Feminist calls gov't shutdown a "reaction to the benefits that the Affordable Care Act guarantees women". Implicit: Obamacare favors women's health over men's ... which the MRM has been saying for years.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]guywithaccount9 points 12 years ago [recovered] (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

What about subsidizing birth control (perhaps a partial subsidy) for those under the poverty line? If you are making money, then you should pay for your own BC. There's no reason that there should be a "social obligation" to help other people fuck without consequences. Most liberals try to reframe the BC argument as the public school argument (even if you don't use it, you gotta fund it because you benefit from society not being dumb).

But this isn't the same - if you can't afford BC, then get free condoms from virtually anywhere, or for like 50c a pop. And if you can't afford that, then don't have sex. It's not like public schools - if taxpayers don't pay for public schools, there's no other option. The kids are on the street, can't pay teachers, etc. If you don't fund BC, all that happens is people have to actually think about the pros and cons of having sex, and how it is neither free nor a human right.

[–]guywithaccount9 points 12 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]guywithaccount 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

I do post to AMR because I want a movement claiming to represent men to succeed and I see a LOT of hate here that is only hurting the movement. I figured if I posted in the AMR thread about it might as well say something here- it reminds me of talking behind other people's backs in high school. Anyway, just sharing my opinion, ban me if you wish. In no way shape or form do I "mock abuse victims", I have had clients who were victims of abuse and that is part of the reason I feel so strongly against "slut shaming" because, in my opinion, it perpetuates the myth that "REAL" rape is "man jumping out of the bushes to woman who deserved it" That not only makes it out to seem like only men are rapists/only women are raped, but it also tends to dominate discourse surrounding rape so when we talk about things like men getting raped by women or other men it is not taken as seriously.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

"Slut" is a derogatory term used to shame people who appear to dress revealing or have too much sex. Sex positive people are "taking the term back" by trying to point out that it is bullshit to shame men and women for enjoying consensual sex and that a person does not "Edited: increase one's likelihood of being" raped because they were wearing a short skirt or tight pants as some cop implied in a report about a rape.

"Don't do risky things if you can't afford to pay for the resulting consequences of your actions."

In my opinion, implying that person woman who is wearing tight or revealing clothes or are enjoying sex is "risky" is sending a message that we should fear men. It seems to paint all men as ravenous beasts who are okay in society until they are tempted by a "slut". I know that men don't like to be labeled as all being rapists, it's shitty, and telling people that being a "slut" (enjoying sex or wearing revealing clothing) is putting them at danger is implying that there is a man rapist lurking around every corner.

If I understand correctly, you are comparing jumping out of a plane to wearing revealing clothing around men. Do you see what kind of message you are sending when you say this?

There are other reasons for birth control use. I have endometriosis. This means that my uterine tissue isn't all coming out of me during my period and the endometriosis is fusing my organs together and has also affected my bowels and bladder. Taking hormonal birth control continuously is the only treatment available for me right now and it has given me my life back tremendously. I do not use it for birth control purposes.

Why do celibate people have to subsidize the sex lives of others

I, a taxpaying citizen, am on board with paying so people can have free birth control for women (and men!! hopefully it will be out soon!) because hopefully, it will decrease the number of unwanted and unplanned children who will in turn need more money from my tax money. It is a preventative measure. Sure, it would be great if people stopped having sex, but I know that there is a relationship between less educated people having more unplanned/unwanted children. Armed with this knowledge, I am willing to do whatever I can to help these people have as many resources possible to plan a family. I personally think that birth control pills should be over the counter and not require an obgyn exam, but that is just my opinion. Hope this helps clarify my stance.

TL;DR: Comparing dressing "slutty" around men to jumping out of a plane is shitty, and subsidizing birth control could potentially help dumb dumbs stop having oopsie babies that we ultimately pay for.

[–]BrambleEdge 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

"deserve" rape because they were wearing a short skirt or tight pants as some cop implied in a report about a rape.

And you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It was no report, and he never said 'sluts' deserved to be raped, he said that dressing as one might increase the risk of being raped. I doubt he's right, but he most certainly never said anything of the like of what those disingenuous sexist chauvinists attribute to him.

