Feminist 'War on Women' propaganda goes off the rails - i have no words for this video

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm surprised feminists are still on about the "teaching men not to rape thing". Our society paints rapists as the worst scumbags on the planet, topped only by child rapists. I fail to see how that's teaching that rape is a good thing. But I guess that doesn't feed into the "rape culture" narrative they're trying to build.

They are playing on emotions, inciting anger and outrage at some unknown straw-man rapist. Divide and conquer. And Hillary will be the savior.

This is collectivism at it's worse. All men are to be lumped together, lectured and eventually punished. Guilty until proven innocent.

[Spikender]

They are playing on emotions, inciting anger and outrage at some unknown straw-man rapist. Divide and conquer. And Hillary will be the savior.

This is collectivism at it's worse. All men are to be lumped together, lectured and eventually punished. Guilty until proven innocent.

LOL Hillary what a feminist champion. A strong woman who can overcome any obstacle including her husband helping wipe jizz stains off of another woman's dress.

Unfortunately, you are right. It has been a tactic of feminists and the more radical SJW types for as long as I can remember to use emotional ploys or gimmicky mouthpieces with no real substance. And it works. If you have a strong argument to the contrary, they will drown you out with numbers, screaming, or a combination of both.

[pessimist]

Let's imagine a complete breakdown of society. The "$#@! has hit the fan"...anarchy is the rule of the land.

What happens?

For one, I would assume every small town and suburb would police itself. Some of the locals would be out patrolling the streets attempting to defend it from outsiders and criminals. The fantasy that everyone would instinctively get the urge to rape and kill and pillage is absurd.

There would be 'militias' forming up all over place for protection.

Cities would be CHAOTIC. Gangs would take over city blocks, stores would be looted and set ablaze, and murder and rape would sky rocket.

So what we have here are militias and gangs seizing temporary localized power in a collapse. Out of that would spring a government.Those who would reject the govt would be either conquered or annihilated.

The "every man for himself" mentality wouldn't last very long in a societal collapse, imo. A coalition would certainly form and a State would naturally come into existence. It is the human desire for order and structure that would win out over the primordial instincts that many of us still harbor.

[fr33]

[fr33]

The "every man for himself" mentality wouldn't last very long in a societal collapse, imo. A coalition would certainly form and a State would naturally come into existence. It is the human desire for order and structure that would win out over the primordial instincts that many of us still harbor.

If it happened now, it's more likely that it would be multiple states rising up. It would be state/region secession via chaos.

[Rothbardian Girl]

I'm surprised feminists are still on about the "teaching men not to rape thing". Our society paints rapists as the worst scumbags on the planet, topped only by child rapists. I fail to see how that's teaching that rape is a good thing. But I guess that doesn't feed into the "rape culture" narrative they're trying to build.

More accurately stated, society teaches that certain kinds of rapists are the worst scumbags on the planet. For one thing, a lot of people think of rape as being predominantly perpetrated by strangers, in a sort of back-alley scenario. But the majority of rapes are committed by someone familiar to the victim under murky circumstances. I can also confidently state that some rapists have no idea that what they are doing is rape (hence the feminist efforts at education); a friend of mine knows someone who falls into this category (the two are no longer friends).

Even where the cases are clearly rape, still other perpetrators escape prosecution based on their status (see the Steubenville case, the Penn State stuff, and the more recent Sayreville HS incidents). There are still other examples where a judge decides the victim was 'asking for it' and throws the rapist in jail for days. So there are absolutely some situations where society does not adequately address the crime of rape.

Sexual assaults - the 1 in 5 women will be raped or assaulted figure was a study by a woman who considered women being pressured into having sex with their boyfriend or husband in order to maintain the relationship "rape". That's like saying that if you don't like getting up in the morning to go to your job, you are enslaved.. it's ridiculous.

Yes, marital rape is rape. Your whole ideology as a libertarian is built on the concept of non-coercion; why is the concept so difficult to understand here?

[Lucille]

http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/24/fc...-props-in-abho

What's the worst way to fight sexism? Certainly this deeply disturbing viral video, produced by progressive clothing line FCKH8, is a serious contender.
[...]
As expected, the sight of little girls cursing like drunken sailors enraged some social conservatives. But with respect to my own libertarian sensibilities, the swearing is by far the least offensive thing about the video.

