What’s the difference between a lad mag and a rapist? Aside from one being a magazine and the other a person, albeit an reprehensible one, apparently not very much.
In a study soon to be published in the British Journal of Psychology, researchers at Middlesex University and the University of Surrey showed people quotes about women from British lad mags (FHM, Loaded, Nuts and Zoo) and from convicted rapists. Most survey respondents – men and women both – could not tell the difference between the quotes from the magazines and the quotes from the rapists. And most of the male respondents identified more with the quotes from the rapists than from the lad mags.
Here are some of the quotes the survey respondents were asked to react to. (You can find more at Jezebel.) Can you tell which of these are from rapists or lad mags?
Mascara running down the cheeks means they’ve just been crying, and it was probably your fault . . . but you can cheer up the miserable beauty with a bit of the old in and out.
You’ll find most girls will be reluctant about going to bed with somebody or crawling in the back seat of a car . . . But you can usually seduce them, and they’ll do it willingly.
Some girls walk around in short-shorts . . . showing their body off . . . It just starts a man thinking that if he gets something like that, what can he do with it?
I think girls are like plasticine, if you warm them up you can do anything you want with them.
In case you’re wondering, the correct answers are: Lad mag, Rapist, Rapist, Lad Mag.
Creepy, eh?
Lead researcher Miranda Horvath of Middlesex University explains why she feels this is so troubling:
Rapists try to justify their actions, suggesting that women lead men on, or want sex even when they say no, and there is clearly something wrong when people feel the sort of language used in a lads’ mag could have come from a convicted rapist.
I would say so.
And so, you might wonder, how did the regulars on the Men’s Rights subreddit react this this research? Take a look.
The comment with the most upvotes offered some nice juicy denial:
The comment with the second-highest number of upvotes completely missed the point:
And then there was this hot mess:
In case anyone is wondering, that quote from French is actually a quote from a character in one of her novels. And it’s pretty easy to distinguish it from things posted on Jezebel, because none of the writers on Jezebel ever say anything even remotely like that.
The Men’s Rights subreddit, responding to evidence of rape culture by going “la la la I can’t hear you” since March 2008.
@Holly Pervocracy
The protection you imply is for the protection of men is from the gay community. Penetration. A woman can have sex with a dead drunk man. He can be unconcious, no penetration took place. Women are immune.
I like my definition of the word force, and it’s exactly the same as the definition of consent! All of you explaining to me how the definition that is being used for the law itself is different than the definition of consent are wrong and mean and wrong and just want women to accuse men of rape all the time! The reason “without consent” is actually in the wording of the law is because of duplicitous feminist double-speak!
Sex without coercion is not rape and nobody ever said it was.
Seriously now. Even your beloved false rape accusations happen when someone lies about coercion. Someone can theoretically decide they regretted sex and say “he forced me,” but they can’t go to the police and literally just say “I regret sex.”
Even the “false rape!!!!” brigade knows that. …Right?
A woman can absolutely penetrate a man, I have photos.
But I agree with you here. The definition of rape should include enveloping someone against their will. For once I totally agree and think the FBI didn’t go far enough.
@NWO:
“The protection you imply is for the protection of men is from the gay community. Penetration. A woman can have sex with a dead drunk man. He can be unconcious, no penetration took place. Women are immune.”
You really need to listen to Zhinxy more, especially when zie said this:
“… Now we need to get envelopment in there so more raped men are recognized…”
@kirbywarp
Can you show me where the word consent is even mentioned?
Since no force is neccesary. Yes means rape.
But the lack of consent is still neccessary… OFFS, you’re the guy who claims I’m not a libertarian anarchist because I’m pro-choice and you need a State to abort. I bet you need a State to rape, too.
Will you just tell me how high my taxes are gonna be in NWOland?
@Viscaria:
It’s worse than that, actually. “Force equals non-consent,” and “consent equals non-regret.” It’s really annoying to argue with someone who insists on using his own specially meanings for words, then insisting then everyone else uses those words the same way he does.
@NWO:
God dammit. God fucking dammit all to hell.
“penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the !!!consent!!! of the victim.”
Can we drop this really stupid argument now?
@kirbywarp
What’s a zie? Is that a third gender of sorts? Is there many of these zie’s roaming about? Do they have several genitals, some new to this planet? If I say go fuck yourself to a zie. Can they? And will they take my comment as a compliment?
@NWO:
“Zie” is used when the gender is not known, not specified, or just doesn’t matter.
