What is "Rape Culture"?

iceaura said:
It should also be trivial that they are 1) comparatively rare and 2) dependent on a prevalence of rape that cannot exist without a protective and enabling culture.
Click to expand...

(2) is a claim that warrants supporting evidence. You seem to be claiming that criminality (and that is what we are talking about here) is 'dependent on...a protective and enabling culture'. Or are you making a special pleading for rape?

Your source did not even include the word "drunk", the key feature of your attempted deception via false claims.
Click to expand...

Mental incapacity is when someone cannot understand relevant information or cannot appreciate what may happen as a result of decisions they make

drunk
1. intoxicated with alcohol to the extent of losing control over normal physical and mental functions
​
You tell me how these significantly differ. Is the inability to understand relevant information and appreciate the results of decisions any different from losing control over one's mental functions?

The opposite, of course. You have it exactly backwards.
Click to expand...

So if Labeling Theory is correct, it is creating more potential rapists.
 
syne said:
When we first started discussing this issue you claimed that the prevalence of the threat of rape wasn't relevant to establishing whether a rape culture existed
Click to expand...
No, I didn't. I said that the actual rate of accomplished rape lacked such relevance, and I made a big deal out of you and others attempting to avoid the central issue of threat by skittering off into some bs discussion of exactly how many rapes had been committed.

Which you immediately attempt once again:
syne said:
Claiming that the phenomenon of male-perpetrated rape (which only a small fraction of men engage in)
Click to expand...
In a rape culture, a very large fraction of men threaten rape. Possibly all of them, depending on the culture. That is a problem.
syne said:
can only be explained by either all men having a biological inclination to rape, or by a nebulous 'rape culture', is a false dichotomy and a straw-man .
Click to expand...
If you deny the role of culture, you are left with the role of biology. That is your dichotomy.
syne said:
(2) is a claim that warrants supporting evidence.
Click to expand...
Which you have been provided, throughout this and related threads, sufficient to choke a horse.
syne said:
You seem to be claiming that criminality (and that is what we are talking about here) is 'dependent on...a protective and enabling culture'.
Click to expand...
No, I don't. I explicitly claim that the observed prevalence of rape requires a protective and enabling culture.

(To forestall your next round of bs: The observed threat of rape establishes the culture, as pointed out earlier. The response at hand was to the recent post addressed. Try to keep track of the direction of implication, the matter at hand, etc: that the threat of rape is sufficient to establish the existence of a rape culture was settled earlier. The prevalence of actual rape need only be high enough to establish the threat. That it is much higher than that is the claim at hand).
syne said:
You tell me how these significantly differ.
Click to expand...
Men can commit rape while drunk. They can't commit rape when incapacitated. You wanted to obscure the distinction between perpetrator and victim, so you altered the vocabulary of the law you cited.

Perpetrators demonstrate consent by committing the crime.
syne said:
"The opposite, of course. You have it exactly backwards."
So if Labeling Theory is correct, it is creating more potential rapists.
Click to expand...
You are repeating yourself. Still backwards. You have to change direction, to avoid having it backwards.
 
Last edited:
iceaura said:
No, I didn't. I said that the actual rate of accomplished rape lacked such relevance, and I made a big deal out of you and others attempting to avoid the central issue of threat by skittering off into some bs discussion of exactly how many rapes had been committed.

Which you immediately attempt once again: In a rape culture, a very large fraction of men threaten rape. Possibly all of them, depending on the culture. That is a problem. If you deny the role of culture, you are left with the role of biology. That is your dichotomy.
Click to expand...

All this is a reply to quotes misattributed to me.

Which you have been provided, throughout this and related threads, sufficient to choke a horse.
Click to expand...

All I've seen is purely anecdotal.

No, I don't. I explicitly claim that the observed prevalence of rape requires a protective and enabling culture.