Using kids as props in ideological propaganda videos is disgusting. It's inherently exploitative, since there is little chance the youngest of the girls understands a thing about the perspective she's selling. Worse still, the girls are being taught that screaming expletives at people who disagree with them is an effective or praiseworthy form of advocacy. As someone who frequently writes about women's issues relating to campus due process, I can say for a fact that the current debate between far-left feminists and their critics does not need any additional hysterics. And while I would never deny that a well-timed $#@! or two can help get a point across, cursing shouldn't be an 11-year-old's crutch in a public policy debate.

But worst of all is the actual point the profane princesses are trying to make about sexism. The almost-certainly-false statistic about rape makes a groan-inducing appearance: The girls gleefully count off "One, two, three, four five," before proclaiming that, statistically speaking, one of them will be raped. "Which one of us will it be?" wonders one of the girls. So, in addition to using kids as props in service of a distorted perspective on feminism, the video's producers want a bunch of little girls to think one of them is going to be raped.

The insanity of it all speaks to the obvious falsehood inherent in the one-in-five statistic. If two in every ten women actually experienced sexual assault while at a college, for instance, the problem would demand immediate intervention, not some laughably inadequate quibbling over the definition of consent. If one in every five cars broke down and caused its driver serious harm, automobile factories would be condemned as public health hazards. Similarly, if colleges were veritable production lines of rape, it would be necessary to shut them down.

Thankfully, the statistic has been repeatedly debunked. No, American women don't have to endure Somalia-levels of rape; rape has declined substantially in recent decades and continues to fall. Whatever the severity of the campus rape problem, it is assuredly not as bad as two biased surveys with small sample sizes and self-selection problems suggested it was.

Trying to scare people into believing they are in much greater danger than they actually are is contemptible. When children are the targets of such efforts, it's even worse.

At the end of the video, the ringleaders of this horror show appear on camera to tell viewers that if they reacted negatively to the swearing, rather than the sexism, they are part of the problem. And "$#@! that sexist $#@!," says one of the kids.

It's worth keeping in mind that these people probably aren't as crazy as they seem. FCKH8 is a brand that uses videos to sell T-shirts to self-identified progressives—or at least, the kind of progressives who think buying T-shirts counts as activism, bless them. I don't hold FCKH8's business model against it; selling T-shirts to rabid anti-capitalists is always good for a laugh (see: Guevara, Che). (Predictably enough, the money-making aspect was the only thing Jezebel didn't like about the video.)

But for $#@!'s sake, don't use children as props, don't make them scream obscenities and lies, and don't try to frighten them into thinking they are in imminent danger of being raped.

I will be so happy when the SHTF and people are too busy scrounging for food like stray dogs every day than to fight the Ruling Class' culture wars.

[FloralScent]

The irony here being if society ever collapses, her access to breakfast, lunch, and dinner will depend on her "pink cock" sucking ability.

[Deborah K]

It Takes A Village. By: Hillary Rotten Clinton

That book should have been called: It Takes a Village Idiot.

Useful idiots making more useful idiots.

[dannno]

Yes, marital rape is rape. Your whole ideology as a libertarian is built on the concept of non-coercion; why is the concept so difficult to understand here?

I didn't describe 'marital rape', I was describing a male pressuring his wife/girlfriend into having sex like almost every single man has done throughout history... For example if your wife says "no" and you say, "c'mon, please babe!" and she says "ok, fine.." that is NOT rape. If you say, "if you don't have sex with me I'm going to break up with you/divorce you" or something along those lines and she says, "fine, ok", that is STILL NOT RAPE. That is her decision. Yet these instances were apparently considered "rape" in the study, even though the participants did not consider it rape. Nobody in their right mind would consider that rape.

[Rothbardian Girl]

I didn't describe 'marital rape', I was describing a male pressuring his wife/girlfriend into having sex like almost every single man has done throughout history... For example if your wife says "no" and you say, "c'mon, please babe!" and she says "ok, fine.." that is NOT rape. If you say, "if you don't have sex with me I'm going to break up with you/divorce you" or something along those lines and she says, "fine, ok", that is STILL NOT RAPE. That is her decision. Yet these instances were apparently considered "rape" in the study, even though the participants did not consider it rape. Nobody in their right mind would consider that rape.

