PSA: No, Men, You Cannot Rape A Child Even If She Is Hot And Slutty And Only Says No Twice

[niyad]

PSA: No, Men, You Cannot Rape A Child Even If She Is Hot And Slutty And Only Says No Twice


It sure is hard to know when you can rape (or, as they say at Yale, have “nonconsensual sex” with) a kid, isn’t it? We know the Catholic Church has a hell of a time figuring it out. Like, sure, there are “laws” about how you’re not supposed to have sex with someone who does not consent to having sex with you. And there are “laws” about how a minor cannot give consent because she or he is, you know, a kid. But those are really more like suggested guidelines, aren’t they? Like, okay, yeah, you probably shouldn’t fuck a kid, but what if she’s a totally hot kid and she’s wearing make-up and she runs with a fast crowd and she’s, like, TOTALLY asking for it, you can tell, she’s got that look? Talk about a gray area!


. . . . .





Since it’s just so hard to know when you’re not supposed to rape a child (wink wink) and when you’re not supposed to rape a child but no seriously, DON’T DO THAT, here is a handy little guide to help those men who are so easily confused. Sure, it’s a little complex to comprehend at first, but if you commit it to memory — or hey, tattoo it on your dick if you’re not that good with memorization — you should be able to navigate these oh-so-muddy waters. And, bonus, it doesn’t apply just to fucking kids. It’s a universal catch-all rule that applies to sex with anyone.

So here it is: When can you have nonconsensual sex with someone? NEVER. Not even if she’s really hot or mature for her age. Not even if she’s wearing make-up. Not even if she has older friends. Not even if she’s “egging” you on. Not even if she’s drunk. Not even if she’s a total slutbag who has had sex with, like, a million other dudes so one more shouldn’t make a difference. Not even if you’re really horny. Not even if she only says no twice. Not even if it’s a day that ends in “y” or pigs flew by your window or you watched some porno where the chick said no but seemed to like it or your mother didn’t love you or some Republican said there are varying degrees of rape and some of it isn’t really rape or you think you can get away with it and no one will ever know.

Because if you do sex to someone who does not give you her permission to do sex to her — or cannot give you her permission because of how she is a child — you are a rapist and a bad person and if there is in fact a hell, you will burn in it. Even if a judge takes sympathy on you and the legal system lets you off the hook with a warning (or, in Yale’s case, a written reprimand). It is wrong and bad, and you are wrong and bad, and seriously, it should not be that difficult to understand that you should only fuck grown adult women (or men, whatever floats your boat, we don’t judge — UNLESS YOU’RE RAPING SOMEONE) who can and do give their consent for you to fuck them.

There. Hope that clears things up. You’re welcome.

Read more at http://wonkette.com/524919/psa-no-men-you-cannot-rape-a-child-even-if-she-is-hot-and-slutty-and-only-says-no-twice#A7uiSrAeR5jQSkVg.99

[niyad]

2. right on schedule

[Kurska]

3. Yeah and I stand by it, the title is stupid.

There is absolutely no reason to direct an article title like that. Unless you objective is to go "Boooooooo, men".

In which case, have fun. As a gay man, I actually rather like men.

[niyad]

4. take it up with the author.

[Kurska]

7. You posted it, buddy.

And then reflexively defended it.

[niyad]

8. take it up with the author.

[Kurska]

11. If I walked into you house and dumped a pail of dog's waste in your living room

What would you say if I said "take it up with the dog"?

Ain't no response coming to this one. Well least, one that ain't boiler plate.

[NaturalHigh]

21. Excellent response!

[Kurska]

25. Thanks!

In my better moments, I'm almost clever.

Almost.

[marym625]

44. As much as I understand what you are saying

It would be very difficult to write it directed at only men and boys that have this attitude. There are way too many of them. And with these things happening and being defended, more and more often, more and more men and teen boys are feeling justified in their actions because a child, girl, young women dresses a certain way, looks a certain way, is in a particular place.

Look at how much crap has been thrown at all women who accuse a man of rape because of the faulty article about rape at a college. The number of accusations against all women was astronomical.

If you want to complain about the wording of the article, go for it. But how about the substance? Why not address the fact we're moving backwards and men get away with rape, even of children, because of this growing attitude?

[Kurska]

46. Rape is incredibly important topic and so is consent.

Which is why I don't like the article. I don't mind talking about rape. I think we really ought to talk about rape. What I mind is when that conversation is conducted in such a way where it is clear the author just wants to mean and insulting rather than communicative, especially when the target isn't clearly just rapists, but appears to be every man on the planet.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leah-bakely/why-every-college-student_b_5194039.html

Good example of the exact opposite. It addresses all college students, without being insulting or turning anyone off.

[marym625]

51. As I said, I understand your complaint

But to just reply to a post that only addresses how it was written and not what it's about is not helpful. It's what my grandmother would say, "called me up to call me down. "

Enough said. I understand what you are saying.

Thanks for the link

[kcr]

101. Well, of course it's important. But it's MORE important to make sure headlines are worded correctly

I, for one, applaud your vigilance! One day everyone will see how important that cause is. I mean, yeah, rape is important too, and I share your concern about that, obvs. But clear and accurate wording in internet posts is so important. Never let up! Keep up the good fight, Kurska. You've got your priorities straight. Stay strong!

[whathehell]

129. LOL.

[marym625]

176. Haha!

[Ken Burch]

114. You're saying that women have no right to be angry about this.

Last edited Fri Feb 6, 2015, 06:19 PM - Edit history (1)

A non-angry article on child rape would be too bland and meaningless to say anything that mattered.

Would you be ok with people complaining about LGBTQ rage over homophobia?

Or Jewish rage about antisemitism?

Child rape is just as evil as both of those things.