(To forestall your next round of bs: The observed threat of rape establishes the culture, as pointed out earlier. The response at hand was to the recent post addressed. Try to keep track of the direction of implication, the matter at hand, etc: that the threat of rape is sufficient to establish the existence of a rape culture was settled earlier. The prevalence of actual rape need only be high enough to establish the threat. That it is much higher than that is the claim at hand).
Click to expand...

Observed prevalence? As opposed to actual prevalence? If the observed threat alone establishes the 'rape culture' then people who promote the idea of 'rape culture' are, de facto, establishing that culture. Not coincidentally, 'rape culture' advocates also dishonestly skew the rape statistic using 'sexual assault' as a blanket term to cover much more than rape, and then using 'rape' and 'sexual assault' interchangeably.

Men can commit rape while drunk. They can't commit rape when incapacitated. You wanted to obscure the distinction between perpetrator and victim, so you altered the vocabulary of the law you cited.

Perpetrators demonstrate consent by committing the crime.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between 'incapacitated' and 'mentally incapacitated'. Maybe you don't understand that? The question is, can a woman give consent while equally intoxicated?

You are repeating yourself. Still backwards. You have to change direction, to avoid having it backwards.
Click to expand...

If rape is not a natural inclination (as you seem to agree), then how does treating all males as potential criminals not induce more criminality?
 
syne said:
All I've seen is purely anecdotal.
Click to expand...
Get your eyes checked.
syne said:
If the observed threat alone establishes the 'rape culture' then people who promote the idea of 'rape culture' are, de facto, establishing that culture.
Click to expand...
Because observing and naming something brings it into existence, in wingnut world. It's like a Harry Potter movie.
syne said:
There is a difference between 'incapacitated' and 'mentally incapacitated'. Maybe you don't understand that?
Click to expand...
No one who is incapacitated can physically commit a crime. If they commit the crime, they were not incapacitated.
syne said:
The question is, can a woman give consent while equally intoxicated?
Click to expand...
A woman cannot legally consent when incapacitated. Neither can a man.

One can imagine circumstances in which someone who could not legally consent to sex could legally commit rape. So?
syne said:
There is a difference between 'incapacitated' and 'mentally incapacitated'
Click to expand...
The one is a general term, the other is a specific subcategory.
syne said:
Not coincidentally, 'rape culture' advocates also dishonestly skew the rape statistic using 'sexual assault' as a blanket term to cover much more than rape, and then using 'rape' and 'sexual assault' interchangeably.
Click to expand...
They should not do that. So?

syne said:
All this is a reply to quotes misattributed to me.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah - that was Tali. Sorry about that. Good to see you disown them, and agree with my objections - progress.
 
¿Rape Rally Ruined?

​

"Yes, dopey 'men's rights activism' is still a thing, and almost every opportunity we are given to not give them the validation they so desperately crave should be embraced wholeheartedly. But every now and then, when the irony is just too rich, we can also permit ourselves a moment to say, Oh, you felt too concerned for your safety to hold your little rape rally? That must be so hard for you."


The thing is one can only wonder just what these jokers are hoping to capitalize on. That is to say, should we imagine a massive turnout for a pro-rape secret society, what, really, would that say about the human condition?

A year ago, Roosh penned an essay in which he offered a modest proposal: “Make rape legal if done on private property. I propose that we make the violent taking of a woman not punishable by law when done off public grounds.” He went on to explain, “Let’s make rape legal. Less women will be raped because they won’t voluntarily drug themselves with booze and follow a strange man into a bedroom, and less men will be unfairly jailed for what was anything but a maniacal alley rape.” Somehow this didn’t quite make it to the Supreme Court. (Also, it’s “fewer.”) But in January, he announced an International Meetup Day On February 6, 2016, promising, “will be the start of regular meetups that serve men in a way that internet sites do not.”

The plan, proposed for “heterosexual, masculine men” to gather for “165 meetings in 43 countries,” featured a secret code question fellow manly men could ask to signal each other — “Do you know where I can find a pet shop?” They were then to proceed to the “final location,” where, ostensibly, all three of them would say stuff like, “Bitches, man, am I right?” in bro solidarity. But while Roosh insisted that “Tribal meetings will not tolerate the promotion of illegal actions and will not engage in violence,” he also did vow that “I will exact furious retribution upon anyone who challenges you in public on that date.”

