The problem with "Every man is a potential rapist"

[Armoured]

It is painfully obvious that if you can protect yourself against something bad, you will.

You're being a jerk, and I am blocking you.

I think someone hurt him. He used to be one of my favourite posters here, but then he went all red pill-y and changed his AV from a happy Tom Baker, the patron saint of well intentioned yet socially awkward nerds, to a slimy Mad Men guy, the patron saint of incels and "nice guys"

 

[Gadarene]

You lock your front door when you go out?

Ah yeah, we covered this at the start of the thread. It's funny how comparing women to locked doors/cars to say they should be preventing rape or not showing their bodies off to avoid provoking rapists is hateful, misogynist, terribad etc.

But that analogy is just fine when trying to put the wicked menz in their place for daring to wish to walk down the street without presumed to be possibly out for a quick rape.

Those groups are trying to exert power over those they oppress. I'm not aware of any woman who wants to see guys as potential rapists because they want to oppress men, and if any woman does, then she's crazy.

Here's a tip for you KTS - no-one admits to being an oppressor. Not even the KKK. Not Islamophobes who want to justify profiling on flights.

They usually put their motivations down to, in some form or another....their fear.

Gosh, now who does that remind me of?

And yes, treating basic acts as part of some overarching web of harm is *precisely* how you other a group of people. For example, the concept of Driving While Black.

Schrodinger's Rapist fans like you are making Walking While Male a thing.

Then you tell me, when should I prepare? When the guy first lunges at me? When exactly should I prepare?

Yes, because obviously your only options are to presume every male is out to attack you or wait for people to attack you.

Come on, dude. Think.

 

[Gadarene]

It is painfully obvious that if you can protect yourself against something bad, you will.

You're being a jerk, and I am blocking you.

And another classic response from women's issues types when called on their nonsense - run and hide.

That's more than fine by me. I will continue to dismantle your further bigoted posts with my writing that every other poster will be able to see and without further interruption from you.

Good day!

 

[Gadarene]

I think someone hurt him. He used to be one of my favourite posters here, but then he went all red pill-y and changed his AV from a happy Tom Baker to a slimy Mad Men guy.

What exactly is wrong with what I'm saying? Don't be passive-aggressive, spit it out. We're on the same page here, apparently.

And lel, you chirping that "someone hurt me" when we've got three women here who think all men are their rapist. Come on.

Oh and btw nothing of what I've said is red-pill-y. What is it with you people and misidentifying people? Any excuse to ignore a point I suppose.

 

[Dave-W]

Which, as I said, is absolutely stupid.

Why? Because it does not line up with YOUR definition?

 

[Dave-W]

This might come as a shock, but not everyone use's the FBI's definition.

True. But here in the US, that is the gold standard.

 

[Armoured]

True. But here in the US, that is the gold standard.

Some of us aren't in the US.

 

[Gadarene]

True. But here in the US, that is the gold standard.

The whole point is that standard should be changed, and indeed has been changed before, only a scant three years ago.

Spamming the thread with BUT ITS THE DEFINITION isn't really contributing much, nor is it much of a point. We know.

 

[Gadarene]

I think someone hurt him. He used to be one of my favourite posters here, but then he went all red pill-y and changed his AV from a happy Tom Baker, the patron saint of well intentioned yet socially awkward nerds, to a slimy Mad Men guy, the patron saint of incels and "nice guys"

Oh I missed the incels and nice guys bit. Good one, that's news to me. And also inapplicable to me. The Madmen avatar is there purely because it contains a dude laughing and drinking scotch. That's my default reaction to most of the garbage content on here.

You used to be one of my favourite posters too, then you stopped making decent counterarguments to points and resorted to passive-aggressive crap like this. Ironically around the time I started publicly criticising the feminist party line.

Oh well, not the first time someone on this board has blanked me after I criticised their religion

 

[Jack of Spades]

Here's a tip for you KTS - no-one admits to being an oppressor. Not even the KKK. Not Islamophobes who want to justify profiling on flights.

They usually put their motivations down to, in some form or another....their fear.

Bingo.

Discrimination is basically done on two basis, either assumption of superiority or fear. To promote either, feeling of superiority, or feeling of fear towards a profiled group, does end up promoting discrimination against the said group, either intentionally, or as a by-product of doing something else.

 

[Gadarene]

Bingo.

Discrimination is basically done on two basis, either assumption of superiority or fear. To promote either, feeling of superiority, or feeling of fear towards a profiled group, does end up promoting discrimination against the said group, either intentionally, or as a by-product of doing something else.

I'll go back to my earlier example of black men being lynched for daring to look at a white woman with what was perceived to be lust.

The consequences are obviously not identical, but the rationalisations were similar. It's not always "BOO BLACK PEOPLE" or "BOO MEN". It's a bit more subtle than that. It's often:

 

[Gadarene]

Related, @Jack of Spades

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsit...rape-the-logic-of-the-lynch-mob-returns/16349

 

[Paidiske]

If a woman admits unecessarily exposing herself naked to a man and the man makes an advance which she considers excessively aggressive-her provocation will be taken into serious consideration as well.

