Are we all bigots then? Or is just trump?

[Rokchick]

I'm a woman. To me, this reads as if you're saying husbands that "badger" (I like nag) their wives are raping them. If that's the case, bet you dollar to donuts there are a lot of wives raping their husbands. I'm guilty too then.
Actually, I'm guilty of a lot worse things than that.

I'm sure you are, but as I already pointed out, I used a word with a range of connotations deliberately, and then SPECIFICALLY said I wasn't talking about the nagging version.

I refer again to the quote in my previous post. From context, it sure as hell sounds like you were using the "annoyingly repetitive requests" version of badgering and counting it as ****. And, again: Do you have any evidence that even a significant minority of women view this as ****, or are you just doing your usual attempts to paint as many men out to be rapists as you possibly can?

Again, since I SPECIFICALLY said not the nagging version.......... I was hoping you'd get into what you think coercion is, not the already explained part. But. OK, I give up. I will refrain from anything that requires some thought and revert to the blindingly obvious only for you two.

What do you want me to say wodey? What would reinforce your bias enough to give you some satisfaction in your day? I'm here to make you happy!

[Woden]

I just reread your post, and this jumped out at me:

I used it deliberately because it's got a few different interpretations.

Are you openly admitting to intentionally using ambiguous language? As in, all this nonsense where you say stuff that clearly would be interpreted one way by any rational person reading your comment, but you claim to mean something else, is not an accident, but you deliberately trying to Luisss-up the conversation?

[Rokchick]

I just reread your post, and this jumped out at me:

Are you openly admitting to intentionally using ambiguous language? As in, all this nonsense where you say stuff that clearly would be interpreted one way by any rational person reading your comment, but you claim to mean something else, is not an accident, but you deliberately trying to Luisss-up the conversation?

Yes and no. I didn't realize how solidly that one word would be interpreted, but rather than use the word coercion (OK, I probably should have!) I was hoping for a sightly more nuanced discussion. Coercion is fairly obviously wrong, but what I was trying to get to was what constitutes coercion, and what is nagging. So I tried to pick a word that could be either. Maybe I should have said nagging with intimidation or something.

See where I'm going now? Or would you rather just jump on the evil rok wagon again? If so, feel free. All this trump stuff is making me feel a bit too mainstream.

I could post something like "nagging should be banned, but only when it comes to sex" and then you can drift off into your happy place?

[Woden]

My interwbz seems to be back, so I'll reply to all this patronizing rot after I've done some work.

....

[5m4llP0X]

....

I think she's admitting defeat.

[Rokchick]

....

Oh ffs. Just post the bits you care about again. I'm not the obsessed one.

[Woden]

Oh ffs. Just post the bits you care about again. I'm not the obsessed one.

Okay. Here goes:

If only 10% of the men think **** doesn't include badgering their wife or date into sex when she's not fully into it, that is a hell of a lot of potential rapists out there.

That's also a hugely expansive definition of ****, to the extent that I'd hardly be surprised if only 10% or less of women think such situations are ****. Do you have any data supporting that the alleged victims actually feel that they were raped? Because that's been a repeated problem with the expansive definitions of **** that feminists seem to be so very fond of using -- i.e., other than hardline feminists, most people don't seem to think it's actually ****.

Furthermore, you're treating it as if sex can only be undertaken for the sake of sex alone. That's not how relationships work. Heck, to use a completely non-sexual comparison, people might do a chore, or play Monopoly or something, despite not particularly wanting to at the time, to make their significant other happy; this doesn't necessarily mean that they feel they were forced or coerced into it, even if their S.O. asked numerous times. That's not even getting into tit-for-tat arrangements (compare to, e.g., "I'll take the trash out if you'll mow the lawn"). Why do you think this is suddenly an intrinsically different situation once sex is involved?

FFS, I spend as much time alone as possible and even I recognize this sort of stuff as pretty fundamental portions of human interaction.

but any attempts to dehumanize women/gays/other prisoners/insertwhatever or to victim blame is pertinent to the culture that allows **** to be such a big issue.

A) Where have I done this? Quote something to this effect from me, I dare you.

B) Are you seriously pulling up the "victim blaming" line (without even bothering to expand on it) in response to a post where I commented that such arguments are most often used incorrectly to smear people who are not blaming the victim?

or "she shouldn't have walked home in the dark", or any other of a myriad of victim blaming comments, adds to the culture.

Do you think that telling mugging victims (or even potential mugging victims) to not walk home in the dark is "victim blaming"? Do you think that telling (potential) burglary victims about things they could do to make their homes more secure is "victim blaming"? Do you think that telling people to install an antivirus program is "victim blaming"?

If you do not consider those examples "victim blaming," you're a hypocrite. Not to mention completely ignorant, since I already pointed this exact same line of reasoning out in the post you are responding to.
If you do consider those examples to be "victim blaming," well, congratulations, you're part of a tiny fringe minority of lunatics.

You interact with cofc and other trolls on here.

And where have they ever said that a **** victim "deserved it" or anything to that effect? Provide some quotes or quit slandering people.

Question: What is your opinion on RAINN (**** Abuse & Incest National Network) saying this While it is helpful to point out the systemic barriers to addressing the problem, it is important to not lose sight of a simple fact: **** is caused not by cultural factors but by the conscious decisions, of a small percentage of the community, to commit a violent crime."
Or even Feminist Caroline Kitchens saying " **** is a horrific crime, and rapists are despised. We have strict laws that Americans want to see enforced. Though **** is certainly a serious problem, there’s no evidence that it’s considered a cultural norm. Twenty-first century America does not have a **** culture; what we have is an out-of-control lobby leading the public and our educational and political leaders down the wrong path. ****-culture theory is doing little to help victims, but its power to poison the minds of young women and lead to hostile environments for innocent males is immense."
(Time Magazine article "It’s Time to End ‘**** Culture’ Hysteria")

So you agree there's examples everywhere, a veritable epidemic of it, but that has nothing to do with the culture it exists in?

I can agree that there are numerous cases of **** without agreeing that it is because of "**** culture". I can agree that there are numerous cases of murder without agreeing that it is because of "murder culture". I can agree that there are numerous cases of theft without agreeing that it is because of "theft culture".

It also seems that you are fully willing and able to do so except when the topic is ****. Why is this?

But its an epidemic because it has been normalized and excused for so long.

You keep saying this, but you have not once explained or shown how it is "normalized," yet you've been given numerous compelling examples showing that the "Average Joe," as it were, despises rapists (which is directly antithetical to your point). Just as yet another example, there is widespread testimonial from former prisoners that inmates treat convicted rapists (especially those who molested children) particularly badly.

So, you found some posts that support your position. Yeay. I disagree with them. Lots of others do too.

Funny how your "lots of others" consists of a single opinion piece. Furthermore:

However, the memorandum sent to the White House on behalf of RAINN was not in line with what I, and many others, expected from it.

