This piece of utter, laughable buffoonery was posted at a feminist blog that I refuse to cite. There are so many things wrong with this inanity, so many legal defects, that I can't possibly begin to explain them. Suffice it to say that there is a peculiar strain of radical feminism that teaches young women a definition of consent so narrow that they suffocate the concept by strangulation. If the following definition were accurate, virtually every male in America should be imprisoned:
"Sexual assault is more than forcible rape. Any strategy which is designed to eliminate rejection or overcome someone's reluctance or indecision or non-participation or which reduces the other person's options is a strategy of sexual assault."
Did you get that? "Any" -- not just some, "any" strategy that is "designed to eliminate refection or overcome . . . resistance . . . ." So if you buy her dinner, or treat her nicely, or promise to go visit her mother with her, or agree to fix her car in an effort to "eliminate rejection" or "overcome [her] indecision" and thereby increase your chances of taking the relationship to the next level, you are acting out "a strategy of sexual assault." While it is written in a gender neutral manner, make no mistake it is designed to address male sexual advances because since the dawn of man, males have been the ones pursuing and females have been the ones playing "hard to get."
This, of course, is nothing but über-radical feminist blather gussied up to resemble a legal definition. In fact, it is as if the writer held the words of our statutes up to a funhouse mirror: the image it creates is so misshapen that one must look elsewhere to discern reality. It resembles no definition of consent, legal or otherwise, that is accepted anywhere outside Womyn's Studies classes and one dark and twisted corner of the blogosphere.
With this definition, the writer manages to pull off the seemingly impossible task of insulting two genders at one time by positing that males who are trying to convince even somewhat reluctant females to have a physical relationship are acting out a "strategy of sexual assault," and that females are too weak or too stupid to resist even the non-physical advances of males. It's as if every guy is a Svengali capable of decimating every women's free will, and every woman is a powerless child.
And my guess is it doesn't work the other way: when a woman uses sex to overcome the man's "reluctance" or "indecision" about doing something the woman wants him to do, that's perfectly fine, right? She's not acting out an illicit "strategy," is she? Because, you see, über-radical feminism is only concerned about penalizing male sexual desire. Women can do to men as they please.
Anyone who is capable of writing that inane quote must truly be called a misandrist, a man hater, of the first order. That quote would be hilarious until you stop and consider this: is it any wonder that false rape claims are an epidemic with misinformation being fed to our daughters like this?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
128 comments:
When will this ever end? When will these people stop?
Perhaps when people wake up and smell the feminist bullshit that has been keeping them in a coma-like spell
From my often fruitless advocacy for male sufferers of sexual abuse comes a truth also applicable here...
In an act of sexual impropriety any female involved is, by default, a victim. Even if she is the perpetrator. Even if she is the only adult in the exchange.
Women scheme just as much to get the opposite sex as men. According to this definition, pretty much every woman is a perpetrator fo sexual assault too.
Maybe the feminist blogger who wrote this, should lead by example and surrender herself to the closest police station? :)
This paradigm is not buffoonery, it is a well organized strategy that attempts to separate both sexes. It is taught in Women's Studies classes. It is pure fascism. It remains unchallenged by both feminism and mainstream society.
Anon, I understand that this sort of thing is calculated, and purposeful, and well thought out, but it is nevertheless buffoonery. It is akin to a kooky cult. Please understand, I'm not saying it's not dangerous.
This dynamic is dangerous to hetero-sexuals who want to raise a familly.
Here's a more succinct definition:
Whatever she says it is, whenever she says it happened, whoever she says did it.
Hmmmm I wonder how the writer would feel about women who hit on other women? I mean bi-sexual and lesbian women use some tricks that men can't and they typically work pretty well for the ones I have seen.
Of course I already know the answer it is only bad when a man has somethign to do with it.
You know what I think it is? Ego. Women are thinking, any man who's worthy of me has got to prove it by overcoming serious obstacles in his way. If a man wants to ask me out, he's got to risk, not only rejection, but criminal charges. Only then will I know he's serious.
'Any strategy which is designed to eliminate rejection or overcome someone's reluctance or indecision or non-participation or which reduces the other person's options is a strategy of sexual assault'.
She pretty much gave a perfect definiton of feminism.
Feminism is about overcoming 21st century man's reluctance to have committed sexual relationships with unattractive, aging women (feminists and the millions of women who vote them into power). Hence feminist legislation over porn, prostitution, consequence free divorces for men..
feminism is the rape of the male.
Beltain America,
Hmmmm I wonder how the writer would feel about women who hit on other women?
That's an interesting question. We know, due to better studies on DV and such show that lesbian relationships tend to be more violent, this attitude would increase the numbers of DV/Rape in those relationships.
Paddybrown,
Considering the entitlement attitude that many young people have now, EGO is a good thought. Since most of those we see filing false rape accusations are in the 18-30 range, it makes a lot of sense that it is their own inflated sense of worth contributing to the problem. The funny thing is, these types of women are the easiest targets of the PUA's, who immediately walk away after the fact.
Shopenbecq,
Agreed. It is a spot on definition of modern feminism.
I would assume you meant this:
Hence feminist legislation over porn, prostitution, consequence free divorces for women..
In today's family court, men don't get consequence free divorces. They have all the responsibilities, and women get all the rights and goodies (even if she is the one to cause the breakdown of the marriage).
paddy brown says
"You know what I think it is? Ego. Women are thinking, any man who's worthy of me has got to prove it by overcoming serious obstacles in his way. If a man wants to ask me out, he's got to risk, not only rejection, but criminal charges. Only then will I know he's serious.
8/19/2009"
scott says...I have thought that myself..and i beleive that is why there are so many single folks out there now. Males don't dare risk calling her anymore because she so easily drums up hysteria to her friends that someone is "stalking her"!!
Truth is the only cure for mass hysteria...or hystera, whatever you want to call it.
"Sexual assault is more than forcible rape. Any strategy which is designed to eliminate rejection or overcome someone's reluctance or indecision or non-participation or which reduces the other person's options is a strategy of sexual assault."
* * * * *
If reducing someone's options is sexual assault, does that mean that it's sexual assault for a woman to refuse to make out with a man? But I don't think this nutjob is worried about crafting a definition that doesn't have a built-in double standard.
What a bunch of biased, androphobic pseudo-intellectual gibberish.
I beg you to let us know the original blog this garbage came from. I thinks it is important for keeping people honest to call them out.
My guess: feministing or pandagon. But that's just a guess.
Pierce is right that this is both bufoonery and calculated.
To me, the idea is simply about power. I was reading something that Valenti wrote a few years ago where she was saying that the current definition of rape (sex without consent) is insufficient because it disempowers women --> her view was that requiring a woman to voice or demonstrate non-consent means that the "default" situation is consent (unless she indicates non-consent). Valenti sees that as being overly indulgent to males and hemming in female sexual freedom and power.
Per Valenti, rape should be redefined to require active consent from the woman in order to *not* be rape. That is -- the default assumption should be changed to presume that all sex is rape unless the woman either (1) initiates the sex act or (2) verbally expresses consent. Valenti sees this (rightly) as decisively shifting all sexual power to women -- through the outrageous assumption that all sex is rape unless proven otherwise.
It's that kind of radical thinking that underlies the quoted definition of sexual assault. That definition, by its own terms, seeks to criminalize seduction, full stop. Again, the idea is that women should be the sexual initiators, and men should be the sexual responders, servicing women sexually if and when they initiate and ask for sex. If men are trying to seduce (which is in essence a strategy to overcome her reluctance or indecision), then that is an assault. Again, the idea is to disempower men and shift all of the power around sex, 100% of it, to women. It correlates well with Valenti's ideas about where rape saw should go.
Yes, these people are bufoons, but they have some influence still. I remember reading an article by a horribly brain-washed young man a year or so ago who said that he though that even trying to seduce a woman into sex by kissing her shoulders or rubbing her back was rape, because he was trying to cajole her into having sex when she may not have wanted to.
This is all about power gentlemen. Raw power.
Novaseeker, you are correct. I have written a ton of posts about their insistence on "verbal" consent, and about reversing the presumption of consent. In "Addressing Rape Reform in Law and Practice" (2008), Professor Susan Caringella of Western Michigan University's Sociology Department proposes that if a woman alleges rape, nonconsent would be presumed, and the man would be required to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the act was consensual. In most of those sorts of alleged rape cases, there is no significant evidence aside from the testimony of the accuser and the accused. If the jury doesn't know who to believe, as is often the case, the male will go to prison for many years. (And we have reported innumerable cases on this website where false rape accusers were found to be very credible.) The male will have lost the trial before it has begun. This rule also means that the accused in a criminal trial will be forced to testify on his own behalf if he wants to stay out of prison -- as in many dictatorships that have no regard for due process. In short, it would be the single most unfair rule in our entire jurisprudence.
You see, people like this feminist scholar want to turn the most fundamental act of love -- the act of procreation -- that has been performed countless times every minute of every day of every year since the beginning of time the world over, into a presumed crime. And that's not hyperbole.
Dangerous? You bet.
Pierce Harlan
FRS
I think the agenda runs deeper, and is more sinister, yet also "sensible" if you believe in the mythologies of feminism.
Feminists posit that men are, by virtue of the "patriarchal culture", rapacious, lust-driven animals who view all women as sexual objects. They feel that this has not changed much in the 50 years since 2nd wave feminism came along. And so, as they see it, the expression of male sexuality in this culture is problematic because it objectifies women and so on, and 50 years of various wave feminism hasn't changed that in their view (because they are ideologues, of course).
So what does a good feminist radical ideologue do? Well, you go about criminalizing male sexual expression. One aspect of that are the ridiculously subjective sexual harassment laws, which have had the desired effect: chill the willingness of men to make advances to women unless they are certain those advances are welcome. That was stage 1.
Stage 2 is messing with the sexual assault laws in the way stated. The desired effect there would be to criminalize seduction, which, in effect, shuts down male sexual initiation because per that definition pretty much any sexual initiation by men would be a sexual assault.
Stage 3 is criminalizing all heterosexual sex, by presumption, unless a woman can be demonstrated to have affirmatively verbally consented or to have initiated the act. The effect of this: very much tamp down heterosexual sexual expression by men by make the "default" legal state of male-initiated heterosexual sex rape unless proven otherwise. This is, essentially, designed to discourage men from initiating sex with women for fear of being hit with rape charges.
Taken together, current harassment law and these not-so-tongue-in-cheek proposals about changing rape and sexual assault law have the collective intended effect of criminalizing male sexual expression, full stop, conditioning the legitimacy of the same on express female approval. I honestly think that the "method to the madness" here is the desire to tamp down male sexuality in general, because feminists see male sexuality, itself, as being problematic.
continued ...
The idea is that perhaps if we were to criminalize all male sexual expression (whether of interest, or seduction or actual initiation of sex), men would be forced, in a few generations, to train themselves to accept that sex is only legitimate when initiated by females or when otherwise females make it crystal clear that they desire to be sexually serviced. It's hoped that this will lead to a new human sexuality which is female-centric, and not "rapacious" or "objectifying", as feminists tend to see male sexuality. The idea is clearly to subordinate male sexual expression to female sexual expression -- and I honestly believe that this is the idea, and that the hope is that by doing this things like the "objectification of women" will go away, as the dominant paradigm for sexuality becomes a female one.
=======
Of course that's all based on nonsense, in my view. The feminist assumption that male sexuality is irretrievably sick and must be subordinated to female sexuality is simply insulting to the entire history of the species. And the similar assumption that female sexuality is somehow angelic, or that it in fact differs to the degree that they think it does from male sexuality in terms of sex itself, is likewise bankrupt. The reality is that women like it when men approach them (if done properly). Women like it when men seduce them, if done properly. Many women prefer if men are generally (if not exclusively) the initiators in bed. This is the way human sexuality works. The feminists would say "aha, you're only saying that because patriarchy has trained you to THINK that this is how human sexuality works, but we can change that by changing the culture, such that women are the approachers, the seducers and the initiators" and so on. But as with so much of radical feminism, this just does not resonate at all with most women. A world where men are cowed into seducing or initiating sex is not a world many women would want to live in, other than radical ballbusters like Valenti.
cowed into *not* seducing -- left a word out there.
