Try to guess what the blogger at The Truth Shall Set You Free, a blog that describes itself as “an examination of all issues related to comparative religion and the attempt to find truth in the world today” is talking about here. (Hint: It’s not drugs.)
“We are going to let drug dealers set up stands on every street corner, with glitzy advertising, and they will be allowed to offer their illegal drugs, for free, to anyone who walks by. But if anyone takes them up on their offer of free drugs, we will arrest the receiver and send them to prison. Even if the seller advertised a legal drug, but the receiver took an illegal one unknowingly.”
Well, I probably gave it away with the title and the illustration, but yes, he’s talking about age of consent laws. We’re back on that subject again, thanks to the inability of manosphere douchebags to stop talking about it in extremely icky ways. The “dealer” here is, of course, the underage girl. The drug in question … is also the underage girl. The unwary buyer? The poor, helpless, and outrageously oppressed male of the species. I’ll let our high-minded Christian blogger explain:
Criminalizing consensual sex with willing 16 year olds is absurd. Consent is consent.
The bias of the law is revealed by considering this: If both parties consented to breaking the law, why aren’t both parties punished? …
Uh, because the law is designed to protect underage girls and boys from older predators? Because we as a society recognize that consent is really not consent when one of the “consenting” partners is underage and the other is much older?
But no, our thoughtful student of comparative religion seems convinced that the purpose of the law is, well, I’m not sure what he thinks the purpose is other than to harsh the buzz of older men in thrall to evil, devious, conniving teenage girls.
In his mind, teen girls are the equivalent of drug dealers and older men are hapless, helpless addicts:
-The dealers (young women) are allowed to advertise (through clothes, makeup, body-language) an extremely valuable and addictive commodity (sex), and in fact, they can give it away totally free, without fear of any penalty…
–but if a customer (man) takes that heavily-advertised and freely-given valuable commodity, he is committing a felony.
And that’s the case, he complains, even if the girl lies about her age!
–even if he had no knowledge that her drug was illegal (underage), even [if] she misrepresented the commodity as legal, he is solely at fault.
–The consumer (man) is sent to prison, and forced to register as a sex offender FOR LIFE
–The dealer (young woman) is allowed to walk free to continue to entrap other potential customers of her illegal commodity.
A clearer example of the infamous “pussy pass” couldn’t not be conceived. What these laws are really doing is punishing men for girls being sluts and/or liars.
And so the oppression of men by evil women and girls continues apace. But there is, our blogger insists, a simple solution to this terrible injustice:
Punish the girls who are providing!
Clearly it is unfair to expect men to be able to resist the lures of these conniving Lolitas. We must do something to protect innocent men from underage sluts slutting it up in public!
It is a dumb, and ultimately lazy way of solving the problem of rapes Marc.
I’m going out on a limb here, but I’m pretty sure Bee didn’t advocate the elimination of men.
I’m not sure why I have to explain this to you, Marc, but eliminating all men because some men are rapists doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Some women rape, too (not anywwhere near as many, but some). So should we eliminate women as well?
Trying to lock up those men (and women) who ARE rapists, doesn’t that make more sense?
Marc: Bee (one person) speaking about Ludek Jirak (one person) /= “Many posters” nor “many sex offenders”.
That’s what I mean by dishonest.
As to “”eliminating men” If we aren’t advocating it, who is?
You are. Why? What is it about men you see as intractable evil?
Why is this such an important thing that you are saying it should be done.
It doesn’t address any of the concerns here. We don’t want men eliminated. We don’t see men as the problem. We see a society that says men are special, and women second class as the problem.
Eliminating men is tossing the baby out with the bath water. It’s also presenting feminism as something it’s not (which is dishonest). It’s merely the reversal of some MRA’s (e.g. Meller) fantasies.
No, no. Marc is right. He’s stumbled on the Secret Feminist Plans To Eliminate Anything That Hurts Feminists Even Once. It’s a brilliant plan, isn’t it?
I mean, it makes sense. I stubbed my toe on a chair today. No more chairs, ever!
An old lady was mean to me. So much for old ladies! Off to the death camp, Grandma!
Some men are rapists. Let’s get rid of all men ever! Problem solved!