Manufacturing consent by cajoling or outright coercion is certainly rape. When a woman says yes just so the man stops asking; that is, her defenses crumble, that cannot reasonably be called true consent by any stretch of the imagination. Asking a woman if she wants to have sex and editing out all her responses until you get the one you want is non-consensual sex any way you slice it. The psychological effects are also worth noting; afterwards, the woman feels as though she has no one to blame but herself for what happened - so the victim-blaming leads to her own concerns being dismissed. If you don't understand how disturbing this sort of thing is, there is something wrong with you... end of. Any sort of coercive sex can permanently damage a person and make them unable to trust anyone in future relationships. Sadly your beliefs, perhaps not so explicitly stated (no one wants to admit they could have possibly raped someone) are held by a sizeable portion of the population, hence fueling feminist claims of a "rape culture". It's quite curious how applicable Lewis' law is here - in other words, the commentary on any article related to feminist issues tends to justify feminism.

[dannno]

Manufacturing consent by cajoling or outright coercion is certainly rape. When a woman says yes just so the man stops asking; that is, her defenses crumble, that cannot reasonably be called true consent by any stretch of the imagination. Asking a woman if she wants to have sex and editing out all her responses until you get the one you want is non-consensual sex any way you slice it. The psychological effects are also worth noting; afterwards, the woman feels as though she has no one to blame but herself for what happened - so the victim-blaming leads to her own concerns being dismissed. If you don't understand how disturbing this sort of thing is, there is something wrong with you... end of. Any sort of coercive sex can permanently damage a person and make them unable to trust anyone in future relationships. Sadly your beliefs, perhaps not so explicitly stated (no one wants to admit they could have possibly raped someone) are held by a sizeable portion of the population, hence fueling feminist claims of a "rape culture". It's quite curious how applicable Lewis' law is here - in other words, the commentary on any article related to feminist issues tends to justify feminism.

No, that is all COMPLETELY wrong. You are now removing the man's free will to communicate his desires and ability to live his life on his own trajectory. You are now completely removing the man's rights with your logic.

Guess what, as a woman you get to CHOOSE who you date, you also get to CHOOSE to stop dating them!! That goes for marriage, too. If you don't like the man you are with asking you to have sex and he does so repeatedly, then BREAK UP WITH HIM if it's that bad!! Or threaten to break up with them. It's pretty simple.

If a woman asks a man to take him on a cruise, he says no, then she keeps asking and eventually she gets her way, is that theft? If a woman asks a man for a puppy and he says no, then she keeps asking DAY AFTER DAY AFTER DAY and eventually he gives in and buys the puppy and has to help take care of it for the rest of it's life, is that enslavement? NO!! It was HIS decision!! He could have broke up with her if he wanted to.

[FloralScent]

Asking a woman if she wants to have sex and editing out all her responses until you get the one you want is non-consensual sex any way you slice it.

Does this rule apply to John's negotiating with a prostitute?

[dannno]

Does this rule apply to John's negotiating with a prostitute?

Relationships are two way streets, you do things for each other. Wives are known to nag and complain incessantly to their husbands to do chores or fix things around the house, make more money, on and on and on.. Men only refer to that as 'slavery' as a passing joke.....Yet if a man has to ask a woman twice to have sex, according to her he belongs in prison!!! I think that is completely insane, I'm not sure what drives these illogical positions some people have about sex and why they completely negate many men's needs for sex. Not every man needs sex, but some do and if some don't get it life becomes extremely uncomfortable, and for those men they should have the right to express their needs and find a way to have them met through consensual means if it effects them that strongly. That is a man's right. He doesn't have a right to take sex, but he has a right to obtain it consensually throughout his life. If that means a man tells his gf or wife that he is going to go to a prostitute if she doesn't have sex with him, then she has several options. She can have sex with him to prevent him from going to see a prostitute, she can let him go to the prostitute and continue the rest of their relationship with or without sex, or she can break up with him. The only time it is rape is if her decision includes having sex or succumbing to violence or force or being drugged/having sex unconcious, etc.

[Rothbardian Girl]

No, that is all COMPLETELY wrong. You are now removing the man's free will to communicate his desires and ability to live his life on his own trajectory. You are now completely removing the man's rights with your logic.

