Don’t thank heaven for little girls
Girls = Evil
Try to guess what the blogger at The Truth Shall Set You Free, a blog that describes itself as “an examination of all issues related to comparative religion and the attempt to find truth in the world today” is talking about here. (Hint: It’s not drugs.)
“We are going to let drug dealers set up stands on every street corner, with glitzy advertising, and they will be allowed to offer their illegal drugs, for free, to anyone who walks by. But if anyone takes them up on their offer of free drugs, we will arrest the receiver and send them to prison. Even if the seller advertised a legal drug, but the receiver took an illegal one unknowingly.”
Well, I probably gave it away with the title and the illustration, but yes, he’s talking about age of consent laws. We’re back on that subject again, thanks to the inability of manosphere douchebags to stop talking about it in extremely icky ways. The “dealer” here is, of course, the underage girl. The drug in question … is also the underage girl. The unwary buyer? The poor, helpless, and outrageously oppressed male of the species. I’ll let our high-minded Christian blogger explain:
Criminalizing consensual sex with willing 16 year olds is absurd. Consent is consent.
The bias of the law is revealed by considering this: If both parties consented to breaking the law, why aren’t both parties punished? …
Uh, because the law is designed to protect underage girls and boys from older predators? Because we as a society recognize that consent is really not consent when one of the “consenting” partners is underage and the other is much older?
But no, our thoughtful student of comparative religion seems convinced that the purpose of the law is, well, I’m not sure what he thinks the purpose is other than to harsh the buzz of older men in thrall to evil, devious, conniving teenage girls.
In his mind, teen girls are the equivalent of drug dealers and older men are hapless, helpless addicts:
-The dealers (young women) are allowed to advertise (through clothes, makeup, body-language) an extremely valuable and addictive commodity (sex), and in fact, they can give it away totally free, without fear of any penalty…
-but if a customer (man) takes that heavily-advertised and freely-given valuable commodity, he is committing a felony.
And that’s the case, he complains, even if the girl lies about her age!
-even if he had no knowledge that her drug was illegal (underage), even [if] she misrepresented the commodity as legal, he is solely at fault.
-The consumer (man) is sent to prison, and forced to register as a sex offender FOR LIFE
-The dealer (young woman) is allowed to walk free to continue to entrap other potential customers of her illegal commodity.
A clearer example of the infamous “pussy pass” couldn’t not be conceived. What these laws are really doing is punishing men for girls being sluts and/or liars.
And so the oppression of men by evil women and girls continues apace. But there is, our blogger insists, a simple solution to this terrible injustice:
Punish the girls who are providing!
Clearly it is unfair to expect men to be able to resist the lures of these conniving Lolitas. We must do something to protect innocent men from underage sluts slutting it up in public!
Like this:
Posted on July 19, 2011, in creepy, evil women, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, oppressed men, statutory rape apologists. Bookmark the permalink. 274 Comments.
Why is feminists so ineffective in doing that?
Because people like you keep fucking shit up, that’s why.
Has anything changed in the last 30 years?
Yes, but do your own research.
Marc, do you believe any of what you’re saying? Be serious, here.
If you think that penises and guns are roughly equivalent, that’s a problem with you, dude. Such an analogy reveals only how you think about penises, and it’s not complimentary.
Guns are weapons and made to be weapons and designed, created, manufactured and sold to possibly one day cause harm to another human being or animal. Hunting, self-defense, etc – you’re still causing pain to others. If you use a gun as intended, at the very least you’re threatening someone and at the very worst, killing them.
I didn’t come up with that, please remember that. Besides, the original metaphor wasn’t penises=guns, but men=guns.
I quote MertvayaRuka:
“Well, sure, in the same sense that guns should always been assumed to be loaded. Basic personal safety should always take priority over people’s feelings.”
This is actually a really excellent metaphor, CB.
Anyone with half a brain about firearms KNOWS you always treat them as if they are loaded until you confirm otherwise. And then you still treat them as if they are loaded. This doesn’t mean they hate guns, or they think guns are inherently evil or that all guns do is kill people. It means they respect the potential for danger and act accordingly around them. You don’t assume they are ever harmless because the danger if they’re not is too great to risk assumption. Just as it would be a risk to assume the strange guy in the elevator with you is perfectly harmless.
This metaphor or analogy again inspired me to think about the idea to stop producing male babies. To ban guns is not an outrageous demand. But to “ban men” would be…? (correct me if I’m wrong…) Why… why is that so wrong?
[ ] Yes.
[X] No.
[ ] What’s a pickle?
But why do you feel that way, Marc? Pickle jar lids are dangerous, and hurt a lot of people’s hands. I’ll bet that somewhere, at some point in history, at least one person died from tetanus from scratching themselves on a horrible pickle jar lid. Surely that’s proof that pickle jars and pickles, statistically speaking, are terrible inventions and should be destroyed?
Marc - The analogy isn’t to banning guns, but to handling them with caution.
Assuming that men are never dangerous and never commit crimes is like putting a gun to your head and pulling the trigger, because you’re absolutely sure it couldn’t possibly be loaded.