And men, as a group, really can't ever be all that victimized. As a gender, we still pretty much freaking rule the world and have more privileges than anyone else. We start the wars-we order the mass layoffs-we carry out the mass exterminations. Men.
So no, as a gender, it's not ever going to be possible that we'll be persecuted.

[niyad]

126. thank you so much!!

[smirkymonkey]

139. +1000

[marym625]

177. Bravo!

[mythology]

181. Emotional responses rarely generate much positivity

For example, in personal relationships does screaming at each other work better than sitting down and calmly talking an issue out?

That said, I'm not offended by this as a man, but mostly it's because I find the article to be insipid. Yes, the anecdotes she recounts are bad, but there's nothing in this that tells me the frequency of these sort of arguments working, or if that frequency is going up, going down or staying the same. That information would be helpful in determining the nature of the problem.

For an on point example:

The "Don't Be That Guy" campaign was first unveiled in 2010 and targeted alcohol-related assaults. The campaign has now expanded to include sexual assault of all types, including same-sex assault.

One of the newly designed posters shows two men sitting on a bed with one man's hand of the chest of the other. The text below reads "It's not sex...when he changes his mind."

According to the Globe and Mail the number of reported sexual assaults fell by 10 per cent last year in Vancouver, after the ads were featured around the city. It was the first time in several years that there was a drop in sexual assault activity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/12/01/edmonton-sexual-assault-awareness-campaign-dont-be-that-guy_n_2224228.html

Which of these has been proven to do something that reduced the number of reported rapes? Oh yes, not the one that is ranting and raving. Evidence, it isn't just for convicting rapists, it can be used to prevent rape too.

Ranting and raving feels good, but it's rarely productive.

[guillaumeb]

141. targeting every man...

on the planet. Hardly. I am a male and I do not feel targeted. I fantasize, as I am sure most people do, but fantasy is never reality. Role playing in a consensual relationship between TWO ADULTS is fine. Anything else is a crime of violence. Real simple.

Rapists are violent pigs who have demonstrated by their behavior that they do not care about anyone but themselves when it comes to their wants. Their desires come before all else. That type of person is called a sociopath. They need reeducation and restraining unless and until they can demonstrate self control.

[Snow Leopard]

171. we are not moving backwards is the point

OVER 60 PERCENT DECLINE IN SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST FEMALES
FROM 1995 TO 2010

WASHINGTON – From 1995 to 2005, sexual violence against U.S. female residents age 12 or older declined 64 percent from 5.0 per 1,000 females to 1.8, and remained unchanged through 2010, according to a report, Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010, released today by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).

[marym625]

172. I will wait for statistics since 2010

And attitudes toward women are moving backward. All violent crime has declined.

How do you get that this post is about attitudes toward women has improved?

[Snow Leopard]

173. gone down 30%

since 1995 to 2013

You say that attitudes towards women are moving backward, but what evidence is there for that?

[marym625]

174. You didn't answer my question

First, though like all violent crime rape and sexual assault declined since 1995 to 2010. But it remained unchanged from 2005 - 2010. From BJS:

From 1995 to 2005, the total rate of sexual
violence committed against U.S. female residents age 12 or older declined 64% from a peak of 5.0 per 1,000 females in 1995 to 1.8 per 1,000 females in 2005 (figure 1, appendix table 1). It then remained unchanged from 2005 to 2010.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317

Statistics aren't out yet, in detail, after 2010. And since the FBI finally changed the "forcible" and definition of rape, I am sure that we'll see an increase after 2013.

Rape is also the most under reported crime.

How exactly am I supposed to give you statistics on attitude? I would start with yours.

[Snow Leopard]

186. you made an assertion

I simply asked what evidence you have of that assertion. An "I don't know, it is really just how I feel" is fine for an answer if that is what it is.

Not sure what about my attitude is troubling you. Is it because I questioned you? The numbers I quoted ran from 95-2013 so while iirc 09-10 were flat or increased, the trend line as -30% to 2013.

[WhiteTara]

108. Wait a minute, buddy.

This is a news posting community. We post titles as written by the headline writers (and we all know many are poorly worded.) So please stop attacking this POSTER, who is NOT the author.

Try to be civil or MIRT will show you the door. I write this post as a courtesy to you. I'm not much on alerting, but you are definitely skating on thin ice.

[marym625]

175. +1

[Ken Burch]

112. There's no way you can seriously argue that men are collectively victimized by this title.

And it's silly to compare the use of one word that bothers you for no real good reason to pouring dogshit in someone's living room.


Have you even read the article? The article is what matters, not the title.

Besides, the kind of men who the article calls out are almost always gay bashers as well, so why are yo worried about hurting THEIR feelings.

It's simple-if you aren't a rapist, this article isn't attacking you. She had to say "men", because almost no women are rapists-just as there are very few black Klan members or Jewish Nazis.

[liberalhistorian]

136. The cynical part of me,

the jaded woman who's simply just seen and heard too much over her fifty years, is thinking that maybe he's focusing on the title because he just doesn't like or care about the message. Hmmm.

[Ken Burch]

138. Sounds about right.

And this man, even as a gay man(which you would think would mean he'd be free of sexism)can't stand it that the tone of the article wasn't deferential to the male gender.

Weird how the power of the patriarchy can even mess with the views of people who are its victims.

[liberalhistorian]

135. You consider an advisory on how

not to rape and why to be a "bucket of waste"? Really? I guess we all have our priorities in life. And way to miss the real point. Sheesh.

[Warren DeMontague]

73. yeah

that was sort of the point, wasn't it.

[phleshdef]

37. Aren't like, literally, 99%+ of convicted rapists men?

Why you so mad bro?

[Kurska]

55. Did they ever teach you in school

99% of X maybe be Y, but if you think that means 100% of Y are X you've just failed this test.

I think that was elementary school.

