The Southern Poverty Law Center takes on the violent misogyny so pervasive in the Men’s Rights Movement
[TW for the comments to this post; discussions of rape and abuse.]
The Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization devoted to tracking and exposing hate groups, has just published a detailed report on the misogyny and violent rhetoric so pervasive in the Men’s Rights Movement — as well as the actual violence inspired by this sort of hatred of women. It’s a piece you all should read, even though few of the details will be new to long-time readers of this blog.
Arthur Goldwag, an expert on conspiracy-mongers and the far right, argues (I think correctly) that the Men’s Rights movement is largely a backlash against the many successes of feminism over the last several decades:
It’s not much of a surprise that significant numbers of men in Western societies feel threatened by dramatic changes in their roles and that of the family in recent decades. Similar backlashes, after all, came in response to the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, and other major societal revolutions. What is something of a shock is the verbal and physical violence of that reaction.
[Thomas] Ball’s suicide brought attention to an underworld of misogynists, woman-haters whose fury goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations.
The Men’s Rights Movement, as it exists today, is not a civil rights movement; it is a regressive, hateful reaction against a civil rights movement — that is, feminism.
Those who truly care about the rights of men, and who are not motivated by a hatred of women or feminism, need to repudiate the hate and the violent rhetoric of the Men’s Rights Movement as it exists today. Only then can there be a Men’s Rights Movement worthy of the name.
EDITED TO ADD: The SPLC has also put up a guide to some of the more hateful sites in the manosphere. Longtime readers will be familiar with most of them.
EDITED TO ADD AGAIN: And a piece debunking some Men’s Rights Myths.
EDITED TO ADD AGAIN, AGAIN: The discussion of the SPLC report on the Men’s Rights Subreddit is surprisingly reasonable, so far. (I mean, compared to what I expected. Meanwhile, over in this thread, the Men’s Rightsers are behaving as they usually do.)
Posted on March 8, 2012, in actual activism, anti-MRA information, antifeminism, MGTOW, misogyny, MRA, terrorism, threats. Bookmark the permalink. 760 Comments.
Good lord, what kind of D&D have you been playing?! Lawful Good means you accomplish your objectives within legal channels and in the most moral manner possible.
Lawful Neutral would be the best fit for this, since it would only check for laws and not make a moral judgment on the action, while Lawful Evil would accomplish its objectives within the letter of the law, striving to maximize the pain it could produce.
RE: Dracula
S’okay. Believe me when I say I have dealt with far, far worse. (My personal favorite was the person who told me I was being oppressive, transphobic, and ableist for refusing to identify as a disorder. THAT little shit fit sprawled over something like five different web pages!) Roberta, at least, doesn’t see me as OPPRESSING her.
Roberta: The statute doesn’t explicitly impose those limits, but trust me, that’s how the law is interpreted in practice.
Why should I trust you? Really, why? All I know of you is that you claim to be a, “criminal trial attorney”.
How much of your practice has been in Calif? How many rapes have you been involved with (defense or prosecution?).
Why is “the definition of consent is the be all and end all of what defines rape” until the very thing you challenged me to provide (the definition of consent in statute) says something different?
Suddenly it’s not what the law says, it’s how the law is read (which is true, but at absolute odds to several day of argument from you). Why is it also the very narrow, “threatened to leave a partner” (I’d also not lay very much money on that bet… if I am paying the rent, and I say, “fuck me, or I’ll leave you,” with the implied threat of homelessness… I can see that being duress under the statute, and I can see that being successfully prosecuted. Not in Bakersfield, not in Hemet, not in Parris, but in Santa Barbara, Salinas, even Eureka it could).
Really… why should I trust you? You are a rape apologist. A goalpost shifter. A back-pedaller. A dictionary arguer.
You aren’t showing the consistency which would lead me to believe you are arguing in good faith for an honest belief, but rahter you have a policy end you are pursuing (excusing rape), and whatever it takes to convince people that non-forcible rape isn’t rape you will do, say, argue.
