HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » Men's Group (Group) » "Seen On DU": E...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 07:34 PM

"Seen On DU": Ed Meese Approves of this thread!



http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=7852

Maybe someone can take up a collection to buy him a six pack of Sam Adams.

177 replies, 23096 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 177 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Seen On DU": Ed Meese Approves of this thread! (Original post)
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 OP
loli phabay Jul 2012 #1
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #8
Upton Jul 2012 #2
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #3
loli phabay Jul 2012 #4
Upton Jul 2012 #6
loli phabay Jul 2012 #7
The Doctor. Nov 2012 #97
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2012 #5
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #9
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #10
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #11
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #12
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #13
hifiguy Jul 2012 #14
leftyohiolib Nov 2012 #123
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #124
caseymoz Jul 2012 #16
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #17
caseymoz Jul 2012 #18
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #19
caseymoz Jul 2012 #20
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #21
caseymoz Jul 2012 #22
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #23
caseymoz Jul 2012 #24
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #15
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #25
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #26
lumberjack_jeff Aug 2012 #27
opiate69 Aug 2012 #28
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #29
4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #31
caseymoz Sep 2012 #45
The Doctor. Nov 2012 #98
4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #30
The Doctor. Nov 2012 #95
Upton Nov 2012 #100
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #32
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #33
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Aug 2012 #34
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Aug 2012 #35
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #36
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #37
Upton Sep 2012 #38
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #40
Upton Sep 2012 #41
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #43
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #74
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #75
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #39
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #42
caseymoz Sep 2012 #44
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #46
opiate69 Sep 2012 #47
seabeyond Sep 2012 #48
opiate69 Sep 2012 #49
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #50
opiate69 Sep 2012 #51
Upton Sep 2012 #52
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #56
lumberjack_jeff Sep 2012 #60
Upton Sep 2012 #63
ElboRuum Sep 2012 #65
opiate69 Sep 2012 #66
ElboRuum Sep 2012 #67
opiate69 Sep 2012 #68
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #72
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #70
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #58
opiate69 Sep 2012 #64
Major Nikon Sep 2012 #73
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #77
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Sep 2012 #78
opiate69 Sep 2012 #79
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #80
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #53
lumberjack_jeff Sep 2012 #57
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #61
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #59
Warren DeMontague Sep 2012 #71
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #76
Upton Sep 2012 #54
lumberjack_jeff Sep 2012 #55
4th law of robotics Sep 2012 #62
Old and In the Way Sep 2012 #69
Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #81
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2012 #82
opiate69 Oct 2012 #84
Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #85
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2012 #86
Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #87
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #83
The Doctor. Nov 2012 #99
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Oct 2012 #88
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #89
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #90
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #91
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2012 #93
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #92
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Nov 2012 #94
The Doctor. Nov 2012 #96
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2012 #104
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #105
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Nov 2012 #109
Upton Nov 2012 #101
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #102
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2012 #103
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #106
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #107
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #108
Upton Nov 2012 #110
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #111
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2012 #112
opiate69 Nov 2012 #133
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #134
opiate69 Nov 2012 #135
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #136
opiate69 Nov 2012 #113
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #114
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #115
opiate69 Nov 2012 #116
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #117
Bonobo Nov 2012 #118
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #120
Bonobo Nov 2012 #121
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #126
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #119
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2012 #122
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #125
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #127
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #128
opiate69 Nov 2012 #129
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #130
opiate69 Nov 2012 #132
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #138
opiate69 Nov 2012 #140
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #142
opiate69 Nov 2012 #143
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #131
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #139
opiate69 Nov 2012 #141
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #149
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Nov 2012 #144
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #146
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #148
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Nov 2012 #150
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #145
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #147
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #151
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #152
4th law of robotics Nov 2012 #153
Major Nikon Nov 2012 #154
Warren DeMontague Nov 2012 #137
name not needed Nov 2013 #155
Major Nikon Nov 2013 #156
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Nov 2013 #157
Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #158
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Nov 2013 #159
Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #167
Major Nikon Nov 2013 #160
Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #161
Major Nikon Nov 2013 #162
opiate69 Nov 2013 #163
Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #164
Bonobo Nov 2013 #165
Major Nikon Nov 2013 #166
Bonobo Dec 2013 #168
Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #169
Major Nikon Dec 2013 #170
Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #171
opiate69 Dec 2013 #172
seabeyond Dec 2013 #173
Major Nikon Dec 2013 #175
Old and In the Way Dec 2013 #174
Warren DeMontague Dec 2013 #176
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Dec 2013 #177

Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 07:37 PM

1. as the main protagonist on that threaad i thought throwing this in was a bit banal

 

I know there is a lot of history between the two groups but i think its kinda dumb to be in different outhouses throwing poop at each other. Now ripping the piss out of each other from your own ojthouse is a okay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #1)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 08:48 PM

8. I hear you. However, this is "seen on du". Its like Ice Road Truckers, but with DU.

I'll be your host, Outhouse McPoofling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 07:50 PM

2. Did you notice the original article is like 6 years old?

We're still hearing the same old shit, heck..we've been hearing it for decades.....but the age of the piece gives some perspective too. For looking around today, it would appear the anti sex forces haven't made one bit of progress over the last 6 years in instituting their prudish agenda..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #2)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 07:54 PM

3. It's like the Shakers

 

weird little cult that has to survive by recruiting (no sex allowed means no kids).


But they don't really get a lot of new disciples since . . . well sex is fun. Most people won't give it up voluntarily.

They linger on getting a few unhappy new recruits but really they are a dead end and socially irrelevant.

Telling women that they are all rape victims unless they remain pure and untouched by men and that sex is the worst thing in the world just doesn't jive with most women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #3)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 08:07 PM

4. sex is fun is the understatement of the millenium. ;)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #4)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 08:28 PM

6. I see you're over there..

fighting the good fight for sexual freedom. Good luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #6)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 08:46 PM

7. i figure we can all learn from each other.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 10:38 PM

97. Not for long.

 


You can't bring rational perspectives there, or realistic ones, without getting the boot.

I think I brought up that women didn't like being reminded that they are just as capable of evil as men are.... and they booted me. Ostensibly it was to prove they weren't at all petty.

Being that people expect the same behaviors from others that they themselves are prone to, the thankfully small number of misandrists don't post directly to Men's Group threads in order to avoid being banned. Instead, they anonymously alert on random (and likely every) posts in these thread in order to 'punish' the menfolk for, well, having a laugh.

I'll bet more than half the posts in this thread have been alerted on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 08:15 PM

5. I'm sorry, I still can't get past the burka/bikini cartoon thread

That was mind numbing stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 08:54 PM

9. Here's the best part

She speculates that the current climate is partly ''a backlash to feminism, a way of protecting male egos, and men insisting on retaining a power structure sexually if they can't retain it in areas of employment and parenting and so forth. It's a way to hang on to a male-dominated paradigm."

But Eller says there is plenty of blame to go around. She and Pamela Paul point also to a schism in the women's movement several decades ago. Some feminists campaigned against pornography, but others viewed that as tantamount to censorship, or did not want to be perceived as anti-men. It divided the women's movement, they say, at a moment when it could have decisively changed the national dialogue on pornography.


First the author seems to admit that the efforts of the anti-sex feminists were counterproductive (which is true), although she blames this on men (predictably). Then the author goes on to suggest that if they had just doubled down on the nutbagery they could have turned things around. Forget the fact that reasonable feminists fully predicted the anti-sex rad-fem crowd would sandbag the 2nd wave movement (which it did). Rather than accept blame for their monumental fuckup, she goes on to blame the book burners also, even though the message of the book burners was identical to the rad-fem's which is why they crawled into bed with the likes of Ed Meese. In other words, it wasn't the rad-fem's fault their efforts turned to shit (as was fully predicted by other feminists). It was the fault of men. It was the fault of the pro-sex feminists. It was the fault of the Christers.

