>
 |
| Er, not so much. |
Sometimes this job is just too easy. Sometimes I don’t have to even bother to check in on my favorite manosphere sites to find hair-raisingly awful quotes to feature here. Sometimes the Boobz are thoughtful enough to leave them in the comments here.
Take this quote from resident MGTOWer Cold, who currently seems to be spending more time on this blog than I am, comparing rape and child support. (You don’t think these two items are actually in any way comparable? Clearly you do not understand Boob Logic.)
In response to commenter Amused, who pointed out that “being ordered to support a child you’ve fathered isn’t the same as being pinned down and penetrated against your will,” Cold responded:
Exactly, it’s much, much worse. The latter lasts for some number of minutes, the former for at least 18 years. Given the choice it would be a no-brainer for me, and I think a very large number of men agree with me on this.
Setting aside the appalling trivialization of rape as something that’s over in “some number of minutes,” what does this say about Cold’s attitudes towards children? Paying a couple of hundred buck a month to pay for some of the expenses for a child you fathered – your own flesh and blood – is worse than being raped?
If Cold ever becomes a father, through circumstances which are frankly too horrible to imagine, I feel safe in saying that he will not be winning any “father of the year” awards.
I can just imagine the following scenario, some 11 or so years into the future:
EXTERIOR, MOVIE THEATER
Cold’s 10-year-old son: Happy Father’s day, daddy! I’m so glad we’re going to see Toy Story 5! I love Woody!
Cold: Yeah, so does your whore mom, if you know what I mean.
Son: Huh?
Cold: When you get older, you’ll understand. Did I mention that you mom’s a whore? One, please!
Son: Um, daddy, why did you buy only one ticket?
Cold: It’s for me. Get your own. You get enough of my money as it is. I stick my dick in your mom for two fucking minutes, and I’m screwed for life. It’s worse than rape!
Son: Um, daddy, I don’t have any money. I’m ten.
Cold: Well, you should have thought of that when you were a sperm!
Son: When I was a what?
Cold: I’m going in. See you in two hours.
Son: Dad? What am I supposed to do now?
Cold: Not my problem! I’m Going Galt! I’m Going My Own Way! You were a MISTAKE!
Son quietly sobs
Cold: Hey, when we get back to your mom’s place later, remind me to tell her she’s a filthy whore.
And … scene!
(By the way, Cold actually does claim to be going Galt, if self-admitted tax evasion counts.)
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>@cold, in your scenario with the fertility drugs, he consented to sex (without actual or implied threat if he did not have sex). Therefore, he was not raped. Is the scenario you describe a sucky one? Yes.Is it rape? No. What the woman did in that case was not okay, but it was also not rape. Is it gender specific? No. Men lie to partners and sabotage birth control as well. Women are not exempted from child support on those grounds either. It is a fair standard.I do not agree with the notion of "rape by deception" either. Let me give an analogous case that makes this more clear. Let us say that person A and person B see each other in a restaurant, find each other very attractive, and head directly to a hotel where they both agree to all of the sex that they have. Not rape. Now, does it become rape if A is a neo-nazi and finds out B is a Jewish because A would not have had sex with B had A known that fact? No, it does not.
>Your scenario is completely different since neither of them asked each other about their backgrounds. In the case of my friend, he was explicitly told that she was barren and his consent was procured through that lie. If what she did isn't rape, then it also shouldn't be considered rape if a man, after agreeing to wear a condom, distracts the woman at the moment of insertion as he removes the condom and penetrates her without it.
>Apparently not in Sweden.And if you are in favor of throwing women who make false accusations in prison for seven years or more (for something that had no actual conviction of rape charges so it is unclear what sentence the guy would have gotten), it will scare the people who are raped that they to will go to prison if the police do not believe them.