Most of the time, you’ll be right. But the consequences of being wrong are so horrible that they warrant caution every time. If you handle guns a lot, there’ll be lots of instances where you know a gun is unloaded, and it really is. (Just like a guy who says he’s harmless, and really is.) You still treat them like they’re loaded, just because the consequences are so bad if you’re wrong.
This metaphor or analogy again inspired me to think about the idea to stop producing male babies. To ban guns is not an outrageous demand. But to “ban men” would be…? (correct me if I’m wrong…) Why… why is that so wrong?
…. because guns aren’t people? Because men aren’t just their penis?
Seriously, you’re the only one who’s proposing an end to men as a way to solve rape. Most feminists believe that the much less drastic method, of teaching men that rape is wrong, will work just fine.
Marc: I just always have to think about the castrated Czech sex offenders. Of course this is just listening to their introspection. But to listen to them especially Ludek Jirak who had intrusive dreams about raping little children until he was castrated… (then the dreams stopped.) makes it really seem that a biological disposition to be a sex offender exists and this has something to do with testosterone.
So find evidence to support your position. Where are the other case studies? Where are the longitudinal studies? Where is the subsequent self reporting by other offenders?
A single datum isn’t something to generalise a rule from. You keep doing that (it’s the flip side of your idea that a single datum invalidates a general rule).
If you look at the studies, it’s admitted that reporting is less than perfect, but… even with that, sex-offenders (whom one supposes to be under greater scrutiny than the general populace) have an overall recidivist rate of less than 4 percent for subsequent sexual offense.
They have a lower rate than other criminals for overall re-offense. They have a lower rate for felonious re-offense.
That doesn’t mean they don’t re-offend. It does mean the evidence supports the claim that the common wisdom that sexual offenders are “guaranteed” to re-offend because, “they can’t help themselves” is wrong.
Which is what I said.
You have this idea that somehow being aware that men commit the majority of sexual assaults means the people here (and feminists in general) have a problem with men. We don’t. We have a problem with rapists.
MRAs make the worst analogies. Girls/women are the dealers? Men are the addicts? Sex is the “commodity” (drug)? When these fucking dumb-ass MRAs stop thinking of “pussy” as a “market,” then we’ll take them seriously. Okay, no, we still won’t, but that’s because they’ll find other stupid shit to make logical fallacies about.
The manly-man thing inevitably leads to thinking of everything as a market.
If you look at the studies, it’s admitted that reporting is less than perfect,
It says:
“While some sex offenders in this study probably committed a new sex crime after their release and were not arrested or convicted, the study cannot say how many.
As mentioned above, one reason why sex offenders are not arrested is that no one calls the police. Results from the National Crime Victimization Survey indicate that the offenses of
rape/sexual assault are the least likely crimes to be reported to the police.”
(and this is about the rearrest rate, not the reconviction rate, which is, of course, even more problematic.)
but… even with that, sex-offenders (whom one supposes to be under greater scrutiny than the general populace) have an overall recidivist rate of less than 4 percent for subsequent sexual offense.
The <4% number is the reconviction rate for a sexual offense in the next three years. How many rapes are reported and how many of these reported rapes result in a conviction?
If we believe this:
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates
not very much…
Only 9% of rapes result in a conviction.
Sex offenders face greater scrutiny? Maybe… but they might also act more carefully once they served time in prison.
Also if you look at this study:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=204946
though a low risk is found, this risk is constant. And that makes sex offenses different from other crimes, it is consistent with the idea that “sex offenders don’t change”
So find evidence to support your position. Where are the other case studies? Where are the longitudinal studies? Where is the subsequent self reporting by other offenders?
For example in the 1989 study by Wille and Beier about high-risk sex offenders (99 surgically castrated sex offenders and 35 non-castrated sex offenders). After 10 years the recidivism rate of castrated offenders was 3%, for non-castrated offenders it was 46%.
But why do you feel that way, Marc? Pickle jar lids are dangerous, and hurt a lot of people’s hands. I’ll bet that somewhere, at some point in history, at least one person died from tetanus from scratching themselves on a horrible pickle jar lid. Surely that’s proof that pickle jars and pickles, statistically speaking, are terrible inventions and should be destroyed?
It’s a risk/benefit-calculation. What’s the benefit in keeping men around? What? If we say we need a birthrate of 2.1 - 2.3 children per woman to keep the population constant (and avoid the nasty demographic effects), when we would not afford ourself the luxury to produce males, a woman would only need to have 1.1 daughters on average in her lifetime, which would mean less pregnancies and more productive time.
Maybe there is a small benefit because men are physically stronger, but that’s it… and that’s really not so important anymore in this day and age.
The risks on the other hand are clear and far outweigh the benefits (that’s the difference to the pickles).
Besides the rape, there is clear evidence that there’s a link between testosterone and aggression. Either have a look throughout all the cultures and think for yourself or have a look at the study of Dabbs, Frady, Carr, and Besch (1987).
MRAs make the worst analogies.
Yes, but this analogy is not from an MRA, it’s from MertvayaRuka.
@Vicky:
Because people like you keep fucking shit up, that’s why.
