UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]

[Ostroeuropa]

Further concerns on banning porn viewing for kids are that our justice system is already highly misandrist when it comes to kids exchanging sexual photos of eachother. (Typically arresting boys for holding/viewing child porn, or arresting boys for creating porn of themselves, with girls rarely if ever charged for either.)

Sexting has risen to the point that in younger generations 27% of them participate, with no noticable gender differences in either sending or receiving rates. Restricting access to pornography will, in my view, merely create a "Black market" of child pornography created and exchanged among children, and the policing of that market is likely to be discriminatory and slanted against boys.

Further, incentivizing the private creation of pornography where that porn is likely to be child porn seems like it might go against the rationales for banning pornography to children, that it "Warps" their sexuality. If that is the case, then do we want to switch from adult porn to child porn?

Children seeking out porn are going to get it, one way or another, even if they have to make it themselves.

[Imperializt Russia]

Saw on FB there that Maplin has collapsed, putting 2500 jobs at risk.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43223175

Toys R Us was no shock, that's been in the shitter for years and we knew it was coming, we've literally been told it's coming before.

Maplins? That one's come as a weird shock.
Though I also admit to being the Amazon Prime scourge on high street retailers.

[Imperializt Russia]

Further concerns on banning porn viewing for kids are that our justice system is already highly misandrist when it comes to kids exchanging sexual photos of eachother. (Typically arresting boys for holding/viewing child porn, or arresting boys for creating porn of themselves, with girls rarely if ever charged for either.)

Sexting has risen to the point that in younger generations 27% of them participate, with no noticable gender differences in either sending or receiving rates. Restricting access to pornography will, in my view, merely create a "Black market" of child pornography created and exchanged among children, and the policing of that market is likely to be discriminatory and slanted against boys.

Further, incentivizing the private creation of pornography where that porn is likely to be child porn seems like it might go against the rationales for banning pornography to children, that it "Warps" their sexuality. If that is the case, then do we want to switch from adult porn to child porn?

Children seeking out porn are going to get it, one way or another, even if they have to make it themselves.

In my experience of seeing communities dedicated to the purpose, dirty pictures of young adults are pictures solicited from women, by straight men, to be shared and distributed to other straight men. For a high-profile instance, look no further than The Fappening, or indeed the USMC revenge porn scandal last year.

I'm certain other dynamics do exist, but not on remotely the same scale. I would argue this is a male entitlement point on sexual conquest.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Saw on FB there that Maplin has collapsed, putting 2500 jobs at risk.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43223175

Toys R Us was no shock, that's been in the shitter for years and we knew it was coming, we've literally been told it's coming before.

Maplins? That one's come as a weird shock.
Though I also admit to being the Amazon Prime scourge on high street retailers.

Ive been in a Maplin once myself, like at the start of the month for a new cable component. I will admit most stuff along those lines i get i order online too.

[Ostroeuropa]

Further concerns on banning porn viewing for kids are that our justice system is already highly misandrist when it comes to kids exchanging sexual photos of eachother. (Typically arresting boys for holding/viewing child porn, or arresting boys for creating porn of themselves, with girls rarely if ever charged for either.)

Sexting has risen to the point that in younger generations 27% of them participate, with no noticable gender differences in either sending or receiving rates. Restricting access to pornography will, in my view, merely create a "Black market" of child pornography created and exchanged among children, and the policing of that market is likely to be discriminatory and slanted against boys.

Further, incentivizing the private creation of pornography where that porn is likely to be child porn seems like it might go against the rationales for banning pornography to children, that it "Warps" their sexuality. If that is the case, then do we want to switch from adult porn to child porn?

Children seeking out porn are going to get it, one way or another, even if they have to make it themselves.

In my experience of seeing communities dedicated to the purpose, dirty pictures of young adults are pictures solicited from women, by straight men, to be shared and distributed to other straight men. For a high-profile instance, look no further than The Fappening, or indeed the USMC revenge porn scandal last year.

I'm certain other dynamics do exist, but not on remotely the same scale. I would argue this is a male entitlement point on sexual conquest.

Firstly I don't see how this relates to the point I made.

Secondly (And this is me being pretty angry), that view doesn't align with the data, and seems reliant on narratives that demonize males and ignore female predatory behavior. The "Scale" argument isn't true, what doesn't exist on the same scale is media coverage and public awareness, you allude to high-profile incidents and that's the point. The media ignores female predation in general, and that isn't limited to female rapists and abusers, but female pedophiles too.

You would argue it's "Male entitlement" because that's the conclusion misandrist feminists have been determined to find, and their influence over media and such pushes that view. It is no different than their fuck up on domestic violence with the duluth model, and their alleging that it's due to "Male dominance" there which perpetrated discrimination against generations of male abuse victims. In reality, that is nothing more than misandry, as is often the case with feminist assertions about what causes social problems.

