Disclaimer: This post is not meant to fuel any hatred nor sexism. I do not intend to engage in any "derailing". I am gender egalitarian and generally pro-feminist.
We shouldn't demean male sexual assault victims, as they deserve same support as female sexual assault victims. There is a double standard regarding sexual violence: when a woman is abused, she is usually supported and the people sympathise with her. When a man is a victim, he is usually laughed at. Regarding perpetrators, sometimes they are men, but we should remember, that women are also capable for being perpetrators of sexual abuse. Although official statistics show that men are a majority of offenders, and women are a majority of victims, we should take into consideration that female perpetrators and male victims are severely underreported due to high social stigma - as I said earlier, abused men and boys are mocked. Some allege that they're "lucky", especially if harmed by a woman.
I don't hold any misogynistic resentments (you can even perform a background check of my account, you'll see that I opposed anti-women stances and patriarchy in my discussions), I only want to remind you about the importance of equal support for victimised men. To men and boys here: if you were sexually abused, don't hesitate to see. Even if you were assaulted by women, you shouldn't feel guilty and don't let anyone tell you that you were "lucky" and "it wasn't real".
Cheers for everyone here!
P.S. I've recently learnt about a short film "Made to Penetrate" by Hila Perry. I watched it and I cried, feeling very sorry for a victim. I know it was, luckily, a work of fiction, but I couldn't help, and as a sensitive man, cried for a victim.
[–]gratis_eekhoorn 92 points93 points94 points (52 children) | Copy Link
> Disclaimer: This post is not meant to fuel any hatred nor sexism. I do not intend to engage in any "derailing". I am gender egalitarian and generally pro-feminist.
Having the need of stating that shows how ''tolerant'' your fellow feminist spaces are towards the idea of male sexual assault victims
[–]MachoManShark 58 points59 points60 points (6 children) | Copy Link
170 words expressing support for sex assault victims, 70 words preemptively apologizing.
i understand why one would feel the need, though; some folks can get upset at this topic.
[–]Fallen-Shadow-1214 29 points30 points31 points (0 children) | Copy Link
As a man that’s the necessary preamble necessary for any good faith discussion when speaking in any feminist space if you want even a chance to have your argument sincerely considered without bad faith.
[–]Nobleone11 24 points25 points26 points (0 children) | Copy Link
No offense but screw'em.
Most of the time is those with Misandric views on men that express outrage.
[–]Maffioze 14 points15 points16 points (0 children) | Copy Link
There are feminists upset there because "where does this myth come from that women are believed and supported".
Why can't they ever acknowledge it whenever men have it worse in something? It doesn't mean we suddenly think women are living in a fairytale.
[–]gratis_eekhoorn 35 points36 points37 points (2 children) | Copy Link
The folks who get upset at this topic are hopeless anyway, it is just pathetic apologizing this much to people who have a problem with the existence of male advocacy. No feminist even acknowledges let alone apologizes for the misandry in their movement despite the examples being much more common and severe compared to ''misogyny'' of MRAs
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
I agree that this particular sub is flooded with f*mscum, unfortunately, but the idea of reducing the sexualization of society, thereby reducing the likelihood of harassment and sexual violence against men, imho, is useful.
I'm not sure you can, but could you please unban this OP?
[–]gratis_eekhoorn[M] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
> but the idea of reducing the sexualization of society, thereby reducing the likelihood of harassment and sexual violence against men, imho, is useful.
I don't really disagree with this but not sure why you brought it up?
> I'm not sure you can, but could you please unban this OP?
They called a bunch of people degenerates (which is a direct violation of rule 7) for not agreeing with them on going back a century for sexual openness
[–]Mitago1 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
To be fair some people always get upset when the topic isn't about their side or them, therefore i am not surprised.
[+]Sean_Sltrleft-wing male advocate[S] -38 points-37 points-36 points (41 children) | Copy Link
Well, feminism was net positive for the humanity. It gave women equal rights - they can work, educate, own property, vote, have equal citizenship etc.
I'm adamantly opposed to patriarchy and misogyny. Having said that, I understand that some feminists can be excessively devoted to this cause and they can misinterpret any post pertaining to men's issues as "misogyny" and "derailing". But it's partly caused by anti-women MRAs. They have legitimate grievances, yet they use them to attack women, feminism and gender equality, not truly caring about male victims. Therefore, some feminists can be overly sensitive to everything that contains mentions of men's issues, as they can wrongly associate it with MRA misogyny.
EDIT: I don't support misandry and I agree that among feminists, there are those excessively devoted to the feminist cause. For example, r/fourthwavewomen. And there are some misandrists on r/antisex, or r/PornIsMisogyny and it's wrong. Obviously, I would disagree with them if one of them would state that "misandry doesn't exist". But I feel aligned with sex-negative views, so I belong to these subs anyway. And some are provoked by misogynists they encountered earlier, or even their personal traumas.
[–]GoodeBoi 35 points36 points37 points (31 children) | Copy Link
Bro still believes in patriarchy theory?
[–]Azihayya -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Not everything can be reduced to class struggle. Patriarchy is absolutely a historical phenomenon, and it does your movement absolutely no favors to deny that historical reality. The Western tradition of coverture is a very clear example of this.
[–]GoodeBoi 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I’m not saying patriarchy was never a thing or that there is no historical applicability to patriarchy, but that patriarchy theory in what I would consider its newest iteration crumbles to the slightest scrutiny when applied to modern western countries. Hence the “like an oligarchy” comment. Modern patriarchy theory pivots women against man in a class struggle manufactured to ignore the real root of inequality within society.
[+]Fallen-Shadow-1214 -26 points-25 points-24 points (28 children) | Copy Link
Patriarchy isn’t: Men oppressed Women as so many people believe
It’s powerful men oppressed both men and women, is there really anything to argue against there?
[–]GoodeBoi 40 points41 points42 points (14 children) | Copy Link
Sort of eliminates the point of calling it patriarchy then? It’s just an oligarchy.
[+]Fallen-Shadow-1214 -22 points-21 points-20 points (13 children) | Copy Link
Because the guiding principles of that oligarchy was based on the interests of the ruling men.
[–]Punder_man 31 points32 points33 points (10 children) | Copy Link
But that still does not make it a "Patriarchy"
Especially not in the way as described by Feminists..
[–]Fallen-Shadow-1214 -1 points0 points1 point (9 children) | Copy Link
I’m not trying to do it in “the way described by feminists”
I don’t know what you’re looking for a Patriarchy but regardless of whatever, it never justified hatred of half the population of the world or utter disregard for that sex’s issues or the idea that they should be able to fix all their problems themselves because… “Men had it so much easier”
There’s no need to fight against the idea of a Patriarchy because no form of Patriarchy justified any of this in the first place.
[–]Punder_man 19 points20 points21 points (8 children) | Copy Link
We fight against the idea of a Patriarchy because it makes no logical sense based upon what we witness on a daily basis..
The concept of "The Patriarchy" is that society is made / run by men for the benefit / protection of men at the cost / oppression of women.
Now I'm NOT claiming that never in our history were there any Patriarchal societies.. because there absolutely were..
The problem with the idea of "The Patriarchy" is that most people who claim we live in a Patriarchy are only looking at the top 1% of society (Million / Billionaires, CEO's, World Leaders etc) and see that the majority of these positions are held by men and thus ASSUMING this is the norm / average expectation for men..
But if you look at the bottom 5 - 15% of society (Homelessness, Deaths etc) you will see that men also dominate this area of society.. but its ignored in favor of pushing the idea that "Men" rule the world.
Not only that but the claim that men are uniquely advantaged in this so called "Patriarchy" is insane..