Eller also contends that the ''conservative right, in its eagerness to keep sexuality forbidden, is really just stoking the fire of an appetite for porn, for naughtiness, for the whole lust for sexual transgression." She maintains that if conservative forces were to ''give up their repressive game where sex is concerned," the mainstream manifestations of porn will lose their appeal to a lot of people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #9)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 08:55 PM

10. Right. It couldnt possibly be that PEOPLE LIKE TO WATCH OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SEX.

Its gotta be a Conspiracy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #9)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 11:53 PM

11. I get that there's probably always going to be a nature/nurture debate

 

especially on complex issues.

But they seem to have unilaterally decided it is 100% nurture.

People aren't interested in having sex. Not naturally at least. They're conditioned in to it against their will.

Men don't naturally find women's naked bodies attractive (ew!). That's just the way the patriarchy reinforces the denigration of women by training young men to view them as objects. (duh!).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #11)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 12:28 AM

12. The truly sad part is they are convinced by the weakest of evidence presented by unqualified hacks

If you look at the qualifications of the authors of the rad-fem's 'theory' you won't find that any of them have any background in human behavior studies. No sociology. No psychology. No psychiatry. Not even economics or anthropology. These people had literary or arts degrees. Some were college dropouts. One has a law degree. Yet these are the people who will tell you exactly where western culture got it wrong. They will tell you exactly why. And they will tell you exactly what should be done (by force of law if necessary) to restrict or regulate adult consensual behavior among other things in an overall effort to completely reorder society. Oddly enough, the qualifications of those who claim to speak for organized religion are more or less the same, as is their message.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #12)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 12:43 AM

13. I think that's it exactly

 

Oddly enough, the qualifications of those who claim to speak for organized religion are more or less the same, as is their message.


This is a religion. Not basically, not that it encompasses some aspects of religion. This is a different slant on an old game.

I really see no functional difference between this and any other cult. They are certain they are right based on their own declarations. Their tenets are perfect and inarguable (at least using the only literature sources they will accept). And dissenters aren't merely people with a difference of opinion, no they are downright evil. Truths come not from empirical study but from revelations disseminated by Prophets. No amount of evidence against them will be counted whereas the flimsiest arguments in favor of what they want to believe will be held up as indisputable proof. And so on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #13)

Fri Jul 20, 2012, 10:16 AM

14. A perfectly accurate and insightful post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 12:20 PM

123. natrure/nurture has been solved it's nature AND nurture

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftyohiolib (Reply #123)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 11:14 PM

124. Well yeah,

 

obviously some things are entirely one or the other.

Most traits (and most important traits) are a combo.

That some people deny nature could have any role in behavior (a complex trait that involves genetics as well as environment) is absolutely absurd to me.

How could genetics not influence behavior? If that were the case then humans stand alone as the only organism that comes as a complete blank slate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #9)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 01:10 AM

16. Women could put a stop to porn immediately


Stop posing for the pictures! When "Girls Gone Wild" comes around, females need to stop willfully flashing their tits and then signing the legal release afterward. When an ad for nude models is put up, don't answer it. They completely fail to acknowledge that 98-99% of porn, and probably more, is consensual. The women, and men, know come in voluntarily, they sign two or three legal releases, un-coerced. Not only that, after they do it once, the experience is so bad, some of them do it again hundreds of times.

I know we're told that these are psychologically disturbed people. I won't argue against that point now, but even if it were true, unless we're going to declare them insane and make every decision for them, age of consent for sex is 18, and "yes" means "yes." Logically, if "no" is to be respected, they have to give as much respect to "yes." To do less disrespects women in porn more than most porn does.

Though antis don't respect them anyway, but that's a different subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #16)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 01:17 AM

17. It's known as self objectification under rad-fem "theory"

As if the concept of objectification wasn't nutty enough on its own, believe it or not women can self-objectify themselves. And the best part is it's still men's fault.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #17)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 01:28 PM

18. But that still doesn't affect the fact

Last edited Sat Jul 28, 2012, 02:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Whatever the motivation some women have for doing it, unless they are directly forced, women can stop it, at least as far as hetero porn is concerned. Females make the choice to be in porn. And except for porn that is done by force, which is less than 2%, and likely under 1%, (both figures my guess) it will be gone.

Of course, there's so much free porn available now it can continue to circulate for the foreseeable future without any more production. They literally cannot shut it down now. In fact, the market is so saturated the porn industry is probably going to go under. The only part of it I can see with any potential are webcams. Most of those are just a woman alone with a cam and an Internet connection. Any men in the equation are giving money, not collecting it.

Therefore, anti-porn feminists can't avoid the fight will coming down to women-against-women. The anti-porn faction is scornful to sex workers who won't take the excuses offered about "self-objectification" and aren't contrite about their work. When it breaks down this way, the fight is going to get vicious.

And meanwhile, issue like equal pay will fall by the wayside, and reproductive rights are likely to be rolled back.

That's the immediate future I see for modern-day feminism. It hasn't accomplished anything for thirty years and it might be another thirty before it does. It frustrates me because I consider myself to be pro-feminist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #18)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 05:38 PM

19. I think most actual Feminists are focused on things like choice and equal pay

I honestly think it's really only a small, increasingly isolated minority that has some delusion about being able to put a stop to all the nekkidness and fuckin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #19)

Sat Jul 28, 2012, 06:51 PM

20. Haven't seen any surveys.

But I expect that it breaks down against porn with a similar proportion to the general population. In other words, not a small minority opposing it. It's probably even a little higher, but only a small minority considers it a priority. If this is true, a larger proportion can be mobilized if the subject heats up. The major difference with the general population, I think, is feminist ideology lets them rationalize more radical action against it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #20)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:03 AM

21. I actually think it's a very small minority that is anti-porn, period.

There are plenty of people who don't personally like it, but that doesn't mean they're against it.

I think the American People are pretty socially liberal- they want the government out of the bodies, bedrooms, and bloodstreams of consenting adults. Despite all the breathless hyperbole we've heard about all-powerful "values voters", most Americans are pro-porn, want pot legalized, and certainly we're close to having a majority in favor of marriage equality for LGBT citizens.

Porn isn't going anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #21)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:17 AM

22. Well, it isn't going anywhere . . .


. . . but not due to lack of opposition, I think. They can never get rid of it now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #22)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 12:29 AM

23. I think the opposition is very vocal, but very small.

I think more women look at porn- for recreational purposes, mind you, not for the purpose of getting outraged-- than don't, and with men the figure is probably close to 95% (not including liars)

I dont think there is any groundswell of support for getting rid of it. Most people either like it, or are "meh" about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #23)

Sun Jul 29, 2012, 01:14 AM

24. Well, we're not going to agree . . .

. . . on the size of it. You have your estimate. I have mine. Neither are supported by any valid surveys I know of. I don't expect to find any, and I'm not willing to interrupt the flow of my life to look.

Of course I think mine is more likely, but I'd call it guess. It's based mostly on a feud I saw play out between pro- and anti- sex factions on youtube. It certainly looked to me like the pros were outnumbered. Another thing, antis were by far dirtier and meaner in the way they fought. So, I don't expect fair play from them.

As late as five years ago, I, too, thought attitudes in this country concerning sex were liberal and set to go further in that direction. I made a few costly personal mistakes because based on it. Therefore, I no longer think that. I think this culture is more likely to collapse completely than it is to accept the sex industry as honorable.

For your last point, what's missing for creating a groundswell against porn is any sense of urgency, in other words, hysteria. They can argue that porn incites violence against women, and some people would even say that they're convinced. Nevertheless, with sex crimes and rapes going down, along with crime in general, it's hard for anyone to act like they're convinced of it. Their feet say something different from their mouths.

If, however, there's a sudden change in crime trends, look for the groundswell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Thu Jul 26, 2012, 08:17 PM

15. Hetero Men, you only like looking at naked women because youve been "trained" to!

Seen on DU™!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Sat Aug 11, 2012, 06:08 AM

25. Seen On DU™: "Bikinis Make Men See Women As Objects!"



"...objects??? I can't see fucking ANYTHING under here!"