"Female entitlement" likewise exists, the notion that young boys are "Lucky" to have sex with women, that males don't turn down sex, etc, but for some reason you don't think this entitlement would noticably impact scale and rates the same as male entitlement, despite the former being largely uncriticized and the latter vigorously criticized in public consciousness. The rates of pedophilia are around 4% sexually aroused by the prospect for both sexes, with significantly lower numbers actually partaking, likewise at parity rates.

The operation you speak of is likely due to the demonization of mens sexuality and the blood libels about rape that feminists pushed that saw them run out of childcare professions, leaving pedophiles little choice but to operate rings, whereas pedophilic women have more direct access to children and can operate solo, in institutions and a culture that essentially tolerates their behavior or excuses it.
What's a bigger "Scale", schools and childcare as an institution in general, or a darknet pedophile ring? Because the former is the "Scale" female pedophiles operate at. Previously, so did male pedophiles, but feminists decided to issue blood libels about rape and demonize men, male sexuality, etc, like you have just done by blaming "Male entitlement" for the issue, and a consequence of feminist blood libels on these topics was men becoming reluctant to enter childcare professions, something that has also impacted the number of male role models and such.

Rape rates approach parity between men and women, and most men are raped by women. When you look at childhood predation, the rates are likewise similar.
You shouldn't spew forth feminist bigotry like that shit, it's no different than the duluth model, and it's based on willful ignorance of reality in favor of casting social problems as mens fault, same as the feminists tried for domestic violence and rape.

It isn't "Male entitlement" that causes the dynamic you're talking about, it's feminist misandry and bigotry resulting in men have less access to childcare professions, all men, so pedophiles end up utilizing alternatives. The same feminist bigotry you're now appealing to as an explanation for the dynamic. If you took a step back for once instead of just accepting what feminists tell you, and actually evaluated the situation from a neutral standpoint without predetermining that you should find misogyny to be the root cause, you wouldn't come out with this shit, it's nonsense. You gave an explanation of "Male entitlement" without considering female entitlement likewise exists, and without considering the differing access to children and the causes of that, because your analysis of these situations, like the overwhelming majority of feminists, is superficial and prejudicial, based on conclusions you've made before you even start looking at evidence, and the very second you find even a scrap in support of your prejudice, you stop looking.

I'm bored of hearing this kind of shit. Try harder, christ. Especially since it just repeats the same mistakes feminism did over the duluth model. Do you want male rape victims arrested more than perpetrators too, or was once enough for you people to get the hint that this "Male dominance" kneejerk explanation you have is toxic to society and humanity?

I even pointed out that boys are being arrested for both receiving and sending porn of themselves while girls are not. THATS the kind of dynamic your feminist misandry bullshit is fostering, but you people still don't goddamn get it. In that sphere, this "Male entitlement" explanation you offer is analagous to the duluth model, and the consequences of feminists pushing that view is sexism against men and boys and discrimination by the justice system, clear as day, right there, but you can't see it because you're too absorbed in circular rationalizations and faith based assertions.

You're a Duluthist, just for this issue instead, and Duluthism in general is The feminist flaw. I'm angry because I literally believe it would be better for you to say literally nothing at all rather than come out with this kind of shit, the feminist contribution is a detriment to the discussion and to the species.

[Imperializt Russia]

Pedophilia and child abuse are very, very different things.

What are your numbers for parity on rape against men and women, and of more men being raped by women than other men? Both surprise me because they seem significantly higher than other statistics (and of course, the lack of legal recognition of "rape of male" [though being expressly covered in sexual assault statutes] lead to significant accounting issues from both sides of the aisle here).

I'm also continually surprised by you framing my instigation of "men rape more people than women", whether true or not, as fundamentally misandrist.
It's plainly not - it's directed at men who rape. Which I'm sure you'll agree, is not remotely "most men".

[Ostroeuropa]

Pedophilia and child abuse are very, very different things.

What are your numbers for parity on rape against men and women, and of more men being raped by women than other men? Both surprise me because they seem significantly higher than other statistics (and of course, the lack of legal recognition of "rape of male" [though being expressly covered in sexual assault statutes] lead to significant accounting issues from both sides of the aisle here).

I'm also continually surprised by you framing my instigation of "men rape more people than women", whether true or not, as fundamentally misandrist.
It's plainly not - it's directed at men who rape. Which I'm sure you'll agree, is not remotely "most men".

Gallo's thread is an excellent one for this topic.
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=422054&hilit=galloism+rape+rates

For specific numbers on child predators and number of male rape victims with female perpetrators:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... or/503492/

“the form of nonconsensual sex that men are much more likely to experience in their lifetime ... 79.2% of victimized men reported female perpetrators.”

And crucial to the current topic:

Among juveniles, the same figure is 89.3 percent.

