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.
Oh, noez! We can’t have that!
@Bee
Fine schpeil there, except the word “consent” is not listed in the FBI definition. Consent now has nothing to do with rape. Removal of the word force means even sex that is consented to can be considered rape on the say-so of a woman. Oddly enough all women really aren;t paragons of virtue.
Say 1/10th of 1% of women are screwed up enough, vengeful enough, or just need some sort of excuse to take advantage of this new definition. In a nation of 190 million women that means in a year as many as 190,000 men could possibly be falsely accused, lose their jobs, be ostracized by society, some beat up or killed by white knights, and so on. Every year. I know they’re only men but what the hell? Toss in a little preponderance of evidence and we got us one serious problem.
““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.”
““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.”
““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.”
““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.”
NWO, I know somebody that was falsely accused of rape. Really. Truly. Hand to god, it’s like the MRA dream of a false rape accusation. I know he didn’t do it. And not just because “he was a nice guy,” but because I WAS THERE when he was supposedly raping his ex, who was an unstable, vindictive woman. So here’s what happened. He got called in for questioning. Not arrested, not charged, just questioned. We all made our statements to the police. No charges were filed (I actually don’t know whether or not she got charged with filing a false report).
But that’s what happened. No RUINED LIFE AND REPUTATION. No feminist legal system crushing him under their heels. It’s terrible what happened to him, but it’s not common. And actually, this may be crazy, but I think if MRA’s and others didn’t spread the trope that it’s so easy for an unstable, vindictive woman to cry rape and get a guy hurt, unstable woman wouldn’t think that crying rape was an effective tactic and easy way to get the guy hurt.
“some beat up or killed by white knights”
I couldn’t help it, I laughed. Brandon is a white knight!
Wow.
NWOSlave, this is ridiculous. Your statements have no basis. You should go get yourself screened for paranoid personality disorder/paranoid schizophrenia.
@NWO:
“Fine schpeil there, except the word “consent” is not listed in the FBI definition.”
Yes it is. Stop being dumb, please please please stop being dumb.
“he new definition, which will more closely match the ones that police departments around the country already use, will remove the word “forcible,” along with several other amendments.
Rape will now include sex attacks by relatives, and include non-traditional penetration.
According to the FBI’s website, the proposed new definition is “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 (PAY ATTENTION BECAUSE HERE COMES THE WORD) consent (THERE IT WAS DID YOU MISS IT?!?)of the victim.””
@Holly: Coercion is a pretty big net and may include things like a woman having sex because her husband begged for it. While gut wrenching (husband is a big wimp), I wouldn’t classify it as rape.
Whenever laws get put into place, advocates of the law always say it is needed for a very specific thing. Take sexual harassment laws. They were put into place to keep men from groping and other lewd behavior (e.g Business meetings at strip clubs ). But now we live in a world where shit like this happens:
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-boy-suspended-sexual-harassment-calling-teaching-cute-054548755.html
Pretty damn stupid.
The word coercion is just too vague and subjective to define into law. Now if you want to have the “Anti-Husband Begging For Some” Act. Then I can get behind you on that one.
Oh god, it’s like talking to a jello mold.
No, drooler. The word “consent” is in the FBI definition.
The defense would have to explain to a judge how it is relevant to the case at bar.
If the defense is just doing it because “come on, we all know sluts consent by being sluts” the relevance is not there.
If the defense is saying “but your honor, zie once consented to sex” the relevance is not there.
If the defense is saying “your honor, the alleged victim in this case was a prostitute” the relevance is not there.
If the defense is saying “your honor, the details of the sex life of the alleged victim are super titillating” the relevance is definitely not there.
In fact, I cannot see where the sex life of the victim is ever relevant but I am sure somewhere, somehow there is someone who can figure out how it is relevant.
