TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

Freshmen walk out of sexual consent talk at York University.

andejoh

September 28, 2016
227 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://archive.is/Xzil3
Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Freshmen walk out of sexual consent talk at York University.
Author

andejoh

Upvotes 227
Comments 71
Date September 28, 2016 1:11 AM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/54txid/freshmen_walk_out_of_sexual_consent_talk_at_york/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/freshmen-walk-out-of-sexual-consent-talk-at-york.940867
https://theredarchive.com/post/940867
Top posts by andejoh

Sweden's 'man-free' feminist music festival is found guilty of discrimination by authorities

4768 upvotes
December 18, 2018
/r/MensRights

Another female college student charged with filing false rape report. Probably why feminists want schools to handle things. Lying to the police has consequences.

2599 upvotes
March 2, 2018
/r/MensRights

Man sues restaurant for charging "man tax".

2463 upvotes
October 5, 2017
/r/MensRights

Woman quits Trudeau's youth council over his anti-male, feminist, virtue, signaling. Trudeau back pedals claiming his remarks were taken out of context. It's nice when women stand up for men.

2397 upvotes
December 24, 2018
/r/MensRights

290,000 people in South Korea sign petition to require that women have the same military obligations as men. President office says we need to ask women if it's OK.

2345 upvotes
July 14, 2021
/r/MensRights

Husband and wife separate. Wife forges husband's name on document allowing her to give birth using a frozen embryo they created. Man sues to block child support.

2119 upvotes
April 12, 2017
/r/MensRights

Male nurses want to close gender gap by eliminating quota requiring 80% of nurses are women. Female nurses not for equality.

1798 upvotes
June 21, 2021
/r/MensRights

'America's daughters shouldn't be drafted against their will': Conservatives blast proposal that would require women to register for the military draft alongside men

1574 upvotes
July 25, 2021
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Badgerz92 113 points114 points115 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Is this the same York University that cancelled International Men's Day last year because feminists complained?

[–]trampson 40 points41 points42 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes.

[–]DoItLive247 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They didn't ask for my consent to cancelled International Men's Day.

[–]trampson 113 points114 points115 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Thank you Ben Froughi, we need more and more men (and women) like you to stand up against these deranged ideologues.

“I was approached again when handing out flyers at a later talk by the same member of university staff who repeated that the information I was giving out was already available to students. I gave the same answer – ‘that’s good’ – and carried on handing them out,” he added.

Like a fuckin boss.

[–]p3ngwin 35 points36 points37 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

the information the university is giving out is also freely available, doesn't mean there isn't a better means to access it.

They can fuck off with that poor attempt to stop the signal.

[–]mikesteane 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The consent "information" is also available elsewhere so maybe they should cancel the talk. In fact almost everything you might learn at uni is available in books, so perhaps they should cancel university as well. The implied logic that he should stop handing out the flyers because the information is available elsewhere is absurd.

[–]trampson 72 points73 points74 points 9 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

I just realized something.

They tagged the non-compulsory consent talk on the end of a compulsory fire talk, rather than scheduling this optional talk on its own time. That's a devious as fuck piggybacking/backdooring method of indoctrination.

[–]splodgenessabounds 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure it's complete coincidence...

[–]xNOM 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Well you know. Those are the two most dangerous things at college. Fire and penises. /s

[–]RockFourFour 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Truth. You ever scream "PENIS!!!" in a crowded movie theater? Shit's dangerous.

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

I think I'm going to start a band called "Fire and Penises"

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd like to see how the students were officially informed of these talks and the punishment for not attending [the fire one].

I bet it was a bit ambiguous.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's almost the same way they tack on bullshit SJW required core classes onto stem degrees.

The only thing I learned in my sociology class is that sociology students or degrees are not to be taken seriously.

[–]EndTimesRadio 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

At that point you just pull the fire alarm.

[–]Rolten 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think it's that bad. If you're going to give a talk that you'd like students to attend then why not combine it with something else, especially if it's something supported by the university?

Not saying that the talk wasn't probably shit and biased, but I so no foul in scheduling two things together.

[–]ThirdTurnip 52 points53 points54 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

They claim the talks were gender neutral but I think most of us would be naturally skeptical about that.

Would have been interesting if someone had taped one of the talks so we could see for ourselves.