If we truly lived in a Patriarchy as claimed then the following would be true:
But yet we are still expected to believe that we live completely within a system designed to benefit men?
Pull the other one!
[–]Fallen-Shadow-1214 0 points1 point2 points (7 children) | Copy Link
I genuinely don’t care what it’s called, not to dismiss or disregard your point, what you said is very true and should be acknowledged in this current landscape.
But at the end of the day we might not call it Patriarchy but we do suffer the trickle down effects of biased and obsolete systems and values. I just call it Patriarchy because it’s the ruling class men that made these systems.
We don’t live in a system designed to benefit men, we live in a system designed to benefit the most powerful men at the cost of everyone else.
[–]Punder_man11 points [recovered] | Copy Link
Then stop calling it "Patriarchy" and call it what it is..
Its an Oligarchy.
Calling it "Patriarchy" implies men are to blame / men are at fault..
Calling it an Oligarchy means that both powerful men AND women are at fault..
Because that's the other thing you miss here.. its not JUST men who are in control..
Sure, the majority of those in the Oligarchy are men.. but there are also women in the mix who also have control over things..
So stop calling it Patriarchy, blaming the majority of men for something they have little to no control over and start assigning the blame correctly!
[–]Fallen-Shadow-12141 point [recovered] | Copy Link
You're missing the important detail that you yourself mentioned, "the majority of those in the Oligarchy are men" The ones at the very top of that Oligarchy are also men. That's why I call it Patriarchy, if we were to be as accurate as possible it'd be a Patriarchal Oligarchy.
I refute that it implies that men are to blame/ men are at fault, that is the thinking of bad faith feminists and misandrists that want to blame men. Just because the ones most in power are men does not mean in any way that even a significant portion of men are to blame or it is their fault, that is the thinking of someone who wants to blame men. The people who insist as such only want to justify their warped worldview.
**The majority of men are not elites, 1%, rulers, to treat them as such is to invalidate their claim as victims of the oppression as well, they have little to no control over this system.**
I insist on calling it the Patriarchy because I wholeheartedly repudiate the idea that it is men's fault, that I need to take any responsibility of the actions of elites because I happen to have a penis too, fuck them. I will not back down, women contribute to the Patriarchy just as much as men and I will not allow them to hide behind a name to justify their misandry.
[–]roankr8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
Your use of the term The Patriarchy validates or at least props up the platform that misandrists use. What's also hilarious is how you argue it's made by men when you also mention it's made by women as well.
[–]Fallen-Shadow-12141 point [recovered] | Copy Link
??? When did I say it was made by men? I just said that elitist men are the majority players in it, that's all.
As for validating the platform misandrists use? Fuck em, they don't have a monopoly on how words are used, I'll use it to force misandrists to choke on their sexism, I don't care.
[–]roankr5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
Perhaps elitist men appear to be the major players in making it because the women appear to not be the players by making their demands force the elitist hands?
How deep into the rabbit hole do you wanna go?
[–]Fallen-Shadow-12141 point [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm willing to go as far as it is, if elitist women are genuinely a shadow organisation manipulating men behind the scenes, then I will change my POV, but I'm going to need incontrovetible evidence.
[–]Song_of_Pain7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
Powerful women are also benefited.
[–]GoodeBoi 13 points14 points15 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Like an oligarchy?
[–]Fallen-Shadow-1214 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Yep.
[–]Punder_man 36 points37 points38 points (10 children) | Copy Link
There are also powerful women in the ranks.. but we conveniently ignore them to push the narrative of Men = Oppressors Women = Oppressed..
Many of us would agree we live within a Oligarchy in which the rich / top 1% control everything / oppress women AND men for their benefit..
But I can not agree that we live in a society designed to benefit / protect men and oppress women and yet so many men are discriminated against / clearly harmed by society..
The evidence for a "Patriarchy" just isn't there..
[–]mothftman 1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
Not all women are feminist. Having a women in power doesn't mean patriarchy isn't the dominant social order. Marie Thatcher and Queen Victoria are examples. The evidence for patriarchy was in there own words and policies. There still isn't a equal number of wealthy women to men, not even close.
Men aren't being discriminated against for being asked to sign up for selective service. Women are the ones who weren't allowed to sign up for the army in the first place. It's republicans that have failed to add women to selective service, because they believe women are not suited to combat. Every single women in the military had to fight to be there, and still face massive disadvantage to service compared to male soldiers.
Notice that Israel has mandatory military service and their society is not more equal than ours. In fact it's less, because everyone is forced to fight or participate in the military even if they don't want to. Which leads to PTSD and rape and still women are underrepresented in leadership compared to men.
Feminists are anti-war and so seek to end selective service for men. Military service should consentual and a last resort for protecting the country, not a mandatory and not a way to assure loyalty from citizens.
[–]gratis_eekhoorn 0 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
> Marie Thatcher and Queen Victoria are examples.
Yes blame shitty female rulers on maleness too
> There still isn't a equal number of wealthy women to men
There still isn't an equal number of homeless women to men
> Men aren't being discriminated against for being asked to sign up for selective service. Women are the ones who weren't allowed to sign up for the army in the first place. It's republicans that have failed to add women to selective service, because they believe women are not suited to combat.
What on earth are you talking about selective service is not something voluntary, women are able pursue military careers if they decide to and have been for a long time.
> Every single women in the military had to fight to be there, and still face massive disadvantage to service compared to male soldiers.
Yeah like many examples of requirements being lowered for them for diversity right?
> Notice that Israel has mandatory military service and their society is not more equal than ours. In fact it's less, because everyone is forced to fight or participate in the military even if they don't want to. Which leads to PTSD and rape and still women are underrepresented in leadership compared to men.
Israel is one of the handful countries in the world that has somewhat gender equal military service but they still have shorter service period for women and they are not sent to frontlines as much are men are.
> Feminists are anti-war and so seek to end selective service for men. Military service should consentual and a last resort for protecting the country, not a mandatory and not a way to assure loyalty from citizens.
Who are those feminists and what have they achieved so far? meanwhile the governmening coalition of Finland consist of openly feminist women who have not only made zero changes on their male only mandatory military service but also explicitly stated that they have no plans to do so.
Also funny how you are claiming that feminists are anti war and in favor abolishing selective service/conscription while glorifying military service by complaining that women are supposedly denied from military roles. (assuming you are a feminist since you keep praising them)
[–]mothftman 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
You aren't even on this plane of reality. Feminism isn't the women's side in some battle for total gender control. You consistently use feminist as a synonym for women. Which is why you think the only thing about Marie Thatcher that matters is her vagina and not her words, actions, life or policy. She is one of the most famous women in political history, and you just diminish her down to a point on women side of boys vs. girls match. If you want to argue with straw you can waste someone else's time.
[–]gratis_eekhoorn 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
No I don't?
I never claimed she is a feminist? and what policy of hers was exactly pro-male? she was a bad politican and she was a woman, blaming her shitty politics on partriarchy and men is mental gymnastics and removing all agency from women which feminist claim to oppose but love doing it all the time.
[–]mothftman 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
She wasn't just a bad politician. She was a bad CONSERVATIVE. I'm not doing your homework for you. There are hundreds of papers and articles about Marie Thatcher's relationship to feminism. You have to be completely ignorant on this figure and modern British history. I mean, an aspect as basic as, a monarchy based on male birthright is still a patriarchy is a woman happens to be queen for a little while, when there are no male heirs, seems to not even be on the table for you. You lack nuance so much that you describe the opposite of feminisms as pro-male, which exactly backs up my point that you think feminism means pro-women.
