Is heterosexual hook up culture fuelling rapes on campuses?

[Esternial]

It isn't "5 yo boys", and you know it isn't so, you're just strawmanning.
It's "17 yo boys with full male privilege and a patriarchal society backing them".

Wait, what?

[Imperializt Russia]

Radical Feminists never said that statutory rape shouldn't be punished, they said, rightly, that's a different thing, it isn't the same as the way most common forms of rape.
It isn't "5 yo boys", and you know it isn't so, you're just strawmanning.
It's "17 yo boys with full male privilege and a patriarchal society backing them".

Sigh. Radfems shout endlessly about a patriarchy and yet their evidence for it's existence is shoddy at best.

Riddle me this: if we live in a rape culture then why does having rape charges levied on someone essentially ruin their name forever?

The simple explanation would be that only a tiny fraction of rapes are successfully prosecuted.

[Settrah]

Radical Feminists never said that statutory rape shouldn't be punished, they said, rightly, that's a different thing, it isn't the same as the way most common forms of rape.
It isn't "5 yo boys", and you know it isn't so, you're just strawmanning.
It's "17 yo boys with full male privilege and a patriarchal society backing them".

I know you're baiting. But still, the thought that there are people still out there that think that the concept of a 'full male privilege' (whatever that vague status of the past even means in this day and age) somehow grants someone legal powers encouraged and supported (not just turning a blind eye or making excuses, full on supported) by courts, markets and public institutions to freely go out and rape women to the point of it being a normalised and systematic accepted practice says more about people's dramaticization and perception of events than it does the actual legalities.

I.e. 1/10 balls are red, 9/10 are blue, therefore all balls are red.

[Chessmistress]

Sigh. Radfems shout endlessly about a patriarchy and yet their evidence for it's existence is shoddy at best.

Riddle me this: if we live in a rape culture then why does having rape charges levied on someone essentially ruin their name forever?

The simple explanation would be that only a tiny fraction of rapes are successfully prosecuted.

Also this.
But it's a little more complicated than just that.

It isn't "5 yo boys", and you know it isn't so, you're just strawmanning.
It's "17 yo boys with full male privilege and a patriarchal society backing them".

Wait, what?

*yawn*
Yes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge1EHcCisJI
Not anymore, this is going to end.

You're talking rubbish, we're not going to take
Another view close up; that like
What view are you talking about?
You've a cheek, you started it
I give up
You're really good
For nothing, you're talking rubbish
You see, him, he thinks i'm reaaally good

Because of boys
We put on nylon stockings
We pull each other's hair
Because of boys
And what people might say
We're always crying
Because of boys
We get worked up for real
Because of boys
Because of boys

Rifle
it's the word which comes to mind
When I think of my girl-friends
And me, I've had my fill
No joke, of your courses
Of the pill
I'm hallucinating
you ought to be vaccinated
All that for a poser (of a lad)
You're depressing, you can have him
If that's your style

Because of boys
We put on nylon stockings
Because of boys
We're always crying

It's the fault of the ma
Of the magazines
The Maries the Claires
The Marie-Claires
The Figs, the McDonald's beyond clear
The women of today and of yesterday
It's the fault of the ma
Of the magazines
The Maries, the Frances
The Marie-Frances
Practical women who aren't fed up with
Cosmo, vogue and all the rest

Because of boys
We strain our brains
We melt like ice cubes
Because of boys
I lie you lie we lie
We're slippery like soap

Because of boys
We fall out for good
Because of boys

[Balkenreich]

[Chessmistress]

Radical Feminists never said that statutory rape shouldn't be punished, they said, rightly, that's a different thing, it isn't the same as the way most common forms of rape.
It isn't "5 yo boys", and you know it isn't so, you're just strawmanning.
It's "17 yo boys with full male privilege and a patriarchal society backing them".