[–]franklindeer 28 points29 points30 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The fact that they even feel obligated to pretend to have a gender neutral discussion is progress IMO. Just a year ago there wouldn't have been any shame or pretence about having a gendered discussion about the subject.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points21 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The new women's officer can prove everybody wrong, but it's a Feminist body so they probably can't distance themselves from seeing men a as predators and women as victims. It's somewhat like hoping that klan members could advice how to arrange the race relations.

[–]bufedad 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wasn't there an AMA about consent courses that teach men not to rape.

She was developing similar courses for women, on how to prevent men from raping them...

That was her claim to gender neutrality.

[–]Tmomp 52 points53 points54 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I have never had a woman ask me for consent.

[–]Mature_Student 23 points24 points25 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You was raped then, obviously!

[–]Badgerz92 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

They argue that taking the initiative counts as consent. And since 99% of the time men are expected to take the initiative, affirmative consent doesn't apply to them

[–]bufedad 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They argue that taking the initiative counts as consent.

And yet a woman initiating isn't sign enough of consent for a college tribunal.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Drunk people take initiative all the time

[–]chambertlo 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Then that makes you a rapist. Welcome to 2016!

[–]trampson 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Who else is excited for $CURRENT_YEAR+1?

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

what a time to be alive!

[–]omegaphallic 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Neither have I, at least not that I recall.

[–]Lethn 31 points32 points33 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Long live the revolution motherfuckers, love the damage control by the idiot 'women's officers' clearly organising everything.

[–]civilsaint 61 points62 points63 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

How about Common Sense talks?

Don't want to have sex? Limit how much you drink and stay out of strangers' beds.

Class dismissed. Enjoy your celibacy.

[–]fengpi 49 points50 points51 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Limit how much you drink and stay out of strangers' beds.

You vile victim-blamer, you. You're worse than Vlad the Impaler.

[–][deleted] 49 points50 points51 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Impaler? I hardly knew her!

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[–]girlwriteswhat 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Holy shit, that was funny. :D

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

......karen?

(dontgeekoutdontgeekoutdontgeekoutdontgeekout) Hi.

[–]Bestoftherest222 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They told Nouse: “We appreciate Froughi’s right to an opinion on the matter, despite our disagreeing with that opinion. What we cannot agree with is impersonating a University of York staff member to attempt to prevent new students receiving basic safety information. “The talks were gender neutral, short and solution based. They were accessible to all and actively invited questions and discussion.”

A gender neutral sexual consent course backed by feminist, gender neutral I think not!

[–]MagicTampon 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

1vt)Aefd#[wMtX#SncAmf7Qe4d%)Ce7>AV*SsPC4~:7d6f@m9pFqK+Tcd80Pv.

T-BAQO<#ZorVwR(Z[Pc3]gVi0ROU6@y:1e7fF1~m%K@116;e:RroPEi.Q3z(p!TltcfV#vP[ZMy~40,t65epM9uXk]b98-Q>7m7G1zS.t!l<3A<eII+M@c:mUKlz&VNyxsL]~@I:d(c2D2ELgWq.)P#(CyOIPyL#oqW%1~BvP~nW;[PG#$sQn#Cz5UZC%To<PRI

CG+.G%#AoReh4pUHmRst<yA754q>gsXqs$DVetOTQ!ZeRH&x8Mm&<M0R~ZvpXyEDcx<)BRqIrvBK@aqAcIe~$Vb+7!ATEVq:STiKW$9d,Ki1(U,*mP[l<H$I6o(Se%96]s5Ju5nH-8fKtoRwlm$tW7*iMgmyS0,iT.!s:-@7$qrNd%:N^9H<;G#dWXg8ryZ5aVU$Qs^P9@Ef1bt%VhV1<wnw#9]hDmN[r!TVFNLK^%Suk-.~z-^6SK[k[e9lgkqv7thU8F+@+%hB56zb-D>wTCq~uEIgy!CeQTrc1zSMl,!u!huTerLGbf[J)p:a>Vvg$c52,h@A@7DPdfRbIrp7g:+Mddnirm5KdVVHE+7cmR~5aVKSwQb#Chl&(tv:1lL@nBocqKS@EXv;D~T-K+T~9S1~qTZq%MDq<a;H6cW4VLC1q-AKbN~gI:W8RE1uh@K4yon7m0:@b>qQ<m@]WDcrGmnb<u*wTL+pD@D)b:sld;E)AOg18+LEkHTSsr,zC3pKlqrpvey1F-TsmPASI~p4%dD^]e<vBox]Iin:vxtH2ilzX-y0Q#ESs+sDR>cTAsL#0IJS9]B(Ifpa~l.0c&9]vBXR$LXW+ae&GRGB.8Slsz&Z[xr:P[4l(-@ekig-s6$tOrI);-XNI359,q4v%E.o-v.UJ7;0FhM[3T02.Hk3P-qx>;t~d~xd(bo-x6+duC

