1 in 5 women get raped?

In other word women are poor helpless victims in waiting that can be over powered by must more forceful men.

An on the other hand we should hand these members of the weaker sex with the command over nuclear arm carriers battle groups or the office of President?

In Firefly world how should we look at women as full and competitive adults or children that need special protections?

Billions of women are turning in their grave, saying "back in my day we policed our sexual treasures, we were the gatekeepers, now these empowered evolved modern women cant be bothered to even try, they need to have the state police sex??!! WTF??" Women of old, who are now through ignorance of historical fact considered to have been sad victims of men were never the super victims modern women are. They would have never allowed such a thing to happen on their watch, they had pride, and they knew how to handle men.

The feminists know this, their response is " but we need these laws, not all women are as smart and strong as you are, we need the state to look after the weak ones". To which I say" the proper response would be to tell those weak stupid women to grow up, that it is time to put the big girl panties on". Encouraging victimhood gets more victims, and while I realize that victim minding is by far the feminists biggest industry it is not in the rest of our best interests to grow victims. STOP DOING IT.

Firefly said



Hawkeye responded:


You're just plain ignorant, and you are committed to remaining willfully ignorant. That's why your claim about seeking "truth" is not just laughable, it's downright ludicrous.

So, because friends or relatives say that sort of thing about accused, or convicted, sexual offenders, that means the person wasn't a rapist? Are you joking?

That's what the sisters of the 19 year old, who was convicted of beating and raping an 85 year old nun, who was just standing behind her church, said about him.

That's exactly what the co-workers of Jesse Matthew have said about him--what a "nice guy" he was. But Matthew is now a suspect in two abductions and murders of female college students "with intent to defile" and the attempted murder and rape of another woman, and he was first accused of sexual assault in both colleges he attended.

But, if someone who knows a perpetrator says, "Gee, he never seemed like a sexual predator," you'll take that as some kind of proof he probably isn't one. Boy, are you a deep thinker. Not that you don't have major problems facing reality, naw, not you.

There is a great deal of social science research on the nature of rape and motivations for rape--much of which was covered in the rape thread, over years--most of which lends no support to your view of it being about passion. It is most often about domination and subordination, whether done with or without physical violence, and vulnerable, or elderly, or intoxicated, victims, simply make accomplishing that goal easier. It involves over-powering someone against their will--a non-consenting victim having unwanted sex forced on them, while they protest, is not experiencing "hurt feelings...hugely about passion."--they feel violated. Although I don't doubt, at all, that someone, like you, who is into the BDSM scene, finds his arousal enhanced by sexually dominating and over-powering a female, and that may be true of sexual predators as well.

Where is the "passion" in raping women in their 90's, or the 100 year old woman who was recently raped? No wonder you don't want to look at the rapes of elderly women--, it's not that they are allegedly rare, they are not, and there were more such stories in today's news--they just don't fit your BS theories of rape.

People who sexually assault barely conscious, or unconscious women, aren't that far from those who would sexually abuse a corpse, and there are those who do that too. And my state, as well as probably yours, has sexual assault laws that prohibit sexual contact with a corpse, precisely because such things go on. Those are acts of "passion" in your mind too? How about the father who finds his young adolescent daughter so sexually arousing he rapes her night after night? Just because you feel sexually aroused does not mean these feelings are acceptable or should be acted on--even when "passion" is allegedly felt, people must be able to control their impulses in the absence of consent to act on them.

This view of rape little to do with feminism, despite your paranoia about that. It reflects wide-spread thinking among researchers in the field about the nature and motivations for rape, which most often reflect desires to dominate and subordinate, and sometimes to express anger and violence toward women as well.

In fact your attributing the term "undetected rapists" to feminists isn't accurate either, nor is your use of the term. The term is correctly attributable to Dr. David Lisak, a former college professor and highly regarded researcher and expert in this field. It refers to individuals who have admitted to committing rapes but have yet to be apprehended.

You are paranoid toward feminists, they are hardly the majority most concerned about the issues of sexual assault and rape, and you are disconnected from how most men and women view this topic because your thinking is so distorted, perhaps due to your personal sexual BDSM lifestyle.

No one is shutting you down from expressing your views, you've been engaging in your rape denial BS for over 4 years at A2K--that's more of your paranoia.

to so much as question the feminists definition of rape or their activity to confront it earns the title of " rape denier". Anyone who is not a rape denier has some screws loose.

Lord Hawkeye, so Firefly had used the big gun on us of claiming we are rape deniers?

Kind of similar to having a spitting cobra hit you in the eyes with "her" venom .

Ok, so I'll admit I haven't read EVERY post EVER that hawkeye has posted.

Can you give me some examples that support your claim?

"Yes means yes" is an example of legislation discriminating against men (i.e. sexual discrimination!)

nononono it would seems by Firefly "logic" that claiming women should be view as full adults and not as helpless victims to any predatory male with a bottle of Jack Daniels to seduce them with is the same as calling a black person a nigger.