Am I beyond redemption or is feminism just ineffective in chaning my mind?
Yes, but do your own research.
I never imagined that telling men that rape is wrong is such a difficult thing to do…
While the post you’re dissecting is making horrible points, you, unfortunately, are too. We live in a society where youth sexuality is stigmatized and youth are treated as ignorant victims unable to make their own decisions. People who are capable of both rational decision-making and sexual desire are seen as irresponsible and naive based on age alone.
You also imply that every female who isn’t legally an adult is a “little girl”, which is demeaning even as a joke.
Marc: Do you read what you write? You agree that the reconviction rate… for all crimes, is less among sex offenders, then you argue this the rate of convictions for rape somehow invalidates this.
The two are not related. A person who has been convicted of a sex offense is already one of the 9 percent which you allege is the convinction rate.
Which moves them out of the “under-reported” column. A parolee doesn’t need to be charged again, usually, to be sent back. It’s trivially easy to violate one’s parole, and just get sent back to prison (and in fact things like failing a drug-test are the more common ways in which they do get sent back).
You advocate castration, because recidivism rate for 35 non-castrated offenders was higher. But you failed to mention that the non-castratees weren’t people who were randomly selected from the population of convicted rapists, but people who had applied to be castrated. We can presume these were people who had what they felt to be overwhelming urges.
Since the article is behind a paywall, I have to base my reading on the abstracts, and subsequent citations.
But this citation seems to break down the problems with the Willie and Beier study:
The author of that paper also said this:
Which gets to the meat of the matter. Castration is a violation of bodily autonomy. Moreover it’s not provable that the theoretical benefits (lower rates of recidivism in males over the age of 35. In Willie and Beier’s study it was shown that men aged less than 35 retained erectile function, though the stimulation needed was greater) are based on a mutilation which isn’t provably needful.
To sum up. Recidivicism among sexual offenders is much lower than commonly believed.
Recidivism among sexual offenders is actually lower than among non-sexual offenders (with the singular exception of murderers, which is harder to measure because most murders are crimes of passion, and a significant number of murderers are not released from prison at all).
Castration is a solution is search of a problem. For it to be an even vaguely acceptable one the rate of recidivism would have to be appallingly high, and there are other ways to deal with it.
Because, if rape is something those men can’t help but do, it’s a mental illness, and more humane ways of dealing with it are in order.
I bet Marc will find a way to misinterpret all of that, Pecunium.
(Though, that is a very good and well-detailed response.)
vaguelyhumanoid: That’s not what we are doing. We’ve gone through all of this before, so I’ll sum up.
Statutory rape laws are meant to address the fact that not all people are able to give informed consent.
Are they perfect, Of course not i.e. people who are mentally able to give informed consent will be prevented from legally doing so? That’s the breaks. The harm to them is minor.
Since, in almost all jurisdictions two minors cannot commit statutory rape against each other they aren’t even prevented from having sex. They are merely prohibited from having sex with people who are statutorally excluded.
It is unarguable that there is a point at which a child is both unable to consent, and manipulable.
Since the ability to determine who is, or isn’t able to give informed consent isn’t something which can be done on a case by case basis, a “bright line” is needed. Where each jurisdiction draws it varies. In the US the majority of states allow 16 year olds to consent with anyone.
To remove the, “bright line” in the interest of making it legal for that small percentage who are being inconvenienced is to open the larger majority, who aren’t able to give informed consent, to abuse.
Which is why I favor, and the law provides, a statutory lower limit on the age at which someone can consent to sex.
@ Marc:
“What’s the benefit in keeping men around?”
Men are people. They matter just as much as any other gender, and it would be inexcusably evil to wipe out an entire gender because of some false assumptions (see Pecunium’s posts) that you are making about a small portion of that gender. Seriously, why on earth do you need this explained to you?
Nobody wants to play the let’s-try-to-justify-gendercide game with you, Marc. Give it up.
Now, let’s talk about pickles.
Let’s do a risk-benefit calculation:
Some pickle jars hurt people.
Some people like pickles.
A tiny potential for harm is much more important in the grand scheme than a few pickle-eaters losing out on a taste, right? Don’t you think we should get rid of pickles? I mean, there’s no real benefit to them, right? They’re just slightly tastier than horseradish, and if we get rid of pickles we can all have more money to buy horseradish! Don’t you care about horseradish, Marc?
Oh for fuck’s sake. That’s like insisting that birds-of-paradise look so beautiful because they want to make humans to want to kill them and take their feathers — and not for any reasons actually relevant to the birds’ interests, such as attracting other birds-of-paradise.
Men are people. They matter just as much as any other gender, and it would be inexcusably evil to wipe out an entire gender because
But it would be in principle, from a risk/benefit-calculation, a good idea? The world would be better, right? It may be ethically problematic, but it would in principle be reasonable, right?
of some false assumptions (see Pecunium’s posts)
We won’t wipe them out, that would need killing billions of people. We will phase them out. As a first step we well make the laws to abort males more permissive (late term abortion allowed without giving reasons).
that you are making about a small portion of that gender. Seriously, why on earth do you need this explained to you?
