Is it seen as acceptable for women to hit men?

iptba

Just got an e-mail with this in it.

"Are You Normal?"
{A survey about Americans, their habits and actions.}

Facts about Americans. Did you know that...

[..]

40% of all women have hurled footwear at a man

I can't find the provenance for this statement but it seems to be around the internet a lot including as a "fun fact"

Dravokivich

I wouldn't waste my time with that kind of crap iptba. I was looking through that flip board app on my phone. It's got a subscription on it called "Mind Numbing Facts." I've yet to see one thing on it, that isn't a quotation or an obscure remark about a picture. Your e-mail above appears to be of the same ilk. Poorly published material.

wallycharlo

It's widely accepted that 57% of all generalised statistics are just made up

Rev Hellfire

Dravokivich wrote: »

I wouldn't waste my time with that kind of crap iptba. I was looking through that flip board app on my phone. It's got a subscription on it called "Mind Numbing Facts." I've yet to see one thing on it, that isn't a quotation or an obscure remark about a picture. Your e-mail above appears to be of the same ilk. Poorly published material.

I don't think they're referring to accuracy of the statistics given, but rather to the fact that violence against men is considered a 'fun fact' when the perpetrator is a woman.

Dravokivich

Which is why I said it appears to be poorly published material, more so than anything else.

KTRIC

Newtons 3rd law of motion - "For every action is an equal and opposite reaction"

If I get a slap / punch it'll be returned with the same force. If you can give it out you should be able to take it, no mater what sex you are.

kleefarr

Neeson wrote: »

Yes. But you can't go about battering each other either. There must be another way?

Yes, pistols at dawn!!

julies boy

the other question is if a women rapes a man ??? is this posable

awec

This post has been deleted.

_Whimsical_

Mollyd90 wrote: »

If another man groped you in a night club what would do?

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I wouldn't automatically hit him is what I would do.

I'm not addressing you specifically here Rev just taking up the point, would the men here not feel more intimidated if a man groped you than if a woman groped you? If the man in question was sizeably bigger than you? What if it has happened to you before,left you feeling violated or vulnerable and responsible for not having made more effort to stop it because you were embarrassed?What if you felt concerned that a "stop" wasn't sufficient to stop him and you weren't sure where his advances would end if you didn't make an unequivocal statement of non compliance you felt he'd understand like maybe hit him?
You'd probably have to take into consideration that he'd likely be drunk and not too amenable to reason and that he's lost inhibition to the point that he thinks groping is ok.

If you can't understand the level of threat,the sense of violation that can accompany an experience like that and how your response to that might be coloured by previous bad experiences you're really not relating to what it feels like to have that happen to a woman.

I've never hit anyone in my life, there no situation in which I think"well if someone did X I'd hit that person" but I'd understand that if someone initiates something physical with someone that its quite likely they'd be met by the same if the person they did it to felt threatened..

From reading this thread anyone would believe that men across the country were being laid out cold by women on a daily basis. If it happens to one it is too many certainly,but taking this particular issue of response to public groping to highlight an underlying societal misandry is unfair and unwarranted.

CarlDunne1979

Feminists tend to only want to take biological differences into account in cases where they gain privilege from doing so. They complain about "slut shaming" yet not the fact that violence against men is deemed more acceptable than violence against women, even though there is no difference in the amount of pain either gender feels when hit/assaulted.

Rev Hellfire

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I'm not addressing you specifically here Rev just taking up the point, would the men here not feel more intimidated if a man groped you than if a woman groped you?

Is there a scale for being uncomfortable when it becomes actionable?
Are you saying a small man groping a woman is more acceptable than a larger man doing the same.

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

What if you felt concerned that a "stop" wasn't sufficient to stop him and you weren't sure where his advances would end if you didn't make an unequivocal statement of non compliance you felt he'd understand like maybe hit him?

Unless the man or woman was physically restraining me I could take the matter up with the people policing the venue or with the authorities.

The key word in the quote you used is 'automatically'.

I'm not saying I wouldn't defend myself, I'm saying its not the default position to start from.

