This woman thinks all men support rape

[Niur]

Similarly, with the second I think she was trying to say it's misogynistic to judge women as people based on whether you find them sexually appealing, or something of a sort, but she ended up phrasing it as "if you talk about what 'type' of women you like, you support rape

Well either way she's wrong. If I were to classify or judge people exclusivley based on who they look, be they women, men, or both, I wouldn't be sexist, misogynist, or anything of the sort. I'd just be an asshole.

[Tahar Joblis]

That actually is a rape-facilitating attitude.

Similarly, with the second I think she was trying to say it's misogynistic to judge women as people based on whether you find them sexually appealing, or something of a sort, but she ended up phrasing it as "if you talk about what 'type' of women you like, you support rape".

Saying that some people have sexual needs is sometimes used to try to excuse rape; but there are plenty of people who support this notion who aren't using it in a manner that attempts to justify rape. E.g., it can be used to talk about why it's a good idea to masturbate, something which has literally nothing to do with rape. Given the article in the OP linked to called porn-watching "rape support," the author of the OP"s article doubtless disapproves of male masturbation habits; but that's why I discounted it in my initial checkoff of the OP list.

[Brauzillia]

That lady who posted it want men to treat ladies like Queens. I can treat them with respect if i wanted to. I can't control them. Isn't it odd that i'm 14 and i'm a rape-supporter (wtf!). She's wrong, and she just want men to switch borders.

[Keronians]

That lady who posted it want men to treat ladies like Queens. I can treat them with respect if i wanted to. I can't control them. Isn't it odd that i'm 14 and i'm a rape-supporter (wtf!). She's wrong, and she just want men to switch borders.

Actually, you treating women like that would probably piss her off as well.

Though perhaps more validly this time.

[Roman Templars]

■He is anti-abortion.
I am against abortion. So that does mean I am a rapist even though I love the lives of theres. That make complete and total sence now.

EDIT: She must be mad because never been raped before.

[Meryuma]

She must be mad because never been raped before.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DudeNotFunny

[Senestrum]

Seriously, dude? You're whining that I used the word "men" in a sentence talking about THE BLOGGER'S POINT - which was, quite specifically, about men and not women - while snipping out this sentence that occurs in the exact same post criticizing that very thing:



Does it hurt to be that intellectually dishonest?

Since I'm not intellectually dishonest, it doesn't hurt to be "that" intellectually dishonest.

After having said "essential point" and "entirely true" within the same sentence referring to the OP topic, your waffle back to "well, OK, maybe women have to do something do" is wholly insufficient. It's like saying "Well, I guess Jack the Ripper there has a point that humans are tasty." and then continuing later on with a vaguely apologetic "But I find the idea of killing prostitutes for dinner somewhat problematic."

It's nice that you actually seem to agree with me during some of your post, but I am well within my rights to highlight and complain about the parts which I take exception to. If you don't like it, say concisely and precisely what you mean the first time and you'll be fine. Except I think you actually mean to say something that I do take exception to. Which brings us back to the fact that I had real reason to object to what you were actually saying.

Which is why the majority of rapists totally don't get away with rape, and the majority of victims totally report their crimes without negative consequences to themselves, and without feeling guilty or ashamed of having been victimized.

Oh, wait. That's...that's actually not what happens in the real world at all, is it? Pity. The imaginary universe you live in sounds much nicer than this one.

This word "condone," I do not believe it means what you seem to think it does.

–verb (used with object), -doned, -don·ing.
1.
to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).
2.
to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.
3.
to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse.

The majority of us do not disregard rape. We are well aware that it exists, and will rarely overlook a rape charge on someone's rap sheet (no overlooking; no disregarding; eliminate #1). We do not give tacit approval to it (#2 - which of course is stronger than #1 anyway). We do not pardon or forgive it - not the majority of society does, anyway (#3), which is why we get internet tough guys talking about killing and castrating and vigilante justice all the damn time.