[CTyankee]

105. Why not just respond "I stand four square against rape and rape apologists"?

That way, you make a strong statement of your beliefs and you look admirable. What is happening in the debate in this thread comes across as defensive, which is not a good place to be. It is what the men in my family, and I include my husband, my son and two sons in law, would quite naturally respond. Why say more? It only weakens -- and does not strengthen -- what you are arguing.

A word to the wise...

[AtheistCrusader]

38. I may be male, but

I'm smart enough to put two and two together and realize that headline is rhetorical, and not inclusive of me.

(Because I am not a rapist.)

I'm also smart enough to realize that there are enough men out there with a damaged concept of 'consent' that such a bombastic headline might be productive.

My feefees are not so sensitive that I can't figure out the unspoken 'some percentage of men' undertone, which is accurate enough.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

76. Pretty much

says it.

[sheshe2]

81. Bravo!

[Dorian Gray]

86. Exactly

You get it!

[Ken Burch]

111. The title wasn't saying "every man alive" is a rapist.

Wonkette said "Men" because almost all rapists are men (something neither you or I, as men, can honorably dispute.

And did you really mean to equate anger at male child rapists with antisemitism?

Jews were persecuted, dude-rapists aren't. You just insulted every Jew alive with that analogy.

There is no good reason for you to try to derail this thread over a word-choice that doesn't matter.

[flvegan]

5. As a man, this appears addressed to me. Should I be thanking you?

You said, "you're welcome" so I wonder if that's what I should do. What a hateful fucking thing to post in such a general fashion. Jesus.

Go ahead, OP, take offense.

[niyad]

6. you took offense, and blasted me for someone else's words. please notice the attribution at the end

[Kurska]

9. "I'm not responsible for it!"

"I Just posted it entirely without comment!".

Come on

[flvegan]

10. You posted it.

What else you got?

[Bonobo]

12. [PSA] Vegans, stop being such assholes!

Oh... don't be offended fivegan. I am only referring to Vegans that are assholes.

[flvegan]

18. Except I AM an asshole. Right? Sigh, Bonobo, I'm so confused.

[Bonobo]

29. You cannot prove that I meant to imply that. nt

[Kurska]

13. Apparently, the same thing over and over again.

Check up thread.

As if people can't read into what that actually means namely "I still like it and the tone, but can't defend it so I'm going to pretend my fingers just magically slipped 20 times and this just whimsically ended up on DU."

[Ken Burch]

115. What matters is the truth of the article, not the tone.

No man can ever be entitled to lecture a woman on what tone she takes in an article about rape.

[nomorenomore08]

143. Even if I may not be so absolutist about that, I agree that focusing on the "tone" misses the point

by a mile. And as usual, we get bogged down arguing over semantics and hurt fee-fees rather than the topic at hand.

[WhiteTara]

110. In what play did these words of Shakespeare appear?

Me thinks they doth protest too much.

[niyad]

137. exactly!

[nomorenomore08]

144. +2

[sheshe2]

15. No flvegan, it is not addressed to you.

It says men that rape, those guilty of rape and those that condone rape. It surely does not say ALL men.

[Kurska]

16. Where?

All I see is "No, Men" then proceeding to address the group. It is a literally lecture towards all men about not raping children.

I'm sure any man who was thinking about raping a child will be set straight by this article. There is no way this entire thing was just an exercise in being mean spirited to men.

Nope

No way

[alp227]

39. it's not calling men rapists. It's telling men to stop JUSTIFYING rape.

the exact definition of rape culture is the "not my problem" attitude that shuts down discussion about rape.

[nomorenomore08]

145. Justifying, downplaying, dismissing, any of the ways in which we do harm by omission. n/t

[Ken Burch]

116. No man other than you is taking the article as male-bashing.

You're belaboring one word for no reason.

What matters is the issue, not the tone. She shouldn't have had to worry about appeasing tender male sensitivity.

If she'd phrased it an other way, the article would have been too safe and bland to matter.

[nomorenomore08]

146. "the article would have been too safe and bland to matter."

Very well said.

[flvegan]

17. As a man, I'm obviously in many eyes am an idiot based on that. Bigotry be damned.

Spell out what you just said, highlight the portions that get specific like you say. Please. It's a legit request, since you addressed me personally.

Thanks.

[Kurska]

19. Single line 75% of the "men are all rapists spiel"

"those men who are so easily confused"

There. See? Better.

[LeftyMom]

26. Maybe you should.

You know why education about consent has to be addressed to men generally and not to rapists?

Because the men who are a problem either don't realize they're the fucking problem or don't want to hear about it.

The person who raped me absolutely doesn't think he's a rapist. I guarantee it. We'd had sex plenty of times! We were married. A little thing like me being feverish and on the edge of consciousness wasn't an issue because god damn it, he has needs and what the hell else is my body for? He totally isn't a rapist, rapists drag strangers into alleys! And unfortunately he isn't even close to alone in this kind of thinking- surveys of young men all the time show that they're clear that rape is bad, as a general concept, but really, really unclear on the specifics of how consent works and whether they always need to get it. They can't be peeled off separately and remedially educated on Treating Women Like People 101 because they don't wear identifying badges.

So if constant repetition that "hey dudes, consent is a bare minimum standard, always" is annoying or offensive or hurts your feelings because you feel that it's fucking obvious and you're being spoken down to? I get that. That must suck. But some other dudes- especially younger dudes- DON'T FUCKING GET IT and that causes real women in the real world a lot of pain, and if that blunt, annoying repetition aimed at the male half of the human species gets it through some of the thicker heads? It's totally fucking worth it.

So yes, maybe you should be thanking the OP for taking on a serious and widespread social problem that effects people that you love and care about. Even if you are understandably skeeved by being addressed along with people you'd rather fire into the sun.