+

Tellingly, researchers have found that victims who experience childhood sexual abuse at the hands of both women and men are more reluctant to disclose the victimization perpetrated by women (Sgroi & Sargent, 1993). Indeed the discomfort of reporting child sexual victimization by a female perpetrator can be so acute that a victim may instead inaccurately report that his or her abuser was male (Longdon, 1993).

+

And according to the paper, when female abusers are reported, they are less likely to be investigated, arrested, or punished compared to male perpetrators, who are regarded as more harmful.

Those "other statistics" you know about are often reliant on that lack of legal recognition or in sexist definitions of rape, and the fact those are the stats your sources are plying you with should, Should, SHOULD, make you question their claims to be genuinely egalitarian, given that they appear to be supplying you with sources that outright ignore the possibilty of female-on-male rape and then using that to justify saying rape is caused by "Male entitlement" and such.

If I were to go around claiming "Most crime is done by black people" and then defend that with "I'm not saying all black people" it'd still be racist, because it's based on lies, and especially racist if I were to likewise say it's an "anti-crime" campaign to pretty much only talk about black crime and demand reforms to black culture, alongside pushing for white people segregation areas and such to keep them "safe" while saying my bullshit definitions of crime (That I continue repeating Big Lie style) give us license to police black culture and shut down attempts of black people to talk about white crime. However the excuses the feminist movement offered you haven't been evaluated by you in a skeptical manner, so you apparently didn't notice this.

Think about this.
You're a feminist.
You were ignorant of this:

and of more men being raped by women than other men?

This is the level of awareness being a feminist offered you. None of your peers, none of your sources, none of the people you talk to about these issues, corrected you on this notion. It took an MRA to do it.
Think about that.
Think about what it says about the company you keep.
Think about what it says about them that when presented with a study saying "90% of crime is caused by black people." they didn't critically examine it, they just accepted that and repeated it, or worse, knew full well that the study was based in lies.
The fact you keep insisting to eachother you "Believe in equality" does not change any of that.

This is the company you are keeping, and they are keeping you ignorant of mens issues and the facts behind them.
That's why you see more misogyny than misandry.
It's a vicious cycle for you people.
You see misogyny more than misandry because of this kind of dynamic, and it causes you to go out looking for more evidence of misogyny, and in that cycle of confirmation bias, this kind of shit happens.

Again.
Think about it. You're in a crowd of feminists, metaphorically.
None of them told you these facts.

It's not a coincidence. It's because the movement and the worldview is based in assertions, not reality, prejudice, not equality.

You know Keith Olbermann and his line about "Look around you, the biggest crowd you'll ever be in in your life. And they all look exactly like you. What does that say about what brought you together?"
Dude.
Look around you. They're all ignorant of mens issues and pushing lies about them. What does that say about what brought you together?
You think it's about equality because you keep telling eachother that. But look around you.

Aren't you disturbed?

[Kavagrad]

Further concerns on banning porn viewing for kids are that our justice system is already highly misandrist when it comes to kids exchanging sexual photos of eachother. (Typically arresting boys for holding/viewing child porn, or arresting boys for creating porn of themselves, with girls rarely if ever charged for either.)

Sexting has risen to the point that in younger generations 27% of them participate, with no noticable gender differences in either sending or receiving rates. Restricting access to pornography will, in my view, merely create a "Black market" of child pornography created and exchanged among children, and the policing of that market is likely to be discriminatory and slanted against boys.

Further, incentivizing the private creation of pornography where that porn is likely to be child porn seems like it might go against the rationales for banning pornography to children, that it "Warps" their sexuality. If that is the case, then do we want to switch from adult porn to child porn?

Children seeking out porn are going to get it, one way or another, even if they have to make it themselves.

It's rare that Ostro makes points on gender equality that I agree with, but he's got me here.

[Ostroeuropa]

At the very least IR, your misconception on this issue should be entirely sufficient for you to conclude that the feminist company you keep is assuredly NOT sufficient to dispel sexist notions against men you held, and is not working sufficiently on mens issues.

The only reasonable conclusions are that feminism is insufficient, or detrimental. And if it is insufficient, and adamantly denying that fact as it currently does, and denying it to such an extent as to suppress mens movements doing the job they claim they are doing themselves but clearly failing at as they have in your case, then what's the difference between that and being detrimental?

Guaranteed and lobbied for insufficiency.

[Neu Leonstein]

did you miss the entirety of the ireland discussion re brexit in which we can't have an open border with ireland without having one with the rest of the EU because ireland is in the EU and we can't just leave the irish border specifically open without a specific deal because we'll get the pants sued off us by anyone who feels like it through the WTO?