Have you ever stopped to think about how 'sluts' are almost (just almost) treated as badly as every single man is when it comes to sex and rape. 'Sluts' are assumed to want sex all the time because of the way they act and express themselves, men are assumed to want sex all the time because they are men. Now that's only a minor difference compared to the huge double standard concerning rape. 'Sluts' who are raped still receive concern and assistance, whereas men are supposed to deal with it and are hidden away from the public eye and denied their experience (all in a misandrous attempt to demonise men and male sexuality further whilst excoriating female perpetration and assigning women victim status), either through legislative female-favouring gynocentric bias or societal discrimination.

If I understand correctly, you are comparing jumping out of a plane to wearing revealing clothing around men. Do you see what kind of message you are sending when you say this?

I cannot unerstand how you reached that conclusion, unless you are a feminist of course (who are known to be dishonest sexist bigots). He compared skydiving to having sex. Both are a choice, why should the public pay for the choices you make in bed but not in a plane?

Seriously though, I'd like to know just how your mind could make this assumption that he was referring to revealing clothing, would you be so kind as to walk me through your reasoning?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

he said that dressing as one might increase the risk of being raped

My apologizes. Edited for correctness.

'Sluts' are assumed to want sex all the time because of the way they act and express themselves, men are assumed to want sex all the time because they are men.

You are right! I am not okay with any of this.

'Sluts' who are raped still receive concern and assistance, whereas men are supposed to deal with it and are hidden away from the public eye and denied their experience

This is where we disagree. I think when a "Slut" is raped, male or female (I think slut can refer to both), people tend to attribute the rape to their promiscuity rather than the actions of the rapist.

I cannot unerstand how you reached that conclusion,

I reached that conclusion because he prefaced his entire comment, the sentence right before that, talking about how slut is being taken back then said "Don't be so sex positive. Don't do risky things if you can't afford to pay for the resulting consequences of your actions."

I am not sure where your hostility is coming from, to be honest. I am not a feminist- I am a Social Worker and my main clientele is working with men in Baltimore. MANY have been abused throughout their lives and I see how they suffer and I just wanted to offer some insight, thinking maybe my comments could get some wheels turning about how to help men. Sorry I came in here, I'll see myself out.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

implying I was talking about dressing provocatively

I was talking about the actual, risky act of having sex with someone. It inherently risks pregnancy, even with birth control. You're trying to shift the conversation here.

Enjoying sex is like enjoying extreme sports: risky. Do I have a right to have my extreme sport addiction subsidized?

Your endometriosis is irrelevant. You are taking the drug not as birth control, but as an endometriosis treatment. It's therapy for a disorder. You'd be given that anyway, even if general birth control wasn't subsidized, because treatment for disorders like that is covered by conventional insurance. This is different from saying FREE BIRTH CONTROL FOR EVERYONE! You're now trying to shove your own victim status in here as a way to paint me in a negative light.

I'm morbidly obese. Do I get publicly funded surgery to correct my obesity? Or am I suddenly going to be lectured on how I should have better self-control, and that I am reaping the penalties of an indulgent, self-serving lifestyle?

When my "Food addiction" surgery and medication is subsidized(and mind you, I need food to even live. People can do without sex), then I can take people's sex dependency seriously as something that needs to be made safe and thought of in a positive light as healthy.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I was talking about the actual, risky act of having sex with someone.

Then why did you bring up sex positive people "taking the term back"? What did that have to do with anything, then? Sorry, I am not trying to shift anything. I am just trying to follow what you are saying.

Enjoying sex is like enjoying extreme sports: risky.

How, exactly, is it like an extreme sport? Im just trying to understand where you are coming from.

Your endometriosis is irrelevant. You are taking the drug not as birth control, but as an endometriosis treatment. It's therapy for a disorder. You'd be given that anyway, even if general birth control wasn't subsidized, because treatment for disorders like that is covered by conventional insurance.

In order to get formally diagnosed with endometriosis, you need to have a labrascopic procedure, and not everyone has the means to get one or needs one yet. Because of this, many women who have endometriosis don't have it "officially" diagnosed because they haven't have a laboroascopy so they cannot get it subsidized as a disorder. The OBGYN just prescribes them birth control continuously anyway because there are ways of knowing you have it without that procedure.

