Rapists, lad mags, and the Men’s Rights subreddit
Lad mags: Always covering the most important stories
What’s the difference between a lad mag and a rapist? Aside from one being a magazine and the other a person, albeit an reprehensible one, apparently not very much.
In a study soon to be published in the British Journal of Psychology, researchers at Middlesex University and the University of Surrey showed people quotes about women from British lad mags (FHM, Loaded, Nuts and Zoo) and from convicted rapists. Most survey respondents – men and women both – could not tell the difference between the quotes from the magazines and the quotes from the rapists. And most of the male respondents identified more with the quotes from the rapists than from the lad mags.
Here are some of the quotes the survey respondents were asked to react to. (You can find more at Jezebel.) Can you tell which of these are from rapists or lad mags?
Mascara running down the cheeks means they’ve just been crying, and it was probably your fault . . . but you can cheer up the miserable beauty with a bit of the old in and out.
You’ll find most girls will be reluctant about going to bed with somebody or crawling in the back seat of a car . . . But you can usually seduce them, and they’ll do it willingly.
Some girls walk around in short-shorts . . . showing their body off . . . It just starts a man thinking that if he gets something like that, what can he do with it?
I think girls are like plasticine, if you warm them up you can do anything you want with them.
In case you’re wondering, the correct answers are: Lad mag, Rapist, Rapist, Lad Mag.
Creepy, eh?
Lead researcher Miranda Horvath of Middlesex University explains why she feels this is so troubling:
Rapists try to justify their actions, suggesting that women lead men on, or want sex even when they say no, and there is clearly something wrong when people feel the sort of language used in a lads’ mag could have come from a convicted rapist.
I would say so.
And so, you might wonder, how did the regulars on the Men’s Rights subreddit react this this research? Take a look.
The comment with the most upvotes offered some nice juicy denial:
The comment with the second-highest number of upvotes completely missed the point:
And then there was this hot mess:
In case anyone is wondering, that quote from French is actually a quote from a character in one of her novels. And it’s pretty easy to distinguish it from things posted on Jezebel, because none of the writers on Jezebel ever say anything even remotely like that.
The Men’s Rights subreddit, responding to evidence of rape culture by going “la la la I can’t hear you” since March 2008.
Posted on December 11, 2011, in antifeminism, creepy, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, rape, rapey, reddit, that's not funny!. Bookmark the permalink. 758 Comments.
@kirbywarp
Tut, tut, oh warped one. The word forcible is removed. No force of any kind is neccesary. A woman can freely consent to sex and can still call it rape. No force is needed.
@lj4adotcomdan:
Just to clarify, and take this as a completely separate point from everything else. You said that there could not be a rape culture, because officers you talked to denounced the one’s actions. I said that you could do the same thing with the catholic church, and in that case it is more obvious that there is a culture of something going on their (you’ve even agreed).
Right, back to the other point. Does one quote make a culture? No. This is something that can really only be proven by statistics or some other collection of data. But mostly everyone on this site will tell you that from stories they hear about and people they talk to, this rape culture is a present and real thing. You’ll have to do some research on your own if you want to be convinced; focus your efforts on the experiences of women who have actually been raped, and their experiences with the justice system.
Oh good. Now statutory rape victims, alcohol-facilitated rape victims, rape victims who don’t have the mental capacity to consent or physical capability to resist, and rape victims who determined that they didn’t want to be choked, beaten, and raped can be counted in the FBI’s statistical charts too.
You’re the stupid man, milkslave. And no.
<blockquote I mean seriously, if you aren’t forced and consent to sex, but it can still be considered rape. Isn’t all sex rape?
No. That’s scary that your definition of consent is so fucked up, though, milkslave. Very scary. I know you don’t know any women, but please stay away from women.
That’s cute, but no.
@NWOSlave:
“Tut, tut, oh warped one. The word forcible is removed. No force of any kind is neccesary. A woman can freely consent to sex and can still call it rape. No force is needed.”
I… I don’t know how to make this any clearer. Here is the proposed change.
“penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
Do I need big flashing lights and a siren too?
@Bee
No force is needed. None. Zero. Zip. Nadda.
In case you’re still confused, NWO, (a very likely possibility), here is an example of how you can be raped without being forced. A woman goes to a party and gets roofied. The man who does so proceeds to have sex with her unconscious body. No force needed, yet still rape. Thus, the presence of force is not the crucial thing, its the presence of consent. Which is exactly what the change makes clear.
