~ archived since 2018 ~

How Far Is Too Far?

[deleted]

November 1, 2010

6 upvotes

In a recent debate with another member of this subreddit (Mensrights101) about a post he had linked to which I, and others, felt showed a disturbing and uncouth level of misogyny and issues with women in general, he linked to a profile of mine on okcupid. (Before the jokes, yes I realize I have a dating profile, and one can draw conclusions about my life from that, I can respond to any specific inquiries, but I'd rather not have this devolve into "hurr, you don't have a girlfriend").

I guess my question is, do we have some sort of community consensus on how far we should be willing to go in our arguments, how much we're willing to engage in cyberstalking or generally unkind things in order to get a point across? Are we gentlemen and scholars, or mud-wrestlers?

Edit: Holy crap, guys. I really need to change my online handles. This is kind of concerning. In a backwards way, I'm thankful to mensrights101 for making me aware of this.

Edit 2: I wanted to thank the vast majority of people posting here for upbraiding mensrights101. I know I disagree with some of you on some things (even lots of things, perhaps), but I'm really thankful for this level of support.

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	How Far Is Too Far?
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	6
Comments	50
Date	November 1, 2010 7:01 AM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/dzdxa/how_far_is_too_far/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/how-far-is-too-far.1046309 https://theredarchive.com/post/1046309

Comments

[–]tomek77 5 points6 points7 points 15 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]kloo2yoo 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]pastaghetti -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 15 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]pastaghetti 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]pastaghetti 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

In truth, sir, the article did not concern "a feminist blog debating whether men who approach or compliment attractive women in the street should be criminilized and put on the sex offenders register for sexual street harassment", but rather a feminist blog in which readers were invited to discuss, in the comments section, their reactions to news that New York City is considering legislating against street harassment. Sir, you may not realize this, but street harassment is not merely complimenting an attractive woman. It is men who holler offensive things, such as "Hey baby, I bet you have a sweet cunt", or who massage their genitals whilst asking if you need a boyfriend, because they will keep you up all night. It is men who demand that you smile, and then when you pass them while not smiling, who follow you, calling you increasingly crude things that often start off similar to "bitch, i told you to smile, don't you ignore me and walk away". It is men who describe every aspect of a woman's body, and it does not only occur to attractive women, but to all women, regardless of how they are dressed. I have received such catcalls while in summer dresses, running clothing, jeans and winter coats, and even modest fall skirts. If it were merely a man saying hello, or telling me I look pretty-- well, when that happens, it is not frightening, and it is not in the category of harassment that was being discussed. Even strangers who ask me on dates, whilst annoying, do not fall into the line of harassment, which is what they are discussing. And, verily, the majority of the women seem against such legislation, since it would be a government intrusion on free speech, one of the concepts we Americans cherish.

The author also makes an unfounded statement that women who oppose street harassment do so not for their own protection, but out of jealousy that others are being harassed! Verily sir, you must recognize the utter ridiculousness of that statement!

In truth, much of the rest of the article seems focussed on a fantasy future where the author will be able to interact with mechanized robot women rather than human ones; I can understand why some might find that to be disturbing, since a draw towards humanity is one of our basic impulses. It seems as if he craves a society will he will be isolated from others, a longing very unusual to most of us.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]pastaghetti 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Sir, I, as a woman, do not feel threatened by "sexy robots". In truth, I think that most men will continue their dalliances with women. additionally, sir, I have a beloved, so I am not even in the class of women for whom such an invention would be an issue. I must however say, sir, that if such robots would prevent men from hollering obscene suggestions at me, then they certainly would be in my interest. As long as the rights of others are not violated, I do not care what other individuals do in their bedrooms-- whether they are entwined in passionate embrace with another individual, many individuals, their hand, their computer, or a sex toy of some variety. The sex lives of others are simply not relevant to my life.

Sir, you are making claims with no backing. It seems you are implying that I think street harassment should be illegal-- I do not. Verily, I stated in a previous comment here that the right to free speech is highly important in this fair country. I would also know, sir, why it is that you say I have a "limited psychology", and why you earlier said that I "obviously need psychiatric help".

