Mens Rights Thread

silverharp · 26-01-2017 04:15PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether they wake up during proceedings IF it's a part of their agreement. That's up to them. If it's not part of their agreement, then they are open to trouble. It's pretty much the same with most things. Young lads walk down the road messing about hitting each other as young lads sometimes do etc. VS young lads walking down the road messing about hitting strangers. One is fine (assume they both enjoy pucking each other) and the other isn't.

you seem to give more leeway to the lads than a couple, as the lads will never "have agreed" to being messed with and its default acceptable until it isn't. So I cant get past your phrase of "open to trouble" because its simply not the case

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I know I know. You've made perfectly clear that you don't want to talk about one night stands.

I don't agree with unequal laws but we're not writing legislation here, it's a chat forum. I'm willing to chat about consent in casual relationships, you aren't. I'm not sure why because it affects men and women.

Im not curious about anything in particular, if someone makes a comment I disagree with , I might chip in

El_Duderino 09 · 26-01-2017 04:30PM

silverharp wrote:

you seem to give more leeway to the lads than a couple, as the lads will never "have agreed" to being messed with and its default acceptable until it isn't. So I cant get past your phrase of "open to trouble" because its simply not the case

Well I responded to your question by saying that it didn't matter if the couple had sex while one was unconscious as long as it's part of their agreement. You keep ignoring what I actually say and keep going back to this notion that I'm trying to divide couples.

It depends on what kind of agreement they have. The lads have their agreement re rough and tumble, and a couple have theirs.

People on one night stands are relying mostly on non verbal agreements, as Pat says. Non verbal agreements made in haste while on drunk/drugs. It's a recipe for confusion and the stakes are high horse both parties in this case. Still, you don't want to talk about that situation.

Pat Mustard · 26-01-2017 04:33PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah I'd agree the nonverbal agreements are sometimes useless. They rely on both parties staying within the agreement, without ever articulating what the agreement is.

You are saying that 'nonverbal statements are sometimes useless'.

I said that your statement was meaningless when you said: 'If one person's idea of the agreement is very different to the other's, then you could easily wind up in trouble.'

We are not agreeing here.

But sure, you knew that already.

silverharp · 26-01-2017 05:10PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well I responded to your question by saying that it didn't matter if the couple had sex while one was unconscious as long as it's part of their agreement. You keep ignoring what I actually say and keep going back to this notion that I'm trying to divide couples.

It depends on what kind of agreement they have. The lads have their agreement re rough and tumble, and a couple have theirs.

People on one night stands are relying mostly on non verbal agreements, as Pat says. Non verbal agreements made in haste while on drunk/drugs. It's a recipe for confusion and the stakes are high horse both parties in this case. Still, you don't want to talk about that situation.

to me "unconscious" as in because of a medical state/drugs is a special case in the same way that agreeing to being tazered is a special case, you might want to discuss that first.

Ill discuss your latter point, I would say that the law should have a healthy and no pun intended "no mans land" in the middle where there is no point in trying to pass the "blame" to one party when there was 2 of them in it. I cant see how the law can reduce things to x units of alcohol or x numbers of smiles and winks. It would seem to be a shame that a case might come down to whether the other party called the next day? then we are heading down the road of regret being the trigger to someone feeling like a victim and simply looking to the courts for some kind of validation?

El_Duderino 09 · 26-01-2017 05:16PM

Pat Mustard wrote:

We are not agreeing here.

I know.

Pat Mustard wrote:

I said that your statement was meaningless when you said: 'If one person's idea of the agreement is very different to the other's, then you could easily wind up in trouble.'

I stand over that statement.the less explicit the agreement, the more scope for misunderstanding. Same in any walk of life really.

Pat Mustard wrote:

You are saying that 'nonverbal statements are sometimes useless'.

Yes. They are sometimes useful too but very unreliable. Then someone gets accused of violating the agreement and they don't know why.

Real men and women get harmed and all you're interested in is 'But you said...'.

I thought an issue that harms men would get more traction in the men's rights thread. Pity.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-01-2017 05:23PM

silverharp wrote:

to me "unconscious" as in because of a medical state/drugs is a special case in the same way that agreeing to being tazered is a special case, you might want to discuss that first.

