Feminists destroy posters advocating human rights for men

[The Rich Port]

I never got why "Don't rape people." is such a hard concept for some people to understand.

Quite sure it's not a matter of understanding.

It's a matter of violating the law and other people's privacy.

Rape is about power, control, dominating another person.

Very rarely is it about sex, or a lack of understanding.

If it were, I'd suggest some profound mental retardation in the rapist.

But the victim nor the bystander can be so fortunate.

[CVT Temp]

Quite sure it's not a matter of understanding.

It's a matter of violating the law and other people's privacy.

Rape is about power, control, dominating another person.

Very rarely is it about sex, or a lack of understanding.

If it were, I'd suggest some profound mental retardation in the rapist.

But the victim nor the bystander can be so fortunate.

You think the date rape fratboys are sociopaths instead of just being incredibly stupid?

[AiliailiA]

Do we?

I've never ever seen an anti-rape campaign targeted at a perpetrator. I've seen plenty targeted at victims.

So the slogan "no means no" seems to you to be targeted at victims?

[The Emerald Dawn]

Quite sure it's not a matter of understanding.

It's a matter of violating the law and other people's privacy.

Rape is about power, control, dominating another person.

Very rarely is it about sex, or a lack of understanding.

If it were, I'd suggest some profound mental retardation in the rapist.

But the victim nor the bystander can be so fortunate.

You think the date rape fratboys are sociopaths instead of just being incredibly stupid?

I think defining rapists that narrowly isn't that honest.

[Choronzon]

I saw one where she basically argued that all forms of sex except cunnilingus count as rape, because penetration of any orifice is violation since patriarchy violates female consent.

A friend of mine was a philosophy grad student specializing in ethics. One of his professors was at some conference (it actually had nothing to do with ethics, I can't recall why the professor himself was there) where some feminist academics argued that same thing- all sex involving penetration is rape, because no female actually wants to be penetrated and we as a culture just condition women to want to have sex.

Like I said, I know these loons are out there, I just never met one.

[CVT Temp]

I think defining rapists that narrowly isn't that honest.

I'm not.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I saw one where she basically argued that all forms of sex except cunnilingus count as rape, because penetration of any orifice is violation since patriarchy violates female consent.

A friend of mine was a philosophy grad student specializing in ethics. One of his professors was at some ethics conference where some feminist academics argued that same thing- all sex involving penetration is rape, because no female actually wants to be penetrated and we as a culture just condition women to want to have sex.

Like I said, I know these loons are out there, I just never met one.

Visit Portland sometime. We have some out here. Just don't get too close. I can't prove it, but I think it's catching.

[Saint Jade IV]

Quite sure it's not a matter of understanding.

It's a matter of violating the law and other people's privacy.

Rape is about power, control, dominating another person.

Very rarely is it about sex, or a lack of understanding.

If it were, I'd suggest some profound mental retardation in the rapist.

But the victim nor the bystander can be so fortunate.

You think the date rape fratboys are sociopaths instead of just being incredibly stupid?

If they didn't see women as objects to be dominated, then they would not seek to have sex with them when they are passed out, or drug them so they "consent". They have no appreciation for a woman's right to control her body. They see women as an object that exists for their pleasure.

[CVT Temp]

A friend of mine was a philosophy grad student specializing in ethics. One of his professors was at some conference (it actually had nothing to do with ethics, I can't recall why the professor himself was there) where some feminist academics argued that same thing- all sex involving penetration is rape, because no female actually wants to be penetrated and we as a culture just condition women to want to have sex.

Like I said, I know these loons are out there, I just never met one.

I hate that they seem to operate outside of reality, never bother to check for any evidence that, in fact, no men or women ever wish to be penetrated. Indeed, if this were true, one wonders how our population became 7 billion.

[The Rich Port]

Quite sure it's not a matter of understanding.

It's a matter of violating the law and other people's privacy.

Rape is about power, control, dominating another person.

Very rarely is it about sex, or a lack of understanding.

If it were, I'd suggest some profound mental retardation in the rapist.

But the victim nor the bystander can be so fortunate.

You think the date rape fratboys are sociopaths instead of just being incredibly stupid?

I think that they lack empathy towards human beings, but that doesn't necessarily make them stupid... Though they may still be.

