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

Eh?? - introversion - intuition - thinking - judgemental INTJ, quietly gathers information from many sources, analyses many perspectives & actually forms a rational opinion or judgement. Recommended professions: become a scientist or engineer & get paid to make rational decisions for the sheeple. About 3% of people are INTJ. Myres-Briggs Personality Type

What I wrote is not for offence. I am talking about the base nature of women & the female-male survival relationship. Humanity with all the trappings stripped back. If this is too academic or cold.. then change it to "the majority of women's behaviour is self centred, selfish, nasty, deceitful & manipulative". Is this any better?

Don't make the mistake of confusing knowing the nature of women which some might describe (her) as hateful (if you start attaching emotion to what is only observation of fact) and the different idea of "hating women" which is misogyny. I think this is why many feminists malfunction when women also recognize this nature & begin to voice it. Feminists are playing that grammatical shell game again mixing words & concepts. This is not a "male" view, I am talking about a far more dissociated look at humanity & women. Try to jump out of your skin, gender, state & religious bias (we all have these) then look through the microscope, what do we bugs actually behave like.

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

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

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]VoidPointer2005 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]VoidPointer2005 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]Amunium 35 points36 points37 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Knugent123 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Knugent123 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Xenoith 15 points16 points17 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Xenoith 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]kinyutaka 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[permanently deleted]

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

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

[–]adambomb404 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Capn_Crusty 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]lankrypt0 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Drooll329 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]actanonverba8 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]useful_fact 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]useful_fact 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]kinyutaka 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]kinyutaka 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]shaitani 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Maik3550 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

Would shit really hit the fan? I'm assuming you're talking about the content and not the language. Because obviously those words with the gender flipped wouldn't have the same meaning, and no one would actually say it. If you flipped the gender in the meaning, then it would be the equivalent of something like "Some unattractive guy was hitting on my sister, I was dying of laughter at the awkwardness". Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't that the gender-swapped content?

If you really are just talking about gender-swapping in the language, this brings up the other question which is, why do certain words not get applied to certain groups of people? Words like 'molest' or 'rape' tend to have less serious meaning when applied to men than women. The facebook post is just a byproduct of that change in the English language. And that change in language is a byproduct of the root problem, which is that society doesn't take male molestation/rape seriously. The goal should be to change that, and not to outrage over teenagers using this type of language. That's all I was trying to get at here, that this FB post is not really a proper illustration of the problem in our society.

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

those words with the gender flipped wouldn't have the same meaning, and no one would actually say it.

This still brings up a good point though: why does the word 'molest' mean trivial actions when applied a male target, but serious actuals when applied to a female target?

Isn't there the insinuation that you can't 'molest' males as seriously as females, so a serious sense is assumed to not exist, so it is only applied to non-serious senses?

The facebook post is just a byproduct of that change in the English language. And that change in language is a byproduct of the root problem, which is that society doesn't take male molestation/rape seriously.

The changes in the use of 'molest' have gone two ways too. Not only do we restrict it to females in serious senses (due to them being favoured victims) but we also have it imply sexual things when it doesn't have to.

In the past men may have talked about 'being molested by beggars' but nowadays one might use something like 'pestered' for fear of sexual assumptions.

Guess we could throw out 'accosted' but that's a rare one these days.

[–]Maik3550 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+][deleted] -12 points-11 points-10 points 13 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

[–]typhonblue 26 points27 points28 points 13 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 13 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]HoboDeter 17 points18 points19 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]TheSacredParsnip 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]25or6tofour 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[permanently deleted]

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

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

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

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

If she was 17 and you were 12 thats extremely messed up

Can you clarify on what 'messed up' means here?

she was showing pedophilic tendencies (attraction to pre-13 year olds)

Pedophilia is defined by attraction to prepubescents, not pre-13 year olds. Puberty can occur earlier than that.

