Categories
I'm totally being sarcastic irony alert men who should not ever be with women ever MRA oppressed men pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles reddit sex

Men’s Rights Redditor: “The cougar phenomenon is perverse. Yet we criminalize sex with fertile women who haven’t passed some arbitrary age limit.”

Fresh from the Men’s Rights subreddit,  some thoughts from some dude called atiwywr on cougars, age of consent laws, and Justin Beiber.

So “cougars” are perverse, but pedophilia – sorry, ephebophilia — is natural and good?

The age of consent in most American states is 16.

Complaining that men can’t legally have sex with girls – sorry, “fertile women” – aged 15 and younger: Men’s Rights activism at its finest!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

359 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

Maybe if we offered Om Nom some chips it would distract him, and he’d stop posting inane comments.

LBT
LBT
8 years ago

Also, Ruby, I dunno. Have you SEEN the yaoi/shounen-ai/slash market? The mainstream market in the USA is only just now seeming to notice it…

Anathema
Anathema
8 years ago

People disagree because of the internal states of their brain(and hence their mind). When our brains receives information in the form of a language(which has symbolic meaning), that information is processed by different parts and there is a resulting output state which often includes an emotional response. Perhaps I am a contrarian because I’m programmed that way. :-p

And this doesn’t necessarily contradict the idea that human beings have free will. It depends on how you define the term. I would say that there are some forms of free will that we definitely have, some which we definitely don’t, and some that I’m not entirely sure about. But I don’t know which type of free will your talking about unless you define your terms.

Seriously, if you are going to make any proclamations about whether or not we have free will, please actually explain to us exactly what you mean by “free will.”

Leum
Leum
8 years ago

I tend to find definitions of free will rather incoherent, but as I understand it it’s the idea that if you were in the exact same situation again (with your memories of the events following the situation wiped) you could do something other than what you did. And I don’t think that that is possible.

Monsieur sans Nom
Monsieur sans Nom
8 years ago

Shorter MSN: if we had free will, I’d be the only one who likes food.

Nice STRAWMAN, 2-D Mangina!

Monsieur sans Nom — “Furthermore, I have smoked weed a few times in my 33 years and it is not hallucinogenic nor does it induce delirium.” — First, wtf relevance does the word “pot” have to the plant anyways? Makes no more sense than tree does. Second, you may then recall that saying stupid shit and thinking it’s just hilarious is among the affects. Yeah, that’s wtf you’re being accused of doing.

Oh I see…….I say something that shatters peoples idealistic delusions of how the world works and then Sharcules tries the “ur stoopid/uve been smokin too much dope” trope on me. LOLz “Witty” one liners are the tool of the intellectually lazy in a pathetic attempt to be right when they KNOW they’re full of shit.

As for you, Dracula: You speak of cynicism as if it’s a bad thing when it’s actually the sign of an intelligent mind at work functioning correctly. If you choose happiness over truth there are plenty of sly people out there waiting to manipulate you by playing to your emotions. You’re butthurt because I’m pointing things out that you and your friends desperate wish weren’t true. 😉

pecunium
8 years ago

MSN: People disagree because of the internal states of their brain(and hence their mind). When our brains receives information in the form of a language(which has symbolic meaning), that information is processed by different parts and there is a resulting output state which often includes an emotional response. Perhaps I am a contrarian because I’m programmed that way.

So what people choose to do isn’t deterministic… ergo you admit the possibility of free will.

random6x7
random6x7
8 years ago

Ruby. Women are not “programmed” to find men of means. Women aren’t “programmed” to do jack shit, because we are humans and not computers, but we are especially not “programmed” to do that, because you are assuming things that are very, very wrong.

Amazingly enough, the Pleistocene, and hunter-gatherer lives in general, do not much resemble 1950’s middle America. Humans don’t actually usually live in nuclear families; this is a very recent development. Humans usually live in extended kin networks or with friends and family – there’s a recent article that says that most modern hunter-gatherer couples are considered to be related to about half of the other people in their band. They didn’t say who made up the rest, but I’m guessing it was just people they knew and got along with reasonably well.