[Kurska]

31. The OP is written in the most dismissive and insulting manner possible.

Do you honestly think any rapists is actually going to read that and go "Dang, it is WRONG to rape children? Better stop." It is pure derision and mocking that makes no attempt to distinguish between rapists and not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leah-bakely/why-every-college-student_b_5194039.html

This is a good example of an article. It is actually addressed at college students, in a way that, shocker here, doesn't turn every single one of them off in the very title.

[LeftyMom]

32. You mean it reads like every other article on Wonkette? That's shocking.

I'm sure nobody reads one edition of "Sundays with the Christianists" and decides that hey, fundamentalist Christianity is bullshit and maybe they should check out the Unitarians.

Also, for future reference: I was talking to flvegan. He's pretty awesome and I don't mind having this discussion with him. If I wanted to talk to you about this issue (NOPE) I'd have replied to one of your posts.

[Kurska]

33. Literally what

You're defending it as if it will have some kind of an impact on rapists. Then you immediately back track and go "actually is is Wonkette so it is just meant to be mean and insulting to everyone". Make up your mind.

If you wanted to have a conversation with just fivegan, you should have personal messaged him. Otherwise, your post is open for anyone who wants to respond to respond.

You have nearly 50,000 posts, you should know about the PM function.

[LeftyMom]

36. I'm addressing content. You're upset about Wonkette's house style.

I definitely think anybody who wants to address consent in any manner they can get people to read is doing some good. I'm also telling you not to take the tone of Wonkette articles too seriously, because they use the same tone for everything. These are not contradictory messages.

FYI: it's totally obvious that this is tone trolling, because the same clique who show up whenever there's a 100% serious thread about the abuse of women to try to split hairs are doing the same thing here.

[Kurska]

41. Tone is part of messaging.

You're saying it is an important message. I point out the tone makes the message completely counterproductive or worthless. Actually, I'd say it is very counterproductive. Imagine the kind of person who does need to hear that message about consent (a confused young person heading off to college so full of hollywood and culture they think a bunch of dumb shit about consent) and what it means. Now imagine their exposure to the idea is that article.

Bet my bottom dollar it would completely turn them off not only that article, but make them less likely to listen the next time it is brought up.

But who cares, way more important we be mean to random clickers than actually go through the effort of facilitating education about consent.

[F4lconF16]

45. Take a look at these. Might help you understand why people get tired of hearing "Not all men."

http://www.ideas-idees.ca/blog/social-power-inequality-and-tone-voice-argument
http://groupthink.jezebel.com/on-tone-policing-why-its-bullshit-and-why-you-need-to-1148310719
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument

The first two are actually pretty good reads; I would really suggest reading them, even if you don't like what they say. The second two are definitions and examples of what you're doing.

[Kurska]

50. Tone does matter, sorry it does.

"But being emotional does not make one’s points any less valid."

For instance, this is broadly true. Emotion can be used to great effect in messaging. However, when the emotion is ANGER at the target audience. That emotion is going make the message way less effective. Saying something true in a way that makes people not want to believe (when there are way better ways of saying it), does no one good.

"Anger is NOT counterproductive; being “nice” is counterproductive. Nobody was ever given rights by politely asking for them. Politeness is nothing but a set of behavioral expectations that is enforced upon marginalized people."

People get rights by portraying themselves as sympathetic. That was the major lesson of the civil rights movement. The idea that you get rights by yelling really loudly at people (in the form of blog posts on the internet) is asinine. For instance, studies have shown the most effective way to increase support for gay marriage is one on one pleasant conversations with an actual gay person about the damage that not being allowed to marry does to them.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/marriage-equality/2014/12/11/study-gay-canvassers-persuade-voters-marriage-equality

You really think it wouldn't have mattered if the canvasser had burst in and started yelling the exact same script?

How you say it is just as important as what you say if you're actually trying to make an impact. If you just want to circle the wagons and scream into an echo-chamber, then it doesn't matter, because you weren't ever actually going to do anything with your voice.

[boston bean]

90. You seem quite emotional about this.

And your words, not just your tone (which is irritating to me at least) means I should just dismiss what you have to say.

Ok! Will do, since you say so.

[nomorenomore08]

149. ...

[nomorenomore08]

147. "ANGER at the target audience... is going to make the message way less effective."

You must really hate James Baldwin, then.

[Ken Burch]

117. The article only attacked rapists.

You just want women to defer to men.

And you'd probably have given the "don't be angry" speech to blacks fighting to end Jim Crow.

[Ken Burch]

118. The other title is too meaningless and without dignity to matter.

That title would have been even less likely to get rapists not to rape.

It's comparable to asking opponents of the Vietnam War to hold up signs saying "Would You Please Kill Slightly Fewer Vietnamese Children, Mr. Nixon, Sir? That Is, If You're Not Too Busy To Change That This Month? We Didn't Hurt Your Feelings By Quietly Aking That, Did We?"

It's as though you're saying women have no right to express anger about this.

[flvegan]

35. Read this, still doubtful.

Addressing the class for one idiot is no way to run a room. It turns the rest off/against.

The mirror turned back wouldn't be fair, in context.

To wit: If I were to &quot take) on a serious and widespread social problem..." I'd not fucking shame half the people I'd want on my side, the millions save the dubious hundreds. Just saying. But this is DU and everything is...nevermind.

Thanks duly withheld.

[LeftyMom]

40. "Addressing the class for one idiot" is something we do all the time as a society.

When little dude was a baby he got WIC (supplemental nutrition benefits) and every time I went to pick up I had to fill out a form with his current height and weight, the last time he'd seen a doctor, and a long survey about what I was feeding him. And on this stupid, annoying form I had to tell people that I wasn't feeding him jello water, karo, soda, and I forget what other weird shit. Every time. It was stupid and condescending and more than a bit annoying and I know I was huffy about it.

But they ask because somebody, somewhere, needs to be told not to do that, and that person isn't wearing a "I'm a dangerous moron" warning label.