Seen On DU™!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Sun Aug 12, 2012, 04:56 PM

26. So; what do you "expect to see" on a Discussion Board like DU?

I feel like Forrest Gump, sometimes, myself.. it's like a box of chocolates! Full of surprises.

Sometimes the chocolates are full of motor oil, of course, or moldy cheese.

After I saw several threads full of people hooting, cheering, and gushing with praise over a psychotic rant by a violent woman who shot another human being, where she openly and repeatedly advocated murdering Billions of people, honestly... very little will surprise me, anymore, as to what passes for "acceptable" on this progressive site.


Thankfully, I'm not easily shocked.

Seen On DU™!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #26)

Sun Aug 12, 2012, 05:50 PM

27. Chocolates? No, more like "Bertie Botts Every Flavor Beans"

Alas. Earwax.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 02:15 PM

28. Seen on DU

"I think men who like shaved pubes should be considered potential pedophiles"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #28)

Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:55 PM

29. Yeah, that line of reasoning is pretty fucking nuts, along with

"the trend in porn to show shaved genitalia is programming men to be attracted to... blah blah blah"

Like, every time you look at smut, BEWARE! you're putting in a new firmware update to the old melon. (Archer, Phrasing!)

I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that the fad of totally shaved pubes in porn is now going back the other direction, towards hair. And good, because personally, I LIKE hair (what that says about me, I don't know) ... I do! Shit, I can even dig a little underarm hair (very European) or, in some cases, some fine blonde leg hair.

I spent enough time at Dead shows; discovering the wonders of nature, rolling in the rushes, down by the riverside; with sexy hippie women, that my firmware must have been updated repeatedly with that information.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #29)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 03:52 PM

31. It's an odd incongruency

 

they seem to believe everyone (but themselves of course) are programmed by the patriarchy.

Ok I could get saying that men are behind brainwashing women to keep them subservient. It's crazy but boiler-plate as conspiracies go. But men are also programming themselves to support the patriarchy while running the patriarchy even though it hurts men which is why we have to program ourselves to be part of it and . . . hold on I'm starting to get a nose bleed. Too many contradictory insane ideas at once.

I suppose once you've written your 14th essay on why PIV sex is unnatural and necessarily traumatic and not really enjoyed by anyone then your ability to hold all these absurd ideas at once is pretty much 2nd nature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #29)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 04:15 AM

45. Programming men to be attracted to (children)?

If these antisexfems (ASF's) would look, (and I'm convinced they never do examine porn, despite their claims) they will notice the men in porn shave themselves, too.

If those ASF's have oral sex to any extent, perhaps it would inform them how irritating pubic hair can be during that act, and how un-erotic it is to have to stop and pick it out of your mouth. And it's un-erotic even to porn audiences.

So far, pornographers have not discovered a fetish for picking hair from teeth. Somehow, I don't think they will. Which means they have to stop shooting or do an edit every time it happens.

Plus, perhaps, porn stars have dyed their hair (on their heads, I mean), and don't want the viewers to know what their natural color is?

There's one other reason: shaved pubes make that area easier to clean. I won't go into the exact reasons why porn stars might find that useful. Use your imagination, if available.

No, it has nothing to do with training men to become pedophiles.

If the claim had any credibility, I would ask what about the trend for porn stars to also have genital piercings. Obviously, this is to make the the women look more like toys. (Same thing as looking like a child.) Never mind that it's generally an aid to reaching orgasm. That's a real child-like trait, there. And how about trend toward larger breasts. Yes, what looks more like a child than a woman with a bra size of 38F?

I think ASF's (soon to be declared a derogatory term) come up with a novel idea and fall in love with it before examining the most obvious facts to see if it's correct. Unfortunately, believing is easy, backpedaling is a bitch, which is why you should be skeptical to begin with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #29)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 10:42 PM

98. I see what you did there.

 


"Firmware"

Heh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #28)

Tue Aug 14, 2012, 03:47 PM

30. By that reasoning any woman

 

who wants a man who isn't hairy and smelly (men don't naturally have clean shaven faces and we do certainly have an odor if not attended to) are presumably pedophiles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #28)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 10:25 PM

95. So what about women who like their men shaved?

 


Pedophiles too, of course!

:goofy:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #95)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 08:47 AM

100. Women who have that preference don't count..

because they were brainwashed by the "patriarchy" to think that way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:07 PM

32. Seen on DU: men only support "pussy riot" because we like to say "pussy"

Saying it over and over is part and parcel of our Patriarchal Penis-Plot to keep it all for ourselves muahahahahaha

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 06:16 PM

33. More: "If the liberal peen is keen, the result can only demean"

In the case of the Pussy Riot whoopdeedoo, it seems that quite a lot is going on, most of it untoward, unsavory, and, it goes without saying, antifeminist. Quoth the author of the post, echoing another patriarchy-blaming maxim (If the liberal peen is keen, the result can only demean):
“You can measure the degree of feminism of an action by how men react to it, and if men collectively cheer and celebrate it, then you can be pretty sure there’s something wrong about it, or that it doesn’t somehow support our liberation from men. And as far as I can recall, even the slutwalks didn’t get as much coverage or public appraisal. What was it that men liked so much about Pussy Riot?”



Translation: anything men like, is bad. Men = The Enemy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #33)

Sun Aug 26, 2012, 11:12 PM

34. *sigh*

So, anything strong women say or do is instantly negated by these so-called feminists because they object to the name?

Got it. It's getting easier and easier to dismiss these folks every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Mon Aug 27, 2012, 04:47 PM

35. Silent K&R's to the GOP/Rmoney Anti Porn Platform!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021211722#post16

Come on....just admit you agree with them.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Thu Sep 6, 2012, 08:10 PM

36. Apparently, men are running around in public, masturbating EVERYWHERE!

Willy-Nilly, as it were.

It would seem you can't get through a single city block in a major metropolitan area, without having to navigate a veritable obstacle course of furiously self-stimulating peen-wielders.

Seen on DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:04 PM

37. Seen on DU™: Women "Misled By Penis Worship"!

http://www.cracked.com/article_16103_5-inspiring-religions-that-worship-penises.html

Holy FUCK! Is there no end to the perpetual pernicious penetrative patriarchal persecutions of the problematic phallus?



Also, FWIW: Ah, as far as women who, ah, "squirt"? Is not a made up phenomenon, imagined out of thin air for porn- and neither is it peeing. In my experience it is an uncommon ability or trait, but very real.

Some women can do it, and seem to enjoy it.

And it existed BEFORE the widespread availability of internet porn or even a whole ton of graphic video porn, so "made up for porn" doesn't really fit the timeline.

I, um, happen to know this for a fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #37)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:10 PM

38. I saw that..

I've been with a woman who squirted..and I too can tell you for a fact it's definitely not piss. Some of the misinformation that's spread around here in pursuit of an agenda is at times mind boggling. I just wonder whether it's intentional or not..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #38)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:16 PM

40. Once I saw the Wikipedia article, I understood.

It is not an accepted part of the canon or dogma, so it must be attacked. Clearly asserting that women might, in some form, ejaculate, is some kind of sneaky move on the part of the Patriarchy.


Yeah, I've been with at least one woman who did, too, obviously, which is how I know this. And it was in the late 80s.

ETA: I guess it's fashionable in some of these extremist circles, now, to go after Lesbian women who use, ah, implements in their mutual or self-enjoyment. They must be brainwashed in penis-worship, too, it seems.

So many sexual miscreants, so many people who are mistakenly thinking they're "allowed" to make their consenting adult "choices" on how to enjoy "themselves"- so many that must be shown the error of their ways!

So little time!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #40)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 08:40 PM

41. I didn't even know there was a controversy over this until today...

Prudes, busybodies and authoritarians come in all stripes...how else do you explain the distaste shown over what consenting adults do in private by factions from both the left and the right?

Oh, they all have their respective vehicles and ideas in which to express and attempt to justify their disgust over any act of sex they don't approve of...but what it gets down to is many Americans are just uncomfortable with sex in general and hate to see others enjoying themselves. That's just sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #41)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 05:17 PM

43. I kind of prefer the fundies

 

they object to the same things but at least they don't pretend they have science on their side.