Pecunium, I would say, at least implies in his post, that men exist that feel overwhelming urges to rape (mind you, I don’t advocate castration, I advocate a phase-out). If you accept we can finally agree that the urge to rape is sometimes biological.
How do you know in advance as a parent that you don’t get one of these rapist as son? You can’t know. So getting a male is like getting a disabled child (after all, a whole chromosome is missing) who is a potential rapist, has an increased chance for criminal behavior and a reduced life expectancy. But you can’t abort it like a disabled child. Explain me that!
And because of the demographic effects I would advocate a reduction for child benefit payments for males.
That would be Phase 1.
We are not talking about full-blown genocide, nobody thinks it would be realistic to do such a thing. We can just talk about Phase 1 now… later, we will see.
This is getting tiresome, Marc, but okay, I’ll play too.
“But it would be in principle, from a risk/benefit-calculation, a good idea? The world would be better, right? It may be ethically problematic, but it would in principle be reasonable, right?”
Okay, fine. If you put aside the ethical and moral considerations, and the genetic superiority of sexual reproduction for complex organisms versus asexual reproduction, and the personal problems that people would experience with having their loved ones killed, and the decrease in the quality of life due to shrinking sexual options, and the misery of living under a totalitarian, genocidal government, and the fact that artificially shrinking the gene pool leads to diseased populations — yeah, other than all that, “phasing” men out would be a great idea. You win.
(Watch subsequent trolls claim that I said “phasing men out would be a great idea”.)
“We won’t wipe them out, that would need killing billions of people. We will phase them out. As a first step we well make the laws to abort males more permissive (late term abortion allowed without giving reasons).”
Practices like that are already in place for female fetuses in places like China and India. It achieves short-term goals, but screws up long-term ones.
“Pecunium, I would say, at least implies in his post, that men exist that feel overwhelming urges to rape (mind you, I don’t advocate castration, I advocate a phase-out). If you accept we can finally agree that the urge to rape is sometimes biological.”
Lots of urges are biological. The urge to urinate is biological. Yet most people learn to control their urges enough not to pee in the middle of a hotel lobby. The urge to eat is biological. But most of us don’t drop everything to stuff our faces the moment we feel hunger pains. Sure, there exist a handful of people who cannot control their urges — but exterminating half the human race is hardly the solution to that. Instead, it should be addressed on an individual basis. The best solution to the existence of individuals who cannot control their urge to rape, or their urge to pee is indefinite (but humane) confinement and diapers, respectively.
“How do you know in advance as a parent that you don’t get one of these rapist as son? You can’t know. So getting a male is like getting a disabled child (after all, a whole chromosome is missing) who is a potential rapist, has an increased chance for criminal behavior and a reduced life expectancy. But you can’t abort it like a disabled child. Explain me that!”
Male children are far more likely than female ones to be born disabled. Autism and hemophilia are just two disorders that readily come to mind that afflict boys more than girls. (On the other hand, as far as I know, there are no afflictions that affect girls more than boys, other than, obviously, diseases of female reproductive organs.) So yes, genetically, males are more fragile than females. I just don’t see how this is a justification for exterminating all males.
@ Marc:
No, nobody agrees that getting rid of men makes sense from a risk/benefit perspective.
No, nobody agrees that getting rid of men would make the world a better place.
No, nobody agrees that gendercide is a reasonable option in principle.
No, nobody agrees that gendercide is reasonable if you just do a little of it instead of entirely eradicating a gender.
No, nobody agrees that “whoops, I just realized it’s a boy” should be a valid reason for a late-term abortion. Late-term abortions are for when pregnancies threaten the life of the mother, one fetus is parasitically attached to the other and only the removal of one fetus will result in any live children being born at all, the fetus is already dead and needs to be extracted, or it has just been detected that the fetus has a horrible birth defect that will result its horribly painful death soon after birth. Not for when you just don’t like a trait in your fetus. Seriously, don’t start this conversation.
No, nobody agrees that the urge to rape is biological.
No, nobody agrees that you are correct about the high rates of recidivisim in rapists.
No, nobody agrees that a significant amount of rapists claim to be compulsively drawn to rape.
No, nobody agrees that the characteristics of an incredibly small amount of male rapists who claim to be compulsively drawn to rape can be extrapolated to mean anything about the male gender as a whole.
No, nobody thinks that because a very small portion of male rapists claim to be compulsively drawn to rape, the entire male gender is just too risky to exist.
No, nobody agrees that someone’s gender determines if they’re going to be a rapist.
No, nobody agrees that being male is a disability, or like a disability.
No, nobody will probably agree with you about whatever sexist point you’re trying to make about child benefit payments.
No, nobody agrees that your plan of limiting the number of men in the world via eugenics is a good idea, or worth talking about.
No, nobody thinks that the only thing wrong with gendercide is that it just isn’t realistic to enact.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?
Marc: A simple question:
But it would be in principle, from a risk/benefit-calculation, a good idea? The world would be better, right? It may be ethically problematic, but it would in principle be reasonable, right?
Do you really believe that?
[ ]Yes
[ ]No
I’ll bet you don’t.