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

From reading this thread anyone would believe that men across the country were being laid out cold by women on a daily basis. If it happens to one it is too many certainly,but taking this particular issue of response to public groping to highlight an underlying societal misandry is unfair and unwarranted.

Seriously? We're just being hysterical men.

Esoteric_

CarlDunne1979 wrote: »

Feminists tend to only want to take biological differences into account in cases where they gain privilege from doing so. They complain about "slut shaming" yet not the fact that violence against men is deemed more acceptable than violence against women, even though there is no difference in the amount of pain either gender feels when hit/assaulted.

I wouldn't consider myself a feminist as such, but I'm very interested in women's rights, and am also a firm believer that 'slut shaming' should be abolished.

Funnily enough, despite the generalisation you've just made about a huge group of women, we don't all think that way.

I think the fact that violence against men is under-reported, both to the police and in the media, is disgusting. I hate that bar Amen, there are almost no outlets for men to speak about their feelings or seek help in a safe, welcoming environment. Sure, the RCC and other services are available to them, but when their sole focus appears to be on women and their rights, how can a man feel comfortable going there?

So please, don't tar us all with the one brush. Violence against men is a problem that needs to be reported and spoken about much more, to break the taboo and stigma surrounding it.

Femme_Fatale

Esoteric_ wrote: »

So please, don't tar us all with the one brush.

Good luck with that. :pac:

Yes it is deemed less of an issue, to the point indeed of being acceptable in some cases, for a man to be slapped by a woman. A full-on beating, not as acceptable, but a slap - for sure. It's an all-too common depiction in television and film and it makes me wince, and bugs the hell out of me that it's just a standard plot gag.
I don't know, as suggested, that it always causes the same effect as sexual assault (of anyone, male or female) and I'm not sure why that person claims such a thing to be fact, but a woman slapping a man is unacceptable, and far too many people don't seem to have a problem with it.

In principle I'd only agree with hitting back in self defence - whatever the genders, but things aren't always as straightforward as that.

_Whimsical_

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Is there a scale for being uncomfortable when it becomes actionable?
Are you saying a small man groping a woman is more acceptable than a larger man doing the same.

Do I think there's an acceptable level of groping of men or women? No, not at all. I have no idea where you are coming from with that.

Is there a scale of discomfort in these situations, yes. I'd say it's based on how much of a credible threat the groper stands to be to you. That'd take into account their behaviour and their physical strength and size in relation to your own. Also it probably takes in previous experience of similar situations that have made a person sensitive to those kind of unwanted overtures.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Unless the man or woman was physically restraining me I could take the matter up with the people policing the venue or with the authorities.

The key word in the quote you used is 'automatically'.

I'm not saying I wouldn't defend myself, I'm saying its not the default position to start from.

I wasn't addressing your post specifically, as I explained I was just using it as a point to take up to enter the discussion. I think that the correct course of action would be to do as you say,that's what I would also do.Not just because I dislike violence in any form but because I'd be afraid to hit someone and get into a physical fight. However the point I was making was that people do not always react sensibly in the face of a threat. They often take ill advised measures they perceive as protective or they try and assert themselves as not to be messed with by lashing out. I'm not saying its a good idea, but I think it can be understandable in the face of provocation.
We are talking about a nightclub too, not everyone is going to act rationally after drink is consumed.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Seriously? We're just being hysterical men.

I didn't say that either. It's not hysteria, in this specific case though my opinion was that people are looking at the issue through a lens/paradigm of misandry and seeing something that isn't there. It's more threatened person v's aggressor. Not women v's men.

iptba

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I wasn't addressing your post specifically, as I explained I was just using it as a point to take up to enter the discussion. I think that the correct course of action would be to do as you say,that's what I would also do.Not just because I dislike violence in any form but because I'd be afraid to hit someone and get into a physical fight. However the point I was making was that people do not always react sensibly in the face of a threat. They often take ill advised measures they perceive as protective or they try and assert themselves as not to be messed with by lashing out. I'm not saying its a good idea, but I think it can be understandable in the face of provocation.
We are talking about a nightclub too, not everyone is going to act rationally after drink is consumed.

