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!
Marc: My selective quoting and distortions.
When Bee says, “You misrepresented my position”, you said, “but the way I said it means you agree with me”.
When I point out that no, Bee really did tell you that you are wrong you say that’s nitpicking.
You tell people what other people, “really mean”. I quote them, and show what mistakes they have made. The evidence is there, and it’s not helping you. I suspect that were you to put out a poll question about that post you say proves my dishonesty… the results won’t support your interpretation.
I know it’s hard to admit one is wrong, esp. on something as personal as how one argues (instead of what one is arguing). I can’t say, at this point, I have a whole lot of sympathy for you, because you have been so persistent in saying it’s always the fault of someone else; the reader, or your bad english, or being misquoted, or people (i.e. me) nitpicking the petty details of actual logical failings.
It’s never your fault.
And you’ve still not explained why you chose to make the argument that men ought to be eliminated.
As to “so” in response to who is demanding you back things up… I was being clever. I was the one making the specific demand. Did you see me posturing about how “I am right, and you can go look the facts up,” or blathering that I couldn’t be arsed to actually go and find them?
No. I made an assertion. You challenged it. I provided data.
That’s how adults, honest people, engage in argument. They make a claim, and support it with data, facts, defensible theories.
Bee (and all others), do you think men are biologically more likely predisposed to be sex offenders?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
[ ] Don’t know.
No, men are not biologically predisposed to be sex offenders. That’s a horrible, misandrist thing to say. Neither men nor women are biologically predisposed to be sex offenders. More men than women are rapists because of cultural influences, which feminists are working to change.
Now, answer my question. Do you, Marc, believe that I should wipe all trace of pickles from the face of the Earth because some pickle jars hurt my hands when I open them?
[ ] Yes.
[ ] No.
[ ] What’s a pickle?
re your question:
No one is “biologically predisposed” to be a sex-offender, since sex-offenses are a cultural issue. In societies which make premarital sex illegal, huge numbers of people are going to be “predisposed” to become sex offenders.
When marital rape was illegal, the men who are (now) sex offenders, wouldn’t be.
It’s a nonsensical question.
summer_snow: You should have houseboys who open jars for you, lest the least discomfort every be suffered by your most Royal Self, as should all the Princesses, lest they not be able to enjoy the privilege they so richly deserve.
I know it’s hard to admit one is wrong, esp. on something as personal as how one argues (instead of what one is arguing).
Yes, compared to Bee (Hello, Bee! See, what I’m doing here! 😉 ) you really have seen through me and you recognize that I take all this very personal.
I can’t say, at this point, I have a whole lot of sympathy for you, because you have been so persistent in saying it’s always the fault of someone else; the reader, or your bad english, or being misquoted, or people (i.e. me) nitpicking the petty details of actual logical failings.
Always? Really always? Haven’t I said that I was wrong in the other comment section and did I not even apologize for it?
And you’ve still not explained why you chose to make the argument that men ought to be eliminated.
Well, I don’t really make an argument for that, I more asked you, inspired by the gun metaphor: Why would it be so wrong?
If you look at my question with the three answers, I would choose the first answer and so for me it doesn’t look that wrong.
As to “so” in response to who is demanding you back things up… I was being clever. I was the one making the specific demand.
Did you see me posturing about how “I am right, and you can go look the facts up,” or blathering that I couldn’t be arsed to actually go and find them?
I think you have to see the difference between evidence you are able to supply and evidence you aren’t able to supply. Finding other peoples comments here is nearly impossible, sorry!
No. I made an assertion. You challenged it. I provided data.
But where was this data for your claim “The fact of the matter is that studies show most sex offenders have a lower rate of recidivism than previously thought.” provided? I fail to see that…
“Previously” is different from “commonly”.
But Pecunium, all my houseboys are manginas! How could any servants of a Feminist Overlady possibly have the wrist strength to open pickle jars?
Only a True Man can twist the pickle lid from the pickle jar without hurting his hands sometimes, and I thought we all agreed that we were going to manginize them all with Saturday Morning Cartoon Radical Hypnofem Advertising Rays.