No, I am not. The man does have free will to communicate his desires, but the woman also has the free will to reject his advances. This is logical since by its nature, consensual sex is a two-way street where both parties should be openly communicating every step of the way. I fail to see how this is an oppressive cultural standard. What I have previously written is not "completely wrong," since I have found it meshes with how I have heard others describe their sexual experiences.

As for the other hypotheticals you posed in your reply, I hardly think the issue of non-consensual sex is comparable to going on a cruise or buying a family pet. One is clearly an act of violence by definition, while purchasing goods is not. But just so you don't misunderstand where I'm coming from, I see no issue with the man refusing to purchase either of those two items. If someone pesters me about something like that, it's pretty simple for me to just ignore them and break off contact - but that is just a personal thing of mine.

Yet if a man has to ask a woman twice to have sex, according to her he belongs in prison!!!

I don't advocate throwing people in prison for this (the prisons are crowded enough already), but I do advocate changing cultural attitudes such that we can minimize the issue of people feeling as though they are being cajoled into having sex. I am advocating for people to be valued as individuals above the sexual angle. The problem comes when the sex is valued more highly than the individual and thus the perpetrator doesn't acknowledge that what he/she is doing is coercion.

... Not every man needs sex, but some do and if some don't get it life becomes extremely uncomfortable, and for those men they should have the right to express their needs and find a way to have them met through consensual means if it effects them that strongly. That is a man's right. He doesn't have a right to take sex, but he has a right to obtain it consensually throughout his life.

Nothing I have written contradicts this idea. Purposefully asking numerous times expecting the other party to let his/her guard down, does, however, fall into "taking sex". At the end of the day, what it really comes down to is this: if someone says no, and you respect his/her reply, you lose the sex... which is obtainable pretty much anywhere, but if someone says no and you don't respect his/her reply, you have done harm to them whether you realize it or not. Which of the two scenarios would you rather live with? Seems like a common sense notion to me.

Does this rule apply to John's negotiating with a prostitute?

This reply is predicated on several assumptions about what goes on in those transactions. Obviously workplace violence is an issue for prostitutes, but these problems can't be examined fully unless prostitution is legalized. Right now the clandestine nature of the trade forces it underground, where there aren't any prominent market-based solutions in terms of safety. In Germany and New Zealand, where sex work is legalized, workers are protected from violence by the ability to screen clients and take credit card numbers, of all things. So, yes, if prostitution were to be legalized in the US, I can imagine this standard of consent being readily embraced through market incentives.

[dannno]

The man does have free will to communicate his desires, but the woman also has the free will to reject his advances.

I completely agree - so if the man asks multiple times and she keeps saying no, she can say "absolutely not, I'm not changing my mind, period!" or she can choose to leave - she can ask the man to sleep on the couch, or she can sleep on the couch or she can go to her mother-in-laws or stay at a hotel or break up with her boyfriend/husbad... THERE IS NOTHING FORCING HER TO HAVE SEX!! She also has the right to acquiesce and have sex!!

There are many options, to say that a man can't ask a woman to have sex and then ask again which is in a way essentially saying, "hey, I know you don't want to have sex, you just told me, but I'm REALLY uncomfortable right now, can you please change your mind so that I don't go to work tomorrow lusting after all my coworkers and so that I can feel less neglected by you in our relationship?"

Now, most men won't word it like that exactly, but that is essentially what they are expressing through their begging....You want to take away the right of the man to express his feelings because you think that females can't make up their own mind or avoid having sex with their partner by continuing to say no or going to another room or leaving the situation altogether??

They can find a guy who doesn't need sex, they are out there..

This is logical since by its nature, consensual sex is a two-way street where both parties should be openly communicating every step of the way.

Right - you essentially want to ban men from communicating their need for sex. Most men won't start out begging, they want it to be way more than just consensual. They want the woman to want sex really bad too.. But if that doesn't work out, they may get desperate. They would NEVER force themselves on a woman, but they will try and convince her and there is nothing wrong with that.

As for the other hypotheticals you posed in your reply, I hardly think the issue of non-consensual sex is comparable to going on a cruise or buying a family pet.

That's because it is consensual... you know that song about women having a right to change their mind? They can change their mind to have sex if they want as well - if they want to maintain the relationship and the guy is begging for sex it is THEIR decision to acquiesce or not.