I mean, they maybe could, but that's not the reason. The reason is an EU one, which is that if you have a Customs Union, then everyone has to have a common policy on customs. Every country commits itself not to check the stuff that comes in from other member states, and you can only do that if you trust that other member state to enforce the same rules on its border as you would on your own. If the UK didn't do any customs checks on anything coming from Ireland, but did want to do customs checks on anything coming from France, and Ireland didn't do any customs checks on anything from France, then there's an inconsistency there. Otherwise, the French would just ship any non-UK compliant stuff via Ireland and the UK would never be able to find out or control that. The issue is not so much political as it is mechanical.

================

Anyway, today the EU published a full draft text of the withdrawal agreement, based on what has been agreed so far. Basically, they think that the negotiations are going too slowly and the UK is not being proactive enough to flesh out the details agreed in December. It's 190-odd pages of fun, but knock yourselves out. Alternatively, there's a shorter Q&A.

There's already quite a bit of outrage, because it has a whole 8-page protocol (p.98-106) in there outlining the way that EU rules would continue to apply in Northern Ireland. Here is the Daily Mail's take, and here's that of The Express. I mentioned the issue a few weeks ago.

Predictably, the release led to howls about how the EU was looking to annex Northern Ireland and so forth. May said, probably correctly, that if this implied that the UK would no longer have one set of laws, no UK government could possibly accept this as it stands.

The problem comes back to the problem that if you want to put a border between the UK and the EU, then you have to put one between the UK and Ireland too. But everyone seems genuinely committed to the Good Friday Agreement and peace on the island, so no one wants to do this. In December, they couldn't quite work out how to square this circle, and they put in three options into the text:

1. Have no border between the UK and the EU, i.e. have a future relationship that is close enough, which in practice would mean Customs Union at the minimum, but probably more than that.
2. Have a border between the UK and the EU, but only an invisible border between the UK and Ireland. The way this would work is with new technologies and very clever new administrative schemes. No one quite knew how these would work at that point, and the hearings the parliament has been holding with Norwegian and Swiss officials on their borders with the EU have disappointed those who were looking for an easy answer.
3. Have a border between the UK and the EU, but no border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. This implies that Northern Ireland stays in the Single Market, while the rest of the UK leaves - and you now have a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

The UK walked away happy because they could point at A or B as the relevant options and treat C as an irrelevant fall-back. The EU walked away happy because the inclusion of Option C meant that no matter what happened, they were guaranteed no hard border on the Irish island and the Good Friday Agreement was safe. Since then, the UK cabinet has agreed that it didn't want to remain in the Customs Union, which takes Option A off the table. But there hasn't been much progress on Option B. We haven't heard anything more concrete on how this would work.

There needs to be a finished, polished, final and binding text ready to be voted on by the respective parliaments by October-ish in order to get everything ratified in time for Brexit in March 2019. That text has to have enough in it on Option B for everyone to be comfortable that it will work. The lack of progress has been mentioned several times by Barnier since December, and this draft today is probably best understood as a) an attempt to speed things up by condensing the talks to actual words on a page that can now focus things going forward, and b) a way for the EU to maintain control of the talks by providing the default base case from which the UK will look to argue for a deviation. There's no particular reason the UK couldn't have done this, but they didn't have their act together, so the European Commission did it first.

All that scary stuff in there right now about Northern Ireland is Option C. They put that in there to make absolutely sure that the Good Friday Agreement would be respected and also to focus the minds in London on making serious progress on Option B in order to avoid the current text. The key passage is Article 15 of the protocol on page 105:

Article 15
Subsequent agreement

Should a subsequent agreement between the Union and the United Kingdom which allows addressing the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, avoiding a hard border and protecting the 1998 Agreement in all its dimensions, become applicable after the entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement, this Protocol shall not apply or shall cease to apply, as the case may be, in whole or in part, from the date of entry into force of such subsequent agreement and in accordance with that agreement.

So when you see reporting about this in the papers over the coming days, keep this in mind. Option C is the back-up that had been agreed in December, and it is in this draft as a result. The draft explicitly allows for it to be replaced with Options A or B. From the EU's perspective, Option A is the preferred one. Option B is considered unrealistic, but they allow for the possibility that it can be made to work. And Option C is the unfortunate consequence of a failure of the other two options:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_STATEMENT-18-1402_en.htm

A few words on Ireland:

Our text contains the legal commitments necessary for the protection of the rights of individuals, as well as for the protection of the Common Travel Area.

These points have been already agreed between the EU and the UK.

The withdrawal agreement must also contain a solution to avoid a hard border and to protect the Good Friday Agreement in all its dimensions.

This is a joint commitment by the UK and the EU.

The Joint Report lists in paragraph 49 three options for tackling the problem.

• First, to deal with this through the agreement on the future relationship, if possible. Obviously, this solution will not be in place at the moment of withdrawal.
• Second, the UK committed to proposing specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. We look forward to receiving these proposals.
• Third, to maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the Good Friday Agreement.

This is the backstop solution that we have to put in the Withdrawal Agreement. It is the only way to guarantee that our joint commitments will be upheld in all circumstances, as the Joint Report requires.