You're now trying to shove your own victim status in here as a way to paint me in a negative light.

I apologize, I wasn't trying to assume a "victim status," I was just sharing an example of birth control use that was not for contraceptive purposes, as many men may not be aware of what endometriosis is. I'm not a victim- Im working on my degree and I am doing just fine. Other than the endo I am a healthy person.

I'm morbidly obese. Do I get publicly funded surgery to correct my obesity? Or am I suddenly going to be lectured on how I should have better self-control, and that I am reaping the penalties of an indulgent, self-serving lifestyle?

I feel like you are comparing apples and oranges here. With pregnancy, it takes to people who have sex and a third person is produced. With obesity, it takes only one person to gain fat and only fat is produced. It costs much more to raise a welfare child as well as supplement the parents than it does to deal with an individuals costs associated with weight loss surgery.

When my "Food addiction" surgery and medication is subsidized(and mind you, I need food to even live. People can do without sex), then I can take people's sex dependency seriously as something that needs to be made safe and thought of in a positive light as healthy.

That sounds something you need to work out on your own. Best of luck.

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]M4Strings -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]M4Strings -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

M4. Listen to me very carefully.

Health insurance providers want to cover birth control at no additional cost to the insured party, because it saves them money in the long run.

Because they are required to cover the hospital stay of an expecting mother, and a lifetime of birth control is cheaper than even one extra hospital visit.

The reason premiums are going up is the cost of adding the people with "pre-existing conditions"...more of whom are male, as men are much more likely to work jobs that cause us to contract life-threatening illnesses and disabilities.

There are so many good things to push for in the men's movement, and I won't let us be turned into some sort of reaction to feminism. They are RIGHT on that issue. Every woman should get free birth control, and the science for men's birth control should be completed, and made free to us too. Everyone benefits from this.

[–]M4Strings -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]M4Strings -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]M4Strings -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]M4Strings -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]borizz 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]M4Strings -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]guywithaccount 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]M4Strings -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]guywithaccount4 points 12 years ago [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

Oh sure. You said

It's equally vile to take from a person what they do not wish to give. It's an assault on liberty and it's theft, and it's made worse by the fact that it's made legal by moronic politicians.

And yet, this is EXACTLY the means by which property rights are created and enforced: we put labels (figuratively, or sometimes literally) on all the stuff that exists, and then put someone's name on all the labels, and we use the threat of violence and murder to keep anyone but that person from using that stuff, and we didn't bother to get anyone else's consent before we decided on their behalf that they support the current allocation or else.

And what creates property rights? Aside from someone's sense of entitlement, I mean? Well, the government - which is to say, it's all made legal by moronic politicians.

So if moronic politicians can create property rights, and assign police to enforce them with guns and mob violence, why can't they create and enforce something like Obamacare? No reason that I can think of. And where is the moral difference - the REAL moral difference, I mean, not the one where you like one of these things and not the other, and so you pretend that one is good and one is bad?

[–]M4Strings -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]guywithaccount 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]M4Strings -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]guywithaccount 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

If it were stolen goods then the person has no right to sell it and both the person they stole it from and I have legal options against the thief.

You didn't answer the question. If you buy stolen goods, do they become yours or not? If not, why not - didn't you pay for them? You said that was enough.

Provide some proof of this.

It's self-evident. What do you think the police are FOR - other than writing tickets and capturing runaway slaves? How are property rights enforced, if not by violence or the treat of violence?

Actually, even capturing runaway slaves counts, since the slaves were technically stealing themselves. We've outlawed slavery these days - chattel slavery, I mean - but it's a fine historical example.

I assume you own some clothing, so who did you beat up and steal them from?

The sad thing is that you think you're being clever when you're just missing the point.

My ownership of my clothing is accomplished by using violence or the threat of violence (with the police as my proxy) to exclude all others from its use. Just as I've been trying to tell you.

The only way in which people with more property get more property protection is in the sense that they have more property to protect.

Funny how you seem to see that as insignificantly discriminatory.

Anyway, this is all straying from my point, which was that the government that can use force to create and enforce property rights can use it to make you buy insurance. If one is vile, so is the other.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]M4Strings -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]borizz -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]guywithaccount1 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SJW_Scum -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments