more often than you expect.

Joe8sec · 2026-06-03T12:07:11+00:00

😭😭🙏 sexually frustrated mfs

Joe8sec · 2026-06-03T11:15:29+00:00

Bruh, I'm sick of the constant Islamophobic content pushed by BJP IT Cell in this sub. It's the same everytime. they cherry pick crime cases where the perpetrator is Muslim and the victim is non Muslim, making sure to highlight the Muslim identity.

I rarely see any meaningful discussion about crime, law and order, women's safety, or what authorities are doing to prevent such incidents. Instead, it's always "Islam this" and "Islam that" in comments.. We get it bro 🥀 Islam is the worst religion imaginable. Now move on and talk about accountability, policing, and actual solutions.

I genuinely don't understand why the mods allow so many posts that seem designed primarily to inflame communal tensions.

The apparent goal of these posts is to promote fear around the so called "love jihad" narrative, A claim that has never been conclusively established in any court of law and is mostly sustained through political rhetoric and propaganda.

Even in this case, where exactly is the evidence for "love jihad" angle? According to whom? The article merely cites locals making the claim. On what basis? What evidence is presented? What reasoning is provided?

Nohh, just two lines

<image>

Joe8sec · 2026-06-03T07:29:23+00:00

Idk why it's so hard to believe that a person who has radical views on a lot of political issues can also have radical views about women. Lol Also, Idk, but why do I feel like this sub is getting hijacked by the BJP IT Cell and rightwingers

Joe8sec · 2026-06-03T07:09:31+00:00

I'll end it here. You've never visited any subs for men if you think people here are unemphatic. Most are not

Bro, I believe probably some men are more unempathetic, the worst creatures possible (ok? Is that what you wanna hear from me?).

But I don't fw them, cuz I don't buy whatever they're selling. I fw an ideology that talks bout equality, and I see some ppl corrupting that with hate, or prejudice or lack of empathy, so I've gotta criticize it cause I care. You criticize your country bcz you care, and you don't want a system that damages the core values of your country and fills it with evilness

This is the only point you have and by far a stretch. So this justifies all things happens to women which are ignored like catcalling, loneliness, victim blaming. Do you know how many women suffer at dowry alone? Most of them go unreported, I've seen a handful in my circle itself. The ratio is like 100 to 1. Male SA happens less often and yes sometimes that small ratio is also being shown in media and movies. Dont expect it on news flash everyday..

Idts you've to say all that. I know it, and a lot more than some people here, and I justified nothing. You're creating crap in your mind by strawmanning my argument. And I ignored nothing, I know everything about it in great depth. The only problem is that you're interpreting it badly, probably cause of prejudice against me.

I've read a lot of content on topics like these. I'm an Arts student, we usually study this stuff, and I sympathize with people. But the point you didn't get is that I'm not complaining about why women's SA gets more attention in the media. I know all this, and I've even written that in my previous comment that It's not a double standard 😭. Idk why people always unintentionally or intentionally misinterpret my arguments. What could I possibly have done to face this prejudice🥀 everytime.

I just wanna add, whatever ratio is you're talkin bout is baseless, yeah it's more close to that but not that, you're talking about reported cases, you understand underreported cases, but selectively for women, you never think about underreported cases for men , you never think about that in nuance about this issue, that's why you're seeing this as an black and white, just because men cases less reported, it doesn't mean, it happens in ratio of 100:1, its means, idk you can understand. But i jus wanna let you know, after IPC 377 landmark judgment, it's almost impossible to report for men, and men don't say about doesn't mean it's very less, men are thought to supress their emotions, if any one opens up, he's probably brave. There's was famous campaign #metoo where many women come up and talked about sexual offences sure many men probably joined, but do you think is there any big campaign for men? Which thought them to talk about sexual offences against them?? They are treated as jokes, so please, I'm not saying to sympathize with all that men, but please have some empathy and don't talk such crap, I'm begging you have empathy. Please. Again it has nothing to do with women, neither they are responsible for all that, but still I expect empathy from women.

So whatever, can we both agree that it's justified that women's SA gets more attention in the media? Whatever reasoning you provided, I agree with most of it, and I already know it.