The simple accusation of rape can ruin a man's life; this would not be the case if rape was condoned by the majority of our society. This is not "condoning," and, in fact, the gravity with which we regard rape is one of the reasons why it is underreported.

Which would all be a great reply to me if I'd supported what she said, rather than saying that she has a good point buried under all the stupid, unlike the "bitch needs a good fucking" crowd.

She doesn't have a good point buried underneath all the stupid, some fundamentally correct assumption on which she has constructed a pile of overreaction. She has several accidentally accurate statements that happen to be floating around on the periphery of her complaints.

Saying her "essential point" is correct, as you are currently re-emphasizing was your intention in posting and which I object to very strongly, is seriously misreading her. Her essential point is that all men are rapists underneath an at-best thin veneer of civilized behavior, as the OP correctly interprets. Or, alternatively, that all men are bad. That seems like it might be her actual "essential point." To describe it as otherwise - as you are yet again doing and as I was objecting to in the first place (to which, somehow, you took offended objection, as if I am not allowed to be offended by a blatantly misandrist statement) is to be entirely too charitable to someone who is acting like a sexist pig.

Wow, every post you make shows that you are either completely clueless or a terrible person.

And yes, a massive portion of the population disregards and excuses any rape that falls far from the "big burly (probably black) guy carries off sweet innocent woman and does horrific and violent things to her" archetype. Just look at the Assange case, where people supported him, excused him, and outright denied that two very clear-cut cases of rape against two separate women even constituted rape.

[Roman Templars]

She must be mad because never been raped before.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DudeNotFunny

i'll admit it. I can be an ass at times.

[The Norwegian Blue]

Seriously, dude? You're whining that I used the word "men" in a sentence talking about THE BLOGGER'S POINT - which was, quite specifically, about men and not women - while snipping out this sentence that occurs in the exact same post criticizing that very thing:



Does it hurt to be that intellectually dishonest?

Since I'm not intellectually dishonest, it doesn't hurt to be "that" intellectually dishonest.

After having said "essential point" and "entirely true" within the same sentence referring to the OP topic, your waffle back to "well, OK, maybe women have to do something do" is wholly insufficient. It's like saying "Well, I guess Jack the Ripper there has a point that humans are tasty." and then continuing later on with a vaguely apologetic "But I find the idea of killing prostitutes for dinner somewhat problematic."

Hon, it looks like you badly need a refresher course in basic logic.

Let's work through this. Say someone writes an essay that says, "ducks have feathers, because they are horrible birds." I say, "Well, it's entirely true that ducks have feathers, but it's stupid and offensive to single ducks out as being horrible for it when, in fact, geese and ducks BOTH have feathers." You reply by quoting, "ducks have feathers," crossing out "ducks" and writing in "waterfowl," and rather hilariously pretending that the second part of my post is "apologetic" and remotely analogous to "somewhat problematic" - which you justify by saying, "Well, you said that 'ducks have feathers' was true!"

"Most men do things that prop up rape culture" - her point - IS true. Just like "ducks have feathers." "Most women do things that prop up rape culture" - NOT her point - is ALSO true. Anyone reading my post honestly can pretty clearly see that that is what I said. Pity you seem to be too busy making up nonsense to bother with that whole reading thing. Now, have fun screaming about how this post discriminated against swans.

It's nice that you actually seem to agree with me during some of your post, but I am well within my rights to highlight and complain about the parts which I take exception to.

I don't think anyone has disputed your right to say stupid things.

Which is why the majority of rapists totally don't get away with rape, and the majority of victims totally report their crimes without negative consequences to themselves, and without feeling guilty or ashamed of having been victimized.

Oh, wait. That's...that's actually not what happens in the real world at all, is it? Pity. The imaginary universe you live in sounds much nicer than this one.

This word "condone," I do not believe it means what you seem to think it does.

–verb (used with object), -doned, -don·ing.
1.
to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).
2.
to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.
3.
to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse.

The majority of us do not disregard rape. We are well aware that it exists, and will rarely overlook a rape charge on someone's rap sheet (no overlooking; no disregarding; eliminate #1). We do not give tacit approval to it (#2 - which of course is stronger than #1 anyway). We do not pardon or forgive it - not the majority of society does, anyway (#3), which is why we get internet tough guys talking about killing and castrating and vigilante justice all the damn time.

Well, gee, if you assert without any evidence that we do not disregard, overlook, tacitly approve of, or pardon rape when we routinely let rapists get away with raping people and come up with reasons rapists are not at fault for raping people, I guess I'll just have to accept that incredibly compelling argument, despite the fact that it's blindingly obvious that the fact that rape is massively under-reported, massively under-prosecuted, and massively under-convicted means that people get away with rape all the damn time.

The simple accusation of rape can ruin a man's life; this would not be the case if rape was condoned by the majority of our society. This is not "condoning," and, in fact, the gravity with which we regard rape is one of the reasons why it is underreported.

Really? How exactly has Kobe Bryant's life been ruined, to pick an easy example? Or Roman Polanski's - who pled guilty to assaulting a child, for fuck's sake? Because they sure don't LOOK very ruined.

I'm not disputing that being accused of a crime can lead some people to think you might be a criminal and treat you accordingly. I'm disputing that this happens with rape to anywhere near the degree that some seem to suggest, because I can't honestly think of any well-known alleged rapist whose life got "ruined," and I can think of quite a few whose lives are just fine. (And I'm disputing that it's a particularly bad thing if people treat alleged rapists like possible criminals, since the alternative would seem to be, "If someone tells you that a guy you know raped her, you should assume she is lying and never doubt his complete innocence." Me, I think the appropriate response is to assume she's probably but not certainly telling the truth - because that's what statistics support - then examine the evidence, and come to the best conclusion you can based on it...which means being accused of rape SHOULD generally ruin lives, because generally, being accused of rape means you're a fucking rapist.)

Which would all be a great reply to me if I'd supported what she said, rather than saying that she has a good point buried under all the stupid, unlike the "bitch needs a good fucking" crowd.

She doesn't have a good point buried underneath all the stupid, some fundamentally correct assumption on which she has constructed a pile of overreaction. She has several accidentally accurate statements that happen to be floating around on the periphery of her complaints.

Total nonsense. This is the entire text of the blog post before the list: "This is a handy guide for women who involve themselves with men. I’ve recently received a bunch of comments from men who say that they aren’t rape supporters because they (1) have never “raped” a woman and/or (2) are gay. If you are around a man who claims to be anti-rape, see how he stacks up."

It is pretty damn obvious that her essential point is "saying you are gay or have never raped anyone does not mean you don't support rape, because there are other ways to support rape." Which is, still, entirely true. Some of the ways she listed are stupid. Some are completely fair. Some are half-right but made stupid by misstatement or hyperbole. None of them change the fact that it's painfully stupid to argue that "saying you are gay or have never raped anyone does not mean you don't support rape, because there are other ways to support rape" is "floating around on the periphery of her complaints."

Saying her "essential point" is correct, as you are currently re-emphasizing was your intention in posting and which I object to very strongly, is seriously misreading her. Her essential point is that all men are rapists underneath an at-best thin veneer of civilized behavior, as the OP correctly interprets.

Yes, it makes MUCH more sense to make up something she did not say and declare it to be her intent, rather than to go by her actual words. Totally. Yup.

Or, alternatively, that all men are bad. That seems like it might be her actual "essential point." To describe it as otherwise - as you are yet again doing and as I was objecting to in the first place (to which, somehow, you took offended objection, as if I am not allowed to be offended by a blatantly misandrist statement) is to be entirely too charitable to someone who is acting like a sexist pig.

Except, again, I'm not disputing that she's acting like a sexist pig. She is. It is utterly stupid to apply her list solely to men. I have said that since the first post I made, much as you want to pretend that saying "All ducks do indeed have feathers. I think it's stupid to act like feathers are exclusive to ducks, though," is somehow a defense of attacks on ducks.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

And yes, a massive portion of the population disregards and excuses any rape that falls far from the "big burly (probably black) guy carries off sweet innocent woman and does horrific and violent things to her" archetype. Just look at the Assange case, where people supported him, excused him, and outright denied that two very clear-cut cases of rape against two separate women even constituted rape.

Or those people who say that DSK is being framed by Wall Street, I know dude. Again, a large share of the myths and misconceptions about rape also stem from the myth that rape is about sex, or that "ordinary" people rape because they are over-passionate, involuntarily celibate, or whatever other sick excuse they can come up with.

[Josh Sinister]

[A] massive portion of the population disregards and excuses any rape that falls far from the "big burly (probably black) guy carries off sweet innocent woman and does horrific and violent things to her" archetype. Just look at the Assange case, where people supported him, excused him, and outright denied that two very clear-cut cases of rape against two separate women even constituted rape.

No, idiots disregarded the Assange case because they are lacking in brain matter; if anyone says anything about rape, people will always initially believe it's true (Unless the alleged rapist is someone they like, or they have a negative experience with a false rape allegation.)

Usually those who have some sort of wacky issue with accepting rape as a fact are usually in the minority; unorganized pockets of misogynists, idiots, fanboys and conservatives.

Look at the Roman Polanski case. Everyone who wasn't an asshole wanted to chop that fucker down, but morons who liked his pretentious, disturbing (and apparently retroactively transparent) movies had the audacity to say things like this.

[Tahar Joblis]

Hon, it looks like you badly need a refresher course in basic logic.

Afraid not.

Let's work through this. Say someone writes an essay that says, "ducks have feathers, because they are horrible birds." I say, "Well, it's entirely true that ducks have feathers, but it's stupid and offensive to single ducks out as being horrible for it when, in fact, geese and ducks BOTH have feathers." You reply by quoting, "ducks have feathers,"

Whoops, analogy fail.

You wrote a quite complete couple of lines there. I didn't quote you a sentence fragment; I quoted you on a complete concept. One which I disagreed with both in devilish detail and broader scope. End of story.

Well, gee, if you assert without any evidence that we do not disregard, overlook, tacitly approve of, or pardon rape when we routinely let rapists get away with raping people and come up with reasons rapists are not at fault for raping people, I guess I'll just have to accept that incredibly compelling argument, despite the fact that it's blindingly obvious that the fact that rape is massively under-reported, massively under-prosecuted, and massively under-convicted means that people get away with rape all the damn time.

Hm, gee, I think I already addressed this bullshit. In fact, I pointed out that one of the reasons why rape is under-reported has to do with how seriously we take it.

Really? How exactly has Kobe Bryant's life been ruined, to pick an easy example? Or Roman Polanski's - who pled guilty to assaulting a child, for fuck's sake? Because they sure don't LOOK very ruined.

Hm, let's see... Roman Polanski's name is shit and he can't leave Switzerland without landing in the slammer - decades after the incident, even with the now-adult victim not particularly interested in pressing charges.

Kobe Bryant? It's nice of you to assume guilt, but unfortunately, after the DA spent about $200,000 preparing to bring Kobe to trial, the alleged victim dropped the case like a hot potato.

Of course, you've asked this question of me before and I've answered it before: I knew a fellow who was exonerated by DNA evidence - and even so, the rape accusation had a major impact on his life. If you don't remember it, go hit the "Search" button to find the last time you were this much of a fucking moron about it while debating this very issue with me - or perhaps I should instead bring up the words "Duke Lacrosse Case," so you have a celebrity case? Will you remember that one better?

Me, I think the appropriate response is to assume she's probably but not certainly telling the truth - because that's what statistics support

Wait, do you remember our last discussion on false rape report rates, and how there are a wide assortment of figures depending on how you try to measure it?

It is pretty damn obvious that her essential point is "saying you are gay or have never raped anyone does not mean you don't support rape, because there are other ways to support rape."