In other words: "I don't like what the experts are saying. WAAAAAAH!"

Note that your link did not include even one fact to dispute RAINN's position, making the article nothing more than somebody's opinion. Note also that this is pretty much how you present yourself here in this topic: all opinion, no factual backing.

Not really. Just because there is a sports culture, it doesn't mean everyone feels the same way about it. [...]

And what's your point? I'm saying that the reason so many people supported Sandusky was because of how they felt about sports, not because of how they felt about ****. Nothing in your long-winded monologue contradicts that.

This part wasn't originally directed towards you, but still applies to at least one of the posts you've made in this thread:

Sexual attraction is not the same as objectification. Objectification means that you are disregarding their decisions, dignity, etc. and treating them as a mere object; since none of that is a requirement of, or intrinsic to, being sexually attracted to a person, it is plainly false to equate the two.

Hell, for a lot of people, the mental aspects of a person can make them more sexually attractive, which would be completely impossible if attraction and objectification were one and the same.

If you think that sexual attraction requires the objectification of the person you are attracted to, that says volumes more about you than it does about anyone you are trying to criticize.

[Rokchick]

All of it? Can't you clarify somewhat?

To clean the thread a bit, I'm not going to repost everything....

1.1 Stop quoting "what feminists say". I'm going to ignore it the way I should have all along. Otherwise you, my dear, must respond to quotes from any anti-feminist I find.
1.2 Don't tell me how relationships work. For extremely obvious reasons.
1.3 I already clarified what I meant with the badgering. Asked and answered.

2.1 Did I say YOU? Asked and answered. If you want a more generalized answer start a new thread.

2a.1 What I would consider equivalent victim blaming in the case of robbery is "you should have bought a house in a worse suburb" or "you shouldn't have a house that looks nice or affluent" or "you shouldn't have a nice car then".

2b. Cofc DID say that the marriage contract confers automatic consent. And then reiterated it. Erbie said worse. I dont have time to search. You should remember it, or you search.

3. Pox on RAINN. I disagree with their take on that particular subject. There is a difference between cultural norm and the way **** culture is used. As in, drug culture, gang culture, etc. Ref Mehrs post.

4a. Again.. see above, see Mehrs post
4b See above. You have a current presidential candidate admitting to being a sexual predator.... talk about excused! Do I need to say more?
4c on RAINN Worth a new thread if you really want to go into it.

5 Cultures overlap. Sports culture with gun culture, gun culture with gang culture **** culture with sport culture, etc. etc. Binary, not.

6. WTH? It's as if you are an alien. "If you think.." Why would anyone? **** is not about attraction, it's about power.

[Woden]

1.1 Stop quoting "what feminists say".

Where did I? I had one comment related to "what feminists say," and it was related to the specific comment you were making; given that you were falling into the exact same pattern (i.e., using an expansive definition without giving any prior justification), it was completely valid to make a comparison to other such refuted examples that have occurred in the past.

1.2 Don't tell me how relationships work. For extremely obvious reasons.

The obvious reasons, based on your behavior here on .us, seeming to be that you have no knowledge or interest in having any relationships that don't involve you harping at everyone around you.

1.3 I already clarified what I meant with the badgering.

You're still not very clear on it. I have yet to see any definition of "badgering" that amounts to more than being a nuisance through repetition, other than "badgering the witness," which still falls far short of what you seem to be trying to imply.

2.1 Did I say YOU?

And for both you and the poxxy one.... you don't need to think **** is acceptable to be part of the **** culture. It seems pretty obvious to me, but any attempts to dehumanize women/gays/other prisoners/insertwhatever or to victim blame is pertinent to the culture that allows **** to be such a big issue. You guys want to choose to believe it's not a problem, because to you it isn't. But you are part of the problem.

By all means, explain how that is supposed to be read as anything except saying that P0x and I attempt to dehumanize people and/or blame victims. You named both of us, stated those things as contributing to "**** culture," and then stated that we are both part of the problem.

For the umpteenth time, if that's not the implication that you were going for, then you really need to learn to be more clear with what you write. Given that this sort of thing seems to happen more often than not with threads you are in, and between you and multiple other people, it's extremely clear that the "miscommunication" problem is from you, not the people you're conversing with.

2b. Cofc DID say that the marriage contract confers automatic consent. And then reiterated it. Erbie said worse.

And as I said, I have them both on my ignore list and as such don't consider myself to be interacting with them. Anybody else you care to point fingers at?

3. Pox on RAINN. I disagree with their take on that particular subject. There is a difference between cultural norm and the way **** culture is used. As in, drug culture, gang culture, etc. Ref Mehrs post.

And yet you have failed to provide any evidence of even the existence of "**** culture." With drug culture and gang culture, there is concrete proof that these cultures exist: people can point to things like "420," gang signs, etc.; where is there anything even remotely comparable for ****? Culture does not, under any rational definition, consist of isolated individuals having no interaction with each other, and yet that appears to be the case in regards to most rapists.

4b See above. You have a current presidential candidate admitting to being a sexual predator.... talk about excused! Do I need to say more?

Considering that his support has plummeted since this became common knowledge, yes, you do.

5 Cultures overlap. Sports culture with gun culture, gun culture with gang culture **** culture with sport culture, etc. etc. Binary, not.

And what's your point? "One doesn't exclude the other" is not proof of the other's involvement. Do you think that, if Sandusky had been a teacher instead of involved with the sports program, there would have been an equivalent amount of support for him and the people covering for him? Because that's as close to demonstrably false as a hypothetical can get.

6. WTH? It's as if you are an alien. "If you think.." Why would anyone? **** is not about attraction, it's about power.

**** is about power, yes. However, you and jdurand have both stated in this thread that advertisements featuring attractive women contribute to "**** culture." Now, care to show us that you're capable of connecting the dots, or do you wish to continue demonstrating that your one-track mind can't handle simple cases that don't agree with your ideology?

Personally, when I see an attractive person, I neither want to **** them, nor do I think that they deserve to get raped. I also happen to find it highly insulting to have people try to insinuate that my being attracted to a person contributes to rapes, as I'm sure nearly every sane individual would.

[Rokchick]

Can you not thin it to what you actually care about? I mean I see the level of obsession here (almost clinical) but your need to have everything you say validated is getting a bit wearying. Here's a plan.. You start a couple of threads with your position and what you think mine is and then no one else needs to scroll through this.
I will say a couple of things to make the targeting clearer.
I think guys like you and pox are part of the problem because you dispute that there is a problem. I'm not accusing either of you of being anything (although I'm not discounting any future possibilities either).
I think coercing someone to have sex constitutes ****, and it doesn't have to be physical threats.
Donald trump is currently the biggest and clearest sign that a **** culture does exist. All of his defenders and excusers are actively participating in it. I am prepared to accept that this is yet another term that you don't like because you think nothing you are associated with in any way can be criticised (no I'm not saying you are defending him, I'm saying the reason you don't like the term is because it is not specifically excluding you).