Men in power is patriarchy
Women in power is not
Heterosexual Marriage is patriarchy
Lesbian Marriage is not
Heterosexual Dating is patriarchy
Lesbian Dating is not
Heterosexuality is patriarchy
Lesbianism is not
A man hitting a woman is patriarchy
A woman hitting a man is not
Heterosexual Intercourse is patriarchy
Lesbian sex is not
Organized religion is patriarchy
Organized feminism is not
A heterosexual bride is patriarchy
A lesbian bride is not
All heterosexual sex is patriarchy
All lesbian sex is not
Sexuality is patriarchy
Feminist Asexuality is not
A woman using a penetrative sex aid is patriarchy
A Woman who doesn't is not
Welcome to 40 years of feminist literature!
Archivist : yep, I meant that feminists are legislating AGAINST consequence free divorces for men (and I agree with you entirely).
Sometimes I just can't believe what crap femiwhores come out with.
Smith and Harman pass a law in the UK criminilizing men who pay for sex with a prostitute. This CLEARLY reduces mens sexual options. This is the whole point of the legislation. Therefere, Jacqui Smith, Harriet Harman, and all the femiwhores who supported this law, are sexually assaulting 30 million British men who previously had the option of having sex with a prostitute.
Yep, by that definition my husband and I rape each other regularly. And love it. :D
While it may be true that the exact kind of feminists referred to in this post are an extremist minority, most guys here would be surprised to find out how much influece other people with this same mentality have. They are the ones sneaking all the anti-male legislation into Congress via bureaucratic back channels - check out 'Legalizing Misandry'.
"This paradigm is not buffoonery, it is a well organized strategy that attempts to separate both sexes. It is taught in Women's Studies classes. It is pure fascism. It remains unchallenged by both feminism and mainstream society."
That is one of the most accurate posts I have ever seen on this blog.
All heterosexual sex is patriarchy
lesbian sex is not!!
If this is taught in womens studies courses..there is a real perversion taking root in academia.
"While it may be true that the exact kind of feminists referred to in this post are an extremist minority..."
The thing is, they are the ones that are working hard 24/7/365. They don't just talk about change (separatism), they act out on it daily. They have advanced academic degrees, they have influence over police, judges, attorneys, politicians, colleges, you name it. They are very well organized and dedicated to their paradigm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separatist_feminism
This kind of feminism is extreme, but it is sadly becoming mainstream.
Example: Liz Kelly, whose government sponsored study is forming the basis for proposed reform in the UK's rape laws, has said: "Sexual violence includes any physical, visual, verbal or sexual act that is experienced by the woman or girl, at the time or later, as a threat, invasion or assault that has the effect of hurting her or degrading her and/or taken away her ability to control intimate contact."
And: "(Hetero)sexual culture thus reproduces the conditions in which coercive sex is commonplace . . . ."
And: "There is no clear distinction . . . between consensual sex and rape, but a continuum of pressure, threat, coercion and force. The concept of a continuum validates the sense of abuse women feel when they do not freely consent to sex . . . ."
And: "The fact is, any man can be a rapist."
As I explained here http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2009/05/british-study-says-rape-is-rampant.html, she seems to advocate changing the trial system for rape to an inquisitorial system whereby both the accuser and the accused would be forced to answer questions posed by the court on a charge of rape (-- yes, it really does sound like the Spanish Inquisition). She would not be alone in advocating this -- it's a position other extremists have adopted. In the U.S. and the UK, of course, a defendant currently has the cherished right not to testify and to question his accuser. But why should any fundamental rights apply to men accused of rape? The goal, after all, is to jack up rape conviction rates.
Scary, isn't it?
Pierce Harlan
FRS
It's very scary yes.
The goal is to jack up convictions in the short term. In the long term it's to change sexuality so that women control it completely. That's really the only conclusion you can draw, because legal rules like that are designed to make illegal male initiation, which is basically the way much of heterosexual sexuality works. They're trying to use the rape laws to change sex itself.
Guys,
Remember when Catherine MacKinnon was promulgating the sexual harassment foolishness back in the late 1980s? Rush Limbaugh used to lampoon her insanity. Guess what? Her insanity is now law of the land! If we're not careful, this bullshit will become law of the land too...
MarkyMark
Because they hate sex itself, just as they hate the women who enjoy sex and living with men. Yes, the femicommies hate normal women just as much as they hate men; the ones who won't tow the party line.
MarkyMark
I tell people things like what you mention, all the time. Usually I am laughed at, even on MR boards...it goes in one ear and out the othter. It is this lack of vigilance over creeping fascism that will allow it to eventually get to a point where it cannot be stopped from advancing and overtaking us.
1. "The goal, after all, is to jack up rape conviction rates."
2. "Guess what? Her insanity is now law of the land! If we're not careful, this bullshit will become law of the land too..."
3. "Remember when Catherine MacKinnon was promulgating the sexual harassment foolishness back in the late 1980s?"
4. "The goal is to jack up convictions in the short term. In the long term it's to change sexuality so that women control it completely."
5. "This kind of feminism is extreme, but it is sadly becoming mainstream."
6. The Violence Against Women Act
7. Sexual Harassment
Conspiracy!
Catherine MacKinnon is the pioneer, the chief architect of Sexual Harassment. It is a Conspiracy. Wake up people. "But these extremist people are small in number." These people work 24/7/365 while the rest of us don't! There will come a day when all heterosexual sex will be rape, meaning that women will have the legal right to call it what they want anytime they want. In fact they already do.
These "small in number extremists" work hard, very hard. Revolutionaries always do. And they're smart too, they don't commit crimes. They don't rob people, kill people or hurt people. These "small in number extremists" have accomplished many triumphs in the last 40 years. While we sit and laugh and claim "It will never happen", they're busy working overtime to slowly change the attitudes and values of Western society towards heterosexuality. They believe that heterosexuality is oppression, patriarchy, violence and victimization all from centuries of male dominance and oppression. The 'change' can't happen overnight, it's like the gears inside a clock, they turn slowly, but they still turn! The "small in number extremists" gears are turning too. They're not going to stop now, they're are on a roll, while the scoffers are laughing, they have a 'foot in the door'. There have been too many victories to celebrate to turn around now and go back into the closet. Organized, efficient, dedicated, clever, energetic, manipulative, and hateful 24 hours a day!
