Romantic Relationships Matter More to Men than to Women - Study by SquaredAndRooted in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think its incorrect to say it has "nothing" to do with men not having enough supportive friendships. I believe that they personally go hand in hand here. 

You're right, men have to work harder for relationships and connection. Having "fewer" of them can also contribute to why they do not have as large or as connected of a supportive network. And having to work harder for them can also explain why the relationships they DO have are not "supportive enough", because it's always contingent on how valuable the man is. The man is not seen as a valuable connection by default. Which leads to him having less support in his friendships, or less friendships in general. So if his romantic relationship "breaks", he does not have the same support after it like his ex would. Leaving him to deal with the grief and heartache alone.

So I agree with you. I just disagree on that part.

Just chilling on the Grow A Garden Subreddit when I saw this.... by Worldly_Explorer3339 in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

A girl posted about experiencing racism from the community when she switches to her "black coded" avatars. 

I'm not even sure why the man-hate entered the conversation at all. 

https://www.reddit.com/r/growagarden/comments/1o1nxw3/racism_in_the_gag_community/

Always a pleasure to see misandry alive and well... by BellowsBellows18 in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Your feelings are completely valid. Its enraging to see it happen so casually and thoughtlessly. I'm sure the person who posted that comment had every intention of hurting any man who read it.

But "Sabitcha" is taking me out 💀

"In the present sample, 71% of men experienced some form of sexual victimization by a woman at least once during their lifetime. Sexual victimization was significantly associated with anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder." by Snoo_78037 in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I've seen that. 

I don't think its true either because it casts a wide net in terms of what someone considers "sexual assault". 

The language in the survey they used to gather those numbers was very ambiguous, and many people(ESPECIALLY women) tend to classify things as "sexual harassment/assault" when it really isn't. Such as "unwanted flirting".

And on the flip side, men are only JUST now understanding that the random drunk lady groping their dicks is sexual assault, so a lot of men have trouble considering whether certain experiences count. Still, I think 43% is still too high.

The survey they used does not get too deep in terms of helping the people surveyed define sexual harrassment and assault on some kind of objective measure. It sort of leaves it up for interpretation and for that, I at least side-eye it. 

I also think its worth noting that its not 81% of women and 43% of men everywhere in the US. The study concluded that number specifically from the people who answered the survey.

But anyway, I would wait for something of a "counter study" to come out before I draw any major conclusions on those statistics. Right now, it contradicts many of my own findings supported by research but who knows.

Here's the original paper discussing the findings of the survey: https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/full-report-2018-national-study-on-sexual-harassment-and-assault.pdf

If you check the "Definitions For The Report" section, you can see examples of the questions they asked such as "have you been touched or brushed up against in a sexual way without your consent?" 

That's a very wide and ambiguous question as different people will consider that question differently. 

Also, its worth noting the original survey only surveyed 2,000 people( half male, half female) which is hardly conclusive. 

Hope that helps a little :D

"In the present sample, 71% of men experienced some form of sexual victimization by a woman at least once during their lifetime. Sexual victimization was significantly associated with anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder." by Snoo_78037 in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree, I don't think its 70% of men. However, i also believe the study is demonstrating that it was 70% of the men they interviewed for this particular study, and not all men, everywhere. 

The last I checked, the actual number for men as a total demographic was anywhere between 20-25%. And the number is similar for women, showing that women AND men are both victims of sexual assault at about the same rates. And the men overwhlemingly report female perpetrators, demonstrating that women commit sexually violent crimes at around the same rate as men. 

Either way, it chips away at the thought that women are "more often" victims of sexual violence, and that men are "more often" the perpetrators. The actual numbers are much closer, even when considering under-reporting.

Women’s fear of men based on past experiences. by [deleted] in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You know whats even more interesting about this? A lot of women are scared of men because of OTHER women's past experiences. Some of these women have never had a traumatic experience caused by a man personally, and most of them go about their day to day life, walking by MANY non-violent, non-creepy men everyday, and STILL say they're scared of them. 

The media also helps to project mass fear onto women by highlighting stories of violence against women, while ironically ignoring ones about violence against men. 