It's pretty damn obvious she's saying that all men support rape. See the concluding line:

"So, let’s see how many women reading this know at least one male over the age of 18 who does not fit this list. Anybody?"
... followed up by comments such as "Some people are responding to this and saying, “No, this can’t be right, because then almost every man would support rape!” To which I respond: Yep, ..."
" I said in a separate post that nearly 100% of men either are rapists, would be, would assist a rapist, or are rape supporters"
"which was an angry rant about the violence towards women by men, men’s responses (or lack thereof) to such violence, and about how almost all men are rapists, would be rapists, have assisted a rapist, or are “rape supporters.” "

How. Fucking. More. Crystal. Clear. Can. She. Fucking. Be. In. Fucking. Saying. She. Fucking. Thinks. All. Fucking. Men. Are. Rape. Fucking. Supporters.

Well? That's her essential point. All men support rape. Not "there are some things that really do indicate or create support for rape that we tend to overlook," or "there's something wrong with this particular behavior" or "this is a sign that this man might be a rape supporter." As far as she's concerned, if you are a man, you are almost certainly a rapist or are engaged in aiding and abetting rapists.

Except, again, I'm not disputing that she's acting like a sexist pig. She is. It is utterly stupid to apply her list solely to men. I have said that since the first post I made, much as you want to pretend that saying "All ducks do indeed have feathers. I think it's stupid to act like feathers are exclusive to ducks, though," is somehow a defense of attacks on ducks.

Your problem is that you are, unfortunately, saying "All ducks do indeed have hair. I think it's stupid to act like peaks are exclusive to playtpuses, though. Oh! And the people who think ducks have hair really have an essentially correct point, there are these fluffy things attached to ducks..."

[Tahar Joblis]

Wow, every post you make shows that you are either completely clueless or a terrible person.

Call me terrible if you like, but I'm not the least bit clueless.

And yes, a massive portion of the population disregards and excuses any rape that falls far from the "big burly (probably black) guy carries off sweet innocent woman and does horrific and violent things to her" archetype.

A "massive" minority. Most people in our society are aware that rape is broader than that. You don't have to look farther than any rape thread on NS ever...

... in which most persistent disagreements over the finer points of rape definition fall very far away from the tree of clear-cut forcible rape, and rather more along the lines of whether or not lying about your race makes otherwise consensual sex into rape.

Just look at the Assange case, where people supported him, excused him, and outright denied that two very clear-cut cases of rape against two separate women even constituted rape.

Skepticism in the Assange case has relatively little to do with rape victim credibility and everything to do with distrust of governments. Y'know, as you can tell from about fifteen seconds of looking at the people you're complaining about.

[The Congregationists]

I'm not really sure why rape accusations need to be such a huge big political issue. What works for the legal system works for me:

ev·i·dence [ev-i-duhns]

noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law . data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

So, you know, judging a man accused of rape innocent or guilty doesn't have to boil down to whether you prefer men or women. We have the option of using the above word and its definitions as well.

On another note, I think we have to recognize a HUGE difference between something we might think of as "supporting rape culture" on the one hand and actually favoring, condoning or justifying rape on the other. To suggest that a man condones rape because he goes to strip club, views pornography or opposes abortion is a display of bad logic that a religious fundamentalist would be hard pressed to top. Also, as threads like this clearly exemplify, how we define concepts like "rape" "sex" and "consent" are matters of some controversy, to say the least. Disagreement on this matter does not equal the willful condoning of rape nor hatred of men or any sort of extremist, alarming stance that's more than likely a straw man calculated to provoke knee jerk reaction rather than intelligent discussion (although it can). It's a sensitive issue. May cool heads prevail.

[Andaluciae]

That and the fact that she wrote a 2,700 word manifesto on why Joss Whedon is a rapist. That pretty much flags it as "crazy/888 didn't read". That being said, I do love the mind-numbing circlejerk in the comments section.

Odds are that it's heavily self selected. I recall that the Joss Whedon article had a strict"no men or dissent allowed" policy. This article allows a little more criticism, but there's a very real silencing effect on these personal blogs that express extreme positions.