We can stop the lectures about consent when we have a society where rape isn't quite so shockingly common.

[flvegan]

56. ...and it's no way to run the room.

I'm going to say something very unpopular here:

Consider your audience.

I know, it's a shocking game changer that nobody saw coming. I remember a time when I (because we're all making things personal here tonight, so it's about the enduser and not the topic) was one of the most outspoken men here in favor of all things feminism (probably an offensive term now, go figure). I'm not now. Not here. Out there, in the real world, yes. Here? No.

Wonder why. I'm audience too.

I can remember, and then I'm going to bed, going to a dog-racing protest. Here I am, The Big Vegan, amongst all these other animal people. Vegans, vegetarians, dog rescuers, greyhound activists. The vegans got after the vegetarians for maybe wearing leather. The vegetarians got after the dog rescuer/greyhound folks for eating McNuggets before/after the protest. Standing among the 50 or 60 folks, I shamed them.

Stop, you idiots. Those dogs, in there, don't care about your leather shoes. Nor your hamburger. THOSE animals are your clients today. Don't fucking shame your allies, ever. We can fight about leather another day. Today is for them.

Don't ever shame your allies. Regardless of what we might do as a society.

[LeftyMom]

61. You're actually missing the moral of your own parable:

It's not about you.

If the point is to improve the lives of women, then whether or not some feminists on DU piss you the fuck off isn't important. (Hell, some feminists on DU piss me the fuck off.) The important thing is advocating for women.

If you're getting distracted from that important goal- and in a society where one in four women will be raped it's an important goal- because your ego is wounded by messages you don't feel exclude you sufficiently, you're no better than the activists who wanted to discuss shoe materials and lunch choices instead of picketing the dog track.

[flvegan]

62. You should scroll back up. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

78. So it's okay for society to remind Muslims that they shouldn't kill people over cartoons, then.

[Bonobo]

79. Your plan will be handily defeated by an internet meme saying "Not All Muslims". nt

[Warren DeMontague]

80. I suspect there is some complicated algorithm which can justify bemoaning the broad-brushing of one

group, one week, then the next week justify doing the exact same damn thing to a different group.

It's expressed elegantly by the equation (h)y*p+o/(cr)i*s=y

[LeftyMom]

123. When 1/4 of cartoonists suffer violence, yeah, we probably should.

Make sure to let us all know when that happens, okay?

[marym625]

178. Just reading through the thread

After I get jumped on that attitude toward women is not going backward, and am just loving your responses.

[smirkymonkey]

140. Bravo!

Well said. However I guarantee that it still won't sink in for some people. They are incapable of empathy and can only think about their own feelings.

[Sheldon Cooper]

107. Lol!

[chervilant]

179. As a woman, I have to work with the personal experiences that I've had

and the research that I've read. To whit:

Nearly one in three college men admit they might rape a woman if they knew no one would find out and they wouldn’t face any consequences, according to a new study conducted by researchers at the University of North Dakota.

But, when the researchers actually used the word “rape” in their question, those numbers dropped much lower — suggesting that many college men don’t associate the act of forcing a woman to have sex with them with the crime of committing rape.

According to the survey, which analyzed responses from 73 men in college, 31.7 percent of participants said they would act on “intentions to force a woman to sexual intercourse” if they were confident they could get away with it. When asked whether they would act on “intentions to rape a woman” with the same assurances they wouldn’t face consequences, just 13.6 percent of participants agreed.

As a woman, I have the uncomfortable awareness that a significant number of men have dangerous notions about "forcing" me to "have sex" with them. When I was in college, I was almost raped the first night I was there. Throughout my college career and my young adulthood, I walked the gauntlet of saying no to "persistent" men and hell no to men who outright expected me to lay down and spread my legs because they said so.

Why is this so difficult to understand? There are too many men on this planet who think that women exist for their sexual pleasure (and little more), and those are the men we have to fear.

[Nye Bevan]

14. And this even applies if your name happens to be Roman Polanski,

and is still true even if Whoopi Goldberg claims that it wasn't "rape-rape".

[Jamastiene]

58. When Whoopi Goldberg said that, I refused to be a fan of hers

from that day forward. There is no excuse for her attitude or what he did. She really disappointed me with that bullshit.

[Xyzse]

127. Absolutely!

[sheshe2]

20. Thanks niyad.

I understand that this was not a call out of all men. It was about those that do and those that condone it.

[Jamastiene]

60. That is what is never really addressed.

Sure there are convicted rapists, but there are a lot more rapists who are never convicted. The reason for that is because of the attitude that a woman did something to deserve being raped. There are a multitude of excuses used. I have noticed that not only way too many men, but also way too many women make excuses like that to excuse rape, and essentially condone it. When that is finally addressed and remedied, maybe rape might be taken more seriously as a crime.

I saw an article in the local paper where I live today. A man was convicted of rape. That's news to me. Back when I got raped, the official response was that I needed to get right with God and not be gay. Now, rape is a crime where I live, at least for some. I would bet money, though, that if it happened again to me today, I would get the same treatment as before. It's the attitude. Sure, the people with that attitude did not personally rape me themselves, but they condone it.

I am glad you mentioned those who condone it, because, imo, that is a BIG part of the problem. That attitude by so many people is why rape is hardly ever taken seriously and why so many rapes go unreported and/or unprosecuted.

[tkmorris]

22. OK. Thanks for the tip

[NaturalHigh]

23. As I'm sure you know, most men are completely unaware of this.

I am so glad that we have you to keep us abreast of these developments. We bow to your moral superiority.


Come on - do I really need the ?

[Bonobo]

24. PSA stands for "Public Service Announcement"

It is, by definition, intended for a public audience. That kinda puts the lie that it is not meant to be addressed to all men.

[AtheistCrusader]

42. That doesn't mean it is an accusation against all men.

Target audience, sure. Accusation, no.