Ladies and gentlemen,

We have applied imagination and creativity to find a specific solution to the unique challenge that Brexit poses for the protection of the Good Friday Agreement.

Two issues are key to avoid border checks:

• First, full alignment with Union law on goods, veterinary and plant health rules;
• Second, Northern Ireland has to be covered by the Union customs code.

Our approach is strictly focused on those areas where it is needed to avoid border checks.

Daily life around the border should continue as today.

As I have said before, already today Northern Ireland has rules in place that are different from the rest of the UK.

But let me repeat what I said in my last press conference: we stand by our commitment to discuss all three options set out in the Joint Report in parallel.

On all these issues, on behalf of the 27, I will continue the dialogue with the political leaders of Northern Ireland. I will meet Michelle O'Neill and Arlene Foster early next week.

https://www.dfa.ie/news-and-media/press ... agreement/

We have always been clear that our preference is to avoid a hard border through a wider future relationship agreement between the EU and the UK, a view we share with the British government. We are also committed to exploring specific solutions to be proposed by the UK. At the same time, there is now the necessary legal provision to implement the backstop of maintaining full alignment in Northern Ireland with the rules of the Single Market and Customs Union necessary to protect North South cooperation and avoid a hard border. This is very much a default and would only apply should it prove necessary. This is about delivering on our shared objectives of protecting the Good Friday Agreement and the gains of the peace process, no less, no more.

[...]

We are looking forward to the further detail which Prime Minister May is due to provide later this week. Ireland has always been clear that we want the closest possible relationship between the EU and the UK. [...]

May is due to hold the speech on Friday outlining the government's policy after the cabinet agreement from a few days ago. On the EU side, they will be desperate to hear more specific detail on how they imagine Option B to work. I fear that they won't get any, but hopefully we can all be pleasantly surprised.

[Souseiseki]

I mean, they maybe could, but that's not the reason. The reason is an EU one, which is that if you have a Customs Union, then everyone has to have a common policy on customs. Every country commits itself not to check the stuff that comes in from other member states, and you can only do that if you trust that other member state to enforce the same rules on its border as you would on your own. If the UK didn't do any customs checks on anything coming from Ireland, but did want to do customs checks on anything coming from France, and Ireland didn't do any customs checks on anything from France, then there's an inconsistency there. Otherwise, the French would just ship any non-UK compliant stuff via Ireland and the UK would never be able to find out or control that. The issue is not so much political as it is mechanical.

i don't understand. what you've said is true. but it' still explicitly there in the WTO rules as something you're not allowed to do. even if the EU exploded tomorrow and all traces of its existence disappeared you still wouldn't be allowed to do it as a member of the WTO. and if it's "mechanical" and not "political", then saying "the reason is an EU one" seems equally odd.

[Imperializt Russia]

Predictably, the release led to howls about how the EU was looking to annex Northern Ireland and so forth. May said, probably correctly, that if this implied that the UK would no longer have one set of laws, no UK government could possibly accept this as it stands.

I don't know if the UK has ever had one set of laws, but it definitely hasn't for some decades.

[Souseiseki]

scotland has had a seperate legal system since the kingdom of great britain was first formed

e: and yes, of course, devolution

[Neu Leonstein]

i don't understand. what you've said is true. but it' still explicitly there in the WTO rules as something you're not allowed to do. even if the EU exploded tomorrow and all traces of its existence disappeared you still wouldn't be allowed to do it as a member of the WTO. and if it's "mechanical" and not "political", then saying "the reason is an EU one" seems equally odd.

I think we're both right, just not completely on the same page. Under WTO rules, you can't just apply different rules to different countries willy-nilly. That's prevented by Most Favoured Nation (MFN) rules, which basically meant that you're meant to treat all WTO members equally. But this doesn't go for free trade agreements, which do amount to making differences between countries. You just have to make sure they meet with the relevant WTO rules for those, and register them with the WTO and so on. That still amounts to a restriction dictated by a foreign/international body, so you're right on that. But the reason that the UK couldn't just sign an FTA with Ireland, or enter into a bilateral customs union with Ireland, is not the WTO but the fact that Ireland is already part of the EU and the Customs Union.

I don't know if the UK has ever had one set of laws, but it definitely hasn't for some decades.

scotland has had a seperate legal system since the kingdom of great britain was first formed

e: and yes, of course, devolution

Fair point, and I paraphrased her poorly there. The gist of what she's trying to say stands though - the idea that a part of the UK will now be governed by a body of law that has to remain fully compatible with EU law (over which the UK would have no more say, no less) is obviously not exactly 'taking back control'. For the DUP, it's panic stations because it sounds like a first step towards an end of Union altogether. As long as one can maintain the characterisation that the intra-UK differences are just a 'British' affair without outside interference, differences are considered a-ok and just a reflection of different local preferences and requirements. But under Option C the differences would become much bigger (as in, customs barrier-type bigger) and of course there'd be some yucky un-Britishness about it too.

