Loading ...As readers of my column probably already know, I’m a fan of the Maury show. His paternity test programs are especially dramatic. One thing I have noticed is that men are often certain that they “can’t be the father” because of the circumstances under which the sex took place and their feelings – or rather lack of feelings – for the mother.
Men denying paternity have said: “It was just a one night stand!” “She was just a booty call.” “I used you!”
Reproductive biology 101: when heterosexual penile-vaginal intercourse takes place, a sperm can meet an egg, resulting in a pregnancy. Should the pregnant woman carry to term, the result will be a baby. This is true if the impregnating man deeply loves the woman. It is true if he respects and admires her. It is also true, and equally so, if the impregnating man cares not one whit for the woman. It is true if he actively dislikes and even hates her. It is true if he has complete contempt for her.
Oh yes, and vice versa. A sperm can meet an egg and fertilize it even if the woman cares nothing for the man, dislikes or hates him, and has complete contempt for him.
Customers can impregnate female prostitutes. One night stands and booty calls can cause pregnancies.
Since I’m writing for a men’s website, I’m going to address myself to the guys. That booty call or hooker can get pregnant by you. No matter how strongly you may feel that the resulting unborn is your precious son or daughter, she can have it ripped out of her womb, never to be born. This was true before Roe v. Wade and will be true after it is overturned (which I believe it will be). It is true when abortion is legal and when it is illegal.
She can also have your baby and raise it. If she does that, you may be in a permanent relationship with this woman because she is the mother of your child.
Think! Next time you’re tempted, think about what this woman might do with the resulting embryo/fetus/unborn baby. Think about having to deal with her for the rest of your life because DNA proved she had your child. Think about whether or not you consider this woman worthy of raising your child.
Maybe, just maybe, you’ll decide that an hour or so of pleasure isn’t worth it.
amfortas said,
But it is a tool of the Patriarchy, Denise. Don't be fooled into thinking that there are some unthinking, unfeeling men out there who haven't a clue. Men that you can educate with the breaking news. No, they know alright.
That's despite the fact that they have been told for a generation or two (!) now that only women have any say in pregnancy. Only she can make such a decision. Its nothing to do with him. He has to butt out and leave it to all powerful, empowered. women. She has a dozen ways of dealing with 'HER body' and he has no say whatsoever. Even if he pays her for her own pleasures or under-writes her decisions with an hourly fee.
Daft, ain't it.
I'll let you into a secret. Men deliberately inflict babies on unsuspecting women while they are asleep. Drugged usually. Just so they can pay for the next 18 years. All Men Are Rapists. Stupid ones.
Get with the Program and don't let the Patriarchy ™ fool you.
August 27, 2007 at 4:14 am
Denise Noe said,
Good Lord. You've been reading the New Scientist again, haven't you. Bang up to date and cutting edge.>>
(Denise) Thank you, amfortas. ; )
But it is a tool of the Patriarchy, Denise. Don't be fooled into thinking that there are some unthinking, unfeeling men out there who haven't a clue. Men that you can educate with the breaking news. No, they know alright.
(Denise) Sometimes people, both men and women, need to be reminded of the obvious. Some men are certain they couldn't be the father since that was "just a booty call." They need to be reminded that a booty call can lead to the creation of their child as well as a permanent bond with that child's mother.
That's despite the fact that they have been told for a generation or two (!) now that only women have any say in pregnancy. Only she can make such a decision. Its nothing to do with him. He has to butt out and leave it to all powerful, empowered. women. She has a dozen ways of dealing with 'HER body' and he has no say whatsoever. Even if he pays her for her own pleasures or under-writes her decisions with an hourly fee.
(Denise) This is another biological fact rather than something that's been around for "a generation or two." Pregnancy is the ultimate two-edged sword, both an extraordinary burden to women and a beautiful blessing.
Daft, ain't it.
I'll let you into a secret. Men deliberately inflict babies on unsuspecting women while they are asleep. Drugged usually. Just so they can pay for the next 18 years. All Men Are Rapists. Stupid ones.
(Denise) No, that's not how it usually works, amfortas. Few men are rapists and those few risk prison sentences for their crimes. However, all men have the ability to decide not to risk getting a woman pregnant since, with very rare exceptions, men are not raped by women (although yes, that does happen). Men have the ability to decide not to have sex with a woman they believe might not carry to term. They have the ability to decide not to have sex with a woman they don't like and don't respect. They have the ability to Just Say No to such a woman raising their children. Think about what it takes to be a good mother. Does this woman have it? If she doesn't, you might consider forgoing temporary pleasure rather than taking the chance that she will be the one to bring up your son or daughter
Get with the Program and don't let the Patriarchy ™ fool you.
(Denise) Society is made up of a combination of matriarchal and patriarchal elements and always has been.
August 27, 2007 at 4:52 am
Denise Noe said,
August 27, 2007 at 4:55 am
conservativation said,
Most men think before sex, quite a lot. Before sex men think about, well, sex. There is a moment or two after sex where men think about sports or money.
August 27, 2007 at 6:25 am
Artfldgr said,
When we get onto the road we take on shared risk and obligations, we have a minimal standard one has to reach BEFORE one can reassess the culpability to change the obligations from 50/50 to 100/0 or 0/100, or some point in between.
In this way, if you have your headlights working, the brakes in order, the inspections done, the brake lights are fine, etc. Then an accident can generally be seen as an accident if there were no OTHER things that change the circumstances.
In general responsibility tends to weigh on the people who have more ability to be responsible, or to mediate risk. in this way a person who gets on a Ferris wheel at an amusement part is not responsible to inspect the machinery and make sure its working as is promised to them when boarding (there is no way to talk cleanly about the subject without wandering into unwholesome analogies. Don’t take them that far and there aren’t a problem).
That there is a MUTUAL understanding between the two entities allows each to make choices as to risk, reward, and who is responsible for most of it. just like in my car analogy, the owner of the Ferris wheel is responsible for most of it, but that’s only if I keep my end of the mutual responsibility contract, and I don’t do things like climb out of the gondola and sing on the frame while toting a Jack Daniels. If I was to fall then, the world would say he is partly responsible, if not wholly responsible for what happens.
However in a world where the ‘other’ is always made responsible for ‘another’, the whole thing gets flipped over, and the mechanism of social intercourse grinds as if you’re stripping gears. So in that world, what a woman wears and does, does not matter. Just as what the guest of the Ferris wheel does doesn’t matter. So what if the person gets on the wheel and throws all caution to the wind? Does things they are not supposed to do, and endangers the lives of others.
The owner of the Ferris wheel is now responsible for not putting security cages around the gondolas. Everywone that rides, now cant see clearly or unobstructed because its no longer the personal responsibility of someone riding to not be a dumb a**, but the responsibility of the Ferris wheel owner to make a Ferris wheel that lets any dumb ass be themselves, to the detriment of everyone else. LEAST COMMON DENOMINATOR version of the social contract.
Its easy to see that this is unworkable. It basically ruins it for the majority, and makes liability so high its not worth running that as a business (which is fine for the Marxists). Our system generally says that each have some responsibility. The Ferris wheel owner has to make all REASONABLE attempts to secure his system so that things are reasonably safe if operated within that framework. He is not required to put a cage around the whole thing, because the person riding has some responsibility too.
What this balance does is insure that both are responsible and therefore both are impinged from acting to the full flower of their dumbness because the risk/reward situation is such that dumbness is expensive.
However in this situation, the formulae are reversed. The woman is the person with all the means to safety, and the person with her is the one with only a few means of such to their avail.
So in this case, the person dealing with the woman, has to inspect the Ferris wheel, and has to determine its safety, and not only that, but the veracity of the Ferris wheel owner who keeps promising its safe to get them to ride. It becomes an issue of trust, and the feminists do not want ANY issues on trust, and so they shift the TOTAL burden to the person riding the Ferris wheel not the owner of the Frris wheel.
The owner of said wheel dictates when the wheel will be running. Who is allowed on the wheel (however that choice has no effect as to the ferris wheel owners culpability. Purposely selecting incompetents is valid, and in any real world where insurance has to pay, a clear way to profit).
The ferris wheel owner also controls all the information about the ferris wheel. When was its last period. what form of protections and such are in place if any. Where would the ride take place. even if the ride gets to be called off despite the guests paying full fee when promised or hinted that the ride was in the deal.
None of that has any bearing. Now make the protections on the ride invisible. Like telling someone there is a air bag in a car when there isn’t any… surprise when their head hits the dash by accident and their face is all torn up… its not the car owners faulr that they lied, it’s the passengers fault for not taking the dashboard apart and determining if there really was an air bag installed. (perhaps the time it takes to dismantle and find out that there is an airbag slows the driver down so much that the driver finds its easier to say they have an air bag, and deny the other person their choice, than it is to actually let them have that choice).
So the Ferris wheel owner gets to claim that there are protections, and then forbid the riders of the ability to determine said protections. The then outcome is that the rider has to completely trust the person who has no responsibility or culpability or punishment, and in exchange for that, and that trust, they get to ride the Ferris wheel.