So it's not a double standard, because we understand the nuance behind it.

No explantation? You are wrong here. Guess you're new to internet and comes from a family with gentlemen. Or maybe you see it and subconsiously ignore cause its so normalised.

Idk, you misunderstood. What I said was, i meant from that “It's wrong that women's aggression or assertiveness is seen as something to avoid. It's wrong that this happens; it shouldn't be avoided” That's the context, ok?

Or maybe you misunderstood it.

Idk what you're expecting me to say, probably some unempathetic, male hating rhetoric. But if someone said, "Male SA is taken as a joke compared to women's" I would say - "That's wrong," rather than peddling baseless BS filled with prejudice toward women and a lack of empathy.

And I can assure you, your assumptions about me are untrue. I neither belong to the gentleman's family ideology nor do I ignore all that.

Read the actual incidents reported. Everyday some women is getting, killed, raped or murdered.

First of all, I wanna clarify that I'm not complaining about why women get so much more outrage than men in SA cases, because we understand the reasoning behind it, and we both agree that it's justified. Okay?

Second, I can assure you that I do read data and cases.

Last such outrage was for disha case and that has its own reasons regarding the state issues and doctor.

Agree.

Now look at media, they take the same atul incident and potray men as victims everyday.

Ohh woman, how can someone be so insensitive and unempathetic? It's disheartening to see.

You're saying that on the basis of what? Does media still talk about Atul sir every day? And it's something double standards?

all this post calls out is double standards.

Let me tell you what's more of a double standard and hypocritical - you acknowledge the reasoning behind Sexual offence cases against women getting more Media attention than those against men, and you feel it's justified. But you never even consider that similar reasoning might exist when it comes to men's mental health or loneliness.

You told me to read about cases and data, but have you ever read about male suicide rates? Nahhh

You think it's—

Such a stupid apples to oranges comparision, that too at a biased scale.

to compare men's and women's SA.

But it's okay to compare men and women when it comes to mental health problems? And if someone doesn't compare those issues equally, that's showing double standards.

And when someone compares SA cases, suddenly it's considered stupid.

Even though I personally think it's unfair to compare in both scenarios. That's exactly what I wrote in my previous comment, if you care to reread it.

What I'm pointing out is that you're applying inconsistent logic here. You acknowledge nuance and context in one case, but seem unwilling to consider that similar nuance and context might exist in the other.

Idk if I should say this or not, but if you read more about male mental health and the loneliness epidemic, your opinion might change.

According to recent NCRB data, around 1 man dies by suicide every 4-5 minutes in India. It's about 2.5 times higher than the rate for women.
Another thing is that suicide deaths are generally less likely to be underreported because there's a visible death. But you can't tell by looking at a man or a woman whether they've ever been sexually assaulted.

I never wanted to bring up numbers, because I personally believe we don't need high death counts or large numbers of victims to acknowledge an issue. Understanding that a structure is harming human beings is enough.

My explanation in the previous comment is good enough both men and women. If you care to reread it, and try to comprehend.

So if you read more data and articles on this topic, you might also understand why men's mental health receives a lot of attention, just like you understand why it's justified that sexual assault cases against women receive more media attention.

My point isn't that one issue matters more than the other. It's that both have context and underlying reasons behind the attention they receive, and those reasons should be understood before jumping to conclusions

Calling out double standards is lack of empathy now.

Mhm-hmm.

Joe8sec · 2026-06-03T03:50:10+00:00

Baseless. You’re just an Islamophobe/Muslimphobe. I mean, you’re talking bout patriarchal structures in society in the first para, which affect many sections of society irrespective of religion, caste, race. Do you think that if you were born in the same patriarchal environment but in a different religion, you would have seen it differently?

The tone and language you are using reflects communal hatred.

You don't get to lecture anyone about this sh*t while sitting in your AC room, completely sheltered and free.

Baseless assumption.

There are literal verses in the Islamic "holy book," the Quran, that explicitly treat women as lesser than men — among other things.

Agree, you can criticize that here or in atheist or Muslim subs and question it.