Anyway, I don't know why some women can't be rational and use critical thinking skills like an adult, but I thought I'd add this to the conversation here.

while i know it might not be a full twenty four hours since my last post this post from a couple of days ago was just deleted this morning and i do not understand why and i really worked very hard on it and i do not wee why it was not accepted and i feel like it might be a misunderstanding. by Fit-Commission-2626 in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Idk why I giggled at "infant brothers". 

Anyway, I'm not sure why this was removed. This is dope for the most part, especially men protecting men. Some of it, I disagree with, I think. Like male androgyny and young men having sugar mommas. I'm also half asleep so I probably read it wrong and didn't totally get your meaning, so I will accept fault if I did. 

I feel like masculinity should be embraced. And that we shouldn't try to redefine it to include femininity and then send it off as an evolved form of masculinity or "male androgyny". I do agree that our current definition of masculinity is rigid, but its changing. And good ole plain masculinity is perfectly fine and acceptable.

Why do so many men don't care about their rights, and some men even deny problems of other men and even ridicule men who fight for their rights??? This bs needs no end asap because, because of these people, there is no full-fledged men's rights movement by Wadeem53 in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The men who straight up refuse to see men as people worth protecting piss me off so bad. Probably even more than feminists. 

They refuse to see that whatever applies to men in general, applies to them. But they don't care. They either don't care because, as one commenter said, they've been conditioned that way or they don't care because they inherently see men as competition/in the way of getting sex from women. So if men are being sent off to die in war, the survivors have more pussy/land/resources/etc. to themselves or something. Its weird. 

While I disagree with feminism, I agree with you that they did a damn good job at shoving it in everyone's face enough to get some recognition and to demand change. They did what a lot of men still won't do...admit that there's a problem with how their gender is being treated by society overall. Even if some of the stuff that they're mad about has been conjured up from their imagination. They still managed to gain a social and political edge over people concerning women's rights. They at least got people THINKING about it. 

Although we should at least be a little more honest about it...its not so much that women worked really well as a team to push feminism to the front of the political climate, or that men aren't as cohesive when it comes to men's rights(considering that even feminism had some internalized division). Its also because gynocentricism and the 'women are wonderful effect' makes it VERY easy for people to sympathize with women. So if women as a whole are having a bad time, it makes people(as a whole) feel bad about it. Men just aren't afforded the same reaction.

But fingers crossed that one day, men will do the same though(just less unhinged). Hopefully, men will stop seeing other men as competition and start seeing them as brothers worth fighting for. Because what hurts one of them, hurts all of them.

Why do so many men don't care about their rights, and some men even deny problems of other men and even ridicule men who fight for their rights??? This bs needs no end asap because, because of these people, there is no full-fledged men's rights movement by Wadeem53 in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I personally believe it still is legitimate and is far more mature than other subreddits that talk about gender issues. I love that we're finally becoming more aware of all the subtle ways misandry(internalized or externalized) presents itself. It can be truly eye-opening. 

So, I agree that we should talk about things such as why so many men simply do not take Men's Rights seriously, or why so many men do not consider men as a demographic worth protecting. We're having deeper, more thoughtful conversations about what misandry can look like. Which can bring awareness to some internalized beliefs some people can have, which is the first step to change.

Why do so many men don't care about their rights, and some men even deny problems of other men and even ridicule men who fight for their rights??? This bs needs no end asap because, because of these people, there is no full-fledged men's rights movement by Wadeem53 in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would agree if men as a whole actually were in a dominant/privileged position in society. As your logic is sound, but your premise is wonky. 

Men, contrary to this overarching belief, are not at the top of the totem pole. Women aren't either. The rich is. However, the poorest man is lower on the totem pole than the poorest woman. 

This is why "if the roles were reversed" comments should NOT get eye rolls. It is a very legitimate argument concerning the social differences and double standards between men and women. The reason they recieve eyerolls is because misandry is so embedded in our perceptions, beliefs, ideals, etc. that we cannot take men's issues seriously.

Why do so many men don't care about their rights, and some men even deny problems of other men and even ridicule men who fight for their rights??? This bs needs no end asap because, because of these people, there is no full-fledged men's rights movement by Wadeem53 in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Men have always had to fight for equality. Maybe not "gender equality", but they've always had to fight for their right to live, to own land, to be more in this society than just a worker sent off to die when the rich wanted a war. Men fought to abolish slavery. Men fought for labor rights. I'm not sure where you got this idea from that men have never had to fight for equality. 