Yes, it was a book, and according to its wikipedia page it was criticized by feminists. It even links to a paper by a feminist criticizing it. Maybe you could use some of those wiki-smarts? I hear they make you really stupid and insane though!
Without the CONSENT of the VICTIM. If I coerce you into sex, and don’t “hurt” you, I’ve still raped you. If I drug you, and have sex with you, I’ve raped you. The removal of forcible is a GOOD THING. Now we need to get envelopment in there so more raped men are recognized. This is a good thing, NWO.
If I say, sleep with me, or I’ll kill you, but don’t actually injure you, I’ve raped you. Yes? No? Why is this a bad thing for it to be recognized as such?
Where is the free consent?
NWO, you’re an idiot. If you bothered to read what you posted, the definition is being changed to reflect what police departments ALREADY USE. This is not an example of The Gynocracy at work.
As to the woman you linked to, you know damn well no one here condones that behavior, you dishonest thing you.
Do not debate with a rape advocate, it is meaningless. He is just pissed that raping kids will get him put in jail.
@zhinxy:
It’s like pointing to a picture of a cat, asking slave what the picture is of, and him gladly responding “turnip!” This may be a bit pointless…
@kirbywarp
And in addition to what you’ve quoted is, no force is neccesary.
A few examples of theft.
1) Stealing from a person.
2) Stealing from a persons home.
3) Stealing from a persons bank account.
A few examples of rape
1) Forced sex.
2) Sex with an unconcious woman.
3) Unforced consensual sex.
No force is needed, it’s that simple.
@NWO:
How is unforced consensual sex an example of rape?
NWO, theft =/= rape. You’ve had this explained to you at great length.
Right. I got that, as indicated by what I wrote in my comment to you. Let me know if you need help understanding the concept of consent, now, okay?
@hellkell
“NWO, you’re an idiot. If you bothered to read what you posted, the definition is being changed to reflect what police departments ALREADY USE.”
The article said already use. Is that the case? If the definition at the moment is forcible, no police department could possibly already use another definition.
Someone is unaware of the difference between state and federal law.
lj4adotcomdan: This example’s a tad out of date, I admit, but it’s not more than a generation old, so should still have some relevance. In the mainstream, popular movie Revenge of the Nerds, there’s a scene near the film’s apex where one of the “nerds” tricks one of the upstart “Pi” sorority girls into sex, by pretending to be her boyfriend (he borrows the boyfriend’s Darth Vader mask before they slip into the moonwalk for some bouncing).
And when she discovers, after the deed, that he is in fact one of the guys she finds utterly repulsive, she meekly compliments him on his sexual prowess, and decides to go out with him from that point forward.
Now, no one claims this is a great movie, and was generally panned by the critics. But it was also never called out that the ‘hero’ of the film is a filthy rapist scumbag, either.
This was not, and probably still IS not, an uncommon theme in Hollywood films–that it’s not rape ‘if you’re good at it’. That, sir, is “rape culture”.
FTFY.
Honestly, milkslave, I’m having trouble believing that anyone this dumb can operate a computerbox. You drunk again?
Yes.
@Bee:
I really wish that was just a typo… I really really wish it were…
Then I could do something like this:
1) Forced sex. – no consent
2) Sex with an unconscious woman. – no consent
3) Unforced non-consensual sex. – no consent.
As it is, I’m gonna have to go back to mocking. One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just isn’t the same.
@Bee
Non-consent constitutes force.
Consent constitutes no force.
If I offered you a $100.00 bill. I hand it to you and said here take this. I consented. Could I call the police and have you arrested for theft? There was no force used so no crime of theft took place. Not so with women where sex is concerned. No force is neccesary.
I just gave you a link of a woman who cried rape, (luckily no actual man was charged) for a house in the burbs. Are you telling me there won’t be boatloads of women abusing this fine re-definition? This was a woman with a degree in psychology, one of feminists finest.
PfkE, thank you. He obviously doesn’t know the difference between state and federal law. To him, it’s all Vagina Law.
Are the boys over tonight, NWO, yucking it up with you about rape?
Well, not really yucking it up. Very seriously and sincerely arguing that it’s a goddamn travesty that people still get arrested for it.
NWO, the definition has already been in use, and there haven’t been women taking advantage of it. Are you huffing the model airplane glue again?