I think we should also be slow to label people. If a chick kisses another chick, maybe she's showing 'lesbian tendencies' (even if she still prefers bros) but that kind of grouping isn't as quick to snowball and stereotype people.

boys tend to mature slower than girls

You mean in terms of growth spurts or something bro? Not all of us accept the propoganda about faster psych growth.

worse when a woman is attracted to men around this age

Why?

I do think its normal for a 12 year old to have sexual experiences (like simple touching etc), just not so normal when its with a 17 year old.

Why is what is 'normal' relevant here? Moral>normal.

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

By definition Pedophilia is attraction to generally pre-13 year olds, look it up. I said it shows pedophilic tendencies, which it does, but I also said that its possible he was very developed and she wasnt both emotionally and physically and therefore maybe not.

You mean in terms of growth spurts or something bro? Not all of us accept the propoganda about faster psych growth.

Dont be obtuse, look at young boys and girls of the same age. The girls are more developed than boys are. Boys still look like little boys for far longer than girls do. So when a man is attracted to a girl of, say, 14, they are by definition less "pedophilic" (on average) than if it had been a boy because if it were a boy he would generally look a lot younger, a lot more like an actual child, whereas the girl would look more like a developed women.

I do think its normal for a 12 year old to have sexual experiences (like simple touching etc), just not so normal when its with a 17 year old.

So what if he was 10, would that be different? Why?

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

By definition Pedophilia is attraction to generally pre-13 year olds, look it up

No, it isn't. I have looked it up. Here: http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Sex%20and%20GID%20Lit%20Reviews/Paraphilias/DSMV.PEDO.pdf definitions are at the end.

In particular I suggest you check out the various 'diagnostic criteria' from 1980, 1987, 1994 and 2000. I'll paste the latest (pre-DSM5) one for you. Keep in mind there are THREE required criteria.

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difﬁculty.

C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.

While the 'generally 13' statement appears, that is just an approximation of what 'prepubescent' means. So it is especially bad when people just drop the 'generally'.

Secondly it completely ignores the recurrent/intense/6months/distressOrActed/age criteria.

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Jesus_marley 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jesus_marley 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

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

outliers don't determine the outcome.

Outliers should determine that we should not be making absolute rulings.

For example: if the majority of Americans had a driving license and could drive, does that mean everyone should be able to drive?

If the majority did not have a driving license and could not drive, does that mean nobody should be able to drive?

The solution here is if there are outliers: test capacity.

Pointing to the very few 12 year olds who might be able to approach their sexuality with adult maturity, means nothing.

It means everything. It means we should be evaluating people neutrally for the information we think is important to decisionmaking.

Should we sacrifice the 99.9% of preteens who cannot appreciate the consequences of sexual intercourse so the outliers can freely consent to sex with an adult?

No, but you're making a false dichotomy here. This is operating under the assumption that one can only raise or lower an age of consent.

We can actually define 2 ages: the age at which you can never earn the right to consent, and the age a which you automatically earn the right to consent. We only see 1 age because we use the same age for it.

We can lower the 'right to earn' age of consent without lowering the 'no need to earn' age of consent. We can even raise the latter age.

For example, if we took a country that had an age of consent of 18, we could make the 'right to earn' 16 and the 'no need to earn' 20.

This would mean everyone over 20 years old doesn't have to take a test to prove their capacity to consent to sex, but everyone 16-19 would have to, and everyone 15 and under could not take the test.

These numbers could change as testing becomes more economically feasible and resistant to cheating. In a perfect system you wouldn't need them at all, but it prevents time-wasting from people pretending toddlers can understand STDs, something only Alia Atreides could qualify for.

I do support a graduated consent model. Here in Canada we have a system wherein the AoC is 16. A person 14 - 15 can consent to sex with a person up to 5 years older and a person 12-13 could consent provided the other person was no more than 2 years older. This system accounts for your outliers

Graduated consent methods make sense, but not on the basis of allowing younger people to fuck only if they're fucking younger people.

The chances for becoming pregnant or getting an STD (ie reasons to not allow people to have sex) do not reduce simply because your partner is younger. A 12 year old boy fucking a 12 year old girl doesn't make him any safer than if he was fucking a 20 year old adult.