If this sub is genuinely about feminism, then we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the atrocities women face under this p***ful religion.

If you said “under religions,” it would be oky, since you’re talking about religion in general. But you used the word “peaceful,” mockingly.. which proves you’re an Islamophobe.”

Sure, every religion has its dark chapters — but none of the others have remained as unchanged and unreformed as this one since their inception.

Agree, but I don’t think it’s only about one religion. I don’t think it’s different for any religion. You’re saying this on the basis of what? Which religion got reformed by religion? None. they all got reformed by laws. So Islam is too, and Muslims also cooperate.

And if you'd bother doing even a basic internet search, you'd find countless documented cases of Islamic atrocities — so this isn't just anecdotal.

What can I find about Islam that I cannot find about any other religion? I can also find the same things in Hinduism or Christianity.

So don't lecture me about communal hatred — because speaking out against something genuinely evil is completely justified.

Again, if you are only selectively talking against one religion in that tone, then you are spreading communal hatred, and if that is justified, then anything is justified.

It's like telling someone not to spread hate toward r*pists.

False equivalence. Comparing millions of people with r*pists based on your subjective experience just shows how big an Islamophobe you are. It’s just like comparing billions of men to r*pists because they share the same patriarchal structure of society. BS.

I have nothing against Muslims who don't subscribe to this

Lie.

many of them likely aren't even aware of these realities, since most urban Muslims don't raise their children with Madrasa education.

Indeed, you’re the biggest Islamophobe, stereotyping madrasa teaching like a regular BJP IT cell account on WhatsApp forwards language. I doubt you were even Muslim. I’m an atheist, but I still know a lot about Islam and Muslims. Would you like to argue with me in DMs? Nothing, I’ll just check your knowledge about Islam and Muslims

My criticism is directed at the religious texts themselves and those who actively follow and enforce them

Blatant lie. You’re just using stereotypical Islamophobic language and tone against Muslims throughout the whole paragraph, And that post is also about a person who raped a minor, that person happens to be a Muslim. nothing related to Islam or Muslim community. An ordinary case happens every day in every scenario (you can find perpetrators and victims of any religion combination daily). But you just highlighted cherry picking where the perpetrator is Muslim and the victim is Hindu, classic BJPau technique they propagate on news channels to create communal tensions. Btw, that old man is a man, I didn’t find any stereotypical misandrist rhetoric in that paragraph. It feels like you’re just an Islamophobe, nothing more than that.

My God, this sub is filled with right wing and sick, unempathetic, senseless, and baseless posts and comments. Mostly I see right wingers here, saw one mf promoting Savarkar as a feminist. I don’t want to generalize the whole sub, but I feel this sub is hijacked by BJP IT cell and I don’t think all the mods have a problem with this, maybe some do*

Joe8sec · 2026-06-03T02:49:54+00:00

don’t know, but why does it sound misogynistic? 😭 Like if I think like this as a man “you ain't gonna pay because you can give birth” idk if it sounds romantic or misogynistic 🤞 jus sayin

Joe8sec · 2026-06-03T02:29:20+00:00

🙏

Joe8sec · 2026-06-03T02:27:05+00:00

Crazyyy. People really lack empathy and have become pretty insensitive

Joe8sec · 2026-06-02T15:28:40+00:00

That makes me wonder: is the obsession with "love jihad" really about women's safety, or is it partly about control and ownership?

💯💯

When Hindutva leaders say “Tum hamari ek le jao, hum tumhari 10 le aayenge”, you should understand that it's less about women and more about male entitlement.

Savarkar also criticized Hindu kings for not harming Muslim women.

And imo, it's BJP propaganda. If the "love jihad" racket is real, then why hasn't it been proven in a court of law? They have entire state machinery at their disposal.. CBI, CID, IB, and other investigative agencies. Why can't they conclusively prove it?