People in these larger groupings tend to take care of each other, including sharing out food and other resources. A mother does often get food from her husband, but she can expect to get help from grandma and auntie and her best bud, too, if she needs it. Really, if we’re going by brute economics here, women, if they hang out with a few other women, don’t need men at all. So, no, women aren’t evolutionarily programmed to want the rich guy, because their baby-daddy is not the only adult they can count on. People in small-scale societies do tend to want the hardest workers for their spouse, but that’s true of men and women.

pecunium
8 years ago

Nomless: Oh I see…….I say something that shatters peoples idealistic delusions of how the world works

Shatters? As if the idea of no free will wasn’t something I argued about 35 years ago… As if it wasn’t something being discussed by D. T. Suzuki, Thomas Aquinas, Epectitus, or every college freshman taking intro to philosophy.

If you come up with an argument I’ve not seen before, I’ll be impressed enough to let you know.

LBT
LBT
8 years ago

RE: MSN

You speak of cynicism as if it’s a bad thing when it’s actually the sign of an intelligent mind at work functioning correctly.

Aw, you think cycnicism is proof of sanity. You’re so cute.

Dracula
Dracula
8 years ago

As for you, Dracula: You speak of cynicism as if it’s a bad thing when it’s actually the sign of an intelligent mind at work functioning correctly.

No, I speak of your particular brand of cynicism as a load of pretentious bullshit. Which you’re demonstrating quite nicely in the above quote.

You’re butthurt because I’m pointing things out that you and your friends desperate wish weren’t true. 😉

You’re confusing “butthurt” with “unimpressed”.

Shadow
Shadow
8 years ago

@Argenti

IIRC, “pot” came about after people started growing potted weed plants. I am HIGHLY amused, however, by the fact that MSN thinks that he thinks anyone past middle school hasn’t come across the “free will is an illusion” argument.

Strawman
Strawman
8 years ago

“Nice STRAWMAN, 2-D Mangina!”

Monsieur sans Nom
Monsieur sans Nom
8 years ago

Anathema: The most generalized definition of free will is the ability of an person(or an agent) to make decisions free from constraints. So in the context I was talking about, sexual-romantic attraction is very much an emotional response to another person. Emotions, unlike thoughts, cannot simply be turned on and off. They can be suppressed, or one can attempt to manipulate them, but that’s not the same thing as direct control. Our internal emotional response to other people is not within our control. What *seems* to be in our control is our ability to decide whether or not to act upon them. In conclusion: Human behavior is not random, it has statistically detectable patterns. And when it comes to what people find attractive in a (potential)mate, these patterns are highly visible and many of them have been scientifically proven. I guess cloudiah and some other peeps around here dislike the fact that women’s sexual behavior is not unpredictable.

Strawman
Strawman
8 years ago

“Nice STRAWMAN, 2-D Mangina!”
Why do people keep mentioning my name??? Why do people keep calling me other people!! I am an individual you know!!

Monsieur sans Nom
Monsieur sans Nom
8 years ago

To Shadow and Pecunium: The debate about free will is no longer philosophical, it’s now a scientific matter because it requires NON-DETERMINISM: A system whose output is not exclusively dependent on its inputs. You’re behind the times if don’t know this.

random6x7
random6x7
8 years ago

Oh, jeez, didn’t see Mr. No-Name’s comments.

Dude, Hobbes was wrong. People, in a state of nature, hang out, tell stories, fuck, gather some food, and sleep. Yeah, sometimes, they are also jerks, but then other people stop hanging out with them, and that usually works to settle their behavior. I don’t know that you’d call that civilization, seeing as how that’s the same way other animals keep their jerks in line.

And, whatever your genes are, every being is also very much shaped by their environment, and humans are also shaped by culture. I cannot understand how anyone who has ever even heard of identical twins can spout “we are but our genes” bullshit. You do realize that they’re still different people, right?

cloudiah
8 years ago

cloudiah and some other peeps around here don’t think women’s behavior is nearly as predictable as you (and Ruby) think it is. I think you’re a very stupid person, which I hardly find shattering.

hey LBT, nice to “see” you!

Monsieur sans Nom
Monsieur sans Nom
8 years ago

And, whatever your genes are, every being is also very much shaped by their environment, and humans are also shaped by culture. I cannot understand how anyone who has ever even heard of identical twins can spout “we are but our genes” bullshit. You do realize that they’re still different people, right?

WRONG

This idea that humans are entirely a product of their environment and that genes play no important role in their behavior has been scientifically disproven. However, it is a cornerstone of the left, which has preached for MORE THAN 50 YEARS that people can change and has still failed to solve the social problems it set out to fix in the 20th century.

random6x7
random6x7
8 years ago

I fail at italics.