Another thing you obviously don't even understand about your own sex - many women will say they don't want to have sex for a while just to make the guy think that they aren't 'easy', and then eventually acquiesce WHICH WAS THEIR PLAN ALL ALONG!! They want to have sex, but they don't want to seem easy, so they say "no", knowing full well the guy is going to keep pursuing it and eventually they will give to them. That is extremely common, and again, NOTHING wrong with it and it is completely consensual on both sides.

One is clearly an act of violence by definition, while purchasing goods is not.

That is so ridiculous.. so if you keep incessently asking a guy to buy your something and they finally buy it is not theft, but if you ask a female to have sex, she says no, then you ask again and she says 'yes' it is rape?? That is such an insanely ridiculous double standard...

I do advocate changing cultural attitudes such that we can minimize the issue of people feeling as though they are being cajoled into having sex.

Sorry, you're going to have to change biology, not just culture. Some men need sex and if they don't get it, it's like being starving hungry in a restaurant with steaks everywhere.. it becomes the ONLY thing that matters, just like when you are hungry for food it's all you can think about. Again, I will certainly draw the line at taking sex, but using non-violent speech to convince somebody to have sex is not rape and there is nothing wrong with it at all.

I am advocating for people to be valued as individuals above the sexual angle. The problem comes when the sex is valued more highly than the individual and thus the perpetrator doesn't acknowledge that what he/she is doing is coercion.

You can value people for multiple things - I value my female partners for many things, among them, their ability to satiate my strong unending and uncomfortable lust for women for a full 30+ days simply by having sex once. Masturbation works for like 8 hours, sex with a female for me works for a full month and I can go out and not feel like I want to jump every woman in a mini skirt. It's like being on vacation. If my wife or girlfriend stopped having sex for a long period of time, to me that would feel neglectful toward my feelings while I would no doubt be doing what I could to keep them happy and I wouldn't feel right in the relationship. Eventually I would end it or tell them I am going to have sex with other women, if they want to continue an asexual partnership and live together then that is something we would both have to decide on. But sex is very valuable and ultimately necessary for some men. Feminism needs to incorporate this into their ideology if they want to be realistic.

At the end of the day, what it really comes down to is this: if someone says no, and you respect his/her reply, you lose the sex... which is obtainable pretty much anywhere, but if someone says no and you don't respect his/her reply, you have done harm to them whether you realize it or not. Which of the two scenarios would you rather live with? Seems like a common sense notion to me.

So if I go to a car dealership and make an offer and it's rejected, and then I say I'm going to leave and go to another car dealership and they accept the offer, is that theft of the car?? No!! It's consent..

FYI I've already gotten +rep from a female for my post above #44 that refuted your posts..

[Demigod]

Let's imagine a complete breakdown of society. The "$#@! has hit the fan"...anarchy is the rule of the land.

What happens?

For one, I would assume every small town and suburb would police itself. Some of the locals would be out patrolling the streets attempting to defend it from outsiders and criminals. The fantasy that everyone would instinctively get the urge to rape and kill and pillage is absurd.

There would be 'militias' forming up all over place for protection.

Cities would be CHAOTIC. Gangs would take over city blocks, stores would be looted and set ablaze, and murder and rape would sky rocket.

So what we have here are militias and gangs seizing temporary localized power in a collapse. Out of that would spring a government.Those who would reject the govt would be either conquered or annihilated.

The "every man for himself" mentality wouldn't last very long in a societal collapse, imo. A coalition would certainly form and a State would naturally come into existence. It is the human desire for order and structure that would win out over the primordial instincts that many of us still harbor.

This is the key event and in most cases the opposite happens,every new local chief decides that he should be the new ruler and the civil war starts.Also the USA is fractured to a large degree on every level ethnic,religious,political and in some cases even regional.When there is no more money to mend the differences all those divisions will get amplified to the maximum and the tribal mentality will set in,

[Demigod]

Manufacturing consent by cajoling or outright coercion is certainly rape. When a woman says yes just so the man stops asking; that is, her defenses crumble, that cannot reasonably be called true consent by any stretch of the imagination. Asking a woman if she wants to have sex and editing out all her responses until you get the one you want is non-consensual sex any way you slice it. The psychological effects are also worth noting; afterwards, the woman feels as though she has no one to blame but herself for what happened - so the victim-blaming leads to her own concerns being dismissed. If you don't understand how disturbing this sort of thing is, there is something wrong with you... end of. Any sort of coercive sex can permanently damage a person and make them unable to trust anyone in future relationships. Sadly your beliefs, perhaps not so explicitly stated (no one wants to admit they could have possibly raped someone) are held by a sizeable portion of the population, hence fueling feminist claims of a "rape culture". It's quite curious how applicable Lewis' law is here - in other words, the commentary on any article related to feminist issues tends to justify feminism.

