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, you guys, some dead women occasionally said angry things about men! And some of them were even feminists!
I SHALL CEASE OPPOSING RAPE IMMEDIATELY.
uhhh its the exact same way women are raped. It doesn’t take a lot of creativity to imagine that omg a man might not want to have sex and omg someone can force them into sexual contact without their consent.
Hey dicipres–do you know of any current feminists? Because half those women are dead, and not really what you would call leaders.
I really need a Zombie Valerie Solanas t-shirt.
@malcontent
It’s definitely not anywhere near as common as male on female rape. However, it is quite possible to stimulate a penis to make it involuntarily erect, even if the person is not necessarily aroused. And, as always, it’s quite possible to be aroused and have no desire to have sex. Unfortunately, people are too quick to believe that an erection means a man wants sex which, coupled with the whole “men are only after one thing” narrative, makes it real hard for male victims to gain recognition.
And for trans-women as well
See, if I wanted to say most feminists do anything, I’m pretty sure I could find a bevy of live ones saying it, not just a few famous dead ones.
Other pressing problems: anti-white discrimination because some people call white people crackers XD
Dicipres won’t tell me why I’m a feminist based on what sexy things I do :(. It’s almost like he doesn’t really think who you have sex with and what kind of sex you have can explain your conviction that men and women and everyone else should all have equal rights :/.
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.
I can think of a few ways off the top of my head. One of the really obvious ones is called “a gun.” (Also, if the issue is that you’re under the impression that physical arousal = consent…it’s not, for anyone of any gender. Genitals respond to various stimuli by an increase in blood flow to the area, which is entirely independent of any conscious choice on the part of the person to whom they’re attached.)
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.
It certainly doesn’t appear to be as common, but it’s definitely not nonexistent, either, and it’s no less heinous.
Actually, it does take some imagination for me to understand how a woman could overpower an average healthy male. I realize it is is easy enough to arouse a man, but, without a weapon or some significant threat, I don’t quite get how a woman can force a man to penetrate her once aroused. I’m sure that makes me stupid and insensitive and all that. I’m not trying to troll, but I am willing to be honest about the fact that I don’t necessarily share the same background and assumptions as some of the frequent commenters on this site.
And anyone who thinks men always want to have sex or that every erection is meaningful is an idiot.
Free market is perfect. Women cannot be discriminate by free market.
MRA is same as feminism, except feminism is worse.
Majority of voters are women, so what you problem?
In Soviet Russia, envelope stuffs YOU.
Women are so weakkkk. Also drugs and alcohol don’t exist.
@malcontent
But, just like with women, a man doesn’t have to be overpowered to be raped. Weapons, drugs, blackmail, rope etc. are all you really need.
Unfortunately society’s filled with these idiots. You see the same narratives being used to excuse male rapists. They can’t help it, you shouldn’t have aroused them etc etc
Viscaria, rough sex/bdsm might can cause various emotions, and maybe anger against the other sex, which in turn be rationalized a feminism. Yes, I admit, this is definitely armchair analysis and I have no training in the subject… I still think it is interesting to ask, and seems reasonable.
Wait, so are you saying that for something to be rape it’s necessary for the victim to be physically overpowered? Because while that often does happen, that’s not really what rape is. Rape is about not having consented.
(possible triggers)
1. She has a gun or a knife.
2. She’s his boss and tells him his job’s on the line.
3. She has big scary accomplices.
4. She’s a big scary woman and he’s not a big scary man.
5. He’s drunk and/or drugged.
6. He’s eleven years old.
7. He’s simply so caught off guard and panicked/shocked by the whole situation that even though he could overpower her in a fair fight, he’s paralyzed and doesn’t know what to do.
hellkell,
dead or not, they are prominent feminist leaders.
But they are dead soooo who are they leading? Are they zombies?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Get out of your armchair sometime before you decide what “seems reasonable.”
The BDSM sex I have doesn’t make me angry or I wouldn’t do it. I have BDSM sex because I’m kinky and like having kinky sex.
This seems fairly self-evident. But I’ve noticed a lot of MRAs can’t wrap their heads around the idea of truly consensual sex–there’s just sex women hate but agree to, or sex women hate and don’t agree to.
@dicipres
Why? For it to be reasonable there has to be some reason-based assumption. There has to be some factual evidence that you base your assumption on for it to be reason-based. I can’t see anything reasonable about thinking that because some woman enjoys being dominated sexually, and enjoys consensual sex in which she is dominated in a manner that she likes, she is going to resent her partner (or men in general) for bringing her the pleasure that she seeks.
Zombie Dworkin leads the Feminist Party. Zombie Dworkin decides who shall stay and who shall be cast out. Zombie Dworkin sets the agenda.
Now we just need to complete the circle of ridiculousness with “I bet Zombie Dworkin just hates men because she has kinky sex.”
Rise my sisters, rise from the dead!!! Let us rule the feminists!!
No, you unholy twit from the MRA dimension, they are NOT prominent feminist leaders. Back in the day, yes.
How does one lead from the grave?
Please go educate yourself before typing.
Your armchair theories of BDSM are cute and all, but since there’s consent and all, your anger theory is way off base. And not reasonable, either.
Again, think before you type.
Something that might be relevant, dicipres – Feminism is not a political party. It’s more like a belief. It’s not a religion (obviously), but think of it like Christianity.
If you’re a Christian and the leader of your church does something terrible, you might leave that church, but you probably won’t suddenly decide that this proves Christ wasn’t the son of God. That makes no sense.
So feminism is nothing more than the belief women deserve equal rights and do not currently have them.
No action by a “feminist leader” can make me stop holding that belief.
jumbofish,
They founded and lead the feminist movement in its prime. Their words can be used to criticize feminism.
Look, I am asking a question about something that is outside my experience and that cannot be easily researched without at least some degree of conflation with MRA-dogma. So sarcastic comments along the line of “women are weak” seem intended to shut down my attempt to understand. If the commenters can acknowledge that this is not a well-understood subject, it eludes me why every casual poster here can be expected to share the same assumptions.
I do understand how rape can be accomplished by the use of blackmail, a weapon, or intoxication, but the implication in previous posts was that women had a power to rape men that was about equivalent to the male power to rape women, and I was attempting to understand where that assumption was coming from. I’m sorry there is so little tolerance for asking about a little-understood subject.