I guess the only solution is robots.
Quick, somebody design me a sexbot with superior grip strength!
summer_snow: That’s a pickle.
If you think that penises and guns are roughly equivalent, that’s a problem with you, dude. Such an analogy reveals only how you think about penises, and it’s not complimentary.
Guns are weapons and made to be weapons and designed, created, manufactured and sold to possibly one day cause harm to another human being or animal. Hunting, self-defense, etc – you’re still causing pain to others. If you use a gun as intended, at the very least you’re threatening someone and at the very worst, killing them.
Penises, on the other hand, are quite functional. They can give and receive pleasure, they are pretty important when it comes to creating new life, and they let men pee standing up. It is only when the lovely and wonderful uses of a penis are perverted that people end up in pain. Penises were not created to rape the same way guns are created to shoot things. Your analogy fails so very, very hard. Having a penis doesn’t make someone a rapist; being an asshole who doesn’t give a fuck about someone else’s bodily integrity and committing rape makes someone a rapist. And that second can be done with or without a penis being involved.
Pecunium, I think “Holy Highnesses.” is the preferred nomenclature.
No one is “biologically predisposed” to be a sex-offender, since sex-offenses are a cultural issue. In societies which make premarital sex illegal, huge numbers of people are going to be “predisposed” to become sex offenders.
That only proves that there is a cultural influence. It doesn’t prove that it’s only a cultural issue.
And if I take your claims that sex crimes are extremely underreported, seriously, a discussion about this (and also about sex offender recidivism, like the studies you quoted — there’s nothing to wonder about that sex offender have a low recidivism rate for sex crimes, if a huge percentage of sex crimes is not reported) is very difficult.
I just always have to think about the castrated Czech sex offenders. Of course this is just listening to their introspection. But to listen to them especially Ludek Jirak who had intrusive dreams about raping little children until he was castrated… (then the dreams stopped.) makes it really seem that a biological disposition to be a sex offender exists and this has something to do with testosterone.
No, men are not biologically predisposed to be sex offenders. That’s a horrible, misandrist thing to say.
But it could still be true.
More men than women are rapists because of cultural influences, which feminists are working to change.
Why is feminists so ineffective in doing that? Has anything changed in the last 30 years?
Now, answer my question. Do you, Marc, believe that I should wipe all trace of pickles from the face of the Earth because some pickle jars hurt my hands when I open them?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
[ ] What’s a pickle?
Why is feminists so ineffective in doing that?
Because people like you keep fucking shit up, that’s why.
Has anything changed in the last 30 years?
Yes, but do your own research.
Marc, do you believe any of what you’re saying? Be serious, here.
If you think that penises and guns are roughly equivalent, that’s a problem with you, dude. Such an analogy reveals only how you think about penises, and it’s not complimentary.
Guns are weapons and made to be weapons and designed, created, manufactured and sold to possibly one day cause harm to another human being or animal. Hunting, self-defense, etc – you’re still causing pain to others. If you use a gun as intended, at the very least you’re threatening someone and at the very worst, killing them.
I didn’t come up with that, please remember that. Besides, the original metaphor wasn’t penises=guns, but men=guns.
I quote MertvayaRuka:
“Well, sure, in the same sense that guns should always been assumed to be loaded. Basic personal safety should always take priority over people’s feelings.”
This is actually a really excellent metaphor, CB.
Anyone with half a brain about firearms KNOWS you always treat them as if they are loaded until you confirm otherwise. And then you still treat them as if they are loaded. This doesn’t mean they hate guns, or they think guns are inherently evil or that all guns do is kill people. It means they respect the potential for danger and act accordingly around them. You don’t assume they are ever harmless because the danger if they’re not is too great to risk assumption. Just as it would be a risk to assume the strange guy in the elevator with you is perfectly harmless.
This metaphor or analogy again inspired me to think about the idea to stop producing male babies. To ban guns is not an outrageous demand. But to “ban men” would be…? (correct me if I’m wrong…) Why… why is that so wrong?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
[ ] What’s a pickle?