I'm a 'land owner', when I hear a PSA from the USDA about agricultural benefits/subsidies, I'm smart enough to know that it's not meant for me, specifically, not having a farm.

[quakerboy]

67. Uh... Whatnow?

Lets examine that proposition via some examples


Yup.. Obviously meant for all school attendees. Including the ones who don't have cell phones. Or cars. Or either.


Yup. Again, clearly meant for everyone, not just people who might be involved in child prostitution

]
So, we can deduce that this was again meant for all dubliners. Especially the non-smokers...

[kcr]

102. Well, then. I'm sure going to start having a fit about those PSAs about littering. I don't litter!

The nerve accusing me of littering! What bullshit!

[nomorenomore08]

152. +100

[SunSeeker]

27. I love Wonkette. nt

[LittleBlue]

28. Does DU need this PSA? Do we have members

who believe that raping children, while they say "no" twice, is acceptable?

Maybe this thread should be directed at actual pedophile sex offenders.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Sometimes people take information they find here, and disseminate it elsewhere, because it is of

some use.

Like this one:

[LittleBlue]

48. Yeah, they'll tell their child raping friends to stop raping

I can imagine that

DU member: Hey Joe, did you know raping a child is wrong? I know you're into that stuff.
Joe: Oh crap, I never knew it was wrong. Better stop it immediately.


The title is intended as flamebait. It comes straight from the intellectual sewers that dominate internet blogs. Inflammatory articles don't generate actual discussion or learning, just clickbait. That's why she contradicts herself by calling it a PSA (which is intended for the general public) but follows it up by addressing it specifically to men. The latter is unneeded if it were a true PSA, but it's not. The word "men" must be included to achieve maximum trolling effect.

It's on the same mental level as the Limbaugh Dittoheads.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. There is a real problem in this country with a large percentage of the population not understanding

Consent.

A VERY real problem. Hell, even for the small percentage of rapists who get caught and convicted, an enormous percentage of them maintain not just simple 'it wasn't me man' denial, they literally don't believe that what they did was rape at all.

This is a conversation we need to keep going, because something is very, very wrong.

On the one hand we have 'confused' individuals like CeeLo Greene that will hop up on Twitter and proclaim that it's not rape if she's drugged out unconscious, because it's not rape if she's not resisting, and on the other hand, you have guys that defend that line... of.... thinking, if you can call it thinking at all.

Probably can't have a conversation about this issue without tweaking some people's sensitivities, sorry. Still a conversation that needs to keep happening.

[LittleBlue]

52. You don't think that

raping a child while he/she says "no no" is some misunderstood grey area?

The only people who don't understand that

1) Know that it's wrong but don't care and
2) Don't read DU

It's clickbait. Keep those google ads generating $$$

[AtheistCrusader]

54. You assume negative intentions.

Again, DU is a great place where we can all share info about these issues, that might prove useful elsewhere. That article might be worth sharing with some douchebro at work that doesn't exactly seem to have the grasp that you and I apparently do, about not raping children, or not raping people who say 'no'.

I don't care how the information gets disseminated. To some audiences, I don't doubt that particular article is of no use at all.
But some of us may well find a use for it outside DU.

[niyad]

128. thank you. I thought I had this poster saved, and could not find it!!

[Jamastiene]

63. There have been numerous threads here that

have shown quite a few members of DU will push the envelope when it comes to age of consent. I haven't seen any actual outright NAMBLA types here, but I have seen some push the age of consent argument far past what is comfortable for the majority of people. It wouldn't hurt to do a little digging through the archives. It is very eye opening.

[LittleBlue]

64. Except, the child is saying "no" twice in the OP

A 17-year-old consenting to have sex with a 19-year-old, or talking about what age of consent should be, has nothing to do with coercive rape.

[Go Vols]

30. What is a child?

There have been people on death row as young as 12.
I married a 16 year old when I was 18.

Seems if you do something bad as a child,you are an adult, and vise versa if it is the other way.

[nomorenomore08]

153. There is a discussion to be had, certainly. But probably not on this particular thread.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. PSA: No, women, you cannot drown your children in the bathtub.

No matter how much you women may really really feel like it.

[Egnever]

57. Winner!

[Kurska]

59. Ugh, I can't wait for some stupid person to come here and go.

"I'm a woman and I never drowned a child in a bathtub" well DUH, If you didn't then this post wasn't directed at you. If they are too dumb to realize that your post addressing all women only specifically meant certain women, then it is their fault for being so stupid.

[boston bean]

88. I agree, women should not drown their children in a bathtub.

and my fee fees and womanhood were not and are not offended by your statement.

someone calls your post a winner... I don't think so. I think your post is derailment.

[Warren DeMontague]

91. It's not derailment. Everyone knows, from the author down, how people are going to take the wording

Derail what? The genuine consciousness-raising that was intended by this thoughtful article?

.....rrrright.

Guess what. i dont think anyone should drown or rape anyone. And as disappointing as it may be to some folks, my"fee fees" don't, actually give a shit about this article. However. i do find it funny that - in addition to the piece entirely ignoring the almost monthly cases of female teachers abusing male students- some of the same people who would get AWFULLY offended if someone put out a "PSA" helpfully "teaching", say, Muslims that they shouldn't behead people for blasphemy, shoot cartoonists or fly airplanes into skyscrapers, pretend to get all perplexed as to why anyone might think this headline might contain a rather lame implied broad brush.

[boston bean]

92. You are right warren, the way the english language is spoken

is a blight on all men. Men and women should never be able to use the word "men" stand alone in a sentence. Hell, because it's bigoted...

WTF... come one now...

Thousands upon thousands of women are raped by "men". You want the word some in there.... that's your problem. It's how we speak the English language. It's not about every "MAN" and you know it. Please give yourself more credit.

