Why I Think MHRAs’ Obsession with Female Rapists is Futile and Dangerous for Men

Some MRA groups are really into blowing the female rapist idea up, but I have many common sense arguments for why this might be futile as a weapon against feminism, and can even do more harm to men.

1)Feminists actually support the idea of female rapists.

That’s right, they do. Perhaps they thought only men can be rapists in the 70s, but modern feminists emphasize how alike the sexes are. They deny men have higher sex drives (“Women are just as sexual as men!”). They deny getting laid can be harder for a man than a woman (“There are female incels too!”). They often don’t even accept heteronormativity, they might say that there are more genders than two, and enthusiastic consent principles should apply to all those 1001 genders they can come up with (that includes men).

For example, in Norway, one of the most feminized countries in the world, the law recognizes female-on-male rape, if he is made to penetrate her.

2) Feminists don’t care if you use their own logic to hurt women

The logic of the MHRAs seems partially like this: “If we use feminist logic to hurt women just as much as feminists hurt men, surely feminists will stop what they are doing”. But you know what? Feminists created legislation that hurts women for ages, and no one batted an eyelid. For example, in Norway they illegalized the buying of sex from prostitutes. It was “to protect them from trafficking”. The whores were not happy about it, because not only did it mess with their work, but it also made it harder for them to screen for dangerous clients. Violence against them increased. Did that bother the feminists? NO.

I’m not sure you realize it guys, but feminists don’t actually care about women. Those powerful feminists who get to make laws don’t care about people, they just like to have status and power. The only time they care that someone gets hurt, is if it makes people question their authority.

3)Saying that female rapists is a huge problem will not hurt enough women to question feminist authority.

There are several reasons for that, which requires its own sublist. In short, not enough women will be accused of rape.

3.1)Men are not as prone to rape accusations, even if a woman jumps on their dick without permission, or through force, because of biological reasons

It is an established fact for most of the manosphere, that male and female sexualities are different. Everyone knows that men, on average, want more partners, and don’t feel as bad about casual sex as women. Yet many can’t quite lead the logic further, and conclude that being raped by a woman would be, on average, less of a big deal than if the roles were switched. Women are deeply emotionally hurt by rape, because in the evolutionary past, a rape meant potential waste of her time and energy to genes she did not pick, and potential loss of support from her official mate. A man who gets forced into sex by a woman only loses a few minutes of his time, and gains a potential free shot at reproduction, plus pre-selection which makes him more attractive.

I get it, we are human and have more value than just the sexual, but think of what we are. We are essentially vehicles for our genes. If a certain type of incident is bad for propagation of our genes optimally, we would evolve an instinct to fear it and be emotionally hurt by it. If this incident is good for propagation of our genes optimally, we would not develop such an instinct.

I have talked to many men who lost their virginity early, to adult women. Or men who woke up with a girl on their dick. They were happy about it, or mildly annoyed. I also talked to men who woke up next to women they didn’t know. But that’s the thing – guys don’t go “OMG, I’ve been raped!”. They go “I should not drink so much in the future”.

And that is even in a country that accepts female-on-male rape and teaches its members to verbally attack anyone who denies women can rape men. Norway took the only male accuser that showed up and prosecuted the woman well, for sucking his dick while he was asleep.  Are there any more?..

3.2) Women don’t rape (envelop) men as much as men rape (penetrate) women

After Typhonblue made her article on the NISVS2010 report (http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/evo-psych/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/ ), stating that women rape men as much as men rape women, everyone has been repeating it.  But I looked at the report, at the article, and don’t have the same conclusions. It shows that 1,1% of women were raped in the last 12 months (actually, this figure involves rape attempts and drunk rape, which isn’t rape), and 1,1% of men were made to penetrate in the last 12 months (this figure also involves attempts and drunk “rape”). Yet lifetime figures are 18,3% for women, and 4,8% for men. Typhonblue suggests it’s because our culture doesn’t allow men to call it rape, so they forget it:

“One possible reason for men not disclosing, or even “forgetting”, is quite simple: our social narrative does not allow for, nor does it depict, the sexual abuse of males. To a degree it allows for the sexual abuse of boys by men, but not boys by women or adult men by anyone.”