If we are going to graduate various levels, it should be based on levels of the acts themselves. Requiring lower ages or less information for less dangerous acts, for example. Something with higher dangers (like anal sex) should have high ages or high information requirements. Something with lower dangers (external digital stimulations) should have lower requirements.

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

Outliers should determine that we should not be making absolute rulings.

True, but it does not alter the need to place reasonable restrictions.

For example: if the majority of Americans had a driving license and could drive, does that mean everyone should be able to drive? If the majority did not have a driving license and could not drive, does that mean nobody should be able to drive?

If sexual activity required licensing then perhaps this analogy would be more apt. As it stands. the ability to drive is based both upon a minimum age requirement (graduated in some areas) for licensing and a demonstrable test for ability.

The solution here is if there are outliers: test capacity.

by your reasoning the solution it would seem would be a combination of testing capacity and minimum age for testing.

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

the need to place reasonable restrictions.

Who decides when it is reasonable to lump in right-deservers with protection-deservers?

If sexual activity required licensing then perhaps this analogy would be more apt

It does require licensing: it's licensed by the birth certificate. It should be licensed by something more knowledge-based.

the ability to drive is based both upon a minimum age requirement (graduated in some areas) for licensing and a demonstrable test for ability.

True. Even with licensing it would make sense to put some age minimums on there to stop babies from applying. Lowering should be done on the basis of pass rates for the lowest range. Maybe something like 'if over 50% of applicants of age X pass on first try, lower minimum testing age 1 year'

the solution it would seem would be a combination of testing capacity and minimum age for testing.

Yes, and both difficulty and required testing age can be adjusted as needed depending on what what percentage society wants to apply.

Like for example, if 50% of 30 year olds are failing the test, I imagine people would try to make it easier.

[–]theskepticalidealist -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jesus_marley 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

a person who is 30 is expected to be able to do so

Why does what people are 'expected' to be able to do matter?

They have reached the point of full adulthood in terms of both legality

Morality is determined by reality, not legality.

in terms of physical maturity

Physical size does not determine the mind's abilities.

a person who is demonstrably incapable of living as an adult (say a mentally disabled person) is still afforded the same protections that are given to non adults.

Yet non-adults demonstrably capable of living as an adult are not afforded the same freedoms.

Rather than having to have others opt-in someone for protections after automatically losing them, rather than having others opt-out people for their freedoms after they gain them, why don't we just have people opt-in to exchange protections for freedoms whenever they want to, if they demonstrate capacity?

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

Why does what people are 'expected' to be able to do matter?

Unfortunately, our society functions on a number of assumptions in order to run smoothly. One of those assumptions is that a person is able to function as an adult upon reaching our arbitrarily agreed upon "age of adulthood". As such they become subject to societal expectations of legality as well as morality. In truth, legal expectation does not deviate as much as one might think from the moral expectation. There is obviously some deviation but they are more or less in line with each other.

Physical size does not determine the mind's abilities.

I said physical maturity. I was speaking in terms of development. An adult brain is very different from an adolescent or child one.

Yet non-adults demonstrably capable of living as an adult are not afforded the same freedoms.

This is patently untrue as evidenced by laws regarding the emancipation of minors.

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

our society functions on a number of assumptions in order to run smoothly

Yes, but regardless of how it might upset the smoothness, society has changed it's assumptions over time. Such as assuming blacks and women weren't capable of voting responsibly.

One of those assumptions is that a person is able to function as an adult upon reaching our arbitrarily agreed upon "age of adulthood".

This too seems like a disposable assumption. We could make function predictions based on academic attainment.

they become subject to societal expectations of legality as well as morality

This isn't so much about making people immune to criminal liability until they opt-in. It's about making sex with people illegal until they opt-in to earn sexual emancipation. Currently we automatically opt people in when they hit an age regardless of capacity or consent to become a sexual participant. I think it would be better if we only opt-in people if they voluntarily take that step and can exhibit the required capacities.