Unsurprisingly, this put a lot of other people in the awkward position of having to wonder exactly how much attention to give to these sorry clowns. School officials at Loyola quite responsibly warned students to “prepare you for, and call attention to, a controversial event happening” near the campus. Yet others resolved to ignore what, as a friend of mine put it, would likely amount to a handful of losers trying to find each other near the dog run. Writing in The Stranger Wednesday, Sydney Brownstone nailed the conundrum by explaining, “While the majority of people might be turned off by Roosh V’s rhetoric, all he needs is for the conflict to hit a level of media saturation so that it reaches the men out there feeling most alienated and most rejected by women and general society. These are the people Roosh V recruits for his men’s rights bulls__t. He preys on people who have socialization issues, or issues with women, then exploits their fears and personal tragedies for the benefit of his personal brand.”

But it turned there was a different, more powerful fear to be considered. On Wednesday, Roosh posted an announcement that “I can no longer guarantee the safety or privacy of the men who want to attend on February 6, especially since most of the meetups can not be made private in time. While I can’t stop men who want to continue meeting in private groups, there will be no official Return Of Kings meetups.” So much for furious retribution. As a Buzzfeed commenter astutely asked, “What kind of world do we live in when wanna-be rapists can’t feel safe in their own anti-woman/anti-gay meeting?” Writer Laurie Penny observed, “‘Pro-rape’ groups cancel their meetups because people threatened to attack and shout at them. Guys, you wouldn’t last five minutes as women.” And Glasgow South MP Stewart McDonald said, “Frankly, if you were planning to attend then you’re a halfwit.”

(Williams↱)​

Seriously, who are they appealing to? What do they hope to accomplish? I mean, if the bet is, "Yeah, that many men in the world want to rape," the obvious question asserts itself: Why?

Why would anyone make that bet?
____________________

Notes:

Williams, Mary Elizabeth. "Let the ironic male tears fall: The 'make rape legal' guys cancel meetups because they don’t feel safe". Salon. 4 February 2016. Salon.com. 5 February 2016. http://bit.ly/1K3MdTz
 
¿Get the Picture?

​

Dearest Brothers:

It might seem a bit basic: If you don't like being viewed as creepy and dangerous, don't act like it.

Or, Robot Hugs↱ presents, "Risky Date".

The setup, from the transcript:

― So I'm looking forward to finally meeting you this weekend!

Me too! Where should we meet?

― Where do you live? I'll pick you up and we can go back to my place.

Actually, let's meet downtown. There's a bar I like on college street― or is there somewhere you'd prefer to grab a drink or a coffee?

― It's no problem, I can pick you up and we can hang out at my house. I mix a mean martini.

I'd really rather meet downtown in a bar or something. That would be a lot more comfortable for me for our first meeting.

― … Wow, I think it's pretty messed up that you're just default assuming I'm a creepy rapist or something.

Sigh.

Sometimes, in my head, we have a conversation about this. It goes like this ....​

What follows is a long explanation of what's wrong with the (ahem!) gentleman's approach. You know, because women need to explain the hell out of everything for unsatisfied men. (I think it's in the Bible, somewhere, like the Book of Dick.) Don't worry, though, guys; the long explanation is made much easier because it comes with pictures. And, actually, it's worth noting how interesting it is the first time GIMP tells you the image you're working with measures 1181 x 20873 pixels. Yeah, I know, GIMP talk isn't as sexy as gearhead chatter. Deal with it.

Still, though, apparently women need to explain this stuff because enough men in their lives just don't get it.

Then again, maybe the analogies to driving a car or wandering through a plump of ducks really are too complex.

C'mon, boys. Don't make me feel like a fucking genius, here; my delicate ego inflates faster than the wasted flesh between your legs.

