All men are rape supporters

┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`Д´）╯︵ ┻━┻ · 2011-05-19 23:48:05

maaaaybe

by the way who are you

notwithstanding · 2011-05-19 23:50:57

I am somebody who has made their identity plain enough for people to whom I want my identity to be clear.

┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`Д´）╯︵ ┻━┻ · 2011-05-19 23:51:40

well you aren't terrkerr I know that much...

notwithstanding · 2011-05-19 23:53:04

The excellence of your perception astounds me. =P

Let's start off on a better foot - I am notwithstanding. Pleased to encounter you on this board.

┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`Д´）╯︵ ┻━┻ · 2011-05-19 23:53:55

Lies! You are withstanding my question!

notwithstanding · 2011-05-19 23:56:18

I am only a liar insofar as I have said I do not wish you to know who I am.

Hatter · 2011-05-20 00:00:32

I was banned from editing for "sexism."

I was permabanned for saying that DLC disturbs me.

DarkDecapodian · 2011-05-20 00:23:52

^ I agree that companies sometimes charge too much money for too little content with downloads, but I wouldn't call it disturbing.

(Yeah, I know who you're talking about :P).

Is this the same list BitingBeaver wrote?

Hatter · 2011-05-20 00:25:42

No. She wrote her own, although equally hilarious in its sexism, list.

AHR · 2011-05-20 04:37:59

I didn't know you were banned for that.

InsanityAddict · 2011-05-20 05:08:04

http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Rape_Checklist (NFSW, obviously)

I can't take anything seriously that divides humanity into a part-of-the-problem and part-of-the-solution crowd.

"He defends these actions by saying that some women also engage in them"

If you genderflip the list, I wouldn't know a single dudette over the age of 18 who hasn't committed one of the no-no's on this list. Besides, the presumption that all men do this reeks of gender essentialism(although whether she sees this as cultural indoctrination or inherent nature isn't clear). Objectification is something to master, become aware of and intergrate into the self properly, just as with all other forms of bias.

Nova · 2011-05-20 05:53:25

He is anti-abortion.

what

IanExMachina · 2011-05-20 09:54:04

^ As then you make woman more able to objectified and have sex with/support raping them. As they have less downtime due to pregnancy.

Nova · 2011-05-20 10:42:01

I don't follow the logic.

IanExMachina · 2011-05-20 10:44:06

Well if women are pregnant they presumably become de-sexualised in the majority of cases? So if you are pro-choice then women can be back and objectified sooner?

I'm not sure myself it really seems a bit insane troll logic-y.

Nova · 2011-05-20 10:45:34

O_o

IanExMachina · 2011-05-20 10:46:52

That is what I assume she means, however she might be crazier than I imagine.

Forzare · 2011-05-20 12:01:17

I think it has something to do with not being able to abort rape babies.

IanExMachina · 2011-05-20 12:01:42

But could you rape abort babies?

Longfellow · 2011-05-20 12:19:47

I would like to hear her reasoning behind some of the items on the list.

Kino · 2011-05-20 12:30:04

That makes two of us.

Bradamante · 2011-05-20 12:35:35

Seriously, how dare a man be sexually dominant, be visually attracted to women, and support good old American values like liberty and freedom of speech? Why can't they all be good men like eunuchs?

Khwarizmi · 2011-05-20 12:39:22

When did she say men couldn't be sexually dominant or visibly attracted to women?

Bradamante · 2011-05-20 12:42:21

He defends the physical abuse of women on the grounds of “consent.”

Translation: I'm anti Maledom/femsub BDSM.

He watches pornography in which women are depicted.
He
watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a
struggle
for power or domination, regardless of whether women are
present.
He sexually objectifies lesbians or lesbian sexual activity.

Translation: I'm anti visual porn.

Also, I'm loving the misandrist name on that blog.

Longfellow · 2011-05-20 12:43:45

Kind of a tangent, but is there aural porn for blind people? (or for sighted people who want to use their visual imagination)

Khwarizmi · 2011-05-20 12:44:20

^^ I think you're presuming too much about the first one, and the latter (while I don't agree with her) does not equate to being opposed to all displays of attraction to women, merely those which are objectifying.

'He defends the physical abuse of women on the grounds of “consent.”' could just as easily refer to actual abusive relationships where consent has technically been given, and on face of it, that's all it appears to mean. I don't see any reason to assume bad faith there.

Bradamante · 2011-05-20 12:46:42

^ She explicitly mentions that watching any porn that depicts women is rape support. So any sexualized visual depiction of women, not any visual depiction of women. Not all visual depictions of women are visual porn.

Yeah, she's a coconut.

Khwarizmi · 2011-05-20 12:47:24

Yes, she does. How does that contradict my post in any way?

┻━┻ ︵ヽ(`Д´）╯︵ ┻━┻ · 2011-05-20 12:48:14

I dunno, at the point where they include all pornography with women in it ever, I don't think you really should assume less extremism.

...I wonder if they're counting fictional women. Because if they didn't include that and put "enjoys watching" instead of just "watching" I could actually pass that list.

Bradamante · 2011-05-20 12:51:08

I suppose I was taking it as axiomatic that the reason most men watch porn was because most men are visual in their attraction. If that is true, then attempting to demonize men who enjoy sexualized visual displays of women is demonizing men's visual attraction.

Am I wrong in this assumption?

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

All men are rape supporters

Comments