They just throw in "god" and a few hallelujahs and are done with it.

The people that misuse science to push their beliefs really irritate me because they're deliberately blurring the line between fact and faith for their own ends. It took us thousands of years to even get a sizable minority to realize there was a difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #43)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 12:29 AM

74. What's funny is, Dworkin and her devotees "preferred the fundies", too.

Like many self-professed "radicals", nothing seemed to piss them off more than actual, traditional liberals with liberal views and liberal attitudes.

You'll note on many of these linked blogs, the greatest invective is reserved for that horrible bugaboo, the dread "liberal doood".

I've seen folks say, repeatedly, that they prefer right-wing fundamentalists, because at least right wing fundamentalists don't blather on about the 1st Amendment, freedom, and "so-called choice".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #74)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 10:38 AM

75. They start from a point of agreement

 

Last edited Tue Sep 25, 2012, 10:14 PM - Edit history (1)

People are disgusting and gross and need their moral superiors to lay out and enforce a code for them to follow to keep them from erring.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #37)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:12 PM

39. Here's the wikipedia article on Female Ejaculation, with several sourced studies dating back to '79

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


However, Sheila "Every Time A Woman Orgasms With A Man She Is Eroticizing Her Own Oppression" Jeffreys,

Renowned Expert on exactly how everyone else should be allowed to get off, doesn't like the idea, so it must not exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Sun Sep 16, 2012, 04:56 PM

42. Thing I like most about DU3? It's Magnetic!



"Seen on DU™"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 03:44 AM

44. Don't know where to begin . . .


. . . criticizing that thread. There are so many things wrong with it.

I wish some trained sexologist would give a questionnaire to the antisexfems. (A term soon to be considered the next slur.) I really do bet sex drive would be correlated with their attitude toward porn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 04:51 PM

46. And, again, looking at a picture of a naked woman is comitting "eyeball rape!"

God damn eyeball rapist dooodely dooods! Is it any wonder that there is such righteous gender based anger against men (just dont call it "misandry", because that's not a 'legitimate' word) when, by some estimations, fully 98% of them -or more- engage in "eyeball RAPE" on a regular basis?!?

OF COURSE there's a RAPE CULTURE, because every time a man experiences unauthorized arousal looking at an image of a naked woman (heretofore to be referred to as "the oppressed victim") he is engaging in RAPE!!!!

We must take RAPE seriously.... and the best way to do that is to expand the definition of the word to include EVERY TIME A DOOOODELY DOOOD looks at a picture of a naked woman!!!!!!!





Seen on DU!™

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #46)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:03 PM

47. Oh, I gotta see that... must have missed it somehow

edit: like I`ve said before... all a blog is, is some jackass with an internet connection, time on their hands, and an overly generous opinion if their own worldview, and anyone who tries to point to a blog as some sort of authority on anything is worthy of nothing short of ridicule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #46)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:25 PM

48. the Liberal Sexist Dude said that. as far as i know, the author was talking male gaze.

and he came up with "eyeball rape" all by himself.

do you know otherwise?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #48)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:46 PM

49. Yes. He asked if it was "eyeball rape"....

and the simpering idiot who writes that blog said "yes, it is" and thanked him for "getting it." Now, the phrase goes back to Jim Crow days, usually used by racist right-wing fucksticks as an excuse to lynch or harrass black men for looking at white women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #48)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:47 PM

50. The blog you linked to, and I quote:

So men who look at page 3 are ‘eyeball-raping’ the models? So all women dress like they do because men force them to? So a man can’t be a feminist because, by accident of birth, he’s automatically a patriarchal oppressor?


Yes, yes and yes. You’ve been paying attention after all!

“But wait!” the casual reader might be thinking. “It’s not like some dude is holding a gun to these models’ heads. They’re making a free choice to pose, right?”

Here’s the deal.

Cultural, social and economic pressures combine to make a very powerful force. With that on their side, dudes don’t have to hold guns to women’s heads (usually) to get them to strip for the Male Gaze. Fear of poverty, and the need for validation through male attention do most of the coercing.


So what she's saying there, as I'm sure you're well aware, is YES, it IS "eyeball rape".

Do you disagree? Is looking at a picture of a naked woman NOT eyeball rape? Then perhaps you should march on over to the blog you linked, and tell her so.

But wait, there's more:

Dude Nation then gets to sit back, relax, claim that all of these women are freely choosing to get naked for dudely enjoyment, and bask in unlimited visual access to women’s bodies without feeling the slightest guilt.

Wow, what a setup those dudes have! No wonder they get so nasty when anyone suggests they should part with it!


Don't you find it just the slightest bit funny that here is this blogger fulminating against the private consenting adult behavior of people she's never met, and she's acting like THEY are the problem? "No wonder they get so nasty"? Yeah- because people tend to "get nasty" when total strangers feel entitled to take it upon themselves to try to run their lives for them. Duh. It'd be like Rush Limbaugh saying, "these women like Sandra Fluke, they get to sit back and have sex and use contraception or even get abortions and la-deee-dah they can enjoy themselves and no one even makes them feel guilty about it!!!"

"No wonder they get so nasty when anyone suggests" blah blah blah.

Right, because "anyone" should worry about what is happening in their own god-damn pants, not the pants of the other 7 billion consenting adults on the planet.

Rinse. Repeat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #48)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 05:54 PM

51. Also, looks like he wasn`t the first on her page to use it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #48)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:12 PM

52. "male gaze"..?

I had to look that one up. Lets see, some radfem greatest hits include... "objectification", "male gaze", "rape culture", "eyeball rape", "pornification"...I know there are many more all designed to inform us men how evil we are..but misandry doesn't exist..how does that work?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #52)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 07:56 PM

56. It's almost as if some very angry individuals

 

sat down and asked themselves "what do 'doods' like to do?" and then from that list simply added "rape" or some other qualifier to make it evil.

So you can't look at a pretty woman, you're objectifying her with your male gaze. You can't enjoy porn, you're engaging in eyeball rape. You can't argue against any of this because that's reinforcing the rape culture.

I'm sure if I bothered to look I could find a few essays on why sitting on your couch with some buddies drinking beer and watching football is somehow a diabolical act of the patriarchy.

You know, someone who felt the need to define why every little thing that women did was evil and wrong would be immediately labeled a sexist and sidelined. They certainly would be treated as academics or given prestigious honors and speaking engagements. Weird how the patriarchy only seems to reward sexism these days when it's trashing men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #56)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 08:08 PM

60. You in fact can't read the books from their forbidden list

... or you become a rape apologist.

Ask me how I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #56)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 08:24 PM

63. Sitting and watching football has been gone after...

with as about much regard for the truth as many of their other claims...remember the Super Bowl domestic violence myth...

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/superbowl.asp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #52)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 08:51 PM

65. Orwellian Newspeak

See, how Newspeak works is if you want to get rid of a concept, let's just say the concept of useful degree comparatives, because comparison doesn't serve a specific goal, you reassign the language such that the accepted words dilute or eradicate the nuance and therefore the concept in the words they replace.

Say something is good. Then say something else is better. Then say something else is great or the best.

What you do is replace the words with other purportedly equivalent expressions which claim to be the same meaning, but obviously dilute the nuance of the words which deliver the concept.

So you replace better with plus good. And you replace best or great with double plus good. Now one could argue that the substitution is reasonable (insofar as Orwell's world can manage as reasonable) but a second glance offers the idea that comparison (the nuance of better and best) has been removed from the phrases. Comparatives have been replaced by contextless absolutes. Consider better. Before the replacement, better NEEDED comparison phrasing to make sense. It makes sense to say, thing A is better than thng B. It does not make sense to say that thing A is better unless the context names thing B. Otherwise you are compelled to ask "better than what exactly?"

On the other hand, you can say without difficulty that thing A is plus good. In fact it makes no sense to say that thing A is plus good than thing B. Now the words expressing the concept appropriately have been removed, replaced with these empty shells of expression which have effectively removed even the ability to express a value comparison.