[The Norwegian Blue]

Hon, it looks like you badly need a refresher course in basic logic.

Afraid not.

Let's work through this. Say someone writes an essay that says, "ducks have feathers, because they are horrible birds." I say, "Well, it's entirely true that ducks have feathers, but it's stupid and offensive to single ducks out as being horrible for it when, in fact, geese and ducks BOTH have feathers." You reply by quoting, "ducks have feathers,"

Whoops, analogy fail.

You wrote a quite complete couple of lines there. I didn't quote you a sentence fragment; I quoted you on a complete concept. One which I disagreed with both in devilish detail and broader scope. End of story.

"Ducks have feathers" is exactly as much of a complete concept as "most men do things that support rape culture." Both are entirely true statements, and saying that both are entirely true in no way implies that geese do not have feathers and most women do not do things that support rape culture, especially when those facts are EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE SAME POST.

You are really making yourself look ridiculous here.



...so, his life has been ruined by being a multi-millionaire with a highly successful career who simply can't go on vacation?

You have one hell of a low standard for ruination.



Wow. It was bad enough when you couldn't read MY posts, but now you've apparently forgotten how to read your OWN.



Would you like to admit that giving Kobe Bryant as an example of a man who has been accused of rape is not in any way, shape, or form "assuming guilt," or would you prefer to keep lying?

And after you've admitted that (or not), would you like to address the actual point that there is absolutely no sane way to argue that Bryant's life has been even faintly ruined?



It's cute when your argument is so bad that you have to resort to flaming. It's also cute that you think I won't notice that "their lives are RUINED" and "their lives are IMPACTED" are not the same thing. No shit, being accused of a crime impacts you? Wow! Clearly we take rape incredibly seriously if accused rapists sometimes are impacted in some way!



I don't specifically remember debating the issue with you, but I do remember that absolutely every reliable source supports the statement that MOST allegations of rape are true. If you seriously want to claim that the majority of rape claims are lies while simultaneously claiming that rape is NOT condoned, then I think we're done here, because I don't even know how one would get past that level of massive cognitive dissonance.



Which, as I have repeatedly said, is a stupidly phrased and sexist exaggeration of reality. Most people, male and female, do things that promote rape culture. It is utterly inane to try pretend that truth away because one random woman on the internet decided only to take men to task for it.



...erm, she says "almost" or "nearly" in every single one of those quotes. You kinda suck at this whole "actually reading and not lying about what you read" thing. She's still phrasing it in a stupid way and focusing (stupidly) solely on one gender, but that Does. Not. Make. The. Statement. That. Most. People. Do. Things. That. Promote. Rape. Culture. Cease. To. Be. True.

(Why. Are. We. Talking. Like. This. Anyway?)



It would appear that all three of your statements in quotes are among her arguments, while "all men support rape" fairly explicitly is not. "Nearly all men support rape" is. And, for the nth time, it's stupidly, sexistly, and aggressively phrased, but it's still true. "Nearly all people support rape in some way, through thoughtlessness or inaction or seemingly innocuous promotion of a culture in which it can thrive, if not through explicit support," is a better argument, and removes the unnecessary and stupid sexist element. It still, still, still does not make the statement "nearly all members of a subset of all people support rape in one way or another" untrue.

....yeah, no. Sorry. Rape culture exists. Pretending it doesn't and that the only way to support the prevalence of rape is to personally rape someone is about as sensible as replying to arguments with, "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

[The Norwegian Blue]

Hon, it looks like you badly need a refresher course in basic logic.

Afraid not.

Let's work through this. Say someone writes an essay that says, "ducks have feathers, because they are horrible birds." I say, "Well, it's entirely true that ducks have feathers, but it's stupid and offensive to single ducks out as being horrible for it when, in fact, geese and ducks BOTH have feathers." You reply by quoting, "ducks have feathers,"

Whoops, analogy fail.

You wrote a quite complete couple of lines there. I didn't quote you a sentence fragment; I quoted you on a complete concept. One which I disagreed with both in devilish detail and broader scope. End of story.