>"False accusers make people less likely to believe genuine victims. How does that not make sense?"Rapists make people less likely to trust men who aren't rapists. Nevertheless, you would object to people assuming you to be a rapist simply because you are male. People who falsely accuse rape victims of making false claims make people less likely to believe genuine victims of false accusations — or would you say it's not fair to postulate something like that? Also, the fact that genuine victims are branded as "false accusers" any time a defendant is acquitted — despite the well-known fact that an acquittal isn't proof of innocence — casts a lot of doubt on claims that false rape accusations are such a huge problem that we might as well legalize rape. Finally relying on a "study" that is unverifiable (because the author would not identify the town where the study was supposedly done) and deeply flawed on its face (due to the admission that rape complainants were unethically pressured to withdraw their complaints, and the author never deigned to interview any of them) proves yet again, that the brouhaha over false accusations is little more than good old pro-rape apologetics. "Women are lying bitches, so there is no such thing as rape even if there is." I mean, what else is new?"Amused,Is it above your abilities to address my actual points instead of making a ludicrous strawman and attacking that instead?"I'm not attacking a "ludicrous strawman" — I'm attacking your ludicrous values and your obvious hypocrisy. Saying that paying child support is worse than rape isn't a "point" that can be addressed; rather, it's an expression of your personal belief that rape is nothing because it only lasts for a few minutes and is merely unpleasant, and anyway, fuck women. The probable reason, as I've pointed out earlier, is that because you are not nearly as likely to be raped as a woman, you don't identify with rape victims, but you do identify with non-custodial fathers — in other words, you do indeed lack empathy. This is what you believe, and it would be ludicrous indeed for anyone to insist that you believe something else. You could just as easily have stated that paying child support is worse than the Holocaust (which took less than 18 years, and anyway, being gassed only takes 15 minutes or so, 30 at most), or that it's worse than cancer (less than 18 years as well), or that it's worse than, I don't know, being burned with acid or something. You believe what you believe, end of story. Personally, the idea of not supporting one's child (even an unintended child) while demanding power over that child is unfathomable to me, but again — that's simply a matter of a difference in values, not "points". Nothing that you've said here is even remotely convincing or even intriguing, and so it's not something that needs to be addressed as if it has merit. Instead, it reveals yet again the ugly truth about your character — and what I've said is merely an observation. And who cares what impression you make on "trained professionals"? I, for one, don't believe in pathologizing something just because I find it abhorrent. Not every ugly character flaw deserves a diagnosis.
>How much prison time should men who falsely accuse women of false rape claims get? Just wondering.
>He said that a person who files a false police report deserves whatever sentence that the person falsely accused would get (despite there not being an actual sentence to determine this from) up to the death penalty.
>I find it quite telling of the thought process of feminists that my simple question was not answered.It's not right to control a female's body. But why is it then that females wish to control a man's body?
>Most of the women on here have commented they think the idea of throwing someone in jail for not paying child support is both counterproductive and unfair.But you cannot say that it is females wishing to control the man's body because most women are not in charge of state legislatures that create the laws that end in men being tossed into jail for contempt of court.
>And I have yet to hear of any with a majority female state legislature.Even in Arizona where we are surprisingly progressive when it comes to electing women.
>"He said that a person who files a false police report deserves whatever sentence that the person falsely accused would get (despite there not being an actual sentence to determine this from) up to the death penalty."This raises all kids of practical issues, of course. For one thing, anyone who files a police report would have to be given some form of Miranda warnings, to advise her that anything she says can and will be used against her in a court of law and that she is entitled to have an attorney present. The use of lie detectors on rape complainants should be made totally illegal, since every rape complainant would be a potential defendant in a criminal prosecution. And no recantation would be admissible in court unless Miranda rules are scrupulously observed.Also, if the defendant in rape case claims, in his defense, that the sex was consensual, isn't he accusing the victim of a false rape claim? So if he gets convicted of the rape, isn't that also automatically a conviction for falsely accusing someone of a crime, namely, a false rape accusation? So his sentence would be doubled?DrewskiDaMan: "I find it quite telling of the thought process of feminists that my simple question was not answered.It's not right to control a female's body. But why is it then that females wish to control a man's body?"Why is it that you drown innocent puppies?We don't have to answer a question that's rhetorical and patently dishonest on its face. "Females" don't control men's bodies. Your reproductive choices aren't under attack. You are free to use birth control or to get a vasectomy without fear that the pharmacist will sabotage you, or that your doctor will get shot, or that some conservative wingnuts will push through a law making your birth control illegal.