But why do you feel that way, Marc? Pickle jar lids are dangerous, and hurt a lot of people’s hands. I’ll bet that somewhere, at some point in history, at least one person died from tetanus from scratching themselves on a horrible pickle jar lid. Surely that’s proof that pickle jars and pickles, statistically speaking, are terrible inventions and should be destroyed?
Marc – The analogy isn’t to banning guns, but to handling them with caution.
Assuming that men are never dangerous and never commit crimes is like putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger, because you’re absolutely sure it couldn’t possibly be loaded.
Most of the time, you’ll be right. But the consequences of being wrong are so horrible that they warrant caution every time. If you handle guns a lot, there’ll be lots of instances where you know a gun is unloaded, and it really is. (Just like a guy who says he’s harmless, and really is.) You still treat them like they’re loaded, just because the consequences are so bad if you’re wrong.
This metaphor or analogy again inspired me to think about the idea to stop producing male babies. To ban guns is not an outrageous demand. But to “ban men” would be…? (correct me if I’m wrong…) Why… why is that so wrong?
…. because guns aren’t people? Because men aren’t just their penis?
Seriously, you’re the only one who’s proposing an end to men as a way to solve rape. Most feminists believe that the much less drastic method, of teaching men that rape is wrong, will work just fine.
Marc: I just always have to think about the castrated Czech sex offenders. Of course this is just listening to their introspection. But to listen to them especially Ludek Jirak who had intrusive dreams about raping little children until he was castrated… (then the dreams stopped.) makes it really seem that a biological disposition to be a sex offender exists and this has something to do with testosterone.
So find evidence to support your position. Where are the other case studies? Where are the longitudinal studies? Where is the subsequent self reporting by other offenders?
A single datum isn’t something to generalise a rule from. You keep doing that (it’s the flip side of your idea that a single datum invalidates a general rule).
If you look at the studies, it’s admitted that reporting is less than perfect, but… even with that, sex-offenders (whom one supposes to be under greater scrutiny than the general populace) have an overall recidivist rate of less than 4 percent for subsequent sexual offense.
They have a lower rate than other criminals for overall re-offense. They have a lower rate for felonious re-offense.
That doesn’t mean they don’t re-offend. It does mean the evidence supports the claim that the common wisdom that sexual offenders are “guaranteed” to re-offend because, “they can’t help themselves” is wrong.
Which is what I said.
You have this idea that somehow being aware that men commit the majority of sexual assaults means the people here (and feminists in general) have a problem with men. We don’t. We have a problem with rapists.
MRAs make the worst analogies. Girls/women are the dealers? Men are the addicts? Sex is the “commodity” (drug)? When these fucking dumb-ass MRAs stop thinking of “pussy” as a “market,” then we’ll take them seriously. Okay, no, we still won’t, but that’s because they’ll find other stupid shit to make logical fallacies about.
The manly-man thing inevitably leads to thinking of everything as a market.
If you look at the studies, it’s admitted that reporting is less than perfect,
It says:
“While some sex offenders in this study probably committed a new sex crime after their release and were not arrested or convicted, the study cannot say how many.
As mentioned above, one reason why sex offenders are not arrested is that no one calls the police. Results from the National Crime Victimization Survey indicate that the offenses of
rape/sexual assault are the least likely crimes to be reported to the police.”
(and this is about the rearrest rate, not the reconviction rate, which is, of course, even more problematic.)
but… even with that, sex-offenders (whom one supposes to be under greater scrutiny than the general populace) have an overall recidivist rate of less than 4 percent for subsequent sexual offense.
The <4% number is the reconviction rate for a sexual offense in the next three years. How many rapes are reported and how many of these reported rapes result in a conviction?
If we believe this:
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates
not very much…
Only 9% of rapes result in a conviction.
Sex offenders face greater scrutiny? Maybe… but they might also act more carefully once they served time in prison.
