Misogynist meetings to be held across the world

[Farm Boy]

Affirmative consent as in "The partner has to give a verbal yes" is not a thing, more so, it is made fun of and mocked. And thank the gods it isn't law, sucking the fun out of the act of sex just to prevent a few "I didn't want it, but I also didn't signal that I didn't want it."-cases would be an extremely unproportional response.

Well, I wasn't talking about an orifice change. I was talking about a positional change. Somebody may very well consent to intercourse, but not intercourse in a different position. If affirmative consent is the rule of consent that is in force then that positional change will need to be affirmatively consented to, most likely, yes?

Nexlev, we'll find out!

 

[Ryika]

Don't see why that one would be different. He tries to move her and she either goes with it or doesn't. If she goes with it and gives no other sign of not being okay with that position everything is fine - no further confirmation of consent needed. In all other cases verbal communication is most likely needed.

 

[Hygro]

This change in consent culture is all a ploy by the porn industry to make vanilla porn seem more exciting than it currently is. No longer does porn have to push the boundaries of borderline-extreme to maintain viewers, it can now push us into increasingly tame and sanitized sex so that we are even more titillated by the boundaries we previously sought.

 

[Narz]

If you have to ask.... chances are it's a big turnoff for the woman. Most women want to be taken and have guys be able to read them without checking in for validation. If she doesn't want you it's pretty obvious unless you have aspergers or something.

 

[Farm Boy]

Don't see why that one would be different. He tries to move her and she either goes with it or doesn't. If she goes with it and gives no other sign of not being okay with that position everything is fine - no further confirmation of consent needed. In all other cases verbal communication is most likely needed.

I understand that's how it works in the places you are describing. I'm not arguing, I'm simply stating that this is inadequate consent in a place where affirmative consent is required. Lack of objection is not consent in these places. If you switch positions when affirmative consent is required without procuring said affirmative consent then yes, you can and are responsible for committing punishable sexual violence should your partner not retroactively provide said consent ad hoc after the fact. You would have, for a period of time at least until said consent manifests, been a sex offender. These are not mistakes in the design of affirmative consent. This is the intention of affirmative consent.

 

[Ryika]

Yes, I understand that. What I'm saying is that these affirmative consent laws are idiotic and that most people don't seem to think or act like that (but of course I'm not living in a place where that kind of law exists, so maybe I'm wrong about that and rape hysteria or whatever has driven them insane.). These things are not "the next logical step", they're a step into the wrong direction.

 

[BvBPL]

I understand where you're coming from, I'm not trying to deny signs that things are moving in that direction. I merely think you are overstating the inevitability of this "progress".

For example, though these standards are new, there has already been legal challenges to their constitutionality. Last July, a judge ruled that the punishment of a student by the University of California, San Diego violated his due process rights. Last August, a judge over-ruled the punishment of a student by the University of Tennessee, Chattanuga on similar grounds.

I see this more as an ongoing and intense debate, than a "momentum". There is a lot of push in this direction, but also a lot of push in the other direction. I think "liberals" should be careful what they ask for. I wonder if they'll still see these laws as progressive when they are being disproportionately applied to young black men, and causing the most harm to those who can't afford the means to defend themselves against aggressive prosecutors.

For clarity, the cases you cite are about the accused's due process rights in university disciplinary hearings, not about the validity of affirmative consent laws or any other laws. It isn't about what is right or wrong in student behavior, but what is right or wrong in how colleges treat their students. Affirmative consent and other standards of behavior could reasonably coexist with appropriate due process for the involved parties because the rules about behavior do not necessarily need to conflict with the rules about having a disciplinary hearing.

I think you are right to be concerned about a general course of thinking that may be seen to retract long held rights in favor of the protection of vulnerable individuals. It is certainly something of which I am cognizant, although I am not as alarmed as many others seem to be.

Yes, I understand that. What I'm saying is that these affirmative consent laws are idiotic and that most people don't seem to think or act like that (but of course I'm not living in a place where that kind of law exists, so maybe I'm wrong about that and rape hysteria or whatever has driven them insane.). These things are not "the next logical step", they're a step into the wrong direction.