[Fartsniffage]

To be honest, we should have just binned Northern Ireland years ago. Far more trouble than it's worth.

[Hurdergaryp]

To be honest, we should have just binned Northern Ireland years ago. Far more trouble than it's worth.

A bit too late for that now, or is it?

[Fartsniffage]

To be honest, we should have just binned Northern Ireland years ago. Far more trouble than it's worth.

A bit too late for that now, or is it?

It was too late in the 60's. Ireland doesn't want that kind of trouble either.

[Eastfield Lodge]

A bit too late for that now, or is it?

It was too late in the 60's. Ireland doesn't want that kind of trouble either.

Force Northern Ireland to be independent?

[Fartsniffage]

It was too late in the 60's. Ireland doesn't want that kind of trouble either.

Force Northern Ireland to be independent?

I'm completely down with that. If it all goes off we can get some African nations to send in peace keepers.

[Dooom35796821595]

Force Northern Ireland to be independent?

I'm completely down with that. If it all goes off we can get some African nations to send in peace keepers.

What wrong with American peace keepers?

[Ifreann]

It was too late in the 60's. Ireland doesn't want that kind of trouble either.

Force Northern Ireland to be independent?

Give it to Germany.

---

I'm completely down with that. If it all goes off we can get some African nations to send in peace keepers.

What wrong with American peace keepers?

American tourists are bad enough without letting them bring their guns.

[Proctopeo]

Force Northern Ireland to be independent?

Give it to Germany.

Nah, give it to America. We need another commonwealth.

[Souseiseki]

In my experience of seeing communities dedicated to the purpose, dirty pictures of young adults are pictures solicited from women, by straight men, to be shared and distributed to other straight men. For a high-profile instance, look no further than The Fappening, or indeed the USMC revenge porn scandal last year.

isn't the fappening a counter-example to what you were saying though? as far as i know they were mostly private pictures created by women themselves that were not shared before they were stolen.

I'm certain other dynamics do exist, but not on remotely the same scale. I would argue this is a male entitlement point on sexual conquest.

it's one of the primary reasons why china's ban on porn is slowly falling apart due to the internet. women can be horny as well and will send pictures to people or broadcast pictures of themselves without first being coerced or even necessarily solicited by a male. there are communities that exist solely to trade or share pictures, but again, it must be noted that many of these pictures are in turn stolen from hacked accounts or ripped from facebook accounts with poor security as, again, there are women that make such pictures themselves because they want to.

I even pointed out that boys are being arrested for both receiving and sending porn of themselves while girls are not.

i must say the temptation to believe you is there as we already know the justice system is slanted against men on sexual issues but one does still wonder if you have actual numbers on how many boys and girls were arrested

it's feminist misandry and bigotry resulting in men have less access to childcare professions, all men, so pedophiles end up utilizing alternatives.

i am legitimately unsure how you managed to get from what i understand to be a discussion regarding what young people do with images of themselves to a discussion regarding the social stigma that men in childcare face

The rates of pedophilia are around 4% sexually aroused by the prospect for both sexes, with significantly lower numbers actually partaking, likewise at parity rates.

there is research showing that an estimated 1% of the male population have a true pedophilic preference and that number can go as high as 5% when general fantasies are included, but that is of the male population. research into male pedophilies is lacking and research into female pedophiles is borderline non-existent. unless you have specific research on female pedophiles specifically i would not recommend directly transposing research on male pedophiles onto female pedophiles. the reason for this is that the causes of pedophilia are still not known either, so it cannot be completely discounted that some difference of sexes exists. (be that more men, or indeed, more women should that happen to be the case)

Pedophilia and child abuse are very, very different things.

this is correct. statistically speaking not all pedophiles are child abusers and most child abusers are not pedophiles. your wokeness is refreshing.

It isn't "Male entitlement" that causes the dynamic you're talking about, it's feminist misandry and bigotry resulting in men have less access to childcare professions, all men, so pedophiles end up utilizing alternatives.

i mean, a cursory look at certain parts of 4chan will demonstrate that such a dynamic does exist and that the current gender roles re: men are one of the primary causes. it's not the only dynamic that exists, but i can't really say that it doesn't exist either.