So what the eff does this have to do with misandry not existing...

Well, the idea with Newspeak is if you don't want an idea expressed, you remove from consideration the words whose nuance expresses that concept.

Actually, the day someone invented the word misogyny, they invented the word misandry, perhaps without intending, but they did. Such is the nature of a binary concept within a language. If you extend one using a root (gyn) with a prefix (mis), you automatically do so to its binary (andr). So if "misogyny" means the hatred of women, then the second it was conceived of, "misandry" means the hatred of men.

The problem is, misandry doesn't fit the narrative. It implies a duality of hatred, which the narrative claims either A) does not truly exist (misperception), or B) exists but is justifiable and rational, and therefore can't be hate because hate must, by definition, be irrational. So the word is meaningless, and not having a word dilutes the nuance and denies the appropriate expression of the concept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ElboRuum (Reply #65)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 08:55 PM

66. In short, extreme intellectual dishonesty, yes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #66)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 09:06 PM

67. Yes, a bit of rhetorical nonsense...

...to throw a conceptual wrench into any argument which dares point out the dualism that "misogyny" implies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ElboRuum (Reply #67)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 09:12 PM

68. I didn't want to minimize your great post, but I'm glad I got it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ElboRuum (Reply #67)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 10:08 PM

72. Most of the terms they use are either rhetorical nonsense or intellectual dishonesty

I've posted a few times about how rad-fem "theory" was developed by people with zero background or education in any sort of human behavior. Those that weren't college dropouts typically had liberal arts degrees. The woman who came up with "male-gaze" had a background in cinematography. It doesn't get any better with the rest of it. Predictably what they came up with was simply psychobabble intended for the consumption of the ignorant masses who would believe it because it told them what they wanted to hear. It's not that hard to convince people they are a victim, especially when everyone agrees who the scapegoat is. When you throw in a few misleading statistics, like women earn 77 cents on the dollar compared to men, you create a body of evidence that at least seems to support your "theory". Finish it off by conflating race discrimination with gender discrimination and the conspiracy theory (the "patriarchy") is complete. Like most conspiracy theories they get imbedded into its believers by the claim that those who disagree or offer conflicting evidence are just part of the conspiracy and are not to be believed under any circumstances. Even other feminists who happen to disagree are written off as tools of the patriarchy and not "real feminists", and their circular argument comes full circle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #52)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 09:34 PM

70. You forgot self-objectification

AKA slut-shaming

Also male-privilege

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #48)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 07:57 PM

58. You guys overuse the word sexist

 

it's come to mean anyone you dislike.

It's kind of a bad idea to completely bastardize a word like that.

Also from that post:

Also, dude considers me a sexist for finding dude behavior mockworthy! Dudes must never be laughed at. This is the Law of Dudes. Particularly, no one must ever call dudes names. Anyone who does so is a misandrist and a bigot. Because the poor dudes are oppressed, dontchaknow. What chance have dudes ever really had in this world of vicious dude-mocking feminists?


Also, chick considers me a sexist for finding chick behavior mockworthy! Chicks must never be laughed at. This is the Law of Chicks. Particularly, no one must ever call chicks names. Anyone who does so is a misogynist and a bigot. Because the poor chicks are oppressed, dontchaknow. What chance have chicks ever really had in this world of vicious chick-mocking MRAs?

/how long do you suppose *that* post would last? I suppose being able to ruthlessly mock "dudes" and "dude behavior" without being labeled a sexist is another female-privilege that you don't recognize.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #58)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 08:50 PM

64. I personally think the problem they have is...

They tend to use "sexism" and "misogyny" interchangably. Sexism can exist in absence of hatred. Of course, "misogyny" has gotten so over-used and misapplied so as to become a wholly worthless buzz word anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #58)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 10:21 PM

73. In essence that's exactly what sexism is

Just because something is said in jest, doesn't mean it isn't sexist. Blonde jokes reinforce the stereotype that blonde women are stupid and are inherently sexist. Small dick jokes reinforce the stereotype that men are obsessed with the size of their penis and are sexist. As the other poster alluded, sexism does not equal misogyny or misandry, yet too many conflate the two to the point that neither has much meaning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #48)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 06:00 PM

77. So now that you've been shown to be factually wrong- again- time for the cricket noise, huh?

I mean, i suppose a simple "yeah, I was wrong, you were right"; is too much to ask, huh?

Certainly we're not going to see that blogger be pulled as a source for the op, rebuked, or even any recieve any criticism from the folks promoting her rant, for her use of the phrase "eyeball rape". For, again, playing semantic games with the word "rape", to grind that ever present axe against sexy pictures and nudity.

For muddying the definition of what should be a very strong, unequivocal word- rape.

No, that. wont. happen.

Of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #77)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 06:04 PM

78. It's back to the clubhouse to take a few cheap shots

About how we "over there" don't listen while reveling in our male privilege and misogyny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #77)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 06:05 PM

79. I`ll be holding my breath waiting...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #77)

Wed Sep 26, 2012, 10:29 AM

80. I believe you are guilty of "mansplaining"

 

which is one of the worst forms of violence against women in the patriarchy.

Obviously like any of their basic tenets it cannot be tied down to some concrete definition (definitions are tools the patriarchy uses to oppress words, particularly feminine words).

However it basically means "you are an asshole for using evidence to make a point she doesn't like and cannot refute without sounding more foolish than she'd care to".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 06:50 PM

53. "unlike today", it was normal for stone age men & women to show compassion for each other!

Yes, yes.

Unlike today, sigh.

Tsk.



Seen on DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #53)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 07:56 PM

57. Did you know that neanderthal's buried their mothers in graves with trinkets n' stuff?

Those enlightened and relatively civilized folk!

Unlike today where brutish and evil men don't even call on mother's day.



The insights into that world view are priceless. Sad, troubling and scary, but priceless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #57)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 08:09 PM

61. If they'd come to a different conclusion

 

I think that would have been discarded as evo-psych nonsense.

Instead it's enlightening.

Rewriting history to serve a political purpose is decent people avoid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #53)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 08:08 PM

59. I thought that was an interesting article

 

in the sense that they got the conclusion they wanted based on the evidence.

Essentially men and women were equal back then because people took care to bury their relatives of either gender, not just men. How we treat our dead reflects on how we treat the living right? So if they're taking care with people based on who they are rather than what gender they were that means they were gender blind.

Unlike today where we throw lavish funerals for men and dump women by the side of the road to rot.

Because, you know, the patriarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #59)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 09:56 PM

71. That one phrase just stuck out at me like a blinking sore thumb: "unlike today"

Yes, no compassion between men and women, aye, between anyone, ever... "today".

Sniff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #71)

Tue Sep 25, 2012, 11:49 AM

76. Should she die before me

 

I shall have my wife's body discarded in the most convenient manner possible. I probably will just leave it wherever she falls.

Because of the patriarchy I don't value her at all.

And the money I save on not giving her a funeral (actually I wonder if I could sell the carcass?) could be used to buy pornography, of which I am addicted to and prevents me from recognizing women as human beings.

/this is what some people believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 07:16 PM

54. Dr Karina Croucher , uni archeologist, says stone age men had feminine side



“The stereotypical and inaccurate view of male hunters dominating their more submissive female counterparts is an articulation of male bias in archaeology.


Yeah sure, nothing is safe from a little radfem spin...and what in heck is a "uni" archaeologist...university?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #54)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 07:48 PM

55. 60% of the work product of universities are women.

Trained to see the cultural biases that their domination of education is intended to correct.

The stereotypical and inaccurate view of male humans, ancient or otherwise, dominating their more submissive female counterparts is an articulation of bias, all right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #54)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 08:11 PM

62. In a proper scientific setting

 

that researcher would have been laughed out of the dig site.

They buried women, therefore men and women were equal.

O . . . k . . .

So like every other culture always?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Mon Sep 24, 2012, 09:19 PM

69. If I was a conservative troll on a progressive board, I'd have a personna of a rad-fem....

sharing some values while torching up at leasr 50% of the board as unsalvagible patriachists. And no one canquestion your motives cuz they won't let you breech their private fortress on DU.