**** is about power, yes. However, you and jdurand have both stated in this thread that advertisements featuring attractive women contribute to "**** culture." Now, care to show us that you're capable of connecting the dots, or do you wish to continue demonstrating that your one-track mind can't handle simple cases that don't agree with your ideology?

Personally, when I see an attractive person, I neither want to **** them, nor do I think that they deserve to get raped. I also happen to find it highly insulting to have people try to insinuate that my being attracted to a person contributes to rapes, as I'm sure nearly every sane individual would.

This one I'll keep because you are obviously confused. If an advertisement is intended to make you sexually aroused, or to get you to date the model, or maybe go to a porn show then using an attractive semi naked woman lying on the floor makes some sense. If it is trying to get you to buy a car, or a shirt it is being done for entirely an different purpose. Now can you see? It is the objectification that is the problem. Drape something pretty on it, that will sell. But it does men no favors either. No girl can look like that (but it encourages them to try!) No guys can get that impossibly perfect thing anyway. Must all be failures. I'd just rather not be a failed thing.

[5m4llP0X]

I think guys like you and pox are part of the problem because you dispute that there is a problem.

Please point to where I said there is no problem. Because I can point to where I said people like you and those who buy into "**** culture" are the problem by trying to claim it is normal or even "acceptable" when in fact it's not.

[Rokchick]

Please point to where I said there is no problem. Because I can point to where I said people like you and those who buy into "**** culture" are the problem by trying to claim it is normal or even "acceptable" when in fact it's not.

So you are basically agreeing with me, but don't like the terminology?
It IS far too acceptable or it wouldn't happen. You don't get the level of assaults on campuses without far too many young men turning up and thinking it's not **** if...... You don't get an openly misogynistic candidate without a level of acceptance. You certainly don't get over 30% of people prepared to have a rapist as president without it!

It is not acceptable to shoot someone in a drive-by, but gang culture means far too many young men think that it is an acceptable way to act. Doesn't mean I think you are a murderer. But I don't see you jumping up and down about calling something gang culture. Or drug culture.

It just means there is and has been far too much acceptance of sexual assault and the justification of it. Boys will be boys, she shouldn't have got so drunk, etc. I think you and woden get so antsy about the term because it doesn't specifically exclude you. You can look in at gang culture and drug culture and say "them" "others" and not attach any blame to anything you say or do. There is a cultural level of acceptance to do with power and dominance that allows for far too many rapes. The part of the RAINN stance I disagree with is the same as yours. You think it has to be shifting blame onto culture, but it actually means that is descriptive, and we need to stop accepting it and start allocating blame and abhorrence properly.

[5m4llP0X]

So you are basically agreeing with me, but don't like the terminology?

No, I disagree that it's accepted in any form of normal society--something you wish seem to think it is.

It IS far too acceptable or it wouldn't happen.

Would you like to see more vigilantes using the sex offender registry to hunt down rapists?

You don't get the level of assaults on campuses without far too many young men turning up and thinking it's not **** if......

And most of that blame is because of the heavy drinking on college campuses and I'd say some of it lies on the bad sex ed misinformation pushed by the conservative agenda in high schools. But that still does not make it "normal" or "acceptable" thought processes.

You don't get an openly misogynistic candidate without a level of acceptance. You certainly don't get over 30% of people prepared to have a rapist as president without it!

Alleged. While I agree it is very likely (Like 90% chance that he did those things to the 14 year old), there are some who believe that all these people coming forward at the final moments of the election is suspicious. Also: there is the innocent until proven guilty thing.

It is not acceptable to shoot someone in a drive-by, but gang culture means far too many young men think that it is an acceptable way to act. Doesn't mean I think you are a murderer. But I don't see you jumping up and down about calling something gang culture. Or drug culture.

Because it's VERY OBVIOUS that it exists. Look at the 420 vandalism in every bathroom stall, the demand to legalize all drugs, the prevalence of their use, glass "tobacco" pipes, meth pipes, pipe screens or even "flower vials" sold in convenience stores. I don't see roofies sold anywhere except maybe online. As for gang culture: again, VERY OBVIOUS: tagging, gang signs, colors, the assaults for people accidentally wearing "the wrong colors", cartels, the FBI, CIA and DEA all track gang activity trying to nail the leaders. If you can show me an organized group out there raping women then you can compare them.

It just means there is and has been far too much acceptance of sexual assault and the justification of it. Boys will be boys, she shouldn't have got so drunk, etc. I think you and woden get so antsy about the term because it doesn't specifically exclude you.

No, it's because there isn't a culture of **** in the first world. It's agreed that **** is not acceptable and the people who are doing it are deviants and criminals. You want to look at Africa or the Middle east where women's rights are a joke then maybe. Now I say maybe only because I haven't actually looked at the issues in those countries, but considering according to wikipedia it Sharia Law seems a bit more accepting of **** and spousal abuse so I wouldn't be surprised if there was a '**** culture' there.

You can look in at gang culture and drug culture and say "them" "others" and not attach any blame to anything you say or do.

Because we can say there is a culture IN the US that is X. Not We are living in an X culture. Much like I can say that America has a white supremacist culture, but I do not agree that we live in a white supremacist culture. Lemme know if you're having trouble telling the difference there.

There is a cultural level of acceptance to do with power and dominance that allows for far too many rapes.

The only power and dominance that is generally accepted is the one with the wealthy and those with major political connections. Those can only be resolved through an armed revolution and even then it's unlikely.

The part of the RAINN stance I disagree with is the same as yours. You think it has to be shifting blame onto culture, but it actually means that is descriptive, and we need to stop accepting it and start allocating blame and abhorrence properly.

I agreed with the RAINN comment. It's not a "culture" especially since their reports show only about 5% of the men on campus do 90% of the crimes. It also states "**** is the product of individuals who have decided to disregard the overwhelming cultural message that **** is wrong." which sounds more reasonable than your "Dude, she was like totally asking to be raped!" you seem to think.
And again, I blame people like you for it being as prevalent as it is because like RAINN stated "[**** Culture] has the paradoxical effect of making it harder to stop sexual violence, since it removes the focus from the individual at fault, and seemingly mitigates personal responsibility for his or her own action" which makes sense because after all, it's not his fault it's societies fault for making it so acceptable.

[Woden]

I think guys like you and pox are part of the problem because you dispute that there is a problem.

We don't dispute that **** is a problem. We dispute your baseless assertions that "**** culture" is the root of the problem.

And it's rather telling that even when groups that are considered experts on the subject are quoted as disagreeing with your assertions about **** culture, you still can neither budge an inch in your views nor give any evidence to contradict their position.

But I don't see you jumping up and down about calling something gang culture. Or drug culture.

Probably has something to do with the fact that nobody is going around and trying to paint every last person as being part of those problems; I've never been told that I'm a part of gang culture or drug culture. You, on the other hand, are quick to state that we're part of **** culture despite us being adamantly against ****.