So when women do all the things they usually do to get stuff done or bought by men it can be considered as theft ,coercion,kidnapping ?

[specsaregood]

//

[pessimist]

This is the key event and in most cases the opposite happens,every new local chief decides that he should be the new ruler and the civil war starts.Also the USA is fractured to a large degree on every level ethnic,religious,political and in some cases even regional.When there is no more money to mend the differences all those divisions will get amplified to the maximum and the tribal mentality will set in,

What would stop NYC from taking some redneck town in NJ? You think the local militia would attempt to fight against their wealth of resources? "Tribal leaders" would be making deals, forming coalitions, etc. A government would eventually be agreed upon- those resistant would be forced into it.

We simply do not live in a world where each community can be self-sufficient. It is fantasy. We will not go back to the hunter-gatherer days.

Folks who want to carve up little territories for themselves (like the Amish) and live separate from the culture can freely do so, but we live in an interconnected world now. The economies and even cultures are intertwined. If one economy collapses, others would be affected, etc.

If there would be a hypothetical breakdown of society, I do not think it would go that way some of you envision. Many places would indeed resemble the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, but overall I think restoring order would be the number one objective.

We wouldn’t revert back to the stone age.

[dannno]

Rapist?

[PaulConventionWV]

Oh, sure. Blame it on the ever-elusive concept of "society." There will ALWAYS be something wrong with society. Women already have equal rights, so pretending that the ills of society equal the absence of some fundamental right is ludicrous. Women now have every single fundamental right under the law that men have. If you've achieved that and you still want "equality," then what you want is not "equality", but superiority.

[Rothbardian Girl]

I completely agree - so if the man asks multiple times and she keeps saying no, she can say "absolutely not, I'm not changing my mind, period!" or she can choose to leave - she can ask the man to sleep on the couch, or she can sleep on the couch or she can go to her mother-in-laws or stay at a hotel or break up with her boyfriend/husbad... THERE IS NOTHING FORCING HER TO HAVE SEX!! She also has the right to acquiesce and have sex!!

There are many options, to say that a man can't ask a woman to have sex and then ask again which is in a way essentially saying, "hey, I know you don't want to have sex, you just told me, but I'm REALLY uncomfortable right now, can you please change your mind so that I don't go to work tomorrow lusting after all my coworkers and so that I can feel less neglected by you in our relationship?"

And what to do about a woman who feels uncomfortable saying no because her partner won't take no for an answer? Sometimes simply continuing to say "no" doesn't work so well, especially in relationships that are already characterized by some sort of abuse. In your examples, you act like men only ask twice, but a lot beg way more than that, to an embarrassing extent.

Now, most men won't word it like that exactly, but that is essentially what they are expressing through their begging....You want to take away the right of the man to express his feelings because you think that females can't make up their own mind or avoid having sex with their partner by continuing to say no or going to another room or leaving the situation altogether??

No one is "taking any rights away." The standard of consent I'm talking about perfectly allows men to express their feelings, and it allows females to make up their own minds without fearing the repercussions of a possible refusal to have sex. Sometimes it can be absolutely terrifying for women to say no.

Another thing you obviously don't even understand about your own sex - many women will say they don't want to have sex for a while just to make the guy think that they aren't 'easy', and then eventually acquiesce WHICH WAS THEIR PLAN ALL ALONG!! They want to have sex, but they don't want to seem easy, so they say "no", knowing full well the guy is going to keep pursuing it and eventually they will give to them. That is extremely common, and again, NOTHING wrong with it and it is completely consensual on both sides.

As I've said before, it seems dangerous to take that sort of risk when you aren't the woman in question. Again, half of that is pressure due to societal expectations of how men and women should feel about sex (the "she doesn't want to seem 'easy'" part).