This is the level of awareness being a feminist offered you. None of your peers, none of your sources, none of the people you talk to about these issues, corrected you on this notion. It took an MRA to do it.

would you be happy if i told that i'd have probably told him similar things if it had come up at the right time before? then again, i suppose i've pretty much entirely lost faith in modern feminism nowadays, so i'm not sure i count anymore.

i understand that our views on how many men are raped by whom is coloured by the current feminist narrative, but i don't think it's entirely that. the articles i tend to cite (linked above) show 14-25% of male victims of child abuse reported female perpetrators. your article also says that in one victim survey 34.7 percent of incidents with male victims had female perpetrators. this is much closer to what IR said, and i think any disagreements are better explained by the general lack of reliable statistics on the issue than feminism.

gallo says "As you well know by now, the CDC reports that each year approximately as many men are raped as women if one uses a nonsexist definition of rape (unlike them) and include men forced to penetrate women." - however, the summary of the report says "In the United States, an estimated 19.3% of women and 1.7% of men have been raped during their lifetimes" and "An estimated 43.9% of women and 23.4% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence during their lifetimes, including being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences". this is no where near close to "approximately as many". 23.4% is almost half of 43.9% using the non-sexist definition of rape. the added 1.7% using the sexist definition of rape does not really bump it up either.

the assertion that men suppressing their abuse could be the explanation behind this is interesting, and it is true that dominant gender roles cause men to suppress their abuse at a significantly higher rate than women, this falls victim to an odd caveat. in order to to say more "less than 1/5 (16%) of men with documented cases of sexual abuse considered their early experiences to be sexual abuse, compared with 64% of the sexually abused women" it is first necessary to establish they were abused even if they do not believe it to be abuse. this is the same kind of thing the victim surveys like the CDC one does, asking about specific acts instead of whether the person feels they were abused. i believe based on the methodology section of the CDC report that it was a random sample of the population as well, so whether or not the victim felt abused or previously reported their abuse does not seem to be relevant to their statistics.

based on the statistics provided by the CDC, assuming the random sample and phrasing of the questions helps to massively reduce any possible skewering of the statistics by feelings of shame or lack of feeling abused on behalf of both female and male victims, the estimated number is 53,000,000 victims for women and 25,000,000 victims for men covering all sexual violence. in the case of men rape was excluded to the small figure, but we will throw on an extra 5,000,000 (1.7% of 330,000,000) for good measure. this gives us an overall 30/83 number, which comes out as 36%.

as far as i can tell, based on the statistics regarding made to penetrate and rape an assertion that most rapes of men are done by women would be uncontroversial. but i can't see any way are current the number of rape victims that are men can reasonably be put above 35% without an unacceptably large amount of guesswork. perhaps 40-60, at a stretch.

[Imperializt Russia]

I don't see a meaningful difference between pictures consensually shared and later shared maliciously by their intended recipient, and pictures shared consensually, intercepted by a third party, and then shared maliciously by persons not the intended recipient.
Many of the images in the Fappening were "shared" as in they were sent to an intimate partner (probably), but they weren't sent as "revenge porn" by that partner, and were intercepted elsewhere.

I actually was going to make a point agreeing with Ostro on the "young boys arrested for taking pictures of their own bodies" point, but I decided to omit it because it wasn't relevant to the point I was trying to outline. Anecdotally I am aware of several cases in the US where a male below 18 has been arrested and charged with producing/possessing/distributing child pornography with regards to images of their own bodies. However there is also the distinction that in the main incident I am aware of, the male would have the charges dropped if he could reasonably demonstrate the images were indeed of himself, which would somewhat undermine Ostro's point.
However, the criticism of the base issue (arresting boys for picturing themselves) is absolutely valid, because the method of "demonstration" required in this instance was for the court to receive and examine images of the boy's erect penis, as taken by law enforcement personnel.

Which is what the actual fuck.

[Ostroeuropa]

In my experience of seeing communities dedicated to the purpose, dirty pictures of young adults are pictures solicited from women, by straight men, to be shared and distributed to other straight men. For a high-profile instance, look no further than The Fappening, or indeed the USMC revenge porn scandal last year.

isn't the fappening a counter-example to what you were saying though? as far as i know they were mostly private pictures created by women themselves that were not shared before they were stolen.

I'm certain other dynamics do exist, but not on remotely the same scale. I would argue this is a male entitlement point on sexual conquest.

it's one of the primary reasons why china's ban on porn is slowly falling apart due to the internet. women can be horny as well and will send pictures to people or broadcast pictures of themselves without first being coerced or even necessarily solicited by a male. there are communities that exist solely to trade or share pictures, but again, it must be noted that many of these pictures are in turn stolen from hacked accounts or ripped from facebook accounts with poor security as, again, there are women that make such pictures themselves because they want to.