Again, feminism isn't the women's side in some battle of the sexes. It is not a synonym for women. It a synonym for gender equality. It doesn't matter if a woman is in power for a feminist if that women doesn't think that society is unequally balanced in the first place, because feminism is a critical theory and ideology. It doesn't mean anti-male, as you seem to believe.
[–]gratis_eekhoorn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
is conversavism a pro male position?
does being anti feminist automatically make one pro male?
still waiting for the answer that which supposed policy of hers actually benefited males
[–]Punder_man 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
True.. just as not all men are rapists or misogynists.. but go ask feminists what they think about the "Not all men" argument..
"There still isn't an equal number of wealthy women to men, not even close"
I mean.. if that's the way you want to argue this then:
There's more.. but I think i've made my point..
Ah yes.. classic argument there.. "Men aren't being discriminated against because WOMEN are the ones actually being discriminated against!"
So are you denying that in order for men to receive the same rights / privileges afforded to women in the USA they are required to sign up to potentially be drafted for war while women do not?
Also.. a few years ago there was a bill introduced to make selective service mandatory for everyone..
Feminists protested it with slogans like "Don't conscript our daughters!" and, as soon as the bill was defeated they slipped away into the night.. ignoring the fact that MEN could / would continue to be forced to sign up for the draft.
Men 100% ARE being discriminated against.. Men are DENIED the same rights / privileges that women receive unless they agree to be drafted.. that is the text book definition of "Discrimination" how hard of a concept is that to grasp.
I do not have any experience no knowledge of the Israel military so I can not comment on this at all..
As I said above.. I call bullshit on this..
Feminists had a golden opportunity to prove this to be true when the USA wanted to introduce forcing women to sign up to be drafted too..
Yet once that was taken off the table and the status quo was restored they seemed to lose any / all interest in ending selective service for men...
[+]Fallen-Shadow-1214 -18 points-17 points-16 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Of course, but I want to remain objective, the ones that stand at the very top, the most high are men.
Not to justify men as the villains and women as the victims but to clearly point out who stand at the very top.
[–]Punder_man 23 points24 points25 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Go look up the Apex Fallacy..
You are looking at the very top, seeing that it is consisting mostly of men and assuming that ALL men are at that level of society..
But if you look at the Nadir of society.. you will find that men also dominate that area as well..
So how are you being "Objective" when you are so narrow in your own viewpoint?
[+]Fallen-Shadow-1214 -6 points-5 points-4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
True, Men often dominates both the ends of any given demographic that would’ve been the most objective take.
[–]Song_of_Pain 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Powerful women oppress men and women too.
Also, as the idea of the patriarchy was originally conceived of by feminists, it was an "all men oppress all women" kind of thing.
[–]levelate 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
you can say all that....
but then, people look around them and see how it is used, you are rehashing the terrible 'patriarchy hurts men too' argument.
and, imo, you are doing it in bad faith
[–]Punder_man 33 points34 points35 points (3 children) | Copy Link
And I am adamantly opposed to feminism attacking, vilifying and demonizing men as the "Root cause" of everything wrong in society..
Also.. I had a bit of a laugh when I read this:
I'm sorry.. but EQUAL citizenship?
What world do you live in? In the USA men are second class citizens..
In order for men to receive the same rights / privileges afforded automatically to women namely:
They need to agree to be drafted to fight for their country..
Women get all the above without ANY of the associated responsibility or risk..
And you call that "Equal"?
I'm sorry.. i'm still laughing at the concept..
Also to your further point about feminists being oversensitive.. it flows in the other direction..
Much of my mistrust of Feminism / Feminists stems from their anti-men stances / sentiments. Feminism / Feminists have legitimate grievances, yet they use them to attack men, MRA's and attempt to obfuscate by proclaiming Feminism to be a movement for "Equality" and "For Men Too" but when asked to prove it we get told to shut up and stop expecting women to fix out problems for us..
It also doesn't help that if a man so much as criticizes something a woman says or does he will be labeled a Misogynist.. Misogyny as a word / term has morphed from "The hatred of women" to "Anything a man says or does which one or more women do not agree with"
The feminism movement is filled with double standards and prejudice and yet we are still expected to believe they are the one "True" movement for equality?
No thank you!
[+]Sean_Sltrleft-wing male advocate[S] -11 points-10 points-9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Well, I agree that there is some discrimination against men. Less support in case of abuse, conscription laws, longer sentences etc. But if feminism didn't exist, we would still have discrimination against women at place.
[–]Punder_man 16 points17 points18 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Ah yes.. "Some" discrimination.. but clearly not as much was what women face right?
If feminism didn't exist we also could potentially have a more equal society by now and not have a movement that gatekeeps equality or resources needed to fix issues..
Because that's what feminism does.. it gatekeeps equality.. the only time men get any slice of the equality pie is when it is deemed acceptable by feminism..
And usually, only if helping men helps women more..
I've heard from many feminists (both men and women) proclaim "Feminism is a movement for equality!" or "We don't need Men's Rights because Feminism is for men too!"
But when I ask for evidence on what feminism / feminists has ACTIVELY done for the issues men face I either receive nothing or I get told "Feminism is breaking down gender roles / norms!"
"Feminists are making it acceptable for men to cry / show emotion"
Which don't get me wrong, that's fine and all.. but those don't exactly rate as "Important Issues" to many men..
When asked what feminism / feminists are doing regarding the alarming suicide rate in men or male homelessness or the bias men face in the legal / family courts or conscription or Male Genital Mutilation or False Rape Accusations or Paternity Fraud etc..
We get told victim blamed by being told that ALL those issues are because of either:
a) "The Patriarchy" or
b) "Toxic Masculinity"
Usually with "Once we've SMASHED 'The Patriarchy' then the issues men face will be resolved / there will be time to look at the issues men face"
Or of course we get feminists telling us that we shouldn't expect Feminism to fix our problems..
So which is it?
If Feminism is a movement for equality / for men too then I expect to see equal representation / effort given to the issues that affect me as a man..
If feminism is for women only then that too is acceptable.. but if that's the case then feminism and feminists need to STAND ASIDE and stop gatekeeping equality / the resources needed for men to fix the issues they face..
So once again I ask.. Which one is it?
[–]Azihayya -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
One point that dismantles everything that you just said: feminists are probably the single group of people who are MOST LIKELY to OPPOSE an all-male draft. The general population is probably less likely to by orders of magnitude believe that.
There are a lot of issues that feminists could find solidarity with a men's rights movement, if MRAs weren't so actively engaged in intellectual dishonesty.
[–]gratis_eekhoorn 29 points30 points31 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Does being "provoked" or "traumatized" grant someone permission to become bigoted? If so how do you know those same misogynists are not also simply doing that "as a reaction" to the misandry they have experienced?
[–]Punder_man 15 points16 points17 points (0 children) | Copy Link
It's only an acceptable excuse / defense if your gender = woman
If you aren't a woman then being provoked or traumatized will get you accused of having either "Toxic Masculinity" or "Fragile Masculinity"
Men are not allowed to react to or call out Misandry.. but are expected to be attack dogs and call out / hold men accountable for Misogyny..
Women of course have no obligation to hold other women accountable for misandry.. accountability is a tool of "The Patriarchy" and so they can't hold women accountable for their words / actions because that would be "Internalized Misogyny" don't cha know?
[–]AskingToFeminists 29 points30 points31 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm not that confident in that reading of history. You should probably not be either.
Feminism is incredibly adept at one thing : PR.
Beside that, it usually make à mess out of things, get set straight by other people who were pushing for similar things for different motives, but then step in and claim the credit.
A bit like the Christians who are already starting to claim that gay acceptance was all thanks to Christianity, because "we all know Christianity is about loving your neighbour".