The question is whether the sexes are treated equally. To take the most extrement situation: in the case of Caroline Brennan for example: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64566921 , she stabbed her brother to death, without it being self-defence and just got a suspended case. Men can feel threatened by other men but if it's not immediate self-defense, they're likely to have to spend time in jail.

It seems possible more leeway is given to women: a more forgiving attitude is taken for them "losing it"/"losing their head" than a man "losing it"/"losing their head".

Just because an action might be partly excusable, doesn't mean it should automatically be fully excusable.

jaffacakesyum

iptba wrote: »

The question is whether the sexes are treated equally. To take the most extrement situation: in the case of Caroline Brennan for example: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=64566921 , she stabbed her brother to death, without it being self-defence and just got a suspended case. Men can feel threatened by other men but if it's not immediate self-defense, they're likely to have to spend time in jail.

It seems possible more leeway is given to women: a more forgiving attitude is taken for them "losing it"/"losing their head" than a man "losing it"/"losing their head".

Just because an action might be partly excusable, doesn't mean it should automatically be fully excusable.

But men get suspended sentences for atrocious crimes all the time in Ireland. It's Ireland's shítty courts in that case IMO. Male or female, you can (literally) get away with murder in this country.

I do agree that violence against men is seen as more acceptable than violence against women or children though. But it isn't a women vs men issue so let's not make it that. It's a men's issue and is important IMO.

However, I do think that both violence from men against other men and violence from women against men is more acceptable than male violence against women. So, as I said, it is not a women vs men thing. It is a "everyone" vs men thing I think. I think that's important to distinguish so these discussions don't turn into a anti-woman rant.

iptba

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

But men get suspended sentences for atrocious crimes all the time in Ireland. It's Ireland's shítty courts in that case IMO. Male or female, you can (literally) get away with murder in this country.

I do agree that violence against men is seen as more acceptable than violence against women or children though. But it isn't a women vs men issue so let's not make it that. It's a men's issue and is important IMO.

However, I do think that both violence from men against other men and violence from women against men is more acceptable than male violence against women. So, as I said, it is not a women vs men thing. It is a "everyone" vs men thing I think. I think that's important to distinguish so these discussions don't turn into a anti-woman rant.

What I said wasn't an anti-woman rant (not clear if you are saying that or not). Having the same standards for men and women isn't about being anti-woman. Indeed, I think the reason why there may be more tolerance for women lashing out is that women are seen as more emotional than men and hence can't control themselves, which could be said to be a type of way of being "anti-woman".

The Corinthian

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

But men get suspended sentences for atrocious crimes all the time in Ireland. It's Ireland's shítty courts in that case IMO. Male or female, you can (literally) get away with murder in this country.

Except that women are significantly more likely to get away with murder, or anything else, than men.

Let's look at some figures from the UK, for example:

• To begin with we see is that women who commit crimes are far less likely to be prosecuted or receive custodial sentences. Overall 49% of women will be cautioned rather than arrested, against 30% of men and in many cases this gap is significantly greater, such as robbery (9% vs 4%), sexual offences (47% vs 18%), violence (65% vs 42%) and theft (56% vs 30%).
• Furthermore, once arrested, persons proceeded against for indictable offences per 1,000 estimated resident population, by sex, works out at 14.5 men versus only 2.3 women - which is a huge difference. The report concludes that "as a proportion of all those cautioned/warned and proceeded against, females were more likely than males to receive a caution, irrespective of age group. This was true across all offence types."
• Where it comes to custodial sentences the trend continues, with 25% of men against 15% of women sentenced to immediate custody for indictable offences (p.35).

This is before one considers de jure discrimination - whereby the law blatantly discriminates against men, in writing; such as laws that specifically cite shorter sentences for women than men, for the same crime. Or give women immunity from a crime.

So you can't really claim that it's an issue that affects both men and women equally; in reality it affects men significantly more than women and to add insult onto injury the lower incarceration rate of women, which is aided by such biases, is even being used as an argument by feminism in favour of abolishing custodial sentences for women altogether - so if anyone is making it a men vs women issue, it's feminism.