Oh, and for the record, if you happen to be the type to actually come right out and state your indignance about how messed up you think she is because you think she's just assuming by default that you're a rapist, you're only going to reinforce her suspicions. No, seriously, you should be able to figure that one out without being told. But, hey, she's a woman and you're a man, and that means she needs to explain every little thing under the sun until you're satisfied, right?

Wrong.

Like the lady said:

​
____________________

Notes:

RH. "Risky Date". Robot Hugs. 4 December 2014. Robot-Hugs.com. 3 May 2016. http://bit.ly/1VJqxQT
 
http://www.rookiemag.com/2015/02/how-to-tell-creepy-dudes-to-leave-you-alone/

One of the problems is social conditioning of women to be 'polite' or else she is stigmatized/demonized. It's important that women not be politically correct when it comes to invasive people feigning it's general social etiquette/friendliness. of course you can tell this by the fact perpetrators/predators ignore cues and trample upon them to keep on. this puts the burden on the victim to play nice/unfair tolerance to their supposed ignorance or naievety when it's their very ruse/tactic that is being used to harass further, in the first place.

how about just having the right to be a mean, hostile, and nasty to someone that keeps annoying you unsolicited? i think that's fair enough. sure, there are men who will try to paint such women as crazy, bitches, aggressive, unladylike, selfish etc but it's better to be disliked for your truth, digntiy and safety than to be liked or accepted for a lie and lack of self-respect.

the other issue is there are plenty women who give birth to these creeps and scum that violate and hurt other women and that is disgusting just as much.
 
Last edited:
Thats why females ( never liked " women " , notice the " men " in women ) have become stronger physically and mentally , good for them .

And any girls should , when very young , should study Judo . At least .
 
I think what happened was liberalism tried to make males unnatural; force boys to play with dolls. The liberals work under the erroneous assumption sex is all relative and not part of a natural design. Women went along with this and tried to turn their boys into he-she, thinking this would make males more compliant to the needs and ambitions of women. The opposite has happened in terms of many men.

If you look at the WWII generation of men, they were much more masculine, but they were also very respectful of the women. The modern state of affairs was rare among these real men. The modern he-she has too much of the female queen bee conditioned into them, which means more selfish and self centered. The solution is to let males become natural again, instead of socially creating fake males, who are at odds with themselves and therefore at odds with others. The entire topic is about one more social problem the left has created, that did not exist before they tried to tamper with natural.

The problem that women face is they have a choice of real men who can over compete, but who are respectful to the limitations of women, compared to fake men who can't compete, and therefore need to cheat to win. The Liberal break up of the family unit helped this get started, since it got rid of the natural male example for the young men, and replaced it with he-she males and women.

Once the swamp has been drained and the educational system is restored, these problems will subside.
 
wellwisher said:
I think what happened was liberalism tried to make males unnatural; force boys to play with dolls. The liberals work under the erroneous assumption sex is all relative and not part of a natural design. Women went along with this and tried to turn their boys into he-she, thinking this would make males more compliant to the needs and ambitions of women. The opposite has happened in terms of many men.

If you look at the WWII generation of men, they were much more masculine, but they were also very respectful of the women. The modern state of affairs was rare among these real men. The modern he-she has too much of the female queen bee conditioned into them, which means more selfish and self centered. The solution is to let males become natural again, instead of socially creating fake males, who are at odds with themselves and therefore at odds with others. The entire topic is about one more social problem the left has created, that did not exist before they tried to tamper with natural.

The problem that women face is they have a choice of real men who can over compete, but who are respectful to the limitations of women, compared to fake men who can't compete, and therefore need to cheat to win. The Liberal break up of the family unit helped this get started, since it got rid of the natural male example for the young men, and replaced it with he-she males and women.

Once the swamp has been drained and the educational system is restored, these problems will subside.
Click to expand...

i find your way of thinking disgusting but i hope you are not a female as that would be atrocious as well as disgusting. you are so erroneous, it's hard to pick your convoluted mess of long-winded devilry bs. generation of men from WWII generation? Their sense of patriarchal entitlement and oppression of women were even worse. The most sexist, disrespectful and oppressive males i've ever known was from those eras, you buffoon!