And I'm opposed to the new world order and the illuminati. Provided those exist.
Care to define what you mean, exactly ?
Those famous, often pointed at "anti women MRAs". Care to show any ?
Make sure to take care not mistaking being anti feminist for being anti women. Women and feminists are two different groups, you know. And as far as I have seen, feminist groups routinely sacrifice women's interests on the altar of feminist ideology.
I have a question : do you really think the MRM has so much clout and influence that the misandry of feminism can be blamed on them ? Can we blame Valerie Solanas or Sally Miller Gearhart on MRAs?
Called it. False equivocation. Feminism is not women, and feminism is most certainly not gender equality, particularly when you are defending in the same paragraph how feminism rejects defending men's rights...
Of course. The age old psychic trick of "I am able to read mind and those people only care about men's rights as a way to oppose feminism". It is gaslighting. It is also a good example of the iron law of woke projection.
I mean, in the same paragraph you have an equivocation between "feminism" and "gender equality", a defense of feminist rejecting men's rights (and thus gender equality), and an accusation that the people who attack feminism for its disregard of gender equality only claim to care about gender equality as a way to attack them.
r/selfawarewolf much ?
[–]LuciferLondonderry 10 points11 points12 points (0 children) | Copy Link
"not truly caring about male victims"
I have been accused of this. I entered into a discussion about Domestic Violence with the observation that I looked forward to the day protection from DV would be seen as a human right, not just a womens' right. Got all the charming accusations you have repeated here.
The part that really chills my blood is the way that Feminists like you don't just not care about male victims of violence, but you can't even comprehend the possibility that another person could genuinely care about male victims. This attitude reveals a level of hatred that genuinely terrifies me.
[–]Clemicus 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
You’re confusing the framework with the people who granted those.
Define patriarchy?
That’s almost religious. For whatever reasons you give a pass to these individuals and framing it as them being too devoted, too religious.
You’re holding one to a lesser standard whilst pretending they’ve been held to a higher standard. Then proposing holding men to a even higher standard whilst pretending they haven’t really been held to a standard.
No, that’s caused by their sexism and the belief men have all the power. So if a man is being discriminated against, it logically must be because another man caused it. Or it’s because men designed the system to benefit them and somehow it’s backfiring. Or it’s because even with all the benefits he must be mediocre.
Lets pretend the subject is either rape or domestic violence. There’s pretty much two positions. Those subjects would need to be done through a feminist lens otherwise it’d be seen as attacking feminism.
Maybe you should read the core beliefs of feminism and how that’s influenced policies such as the ones for emergency services. One example would be if there’s a claim of domestic violence, the man must be the perpetrator and arrested. Men can never the victim.
And if it’s rape, we’ll that’s a thing men do because they’re misogynists and it’s a weapon to use against women — the laws are sexist against men in that regard and rape is defined as an act performed by penetration.
Not sure what I can state other than androphobiacs exist and men can’t be the sole focus when the very framework is sexist against men.
PS previous poster claims to have been banned on here. So questions might be a bit pointless.
[–]Azihayya -2 points-1 points0 points (0 children) | Copy Link
You're absolutely right, and MRAs insistence on framing feminism as the source of all of their problems actively undermines the seriousness of their supposed beliefs and intentions. It's a despicable mark on the MRA cause that they can't own up to. You're absolutely not in the wrong here--the community is self-sabotaging and vain.
[–]Azihayya -4 points-3 points-2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Stop trying to blame this on feminism. Feminists are far more likely to treat sexual violence against men seriously than the average person, and if it doesn't seem that way it's because MRAs have engaged with feminist spaces in such bad faith. Don't try to make it seem like this problem is as widespread as sexual violence against women, as MRAs often do.
We should be able to acknowledge that the most vocal antagonists of treating sexual violence against boys and men less seriously are in fact other men.
Quit it with the intellectual dishonesty. MRAs are actively undermining their own efforts by unfairly targeting the average feminist community, where feminists would be the most likely group that we could find solidarity with if we were able to hold our own movement accountable when it's expressing dishonest dispersions against women in an effort to inflate our victimhood and to paint women as perpetrators of sexual violence and as perveyors of lies, perfidy and betrayal.
[–]BeFroody 35 points36 points37 points (3 children) | Copy Link
I’m a male victim of SA and got told it didn’t count as a kid. Took 7 years for me to feel like I could tell anyone about it again. 100% behind this post, and I appreciate it.
[–]Sean_Sltr 6 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
I hope you're well now! I'm sad you weren't supported.
[–]BeFroody 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Doing much better, thank you! Just want to endorse talking more about things that really need to get talked about more.
[–]Song_of_Pain 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
You're not supporting him right now by promoting those bogus statistics.
[–]veovis523 31 points32 points33 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Most sexual abuse perpetrated against men and boys isn't even recognized as sexual abuse. My foreskin was amputated shortly after I was born without any medical justification. That's genital mutilation, which is a grievous form of sexual abuse, and yet you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would recognize it as such.
[–]Sean_Sltr 5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Forced male genital mutilation is also a problem. And it's horrible that it's overlooked. Not to sound antisemite, but maybe it's due to Orthodox Jewish influence - Judaism has a tradition of boys' circumcision, and Orthodox Jews want to preserve this tradition.
I agree that circumcisions should be banned for boys, with the exception of medical reasons, like phimosis. Adult men should be able to get their foreskin removed, for it's their free will. But parents shouldn't force their baby boys to go through this procedure, if there's no legitimate medical reasons.
[–]Song_of_Pain 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
You know nothing about the history of circumcision. It was done to boys to suppress their sexuality, irrespective of religion. The same people who decry female genital mutilation get furious at men who think they deserve bodily autonomy.
[–]PurpleWoodWitch 28 points29 points30 points (2 children) | Copy Link
One of things that surprised me when I got older, was how many men I knew and loved that were victims of SA. As a young woman, I was led to believe that this problem mostly only affected women. Not only is it important to address this issue for the mental health of men, but as a society as a whole. Obviously most male victims of SA do not grow up to become predators, but almost all male and female predators were once victims themselves and if we can, as a society, make sure all victims of SA get proper mental health guidance and help we can probably help prevent future children from being victimized. And beyond that, if male victims of SA can get better mental health support, we would have healthier men who can process those traumas instead of living quietly with the guilt and shame and pain and suffering that SA inflicts.
[–]Sean_Sltr 9 points10 points11 points (1 child) | Copy Link
How heartwarming that you understand this issue. As I earlier wrote to someone, I'm glad when the people cross the gender "aisle" and stick up for the opposite sex, like a woman caring for men's issues. Thank you.
And yes, better mental heath support is paramount. Moreover, female predators should be treated seriously, like male predators. That means not lighter sentences and sick jokes about these incidents.
[–]PurpleWoodWitch 1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I totally agree. I think there are several factors that play into female predators being taken less seriously. The first being that women in general get lighter sentences and more leniency in court systems.
The second is women are generally stereotyped to be less of a threat to children than men. I think it is easier for women to get closer to kids and be trusted by friends and family more than men are.
The third is the fetishizing of young men/boys with older women. Because the young guy with the older teacher/step mom/babysitter etc is a common porn theme and fantasy it gives this false impression that it's okay behavior because it is role played and desired for some men to fantasize about. But just like some women have aggressive/cnc sexual fantasies and role play, that doesn't mean they want the reality of that forced on them.
And fourth, less men/boys even report SA than girls and women do because of the stigmas and lack of resources and also boys are probably less scrutinized for signs of SA victimization than girls are.
[–]AskingToFeminists 43 points44 points45 points (0 children) | Copy Link
By design.
