How long until MRAs use this to "prove" all accusations are false accusations? (cnn.com)
againstmensrights
8 ups - 0 downs = 8 votes
63 comments submitted at 19:30:05 on Dec 5, 2014 by chewinchawingum
How long until MRAs use this to "prove" all accusations are false accusations? (cnn.com)
againstmensrights
8 ups - 0 downs = 8 votes
63 comments submitted at 19:30:05 on Dec 5, 2014 by chewinchawingum
Seconds? MRAs would claim rape only happens to men or not at all if they could.
Most likely not at all. Their response to Shia Labeouf's rape proved that they don't give a squat about protecting or supporting male victims either. I think it's because recognizing men can be victims of rape means recognizing that consent is essential to sex and they don't believe in getting consent.
Or admitting a man would ever harm someone
Hi there... Again, I'm not a mens rights advocate in the slightest, and if there are dudes there who believe what you say they believe, then I agree that that's horrible.
But I really don't believe that they don't believe in getting consent. I don't think anyone believes that except actual rapists.
Search this subreddit for "affirmative consent" and watch yourself be proven horribly wrong.
That's interesting.
My wife and I were talking about that last night too. She was saying that now there are apps for sexual consent, like "sign here to give your consent to have sex with this person"... and we both were thinking a couple things:
1) That really does kill the mood... "Wait, before we kiss, I need you to fill out this form. Check off all of the acts that you're ok with doing, and sign your name at the bottom." I mean, people have a hard enough time just taking the time to put on a fucking condom, do you really think they're going to take the time to fill out a form?
2) How far does this go? Should these forms be filled out before each and every sexual encounter? Sometimes people aren't in the mood for certain things. You should probably protect yourself by getting her to check off which acts she's willing to do tonight...
3) Marital rape is a thing. Therefore, should husbands and wives be required to sign consent forms before they have sex too?
So you've just proven that you don't actually know what affirmative consent is, because you're extending the idea to the point of ridiculousness even with your "consent app" idea rather than what it actually is. Please come back after you spend five minutes educating yourself and then maybe you'll be worth addressing. By the way, no one gives a fuck about whether these thoughts come from you or your wife. They are both hilariously ignorant and disgusting, regardless of who it's coming from.
I'll be sure to tell her you thought she was ignorant and disgusting.
Be sure to tell her that she's married to someone so willfully ignorant that they can't research what "affirmative consent" is before they go on a ridiculous rant about absolute bullshit.
>go on a ridiculous rant about absolute bullshit.
I was just telling you what she and I were talking about last night. Apparently we both misunderstood what it was.
Why are you so hostile??
Why are you so fucking dense?
Because you are coming into a subreddit and being argumentative about things you know absolutely nothing about, and have failed to educate yourself.
He thinks nobody's going to call his ideas out as nasty bullshit if he puts them as coming from the mouth of a woman. Hence it's his "wife" saying all this. Not him. Noooo siree.
Pretty much. Appeal to "authority" aka "My insert minority here friend says this, so it can't be sexist/racist/misogynist!
Oh, right, consent apps, which are totally obligatory now. As are consent forms. Totally not a hyperbolic strawman to mock the concept of affirmative consent, no no.
Honestly, that's what it sounds like people are talking about. I'm glad that's not actually the case, but that's what people are talking about when they hear that term.
If you don't want people thinking that, then change the way you guys are talking about it. Change what it's called, or do something to change the way the idea is perceived.
That only sounds what people are talking about if you don't think consent should be necessary for sex. If you think consent is necessary then it just sounds like you need to ask your partner if they're into it before whatever sex you're having.
>If you don't want people thinking that, then change the way you guys are talking about it. Change what it's called, or do something to change the way the idea is perceived.
No. It is the responsibility of those who are ignorant to change their ignorance, not the responsibility of others to water down consent until it is palatable for people who simply do not want to accept that they need to obtain sober un-coerced consent from their partners before engaging in sexual activity.
I honestly don't think that most people are objecting to getting consent, I just think that most people see it as a given... that you won't do things your partner doesn't want to do, and if you do it anyway, then it's obviously rape.
I think pretty much everyone agrees with that.
I think you're living in some kind of fantasy world in which you think that anyone who wants to have sex with you wants to rape you, and that's just not the case. Sorry, but it's not.
Rapists are out there, but the entirety of the male population are NOT rapists.
I've stated what consent is about is asking your partner if they are okay before acting. You are stating this is a fantasy and that we are demanding people sign contracts before they have sex. Who is the delusional one here?
No not everyone agrees with that, the mras and you are pitching a fit about the idea you ask your partner "hey, do you want to x?" or "can we do x?" beforehand and comparing it to filling out legal documents. Why are you fighting it so hard, ask yourself that question. Why are you objecting so strongly to making sure your partner gives a sober and un-coerced "yes" to sexual activity?
By the way, my language has been gender neutral this whole time with the exception of bringing up the mrm's poor handling of male victims and calling into question how your "wife" just happens to hold these views that you are supposedly only repeating to us from her mouth. You're really stretching acting like I've said all men are rapists.