Hey everyone? Just wanted to say. I love google. Here’s what turned up for “the difference between force and consent.” PDF Ahoy!
NWO, that one’s for you.
@kirbywarp
#3 should read… unforced consensual sex = rape.
No force is needed for rape. Consent = rape.
@NWOSlave
Wow. Are you seriously that dense?
@hellkell
“NWO, the definition has already been in use, and there haven’t been women taking advantage of it.”
“No” women falsely cry rape? That’s a fine statistic. Where’d you hear that one?
<BlockquoteNon-consent constitutes force.
Consent constitutes no force.
If I offered you a $100.00 bill. I hand it to you and said here take this. I consented. Could I call the police and have you arrested for theft? There was no force used so no crime of theft took place. Not so with women where sex is concerned. No force is neccesary.
Okay, how about if I imply I’ll beat the shit out of you if you don’t pay me? I don’t make a threat, I just tell you I have a gun and I’ve always been curious what it would do to a person and hey I could use some cash–is that a gift?
What if I put my hand on the bill while you’re holding it, and you fail to say “hey let go of that,” so I snatch it away?
What if I threaten to fire you or kick you out of the house if you don’t pay me?
What if I scream at you to give me the money and tell you that you’re a horrible worthless person if you don’t? Is that a gift?
@NWO:
And again I ask, what makes consensual sex rape?
stupid html.
Okay, how about if I imply I’ll beat the shit out of you if you don’t pay me? I don’t make a threat, I just tell you I have a gun and I’ve always been curious what it would do to a person and hey I could use some cash–is that a gift?
What if I put my hand on the bill while you’re holding it, and you fail to say “hey let go of that,” so I snatch it away?
What if I threaten to fire you or kick you out of the house if you don’t pay me?
What if I scream at you to give me the money and tell you that you’re a horrible worthless person if you don’t? Is that a gift?
Sigh. It’s hard to explain intimidation and blackmail, much less emotional abuse, to people who have no empathy.
They always go “Well, I’m a wall of fucking stone and I have no emotional needs and I always know that I’m right and don’t need any friends and can walk away from any lover at any time, so I’d never fall for that.” They think feelings are girly and thus illegitimate and therefore there can be no such thing as harming a person via their feelings, ever.
(Despite the fact that the crime of theft is as much about feelings as rape is. If I feel you shouldn’t have taken my money, that differentiates theft from a gift–the rest is technicalities. But somehow feeling you have a right to your money isn’t silly girl nonsense like feeling you have a right to your body.)
@Holly Pervocracy
No I’m actually home for a change, although I’m working locally for a few days.
I’m not sure if this new nationwide definition by the beloved FBI has been initiated yet, but if not yet it soon will be. Lukily for men, all women are paragons of virtue. If not for that fact, we’d need to build entire colonies of prisons for men if even 1% of women are like that. Dontcha think? Particularly since in rape cases ya can’t bring up a womans past history. Otherwise a buncha meanie woman, ya know the bad feminists type, not the good feminist type. Why they could be slappin men in prison all over the place. Or even just mentally unstable women. Or vindictive women. Or jealous women. Or for any old reason women.
I came in this conversation a bit late, but has anyone explained to NWO that the FBI definition was changed in part to protect male victims of rape, who are now covered by it and weren’t before?
@NWO:
Cool story bro. By the way, how is consensual sex rape, by anybody’s definition? Even the new FBI definition states that non-consent is necessary for rape, which by definition doesn’t include consensual sex.
Is this about the time that you’ve been asked the same question too many times, and haven’t gotten the answer you like from us, and declare yourself too XYZ to continue?
@Molly:
Not explicitly, but I did mention that the change removed the gender-specific language that was present originally. No response from NWO sadly.
huh… That would of course be directed at Holly… dang brain fingers.
@Holly Pervocracy
Well all those examples imply force, or coercion which is force, or threat of force which is force. No force is neccesary. Let’s be 100% clear. No force at all.
@NWO:
Alright, new question, since you seem to not want to answer the other one. In your mind, does non-consent equal force? If so, then why are you so uptight over a change in semantics (from force to non-consent)? If not, then what the hell have you been blathering about for the past number of posts?
@Holly Pervocracy
The protection you imply is for the protection of men is from the gay community. Penetration. A woman can have sex with a dead drunk man. He can be unconcious, no penetration took place. Women are immune.