However, it might be just as likely that they don’t recall those incidents because they thought them too trivial, or the survey simply picked a year during which more men than usual were made to penetrate.

Another thing to remember that those figures involved ALL things: completed rape, attempted rape and “drunk rape”. For all I know, 1,1% of men were simply approached by pushy sexually aggressive women in the last 12 months, rather than were actually made to penetrate. Actually, the report in general likes to lump things together, making the data misleading for those not paying careful attention.

Yet another extremely common-sense reason exists for doubting that women rape men as much as men rape women: why didn’t the patriarchy of the past protect men from female rapists, if it’s such a big deal and it’s so common? Why was this never a big deal, even for the sons of the wealthy men? I understand that patriarchy was never the “rule of all men over all women”, but the men in power did rule, and DID enforce restrictions on female behavior where they considered it bad. So why not those ubiquitous female rapists?

4)Feminists don’t care if you use their logic to hurt women, so you can show how illogical they are

You shouldn’t roll around in dirt with a pig, trying to fight it. You’ll end up covered in mud, and the pig will be smiling.

Adopting feminist logic and techniques is like a woman trying to fill a difficult male role – she will make a poor imitation of a man, and will lose her femininity as well. An MRA copying a feminist will try to find a middle ground between his reasonable nature and hamstery feminist logic, but he will fail. He will degrade his intellect AND never outhamster the feminist hamster.

5)Intensifying the rape hysteria will hurt more men than women

Because men are not into rape accusations of women, intensification of rape hysteria will hurt only a few more women. A few more hurt women will not lead to questioning of feminist authority. Feminist authority will be pleased that MHRAs agree that drunk sex is rape. It will be pleased that MHRAs accept nothing less than enthusiastic consent. It will be pleased to hear more rape than previously thought is going on, and intensify the criminalization of everyone’s sexuality a little more. Then we’ll have equal injustice for all.

And this is why I’m against intensification of rape hysteria of any kind.

P.S: many thanks to Eivind Berge for the biological and the patriarchy arguments.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Feminism, MRA and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Why I Think MHRAs’ Obsession with Female Rapists is Futile and Dangerous for Men

  1. I don’t trust anything a feminist or MRA says. They’re simply mouthpieces of institutions, made to tow the party line or be ejected from it. There’s nothing they advocate as an action that is worth doing, even if some of the individual concepts are good in moderation.

    • tyciol says:

      >I don’t trust anything a feminist or MRA says. They’re simply mouthpieces of institutions, made to tow the party line or be ejected from it

      Not really, considering there isn’t any authority who can tell people whether or not they can call themselves either of these things. People might adopt a label yet be chastized by the groups you consider them a mouthpiece for.

      > There’s nothing they advocate as an action that is worth doing

      What’s wrong with outlawing genital mutilation against minors or making it necessary for men to consent to owe paternal obligations?

  2. Eivind Berge says:

    Nothing can be more politically correct than claiming women can rape men. It is astonishingly bizarre how the MHRAs can take a cause which is not only the height of political correctness and advocated by feminists everywhere, but also the most absurd and least relevant type of luxury “problem” men can face, and then turn it into a men’s rights issue. It fails on so many levels it boggles the mind, from denying biology to hurting men immeasurably more than it can possibly help. Do these manginas really not see how politically correct they are? They have picked the most hateful aspect of feminism, expansion of rape law, and decided to endorse and advocate it. Feminist corruption of rape law is the very reason I became an MRA, because of how hateful and unfair it is to men, and yet this is what the MHRAs support and want even more of.

    The conviction rate for female “rapists” in Norway is 100% so far. Feminists take female rapists even more seriously than male rapists. The feminist justice system treated the first and only male accuser in our history as a Godsend to prove how gender-equal we are. But since 2004, no more male accusers have come forward and reported female “rapists” to the police, despite the justice system being so forthcoming. Despite all the feminist propaganda about the sexes being equal, and also a monetary reward of at least 150 000 kr for each successful rape accusation, men don’t want to accuse rape. Meanwhile, in the past decade over 10 000 women in Norway have accused rape. And these are the true beneficiaries of the rape-expansionism advocated by feminists and their useful idiots, the MHRAs.

