TV detectives pore over semen stains, and find evidence of crimes. Over on A Voice for Men, B.R. Merrick pores over TV detectives poring over semen stains, and finds evidence of “anti-man mentality.” On Law & Order: SVU, he says,
Every time I chanced upon seeing a bit of it, someone somewhere said “semen.”
You know the show focuses on sex crimes, right? When you’re investigating sex crimes, I’d say the chances are pretty good you’re going to run across some semen from time to time.
This is a show that has been on the air for more than a decade, a spin-off from another program more than two decades long, dedicated to entertaining millions of Americans every week using salacious, graphic language about terrible crimes. Semen. Semen stains. Semen samples. Semen on a dead body. Crime. Law, order, crime, and semen.
Spam, eggs, bacon, semen and spam. Spam, spam, bacon, semen, and spam. Semen, semen, spam eggs sausage and semen.
Sorry, I got distracted.
Semen is disgusting, if I am to conclude anything from watching this program. How is it that a show that continually mentions semen in connection with horrific crime can remain so popular for over a decade?
Christopher Melonimania? No, nothing so straightforward as that. Clearly what we’re dealing with is anti-semen propaganda of the sneakiest sort.
Millions watch, but virtually no one notices. It is as if the ejaculation of semen is something that the world puts up with but secretly detests. Since only men make semen; since it is usually voluntarily ejaculated except for certain cases of rape and nocturnal emissions; and since the voluntary giving of this life-giving substance is usually frequent; what are men supposed to think if the culture embraces mainstream entertainment that virtually equates semen with crime?
If semen is outlawed only outlaws will produce semen?
The conclusions we are supposed to draw seem pretty obvious to me: Women and sexless children are the victims of semen, the victims of men. Men are too quick to indulge their semen-connected desires. Pornography is directly connected to men, semen, and the oftentimes unavoidable crimes that result.
So jerking off into a sock has been criminalized?
Once you indulge a penis, all bets are off. Unless, of course, he’s been thoroughly trained.
Penises can be trained? Really? I’ve had very little luck training mine.
Men who are raised not to take their feelings seriously will probably feel a little tinge that is quickly ignored when semen is mentioned in a silly television program. Men who are used to being teased will grin along with the giggling girls who laugh at a man whose penis is not only severed, but shredded in a garbage disposal, so that he can spend the last several decades of his life without one.
So Law & Order: SVU is secretly preparing men for a dystopian future in which all untrained penises will all be shredded in garbage disposals?
Stay tuned, I guess.
Oh shit, watch out, dicipres has LINKS! To things that he likely hasn’t even read or takes out of context!
*yawn* Reruns get boring after a while.
Okay, dicipres is just boring me now.
It’s the same old mix of “women can’t be unequal, we have laws about that,” with a dash of “you’re just angry at men, that’s why you want equal pay,” and a briefly-novel taste of “feminists apply critical thinking to their own members, which proves that they are faithless and eat their own.”
That last one reveals some fascinating assumptions about what a movement should do–hear that someone hates them, or that he’s committed violence against women, and just hug them and go “don’t worry sweetie, you’ll always be one of us!”?
But the back-and-forth here is just goddamn boring.
Ooh ooh, do me! I’m not really into kink at all, except for a little light bondage, and nobody’s ever cheated on me. Why am I a feminist?
equal pay – a competitive market don’t allow for wage discrimination (might exist in thing like government offices). Just have women only company and bust the market. Also, young women mare MORE than men.
shit man, i can’t believe nobody’s ever though to suggest some hand-wavy story about the power of markets before. you are a bold and original thinker.
Holly Pervocracy :
You did not counter my claims and you misrepresented my arguments (very fitting to this blog, btw).
Instead, you talk about how this make you feel, which is irrelevant to the arguments.
I’m literally tired of saying things like:
-Business don’t “just hire all women and pay them less!”, because they want to hire the best qualified employees, not just the cheapest, and they perceive men as more qualified.
-The laws against sexual violence are incredibly poorly enforced, and the vast majority of police investigations and trials end in victim-blaming “she had it coming” or apathetic “well, it’s just he-said-she-said, who can say, oh well.”
-As with the hiring, the fact that women legally can hold office does not mean that female candidates don’t face massive discrimination from voters who are judging them on their sexiness/good-mother-ness/bossy-bitch-ness rather than on their fitness to lead.
Oh HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
OH HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO
Seriously, kid, go look up some historical wage data. Your right wing fapping over a free market aside, it doesn’t support your conclusions. At all.
Case law can go next on your remedial studies list, right after you go look up some historical and current wage data.
And your point would be? I mean, in practice, there’s a lot of barriers for women that men don’t face (on the books or not), but even if those weren’t documented and known, what would be the problem?
“-Business don’t “just hire all women and pay them less!”, because they want to hire the best qualified employees, not just the cheapest, and they perceive men as more qualified.”
If business are not hiring the best people, they are less competitive and would lose to companies with more efficient hiring. And again, women make MORE than men.
-The laws against sexual violence are incredibly poorly enforced, and the vast majority of police investigations and trials end in victim-blaming “she had it coming” or apathetic “well, it’s just he-said-she-said, who can say, oh well.”
Sexual crimes are not taken more lightly compared to other crimes. We cannot throw people in jail without a proper trial.
-As with the hiring, the fact that women legally can hold office does not mean that female candidates don’t face massive discrimination from voters who are judging them on their sexiness/good-mother-ness/bossy-bitch-ness rather than on their fitness to lead.
How do you know that women are discriminated against and not men? Majority of the voter are women and they might prefer a woman over a man. You might be right or wrong about it, I didn’t see any definite proof that there is discrimination. What do you want to do about it? Quotas?