In this game the Ferris wheel operator has many forms of protection to keep everyone safe:
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/babytabl.html
Female Condom
Diaphragm with Spermicide
Lea's Shield
Cervical Cap with Spermicide
Sponge with Spermicide
Spermicide Alone
Oral Contraceptives–combined pill
Oral Contraceptives–progestin-only minipill
Oral Contraceptives–91-day regimen (Seasonale)
Patch (Ortho Evra)
Vaginal Contraceptive Ring (NuvaRing)
Post-Coital Contraceptives (Preven and Plan B)
Injection (Depo-Provera)
Implant (Norplant)
IUD (Intrauterine Device)
Trans-abdonimal Surgical Sterilization–female (Falope Ring, Hulka Clip, Filshie Clip)
Sterilization Implant–female (Essure System)
This doesn’t include things like taking your temperature and determining fertility as well as keeping track of the time of menses.
This is why the woman is the Ferris wheel owner, because all the mechanisms and such are within her control, if they were within his control, then he would be the ferris wheel owner.
So as you can see above, there is a lot of reason for someone who wants to ride a ferris wheel to think that it is safe. After all, unlike the past they now have seat belts, bars, gates, netting, safety mechanisms, etc.
And any sane person would think that the owner of the machinery would be responsible for that machinery and what happens on it.
However that is not the case…
The man only has the male condom, sterilization, and abstinence.
The last one means that the Ferris wheel operator is not happy (after all, no one rides no one pays, and no one has fun). Sterilization is something that many Ferris wheel operators will not allow. Kind of like forbidding someone from bringing their own seatbelts to tie themselves in… and the last one, which for may riders, spoils the ride, is the only option of choice.
Given that those three things exist for the customer of the ferris wheel, this absolves the operator of all culpability and responsibility for outcome.
In this way, the ferris wheel is kept always open for business!!! cant be a full time 24 seven ferris wheel letting everyone ride if you have to worry about outcome!!!!! and don’t worry about the husband of said ferris wheel owner! He too, has to live and pay for the outcomes of the ferris wheel owner, since the ferris wheel owner is protected by the state!!! but wait, that’s not all the perks of the ferris wheel owner… they get to do the same thing to their children too!!!
You can see why there are so many Ferris wheel owners out there. why have a good relationship with one man and such when you can be an amusement park ride? Except here it’s more fun to be the ride and get ridden than it is to come to the park. Life is a cabaret old chum, come to the cabaret.
But don’t worry… word is getting out, and people are getting less willing to ride the Ferris wheel. That is unless they too are a ferris wheel!! Which is why so many who open business like this find out that they get cheated when the riders of the Ferris wheel have nothing to be taken! After all, if the rider is responsible for all outcomes, and the rider is irresponsible, they have a natural protection from the Ferris wheel owner. And so they gravitate to them.
Eventually no one wants to ride the ferris wheel. Its old.. And the older it gets the more dangerous it gets. Soon everyone avoids the ferris wheel, and goes to see if any of the new ferris wheels out there are better made, and run, with better terms.
The ferris wheel owner is not culpable for any actions, and as such there are ultimately better things to do with oneself then spend time poking at bear traps (with ones Johnson).
And ultimately, riding a ferris wheel without concern is a young mans game. the older we get the less reason or desire we have to get so high up and fall so far down for just a few minutes of fun.
Yes things would be different if the ferris wheel owners didn’t run business the way Marxists do. you know.. here is what we have, your responsible not us, take it or leave it. you can have any color as long as its black.
Its real interesting in that the men don’t mind paying for their own… they don’t mind paying for the ride they want… they just don’t like being taken for a rid they didn’t pay for. Ultimately making the others responsible for what she declares as hers, is a bad way to do things.
This system makes her an object. This system makes it untenable to trust her (and relationships are based on trust, and femnits don’t want relationships with men or births). Under the guise of liberation, and liberation defined as not being responsible for ourselves (our Ferris wheels), will put them out of business just as an amusement park that deals out misery goes out of business. like the con carny shows, only new suckers are willing to walk the aisle and take a chance.
What you don’t get denise is that we are way past that point now. the women are seen as carnie tricksters, and its accepted that they are going to cheat you. they offer lots of fun and prizes, but ultimately it’s a scam, very little fun (since its weighed down with total responsibility), and a whole lot of cost.
However, ultimately… you should take a step back and take a look at what a policy actually accomplishes, rather than ignore the outcome and say it has to be good no matter what it is, because the source FEELS right. Given this, the crafty person can make cow patties seem right as a breakfast dish, because they can make anything feel right, even wrong.
The outcome of men being totally responsible is that men who are responsible will not participate.
Which means that the playing field is wide open to the most irresponsible and those with little to lose. After all, if the game is take em for what they got, if they have nothing they can play the game for free!
What this means is that responsible women, acting irressponsbly, will attract what kind of man?
What kind of life will they have?
And what of the deseases that such behavior insures will go around. Afer all, if we can run our ferris wheel all night every night, how many people will piss, and puke in the seats?
Oh.. and when the game is this way, what does it do for honesty on the other side? if she is sanctioned to be able to lie with no culpability the game becomes a game for liars and cheats to play!!! (those that don’t do this are out of the game. they know that they cant play honest against lies… and since there is no social pressure to insure honest, the ONLY play they can make is to not participate)
So behaviors have outcomes. Creating a situation that turns women into amusement parks makes for what? And that’s exactly what’s been done. what’s worse is that its so far from what they normally do, they had to tempt them with state protection giving them carte blanch in action with no responsibility for outcome (that they don’t want – children can be given up without first offering them to the father. In fact she doesn’t need to identify a father).
The state basically can only get women to be so irresponsible with themselves by removing their culpability in things.
So if they dress to attract sharks, then they are not responsible for having their a** bit off…
If they lie as to birth control, they are not responsible for the outcome of that lie, or for tricking the other person.
After all… if I drive you someplace, I have a responsibility to tell you that the brakes in the car don’t work… every one can see that if we get into an accident that you have the ability to hold me responsible for what happens to you because I didn’t give you information that would allow the responsibility to be yours.
In essence, when dealing with a woman, the responsibility is yours regardless if she is conning you, lying to you, manipulating you, cheating you, stealing from you, and even planning to kill you!
The responses are also limited to those that will not harm her (which would amount to some culpability which is not allowed)… so if she tries to kill you, and you hurt her preventing it, you go to jail. The ferris wheel must stay open. If she cheats and saddles you with someone elses kid, she doesn’t have to pay for it, or anything, you do.
Basically it adds up to the final word.
And that final word is. .
Its your fault when you deal with a woman, if you don’t like it, don’t deal with women.
That pretty much sums up the feminist position on men and women anyway.
Ultimately if there is a special class in which the social contracts terms cant be held to, they will end up being on the outs.. in effect, they will end up being oppressed and will join the feminits which will increase this till they acquire what they want.
[if they are the rulers and they treat their subjects like nothing, they are the rulers of nothing]
So learn it well my friends. if she is on the western feminist plan, she is by definition not a person you can deal with without paying for it, unless its on her good graces.
If she is hoaky on her birth control and lies or thinks that she can get a tomorrow pill forgetting it’s a holiday, its on her good graces that the outcome turns.
If she goes on a date or such with you, Denise is making sure that it’s on her good graces that the outcome turns. And since Denise thinks women are superior, they don’t lie, they are honest people (when biology and their size means that biologically they are less likely to be so), and so we should trust them with our lives..
Even though they are not responsible.
Even if the outcome is they kill you… they are not responsible…
Cant have a social contract with such.. and eventually men, other than the young, will stop dealing with such.
It’s funny that Denise brought up whores. They actually generally accept responsibility more than the average woman!!! When they get pregnant from a customer, they tend not to want support from that customer. They tend to put up for adoption, abort, etc… often they use several forms of birth control.
Ultimately, things get real interesting in society when a whore is more trustworthy to deal with than the average woman (not lady).
If you think that refusing to share the load or take responsibility will increase responsible relationships, your nuts. Or rather, you’re a leftist who is trying to be very moderate and sell us on feminism lite.
The result of such programs has been a large number out of wedlock… many broken homes.. murders (by both sides)… poverty for most chidren when most before were not raised in poverty… drugging of kids… drugging of parents…
Oh.. and Marxists creating a special class of person. an elite who has no responsibility towards their oppressors, but still wants to deal wit them.
You see denise, you have internalized the message like the Nazis did. you have internalized the message just the way stalin and the communists did. that the elite (the women of the party), are not or owe nothing to their oppressors (the men). and as such, they are not to be held to any liability when it comes to dealing with them.
And that’s what you are promoting, in a softer way… but that’s it. that there is a special class that has so many options but is not responsible for the outcomes of selecting or failing to select any one of those options.