I’d even be willing to bet you’d engage in moderate amounts of dishonesty to do it. You have been willing to engage in attempts at snark (such as misspelling DSc’s name, while not actually engaging her point… that assent is not consent, and non-violent means are both something which can be used to obtain it, and that such non-violent obtainence is recognised as actionable at law), as well as speaking out both sides of your mouth (most notably with regards to LBT, who used your definition of rape to say you said he wasn’t raped. You then said it was rape, until there was suddenly the possibility your noble apologia might be compromised, and you’d have to admit someone who didn’t use force might be a rapist).
You’ve been strangely silent in response to our responses to your query about where one might find violence in the MRM (you condemned one person, sayig the movement would be better without such as he, but the big names… the silence from you is astounding).
You dismiss academic studies, and throw fluff at us… saying, “It’s in Slate, so it’s merits can’t be questioned”. You claim authority (direct, “I’m a criminal trial lawyer” and indirect, “I have a relative who is an ADA”, but show no actual expertise in the field.
One might think you were trying to baffle us with bullshit.
One might be right.
So, again, to repeat my question… why should I trust you?
Mags, your sexual assault was not your fault.
I considered carefully whether I, as a white man, was going to erase your experience or tell you how to interpret your experience when I tell you that it is not your fault, and I found that I had a greater moral obligation to help you stop hurting yourself than to back off and give you room to define yourself.
So: If anyone wants to talk about negative rights, let’s talk about this: We ought to be able to expect that people around us would refrain from hurting us. That someone does hurt us is a transgression and the responsibility for that transgression is on the other person, not on us.
(Sudden thought: One of the arguments for buying guns that gets thrown at men is “You have to protect your family!” How much of this argument is made up of the implication that if I don’t pack heat, it’s my fault if someone mugs my wife?)
And also: Hugs for everyone on here who’s a sexual assault survivor!
Shadow: a) peculinum is such a weaksauce insult that I hesitate to insult insults by grouping it in with them
c) pennie …. really?
Clueless, that’ s me. I didn’t even notice them.
One wonders why she’s doing that. It’s not as if I’ve mocked her name. I’ve told her what I think of her actions, and her beliefs, but I’ve not been attempting to belittle her by engaging in childish taunts.
It’s not as if I’m going to get offended and lose my ability to reason. One more aspect of less than good faith.
Wow. What a little fucker.
I’m glad that this thread makes you feel welcome, LBT, even though I missed being a part of that.
Because it lets one have that oh so satisfying feeling of superiority to the victim apparently.
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2012/03/09/in-mala-fide-vs-the-southern-poverty-law-center/
This site, which I happily had not heard of until now, is apparently very pleased with the publicity from the SPLC because it means they’re now being taken seriously by their enemies and will now… I dunno, be proven right or some other kind of wishful thinking.
How is it possible for people like this to believe that it’s okay to hate people just because they’re female or black or not manly enough? I’m no saint and I am still working to kick my white privilege to the curb, but these people don’t even think they have privilege. They think they’re the abused ones. It just makes my brain misfire.
RE: Falconer
Yeah, that guy was… a real piece of work, to be sure. It was kinda impressive. I did the thing of refusing to engage, and that just honked him off MORE. He kept popping up everywhere, claiming that I wasn’t letting it go and that I was being a complete drama queen and WHY WASN’T I ARGUING WITH HIM. It was truly bizarre.
RE: PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
Ah, NOTHING beats feeling superior to a fifteen-year-old boy crying in a fetal position! It’s one step to being king of the motherfuckin’ world.
RE: Pecunium
Do you happen to work in law? You seem to know a lot more about it than I do.
@Pecunium
Apparently she thought that the argument had moved from the blog to the playground. As embarassing as the tactic is, the execution just makes me want to cry for her
@LBT
Pecunium is our resident Chuck Norris. The world refers to the internet for their answers, the internet refers to Pecunium
Calif is “unique”
Ok… the American Prosecutors Research Insitute, State Rape Statutes has this little breakdown.