>In the case of my friend, he was explicitly told that she was barren and his consent was procured through that lie. Translation, Cold's friend: Bitch got pregnant on purpose. She lied to me! She said she couldn't have kids, which is an edict set in stone with no possibility for uncertainty. She wants my money (ok, a small part of what she will pay raising her child, but STILL!). This is so traumatic for me! I have panic attacks, I keep flashing back to moments of paying money, I get creepy body sensations, my life is spiralling downhill, I've started using just to feel something different than this pain, I lose time, and the trauma keeps repeating itself. Oh wait actually…I feel like bitching about my ex.
>The greatest injustice ever in the history of the world is a man having to pay money to a woman who doesn't fuck him in return. Child support is just the tip of the iceberg, really. Think of waitresses being tipped, just for serving you like they should! How many times have you handed money to fast food workers, grocery store clerks, department store clerks, and even gas station attendants who have vaginas that they didn't immediately allow you to prong in return? It gets worse! Did you know that there are IRS agents, landlords, and even Hollywood agents that are women? (No wonder Charlie Sheen is pissed.) There should only be ONE reason EVER that a man gives a woman money, and that's if he's getting laid. Anything else is far, far worse than rape.
>As a medic to be? Rape is insanely poorly reported. During my gynae posting I came across multiple instances. Women just don't like admitting that they were raped. I would say that I could only get two to admit rape of which one was in marriage so "when I told the cops I was fined for wasting police time". This is why rape is not reported, because it's "a big fucking joke" to a lot of men. It's inexcusable. Cold… Rape is evil, no woman jokes about it and gets away with it. We can tell if women are raped or not (medically) as long as the woman comes to us immediately. The issue is getting women to come to us as quickly as possible. If she does it within a day then we will find the rapist and make sure he pays. The issue is that this is just as bad as rape. You are going to be scientifically prodded and poked and checked to see if you were raped. This is also dehumanising. Can you understand the logic that thinks "no more" rather than "I want to undergo further dehumanising tests to ensure that my rapist goes to jail". What we need is to improve reporting. We need education in both men and women to reduce rape (we can never stop rape. Rapists will always exist, but we can stop as many of them from existing and jail those who do). This will take time since it requires us to completely crush attitudes such as ones seen in communities such as the MRA movement or in religious attitudes of various people. Also… Amanda broke my sarcasm meter.
>My rule is to tip 10% for lousy service, 15% for so-so, 20% for good, 25% for great, right on up to the 100% tip if you propose marriage and she accepts on the spot (this never happens).
>Other things that are worse than rape, according to Cold's logic: TaxesPhone billsBus fareRentCredit card billsThey're worse than worse than rape, actually! Child support only lasts 18 years; i'm going to be paying phone bills for the rest of my LIFE! …or does it only count if the recipient if said pay is a woman?
>Yeah, Amanda, I think the poster upthread who complained about women who commit adultery getting custody of the kids sums up your point nicely: your vagina and anything that comes out of it belongs to me, and anything less is a gross injustice.Unexamined Privilege, thy name is the MRM.
>They're worse than worse than rape, actually! Child support only lasts 18 years; i'm going to be paying phone bills for the rest of my LIFE!…or does it only count if the recipient if said pay is a woman? Well, considering that in MRA-land feminists run everything, all your money probably ends up in a woman's pocket eventually.
>How much prison time should men who falsely accuse women of false rape claims get? Just wondering. THAT NEVER HAPPENS! Men who are accused of rape have no incentive to lie whatsoever. None. Anyone who says otherwise is a lying feminist.