You must be one ugly or dykish ass bitch to post such crap as well as give birth to more sexist caveman type males. Since their mothers were not really feminine, they have no respect for feminine women but they sure want them. pfft. It's usually the ones who don't ever get hit on or experience male harassment and predation that have such views.
 
wellwisher said:
I think what happened was liberalism tried to make males unnatural; force boys to play with dolls. The liberals work under the erroneous assumption sex is all relative and not part of a natural design. Women went along with this and tried to turn their boys into he-she, thinking this would make males more compliant to the needs and ambitions of women. The opposite has happened in terms of many men.

If you look at the WWII generation of men, they were much more masculine, but they were also very respectful of the women. The modern state of affairs was rare among these real men. The modern he-she has too much of the female queen bee conditioned into them, which means more selfish and self centered. The solution is to let males become natural again, instead of socially creating fake males, who are at odds with themselves and therefore at odds with others. The entire topic is about one more social problem the left has created, that did not exist before they tried to tamper with natural.

The problem that women face is they have a choice of real men who can over compete, but who are respectful to the limitations of women, compared to fake men who can't compete, and therefore need to cheat to win. The Liberal break up of the family unit helped this get started, since it got rid of the natural male example for the young men, and replaced it with he-she males and women.

Once the swamp has been drained and the educational system is restored, these problems will subside.
Click to expand...
That is so stupid you have to know of the documentary:
beforehand to get a rise out of others.
 
Last edited:
wellwisher said:
I think what happened was liberalism tried to make males unnatural; force boys to play with dolls. The liberals work under the erroneous assumption sex is all relative and not part of a natural design. Women went along with this and tried to turn their boys into he-she, thinking this would make males more compliant to the needs and ambitions of women. The opposite has happened in terms of many men.

If you look at the WWII generation of men, they were much more masculine, but they were also very respectful of the women. The modern state of affairs was rare among these real men. The modern he-she has too much of the female queen bee conditioned into them, which means more selfish and self centered. The solution is to let males become natural again, instead of socially creating fake males, who are at odds with themselves and therefore at odds with others. The entire topic is about one more social problem the left has created, that did not exist before they tried to tamper with natural.

The problem that women face is they have a choice of real men who can over compete, but who are respectful to the limitations of women, compared to fake men who can't compete, and therefore need to cheat to win. The Liberal break up of the family unit helped this get started, since it got rid of the natural male example for the young men, and replaced it with he-she males and women.

Once the swamp has been drained and the educational system is restored, these problems will subside.
Click to expand...

Yes, WWII generation was much more "masculine" and "respectful of women" - when wives spoke out of line, they got beaten. When women said "No", men pushed them to the couch/bed and had their way with them anyway. When a man pissed another man off, the natural response was a fistfight, if not a gunfight. PTSD was "not real" and people suffering from it were told to "stop being a pussy" and to "man up". In school, boys were told what they were going to do; if they didn't excel at sports, they were mocked and tortured by their more athletic peers.

Wellwisher, it is YOUR line of thinking that is the root cause of the mass shootings and shit we are dealing with today. Congratulations - you get to own that.

Guess what - amazing architectural feats aren't designed by Jocks. Leaps in scientific progress and the advances in modern medicine are NOT discovered by the "I pick them up and put them down" football crowd. The "masculine man" is a fucking neanderthal and you know what - it is a GOOD THING that archetype is dying out. There is no place for them in society anymore. We've seen their course in the world - two fucking world wars were caused by those kind of "my way or the highway" thinking "manly men".

Enough is enough. Wellwisher, you desire us to go back to a bygone error - NO. NO I SAY. I and ALL intelligent folk will fight you to, to our dying breath, to stop society from devolving backward into such a state.

Males are becoming more natural - it is NOT natural to have to suppress every emotion besides joy and anger; in fact, that is the kind of bullshit thinking that leads to people snapping and going postal. Do you think it's "natural" for men to go on a rampage at a fucking elementary school? To walk in and start shooting YOUNG CHILDREN?