[Warren DeMontague]

94. Im suggesting that if you have a problem with "PSA: No, Muslims, you can't hijack airplanes"

But dont have a problem with the wording in the headline, you should ask yourself why that is.

[boston bean]

96. I don't need to ask myself anything Warren. You are the one using that

derailment as a way to derail an important discussion about women being raped by men and the problem it is in this world.

You never really have much to say about that, except that you want to in some way control how women speak about this.

That is classic derailment. And a bit word policey if you ask me.

[Warren DeMontague]

97. Yeah, right.

I suspect this OP is getting exactly the intended result. But I've made my point.

[boston bean]

98. I got your point... yes I did.

[October]

109. I got his point, as well

Thanks, Boston Bean.

[nomorenomore08]

154. If 1 in 4 Americans were the victims of Muslim attacks, I think that message would be totally legit.

I think the reason the OP is addressed to "men" in general is that rape is so appallingly widespread.

[Yavin4]

65. The intent of the headline of the article is to make ALL men guilty of child molestation

And that is bullshit.

[Starry Messenger]

66. Right on cue, they arrive.

[Warren DeMontague]

69. Yep.

Sort of like the predictable hair-tearing and shit-losing that will accompany the publishing of the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue in a week or so.

"IT RUINED MY ENTIRE MONTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" etc

[nomorenomore08]

155. Yeah, that's pretty stupid too. The hundreds-of-posts-long threads on that subject are quite

facepalm-worthy IMO.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Has anyone informed Kalli Joy Gray that women are running around raping kids, too?

[boston bean]

89. wow another derailment.

If one were to gather a picture of all the men who raped women, you wouldn't be able to fit it on one page.

Why are you so hurt by this discussion.

I think women (notice I didn't say some) shouldn't rape either.

[Warren DeMontague]

93. Actually the op is specifically about adults exploiting children

And there have been a fuckton of stories of women doing that to boys in the news, of late.

Again, there's nothing here to derail.

[boston bean]

95. Except that statistics warren will tell you that hella lot more men rape

than women do. You want to ignore that and make women not speak out about men raping women.... go ahead, if it makes you feel good.

[RiffRandell]

185. Pamela Smart was a nasty villian.

Terrible what she did. The only thing she was concerned about was the dog. Good movie came out of it, though. Nicole Kidman was great.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pamela_Smart

[ismnotwasm]

70. *sigh*

[sheshe2]

82. There is a lot of that going around here ism

It's about me. Look at me! My feefees are hurt.

[cyberswede]

103. Jeez - you could win blackout bingo with that card on DU sometimes.

[cemaphonic]

71. What is the actual purpose of these sorts of PSAs and blog posts?

If it's a matter of satirically venting about the unfairness that women bear the brunt of rape-prevention lectures while also being its primary victim, then fine - It is unfair, and men really needn't be butting in (and should grow a thicker skin as well). Certainly the first example of this sort of thing that I remember seeing was obviously satire. But while satire can be an excellent tool for highlighting problems and double-standards, it usually isn't the best medium for finding answers, and it doesn't really stand up to constant repetition as well.

Many men (especially on liberal forums like this) would like to find a way to be part of the solution, so it becomes a problem that for every forum OP or blog post that has genuine suggestions for things that men can do to help prevent rape, there's about a dozen of these "Hey men, plz stop raping! thx!" posts. Even more so, since the well has been so poisoned that these posts tend to devolve almost immediately into flaming and trolling by posters that are normally much better behaved. If one of the goals of contemporary feminism is to enlist men to shoulder more of the rape prevention burden, then I think it's a serious strategic error to simply dismiss that men are offended by these posts.

[boston bean]

100. Women are offended by males raping females and children.

We are offended by any rape.

Men who are offended by these discussions, should just stay out of them. Because their offense is not as important as the issue, and they should be able to get that? No?

Men do rape. Why does that have to be tip toed around?

Oh and PS, my statement "Men do rape", does not include men that don't. So, please don't be offended by that simple statement.

[Marr]

150. +1, I agree.

Not productive.

[Warren DeMontague]

72. PSA: No, Muslims, you can't murder a newspaper office full of cartoonists even if they make you mad.

[Bonobo]

74. No Jews, you can't steal my money! nt

[Warren DeMontague]

75. That is a pernicious lie. Jews are the only people on Earth who NEVER steal money.

Okay, fine, except that guy.

[nomorenomore08]

164. He "made off" with all their money!

Sorry, I couldn't resist...

[NaturalHigh]

77. I give you credit - nice flamebait.

[BrotherIvan]

83. The level of whining and trolling on this thread is nauseating

Did none of you "men" grow past the toddler stage and learn there are other sentient beings on the planet other than yourself, i.e. you're not the center of the universe? SURPRISE! You're not.

And you're all acting like some mean words on the internet with a noun in the title that is refers to someone with the same gender as yours means YOU and ONLY YOU. Really? So what exactly are the ramifications?

Will you be threatened with violence?
Will you be discriminated against?
Will you lose your job?
Will you make $0.23 less per hour?
What priviledge, exactly, are you losing because of this particular post?

None? Really? It just sort of rubbed you the wrong way and irked you for a second?

That's all?

Ok, then STFU!

[Skittles]

84. it's ALWAYS about them

[BrotherIvan]

87. blech

Please, go kick their asses because they need to be kicked.

[Ken Burch]

120. [phone]! (and I say that AS a man).

Obsessing over the article's title and tone is just a misogynist derailment campaign.

Neither is an attack on men as a group.

[niyad]

184. and sometimes that derailment is quite effective. but, thankfully, not always.

[smirkymonkey]

148. Hear, hear!

[nomorenomore08]

156. Thank you for articulating the problem so perfectly.

[BrotherIvan]

158. Perhaps only a gun nut thread can reach this level of unbelievable trollery

Unsuprisingly, some of them are the same people. I blame their parents. Sort of kidding, but sort of not. Thinking the world revolves around you (and throwing tantrums when it doesn't) is a terrible character flaw.