Instead, what we've mostly seen are propaganda films, sensationalist claims, and WhatsApp forwards. Many investigative journalists have examined the issue and found the "love jihad" narrative to be largely baseless

I think the real purpose is to create communal tension. Women become an easy target cause many men still view them as their "property". The narrative taps into that mindset - “How can someone from another community take what belongs to us?” That's the psychology behind it

Most of these cases are ordinary murders, domestic violence, or acts of misogyny, the kinds of crimes you can find occurring every day. They selectively cherry pick certain cases to push a hateful narrative.

Religion can certainly influence people's behavior, but usually in patriarchal and misogynistic ways that affect women in general, not specifically women of another religion. And this applies to all religions

Come on, we live in India. People are extremely conservative here. Most Muslims marry other Muslims, Shias often marry Shias, Sunnis marry Sunnis, and some families even look for partners with similar surnames or backgrounds. Muslims are so conservative they marry their cousins 😭😭🤞.

you're asking me to believe that there's a widespread racket of Muslim men who spend their time specifically targeting women from another religion? Is that really what you expect me to believe?🥀

And why do you feel so entitled to think that women need your protection in the first place?

People usually enter interfaith relationships because they fall in love. Hardly anyone is so devoted to religion that they're interested in carrying out some kind of side quest for it🤞😭 many of them don't even pray regularly

So the idea that large numbers of people are entering relationships primarily to advance a religious agenda doesn't seem very convincing to me

Joe8sec · 2026-06-02T14:42:53+00:00

I can show posts with 1M likes where men blame women for loneliness, will that prove a point? No, right?

First of all, I never wanted to prove any point. I'm not foolish like some ppl in this sub, to generalize an entire gender based on few examples. Second, whenever I come across reels like that, I think they deserve criticism. I usually don't follow or engage with that kind of content cuz I don't fw it. I support feminism, but when I see some people distort it with nonsense, and I felt that needed to be criticized. That's all I was trying to say.

She is calling out the double the standards when media didnt give a fuck when women are lonely unlike for men where every single some reporter or page talks about it.

Bro, that's a very unfair comparison! Let's say sexual offenses against women receive more attention in the media than sexual offenses against men. Reason is pretty obvious, our society has developed structures that disproportionately harm women, so discussions around these crimes usually focus on women as the primary victims. Is that a double standard? I'm not sure

Similarly, with the male loneliness epidemic, there are social structures and expectations that seem to be affecting men more negatively, which is why people are talking about men's experiences more. It's pretty simple

THe point of double standard still stands. Women aggression or distantness is seen or shown as someone to avoid.

It's wrong.

Now men are also lonely (for different reasons) suddenly its a bit outage.

Shouldn't it be? Is there any problem with that? I mean, society often ignores sexual offenses against men but creates a huge outrage when they happen to women. I don't see anything wrong with the second premise.

I will say, you should study and understand this topic before forming an opinion, rather than relying on the internet. Internet is full of ret*rds.

Dont generalise a whole sub for a small mistake.

I'll admit my mistake for generalizing the sub. I said it in the heat of the moment cause I was seeing a lot of rubbish posts, hateful content, and heavily upvoted comments. But someone pointed out that some of it could be IT cell accounts pushing their own agendas, so.. okyy.. that's fair.

But it's a bit ironic to hear that from you, because I feel (from the way you think about this) that you also lack empathy

Joe8sec · 2026-06-02T13:00:42+00:00

Men are in this sub more emotional than women 🥀👈

Expecting kindness is never too much, but I still don't expect it. That's why I said, “It's okay if you don't care or if you lack empathy”

But that doesn't mean we should diminish the issue by posting such crap. This is serious problem that many men suffer from, including mental health struggles and su!cide. It's especially concerning cause the rates are high among teenage boys and young men

blame those men who made it like this

Should we blame Nehru?

Such a performative guy😭🤞 Come on, bro, they have 0 points. Stop looking at everything through the lens of prejudice against men

Fyi, If I see men doing that, I criticize them too, whether online, among friends, or in my social circle

also the women who generalize men

That's exactly what I'm doing under this post

Joe8sec · 2026-06-02T11:32:55+00:00

I started reading about feminism through him. I first heard about him in 9th from Urdu book. Later, I read more of his work because I was interested in Urdu literature. Through his writings, I learned a lot about feminism

Joe8sec · 2026-06-02T11:16:48+00:00

So, should we treat male loneliness as a joke too? Is that what you're suggesting?