By the way, since this seems to be such a hard concept for you, I'll spell it out: Painting people out to be villains isn't a very effective way to win them over to your side.

[Rokchick]

only about 5% of the men on campus do 90% of the crimes. It also states "**** is the product of individuals who have decided to disregard the overwhelming cultural message that **** is wrong." which sounds more reasonable than your "Dude, she was like totally asking to be raped!" you seem to think.

I doubt it is even close to 5% in any population who commit most crimes. Drive-bys? More than 5% do those?
The message that it is wrong is not getting through! That's the point. If it was, there would be a much lower incidence and we wouldn't be having this terminological discussion. Is it a failure for some random magical reason? WHY do so many (yes, even 5% is a LOT) young men think it is OK to joke about sexual assault, watch it, commit it? If it were treated by society like any other serious crime it would not be so prevalent. It is treated more like a low level misdemeanor by lots of people, including, obviously all those trump supporters. Why do 97% of rapists never see the inside of a cell (RAINN again)? How is it that so many get sexually assaulted (one every 2 minutes - RAINN again)? If there were that many men being mugged or carjacked there would be instant and violent reactions across the country. The jails would be filled twice over. Until it stopped. You hate the idea of it being a cultural thing because that means you are living in it. Your womenfolk are at risk (they are). You would rather stay safely outside with no risk to yourself or to your reputation. But nothing happens in a cultural vacuum, so this is a discussion of degrees. The concept of **** culture allows for more effective preventative responses. The reality is that we are ALL responsible for changing the conditions that allow it to happen. All of us, in every reaction and conversation we have.

And again, I blame people like you for it being as prevalent as it is because like RAINN stated "[**** Culture] has the paradoxical effect of making it harder to stop sexual violence, since it removes the focus from the individual at fault, and seemingly mitigates personal responsibility for his or her own action" which makes sense because after all, it's not his fault it's societies fault for making it so acceptable.

That was a misunderstanding on their part. Recognizing something is happening and trying to stop it is not the same as enabling it. It's pretty much the opposite. But when I stop seeing discussions about how drunk she was, or where she was walking or what she was wearing every time the subject comes up, I'll know we are getting closer. But When I see as much effort into educating men about consent as women about how to avoid ****, we'll be moving again. The recent exposes about the frat houses will make a difference. But even there, the show I saw had a lot of "we absolutely don't condone that" by a lot of guys who also admitted that when they were at college it happened. They just didn't condone it (in hindsight). When I stop seeing so many excuses for why men beat their wives and start seeing them ostracized instead, we'll be heading in the right direction.

Probably has something to do with the fact that nobody is going around and trying to paint every last person as being part of those problems; I've never been told that I'm a part of gang culture or drug culture. You, on the other hand, are quick to state that we're part of **** culture despite us being adamantly against ****.

By the way, since this seems to be such a hard concept for you, I'll spell it out: Painting people out to be villains isn't a very effective way to win them over to your side.

And there we have it. The personal. It only matters because, you. I'm no more saying that you are a rapist than I am saying that you are a drug dealer. But it is a cultural issue that you are involved in, because you, like everyone else gets a say in who you elect, what you read, how you respond, and what discussions are continued. It is so widespread that it is everyone's problem and should be everyone's responsibility. I'm happy to take the responsibility on board. So should everyone.

[5m4llP0X]

I doubt it is even close to 5% in any population who commit most crimes. Drive-bys? More than 5% do those?

SEXUAL ASSAULT. Since for some reason **** is now a censored word on this forum (Which is absolutely pants-on-head ********, mind you, especially since any other iteration of the word isn't and it ONLY became censored somewhere mid-way through this topic) I was HOPING you'd follow the flow of logic and I wouldn't have to spell it out.

The message that it is wrong is not getting through! That's the point. If it was, there would be a much lower incidence and we wouldn't be having this terminological discussion. Is it a failure for some random magical reason?

Well 2 things:
1) It's down 60% since the 70's. I posted a link to that in a previous post. You can look back to find it if you wish.
2) I blame Feminists for accusing it to be "normal" and "part of our culture" when it isn't. It's an epidemic. When 17-40% (seriously, the numbers vary THAT MUCH on quoted articles, but no one cares to dispute it because debunking the % might cut funding) women are sexually assaulted it's an epidemic.

WHY do so many (yes, even 5% is a LOT) young men think it is OK to joke about sexual assault, watch it, commit it?

1) Will you SJWs not be happy until all forms of speech are censored? Please draft up a complete list of words and topics that are not allowed to discuss, tell us what phrases and words we should use to be more socially acceptable then shove it up your *****.
2) I will say this again and again and again. NOBODY THINKS IT'S OK TO COMMIT IT. PEOPLE DO IT FOR POWER AND CONTROL NOT BECAUSE IT IS SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE. And until you can prove otherwise (Read as: an article where people not--one person--actually believes it is socially acceptable) you're wrong.

If it were treated by society like any other serious crime it would not be so prevalent. It is treated more like a low level misdemeanor by lots of people, including, obviously all those trump supporters. Why do 97% of rapists never see the inside of a cell (RAINN again)?

Read the article it tells you why.
1) Because rapists tend to be serial criminals.
2) While the percentage of rapes reported to police has risen in recent years, a majority — 54% — still are not reported, according to the Justice Department.
3) ...backlog of untested DNA evidence from open **** cases. (Again, lack of funding that tax payers keep voting down)
4) Without DNA it's he said vs she said and it's difficult to prove a case on circumstantial hearsay. And no, we won't just blindly convict people without a fair trial.
5) The police have a black eye that they need to fix.

How is it that so many get sexually assaulted (one every 2 minutes - RAINN again)? If there were that many men being mugged or carjacked there would be instant and violent reactions across the country. The jails would be filled twice over. Until it stopped.

No there wouldn't. But feel free to ASSume so.
EDIT: And again I ask--do you want to see more vigilantes using the sex offender registration as a list of people to kill? If so--you and I are in agreement here.

You hate the idea of it being a cultural thing because that means you are living in it.

I dislike it because there's no PROOF of it. But there is proof of feminists ripping off the phrase from a documentary about prison **** culture--a culture we in normal society don't belong to.

The concept of **** culture allows for more effective preventative responses. The reality is that we are ALL responsible for changing the conditions that allow it to happen. All of us, in every reaction and conversation we have.

No, it encourages people to accept it as normal societal behavior and tells people it's part of "our culture" when it isn't.

That was a misunderstanding on their part. Recognizing something is happening and trying to stop it is not the same as enabling it.

You're doing both by calling it a culture we live in.

But when I stop seeing discussions about how drunk she was, or where she was walking or what she was wearing every time the subject comes up, I'll know we are getting closer.

Well, considering alcohol, MDMA, Special-K and many other drugs are a depressant of judgment it's going to remain a focus of the topic. Is it consent? No, can it be mistaken as if she gets friendly with you first? Yes--especially if both are drunk. And while we're on this topic, shall we also address the "I get flirty when I drink" excuse? Or shall we let them remain blameless?