That is, the people gathering stats use definitional tricks to discount male victims of female perpetrators, for example, by not counting "made to penetrate" as rape.
Or by collecting data in "violence against women" services. (Guess how many men would go to them ?).
Or by doing surveys on memory and reporting only lifetime data, when it has been shown over and over that memory is u reliable and gets influenced by societal attitudes, so people living in a society insisting they can't be a victim will tend to reinterpret their memories away from victimisation (potentially through self blame).
Or by not taking into account the fact that men tend to underreport their victimisation something like thrice as much as women (which, when taken into account, leads to conspicuously equal numbers of male victims)...
Lies, damned lies and statistics.
It is fairly easy to manipulate stats so that a naive audience will believe whatever is convenient for the researcher to make them believe.
Here's an interesting read for anyone who cares : "The feminist case for acknowledging women's acts of violence"
...
[–]duhhhh 42 points43 points44 points (0 children) | Copy Link
explicitly counting a man's penis nonconsensually enveloped by a mouth, vagina, or anus as "other sexual violence" rather than "rape" or "sexual assault" ... if it is even measured at all ... due to feminists involved in gathering and presenting sexual violence data.
[–]Nobleone11 17 points18 points19 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Never fails. Always throwing up this caveat automatically to deflect any criticism from feminism while professing their devotion to the very movement that has contributed to the stigma towards male victims of sexual abuse.
Jesus Christ. Rolls Eyes
Sorry, but this invalidates their supposed altruistic intentions. I'm not listening to a doormat.
[–]Low_Rich_5436 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
From the comments on thatv postv one thing is clear: feminists are not taking any precution not to derail the discussion on male sexual abuse.
[–]MelissaMiranti 26 points27 points28 points (84 children) | Copy Link
r/antisex? Really?
[+]Sean_Sltr -12 points-11 points-10 points (83 children) | Copy Link
Yes, exactly. What's the problem? Are you sex-positive, or you have other problems with that sub?
[–]MelissaMiranti 30 points31 points32 points (80 children) | Copy Link
The problem is that it's demonizing a perfectly normal part of the human experience.
[–]ColonialDaggerleft-wing male advocate 16 points17 points18 points (11 children) | Copy Link
I won't lie, after taking a quick glance at the subreddit, it's extremely weird and unhealthy. Just on the front page, there's a lot of posts that seem to stem from genuine fear of the idea of sex, trauma related fear, complete lack of understanding of what sex is like and how people experience it differently, thinking any form of sex is degrading and defilement, calling male sexuality inherently predatory, etc. I could be off about this, but it kinda reminds me of the way FDS treats men, but with sex.
e: there's a lot of people looking at this thread so I'll add this addendum: have you ever considered that maybe you just don't like sex and that it's just not for you?
[–]MelissaMiranti 17 points18 points19 points (10 children) | Copy Link
It's like a horrific blend of evangelical purity culture and sex-negative feminism.
[+]Sean_Sltr -10 points-9 points-8 points (9 children) | Copy Link
Sex-negative feminism is way better than sex-positive feminism. The first believes in equal virtue and second believes in equal vice.
[–]MelissaMiranti 11 points12 points13 points (8 children) | Copy Link
The first believes all should be under the boot while the second at least lets people fuck whomever they like.
[+]Sean_Sltr -10 points-9 points-8 points (7 children) | Copy Link
Purity is more important than "muh FrEeDoM". Americans are so obsessed with "freedom". If the people "are under the boot" and thanks to that "oppression" they're equally pure, childlike and innocent, I'm in.
Freedom is when you're degenerate and totalitarianism is when there are virtue. /s
[–]Nobleone11 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
OP, I'm beginning to suspect your noble intentions with this statement.
Also, it doesn't help your case that a few users from your sub-reddit have barged in here, preaching and shaming.
If it's okay to doubt right-wingers when they profess their support for men's rights, I'd say the same thing when it comes to "puritans" such as yourself. For your philosophy shares too much in common with Evengenlican Christians, whom employ the same tactics as any ideology to people who disagree.
[–]MelissaMiranti 9 points10 points11 points (4 children) | Copy Link
Well then you should get used to people telling you to go fuck yourself when you try to stomp on their rights.
[–]thewander12345 -3 points-2 points-1 points (3 children) | Copy Link
He is no more stamping on peoples rights than banning KKK members from burning crosses in public parks is. You shouldn't abuse defenders of justice and human rights.
[–]MelissaMiranti3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
Banning fires in public parks is a health and safety issue. Banning people from having consensual sex is harmful.
[–]thewander123451 point [recovered] | Copy Link
Fires are not banned in public parks ie grills.
[–]Nobleone112 points [recovered] | Copy Link
Wow, likening erotic fiction authors and anyone who doesn't have a problem with sex to the Klu-Klux-Klan?
Yeah, how very tolerant of you. /s
[–]CrystalUranium 5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
What the fuck does “virtue” even mean here
Also like you do realize that you’re advocating for something completely unreasonable, and that advocating for things like the legalization of sex work + workers unions for sex workers (and things like UBI/housing and food security etc) would help out sex workers far more than “lol sex should be illegal”
You sound like a weird christofacist who wants everyone to be equally as sex repressed as you are and it’s an offputting look
[+]Sean_Sltr -12 points-11 points-10 points (67 children) | Copy Link
No. Sex, especially outside a long-term relationships, is gross and impure. I recommend to read more topics on this antisex sub with arguments against sexuality.
I think that sex goes against our innocence, that's why I lean sex-negative. You should read my post about childlike innocence: https://www.reddit.com/r/antisex/comments/1aulk3u/we_should_oppose_both_conservative_values_and/
I'm against swearing, hookups, drugs and violence, meanwhile favouring politeness, purity and innocence. When we were children, we were innocent, without swearing, without drugs, without alcohol, without sex and so forth. Why to reject this natural purity?
Also, Immanuel Kant opposed sexuality on philosophical grounds.
And I have another question, too. You're a woman (the name "Melissa" is feminine, so that's my guessing), right? Don't you feel sexual intercourse exploiting or demeaning for you and women in general? Some women from r/antisex argue that sexuality, including male sexuality, is degrading for women and there is an imbalance of power due to sexual penetration by a man. I wouldn't wholly agree with the "imbalance of power" part, for there are female-on-male abuse cases (my post was about it), but don't you agree with these anti-sex women? I don't know your sexuality, but if you're straight, don't you feel some fear or disgust? I mean following posts:
https://www.reddit.com/r/antisex/comments/1191xhg/anyone_else_feel_like_this/
https://www.reddit.com/r/antisex/comments/1arr28z/im_afraid_male_sexuality_is_inherently_predatory/
https://www.reddit.com/r/antisex/comments/1aug6a9/how_do_others_not_find_this_degrading/
I also recommend following topics and comments:
https://www.reddit.com/r/antisex/comments/wc05x1/comment/iia8yz0/
https://www.reddit.com/r/antisex/comments/13osz88/comment/jn2svur/
https://www.reddit.com/r/antisex/comments/olxewm/immanuel_kant_said_sexual_desire_is_morally_wrong/
[–]MelissaMiranti 14 points15 points16 points (23 children) | Copy Link
Wow, someone really got their brain zapped by backwards purity culture. Purity only matters for samples and metallurgy. Innocence is just a cover up for ignorance. Sex is a normal human function for fun, pleasure, bonding, and reproduction.
Don't try to pretend that women, or anyone of any gender, should have your attitude towards sex. It's incredibly stupid and damaging to everyone who believes even a little bit of your drivel.