I know you're baiting. But still, the thought that there are people still out there that think that the concept of a 'full male privilege' (whatever that vague status of the past even means in this day and age) somehow grants someone legal powers encouraged and supported (not just turning a blind eye or making excuses, full on supported) by courts, markets and public institutions to freely go out and rape women to the point of it being a normalised and systematic accepted practice says more about people's dramaticization and perception of events than it does the actual legalities.

I.e. 1/10 balls are red, 9/10 are blue, therefore all balls are red.

AGAIN: statutory rape should be punished. Absolutely. I'm not defending rapists.
STILL: it's NOT the same thing as the normal and WAY more widespread rape.
Worth noticing that Gallo is still unable to provide me an example - A SINGLE EXAMPLE!!! - about an adult woman having sex with a 5 yo boy!!!
I can provide COUNTLESS examples of men having sex with 5 yo girls!!!
It's not the same.
It'll never be.
You're fighting a lost battle.
You know, I know.
Relax, now.

[Settrah]

I know you're baiting. But still, the thought that there are people still out there that think that the concept of a 'full male privilege' (whatever that vague status of the past even means in this day and age) somehow grants someone legal powers encouraged and supported (not just turning a blind eye or making excuses, full on supported) by courts, markets and public institutions to freely go out and rape women to the point of it being a normalised and systematic accepted practice says more about people's dramaticization and perception of events than it does the actual legalities.

I.e. 1/10 balls are red, 9/10 are blue, therefore all balls are red.

AGAIN: statutory rape should be punished. Absolutely. I'm not defending rapists.
STILL: it's NOT the same thing as the normal and WAY more widespread rape.
Worth noticing that Gallo is still unable to provide me an example - A SINGLE EXAMPLE!!! - about an adult woman having sex with a 5 yo boy!!!
I can provide COUNTLESS examples of men having sex with 5 yo girls!!!
It's not the same.
It'll never be.
You're fighting a lost battle.
You know, I know.
Relax, now.

I wasn't even referring to the statutory rape part..

Look harder.

EDIT: Actually, reading what you want to read, rather than what's actually there, kind of proves my point about radfem's misperception and exaggeration, so... no, you're good, keep doing that.

[Ebliania]

I know you're baiting. But still, the thought that there are people still out there that think that the concept of a 'full male privilege' (whatever that vague status of the past even means in this day and age) somehow grants someone legal powers encouraged and supported (not just turning a blind eye or making excuses, full on supported) by courts, markets and public institutions to freely go out and rape women to the point of it being a normalised and systematic accepted practice says more about people's dramaticization and perception of events than it does the actual legalities.

I.e. 1/10 balls are red, 9/10 are blue, therefore all balls are red.

AGAIN: statutory rape should be punished. Absolutely. I'm not defending rapists.
STILL: it's NOT the same thing as the normal and WAY more widespread rape.
Worth noticing that Gallo is still unable to provide me an example - A SINGLE EXAMPLE!!! - about an adult woman having sex with a 5 yo boy!!!
I can provide COUNTLESS examples of men having sex with 5 yo girls!!!
It's not the same.
It'll never be.
You're fighting a lost battle.
You know, I know.
Relax, now.

What, is it because he was a bit too young to meet your strict standards?

[Galloism]

I know you're baiting. But still, the thought that there are people still out there that think that the concept of a 'full male privilege' (whatever that vague status of the past even means in this day and age) somehow grants someone legal powers encouraged and supported (not just turning a blind eye or making excuses, full on supported) by courts, markets and public institutions to freely go out and rape women to the point of it being a normalised and systematic accepted practice says more about people's dramaticization and perception of events than it does the actual legalities.

I.e. 1/10 balls are red, 9/10 are blue, therefore all balls are red.