In truth, you seem oddly invested in the content of the article you linked to. It is merely an article from a blog! It isn't as if it is some well-researched philosophical text. Verily, you can surely find a better author to promote and read with little effort.

I strongly encourage other readers to go to the feministe article he is referring to. There you shall see the full discussion for yourselves.

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

In truth, you seem oddly invested in the content of the article you linked to. It is merely an article from a blog! It isn't as if it is some well-researched philosophical text. Verily, you can surely find a better author to promote and read with little effort.

Because, sadly, feminists these days just need to click their fingers and something that criminilizes millions of men can become law. They don't need research, they just need to say 'this is exploitation'.

And this is possible because men like seldon scream abuse at mras who call feminists out on it. And they shouldn't do that when they invariably have their own kinks that their neurochemistry handed them.

Having said that, I think this Seldon guy is simply misguided rather than evil, and given that he appears not to have realised that his diaper profile could be found so easily (and neither did I when I posted his cupid link), I suggest to Kloo that this post be deleted else there is a danger for serious long-term embarrassment here.

[–]pastaghetti 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

In truth, sir, that is not how laws work in America, and the presence of feminism is also not as large as you represent. When laws go before Congress, they are accompanied by large amounts of research, both in text and in oral testimony. Verily, feminist groups do not have the power nor the influence to pass laws simply because they want to, especially when many in Congress are still opposed to many of the tenants of feminism.

Additionally, sir, kinks are not behavior, and kins acted between consenting adults are not the same as those acted on consenting passerby. Conflating the two weakens your arguments overall, and I fail to see the relevance of any of Seldon's private kinks that do not involve unwilling participants. Further, it does not appear that he has screamed any abuse at you-- verily, he merely criticized the words of an author you linked to. While I understand your affront at his questioning of your taste, it is not as if he was directing those insults at you personally-- and if you do look beyond the post you linked to, there are a number of disturbing statements on the author's blog that could have led Seldon to his conclusions.

[–]thetrollking -1 points0 points1 point 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -6 points-5 points-4 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You need help.

Congress has passed resolutions condemning scientific research that contradicts the rationale behind many feminist sex laws.

American feminst groups can effectively influence legal systems from europe to Japan, never mind america.

Yea, america has a larger number of religous loon conservative women influencing public policy than u would find in europe or elsewhere, like sarah palin and that boy scout rapist masturbation hating tea partyer, but they are still feminists seeking their own selfish older woman's sexual interests.

Its pretty simple. Somebody with a dominant mommy diaper fetish shouldn't be harrassing mra's for questioning feminists trying to criminilize the sexuality of millions of ordinary men.

Yes, maybe having a diaper fetish and dressing as a baby is harmless. In itself. To most normal people, so is telling an attractive woman in the street that she is beautiful. He's just lucky that older women such as you don't see him and his diaper role play as a sexual threat. Roll of the dice.

I find you really disturbing indeed. This is supposed to be a serious men's rights site but it's filled with diaper fetish male feminist trolls and sexually threatened women who affect jane austen litery style language. Not only that, but the mods ban MRAs and defend their pervert accusers who want millions of ordinary men locked away as subhumans.

Fuck this, it's stuff like this that makes me want to follow Jay and quit.

Doubt if I'll be back to read your answer, but what's your opinion on women using vibrators btw?

[–]thetrollking0 points 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]kloo2yoo[M] 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ignatiusloyola 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You draw the line there, but getting a consensus on this issue and implementing it isn't simple.

As far as Canadian laws go, any personal information shared with an organization (a website is owned by an organization) is subject to certain laws regarding how that information must be kept - dependent on what kind of permissions the owner gives for that organization to use it. If someone readily shares their personal information with an organization and gives permission for it to be used publicly, then they lose all rights to determine how others obtain and use that information.

Anything readily found on the internet is part of the public domain, unless a website breaches their agreement or a person breaks through security.