Seriously Wellwisher, get off your high and mighty horse - it's nothing more than a 2x4 strapped to a pair of cheap planks.

When the last of your line of thinking dies out, and believe me, in time it will... the collective intellectual community at large will say "good riddance" and move on to better things.

PS - the left did not create rape culture - your disgusting, pig-headed, misogynistic, bullshit-fed, right-wing-faux-news-diet jack-booted wannabe cult did. Congratulations Wellwisher - YOU and YOUR KIND are the catalyst that is trying to destroy America, Society at large, and our very way of life.

Go take a long walk off a short pier, and don't come back.

[/rant]
 
Well c'mon wellwisher, take me there, argue with me. Tell me what you want me to believe.
 
It Is Not Proper to Laugh at Such Danger


Click apropos incongruity.​

wellwisher said:
I think what happened was liberalism tried to make males unnatural; force boys to play with dolls. The liberals work under the erroneous assumption sex is all relative and not part of a natural design. Women went along with this and tried to turn their boys into he-she, thinking this would make males more compliant to the needs and ambitions of women. The opposite has happened in terms of many men.

If you look at the WWII generation of men, they were much more masculine, but they were also very respectful of the women. The modern state of affairs was rare among these real men. The modern he-she has too much of the female queen bee conditioned into them, which means more selfish and self centered. The solution is to let males become natural again, instead of socially creating fake males, who are at odds with themselves and therefore at odds with others. The entire topic is about one more social problem the left has created, that did not exist before they tried to tamper with natural.

The problem that women face is they have a choice of real men who can over compete, but who are respectful to the limitations of women, compared to fake men who can't compete, and therefore need to cheat to win. The Liberal break up of the family unit helped this get started, since it got rid of the natural male example for the young men, and replaced it with he-she males and women.

Once the swamp has been drained and the educational system is restored, these problems will subside.
Click to expand...

And now we know why Republicans are the Party of Rape Culture. That misogyny and male supremacism are among attitudes slated for decline—to go away—is part of what those sixty-two million nine hundred eighty-four thousand eight hundred twenty-five votes were about. And it's true, the November election was a powerful outcry, but it was also a lament; these attitudes are unsustainable unless we really do intend to return these United States of America to prior centuries. Then again, why should it be the fifteenth?

Honestly, the bit about primal masculine fear of vagina is really, really difficult to even try to explain. To wit, I'm enjoying the hell out of some paragraphs from Magee's The Haunted Muse (pp. 4-6, and the introduction generally↱), but trying to explain them is something else entirely. Like the footnote on pages four and five:

Carol Karlsen spends considerable time examining the reasons for and implications of the intense focus on women as vessels for demonic possession and witchcraft in the Malleus. She states, "In sum, women became witches because they wre born female, not male, because they were dissatisfied with their natural inadequacies and limitations, and because they wanted revenge and retribution badly enough to sell their souls for it".​

Here we are in the twenty-first century, and we couldn't possibly ... imagine ... anyone ... believing ... er ... ah ... (sigh) ....

Or, you know, this part:

Gilmore goes on to argue that the ubiquity of misogyny does not always necessarily arise from attempts to 'dominate or politically control women'. Instead, he sees that much of the fear and hatred of women is due to a psychic struggle by men to 'diminish the importance of the object of man's inner struggle'. In other words, men attempt to gain control of their desires by turning the object of their desire into something dark, horrifying, and worthy of contempt.

(6)​

And, you know, literary analysis is as literary analysis does. And the psychoanalytic meaning of history is, well, the psychoanalytic meaning of history. But there is a reason these analyses keep coming up. The records of our societal endeavors pretty much bleed this stuff.

What is anyone else supposed to think when some joker determined to play the village idiot steps up and willingly performs this he-man screeching diva o! God please save him from the evils of woman pantomime?

