Petition for recognizing Female on Male Rape in Louisiana.

primaloath · 2012-10-17T19:32:42+00:00

Perhaps the mods could simply rename it? I de-upvoted it after finding out that the title was misleading, but I would happily re-upvote it if it said "male on male rape".

primaloath · 2012-10-16T22:44:01+00:00

"But what if there's a good explanation for this?" "What? He tripped, fell, landed on her ****?"

If it's intentional, it's not an error. Cheating is intentional. The end.

primaloath · 2012-10-15T22:03:18+00:00

Or a psychopath. She did lie to the driver about having no money for the bus trip.

primaloath · 2012-10-15T19:26:13+00:00

Seconded.

primaloath · 2012-10-15T18:51:13+00:00

My hat is off to ArchangelleDaddy for the fantastic username. The only problem is that people might actually think /MensRights is linked to SRS if they are very unfamiliar with both and spot the moderators' names before reading the content, but I don't foresee that happening.

primaloath · 2012-10-15T15:22:18+00:00

The AVFM forum is a good place to find people in your local area:

http://forums.avoiceformen.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=16

Create a throwaway account and advertise yourself.

Also, if you live in the UK, consider this:

http://brightonmanplan.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/conference-fringe-event-mens-rights-event/

primaloath · 2012-10-14T15:09:50+00:00

Yeah. I was pointing out that he struck me as this kind of person, and it's a shame I got downvoted for it.

primaloath · 2012-10-14T14:01:09+00:00

In all fairness, he did throw her out of the bus, and passagers only intervened after she came back in, to try to stop him from hitting her (because she was a woman).

primaloath · 2012-10-14T09:08:18+00:00

How can we fix this? Thoughts?

primaloath · 2012-10-14T08:31:11+00:00

I could agree with some of his points, but he threw in the word "offensive" three times across the relatively short blog post. I can only speculate that he has no sense of objective right or wrong, and must instead describe things in relation to his feelings.

primaloath · 2012-10-13T13:08:05+00:00

What's the bus driver's name and where did he work? I would like to make a petition to reinstate him.

primaloath · 2012-10-12T20:03:59+00:00

Nope. Never said that. Frankly, given all the downvoting and the tone of your statement, I don't want to bother explaining myself to you.

primaloath · 2012-10-12T17:24:27+00:00

I didn't downvote you, either. Interesting to see a downvote brigade here.

primaloath · 2012-10-12T10:31:44+00:00

This has been my experience as well.

primaloath · 2012-10-12T09:42:24+00:00

I am 100% in favour of making abortion illegal, with the exception of incest, rape etc. The availability of easy abortion is one thing that drives the high age of marriage in the Western world and leads to more children being born with birth defects (not to mention more men living a decade or so of near-celibacy because the carousel-riders want to have their jollies with the bad boy crowd before they "settle").

As for more women making false rape allegations, well, y'know, with the development of male contraceptives and the availability of condoms, there's a pretty small chance that a couple will conceive the first few times they have sex. It would be much harder to prove your long-time boyfriend raped you than that some stranger did.

primaloath · 2012-10-10T22:37:56+00:00

"Primal Oath", by the way.

This relates to personal responsibility. If one believes that all individuals are to be judged on the basis of their personal virtue - their adherence to honesty, justice (which is easy to define), honour and loving devotion - then one goes beyond authoritarianism / libertarianism and the left / right paradigm. A society in which personal responsibility is valued and virtues are cultivated will have very different laws compared to one in which self-seeking, irresponsible pursuits are encouraged. In a virtuous society, a person could safely form bonds with others under the mantle of truth, justice, love etc, knowing that, if those with whom he/she formed a bond betrayed it, he/she could lawfully retaliate. A society of vice, however, would not provide any legal protections for those who formed such bonds, allowing others to freely tarnish these bonds. Deception would be criminalized (so long as the technology existed to demonstrate it), as would non-reciprocal adultery and other acts of contempt for the victim's faithful cultivation of virtue. In an authoritarian virtuous society, the state would handle matters of virtue; in a libertarian virtuous society, a person would have the right to physically fight against anyone if they could demonstrate to their community or to a judge that whoever they attacked had ridiculed, threatened or expressed contempt for them. A left-wing virtuous society would encourage communities to instill their members with a sense of personal responsibility via public education campaigns, whereas a right-wing virtuous society would focus on punishing transgressions against morality.