I like my definition of the word force, and it’s exactly the same as the definition of consent! All of you explaining to me how the definition that is being used for the law itself is different than the definition of consent are wrong and mean and wrong and just want women to accuse men of rape all the time! The reason “without consent” is actually in the wording of the law is because of duplicitous feminist double-speak!
Sex without coercion is not rape and nobody ever said it was.
Seriously now. Even your beloved false rape accusations happen when someone lies about coercion. Someone can theoretically decide they regretted sex and say “he forced me,” but they can’t go to the police and literally just say “I regret sex.”
Even the “false rape!!!!” brigade knows that. …Right?
A woman can absolutely penetrate a man, I have photos.
But I agree with you here. The definition of rape should include enveloping someone against their will. For once I totally agree and think the FBI didn’t go far enough.
@NWO:
“The protection you imply is for the protection of men is from the gay community. Penetration. A woman can have sex with a dead drunk man. He can be unconcious, no penetration took place. Women are immune.”
You really need to listen to Zhinxy more, especially when zie said this:
“… Now we need to get envelopment in there so more raped men are recognized…”
@kirbywarp
Can you show me where the word consent is even mentioned?
Since no force is neccesary. Yes means rape.
But the lack of consent is still neccessary… OFFS, you’re the guy who claims I’m not a libertarian anarchist because I’m pro-choice and you need a State to abort. I bet you need a State to rape, too.
Will you just tell me how high my taxes are gonna be in NWOland?
@Viscaria:
It’s worse than that, actually. “Force equals non-consent,” and “consent equals non-regret.” It’s really annoying to argue with someone who insists on using his own specially meanings for words, then insisting then everyone else uses those words the same way he does.
@NWO:
God dammit. God fucking dammit all to hell.
“penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the !!!consent!!! of the victim.”
Can we drop this really stupid argument now?
@kirbywarp
What’s a zie? Is that a third gender of sorts? Is there many of these zie’s roaming about? Do they have several genitals, some new to this planet? If I say go fuck yourself to a zie. Can they? And will they take my comment as a compliment?
@NWO:
“Zie” is used when the gender is not known, not specified, or just doesn’t matter.
*pokerface*
@kirbywarp
Can you show me where the word consent is even mentioned?
srsly???
srsly??
http://manboobz.com/2011/12/11/rapists-lad-mags-and-the-mens-rights-subreddit/comment-page-4/#comment-95999
Just scroll up… it’s on the same page… he quoted the proposed change –
“penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
‘
Consent. It’s right there. Just scroll up. Wow.
@kirbywarp
Which god are you asking to damn something? Moon lesbians? Are the zie gods?
No force is neccesary. Say over and over.
“He raped me.”
“Did he force you?”
“Nope.”
“Well off to prison with him.”
@Holly: So sex with coercion IS rape?
@NWOSlave
a dead AND drunk man? How is that possible?
@zhinxy
I give you a link to the FBI definition and you give me a manboobz link. I forgot. Ideology is blind.
@NWO:
Hmm… moon lesbians… ^_^
Well, female-bodied moon-bisexuals would strictly be more appealing, but still. ^_^
How many times do you need to be proven wrong so utterly that a normal man would be red-faced and mumbling apologies as he exited the room before you give up?
Surprisingly, you’re actually kinda onto something here, milkslave (despite the fact that, of course, money and sex are kinda not the same).
(1) If I offered you a $100 bill, I hand it to you and said here take this, darn right I consented. If I tried to have you brought up on charges for theft, my consent would be your defense. No crime of theft took place. Nice job, milkslave!
(2) If I had a $100 bill in my hand, and you walked up and took it from my hand without my saying anything to you, this would be theft. You wouldn’t have to hit me or even touch me, I wouldn’t have to say, “No, no, don’t take my money.” If you took my money without my expressly telling you that you could take it, that would be a crime, and you could be charged with it.
Still with me?
(3) Now, if I walked up to you and said, “I want to have sex with you” (well, not you … let’s make this someone else) and this other person said, “Yes, I want to have sex with you too,” barring any other circumstances (one of us says “no” in the interim, one of us hits the other one over the head, rendering them unconscious, etc.) THIS IS NOT RAPE under any state law that I know of, or under the new FBI definition. THIS IS CONSENSUAL SEX.
Take note of that, milkslave. Because, again, you’re scaring me with not knowing what that is.