Besides, I don't equate stupidity with mental handicaps; stupidity can be avoided with proper education.

I think that they lack respect for both men and women.

Simply because they shove a paddle handle up a pledge's rectum doesn't make them homosexual. I've heard of homosexual men, frustrated with their own condition, disgusted with it, raping women and men to convince themselves that they are adequate enough, both in bed and as thinking beings.

[CVT Temp]

If they didn't see women as objects to be dominated, then they would not seek to have sex with them when they are passed out, or drug them so they "consent". They have no appreciation for a woman's right to control her body. They see women as an object that exists for their pleasure.

All true, but can any of this be fixed with education, or are these people just sociopathic?

[The Emerald Dawn]

I think defining rapists that narrowly isn't that honest.

I'm not.

Damn it, I keep forgetting. I was saying to the person above you, piggybacking off your statement.

[Choronzon]

A friend of mine was a philosophy grad student specializing in ethics. One of his professors was at some conference (it actually had nothing to do with ethics, I can't recall why the professor himself was there) where some feminist academics argued that same thing- all sex involving penetration is rape, because no female actually wants to be penetrated and we as a culture just condition women to want to have sex.

Like I said, I know these loons are out there, I just never met one.

I hate that they seem to operate outside of reality, never bother to check for any evidence that, in fact, no men or women ever wish to be penetrated. Indeed, if this were true, one wonders how our population became 7 billion.

Tons and tons and tons of rape.

[Saint Jade IV]

I've never ever seen an anti-rape campaign targeted at a perpetrator. I've seen plenty targeted at victims.

So the slogan "no means no" seems to you to be targeted at victims?

To some respects yes. It implicitly tells victims that they need to act, by saying no. And that if they don't, they are somehow to blame. Passed out women, for instance, can't say no. Does that mean they consent? According to some men, yes.

What I would really like to see are campaigns targeted at men that are along the lines of;

"If she hasn't said yes, it's probably a no." A woman should not have to be treated as though she is in a default state of consent, which is only revoked by a negation.

[CVT Temp]

Tons and tons and tons of rape.

It almost reminds you of "Afrocentrism" in terms of being batshit insane.

[CVT Temp]

To some respects yes. It implicitly tells victims that they need to act, by saying no. And that if they don't, they are somehow to blame. Passed out women, for instance, can't say no. Does that mean they consent? According to some men, yes.

What I would really like to see are campaigns targeted at men that are along the lines of;

"If she hasn't said yes, it's probably a no." A woman should not have to be treated as though she is in a default state of consent, which is only revoked by a negation.

What do you think of "Yes means yes." and "enthusiastic consent"?

[The Emerald Dawn]

So the slogan "no means no" seems to you to be targeted at victims?

To some respects yes. It implicitly tells victims that they need to act, by saying no. And that if they don't, they are somehow to blame. Passed out women, for instance, can't say no. Does that mean they consent? According to some men, yes.

What I would really like to see are campaigns targeted at men that are along the lines of;

"If she hasn't said yes, it's probably a no." A woman should not have to be treated as though she is in a default state of consent, which is only revoked by a negation.

What about the concept that training humans to avoid actions which could lead down bad paths with a probability of 95%? Is that victim blaming, to you?

[Sailsia]

... Aaaand this is why I fucking hate feminists. They just want more sexism. It's like they fucking wallow in it.

Yeah, that's certainly a thing you could think if you had no idea what feminism was.

I'm sensing the no true Scotsman fallacy. As girlwriteswhat has said before, these kinds of feminists are no different than the radical imam or westboro church. They are indeed feminists, they are just extreme feminists.

[Galloism]

Those posters are asinine, though. They were trolling for a response.

Successful troll is successful.

[Galloism]

I've seen far worse than her. Even the relatively popular Twisty Faster of "I Blame the Patriarchy" is worse.

I read an article from her once in a bio-ethics class where she argued that in vitro fertilization should be illegal because if it was made legal men would no longer need women, and so they would just find decent breeding stock and social relations as we know it would end.

Because, you know, no couple has ever existed where the man did not want kids, and no relationship has ever started without reproduction as the primary goal.