If you accept that sexual assaults are rampant on college campuses* and that the college population is particularly vulnerable to that form of assault than perhaps a change in how people think is warranted. Laws do not need to necessarily reflect the present mindset of people; using laws to change deep seated behaviors is acceptable as a means to force that change.


* Some studies suggest that one in four women attending college in the US will be sexually assaulted. I'm not sure I readily accept that statistic, but suffice it to say that one's perception of how common sexual assaults are in colleges probably colors whether or not you believe a change is warranted.

 

[Hygro]

I read somewhere women in college are assaulted less than the same age women not in college, suggesting that college is not actually less safe, just a place with higher expectations of safety.

 

[Ryika]

I don't know of a single study that comes to 1 in 4/5 that has not...

...completely screwed it's own results by allowing students to opt-in (self-selection bias)
...widened the definition of sexual assault to include things that normal people would not accept as sexual assault
...and/or asked students vague questions instead of directly asking them about their experiences, to then have the people making the study decide whether a person was "sexually assaulted" or not.

So no, unless someone can link a proper study I don't for a second believe in this nonsense.

I mean let me quote this from wikipedia:
"The 2015 Association of American Universities (AAU) Campus Survey on Sexual Assault, one of the largest studies ever of college sexual violence, drew responses from Campus Climate Surveys of 150,000 students across 27 schools, including most of the Ivy League. It found that more than 20 percent of female and 5 percent of male undergraduates said that they were victims of non-consensual sexual contact, defined as behaviors ranging from sexual touching to penetration, due to physical force or incapacitation since entering college.[13] The researchers acknowledged that these estimates may have been too high, because there were indications that the hundreds of thousands of students who chose not to participate in the survey were less likely to have experienced non-consensual sexual conduct than survey respondents. The overall response rate was 19%.[5]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campus_sexual_assault

Literally, 19% response rate, that's pathetic. Such a study does not tell us ANYTHING.

Yet you have headlines like this talking about this study:

Survey: More than 1 in 5 female undergrads at top schools suffer sexual attacks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...c80be2-5e29-11e5-b38e-06883aacba64_story.html

...and people willingly believe it because they just want it to be true, because it gives them something to rally against, something to live for. That's exactly the hysteria I was talking about.

Though to the credit of the Washington Post they also published this article, picking the study apart.

But I agree, "if you accept, that.." is one of the main reasons why this nonsense is even allowed to happen. People think they're solving a problem, but the problem is a lot smaller than they (are made to) think and the thing they use to solve the problem just does not solve it. Most serious cases of sexual assault are not perpetrated by people who didn't know they needed consent, they're perpetrated by people who knew perfectly well that what they're doing is not okay and did it anyway.

 

[Arwon]

Er what? Two people are having sex, do you really expect them to check with each other every 2 minutes if they would like to continue having sex?

Would this count?

"Yeah, you like that??"

"Hngnrmmm.."

"Say my name!"

"Spider...man"

"Damn right"

Um the idea is just that people have to be sure in an ongoing way that consent exists. I'd have thought that was the common sense non-rapey thing to be doing anyway. Besides which, it's a legal test in rape cases that goes to the reasonable beliefs and understandings of the parties involved... it's not a regulatory requirement people are gonna check up on with cameras and clipboards.

It's a "when in doubt, make sure you and your partner understand each other or stop for a moment" thing - and decent mutually interested sex should at least involve *that* level of communicativeness.

 

[Arwon]

1 in 5 on colleges is really quite plausible as a rate which is inclusive of sexual/indecent assault not just rape.

That's the ballpark for the stats from the European Agency for Fundamental Rights for the EU (broad level stats suggest the EU, US, Australia are comparable societies, which is pretty reasonable to assume). That survey which is the most detailed I've seen, shows "unwelcome touching" had a 5% prevalence rate for all adult women in a 12 month period and a 29% adult lifetime rate. College goes for 4 years, and there are elevated sexual assault rates among young people compared to the general population, so it's probably close to the mark once you remember that groping and forced kissing and the like are forms of assault.