All mras probably are though with how much they fight for the right to sexually abuse people, but thankfully they're not the whole fucking male population.
More Comments - Click Here
> I honestly don't think that most people are objecting to getting consent, I just think that most people see it as a given... that you won't do things your partner doesn't want to do, and if you do it anyway, then it's obviously rape.
The problem is: How do you know this without consent?
And again, remember, affirmative consent does NOT mean that idiotic strawman you constantly set up - "always ask for every single step".
Affirmative consent means that you have to talk about your limits ONCE before doing what you want to do. And re-asking for that consent if the situation demands it.
You can't "know what your partner wants" when your partner is a unconscious body. You can't know what your partner wants when you just met that partner and ASSUME they want sex simply because of some ambiguous signals you think you have seen. You can't know whether they want sex again simply because you had it once already.
More Comments - Click Here
AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT IS LITERALLY WHAT IT IS REFERRED TO AS IN LAW. SORRY FOR BEING FUCKING ACCURATE.
AFFIRMATIVE = YES, POSITIVE, ACTIVE
CONSENT = AGREED TO BY THE PARTY IN QUESTION
AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT = ACTIVE, POSITIVE CONSENT. THAT MEANS THAT BEING UNCONSCIOUS, DRUNK, OR OTHERWISE INCAPABLE OF INFORMED CONSENT IS NOT AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT. THAT MEANS THAT SOMEONE STAYING SILENT OR NOT SAYING NO OUT OF FEAR WHILE YOU VIOLATE THEM IS NOT AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT. THAT MEANS SOMEONE WHO SAYS "FUCK ME" OR ACTIVELY RECIPROCATES YOUR AFFECTION IS SHOWING AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT. IT IS THE EXISTENCE OF A YES BEING THE STANDARD INSTEAD OF THE LACK OF A NO.
HOW FUCKING DENSE ARE YOU? WHAT YOU ARE THINKING OF WOULD BE CONTRACTUAL CONSENT. YOUR SEVERE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS THE PROBLEM. NOT THE DEFINITION.
Ok, I get it. Thanks.
No one here is saying you should have to fill out a contract before sex to prove consent. What you're doing right now is exactly what mras do, being ludicrously hyperbolic about consent in order to dismiss the idea that getting consent before sex is 100% necessary.
Those consent apps are terrible ideas btw, and no not because they "kill the mood" but because they promote the idea as long as you get that first yes then you've got a green light. They also don't have any way to differentiate a coerced "yes" from a real one, making them dangerous.
edit More you talk more it seems like you're just trolling
Ok, good to know. We're in agreement then.
For not being a mra you're sure spending lots of time defending them and their beliefs in here.
There are also rapists in that "movement", self admitted rapists. This is who you're going to bat for right now. Stop.
Look, I'm not defending them at all. But I think you're going a bit overboard and are being just as bad as they are.
Are you fucking joking right now?
Just as bad as them? Do you read that sub at all?
Sorry, no, I don't read that sub at all. I actually try to avoid it as much as possible.
That's why I'm here instead of there. I identify more with you than I do with them.
Are they really advocating for rape to be legal?
Here is an old post with a collection of various anti-consent comments made by mras. But if you search "consent" or "rape" in this subreddit you'll find threads which link to statements that say getting consent is "too hard" or "ridiculous" or "oppressive to men" made by mras.
You could try going in their subreddit and asking them if they think making sure there's consent is important to sex and see their reactions, but it might just ruin your day to see how many say "no".
And no, feminists don't think it's okay to lie about rape. But it's also not okay to dismiss all women who come forward as liars--and note that multiple women confirmed that rape and sexual assault are endemic at UVA and have been for a long time. It makes me sick that this reality will get totally glossed over because Rolling Stone failed to fact-check before publication.
I agree that it's not okay to dismiss rape accusations but how are you supposed to prosecute someone with little or no evidence? I thought innocent until proven guilty was important so we don't put an innocent person in jail.
This doesn't respond to anything I actually said.
I'm saying you have to approach these things carefully and with evidence. You can't just take an individual's word that a crime was committed, this is how innocent people end up in jail. You must approach any accusation with scepticism in order to uphold the presumption of innocence. Nobody is saying to dismiss claims made by women, but claims should be scrutinized and backed up by evidence to be taken seriously. We shouldn't be sending innocent people to jail, it's unacceptable. I'll probably receive flak for this opinion but....I'd rather see a criminal go free than a an innocent person behind bars.
>Nobody is saying to dismiss claims made by women
Except that's actually what the mrm is saying.
You're a fucked up person if you're fine with rapists roaming the streets.
I don't want rapists roaming the streets! But If I can't prove someone committed a crime then how can I justify sending a potentially innocent person to jail? Just help me see your way here, does it not bother you that that's a possibility if you convict someone with no evidence? Is her word that he raped her all that it takes to convince you to send someone to jail? Isn't that severely one sided?