But When I see as much effort into educating men about consent as women about how to avoid ****, we'll be moving again.

SOME sex ed classes do cover this topic, if the Religious right don't stick their ***** into the discussion. But we also have an issue with what 'consent' is.

The recent exposes about the frat houses will make a difference. But even there, the show I saw had a lot of "we absolutely don't condone that" by a lot of guys who also admitted that when they were at college it happened. They just didn't condone it (in hindsight).

So they say it's not condoned, which means they KNOW it's unacceptable. Your argument is they think it is.

When I stop seeing so many excuses for why men beat their wives and start seeing them ostracized instead, we'll be heading in the right direction.

1) They are in America, well at least men who beat their wives are seen as lesser beings--women hitting their men is another story.
2) We're talking about sexual assault, not spousal abuse. They are two different things.

And there we have it. The personal. It only matters because, you. I'm no more saying that you are a rapist than I am saying that you are a drug dealer. But it is a cultural issue that you are involved in, because you, like everyone else gets a say in who you elect, what you read, how you respond, and what discussions are continued. It is so widespread that it is everyone's problem and should be everyone's responsibility. I'm happy to take the responsibility on board. So should everyone.

What you're saying is that our culture condones it, which it doesn't.

[Woden]

Why do 97% of rapists never see the inside of a cell (RAINN again)?

P0x already talked about this, but it's mostly due to a combination of low reporting rate and lack of DNA evidence (which is caused in part by lack of police funding, and in part by some of the reports coming too late after the assault for DNA tests to turn anything up). By all means, explain how you would fix this.

How is it that so many get sexually assaulted (one every 2 minutes - RAINN again)? If there were that many men being mugged or carjacked there would be instant and violent reactions across the country. The jails would be filled twice over. Until it stopped.

Have you ever even looked at US crime figures? Seriously, it's clear as day that you are talking out of your behind right now.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s..._1993-2012.xls

That was a misunderstanding on their part.

Because of course it's impossible for you to be wrong, or just plain full of ****, so obviously the experts must be having a "misunderstanding." Good grief, you have all the intellectual maturity of a grade schooler. You haven't backed up a single thing you've said in this thread, and yet you expect us to believe you over the acknowledged experts in the field simply because you say so? Get over yourself.

I'm no more saying that you are a rapist than I am saying that you are a drug dealer.

But you are saying that I'm at least partially responsible for ****, while not saying that I'm at least partially responsible for drug dealers. And, apparently, there is nothing I can do but bow down to your opinion to stop being accused of being an accessory to ****. It's a blatant and disgusting attempt to vilify people who disagree with you without having to present any evidence for it.

But it is a cultural issue

This is an assertion that you still have not even attempted to back up, despite numerous pieces of evidence against your viewpoint being presented. The rest of your post isn't even worth replying to, since it all hinges on this unbacked assertion.

Unless you have any logical response to the arguments against "**** culture" being a thing (and no, "I said so" and its equivalents aren't logical responses), then why the hell do you think you are going to convince anybody?

Your position seems to be that the mere fact that **** happens is sufficient to prove that "**** culture" exists, regardless of any other considerations, which is blatantly bullcrap. If the vast majority of the population is strongly and objectively opposed to ****, that is clear evidence against it being a cultural issue; if there is no evidence whatsoever of contact between rapists, that is clear evidence against it being a cultural issue; if there is no evidence of popular support of rapists, that is clear evidence against it being a cultural issue. Don't you agree? If not, then please either list what sort of things you would accept as evidence for and against "**** culture," or eff off with your unfalsifiable nonsense.


Edit: Just for kicks, your arguments that P0x and I are part of **** culture include all of the following logical fallacies (and possibly more!):
Ad hominem - You are attempting to attack our character rather than our arguments by implying that we are responsible for ****, without having presented a logical argument that we are.
Appeal to emotion - You are trying to sway opinion by insisting that we are responsible for a crime that nearly everyone finds horrific.
Composition fallacy - You are making the baseless assertion that because **** happens, it is due to the culture at large and therefore everyone is at fault.
Black-and-white fallacy - You are presenting the argument as if the only options are "**** doesn't happen" or "**** culture exists," while ignoring other possibilities (e.g., lone-wolf actions, mental illness).

[Meherrin]

Anyone looking for the existence of a group of men who have adopted the ideas that women are sexual objects and that getting sex by any means necessary is an acceptable thing are invited to explore the online world of pick-up artists (PUAs) and men's rights activists (MRAs).

Perhaps if it was suggested that said there is a culture of entitled misogyny that can turn violent inside North American society instead of a **** culture, some people might see the problems?

One of the ways in which **** is minimised, is to define **** in very constricted terms. Consider the notion put forward by an actual American legislator, Todd Akin, that there is such a thing as "legitimate ****" and that a woman who has been "legitimately raped" cannot conceive. Yes, this notion was widely mocked, but... I assume Akin is a fairly regular guy, he abhors what he thinks **** is - but he has ideas about women that would cause him to decide that some things most of us would agree are ****, or sexual assault of some kind, are not what he calls 'legitimate' ****.

Others think that when sexual contact is forced on sex workers it ism't ****. Or that when a person who goes to another person's home but changes their mind about what they want, but is coerced into sex anyway, it isn't ****. Or when a person has a previous sexusl history with the accused, it isn't ****. Or it isn't **** if the person (usually female in this situation) has had a lot of sexual partnets. Or that a man can't be raped by a woman. Or that a person in prison deserves whatever happens to them because they are a criminal, and thus forced, even brutal sexual assault in prisons isn't ****. Or.... The list of things that various people tend to exclude from their definition of **** is very long. So you can find many people who say, often honestly and vehemently, that thry don't support ****.... but there are many actions that they don't consider to be ****, and they would accept those.

And then again, what do you say about people who write to prominent women threatening them with torture and **** because of opinions they voiced on line? Is acceptance of repeated and vicious threats of sexual violence ok because the authors are only doing it to intimidate the women, and most likely will not carry out those threats? Is it an alright thing if you reject **** but accept threats of **** bring used to imtimidate people? What does it say when a group of people think of violent, even deadly sexual assault as the thing you use as a threat against a woman (or a man they have defined as not being 'really' a man).

Just a few questions.


Edit: I protest the censoring of the word "****." Trying to make something invisible does nothing to solve the problem.

[Rokchick]

Well, considering alcohol, MDMA, Special-K and many other drugs are a depressant of judgment it's going to remain a focus of the topic. Is it consent? No, can it be mistaken as if she gets friendly with you first? Yes--especially if both are drunk. And while we're on this topic, shall we also address the "I get flirty when I drink" excuse? Or shall we let them remain blameless?

What you're saying is that our culture condones it, which it doesn't.

I rest my case.

Edit: Just for kicks, your arguments that P0x and I are part of **** culture include all of the following logical fallacies (and possibly more!):
Ad hominem - You are attempting to attack our character rather than our arguments by implying that we are responsible for ****, without having presented a logical argument that we are.

No, I have repeatedly said I'm blaming you as part of the culture. Hence everyone else as well. So unless you think your personal character is driving everything by itself, I don't. I blame the way society (and you) reacts.

Appeal to emotion - You are trying to sway opinion by insisting that we are responsible for a crime that nearly everyone finds horrific.

Stop trying to find the personal. I'm saying it's cultural, you keep wanting to make it personal not me! If EVERYONE found it horrific enough, it would not happen so much.

Composition fallacy - You are making the baseless assertion that because **** happens, it is due to the culture at large and therefore everyone is at fault.

It is a much accepted OPINION. Just like yours is an OPINION. No one has given me a better explanation for why it can't be curtailed except "we have lotsa bad guys". That's rubbish. You managed to stop abortion clinics in many places for years!

Black-and-white fallacy - You are presenting the argument as if the only options are "**** doesn't happen" or "**** culture exists," while ignoring other possibilities (e.g., lone-wolf actions, mental illness).

No, that would be you. "**** is rampant, but only bad guys ever do it and they can't be stopped. Society has nothing to do with it".

Get that word out of the filter mods. It's dumb. But telling. It is in there because it is used as a threat online so much.

[Woden]

No, I have repeatedly said I'm blaming you as part of the culture.

You have repeatedly asserted that we (and, apparently, everybody) are part of **** culture without once going into even the slightest bit of detail about why you think we are contributing to **** culture.

Based on your "debate" style everywhere you post, I'm assuming that you've never heard the Christopher Hitchens quote, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"? Or, in cruder terms, "Put up or shut up"? Because if you're so keen on the idea that you can just assert crap without having to defend it, then we can start doing so as well.

Stop trying to find the personal. I'm saying it's cultural, you keep wanting to make it personal not me! If EVERYONE found it horrific enough, it would not happen so much.

You say this, and yet you completely ignore all the evidence that has been presented to you which shows that, yes, the vast majority of people do find it to be completely and utterly terrible.

No one has given me a better explanation for why it can't be curtailed except "we have lotsa bad guys". That's rubbish. You managed to stop abortion clinics in many places for years!

What the hell does a regulated business have to do with individual unorganized criminals? Seriously, the leaps in logic required to equate an individual person choosing to commit a crime with a business that has to file a business license with the government before it can even begin operations is simply mind-boggling. To quote a certain idiot, "That's rubbish."

If it were possible to require people to file for licenses before taking any potentially objectionable action, then yeah, we'd have solved ****, murder, theft, and every other crime you'd care to name ages ago.


Edit:

It is a much accepted OPINION.

And opinions that contradict the evidence are worthless. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. And to reiterate a point that's been getting belabored to death with you, which you still refuse to acknowledge: P0x and I have been presenting evidence in this thread, while you have just been mindlessly rehashing your assertions without giving any evidence for them.

Edit2: And to share an old phrase: "Opinions are like buttholes. Everybody's got one, and most of them stink."

[Cisalpine]

If EVERYONE found it horrific enough, it would not happen so much.

This has to be the single most asinine, ridiculous, down right STUPIDEST sentence you have ever posted. You'll always have rapists, no matter what. You are seriously out of touch with reality. But then, you focus all your time and attention trying to convince everyone you're always right, so not surprising really.

Edit: I also think you owe Pox and Woden an apology for insulting them. It's a signal of your losing the battle to resort to personal insults and attacks.

[5m4llP0X]

Anyone looking for the existence of a group of men who have adopted the ideas that women are sexual objects and that getting sex by any means necessary is an acceptable thing are invited to explore the online world of pick-up artists (PUAs) and men's rights activists (MRAs).

But they still don't condone ****. They do, however, condone manipulation, lies and any means to obtain consensual sex.

Perhaps if it was suggested that said there is a culture of entitled misogyny that can turn violent inside North American society instead of a **** culture, some people might see the problems?

This would disagree.

In contrast, the childhood histories of rapists appear more indicative of violence. Simons, Wurtele, and Durham (2004) found that rapists, when compared to child sexual abusers, reported more frequent experiences of physical abuse, parental violence, emotional abuse, and cruelty to animals. Researchers contend that physical abuse, parental violence, and emotional abuse result in externalizing behaviors only when they are considered in combination (Lee et al., 2002; McGee, Wolfe, & Wilson, 1997). As an illustration, Beauregard, Lussier, and Proulx (2004) found that physical and verbal abuse during childhood led to antisocial behavior and callous personality traits, both of which led to aggressive sexual fantasies. Likewise, Salter and colleagues (2003) indicate that the combination of physical violence, domestic violence, emotional abuse, and neglect predicted subsequent sexual offending. Researchers (e.g., Craissati, McClurg, & Browne, 2002a) explain that an individual who has been raised in an emotionally impoverished environment is often unable to identify his emotions in an accurate manner and, as a result, is likely to become confused when confronted with emotionally charged situations. These individuals often react to confusing situations with overt aggression.

A lot of it has to do with upbringing, and the abuse of animals suggests possible sociopathy.

One of the ways in which **** is minimised, is to define **** in very constricted terms. Consider the notion put forward by an actual American legislator, Todd Akin, that there is such a thing as "legitimate ****" and that a woman who has been "legitimately raped" cannot conceive. Yes, this notion was widely mocked, but... I assume Akin is a fairly regular guy, he abhors what he thinks **** is - but he has ideas about women that would cause him to decide that some things most of us would agree are ****, or sexual assault of some kind, are not what he calls 'legitimate' ****.

And again, because of the conservative right and especially the religious there is a LOT of misinformation about sexual assault, biology, and sex in general. There is also some research I've found that likely will never see the light of day because that group just doesn't want to talk about it.

Others think that when sexual contact is forced on sex workers it isn't ****.

Again, misinformation and current societal negative views on people who enter in that line of work.

Or it isn't **** if the person (usually female in this situation) has had a lot of sexual partners.

That is usually used by the defense in an attempt to discredit the case. Sadly, that attempt actually reaches the uneducated.

And then again, what do you say about people who write to prominent women threatening them with torture and **** because of opinions they voiced on line? Is acceptance of repeated and vicious threats of sexual violence ok because the authors are only doing it to intimidate the women, and most likely will not carry out those threats? Is it an alright thing if you reject **** but accept threats of **** bring used to imtimidate people? What does it say when a group of people think of violent, even deadly sexual assault as the thing you use as a threat against a woman (or a man they have defined as not being 'really' a man).