k0Ff7WpJMW:v#D:0rIflD7F~vd%O(@FBVGJ6,n!de>o$.JN)d!WVZ.tvPpfAzIF-i<JQ5ZnmH9LS[C$V)JW%+>y7N$I>R366cZr<Z&<ekO[r5z3FhnGNI;()AJyVam<Zes9z3;ha2]yr-V,TtC6G6VAeXB9D@031)5HCT2<D(hHH#y29NrTzxr4Xv0))M4$;$e67q<mJs<g,9&K2>8]cc5!4>hQI-%<xb.QtLxoRyI&HTAbBIX.q-7RZ24mc,S60Wy-K<-(AA]zmD:XQHpp4Q:aZwagXXMlbTz&l4s30xzgxs22G5@F#T4iWc#Q0Q;)1.0V1m@KgDbsDrw,Geix]u^U>p;el$l,IU:-HPofMNil4zf!tZ1A9V1IkM&q#uk;#x;C<JP5E!;xHhZ-PfN;gO>3$bV~a3Qb831a6tpy,p#Vs,LTDIWH(!!eCI>wZ9QU9t+6!3;@JeFp]lyoDCke%lMb4b>ok73wl~vPLA[Piso9C3QuP]fi.x+.$H

[–]splodgenessabounds 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Whoever Ben Froughi is, he's no mug.

Froughi clarified that he was informed by university officials that he was not allowed to distribute the flyers as long as he claimed to represent the university. He told Nouse: “Following a few minutes of conversation, we established that I was well within my rights to hand out flyers with anything on them provided I wasn’t claiming to represent the university.” Though he opted to remove the logo from the flyers, university officials later returned to challenge Froughi again. “I was approached again when handing out flyers at a later talk by the same member of university staff who repeated that the information I was giving out was already available to students. I gave the same answer – ‘that’s good’ – and carried on handing them out,” he added.

That is an object lesson in how to deal with "authority", especially any "authority" pushing a line they want conformity with. Acknowledge legitimate complaints (impersonating a uni official, handing out flyers with the uni logo) and amend your actions accordingly, then carry on with your task. When a representative of the "authority" makes further objections, acknowledge them and carry on.

This is someone pursuing the real objectives of free speech in real life, without ever being unnecessarily rude or offensive. Which is what universities should be (and once were) all about. Would that more uni students understood this.

*spilleng

[–]Lethn 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

He clearly knows what he's doing and you're right, this is exactly how to deal with SJWs and Feminists in particular, these people have no real power, they're relying on intimidation and harassment or proxy violence in order to get people to do what they want.

All it takes is for the majority of the world to ignore them and then they are utterly powerless.

[–]splodgenessabounds 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

they're relying on intimidation and harassment or proxy violence

And - when that fails - bluster.

[–]BigJ76 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good for them for not wanting to put up with or listen to the bullshit

[–]franklindeer 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

The problem with this shit is that A: consent is covered in compulsory health classes in Ontario and B: Activists aren't teaching the legal definition of consent and make no distinction between advice and the law. I literally just had someone in another sub argue that sex under the influence of alcohol was illegal and linked to a crisis centre website for proof. Where do people get these ideas? It's certainly not all on their own and it's certainly not from anyone familiar with the law. This is a serious problem.

[–]omegaphallic 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Canadian sexual assault laws are idiotically broad, but they're not so broad as to make sex under acholoh illegal. See this is the clusterfuck that feminists and they're stupidity has wrought, massive levels of ignorance and confusion, they're "talks" just make things worse.