The gate has been opened and the politically correct feminist trojan horse has just been rolled in. The question is, are you people willing to work as hard as they do?
Almost certainly not.
But you are right that the enemy is sexuality -- not so much heterosexuality, which they would clearly disfavor yet not exclude from the menu options, but the idea is, and always has been, to equalize i9n standing homosexuality (esp female homosexuality) with heterosexuality. That has been their goal forever, and it remains the goal today. Feminism and gay rights are one and the same: anti gender, anti gender roles, anti normative heterosex.
All hostile to every pillar of the social order. These are the new revolutionaries.
To clarify -- the enemy is NOT sexuality, but mistaken ideas about it. In my zeal to caricature feminist hypocrisies, I sometimes leave out words.
"These 'small in number extremists' work hard, very hard..."
I'm started to wonder if you guys read the rest of my comment, or any of my subsequent ones.
should say, "I'm starting..."
"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan
From her "The Demon Lover" (NY: Norton & Co., 1989 Morgan doesn't hide her bigotry):
p. 138-9: The phallic malady is epidemic and systemic... each individual male in the patriarchy is aware of his relative power in the scheme of things.... He knows that his actions are supported by the twin pillars of the State of man - the brotherhood ritual of political exigency and the brotherhood ritual of a sexual thrill in dominance. As a devotee of Thanatos, he is one with the practitioner of sado-masochistic "play" between "consenting adults," as he is one with the rapist*
p. 224: My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others' agony.
p. 229: Sex to this point in my life has been trivial, at best a gesture of tenderness, at worst a chore. I couldn't understand the furor about it.
p. 316: Did she die of the disease called "family" or the disease called "rehabilitation", of poverty or drugs or pornography, of economics or sexual slavery or a broken body?
"And let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism--the lie that there can be such a thing as 'men's liberation groups.' Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group, specifically because of a 'threatening' characteristic shared by the latter group--skin, color, sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed FUCKED UP by being masters, but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism--the oppressed have no alternative--for they have no power but to fight. In the long run, Women's Liberation will of course free men--but in the short run it's going to cost men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women--kill your fathers, not your mothers". -- Robin Morgan
"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things." -- Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas)
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin
"In my own life, I don't have intercourse. That is my choice." -- Andrea Dworkin
"To be rapeable, a position that is social, not biological, defines what a woman is." -- Andrea Dworkin
"Q: People think you are very hostile to men. A: I am." -- Andrea Dworkin
"The annihilation of a woman's personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality." -- Andrea Dworkin
"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson
"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice." -- Ti-Grace Atkinson
"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -- Susan Brownmiller; Authoress of Against Our Will p.6
"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression." -- Sheila Jeffrys
"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." -- Catherine MacKinnon
"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." -- Catherine MacKinnon
"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent." -- Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies.
"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference." -- Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime.
"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women...he can sexually molest his daughters... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE." -- Marilyn French (her emphasis)
"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release." -- Germaine Greer.
"Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, 'even if she does not feel forced.' -- Judith Levine, (explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry.)
"There are no boundaries between affectionate sex and slavery in (the male) world. Distinctions between pleasure and danger are academic; the dirty-laundrylist of 'sex acts'...includes rape, foot binding, fellatio, intercourse, auto eroticism, incest, anal intercourse, use and production of pornography, cunnilingus, sexual harassment, and murder." -- Judith Levine; summarizing comment on the WAS document, (A southern Women's Writing Collective: Women Against Sex.)
"Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do." -- Popular Feminist Graffiti
Catharine MacKinnon ( ) maintains that "the private is a sphere of battery, marital rape and women's exploited labor." In this way, privacy and family are reduced to nothing more than aspects of the master plan, which is male domination. Democratic freedoms and the need to keep the state's nose out of our personal affairs are rendered meaningless. The real reason our society cherishes privacy is because men have invented it as an excuse to conceal their criminality. If people still insist that the traditional family is about love and mutual aid--ideals which, admittedly, are sometimes betrayed--they're "hiding from the truth." The family isn't a place where battery and marital rape sometimes happen but where little else apparently does. Sick men don't simply molest their daughters, they operate in league with their wives to "breed" them for that purpose. -- Donna Laframboise; The Princess at the Window; (in a critical explication of the Catharine MacKinnon, Gloria Steinhem et al tenets of misandric belief.)
"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal--a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students--I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment...of persuading students that women are oppressed" -- Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women.
"Men, as a group, tend to be abusive, either verbally, sexually or emotionally. There are always the exceptions, but they are few and far between (I am married to one of them). There are different levels of violence and abuse and individual men buy into this system by varying degrees. But the male power structure always remains intact." Message on FEMISA, responding to a request for arguments that men are unnecessary for a child to grow into mature adulthood.
Another posting on FEMISA: "Considering the nature and pervasiveness of men's violence, I would say that without question, children are better off being raised without the presence of men. Assaults on women and children are mostly perpetrated by men whom they are supposed to love and trust: fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, step-fathers." Both quotes taken from Daphne Patai's excellent critical work, Heterophobia
"At Brandies I discovered Feminism. And I instantly became a convert... writing brilliant papers in my Myths of Patriarchy class, in which I likened my fate as a woman to other victims throughout the ages." -- Heather Hart 7
Their own words , not ours, betray them.
IMHO, feminists and those who cohort with them, have become hypocrites who consider it ok for THEM to break their own cardinal laws while damning anyone, who is not one of THEM, to a life of submission and hell
They have become everything they claimed the patriarchy to be.
Sorry for posting so much but, I think it is important that we once again see what radical feminists had to say about men,women and, sex.
If a man telling a woman she has small breasts is considered sexual assault/sexual harassment, then what radical feminists have said is a violation of the very law(s) they desire to reach fruition.
What was it feminists used to say? : What's good for the gander is good for the goose
"p. 224: My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others' agony. "
whoever said that should get a skin graft then move to Tahiti, and leave the rest of us alone. I don't give a fuck what some loser thinks.