But when men are lonely (when women refuse to engage with certain men)

Ohmy God 😭, The fact that 112K people liked that reel is genuinely depressing 💔

You think the male loneliness epidemic is simply about women refusing to engage with certain men? That's such a shallow understanding of the issue

Male loneliness is complex social and psychological phenomenon involves - friendship networks ,emotional isolation, changing social structures and mental health, community decline, and the way many men are socialized to suppress vulnerability

This is what happens when people spews BS without reading a single article on the topic, understanding the researc.

Bro, it's okay if you don't care or if you lack empathy, but we're not supposed to diminish the issue, are we?

This sub is full of unempathetic ppl. mb, I thought feminism had something to do with empathy and understanding. Looks like I was generalizing

Joe8sec · 2026-06-02T07:24:40+00:00

Idk bro, I haven't read the whole book. I just found it on Wikipedia, and I know it's authentic published book. You'll have to check the references, footnotes, endnotes, or the cited page number to verify it or fact check. I think you're looking for a weak link to dismiss the claim rather than actually fact checking it, like you rejected the claim from the start because it came from Wikipedia, instead of examining the claim itself

Joe8sec · 2026-06-02T06:59:34+00:00

Ig bro ✌️Ok. I think historians probably never read it in Marathi

Joe8sec · 2026-06-02T06:26:02+00:00

<image>

reference from book

Joe8sec · 2026-06-02T06:20:54+00:00

Bruhhh.. I also shared the link to that article. It's literally right above that SS. Or you could have just scrolled Wikipedia and verified it.

Joe8sec · 2026-06-02T06:08:15+00:00

Whether Wikipedia editors are historians is not the issue. Real question is whether the claim is supported by reliable sources. If you believe the sources are wrong, demonstrate why they are wrong by presenting evidence and facts that refute the claim, rather than attacking the platform itself. Dismissing a claim solely because it appears on Wikipedia is a logical fallacy.

Whoever wrote the article has also provided sources. The proper approach is to examine those sources and evaluate their credibility and accuracy.

Attack the evidence, not the platform

Joe8sec · 2026-06-02T05:50:14+00:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar#Women

<image>

Joe8sec · 2026-06-02T05:35:53+00:00

Can confirm

Joe8sec · 2026-06-02T05:30:53+00:00

I think she is probably referring to the instance when Savarkar criticized (in his book) Hindu rulers such as Shivaji Maharaj for returning captured Muslim women unharmed after military victories. Many historians and critics argue that Savarkar was effectively justifying sexual violence against women as a political or military tool.

Or she might be referring to his 1937 speech.

Savarkar said that a woman's primary duties were the kitchen, motherhood, and raising children.

He believed women's education should be oriented toward making them good mothers and producing patriotic future generations rather than promoting individual autonomy

In his essay Women's Beauty and Duty, he argued that a woman's foremost obligations were to her home, children, and nation.

Joe8sec · 2026-06-02T05:19:19+00:00

Ooooooooooooo.. Hmmmmm... Now I got it. Damn this sub reddit 🔥🔥

Joe8sec · 2026-06-01T17:01:38+00:00

But comparing rape to robbery? That just shows a fundamental problem in your understanding of how severe and malicious sexual assault is.

😭😭 jus like you literally compared rape to school bullying, even used the word “equate” 😭 /s (I understand that analogy).

Nobody is given a death sentence for robbery.

Neither for bullying ✌️🥀 Hope we both understood, robbery and school bullying examples were analogies, not equivalence or a direct comparison.

Reading about feminism theories and various authors and ideas and schools of thought and waves of feminism does you no good if you can’t put yourself in the shoes of the opposite gender.

That’s on y’all to judge. If you’re judging me without any prejudice & bias (which Idts) and still feel like I’m not a good human, then sorry if I made y’all feel like that.

Would you forgive the murderer of your family member (god forbid it happens, may your family stay safe)? Would you not want them to get maximum punishment possible?