Scientifically proven by whom, please? And how? I mean, some lazy-ass ev psych guy handing out questionnaires to freshmen is not exactly proving anything besides that many undergrads like extra credit.

nwoslave
8 years ago

@LBT
“Have you SEEN the yaoi/shounen-ai/slash market?”

Yeah, that lgbt sex promotion is working whiz bang out there in Japan. Suicide is the #1 cause of death for men between the ages of 20 and 44. Feminism and tolerance seem to coalesce into producing lotsa dead men. Sweet!

In fact, in every country in the world, suicide rates were fairly even for men and women pre-feminism. Every country that’s adopted feminism as part of the culture has seen a sharp rise in mens suicide, usually stabilizing at a rate of around 4 to 1. Alcoholism also sharply rises to become a top killer as well. You can pretty much trace the moment feminism infects any society by the moment mens suicides start to rise. Well done ladies!!!

Try it for fun and excitement. First, pick a country and see when that countrys suicide rate for men starts an upswing. Then you’ll know when that country has started pushing feminism as culturally acceptable. It’s fun for the whole family. A family in that country now means a woman and her children, man is seperate.

Shadow
Shadow
8 years ago

This idea that humans are entirely a product of their environment and that genes play no important role in their behavior has been scientifically disproven. However, it is a cornerstone of the left, which has preached for MORE THAN 50 YEARS that people can change and has still failed to solve the social problems it set out to fix in the 20th century.

How true!! After all, we still live in a society that has the same social and cultural mores that we had 60 years ago!!

Monsieur sans Nom
Monsieur sans Nom
8 years ago

cloudiah and some other peeps around here don’t think women’s behavior is nearly as predictable as you (and Ruby) think it is. I think you’re a very stupid person, which I hardly find shattering.

Please keep up the ad hominem attacks. It certainly makes you seem like an intelligent and rational person.

random6x7
random6x7
8 years ago

Again, proven wrong by whom? And please note, I never said genes had no role. I said that genes are merely the beginning. It’s like art: given a lump of clay, you’ll never be able to make an oil painting, but you can sure make a hell of a lot of other things.

And fifty years is less than a human lifespan. I am amused that you think it’s so easy to change people’s minds. Besides, it’s anthropological theory, not something meant to make the world a utopia. Next you’ll say that learning about evolution makes kids commit crimes.

random6x7
random6x7
8 years ago

I bet you go around sighing a lot, saying things like, “what do you expect? All -insert large, non-homogenous group here- are alike” and internally congratulating yourself for being so damn above it all.

pecunium
8 years ago

To Shadow and Pecunium: The debate about free will is no longer philosophical, it’s now a scientific matter because it requires NON-DETERMINISM: A system whose output is not exclusively dependent on its inputs. You’re behind the times if don’t know this.

Your behind the times if you think that the oddities of quantum mechanics, the indeterministic effects of things at the scale of individual electrons, etc (as function in the brain) don’ t once again allow for the possibility of non-determinism.

As I said, if you come up with something new, I’ll let you know.

random6x7
random6x7
8 years ago

He also hasn’t heard of chaos theory, which I learned about while watching Jurassic Park when I was 12. The system’s so complicated, it’s kind of a moot point whether there’s free will or not. It’s not like we’ll be able to figure it out.

Anathema
Anathema
8 years ago

To Shadow and Pecunium: The debate about free will is no longer philosophical, it’s now a scientific matter because it requires NON-DETERMINISM

Argh, no! Part of the debate over free will is what, exactly, counts as free will. That’s still a philosophical matter.

One of the reasons I asked you to lay out your definition of free will was that not all definitions of free will require non-determinism.

Monsieur sans Nom
Monsieur sans Nom
8 years ago

How true!! After all, we still live in a society that has the same social and cultural mores that we had 60 years ago!!

Let’s see here……….we still have: Bigotry, violence, sexual assault, and social inequity. People still have the same drives and instincts as they did 60 years ago. After all, a smile still means the same thing now as it did then. I hope you understand the concept.

pecunium
8 years ago

Nomless: Please keep up the ad hominem attacks. It certainly makes you seem like an intelligent and rational person.

Keep mistaking insult for Ad hom, it makes you look so much more intelligent than those who just complain we are mean.

pecunium
8 years ago

Let’s see here……….we still have: Bigotry, violence, sexual assault, and social inequity.