Colorado: Consent = cooperation in act or attitude.
Delaware: Without consent no force required.
District of Columbia: Consent – words or overt actions indicating freely given agreement
Hawaii: Compulsion language that states lack of consent, but doesn’t define consent ( which means the definition of, “consent” isn’t plain. It’s going to have a lot of, “nuance”. Even for the felony charges)
Iowa: “Against the will” language”
Louisiana: “Without person’s lawful consent” ( A bit unclear… more room for, “nuance” in the arguments before the bar
Massachusetts: Any resistance is enough (arguable that resistance can be made a persisting lack of consent, even if subsequent apparent assent seems to have taken place, again, more nuance to be argued at trial.)
Nebraska: Without consent: Victim expressed a lack
of consent through words (again… the question of what constitutes duress to make that verbal consent invalid is open to argument)
N Carolina: *Case law – against the will = without
consent State v. Thomas 329 N.C. 423
Utah: *§ 76-5-406 – No Means No Statute that applies to all categories
So…. it appears the issue of consent isn’t as clear cut, in a number of states, more than just Calif. as Roberta claims.
I know about two hundred or so judges. And I have never met one who slapped anyone in the courtroom.
I have however met a few who were violent domestically but they tend to get removed fairly quickly.
RE: Shadow
Chuck Norris kinda sucks though. I vote we use the term “Neville Longbottom” instead. Pecunium is the Neville Longbottom of Manboobz. Y/N?
RE: Pecunium
Also, seeing as how I seemed to start this whole damn argument for having the bad taste to get raped in the first place, I WAS FIFTEEN. He was twenty-one. So the whole thing she’s arguing ISN’T VALID.
LBT: I do not work in the law (though I once entertained the idea). I have worked in jobs where the law mattered, and being able to interpret it correctly; as it applied to my job, and my duties, might be the difference between my liberty, and my life (immediate, in some cases, after trial in others).
Some of my fellows, have been to prison (not for long enough) for breaking those laws.
I also taught people what those laws were, and so I had an interest in know how they worked.
I have wide, and varied, interests, and I like to read. I was a journalist, and I studied some library science. I know how to look things up, and seem to be pretty good at synthesis.
I also write tolerably well, even if I am a shitty typist, and often forget to close my parens when I am digressing.
They feel that way until they hear about the fact you were 15. *cannot be as annoyed but is still annoyed.*
RE: PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
No, no, I’ve met people who still felt that way knowing I was fifteen. (I turned sixteen during the course of that “relationship,” which is age of consent where I was, so that totally made it okay again.)
RE: Pecunium
Fellow library science student here, before being trans pushed me out. And hey, cool, you’re on LJ too! *is also* You active?
LBT: The whole thing she is arguing (assent = consent) isn’t valid, no matter who is involved.
Roberta is arguing to make rape a very narrow crime. A crime that requires force. A crime that stigmatises women who are coerced into sex, because they weren’t raped; they were just too stupid/weak to avoid having sex they didn’t want.
She’s doing evil things.
I’ve had sex I didn’t want. I didn’t call it rape at the time. I don’t think it could happen now (I was a lot younger then, and the ideas of consent weren’t what they are now). Do I think I was raped? Probably not. Was I violated? Yes.
Is it easy to talk about? No. Because the idea that I should/could have just kept saying no until she let me go to sleep… it’s still one that people like Roberta prattle on about. I assented. I didn’t consent.
After a while, it got to be too much, and I left the relationship, but there was a lot of emotionally damaging sex before I got to that point.
And it was decades ago, and I’m in a much better place (I’ve never let that sort of shit happen again, for one). But when the Robertas of the world tell me that can never be rape (no matter if I don’t think I was raped), I know they are full of shit. Because it doesn’t take force to get false consent.
LBT…. my LJ isn’t as active as it used to be, but it’s not dead. I need to get my photography blog up again, and start writing about food some more, etc.