AGAIN: statutory rape should be punished. Absolutely. I'm not defending rapists.
STILL: it's NOT the same thing as the normal and WAY more widespread rape.
Worth noticing that Gallo is still unable to provide me an example - A SINGLE EXAMPLE!!! - about an adult woman having sex with a 5 yo boy!!!
I can provide COUNTLESS examples of men having sex with 5 yo girls!!!
It's not the same.
It'll never be.
You're fighting a lost battle.
You know, I know.
Relax, now.

You know it's not about 5 yo boys.
Show me a single case of a woman raping a 5 yo boy.
A single case, in USA, even from years ago.

Would be hard to find one from before the statutory rape law was changed - as a woman raping a five year old boy was not illegal.

However, here's one from a couple weeks ago, with a four year old:

http://fox17online.com/2016/08/26/michi ... r-old-son/

If radical feminists had their way, that wouldn't be illegal.

[Chessmistress]

AGAIN: statutory rape should be punished. Absolutely. I'm not defending rapists.
STILL: it's NOT the same thing as the normal and WAY more widespread rape.
Worth noticing that Gallo is still unable to provide me an example - A SINGLE EXAMPLE!!! - about an adult woman having sex with a 5 yo boy!!!
I can provide COUNTLESS examples of men having sex with 5 yo girls!!!
It's not the same.
It'll never be.
You're fighting a lost battle.
You know, I know.
Relax, now.

What, is it because he was a bit too young to meet your strict standards?

*yawn*
You keep being entitled.
It's quite funny, but even boring.
I think you'll learn it the hard way.
However, for those who are able to read French, here there's an interesting paper by a very famous anthropologist:
http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/ ... eillas.pdf
Such paper was presented on March, 15, 2000 in France, at the convention of the organization for Women's Development (one of the most important Women's organizations in France, actually fighting against FGM and surrogacy).
It explains that is absoutely true that 90% males are not needed in practically all mammals, including humans.
But it explains, and that's much more important, that the right path to follow isn't a reduction of the percentage of men, but through education: men should understand that they have to be useful and not harmful to the society, because the majority of women doesn't wish such reduction and we just only wish being treated as human beings.
It also explains a possible (and very likely) reason for patriarchy: according such anthropologist, the men, realizing the fact that most them are biologically useless for the perpetuation of the species in a natural setting, have flipped the things in their favor, through patriarchy that was meant for controlling the women.
Such anthropologist isn't an anonymous blogger, he was a very famous and respected French anthropologist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Meillassoux

Sometimes I think expalining things it's a waste of time, really.

You're obsolete, you've to prove you could be useful

[Imperializt Russia]

What, is it because he was a bit too young to meet your strict standards?

*yawn*
You keep being entitled.

You're making trying to convince people that feminism is worth anything absurdly difficult, Chess.

[Galloism]

What, is it because he was a bit too young to meet your strict standards?

*yawn*
You keep being entitled.
It's quite funny, but even boring.
I think you'll learn it the hard way.
However, for those who are able to read French, here there's an interesting paper by a very famous anthropologist:
http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/ ... eillas.pdf
Such paper was presented on March, 15, 2000 in France, at the convention of the organization for Women's Development (one of the most important Women's organizations in France, actually fighting against FGM and surrogacy).
It explains that is absoutely true that 90% males are not needed in practically all mammals, including humans.
But it explains, and that's much more important, that the right path to follow isn't a reduction of the percentage of men, but through education: men should understand that they have to be useful and not harmful to the society, because the majority of women doesn't wish such reduction and we just only wish being treated as human beings.
It also explains a possible (and very likely) reason for patriarchy: according such anthropologist, the men, realizing the fact that most them are biologically useless for the perpetuation of the species in a natural setting, have flipped the things in their favor, through patriarchy that was meant for controlling the women.
Such anthropologist isn't an anonymous blogger, he was a very famous and respected French anthropologist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Meillassoux

Sometimes I think expalining things it's a waste of time, really.

You're obsolete, you've to prove you could be useful

Yay!

More sexism and how men are worthless because of their gender.