Here's a question...anyone actually these people irl? Anyone not a member of the HoF forum, that is....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 12:50 PM

81. Just don't call anyone a "Dworkinite"!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #81)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 12:57 PM

82. It's "poignant", brilliant satire!

I'm not joking and stop calling me Shirley.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #82)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 01:11 PM

84. Damn you, Jeff... beat me to it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #82)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 01:12 PM

85. If I run around quoting Marx all day, is it really an insult to call me a Marxist?

Silly.

Ah, yes, the "I loves me some Andrea" gang. She sounds so reasonable, there.

Of course, 10 minutes later she launches into her 20 point plan to eliminate the scourge of erections from the Earth.

But, ya know, reasonable!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #85)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 01:16 PM

86. "I never forget a face, but in your case I'll be glad to make an exception."

Wrong Marx?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #81)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 01:04 PM

83. Rewriting the language is a sign of an unhinged ideology

 

Being offended by the label "dworkinite" when applied accurately is evidence of this.

Just as some have felt the need to rewrite rape and consent to such extremes as to be meaningless (all men are pre-rapists, all consent is impossible under the patriarchy).

If you can't live with the message change the meaning of the words in that message and argue from that standpoint.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #81)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 11:02 PM

99. Wow, that woman is insane.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Wed Oct 31, 2012, 07:59 PM

88. Well, I'm certainly glad there is a round condemnation of the foolishness of all PIV intercourse....

....being rape.

Certainly, we can ALL agree here at DU, anyone who would push such an agenda has severe, SEVERE issues, and is certainly not worthy of any attention as a legitimate academic, sociological, or human behavioral "expert".

(I imagine there is some gritting of teeth, somewhere)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #88)

Wed Oct 31, 2012, 10:26 PM

89. They've (almost) all agreed that is an absurd notion

 

however they still cite people who argue it. Quite sincerely by all appearances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #89)

Thu Nov 1, 2012, 04:44 PM

90. Their argument is PIV=Rape fanatics were just taken out of context

No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever. ... The whole issue of intercourse as this culture's penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the all sex is rape slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don't think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.

— Andrea Dworkin, Fighting Talk, from New Statesman & Society. Interviewed by Michael Moorcock. 21 April 1995.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=12133

Dworkin (and others) idea of "consensual" PIV is so considerably different than the mainstream view of intercourse that the 'all-sex-is-rape' charge is not that far off. I read Dworkin's book Intercourse and I know exactly what her intent was and yes she does refer to it as rape. I've also read the opinions of many radical feminists and they mirror the same idea.

The truly funny part here is that some seem to believe that Dworkin's retraction, or explanation, or whatever you want to call it was actually not much if any better than what she originally wrote. What she is basically saying is that what the vast majority of the population would refer to as heterosexual intercourse includes "conquest, possession, and violation". So she backs off the rape charge, yet still refers to PIV as a "violation". How this is any less nutty is anyone's guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #90)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 05:07 PM

91. She never said that, and besides, she took it back. You know, the thing she never said.

Both obvious, and easily disproven falsehoods.

What ACTUALLY happened is people beyond the insular little circle of choir-preach-ees starting deciphering her gibberish, and that of Brownmiller, and MacKinnon, and later Jeffries, etc. and started translating it into English people could actually understand.

At which point, many people who otherwise might have been inclined to take at face value the assertion that Dworkin was a rational "Feminist leader", all of a sudden said "the movement I thought was about equality is really about making men 'give up their precious erections'? Ahh, What The Everlasting Fuck?"

So Dworkin, seemingly aware that he had a PR problem on her hands, eventually attempted to backpedal on or "qualify" some of the crazier shit she had said. But she never actually repudiated it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #91)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 07:29 PM

93. The nuanced view of insanity. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #90)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 06:41 PM

92. And to reinforce the notion that they are in no way supportive of such notions

 

they link to and praise a blogger who equates PIV sex to using a woman as a toilet and said among other things "The mere thought of penetration with a penis nauseates me".

Yeah, that put's that argument to rest.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125512575

/so they don't think that way, they just praise people who do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #92)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 08:35 PM

94. It's Romneyesque at this juncture

Deny, lie then double down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #94)

Fri Nov 2, 2012, 10:27 PM

96. What's funny ....

 



It's Romneyesque at this juncture
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=4944

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Accusing DUers of lying and comparing them to Romney? This post is rude, hurtful, insensitive, and over the top. I don't know why the people in this group are so hatefully obsessed with a few feminists, but the least they could do is keep their disagreements civil.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Nov 2, 2012, 10:24 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It is abundantly clear that the alerter is woefully uninformed on this subject and taking exception to a post she doesn't like.
Truth hurts sometimes. Grow up and get over it.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I couldn't begin to tell you what's going on in this enormous thread -- but it seems like a lot of insults flying back and forth. Tie goes to the poster.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #96)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 12:02 PM

104. Thanks juror #2!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #96)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 12:20 PM

105. The projection of the alerter is what's funny

The alerter blames others for being obsessed, yet routinely patrols the men's group, desperately seeking something that's alert worthy and doesn't understand why they can't find sympathy.

Pretty sad if you think about it much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Doctor. (Reply #96)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 09:25 PM

109. Civil, eh?

While managing to disavow, then quote and heap praise on a voice of bigotry in just a few days time.

My comment stands. Maybe the alerter, whomever they are should condemn people who wrap themselves in "twisty's" words, but of course, they won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 08:57 AM

101. Twisty heads for the hills..

Keen observers will have surmised this already, but I’m blowin’ off IBTP indefinitely.


http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2012/10/24/spinster-aunt-has-news/

Not to worry though, she's still going be at another blog...where I assume she'll continue to peddle her own special brand of misandry..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #101)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 11:13 AM

102. But without her diligent service how will

 

We learn of the horrors of intercourse and the pure unadulterated evil that is man?



Well I guess we could go to one of the other ten thousand or so rad fem blogs...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #102)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 12:00 PM

103. It is a saturated market. You have to be at the top of your game to maintain market share. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #103)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 12:24 PM

106. Seems to be a contest on who can hate men more

The gold standard naturally is Dworkin. The reality that she completely lost her mind prior to her end should have been a lesson to some.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #103)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 02:03 PM

107. Unfortunately there is plenty of competition

 

For irrational hate and semi coherent rantings. The amateurs just can't compete with the professionals in academia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #101)

Sat Nov 3, 2012, 06:55 PM

108. There's only so many ways you can say the exact same thing over and over.

from "Twisty":

Porn is bad

Men hate you

There is no such thing (THERE ISNT!!!! ) as consensual hetero sex.




Rinse. Repeat. How many years can one keep that sort of thing up? At some point, it becomes more appealing to write about tumbleweeds and ranch adventures, I'd reckon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #108)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 09:40 AM

110. It's the new country friendly twisty..

though I don't know how friendly a place with the name of Dreadful Acres can be.

Perhaps it's similar to the farm in a Criminal Minds episode I saw last week..in which the female property owner kidnapped men, strung them up and kept them in the barn, until eventually they were used for fertilizer on her tomato plants. That'll teach the "patriarchy"..

In her new blog, she did offer some more insights into her decision...

I’m just gonna say it: I just don’t feel like writing about prostitution, abortion, pornography, FGM, high heels, or shitbag straight dudes anymore. IBTP has been an enormously gratifying and edumuckational endeavor, but let’s face it. Patriarchy is depressing, and I’ve been stinkeye-deep in blaming it for years. It cannot have escaped your notice that I’d started repeating myself.


http://dreadfulacres.com/blog/spinster-aunt-morphs-into-crone/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #110)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 02:33 PM

111. I would imagine that maintaining such a tremendous degree of hate

 

for a full half (well ~49%) of the human race during your every waking moment must be exhausting.

Perhaps she's just tired?