I think this is pretty much provably false.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109093/Lillian-Hartley-95-Allan-Marks-98-Worlds-oldest-newlyweds-married.html

[The Rich Port]

If they didn't see women as objects to be dominated, then they would not seek to have sex with them when they are passed out, or drug them so they "consent". They have no appreciation for a woman's right to control her body. They see women as an object that exists for their pleasure.

All true, but can any of this be fixed with education, or are these people just sociopathic?

A change in the way men are socialized will fix it.

Not only advertising and the way women are portrayed in the media, but how they are seen in general by the culture, though the former have a big impact.

I've known closely so many strong, exciting, beautiful women, but not everyone sees them that way. Sometimes, they are seen as bitches, whores, sluts, cunts, as though they deserved the names.

It's why I was quite insulted when I realized Stephanie Meyer was dead serious in her portrayal of Bella as "the perfect example of a teenage girl": dependent, quivering, soft, pale, like a fucking puppy or something.

[Saint Jade IV]

To some respects yes. It implicitly tells victims that they need to act, by saying no. And that if they don't, they are somehow to blame. Passed out women, for instance, can't say no. Does that mean they consent? According to some men, yes.

What I would really like to see are campaigns targeted at men that are along the lines of;

"If she hasn't said yes, it's probably a no." A woman should not have to be treated as though she is in a default state of consent, which is only revoked by a negation.

What do you think of "Yes means yes." and "enthusiastic consent"?

I think it puts much more of an onus on the physically dominant person. Obviously in a committed relationship, it's a different ball game and up to the two partners, but in a date or drunken fumble or new coupling, I think it's wise to err on the side of caution. And to teach boys to do so. A woman should not have the responsibility of forcing a man off of her, and saying no. Suggesting that she does is to suggest that a woman who is asleep, who is passed out, who is mute, who is scared is consenting. Or at least, suggesting that the "rapist" is less culpable.

To some respects yes. It implicitly tells victims that they need to act, by saying no. And that if they don't, they are somehow to blame. Passed out women, for instance, can't say no. Does that mean they consent? According to some men, yes.

What I would really like to see are campaigns targeted at men that are along the lines of;

"If she hasn't said yes, it's probably a no." A woman should not have to be treated as though she is in a default state of consent, which is only revoked by a negation.

What about the concept that training humans to avoid actions which could lead down bad paths with a probability of 95%? Is that victim blaming, to you?

I don't have a problem with training men that taking home strange women too drunk to walk is potentially going to lead to a valid rape accusation in the morning. I think it's a great idea. I don't think it's a bad idea to teach men that a blow job does not mean she wants to have sex with you, and that not confirming whether she wants you to proceed before throwing her on a bed and having your way with her may turn him into a rapist. I don't have a problem with teaching men that continuing a sex act on a person who is passed out, even if they consented while awake is likely to lead to a valid rape accusation.

[The Emerald Dawn]

All true, but can any of this be fixed with education, or are these people just sociopathic?

A change in the way men are socialized will fix it.

Not only advertising and the way women are portrayed in the media, but how they are seen in general by the culture, though the former have a big impact.

I've known closely so many strong, exciting, beautiful women, but not everyone sees them that way. Sometimes, they are seen as bitches, whores, sluts, cunts, as though they deserved the names.

It's why I was quite insulted when I realized Stephanie Meyer was dead serious in her portrayal of Bella as "the perfect example of a teenage girl": dependent, quivering, soft, pale, like a fucking puppy or something.

Oh lord, don't bring Twilight as anything but an example of horrible, horrible literature, and a massive misunderstanding of applied socio-economics.

[Choronzon]

I read an article from her once in a bio-ethics class where she argued that in vitro fertilization should be illegal because if it was made legal men would no longer need women, and so they would just find decent breeding stock and social relations as we know it would end.

Because, you know, no couple has ever existed where the man did not want kids, and no relationship has ever started without reproduction as the primary goal.

I think this is pretty much provably false.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109093/Lillian-Hartley-95-Allan-Marks-98-Worlds-oldest-newlyweds-married.html

Merely speaking to a couple without children would prove it false.

[The Emerald Dawn]

I think this is pretty much provably false.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109093/Lillian-Hartley-95-Allan-Marks-98-Worlds-oldest-newlyweds-married.html

Merely speaking to a couple without of children would prove it false.

This too.