It may be in bad taste or morally/ethically wrong, but there isn't anything legally wrong with it.

[+]NiceIce 15 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Ah yes, because most people are too stupid to use a search engine like Google...

[–]InfinitelyThirsting 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NiceIce-1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]kloo2yoo 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kloo2yoo 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]kloo2yoo 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]kloo2yoo 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I didn't track down his outside data, I just bleeding well googled his username and a ok cupid and an adult diaper fetish profile appears on the first page of results. My 'cyber stalking' of Seldon lasted roughly 5 seconds.

Really, I feel a little sorry for the guy because he's only 22 and he's obviously seriously disturbed, but this has nothing to do with cyberstalking. I'm not 'uncovering his identity' (which would be wrong and something I wouldn't do to anyone). If he chooses to troll under the same name as his dating and adult diaper perversion fetish profiles, then sooner or later he'd get worse than a quickly deleted link on reddit men's rights. What an absolute idiot he is. Does he not realise that the women who were thinking about meeting him on ok cupid wouldn't google his username as a precaution, and then see his diaper fetish profile or his love of porn??

Most of the male feminist trolls who you refuse to ban are sad, lonely, submissive perverts in need of psychiatric help like him. BTW, I remember a few weeks back somebody here making up a lie that JayHammers had an underage girlfriend. Instead of banning that person, you came back with the retort 'how do you explain this?' - linking to his article on the age of consent. Presumuably you googled Jay and found that - cyberstalking, no? Apart from the utterly disgraceful fact that you think an MRA questioning feminist age of consent laws warrents false accusations of having illegal relationships, now you're sticking up for the typical male feminist troll on Reddit - an adult diaper fetishist.

I see JayHammers has disappeared. I sincerely hope he's o.k and your idiocy hasn't put him in any danger.

[–]kloo2yoo 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kn33ch41_ 2 points3 points4 points 15 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lookingforwizards 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]lookingforwizards 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 15 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 15 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

I'd say it's a damn good point. This feminist mangina troll makes a savage ad hominen attack on myself for merely criticising the fact that feminists are debating whether complimenting a women in the street should make you a sex offender (bear in mind that sex offenders in America have all their personal details put online and many have been murdered as a result). For that he claims that I must be unable to attract girls and that I need psychiatric help.

So I quickly google his handle to see what other shit he's been spewing, and I find out within 3 seconds he has a dating profile with the same handle, including some really creepy photos of himself. Apart from that he's been using the same handle to illegally download hardcore pornography. Best be careful he doesn't end up on some sex offenders register there, any mra who might stick up for him is obviously a sick misogynist in need of psychiatric help.

BTW I AGREE TOTALLY that people who wish to be anonymous should be. sheldon2639 is his online troll identity. If he's going to troll and tell people that they can't get a girl then he should do it under a different name to his pathetic online dating profile or hand shandy accounts. He might be embarrassd about that, but he might get a sympathy fuck from a few feminists and he's certainly in no danger. I'm sure mommy will make it better. Not like the thousands of men he'd like to put on the sex offenders register for not being fat ugly fucks and being able to chat up women in the street.

And wtf is Kloo talking about 'cyber stalking'? You should be doing something useful for men's rights for once and ban these disturbed feminist parasite trolls who stalk OUR page.

[–]pastaghetti 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

'Verily, sir, the individual did not attack you, rather, he attacked the author of the blog you linked to. Perhaps his attack questioned your good taste in making such a link, but in truth, he said nothing to insult you directly. Additionally, sir, as of this time, there are only three pictoral representations of himself on his dating profile, none of which are what I, a woman of sound mind and body, would classify as "creepy". What then, sir, are you qualifications for such a classification?

In truth, I can see nothing from his comments that would justify your apparent rage in this reply. It is strange that you would call his "handle" an "online troll identity". Is mensrights101 then an online troll identity? Kloo2yoo? ignatiusloyola? infinetelythirsting? Are all of our online monikers merely troll identities to you?