And they are just as prevalent as they were, and we still worship god-kings and live in a state of nature.

Anathema
Anathema
8 years ago

This idea that humans are entirely a product of their environment and that genes play no important role in their behavior has been scientifically disproven.

No one said that genes had no role in determining human behavior. The argument is that environment and culture ALSO play an important role, alongside genes.

However, it is a cornerstone of the left, which has preached for MORE THAN 50 YEARS that people can change and has still failed to solve the social problems it set out to fix in the 20th century.

No, that idea was your straw man. It’s not the cornerstone of anything.

Monsieur sans Nom
Monsieur sans Nom
8 years ago

He also hasn’t heard of chaos theory, which I learned about while watching Jurassic Park when I was 12. The system’s so complicated, it’s kind of a moot point whether there’s free will or not. It’s not like we’ll be able to figure it out.

So you learned what you know about Chaos theory from a movie, eh? Try reading a book instead or actually studying physics. The system is not random, despite not being 100% predictable. It IS deterministic because its output depends upon its inputs. The fact that it may appear to be random does not make it random. True randomness requires an equal distribution for all possible outcomes. But if you do have mathematical evidence that this is possible from a deterministic system, do show us.

pecunium
8 years ago

But if you do have mathematical evidence that this is possible from a deterministic system, do show us.

So, feel free to give us your definition of free will, and the mathematical evidence to support it.

random6x7
random6x7
8 years ago

Social inequity, at least, is not a human universal. The rest, while they do show up in most, if not all, places, don’t mean the same thing everywhere. Ancient Greeks didn’t give a shit what color your skin was, and husbands were legally incapable of raping their wives fifty years ago here.

Monsieur sans Nom
Monsieur sans Nom
8 years ago

Your behind the times if you think that the oddities of quantum mechanics, the indeterministic effects of things at the scale of individual electrons, etc (as function in the brain) don’ t once again allow for the possibility of non-determinism.

I do not think this at all.

And furthermore: If you think that I’m going to post my medical records on the INTERNET just to satisfy your standards of proof that I have asperger syndrome, think again. It’s moronic on your part to believe that AS was not know about by psychiatrists before 1994 when it was introduced into the DSM. Especially given the fact that the British psychiatrist Lorna Wing first coined the term “asperger syndrome” in a 1981 publication.

Anathema
Anathema
8 years ago

While quantum mechanics contradicts traditional ideas of determinism, it still leads to a sort of probabilistic determinism. The macroscopic realm of human decisions and actions is, in my opinion, almost certainly deterministic.

But, Monsieur sans Nom, chaos theory holds true even within deterministic systems. I don’t think it’s fair for you to criticize someone else for learning about chaos theory from a movie when you know even less about chaos theory than the person you’re criticizing.

random6x7
random6x7
8 years ago

Random’s just my internet handle, and I got it from a book character (Random Frequent Flyer Dent). It’s not how I view the world. However, again, the system’s so complicated that it looks random to us, because we cannot possibly account for every variable. I would be very surprised to learn that we know every variable in the first place. Put down the freshman physics text.

Monsieur sans Nom
Monsieur sans Nom
8 years ago

Social inequity, at least, is not a human universal. The rest, while they do show up in most, if not all, places, don’t mean the same thing everywhere. Ancient Greeks didn’t give a shit what color your skin was, and husbands were legally incapable of raping their wives fifty years ago here.

How exactly did you know this about the Ancient Greeks? Did you ask any of them? Skintone is not the only basis for constructing a social order, mind you. And just because any given culture treats people the same regardless of their *race* does not imply that it’s an egalitarian society.

Anathema
Anathema
8 years ago

We know full well that the Ancient Greeks did not have an egalitarian society. No one said that they did!

Good Lord, how many straw men can you create in a single day?

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

I’m pretty sure that nobody was suggesting that the Ancient Greeks were egalitarian, given their attitude towards women, or slaves. “Egalitarian” has a meaning rather wider than “not racist”.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

I think Om Nom has a whole cupboard full of straw men just waiting to be deployed. He’s a classic lulz troll, with a bit of added sexism.

random6x7
random6x7
8 years ago

No, the Ancient Greeks were most certainly not egalitarian. Didn’t say they were. That was separate from the bit about social inequity, which you can tell by the use of the words “the rest”. However, they did not care about skin tone. They cared about whether or not you were Athenian or Spartan. And I guess you could say that I asked them; I read what they had to say about it.