I apologize for being obtuse, but could someone tell me what “rape by envelopment” means? I don’t dispute the idea that adult women can be sexually abusive towards adult men, but I’m unclear on what the mechanics of rape would be. I realize rape might not always include force, as I’m sure there are situations in which coercion or blackmail might stand in for physical power. But I assume that’s not what “rape by envelopment” is referring to. I did try googling this term, but there were references to it without explanation, and many of the references seemed to come from MRA-types.
dicipres, what are you on? I’d like to know what being this dumb feels like.
All women are paid more?
All rape cases/abuse cases go trial and their perps convicted at trail?
Between you and that Nathan clown, I’m going to pee my pants laughing any second now.
Aww, dicipres, please? Why am I a feminist, come on! Do you need more details about my sex life? I’m extremely monogamous but don’t have any problem with people who aren’t. Does that help?
This pretty much sums up why you don’t get it. You think feminism is all about getting laws changed. It’s not. The biggest goal is changing our culture. Getting rid of sexist attitudes and assumptions that hurt both men and women. Legal equality is not sufficient if there isn’t cultural equality (ask any person of color about that, it’s not just an issue for women).
At first I thought this was the dumbest statement of the thread. Then I read the rest of it. Dicipres, please kindly shut your computer off, go outside and do not stop walking until you reach a library.
When you get there, go up to the kindly information person and politely ask “Can you please show me where I can read about wage discrimination, discrimination against politicians and other forms of discrimination?”
And then read all of it. Afterwards, then you may come back and say “okay, I was wrong.”
Cuz let me tell you as a female politician, we certainly do face discrimination by people from our looks to what we consider important and will work on. The ONLY advantage and it is slight at best, is that women are perceived as being less corrupt as men. That is it. Everything else? Men are perceived as better.
malcontent: Envelopment is the opposite of penetration. The other way to put it is that the perpetrator forces the victim to penetrate them.
seriously dicipres, what it comes down to is that complex problems do not have simple answers, no matter how badly you want the answer to be simple.
I apologize for being obtuse, but could someone tell me what “rape by envelopment” means?
Essentially, it would entail a non-consenting man’s penis entering an orifice belonging to another person.
Businesses are not perfectly rational.
Also, sometimes men are more qualified… because they had more access to technical education, didn’t have to take time off when they had their kids, and they have more connections at the old boy’s club.
Yeah, rape survivors hear this constantly. Believe me, ever since I’ve told people I’m a survivor I’ve been hearing “BUT INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!!! BUT FALSE ACCUSATIONS!!! BUT YOU’LL RUIN HIS LIFE!!!” in my goddamn sleep.
My boyfriend got beaten up by a cop, and don’t get me wrong, that’s terrible and he didn’t get justice either… but I notice a distinct lack of a giant crowd of people telling him that they don’t know it happened and maybe he made the whole thing up or maybe he’s a criminal and do you really want to ruin that poor cop’s life.
It’s funny, there are different words there, but all I can read is “hand wave hand wave hand wave!”
What exactly would constitute proof of discrimination? Fewer women in office? We got that! Thousands of articles about whether every female candidate is “too sexy” or “not sexy enough” rather than her positions? We got that! Both women and men voting against women for no obvious reason except that they’re women? WE GOT THAT.
Heeheeheeheehee. Tell us another, Rudyard!
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0022-4537.00232/abstract
http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110722.htm
The best you have is an Atlantic article claiming that women dominate fields projected to grow (all asserted without any data whatsoever), but if you look at the phenomena termed the glass escalators, and if you actually had any understanding of what happenst o high status and high paying jobs, that won’t last. Men are already getting a sweet deal in nursing, f’rex, and it’s only going to get better.
@Polliwog
Just a quick correction: rape by envelopment can also affect trans-women.
Thanks for answering. I won’t deny that a woman could hypothetically force a man to penetrate her, but it is still not straightforward to me how she could do that. Sorry for my lack of imagination. And I certainly don’t agree with some of the nonsense I found while googling, particularly the contention that this method of rape is *as common* as male on female rape.
http://dicipres.wordpress.com/
his blog is quite telling
Damn, another one who only knows about dead feminists. His blog is telling–it’s telling me he’s full of shit.
@Polliwog
Just a quick correction: rape by envelopment can also affect trans-women.
Oops, good catch. Indeed it can.
Naodi: “This pretty much sums up why you don’t get it. You think feminism is all about getting laws changed. It’s not. The biggest goal is changing our culture. Getting rid of sexist attitudes and assumptions that hurt both men and women. Legal equality is not sufficient if there isn’t cultural equality (ask any person of color about that, it’s not just an issue for women).”
This is an interesting point and I am not against “Getting rid of sexist attitudes and assumptions” as well as the rest of the statement.
My objection to feminism is that, in practice, the actions of the feminist movement are significantly different than what feminists claim the goal of feminism is.
Feminists constantly change the laws and hurt and discriminate against men doing so.
And yes, in fact most feminist do hate men.
Just read this crap by feminist leaders:
Betty Friedan claimed that suburban domestic life are a “comfortable concentration camp” for women, and to their husbands a SS prison guards.
Marilyn French called men “the enemy.”
Germaine Greer wrote that that: “women have no idea how much men hate them.”
Rosalind Miles described men as “the death sex.”
Valerie Solanas wrote “The SCUM Manifesto”, the Society for Cutting Up Men, and Robin Morgan obligingly publicized this hate literature.
Reference
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rethinking-men/201010/why-some-people-have-issues-men-misandry