She assumes the intent of my language is to degrade others. Nonsense. I am after truth, I demand that language not be killed by the political activists and so I refuse to conform to PC standards. I also refuse to be submissive to the political minders. I also have no tolerance for victim culture,,,I am the guy who if my kid falls of a horse I tell them they better get their ass back up on that horse pronto. I am the guy who believes that anything can be talked about, with very rare exceptions (for example talking in front of a 4 year old about the lack of a sleigh riding Santa) when someone says "we cant talk about that" responds "go **** yourself". DO NOT bother telling me that we cant talk about truth because we have to watch out for the victims...**** that noise. If the victims cant take the real world then by all means lets shut them away someplace to keep them safe, but the rest of us best get on with understanding and dealing with this universe.

This basically comes from my being Zen for over 30 years. We are all about the practical, what is real and what works. I have no time for this fetish with victims. It does not go anywhere.

The funny part is that asking for a vocal yes or no is far more common is a long term relationship then in the beginning of a sexual and romance relationship.

Dear I am as horny as hell tonight so can we have sex is the words of a long term married man to his wife not to a new partner.

Cant remember what thread that street harassment video is in but this is a good counterpoint.



I know that when I dress my wife super slutty almost all of the negative reaction comes from women, so I have doubts about negative reaction from guys towards women. Of course harassment has been redefined all the way down to any compliment that was not requested, or sometimes just saying hello, so the term is pretty meaningless. I think that the original video is almost certainly "MEN SUCK!" propaganda.

You dress your wife? What is she, a mannequin you control and play with?

The catcalling is not about negative reactions, it's about unwanted comments yelled or said to women in public, about their appearance or sexual desirability, as though they were inanimate objects. It does go on, it is not anti-male propaganda, and it is a form of sexual harassment.

When you do dress your wife super slutty, do you let her go walk busy city streets by herself? If not, how do you know what kind of reactions or looks she'd get when walking about the streets by herself? Maybe the men wouldn't find her attractive, and just ignore her, and the women would wonder why someone your wife's age would parade herself around looking like an old whore.

How does your wife dress you? In a pink garter belt and thigh high lace stockings, so she can laugh while whipping you as she orders you to crawl around? How does she dress you for going out--in full pimp regalia?

Why don't you dress yourself as a super slutty woman, and don't skimp on the make-up or hair, and go walk some city streets, and see who yells comments at you...betcha they won't be flattering. And, by all means, take a selfie and post it.

What feminists refuse to admit, is that in the realm of sexual activity MOST information is conveyed non-verbally. In fact for most women, if a man asks her "Can I kiss you?" for instance instead of just doing it, women will find that a turn off because the man is seen as not "taking charge"/being "manly". People can be consenting without being verbal, and in fact that's the way that most sexual relationships work.

I don't care if it's non-PC to say this or not; women enjoy being dominated! That's why stuff like 50 Shades Of Grey is so popular with women. Almost all those porn (romance, haha!) books for women feature scenarios where the man dominates the woman. A book where a woman dominates a submissive man WOULD NOT SELL TO FEMALES!

I really think there's some innate aspect of female psychology in general that is on par with what would be considered mental illness. It's this cognitive dissonance of telling society that men had better be respectful, and every nook and cranny of society had better be PC and woman friendly; and then when men act polite to women, they get told to "man up" and quit being a pushover. And then those women go off and find some "bad boy" to **** them instead.

Men in general do not exhibit this looney tunes sort of behavior. They don't tell you one thing to your face all the while knowing that they desire and expect something completely different.

As I'm sure many other men have experienced, I've had every woman that I've been with at some point make it known that they like it rough to one extent or another in the bedroom. But see that's the thing: this expectation that men carry all the burden and do all the work for the benefit of women. It isn't just limited to Emma Watson telling the UN that men had BETTER do things for the benefit of women, it even extends into pretty much every bedroom in a heterosexual relationship.

And I know that I for one don't always want to be in charge in the bedroom. I have to be in charge in every other aspect of my life; sometimes I'd prefer to have a woman dominate me and do all the work while I get to be on autopilot and just enjoy the sex.

Hawkeye, what that "Street Harassment" video you're referring to was, was a PATHETIC and BLATANT grab for cash by that woman painting herself as a victim/damsel in distress.

It's just like with gamergate and Anita Sarkeesian. These women paint this narrative that all these men are out to get them, and then they put a Patreon link up and say "Give me money to help!" What they are is modern day snake oil salesmen/women.

That "street harassment" video had a link to a website that was one big sob story with the message of give me money at the end of it. And the website BLATANTLY doesn't give any specifics about what that money is going to be used for.

Some other points of note about that video:

~That woman wasn't even attractive as far as I'm concerned.

~They supposedly shot for 10 hours, and all they got was less than 2 minutes of "Harassment".