"Ducks have feathers" is exactly as much of a complete concept as "most men do things that support rape culture." Both are entirely true statements, and saying that both are entirely true in no way implies that geese do not have feathers and most women do not do things that support rape culture, especially when those facts are EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE SAME POST.

Well, gee, if you assert without any evidence that we do not disregard, overlook, tacitly approve of, or pardon rape when we routinely let rapists get away with raping people and come up with reasons rapists are not at fault for raping people, I guess I'll just have to accept that incredibly compelling argument, despite the fact that it's blindingly obvious that the fact that rape is massively under-reported, massively under-prosecuted, and massively under-convicted means that people get away with rape all the damn time.

Hm, gee, I think I already addressed this bullshit. In fact, I pointed out that one of the reasons why rape is under-reported has to do with how seriously we take it.

Really? How exactly has Kobe Bryant's life been ruined, to pick an easy example? Or Roman Polanski's - who pled guilty to assaulting a child, for fuck's sake? Because they sure don't LOOK very ruined.

Hm, let's see... Roman Polanski's name is shit and he can't leave Switzerland without landing in the slammer - decades after the incident, even with the now-adult victim not particularly interested in pressing charges.

...so, his life has been ruined by being a multi-millionaire with a highly successful career who simply can't go on vacation?

You have one hell of a low standard for ruination.

Kobe Bryant? It's nice of you to assume guilt, but unfortunately, after the DA spent about $200,000 preparing to bring Kobe to trial, the alleged victim dropped the case like a hot potato.

Wow. It was bad enough when you couldn't read MY posts, but now you've apparently forgotten how to read your OWN.

The simple accusation of rape can ruin a man's life

Would you like to admit that giving Kobe Bryant as an example of a man who has been accused of rape is not in any way, shape, or form "assuming guilt," or would you prefer to keep lying?

And after you've admitted that (or not), would you like to address the actual point that there is absolutely no sane way to argue that Bryant's life has been even faintly ruined?

Of course, you've asked this question of me before and I've answered it before: I knew a fellow who was exonerated by DNA evidence - and even so, the rape accusation had a major impact on his life. If you don't remember it, go hit the "Search" button to find the last time you were this much of a fucking moron about it while debating this very issue with me - or perhaps I should instead bring up the words "Duke Lacrosse Case," so you have a celebrity case? Will you remember that one better?

It's cute when your argument is so bad that you have to resort to flaming. It's also cute that you think I won't notice that "their lives are RUINED" and "their lives are IMPACTED" are not the same thing. No shit, being accused of a crime impacts you? Wow! Clearly we take rape incredibly seriously if accused rapists sometimes are impacted in some way!

Me, I think the appropriate response is to assume she's probably but not certainly telling the truth - because that's what statistics support

Wait, do you remember our last discussion on false rape report rates, and how there are a wide assortment of figures depending on how you try to measure it?

I don't specifically remember debating the issue with you, but I do remember that absolutely every reliable source supports the statement that MOST allegations of rape are true. If you seriously want to claim that the majority of rape claims are lies while simultaneously claiming that rape is NOT condoned, then I think we're done here, because I don't even know how one would get past that level of massive cognitive dissonance.

It is pretty damn obvious that her essential point is "saying you are gay or have never raped anyone does not mean you don't support rape, because there are other ways to support rape."

It's pretty damn obvious she's saying that all men support rape.

Which, as I have repeatedly said, is a stupidly phrased and sexist exaggeration of reality. Most people, male and female, do things that promote rape culture. It is utterly inane to try pretend that truth away because one random woman on the internet decided only to take men to task for it.

See the concluding line:

"So, let’s see how many women reading this know at least one male over the age of 18 who does not fit this list. Anybody?"
... followed up by comments such as "Some people are responding to this and saying, “No, this can’t be right, because then almost every man would support rape!” To which I respond: Yep, ..."
" I said in a separate post that nearly 100% of men either are rapists, would be, would assist a rapist, or are rape supporters"
"which was an angry rant about the violence towards women by men, men’s responses (or lack thereof) to such violence, and about how almost all men are rapists, would be rapists, have assisted a rapist, or are “rape supporters.” "

How. Fucking. More. Crystal. Clear. Can. She. Fucking. Be. In. Fucking. Saying. She. Fucking. Thinks. All. Fucking. Men. Are. Rape. Fucking. Supporters.