RE: Pecunium
The situation you describe sounds pretty similar to the one I was in, actually. I note that you use the phrase “I’ve never LET that sort of thing happen again,” and though you choose how you identify your experience, I think you’re being a bit unforgiving with yourself.
And I agree completely on the coercion bit, though I know enough male survivors to say that it applies to all genders, not just women. (Though women definitely seem to get the brunt of it. Urgh.)
I have to say that makes me pretty angry and I am sorry you had to go through that. I hope things have improved.
*sighs and goes back to scribbling her name a lot*
@LBT
I fully endorse that. I can’t stop laughing imagining people’s reaction to being called “the Neville Longbottom of X”
LBT: I think we are seeing “let” in a different context. I was pressured into sex. I chose, later, to not let that sort of pressure be a thing I caved in to. I assented. That was an action I took. It doesn’t absolve her from the coercive aspects, but so long as I was willing to contend against her desire, no sex was happening.
There isn’t a good word in english to cover the change in will I underwent. Permitted is worse than let. Allow, perhaps, because it’s a bit more active, but the bottom line is that I learned where my autonomous limits needed to be. I wasn’t old (or perhaps experienced) enough yet to know what they were.
It wasn’t quite, “if you loved me you would”, but it was related.
RE: Shadow
I myself would be AMPED to be referred to as a Neville Longbottom. Of ANYTHING. I could be the Neville Longbottom of orifuckingami and I would’ve been psyched.
Antifeminism is now an act of terrorism against the ol’ stars and stripes. I guess when the rest of the world stops taking the word “misogynist” seriously, feminists have to step it up a notch.
Considering that half of the citizens of the ol’ starry-stripey country are women… yeah.
The rest of the world did what now?
Anyway, I’ll never get why you guys are offended by being called “misogynist.” It’s not just an insult, it doesn’t mean “poopiepants badhead”; it means “person who hates women.” You hate women. So, you know, it’s just a description.
LBT, naw don’t sweat it!!! Found a great job that gives me flexibility and I don’t have to pay for a sitter! My life is loads easier now, and its all good.
@holly
I don’t hate women. I just don’t hate men. So they call me a misogynist. That’s what the call everyone who doesn’t hate men.
Just make male heterosexuality illegal if it offends you so much. That’s what they get for loving women. The fools…
@holly
I don’t hate women. I just don’t hate men. So they call me a misogynist. That’s what the call everyone who doesn’t hate men.
Just make male heterosexuality illegal if it offends you so much. That’s what they get for loving women. The fools…
Non-sequitor.
Not least because it’s patently false. Holly isn’t offended by male heterosexuality.
She’s offended by rapists, and rape apologists, and misogynists. The first you encourage, because the second you practice. The jury is still out on the third, but a reasonable person would be excused if they thought you were; based on the first and second (see also, your ignoring of the violence in the movement you are praising/working beside).
Call it a preponderance of the evidence.
But if literally all hetero sex is rape, why bother trying to draw a distinction?
At the very least they believe that rape should be a subjective crime. Where it’s rape if you say so and it’s not if you don’t. That’s little better.
I never said you hated women. Although considering how you were just “but TECHNICALLY”ing a male rape victim, I don’t think you should be too damn proud of your “doesn’t hate man” credentials. Maybe you don’t hate them but you sure as hell aren’t too nice.
I understand, though; you thought he was a woman. The fact that you turned out to be attacking a man was collateral damage! It’s unfortunate but bound to happen when you’re performing your duty of keeping those darn rape victims in line.
Complete non sequitor and in incredibly bad faith. How the fuck am I offended by male heterosexuality?
I’m offended by rape, but if you think that’s the same thing as male heterosexuality… once again, you’re the goddamn misandrist here.
A rather facetious understanding of it, but in essence correct. Only I can decide if I want a sexual encounter or not. If I didn’t want the encounter, then I have been raped. And I’m a het male. I don’t see why this is not also true of women, genderqueers etc.
Yes Roberta, I’m sooo offended by male sexuality that I’ll be enticing Beloved into yet another display of it tonight,,,
Please stop building straw feminists or else spend a little more time doing the reading.