However, I do think that both violence from men against other men and violence from women against men is more acceptable than male violence against women. So, as I said, it is not a women vs men thing. It is a "everyone" vs men thing I think. I think that's important to distinguish so these discussions don't turn into a anti-woman rant.

If you look to another thread on another forum (that may not be named here) at present, you precisely have a women vs men discussion taking place over the recent 'slut shaming' incident though.

What the misandrist venting there seems to ignore, of course, is that such attitudes cut both ways; just as the attitude that a woman who enjoys sex should be 'shamed', the same attitude effectively 'shames' men who might not. The most obscene example of this is in cases where female teachers have had sex with under-age male students; over and over again the victims are referred to as 'lucky' to have gotten laid, and this in turn has resulted in lenient sentences for the predators in question.

As for the 'slut shaming' incident? The message pushed is simple; men are at fault, women are victims and no doubt there will be demand for a law to punish men, which as usual fails to deal with the underlying issue, just as gender quotas fail to address the actual reason why women are so under represented in the higher levels of business and politics.

So, if you're going to argue that it's not a men vs women thing, please do - but you're doing so on the wrong thread.

Henry9

Of course it's not a 'women vs man thing', once the discrepancy is highlighted.
Like a lot of issues which 'should not be turned into a gender war', long after the feminist lobby have done just that for years.

Another recent example from the UK.

The male teacher who took a female student to France is the 'paedo teacher'

http://metro.co.uk/2013/06/22/jeremy-forrest-trial-schoolgirl-still-loves-paedophile-teacher-3851604/

Google search for his image and it's all pictures of him in handcuffs or looking all weird and creepy.

A similar case was in June of this year when a female teacher was convicted of assaulting a male student.
She received a suspended sentence and community work.
But the breathtaking thing is how the media treated the case.

The press called it 'an affair', which is an extraordinary use of terminology.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2359404/Revealed-The-dirty-text-messages-sent-teacher-24-pupil-16-week-affair-tattooed-body.html

She sent 'dirty text messages', not 'sick' ones obviously.
The judge said:

‘You were drawn to this boy in the emotional aftermath of your fiancé ending his relationship with you, but that does not excuse your conduct in any way.
‘Your actions were selfish and motivated by a need to boost your own damaged self-esteem by encouraging him to have a sexual interest in you.

In other words, the poor woman was so emotional she can't be held accountable for her actions. The purpose of the 'affair' was to boost her self esteem, poor thing.
I must have missed all of the hand wringing articles from the feminist lobby complaining about unfairness and gender stereotyping.

This is the front page of the sun. Absolutely extraordinary.
Worth remembering the next time there's a court case which shows that women are 'second class citizens'.

jaffacakesyum

iptba wrote: »

What I said wasn't an anti-woman rant (not clear if you are saying that or not). Having the same standards for men and women isn't about being anti-woman. Indeed, I think the reason why there may be more tolerance for women lashing out is that women are seen as more emotional than men and hence can't control themselves, which could be said to be a type of way of being "anti-woman".

Oh no, I'm absolutely not saying that. I'm just saying that a lot of these threads do turn into a "men vs women" thing.

As for your bit in bold, I do think that women are seen as more emotional than men however I don't think that's the reason lashing out is seen as more acceptable from women, given the fact (or my opinion that) it is acceptable for men to lash out so long as it is against other men. I do agree with your last line.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Except that women are significantly more likely to get away with murder, or anything else, than men.

Let's look at some figures from the UK, for example

That's very interesting. I can't argue with facts. Can I ask though (as I really don't want to read the whole document, and I imagine you have) are the results actually statistically significant or are you just calling them significant? Some of them certainly appear as if they would be statistically significant, while others, there is not such a huge difference. Also - do you have any figures for Ireland? As I said, I know little about the UK courts systems, but all I know is that every day you get a new case where someone in Ireland (male or female) commits an atrocious crime and gets a suspended sentence. To me I see no gender difference in Ireland, but I would like to see the facts.