Sometimes I hurt my hands opening pickle jars. I’m going to make sure that pickles aren’t allowed to exist anymore! Or jars! Heck, I’m going to wipe both pickles and jars from existence forever! That will solve the problem!
But I love pickles!
Marc: Bee (one person) speaking about Ludek Jirak (one person) /= “Many posters” nor “many sex offenders”.
That’s what I mean by dishonest.
Why is that dishonest, please? Of course other posters said this as well, otherwise I wouldn’t have written “many posters”, but I just remember her.
I simply can’t find the comments anymore, a Google search is not possible and it’s nearly impossible to go through pages and pages of comments, read hundreds of comments.
Eliminating men is tossing the baby out with the bath water. It’s also presenting feminism as something it’s not (which is dishonest). It’s merely the reversal of some MRA’s (e.g. Meller) fantasies.
You are hurting me with you constant, evil and baseless accusations. I never said that feminism is about eliminating men. That’s not something I ever said.
Now there is no doubt anymore:
YOU, just YOU, are the dishonest one here.
So . . . .if feminists hate dick, does that mean I can’t be gay anymore? Cuz . . . . . I kinda like it. And my hubs will be PISSED.
Why should feminists hate dicks?
Marc: If you claim, “many posters conceded to you, that many rapists can’t help themselves” you have to back it up.
I recall a few, agreeing about one person, and admitting there are people like that.
If you had said some of you agreed there are some rapists who are pathologically unable to stop… I’d have let it go.
But you don’t do that. You make claims of overwhelming certainty. “many posters, and many sex offenders”. The fact of the matter is that studies show most sex offenders have a lower rate of recidivism than previously thought.
I’d really like an answer to why you want to eliminate all men? Because if it’s not us, and it’s not feminism, it must be someone; since you keep talking about it. So it’s not feminists. It’s not MRAs. It’s not the community here.
That leaves you.
So either you want to eliminate men, or you are making a rhetorical point for a purpose.
Which is it? If it’s you, why?
If it’s for a rhetorical purpose, please share with the class.
Sorry, Beth. No pickles for you. I don’t care if most pickles in the world are delicious; there are a small portion of them that are improperly packaged and likely to hurt consumers. The only logical solution is getting rid of pickles entirely!
And Bruce, no dicks for you. Marc is making a really compelling case for the eradication of all men ever. Which, I guess, means you’ve got to be eradicated too so your opinions are kinda moot.
Marc, you’re confusing women with Daleks again. Really, we don’t feel the need to exterminate men. Except for the Doctor.
Marc: If you claim, “many posters conceded to you, that many rapists can’t help themselves” you have to back it up.
Who says that I have to back it up? I would prove it if I could. I can’t, but that’s not my fault. If you don’t want to believe it, I’m ok with that, as you probably are ok, that I don’t believe this:
The fact of the matter is that studies show most sex offenders have a lower rate of recidivism than previously thought.
Marc, you’re confusing women with Daleks again. Really, we don’t feel the need to exterminate men. Except for the Doctor.
I don’t know why I am confusing anything, I don’t remember that I ever claimed that you feel the need to exterminate men.
I’m not sure why I have to explain this to you, Marc, but eliminating all men because some men are rapists doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Some women rape, too (not anywwhere near as many, but some). So should we eliminate women as well?
Why not? It’s similar to banning certain dog-races, it is just a statistical effect there, too.
Marc: “Bee said it. She said that people like Ludek Jirak would never stop raping.”
Jesus, Marc, you complete moron. YOU said that Ludek Jirak would never stop raping. My point was that EVEN IF THAT WERE SO, that still didn’t make all the other absurd nonsense you were spouting true.
Ok, sorry, I remember now, you said that Ludek Jurek would still rape even if we had sex separation. But that comes pretty close to what I said.
Bee (and all others), do you think men are biologically more likely predisposed to be sex offenders?
[ ] Yes.
[ ] No.
[ ] Don’t know.
Marc. I have never heard of Ludek Jurek outside of your comments. You said that he would rape no matter what because of some kind of medical/psychological condition. Rather than dispute that, I went along with what you were saying because I wanted to address your stupid point about co-ed campuses, rather than talk about this person I’ve never heard of.