I write porn. Look up my name. I like sex. There's no way you're going to shame me out of that. Not after so much has been done to liberate us from attitudes like yours. Don't expect everyone else to stop having sex because you're too childish to handle the thought of people having fun.
If you're asexual, that's fine. Be like the asexuals I know, who don't shame people for liking something they don't.
I'm not clicking a single one of those ridiculous links. There's nothing in there that could possibly be worth the brain damage I would suffer from reading them.
[–]Sean_Sltr -1 points0 points1 point (17 children) | Copy Link
Sex can be tolerated for reproduction and love inside long-term relationships, otherwise it's a primitive pleasure.
Men should also be pure. Yes, "slut-shaming" is hypocritical. What should be done is to shame promiscuous men in same manner. Everyone should be held to the same standards.
Regarding the process of sexual liberation, I was writing about it in other sub:
We should have equal purity standards, simple. Purity rings for men, yes. Telling men they shouldn't have hookups, yes. And so forth.
You wrote that you write porn and like sex. Sad. You were once an innocent girl, like everyone. We were all innocent once - boys and girls. Without the whole degeneracy like swearing, hookups, drugs, violence, lying etc. Kids are polite, wholesome, innocent, pure and honest - they are better than adults. They don't have distracting sex drive nor other vices.
And really don't you feel that sex, especially sexual penetration, is somewhat disgusting for a woman? - some women feel that way, as I showed you.
[–]MelissaMiranti 12 points13 points14 points (16 children) | Copy Link
Sorry, but I'm an adult. I've eaten the fruit from the forbidden tree. I have sex. It's only degrading if I ask for that in bed. Being penetrated is fun when it's wanted.
Childhood innocence is nice, but it shouldn't last forever. A parent must be knowledgeable and therefore not innocent to keep their child protected. As we grow, children become parents. If children remain children forever, we die. That's why your ideas are fucking dumb as shit. They don't work within the context of human life. To lose our sexuality is to lose that which made us and continues to make us. It would be an irrevocable loss of humanity.
Lying is used to help as well as hurt. It's a tool. Use it with care. I lie to my partner sometimes to surprise them with something they weren't expecting. That's fine.
Drugs can be a way to explore our own thoughts and consciousness, and sometimes as a way to aid in recovery from mental illness or injury. Once again, a tool, so handle with care.
Swearing is fucking great. It puts emphasis on shit when you need it. It has also been shown to increase pain tolerance. And I believe in freedom of speech.
Violence is also a tool, best used to stop other violence. I don't know how you think you're going to stop an attacker without any violence, but it's damn sure not going to work as well as effective violence.
Lastly...have you ever spent time around children? Like, ever? They're nasty, violent, deceitful beings. Part of becoming an adult is knowing not to act like a child, to be better than that. Maybe you should try it.
And maybe you should try not judging what I do with my cunt.
[–]Sean_Sltr -5 points-4 points-3 points (15 children) | Copy Link
Oh, that's sad and heartbreaking. Indulge in degeneracy if you want, maybe someday you will miss that primal purity with whom we are born.
Promiscuity is bad. But I also judge men what they do with their penises, if we put it that way. I don't discriminate against women. I can repeat it again and again: I believe in equal expectations for men and women - gender-egalitarian purity rules. Promiscuous men are also disgusting and degenerate - remember that. We should:
shame promiscuous men
tell teenage boys about purity and discourage them from watching porn, "touch themselves" and hookup
telling men that their high "body count" is bad
and so forth.
Let's combine gender equality with purity culture. Let's create an egalitarian, yet innocent society.
[–]Punder_man 5 points6 points7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
You DO realize that as boys and girls grow up their bodies release hormones which encourage them to have sex right?
The same thing happens in all mammals..
"Purity Culture" leads to the idea of sexual education being reduced to Abstinence Only..
Which does not work..
Why is sex considered "Disgusting"
If you don't like it and you find it disgusting then more power to you in abstaining and being "Pure"
But don't you think that trying to enforce your world view on others is a little extreme?
[–]AmeliaCleo 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
The thing that encouraged any sexual side of me was the media itself. I was never "instinctively" engaging in masturbation or other sexual activity.
[–]IAbstainFromSociety 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Exactly. It's not a voluntary choice. If you can't consent when you're drunk or high, how are psychoactive hormones any different?
[–]AlexanderLavender1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
This is like claiming you’re being held hostage by your heart because it’s beating
[–]MelissaMiranti 5 points6 points7 points (10 children) | Copy Link
So you believe in shaming promiscuous women? Like you're trying to do with me? That's misogyny.
[–]Sean_Sltr -1 points0 points1 point (9 children) | Copy Link
Only if we shame promiscuous men, which I personally do. Despite my explanations, you mistakenly view it as "misogyny". If there's misogyny, I'm also a misandrist for shaming promiscuous men.
It doesn't have nothing with misogyny nor misandry in my version.
We should shame everyone who is promiscuous, regardless of their gender. Everyone should be pure! I can repeat it again and again - combine gender equality with purity! That goes against both misogyny and misandry.
Look, we both believe in gender equality, yet in reverse directions. I believe in equal purity and you believe in equal vice.
[–]MelissaMiranti4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
No, what you're doing is oppression. If you do it to everyone that doesn't make it okay, that makes it worse.
And yes, you're definitely misandrist, given your repeated emphasis on harming men.
[–]Sean_Sltr1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
I think everyone should be pure. That's gender equality. Equality under the law of purity.
I appreciate what you are doing for men. I read your comments on the matter of male victims of sexual viooence. As I wrote in another comment somewhere, I like when someone crosses the gender "aisle" and helps the opposite sex. It's pretty good that you, as a woman, stick up for, for example, male victims of sexual abuse. In return, I also combat those who want unequal standards for men and women (evidence: https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/1avkwnv/comment/krb4ojb/ ). But there's a stark difference between helping those sexually assaulted, for it wasn't their choice and accepting voluntary promiscuity and other vices.
Anyway, let's bury the hatchet here. Enjoy your degeneracy and deviation from natural purity if you want, maybe some day you will want to return to that innocence with whom you were born.
Farewell and have a nice day!
[–]MelissaMiranti4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
I'm not burying the hatchet. I'm against people who want to prevent freedom when it hurts nobody. Literally or figuratively, go fuck yourself, I care not which.
[–]Sean_Sltr1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
Muh FrEeDoM!
Innocence and purity are more important than any "freedom".
Goodbye!
[–]MelissaMiranti2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
What a laugh. You're just a paleo-conservative pretending to be a decent person by mouthing some of the right things, but you don't have any idea what you're really talking about. All that matters to you is controlling what people do with their bodies.
[–]OctoPuscifer2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
Such a bad troll
[–]Song_of_Pain3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
Something can be both misogynist and misandrist.
[–]Sean_Sltr1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
Excessive sexuality, like promiscuity, is shameful for literally everyone (I don't shame sexually abused people - it's not their fault, I shame only voluntary sex degenerates).
Men should be held to the same rigorous standards as women. No sleeping around, no swearing, no drugs etc.
When only women are expected to be pure, it's misogyny.
When we introduce liberalisation, it's equality of degeneracy.
When we expect everyone to be morally and legally innocent, it's both equality and purity. Truly innocent society.
[–]Song_of_Pain4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
What's "excessive" changes from person to person and situation to situation.
No. Some drugs are objectively good for you. Swearing is a personal choice, is in many ways subjective, and has no bearing on morality.
Innocence is ignorance. You're not a good person if you don't understand evil; you're a good person if you understand evil and choose not to engage in it.
[–]thewander12345 -3 points-2 points-1 points (4 children) | Copy Link
You have been enslaved to your passions not liberated. u/Sean_Sltr and I are fighting to liberate you from your superstitious beliefs regarding sex.