[betsuni]

160. I'm almost getting concerned for their health.

Getting so worked up and obsessed, manically posting in hopes of insulting people into responding. Not good for anyone.

[BrotherIvan]

163. It's usually an internet phenomenon

But they can't hold much respect for women in real life either. That, unfortunately, is all to common.

[Number23]

167. The crap would be funny if it weren't so predictable and moronic. All you can do is hope

that one day these guys will grow up, read this thread and feel as embarrassed reading their crap then as we all feel reading it now.

[BrotherIvan]

168. We can only hope

It would be much better for them as well. Living in a state of immaturity for you entire life is very uncomfortable. Unbelievable!

[JustAnotherGen]

85. Excellent content!

[laserhaas]

99. If the title had further stated Rappers vs "All you rapers"

Then we could have really, have been, entertained.

Click...cliche...clique...

I'm just sayin.....

[Ken Burch]

119. Uh..."RAPPERS vs 'All You Rapers'"?

[Iggo]

104. Oy. Here we go again.

[MattSh]

106. Best response on this thread.

Not

[laserhaas]

122. Like your sig line.

Someone should do a Bill before Congress, to classify LGBT as undisputable issue of Civil Rights

[ileus]

113. More BS for the man haters club.

Thankfully I didn't have to read past the stupidassed title.

[LexVegas]

121. Awww...the title of the article is not very nice..sniff. Poor fucking men.nt

[niyad]

125. can almost guarantee that the ones who are most upset never even bothered to read the article.

[Ken Burch]

133. It appears that they wanted to make sure that no one else did, either. n/t.

[niyad]

134. indeed

[niyad]

124. . . .

[jeff47]

130. There is a massive quantity of stupid in this thread.

(Hey look! A kick. Because I'm not a fucking moron who thinks a rhetorical device is literally directed at all men!)

[niyad]

131. thank you for noticing, and kicking!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

132. They are a poor few

but their spinning is mighty
& raises much dust...

[sheshe2]

142. Kick!

[smirkymonkey]

151. K&R!

[chrisa]

157. Not all men guy to the rescue!

[betsuni]

161. That made me snort out loud.

[nomorenomore08]

165. Hilarious, and so true...

[raging moderate]

159. If the shoe doesn't fit, you don't have to put it on.

Last edited Sat Feb 7, 2015, 12:10 PM - Edit history (1)

This article starts out with "Men, no, you cannot rape a child!" in order to get the attention of a certain subset of the male of our species, who tend to be overwrought about their sexuality. If you are not one of those men, then this greeting, by convention, does not apply to you, and this article is not addressed to you.

There is a certain sort of man who believes that all men are like him and sees himself as part of a vast army of mystic masculine power, obviously the designated Lords of the World. A man like this thinks that he champions the "manly rights" all men deserve when he defends his right to have sex with anybody who looks a certain way or talks a certain way (whatever particular way it is that happens to arouse his desire. These men talk and act as if it is other people's job to make men feel like doing their duty to their fellow human beings. If they FEEL like having sex with somebody, then it must surely be that person's secret desire to have sex done to them, whether that person is a child or a teenager or enslaved or unconscious. These men are stunningly unaware of their own inner workings and the idiosyncratic nature of each person's sexual experience. And yes, the truth is, these men are almost always homophobic as well. They have a rigid idea of a man's role in the world, and this causes them to make some horrible problems for other people.

If you are NOT that sort of man, then you are not the target of this article. In fact, if you are NOT that sort of man, then welcome to the intervention! Please help us communicate with these men, somehow. Maybe you have an insight into them that will help us get through to them about how much we other humans NEED them to grow up the rest of the way and help us protect the vulnerable ones among us.

Because, sooner or later, all of us will be vulnerable and in need of care and protection. Even those men. And they need to understand that they will not lose their human rights when that happens. Because nobody does. If you understand that, then please be assured that this article is not addressed to you.

[ecstatic]

162. That goes without saying, but I think the subject line should be

changed. We're all on the same side here. A number of male DUers have stated that they find the headline offensive. Why go out of our way to offend allies?

[nomorenomore08]

166. If you place a few allegedly mean words on the same level as a major worldwide crisis - in this case

rape - then how much of an ally are you, really?

[niyad]

169. you mean the same way they go out of their way to avoid offending US???

sorry, I don't buy that. and, please note, this is not MY headline, but that of the author of the piece. I do not understand why that is such a difficult point to understand.


by the way, any "ally" who says, "I will support you only if you speak your piece in exactly the words, and exactly the tone, that pleases me" is no ally at all, and is not worth one second of my time.

[niyad]

170. . . .

[Aerows]

180. One in four women in the US

experience some form of sexual assault.

That leads me to believe that if 50% of the US population are females, and 50% of the US population are males ...

Then at least 12.5% of the US population either has no idea what rape is, or does not give a shit. If one in eight people do not know/do not give a shit about raping people, then maybe everyone that gets offended by this PSA needs to figure out why there are so many people that DON'T know what rape is and/or do not give a shit if they rape people.

Is that easy enough to understand? Because there are a hell of a lot of people that post on DU. There are a hell of a lot of people living in your neighborhood, people you work with, people you go to school with. Somewhere along the line, 1/8th of them just don't give a shit.

Rather than lash out, use some logic. Hey, maybe most rapists are serial rapists/and or sex offenders. Even more important to not defend them. Awareness is good for everybody, even those that are offended that they might fall in the rapist category. Why? Because someone you love might have gotten raped and didn't tell you because you have a bad attitude towards those who speak out as victims of sexual assault and they know you won't believe them.

[niyad]

183. thank you. most excellently put. would you consider making this its own OP?

[niyad]

182. . . .