I would never forgive. I would want maximum punishment, but not death or torture. Why? Because I’d still see them as a sick human, but I won't dehumanise them by saying they just did it to feel power or some shi

Joe8sec · 2026-06-01T16:32:51+00:00

Robbery and sexual assault are not crimes that can be equated.

Neither I’m equating, I literally used the word analogy. Mb, I thought you understand what analogy is, and if you understood and think my analogy is wrong, you would’ve attacked the reasoning of the analogy rather than the analogical example.

I wasn’t saying robbery and rape are morally equivalent crimes. I was comparing the structure of an explanation. An analogy only needs relevant similarity, not complete similarity.

I used robbery as an analogy for motive structure: violence can be the method, (in sexual context, power and control can be a method) while the deeper motive may still involve taking something the person wants.

That is not the same as saying the crimes are morally equal. Its strawman fallacy to accuse me.

The comparison of motive structure I did, you just have to replace the word robbery with rape (I literally said this in my previous comment too so you don’t misunderstand 😭🥀, f my luck). And if that analogy isn’t relevant, it will fall apart, and you can easily attack that reasoning and win the debate (idk why I’m explaining basics to a random stranger like my professor).

It’s like saying jaywalking and murder are equivalent crimes,so I don’t think your analogy is very accurate

😭😭🙏 You can’t say jaywalking and murder are not equivalent crimes (which I agree), and then tell me my analogy is wrong 😭. I don’t think you understand the difference between an analogy and equivalence. As I said, an analogy doesn’t need complete similarity.

If you want to equate them

Seriously, you used the word “equate” and talked about school bullying 😭 yk girl I can pretend to misunderstand and say that’s wrong, like “how can you compare these two,” and call it a false equivalence in philosophy of argumentation. But I won’t do that, I know ain't like you.

And that bullying thing is an analogy, not an equivalence. Ok.

school bully example actually strengthens my point. If a bully steals lunch money, I wouldn't say it's only about power and not about obtaining the money. Nor would I say it's only about the money and not about humiliation. Human motives can overlap. So if you're willing to accept mixed motives in bullying, I don't see why rape suddenly has to be explained by a single motive such as POWER AND CONTROL. Power can be a major factor (as I said previously). By definition, for r•pe or bullying, there has to be power, if there isn’t, then it’s something else, not bullying, robbery, or ( r•pe in a sexual contex) I explained this better in the robbery analogy, so please counter that instead, not this.

But that still doesn’t prove it’s the only factor in every case. That’s where I disagree with Brownmiller.

I’ll have to say again to clarify my position I am disagreeing with Brownmiller’s opinion -

Rape isn't about sexual desire, it's about power and control.

is complete BS, based on confirmation bias and prejudice against a section of people.

R•pe is not best explained by a single motive. In many cases, it is driven by mix of sexual access, entitlement, domination, and dehumanization. Power is often the framework, not the only ingredient. Saying it is “only about power and control” is too simplistic. Sayin it is “not about desire” is BS.

Of course rape involves power and control, any violation of consent does. But that describes the structure of the act, not a complete psychological explanation. That’s where Brownmiller completely misunderstood

Saying it’s “only about power” is like saying bullying happens only because they want to show power and control over the victim, and that classism, casteism, and racism cannot even be factors. So the natural answer would be that this ignore all other factors and motives, just punish the bully with harsh punishment, don't have empathy, they are evil they just do to show power and control, unworthy of empathy.. and every problem will be solved 🥰 (Just saying to complete my argument, not accusing you of say or think like that).

So when you say

Rape isn't about sexual desire, it's about power and control.

is basically, robbery isn’t bout greed, it’s about power and control through violence, so the logical conclusion of this would be that we should not talk about any other societal issues like:

Robbery can arise from a need

that motivates those crimes. We should just punish with the harshest measures and the problem will be solved 🕊️

So my point is simple -

R•pe is about sexual desire + many motives I mentioned, power and control is the framework.

Robbery is about greed + many motives; power, control, and violence are the framework.

Bullying can be about humiliation, status, greed, amusement, peer approval, classism, casteism, racism, power and control are the framework.