*pokerface*
@kirbywarp
Can you show me where the word consent is even mentioned?
srsly???
srsly??
http://manboobz.com/2011/12/11/rapists-lad-mags-and-the-mens-rights-subreddit/comment-page-4/#comment-95999
Just scroll up… it’s on the same page… he quoted the proposed change –
“penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
‘
Consent. It’s right there. Just scroll up. Wow.
@kirbywarp
Which god are you asking to damn something? Moon lesbians? Are the zie gods?
No force is neccesary. Say over and over.
“He raped me.”
“Did he force you?”
“Nope.”
“Well off to prison with him.”
@Holly: So sex with coercion IS rape?
@NWOSlave
a dead AND drunk man? How is that possible?
@zhinxy
I give you a link to the FBI definition and you give me a manboobz link. I forgot. Ideology is blind.
@NWO:
Hmm… moon lesbians… ^_^
Well, female-bodied moon-bisexuals would strictly be more appealing, but still. ^_^
How many times do you need to be proven wrong so utterly that a normal man would be red-faced and mumbling apologies as he exited the room before you give up?
Surprisingly, you’re actually kinda onto something here, milkslave (despite the fact that, of course, money and sex are kinda not the same).
(1) If I offered you a $100 bill, I hand it to you and said here take this, darn right I consented. If I tried to have you brought up on charges for theft, my consent would be your defense. No crime of theft took place. Nice job, milkslave!
(2) If I had a $100 bill in my hand, and you walked up and took it from my hand without my saying anything to you, this would be theft. You wouldn’t have to hit me or even touch me, I wouldn’t have to say, “No, no, don’t take my money.” If you took my money without my expressly telling you that you could take it, that would be a crime, and you could be charged with it.
Still with me?
(3) Now, if I walked up to you and said, “I want to have sex with you” (well, not you … let’s make this someone else) and this other person said, “Yes, I want to have sex with you too,” barring any other circumstances (one of us says “no” in the interim, one of us hits the other one over the head, rendering them unconscious, etc.) THIS IS NOT RAPE under any state law that I know of, or under the new FBI definition. THIS IS CONSENSUAL SEX.
Take note of that, milkslave. Because, again, you’re scaring me with not knowing what that is.
(4) Now, let’s say I walk up to someone else and just start having sex with them. I grab them, take off their pants, and just do it. They’re too shocked to say “no.” They know no one’s around, so who’s gonna hear them? They are afraid because I am very large and I might hurt them if they resist. For whatever reason, they do not say anything. Shockingly, under most state laws, THIS IS NOT RAPE. I’m not using force. They didn’t say “no.” This is the EXACT SAME SCENARIO AS SET OUT IN (2), except with sex instead of money, AND IT’S NOT A CRIME.
In fact, even if they did say “no” and were conscious, able to consent (not a minor, not mentally incapacitated) and I didn’t use force, this would still not (in most jurisdictions) rise to the crime of rape. IT’S ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE to me that this is how we define rape. A victim can say no, but if there’s no proof of force, many times that “no” is legally viewed as a “yes.” Which is why, as you can no doubt understand, my dear milkslave, I am absolutely flabbergasted that you think that legal consent + no force = legal rape. It’s so far from reality as to be laughable. If it weren’t so absolutely disturbing.
We can read out your dialogue from your NWOland plays, but it won’t really do anything to change reality.
Damn, NWO is more incoherent than usual!
@Stephanie
You’ve never heard the term, “dead drunk?” It’s been around a while. It’s not like I’m making up gender zie or something stupid.
@Steph: What? You never heard the phrase “Man, I was dead drunk last night!”.
@NWO:
The manboobz link was to my post where I explicitely pointed out where the “consent” was.
@Futrelle:
Can NWO be banned, or at least moderated, for overwhelming stupidity? I think I’m loosing brain cells just looking at this stuff.
Crap… Losing. See?!?
@zhinxy
I give you a link to the FBI definition and you give me a manboobz link. I forgot. Ideology is blind.’
No, you asked kirbywarp where consent was mentioned, and I pointed out he had already told you only a few comments ago. The link was to help you in case you got confused using the scroll wheel. Goldfish Memory confused milk technician man is blind.
Also, I hate the FBI and don’t believe anything they tell me and there’s a blinking background on the site that’s been developed by project bluebird.
Actually probably not, but I’m not a fan.
Yeah, this whole ‘opt out’ thing we have going in the legal system for sex is… wrong, wrong, wrong. Women don’t walk around in a state of consent, yet under most laws, you actually have to explicitly say no or otherwise show you don’t consent to sex. Why not assume that no one wants to have sex unless they say yes? That seems to make more legal and ethical sense.