MRA blog suggests a cooling-off period would make statutory rape ok

Well, MRAL, I guess you’ll just have to settle for some haggard 16 year old.*

*The age of consent in Massachusetts is 16.

How young? That’s my question, still. Fourteen? Thirteen? Twelve? Some twelve year olds menstruate. How young does the age of consent need to be?

What if you never got the chance to have sex with a 15 year old when you were 15?

This is an even more interesting proposal than the one in the original post! So for every year past puberty you didn’t have sex, you should get to have sex with a person of that age later in life?

Under this system, I’m owed a whole buncha teenagers. The idea of sex with teenagers grosses me out, though, so could I use them to mow my lawn or something instead?

As for the original post, I fully support the idea. Thirtysomethings who want sexual relationships with 15-year-olds should definitely seek counseling.

At no point did I say feminists approved with boys being raped. In fact I said the very opposite as you can read in my comment above:

http://manboobz.com/2011/09/07/mra-blog-suggests-a-cooling-off-period-would-make-statutory-rape-ok/comment-page-1/#comment-58027

My remarks were that feminist blogs tend to mostly report, discuss or debate male on female rape. Very little writing is towards male on male rape or female on male rape. Sure their might be a few articles here and there but it doesn’t compare to the massive amount of writing about DSK, Duke Lacrosse players, random NYPD cop or any other rape case that is upfront on the major news stations. There is a subtle distinction between one or two random articles and “BREAKING NEWS: DSK Found Innocent”

And if the accused male rapist is white…holy fucking shitstorm!

Feminist websites completely dissect every little detail of male on female rape cases but have one or two posts on a topic if the victim is male. Then these feminist sites have the gall to claim “feminism helps men too!” It is downright insulting.

It wouldn’t be so bad if most feminists just said “I am a feminist to advance women not men. Men can have their own advocacy groups” But most don’t. You can’t make the two-faced claim that “feminism is for men and benefits them too” then rarely (if ever) advocate for them.

The worst of it all was with Catherine Kieu Baker mutilating her husband. The only popular feminist site that posted an article was Jezebel:

http://jezebel.com/5820664/woman-disposes-of-husbands-penis-in-garbage-disposal

The article itself was pretty standard but a good percentage of the comments were absolutely atrocious. Woman after woman stating she was well within her rights to chop a man’s genitals off. If those are the types of women that are attracted to feminism…then those comments are pretty much the poster child the “feminists are man-haters” stereotype. In fact one commenter summed up my feelings on the matter pretty well:

“I’m not going to lie, some of the comments down there with the jokes and etc are horrible. This is why feminism has a bad name.”

Here are the bad ones:

“Smart woman. She’s clearly learned from history now that we all know throwing it out your car window is not an effective way to dispose of it permanently. ”

“It was her desire to have it composted and turned into mulch… 😉 ”

“He had it cumming… ”

“Hm. Unfortunately I can’t think of any zingers at the moment. Hopefully I’ll be a bit more on my game by the time the next article detailing a horrific assault rolls around. ”

“I think we should trust the woman’s judgement. If she felt that the guy deserved to have his penis cut off and destroyed, she was most likely right. Therefore, the jokes are perfectly appropriate. ”

Now maybe you will see why men get this “wacky notion” that feminists are man-haters. Maybe men in unison will laugh, make “zingers” and make a big joke out of a woman getting mutilated. Hopefully not…but I can at least understand why men are disgusted at feminists and feminism.

As was the “jokes are perfectly appropriate” comment.

Also, some people making awful jokes in article comments is not a good basis to judge the entire feminist movement. If I judged humanity by the standards of Youtube comments, I’d be living in a shack in the woods with no Internet access right now.

Brandon: We’ve been over this before. You don’t get to dictate what feminists concentrate on. It’s our energy, and we sure as fuck don’t need your approval or interest to spend it. However the fuck we want. Stomping your feet and holding your breath are not the way to get feminists interested in your causes.

The MRM is not interested in actually helping young teens who are raped who are male, but they certainly interested in creating young female rape victims, according to the words that they post.

“Anthony, it’s true that most MRAs don’t see age of consent as an MR issue. But some, like the guy behind Human Stupidity, do, and these guys get very little criticism from other MRAs.”

The paucity of PUBLIC self criticism is a weakness of the MRM. We are working on it.

In the meantime, there is an effective system of PRIVATE criticism. For example, I have only one article published on “A voice for men”. It is not the only article that I wrote — it is the only one that passed our peer review process. The reason for this is that some of my ideas are regarded as non-mainstream by the MRA leadership. Most of the “man boobz” posters woule probably agree.

Anyone is allowed to post anything in MRM commentary, just like here. We have similar restrictions against calls for violence and/or insistent personal attacks (and we enforce a derailing restriction that, fortunately for me, you do not enforce).

Articles are very different. The legitimate MRM sites that I posted earlier all vet articles for approrpiate content.

Brandon: Your phrase “feminism is for men and benefits them too” mixes two claims: Feminism is FOR MEN and Feminism BENEFITS MEN TOO. Very few feminists, I think, would make the first claim. We’re pretty clear that feminism is for and about women. but plenty of us would claim that feminism happens, incidentally, to benefit men. In the case of male rape victims it benefits them because feminists push to make rape easier to report and prosecute and so on.

Now it’s true that male rape victims probably have special needs that female victims don’t or are less likely to (and vice versa). There’s a recent case in the news about a cheerleader who was raped by a football player, and her battle with the school administration. If it has been a male football player raped by one of his teammates teammate, a different set of problems would have come up that might need different kinds of interventions.

Most feminists are not spending their time worrying about the specifics of what problems male rape victims have. (Although I think most of the people who ARE worrying about that probably are feminists.) And that sucks, but it’s not feminists job to do that. It’s too bad there’s no men’s advocacy movement to take over there. In the meantime, it would indeed be inaccurate for most feminists to claim that they speak for men or men’s issues foremost in mind. That’s why they don’t make that claim.

I find it hilarious that MRM articles are subject to peer review. Blind leading the blind and all that.

hellkell: Since most MRAs I’ve run into have a shaky grasp of spelling, punctuation and logic, what on earth would their peer reviews consist of?

“… im wondering if the mrm actually peer edits so much as antz keeps getting rejection letters that say ‘enough with all the fucking robots’ …”

LOL, you and I finally agree on something (but kindly use the word “VR” instead of “robots”).