If you look to another thread on another forum (that may not be named here) at present, you precisely have a women vs men discussion taking place over the recent 'slut shaming' incident though.

I'm not sure what thread your referring to (I know you're not allowed so it will be difficult to discuss the below issues with you.

What the misandrist venting there seems to ignore, of course, is that such attitudes cut both ways; just as the attitude that a woman who enjoys sex should be 'shamed', the same attitude effectively 'shames' men who might not.

What do you mean? I don't understand this sentence.

The most obscene example of this is in cases where female teachers have had sex with under-age male students; over and over again the victims are referred to as 'lucky' to have gotten laid, and this in turn has resulted in lenient sentences for the predators in question.

Absolutely. I think this is a horrible major difference between genders. However, once again as I have referred to my opinions on what is acceptable violence wise, I think once again you'll find the majority of people who find this behavior more acceptable than if the genders were reversed, are indeed male. As a general point (not related to this thread but gender issues in general) I think this is a major difference between mens issues and feminist issues. While most females will agree on basic issues of equality, a lot of males don't appear to, which is a huge drawback in the success of male issues.

As for the 'slut shaming' incident? The message pushed is simple; men are at fault, women are victims and no doubt there will be demand for a law to punish men, which as usual fails to deal with the underlying issue, just as gender quotas fail to address the actual reason why women are so under represented in the higher levels of business and politics.

Oh, I think I know the incident now. Well this isn't the thread for it so I won't linger on it too long but I suspect you and I have very differing opinions on this incident as I wholly believe that it is indeed slut shaming (no need for me to put it in inverted comments, it is what it is). I don't think men are to blame at all for it, as both men and women are involved in the slut shaming. However, the reason men get the blame in issues like this I fear, is that there are no or very few negative consequences for males. They are either seen as legends or forgotton wheras forever the woman will be remembered as the slut.

Anyway, sorry for the long reply but the figures you gave for the UK are very interesting and definitely show a trend so as I said, I'm not one to argue with facts.

The Corinthian

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Can I ask though (as I really don't want to read the whole document, and I imagine you have) are the results actually statistically significant or are you just calling them significant? Some of them certainly appear as if they would be statistically significant, while others, there is not such a huge difference.

The one's I've quoted would be quite statistically significant, not only because they display such huge gaps, but also because they're not samples - they're totals.

Also - do you have any figures for Ireland? As I said, I know little about the UK courts systems, but all I know is that every day you get a new case where someone in Ireland (male or female) commits an atrocious crime and gets a suspended sentence. To me I see no gender difference in Ireland, but I would like to see the facts.

I've no data for Ireland, but it would not be unreasonable that, as with many other things, our own figures would be simelar.

I'm not sure what thread your referring to (I know you're not allowed so it will be difficult to discuss the below issues with you.

It's forbidden here to refer to certain other fora on Boards. I'm sure you can figure it out yourself though.

What do you mean? I don't understand this sentence.

Both men and women are 'conditioned' from an early age; women to be 'pure' and men to be 'players'. Just as a woman who is seen to engage in promiscuity is labelled a slut, men who do not are often labelled as 'gay'.

The incident at the concert at Slane Castle recently saw this conditioning in play; the woman labelled a slut, the man cheered on (from what I've read as I've not seen it myself). However, to presume that this conditioning always favours men is simplistic, as I pointed out with the example of male child abuse by women.

However, once again as I have referred to my opinions on what is acceptable violence wise, I think once again you'll find the majority of people who find this behavior more acceptable than if the genders were reversed, are indeed male.

I'm not sure I'd agree with you there. Women are more than capable of being as bigoted as any man.

As a general point (not related to this thread but gender issues in general) I think this is a major difference between mens issues and feminist issues. While most females will agree on basic issues of equality, a lot of males don't appear to, which is a huge drawback in the success of male issues.

Early days. Even women's equality and what it meant was not fully defined a century ago.

However, the reason men get the blame in issues like this I fear, is that there are no or very few negative consequences for males. They are either seen as legends or forgotton wheras forever the woman will be remembered as the slut.

And as I pointed out, it's not as simple as that. This appears to be part of the common misconception that there's no downside to patriarchy for men.

If that were true, women would historically be fighting wars, not men.

jaffacakesyum

The Corinthian wrote: »

I've no data for Ireland, but it would not be unreasonable that, as with many other things, our own figures would be simelar.

Not unreasonable at all, no. I would just be interested, as, as I said already it seems we all get the short stick when it comes to being protected from criminals. Both male and female seem to get off lightly.

Both men and women are 'conditioned' from an early age; women to be 'pure' and men to be 'players'. Just as a woman who is seen to engage in promiscuity is labelled a slut, men who do not are often labelled as 'gay'.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with this once you get past 16 year old teenage boys. I know men who sleep with a lot of women and I know men who it's just not their scene. I have never seen any of my friends even jokingly refer to someone who doesn't score a lot as gay, or someone who isn't into the partying sex-filled lifestyle and likes to keep things more private. I know it's just my experience but I honestly believe that as a woman the "slut" thing will carry with you all of your life. Wheras being considered "gay" if you don't score someone tends to be the subject of teenage discos, not "real life".

The incident at the concert at Slane Castle recently saw this conditioning in play; the woman labelled a slut, the man cheered on (from what I've read as I've not seen it myself). However, to presume that this conditioning always favours men is simplistic, as I pointed out with the example of male child abuse by women.

Ah sorry, I didn't understand initially how you were linking the two incidents. So are you saying that the conditioning that men are always the "players" leads to male child abuse by women?

I'm not sure I'd agree with you there. Women are more than capable of being as bigoted as any man.

Absolutely. But in this case, you don't believe that men are the ones who would cheer on a 15 year old lad getting laid by his 30 year old teacher?

And as I pointed out, it's not as simple as that. This appears to be part of the common misconception that there's no downside to patriarchy for men.

If that were true, women would historically be fighting wars, not men.

Oh no, I'm not saying there are no downsides to patriarchy for men. Just look at unequal rights to children. That is a very clear downside. That law was created because women were historically considered more caring and more fit to raise children than men, who were the breadwinners.

I'm not saying that.

What I'm saying is in that particular issue, there isn't much of a downside for a man who gets his picture taken receiving a sexual act from a woman. He is either a "legend" or will be forgotten about in future. Rarely will people even care or refer to the men involved, won't remember what they look like etc. Remember it was #slanegirl on twitter not #guywhogotablowieatslane

fits

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/gender-stereotyping-unhelpful-counter-productive

good article about misogyny, misandry, slut shaming etc.

GalwayGuy2

^^^
That's an okay article, but she does come from the point of view that the man took advantage of the woman.

There isn't any evidence that her drink was spiked. So, I don't think it's great to demonize him for taking advantage of her, as, from all accounts, it seemed to be a perfectly consenting act.

All misogynists are also misandrists. All misandrists are also misogynists.

It's about time someone realized that. But I'm a bit cynical and think it will still be only on how people are misogynistic, but the misandrist will just be used to get the MRAs on board.

The Corinthian

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Not unreasonable at all, no. I would just be interested, as, as I said already it seems we all get the short stick when it comes to being protected from criminals. Both male and female seem to get off lightly.

The point is that females seem to get off a lot more lightly than males; saying both do trivializes that.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with this once you get past 16 year old teenage boys. I know men who sleep with a lot of women and I know men who it's just not their scene. I have never seen any of my friends even jokingly refer to someone who doesn't score a lot as gay, or someone who isn't into the partying sex-filled lifestyle and likes to keep things more private. I know it's just my experience but I honestly believe that as a woman the "slut" thing will carry with you all of your life. Wheras being considered "gay" if you don't score someone tends to be the subject of teenage discos, not "real life".

Not everyone is open with their prejudices, and will speak them out loud. I've heard many comments, by both men and women, about seemingly celibate men of this nature, over the years.

Ah sorry, I didn't understand initially how you were linking the two incidents. So are you saying that the conditioning that men are always the "players" leads to male child abuse by women?