/I doubt she'll really give it up though. Such behaviors become ingrained after so long. I have to suspect some misandry will sneak in there from time to time. Even if it's just going to be about gardening and the like. "The rain beat down my petunias the other day in a way reminiscent of the way 99.99% of men beat their wives and daughters because the patriarchy!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #111)

Sun Nov 4, 2012, 03:03 PM

112. Heh. +1 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #108)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:22 PM

133. You want some delicious, savory irony?

There's a porn blog on Tumblr called.....



Wait for it.....







"Twisty's"


The mind boggles

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #133)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:30 PM

134. Yeah, it's also one of those pay porn sites that Red State people apparently frequent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #134)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 05:41 PM

135. Wouldn't it be fucking hilarious if they were all one in the same?

Sorta like the old snake-oil hucksters... "This product is bad! Try it and see!!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #135)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 06:07 PM

136. "Throw a rock through their window, and sell them a burglar alarm"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 05:08 PM

113. Seen on DU

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #113)

Mon Nov 5, 2012, 05:13 PM

114. Bzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Bzzzzzz

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:21 PM

115. incestuous child molestation is caused by.. Wait for it... "Evo psych"!



"Seen on DU™"!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #115)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 08:49 PM

116. Seriously????? Fuck... Now I have to go look...

Edit: Holy fuckin hellfire... I have no words....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #116)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:05 PM

117. Another gem fom the house of "you pulled this from where?" assertions. Shall I map it out?

Last edited Sat Nov 10, 2012, 02:24 AM - Edit history (2)

1) Incest or Child Molestation -or both- is markedly worse now than it was 4, 5 years ago.

2) This increase is somehow related to "those men" talking about evo psych, which again has apparently just happened in the past few years.

3) there has been a direct impact, from the discussion of evo psych (ah... something about genetics??? ) on child abuse and the acceptance thereof.

Halloween may be over, but obviously there are still a few boxes of



lying around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #117)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:18 PM

118. Have you noticed how disjointed (some people's) writing is?

Almost reminds me of a schizophrenic in its haphazard, unconnected way.

I'd hate to see into the snake pit that must be that person's brain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #118)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:59 PM

120. And yet when they write an explanation

 

For an alert they are capable of punctuation and proper capitalization.

Weird how that works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #120)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 10:12 PM

121. I still don't see why it is MORE offensive...

to talk about large, loose vaginas as a subconscious explanation for behavior than it is to talk about small penises as one.

Either both are wrong or neither is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #121)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:20 AM

126. Male privilege means the men are invulnerable

 

women are helpless victims.

Hence we are open to all sorts of mockery. They are not.

/this dynamic flips 180 when discussing work: wherein women are tougher than any man and men are incompetent wimps.

//at some point the blatant contradictions become difficult to hide under the rug. When that happens you just point out that "hide under a rug" could be a sexist slur against women because traditionally that would be their role in the house.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #115)

Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:58 PM

119. Well some people feel the need to make such claims

 

Because evolutionarily speaking the folks that made the most ridiculous claims would attract the largest following and thus could ensure the largest pool of mates and maximize their reproductive potential.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #119)

Sat Nov 10, 2012, 12:04 AM

122. Close but not quite.

The paranoia instilled by the ones who make the most ridiculous claims create the most tightly-knit "community" of like-minded folks.

Scapegoats: builders of strong communities since before the Salem witch trials.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:32 PM

125. "Political Correctness" is a term MADE UP BY ITS CRITICS, which was never used seriously!!!!

Seen On DU!™


...I guess all those memories I have of people using the term in all earnest, total seriousness on College Campuses in the mid-80s... I must have imagined it. To be fair, I was smoking large amounts of pot at the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #125)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:44 AM

127. A real knee slapper that one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Fri Nov 23, 2012, 05:44 PM

128. There is, 'sadly'--- "No discussion of porn" in the US Political Debate: Um, not true.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=13083

"Instead, one of America's major political parties is looking to redefine rape."

Seen on DU! ™

No, there is no "instead". The SAME party that wants to tell women they can't get abortions or use birth control, wants to stop consenting adults from appearing in, or looking at, consenting adult porn.

So there's the "discussion of porn". If one feels the need to "do something about it! Right FUCKING NOW!!!! ", they need look no further than our old pal Rick Santorum- and the 2012 GOP Platform.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/gop-anti-porn-plank-platform_n_1833840.html

http://www.mediaite.com/online/gop-platform-changed-to-now-target-all-forms-of-pornography/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:32 PM

129. Seen on DU: "DU3 Sucks!"

With the usual suspect(s) chiming in in complete agreement. You know, if I find myself spending a bunch of time somewhere, and I come to the conclusion that the place sucks, I have the good sense to just leave. But then, I`m not an authoritarian, pseudo-intellectual who feels my sole purpose for existing is to educate the hapless rubes I willingly surround myself with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #129)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:53 PM

130. Oh, boy, that thread is a piece of work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #130)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:58 PM

132. No doubt. What's the over/under on their blocked list growing before nightfall?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #132)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 08:36 PM

138. Hello there, Potentially Outraged Person!

Last edited Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:19 AM - Edit history (5)


This is Monica Bellucci, Italian Actress, who is, by most subjective analyses, fairly "hot".


Welcome to the DU Men's Group! Enjoy Your Stay!

I'm sure you will find something here to suit your manufactured outrage needs. Please!

I know we're all busy with our 21st century lives and we need a one-stop resource for all our manufactured outrage.

If you look up a couple threads, for instance, you will find one which
talks about "hot" celebrities of both genders, shamelessly indulging in optico-oppression and heteronormative male gaze societal objectifco-looky harmitty harmful harmishness!

If that's not outrage-inducing enough for you, try this!

http://tinyurl.com/5wpy4l


EDIT: Lest anyone accuse me of "covering my tracks" or "having something to hide" (yeah, I know how this dance goes) here is the ORIGINAL VERSION OF THIS POST IN ITS ENTIRETY:


Original version with no edits.
138. I think there's one, already.



Please note the wording: "I think there's one". And the context, namely, the subthread this is in. And then, please, person, figure it out.

And find somewhere else to point the outrage nozzle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #138)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:09 PM

140. Yep.. And, of course...

Now we're bad, bad, bad doodbroz for making fun of it, without gravedancing sufficiently on the jackass zombie in question. Even though I personally wasn't even talking about that jackass, but rather was expecting the guys who were schooling them in their porn thread to be the next victims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #140)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:23 PM

142. Are we?

Someone's going to have to compile a list or an excel spreadsheet of all the terrible things I'm doing by not doing other things I didn't know I was supposed to be doing.

I can't keep track, anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to opiate69 (Reply #129)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 04:57 PM

131. I suspect if the data were really broken down, it would be this:

Men who look at porn:

Blue States: 99.9997%
Red States: 99.9998%



WHY WHY WHY is porn more popular in Red States hmmmmmmm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #129)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:09 PM

139. But if you avoid things you don't like how can you be righteously outraged

 

all the time?

And is a life without constant indignant rage worth living?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #139)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 10:11 PM

141. You must have a Costco sized pallet of Advil..

Every time I try to think down to their level like that, I get a massive headache behind my eyeball!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #139)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 07:53 AM

149. Here's what Bertie had to say about it...

"If there were in the world today any large number of people who desired their own happiness more than they desired the unhappiness of others, we could have paradise in a few years."
-- Bertrand Russell

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #129)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 11:20 PM

144. Some won't leave....

....because they know this is one of the few places that would actually tolerate the questionable content they generate without A) Banning them or B) Ridiculing them far worse, I mean EONS worse than what they claim to get here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #144)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 02:46 AM

146. Some don't have a choice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #144)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 05:06 AM

148. Yeah, I'm starting to suspect that's the bottom line.

Other- dare I say slightly more hip?- corners of the intertubes would eat certain sub-groups here for breakfast. In about 5 seconds.