>I remember I LMAO when he posted that original comment because it was just like this Daily Show bit:Money rape!
>@Cold, consensual sex does not become rape merely because one party is a liar. To go back to my analogy, if the Jewish person claimed to be Christian earlier in the evening, it is still not a rape. The condom example is distinguishable due to the fact that it involves the actual sex act consented to, rather than an extrinsic factor that, if known, would affect the consent to a sex act. So, penetrating your partner anally instead of vaginally when they have only consented to vaginal sex is rape, but penetrating anally where anal was consented to, but would not have been consented to with knowledge of, for example, the fact that the person penetrating had a urinary tract infection that they knew could be spread in such a way, is not rape. In the fertility drug case, the man consented to "PIV sex with no condom", but the woman in the condom case did not consent to "PIV sex without a condom". This is also why, for example, it is a rape if person A consents to have sex with person B while blindfolded and C takes B's place without A's knowledge, but not rape if it is A and B who have sex but one later finds out that the other is a member of a different political party, cheated on them the week before, hates puppies, is an arsonist, etc.
>Your argument here hinges on your premise that "PIV sex with a condom" and "PIV sex with no condom" are separate sexual acts and that consent to one is not consent to the other. You are, of course, entitled to believe this, just as I am entitled to believe that "PIV sex with a fertile woman" and "PIV sex with an infertile woman" are separate acts for which consent is not interchangeable. Both of us, however, are engaging in intellectual masturbation since neither the dictionary or legal definitions of vaginal intercourse specify a condom or fertility. For that matter, neither the dictionary nor legal(in most countries) definitions of rape recognize the idea of conditional consent. Consent to an act is either given or not given, with no room for conditions.So, if a woman insists on a condom for sex, she is specifying a condition that must be met before she will give consent. When the man puts on the condom and she gives him the nod, she has given her consent. If he then distracts her at the moment of insertion and removes the condom without her seeing, she won't withdraw her consent because she thinks he is still wearing it. At the end of the act she may be shocked to see a bare penis come out of her, but it is too late at that point to withdraw consent since the activity has already finished. The man is guilty of deceit but not of rape, at least not in most countries. The same would hold true if the man had agreed to pay the woman some sum of money for the act but then ran off without paying or paid with counterfeit bills. Conditional consent is simply not a recognized concept at this time.
>I think Cold made people so angry that our responses aren't as measured as they ought to be. While I don't agree with his framing of the issue, I do feel several posters (including Amanda, whom I normally respect) are being needlessly callous toward child support payers. The problem is not that could is comparing child support to rape. It's that he's saying it's *worse* than rape. That's oppression olympics, it dismisses other people's experiences and judgments, and we know he's going to use it to argue for less enforcement of child support or rape charges, both of which are things that should be enforced. But Amanada et al. are saying rape and child support shouldn't be compared at all, and basically trivializing the importance of the issue. I think that's wrong. Sure it's easy to say "it's just money," but the economy is bad and a little money can mean a big difference in quality of life. I know child support isn't enough by itself to actually provide a good life for a child, but that doesn't mean it's not enough that paying out can't come between a man and his ability to live where he wants or get the medical care he needs or something else important. Plus, if you're paying child support, that probably means some kind of trauma or at least drama in the relationship with the mother. Whether it's a divorce, an unintended pregnancy you hoped she'd abort, or I guess occasionally a matter of deception, it's probable that there's a lot of shit there. I can easily believe that some men are having flashbacks or breaking into tears as they sign their checks. So yeah, I think it can be an ongoing trauma that could make some people feel violated, and so I don't think saying it feels like a rape would be inappropriate. That doesn't mean the woman didn't have good reasons, the right to make her own choices, or bigger problems of her own. It just means life sucks for everyone. Can't we focus on the real reason child support works the way it does–every human's right to bodily autonomy, plus the need to take care of innocent children–without getting into who's feelings are more important? I think saying "being raped is always worse than child support could ever be" is the same kind of oppression olympics as saying the opposite.