I said physical maturity. I was speaking in terms of development. An adult brain is very different from an adolescent or child one.

The brain and what we assume about it's 'maturity' based on size is not relevant here. What matters is the mind and measuring that output the brain produces. Adult brains are different from other adult brains, child brains are different from other child brains. Net differences between averages don't matter, what matters is measurable output.

laws regarding the emancipation of minors.

Pretty sure these do not affect consent laws.

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

Such as assuming blacks and women weren't capable of voting responsibly.

these were obviously erroneous assumptions based upon erroneous reasoning. It is not erroneous for a society to assume a person who has not reached sufficient sexual, emotional or intellectual maturity is incapable of making responsible decisions.

This too seems like a disposable assumption. We could make function predictions based on academic attainment.

There is more to it than mere intelligence but rather a combination of intelligence and emotional maturity and physical development based upon age.

Currently we automatically opt people in when they hit an age regardless of capacity or consent to become a sexual participant.

this is patently untrue. People who demonstrably incapable of consent are protected from exploitation.

The brain and what we assume about it's 'maturity' based on size is not relevant here.

OK, now I have to start thinking that you are being deliberately obtuse. I have already told I am not talking about "size" but rather the maturity of the adult brain compared to the adolescent or child. I'm really getting tired of repeating myself.

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

these were obviously erroneous assumptions based upon erroneous reasoning.

Our current opinion, but not the opinion they held then. To have discovered it, the reasons had to be analyzed. Genetic differences due exist between humans on the basis of families and sexes which cause brain differences, so the base theory of some being better than others is sound. It is the basis of choosing how to assess who was better where they erred.

It is not erroneous for a society to assume a person who has not reached sufficient sexual, emotional or intellectual maturity is incapable of making responsible decisions.

This whole statement is founded in error. These three forms of 'maturity', for them to be useful reasoning, must be definable. If we can not define them and assess when they are present or not present, they cannot be a foundation for argument.

The error here is assuming someone has not reached the 3 maturities by being under a number, and assuming that suddenly all three are reached once they pass it.

The error is in founding law about an assumption about people and who they are without testing them as people and comparing their results to the results of those who have rights. Assuming they lack capacity is no better than the assumption made of blacks and chicks.

There is more to it than mere intelligence

I never said intelligence, I said academic attainment, which we know intelligence is only part of.

combination of intelligence and emotional maturity and physical development based upon age.

Physical development should not be a factor. All that matters here is the mind. If a brain can pass a test, how it looks on an MRI doesn't matter.

What is 'emotional maturity'? I say test for informedness, and however you define emotional maturity, I say it is a form of informedness that could also be tested for.

I'm not even sure much raw intelligence should be required (intelligence doesn't increase in adults so presumably banning low IQs would mean no sex forever) just enough to process the required information.

this is patently untrue. People who demonstrably incapable of consent are protected from exploitation.

Not universally. That's an opt-out system and requires others to be able and willing to detect the stupidity. So it's only going to happen in the most extreme cases. Opt-out systems means that people can sweep retards under the rug and then fuck them. It's a farce.

An opt-in system is more reliable, we protect everyone until they opt-in and we guarantee ahead of time.

deliberately obtuse

Deliberately disagreeing with obtuse theories.

I have already told I am not talking about "size" but rather the maturity of the adult brain

My comment was in reference to your claims about 'physical development' of the brain. My assumption is that you are referring to the growth in size of the brain as a whole or more particularly the growth of certain parts of it thought to be particularly important. I forget the specific name but there is one part I see brought up a lot in discussion and it's like people would prefer to ignore plasticity and determine consent via MRIs instead of written or other forms of testing.

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

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

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

I don't know why people downvoted me, and I really don't get it. People are just butthurt about it,you are supposed to downvote when something doesn't add or contribute,but instead,people use it as a way to disagree with you with out having to say anything.

At any rate,I was fully molested,not just once,but several times,by her,and by another older female. However, I didn't feel like I victim,only now as an adult do I see what they did,but I'm pretty meh about it. I guess it depends a lot on how you grew up and you view things.