Of course, arguing with you about anything, including what I was talking about weeks ago, is completely pointless since you’re an asshole who never says anything he means anyway. So whatever.
“And Bruce, no dicks for you. Marc is making a really compelling case for the eradication of all men ever. Which, I guess, means you’ve got to be eradicated too so your opinions are kinda moot.”
Well, honestly, if I can’t have dick, there really isn’t too much reason to live anyway, so I’m cool w that. 😉
Wait – I thought being gay made me the enemy of MRAs anyways, doesn’t THAT get me a get-out-of-apocolypic-genocide free card?
Well I’m gay, too, but if I would make exceptions about gays in my demands for no justifiable reasons that would make me kind of hypocritical.
Of course, arguing with you about anything, including what I was talking about weeks ago, is completely pointless since you’re an asshole who never says anything he means anyway. So whatever.
Could you please answer my question above, thanks.
Marc: Who says you have to back it up? I do. Esp. after Bee corrected you as to what it was she said (versus what you recalled) and you said, “Well I was wrong, but you agreed with me anyway.” That’s dishonest.
Somehow I figured you wouldn’t accept my word on rates of recidivism. Happily I have references:
U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994
This is, of course, a complex problem, exacerbated by the problematic definition of, “sex crime”
The Numbers Guy
So, the US DoJ finds that 3 percent of sex offenders are rearrested for sex crimes. The State of Texas thinks about 10 percent of sex offenders are likely to recommit.
I’d say that shows a pretty low rate of recidivism.
Marc: Sauce for the goose: Could you please answer my question above, thanks.
I’d like to know why you suggested eliminating men.
I’d like to know why you suggested it here.
Marc: Who says you have to back it up? I do.
So?
Esp. after Bee corrected you as to what it was she said (versus what you recalled) and you said, “Well I was wrong, but you agreed with me anyway.”
Nitpicking! Such a minor difference is not worthy to mention.
That’s dishonest.
You are dishonest, proof here:
http://manboobz.com/2011/07/18/a-man-and-an-old-lady-get-in-an-elevator/comment-page-6/#comment-42768
Marc: “Could you please answer my question above, thanks.”
I think I won’t, thanks. Perhaps when you’ve proved yourself capable of having an honest discussion and not mischaracterizing what other people say, you’ll find more people willing to enter into a discussion with you.
Marc seems to have a wonderful talent for pulling shit out of thin air, throwing it at people, and causing fights to break out over.
I mean, really, it’s dishonesty at it’s finest and most annoying.
Bee (and all others), do you think men are biologically more likely predisposed to be sex offenders?
[ ] Yes.
[ ] No.
[ ] Don’t know.
Yeah, see this is the thing. You accuse other people of being dishonest and then you pull a page right out of the bad faith debater’s playbook: demand your opponent take an extreme, binary position on a complicated topic, then head down a long hand-waiving trail of ‘if you accept this, you must accept this’.
Not responding to this kind of stunt is the only correct response.
Yeah, see this is the thing. You accuse other people of being dishonest
Pecunium is dishonest and this is proven by his selective quoting and distortions.
and then you pull a page right out of the bad faith debater’s playbook: demand your opponent take an extreme, binary position on a complicated topic, then head down a long hand-waiving trail of ‘if you accept this, you must accept this’.
“Yes”, “No” or “Don’t know”… there are three answers! Binary = TWO.
And it’s also not extreme, because acknowledging a tendency for men to be more likely to be sex offenders or denying it or saying that you don’t know is not an extreme position.
Okay, yeah, and then when someone responds to you, you just huff and puff about how people aren’t uses words to mean precisely what you wish them to mean.
Really, I understand why people are fed up with you.
Okay, yeah, and then when someone responds to you, you just huff and puff about how people aren’t uses words to mean precisely what you wish them to mean.
I did that, sometimes, I admit it. But I didn’t start it! It was mostly Pecunium who started the nitpicking. I just defended myself against that.
Really, I understand why people are fed up with you.
It’s just because of Pecunium, he tries to make me look bad and because of his “You are dishonest”-propaganda, he forces me to defend standpoints I don’t really approve of.