    • The Last Nightmare says:

      Well, now I know that you think of sex as just sex. How …sad. If there’s risk of disease, rape is just sex to you. The problem of a life created? You must think “Lol, sucks to be her! I got laid!” I really don’t know what you are…typical, perhaps?

  3. Liz says:

    I agree with you on all counts, Emma. Addition thoughts:
    1) The typical feminist has little to fear even if women were prosecuted in far larger numbers. They tend to be a class of individuals who have both the look and demeanor of a group that neither inspires nor experiences desire, have never had enjoyable sex, can’t imagine anyone voluntarily engaging in the act, and are secretly very angry that anyone does.

    2) Many MRAs are so angry at women and dislike them so acutely they don’t really care if a law is nonsensical as long as it might hurt women. (the equivalent of feminist reasoning, just with the sexes reversed).

  4. Clarence says:

    Well, allow me to mostly agree and partly disagree as is the normal for me here, Emma.

    1. I agree with Eivind that MOST HARM of female to male rape can be covered by regular laws against assault. However, there is still sexual disease (which can wreck a man’s reproductive ability or in rare cases like AIDS possibly cause his death) and the fact that men are made to pay for children NO MATTER HOW that genetic child of theirs was conceived. I’m all for punishing a female for using her ‘valuable’ sexuality if it gives a man a disease and I’m all for letting men who can prove they were raped (to include statutory) to get off with no CS obligations whatsoever. And while I’m ok with adults having consensual sex with teens I think the adult would have the LEGAL responsibility (whether man or woman):
    A. Make sure they got clear consent – teens NEED to learn that and how to establish boundaries – which also means its still ok in my book to ban teachers and other people in authority from having sex with teens
    B. Make sure the teen did not get pregnant before age 16 (for both health of the mother and financial reasons)
    C. Do not leave the teen with a disease
    And of course I’m all for stat laws regarding pre-pubescent children, male or female, and if Eivind or anyone else doesn’t like that, they can go suck eggs.

    2. I’m glad you noticed how much stuff is being lumped together. This sort of conflation of course happens all the time in research concerning sexual assaults and often (but not as often I don’t think from my experience) violence in general.

    I don’t doubt some men were forced or threatened to penetrate women. But I do doubt there is near parity in this sort of thing, and I have expressed those reservations to Typhonblue before. Of course my reservations were ignored. Politics always seems to trump concerns about truth, I guess.

    3. SOME feminists – and not ALL of the IMPORTANT ones by any means – support the idea of female rapists. Quite a few, however, including pretty much all the radfems, a few of the 3rd wavers and a majority of the second wavers (most of whom are the feminist type actually in power )do not think that women either can nor will sexually assault men. So using “Feminists support this” as an argument in this case is kind of weak, at least in terms of US politics (I do know that feminist politics vary by country, though I’d say most countries have sex negative feminists writing laws based on my reading of AVFM, Eivinds blog, and Human Stupidity and The Antifeminist). Remember victimhood == money! Which is why so many of them scream when you try to get shelters to accept abused men or to open up shelters for abused men or to write or change the law to even mention men.

    4. I think ‘affirmative consent’ is a good philosophy for personal sexual ethics. I do NOT think it is a good model for laws regarding sex, nor is it something that can be applied to every sexual encounter esp with long term partners. As you know sex is messy, it’s not always mind-blowing, people can’t always read signals accurately and yet verbal consent can sometimes ‘kill the mood’. “Duty Sex” is part of relationships for both men and women at least sometimes, even in the best relationships and marriages.

    Anyway, this was a very good post. While I’m sure the MHRM campaign against female sexual abusers WILL allow some men and boys who have been raped or sexually abused to seek help (a good thing) because of the CARELESS way it is being conducted it will also tend to encourage men and boys to see bad sex or unclear consent (I don’t remember) as evidence of victimization, just as it does for women. I can see all sorts of potential problems.