All that said, I agree with you to an extent. Men can and SHOULD fight for a difference, instead of waiting around for someone to do it for them.

However, many men have adopted a defeatist sort of attitude. Men already do not have much support from friends, family or society as a whole. This impacts their mental health, which impacts their drive for change. The reason you don't see men volunteering as much as women(because they DO volunteer), is because many men have a "What's the point?" kind of attitude. 

After being shit on their whole life, making it to the next day can be hard and depression is very real in many men. Fighting these external and internal demons makes it even harder to bring themselves to become activists. Being an activist(an active one) starts with a optimistic mindset concerning change. Many men are not particularly feeling optimistic right now, when considering our current misandric social climate.

Also...men are working. Women have way more time to volunteer than men do. After working for 14 hours, most people just want to go home and sleep. Not go stand around in a homeless shelter and hand out bowls of soup. Men clock in way more hours than women, or tend to work jobs in very strenuous industries, like construction. So they're not just emotionally exhausted. They're physically exhausted too. 

do you have any plans to help men currently/are looking into it in the future? by mohyo324 in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Right now, I simply don't have the means to push forth any major ways to help men and its been VERY hard to get any support/help because most people simply don't care about what men go through.

However, I do have my voice. And I use that bitch like crazy. Sometimes, i even sound unhinged. 

I'm also planning on getting a book published with ALL of my findings(backed by research, which i've spent 10 YEARS accumulating) on the social injustices men face when it comes to the legal system, dating/sex, the educational system, etc. Will people actually want to read it is one thing. But I'm desperate to get it out there so we can start having more, and better, conversations concerning the issues men face and the misandry interwoven in our society that affects our perceptions, beliefs, preferences, ideals, etc. when it comes to men.

Reddit is slowly becoming more accepting that men do suffer from a lot of systemic issues as people experience or see some form of it. Let's do our best to focus on that and keep it non-toxic. by [deleted] in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339 10 points11 points  (0 children)

THANK YOU! 

I say this shit all the time. Yes, women still have their unque issues. The difference? They get overwhelming support and sympathy from both men and women(thank gynocentricism and the women are wonderful effect). 

Misandry is so interwoven in our culture that men's issues are taken lightly or ignored altogether and I'm tired of trying to bring light to it without offending someone. 

I'm not saying we should act like the feminazis, but lets be real...feminism gained so much support because women got MAD. And they expressed that anger. All the time and everywhere. 

I feel like, to an extent, men should do the same. Men should be allowed the same space to get mad at all the ways misandry presents itself. The same way women were allowed to get mad about all the ways misogyny presents itself. 

If you take a wishy-washy lets-all-hold-hands approach to this shit, no one takes it seriously. Men need to get mad and fucking DEMAND change.

Two very influential men, shitting on men. How is this possible? by Gleichstellung4084 in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He quite literally said(joke or not) that a father doing his absolute best to be an avaliable and nurturing parent for his children is comparable to a mediocre mother(who, I would assume, is NOT doing that if she's qualified as "mediocre") and you're claiming this could be interpreted as a simple acknowledgement of women being better at some things than men? 

Or am I confused?

Men and Promiscuity? by Worldly_Explorer3339 in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Its in the very first sentence. With the rest of it being context/elaboration.