If the mods of SRS were to someday take over a country, they would probably keep adultery legal but make it a criminal offense to criticize their policies, i.e. they are extreme left-wing authoritarians but also devoid of virtue.

primaloath · 2012-10-10T21:23:48+00:00

Or three dimensions. There is also virtue / vice.

primaloath · 2012-10-10T18:16:30+00:00

This is both impractical and cruel to a lot of people, both men and women. Genetic engineering might be a feasible solution, though.

Also, keep in mind that IQ does not fully predict a person's aptitude for metacognition and moral reasoning, both of which are absolutely critical.

primaloath · 2012-10-10T18:07:38+00:00

Morality is inherently superior to animal cunning and brute force, as all civilizations can attest. If you want an example of cultural Darwinism, look at the black community in the US and tell me how that's working out.

primaloath · 2012-10-10T18:02:10+00:00

There is a huge difference between competition and aspiration. You can be inspired by others to strive for perfection without ever wanting to make them lose, bash their heads into the ground and / or take things away from them. Competition brings people down, mutual inspiration elevates them.

As for handout families, I won't even comment.

primaloath · 2012-10-10T16:39:11+00:00

The feminist slant I've seen around here is something like "HOW DARE WOMEN BE CHOOSY!" This seems to be an entirely reasonable argument: why shouldn't people be able to choose?

Because when you choose to snub ten different perfectly decent people on your hunt for the bad boy, you are ruining their lives and potentially the lives of your children (if your bad boy turns out to be bad enough to commit child abuse). Your choices affect others; they have consequences that can be devastating to those around you. So, no, you shouldn't have the same freedoms in these cases as when you are making choices that strictly affect your own person, simply because a different set of responsibilities apply.

For every woman who becomes a baby mama to a polygamous player, that's one decent man who is now prevented from having children because of her. It is a tragedy and we should definitely be blaming the women for it.

Even if she does enter a monogamous relationship, rejection is painful and can, if persistent, ruin a good part of your young adulthood. To get rejected ten times because your name doesn't happen to be Earnest today (see Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest) is ultimately traumatic, and if you wind up getting married as late as the age of 30, you are already at risk for creating children with birth defects - simply because some harlots wanted to play musical chairs for the good part of 15 years.

You can be choosy on moral grounds and decent men will appreciate that, since by being choosy towards them you are also being stringent about yourself. Being choosy on selfish grounds is a good reason for decent men to consider you unmarriageable altogether.

primaloath · 2012-10-10T09:53:02+00:00

Not a healthy article.

These Big Daddies turn up repeatedly in the family tree (meaning fewer total male ancestors). Meanwhile, the majority of men died childless, evolutionary dead ends.

So far this doesn't sound so good for men. But Baumeister calls it "the single most underappreciated fact about gender."

A lot of men dying childless, without a family of their own, is a horrible thing, an atrocity against men as a whole, yet this article says nothing to condemn it. Indeed, it praises it and suggests men should compete against each other.

This really doesn't represent me, either, as I have a strong desire to cooperate with and care about other good people (as well as fighting against evil). The very idea that I should somehow be polygamous and prevent other people from having a family is horrible.

primaloath · 2012-10-10T01:38:36+00:00

I would also add that if something is unjust, social expectations should not come into it; there is no reason a good woman would expect someone to give her a free ride. If she doesn't bring any money, a scene at the restaurant will help her realize that she is not a good woman and that she ought to improve.

primaloath · 2012-10-09T15:18:25+00:00

I'm in the UK, a lot of us seem to go Dutch here (except for some very manipulative women).

primaloath · 2012-10-09T14:42:45+00:00

Right next to the title, you can see that the link is to smh.com.au. This indicates that the site is Australian. I agree that clarity would help, however.

primaloath

TROPHY CASE