    • Eivind Berge says:

      What is so special about sexually transmitted diseases that they cannot be covered by other laws regarding assault and bodily harm? Sex is not the issue if a man is forcibly infected by a woman; then the disease is his problem. Junkies have been known to attempt robbery by threatening with a syringe they claim contains HIV, and there are perfectly adequate laws to deal with any infection resulting from such violence. The same laws could be applied if a man is infected via forced sex by a woman without pretending the man got “raped.” There are even very draconian laws against infecting anybody with HIV by consensual sex, so if she did this knowingly, he doesn’t even need to claim there was coercion to have her prosecuted. (I happen to disagree with those laws as well, but female sexual coercion would at least be one reasonable use for them.)

      We do not need a fiction of female rapists in order to prevent unfair child support. That is putting the cart before the horse. If child support laws are unfair, then it is child support laws that need to be reformed. I am puzzled as to why you think rape laws can be reformed whereas child support laws are set in stone. It does not take much imagination to remove financial responsibility for men who become fathers unwillingly without pretending there is “rape.” Indeed, as long as women can decide to terminate their pregnancy for any reason, men should have similar rights to renounce financial responsibility as well even if there is no sexual coercion, in my view.

      I also profoundly disagree that “clear consent” should be required to have sex with teens. One reasonable rape definition should apply to all, which must include not just lack of consent but also force and resistance from the victim to the best of her ability unless she is credibly threatened with death or serious injury. The idea that teens are more vulnerable is plainly wrong and just a less extensive version of the usual hateful feminist concept of rape. Teenage girls are in fact nubile young women who are adequately equipped by evolution to manage their sexual assets when they are most valuable. In fact, teens are much better at establishing boundaries (rejecting more men) than older women. Disease isn’t inherently more harmful to teenagers either, and readily available contraception or abortion removes any health risk to young mothers. Your support for laws automatically defining any sex with teachers or other authority figures as “abuse” is also extremely hateful and disgusting.

      I also very much disagree that women “sexually abusing” prepubescent boys is a meaningful concept either or that women should be held criminally culpable for such, but I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that.

      • tyciol says:

        >same laws could be applied if a man is infected via forced sex by a woman without pretending the man got “raped.”

        Unsure why you say pretend, why wouldn’t a man forced into sex by a woman be raped?

    • emmatheemo says:

      I don’t know exactly which feminists make the laws in the US, but the American modern feminist writers (like Valenti and her profilic buddies) I did read are very much into the idea that “patriarchy hurts men, too”, that gender is not binary. And even if you’re right, this is still a very feminist/leftie idea (in the sense that it uses the logic typical of them). It denies gender differences in sexuality, and it insists we embrace victimihood as hard as we can. It’s one of the things Eivind is attacked the most for, by everyone from Norway AND US. No matter who makes the actual politics, he’s right that it’s one of the most politically correct things you can say.

      That being said, this post is about why blowing female rapists out of proportion is a bad idea, its function is not to prove women can’t rape men.

      • Clarence says:

        Emma:
        The problems with “gender differences” (I say you should use the term ‘sex’ in this case) are two-fold:
        A. We do not know what all of the physiological differences really are, and won’t until we have complete models of both the human brain and the human reproductive systems
        B. Male and female sexualities (how their sexual impulses are expressed at the individual level and through culture) show signifcant overlap even though there is a vast literature on group level differences. Some women are more sexually ‘male brained’ and some men are more sexually ‘female brained’. One thing that annoys me about Eivind is he seems to think there is only one male sexuality and one female sexuality (to be fair, not counting gay and lesbian sex) and that this should be proscriptive for all our sexual policies and laws.

        And yes, we all agree that the issue of the topic is blown out of proportion. Of course when ‘domestic violence’ includes very minor violence such as shoves (and not into something or off a cliff) and vast expansions of ideas such as ’emotional abuse’ , ‘grooming’ and ‘controlling behavior’, one can see that most current laws involving sexual interactions between men and women are likely to be totally screwed up. So its no surprise. It’s sad that elements of the MRM (not all obviously) are going the propagandistic route, but I guess not terribly surprising. That way lies money and some power.

      • emmatheemo says:

        A. Sure, we don’t know the full info about anything at all in this world, but this is why we approximate. In other areas of knowledge, we don’t wait for 100% knowledge about something, before we believe in it or use it to make the world better/achieve something humans need. And I dunno if you meant it like that, but it seems illogical to treat genders as completely the same, until total and complete descriptive proof of their differences appears.

        B. “One thing that annoys me about Eivind is he seems to think there is only one male sexuality and one female sexuality (to be fair, not counting gay and lesbian sex) and that this should be proscriptive for all our sexual policies and laws.”

        How so? Perhaps it’s a misunderstanding? I think what you’re refering to is the reasonable man standard. There is more than one sexuality, but there is also more than one personality type too. Some people might be gravely injured by something none of us would take seriously, and here lies the argument for making one law for all, not one law for each person (“3 years of jail for giving Mr. Smith one nasty twitter comment, but no punishment for sending Mr. Jones a whole army of trolls”). I think certain offenses are serious enough for most people to be injured by it, and it becomes a law. Things most people aren’t hurt by are not made into a law, although in this case we divide the population into men and women because of their differences.

  5. Clarence says:

    — What is so special about sexually transmitted diseases that they cannot be covered by other laws regarding assault and bodily harm? Sex is not the issue if a man is forcibly infected by a woman; then the disease is his problem. Junkies have been known to attempt robbery by threatening with a syringe they claim contains HIV, and there are perfectly adequate laws to deal with any infection resulting from such violence. The same laws could be applied if a man is infected via forced sex by a woman without pretending the man got “raped.” —

    I never said anything about calling it ‘rape’ (I really don’t care HOW it is classified) but to me if you assault someone and give them a form of a sexual disease than that DOES classify as a type of sexual assault at least.

    –We do not need a fiction of female rapists in order to prevent unfair child support. That is putting the cart before the horse. If child support laws are unfair, then it is child support laws that need to be reformed. I am puzzled as to why you think rape laws can be reformed whereas child support laws are set in stone. It does not take much imagination to remove financial responsibility for men who become fathers unwillingly without pretending there is “rape.” —

    You are reading into my words things I did not say. I don’t care if you reform the child support laws OR the rape laws I was merely pointing out that one consequence for a man who is forced to have intercourse or who is taken advantage of when totally helpless is legally coerced child support. I don’t care HOW that burden is removed, that burden must be removed from men. The current regime puts an extra danger on a man who is raped by a woman (and yes, whether we legally call it so or not, whether it is a good idea to make a law against it or not, FORCING SOMEONE TO HAVE SEX with you is rape) because not only might he get a disease but he might be burdened with a child he does not want and had no say in producing. We both agree this is wrong, Eivind. We also agree that ‘paper abortion’ might be fair for men, but in this current day and age where the British government is seriously considering trying to censor the internet of porn, and your country and mine are deep in sexual hysteria, we both know that day isn’t coming soon short of a societal reset of some sort.

    –I also profoundly disagree that “clear consent” should be required to have sex with teens. One reasonable rape definition should apply to all, which must include not just lack of consent but also force and resistance from the victim to the best of her ability unless she is credibly threatened with death or serious injury. —

    Or is totally incapacitated in some manner. I refuse to consider passed out sex as being ‘consented’ to, and all your arguments as to why it is less traumatic don’t sway me because the essence of not being a rapist is to obtain consent from those you have sex with. Teens need to know they can say ‘no’, and teens should know how to properly ask for what they want. A little PUA training wouldn’t be amiss either. It’s adults responsibility to educate and protect teens. Teens are not adults (though they aren’t children either) and that is why some of your arguments fail.

    –The idea that teens are more vulnerable is plainly wrong and just a less extensive version of the usual hateful feminist concept of rape. —
    Younger teens (under 15) are more vulnerable to death or complications of pregnancy. That’s why I think its reasonable to penalize adults who get younger teens pregnant, esp given that in many places the parents/guardians would control whether they took the baby to term or had an abortion – and abortion is not without risks to the mother either. And teenage boys tend to be super horny and not necessarily the best informed on ‘safe sex’, so it’s not unreasonable for the adult in those kind of relationships to have more responsibility when it comes to pregnancy /disease prevention.

    By the way , NONE of what I have said means I agree with the rather ridiculous lists and penalties for some of these things. Someone shouldn’t go to jail for 30 years (or at all) for a consensual pregnancy.

    –Your support for laws automatically defining any sex with teachers or other authority figures as “abuse” is also extremely hateful and disgusting–

    I don’t even think you know what ‘hateful’ and ‘disgusting’ are, despite the fact your own government treated you in such a manner.

    Regardless there are two reasons given for these laws and I think they make sense:
    Please feel free to argue against them rationally, rather than argue at me personally.
    A. The public does not send its children and teens to school to have sex or form relationships, and most people in public expect that if teens DO form such relationships they will be with peers. In short, esp in countries where public education is compulsory, parents who object to this do need some say
    and the stronger argument:
    B. With great power comes great responsibility.
    We recognize this with governments and police forces ( in fact the LACK OF CHECKS is one reason they abuse their citizens so often) why not with teachers, parents, Doctors and other people that not only have a knowledge advantage but also a social (or in the case of teachers and parents) and legal advantage over the teens in their charge. It’s very easy to abuse ones authority and it makes sense to regulate those who have such authority. Have sex with me or I’ll fail you (or for adults in workplaces: fire you) might not be ‘rape’ in your book, but its not the type of behavior I want to encourage. You do know that many sociopaths gravitate to ‘power’ positions don’t you?

    –I also very much disagree that women “sexually abusing” prepubescent boys is a meaningful concept either or that women should be held criminally culpable for such, but I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that–

    I don’t think any adult should be doing ANYTHING with prepubescents that involves sex for any reason and it would surprise me if you do. I don’t recall you ever defending actual (as opposed to the OMG he’s with someone under 18 or he’s with an 19 year old and he is 35 crowd)pedophiles, so I’ll take it you meant something I do not understand.

    • when I was in college a few decades ago, almost all old old professors were married to a former graduate student.

      Should these old perverts all be imprisoned to save their wives?

      You are right about pregnancy complications of young girls. Maybe impregnating girls should be the crime, not having safe sex.

      • Clarence says:

        HS:
        Though in context I was talking about elementary and High School students (almost all of whom would be considered adolescents), I do not mind if colleges have policies(many, probably even most already do) that student/teacher sex is forbidden if the student is currently in that Professor’s class. This is to prevent abuse and favoritism. And by “in class” I do not WAS in the teachers class or WILL BE in the teachers class. Far as I’m concerned if a student and teacher in college are attracted to each other because of meeting in class provided they wait until the teacher no longer has direct authority over the student, I say go for it.
        I do not have an issue with a Professor of any age having sex with a student of any age in college otherwise. And I do have a problem with the codes at a few colleges that ban student/teacher sex altogether. I believe those policies are probably consciously or subconsciously based on female sexual unionism same as theantifeminist details on his site.

    • Eivind Berge says:

      When you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Feminists are only capable of conceptualizing anything they dislike about sexuality as rape or abuse or sexual assault, so Clarence insists that “if you assault someone and give them a form of a sexual disease than that DOES classify as a type of sexual assault at least.” Once again, there are perfectly useful and even very draconian laws to deal with this without invoking rape or “sexual assault.” This was in the news just now:

      http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/05/justice/missouri-hiv-arrest/index.html

      “Knowingly exposing someone to HIV without their consent is a felony under Missouri law that can bring prison terms up to 15 years. Infecting someone can bring a life term.” So even if it’s consensual sex and you don’t even get infected, 15 years in prison is possible, and life if you do. What more do you need?

      And Clarence shows his thoroughly indoctrinated feminism again by saying “the essence of not being a rapist is to obtain consent from those you have sex with.” No, it’s not. The essence of rape is force, so the essence of not being a rapist is not using force or serious threats to obtain sex. It is not your responsibility to ensure the woman is making a perfectly sober and reasoned decision she will never regret. If you want to avoid being a rapist, then don’t use force/threat to obtain sex, which does not mean you need to make sure you get consent. Only feminist jurisprudence defines rape in terms of lack of consent alone, and this is completely unacceptable for men. This is only law in the most hateful feminist jurisdictions yet, and we must not help their reforms by adopting this kind of language ourselves. Even Norwegian rape law is not yet that far gone as to allow lack of consent alone to define rape, though it probably will be soon.

      As to women sexually “abusing” prepubescent boys, I know of no credible mechanism whereby this description is justified if anything sexual happens. All we have is fiat decree by feminists that this is “abuse” and must be treated as a heinous crime. They simply take for granted that any sexual touching is “abuse” with no evidence whatsoever, and then do their best to reify this assumption by brainwashing any boy until he feels abused. Any evidence to the contrary would be denounced by Congress like the Rind report, so why should I trust these intellectually dishonest people? I am skeptical and would like to see some honest evidence before I buy into their worldview. Indeed there is contrary evidence from less sex abuse-obsessed cultures that their children still turn out fine:

      http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3084/do-some-cultures-perform-sex-acts-on-babies-to-help-them-sleep

  6. I totally agree with most of the points you are making.

    You are totally right that very rarely a woman forcibly rapes a man.

    But you are unaware of the re-defined definition of RAPE.

    According to my personal anecdotal research, almost all men have been raped according to the valid definition of rape.

    “honey, no, I am tired”
    “Stop, I came already”
    Which girl friend religiously stops, dead in her tracks, after hearing such a comment? If she continues for 5 more seconds, she already committed a 5 second rape.

    Or which woman has never had sex with a drunk man, unable to consent?
    You see?

    "Rape is rape is rape" is a lie, Joe Biden! 20 different types of rape!

    (my bog is broken, will be fixed today, hopefully)

    • I forgot to say: most of these men are unaware they were raped and don’t come forward.

      there is a 99.999 % underreporting of such rapes perpetrated by women against their husbands and boy friends, or dates. /s

      We need feminists to start a campaign to inform men about date rape and marital rape.

      /sarcasm

      Even MHRA are unaware about the extent of female on male rape.

      Most people still think of forcible rape, when talking about rape. Only when it is convenient, then the new definitions of rape are applied.

  7. Clarence says:

    I guess what I’m saying is :
    If I wanted to setup a totalitarian police state, I’d use the laws and societal memes we’ve got now:
    A. No relationships are truly private. Many DV laws are applied using the law forces discretion and none other. A complaint is all that is needed in many US states (and lord only knows how many western countries) after that a ‘mandatory arrest’ or a ‘primary agressor’ statute takes over. Yelling is treated the same as shoving is treated the same as punching is treated the same as using a weapon, and in ‘primary aggressor’ states it doesn’t even matter who started it. You don’t have to be married or have a child with someone for a protective order to be taken out on your ass.
    B. Redefinition of rape and violence. Everyone here is aware of these things, so I won’t dwell on them much. I will just say that under current law practically everyone who has been in a relationship (let alone a marriage) has at one time or another been in technical violation of DV policy. Even the assholes who claim they never even have raised their voices at their spouse.
    Meanwhile sex and sexual expression (anti-porn laws) are getting more and more legally regulated and controlled and due to feminist redefinitions of rape its best to have a recorder for any sex one does have.
    C. The importation of radical feminist ideas about sexual harrassment into private workplaces, at least in the US. To be fair this is still ‘gendered’ with a ‘reasonable woman’ standard, so not as many women have felt the chilling effects. This may not seem like of much importance unless you’ve ever lost an employment contract due to false claims or had to go to one of the bazillion training sessions offered due to employers wanting to legally cover their asses.
    D. The very idea of ‘hate speech’ crimes ( a form of thoughtcrime). While this is not yet in US law(though its been pushed and also there’ve been a few attempts to ‘backdoor’ it) , it is now endemic in Britain.
    E. Division of people into classes. I won’t deal with the issues of how ‘multiculturalism’ is abused here, nor will I look for the larger economic concerns of workers worldwide, I’ll just deal with dividing people into ‘male’ and ‘female’ and punishing males selectively.
    This leads to animosity between the sexes as well as gives many females some power they do not want to relinquish. “Divide and conquer” is an old trick of the ruling elites.
    F. Mandated reporting of accusations before they’ve even been investigated and the keeping of records both legally and illegally (See the NSA stuff…very easy to abuse). Private life? Unless its off the internet and not in a smart device or telephone, it’s not really private anymore.
    So, no privacy, broken family life,animosity between the classes,races, and sexes,redefinition of what used to be terms for hideous crimes, large data mining, thoughtcrimes… it won’t take much for one or more of the western countries (including the US) to go over the edge into full scale totalitarianism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s