You’re the one arguing that most male heterosexuality is rape. If rape is in the eye of the beholder, as you seem to believe, then every man who ever sleeps with a woman is putting his life in that woman’s hands.
If I were male, I certainly would never sleep with a woman. It’s just too dangerous. No orgasm is worth your life. If I were a straight male, I’d just be celibate. It’s the only reasonable option left for hetero men in the 21st century.
NOBODY SAID THAT. Seriously nobody.
However, sex (hetero or not) without consent is rape.
Why is it so fucking complicated to understand something like SOMETIMES SEX IS RAPE AND SOMETIMES IT IS NOT? Why do you have to insist that anyone who claims rape exists thinks all sex is rape?
I know, how unfair! There ought to be some way to have sex with someone who doesn’t want it!
How is this complicated? Someone who takes my money is a thief if I say so and not if I don’t. This is how society works. Consent matters in a lot of things.
And seriously, what exactly are you planning to do to a person, that you want or need this “they didn’t want sex with me but I’m allowed to” contingency to exist? Why is that so fucking important to you?
I think you must be stuck on the part where a woman gets to say no.
Consent is not hard to understand, and its not hard to get so long as you understand you might not get it right then and there or that you may need to look for another potential partner.
And those are the two major hangups for people who don’t like the idea of consent.
pretty sure your sneering, pseudo-intellectual contempt for women would take care of this problem for you, just fyi.
So you can buy a product and then accuse the seller or theft after the fact? And legitimately so?
Good to know. I’m off to buy a Jaguar and then I’ll accuse the dealer of theft. Because, after all, it’s theft if I say so. And I say so, so it’s theft.
The logic is flawless. Anyone who disagrees probably supports rape.
That really makes no sense. I don’t know who misinformed but I assure you that male heterosexuality does not need women to not want the sex that they are having. Really it isn’t. And you seem to be under the impression that, even if your ridiculous “eye of the beholder” argument was true, there’s no reason that this standard does not apply to women and non-binary folks as well.
I… see. You’ll forgive me if I continue to be happily unreasonable I hope
No, every man who sleeps with a woman who doesn’t want to sleep with him is subjecting himself to the consequences of that action. Sleeping with women who want to sleep with you? Still legal in 50 states!
Good, since your idea of sexual negotiation seems to be less “what do we want to do together?” and more “what can I get away with?”
“Hey baby, let’s do something you won’t technically be able to secure a conviction for.”
Sexy.
Oh, what a bunch of shit. More dishonesty coming from Roberta, I am shocked.
And this:
Cue up the violins for the imaginary scenarios in your head.
Damn, those straw feminists are getting meaner and meaner.
Would you like to discuss the issue of the morality of Feminism & Co giving free lollipops for every male foetus aborted? I’m sure you have strong feeling on that.
*wait for quote from dead feminist to prove we all hate men.
Its telling that she always goes back to comparing women to inanimate objects isn’t it?
Also, why hetero sex? And why male hetero sex? You were the one saying to a man that his rape (by another man, if I’m not mistaken) isn’t real but we’re the men-haters?
I’m calling class of grad students on Roberta.
Unless they regret their decision and decide to relieve their cognitive dissonance by accusing you of rape. Something which is becoming more and more common.
If rape is a subjective crime, then anyone accused is automatically guilty. If you have sex with a woman and she regrets that fact at any point in her life, even years after the fact, your life is over. It’s just not worth the existential hazard.
Het men who sleep with women are playing games with their life. Just wait for sex robots. It’s only a matter of time.
As an internet-lawyer, I’m sure you understand the importance of citing the specific passage in which Holly (or anyone else, for that matter) said this.
Or you could just not rape people.
I mean, I’ve gotten through nearly 30 years of life without ever being accused of raping anyone – but maybe I don’t count, because I’m a woman. So let’s talk about my boyfriend, who used to have a LOT of casual sex with a LOT of women, and who has managed to make it through over 30 years of life without ever being accused of raping anyone. Wanna know his secret?