You keep saying "no evidence". Witness testimony is not evidence coming from a woman. Got it.
I didn't say it wasn't evidence, please stop shoving shit in my mouth. Is a victim's testimony is enough to send someone to jail in your mind?
What's your take on false rape accusations? Should there be punishment for false rape accusations? How in your mind should we handle these situations so real rape victim's are not afraid to come forward but we can still deter false allegations?
I'm not shoving anything in your mouth, you came in here bleating about convicting people with "no evidence" when the original comment you replied to was not focused at all on prosecuting or convicting anyone just on the fact victims' accounts of sexual assault are dismissed immediately by the public especially when it's women coming forward with their stories(though it happens to men too, look at the Shia Labeouf fiasco).
You derailed that conversation to cry about false accusations sending innocent people to jail(incredibly rare unlike sexual assault). So obviously you don't think women's testimony is evidence because otherwise you wouldn't be fighting so hard for this conversation to turn into "women lie about rape".
You don't give two shits about victims of assault, own up to it instead of playing this tired little game. Because trust me, everyone in this thread knows why you are here and it's sure as hell not to lend support to "real victims".
You're a fucking idiot.
Feminists don't want to see innocent people behind bars. This isn't some kind of brave stand you're taking.
What are you talking about? I've said nothing about feminists at all. Nor have I implied that's the case. You've gone and downvoted my posts why? What have I said that's not contributing to the conversation?
Sigh. You're responding to me (on a feminist sub) as though you're refuting things that I'm saying. When in reality your responses don't actually address anything I'm saying.
And then you complain about getting flak for your irrelevant comments.
You're getting flak because you're not adding anything to the conversation.
So my responses are already part of the feminist conversation?
Should I just delete my comments? Because I feel there are plenty of modern feminists out there that would disagree with that approach to dealing with accused rapists. From what I've been exposed to it seems they want the accused to have no say whatsoever. Is this really not the case? It seems anytime someone doubts the claims of a rape victim there is always an immediate and visceral response along the lines of "how dare you" when their sole intention is to ensure innocent people are not wrongfully convicted.
This is my first post on this sub and I guess you can say I chose your post to test the waters. I see all this mens rights and feminist hate on reddit and you see extreme examples of both views on either side. there are legitimate concerns on both sides and some crazy people as well. I don't dismiss feminism because of a few crazy people...and to see you label all people in favor of men's rights as "bigots" as this subreddit claims leads me to be confused on where you stand.
I'm just confused how this subreddit claims they are not against the "concept" of men's rights yet they are against the movement.
That's like me saying I'm not against the concept of feminism but I'm against the feminist movement...it makes no sense.
Posting replies that don't actually respond to what someone is saying, just to "test the waters," is extremely annoying.
There are moderate and extremist feminists. There are no moderate MRAs. MRAs don't do anything to actually help men. It's a reactionary, backlash "movement" that spends at least as much time attacking feminism & women than it does discussing men's issues.
Other than that, I'm really not interested in discussing this with you. I don't think you're here in good faith.
Alrighty, I guess I'll just leave on one parting note...I'm not an MRA, I'm not a feminist. I'm for equal rights.
Have a good day.
[deleted]
You're a cockbag. Go away.
You mean my wife is a cockbag, right? Those were her ideas, not mine. I just kind of think they're interesting. I'll be sure to tell her that you think she's a cockbag though. She'll get a kick out of that.
I'm definitely NOT in favor of the whole stupid "men's rights" thing. Those guys are douchebags who have no idea what the hell they're talking about.
No I mean you are for dubbing the undermining and dismissal of victims' experiences and trauma an "interesting discussion" then spewing that garbage in here.
What the fuck are you talking about? It was completely relevant to the post, and to this discussion. It IS interesting, because it's an important thing that people need to talk about.
I think you're a bit over-sensitive, but I apologize nonetheless.
> She made the point that it's really easy for a woman to claim she was raped
No it isn't. I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. Being stripped naked, photographed, swabbed, and having to verbally relive the worst moment of your life over and over with people challenging you on every detail (significant or not) is not easy. It's why so few people report after they're raped.
Your wife should read Lucky by Alice Sebold and then come back and tell me how easy it is to claim to be raped.
She was talking about women coming forward weeks or months or years after the incident, claiming that they were drugged or too drunk etc.
Obviously if there's physical evidence, that's a different story altogether.
Once again, that's bullshit. The police are going to interrogate them and ask extremely personal and minor questions and in many instances won't believe them. They will then have to testify multiple times in court without screwing up in front of everyone and the person their accusing otherwise they'll be judged a liar.
So, it turns out that "Jackie" (the woman Rolling Stone is now accusing of lying) actually tried to withdraw from the story and Rolling Stone proceeded with her in the story against her will:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/12/05/the-rolling-stone-rape-story-correction-is-about-a-failure-of-journalism-not-a-failure-of-trust
As usual, MRAs ignore literally every single reality that women face, as long as ignoring them satisfies their confirmation bias.
Also, long time no see!
Hey, nice to see you!