Its up to the oppressed class to be hobbled and to then be told to run…
Eventually the social malaise runs out of moral momentum… and you get men who choose to drink and do nothing. it’s the only way to navigate and remain free! Woman now is the bait on the hook for the state.
Its already happening… and your selling the same old same old…
The men are on the verge of calling up our enemies and telling to come over and pick everything they want up…
I would suggest taking a lot of time… maybe a vacation, and start to read the words of women who dealt with that regime… from famous anarchists, to others… read about people who were useful idiots…
You are selling the front end and ignoring the back end.
The back end is no one will deal with someone that has all the perks and no risks… when the ONLY outcome they have is few perks and all the responsibility. Which is why so many women are alone, when before they weren’t… their definition of equitable is much more untenable than the mans.
Eventually the outcome is that those that follow this game, will no longer exist.. they will have focused so much on the life of a leaf, that they let the tree die!!!!
We have convinced the leaves that together they are more important than the abstract tree of life (lineage).
Billions of years of unbroken life. Humans who refused to die from famine, war, pestilence, natural disasters and such… they have beaten the odds in so many ways.
And how will they die? Oh.. some bright person sold them on a lie, and they decided to make their lives so off kilter, and so untenable, that they just didn’t have kids.
Hey denise… have you realized yet that your life is the end pinnacle of the unbroken chain of life before you?
That from some small single celled something…. Every link was strong….
Till it met feminism/socialism…
August 27, 2007 at 8:09 am
Jim Peterson said,
My main message and a topic for a major book is that it is precisely the "Premarital Sex is Bad" message coming from the right that makes the misandry in America so incredibly potent.
The official "men's rights" line on the topic of unwanted pregnancies is that there needs to be a male Roe vs Wade or Roe vs Wade needs to be repealed. This means that men should be given the right to decide whether to pay for an accidental child, or both parties must be forced to pay for the accidental child.
Giuliani talks about more adoption programs to convince women not to abort babies. He needs to allow men to say "Give this one up to adoption as far as I am concerned"…which is the right that women will always have in US society.
So one can see that the direction we are headed is toward less lives being financially ruined because of mistakes that happened when practicing what most consider a natural right.
Giuliani's adoption program is designed to take the financial responsibility for the baby resulting from getting pregnant OFF THE WOMAN. So it has to be taken OFF THE MAN as well or both parties must pay to raise the child 18 years.
Remember: AMERICAN WOMEN WILL NEVER be forced to pay to raise a child that was accidental so it is unhelpful and even a non sequitur to hang around the men's rights movement chastizing men for having premarital sex while declaring that they SHOULD be foreced to pay to raise an accidental child.
Sure, someone needs to take the responsibility for rasing accidental children, but most countries like Germany and Russia WANT EXTRA BABIES (especially white babies in those countries) and there would be no problem for Giuliani's adoption strategy to accomodate this.
Simply put: there is no shortage of demand for unwanted babies. So while it is important to stress responsiblity in birth control and condom use, we don't need the men's rights movement being controlled by those who would deny what 95% of what single men want: premarital sex.
Mike Adams said recently that he wanted to start a men's rights organization. But I told him that this would be a non-starter if he told men what 95% of them do not want to hear, which is religious talk about sex being bad before marriage. The Duke boys were, in fact, watching a stripper. They had every moral right to be doing that.
Caesar and Cicero were profligates in terms of sex with women. Yet they are considered among the more virtuous and moral men of history.
And God forbid anyone in the men's rights movement condemn pornography which is another thing that overwhelming numbers of men want to have free access to.
You cannot have a "men's rights movement" that punches men in the face for simply being men.
Much of the concentration on "men as sex offenders" comes from an underlying anger among social conservative females that the men were obviously interested in premarital sex in the first place.
In the comments section of "To Catch a Predator" one sees conservative middle aged women calling on NBC Dateline to set up sting operations in college dorms where men over 30 would be lured into being humiliated on national TV for having the supposedly sick inclination to have a dalliance with an 18 year old.
The reason why the international dating industry (slandered as the "mail order bride industry") is being persecuted so badly is because the older socially conservative American women assume, often correctly that men their own age are doing quite well romantically and/or sexually overseas with younger ADULT women. They join the left wing radical feminists in pretending that there is a lot of "sex trafficking" going on there and/or "sex tourism"…which always uses some story of a pedophile in Bangkok.
Right now we are seriously looking for an American female plaintiff to stand up and challenge ALL of the VAWA law including the IMBRA law that makes it illegal for a man to say hello to a foreign woman.
If a female "men's rights activist" like Denise volunteers to be the plaintiff in such a case, I might be less indignant about her call to end premarital sex.
After all, saying hello to a woman is a more important right and this right has now been taken away from us by the radical feminists in alignment with their Brownback Christian allies.
August 27, 2007 at 8:13 am
Jim Peterson said,
After all, a woman's decision to abort can save a man $500,000.
Therefore, although I would respect those who say that adoption is more humane to the fetus (duh), the polling numbers for the Election 2008 show that most Republican males are no longer able to tolerate the Republican Party's concentration on the abortion issue while not even discussing misandry and other issues.
The Republican Party must remove all policies designed to punish men for having premarital sex and/or wanting to date women and/or at least want to say hello to them. Brownback thinks that saying hello to foreign women is sex tourism.
August 27, 2007 at 8:18 am
PolishKnight said,
Your little patronizing lecture is repeated by Maury and Montel on a nearly daily basis. Nothing to see here. Move along.
But here you try to appear as if women are being held morally responsible as well using this shallow rationalization:
"Oh yes, and vice versa. A sperm can meet an egg and fertilize it even if the woman cares nothing for the man, dislikes or hates him, and has complete contempt for him."
So what? "babies" are not fertilized eggs except in the minds of the most radical pro-lifer. Your argument is pregnant with the presumption that men should regard women as mindless baby making machines.
When the men say: Men denying paternity have said: “It was just a one night stand!” “She was just a booty call.” “I used you!”
… they're expressing the notion that they're honestly surprised the women are coming to them to be fathers to children that they despise as well as the mother. Even these men, as low on the moral scale as they are, wouldn't dream of voluntarily having children under such circumstances.
FYI: Many times it turns out that the paternity test comes back false and the man is quickly whisked backstage while the woman cries hysterically and is comforted by Montel or Maury. Apparently, one night stands often turn out to be just that.
If anyone needs a lecture, it's Montel and Maury and these women who think that gestating bastard children entitles them to some kind of respect as a "victim".
Finally, for your information, I have no bastard children and this is also probably the case for most men on this forum who have gotten the message. Indeed, it's part of the reason why most here use the phrase "American woman" to describe a morally and usually physically repugnant creature unworthy of marriage. Ironically, the men who don't get the message often turn out to be ignorant and unreliable and perfect candidates for trash daytime television. They won't be in any economic or emotional position to stop us when enough men decide to put an end to this nonsense of women's equality and voting rights.
August 27, 2007 at 8:46 am
Denise Noe said,
On Men and Thinking Before Sex
Most men think before sex, quite a lot. Before sex men think about, well, sex.
(Denise) Yes, they do. I'm suggesting they think about the consequences. Those consequences could include being in a permanent relationship with a woman they neither like nor respect and having such a woman raise their son or daughter. The male body has a head at the end of the neck. Inside that head is a brain. It can function even in the presence of strong temptation. Is this the woman you want to raise you child? If she's not, then perhaps she's not the woman with whom you should have sex. Just a suggestion.
consertivativation: There is a moment or two after sex where men think about sports or money.
(Denise) There is a lifetime after sex in which they may think about the way their children are being raised by that "booty call."
Jim Peterson said,
Right now we are seriously looking for an American female plaintiff to stand up and challenge ALL of the VAWA law including the IMBRA law that makes it illegal for a man to say hello to a foreign woman.
(Denise) Some American men prefer foreign women and for a wide variety of reasons. That is fine with me.
Jim Peterson: If a female "men's rights activist" like Denise volunteers to be the plaintiff in such a case, I might be less indignant about her call to end premarital sex.
(Denise) Huh? What? My "call to end premarital sex"? I haven't called for an end to premarital sex. I've just suggested men should think about possible consequences — such as their children, such as a permanent link with a particular woman — before having sex.
PolishKnight said,
Denise,
Your little patronizing lecture is repeated by Maury and Montel on a nearly daily basis. Nothing to see here. Move along.>>
(Denise) Ah, but I think there is. Some men express astonishment that a sex act devoid of deeper feeling or respect can produce a baby. Sometimes we all need education in the obvious.
PolishKnight: But here you try to appear as if women are being held morally responsible as well using this shallow rationalization:
"Oh yes, and vice versa. A sperm can meet an egg and fertilize it even if the woman cares nothing for the man, dislikes or hates him, and has complete contempt for him."
So what? "babies" are not fertilized eggs except in the minds of the most radical pro-lifer. Your argument is pregnant with the presumption that men should regard women as mindless baby making machines.
(Denise) No, I'm just trying to remind women that they can get pregnant regardless of how they feel about the man they have sex with.
PolishKnight: When the men say: Men denying paternity have said: “It was just a one night stand!” “She was just a booty call.” “I used you!”
… they're expressing the notion that they're honestly surprised the women are coming to them to be fathers to children that they despise as well as the mother. Even these men, as low on the moral scale as they are, wouldn't dream of voluntarily having children under such circumstances.>>
(Denise) But the fact is that their children may exist. Their children may be raised by mothers whom the fathers despise and disrespect. Men ought to want the best for their sons and daughters so it would be a good idea not to risk impregnating women they do not like and respect and consider good mother material.
(Denise) FYI: Many times it turns out that the paternity test comes back false and the man is quickly whisked backstage while the woman cries hysterically and is comforted by Montel or Maury. Apparently, one night stands often turn out to be just that.
(Denise) Yes. Often the woman is absolutely certain she knows who the father is — and she is wrong. Often the man is absolutely certain he cannot be the father — and he is wrong. Human beings of both sexes are fallible creatures.
August 27, 2007 at 9:19 am
RScott said,
August 27, 2007 at 9:30 am
Artfldgr said,
If a female "men's rights activist" like Denise volunteers to be the plaintiff in such a case, I might be less indignant about her call to end premarital sex.
in order for a case to be brought up, it has to be brought up by the INJURED party… there is no way to find a woman that is injured by VAWA… ergo, ipso facto… you cant have such a case.
having someone with that little understanding of the law commenting on things that are pretty much wholly there, doesnt help much.
sorry… but thats how i see it.
the bottom line is easy to understand…
if a man deals with a woman its the mans fault for dealing with a woman.
since he is the oppressor, and she is the oppressed, she is allowed to do anything to her oppressor class and is restricted by punishment because to attack the oppressor class is her RIGHT…
he on the other hand, is assumed to have the upper hand in all deals, and so he is not able to complain when she 'wins' as that is only the oppressed finally having a fair deal. in this way, he is guilty of dealing wiht her.
in fact, by definition, the reason he deals with her is becquse he can cheat her, and so ALL dealings happen the same way… the burdens that USED to be shared equally, are now not.
lets see if i can make it clearer a bit before i run out of time.
Lets start with the definitions of “accident” and “culpability”.
an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap
any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause
deserving blame or censure; blameworthy
Deserving of blame or censure as being wrong, evil, improper, or injurious.
Read those definitions, and lets see if you REALLY understand them.
I am the owner of a gun, I have the choice to put bullets in the gun or take them out. I am responsible for the condition that the gun is in, and since I am responsible for the condition of my gun, I am responsible for what happens with my gun.
thats how it was, or how we USED to see prior to the special conditions of socialist class struggles…
now there is a special class which has a different definition… everyone else gets to go by the old one… and this special class, gets to act on the new one.
all our complaints are from this fact.. that both systems are not on the same page, and there is no way to tell which system someone is playing with. the popular is that the first system is what we all follow, and the truth is that half of us can switch sides to the second system at a whim.
However, if you are a new world kind of girl, you are the owner of a gun, but you are not responsible for that gun. The weapon may be loaded, or the weapon may not be loaded. If someone tries to use the gun, and it doesn’t go off, no one cares. if it does go off after you tell them its not loaded, its their responsiblity (and they are not allowed to check it themselves). in order to be freely able to use that gun, she has to not be FULLY responsible for that gun.
[if she was, she wouldnt use the gun irrespsonsibly, she would be more responsible with it. and that just wont tear marraige apart and allow the state to regulate realtionships... the point is that they are making it so that we cant self regulate our own situations, and so the state will do it for us... and the women are stupid enough to thinkt hat the state will do it for them]
If you look at the definition of accident there are certain points that need to be applied to determine if it is in the category of accident.
And if you look at culpability, you can see that there is no restriction in making a person who is not responsible, culpable. (which is the game that mr Peterson is playing and may or may not know)
So, an accident is something that occurs unintentionally. So if the man doesn’t want a child, and has an agreement with the woman to that end, and she lies as to birth control, in the new worlds eyes, its not an accident because the man was willing to trust her.
you got that!!! original sin has been recasted. the sin is in dealing with a woman at all… the oppressor class has no right to want fair dealings with the oppressed. got that?
so in this world, you can have someone intentionally create an accident and it remains an accident as long as the outcome isnt what the other person wanted!!!
so if you intentionally cheat someone, and you are of the oppressor class, then you can do so, and if the outcome wasnt what the opressor wanted, then it was an accident.
so if she cheats you out of a loan, by saying it was a gift… then the whole thing was some accident of misunderstanding.. (and she gets to keep the loan now made gift).
if she throws away her birth control… slicks your wick, promises she is protected, puts holes in your condoms, etc… if the man didnt want a kid, then its an "accident", and she is not responsible, he is… (for having an accident)
see how it works?
however, if she cheats another woman, and its not waht the other woman watned, its not an accident, its a crime.
lets apply this to Mr MAN, a person who has to deal with a neo mechanic. you will see that Mr MAN would have no recourse against con artists and cheats!!
===========================================
Mr MAN takes his car to the shop, and he says to rotate the tires, when he comes back he gets a bill for body work, brakes, engine repair, and more. When he asks about the price, the mechanic says it all happened by accident… Mr MAN is aghast, how can that happen by accident? the mechanic explains that its an accident because your intent was only to have the tires rotated and something else happened that was unintentional. Mr MAN argues, but that’s not an accident, you the mechanic purposefully did those other things without telling me, I don’t have to pay!!
If Mr MAN is dealing with a woman though, he would have to pay. There is no assumption of responsibility when dealing with a woman. and that’s what it hinges on. so when Mr MAN goes to court because he refuses to pay, the court explains to him that there is no assumption of antyhig between Mr MAN and the mechanic. That it was up to Mr MAN to accept all the risk for being with the mechanic because he chose them, and that the mechanic is not in the wrong since all the responsibility is on Mr MAN.
Mr MAN says that its impossible to accidently do a engine rehaul. The judge says that may be true, but Mr MAN, you chose to go to that mechanic. Mr MAN says, that he is not allowed to inspect the mechanics premises, he cant check to see if the mechanic is lying, or not. the court says, that doesn’t matter, your sin was in bothering with a mechanic. Everyone knows that mechanics are this way, and so your expecting something else from them, is not acceptable.
Then Mr MAN says… but its not a harm, injury or damage to the mechanic!! The mechanic gets more because of the ‘accident’. the court says: Mr MAN, I think your trying the patience of the court. It doesn’t matter if an accidents outcome is bad or good for the oppressed victim class (the mechanics), it only matters if its an accident.
Did you intend to have a baby? Mr MAN says “no”. then it was an accident. that’s all we need to determine it was an accident and make you responsible.
But but Mr MAN says… if I say it was my intent to have the baby then what? oh, simple Mr MAN, the same outcome happens!! You see, in both cases whether accident or not, your responsible for the outcome. in the case of purpose, your responsible because the outcome is what yiou watned. Int eh case of accident the outcome is your responsibility because you chose the mechanic, you chose to get your car repaired, and such. after all, you could have also chosen to walk to work.
But but Mr MAN says… I work 30 miles from home!! that’s neither here nor there Mr MAN, you could have lived closer to home, and walked (you could have stayed home and masturbated). As long as there is some option to you to act, you are responsible for not acting.
And since she is the oppressed class, the mechanic class, she hs no option to act, and so has no responsibility to do so.
I find in favor of the mechanic… Mr MAN has to pay for the work done, he also has to pay for the court costs of the mechanic… I have also determined that the mechanic can keep the car, and Mr MAN will pay 20% of gross salary to upkeep the car and the mechanic. The mechanic doesn’t have to make any reports that the money is spent on the car, and the mechanic is free to enter into similar contracts with as many other customers as they can get.
But sir… that’s 20,000 dollars a year tax free! Can I take care of my car since it was an accident. the court has chosen that you Mr MAN, because your not a mechanic, are not allowed to take care of cars. In fact, we find that your probably only want this car, not because you love it, but because you don’t want to pay the mechanic for the accident and misery you have caused everyone involved. shame for going to a mechanic.
========================================
You see, if she plans on pregnancy (to get closer, to make him commit, etc), its still an accident!!! she is the mechanic, she has all the tools (I listed them above), and so she can make the outcome whatever she wants it to be. however, it’s the responsuiblity of the customer to determine if the mechanic is honest. (though any honesty now showed by the mechanic has no bearing on honesty later. And that no matter what the mechanic now shows, it has no bearing on wether its an accident.
Basically its heads she wins, tales you lose.
If you want the kids, heads she wins.
If you don’t want the kid, tails you lose.
=================================
Lets take this farther. Mr MAN, says.. wow.. I am paying for the car… I cant visit it.. I cant drive it… but I have to pay excessively for that car…
And so like a lot of men… he says… but all mechanics cant be that way…
So he decides to cooperate and share the expenses of a new car with another mechanic….