He only fucks people who WANT TO FUCK HIM. They generally express this by saying things like, “I want to fuck you.” Sometimes they didn’t say that, so he would ask them things like, “So, wanna fuck?” and they would say, “Hell yes” instead. It was all very complicated and confusing, provided you are a moron who is confused by incredibly straightforward and obvious things.
I am so tired of this bizarre misogynist meme that figuring out if someone has any actual interest in having sex with you is some deeply convoluted process involving mind-reading powers. Here on planet Earth, there are these things called “incredibly basic communication and observation skills” that make it pretty easy for virtually everyone to tell the difference between “gasping person saying, ‘god, that feels great, fuck me harder'” and “person lying there looking miserable and praying you’ll stop soon.” It is not actually a subtle distinction!
Radfems should cry into their knitting…these women who love MRAs hate men more than the most militant of our radfem sisters/ eyeroll
Besides which, your continual dismissal of men in the same situation makes me worry for all potential partners of yours, regardless of your sexuality.
*coughcoughBULLSHITcoughcough*
In other news, I was surprised but not terribly shocked to see this: blogger Mike Riggs at Reason.com, is is upset by the SPLC article, and pretends that it targets silly people like Mystery (the strange hat man).
Frickin’ frackin tags… here is Mike Riggs’s article: The Southern Poverty Law Center Is Now Writing About Pickup Artists as Hate Groups
Roberta: But if literally all hetero sex is rape, why bother trying to draw a distinction?
At the very least they believe that rape should be a subjective crime. Where it’s rape if you say so and it’s not if you don’t. That’s little better.
Who here has claimed the first?
It’s not subjective, in they way you claim it is.. The difference is that you see it as crime of intent (person A wishes to have sex with person B, and will use force to get it). We don’t. We see it as a crime of effect. Person A doesn’t freely give consent.
On the other hand, your definitions aren’t objective, so it’s not as if you have some talismanic touchstone to use and say, “This was RAPE!”. Who is to say, absent injury that force was used? Who can say that the threat of losing a job, being reported to child services, etc. was a realistic threat? Who is to say that, present injury, it was consensually rough sex and now there is, “buyer’s remorse”?
Only the victim. Who, other than the victim (other than a rape on tape) is there to testify to the threat?
You are merely trying to move all the burden to the victim.
Again, I’m not. That’s a really nice strawman you keep trying to build, be a shame if anything were to happen to it.
Fact: I am male.
Fact: I beleive everything I’ve written about rape.
Fact: I am not worried about being accused of rape (honestly, or falsely).
Fact: In thirty years of having sex (with more than a couple of women), I have never been accused of rape.
Not once. Probably for the same reason I am not worried about it. I get consent first. I work to see that consent is maintained. When my partner has said, “no, I’ve changed my mind”, I stop. When my partner has said, “I’m not in the moood,” I don’t start.
It’s really easy. I assume my partner has agency. I communicate with them. It works a lot better than saying, “I didn’t pull a gun, and she said, “Ok, I guess”, so I’m good to go.”
Which seems to be the only criteria you require to decide it wasn’t rape.
This may be TMI, but: I’m planning to have sex with my boyfriend tonight. (Booyah.)
I’m not going to accuse him of rape!
This is because:
A) Despite being a woman and thus a raging unpredictable creature, I’m actually quite honest, and would not accuse someone of a crime they didn’t commit.
B) Accusing someone of rape is an ordeal; I would be subjected to a medical exam, social ostracism, months of legal proceedings, and people giving me this kind of shit every time I mentioned it.
C) Even if he went to jail, what would I get? It’s not like they give me his money when he goes to jail.
D) He doesn’t have to play “legally technically by the dictionary that wasn’t rape” games, because he has sex with me that is not like rape at all. Sex I actually want! Which rather simplifies things.
And if I don’t want sex he doesn’t play “how can I force you to have sex with me but not force force you,” games, he goes to sleep.