Which means you are playing some sort of game. It may be you hope to show some thing we believe to be, in fact, wrong, with his bit of reductio. The problem is… none of the people accept the premise.
Why would it be wrong? Because it would only make the world better if men never, ever, being able to rape women again was the only thing that matters.
Why would it be wrong? Because men are people too, and (shock) they are equal to women in value. Ergo wiping them out is wrong. It’s wrong from the POV of, “pure ethics” and it’s wrong from the POV of “Feminist Ethics”.
I say (in my own words) men do not have an overwhelming urge to rape I also say that I don’t imply it. I say, plainly, that some men do. Some men also have an overwhelming urge to wear women’s clothing. Some men have an overwhelming urge to live alone in the woods. Some men have an overwhelming urge to be actors, or lawyers or doctors, or farmers.
Saying *IB>* implied any such thing when very I explicitly stated the study you cited is flawed because the selective sample of non-castrated people was a group which self-identified as being complusive, and therefore couldn’t be representative of “all men”, while arguing that sex-offenders are low recidivists…
Is presenting an argument I very much didn’t make, and saying I made it.
That’s dishonest.
Okay, fine. If you put aside the ethical and moral considerations, and the genetic superiority of sexual reproduction for complex organisms versus asexual reproduction,
Ah, that’s a good argument. But technically it could be solved. We would produce sperms with the genetic material of an egg.
and the personal problems that people would experience with having their loved ones killed,
We wouldn’t kill them, we would just stop producing them. After 100 years there are no males left.
and the decrease in the quality of life due to shrinking sexual options,
ok, that’s an argument. But consider the benefits! If women are so selfish that a cheap fuck is worth more to them to all these benefits, ok.
and the misery of living under a totalitarian, genocidal government,
totalitarian… well totalitarian, ok. But not genocidal.
and the fact that artificially shrinking the gene pool leads to diseased populations — yeah, other than all that, “phasing” men out would be a great idea. You win.
The gene pool shrinking is no argument, we’ll artificially produce sperm. Reproduction will not be uncontrolled as it’s now, we will rot out all genetic diseases.
Do you really believe that?
[ ]Yes
[ ]No
[X]Exactly as much as anything else I argue here for.
Why would it be wrong? Because men are people too, and (shock) they are equal to women in value
Why should they be equal in value, objectively? If we say, sometimes, just sometimes, testosterone is a component in sex offenses (which would be the easiest explanation, Ockham’s razor, you know, if throughout the cultures it were nearly only the men who raped). If they further have increased aggression and criminality and are genetically more fragile they need to have something important where they are better than women to compensate this flaws. I fail to see what this could be.
Ergo wiping them out is wrong. It’s wrong from the POV of, “pure ethics” and it’s wrong from the POV of “Feminist Ethics”.
We would just phase them out, that’s very different from wiping them out. There are other arguments, too. Aggression that is correlated with testosteron, the elimination 90% of all criminal behavior and the need of less pregnancies.
Marc: Do you read what you write? You agree that the reconviction rate… for all crimes, is less among sex offenders, then you argue this the rate of convictions for rape somehow invalidates this.
No, I don’t. The reconviction rate for all crimes is uninteresting, it’s only the reconviction rate for sex crimes that I was arguing about, the 3.5% in three years number you know. That’s pretty low, yes, but if we assume that only 1 in 10 rapes ends in a conviction this number is no surprise at all.
But it’s interesting to note that the reconviction rate, though low is constant over decades. That means that sex offenders, though they don’t often get reconvicted because rapes usually don’t end in a conviction, often happen to be reconvicted for a sex crime they committed 20 years later. That really makes it seem like “they don’t change”.
The two are not related. A person who has been convicted of a sex offense is already one of the 9 percent which you allege is the convinction rate.
Yes, but how’s that a problem?
Which moves them out of the “under-reported” column. A parolee doesn’t need to be charged again, usually, to be sent back. It’s trivially easy to violate one’s parole, and just get sent back to prison (and in fact things like failing a drug-test are the more common ways in which they do get sent back).
Yes, but I was not talking about the overall rearrest rate (including because of parole violation), I’m was talking about the reconviction rate for sex crimes.
Really, Marc, you’re the only one making this “grand gendercide plan”, and trying to somehow, someway, state that we (even the men of Manboobz) believe it. People have been saying “No” since forever.
Really, how far can you carry this bullshit? What is the end goal for you?
“Ah, that’s a good argument. But technically it could be solved. We would produce sperms with the genetic material of an egg.”
And now we know who cut biology class in school. The reason that sexual reproduction is better than the asexual kind, genetically speaking, is because it allows for a greater variation in all sorts of traits within a population. If you artificially produce sperm with the same genetic material as the egg, you end up with a clone of the mother. And that’s an evolutionary dead end.
“If women are so selfish that a cheap fuck is worth more to them to all these benefits, ok.”
You poor thing. A “cheap fuck”? That’s a value judgment that I just don’t agree with. No one who’s ever had a decedent fuck thinks of it that way.
Make that “decent fuck”. Oops
Marc… where to begin:
[X]Exactly as much as anything else I argue here for.