I think there have been demographic polls on DU which illustrate, to some degree, what is happening. Explains quite a bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #148)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 11:06 AM

150. There's got to be some board out there....

....that will engage in the "Thank you ma'am, may I have another?" flagellation desired with more than three regular male posters, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #129)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 02:42 AM

145. The rest of the world comes later

...after they clean up DU from all the rape culture that is known to infest left wing message boards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #145)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:21 AM

147. "First, We Take Manhattan!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #145)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 12:36 PM

151. Ah yes that pesky rape culture that is so common, so powerful, so effective that

 

it is impossible to give any concrete examples, rapes are on the decline, and everyone but actual rapists agrees that rape is a horrible crime.

It must be annoying when reality consistently fails to live up to the theories dreamed up by womyns studies majors with no research background and who have collected no data.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #151)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 12:53 PM

152. Believe it or not, there are those on DU who actually believe rape is up

Kinda bad when your ideology leads you to cheer on the rapists in the hopes that rape would actually go up instead of down just so the rape culture mantra can somehow ring true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #152)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 12:58 PM

153. I've seen those

 

Apparently the FBI is conspiring against them by changing the rape stats for no reason.


Oh and unreported rapes are up because....well because they just must be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #153)

Mon Nov 26, 2012, 03:31 PM

154. Yes, I heard that

Apparently a few police departments have played around with the data to make their stats look better, and they are inevitably caught. But naturally this means that all the data is complete shit.

So then I asked the person (several times) why the NCVS says rape is down, which even RAINN cites.

The answer each time was ...


<crickets>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Sun Nov 25, 2012, 07:18 PM

137. Arguing in defense of Mitt Romney and the GOP Platform

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink




Response to Major Nikon (Reply #156)

Sat Nov 23, 2013, 09:32 PM

157. PIV is violent

Hence, most porn is violent.

Seems like that explains that take.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #157)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 03:03 AM

158. Did you hear? 88% of porn contains "aggressive acts" like.. the insertion of a penis in a mouth.

Last edited Sun Nov 24, 2013, 06:41 AM - Edit history (1)

That's really shocking, a shocking figure! I mean, to think.. okay, the MOST common act of "physical aggression" in porn is "spanking"... well, that really goes beyond the pale, I mean, imagine.

However, as you can see in this table, the 2nd most common act of "physical aggression", by far, is "gagging":



And here is the definition of "gagging": please, pay attention to the wording.

(g) gagging (defined as when an object or body part, e.g., penis, hand, or sex toy, is inserted into a character’s mouth, visibly obstruct- ing breathing);


Hmmm. "visibly obstructing breathing"? Can't most humans breathe through their noses?

Clearly this study is defining the very insertion of a penis into a mouth as a "physically aggressive act". And who'da thunk this sort of physically aggressive act would turn up in SO MUCH PORN????

And one which, surprisingly enough, is done by men to women more frequently than the reverse.

However my amateur field studies of human reproduction have indicated to me that it is far simpler, logistically, for a woman to 'obstruct the breathing' of a man when he is performing oral sex on her, than the other way around.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, if everyone is consenting.... and communicating, maybe by hand signals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #158)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 01:17 PM

159. So does "Fuck me!" count as "verbal aggression"?

I blame Gianna Michaels then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #158)

Mon Dec 2, 2013, 05:27 AM

167. I think the fact that "spanking" is the #1 "aggressive act" in the study, says it all.

If people want to fall all over themselves to defend the study- and the obvious agenda-pushing people behind it- great. I still call bullshit on the definition of "gagging" and I'm not the only one.

Remember, the definition is "visibly obstructing breathing"- not an assertion by the person in the film that they couldn't breathe. Remember, 95% of the people "appeared to be enjoying themselves". Now, I realize that porn isn't real, but that also ought to cast some doubt on whether or not the 800 or so acts of "gagging" really involved not being able to breathe.

It's the determination of the researchers, the same ones who saw all the aggressive "spanking".

I'd be highly interested to find out what the specific criteria they used for these determinations were. Because it looks to me like they have defined blowjobs, period, as "gagging" and as such "aggression".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 08:34 PM

160. "The more pornography women use, the more likely they are to be victims of non-consensual sex,"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #160)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:33 AM

161. Unbelievable.

Funny, how often the accusation of "promoting rape apologia" gets thrown around, to people who do nothing of the sort.

Well, guess what- THAT quote from the religious right anti-porn crusader, right there, is "rape apologia". Pure victim-blaming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #161)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 01:52 AM

162. A jury refused to hide the source and the OP refuses to self-delete

The only complaint so far seems to come from the men's group.

Imagine that.

It gets even better. The source promotes homophobia including investing in what the SPLC identifies as junk science. One of the fellows is Robert George, founder of The National Organization for Marriage which the SPLC identifies as one of the 18 worst anti-gay groups in the country.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners

When this was pointed out to one of the usual suspects, the response was crickets.

Kinda ironic what passes for knowlege when the message says what you want to hear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #162)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 03:12 AM

163. And yet....

How often do we hear the ignorant and baseless bleating about "MRAsmas!!!!!!!"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #163)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 04:50 AM

164. Yeah, I'd be trying to change the subject, too.

If I had been cheering on these sources that kept getting exposed as religious right bigots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #160)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 08:23 AM

165. Deserves its own thread. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #165)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 08:36 AM

166. I did give it one with the broader scope of who this person is

I also posted it here to show where it came from.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/111411583

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Mon Dec 2, 2013, 05:38 AM

168. The latest embarrassment courtesy of the Strange Bedfellows Institute:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4118217

Hilarious. And they STILL don't get that they have completely lost touch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #168)

Mon Dec 2, 2013, 05:40 AM

169. A religious right group? Imagine that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bonobo (Reply #168)

Mon Dec 2, 2013, 08:31 AM

170. I saw this and thought about replying but then thought better of it

You know what I taught my daughter yesterday? How to air up the tires in her car. People should spend less time trying to pick a mate for their kids and more time teaching them how to be self reliant. A self reliant person can pick a mate based on what they want rather than what they need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Sun Dec 22, 2013, 08:56 PM

171. More information on the Meese Commission: Official Inquiry Into The Sex Industry under Reagan, 1986

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General%27s_Commission_on_Pornography

The following people comprised the commission (nicknamed The Meese Commission):

Henry E. Hudson, chairman.
Diane D. Cusack
Park Elliott Dietz
James Dobson
Father Bruce Ritter
Frederick Schauer
Deanne Tilton-Durfee
Judith Becker
Ellen Levine


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #171)

Sun Dec 22, 2013, 10:13 PM

172. Hmm.. Primarily right-wing religious zealots...

Kind of like Linda Lovelace's family..¿quelle surprise?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #172)

Mon Dec 23, 2013, 09:27 AM

173. is this thread really about some troll that came into an OP of mine. all this was built up from a

troll that was immediately called out and banned? is this really what you men keep kicking and using to accuse us women of as "Primarily right-wing religious zealots"? and you are not a little bit embarrassed by the dishonesty?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #173)

Mon Dec 23, 2013, 02:15 PM

175. Are you seriously disputing the Meese Commission wasn't packed with right-wing religious zealots?

James Dobson founded Focus on the Family, BTW, and he wasn't the only right wing nutbag on the commission.

Is this association dishonest?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024079616

The linked source is far right wing and an organization. One of the fellows is Robert George, founder of The National Organization for Marriage which the SPLC identifies as one of the 18 worst anti-gay groups in the country.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/the-hard-liners

The author of the "study" was Mary Anne Layden, who is a far right wing nutbag pseudoscientist who claimed that women who watch porn are more likely to get raped.

I pointed these things out to you here, which you ignored other than to curiously self-delete. Numerous people pointed this out to the OP who refused to self delete while "us women" gleefully kicked the thread and completely ignored the far right wing homophobic associations. This was all pointed out in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Mon Dec 23, 2013, 10:42 AM

174. Just thought I'd add this link to this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125532889

Cross polination, so to speak....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #174)

Mon Dec 23, 2013, 04:19 PM

176. Apparently, I only come on to DU to talk about one thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #174)

Mon Dec 23, 2013, 05:17 PM

177. "Please don't point out our strange bedfellows"

To be fair, considering how focused they are, it's unlikely they even know who Ed Meese is and who he worked for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread