Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Descan]

What exactly is it about consent that these people find so abhorrent, exactly...? That's the second right-wing [insert epithet here] that's denigrated the basic idea that "consent is a good thing." :U

[Reelya]

Consent is the important thing. Milo is completely in the wrong here. A real issue is not "arbitrary and oppressive idea of consent". It's the fact that non-consent is treated either completely seriously or as a total joke depending on your demographic:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/09/04/the-startling-facts-on-female-sexual-aggression/

Basically, look at campus survey data on women's non-consensul sexual behavior then mentally gender-flip it while you're reading. It looks pretty bad. 43% of women admit in one campus survey that they solicited sex in a way that the CDC survey defines as rape if a man does it. How do people not know about this data? And there's a lot of it. The answer is that the people who design most surveys either apply them in a gendered fashion, or they cite the non-gendered research but only tell you the victim data for women and the perpetrator data for men, completely omitting the other data.

The problem is that they treat consent like a gender issue when it's actually a person issue (non-consesual sex levels are about the same in relationships between male->female, male->male, female->female, female->male). It's not that "consent" is bullshit, it'not being thorough enough in enforcing consent and educating people.

[PTTG??]

When I read that sort of hand-wringing, it sounds a lot like people claiming "white genocide," from the questionable url of the citations to the skinhead author's portrait. Then there's the mental flip narrative.

If you find a peer-reviewed paper suggesting that men are 'the reaaalllll victims,' then I'll read it, but this looks like, smells like, and quacks like propaganda.

[TheBiggerFish]

Um...Didn't you notice the large amount of peer-reviewed citations right in the middle?

[Jopax]

Plus it sounds more like women aren't the only victims, rather than men are the real victims. It's not denying one group having a problem, rather claiming that they're not the only ones with said problem.

[Reelya]

That's what I'm getting at.

Um...Didn't you notice the large amount of peer-reviewed citations right in the middle?

Yeah, the "propaganda" is in fact the big pile of citations by mainstream researchers.

And the even bigger one is the CDC 2010 and 2011 report. Basically in both years they found that the 12 month prevalence of rape for females and "being made to penetrate" for males was not just close but identical (within 0.1% of each other). And the "being made to penetrate" question for men is worded almost identically to the rape question for females, so it's a clear apples and apples comparison. The reason for "being made to penetrate" is that the CDC definition of rape requires you to be penetrated. e.g. if a woman ties a guy up or gets him really drunk and he wakes up with her bouncing on his dick, that's not "legally" rape, even though everyone would say she raped the guy, and it's still a crime with comparable charges. "being made to penetrate" added to the CDC sexual violence survey in 2010 covers those incidents, and the prevalence was WAY higher than anyone expected, 1.1% of the adult male population, the same as females who say they were raped.

So it's common, and if you read some victim stories, the difference in how people percieve this breach of consent is completely different. One guy was *really* drunk at a party, e.g. couldn't stand up, talk etc, and some woman forced herself on him, people saw this and basically laughed, someone threw a condom in, and said "have fun ... " and left. Imagine if that was a girl instead, we'd be really horrified by this story, where people abetted a rapist, but those people probably thought they'd done nothing wrong. That guy says he has psych issues now. I'd say this is arguably a situation in which men are in fact worse off than women, purely because that guy was crying out for someone to help him but unable to articulate or fight back and everyone (male and female) just thought that was the funniest thing ever.

[wobbly]

Why does it matter that he's a "skin-head"? Hard to tell from a photo but it looks to me like he has a receding hairline & decided to just shave it off.

[PTTG??]

[Redacted, moved, and updated in a PM because this doesn't belong in this thread.]

[Reelya]

Seriously man, you're on the wrong side.

You're basically a You are a literal rape apologist at this point. It's like a caricature.

Basically you're poking fun at rape. You're telling rape jokes now to belittle people's stories of rape. You're exactly what you claim to despise, have you thought about that? What I described was a crime which is legally considered as grave as rape, and the CDC reports is as widespread as rape, and you're cracking jokes now. I'm actually impressed with how quickly you resorted to using rape apologist logic.

And this is full circle to my original claim. People actually don't take consent seriously when it's a male victim of a crime comparable to rape. You've just given us the "living example" which proves my original point.

[Strife26]

There's only a very limited group who get to be victims, obviously. "Male" ain't in in the group.

[misko27]

So now I'm going to make the argument - and hear me out, please - that this is not necessarily Ameripol material.

[smjjames]

Not sure what this has to do with politics atm, other than Milo Yiannopoulos.

There's only a very limited group who get to be victims, obviously. "Male" ain't in in the group.

Gender thread maybe?

[smjjames]

So now I'm going to make the argument - and hear me out, please - that this is not necessarily Ameripol material.

Exactly, which is why I asked how it has to do with politics. Plus the gender thread seems like a better place for it. Or a Feminism thread if anybody is brave enough to make and moderate one.

[Baffler]

So the 4th circuit Appellate Court upheld Maryland's ban on "assault weapons."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-upholds-maryland-ban-on-semiautomatic-military-style-guns/2017/02/21/fe8a1792-f869-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html?utm_term=.c3e632b793df

[Reelya]

The term "assault weapon" has been used in governement legislation to refer to semi-auto firearms of all types with large detachable clips for over 30 years now. The scare quotes aren't justified because that's the legally agreed definition of the term.

"Assault rifle" is a different thing. Just because something has the same adjective doesn't mean the definition has to be identical. The term "assault weapon" was never synonymous with "assault rifle".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#Definitions_and_usage

The firearms industry itself introduced the term "assault weapon" to build interest in new product lines.[8] Phillip Peterson, the author of Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Assault Weapons (2008) wrote:

    The popularly held idea that the term 'assault weapon' originated with anti-gun activists is wrong. The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.