I even pointed out that boys are being arrested for both receiving and sending porn of themselves while girls are not.

i must say the temptation to believe you is there as we already know the justice system is slanted against men on sexual issues but one does still wonder if you have actual numbers on how many boys and girls were arrested

it's feminist misandry and bigotry resulting in men have less access to childcare professions, all men, so pedophiles end up utilizing alternatives.

i am legitimately unsure how you managed to get from what i understand to be a discussion regarding what young people do with images of themselves to a discussion regarding the social stigma that men in childcare face

The rates of pedophilia are around 4% sexually aroused by the prospect for both sexes, with significantly lower numbers actually partaking, likewise at parity rates.

there is research showing that an estimated 1% of the male population have a true pedophilic preference and that number can go as high as 5% when general fantasies are included, but that is of the male population. research into male pedophilies is lacking and research into female pedophiles is borderline non-existent. unless you have specific research on female pedophiles specifically i would not recommend directly transposing research on male pedophiles onto female pedophiles. the reason for this is that the causes of pedophilia are still not known either, so it cannot be completely discounted that some difference of sexes exists. (be that more men, or indeed, more women should that happen to be the case)

Pedophilia and child abuse are very, very different things.

this is correct. statistically speaking not all pedophiles are child abusers and most child abusers are not pedophiles. your wokeness is refreshing.

It isn't "Male entitlement" that causes the dynamic you're talking about, it's feminist misandry and bigotry resulting in men have less access to childcare professions, all men, so pedophiles end up utilizing alternatives.

i mean, a cursory look at certain parts of 4chan will demonstrate that such a dynamic does exist and that the current gender roles re: men are one of the primary causes. it's not the only dynamic that exists, but i can't really say that it doesn't exist either.

This is the level of awareness being a feminist offered you. None of your peers, none of your sources, none of the people you talk to about these issues, corrected you on this notion. It took an MRA to do it.

would you be happy if i told that i'd have probably told him similar things if it had come up at the right time before? then again, i suppose i've pretty much entirely lost faith in modern feminism nowadays, so i'm not sure i count anymore.

i understand that our views on how many men are raped by whom is coloured by the current feminist narrative, but i don't think it's entirely that. the articles i tend to cite (linked above) show 14-25% of male victims of child abuse reported female perpetrators. your article also says that in one victim survey 34.7 percent of incidents with male victims had female perpetrators. this is much closer to what IR said, and i think any disagreements are better explained by the general lack of reliable statistics on the issue than feminism.

gallo says "As you well know by now, the CDC reports that each year approximately as many men are raped as women if one uses a nonsexist definition of rape (unlike them) and include men forced to penetrate women." - however, the summary of the report says "In the United States, an estimated 19.3% of women and 1.7% of men have been raped during their lifetimes" and "An estimated 43.9% of women and 23.4% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence during their lifetimes, including being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences". this is no where near close to "approximately as many". 23.4% is almost half of 43.9% using the non-sexist definition of rape. the added 1.7% using the sexist definition of rape does not really bump it up either.

the assertion that men suppressing their abuse could be the explanation behind this is interesting, and it is true that dominant gender roles cause men to suppress their abuse at a significantly higher rate than women, this falls victim to an odd caveat. in order to to say more "less than 1/5 (16%) of men with documented cases of sexual abuse considered their early experiences to be sexual abuse, compared with 64% of the sexually abused women" it is first necessary to establish they were abused even if they do not believe it to be abuse. this is the same kind of thing the victim surveys like the CDC one does, asking about specific acts instead of whether the person feels they were abused. i believe based on the methodology section of the CDC report that it was a random sample of the population as well, so whether or not the victim felt abused or previously reported their abuse does not seem to be relevant to their statistics.

based on the statistics provided by the CDC, assuming the random sample and phrasing of the questions helps to massively reduce any possible skewering of the statistics by feelings of shame or lack of feeling abused on behalf of both female and male victims, the estimated number is 53,000,000 victims for women and 25,000,000 victims for men covering all sexual violence. in the case of men rape was excluded to the small figure, but we will throw on an extra 5,000,000 (1.7% of 330,000,000) for good measure. this gives us an overall 30/83 number, which comes out as 36%.

as far as i can tell, based on the statistics regarding made to penetrate and rape an assertion that most rapes of men are done by women would be uncontroversial. but i can't see any way are current the number of rape victims that are men can reasonably be put above 35% without an unacceptably large amount of guesswork. perhaps 40-60, at a stretch.

I'll cover it better later, but for now Sous, you're including all sexual assault and sexual harrassment as rape.
Women do experience higher rates of all sexual assault and harassment if you take them both together.
When you limit it to rape, and define rape properly, the rates are equal.

This part is key;

unwanted sexual contact, and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences

Is included to bring the figures to

43.9% of women and 23.4% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence during their lifetimes

It's not guesswork. It's properly defining your terms.
Only counting rape and made to penetrate, even in the CDC study, brings us to 60-40ish, which with the addition of the repressed memory study and the study showing male child victims often erroneously report a male attacker when it was a female one, brings 50-50 into a much more plausible range.

In fact, once all methodological errors are accounted for, we even have one or two studies showing above 50% of victims are male, which is what you'd expect when the margin of error begins from a place of equality.

All errors accounted for, rape is between 40 and 53% male victims (With both of those being outliers.).