...erm, she says "almost" or "nearly" in every single one of those quotes. You're not doing so well at this whole "actually reading and not lying about what you read" thing. She's still phrasing it in a stupid way and focusing (stupidly) solely on one gender, but that Does. Not. Make. The. Statement. That. Most. People. Do. Things. That. Promote. Rape. Culture. Cease. To. Be. True.

(Why. Are. We. Talking. Like. This. Anyway?)

Well? That's her essential point. All men support rape. Not "there are some things that really do indicate or create support for rape that we tend to overlook," or "there's something wrong with this particular behavior" or "this is a sign that this man might be a rape supporter." As far as she's concerned, if you are a man, you are almost certainly a rapist or are engaged in aiding and abetting rapists.

It would appear that all three of your statements in quotes are among her arguments, while "all men support rape" fairly explicitly is not. "Nearly all men support rape" is. And, for the nth time, it's stupidly, sexistly, and aggressively phrased, but it's still true. "Nearly all people support rape in some way, through thoughtlessness or inaction or seemingly innocuous promotion of a culture in which it can thrive, if not through explicit support," is a better argument, and removes the unnecessary and stupid sexist element. It still, still, still does not make the statement "nearly all members of a subset of all people support rape in one way or another" untrue.

Except, again, I'm not disputing that she's acting like a sexist pig. She is. It is utterly stupid to apply her list solely to men. I have said that since the first post I made, much as you want to pretend that saying "All ducks do indeed have feathers. I think it's stupid to act like feathers are exclusive to ducks, though," is somehow a defense of attacks on ducks.

Your problem is that you are, unfortunately, saying "All ducks do indeed have hair. I think it's stupid to act like peaks are exclusive to playtpuses, though. Oh! And the people who think ducks have hair really have an essentially correct point, there are these fluffy things attached to ducks..."

[/quote]

....yeah, no. Sorry. Rape culture exists. Pretending it doesn't and that the only way to support the prevalence of rape is to personally rape someone is about as sensible as replying to arguments with, "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

[Azarea]

Im a rapist now!

[KonataLand]

I love how I read this, and my first thought is, "Underage sex is Lolicon, not rape..."

Oh, Internet, what have you done...?

[GeneralHaNor]

Ah. Female chauvinism under the guise of feminism.

I like how chauvinism is now the polar opposite of "feminism"

I'm sure I'm about to get trolled for daring to question definitions

[Minartopia]

This reminds of an incident a few weeks ago at school, when I was sitting a lunch table with all girls and one of them said something about how all guys subconciously fantasize about rape.

... Uncharted waters in the sea of awkwardness were discovered that day.

[GeneralHaNor]

I love how I read this, and my first thought is, "Underage sex is Lolicon, not rape..."

Oh, Internet, what have you done...?

It has delivered you to the truth my friend, ignore the love haters, they love to hate.

[Draconian Races]

I love how I read this, and my first thought is, "Underage sex is Lolicon, not rape..."

Oh, Internet, what have you done...?

Lolicon isnt always underaged alot of them, its an underdeveloped 18+

[KonataLand]

I love how she characterizes pro-lifers as rapists. That is, of course, saying that over 1/6th of the world (Christians and Catholics... assuming most Catholics actually were) supports rape.

inb4 "catholicz r pados" spam

[NERVUN]

If you don't remember it, go hit the "Search" button to find the last time you were this much of a fucking moron about it while debating this very issue with me - or perhaps I should instead bring up the words "Duke Lacrosse Case," so you have a celebrity case?

*** Warned for flaming ***.

As for everyone else, I know this topic is one to get NSG all hot under the collar, but dial back the heat a few knotches.