This time he likes his mechanic, and he wants a car.. he wants the outcome..
But pretty soon… he finds out that the car is gone… where is it? well the mechanic decided they don’t want the car. What? what did you do with it Mr MAN says?
The mechanic answers I gave it away.
Mr MAN sputters… you gave it away? yes the mechanic says, i didn’t want you to have the car, and I didn’t want it, so I gave it away.
Mr MAN says where did you give it… the mechanic says, I aint telling
Mr MAN then goes to the court again.. and he judge is there, and says… back for another round of learn your place?
Mr MAN, it says here that you wanted a car and such, and that the mechanic gave your car away. is that true… yes says Mr MAN… and I have determined, with great expense and effort, where the car is… so I wish to have the car.
Ah… Mr MAN… that’s not possible. you didn’t learn that the mechanic is not responsible for what they dont want to be responsible for. Since the mechanic has decided to give their half of the car away, your sh*t out of luck. Cant get in the way of the mechanic you see. as a male you had your turn in the past, too bad your born now, suck it up.
But, we will say thank you for finding out where the child/car is… why? says Peterson. Because you owe them support for your car. What?!!?!???! yes Mr MAN, its not fair that they get saddled accidently with your car. But I want my car says Peterson! That doestn matter, says the judge. Yopu don’t get to decide the conditions that make something an accident or on purpose or has an effect on the woman. only the state can do that, and we don’t like you.
So we rule that you have to pay 20% of gross for this kid… 20k… but sir. I am already paying 20 k to another mechanic for a car they wanted that I didn’t… too bad… but sir, I only make 40k… the judge replies. Then maybe you shouldn’t have so many accidents? Personally I think that your just not working hard because you want to cheat the mechanics.
In fact, I think that the reason you keep doing this is because you must hate women/mechanics… well, too bad Mr MAN… I will impugn your income to 100k, and so you will owe the full amount of 20k to these people as well.
But sir, your already taking 20k, and this 20k will mean that I have nothing to live on..
Mr MAN, that’s not my problem. you went to the mechanics, its your problem.
================================
the point is that the ladies, even denise, dont understand what they are saying….
to paraphrase….
its the mans fault for dealing with a woman. its his fault for dealing with the worst (they claim to be better at the game than men. they claim that men all cheat. ergo ipso facto, they are cheating better than they think all men do), and expecting the best.
think carefully here…
his crime is that he is expecting human kindness, reciprocity, social equity, honesty, and such from a woman.
what he isnt hearing from feminists and the courst is:
that women have no human kindness (they are colder than men), women have no reciprocity (they believe men dont), there is no social equity (if it aint there definition then it aint so), and there can be no honesty (between men and women by defintion. honesty between the oppressed and the oppressor class?)
basically they are speaking out both sides of their face at the same time.
they are painting that they are nice and they are this and they are that (they believe that men did the same thing since all men are rapiosts how can there be anythign good to say if it wasnt a lie?)…
however legally they are showing that women are not capable of honest deals and that one cant expect such. that the crime is to deal with a woman in any situation where those things are done for sociali good. at essence is that women do nothing for social good!!! by defintion… any social good they do, has to benifit them… otherwise it isnt a social good.
in all these rulings the same feminist doctring applies.
man is guilty for dealing with (western) woman
[and if western man cant deal with western woman, then all of western life will go away. be prepared ladies… the only other systems that are on the table is totalitarian/authoritarian/fascist/communism….. or islamic theocracies… the free egalitarian system that allowed for the birth of feminism and making it a crime for the men of a culture to deal with women of that same culture, will be gone…
oh… and gays? you really have some bad stuff coming along… sometimes when one wants it all, one pushes so hard they have nothing… the communsits totalitarian statest hat are winning, HATE you… the west that you THINK hates you, tolerates you a whole lot… in the future, you wont have to worry about a closet… you will have to worry about a coffin, as these regimes dont play games with dumb questions (like the west) and live and let live till it decides. its lets skin heads practice on them, then erases the skin heads…
historically speaking… the feminsits, and the gays, and all the other 'liberation' fronts, are all disposable tools that have no place in the state that tehy are working towards. they only exist in the state that is transforming towards the other kind.
so they are a pry bar to change a free market capitalist system that doesnt care what you think or do as long as you mind your own busuiness and can pay your way…
to a state that cares about everything you do, and that will not let feminist disruptions mar things (they will eliminate them as they did before), they will not let gays poision their children (Their words not mine), they will not let the desease they intended for the west that the west loves, to infect them.
who will protect western women from communism? fascism? islamism? etc…
they will whine to the western men who are still in state to "do somethign" and they will say we cant… the women will say why? and ultimately the answer will be… you wanted it this way, and we worked 40 years to make it this way… its too late to go back on convenience.
end of story.
August 27, 2007 at 10:08 am
PolishKnight said,
The concept of "sex acts" producing babies is what I refer to as "babies popping out of men's penises". GESTATION produces babies and that's 9 months of time that Montel and Maury like to pretend didn't exist.
I'm reminded of the old minister joke about protestants, catholics, and rabbis debating when life begins and a man off the street yelling out: "Life begins when the children move out and the dog is dead!" "Their children may exist" at the discretion of the mother.
No doubt the women are well aware they can get pregnant. In fact, none of the daytime shows even ask the women why they decided to gestate the child or put it up for adoption (clearly because such questions would raise questions about the man's culpability in the affair.)
Men and women both make mistakes and I agree with you: It's not wise to sleep around with someone you don't want a relationship with. Prostitution is a different matter since the woman is a professional and has as much to lose by a pregnancy as her customer does (FYI, another thread, prostitutes view rape as more of a business loss than a horrid crime.)
Indeed, typically the men on these shows are not exactly the best marriage material and usually they are extremely low class and have street hoodlum manners. Maury and Montel then like to lecture these men about responsibility, being a good father, blah blah blah and it comes across as laughable. It's like me lecturing my cat to flush the toilet.
That said, however, there are levels of foolhardiness. A man having a one night stand is way way different than a woman sleeping around with a man she knows is unreliable and then choosing to produce offspring for him and then getting on the Jerry Springer show. It's amazing, really, that we can live in a society that equates the two. It's like comparing someone getting a jaywalking ticket to Charles Manson.
August 27, 2007 at 11:31 am
conservativation said,
I will go on the record now (like that matters) and say that if I thought for a moment that the MRM stood, even privately in the minds of a preponderance of members, for abortion on demand as a cost benefit to uninhibited sex I'd lose this bunch and even take immediate corrective action against them! Is that what you stand for? Is it about booty with no looty? Geez man, you are enough to make ME categorize you the way the feminists have been classifying men and ruining our lives.
As to the overlap of the so called religious "radicals" R Scott fears so much, first your classification reveals a strong bias based on mainstream media driven ignorance therefore your credibility lacks. There is no alliance between these factions at all. Now, where we can agree is that there is an unintended synergy between the actions taken in the church as it relates to gender and marriage, and the preferred outcomes of the feminists. I'm all over that one.
But to extrapolate a conservative drive for say abstinence programs etc. and how that overlaps the opposing goals of the sistas is silly. It dovetails nicely with peterson's approach in that you find common ground in the desire for unimpeded access to casual sex on demand, period, and that drive has clouded and crowded out all other considerations.
The point about if pre-marital sex is emilinated, then based upon the frequency of married sex, sex will whither on the vine period is an interesting one and not completely invalid. But to imply they cooperate is way off base.
The Republican party doesn't promote policies that deter pre-marital sex. Please quote me a policy.
August 27, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Jim Peterson said,
That was a harsh comment on my call that a woman be the plaintiff against VAWA. Many anti-VAWA people have been thinking along these lines and it is not so much that women are not injured by all this, but that American women are less injured than foreign women and only American women (apparently) can be the plaintiffs in a federal challenge.
IMBRA, which is part of VAWA, takes away the right of foreign women to exercise their own level of security. If a woman wants to broadcast her postal address to the world, she has every right to do so and it would be entirely safe in most cases, especially if it is just a PO box number. With IMBRA, a dating agency would have to send a man's criminal background forms by slow snail mail to that PO Box and she would have to sign them and find the money to send them back to the US or wherever. She would lose the right to deal with men at least twice as quickly…and this is significant because mail to Russia often takes 2 or 3 months to arrive. If a woman wanted to broadcast her cell phone number (no danger at all in doing that if the cell phone number cost $5 and another could be easily purchased if the rare telephone stalker started to bother her without end), IMBRA would make that 100% impossible to do if the agency or dating site only had that cell phone number and not an email address or postal address (how can one see a full background check form and sign it using a cell phone).
Now where American women lose their rights with IMBRA is simple: There are more American women sex tourists than there are American men sex tourists.
American men tend to look for a true romantic partner overseas. But the American women who date overseas, are mainly looking for sex.