Can you call for extermination next? Please? Please? This will complete my 'sexism in feminism' bingo card.

[Galloism]

*yawn*
You keep being entitled.

You're making trying to convince people that feminism is worth anything absurdly difficult, Chess.

There's a reason why Gauthier is so convinced in his theory.

I'm not so convinced, although I totally get his argument. See - this kind of insanely outrageous sexism is not all that uncommon on the internet from people who claim to be feminist.

Whether they are or not... Gauthier and I have a different opinion. Let's just say it's Poe's law in action.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

What, is it because he was a bit too young to meet your strict standards?

*yawn*
You keep being entitled.
It's quite funny, but even boring.
I think you'll learn it the hard way.
However, for those who are able to read French, here there's an interesting paper by a very famous anthropologist:
http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/ ... eillas.pdf
Such paper was presented on March, 15, 2000 in France, at the convention of the organization for Women's Development (one of the most important Women's organizations in France, actually fighting against FGM and surrogacy).
It explains that is absoutely true that 90% males are not needed in practically all mammals, including humans.
But it explains, and that's much more important, that the right path to follow isn't a reduction of the percentage of men, but through education: men should understand that they have to be useful and not harmful to the society, because the majority of women doesn't wish such reduction and we just only wish being treated as human beings.
It also explains a possible (and very likely) reason for patriarchy: according such anthropologist, the men, realizing the fact that most them are biologically useless for the perpetuation of the species in a natural setting, have flipped the things in their favor, through patriarchy that was meant for controlling the women.
Such anthropologist isn't an anonymous blogger, he was a very famous and respected French anthropologist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Meillassoux

Sometimes I think expalining things it's a waste of time, really.

You're obsolete, you've to prove you could be useful

nvm

[Costa Fierro]

That's due women empowerment

No it isn't. It's a hijacking of a movement that should be promoting equality but instead promotes superiority and sexism against men and against women.

and it clearly shows that Radical Feminists ideas were the best suited to women's needs

Except they aren't. Radical feminism is not suited to anything other than some sort of authoritarian dystopia and it is very concerning that they are increasing their political influence with their authoritarian ideas that seek to both harm men and women.

while the "liberal feminists" ideas were just a way to being subservient to the patriarchy through a social model basically unsuited to women's needs because it was based on the idea of women acting like men instead of changing the society in order to better suit to women's needs:

Changing the society to suit "women's needs" is both idiotic and just a way for people like you to force your own beliefs onto the population whether they want them or not.

One thing I have noticed with you and others like you is that you project a paternalistic attitude on others, that you assume you know what's best for them. Tell me, radical feminists claim to protect and respect women's agency and capacity to make their own decisions, correct? So why do you deny women's agency with regards to pornography and prostitution? Is a woman's agency only valid when she makes decisions that you approve of?

an example being prostitution, a society suited to women's needs is a society criminalising men who buys women's bodies, not a society were women are "free" (aka: economically blackmailed) to sell their bodies and their dignity.

Ah, I have my answer. So you do not believe in women's agency if they make decisions that you do not approve of? How paternal of you.

It'll be the same with pornography, less than 20 years from now, women the role of women within society will be stronger than now (women are nowadays 35% more likely than men to have a college degree, and projections confirms that it'll be about 50% in the year 2020).

Few things. One, it will not be the same with pornography, because contrary to your skewed idea of how society is progressing, there's very little evidence that pornography is harmful.

Two, the reason why women have more tertiary education participation is that the school system has been redesigned to benefit women and girls. And this is a problem, because men are falling behind at significant rates. This isn't a good thing if you want an equal society, which I do.

No one is "threatening" nor "harassing" the so-called "liberal feminists": calling out their bullshit isn't "harassment".

It's not "calling out their bullshit" if people threaten to kill someone.

They had their role and their time, now women's needs are well beyond their outdated ideas.