Objection, non-responsive. There is no actual content in that answer. It’s possible you believe everything you argue for. Because you will never tell us, we have no way of knowing.
But, to be charitable and take you at face value: Again, a question; what is your aim with this Gedankenexperiment ?
What is the point? You’ve posed the question, and gotten detailed answers, We reject the hypothesis (that men are “predisposed to rape”), and even more we have rejected the conclusion (that as a result of the posited “predisposition men ought to be wiped out*)
Having refuted your data, and rejected your conclusion have you come back with new data? No. The closest you have come is to engage in a weasel-worded assertion that I support you (and I’m flattered that you think my reputation so persuasive). The problem is, of course, I don’t support you, not even with implication.
Even that doesn’t sway you. You keep repeating, with minor elaborations, the exact same argument. We keep rejecting it.
Why do you think that will work?
What, assuming arguendo, that you don’t believe it, is your purpose in trying to get us to agree with it?
Why, if you do believe it, do you think we ought to agree with you?
Why should they be equal in value, objectively? If we say, sometimes, just sometimes, testosterone is a component in sex offenses (which would be the easiest explanation, Ockham’s razor, you know, if throughout the cultures it were nearly only the men who raped). If they further have increased aggression and criminality and are genetically more fragile they need to have something important where they are better than women to compensate this flaws. I fail to see what this could be.
Why should they be equal in value? Because they are people. That’s the entire point of feminism. Men and women are equal. Not women are better. Women are equal. Men are equal.
You have misapplied Occam’s razor. Why? Because any hormone can be blamed for anything anyone does. Trivia Question… what happens if someone has an excess of testosterone? They lose libido. To apply Occam’s Razor it has to be the simplest of the legitimate factors. Take away estrogen and libido goes down too. Any number of things, all simple (and all too simple) can be used to “prove” why “x” group commits crimes. That some of them are simplistic doesn’t mean they are right.
Occam is that the simplest of valid hypotheses is the one to be preferred. Until you can show validity, you can’t apply Occam.
Second, rape is a crime of consent. It doesn’t take testosterone to do it. There are men in this community who have been raped. Since women can, as easily as men, refuse to accept consent (and I can guarantee you that non-violent, non-consent rape of men by women is underreported), it’s not a “male” problem.
Third: Men do not need to be, “better” at anything to justify their existence. They exist, that alone is enough.
*Yes, wiped out. You may not be advocating massacre, but an argument that Gypsies, or The Ainu, or the Hmong, or Germans, or anyone is a blight on the face of the earth and ought to be sterilised so they are, “phased out”… that’s wiping them out. It may not be murder, but it’s most certainly extinction.
Amused: I’ve never had a decadent fuck that was merely decent.
Marc: A reconviction rate of 46 percent is higher, or lower, than one of 3.5 percent?
Lower.
If it’s that much lower, how can you say they are incorrigable offenders.
Your, “20 years later” is still part of that 3.5 percent. Claiming the overall conviction rate for rape is low isn’t relevant. What’s the rate for conviction of someone previously convicted of rape? A lot higher. That’s because prior convictions for a subsequent offense of a related nature is allowable evidence.
Again: what is it you are trying to accomplish with this?
Why are you arguing so strenuously for it?
“We are not talking about full-blown genocide, nobody thinks it would be realistic to do such a thing. We can just talk about Phase 1 now… later, we will see.”
I think Marc has surpassed himself this time. He actually has a detailed plan to “phase out” his entire gender and sees nothing wrong with this.
Ironically, now that I’m done laughing and Marc is now making the argument in at least two threads I’ve got a well-nigh overwhelming urge to cuddle my boyfriend. It’s what I do when I feel the need to hide from the crazy.
I’d honestly rather exterminate the whole human race and replace them with robots.
Hewmanz are boring.
Pecunium, why can’t we have a non-age-based standard of consent that still covers the same things that having an age of consent is meant to?
We should take Marc’s plan and propose it to the MRAs xD that way we don’t even have to spend time doing the whole gish gallop debunking thing, they’d do the work for us xD
Yeah, let’s not do that …
…. because the MRAs don’t really have a sense of humor and b/c I am really really tired of Marc’s trollery.
vaguelyhumanoid: Ok:
1: explain why we need it.
2: explain what benefits it provides to society.
3: explain how it works
4: explain why it’s better than what we have now.
Ironically, now that I’m done laughing and Marc is now making the argument in at least two threads I’ve got a well-nigh overwhelming urge to cuddle my boyfriend. It’s what I do when I feel the need to hide from the crazy.
Yes do that, cuddle him, cuddle him as long as you still can!
Marc: A reconviction rate of 46 percent is higher, or lower, than one of 3.5 percent?
Lower.
If it’s that much lower, how can you say they are incorrigable offenders.
Your, “20 years later” is still part of that 3.5 percent.
No it isn’t, it’s the 3-year reconviction rate:
3.5% (339 of the 9,691) were reconvicted for a sex crime (a forcible rape or a sexual assault) within 3 years.
3.5% is much lower but 46% but still that makes sense.