Sorry, you're going to have to change biology, not just culture. Some men need sex and if they don't get it, it's like being starving hungry in a restaurant with steaks everywhere.. it becomes the ONLY thing that matters, just like when you are hungry for food it's all you can think about. Again, I will certainly draw the line at taking sex, but using non-violent speech to convince somebody to have sex is not rape and there is nothing wrong with it at all.

I've already outlined what is wrong with persistent cajoling, and I'll mention again that the thing you're completely disregarding is a lot of women's attitudes towards sex in the context of society's current old-fashioned attitudes regarding male and female desire. Sex under such circumstances can trigger guilt and victim-blaming by the victim. Manipulating someone into sexual relations is at the very least a moral hazard. Using sex as reward/punishment, to get something from somebody or as blatant emotional manipulation isn't respectful conduct. If you are with someone and your sex drives are disproportionate or your expectations are radically different, there is no way to have a mutually healthy sexual relationship. If one person has to repeatedly beg the other for sex as I have outlined before, it's probably a sign that the relationship isn't going to work. I also don't mean to imply that every single sexual encounter requires the people involved to be equally into it, but in the case of committed relationships, it should be easy to tell when desires are simply incompatible.

As a side note, seeking sex from other sources isn't inherently bad either IMO, as long as the two people in question have agreements in place. Not to derail too much here, but I have my suspicions that polyamory (not that polyamory can simply be reduced to the desire to have more sex) is a natural orientation just like all the others on the spectrum. But that's neither here nor there, really.

FYI I've already gotten +rep from a female for my post above #44 that refuted your posts..

Congratulations? Women don't have to agree with each other on everything, you know.

So when women do all the things they usually do to get stuff done or bought by men it can be considered as theft ,coercion,kidnapping ?

I would certainly consider it a lack of respect if carried to an extreme, sure. That sort of thing is toxic, too. I'm not as biased as to think women can do no wrong in these sorts of things.

[PaulConventionWV]

When I got near the bottom and saw that the producer of the video was a Man, I laughed.

There are tons of these effeminate, weak-minded, liberal-indoctrinated males sucking up to the opposite sex so that they can remain relevant in the world of tomorrow, when masculinity has become obsolete and men an inferior species.

One of these "men" happen to be the proprietor of Cracked.com, the popular comedy website. There are tons of feminist-slanted "comedy" articles that aren't even funny and none for the opposite viewpoint. If you read that site, I would suggest looking elsewhere for your comedy. It's an evil breed.

[pessimist]

There are tons of these effeminate, weak-minded, liberal-indoctrinated males sucking up to the opposite sex so that they can remain relevant in the world of tomorrow, when masculinity has become obsolete and men an inferior species.

One of these "men" happen to be the proprietor of Cracked.com, the popular comedy website. There are tons of feminist-slanted "comedy" articles that aren't even funny and none for the opposite viewpoint. If you read that site, I would suggest looking elsewhere for your comedy. It's an evil breed.

Define masculinity.

[PaulConventionWV]

I didn't describe 'marital rape', I was describing a male pressuring his wife/girlfriend into having sex like almost every single man has done throughout history... For example if your wife says "no" and you say, "c'mon, please babe!" and she says "ok, fine.." that is NOT rape. If you say, "if you don't have sex with me I'm going to break up with you/divorce you" or something along those lines and she says, "fine, ok", that is STILL NOT RAPE. That is her decision. Yet these instances were apparently considered "rape" in the study, even though the participants did not consider it rape. Nobody in their right mind would consider that rape.

They were raped and they didn't even know it!

[dannno]

And what to do about a woman who feels uncomfortable saying no because her partner won't take no for an answer?

What does "won't take no for an answer" mean exactly? Like, if she says no he will force her? Because that is rape... if the woman TRULY feels like she is being violently threatened, or has good reason to believe that she would be if she keeps saying no, that is rape..

If there is no threat of violence and the only threat is that you will be annoyed and have to temporarily part ways or perhaps the relationship will end, then make the decision to part ways or end the relationship... don't consent to sex then pretend like you were raped...

In your examples, you act like men only ask twice, but a lot beg way more than that, to an embarrassing extent.

Ya but you said if you say 'no' once, that's it, respect the decision, everything after that is rape.. so I was using it to show your extreme example.