>Rapists make people less likely to trust men who aren't rapists.Yes, and?Nevertheless, you would object to people assuming you to be a rapist simply because you are male.Objecting to reality doesn't change it. Some men do rape, and because of them all men have to deal with a certain amount of suspicion. I do, however, object to the feminist efforts to exaggerate the amount of rape and man-on-woman violence that takes place and to create much. much more fear of men than would otherwise exist.People who falsely accuse rape victims of making false claims make people less likely to believe genuine victims of false accusations — or would you say it's not fair to postulate something like that?Whatever effect those people have on the credibility on a random rape accuser is a drop in the ocean compared to the harm done by real false accusers.Also, the fact that genuine victims are branded as "false accusers" any time a defendant is acquitted — despite the well-known fact that an acquittal isn't proof of innocence — casts a lot of doubt on claims that false rape accusations are such a huge problem that we might as well legalize rape.Are you talking out of you ass again? I've never heard of anyone being branded as a false accuser in the media except in cases where there was actual evidence that she deliberately made a false accusation, or she admitted herself that it was a lie.Finally relying on a "study" that is unverifiable (because the author would not identify the town where the study was supposedly done) and deeply flawed on its face (due to the admission that rape complainants were unethically pressured to withdraw their complaints, and the author never deigned to interview any of them) proves yet again, that the brouhaha over false accusations is little more than good old pro-rape apologetics. "Women are lying bitches, so there is no such thing as rape even if there is." I mean, what else is new?See what I mean about the strawmen? I said nothing about any study involving a single town, and calling me a pro-rape apologist is just more libel from you. I guess that's all you can do when you have no actual argument to make.
>I think Cold made people so angry that our responses aren't as measured as they ought to be.Correction: some people allowed themselves to become too angry to make a measured response. That's their fault for lacking control over their emotions, not my fault for making an argument they don't want to hear.I know child support isn't enough by itself to actually provide a good life for a child, but that doesn't mean it's not enough that paying out can't come between a man and his ability to live where he wants or get the medical care he needs or something else important.Child support is indexed based on the man's income in such a way that whatever amount it ends up being will be significant for that man. $200 a month is pocket change for David Foley, but it's significant for a man earning minimum wage. David Foley, by the way, was ordered to pay over $17,000 a month. That would be enough to provide a good life for the child AND allow the mother to buy some luxuries for herself if it was paid every YEAR, yet this is what he has to pay MONTHLY.Not only that, but it's more than he can afford. It was calculated based on a higher point in his career, and the misandrist courts refuse to recognize that he no longer makes that much money. In an effort to TRY to make the money, he did a full nude scene in a movie by notorious director Uwe Boll. If a woman was forced to star in porn films to provide her ex-husband with $17,000 a year on pain of imprisonment, there would be a public outcry. But because Foley doesn't have a vagina, the media and the feminists can barely stifle their yawns. In fact, as one presumably male commenter on that very article put it, "Any time you start talking about 10s of thousands of dollars a month for child support, its just state sanctioned financial rape of the guy because they can."I think saying "being raped is always worse than child support could ever be" is the same kind of oppression olympics as saying the opposite.So far you are the only person who has actually noticed that it wasn't me who initially tried to compare child support and rape. Amused brought that up in an effort to try and trivialize the financial servitude of men, so I called her on it. As I said before, I would choose forced sodomy over being put on the hook for child support for 18 years. I am entitled to my preference, and it is my opinion that most other men would make the same decision, especially considering that they could be forcibly sodomized anyway as a consequence if being unable to pay due to circumstances beyond their control. Nonetheless, I wouldn't have made the comparison if Amused hadn't made it first.
>Child support only lasts 18 years; i'm going to be paying phone bills for the rest of my LIFE!Your contract with the phone company is voluntary, moron.