So Brandon said:
which leads me to believe that he doesn’t, himself, think coerced sex is rape. Whereas NWO said, in response to the same comment of Holly’s mentioning coerced sex:
which leads me to think NWO actually does consider coerced sex rape. So, in this particular instance, is Brandon actually being more of a rape apologist than NWO? Dude, reevaluate.
White Knights, yo!
NWO, you dumbfuck, the word consent is in the new definition of rape on the fbi website: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/advisory-policy-board
This definition was passed by the advisory board and will be implemented in 2012. Nowhere in any statute on criminal rape are the words ‘preponderance of evidence’ used. Everyone and their fucking godmother has told you where those words come from and what they’re really used for, it’s hardly their fault that you only see and hear what you want to.
@Holly Pervocracy
will remove the word “forcible,” along with several other amendments.
will remove the word “forcible,” along with several other amendments.
will remove the word “forcible,” along with several other amendments.
will remove the word “forcible,” along with several other amendments.
will remove the word “forcible,” along with several other amendments.
will remove the word “forcible,” along with several other amendments.
will remove the word “forcible,” along with several other amendments.
will remove the word “forcible,” along with several other amendments.
————
By FBI definition. Is any force neccesary for a rape?
Oh jesus fucking god, we just need DKM here and the entire internet will collapse into a black hole of asshattery and stupidity.
@Holly Pervocracy
I want a yes or no answer.
@NWO:
By the FBI definition, force is not necessary. Consent is necessary. I defy you to come up with an example where consent is given, but it should be considered rape. And I defy you to come up with an instance where consent is definitely not given, but the act is not rape.
It is his method of getting out of a “false” rape accusation. That and unconsented to videotaping of the sex act.
NWOslave thinks consent doesn’t matter in sex! FORCE IS ALL! It doesn’t matter if you’ve been raped by someone multiple times and no longer have it in you to resist!
Ha ha, I like how you had to assert your SUPER MANLINESS SUPERIORITY while still supporting the rights of lesser men to commit rape.
But no, I don’t think begging is necessarily rape (although it is a recipe for super shitty unenthusiastic sex that will be worse than jerking off). But badgering is. Saying “please let me fuck you” isn’t rape; saying “let me fuck you or you don’t know what I might do,” is.
How about saying “if you don’t let me fuck you you’re a stupid bitch and I’ll hate you and tell all your friends what a bitch you are?” I’d say that’s rape. But yeah, you do have to exercise subjective judgement and respect for stupid girly feelings to understand that. Sorry I can’t draw a hard line, but I don’t like the idea of a hard line that makes the thing I quoted above okay.
That’s nothing to do with law. That’s just internal discipline at a school. An overreacting vice principal is not a law enforcement officer.
http://dogs.icanhascheezburger.com/2011/12/07/cute-puppy-pictures-cyoot-puppeh-ob-teh-day-sleepy-newborn/
Cute puppy break
FORCE IS NOT NECESSARY FOR RAPE! The only thing necessary for a sex act to be rape is for one party to not give consent. Why is this such a fucking difficult concept?
Consent = no rape.
No consent = rape.
Lord and lady, NephewB is 1.5yo and could probably pick this up faster.
AND REPLACE IT WITH “CONSENT.”
good lord, how did you turn your computer on and find this website? how are you using a keyboard?
I know NWO is full of shit and a rape apologist and dumber than a slug (not being able to read your own source is a big fail), but I can’t be sure I understand this new definition.
Does it include PIV as a possibility of rape with the male as a victim? If so, where exactly, if not, why the fuck not?
Anyway “carnal knowledge”? It sound like the ancient testament. Words with triple meaning and vaguely poetic shouldn’t be in real laws. And the definition basically was “things that can make bastard babies”.
Oh, that should read ‘The only thing necessary for a sex act to be rape is for one party to not give consent or not be able to give consent.’ Missed a bit there. Go me!
@Holly Pervocracy
“That’s nothing to do with law. That’s just internal discipline at a school. An overreacting vice principal is not a law enforcement officer.”