I would very much like to throw my Republican neighbors a scrap of dignity insofar as, you know, it's not necessarily their fault that their party is where supremacists feel more at home, except, well, it actually is. Conservatives have been pitching this stuff, hoping to attract and reinforce these influences, my whole life, and I'm pretty sure it didn't coincidentally just happen to start right about then.

The thing is, that's kind of the nature of conservatism. You know, historically speaking.
____________________

Notes:

Magee, Richard M. The Haunted Muse: Gothic and Sentiment in American Literature. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016.

― Books.Google.com. 7 June 2017. https://books.google.com/books?id=qjb5DAAAQBAJ​
 
wellwisher said:
I think what happened was liberalism tried to make males unnatural; force boys to play with dolls. The liberals work under the erroneous assumption sex is all relative and not part of a natural design. Women went along with this and tried to turn their boys into he-she, thinking this would make males more compliant to the needs and ambitions of women. The opposite has happened in terms of many men.
Click to expand...
One can only hazard a guess at the type of abuse you suffered as a child, that would ensure you would grow up to say things like this.

Or perhaps you were just born a giant arsehole.

wellwisher said:
If you look at the WWII generation of men, they were much more masculine, but they were also very respectful of the women.
Click to expand...
If by respectful, you mean that women had very little rights, be it to their own bodies or choices, then sure, men were more respectful of women.

wellwisher said:
The modern state of affairs was rare among these real men. The modern he-she has too much of the female queen bee conditioned into them, which means more selfish and self centered.
Click to expand...
So says the rape advocate.. Irony!

You don't see how selfish and self centered you are being by making such offensive statements about women? What? Your manly needs are paramount? She doesn't count or matter? Not to mention that your posts are essentially a whine about how you think you and other men like you deserve more than anyone else, particularly women.

wellwisher said:
The solution is to let males become natural again, instead of socially creating fake males, who are at odds with themselves and therefore at odds with others. The entire topic is about one more social problem the left has created, that did not exist before they tried to tamper with natural.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by natural?

wellwisher said:
The problem that women face is they have a choice of real men who can over compete, but who are respectful to the limitations of women, compared to fake men who can't compete, and therefore need to cheat to win.
Click to expand...
Let me guess, wellwisher, the woman who caught your fancy rejected you for your knuckle dragging ways?

wellwisher said:
The Liberal break up of the family unit helped this get started, since it got rid of the natural male example for the young men, and replaced it with he-she males and women.
Click to expand...
I mean, look at how great you turned out!?

wellwisher said:
Once the swamp has been drained and the educational system is restored, these problems will subside.
Click to expand...
I didn't realise that Trump was planning in introducing 'Men, Caveman Style' as a syllabus for the US education system?

Then again, your swamp is being filled by a man who boasts about sexually assaulting women, who fancies himself having sex with his own daughter (nothing says respect women like talking about how your own daughter turns you on, I suppose), and whose own wife refuses to live in the same house as him, preferring to keep their son as far away from him as possible, can one really be surprised that you think he will restore the educational system... To what? Should we expect classes in 'how to grab women by the pussy', a la Trump? Perhaps some lessons on how to beat one's wife and rip out chunks of her hair, as he did with his first wife?

Is that what you mean by restored, Wellwisher?
 
river said:
never liked " women " , notice the " men " in women )
Click to expand...
It's an orthographic happenstance - the word happens to be spelled as if it were derived from "men" in the sense of "male", but it wasn't . Another spelling, maybe? "Females" has some connotations in use - such as not distinguishing children, and marking the speech of male chauvinist prigs - you might prefer to avoid.
 
iceaura said:
It's an orthographic happenstance - the word happens to be spelled as if it were derived from "men" in the sense of "male", but it wasn't . Another spelling, maybe? "Females" has some connotations in use - such as not distinguishing children, and marking the speech of male chauvinist prigs - you might prefer to avoid.
Click to expand...

True
 
¡Rape Culture! (Game Show Edition)

​

Monster Magnet↱ reminded, over a quarter-century ago, "Your violation will be televised."