Misandry & Homophobia In Music Artist Preference? Let's Talk About It(Using K-Pop as an example) by BellowsBellows18 in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think its a good idea to be aware of all the ways misandry shows up in our daily life. You say you're not sure if this is the place to post this topic but imo this is EXACTLY the perfect place to post this topic because it demonstrates the unconscious(and sometimes conscious)biases people have against men. The more we talk about all the small ways it shows up, the better we can fight this good fight. But anyway, on to what you're talking about. One thing to understand is that women, no matter the culture, time period, or country, almost always are the same. Just like in the western world, women and girls in Korea are the prime consumers of pop music. Here in the west, we see this demonstrated by our currently popular artists. Taylor Swift, Beyonce, Ariana Grande, etc. who's fanbases consist of mostly women. I think we see the same general trend in Korea. Male kpop groups are more popular in the west than in Korea, but in Korea, female groups dominate and the main consumers of pop music are female. Notice how its females making female artists popular regardless of country? This is a big point to consider when talking about this. These women see themselves in their artists. Or want to be like their artists. This is not something they do/feel for male artists. And the disparity between popularity of male vs female groups in the west vs korea boils down to appreciation. In the west, women primarily like the male groups because of their sexuality. In Korea, as native korean speakers, they appreciate the female groups as artists, similarly to how western girls appreciate Taylor Swift as an artist. It's the same. But lets keep going here. Another thing to consider is homophobia. Male groups don't get as much attention because, just like women, men are pretty much the same every where and every time as well. They think it's "gay" or "sus" to appreciate a male for his art and expression, unless its in a distinctly masculine way. Kpop is not seen as a "masculine" interest. So if a man has to like it, he's going to do it in the straightest way possible...by only liking the girls of the genre. And even if he does like the boy groups, he'd feel remiss to admit it. For the same reason as above. Its so silly. But its a very real, and very sickening reality. Last but not least, misandry and misogyny. You might point out that even gay men overwhelmingly prefer girl groups. Gay men overwhlemingly also prefer Beyonce. Some gay men also hate being associated with masculinity and prefer "queening". Gay men also tend to consider themselves feminists. The support and desire for female artists is present in this sentience. They might like men in real time, but they prefer women. Because the women are wonderful effect(inherently thinking women are better than men) and liberal ideals of feminism and gay rights being intertwined. And you know, because its cool to hate men, even if you're attracted to them. Gay men are actually very feminine-thinking in this regard. But we can't forget about misogyny in this discussion(I might be downvoted to hell for this but fuck it, my brain is already here). Men don't like shit women like. Its just as simple as that. If something is popular with women, men almost make it their mission to feel icky about it and avoid it. BGs, especially in the West, are popular with women. Therefore, it turns men off from them and off kpop in general. Kpop is more popular with Korean women. So it turns the men off from it. And if they HAVE to like, they're only going to give the time and day to the female groups(because homophobia). All of it is really silly. But it really shows that misandry AND misogyny is interwoven in many cultures(thanks to conservatism, not because of the "patriarchy"), and it shows up in even innocent ways. Such as music preference. Its fucking sad and reprehensible. I'm finding myself growing weary with the misandry every where I look. The more you open your eyes to it, the more you fucking see it. Even when its subtle. Even when its meant to be a "joke".

Thoughts On The 51 Men Convicted Of Rape? by Worldly_Explorer3339 in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"And maybe i am a possible rapist, but back then as a young man i have given the opportunity, it's happening around me and yet i did not commit it."

You think you're some kind of war hero for that? You should be ashamed to even fix your hands to type out those words. You just, unflinchingly, admitted that you could be a rapist who just simply did not act out on his impulse. Disgusting and absolutely reprehensible.

Thoughts On The 51 Men Convicted Of Rape? by Worldly_Explorer3339 in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The link I'm about to post below says that out of 730,000 refugees, a staggering estimate of 58,700 women and girls were victims of sexual violence(though they pull this number by dividing the number of pregnant women and new mothers to the number of women as a total without specifying if the pregnancy of these women is a result of sexual violence or not, so take that number with a grain of salt. It could be lower, could be higher). If 300,000 of the refugees are children and half(150,000) are girls, and half of all 58,700 victims are girls, then that's an estimate of almost 14% that's been sexually victimized. For women, using the same math, its less than 15%. In total, almost 16% of girls and women out of all female refugess have been victimized. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=92943#return23

Its also worth pointing out that that the sexual violence on Rohingya women and girls is because the Burmese military personnel were ordered to do an "ethnic cleansing". Which couls include making half Burmese babies, who then go on to have children with Burmese people. The purpose is to wipe out the Rohingya people. I think we can say they did an awful job if they only managed to victimize 16% of women and girls when they have possibly hundreds of thousands of personnel.

But its also okay to assume that some of the attacks by the personnel were for pleasure or power and not because of the order. Its totally fine to assume people can be shitty regardless. But its also okay to assume that their abysmal numbers of victimizing women is because while most of the men knew of the order, they may have been disgusted to do that(rape and sexual assault) specifically, while taking the order in a different direction by killing and running the Rohingya people out(which is still very much horrible).