Yet the boy, (male) was still punished. Wasn’t he? I guess the lad was in a position of power!
ya huh!
Cuz like a little boy was harshly punished. That totally is like a 10 year prison sentence in a supermax prison.
@Holly Pervocracy
And how will consent be determined? A womans word?
Does it include PIV as a possibility of rape with the male as a victim? If so, where exactly, if not, why the fuck not?
No it fucking DOESN’T. It needs to, and there’s no excuse. As for why, I’d say it’s another ep of the fucking patriarchy hurting men too, but since that can’t happen… FEMINISM!
(Hey, under the UCMJ when I was in the military, it still said carnal knowledge OF A WOMAN NOT HIS WIFE. We’re talking 2006. I don’t know if they’ve corrected that or not. )
NWOslave, how would you determine consent if you were making the laws? Would a third party need to be present? Should all sexual encounters be videotaped?
Yep!
How would you like it to be determined?
(oh god i don’t really want the answer to that. or i do? i think it’ll be funny in a horrible sick gross sort of way.)
NWOslave, you still seem to be very confused by the difference between gender and pronouns. Perhaps you missed my earlier comments directed to you regarding this distinction. A pronoun is a function word that substitutes for a noun. Gender is a socio-cultural phenomenon that divides people into various categories such as “male” and “female,” each having associated dress, roles, stereotypes, etc.
Gender should also not be confused with sex which can be defined as; either of two main divisions (either female or male) into which many organisms can be placed, according to reproductive function or organs.
Can you now see the difference between gender and pronouns?
NWO – Okay… How do you think rape cases should be tried, and what evidence should be considered compelling in the matter of rape?
@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
Just a slap on the wrist for the small boy isn’t it? Just to let him know early on who the privileged class are.
NWO: The victim’s word, physical evidence, witness statements – whatever else goes into prosecuting any other crime. If the prosecution can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt (I know, I know, difficult concept – look it up) that someone was raped, charges aren’t generally brought. Do you not watch Law & Order? This isn’t exactly rocket science. Or even milk machine science.
Holly – “Yep!
How would you like it to be determined?
(oh god i don’t really want the answer to that. or i do? i think it’ll be funny in a horrible sick gross sort of way.)”
Yeah. Same here. I think we need a straight answer on this, NWO. What do you want to be the standard here?
@zhinxy
Voilent sex of course. Ya know, an actual rape.
“And how will consent be determined? A womans word?”
What if it was a man who was raped?
Men?
Actually I think there is more to the story then “I just said she was cute” because I know little boys that age and that is not what they actually say. A VP will not suspend someone for saying “I think she is cute.”
@Zhinxy and Holly:
Isn’t if obvious? It’s clear exactly how this should be handled.
Man’s word.
That is all.
“And how will consent be determined? A womans word?”
Imagine that!
You know, the difference between theft and gift is entirely hinged on a person’s word too.
A friend of mine didn’t have winter clothes and it’s starting to get cold, so recently I gave her a nice coat. This exchange took place in private, with no receipt or videotaping or anything.
If I called the cops and told them she’d stolen the coat from me, they’d take my word for it! My friend would go to jail! She would have no way to prove I’d given her the coat voluntarily!
Yet no one seems too worked up about this possibility.
@NWO:
If a person consents to being hit or dominated or whatnot during sex, is that rape? Cause it would have to be under your definition.
@KathleenB
Nuh-uh princess. Once the word force is removed.
“Were you forced to have sex?”
“No!”
“Were you raped?”
“Yes!”
The criteria for rape has been met.
Fucking gods, NWO. That’s… so very, very fucking wrong. So if a person is, say… blackmailed into having sex – that’s not rape? If an older person has sex with a child who doesn’t understand what’s going on, that isn’t rape? Drugging someone and having sex with them while they’re out is just a-fucking okay?