E) I actually like my boyfriend because in addition to having sex with each other, we actually have a positive and trusting relationship. I’m not trying to preach here, but fucking people who can stand to be around you? Really a great way of ensuring your safety.
F) If I got him arrested for rape, how would I get laid next time? Gosh, talk about not thinking ahead.
Oh noes! The VR women are coming to take my place!!!gasp sob run to Beloved and beg him not to trade me in….
Um…how many WOMEN talk about VR sexbots with such satisfaction?
@polliwog
You completely discount the possibility of regret. Something that research shows us is extremely common. Especially among women.
Keep fucking around if you like. But I’d never stop looking over my shoulder if I were you.
WTF is this metaphor?
On the “eye of the beholder” part, the reason you got lost Roberta, is because you’re not speaking about the same as the rest of us.
We say that the victim have the right to name them-self what happen to them, and that the opinion of the law, the dictionary or internet lawyers is not very relevant. Which is a way to say rape victims don’t need your blessing to call what happened to them ‘rape’.
How are you offended by being called a misogynist, again?
Seriously. It’s a descriptive word. It means you think women are bad.
You think women are likely to randomly make false rape accusations against men, and that sex robots are superior to women. Therefore, you think women are bad.
Therefore, you are a misogynist.
Why even argue about the word? It describes you.
Sex robots aren’t superior to women, they’re just less likely to end your existence.
What research from where? Your ass does not count.
Do men never regret sex?
Frankly, I’m not even sure Roberta is a woman, but more like an MRA pretending.
Roberta, if you’re down with VR sexbots, have you met Zarat yet? You two would get along just fine.
Roberta: Unless they regret their decision and decide to relieve their cognitive dissonance by accusing you of rape. Something which is becoming more and more common.
Citation sorely fucking needed. Go down the hall, and ask your firm’s research librarian to run a Lexis/Nexis search on that one. Get back to us with the stats (and references).
If your firm is too small, do it yourself.
Het men who sleep with women are playing games with their life. Just wait for sex robots. It’s only a matter of time.
Have you talked to AntZ? David K. Meller might also have some insights on the future of “cybercuties”.
Here in the real world, men and women are still fucking. They are enjoying it. They aren’t crying rape for shits and giggles.
Well I know I cannot move on my own Pillowinhell.
Research suggests otherwise
Okay, so I’m confused by the logic here.
If we define rape as “sex the victim didn’t want,” then women will lie and say they didn’t want sex when they did.
But if we define rape as “sex the victim was forced into” then… women won’t just lie and say they were forced?
It seems like if you’re going to accuse women of randomly making up accusations, you might as well credit them with being able to make up whatever.
Unless you secretly don’t think the women are lying at all, but think that women shouldn’t get to refuse sex for a stupid ol’ reason like not wanting to, and wish that women’s wants were entirely irrelevant to this discussion.
Forgive me for saying this, but… only if you left the Jaguar dealer crying on the floor in a fetal position, Roberta. I think this is the rather vital distinction you’re missing.
Roberta, rape is not a capital crime, so it doesn’t actually “end your existence”. Are you capable of saying anything that is true?
Proof of it? Somehow I’m guessing that if your ‘proof’ exist, it will sound a lot like “many raped women don’t call what happen to them ‘rape’ at first”.
Just to be sure, Roberta, you are a woman? How many men have you falsely accused so far? If none, are just better than the rest of us? (if so, please details)
What do you think happen most, rape or false accusation of rape? (all genders, all orientations) What do you think is currently the biggest problem?
Also, have you met Antz? You would do a wonder couple, if he had already this FOREIGN WIFE.
Ninja’s by hellkell. This conversation is moving way too fast for my little fingers.
@holly
The difference is holly, that the subjective nature of rape you advocate for is much more susceptible to post-hoc interpretation.
Whether or not you agreed to have sex is a matter of objective, empirical fact. Whether or not you “wanted” to have sex is all about your own internal feelings. Who could ever dispute your feelings? If that were the standard than anyone accused would be guilty by default.