Here are two important links regarding Western women as Sex Tourists in the 3rd World:
http://www.online-dating-rights.com/forum/index.php?topic=825.0
http://www.online-dating-rights.com/forum/index.php?topic=1008.0
Then there is also the lesbian "Mail Order Bride" site http://www.girlfriendsmeet.com.
There is also http://www.meetmenfromeurope.com which is a mail order husband website that is shut down until IMBRA is overturned in the courts.
So any American woman can challenge IMBRA, saying that the foreigners she wants to contact should not be forced to read her background check and sign approval, especially since that can greatly delay communication with these foreigners.
Having said that: VAWA allows foreign women to steal an American man's entire fortune.
An American DAUGHTER of such a man can claim that this government sanctioned theft of her family property is an outright slam against her rights and property.
An American fiance of a man who was just taken to the cleaners by a VAWA-sanctioned female fraudster…can claim that her future happiness is being drained away by an unconstitutional law that lets dishonest women benefit financially more than honest women.
So, although I loved the last comment, please do NOT insult those who fully intend to get laws like VAWA overturned in the courts instead of those who just come here to read and comment on MND while doing nothing to organize a federal challenge of any kind against feminists.
Any American woman can walk into a federal courthouse and say "Domestic Violence is a states rights issue" and get VAWA under restraining order in days.
How about it Denise?
August 27, 2007 at 12:37 pm
fourthwire said,
Men's best short-term hope to avoid becoming the target of some greedy, self-centered bitch rests with the coming male birth control pill, adding an important weapon to their arsenal.
And any man who wants to avoid having money siphoned from him against his will, yet enjoy heterosexual sex ought to be taking it… or its derivative, the patch.
Women enjoy "choices". Men are told that they have no "choices". Men have "responsibilities", instead….. as they are repeatedly told.
Women currently have some 11 or 12 different forms of birth control. Men have condoms and vasectomy.
Women have the right to abort, and even have the right to abandon an infant at a hospital, fire station, or police station, no questions asked.
Men have the right to pay, pay, pay.
So thanks for your primer on reproduction, Denise. At the crux of the matter is that men have no real reproductive rights…… and their very own sex drives are used to involve the power of the state to extract money from them.
As long as men are continually held responsible, and women are not, reproductive rape will continue…… for those poor bastards whose birth control was ineffective or non-existant.
August 27, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Jim Peterson said,
http://drhelen.blogspot.com/
Her excellent commentary for today is as follows:
I have been reading the fascinating new book by KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor on the Duke Lacrosse fiasco entitled, Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case. The book brings to light the factors that led to three innocent men being railroaded by the criminal justice system and by a society that presumes white men are guilty by virtue of their sex and race. The opening chapters describe the milieu at Duke, including the hardcore partying that was going on by both the men and women on campus. There is mention that the Duke women were as horny as the guys there with more than one sorority on campus hiring male strippers (page 2) but this was never picked up in the media (of course not, male strippers for women are considered empowerment, while for men they're sexist).
Much of the book sets the stage for the context of the Duke case, including the increase of far left academics at Duke, the racial tension between Duke and Durham, the police who built the case without evidence, and the match that caused the case to ignite–prosecutor Michael Nifong. The book is also about heroes and champions of justice: the defense team, the defendants themselves and the bloggers and others who came to their rescue, from both the left, right and center.
My favorite chapter in the book is entitled "Presumed Guilty: Feminist Overkill" as it describes the statistics for false rape allegations. The chapter opens with a look at Catharine MacKinnon's Yale commencement speech in 1990 in order to understand the eagerness of so many journalists and academics to find the Duke lacrosse players guilty. MacKinnon's words that day, capture the radical feminist line clearly that has permeated current PC circles. She stated, "Look to your left, look to your right, look in front of you , and look behind you. Statistics tell us you have just laid eyes on someone guilty of sexual assault." The radical feminist line is that women never lie about rape. But statistics belie this belief.
The book lists these false rape statistics including one from Linda Fairstein, former head of the sex-crimes unit of the Manhattan District Attorney's office who wrote, "There are about 4000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen" (page 374). I wonder how many more men across the nation are caught up in false claims or mistaken identities because so many are eager to rush to judgment? Rape is a horrible crime but so is convicting an innocent man of a sex crime. The authors of the book state: "Terrible as it is for a victim to see a rapist escape punishment, it is far, far worse for an innocent person to be convicted of a sex crime."
I remember talking to a professor about the Duke case when it first captured the attention of the media, her response? "Those guys are guilty as hell, have you ever seen how some of those athletes and fraternity guys act–partying and making noise? They'll rape anyone." She had no interest in the facts and used as her frame of reference all partying noisy fraternity guys and athletes as if that is how justice should work. "Oh, they are loud and party a lot–guilty just for having fun while male." I now have the pleasure of buying several copies of this book and dropping one off on her desk next time I see her. Will it bring her around? Not by itself, but it's a start ….
Labels: men's rights, political correctness
posted by Helen at 10:24 AM 38 comments
Friday, August 24, 2007
Watch Out for that Guy Pushing the Stroller!
Several readers have emailed this article from the WSJ entitled "Are We Teaching Our Kids to be Fearful of Men?"
Are we teaching children that men are out to hurt them? The answer, on many fronts, is yes. Child advocate John Walsh advises parents to never hire a male babysitter. Airlines are placing unaccompanied minors with female passengers rather than male passengers. Soccer leagues are telling male coaches not to touch players.
Child-welfare groups say these are necessary precautions, given that most predators are male. But fathers' rights activists and educators now argue that an inflated predator panic is damaging men's relationships with kids. Some men are opting not to get involved with children at all, which partly explains why many youth groups can't find male leaders, and why just 9% of elementary-school teachers are male, down from 18% in 1981.
People assume that all men "have the potential for violence and sexual aggressiveness," says Peter Stearns, a George Mason University professor who studies fear and anxiety. Kids end up viewing every male stranger "as a potential evildoer," he says, and as a byproduct, "there's an overconfidence in female virtues."
Virginia's Department of Health has a troubling ad showing a man holding a little child's hand. The caption reads: "It doesn't feel right when I see them together." If you get a chance, click on the article and take a look at it and see the negative statement it makes about men.
The excuse given for the negative ad is:
Virginia's campaign was designed to encourage people to trust their instincts about possible abuse, says Rebecca Odor, director of sexual and domestic violence prevention for the state health department. She stands by the ads, pointing out that 89% of child sex-abuse perpetrators in Virginia are male.
The psychological damage to children of not having men around to interact with because of these scare tactics is never mentioned but something that should be considered by the Virginia Department of Health when they develop such ads. Surely, they can come up with something creative that would help make people aware of sexual predators but would not demonize men in general, most of whom are innocent.
August 27, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Jim Peterson said,
The later comment that, if I would be willing to support abortion on demand in order to justify more carefree premarital sex, I would be classified and persecuted by a socon the way the feminists classify men…directly supports the contention of most men in the MRM that the socons are directly linked with the feminists not so much in terms of formal liaison committees (although they do exist in the form of the Independent Womens Forum and Bipartisans Womens Caucus on Capitol Hill), but in terms of the desire to leave powerless the vast majority of men.
Please do not be naive and assume that most men have a problem with premarital sex.
I do not support abortion on demand, but rather I support the German solution where abortion remains illegal and unpaid for by the government, but nobody is prosecuted if the woman has received counseling by a pro-life group and waited 72 hours after that.
I also support a Giuliani-style solution where an adoption market takes the financial and time burden off a woman's hands when she really does not want to raise a child.
And having supported a woman's right to have premarital sex and not have to pay the financial consequences (raising a child that other parents would pay $50,000 for the right to start doing), I support the same right for men.
The current system does NOT support the same right for men. A sexual mistake can cost a man $500,000 easily.
Most men would NOT give up premarital sex as the solution to avoid a $500,000 payout. As someone said above, it is still a lower risk than marriage itself according to the current legal system.
Now this paragraph is the most telling of all:
[As to the overlap of the so called religious "radicals" R Scott fears so much, first your classification reveals a strong bias based on mainstream media driven ignorance therefore your credibility lacks. There is no alliance between these factions at all.]
Yes there is. That is an astonishing act of denial.
Take Senator Sam Brownback and the Tahirih Justice Center and their solid alliance to keep American men from dating foreign women without the government interfering in the form of background checks on the man. The TJC is really the front for the NOW. Everybody knows that. This is just one example.
[Now, where we can agree is that there is an unintended synergy between the actions taken in the church as it relates to gender and marriage, and the preferred outcomes of the feminists. I'm all over that one.]
No you're not. Take the left wing law firm Arnold & Porter, the main law firm in the world that pushes same-sex marriage, working with the Vatican (yes the seat of Catholic religious power) along with Sam Brownback and that Tahirih feminist organization to broadcast to the world on Vatican Radio on January 28th 2007 that American men who date foreign women are often "sex abusers living out their sexual fantasies."
I do NOT call that "unintended synergy". The intentions were clear. Misandry was at the top of everyone's agenda.