States are gonna have their own rape statutes. Mine actually defines rape and sexual assault in a way that precludes coercion to be an element, so a DA would have to argue that coercion is force, and the judge and jury would have to buy that. Typically, though, the law doesn’t just make shit up. There are canons of construction, analogies between (frex) contract law, and case law (possibly even statutory definitions) that could be used to determine whether coercion in one situation is an element of rape.
Your fear that a judge is going to hear that a man “begged for some” and throw him in jail seems a bit overdramatic, Brandon.
God, I can’t fucking wait for NWO’s fantasy world to become real.
/taps foot
Hey, yeah! No gendered language in the new definition (although, as has been pointed out, not adequate protection for men). Couldn’t men just start falsely accusing women of penetrating them left, right and centre and getting the women sent to prison, NWO? Because that’s how it works?
@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
” Actually I think there is more to the story then “I just said she was cute” because I know little boys that age and that is not what they actually say. A VP will not suspend someone for saying “I think she is cute.”
Ohhh, a sweeping statement. Are all boys like that? I bit de-humanizing. Don’t you see boys as human?
NWO – So how will whether or not she was raped be determined?
Also, Right now I am listening to the audiobook version of Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century by Thomas E. Woods Jr., while you are probably doing absolutely nothing to multitask and fight off the effects of the low-level persistent illuminati liberal federal new world order broadcast signal.
NWO: For the fiftieth fucking time, I am not a princess. I have no desire to be one, because that means I’d have to be queen and deal with politics and awards and be all nice to everyone and wear a heavy ass coronet for hours at a time. No thanks, there are people who like being sovereigns. Since I’m not and never have been one in any sense of the word, please stop calling me a princess. Kathleen, or B, or KathleenB are all good. Even KB, since we abbreviate your full name.
NWO, how would you define rape, and what evidence would you accept?
While deciding this, please contemplate a scenario in which a man holds a gun to your head and tells you to suck his dick. (No, you can’t just say “I’d die!”, tough guy. Some people wouldn’t and I think that’s a reasonable decision.) He leaves and you have no marks on you, no DNA is successfully recovered at the hospital, and there’s no tangible record that you even met this man.
What definition of rape would still allow you to prosecute him?
Little boys being rotten little stinkers? How is that dehumanizing? They are. So are little girls.
@Viscaria
“Couldn’t men just start falsely accusing women of penetrating them left, right and centre and getting the women sent to prison, NWO? Because that’s how it works?”
So far men falsely accusing women of anything doesn’t seem to be a problem. The reverse however is epidemic and endemic.
@Holly: But even in those scenarios you brought up, you are still allowed to make a choice.
Let’s take the worst one:
“if you don’t let me fuck you you’re a stupid bitch and I’ll hate you and tell all your friends what a bitch you are?”
Do you really care if he thinks you are a stupid bitch and that he hates you? It would only be coercive or manipulative if you actually gave a shit about him or his opinion of you.
Telling friends that you are a bitch is the only one that is even remotely damaging. And even here, you can just say “He told me he would say that if I didn’t sleep with him” Thus making him look like a dickhead.
And honestly, hasn’t every women been called a bitch? Just like every man has probably been called a wimp/loser or pussy.
Do I think that him asking you (well, telling you) that is appropriate? No. Do I think he has the right to do it? No. Do I think we should label him a rapist? No. A shithead? Yes. A manipulator? Yes. A loser? Yes.
In regards to the link. It wasn’t about law vs school faculty. I was pointing out that it is stupid that this is even an issue. The very fact that this is “news” or a “school case” is absurd.
And the conversation would go:
“I was raped!”
“Did you consent to sex?”
“No!”
“We’ll look into it.”
Because there’s this whole process that you have to go through before you can just toss someone in jail. There’s an investigation, then charges are brought, then a person might have to wait in jail for their trial if the judge sets bail they can’t meet, then there’s a trial, then sentencing, then appeals… I can’t just walk into the police station and have someone tossed into supermax forever and ever. It doesn’t work like that, and if you think it does, you’re dumber than i could have EVER imagined.