Welcome to it:

"Bachelor in Paradise" contestant Corinne Olympios appeared to have lost control of her body and gone "limp" during the intoxicated pool-sex encounter with a fellow cast member that forced the reality show to halt production, according to the Daily Mail.

Olympios and fellow contestant DeMario Jackson were "both loaded" when they ended a night of trying to get to know each other better over drinks by climbing into a Jacuzzi at a Mexican resort, the source told the newspaper.

"There was hugging and kissing and touching, but before long, she seemed to go limp," the source said. "DeMario kept trying to hold her up and . . . he appeared to be having intercourse with her.

"After he finished—which only lasted a few seconds—he lifted her out of the water and laid her on the cement, where he proceeded to have oral sex with her," the source added.

"She appeared to be unconscious. At that point, some of the crew came out and carried her off to her room. She was limp and seemed unable to walk on her own."

The entire incident was reportedly filmed by the crew of the ABC reality show, and Jackson has been telling friends he believes the video will exonerate him, according to a text message obtained by The Post.

"I just want the footage," he wrote in a text to a pal. "We all know what happened and the tape will prove it . . . thanks for the love though."

(Klausner↱)​

(1) The lede: It is enough that Corrine Olympios appears to have blacked out on camera; the phrasing blames her: "... appeared to have lost control of her body and gone 'limp'".

(2) The lede, part two: "... during the intoxicated pool-sex encounter". The New York Post article goes on to describe sexual assault.

(3) Paragraph 2: "... 'both loaded' when they ended a night of trying to get to know each other better ...." I know, doesn't it just sound like an unfortunate accident?

(3) Paragraphs 3-4: These describe an appearance of rape and subsequent verifiable sexual assault.

(4) Paragraphs 4-5: Assert the sexual assault was assisted and documented.

(5) Paragraph 6: Alleged assailant Jackson does not appear to think the oral sex is problematic.

These are all elements of rape culture: The blaming and mitigating language is not the result of some legal concern about false accusation; it is an editorial decision to defend the alleged assailant.

The rest of the story doesn't get any better: Jackson says he didn't rape her because he was too drunk to get it up; see point (5) above. Apparently nobody called a doctor despite the apparent loss of body control in a jacuzzi while allegedly intoxicated; that in itself was plainly and stupidly dangerous. Indeed, "reports" circulated to establish that "Jackson thought Olympios was fully into their hookup", and "she was acting friendly toward him the next day".

Meanwhile, instead of calling police or doctors or anyone like that, a field producer worried that there was a "possibility that Olympios was unable to consent", according to the Post, and thus filed a complaint with the Warner Bros., the production company.

This is a disaster. When the good news is that she lived through it, we're going about our society wrongly. The accounts we have of what happened describe a crime that was recorded on video:

"There was hugging and kissing and touching, but before long, she seemed to go limp," the source said. "DeMario kept trying to hold her up and . . . he appeared to be having intercourse with her.

"After he finished—which only lasted a few seconds—he lifted her out of the water and laid her on the cement, where he proceeded to have oral sex with her," the source added.

"She appeared to be unconscious. At that point, some of the crew came out and carried her off to her room. She was limp and seemed unable to walk on her own."​

That describes a crime, and one reportely filmed. When DeMario Jackson says he wants the tapes, does he realize that the oral sex, as described, is a crime?

And, as such, where ever did he get the idea that such behavior is somehow acceptable?

The great irony, here, is that given American juries, Jackson can win acquittal, and, in the end, might never be charged because, well, some prosecutors just need to make excuses for rape; but the Warner Bros. crew has really, really serious exposure, here.

And, you know, something goes here about the idea of presenting mating as a game show, or any other manner of contest.
____________________

Notes:

Klausner, Alexandra. "‘Bachelor’ contestant was limp and unconscious: crew member". New York Post. 13 June 2017. NYPost.com. 14 June 2017. http://nyp.st/2sAGEba
 
*shakes head* shows like this are fucked to begin with, but good grief this is just beyond ridiculous... why is it so hard for people understand consent and when it is or isn't given?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top