Listen to this disgusting "unintended synergy" here:
http://www.online-dating-rights.com/forum/index.php?topic=678.0
"But to extrapolate a conservative drive for say abstinence programs etc. and how that overlaps the opposing goals of the sistas is silly."
Both say "Frig You" to the majority of men who were NOT told by George Bush that he really intended to give the religious right the time of day after he got in office.
There would never have been a Bush Junior administration if Republican males had not assumed that George was only pandering to the religious right to get elected.
In 2004, we voted for Bush because of the Iraq War and not because the Christian News Network was showing abstinence commercials (the most obnoxious abstinence commercial was the one with the gorgeous 18 year old high school senior saying that Aids goes through condoms so she will remain afraid of all men).
"It dovetails nicely with peterson's approach in that you find common ground in the desire for unimpeded access to casual sex on demand, period, and that drive has clouded and crowded out all other considerations."
This is an especially troublesome comment because it further proves the point that the religious right is idealogically allied with the man-hating feminists in that they apparently WANT IMPEDED ACCESS to casual sex. Impeded access took the form of both the conservative and liberal media hyping the Aids crisis in 1986, the hype about Ted Bundy and serial killers in that decade…both story lines of which played havoc with the love lives of innocent American men (and yes, "innocent" is a good word to describe a young man who wants to get laid).
With the IMBRA and VAWA laws, one can see why Republicans pandering to the religious right voted for that: dating much younger foreign women is seen by those who hated human nature as "sex tourism" and "sex trafficking"…thus the parts of the laws that make it troublesome and punishing to bother dating and/or marrying foreign women…are justified by Sam Brownback who says "these guys are just looking for sex. They don't want love".
Unimpeded access to the pursuit of happiness is a core value of the MRM.
August 27, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Jim Peterson said,
In Germany the abortion rate is 6 per 100,000 women.
In the USA, it is 22 per 100,000 women.
The difference is explained by the fact that the COMPROMISE forces German women to take 3 days delay and talk to people who will try to talk her out of it.
Because nobody has, so far, wanted to compromise on the issue, there are 16 more dead fetuses created per 100,000 women every year since Bush got elected.
The American religious conservatives don't want compromise on the issue and most Republican males know this. This is one reason why Giuliani is so far ahead. Too many Americans see the pro-life movement as an anti-sex movement. They, therefore, want to see an end to the debate and some workable compromises put in place.
But too many religious folks would see in the end of the abortion debate, an end to their real desire to impede heterosexual premarital sex and socially reengineer a new generation into being more "chaste".
August 27, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Jim Peterson said,
I can see their point in the sense that you don't want to marry a woman who thinks like a man, but, overall, if American women in places like Boston and San Francisco were really super friendly to hetero men sexually, there would be a lot fewer men in the MRM and a lot fewer men looking overseas for gorgeous women to date. One of the main complaints about feminism in the United States is the way that ideology tries to convince young women to avoid men, especially older men. The religious right does the same thing for almost the same reason: distrust of men, especially older men. It all boils down to misandry.
Complaining about young women having sex because of feminism…is almost the opposite of complaining about young women not talking with men, especially in public places, because of feminism and church-taught paranoia.
Most of us males see feminism as teaching young women to be afraid of us and to avoid having anything to do with us, whether that be sex or anything else.
August 27, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Jim Peterson said,
August 27, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Bart said,
August 27, 2007 at 3:43 pm
fourthwire said,
And women are allowed to slip off the hook wherever the word "responsibilities" comes into play.
They are provided with "choices", instead….. while enjoying the power of the state's law enforcement and judicial processes to enforce that men take responsibility for their (women's) choices
August 27, 2007 at 6:21 pm
PolishKnight said,
This is getting a bit off topic, but I don't think American women who don't want to date older men do so out of "fear". On the contrary, I think most American women as evidenced on this forum are NOT afraid of men in their lives. Most know they can go to the phone book and find about a couple of dozen agencies to help her get a divorce, get free housing as a "DV victim", get a restraining order, get a sexual harassment lawsuit… get the picture?
In fact, whenever I hear a young woman go off about how oppressed upper class white women are and about how they fear being raped, etc. I know that it's a total BS act and at some level, she knows it too. Call them on it and they'll quickly run off.
Many American women probably don't want to date much older men out of vanity. It's as simple as that.
August 27, 2007 at 7:52 pm
jackal1994 said,
I'm thinking Denise's meaning of her article: the preaching of the perils of unprotected sex to men (but NOT women) suggests a rather crude point that all MRA's have accepted: Men must be wary of unprotected sex, because women have no reasons to guard against it, and actually have incentives to do it.
The fact that a woman has total control/rights with no responsibility/consequences means that quite frankly the overwhelming majority of woman can't be expected to take control of contraception (or probably even to tell the truth about it to the male).
And that's just sad–yes the law gives women these options, but the women who actually exercise it (abortion OR living off somebody else's work) are just sad sad little cardboard cutouts of people. They will never become anything special as long as their goals are limited to how many puppies they can pump out to increase their welfare check.
The whole parental rights concept is sooo backwards and medieval I don't know if I can even find an analogy. I guess the concept that a woman could abort or birth a baby from a one-night stand (or even more deeper relationships) wouldn't sting so much, IF when deciding to give birth (in the one night stand scenario) she had to use all of her own personal resources (and only hers) to raise the baby. Now–if the father wanted to VOLUNTEER resources that's another matter.
But, (after everybody has played) only women get choices and men get responsibilities. If a woman doesn't "believe" in abortion shouldn't SHE shoulder the main burden in her fight in this belief?
The only analogy I can draw (and I know it's crude) is what if I didn't "believe" in using combustion engines and the law gave me the ability to COMPEL (under threat of incarceration) my wife to run me all over in a rickshaw the rest of her life! Idiotic? Yes! But, no more so than our current parental rights/abortion laws.
Individuals making a unilateral decision (based on some "belief") should shoulder the burdens of that decision on their own–otherwise what does it say about their "beliefs"?
To say a woman should be proud of herself for not choosing abortion when she is collecting $1200 from a well-to-do man from a 1night stand is incredibly distasteful. Why not a game show with pregnant women competing for the highest $ amount to NOT abort their babies?
I detect a preaching tone in Denise's statements kind of similar to EG's. "If men lead virtuous lives they wouldn't be susceptible to harm from feminist laws." Mainly because 90% of feminist laws leash men by their libido.
The Duke 3 couldn't have been falsely accused of rape, if they weren't hiring strippers. This only partially protects men. It doesn't protect men from female-inflicted DV, false spousal rape claims and a host of other feminist-driven ailments.
But, the most important thing about Denise's message is it's just unrealistic. ALL OF SOCIETY is having a huge football-style pile-on of financial gains in regard to men's libido's.
Everything is centered around men's libido's. You can't hardly watch even G rated or family shows or commercials without having young tantalizing scantily clad women running around. The simple fact of the matter is that men's libido's have SINGLY CARRIED THE CONTINUATION OF THE HUMAN SPECIES ON IT'S BACK.
Male libido's are high because this part of our DNA dates to a time BEFORE domesticated live-stock, before agriculture. We are talking about hunterer/gatherer stuff here. A time when most humans only lived up to 30, child mortality was incredibly high, an infection meant death. Men had to have an instinct to plug every damn hole possible. If men had a women's attitude of sex, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE!
August 27, 2007 at 8:10 pm
jackal1994 said,
People didn't mind being on food stamps, when you changed it to an atm-style bridge card. Women didn't mind being single mothers, when welfare and no-fault divorce (ie: subsidation of their personal choice at others expense).
No longer did they have to go to churches or other private institutions for handouts, or a leg up. Once the shame was gone, single motherhood exploded!
Remove the financial incentives and women themselves will be stopping these unwanted pregnancies and hookup sex.
If you're on an African safari, and wave this big t-bone steak at the lion and teasing the lion. If the lion goes for the "whole enchilada" and attacks you, who is to blame –the lion? Why?
I feel in my heart it's idiotic for anybody (but especially a woman–who doesn't understand the male sex drive) to tell men: Just say no!
Especially considering the hypocrisy of women spending billions of dollars to maximize their "tastiness" to men. Spending 45 minutes to buy a pair of jeans to make sure her ass looks as scrumptious as possible, glamming up her face with gobs of makeup to look like some human bratz doll, etc..
This "just say no" msg is as misguided as feminists pontificating on rape. HOW WOULD THEY KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT MALE SEXUALITY WHEN THEY HATE IT SO???
You need to give your message to women. Why?
Because quite frankly MEN ALREADY PAY A VERY STEEP PRICE for pregnancy–and they're still plugging every hole available to them! Why? Because it's in their nature, and we're being bombarded by bosoms, asses, flesh and beautiful smiling female faces everywhere we go.
About a year back I read an article on sex and attraction. I think they did MRI scans as men looked at pictures of beautiful women. You know what they found?
The brains of men looking at beautiful women were firing in a similar way to a heroine addict getting a fix!