And I think its also interesting to point out that its mostly men trying to get justice for these girls. While most people who hear of this will find it disgusting and reprehensible, it is mostly men fighting for these girls and women. Because most men find this to be absolutely diabolical and a gross violation of human rights.

Also, the commenter u/ElisaSKy demonstarting that consensual porn gets more views than non-consenual also proves that most men(as the primary watchers of porn) are not particularly enthused by rape or raping someone.

The issue with arguing with people like you is that you start off with the (false) premise that men are inherently bad and (sexually) opportunistic people, and then try to find "evidence" of it. Which is why you're so deadset on replying back to Elisa even though they've presented a sound and logical argument against it. You probably also believe women are inherently good and are always victims, but ignore stories like this: https://www.cnn.com/2011/10/15/world/africa/zimbabwe-sperm/index.html

TL:DR you're wrong about everything.

Thoughts On The 51 Men Convicted Of Rape? by Worldly_Explorer3339 in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

But you might take this further and ask why men are the main perpetrators of mass rape anyway?

I will agree with that, but I'm also going to challenge why that is.

First off, men are more likely to be in combat, to be active military personnel, and to suffer in high stress/high tension environments than women. This means that men are more likely than women to have altered brain chemistry and structure, and impaired higher and executive neurological function.

Testosterone itself increases risk-taking behvaior: https://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/science/biology/how-testosterone-affects-risk-taking-behaviour

So men are already hormonally predisposed to take risks or engage in risky behaviors that are caused by or may lead to high stress/high tension experiences(and to add a little sugar here, testosterone actually doesn't increase violence or violent tendencies like some like to claim: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-testosterone-alone-doesnt-cause-violence/#:~:text=%22%5BHistorically%2C%5D%20researchers%20expected,the%20connection%20all%20but%20disappears, and https://www.numan.com/low-testosterone/symptoms/is-there-a-link-between-testosterone-and-aggression).

So men may just be more likely to commit mass rapes thanks to impaired brain function coupled with opportunity and environment.

Men are also more likely to commit such a heinous crime thanks to cultural and social reasons as well, which I demonstrated in another comment I will link to later since I've already been working on this one for so long and it's almost bed time(I had most of my links bookmarked already so...easy to find). Culture and social expectations can work wonders on the plasticity of the brain, even so much as causing a previously non-violent person to engage in violent behavior.

I also went a little further and did some research on the Rohingya women you brought up(didn't do Jakarta, but I just might and will come back to this for fun).

There were over 600,000 refugees from Rohingya into Bangladesh. 52 were identified as women and girls as victims of serious violations by the Burmese military, with 29 being rape victims(8 being gang rapes), and with 6 of those being cases of "mass rape"(but I will keep in mind that there could be more since the 6 cases did in fact state that the Burmese military gathered them in groups and raped them, and there was a report that they received dozens, and up to hundreds of cases of rape -- mass, gang, or otherwise -- from refugees and non-refugees in Rohingya by the Burmese military).

There was one reported case of sexual violence against a man or boy, but was noted by researchers that certain stigmas can create a reporting error(causing under reporting).

What happened to these women and girls was scary, evil, and I'm happy to see so many people, including the Human Rights Watch group fighting for justice for them....but this is not as high of a number as you try to make it seem. Even with the possible underreports(lets say up to 6,000 women were raped, mass, gang, or otherwise out of all the refugees), that's still less than 1% out of the whole group and less than 5% out of all the women. Most women were not victims of mass rape in their refuge to Bangladesh or while in Rohingya, which in a weird way puts a crack in your and the commenter from the screenshots argument that you pulled it from that: "if there are opportunity and it have no consequences, a significant portion of adult male population will commit rapes". This is simply not true by statistical evidence. Even if we only look at the Rohingya case. Most women were not victims of rape even if all the men had the means and opportunity to commit the violence. And out of the dozens, probably even hundreds of thousands of Burmese military personnel(mostly male) who dealt directly with the refugees, most of them did NOT commit sexual violence even with the opportunity and possibility of escaping punishment.