Actually "liberal" feminism is more relevant to woman than your brand of genetalia supremacy. Not that it matters because I hope that all rational thinking people will fight tooth and nail to ensure that you and others like you will never reach a position of power.

[Chessmistress]

*yawn*
You keep being entitled.
It's quite funny, but even boring.
I think you'll learn it the hard way.
However, for those who are able to read French, here there's an interesting paper by a very famous anthropologist:
http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/ ... eillas.pdf
Such paper was presented on March, 15, 2000 in France, at the convention of the organization for Women's Development (one of the most important Women's organizations in France, actually fighting against FGM and surrogacy).
It explains that is absoutely true that 90% males are not needed in practically all mammals, including humans.
But it explains, and that's much more important, that the right path to follow isn't a reduction of the percentage of men, but through education: men should understand that they have to be useful and not harmful to the society, because the majority of women doesn't wish such reduction and we just only wish being treated as human beings.
It also explains a possible (and very likely) reason for patriarchy: according such anthropologist, the men, realizing the fact that most them are biologically useless for the perpetuation of the species in a natural setting, have flipped the things in their favor, through patriarchy that was meant for controlling the women.
Such anthropologist isn't an anonymous blogger, he was a very famous and respected French anthropologist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Meillassoux

Sometimes I think expalining things it's a waste of time, really.

You're obsolete, you've to prove you could be useful

Yay!

More sexism and how men are worthless because of their gender.

Can you call for extermination next? Please? Please? This will complete my 'sexism in feminism' bingo card.

No. No. No.
There's no such thing as "extermination".
There never will be.
I would even oppose it.
You still don't understand.
We just wish to being treated as human beings.
What's so difficult to understand?

[Galloism]

What's so difficult to understand?

How you can willfully refuse to accept reality when we've made you stare it in the face in extreme statistical detail.

I mean, that's probably the biggest mystery to me.

[Ebliania]

*snip for being potentially actionable*

[Settrah]

women are nowadays 35% more likely than men to have a college degree

Sorry but what? Where did this come from?

[Ebliania]

What's so difficult to understand?

How you can willfully refuse to accept reality when we've made you stare it in the face in extreme statistical detail.

I mean, that's probably the biggest mystery to me.

When I think about it, she's just as bad as the racists. "Obsolete" just sounds like a white supremacist talking about blacks.

[Galloism]

How you can willfully refuse to accept reality when we've made you stare it in the face in extreme statistical detail.

I mean, that's probably the biggest mystery to me.

When I think about it, she's just as bad as the racists. "Obsolete" just sounds like a white supremacist talking about blacks.

Let's be careful to attack the post, not the poster.

Her posts sound very similar to things said by racists, yes. This is because bigotry tends to follow very established trends, and it always involves a dehumanization or a devaluation of the target of said bigotry, and therefore an excuse to treat them in a way that you don't have to treat 'proper' humans, which, in this case, means women.

[Costa Fierro]

We just wish to being treated as human beings.

Women already are treated as human beings. But people like you don't want that. You want more. You want power over men. You want to control their lives, to dictate what they can and cannot do in the same way men used to do the same a century ago. You don't want empowerment. You don't want equality. You want revenge.

[Settrah]

Yay!

More sexism and how men are worthless because of their gender.

Can you call for extermination next? Please? Please? This will complete my 'sexism in feminism' bingo card.

No. No. No.
There's no such thing as "extermination".
There never will be.
I would even oppose it.
You still don't understand.
We just wish to being treated as human beings.
What's so difficult to understand?

Because you perceive your oppression as greater than it actually is, thus wish to rise yourself up first so you can be on the same 'level' as your oppressors. But in this current day and age, the gap isn't as big as your ideology suggests. In reality, your ideology is pushing for you to be MORE than your previous oppressors, and the bombshell of the reality behind it all is that the 'oppressors' can just as easily be grassroot individuals also downtrodden by the man just like any other. You think you're rising to equality, but you're actually thinking only of yourself and adopting a callous attitude to any other. And because of this, your movement earns hostility.