Nuff said!
August 27, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Jim Peterson said,
So it will never work for the MRM to suggest that any program be launched to teach young women to feel shame in hooking up with men sexually.
The theory might be OK to bring back the 1950s, but the practice will be such that only man-haters will take the job of "bringing back the shame" to women.
If I get the hint that Giuliani would keep funding abstention programs, I would actually vote for the Hildebeast herself. I don't want women feeling shame in hooking up with men because there is a direct correlation between the willingness to hook up and the friendliness and willingness of a woman to become friends with a given man.
The Fort Lauderdale and Wikiki Beach "short term romances" I had ten years ago have resulted in permanent friendships with fantastic American women whom I may not have married, but with whom I am still in constant contact.
My complaint with feminism is the way the Boston and San Francisco subcultures are such that women are terrified of male strangers. There were no hookups when I lived there and no relationship survived into friendship because of a terrible feminist man-hating attitude that prevailed there. Give me Waikiki anytime.
The man said above that "if you read this forum you will see that American women are apparently not afraid of men".
If that is so, there would be no problem because the problem with feminism is the way the ideology teaches young women to hate and fear men (and the teaching of children to hate and fear men carries over into the attitude of many 18 year old girls who have just become legal).
If socon males here don't like the fact that they could get laid tonight, then they are weird.
The problem is that I don't believe these socon males who condemn the hookup society could get laid tonight or any other night with a gorgeous 21 year old.
They are probably lamenting that the 40 year old women still want to just hookup instead of get serious.
So we would be talking about apples and oranges.
Believe me, if US society was such that women were mostly friendly and looking for a reasonably financially secure man about 10-15 years older with whom to have a real romance with (regardless of whether they had sex with the man on the first night or not)…then there would be no MRM. The feminist movement, allied with the religious freaks, don't want the women to be friendly, however, and the punishment of men for getting into relationships is just the tail end of the withering fire from the AC-130 gunships the above allied groups aim at men the entire time those men are trying to pursue happiness.
I have an arsenal of more proof that the feminists are allied with the religious freaks, but I have no time now to go into this. Check out http://www.online-dating-rights.com for more info however.
The more I try to get the IMBRA law overturned, the more I find the rotting carcass of religous conservativism fertilizing the feminist movement.
August 28, 2007 at 12:56 am
Jim Peterson said,
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/08/27/incredible-new-ny-bill-will-make-staring-at-women-a-crime/#comment-50754
Since when does a "hookup society" try to pass laws against men looking under the mini-skirts of women?
The answer: US society is NOT a hookup society. Brazil might be. But the feminist part of the USA is a place where looking at a woman sideways can get you arrested.
And you don't think the Catholic Church (Vatican) would not support the law above? The new Vatican would. Unlike JP2's Vatican, the new Marxist feminist Vatican sees women as victims of male libido.
Last month the Vatican declared that all the world's nations should make prostitution legal for the women but illegal for the men so the women can be used in sting operations against men who would be committing felony crimes for wanting to be customers. The Vatican spokesman was quoted as saying "You men out there know you have evil in your hearts. Maybe a felony arrest will force you to look into your hearts in time for you to be saved for the next life".
These days, you cannot find a more man-hating institution than the Vatican.
August 28, 2007 at 1:15 am
Jim Peterson said,
John Paul the 2nd knew what the patriarchy was and defended it. The new geezer is just senile.
August 28, 2007 at 1:34 am
PolishKnight said,
Feminism is an offshoot of chivalry which is an offshoot of Christianity idealizing the virgin Mary. Joseph, father of Christ, is not present in Christ's life while Mary is and this may explain why it's now so natural for many western Christians to view it as normal to push men out of their children's lives. If Christ could get by, why not everyone else?
Before you criticize the new Pope and lionize JPII, consider that JPII oversaw the sex scandal that still plagues the Catholic church to this day and his position on birth control was unrealistic. The Catholic church not only doesn't approve of pre-marital or even casual sex but even recreational sex within marriage for non-procreative purposes aside from "Pope's roulette" (the rhythm method). The rhythm method is justified by the notion that abstinance is used which theoretically is not a sin but then again, isn't the condom a form of abstinance since sperm ultimately die and are replenished anyway?
August 28, 2007 at 8:04 am
conservativation said,
There is so much I cannot be sure what responds to me and what not, but here goes.
There isn't a naive bit about me regarding pre-marital sex. I'm making zero moral thrust on that and you've built that straw man around me. I do not expect there is a preponderance of prudes among men…not at all.
As to unimpeded and impeded, sure the law about foreign introductions is tangentially such, I know it well and oppose it. As to references to disease etc., these discourage, which is different than impede. For you to lump them together is a stretch.
As to the church and its role in misandry, you are informed enough to be conversant in the portion of the problem you know. First, the Catholic church is not THE church, nor are the Episcopalians, Methodists, or Presbyterians, all denominations where the things you state are true within. An alliance with gay marriage minded and feminism in the open exists in those groups to verying degrees and I agree with you completely.
But the composition of the group you have abbreviated "socons" is actually not very mush like you portray them in the fly over states. I take it by mentioning Boston and California (SF) you take a regular pulse in those places. But the midwest, mid-South, and South are where the socons live and go to church. They attend Baptist churches and non denominational churches that indeed subscribe to much of the socon agenda. The problem is, there is an even more insidious form of misandry at work there, and there you will not find the alliances you allege out in the open. Sam Brownback is not representative of the demographic I speak of, but he is visable, he is religious, and he is socon.
The demographic I speak of do foster the same instinctive fear of men and fallout of failed marriages, but they honestly think they are following a Biblical model in doing so. When I said, "I'm all over that one" and you retorted "you are not", you haven't a clue of what you speak, nor of my activity in that realm. Not only because you didn't understand what I wrote, but also because you don't know the demographic at all, and yet you've placed me in what is your perception of it.
I stand by my contention that to angle for abortion rights (on any basis, German or friggin Mongolian…don't care) and relate it to somehow greasing the skids for carefree sex is an utterly repulsive connection to even imply. Then to say that because Ive taken that stand I am in league with the march of Christian soldiers trying to deny you your fun, or even deny the very nature of man, is silly.
August 28, 2007 at 8:45 am
jackal1994 said,
And there was a guy on the show who used to be an extreme Islamic activist who severeed all ties with terrorist groups. What he was saying made a lot of sense. He was talking about why people shouldn't fear a religious state. One of the things this guy said is that all of the non-religious nations have a lot of men adrift with no direction. He said that Islam in Iran gives men direction and something to do with their life, and a code to live by.
Then they interviewed this man's daughter (who wears the headress–but was wearing a lot of makeup–eye liner, eyelashes the whole nine yards which seemed hypocritical to me) and she complained that the other stated other countries believe islamic women had no rights.
She went on to say that 65% of college students were women in Iran and what rights do western woman have that Islamic women don't to dress in bathing suits? To display their bodies like meat in a market?
I'm of two minds about the whole sexuality thing. Overall I like the concept of women who are willing to let go of last century's concept of female sexuality (sex is a gift women give men–and to be withheld as punishment). I much more like the idea that woman have more sex with men (both in # of partners and frequency) for their own enjoyment. This makes the hold that any ONE INDIVIDUAL woman has on any one man much much weaker.
But, I also feel that you can't have a society of strong moral values (such as the other article of the two women standing by their men unjustly jailed for 30years–that's commitment) from a population with no codes of conduct and obsessed with their own pleasure.
Would any of these girls-gone-wild chicks stand by her unjustly jailed man for 30years? I highly doubt it.
August 28, 2007 at 8:54 am
roger said,
I know of at least 2 such cases, where the women admit to "choosing" who she was going to get pregnant with.
When a woman has the urge to get pregnant, nothing will stop them.
Of course, these women did not tell the unsuspecting males until the trap had been sprung.
August 28, 2007 at 10:01 am
Jim Peterson said,
Dostoevski's "Crime and Punishment" is the all-time classic that it is because the girl Sonja followed Raskolnikov to Siberia after he turned himself in for the murder of an old woman and, Sonja's best friend, the woman's younger sister.
I spent this past month in St. Petersburg and I tell you: the aura of that book dominates the canals and marketplaces of that city.
My main thesis above was that young single women, who had not yet committed to another man, should not be made to fear us or to believe they will be beautiful forever and thus have all the time in the world to be rude to suitors (the feminists imply this when they demand that women build their careers and ignore men during their 20s and when they fail to mention that rape statistics have a bell curve of age 17-23 in victims).
It is the incredible rudeness and paranoia of the Boston and San Francisco metropolitian area that I plan to write a book about.
Conservativation should know that I love the Red States and fit in well with the socons who, indeed, do not understand that some of their misandrist beliefs are identical with the victim feminists and are, indeed, based on parts of the Bible. I feel the abortion issue crowds out a lot of other issues where the litmus test for new Supreme Court justices should be men's rights such as the right to say hello to a woman without a background check or, indeed, the