You're right, it's embarrassing as hell to beg for sex. It's one of the most embarrassing and emasculating things a man can do, it makes them feel extremely inadequate on top of all of the pain and suffering that comes along with it. So can you imagine as to WHY men put themselves through that? It's out of pure desperation - and within a committed relationship it's also very likely out of love for their partner - if your guy is satisfied they don't go out and lust after other women, which they can't help and if they are in love with a woman it makes them feel very guilty because they care about their partner, they feel their partner doesn't really care about them and the worst part is they know if given the opportunity they would probably have to give in and have sex with somebody else just to end the torment they are going through... and that very well may not be what they really want at all.

No one is "taking any rights away." The standard of consent I'm talking about perfectly allows men to express their feelings, and it allows females to make up their own minds without fearing the repercussions of a possible refusal to have sex. Sometimes it can be absolutely terrifying for women to say no.

Terrifying how? Again, if it's violence, that's rape... otherwise, why would a woman want to be with somebody you are terrified of? Can they break up with them without fearing violence? If not, there are severe problems here and I'm not really referring to that.

Using sex as reward/punishment, to get something from somebody or as blatant emotional manipulation isn't respectful conduct. If you are with someone and your sex drives are disproportionate or your expectations are radically different, there is no way to have a mutually healthy sexual relationship. If one person has to repeatedly beg the other for sex as I have outlined before, it's probably a sign that the relationship isn't going to work. I also don't mean to imply that every single sexual encounter requires the people involved to be equally into it, but in the case of committed relationships, it should be easy to tell when desires are simply incompatible.

For the most part you are right, if there is a lot of begging occurring and there is disproportionate drives then it's probably not going to be a good relationship. But it also might be the best each of them can do, the woman may not be super excited about having sex as much as the man but maybe she understands that it is something that he needs sometimes and acquiesces. Maybe because he loves her and does a lot for her in her daily life and she is grateful, and this is one way she can give back in the relationship. You assume this is unhealthy, but it may end up being relatively balanced - and the man may have to ask more than once for sex sometimes, just as the woman may have to ask him to do chores or fix something more than once. If the woman is ok living this way and so is the man, I see nothing wrong with it.

The other situation would be that they have been in the relationship for a long time, when the relationship began they both had healthy sex for years and years and have a lot invested in the relationship and the woman's urges subside some, perhaps due to having children or for other reasons, and the guy knows she isn't ok with him being with other women - so he begs. This is his way of saying hey, we used to do this all the time, I was under the impression that would continue and I'm feeling neglected and uncomfortable. I know you're not ok with me being with other women, so can you please help me out. Some women are ok with this, it's like a chore, or cleaning the house. For other women sex is some weird puzzle that has to come together just right or it just doesn't happen at all. But there is nothing wrong with a man expressing those feelings as long as he isn't being violent or making the woman feel physically threatened.

[PaulConventionWV]

Manufacturing consent by cajoling or outright coercion is certainly rape. When a woman says yes just so the man stops asking; that is, her defenses crumble, that cannot reasonably be called true consent by any stretch of the imagination. Asking a woman if she wants to have sex and editing out all her responses until you get the one you want is non-consensual sex any way you slice it. The psychological effects are also worth noting; afterwards, the woman feels as though she has no one to blame but herself for what happened - so the victim-blaming leads to her own concerns being dismissed. If you don't understand how disturbing this sort of thing is, there is something wrong with you... end of. Any sort of coercive sex can permanently damage a person and make them unable to trust anyone in future relationships. Sadly your beliefs, perhaps not so explicitly stated (no one wants to admit they could have possibly raped someone) are held by a sizeable portion of the population, hence fueling feminist claims of a "rape culture". It's quite curious how applicable Lewis' law is here - in other words, the commentary on any article related to feminist issues tends to justify feminism.

This is absolutely laughable. The woman still has a choice. If she gives in and says yes, she has nobody to blame but herself. If she suffers emotionally from the fact that she gave in, then maybe she should NOT have given in!

What this perpetuates is not the "rape culture" meme. That perpetuates by itself since it was never based on anything tangible to begin with. What this perpetuates is the victimization of women in society. End of.

[dannno]

The sun is definitely in scorpio.

[pessimist]

In fairness, there are a bunch of date rapist types who take any form of communication from a nearly unconscious woman as a 'yes'.