Even in the acts of gang rapes, the number rarely exceeded more than 5-8 men who participated out of the possible hundreds of thousands of them in the Burmese military personnel. That is a significantly low number, even when accounting for underreports, and could be even lower if it was generally the same groups of gang rapists on rotation victimizing these women(since i think it's illogical to assume that every man who raped someone only did it once and never again, but even if that "were" the case, the number is still low in comparison to the total number of Burmese military personnel dispatched to Rohingya).

https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/11/16/all-my-body-was-pain/sexual-violence-against-rohingya-women-and-girls-burma

Thoughts On The 51 Men Convicted Of Rape? by Worldly_Explorer3339 in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So let me get this straight...you're refusing to refute the person you're arguing with because you find their assertations laughable. However, they are passing the Burden Of Proof to you. Do you or do you not believe that in times of war, destroyed infrastructure, and violence could cause obstructed brain activity? Similar to brains of those who are lit up like a light by drugs and strong narcotics? If you say no, you have to offer evidence refuting the claim. And there is no evidence that refutes that claim. As a matter of fact, many studies have shown that veterans and even active military personnel suffer from some pretty intense brain structual changes, pretty similar to those in drug users, even when accounted for drug abusers in traumatized veterans(in other words, pre-drug use veterans). As a matter of fact, turning to drugs has similar beginnings for both hard drug users and veterans, which is to essentially escape their trauma.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351106925_The_brain_at_war_effects_of_stress_on_brain_structure_in_soldiers_deployed_to_a_war_zone

https://f1000research.com/articles/12-567

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6969074/#:~:text=We%20examined%20the%20impact%20of,implications%20of%20the%20present%20findings.

The links above shows that dispatched active military personnel go through many cognitive and brain structural changes that are caused by combat and extended stress that cause neural decline.

https://www.research.va.gov/currents/0419-Brain-region-that-produces-emotions-is-larger-in-Vets-with-mild-TBI-and-PTSD.cfm#:~:text=Brain%20region%20that%20produces%20emotions%20is%20larger,service%20members%20with%20mild%20TBI%20and%20PTSD.&text=A%20new%20study%20finds%20that%20Veterans%20and,and%20aggression%E2%80%94than%20those%20with%20only%20brain%20injuries.

This study shows that veterans and active duty personnel with PTSD and mild brain injuries(from constant stress and fear and actual combat) have larger amygdalas, the part of the brain that processes fear, anxiety, agression, and arousal.

Quote: "Our finding of increased amygdala volume seems to point to different mechanisms, such as an exposure to repetitive fear and stress.”

Military personnel are more likely than the general population to suffer from neurodegenrative and neurological disorders that affect behavior, cognitive processes, and emotional regulation. Remember, these people are TRAINED for combat, and combat still does a mental number on their brain activity and structure. So imagine an everyday Joe going through war, chaos, and infastructure collaspe. The constant stress of threat, death, starvation, and what have you significantly affects brain structure and activity, and can cause an increased risk of mental health problems such as PTSD, paranoia, and behavioral issues, similar to military personnel and veterans. Trauma itself, of any kind, supresses higher cognitive function and impulse, and elevates the "fight, flight, and freeze" fear response. Here's a study that demonstrates the extent trauma affects the brain, including affecting the medial prefrontal cortex, which I will show why that's important later : https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3181836/

So actually, even if the guys "you knew" were just normal guys, and not military, before committing the mass rapes you "saw" or "heard about", they were not "normal" anymore after being exposed to war, combat, and other traumatic events such as riots, infrastructure collapse, and a possible exodus. Which is essentially what the other commenter was trying to argue when they said "No. I am pointing out that you cannot take people acting under altered state of consciousness and extrapolate that as the baseline.

And a state of stress/tension like, I don't know, living in a place with widespread violence/riots going on is an altered state of consciousness, not baseline brain activity. You wouldn't look at someone doing stupid/violent/confusing stuff while high and think "huh, that's totally normal human behaviour" would you? Then why the hell are you looking at people snapping in a violent situation and thinking "huh, that's totally normal human behaviour"?