I believe these people should honestly be reported to the FBI or local law enforcement and the internet site should comply with said authorities in every way to bring these people to justice. It is another form of cyber bullying and no different than if a public speaker tells people to go out and attack people based on race, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, creed, or anything else. And I say is should be up to the people who witness the offense (including the victim) to contact the authorities so they can take care of it.
But essentially it is another form of cyber bullying and no different than when a 14 year old in Call of Doodie screams that he's going to get his dad's gun, find the person, and shoot them. I could drone on and on about this topic because it really is a LOT more than people threatening to ****--it's a whole discussion of hate speech, the advocating of violence and much more.

Edit: I protest the censoring of the word "****." Trying to make something invisible does nothing to solve the problem.

This I agree with. It bothers me that it suddenly became censored when this topic was brought up.

I rest my case.

If your case is that women can do whatever they want and are blameless to all forms of repercussions then sure. Knowing there are these creeps out there and still choosing to partake in risky behavior increases their risk of being assaulted.

[Woden]

So, P0x, do you think this counts as a concession of defeat on her part?

[5m4llP0X]

So, P0x, do you think this counts as a concession of defeat on her part?

Pretty certain. Especially since you proved she doesn't back her information up with sources or real facts.
Plus I posted an actual peer reviewed article that proves there's a connection between mental disorders and rapists so it disproves her "normal culture" theory.
That and she can't adequately defend why engaging in risky behavior is entirely acceptable.

[Rokchick]

Pretty certain. Especially since you proved she doesn't back her information up with sources or real facts.
Plus I posted an actual peer reviewed article that proves there's a connection between mental disorders and rapists so it disproves her "normal culture" theory.
That and she can't adequately defend why engaging in risky behavior is entirely acceptable.

Give me a break. I've about 10 minutes available, and you 2 are not the highest priority in my life. Sorry, I know I am in yours.
I may get onto it over the weekend might not.

Short 1 minute answer : Your posts are proof of nothing except your opinion about a concept. The reality of a **** culture is very clearly illustrated b the response to trumps filth. He's still there...

[5m4llP0X]

Give me a break. I've about 10 minutes available, and you 2 are not the highest priority in my life. Sorry, I know I am in yours.
I may get onto it over the weekend might not.

Short 1 minute answer : Your posts are proof of nothing except your opinion about a concept. The reality of a **** culture is very clearly illustrated b the response to trumps filth. He's still there...

No, that is YOUR opinion. We've actually refuted it with actual credible sources. Try harder, please.

[Meherrin]

So, P0x, do you think this counts as a concession of defeat on her part?

If you're referring to me, i simply don't debate these issues here any more. If there's something I want to say, I say it. If others disagree, that's fine. I think we've been over these topics enough tines to know that some people have deeply hrld opinions on certain issues - I'm certainly one of those - and it's not worth my time to go over the same things over and over again.

[Eric Rasputin]

If you're referring to me, i simply don't debate these issues here any more. If there's something I want to say, I say it. If others disagree, that's fine. I think we've been over these topics enough tines to know that some people have deeply hrld opinions on certain issues - I'm certainly one of those - and it's not worth my time to go over the same things over and over again.

Im pretty sure, they're talking about Rok ...

[Rokchick]

Im pretty sure, they're talking about Rok ...

They are always talking about Rok. It's their thang!

[The Burninator]

They are always talking about Rok. It's their thang!

AHA.

This quote finally proves that sexism is a lie!!!!!1

[5m4llP0X]

They are always talking about Rok. It's their thang!

So this lack of response is you admitting you're wrong and that "**** culture" doesn't exist in the Western world outside of prison?

[Rokchick]

So this lack of response is you admitting you're wrong and that "**** culture" doesn't exist in the Western world outside of prison?

No, it is me not having enough time available to waste replying yet again. Your "facts" (which are just statistics that prove nothing) do not prove your stance. You both misunderstand meaning the usage of the term. But I'm not surprised.

[5m4llP0X]

No, it is me not having enough time available to waste replying yet again. Your "facts" (which are just statistics that prove nothing) do not prove your stance. You both misunderstand meaning the usage of the term. But I'm not surprised.

I love it! "Facts prove nothing!" Ahhh, typical Rok.

[Rokchick]

I love it! "Facts prove nothing!" Ahhh, typical Rok.

The ones you use don't prove your point. Clearly. You don't understand the concept. refer Mehrs initial post.

[5m4llP0X]

The ones you use don't prove your point. Clearly. You don't understand the concept. refer Mehrs initial post.

Oh you mean like the peer-reviewed article that shows a direct correlation with mental disorder and rapists, particularly psychopathy? Or that the people overwhelmingly come from a broken home and abusive home? All these are recipes for social deviance which means it's not normal behavior like you wish to assume.

[Woden]

You both misunderstand meaning the usage of the term.

...or it's that you (and certain other people overly-invested in identity politics) co-opt terms willy-nilly to make hamfisted assertions that don't stand the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Evidence towards this would be your repeated inability to respond logically to any criticism of your premises, to contrary evidence, and to questioning of your definitions. Oh, wait, that's right: You apparently don't believe in evidence, except when it suits you.

[5m4llP0X]

[QUOTE=Woden;2784778]...or it's that you (and certain other people overly-invested in identity politics) co-opt terms willy-nilly to make hamfisted assertions that don't stand the slightest bit of scrutiny.
^This right here.

Oh, wait, that's right: You apparently don't believe in evidence, except when it suits you.

Evidence of **** Culture: It happens so we live in that culture. Like we live in a murder culture, terrorist culture, school shooting/mass murder culture, serial killer culture, and bronie culture. Yes, we are all a part of the Bronie culture, even if it's a minute number of men who are Bronies.

[Rokchick]

You live also live in a gun culture (no, guns don't run around buying food, and lots (most) people don't even have or want them). And just like other references it just encompasses the behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs around the 2nd amendment and the need for firearms. You also think that guns make no difference to the rate people get killed because you live in a gun culture. You can find supporting evidence for any set of cultural beliefs.

Drug culture refers to the behaviors attitudes and beliefs around the use, harm (or lack of) around drugs.

**** culture refers to the behaviors attitudes and beliefs around objectifying, assaulting and raping. The myths people believe, the lengths they go to perpetuate them. You don't like to have the term used because it offends you personally that anyone would DARE to suggest that you are complicit. But, just like you are complicit in the gun culture if you respond to a suggestion about control measures with hype, 2nd amendment bollocks or stats supplied by pro gun groups, or drinking culture if you respond with stats about how much worse xxxx is, you are complicit in **** culture just by denying it's existence. Sure, YOU don't need anything done about it, but YOU are not likely to be a victim. Just like you might deny the existence of systemic racism, because YOU are not likely to see it.

But really.. so much angst about co-opting a term. As if it doesn't happen all the time. It's a pointless argument to make. **** culture has been a thing since the ancient greeks (yeah they had a top god who was totally rapey). And before.

Of course you can disagree, and you can throw "official" crime statistics at me which do not include the majority of un-reported rapes (which you know), not even noticing that using those stats is an example of what is embodied in the term **** culture (perpetuating myths). And you just did it.