I know a guy who had a twisted testicle (a real medical emergency) and he refused help because the attending physician was female. I have no such issues with women,and I think it's largely in part because of the molestation I endured.

I was molested in every single sense of the word. The fact that I don't feel victimized doen't mean I condone it.

[–]Umedark -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[+]Muntberg -9 points-8 points-7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+]junkeee999 -8 points-7 points-6 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]WinterFresh04 -7 points-6 points-5 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]WinterFresh04 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]WinterFresh04 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+][deleted] -16 points-15 points-14 points 13 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[+][deleted] -16 points-15 points-14 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

Im sorry Im not going to go through this regarded bullshit, molest does not mean to make someone slightly irritated. I dare you to start using that word in that context whenever anyone makes you feel that way and see the kind of reaction you get. You just want to argue, get a new hobby. Its as bad as people using the word rape at every opportunity and doing so seriously. Oh yea he raped me. WHAT?? Yea, he totally raped me, what a fucking rapist, by giving me the wrong change, was totally on purpose. When someone talks about child molestation, and call someone a child molester, you think they mean "yea, I irritated a few children...".? No, dont be such an idiot good god man. In fact you ask ANYONE what they think molestation means, they will tell you it means some kind of sexual touch. Maybe you can hammer it home by telling someone they molested you or saying you molested someone and see what their reaction is.

[–]tyciol 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

molest does not mean to make someone slightly irritated.

It does. Try looking up some historical usages of the word. Or pick an online dictionary. You'll see the definition. Molestation meaning sexual molestation is just the sexy usage people focus on because of our sex obsession.

I dare you to start using that word in that context whenever anyone makes you feel that way and see the kind of reaction you get.

I intend to, but to be honest, when people both me, sexual or not, I'm pretty shy and don't say anything or talk back about it immediately. But I think anyone with confidence should go ahead and say that. Sexual molestation isn't so special and I think non-sexual forms of molestation should use the word and enjoy it's reactions.

Its as bad as people using the word rape at every opportunity and doing so seriously. Oh yea he raped me. WHAT?? Yea, he totally raped me, what a fucking rapist, by giving me the wrong change, was totally on purpose.

I'm fine with this too. Rape originally meant abduction or theft. See: the rape of the lock, the rape of ganymede, etc. We should totally re-popularize the use of 'rape' in non-sexual contexts.

Sex seems to be taking a lot of perfectly good words, and I don't like that. The world's about more than sex, and so is language. I mean you can't even talk about a rooster or a blunder or a hot dog these days without innuendo occuring, so should we drop the non-sexual uses? NO.

WHAT?? Yea, he totally raped me, what a fucking rapist, by giving me the wrong change, was totally on purpose. When someone talks about child molestation, and call someone a child molester, you think they mean "yea, I irritated a few children...".?

Probably not, but I think if a guy goes and kicks a child in the shin over and over, you should feel within your rights to shout "hey! stop molesting that child!"

'Molest' still generally means a bad thing to do to someone, so it's not as if we're using a bad term to refer to a non-bad action.

In fact you ask ANYONE what they think molestation means, they will tell you it means some kind of sexual touch.

That's obviously BS because I'm not the only person in the world who is aware of it's other usage. I didn't write the dictionaries with non-sexual meanings, and I'm not the only one who's read them.

Maybe you can hammer it home by telling someone they molested you or saying you molested someone and see what their reaction is.

I look forward to the day, but I don't interact much and don't get bothered much so an opportunity hasn't occured where it's come to mind. This is something easier to do as a third party.

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

[–]kinyutaka -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]theskepticalidealist 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]theskepticalidealist 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

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

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

Title	If the genders were flipped, I bet there would be massive spam of hate comments.
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	752
Comments	233
Date	December 12, 2012 3:56 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/14pgcf/if_the_genders_were_flipped_i_bet_there_would_be/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/if-the-genders-were-flipped-i-bet-there-would-be.1006851 https://theredarchive.com/post/1006851