The problem is that for sex offendeses (unlike non-sex offenses) there’s a huge gap between the low risk per year recidivism and the high cumulative recidivism rate.
The risk for reconviction is low, but this risk is constant, it persists for many, many years. As you can find in the UK study:
The study found that 24.6 percent of the sample was reconvicted for a sex offense over the entire 21 year
This rate is surprisingly consistent with a constant 3.5% recidivism rate for 3 years.
Add to that, that only a fraction of sex crimes are reported and just a fraction of that end in reconviction… that makes it even more disturbing. It’s seems a plausible hypothesis that they reoffend relatively quickly again after their release but it just takes a while until they get caught. It could be that if a sex offender is reconvicted 15 years after his release he never did something during this time, but it just (though of course direct evidence is lacking) seems very inplausible.
Ah, don’t bother to reply to that. Since David has made clear that he doesn’t want me here, I will now go to the MRA forums and troll them. And if I do it right, David will pick up my trolls there, will think they are all real and will try to mock them here and gets trolled, too.
That’s what I would call…
DOUBLE TROLLED!
There’s a pretty subtle imho well constructed troll hidden in the other thread… it has something to do with the letter “h” … don’t fall for it.
PS: What’s that above? Concern trolling or normal trolling…? do I want to sow FUD that the stuff David mocks might not be real? You decide…
Marc: So.. with a 46 percent recidivism rate in 3 years… vs. a 3.5, and a consistent trend of 3.5… you fail to show the persistent rate of recidivism on the part of non-sexual offenders.
You still fail to show that sexual offenders are a greater threat to society.
While pretending you have.
That’s dishonest.
Oh my god!!!! Marc’s a troll???
*dies from shock*
Marc, here’s the thing, the comments and posts I quote from MRA sites are those THAT OTHER COMMENTERS on those sites AGREE WITH — ie, other people upvote them, they say “great post,” the commenter in question has posted literally hundreds of other comments there and is liked by the other commenters, etc. Even in the unlikely event that these comments were posted by trolls, they reflect widely held beliefs, and/or the “conventional wisdom” of those sites.
By contrast, your “let’s kill all the men” comments here were violently rejected by everyone here because they do not reflect what we think in the slightest; they’re horrible, and people here keep saying that they’re horrible.
If someone were to troll the sites I quote from in a similar manner, and they got a similar response, I wouldn’t quote their comments, because they would not reflect widely held MRA/MGTOW beliefs.
When I quote something horribly misogynistic and there are some people at the site who disagree, I generally point this out, because it is fairly rare.
I’m no fan of the Men’s rights reddit, obviously, but there are some people who post there who challenge the misogyny there, and I point this out all the time.
Also, feel free to continue commenting here, just drop the ridiculous, dishonest, obnoxious, and highly repetitive trolling. You’re not banned, just on moderation.
By contrast, your “let’s kill all the men” comments here were violently rejected by everyone here because they do not reflect what we think in the slightest; they’re horrible, and people here keep saying that they’re horrible.
Please, David, violently rejected? They were polite and said “We don’t want that” but they weren’t that shocked. It’s not one of the things that gets their blood boiling.
By contrast, your “let’s kill all the men” comments here were violently rejected by everyone here because they do not reflect what we think in the slightest; they’re horrible, and people here keep saying that they’re horrible.
Your faith shows its true colors under pressure. It is the pathological desire to blame all of the ills of one group of people on a different group - externalizing your emotions and whatnot. It would be understandable and perhaps even rational if feminists were just about removing prejudiced legislation, but enacting prejudiced legislation? The MRM has come into existence for a reason - when your legislation enables the sincere consideration of boys becoming sex offenders for a game, someone has to clean up the mess.
@Marc:
“Please, David, violently rejected? They were polite and said “We don’t want that” but they weren’t that shocked. It’s not one of the things that gets their blood boiling.”
I don’t supposed its the same reason why nobody gets “their blood boiling” over NWO’s screed… There’s absolutely no reason to give you any sort of credence, and you could advocate raping small children and some of us wouldn’t blink an eye. It isn’t what you say, it’s pretty much just you.
Marc wrote, “Yes do that, cuddle him, cuddle him as long as you still can!”
Is he threatening my BF here, or mad that I didn’t provide him with wank material? o.O
He also wrote, “Please, David, violently rejected? They were polite and said “We don’t want that” but they weren’t that shocked. It’s not one of the things that gets their blood boiling.”
Wait… now that Marc has revealed he’s just trollin’, he’s annoyed we didn’t take him seriously? Let me laugh harder.
FF, I love that your favorite source to prove what misandrists we supposedly are is a link to hate mail received by a web site devoted to the notion that “men are better than women.”
Oh, David, you are so delightfully naive. Do you think that what he writes forces angry, man-hating feminists to orally assault him? There is even a warning on the front page which explicitly states that if it is not for you, David, do not read it.
Your faith shows its true colors under pressure. Do you care to acknowledge that a disproportionate number of his assailants are feminists, or would you prefer to step down?
Marc: What do you want? Shall we say anyone who tries it will be tarred and feathered, propped up with pitchforks and used as bonfires while we dance around their agonies in glee?