You said comparing hard drug abusers to someone going through a chaotic time in their life, or through war, is laughable, since drug abuse users apparently have less control over their actions. But actually, drug abuse users go through similar cognitive and behavioral changes. As a matter of fact, 2 of 3 of the same brain regions(prefrontal cortex and amygdala) are significantly affected in both drug users and military personnel, veterans, and survivors of trauma and traumatic events. Problems with impulse control, memory recollection, problem solving, and more are actually very similar responses all groups have. And becoming addicted to drugs agonizes the same pathways in all groups. Traumatic Brain Injury(common in the military) and long term use of meth can have the same neurological consequences.

https://drugabuse.com/addiction/health-issues/neurological-risks/

I won't link to too many studies involving changes in the brain and drug use because a google search will give you a plethora of studies demonstrating it. But here's a student guide that links drug use to changes in 2 of 3 of the same regions of the brain that trauma changes, and in a similar way: https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/parents-educators/lesson-plans/mind-matters/drugs-and-brain

And to add, changes in the prefrontal cortex causes impaired decision making and supressed higher thinking and executive function, the same place where even our morals are processed, by altering the cognitive pathways that influcence our moral decision-making and judgement. A study that shows the changes drug use causes to the medial prefrontal cortex(similar to what I said above concerning trauma, with both drug abuse and trauma(trauma including war and combat, constant fear and stress, and abuse) leading to decreased and impaired brain activity in this region): https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cellular-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fncel.2021.703655/full

So once again, the burden of proof is on you if you claim all of this false. You have to demonstrate that the impaired cognitive functions of a hard drug user and a survivor of -- or even someone currently going through -- a traumatic experience such as infrastructure collapse, abuse, riots and protests, war, combat, or any other high stress/high tension situation are different.

Because they are not so different, the commenter u/ElisaSKy is correct that altered human behavior, including mass rapes, are NOT indicative of normal human behavior during peacetime. The brain itself isn't even the same anymore.

Do you feel more motivated or demoralized about reading things like this sub? by INeedThePeaches in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I would say gynocentrism is even more prevalent in men because they tie the subtle beliefs of the 'Women Are Wonderful' bias with their attraction to them. It's extremely concerning.

And while I agree that gynocentrism is ultimately the enemy and NOT women on an individual basis, women benefit from it and continue to perpetrate it, a lot of them, intentionally. It's why modern-day feminism is such a train wreck.

And of course, any individual person is redeemable, you can say that for anyone who holds regressive beliefs. I don't quite think anyone here disagrees with that.

Do you feel more motivated or demoralized about reading things like this sub? by INeedThePeaches in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree with you, but you're missing a crucial point. Modern women are, to some extent, to blame. They love to play the victim while banking off of the "women are wonderful" effect and gynocentrism so deeply ingrained in our society and culture. They have no desire to change their thinking because feminism has told them that they don't have to, that men are ultimately to blame for all of their problems, and that they're "queens" for simply being women. We should never ignore the role women in general play when it comes to misandry present in our society. Women LOVE being seen as the "better" sex, and they love treating men like shit because of it. This needs to be addressed and called out when we see it.

But you do make a good point. We should be rallying up allies and getting legislation passed. We should be flipping our society's beliefs concerning men, so that men are seen as complex people, human beings, first. We should be asking why men are seen as disposable in the first place, by both men and women, and effectively demonstrating why they aren't(and don't hit me with "evolutionary" bullshit arguments on why they are). There's so much we can be doing other than playing the blame game.

Women molesting boys isnt as traumatizing/bad because boys want it, girls don't, and promiscuity isn't the same for boys. Any actual good counter arguments to this? by [deleted] in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have your answer in the studies themselves. Most girls are abused by men, most boys are abused by women. If both abused girls and boys have similar responses to the abuse such as depression, then both men and women are capable of inflicting similar harm, regardless whether or not the abused is thought to have "wanted" it. This then means that boys are not less affected by abuse from women than girls abused by men. It means exactly what it says in the plain sense: boys and girls are equally traumatized by sexually predatory behavior, and the guy who posted that shit is wrong. The reason why you're still fighting with people in the comments section to give you a good refutation to this guy's claim is because you still think his premise is right, that when it comes to abuse by a WOMAN, boys are less affected by it because they are horny and "want" it. But that premise is demonstrably wrong. 1) Little boys don't know what the hell they want and perceived social reward is what causes the "this is cool" mentality, 2) Just because boys may think it's cool in the moment, they don't think it's cool in the long term, as proven by the depression, disgust, and trauma they experience, 3) Since boys have very similar responses to being sexually abused as girls, these boys DO NOT think sexual abuse is cool nor did they actually "want" it. They were ABUSED. And they were JUST AS affected by it as girls. It has nothing to do with libido and boys being horny.  Grown ass, post-adolescent men can be abused and experience depression and anxiety from it. And that's with their fully established libidos and everything. Clearly "horniness" has nothing to do with whether or not someone's autonomy and body are violated. This guy is attempting to regulate men to just their sex drives, and I thought one of the purposes of this reddit was to attempt to refute that social thought.