No. One direct consequence of this conditioning is how child abuse is treated. As Henry9 pointed out earlier where a male teacher has sexual relations with an under-age female student, he's condemned as a "paedo teacher" and ends up in prison, meanwhile switch the genders around and the abuse is trivialized as an "affair" and avoids any custodial sentence. In the US, the Debra Lafave case resulted in so many media comments that the victim was a 'lucky kid' that it inspired Southpark to satirize this attitude.

This attitude continues beyond this; in Ireland women cannot legally commit rape (you need a penis apparently to do this, even in statutory rape), leading to situations where a man may be charged with rape if he has sex with a 14-year old, but a woman can only be charged with the lesser charge of indecent assault.

Even in the Slane incident, there appears to be little sympathy (and even scorn) of the boy who was filmed, even though (to the best of my knowledge) he appears to be guilty of nothing more than the girl. Or, my favourite scenario, where two under-age kids can have sex and once 18, the boy can be charged, but she cannot - all good examples of where female violence against males is more acceptable than the reverse.

This is the flip-side of 'slut shaming' and comes from the same patriarchal attitudes. Yet this is ignored, because it does not conform to the tired feminist narrative that only women can be victims.

Absolutely. But in this case, you don't believe that men are the ones who would cheer on a 15 year old lad getting laid by his 30 year old teacher?

Or women who see nothing wrong with it? Just because they're not cheering, that doesn't mean they don't share the same views.

What I'm saying is in that particular issue, there isn't much of a downside for a man who gets his picture taken receiving a sexual act from a woman.

Don't know about you, but I wouldn't particularly want to have a video of me engaging in a sexual act floating around on the Web, even if it was with Angelina Jolie.

As for consequences, it awaits to be seen. Legally he could still be tried for sexual assault (she cannot) of a minor (even if he's one too). If so, I suspect he faces consequences that are worse.

_Whimsical_

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not everyone is open with their prejudices, and will speak them out loud. I've heard many comments, by both men and women, about seemingly celibate men of this nature, over the years.

Everyone has heard these juvenille assertions hurled at people.I think it happens more in certain social groups rather than broadly across society though.In my experience its definitely used more by men than women. That said I've heard immature girls use it to cast a different light on having been rejected. Equally though I've heard men call women dykes,lesbian, frigid in similar situations.Its gross,it's something that needs to be stamped out.

In relation to women condoning sex by older women with underage boys:

The Corinthian wrote: »

Or women who see nothing wrong with it? Just because they're not cheering, that doesn't mean they don't share the same views.

I think women who see nothing wrong with it would be VERY far and few between. Saying just because we don't hear them endorse it doesn't mean they don't is unfair. We don't have figures to work with but I think there is ample anacdotal evidence to illustrate that women see teenage boys as kids,not sexually desirable and that behaviour and opinions to the contrary are aberrant. We don't see as many women as men chose partners in the 18-21 bracket if they themselves are older, it is no where near as common as the numbers of men who chose a girlfriend in this age range. Women aren't biologically driven to find physical signs of teenage youth attractive in the way men are.It's not something we equate subconsciously with fertility as men do. Consequently and further to renforce that lack of bias our society doesn't set a premium on male teenage youth as the pinnacle of beauty as it does with signs of female teen youth. I dont know any woman over 25 who would not be utterly appalled at the thought of sleeping with a 17 yr old, a lot of the men I know wouldn't have an issue as long as it was consensual and legal.
I personally think that any adult,male or female, who is having sex with someone under 17 should face the full rigour of the law, particularly someone in a position of care like a teacher.I am sickened by media distinctions between abuse if the victim is a girl and "affair" if the victim is a boy. To think the "good for him" attitude that can exist is driven by female attitudes as much as male attitudes is just not true in my experience.

Galwayguy35

fits wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/23/gender-stereotyping-unhelpful-counter-productive

good article about misogyny, misandry, slut shaming etc.

And what has that to do with the topic being discussed here?

iptba

Note there are two Galwayguys.

Aineoil

It's not ok for a man to hit a woman, or for a woman to hit a man