Also if you look at this study:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=204946
though a low risk is found, this risk is constant. And that makes sex offenses different from other crimes, it is consistent with the idea that “sex offenders don’t change”
So find evidence to support your position. Where are the other case studies? Where are the longitudinal studies? Where is the subsequent self reporting by other offenders?
For example in the 1989 study by Wille and Beier about high-risk sex offenders (99 surgically castrated sex offenders and 35 non-castrated sex offenders). After 10 years the recidivism rate of castrated offenders was 3%, for non-castrated offenders it was 46%.
But why do you feel that way, Marc? Pickle jar lids are dangerous, and hurt a lot of people’s hands. I’ll bet that somewhere, at some point in history, at least one person died from tetanus from scratching themselves on a horrible pickle jar lid. Surely that’s proof that pickle jars and pickles, statistically speaking, are terrible inventions and should be destroyed?
It’s a risk/benefit-calculation. What’s the benefit in keeping men around? What? If we say we need a birthrate of 2.1 – 2.3 children per woman to keep the population constant (and avoid the nasty demographic effects), when we would not afford ourself the luxury to produce males, a woman would only need to have 1.1 daughters on average in her lifetime, which would mean less pregnancies and more productive time.
Maybe there is a small benefit because men are physically stronger, but that’s it… and that’s really not so important anymore in this day and age.
The risks on the other hand are clear and far outweigh the benefits (that’s the difference to the pickles).
Besides the rape, there is clear evidence that there’s a link between testosterone and aggression. Either have a look throughout all the cultures and think for yourself or have a look at the study of Dabbs, Frady, Carr, and Besch (1987).
MRAs make the worst analogies.
Yes, but this analogy is not from an MRA, it’s from MertvayaRuka.
@Vicky:
Because people like you keep fucking shit up, that’s why.
Am I beyond redemption or is feminism just ineffective in chaning my mind?
Yes, but do your own research.
I never imagined that telling men that rape is wrong is such a difficult thing to do…
While the post you’re dissecting is making horrible points, you, unfortunately, are too. We live in a society where youth sexuality is stigmatized and youth are treated as ignorant victims unable to make their own decisions. People who are capable of both rational decision-making and sexual desire are seen as irresponsible and naive based on age alone.
You also imply that every female who isn’t legally an adult is a “little girl”, which is demeaning even as a joke.
Marc: Do you read what you write? You agree that the reconviction rate… for all crimes, is less among sex offenders, then you argue this the rate of convictions for rape somehow invalidates this.
The two are not related. A person who has been convicted of a sex offense is already one of the 9 percent which you allege is the convinction rate.
Which moves them out of the “under-reported” column. A parolee doesn’t need to be charged again, usually, to be sent back. It’s trivially easy to violate one’s parole, and just get sent back to prison (and in fact things like failing a drug-test are the more common ways in which they do get sent back).
You advocate castration, because recidivism rate for 35 non-castrated offenders was higher. But you failed to mention that the non-castratees weren’t people who were randomly selected from the population of convicted rapists, but people who had applied to be castrated. We can presume these were people who had what they felt to be overwhelming urges.
Since the article is behind a paywall, I have to base my reading on the abstracts, and subsequent citations.
But this citation seems to break down the problems with the Willie and Beier study:
The author of that paper also said this:
Which gets to the meat of the matter. Castration is a violation of bodily autonomy. Moreover it’s not provable that the theoretical benefits (lower rates of recidivism in males over the age of 35. In Willie and Beier’s study it was shown that men aged less than 35 retained erectile function, though the stimulation needed was greater) are based on a mutilation which isn’t provably needful.
To sum up. Recidivicism among sexual offenders is much lower than commonly believed.
Recidivism among sexual offenders is actually lower than among non-sexual offenders (with the singular exception of murderers, which is harder to measure because most murders are crimes of passion, and a significant number of murderers are not released from prison at all).
Castration is a solution is search of a problem. For it to be an even vaguely acceptable one the rate of recidivism would have to be appallingly high, and there are other ways to deal with it.
Because, if rape is something those men can’t help but do, it’s a mental illness, and more humane ways of dealing with it are in order.