Consideration by whom? A court?

The court has only two issues to deal with in a rape case. Did sexual penetration occur? Did both parties consent?

Anything else is irrelevant.

Women don't behave as if they are in any special risk. They bicycle down isolated roads, sit calmly in isolated areas near alleys, walk casually down deserted streets.

Most rapes happen in a private home. Where do you go to be safe from that?

So, a question for you all, @KTS, @Paidiske, @Zoii

The leading cause of death for Aussie women is heart disease.

http://www.aihw.gov.au/deaths/leading-causes-of-death/

Seeing how death is a worse outcome than rape, and heart disease is a bigger risk for women than rape, and given how utterly and totally afraid you apparently all are of being raped -

How scared are you of heart attacks?

If you are being proportionate about this as you of course insist you are - then you must be scared to Cthulhu-esque levels of heart disease.

Or if you're (presumably) not, are you going to relinquish your faith-based belief that fear and a handful of context-free stats is a reliable metric for evaluating risk and justifying profiling?

Actually, this is an interesting one. The leading easily changed factor in causing heart disease is smoking. I'm on record (not sure if I've posted this on CF, I've certainly posted it elsewhere) as saying that our governments should bite the bullet and make commercial sale of tobacco illegal.

Am I scared of heart disease? Not exactly. I acknowledge it as a possibility (and don't smoke, and would encourage the removal of smoking from our society). Am I scared of rape? Not exactly. I acknowledge it as a possibility, and lower my own personal risk as I can, and encourage the removal of the conditions which give rise to rapists from our society.

So in fact my approach on these two issues is entirely consistent.

when we've got three women here who think all men are their rapist.

None of us are arguing that.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I'll go back to my earlier example of black men being lynched for daring to look at a white woman with what was perceived to be lust.

The consequences are obviously not identical, but the rationalisations were similar. It's not "BOO BLACK PEOPLE" or "BOO MEN". It's a bit more subtle than that. It's:

The outdated view on the topic is that there are two camps, progressive feminists and sexists/patriarchalists who want to keep the old order up.

I like to think I am "third party" person, a man who has legitimate and serious equality concerns of my own, and don't want the old patriarchalist order by any means back, but instead I want the new order, equality, in it's originally promised form, as an equality.

 

[Gadarene]

Am I scared of heart disease? Not exactly.

Thank you for demonstrating my point. Fear is not a reliable metric for evaluating risk. You are more at risk of heart disease than you are of rape, but you are more scared of rape.

None of us are arguing that.

No, not explicitly. But @Armoured shouldn't give me this "hurrr someone hurt him" garbage when I'm not the one it applies to

 

[Paidiske]

You missed the bit where I said I'm not scared of rape, exactly, either. I'm not eaten up with anxiety about it. Doesn't mean I want it to happen, to me or anyone else.

 

[Gadarene]

The outdated view on the topic is that there are two camps, progressive feminists and sexists/patriarchalists who want to keep the old order up.

I like to think I am "third party" person, a man who has legitimate and serious equality concerns of my own, and don't want the old patriarchalist order by any means back, but instead I want the new order, equality, in it's originally promised form, as an equality.

Oh ditto, no matter how many times certain ignorant posters call me MRA or redpiller or a jerk or whatever because they have no counterargument to my views.

Feminism is not only incorrect and a failure at a pretty fundamental level because it reinforces so much traditionalism, but it's also part of the establishment now.

And its boneheaded ideas like women are oppressed, men are privileged (and never the reverse) have filtered into government and media now and having serious consequences. It has to end so real equality can happen. This does not mean a return to women in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, but rather equality without all the pathetic ad hoc arguments that men's issues don't real, or should be addressed separately, what have you.

I eyeroll as much at the traditionalist guff from some of the Christian posters here as I have at the feminist-flavoured stuff being posted by some of the female posters here.

The important difference is no-one takes the former seriously anymore and so is a receding problem, hence why I don't really talk about it. But the latter is taken too seriously, and there is a ridiculous level of hostility towards criticism of feminism in society.

 

[RDKirk]

Wanton depraved acts of evil not among them.

Jer 17.9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?

There are some desperately wicked things I will do, particularly from the absolutely righteous viewpoint of God, and rape might be one of them if somehow Satan put me into some kind of position in which a rape appeared to be the only option to save the planet from destruction.

But the potential for that to happen is pretty small.

 

[Gadarene]

You missed the bit where I said I'm not scared of rape, exactly, either. I'm not eaten up with anxiety about it. Doesn't mean I want it to happen, to me or anyone else.

The only reason people propose the bigotry you have encouraged is fear. Assert otherwise all you want.

 

[Paidiske]

Well, I still don't buy the argument that it's bigotry.

But I'm not acting out of fear. I'm acting out of a desire for a society in which the flourishing of all members is maximised, and one aspect of our society which needs to change to bring us closer to that, is the level of rape.