In her original post, after the bits quoted in Archivist's article, comes...
"This includes trickery to gain someone's trust."
Holly cow, lots of female rapists out there if we follow this definition!
I know who wrote this and apparently others want to know but since this is your blog im keeping it to myself,im curious though why you are protecting her? Does she seem that delicate to you?
~ Feminism= Every bad thing any man has ever committed highlighted and exaggerated; every bit of good systematically undermined, vilified or ignored. ~
~ A man needs a woman like a lion needs a stove. ~
~ Women deserve only equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. ~
~ Men are not collectively "guilty" of anything. ~
~ Never needing to be pregnant is a blessing. ~
~ Feminist ideology “men have to respect women, but women have no reason to respect men” ~
~ Everybody makes choices, and nobody should be entitled to special treatment because of those choices.
Equal results based on unequal treatment amounts to no kind of equality at all. ~
http://antimisandry.com/feminist-misandry/feminist-quotes-20106.html
"Never needing to be pregnant is a blessing."
I'm not sure how that one got in there. It supports the idea of female victimhood.
Anonymous said...
Their own words , not ours, betray them.
IMHO, feminists and those who cohort with them, have become hypocrites who consider it ok for THEM to break their own cardinal laws while damning anyone, who is not one of THEM, to a life of submission and hell
I regress, there is one of them who is facing condemnation
Raped by Dr. Phil
Man-bashing psychologist Dr. Phil accused of sexual abuse!
http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/2009/08/raped-by-dr-phil.html
Norm said...
"Never needing to be pregnant is a blessing."
I'm not sure how that one got in there. It supports the idea of female victimhood.
It may have been a typo.
I would guess what they meant was " Never needing to get a woman pregnant is a blessing".
They don't want every male in jail; somebody has to work to pay their alimony checks, after all. They do want every male under treat of jail, though. Thus, false accusations of rape are the means by which women, all women, keep men, all men, under political subjugation.
"p. 224: My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others' agony. "
Fair enough, everything else about her disgusts me!
So it’s “laughable” that a feminist thinks sexual assault includes taking away all options from a person so that the person has no choice but to have sex? What’s so laughable about that? This isn’t about thinking women are children. That’s a cop out. When you leave someone no choice but to have sex unwillingly, it IS an assault. It is rape. Rape doesn’t have to include physical violence in order to be rape.
It’s not laughable.
Oh, and anyone with a brain can see that this definition is not saying that buying dinner or flowers is akin to rape. That’s absurd. You men act so persecuted. How about driving her to a remote and secluded place in the middle of the night and threatening to leave her there if she doesn’t have sex with you? How about drugging her or getting her so drunk that she can’t think straight? It’s anything that would force a person to do something against their will. That is the key element. Against their will. No matter what it is. Or is it ok to make someone have sex with you when they don’t want to?
The only proper gender feminist approved sex is homosexual sex.
Male and female sex is patriarchal sex.
Patriarchal sex is rape.
All male / female sex is rape.
ANY QUESTIONS??
Jeanna, how does a heterosexual male protect himself when he breaks up with a sick / bi-polar/violent pig of a girlfriend, who can "on a whim".. say he raped her.
Are you suggesting heterosexual men no longer have legal protections any more from false rape accusations?? This is sending the message to young men,.. the only safe sex if with another guy??
Jeanna, to say that men/boys don't need some sort of protection against false rape accusers, is an act of willful ignorance, and you have not been paying attention.
Scott,
There's a huge difference between what you're describing--a crazy, vindictive bitch who wants to hurt a guy by falsely accusing him of rape, and a guy who makes a female who doesn't want him have sex. Taking away all options so a female has NO CHOICE is not ok. Convincing her to have sex with you, even if she's so-so on the idea, is totally different and I don't have a problem with that.
Jeanna, when a guy buys a girl stuff, In hopes he may have sex with her in the coming years, (if he keeps buying her things)..Is that not a form of prostitution?? Can a guy get his money and assets back after they break up??Can he call the police and say she swindled/stole them from him??
jeana said: "You men act so persecuted."
We are. When the legal system supports the FALSE Rape Accuser, doesn't press charges aginst her, she retains her anonymity and even receives support money from feminist organizations. That is what I call persecution against MEN, you feminist moron!
Jeanna..The big problem i have is when gender feminist perversion of our legal system...ENABLES SICK / VIOLENT/ PIGGISH WOMEN TO MAKE FALSE RAPE ACUSSATIONS WHENEVER THEY WANT, AND NOT BE CRIMINALLY CHARGED FOR ANYTHING!!
This is a poisin, and a perversion, and will reap only sick/ rotten fruits!!
'This definition is not saying that buying dinner or flowers is akin to rape.'
Sorry to contradict you, jeana, but that's exactly what it is saying. There are no two ways of reading the words 'any strategy'.
"How about driving her to a remote and secluded place in the middle of the night and threatening to leave her there if she doesn’t have sex with you? How about drugging her or getting her so drunk that she can’t think straight? It’s anything that would force a person to do something against their will. That is the key element. Against their will. No matter what it is. Or is it ok to make someone have sex with you when they don’t want to?"
Good grief. This a False Rape site dear, not a feminist victim blog. I have never met any man in my life that fits this description especially these days. Go complain to your 'sisters'.
Anonymous,
It’s not just “any strategy”. It’s “Any strategy which is designed to eliminate rejection or overcome someone's reluctance or indecision or non-participation or which reduces the other person's options is a strategy of sexual assault."
The only part of this I’d question is the middle part about “overcoming someone’s reluctance or indecision or non-participation”. Because that could be interpreted as normal male behavior.
And I gave you examples of what eliminating rejection and reducing options would be. There's nothing victimy in that. And those examples are not unheard of.
Scott, buying a girl stuff is not prostitution and no, you can’t report her to the police for swindling you. It is your choice to buy things, and if it doesn’t work, then try something else. You shouldn’t have to buy someone’s affections, anyway. Your sparkling personality should be good enough.
Jeana, the word 'or' doesn't admit two readings, either. This isn't a case of cummulative conditions: any of them will do. Thus, what is being said is any strategy designed to overcome indecision is akin to rape.