Further, sir, I may ask what has led you to believe that he has illegally downloaded hardcore pornographic content. In googling his name in an attempt to confirm your claims, I came across one link that mentioned a handjob, but that was it-- and sir, i did not follow that link.

It is perhaps not the wisest of him to have his identity so easily linked to his internet appellation, but sir, your anger is out of proportion, and your insulting language far more damning to your cause than his was to his.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]pastaghetti 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 15 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]pastaghetti 1 point2 points3 points 15 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Sir, I agree that insulting someone by alleging that they cannot find romantic partners is rather low class and without taste, but it is so common a retort that I do not think it can be classified as automatically trolling; if it were, there would be a good many earnest but unwise individuals who would be classed as trolls when that is not their motivation.

As to the psychiatric help-- I do not know if you have perused the site beyond the article you linked to, but I must agree that there are some disturbing sentiments on it, and while it is rude to suggest that the author is in need of psychiatric help, I do not know but that I must agree. He seems full of bitter bile, locked in an unrealistic landscape, pursued by conspiracies. I would not discourage him from seeking psychiatric help, if only for his own peace of mind and a more fulfilling life. What one does in the bedroom-- such as having a paraphilia revolving diapers-- does not concern me as much as what one says in their outer attitudes. Verily sir, even if one behaves in an untoward manner on other forums or sites, why would that then make the individual a troll on another site, regardless of their contribution?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pastaghetti 3 points4 points5 points 15 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thetrollking 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 15 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Okay, here's what I'm going to point out:

There's always some measure of personal attacks when we're discussing issues of some emotional impact. I hadn't realized you were posting a link to your own blog, and could have been more measured, but that's largely irrelevant.

If your point is that you're justified in posting information gleaned about me personally because I attacked your beliefs on a personal level, then whether the information is easily accessible is irrelevant. If your argument is that it's easily accessible, then the ad hominem is irrelevant.

But, if you want to argue this on the merits of my assessment of your article, let's go through some choice phrases.

If having nearly 1 million American men under threat of indefinite detention isn’t enough to satisfy feminists... Of course, what these green eyed monsters made flesh can’t handle is the sight of watching other, more attractive women, being complimented instead of them... But before the femi-beasts drive you to hack your own penis off in shame at its inherent evil and through fear at the possible trouble it might land you in... It’s also another reason, the ultimate reason, to oppose the sexual trade union’s war against male sexuality.

Do you really think that a reasonable person could read those epithets (ad hominems all) and not believe that you have some deep-seeded problem with women? If it was an attempt at humor, it was misdirected. If it was anger, it's unreasonable to take exception to being pointed out as being angry.

including some really creepy photos of himself

I'm curious what makes the pictures creepy, aside from the fact that one was taken pretty candidly at a barbecue, but I digress.

sheldon2639 is his online troll identity. If he's going to troll and tell people that they can't get a girl then he should do it under a different name to his pathetic online dating profile or hand shandy account

SELDON. God damn. For a person apparently hip on the singularity and transhumanism, you're really bad at sci-fi. Read some Asimov.
You believe it's trolling because I stated you're angry at women, and seem to have some bitterness? While I'm not a trained psychologist, I calls them like I sees them.

He might be embarrassd about that, but he might get a sympathy fuck from a few feminists and he's certainly in no danger

My concern is less "embarrassment over having a dating profile" (the fact that I seem to be matched with a lot of christians despite being an atheist notwithstanding), and more that you were so piqued by my simple statement that you felt the need to go as far as you did.

Not like the thousands of men he'd like to put on the sex offenders register for not being fat ugly fucks and being able to chat up women in the street.

Lemme guess. Ad hominems are perfectly fine when it's in response to someone else having done it? Way to take the high road.

I'm not going to get into a dick-measuring contest with you, but it seems to be that if you were confident in your positions, you wouldn't be quite so overreacting to my comment.

And wtf is Kloo talking about 'cyber stalking'? You should be doing something useful for men's rights for once and ban these disturbed feminist parasite trolls who stalk OUR page.

I'm not even sure how to respond to this.

[–]RshAndRoulette1 point 15 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link