The reality is that you "guys" (and gals) who get all antsy about anyone suggesting that you have it easier than anyone else for any reason at all (refusal of privilege status) are the root cause of how long these things take to dissolve. BLM would not be a thing if the issues they are pushing were not there to be pushed. **** culture would not be a term used if it wasn't disproportionately a problem. Gun culture would never be uttered if people didn't use them to murder so often.

The reality for a mother of black sons and daughters in many (most) parts of the US and here is that her family is at a much higher rate of violence and harassment of all sorts, including ****. Your daughters who stay out of prison are at a much higher threat of being raped than your sons that stay out of prison. Staying out of prison is easier for your daughters and your white sons. So, for good psychological reasons, you will keep denying your white, male, educated, etc, etc privilege because, you.

So keep accusing me of being an SJW as if it is a bad thing. All those Vietnam protesters were SJWs. All those CND rallys were full of SJWs. Occupy was all SJWs. MLK was one. So were the suffragettes. I'm in good company. You can sit in the other corner with donnie. I'm not gong to back down on some issues that I see and you don't just because a couple of likely lads want to puff chests about it. I'm also not under the delusion that you will see the light any time soon. But you will eventually. Or if not, your children will. Unless the whole world turns to **** of course and then you might end up in the new under class and get shown the light quite brightly. And that would be a pity.

[5m4llP0X]

You live also live in a gun culture (no, guns don't run around buying food, and lots (most) people don't even have or want them). And just like other references it just encompasses the behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs around the 2nd amendment and the need for firearms. You also think that guns make no difference to the rate people get killed because you live in a gun culture. You can find supporting evidence for any set of cultural beliefs.

Drug culture refers to the behaviors attitudes and beliefs around the use, harm (or lack of) around drugs.

You're also missing a key part: Gun and drug culture both actively have people trying to legalize and defend the use of it. Even with drugs like heroin, crack and PCP you have people actually saying with a straight face that legalizing them would make our country safer because of "rival territory and gang culture". There's also an air of acceptability that isn't there with the supposed "**** culture"

**** culture refers to the behaviors attitudes and beliefs around objectifying, assaulting and raping. The myths people believe, the lengths they go to perpetuate them. You don't like to have the term used because it offends you personally that anyone would DARE to suggest that you are complicit. But, just like you are complicit in the gun culture if you respond to a suggestion about control measures with hype, 2nd amendment bollocks or stats supplied by pro gun groups, or drinking culture if you respond with stats about how much worse xxxx is, you are complicit in **** culture just by denying it's existence. Sure, YOU don't need anything done about it, but YOU are not likely to be a victim. Just like you might deny the existence of systemic racism, because YOU are not likely to see it.

Wow this is a lot of drivel. So seriously you think because it happens it instantly makes it a culture? Nevermind the fact that no one tries to actually legalize it (Not talking about pedophilia, which has a small group that does try to get one version of it legalized), defend it's use, or actively campaign to defang the negativity around it? Is there an NRA or NORML org for ****?

But really.. so much angst about co-opting a term. As if it doesn't happen all the time. It's a pointless argument to make. **** culture has been a thing since the ancient greeks (yeah they had a top god who was totally rapey). And before.

It doesn't mean we live in the culture now. Hedonism was a cultural norm back in Greek and Roman time and later: primae noctis. The fact that our laws have advanced to identify that it is wrong and our society has progressed to understand that as well proves we've moved beyond that. What once was a normal thing to do is now reserved for the mentally deranged.

Of course you can disagree, and you can throw "official" crime statistics at me which do not include the majority of un-reported rapes (which you know), not even noticing that using those stats is an example of what is embodied in the term **** culture (perpetuating myths). And you just did it.

So it means nothing that the crime has gone down? What do you think it means less women have just reported it and now it's worse than ever? Until you provide statistics to disprove the statistics and prove the overall numbers are just as bad as they where in the 60's or even 70's then you're in the wrong. That's how arguments work.

The reality is that you "guys" (and gals) who get all antsy about anyone suggesting that you have it easier than anyone else for any reason at all (refusal of privilege status) are the root cause of how long these things take to dissolve. BLM would not be a thing if the issues they are pushing were not there to be pushed. **** culture would not be a term used if it wasn't disproportionately a problem. Gun culture would never be uttered if people didn't use them to murder so often.

Wrong. Gun culture would still be a thing because people love to actively collect, hunt, and go to shooting ranges. Like I have said before: **** is an epidemic and one we need to deal with effectively, but by trying to call it "part of our culture" or a "culture we live in" you're doing more to hurt your cause than help it. You're, like the drug culture, trying to normalize it and make it sound like it's part of our every day life when it isn't. It, like murder, is a serious issue that needs to be addressed and until you stop contributing to it and start addressing it properly it will never be fully curbed.

The reality for a mother of black sons and daughters in many (most) parts of the US and here is that her family is at a much higher rate of violence and harassment of all sorts, including ****. Your daughters who stay out of prison are at a much higher threat of being raped than your sons that stay out of prison. Staying out of prison is easier for your daughters and your white sons. So, for good psychological reasons, you will keep denying your white, male, educated, etc, etc privilege because, you.

I'll look at the other articles, but Buzzfeed is the worst among the worst when it comes to integrity. You wanna ***** about brietbart, but really look at buzzfeed. They're like a piece of crap ate a piece of crap and then pooped out another piece of crap. That third crap is Buzzfeed in terms of journalistic integrity.
Ok, viewed them. What does "White Privilege" have to do with our argument?

So keep accusing me of being an SJW as if it is a bad thing. All those Vietnam protesters were SJWs.

You mean the ones who attacked the soldiers who where conscripted to go to the war? Or the ones who pressured the government to prevent bombing runs and other crucial attacks that could have prevented hundreds or even thousands of lives? In the grand scheme of things, they did more harm than good.

Occupy was all SJWs.

Occupy was the biggest joke ever. It was nothing more than a bunch of whiny children with no actual end goal. I get that they are upset with wage and wealth inequality and corruption of Wall Street and I can stand behind that, but they had zero end goal on how to achieve a resolution. Also: SJWs are actually credited with ruining the movement by trying to add in feminism, Native American rain dancing, “****-free zones,” black rights activism and fighting “institutionalized oppression,” all of which had nothing to do with the goals of the movement. Then there was the "progressive stack" which was trying to be pushed.

MLK was one. So were the suffragettes. I'm in good company. You can sit in the other corner with donnie. I'm not gong to back down on some issues that I see and you don't just because a couple of likely lads want to puff chests about it. I'm also not under the delusion that you will see the light any time soon. But you will eventually. Or if not, your children will. Unless the whole world turns to **** of course and then you might end up in the new under class and get shown the light quite brightly. And that would be a pity.

And during his time he had some perfect points to make. However modern SJW is mostly first world problem BS. I mean can you honestly compare suffrage and the civil rights movement to the pink tax?

[Rokchick]

Damn. I lost that bet. It was you.

Get lost in your terminological grey veil.