You say you'd question this part, and so you should. It is more than questionable, it is downright despicable and evil.
I don’t know I’d call it despicable or evil. Maybe “misguided”, although I don’t read as much nefariousness into it as all of you apparently do.
Jeana, call it 'misguided' if you will. After all you're not the one being targeted by this attempt to criminalize normal behaviour.
I happen to think that jailing innocent people is no trivial thing, and so I call it evil.
" when a guy buys a girl stuff, In hopes he may have sex with her in the coming years, (if he keeps buying her things)..Is that not a form of prostitution?? Can a guy get his money and assets back after they break up??Can he call the police and say she swindled/stole them from him??"
Spot on!
jeana,
using a different computer, eh?
As usual, she's arguing with herself, putting words in our mouths that only exist in her head. Typical feminist bullshit. They can't win arguments with us so they put up a straw man.
"You guys act so persecuted." Well duh. What do you call it when the goon squad chains you up and locks you in a government dungeon for no reason, based only the non-credible word of a proven liar? If women were going through half of what men are suffering silently there would be a revolution. But men think of other men in that situation as losers so justice never happens and this goes on and on.
"If women were going through half of what men are suffering silently there would be a revolution"
The last time a woman tried to be a man (Norah what's-her-name), she lasted for 18 months and then had a nervous breakdown. But hey, 'it's tough to be a woman'.
Norm,
I don't know what you're talking about.
Anonymous,
I’m putting no words in anyone’s mouth. If you can’t understand what I’m talking about, and it’s very simple, really, then there’s nothing I can do about it. I think I was perfectly clear.
jeana,
you're free to research it on your own. I think her last name was Vincenze or Vincent or something.
Actually Jeana, you're just wrong. We understand you perfectly. It's just that there isn't anything there to understand.
Norm,
You are correct. It is Norah Vincent. She spent 18 months as a man (dress, mannerism), and wrote a book about it. It is called "self made man", and is actually quite an interesting read.
What is best about it, is that she has admitted to just how difficult it is being a man in today's society.
It's so tough to be a man that you have a nervous breakdown? Or do you have a nervous breakdown because of the stress of leading a double life? I think acting like a man would be much harder for a woman because she didn't have a lifetime of preparation. But I wonder if it was easier or harder for her to get a date or if she had the kind of problems MRAs talk about.
Archivist, thanks. I obtained a little more info - it looks like she wrote the book, then had a breakdown, then wrote another book - about the breakdown. Does that sound right?
She definitely does say men are treated a lot more poorly than women, and that the idea of male privilege is nonsense.
A lot of times these types of breakdowns are 'delayed' - a person goes through a very stressful period, then they suddenly have to readjust to something new, for example getting discharged from the military.
It makes sense in this case for her breakdown to have been delayed in this manner. If she was under a lot of stress during the masquerade, for example from (as our resident idiot says) 'leading a double life', I suspect she would have failed somewhere during the 18 montsh - she would have given herself away.
What probably actually happened instead is that she had her own preconceived views disproven...she had bought into the b.s. that women are oppressed then found out it wasn't true. Then she wrote the book, then had a breakdown when she realized the totality of her experience and what it meant. Of course, also a factor must have been the accumulated effect of being treated like a man itself.
What do you think about all that, ren... excuse me, jeana?
The basic problem regarding all this is two-fold:
1) Viewing things through feminist-tinted glasses over the last few decades has essentially caused most people to become brainwashed, having rewritten history, etc. shoved down their throats.
and 2) we are too close to the reality to see it. This is a very important factor. If each person could just step back, even if only for a moment, and consider things, it is really quite obvious that men are treated poorly and held to higher standards as well. The problem is that when you try to explain this to someone, their hostility and disbelief at the mere suggestion kicks into high gear, and you are bound to get a hysterical argument from them. They simple cannot, or will not, calmly step back and look.
It all boils down to our innate propensity to 'big up' women and 'do down' men. We all carry this within us, it is genetic.
It's so tough to be a man that you have a nervous breakdown? Or do you have a nervous breakdown because of the stress of leading a double life? I think acting like a man would be much harder for a woman because she didn't have a lifetime of preparation. But I wonder if it was easier or harder for her to get a date or if she had the kind of problems MRAs talk about.
Still trying to figure out what the fuck this is supposed to mean.
I think what it means is jeana is messed up. Just my 2 cents.
"I wonder if it was easier or harder for her [Norah Vincent] to get a date ..."
Here is an anecdote I came across, perhaps someone can verify it but it sounds very credible:
Vincent, as a man, was chatting with a couple women in a bar. After a while she asked one of them out, and was declined. Now, knowing that women cannot handle rejection in dating situations, (and with Vincent later all but admitting that to be true), it is not surprising that she got upset at being turned down, so divulged to the women that she was actually a woman masquerading as a man and would they please oh pretty please go somewhere with her.
Vincent freely admits all this, which surprises me becasue she is a lesbian, and it has been my experience that virtually all lesbians, when you get down to it, absolutely hate men. Sorry if anyone out there has lesbian relatives or friends, but to run an experiment yourself try raising the issue of feminism, sex, or some related issue, state your perspective as a man, then see what kind of reaction you get. If they don't explode right away, just keep probing and eventually they will go off.
[Note: this is not true of most other women to anywhere near the extent that it is with lesbians. Of course the above experiment implies you do not mind severing a relationship with a friend or relative, getting shot, or etc.]
I think what it means is jeana is messed up. Just my 2 cents.
Gee you think so? Lol
Norm: do they say why they hate men so much? You would think that a gay woman would just enjoy her lifestyle and not even bother about men.
Norm: “What do you think about all that, ren... excuse me, jeana?”
I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean.
Anonymous:
If you don’t understand what the fuck I’m saying, then try reading S L O W L Y.
I don't understand why you people keep paying attention to these feminist trolls who don't support anybody here and could care less about False Rape. Ignore them.
What a bitch!
I’m a bitch? Really? Oh, I see. You can say anything you want and I should not respond. If you people who are too lazy to even type an identity could bother to take the time to read what I wrote, you’d see that I did no trolling. Unless you consider a troll to be anyone who disagrees with you.
You can respond, but if I read it REALLY SLOWLY and it's still as asinine and pointless as it was the first time, what should I do then?