~Saying things like "Have a nice evening darling" or "You look beautiful" are on par with sexual violence such as forcible rape according to the narrative that's being sold by the feminists involved in it.

~The video was flat out racist, because they purposely went to parts of NYC predominantly occupied by minorities. I've spent time in NY, and I even recognized a particular street in the video. This was not done by accident. If they were presenting an even handed snapshot, they would have included footage from whiter neighborhoods as well.

~How does presenting yourself as a helpless damsel and then saying "Give me money to help me!" EMPOWER women at all??? Shouldn't women be portraying themselves as strong and telling men "Hey **** you. I don't need your money. I'm a strong person, and I can take care of myself."

~ANYONE who claims that getting compliments is "Oppressing" is conceited, because what they're doing is saying "I am SOOOOO physically beautiful that I can't even leave the house."

~What is the purpose of this video anyway? Should it be against to law to compliment a woman? Should men go to jail for that? Perhaps men should be forced to avert their eyes at all times in the presence of women, and not speak unless spoken to? Perhaps men should treat women like the ruling caste that they act like and feel that they are? Perhaps that should be legally mandated?

Ridiculousness.

Which section of the Constitution outlines our right to be ignored?

nononono, what most women will tell you that they want in the bedroom is better and longer and more varied foreplay. It takes women longer to become aroused and properly lubricated for sex, that's biology, so yes, men generally have to do "more of the work"--if you want to see it as "work"--but that's how you'll get a more satisfied partner, and one who is more than willing to let you lean back, take a break, and to devote herself to pleasuring you. In other words, what most women want is a man who really knows his way around a woman's body, and is skilled and patient in arousing her, and enjoys doing it. And I think most men want the equivalent in a woman.

If your sexual relations are all consenting, they don't really belong in a discussion of rape. Most people have no trouble either establishing consent, or abiding by consent, the problem is that a small percentage don't give a damn about consent, or they may actually prefer sex with a non-consenting partner, or even an unconscious one (maybe so they won't have to do "all that work" catering to what she needs or wants) and that's what accounts for a great deal of the sexual assaults which take place.

Women do not want to be "dominated" by actually being raped, despite what fantasies or books they might enjoy, any more than you'd enjoy actually being raped by another man against your will. Why do you think men rape other men in prison? Dominance?

Nothing in "yes means yes" suggests that the consent communication must be verbal, but it must be clear, silence or passivity does not suffice. It also puts no more of a burden on the male than the female, she must establish consent for anything she wants to initiate as well.

As a measure to decrease sexual assaults, on campuses with a predominate culture of hook-ups and one night stands, often fueled by alcohol, clear consent is imperative, which makes clear communication imperative. "Yes means yes" helps to assure that, and there don't seem to be significant complaints from the men on campuses where this consent standard has been in effect for some time.

Could you manage an interchange without bringing up feminists or feminism once? I'm sick of hearing about them and they are not part of my thinking--most women, and men, think for themselves.

I am still trying to get my brain around the idea that according to Firefly we should be able to take ourselves out in public, in private.

An explanation is certainly called for.

You can't understand anything you haven't experienced first hand. That's your problem in understanding a great many topics.

I'm also realizing that this whole issue of catcalling on the street reflects social class differences among men. It's laborers and blue collars workers most likely to do that, upper middle and professional class men the least likely--and that's been true as long as I can remember.

The fact you can't empathize with what it's like to be a woman being catcalled on the street isn't surprising, you still can't understand why blacks would, and should, be offended and angered when you refer to them as "niggers".

As I said here before as a young child walking down the streets in Manhattan with my mother some guy wolf whistle at her.

After all those decades ago I still can remember how delight she was at receiving that whistle as an "old" lady in her middle thirties or so.

After we got home my mother enjoyed teasing my father over the matter.

Of course that was long before so call feminists had turn such actions into sexual harassment just short of a sexual assault instead of at worst an over enthusiastic compliment.

No one's complaining about getting one lone wolf whistle, idiot.

The catcalling issue is about having to listen to a barrage of comments, of all types, being yelled out to you, or muttered to you, as you walk to work every day. It is a form of harassment by gender, since I've never known a man who had to put up with that sort of thing as he walked to work every day.

No, it's not just "short of a sexual assault"--it's harassment--it's unwanted--it makes one feel like a piece of meat up for grabs on the street. Would you have wanted your mother to have put up with that?

It's amazing you consider your mother's positive response to one lone wolf whistle, probably 60 years age, as definitive as that of the hundreds of woman who recently took to the internet to complain about what they were being subjected to as they walked the streets these days.

But, why listen to those hundreds of women, when you obviously feel you understand more than they do about their own experiences, right? Just as you disregarded and trivialized the actual rape experiences of the at least 5 A2K members who posted about their own rapes in the rape thread, and insulted a few of them as well--you, of course understand rape better than a woman who has been raped, right?