(4) Now, let’s say I walk up to someone else and just start having sex with them. I grab them, take off their pants, and just do it. They’re too shocked to say “no.” They know no one’s around, so who’s gonna hear them? They are afraid because I am very large and I might hurt them if they resist. For whatever reason, they do not say anything. Shockingly, under most state laws, THIS IS NOT RAPE. I’m not using force. They didn’t say “no.” This is the EXACT SAME SCENARIO AS SET OUT IN (2), except with sex instead of money, AND IT’S NOT A CRIME.
In fact, even if they did say “no” and were conscious, able to consent (not a minor, not mentally incapacitated) and I didn’t use force, this would still not (in most jurisdictions) rise to the crime of rape. IT’S ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE to me that this is how we define rape. A victim can say no, but if there’s no proof of force, many times that “no” is legally viewed as a “yes.” Which is why, as you can no doubt understand, my dear milkslave, I am absolutely flabbergasted that you think that legal consent + no force = legal rape. It’s so far from reality as to be laughable. If it weren’t so absolutely disturbing.
We can read out your dialogue from your NWOland plays, but it won’t really do anything to change reality.
Damn, NWO is more incoherent than usual!
@Stephanie
You’ve never heard the term, “dead drunk?” It’s been around a while. It’s not like I’m making up gender zie or something stupid.
@Steph: What? You never heard the phrase “Man, I was dead drunk last night!”.
@NWO:
The manboobz link was to my post where I explicitely pointed out where the “consent” was.
@Futrelle:
Can NWO be banned, or at least moderated, for overwhelming stupidity? I think I’m loosing brain cells just looking at this stuff.
Crap… Losing. See?!?
@zhinxy
I give you a link to the FBI definition and you give me a manboobz link. I forgot. Ideology is blind.’
No, you asked kirbywarp where consent was mentioned, and I pointed out he had already told you only a few comments ago. The link was to help you in case you got confused using the scroll wheel. Goldfish Memory confused milk technician man is blind.
Also, I hate the FBI and don’t believe anything they tell me and there’s a blinking background on the site that’s been developed by project bluebird.
Actually probably not, but I’m not a fan.
Yeah, this whole ‘opt out’ thing we have going in the legal system for sex is… wrong, wrong, wrong. Women don’t walk around in a state of consent, yet under most laws, you actually have to explicitly say no or otherwise show you don’t consent to sex. Why not assume that no one wants to have sex unless they say yes? That seems to make more legal and ethical sense.
@NWO:
The best part is that the quote from my comment was really just a word-for-word quote from the FBI definition you linked to. Meaning that ultimately I was linking to your own source. Meaning that you didn’t read your own damn source. Meaning that all of this is just a wayst… WAIST… goshdurnit WASTE of time.
Yes. Is this difficult?
NWO seems to believe that if a woman goes to the cops and say “please arrest this man, I just want you to, that’s all” they’ll do it without asking questions, and there will be no trial. Everything else he argues is just an elaboration on that core belief.
Since he persists to hold that belief in flagrant disregard of reality, it’s not really helpful to get into the minor details surrounding it.
“Yeah, this whole ‘opt out’ thing we have going in the legal system for sex is… wrong, wrong, wrong. Women don’t walk around in a state of consent, yet under most laws, you actually have to explicitly say no or otherwise show you don’t consent to sex. Why not assume that no one wants to have sex unless they say yes? That seems to make more legal and ethical sense.”
Watch it, kathleenb! You might start making it seem like there’s a rape culture or something!!!
kirbywarp: I sometimes think I can hear my brain cells screaming as they jump out of my ears, desperate to escape the swirling vortex of stupid and bad reading comprehension NWO creates. But I’m probably imagining it. Right?
Shaenon! Can we have “genderqueer people are called zies, have multiple sets of genitalia and worship moon lesbians” in the Book of Learning?
HOW YOU CAN HAVE SEX WITHOUT FORCE OR CONSENT
BY OZY AGE NINETEEN AND 103/104
–A man doesn’t want sex. His boss threatens to fire him if he doesn’t have sex with her.
–A man is developmentally disabled and not able to consent to sex. A man has sex with him anyway.
–A woman is passed out. A man has sex with her anyway.
–A woman doesn’t want sex. Her abusive girlfriend screams insults at her until she agrees just to get it over with.
–A man is six years old and not able to consent to sex. His teacher has sex with him.
–A woman believes her rapist will murder her if she doesn’t stop fighting back, so the rapist doesn’t have to use force.