If I were you I'd stick with Mr. Chivalry's board; he'll give you the coddling that you crave. The False Rape blog is a tougher environment for femtrolls.
Jeana is one of Sacks' trolls - she has no honor, no honesty and no intellect. She can not be made to admit to what she knows is the truth -you would have a better chance of convincing David Duke to vote for Barack Obama.
Jeana,
It's in reference to me lol.
By “tougher environment”, do you mean you get to swear and say whatever you want? Is this supposed to be intimidating to me?
And I am hardly coddled at Glenn Sacks. In fact, I get deleted way too much. I guess they think MRAs are little wuss-boys who can’t take being questioned. Sort of like some of you here.
Jeana,
I’m a bitch? Really? Oh, I see. You can say anything you want and I should not respond. If you people who are too lazy to even type an identity could bother to take the time to read what I wrote, you’d see that I did no trolling. Unless you consider a troll to be anyone who disagrees with you.
As someone who's been there, I agree with you completely. I read the comments under this topic, and you didn't even post anything that warrented such an outrage or being called a b*tch.
You would think that a gay woman would just enjoy her lifestyle and not even bother about men.
Isn't that what most of them do?
Good grief. This a False Rape site dear, not a feminist victim blog. I have never met any man in my life that fits this description especially these days. Go complain to your 'sisters'.
A site that's discussion sexual assault at the moment. She just gave more accurate examples of what the original quote was most likely talking about. It's good that you never met any man that fits that description. That doesn't mean that they don't exist. I never met women who fit the descriptions of those you all criticize but I don't deny that they exist.
The non-intimidating word is bitch, not b*tch.
And I am hardly coddled at Glenn Sacks. In fact, I get deleted way too much. I guess they think MRAs are little wuss-boys who can’t take being questioned. Sort of like some of you here.
* * *
And how did you come to that conclusion? If I call you a beeyotch and you spaz out over it that hardly proves that I'm a wuss-boy. It just proves that you're weak and obsessed with MRAs to the point that you spend most of your free time drooling all over them on their blogs and boards.
Women lie about rape
The great majority of all false rape crimes are committed by females. When boys/men are falsely accused, the girls/women are most often the perpetrators. They are usually not charged with the crime and are able to maintain their anonymity.
False Rape confines women
When some women lie about rape and when 80% of those who are falsely accused know the woman who accused them, it becomes virtually impossible to distinguish women who are safe from women who are dangerous, women who can be trusted from women who can't, women who will lie about rape from women who won't. The result is a society with its guard up, where relationships with women are approached with fear and mistrust, where intimacy is limited by the constant threat of falsified rape, and where all women are labeled 'potential false rape accusers'.
Women can stop false rape
False Rape is a choice women make to use sex as a weapon for power and control. For false rape to stop, women who lie about rape must be empowered to make different choices. All women can play a vital role in this process by challenging false rape supporting attitudes and behaviors and raising awareness about the damaging impact of lying about rape. Every time a woman's voice joins those of men in speaking out against false rape, the world becomes safer for us all.
Women know survivors
At some point in every woman's life, someone close to her will likely disclose that they are a survivor of false rape and ask for help. Women must be prepared to respond with care, sensitivity, compassion, and understanding. Ignorance on the part of women about the situation of false rape and its impact can only hinder the healing process and may even contribute to the survivor's feeling further victimized. A supportive female presence during a survivor's recovery, however, can be invaluable.
Women can stop false rape [accusations]
How is this any different than saying that men can stop rape?
It's COMPLETELY different. A false rape accusation is a process, not a violent act that can committed in seclusion and over in ten minutes. Without the cooperation and enablement of literally dozens of people in the government, the media, and in other institutions a false rape prosecution is IMPOSSIBLE.
This is what is so insidious about this crime: it is a crime committed by the state and by society against an entire class of people -- namely MEN. And fathers and husbands are targetted for special abuse by the system.
I drool over MRAs and spend all my time at their boards? LOL. You guys are just so different from regular guys. It’s interesting seeing how you think.
And I don’t spaz out over anything. Call me whatever you want. Just don’t cry and complain and get me deleted if I say the same thing to you (or even something like “delusional”). THAT’S what I mean by wussy.
Anonymous,
Regarding what you said about false rape accusations, change “women” to “men” and “false rape” to “rape”. Women usually know their attackers, men commit the majority of rapes, men lie about raping, it is difficult for women to know which men will force sex on them and which won’t, men use rape as a weapon of power and control, men can decrease rapes by changing their attitudes and behaviors and raising awareness about how bad rape really is (like by not making rape jokes, by not minimizing or dismissing the trauma rape victims feel, by realizing that shows like the Family Guy that think rape is a big joke really isn’t).
And I’ve never met anyone who was falsely accused of rape. I do know females who were raped, however. But men could be sensitive any not judgmental to women who were raped (i.e. don’t tell them how they should feel or what they should have done).
It is interesting the parallels you draw between rape and false rape and rape victims and false rape victims. Incidentally, I don’t know any female who would approve of another who falsely accused a guy of rape or who would think that it was funny or that the guy deserved it.
@jeana...
Typical feminist twaddle.
Yes the majority of rapes are committed by men. The majority of rape victims are also male.
The "power and control" position is a womens' argument. It is women who use sex as a means of controlling others. Pure projection on your part and that of feminism.
This position...
like by not making rape jokes, by not minimizing or dismissing the trauma rape victims feel, by realizing that shows like the Family Guy that think rape is a big joke really isn’t...
is farcical.
It is male victims who are routinely subjected to
please delete prior. Clicked wrong button!
@jeana...
Typical feminist twaddle.
Yes the majority of rapes are committed by men. The majority of rape victims are also male.
The "power and control" position is a womens' argument. It is women who use sex as a means of controlling others. Pure projection on your part and that of feminism.
This position...
like by not making rape jokes, by not minimizing or dismissing the trauma rape victims feel, by realizing that shows like the Family Guy that think rape is a big joke really isn’t...
is farcical.
It is male victims who are routinely subjected to jokes and all round mirth. It is women who applaud and celebrate female abusers openly and publicly and in very large numbers.