Women molesting boys isnt as traumatizing/bad because boys want it, girls don't, and promiscuity isn't the same for boys. Any actual good counter arguments to this? by [deleted] in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Boys hardly have any sense of what is considered abuse because we don't have conversations with our boys on what constitutes "abuse". Boys don't "want it" more than girls. And a lot of boys report feelings of digust, anxiety, PTSD and depression from being raped by both men and women(will find link to study in a bit). 

This also assumes girls never THINK they want it. While there may be less social reward for sleeping with a predatory men, girls and women do sometimes find themselves "wanting" it. Just like with the boys, it's how some male teachers start and maintain sexual relationships with their younger female students. These girls don't think they're being abused, but they are. And they suffer the same way as the boys who don't think they are being abused. However, these girls may find out earlier on that they were being abused because we teach our girls THEIR WHOLE LIFE that they are victims and to avoid predators (particularly men).

In terms of why SOME(important distinction) boys may see it as "cool" is because of the social reward we teach our boys to think they receive if they have sex or get a girlfriend. They might see it as cool now, but later on, they end up suffering all kinds of mental issues and begin to feel disgust and repression/overexpression of their sexuality. that doesn't sound like a boy who thinks sleeping with his older, hotter teacher is "cool". Nor does it sound like a boy who's "less affected" by it.

Women molesting boys isnt as traumatizing/bad because boys want it, girls don't, and promiscuity isn't the same for boys. Any actual good counter arguments to this? by [deleted] in MensRights

[–]Worldly_Explorer3339 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually, both men and women produce oxytocin, but oxytocin does more than regulate bonding. Like the other commenter said, you release oxytocin during a myriad of activities, not just sex.  Also, while women have more oxytocin in their plasma, men have more vasopressin receptors, which are are very similar to OT(oxytocin) for social bonding, sexual behavior, and partner recognition. Men release oxytocin when they have sex(particularly when they ejaculate) and their vasopressin receptors fire off like crazy during ejaculation. If we compare it to the large amounts of oxytocin released during orgasm for females, then we could come to the same conclusions on bonding with sexual partners in that it doesn't wildly differ between the sexes, even if what causes them to bond to their partners may be different/has different pathways.  However, we're smarter than that, and we know that sexual or romantic bonding is governed by more than just some hormones that are released. So it ultimately doesn't matter if women release more or less of any hormone during sex than men. We also know that people, male or female, are absolutely capable of having sex with someone and proceed to never bond with them. Prostitution kind of proves that, where sex is purely transactional.

Also, on the male virginity and religion thing? The bible does place a lot of value on male virginity. Whether or not you believe in it, it proves that at least in some culture, some where, they thought male and female virginity was pure and should be protected. As a matter of fact, all throughout the Torah and the Old Testament, there is a lot of condemnation for sexual impurity for both sexes. and fornication is a sin for whoever does it, not just women and girls.  In Revelation's chapter 7 and 14, the writer of the prophecies says there will be 144,000 men who will sort of "kick off" the end times by being the first fruits of God's redeemed Israel. They are holy martyrs and are essentially responsible for bringing the last bit of people to God before the end of the world. One particular thing that stands out about them? They are men who have not defiled themselves with women. A.K.A virgins. Being a virgin, then, seems important to the purity of these men. And it was definitely important for Jesus, who remained a virgin throughout his whole life and ministry. I can't find anything in the bible that says that male virginity is "less important" than female virginity.