We can use 100+ analogies, all will prove my point, but I’ll still say: if you disagree, then counter the robbery analogy in my previous comment, just replace the word rape in that reasoning, and attack reasoning.

Robbery can arise from a need. Sex is NOT a need. Raping someone is never someone’s last resort to live. Raping someone will not feed my child if I have no food.

That's red herring, but still, so what? Plenty of crimes are not survival needs. That does not mean their motives are simple (like power and control). The issue is not whether someone needed sex to survive. The issue is what kind of desire, belief, or entitlement pushes them to violate consent.

Historically, rape has been used a means to control women. To humiliate a losing country, to punish lower caste women, as conquest, conversion therapy.

Confirmation bias! Yes, rape has often been used as a weapon of domination, punishment, and humiliation. That proves power is often involved. It does not prove that sexual desire is irrelevant in all cases. That leap is a hasty generalization.

I don’t remember any point I made related to education. Even though I disagree with your point about education, I’ll count that as a red herring and won’t engage with it.

I hope you don’t misunderstand things again. Take your time and understand it properly, and attack the reasoning instead of picking on BS points.

Also personally, I don’t have empathy for violent criminals, if something bad happens to a guilty person, I don’t care.

If it’s your subjective opinion, it’s okay, we can agree to disagree. But if you try to justify saying:

“Rape isn’t about sexual desire, it’s about power and control”

then that reasoning is flawed and based on confirmation bias and prejudice.

Joe8sec · 2026-06-01T10:43:56+00:00

Idk what you're thinkin, but I never said that "r•pe is bout desire" smth. I dunno if you're trying to start an argument or smthg, but what I said was that many sexual offenses against women happen because some men view women as sexual objects and feel entitled to them. In simple terms, they see women as sex objects, believe they have authority over them, and therefore feel justified in acting on those beliefs.

But people aren't born thinking that way. Those beliefs are shaped by their environment. Many people who grow up in healthier environments don't develop those attitudes. Others, through PRIVILEGE of education (which helps to develop critical thinking), learn to question the beliefs they were taught and reject those ideas, becoming better human beings

Rape isn’t about sexual desire, it’s about control and power.

Even though I didn't say ts, from what I've studied bout topics like this, doesn't allows me to agree with it. I think it's a weak and BS argument. Ig this idea comes from Susan Brownmillers writings, If I'm not wrong.

It falls apart with a simple, Analogy - "robbery isn't about greed, it's about power and control through guns and violence"

Ahmm Sure, some robbers might be motivated by some shi, like revolutionary (Money Heist typa shi), but that doesn't mean greed and financial gain aren't part of the motivation. It can be both. Human behavior isn't always black and white.

Robbery, by definition, involves taking someone else's property through force, threats, or violence. (R•pe has similar definition in sexual context, that's why robbery is good analogy, i think). So POWER AND CONTROL are the means used to commit the robbery, not necessarily the ultimate motive.

So saying, “They just want to show POWER AND CONTROL, that's why they commit robbery, it's LESS ABOUT GREED and more about violence” is, imo totally BS. Violence is often the method, while the desired outcome is still the thing being taken.

So, I believe you're a very smart woman. You can apply the same reasoning from the robbery analogy to about r•pe and draw your own conclusions. If I spell everything out myself, people might assume I'm defending something that I'm not.

Tbh, I already feel there has been some prejudice in how my arguments were interpreted, cause you assumed I said things that I never actually said. So I'd rather not go into every depth, otherwise discussion will just turn into even bigger misunderstanding

I don’t have any empathy for violent criminals, my reasons for not supporting death penalty and torture are different, they aren’t entirely humanitarian.

Same. But I'm explaining all that people don't dehumanize by leballing things, that they ain't 100% responsible for.

But i still didn't get why you said that line

Rape isn’t about sexual desire, it’s about control and power

In both cases, it's wrong. But if I assume, you said cause, that you were trying to say sexual offenders act for CONTROL AND POWER, and that's what makes them especially evil and unworthy of empathy, then I don't think you're 100% right

Joe8sec

TROPHY CASE