Is mine the only school with history and anthropology departments? They’re a fascinating recent development where you can go to learn all about other cultures and times. It’s almost like having a time machine!

By the way, it’s rather unfair to assume that my knowledge of chaos theory begins and ends with Jurassic Park. It’s not like I said that, but then again, that hasn’t really concerned you elsewhere.

Monsieur sans Nom
Monsieur sans Nom
8 years ago

But, Monsieur sans Nom, chaos theory holds true even within deterministic systems. I don’t think it’s fair for you to criticize someone else for learning about chaos theory from a movie when you know even less about chaos theory than the person you’re criticizing.

Not true. It can be difficult to distinguish between chaotic patterns and randomness, but it isn’t necessarily impossible as you claim it is. Highly complex patterns can and do arise from a set of relatively simple rules.

Shadow
Shadow
8 years ago

Let’s see here……….we still have: Bigotry, violence, sexual assault, and social inequity. People still have the same drives and instincts as they did 60 years ago. After all, a smile still means the same thing now as it did then. I hope you understand the concept.

That we all share some instincts /= everything we do is shared. Since you want to talk facial expressions, kindly explain what someone is trying to convey when they bite their tongue (literally, not the idiom). Also, 60 years ago I would have had to restrict my movements to select few “coloured” areas in South Africa, yet I have traversed the country and been able to go wherever the fuck I wanted. 60 years ago I would have had to keep any sexual or romantic encounters with White women very close to the chest, yet I openly flirt and hook up with White women currently. 60 years ago half of my circle of friends being White would be unheard of. Bigotry may still be present, but the acceptability of open bigotry by society has changed drastically. The shit that people could openly do 60 years ago, as far as bigotry, violence and sexual assault, is so much worse than it is now that I can’t believe you made that stupid an argument of your own free will.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

60 years ago my marriage would have been illegal in some states (due to anti-miscegenation laws).

We could do this all day, but why bother? It’s pretty clear that “nothing has changed” is a combination of trolling and wishful thinking on Om Nom’s part.

Shadow
Shadow
8 years ago

Your behind the times if you think that the oddities of quantum mechanics, the indeterministic effects of things at the scale of individual electrons, etc (as function in the brain) don’ t once again allow for the possibility of non-determinism.

I do not think this at all.

And furthermore: If you think that I’m going to post my medical records on the INTERNET just to satisfy your standards of proof that I have asperger syndrome, think again. It’s moronic on your part to believe that AS was not know about by psychiatrists before 1994 when it was introduced into the DSM. Especially given the fact that the British psychiatrist Lorna Wing first coined the term “asperger syndrome” in a 1981 publication.

Am I the only one having a WTF moment? Who brought up your Aspberger diagnosis?

pecunium
8 years ago

Anathema: While quantum mechanics contradicts traditional ideas of determinism, it still leads to a sort of probabilistic determinism. The macroscopic realm of human decisions and actions is, in my opinion, almost certainly deterministic.

This isn’t the universal thinking of physicists, e.g. Lawrence Krauss

It’s not mine either, but I don’t have enough physics to be more than opinionated.

Monsieur sans Nom
Monsieur sans Nom
8 years ago

The shit that people could openly do 60 years ago, as far as bigotry, violence and sexual assault, is so much worse than it is now

Well, now there are LEGAL as well as social incentives for people to control their behavior that weren’t present some 60 years ago! People respond to incentives. And when you change the incentives you see a change in human social and individual behavior. But this in itself does not imply that people have free will nor does it imply that the blank slate theory is valid.

Shadow
Shadow
8 years ago

@CassandraSays

True that. It’s just that it’s one of the funniest bits of trolling since Owly’s Chicken Little impressions.

Anathema
Anathema
8 years ago

Not true. It can be difficult to distinguish between chaotic patterns and randomness, but it isn’t necessarily impossible as you claim it is. Highly complex patterns can and do arise from a set of relatively simple rules.

So your response to me pointing out that you don’t understand chaos theory . . . is to completely misunderstand chaos theory.

Right.

As I already said, chaos theory still holds true in deterministic systems. Chaos theory does not mean randomness.

Before you start expounding on a topic, can you at least have the decency to, I don’t know, google the subject or glance at a wikipedia article on it at the very least?