That's literally exactly what I've been saying this whole time. How you come to your agreement is your own business but here need to be an agreement. The more extreme the situation the more explicit the agreement needs to be.

Here you seem to say that sex on drugs should be discussed but below you prefer a legal 'no man's land' for drugs. Why the distinction?

silverharp wrote:

Ill discuss your latter point, I would say that the law should have a healthy and no pun intended "no mans land" in the middle where there is no point in trying to pass the "blame" to one party when there was 2 of them in it. I cant see how the law can reduce things to x units of alcohol or x numbers of smiles and winks. It would seem to be a shame that a case might come down to whether the other party called the next day? then we are heading down the road of regret being the trigger to someone feeling like a victim and simply looking to the courts for some kind of validation?

You'd prefer the legal 'no man's land' approach to any kind of agreement about consent? Why the break from your statement above that consent should be discussed?

silverharp · 26-01-2017 06:56PM

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's literally exactly what I've been saying this whole time. How you come to your agreement is your own business but here need to be an agreement. The more extreme the situation the more explicit the agreement needs to be.

Here you seem to say that sex on drugs should be discussed but below you prefer a legal 'no man's land' for drugs. Why the distinction?

Im saying there doesn't need to be "an agreement" before hand in the normal course, it exists until it doesn't. If you think you are on "dodgy ground" by trying something new for want of a better word you are in a relationship with a crazy person. You seem to be suggesting that a partner saying they don't like something means a crime has or could have been committed or that you want to give people in a relationship that power which again I would see to be nonsense.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You'd prefer the legal 'no man's land' approach to any kind of agreement about consent? Why the break from your statement above that consent should be discussed?

what Im saying is that in the normal run of things consent should be presumed unless there is clear reasoning that it was missing ie there was evidence or predatory or coercive behaviour and not the other way round If such were to be the case.

does it matter? I said I'd respond if I saw something to respond too.

El_Duderino 09 · 26-01-2017 07:13PM

silverharp wrote:

Im saying there doesn't need to be "an agreement" before hand in the normal course, it exists until it doesn't. If you think you are on "dodgy ground" by trying something new for want of a better word you are in a relationship with a crazy person.

You'd seriously just assume consent for things? I doubt you do that in real life.

I doubt anyone would just start to do stuff without at least mentioning it beforehand. Do people just start to tie the partner up and assume it's fine until their partner says 'stop'? Or do people just start trying anal sex without at least mentioning it beforehand? Maybe that's how you do these things but I don't think it's a great idea- unless assumed consent for everything is part of your agreement.

silverharp wrote:

You seem to be suggesting that a partner saying they don't like something means a crime has or could have been committed or that you want to give people in a relationship that power which again I would see to be nonsense.

You're obsessed with this notion that I'm trying to divide couples.

silverharp wrote:

what Im saying is that in the normal run of things consent should be presumed unless there is clear reasoning that it was missing ie there was evidence or predatory or coercive behaviour and not the other way round If such were to be the case.

Given your exceptions I don't think you can just assume complete consent. Maybe you do assume consent for everything unless your partner explicitly says stop. If that's the case I'd say it's a fairly clear example of what has gone wrong when one partner claims to have been assaulted and the other partner doesn't know what they've done wrong.

You seem to have an assumed consent agreement with your partner so that's fine for you. But telling other fellas that they can assume consent for everything unless told otherwise is irresponsible because everyone doesn't have the same default assumption that you have.

I gather that you're in a long term relationship. Trust based on experience is a major part of long term relationships but that kind of trust is completely absent in a casual one night stand with someone you just met. You're doing men and women a disservice be telling them they can make the same assumptions about consent that you can make with your long term partner.

Sn@kebite · 26-01-2017 11:56PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'd agree with you there.

Which is why stuff like blindboy boatface telling men that we need to be feminists to achieve equality or the "Man Up" for equality campaigns are so offensive, when you think about it. The message that is being sent out is that equality can only be achieved by feminism, that criticising feminism is criticising equality etc.

It's the quasi religious, "only through feminism can you enter the kingdom of heaven" nonsense that people here are criticising.

This.

I would also add, that Feminism claims to be the holy grail of equality which includes fighting race privilege. However how is it logical that a movement supposedly fighting against race privilege, ableism, trans-phobia/exclusion and classism has the voices of white, middle-class, able-bodied, heterosexual, cis women at it's core. Surely a movement that is fighting white privilege would not have white people's voices centered at it's core . But (western) feminism is structured like this so there is a female archetype running the topmost levels. These demographical cliques run women's studies departments and femsocs while telling engineering and physics departments they're not diverse enough. It shows it cannot truly be trusted by anyone.

Also when feminism does talk about male issues it is more of an acknowledgement of the existence of a male issue and nothing more, if there is action it is tactical. As in only problems men face that also harm women are accepted as valid men's issues. Problems that men face which do not impact or positively impact women are sneered at when mentioned. As if this is productive.

Shelga · 27-01-2017 12:14AM

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/how-is-it-okay-for-a-stranger-to-pay-for-your-first-date-dinner-because-he-s-a-man-1.2952479

Finally an article from the Irish Times containing actual common sense re. the ritual of men paying for dinner on dates. I was giving up on them.

mzungu · 27-01-2017 01:07AM

Shelga wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/how-is-it-okay-for-a-stranger-to-pay-for-your-first-date-dinner-because-he-s-a-man-1.2952479

Finally an article from the Irish Times containing actual common sense re. the ritual of men paying for dinner on dates. I was giving up on them.

Aside from the "gender pay gap" myth being given an airing :pac: she got it bang on in that article.

Only thing I would say is that I thought that the expectation of the man paying for dinner went out the window ages ago? The article gives the impression it is still expected.

Shelga · 27-01-2017 01:19AM

mzungu wrote: »

Only thing I would say is that I thought that the expectation of the man paying for dinner went out the window ages ago? The article gives the impression it is still expected.

I think a lot of women (speaking from talking to friends) say they don't expect the man to pay, but really they do, and judge him negatively if he doesn't offer to foot the bill. At least the high maintenance women on First Dates are honest about it.

Lots and lots of other women don't expect the guy to pay of course.

iptba · 27-01-2017 01:33AM

mzungu wrote: »

Aside from the "gender pay gap" myth being given an airing :pac: she got it bang on in that article.

And women with no children actually earn more on average than men with no children:

Figures from the OECD show that in Ireland the Gender Pay Gap for women with no children is -17% but this increases significantly to 14% for women with at least one child – a jump of 31 percentage points.”

http://www.siptu.ie/media/newsarchive2013/fullstory_17012_en.html

mzungu · 27-01-2017 02:04AM

iptba wrote: »

And women with no children actually earn more on average than men with no children:

Yup, proof, if ever it was needed that if you just keep repeating a lie it will eventually become a "truth". To the best of my knowledge, nobody in the national media has ever brought up the minus 17 or that the gap is mostly down to maternity leave. It is just blind acceptance across the board.

johnnyskeleton · 27-01-2017 02:16AM

mzungu wrote: »

Aside from the "gender pay gap" myth being given an airing :pac: she got it bang on in that article.

Only thing I would say is that I thought that the expectation of the man paying for dinner went out the window ages ago? The article gives the impression it is still expected.

Maybe im old fashioned, but I dont see anything wrong with the expectation or at least the desireability that a man pay for dinner if he asks the woman out or its a first proper date etc. I think equality begins and ends with legal rights and liabilities and has nothing to do with how men and women interact with each other.

If equality means changing our behaviours to this exent, some women get angry because a man held a door open for her or there will be awkward, romanceless courtships.

I do however agree with you in one respect - no one invites someone to dinner on a first date these days. Its all tinder and such! If you want an egalitarian date - use tinder and meet for a pint!

So maybe its not the paying thats out of date but the old timeyness of first dates. They may as well get people to dress up in Jane Austen gear and subtely flirt between ornate dance moves!

Pawwed Rig · 27-01-2017 09:05AM

I find the article funny in that it shows the despair feminists feel when they realise that most women don't buy into it.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-01-2017 10:14AM

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Maybe im old fashioned, but I dont see anything wrong with the expectation or at least the desireability that a man pay for dinner if he asks the woman out or its a first proper date etc. I think equality begins and ends with legal rights and liabilities and has nothing to do with how men and women interact with each other.

What does the man paying for dinner represent to you?

Permabear · 27-01-2017 10:55AM

This post has been deleted.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-01-2017 11:04AM

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

Ok. If that's the law then that's the law. I suppose it supersedes the agreement between the couple. Thanks for the info.

Permabear · 27-01-2017 11:06AM

This post has been deleted.

El_Duderino 09 · 27-01-2017 11:19AM

Permabear wrote:

This post had been deleted.

The simplest way to navigate is to both pay for the meal and if they both want to have sex, have sex.

One eyed Jack · 27-01-2017 12:25PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Maybe im old fashioned, but I dont see anything wrong with the expectation or at least the desireability that a man pay for dinner if he asks the woman out or its a first proper date etc. I think equality begins and ends with legal rights and liabilities and has nothing to do with how men and women interact with each other.

I don't think you're old fashioned at all. It's something that's very much still in fashion that a man if he asks a woman out on a date, he would be expected to pay for it.

I do however agree with you in one respect - no one invites someone to dinner on a first date these days. Its all tinder and such! If you want an egalitarian date - use tinder and meet for a pint!

We'll, I wouldn't say "no-one" (jesus it's not all tinder at all, but I get what you mean). However, if one is the old fashioned type, and Starbucks for pumpkin spiced lattes isn't your thing, be up front there and then, unlike yours truly who agreed to go, then took one look in the window of the place, said "this just won't do", went uptown because I'd heard good things about this new restaurant. We hadn't booked a table so we were told come back in 45 mins, went for drinks, came back, walked into the wrong restaurant next door (should've gone to Specsavers), and by then she was exhausted and just wanted to go home. Maybe next time we'll just go for a pint

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The simplest way to navigate is to both pay for the meal and if they both want to have sex, have sex.

After having read the last couple of pages El_D, I think there'll be quite a few people saying "not tonight dear, I've got a headache" :pac:

Robineen · 27-01-2017 04:13PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think you're old fashioned at all. It's something that's very much still in fashion that a man if he asks a woman out on a date, he would be expected to pay for it.

My understanding is that the person who does the asking, regardless of gender, would maybe be expected to pay. I think it's whoever extends the invitation, which is usually the man in fairness. Gotta say, in my dating days, I always offered to go halvers on first dates, I didn't have a sense of entitlement about it. It was usually refused but I did always offer. But after the first date, it was halvers.

iptba · 28-01-2017 03:10AM

Some men's rights activists have been criticised in this thread.
Here is an example of a women's rights advocate who spoke at the recent women's march in Washington who is far from a saint.

The Spectacle Blog
The Women Movement’s Embrace of Rape-Torturer Psychopath Donna Hylton
by
Melissa Mackenzie
https://spectator.org/the-women-movements-embrace-of-psychopath-donna-hylton/

Sn@kebite · 28-01-2017 03:42AM

iptba wrote: »

Some men's rights activists have been criticised in this thread.
Here is an example of a women's rights advocate who spoke at the recent women's march in Washington who is far from a saint.

The double standards of the left are pathetic. A homophobic murderess is a leader for the Feminist movement.:rolleyes:

professore · 28-01-2017 06:35AM

Robineen wrote: »

I think a lot of feminists aren't too interested in equality really. The problem with education is that there will likely never be complete equilibrium in it, 50/50 success between the genders but it's only as a problem if women are on the less than 50 side. So that hampers any attempts to help boys with whatever factors hold them back in education.

I'm interested in the reasons why boys are falling behind. A lack of male teachers probably isn't helping. Though my husband, who hugely underperformed at school, cited peer pressure as a big part of his problem. He and I have both noted that for teenage girls, it's fine to admit you are studying hard, indeed my friends and I were all quite competitive with each other in school. Whereas my husband attended a good school in Galway city and yet, the culture was to not be seen to be studying hard. I'm not sure how you crack that. But there is a lack of will to try and figure out how to help boys who fall behind because if they then start to outperform girls, it's a "problem" and girls are being "oppressed". That's silly because in a properly functioning education system, ideally it should hover around 50/50 in how the genders perform year on year, with some years girls outstripping boys and sometimes the other way round (as I said, it would likely never be quite 50/50). That should be the goal.

I think part of the problem is that an average 16 year old girl is 2-3 years more mature than the average 16 year old boy for biological reasons.

The average boy needs to get out and run around and needs a different form of education than the average girl - can't quite put my finger on it but the nagging being talked down to kind of teaching is particularly ineffective with boys, and engenders a f**k you mentality among them.

Feminism refuses to see any difference between the genders other than social constructs, despite mountains of hard scientific evidence to the contrary, so this never gets addressed.

Sn@kebite · 28-01-2017 03:13PM

professore wrote: »

I think part of the problem is that an average 16 year old girl is 2-3 years more mature than the average 16 year old boy for biological reasons.

It is a hell of a lot more complicated than biology.

Boys lack male role models within our society for example. How many children do you see without a mother compared to without a father?

Which sex runs the schools? If women run the schools this means girls benefit from having a saturation of female rolemodels. Boys do better in schools which are boy only, and also they do better when it is a male teacher. Female teachers running schools create an environment which is more feminine by default (e.g. form groups, partner up, not as competitive or individual, less things have 1st, 2nd or 3rd place) so girls get more out of the school system as it is more defaulting to their qualities.

Boys are also socialized to do badly in order to look 'cool' or like a rebel. Boys may deliberately do bad in order to impress the girls or his male friends Also machismo attitudes like "I'm no teachers pet!" or "Poetry is gay!" homophobia is also a restriction. When boys do badly in school there is far less willingness of the schools or education departments to help them. Feminism also kicks up a stink at the notion of helping boys; "but but, they got male privilege! How can they be lagging behind..." Stereotypes of boys as immature/lazy get used to excuse the gap which only holds it in place. When girls lag behind the government and (female run) schools (naturally) fall over themselves to try and close the "sexist, patriarchal gender gap".

The view that boys are behind due to biology imo is just sexism. Boys are not raised with the same number or role models as girls or the same compassion when they need help so it impossible to know if it is hormones/biology etc... it is a stereotype. We wouldn't say girls are behind in STEM because their brains don't develop as fast in the spacial awareness/object awareness sense

This may look like boys are biologically behind but it is imo the minority of the reasoning. Boys from very disciplined backgrounds who are expected to do well often do well in school. In fact males dominate the more difficult areas of academia.

Robineen · 28-01-2017 04:20PM

Sn@kebite wrote: »

Female teachers running schools create an environment which is more feminine by default (e.g. form groups, partner up, not as competitive or individual, less things have 1st, 2nd or 3rd place) so girls get more out of the school system as it is more defaulting to their qualities.

The bolded is certainly not from my experience a feminine thing, girls can be incredibly competitive with each other in school. There was no big emphasis on forming groups either. That was my experience anyway. The girls seemed more competitive than the boys actually. Both in primary and secondary.

Sn@kebite · 28-01-2017 07:27PM

Robineen wrote: »

The bolded is certainly not from my experience a feminine thing, girls can be incredibly competitive with each other in school. There was no big emphasis on forming groups either. That was my experience anyway. The girls seemed more competitive than the boys actually. Both in primary and secondary.

Yes they can, but academically? Maybe. In my college and in my high school the boys a much more likey to go around asking other boys what score they got on this or that test. Girls didn't seem to be as interested. Girls are extremely competitive yes, but in my experience not so much with school work.

Not my experience but I do certainly take your point.

Robineen · 30-01-2017 01:11AM

Sn@kebite wrote: »

Yes they can, but academically?

Yes, academically. My LC biology class is particularly memorable for me in the competitiveness displayed by the girls in the class. It's why we all did so well! :cool:

Mens Rights Thread

Comments