[–]MelissaMiranti 5 points6 points7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
Superstition? Really? From the people who seem to believe that sex is only okay inside a marriage?
[–]thewander12345 0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
Yes. I am an Augustinian not thomist or calvinist; so sex is only tolerable with in marriage not good. Many homophobic orgs say that sex is good within marriage when that isn't true.
[–]MelissaMiranti 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
That explains everything! You're trying to push your religion onto everyone else. That's wrong. Stop it.
[–]thewander12345 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
It is not the case though. Each have different philosophical as well as theological positions. Augustinians like myself hold platonist and stoic views on reality while thomists have aristoteliean views. Platonists and stoics have different views on sex that Aristotelians.
[–]gratis_eekhoorn 8 points9 points10 points (37 children) | Copy Link
> No. Sex, especially outside a long-term relationships, is gross and impure. I recommend to read more topics on this antisex sub with arguments against sexuality.
> I think that sex goes against our innocence, that's why I lean sex-negative. You should read my post about childlike innocence:
Those your opinions you are free to live your life that way and seek for partners with similar views.
> Why to reject this natural purity?
Because not everyone enjoys that puritarian lifestyle?
> Don't you feel sexual intercourse exploiting or demeaning for you and women in general?
You do realize that straight women also enjoy intercourse right?
> Some women from r/antisex argue that sexuality, including male sexuality, is degrading for women and there is an imbalance of power due to sexual penetration by a man.
Shocking, women in a relativelly small subreddit with sex negativity and radical feminism as their values aren't a big fan of the idea of having sex with a man. /s
> https://www.reddit.com/r/antisex/comments/1arr28z/im_afraid_male_sexuality_is_inherently_predatory/
People are free to be sex negative all they want (believe it or not I kinda define myself with that aswell) but saying ''male sexuality is inherently predatory'' is straight up bigoted and if you are linking that in agreement, I'll have to ask you why even bother call yourself a male advocate.
Seriously I am tired of being bombarded with unnecessarily sexualized stuff in media and overall obsession of sex (and relationships) in gender politics but your talking points sound like they are from a conservative/religious extremist.
[–]Sean_Sltr -1 points0 points1 point (36 children) | Copy Link
Sex is generally bad and can be tolerated as a mean of reproduction or showing love inside long-term relationships. Otherwise, it's primitive and impure. If anything, sexuality is meant for reproduction inside marriages, not a primitive pleasure in hookups.
Generally, men should also be pure and held to same rigorous standards. It was bad when only women were expected to stay innocent, when men had a free pass. We should instate the equality of purity. Men also should refrain from hookups, from porn etc. Yes, I asked her about her feelings as a woman, but I don't think only women should be shamed for excessive sexuality, swearing or voluntary drug consumption (addicted people wanting to stop these vices should be helped, though). We must also shame promiscuous men, for they aren't better. Male promiscuity is the same as female promiscuity and they should be condemned equivalently - same thing with swearing or drugs.
Basically, there are three approaches: the old patriarchal order (women held to rigid standards, men treated more leniently), the modern libertine order (relaxation of the standards of purity, social degeneracy) and my gender-egalitarian approach to purity (everyone expected to be morally pristine).
[–]gratis_eekhoorn 3 points4 points5 points (27 children) | Copy Link
Or just leave it to personal choice, crazy right?
[–]Sean_Sltr 0 points1 point2 points (26 children) | Copy Link
You, u/Low_Rich_5436 and u/MelissaMiranti spread pro-sexual propaganda. Especially the latest, as she admitted she writes erotic literature. I searched her name, as she asked me and she indeed creates degenerate content. That's especially vile propaganda method - books for brainwashing.
[–]Punder_man 6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
And you aren't spreading your own "Propaganda?
You are proclaiming sex to be "Immoral" and "Shameful" and you want everyone to agree with your world view because you believe it is unquestionably correct...
I don't think either of the users you referenced are spreading "Pro-sexual propaganda" one has admitted to writing erotic literature or smut..
But that alone is not "Propaganda" its not like their erotica is stating "Sex is great!" or "Kill those who think sex is immoral" or anything like that..
Once again.. you are welcome to your opinion of sex being disgusting or immoral or what ever.. but you don't get to preach and proclaim YOUR mortality / view point as the solely correct choice..
[–]mothftman 7 points8 points9 points (1 child) | Copy Link
Hi, I'm from the other thread, but I wanted to point out that you said your views aren't discriminatory, on an actual example of you being discriminatory. You told me to check out your user history, so I did and frankly, it's not in your best interest.
You are being discriminatory to a sex worker, right now. The fact that someone writes about sexuality is a reason to dismiss them and assert that everything you believe about them being evil is true. That's how fascists operate not, socialists or feminists. Nazis love the word degenerate and also consider all dissenting media to be "vile propaganda".
[–]MelissaMiranti 4 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Thank you for being kind to me.
[–]MelissaMiranti 5 points6 points7 points (22 children) | Copy Link
Yep, vile books for fun and vile times with yourself! But it's not propaganda. It's called erotica, and it's art.
[–]Sean_Sltr 0 points1 point2 points (21 children) | Copy Link
Mein Kampf is also an art, right? /s, I condemn Nazism
[–]mothftman5 points [recovered] | Copy Link
Hitler was also staunchly pro-purity and hated so called moral degeneracy. Mein Kampf has nothing to do with pro-sex ideology, but it written by a supporter of a pro innocents, anti-sex, and anti-porn goverment. You have way more in common with the ideology of Hitler, than any sex positive feminists I know of.
[–]gratis_eekhoorn4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
Christ, looks like I have tolerated your bullshit enough, I am normally lenient with feminists here in sake of tolerating "counter arguments" but you are calling people degenerates because they don't agree with your extremist views. Take pride in being the first person I have ever banned in my entire time of being a mod lol.
[–]MelissaMiranti3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
Well that was fun.
[–]Lizzardyerd1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
That was definitely not a feminist.
[–]gratis_eekhoorn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
well they called themselves a feminist who am I (a non feminist) to call them a not real feminist
[–]Lizzardyerd1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
Where did they do that? Do you respect trans people's gender identifies as well, or do you pick and choose whose identities you validate?
[–]gratis_eekhoorn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
They stated in several under this post that they support feminism
Huh? when did we jump to that? of course I respect their gender identities
[–]Lizzardyerd1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
sigh...
They said they "are generally pro feminist" and egalitarian (I'd say that describes them more than feminist but I digress) but feminism is about a woman's right to choose as we've been saying... For decades now.
SWERFS and sex-negative people who are literally trying to force purity culture on everyone are not feminist. A loud extremist minority of feminists might be anti sex but they do not represent the community as a whole and do not get to speak for us.
[–]gratis_eekhoorn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
But do you speak for feminism? Who are you to excommunicate them from feminism?
Loud? yes, extremist? yes, minority? maybe but influental? definately.
Most feminists might not be as sex negative as the OP is it's because the OP is also sex negative towards women, I can find dozens if not hundreds of quotes from influental feminist figures from all waves which are very negative towards male sexuality if not just downright hateful to the male sex itself.
[–]Lizzardyerd1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
🙄🙄 sure you can bud. And I can find equally as many examples countering your argument. Something tells me your idea of "negativity towards male sexuality" has something to do with us not wanting to be objectified or you know. Basic shit like that.
[–]gratis_eekhoorn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
https://historyoffeminism.com/votes-for-women-sexual-morality/
https://www.reddit.com/r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic/comments/16wfpxv/decorated_feminist_author_caitlin_moran_blames/
https://www.reddit.com/r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic/comments/13i3tq9/decorated_feminist_susan_griffin_equates_average/
https://www.reddit.com/r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic/comments/12w9se1/feminist_icon_andrea_dworkin_just_wouldnt_stop/
https://www.reddit.com/r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic/comments/12fh9vu/feminist_leader_tigrace_atkinson_writes_the/
https://www.reddit.com/r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic/comments/12eeuvw/decorated_feminist_author_susan_brownmiller/
https://www.reddit.com/r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic/comments/11wtl9j/feminist_author_marilyn_french_writes_that_vast/
https://www.reddit.com/r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic/comments/10vcdrf/feminist_organisation_european_womens_lobby_calls/
https://www.reddit.com/r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic/comments/10efp8e/feminist_activist_robin_morgan_professed_racism/
https://www.reddit.com/r/ToxicFeminismIsToxic/comments/101gg7e/feminist_author_julie_bindel_joked_about/
Feminist and New York Times best selling author Gabrielle Blair has put the whole blame of unwanted pregnancies on men and propose either castration as a punishment or get men to be required by law to get a vasectomy as prevention
[–]Lizzardyerd1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
Boy you really are just chomping at the bit to argue with a feminist aren't you. Obsessed much? I don't have the spare time you do, ive actually got a life.
[–]gratis_eekhoorn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
You doubted my claims so I provided evidence, but it seems that you are not interested in that discussion when the facts are not on your side.
[–]Lizzardyerd1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
I've read a couple of your sources and none of them indicate any of what you're insinuating. Just that you have no idea what it's like navigating a patriarchal world as someone socialized as female ( which is understandable of course), and that you take any mention of the problematic examples of toxic masculinity or patriarchal society as a personal slight against you.
I have no interest in arguing with people like you because there's no getting through to you. It's an exercise in futility. Any valid criticism of male behavior is mISanDry!! And you're no different than dealing with right wing MRAs who you claim to be different than. You also can't accept the fact that a lot of feminists do acknowledge and accept that patriarchy harms men and women equally. So let's just end this here. It's the first nice day I've had in months after a long awful winter and I'm not gonna let some reddit person ruin it for me. It's cool you aren't transphobic though. Maybe someday you'll see how transphobia and misogyny are intersectional! Have a great day.
[–]gratis_eekhoorn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
You are not here on good faith at all, typical feminist behaviour, deny the existence of prevalent and prominent toxicity in your movement and when it's exposed downplay and justify it.
How is having your influental figures calling all heterosexuality is rape, all men are rapists and therefore advocating for them to be in kept prison camps a "valid criticism of male behaviour" and not misandry? what even is "male behaviour" what happened to feminism supposedly being against gender essentialism and sterotypes?
How do you expect me to believe that when they keep using oppressor/oppressed dichotomy.
No more intersectional than misandry, why do you think trans women are hated so much? because they are seen as "men invading female spaces"
[–]Lizzardyerd1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
I saw no evidence of that in any of your examples.
Also you can't "gotcha" me, with the whole "men invading female spaces" because I'm not a TERF. It was a cute attempt however. Maybe you should try arguing with JK Rowling if you want your shitty preconceived notions to be correct. Trans women are women and trans men are men.
[–]gratis_eekhoorn1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
Did you actually read them, the quotes are literally there
Good for you but again I don't remember claiming you were? the debate was about misandry also intersects with transphobia if not more.
You are not even trying to comprehend what I say, yes trans women are women and trans men are men, but transphobes dont see it that way, hence they hate transwomen for the reasons mentioned.
[–]VettedBot1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
Hi, I’m Vetted AI Bot! I researched the Design Mom How to Live With Kids A Room by Room Guide and I thought you might find the following analysis helpful.
Users liked:
Users disliked:
If you'd like to summon me to ask about a product, just make a post with its link and tag me, like in this example.
This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a “good bot!” reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved.
Powered by vetted.ai
[–]MelissaMiranti3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
Art is in the act of creation.
And you sure practice it well for someone who condemns it. I believe they also tried to control people's purity.
[–]Sean_Sltr1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
You know who was promiscuous? Adolf Hitler! He even was an incestuous relationship with his niece.
The Nazis weren't pure! They did drugs. Hitler did drugs and the German army consumed it too.
[–]MelissaMiranti2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
I see, so even enforcers of purity don't meet your standards. Too bad for you.
[–]MelissaMiranti 1 point2 points3 points (7 children) | Copy Link
Why is it okay only inside marriages? What magic makes it okay?
[–]Sean_Sltr 0 points1 point2 points (6 children) | Copy Link
Marriage is a clear boundary for reproduction, so some sexuality could be tolerated for the sake of our survival. Cheating is wrong, though.
Otherwise, we should seek to stay sexually innocent.
[–]mothftman 9 points10 points11 points (0 children) | Copy Link
So, gay people should never make love? They aren't reproducing.
[–]MelissaMiranti 4 points5 points6 points (4 children) | Copy Link
Why marriage though? What makes marriage, specifically, the thing that makes it all okay?
[–]Sean_Sltr 0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
It's a specific union between people. Sexuality is overall bad, but inside this union, it can serve a higher purpose. Otherwise, it's simply a dope.
[–]MelissaMiranti2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
What purpose does it serve?
[–]Sean_Sltr1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
The purpose of procreation. But I imply that sexuality even inside marriage should be only tolerated, not celebrated. That means sex is a necessary evil to reproduce. Therefore, it can be tolerated inside strict boundaries and limits.
[–]MelissaMiranti3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
Procreation does not require marriage to take place. So what does marriage do?
[–]Song_of_Pain 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm pro-swearing and pro drugs. Psilocybin saved my life. Get out of here with that shit. People who swear more often are more honest, and honesty is a virtue.
[–]Low_Rich_5436 5 points6 points7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
What you call purity is anything but.
Children are not pure or innocent. I'm glad you had a fun childhood, but you were very shelter3d, obviously. Children are gross. They are attracted by the disgusting. They eat worms, are very curious of their own and each other's anatomy. There is a pause between 7 and 11, but those years aside, they are very curious about sex and do touch themselves from and early age.
Children are cruel. They will do anything in their power to hurt the weak, the different.
Sex is what defines life. Life is a thing that reproduces. Rejecting what we are is impure. It's twisted. Your "purity" is made up of shame, manipulation and control.
Purity culture hzs been invented by civilisations to control people. To make them march to war, obey the state, work for their masters. It's a trainkng system for obedience above your own personnal welfare. It's a slave's collar.
Women love sex just as much as men do. The whole "sex is violence" thing is part of that demented purity culture. It's a social hierachy thing, a means of control for women. Radical feminism's adherence to this notion is the unmistakable sign it belongs with the other radical right movements and religion: in the faschosphere.
You have been lied to, manipulated and made to hate yourself and your instincts. I'm really sorry.
[–]Sean_Sltr -2 points-1 points0 points (1 child) | Copy Link
If we hold men to the same standards, it's not a mean to control only women, for men are also controlled. We would have equal control and purity.
Sex is for reproduction, yes, but not for hookups. Sex can be tolerated as a mean of reproduction or love inside long-term relationships, like marriages. No to extramarital sex like cheating or one-night stands!
[–]Low_Rich_5436 3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Why?
Also, I meant a means of control by women, not of women. Denying connexion is a manipulation tactic.
[–]Song_of_Pain 8 points9 points10 points (0 children) | Copy Link
Yes, a lot of us are sex positive because we don't hate people for their sexuality.
[–]Lizzardyerd1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
Boy you really are just chomping at the big to argue with a feminist aren't you. Obsessed much? I don't have the spare time you do, ive actually got a life.