If I'm honest I actually feel bad about all of this, because I'm sure you're probably a really nice person in real life, in normal situations. It's just the toxicity of the radical collective ideologies talking, not yourself per-say. It's noble that you're well intentioned, it's just grossly misplaced.

[Chessmistress]

How you can willfully refuse to accept reality when we've made you stare it in the face in extreme statistical detail.

I mean, that's probably the biggest mystery to me.

When I think about it, she's just as bad as the racists. "Obsolete" just sounds like a white supremacist talking about blacks.

You still don't get the facts, more entitlement.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... en/308135/

Ericsson, now 74, laughed when I read him these quotes from his old antagonist. Seldom has it been so easy to prove a dire prediction wrong. In the ’90s, when Ericsson looked into the numbers for the two dozen or so clinics that use his process, he discovered, to his surprise, that couples were requesting more girls than boys, a gap that has persisted, even though Ericsson advertises the method as more effective for producing boys. In some clinics, Ericsson has said, the ratio is now as high as 2 to 1. Polling data on American sex preference is sparse, and does not show a clear preference for girls. But the picture from the doctor’s office unambiguously does. A newer method for sperm selection, called MicroSort, is currently completing Food and Drug Administration clinical trials. The girl requests for that method run at about 75 percent.

Even more unsettling for Ericsson, it has become clear that in choosing the sex of the next generation, he is no longer the boss. “It’s the women who are driving all the decisions,” he says—a change the MicroSort spokespeople I met with also mentioned. At first, Ericsson says, women who called his clinics would apologize and shyly explain that they already had two boys. “Now they just call and [say] outright, ‘I want a girl.’ These mothers look at their lives and think their daughters will have a bright future their mother and grandmother didn’t have, brighter than their sons, even, so why wouldn’t you choose a girl?”

I do NOT want that.

[Luminesa]

What, is it because he was a bit too young to meet your strict standards?

*yawn*
You keep being entitled.
It's quite funny, but even boring.
I think you'll learn it the hard way.
However, for those who are able to read French, here there's an interesting paper by a very famous anthropologist:
http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/ ... eillas.pdf
Such paper was presented on March, 15, 2000 in France, at the convention of the organization for Women's Development (one of the most important Women's organizations in France, actually fighting against FGM and surrogacy).
It explains that is absoutely true that 90% males are not needed in practically all mammals, including humans.
But it explains, and that's much more important, that the right path to follow isn't a reduction of the percentage of men, but through education: men should understand that they have to be useful and not harmful to the society, because the majority of women doesn't wish such reduction and we just only wish being treated as human beings.
It also explains a possible (and very likely) reason for patriarchy: according such anthropologist, the men, realizing the fact that most them are biologically useless for the perpetuation of the species in a natural setting, have flipped the things in their favor, through patriarchy that was meant for controlling the women.
Such anthropologist isn't an anonymous blogger, he was a very famous and respected French anthropologist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Meillassoux

Sometimes I think expalining things it's a waste of time, really.

You're obsolete, you've to prove you could be useful

1.) It takes two to tango, if you know what I mean. You got here because of a man and a woman, as did everyone here. The father is literally "pater", the "point-of-origin".

2.) Fathers not being in the house is statistically proven to cause an increase in crime rates in the children.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/200 ... rime.penal

Males are indeed needed, just as the ladies are. Radical feminists have pushed men away so much that now we are a country of deadbeat dads, fathers who are afraid to take a stand for anything out of fear of being called the bad guy. Over half of the U.S.'s children have no fathers in the home. Telling men that they are essentially useless is not going to change that, either.

Rather than pushing men away even more by saying they are unnecessary for anything, why not call them back and call them to stand up and be strong figures in the home? Oh wait. That's promoting the patriarchy. We can't do that, can we?

See how this works? "Don't curse the darkness, bless the light."