Fine, you don’t like violently as a modifier, how about vehemently, or utterly, or totally, or universally. Because everyone who has responded to your “not-wiping them out, just phasing them out in slow gendercide”, has said it’s poinltess, inane, and morally repugnant.
I think that’s a total rejection.
Then again, it’s a gedankenexperiment. You admit you aren’t actually in favor of it. Which means you had some other agenda. Forgive me if I think it wasn’t wholesome, nor honest.
I think what really chaps your hide is that we aren’t foaming at the mouth, and raving about what a loon you are, but rather pointing out your lying ways. Some of us are merely mocking you. It’s gotta suck to be a trollus officianalis and fail to get people really angry.
I mean all that work, and what you get is gently dismembered. Sad really. Like I said, if you want to be a player in the big leagues, you need better game.
“Do you think that what he writes forces angry, man-hating feminists to orally assault him?”
Heh.
factfinder: When he’s spewing screeds against a group, that’s the group I’d expect to be responding.
If he were bashing gays you’d be here talking about the hate male proves that all of them are hateful.
Using your methods the trolls and hate male of Man Boobz shows that MRAs are hateful.
It’s not a valid metric.
Moreover, we don’t know what percentage of that is legitimate or trolling (it’s not as if he doesn’t have an agenda, nor that people in the pursuit of an agenda wouldn’t lie… see NWO, or Eoghan, or Marc). For all you know most feminists ignore him (if they’ve heard of him) and it’s all of half a dozen playing at “Sprezzatura”, or, “Planned Chaos”.
Heck, he could be making it all up.
XD
Marc is a liar. His “kill all the men” bull shit has been called out for trolling but it has also been referred to as disgusting, obscene, horrible, and multiple other pejoratives.
Nobody tracked down is ISP address or tried to send him personal email, pitch forks a-blazin’, and now we didn’t take it seriously enough? We weren’t properly outraged by this bull shit?
Hi there, Factfinder. Did you get that blood test yet? If so, please post a copy of it on Manboobz so we can ensure that your hormone levels are nice and balanced. If you can’t prove that your hormones are within the normal range, I’m afraid we’re just going to have to discount all of your arguments as irrational and hormonal.
“Do you think that what he writes forces angry, man-hating feminists to orally assault him?”
This is awesome. I only read through the first few letters. Did someone actually yell at Dick Masterson?
Or bite him?
How angry are we supposed to get about a troll who is known to posit things he doesn’t believe, and is nothing more than a weird thought experiment? xD
Ami: We have ladybrainz, so we are supposed to flip-out and get irrational. Violent even.
I mean he was talking about Rapists.. the worst of the worst.
A clearer example of the infamous “pussy pass” couldn’t not be conceived. What these laws are really doing is punishing men for girls being sluts and/or liars.
You know, I’m not ashamed to admit I laughed out loud at that. Really?
What I find especially amusing is that this is the predominant view promulgated by every fucking misogynist religion out there. It’s the basis of the entire face veil/burka/women are sluts if they show any skin at all bullshit zeitgeist that comes from the (mis)reading of the Quran.
As a man, I support the extinction of the male half of the specie.
People like this are an embarrassment, and frankly, incapable of redemption.
If he were bashing gays you’d be here talking about the hate male proves that all of them are hateful.
Using your methods the trolls and hate male of Man Boobz shows that MRAs are hateful.
“Hate male”… this Freudian slip (well, “slip”… you even made it twice) clearly shows what you think about your gender.
As a man, I support the extinction of the male half of the specie.
Do you want it others to do it for you or do you want to participate in it?
Is he threatening my BF here, or mad that I didn’t provide him with wank material? o.O
We spoke about the extinction of the male half of the species… who do you think we threaten?
Yet she’s still not afraid for her boyfriend, but for herself:
“Ironically, now that I’m done laughing and Marc is now making the argument in at least two threads I’ve got a well-nigh overwhelming urge to cuddle my boyfriend. It’s what I do when I feel the need to hide from the crazy.
If she would actually care for him she would have written:
“I’ve got a well-nigh overwhelming urge to cuddle my boyfriend. It’s what I do when I feel the need to hide him from the crazy.
That’s the thing I feel most sorry for straight men, I’m afraid, if you will be in danger one day, your wife or gf (you protected all the time) will just think for herself and run (and after 30 min she might feel a bit of remorse that she didn’t at least call 911).
The other things are just a nuisance but that must hurt one to his heart.
ah… Marc: The thing you ought to feel sorry for gay men about is that they are interested in men, since you say you think men are predisposed to rape; ergo the homosexual men will want to rape too, and the objects of their desires will be… other men.
Unless of course you are being dishonest.
Most of the world — including most states in the US — does set the age of consent at 16, although some US states place provisos on consent at 16 that are lifted at 18. The wildly-held-in-the-US idea that 18 is some magical universal age of consent comes from most of our media being produced in California, where this is the case.
I will post the link when I find it but I agree with that blogger over at inmalafide that if where going to enforce these laws fairly than have the same punishments for the Teens invoved.