I've seen confused feminists believe that Gomeshi was charged with rape (he wasn't, in fact he wasn't even accused of having viginal intercourse with the women, he was charged with 4 counts of sexual assault and 1 count of choking, what most people concider rape usually fails under aggravated sexual assault), believe that Brock Turner was convicted of rape (he wasn't, he was convicted of the lesser charges, the rape charges were dropped because of lack of DNA evidience), that Bill Cosby drugged women (drugging someone is forcing someone into taking drugs, potentially without they're knowledge, he handed them drugs, which they chose to take, he forced no one to take them), The James Deen had far more accusations of rape then he actually had against him (most of the accusations were that he was an asshole, not a rapist, but feminists and idiots in the media delibrately confused the issue so people would conflate one with the other).

[–]girlwriteswhat 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

We have a new situation regarding Judge Robin Camp in Canada, and his "slut-shaming, rape-myth perpetuating" question during a trial: "Why didn't you just keep your knees together?"

While yes, this phrase is often code for, "Why were you such a big old slut?" but within the broader context of the complainant's testimony, it was 1) a valid question, and 2) clearly an attempt to clarify and visualize how the alleged rape happened.

Judge Camp has apologized and been subjected to feminist training, but there's still an inquiry to determine whether he should be on the bench.

Of course, certain redacted portions of the court transcript have been revealed by the Globe and Mail under a FOIA request.

Experts interviewed in media about this case suggest that the problem is judges buying into rape myths and "not following the law". One of the most troubling things about this is that from the transcript, it seems the prosecutor improperly advised the judge regarding the law:

1) She told him that reasonable doubt was not a reason to acquit--that the judge had to be convinced the defendant's story was true, rather than that the complainant's story not proven.

2) When he seemed alarmed by this and told her he actually found the defendant's story more credible than the accuser's, she went on to suggest to him that even this wasn't enough to justify an acquittal. That is, even the judge's assessment that, on a balance of probabilities, it was more likely than not that the defendant was telling the truth and the accuser was not, that's no reason to acquit.

Put a different way, imagine a university hearing with the "preponderance of evidence" standard (essentially, a 50.1% burden). Now imagine a prosecutor in a criminal court instructing the judge that the prosecution need not even meet that standard to secure a conviction.

3) She made statements that were highly suggestive of a reversal of the burden of proof--that the defendant hadn't proven his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

4) She improperly and incorrectly asserted that the testimony of eyewitnesses who corroborated the story of the defendant based on things they directly witnessed was hearsay, and not admissible.

Who the fuck is not following the law here? And why is Judge Camp the one whose career is on the line?

[–]AloysiusC 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Holy crap wtf. How can they get away with that crap.

Well I guess Canada is going to be our canary in that feminist death star of a coal mine. Just fuck everyone.

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

improperly advised the judge regarding the law

the judge? why would a judge need advice about the standard of proof?

do you mean the jury? (was there one?)

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

Interesting. Fucking media and so called experts. How can people create informed opinions when important information is denied them? I'm glad more info was released, for once the Globe and Mail did the right thing.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Did the linked crisis centre website support their claim, or was it a false citation?

It's strange to see so many claiming to be the arbiters of truth without knowing what they're talking about or even applying rudimentary logic. What if both parties have drank?

[–]franklindeer 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

It wasn't cited at all and used intentionally misleading language in order to suggest that sex under the influence was illegal. The rest of the page used gendered language to discuss rape and referred to rapists as "he". It was a mess of the worst kind of bullshit.

Edit: Here's the quote.

"Myth: If the assailant, victim, or both are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the victim is free to consent to sex and the assailant therefore cannot be charged with rape. Fact: When intoxicated, an individual cannot legally consent to sexual activity. Forcing sex on someone who is too drunk to give consent is still Criminal Sexual Conduct in the Third Degree. Rape is a serious offense, and people who commit crimes while under the influence of alcohol or drugs are not considered free from guilt."

It's a paragraph of misleading language, claims with no basis and conflation.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

With the exception of blackout drunk individuals, that's bullshit. Of course, I'm sure they were well aware of that when they wrote that passage.

Also, that passage suggests that if two people drink and have sex together, they are both raping and are raped by each other. Yea, that seems reasonable.