In terms of rape, the survey-derived annual incidence rate is around 2% of women each year which in the EU is about 3.7m women (1% for forced sex, the other 1% being other forms of sexual violence that are also rape, ie non-consent including "against her will" and "afraid of refusing"). And about 11%, more than 1 in 10, somewhere around 20 million women in the EU28, since the age of 15.

 

[BvBPL]

So it turns out that Roosh lives in his mother's basement.

I'm not really one to judge, generally, people who live with their parents, but when so much of this pickup artist culture focuses around things like being an alpha rather than a beta, well, that's pretty beta.

Fun fact: if you type "Roosh V" into Bing it automatically changes the search to be his full name.

 

[Arwon]

That's really the perfect Daily Mail angle to take

 

[caketastydelish]

Well one of the few (if only) respectable things about Roosh is he has a biology degree.

That said. With that kind of degree (he's admitted to having previously had a decent paying biology job) you'd think he'd make enough money to live on his own.

I think it's actually a good thing though, that Roosh's products/website are actually not making that much money. Perhaps he's not mainstream after all, and only a small niche of idiots follow him.

Living with your parents is not always bad. Sometimes the parent themselves is ill and their adult child has to take care of them. Sometimes they have the responsibility to live on their own but not the income, so they live with their parents while they go to college. Sometimes the child simply has a physical/mental handicap.

But none of those seem to be the case with Roosh. Anyway, this is the same guy that said something to the tune of "biology says everyone on welfare would die" so it's hilarious that he of all people is living in his mother's basement.

I sometimes read Return of Kings just for the lulz and now it's funnier than ever knowing the guy who says "real men work instead of playing video games, real men are tough and independent, blah blah blah" lives with his momma.

Roosh is much worse than simply being a PUA. Some of the PUA's out there are surprisingly not that bad. Roosh is a freaking monster.

 

[Ryika]

It's a bit late, but to get back to the actual topic:

After having read the articles useless had linked at the beginning of the thread and now FINALLY having read the original article by Roosh V I feel... stupid for somewhat believing the linked articles. The original article by Roosh V is written in a way that clearly reads as satire to me, and is making fun of people's double-standards - not very high-level, intelligent satire, but certainly satire. I now believe the articles claiming that Roosh V totally wants rape to be legal on private property must either have been written by people with the intelligence of maggots or, more likely, by people who are willfully ignorant.

...which is not an endorsement of the person Roosh V, quite the opposite, I feel ashamed that I must have sympathy for him because of how horribly his opposition is acting. Looking at his website... the comment sections are full of people telling him to die, telling him to kill himself, calling him all sorts of names... and these are supposed to be the "good" people? I'm not sure whether I just keep stumbling into places where bad people fight each other, or whether humanity is truly a lost cause.

 

[Oerdin]

I really don't care what the idiots in this red pill group think and the only ones worse than them are the SJW trying to protest and generally making <snip> out of themselves. People should be able to have different opinions, even noxious ones, without other people making threats of violence or attempting legalis tic means to silence them. The real answer to objectionable speech is more speech.

If you have to ask.... chances are it's a big turnoff for the woman. Most women want to be taken and have guys be able to read them without checking in for validation. If she doesn't want you it's pretty obvious unless you have aspergers or something.

Exactly

Moderator Action: Inappropriate language.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[classical_hero]

I might attend out of curiosity, I just need to work out in my head whether it is a good use of my time. I have my doubts many people will attend, since I don't live in a large city.

I've been following the outrage for LULZ. Roosh is not above "trolling", and it's no secret that he uses outrage as a marketing tool. People love to be outraged.

The meetings were never intended as anything more than a social hour for men who read the site, and to branch out into unaffiliated "tribal" social groups for men to discuss common interests.

The bit in bold is his MO. He deliberately say controversial thing so he can get his message out. I'm up for anything that upsets SJW's.

 

[Senethro]

So men are just trolling but women are always oppressive ********s.

New double standards every day.

 

[Ryika]

So men are just trolling but women are always oppressive ********s.

New double standards every day.

Can you show some examples of feminists using satire (that should be obvious to the reader) but being quoted as if they were giving their honest opinion?

 

[useless]

Can you show some examples of feminists using satire (that should be obvious to the reader) but being quoted as if they were giving their honest opinion?

#Killallmen.