“And how should consent be determined? Evidence!”
Voilent sex of course. Ya know, an actual rape.
So, to be clear, NWO, you consider the following acts NOT to be rape, then?
– Having sex with a toddler
– Having sex with an unconscious person
– Drugging someone, then having sex with them when they are physically incapable of fighting back
– Having sex with someone who is crying and saying, “No, please stop, please, you’re hurting me.”
Is it indeed your position that the above acts are not rape and should be legal?
NWO, if you think women are falsely claiming rape, then changing the law to say “only force is rape” won’t help; women can just falsely claim force. So why harp on the law? Changing it wouldn’t help your supposed problem.
Unless you mean “only something that leaves marks is rape,” but in that case, that gun-to-head scenario I outlined above is 100% legal.
NWO – Did you see where I said I’d been an alibi in a false rape accusation incident? Scroll above. It happens. But it’s on you to prove that it’s epidemic.
Now you have to tell me what evidence should be needed to prosecute rape.
@Holly Pervocracy
“NWO, how would you define rape, and what evidence would you accept?”
I already gave that answer to one of your fellow zie creatures.
I got real paperwork to do so I gotta run.
Just remember, everyone one of you are raped everytime you have sex with a man. Penetration = rape. No force is neccesary. It’s law!
Didn’t one of your greats say all sex with a man was rape? If she’s alive today, she’d be right!
Cya.
Brandon, if one partner begs for sex, and the other says “sure” but consents, the other partner is probably not going to accuse them of rape. That’s the protection they have there.
Oh dear god NWO I didn’t realize you could get THAT STUPID.
Btw, I’m not joking when I say they took the old definition from the old testament. The “knowledge” bit, it is used back from the beginning “And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived”. And the “forcible” NWO care so much about, it sounds a lot like Deuteronomy’s laws on rape which says that the female victim is guilty if she didn’t defended herself enough.
“you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife.”
Thanks zinkxy. So, once again, a MRA could have a valid point in criticizing the sexism of this definition (No PIV rape with a male victim). But instead, he decides to go screaming “EVERY SEX IS RAPE NOW!!!!one!!11!!”
…
NWO, are you high again?
Rape doesn’t mean “sex that the victim possibly could have avoided.” It means “sex that the victim didn’t want.”
Also, last I checked giving a shit about others (i.e., being a fucking human, prone to forming attachments to other humans) wasn’t consent to sex. It may be a sign of being weaker than Super Strong Brandon, but it’s not consent to sex.
And… NWO has no answer so he gets nasty sarcastic and runs away.
What a little coward. The man has absolutely no courage at all, no desire to defend his convictions, no ability to even talk about his beliefs.
This is why I don’t worry so much about a Gender War.
NWO: Officially the thickest thickety-thick face person ever to fall off the thick truck from Thickville, Thickania.
I know Alas a Blog said otherwise, but I would actually argue that the new definition is nonspecific enough that it does include male victims of PIV rape. It says that there must be penetration, but it doesn’t say whether the penetration is by the victim or by the assailant. I’d want to look into the history behind the change, I guess, but it seems from what I’ve read that these changes were made in part as a response to criticisms that the old definition didn’t include male victims.
I think the definition is only used in collecting data from local law officials, so maybe we’ll keep an eye on it and see if male rapes reported in FBI data increase.
I already gave that answer to one of your fellow zie creatures.
head desk.
Okay, I admit it, I actually giggled at that cause I thought of sea creatures and thought of this
@Brandon
“Do you really care if he thinks you are a stupid bitch and that he hates you? It would only be coercive or manipulative if you actually gave a shit about him or his opinion of you.”
My friend was blackmailed into having sex (the guy had a sex tape of her). Its not the same thing as saying “you need to have sex with me or I’ll tell everyone what a bitch you are”, but its still blackmail. Its coercive.
Would you not consider that rape?