BTW I do know a man who was falsely accused, convicted and imprisoned. The false accuser did it because he DIDN'T want to have sex with her.
Rape is a bad crime, but false rape accusations really have more to do with power and control than does rape. Rape is mostly just about a man who happens to be a criminal wanting sex and behaving extremely inappropriately to get it. It is not a political statement.
But support for false rape accusations has everything to do with class warfare and getting revenge on men in general. It is not akin to a thief stealing something.
gwallan,
Men are the majority of rape victims?
“It is women who applaud and celebrate female abusers openly and publicly and in very large numbers.”
Oh come on. In very large numbers?
And I don’t know what is farcical about that I said. Seems reasonable to me.
I do agree that people make jokes about men having sex forced on them, as if they’re supposed to enjoy it. And that’s wrong.
And I think you can click the trash can under what you post and delete your own post.
I don’t think false rape accusations are political statements. I think women who make them (actual false rape accusations) are doing it for selfish and vindictive reasons.
And I think people support women who make accusations because they believe them. Not because they want to get revenge on men in general. Although perhaps sometimes women are believed too easily and with questionable reports.
Yes, jeana, the majority of rape victims are male. Many of them are raped on a daily basis by multiple individuals. Some of those victims are actually in this predicament because a woman lied. They are often deserving victims of course.
Secondly your attention has previously been drawn to the celebration of rapists and mutilators and murderers by large all-female audiences. That it's even acceptable on international free to air television and presented by high profile feminists. Your attention has also been drawn to about a million Australian women sponsoring a Californian female child sex tourist in her exploits in my country.
Stop the bullshit jeana. Women wet themselves at the idea of a woman abusing any male. They prove it time and again. They cheer shamelessly.
Ask Oprah. She's got it well worked out and plays up to it at every opportunity. Ask any advertising firm. They know what appeals to their predominantly female demographics. The womens' magazine publishers in my country have it well engraved too given New Idea's behaviour over the past decade. A woman grooming a fourteen year old kid for sex is no impediment to them giving her tens of thousands of dollars and glossy "wow, look at my gorgeous little slaveboy" treatment.
These things do happen openly and in large numbers, often for the purpose of "entertainment". The inherent sadism is lost on most, yourself included.
Jeana does't strike me as bitchy or trollish, but I do find her views distasteful. What she's saying, in effect, is that we men should take it easy because feminists like the one quoted don't really mean what they write.
I don't think they are that dumb; I think they mean it, all right; and what they mean, and mean to do, and are doing even now, is purposeful, well thought out and evil.
Most false rape accusations are not political statements, but neither is rape in most cases. However small the proportion of "political" accusations may be, it is still far greater than the proportion of "political" rapes.
What is nearly always political is the process following the accusation. Once the accusation is made, it becomes political even if it was not political before. The woman making it becomes suddenly "all women", and thus a presumed victim; while the accused becomes "all men", and thus guilty by definition.
Jeana is here to change the topic from men's rights and false accusation to herself and to waste as much of everybody's time as possible. She ruins other blogs in the same way.
When are MRAs going to stop being so naive about feminist trolls? The feminists are at least intelligent enough to not allow men (much less MRAs) to come in and mouth off, so why do MRA blogs ALWAYS tolerate feminist trolls?
It's okay to be a little bit biased in favor of men once in a while, you know. We don't have to hold the door open for these bitchy trolls.
'The feminists are at least intelligent enough to not allow men (much less MRAs) to come in and mouth off.'
Do you call that intelligent? It sounds dumb to me. Lacking contradiction, all they have to feed on is one another's thoughts: an endless loop of positive feedback that makes them crazier and crazier.
Let's be more intelligent than the feminists and tolerate them, even if they are trolls. They will not only keep us sane, but also end up making our points for us.
There's not much point to bickering with them, though, and keeping the trolls around is a great way to alienate loyal MRAs, the people who should feel most welcome.
Besides, how many feministas do you need for a false rape blog? One should be enough, if you need any.
The best way to get rid of them is to completely ignore them. It's the same in health clubs, social gatherings, sports events, etc. Never ever give eye contact.
RM
This is the internet, though. Not giving them eye contact doesn't work when you're online.
Ah yes, but that's why I said:
The best way to get rid of them is to completely ignore them.
That means ignoring their posts. :)
RM
“It's the same in health clubs, social gatherings, sports events, etc. Never ever give eye contact.”
Because if you do, we will zap you with our laser vision and turn you into a zombie.
Ignore me if you like.
“Women wet themselves at the idea of a woman abusing any male.”
Not when it comes to rape. And I wouldn’t exactly say women “wet themselves”. Women might like when other women get the upper hand, but most do not like hearing about a woman hurting a man. Really.
@jeana...
Not when it comes to rape.
I wish I could agree with you. Unfortunately the thousands in Oprah's audiences standing and cheering those rapists and other abusers paints a very different picture.
You need to remember that I was abused early in my life and have had that lifetime to learn about the attitudes in our communities. I can describe explicitely the reactions forthcoming from both genders to these instances.
You, on the other hand, have never had any motivation to even look nor have you any capacity to recognise what may be problematic in those community reactions.
A lot of people supported Andrea Yates when she murdered her children in the bathtub, so it's no surprise that women who have sex with their underaged students don't offend many people. When men do the same thing it's a different story, of course.
Penis Enlargement Vimax, Vigrx Plus, Prosolution may be up best penis enlargement pills available, and can increase the size of the penis between 3-4 inches with as little as 2 weeks. http://www.pill-penisenlargement.com
http://www.bestpenisproducts.com is an all-natural, safe, and guaranteed alternative to painful and dangerous Penis enlargement methods such as surgery, straps, or rings. Penis enlargement Pills will immediately boost your performance, improve your orgasms, and increase the frequency of your orgasms within just a few weeks!
To understand radical feminists, you have to understand their mindset and where they are coming from.
They tend to be generally um.. ugly.. who have been rejected by men over and over and harbor deep grudge against the male gender. Their entire lives are spent demonizing men and getting liberal legislators to pass as anti male legislation as possible and liberal judges to rule against men in as many cases as possible.
Radical feminists are a pitiful bunch.
Post a Comment