[–]franklindeer 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also they toss "being drunk doesn't mean you can't rape someone" in there to confuse things even further. They know damn well that has nothing to do with consent while under the influence they're just trying to mislead. It doesn't even address the question they posed to themselves.

This is a huge problem. I'm all for teaching people that drinking and having sex is risky and maybe should he avoided, especially with strangers, but I draw the line at suggesting it's the law either through omission or overt claim.

[–]Mature_Student 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Strangely, this never happens at universities that don't offer Women's Studies as a course option.

[–]trampson 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Reported for misogyny.

[–]AloysiusC 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In principle I don't mind consent classes so long as they teach things that are true and should be known like:

1) Withdrawing consent after the event doesn't make it rape.

2) You can withdraw consent at any time for any reason.

3) Not enjoying something doesn't mean it wasn't consensual.

4) Don't assume a man automatically consents because he's male and men always want it.

5) You do need to communicate clearly. You can't expect people to read your mind.

6) Be very careful of girls who want you to overpower them and play the no means yes game. Even if you like that game. It's not worth the risk.

and many more but I'm getting tired of typing it all out.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

However Froughi claimed his motive was in the best interest of students. “Consent talks are patronising; if students really need lessons in how to say yes or no then they should not be at university.

Fucking owned.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Freshers

Fucking awkward ass word if I ever saw one.

[–]BMTL 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Pretty common and well used in UK unis

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh I know. I saw the article that complained that "freshmen" was sexist. And the other article that said "freshmen" was too akin to "freshmeat" which made girls feel unsafe.

Fucking pathetic.

[–]boringcarpets 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, that's not why. We've never used the term "freshmen" always freshers. Since way before I went over 15 years ago

[–]nictytan 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

One that bugs me at my school is "froshie" used to designate someone participating in frosh.

[–]Vandechoz -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I assume it's an attempt at being gender-neutral. Just be glad they didn't go with freshmyn.

[–]DevilishRogue 9 points10 points11 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, it's been in use for a long time, well before any attempts to make language gender neutral.

[–]omegaphallic 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Suggesting he was impersonating a university official is bullshit, he used the university symbol, but as far as I can tell, he never said he was a University Official.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Women’s Officers Chaudhuri-Julyan and Robinson claimed that they believed Froughi’s behaviour led to a compromising of students’ safety, as freshers were encouraged to skip the segment “designed to give them basic safety information to protect their wellbeing, physically and mentally”.

So... common sense. That's what "basic safety information" is. I think these kids will be fine. Until you convince girls who had regretful sex they are victims of rape culture. yay feminism

However Froughi claimed his motive was in the best interest of students. “Consent talks are patronising; if students really need lessons in how to say yes or no then they should not be at university.

Exactly. And they sure as fuck shouldn't be having sex if they're that inept.

Did anyone else find this article subtitle/description highly misleading? I thought the article was going to be a guy actually pretending to be with the university, and lying to students. But he just used a letter head. Which to me isn't "Impersonation" but just a design choice to show "this is about this school". And he was just reiterating what was actually going on so students felt free to leave.

[–]andejoh[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The fact that it's not mandatory tells you something.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was actually surprised it wasn't when I was reading it.

[–]Ravelair 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

These aren't talks about consent, it's a feminist talking about how to turn every sexual contact into rape.

GOD am i glad I don't live in the States and sex between two consenting adults is just that. Can't imagine being comfortable with walking a minefield every time I meet someone.

[–]deanat78 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You do realize this is UK, not the states. This problem is global

[–]Nion_zaNari 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure someone who has been elected as a "women's officer" is going to frame things in an entirely gender-neutral way. I suppose it might be gender-neutral in that it teaches people of all genders that men are evil.

[–]bufedad 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The faked document before it was adjusted, claiming to be from on official University source, was distributed by activist Ben Froughi to remind freshers that the consent talk was not compulsory

Can someone explain this to me, because I'm apparently an idiot.

This is the original fake document (containing absolutely true information). The document doesn't claim to be from the University of York, but to contain University of York information.

And he reminded them of the truth.

Really? The fake document reminded them of the truth? That's the big complaint?

[–]jimmywiddle 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Don't know who that guy is, but he is a legend for doing what he did. I think if I had a choice of going or paying a fine, I would pay the fine.

More sexist feminist propaganda, they can shove it where the sun doesn't shine.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter