What I'm Really Afraid Of

[Worffan101]

Citations and sources?

Find me an example of this being called rape by the media or the authorities. Also, you'll note, she was not charged with sexual assault or rape.

And you seriously think that if he'd done the same to her he'd have been charged? They'd have asked her what clothes she was wearing until they threw her out of the police station.

Men get sex crimes against them treated as a joke or get told "you just got lucky". Women get slut-shamed. Same shitty policing, different payoff.

Find me a quote of someone seriously saying that the government should restrict Nazis' right to spout their bullshit.

I probably could pretty easily, given the enthusiasm there is for punching people they've labeled as Nazis.

Where's your source, then?

Right to not be forced to reproduce (whether by coercion, deception, or forcible extraction of gametes).

You'd be wrong there.

Says who, Breitbart? Your response makes zero damn sense.

Right to not be forced to participate in a sexual act.

Then why is it so difficult for those in authority to even define it as a crime?

Same reason sex crimes against women get laughed off. Police don't want to deal with it and intimate-partner violence is still seen as a largely private matter.

Source? Because otherwise I believe you as much as I believe Donald Trump when he says he's a stable genius.

Literally the first result in Google

In Texas

Germany gets in on that action

Kid doesn't even have to be yours if you wait to long to test paternity

Texas says you're on the hook for whatever child support would be before the paternity test was conducted

1. Don't cite the Daily Heil, it's as reliable as Fox News.

2. Most of those cases seem to be because of legal technicalities (notably, Kansas's batshit crazy set of family-planning laws that are intentionally designed to make family planning a nearly impossible hassle). Legal technicality =/= ranking one group's rights over the other (which is why that asshole baker who John Oliver claims masturbates in his cakes is likely to be sued and hauled in front of the Supreme Court again for the exact same damn reason, since his case was overturned on a legal technicality and not on constitutional grounds by SCOTUS).

I still want some evidence that isn't legal technicalities (which, I should note, are the consequence of any legal system meant to deal with a country as big as the USA).

Why? If you consent to produce a kid and produce it, you're partially responsible. You shouldn't be able to get out of that.

Much the same attitude the anti-abortion types have.

There's a difference between responsibility and bodily autonomy. If there's a parasite in your body--which a fetus is, humans don't develop enough brainpower to be more than animals until several weeks to months postnatal--you have a right to get it out. If you consent to having that kid in you, but health issues crop up, you have a right to get it out, because your life supersedes a parasite's.

But if you've got a functional human neonate that you contributed DNA to? Unless you waive parental rights, you owe child support, and since men are paid more than women for the same work...I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the dude to contribute more, especially since our society still shunts women towards the primary-caregiver role, leaving them less capable of financial support.

You have a funny understanding of the word "fact".

So you say.

Yeah, because you're making baseless fearmongering speculations instead of reiterating facts.

Sources. Or I'll be forced to conclude that you're talking out of your ass.

Yeah, let's pretend the whole social justice thing isn't going on.

That's not a source, you're talking out of your behind.

[Madner Kami]

But if you've got a functional human neonate that you contributed DNA to? Unless you waive parental rights, you owe child support, and since men are paid more than women for the same work...I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the dude to contribute more, especially since our society still shunts women towards the primary-caregiver role, leaving them less capable of financial support.

This is exactly what I was talking about and you do not even realize how far down the rabbit hole you already are.
First you get presented with cases were women rape, but don't even get charged with sexual assault at the least. You get presented cases were women used coercion, fraud and uther such disreputable means to get themselves pregnant and then wave it off with this gold nugget: "that you contributed DNA to", to justify women forcing themselves on men and get them forced to pay their expenses via "child support".
And then the "women earn less then men" bullshit, which was one of the things I was aiming at in my initial post, which is treated as gospel and echoed by Shillary herself and that is provably false. Women earn the exact same as men, if they actually work as much as men, which they just do not do. They do not take to the same jobs, they do not work the same amount of overhours and they do not even work full-time for the most part. You are literally comparing someone going to work for 5 hours each week as a cashier to someone who works 48 hours a week in a sewage canal and then declare that it's unfair that the later earns more than the former. What is wrong with you people?!

[TGLS]

You and I have very, VERY different ideas about what constitutes a 'decent fashion.' My son was born in 2001. He's now old enough to fight in the war Bush started that year. Seventeen fucking years of war. For nothing. I guess you're cool with that, but personally, I find it to be the most massive waste of blood and treasure this country has ever set out on. And then he went and followed it up with yet ANOTHER pointless war. Tens of thousands of dead Americans. Millions of dead Afghans and Iraqis. Trillions of dollars. And nothing anywhere made any better for the effort.

Trump hasn't come close to that kind of damage.

I'm willing to cut Bush some slack there, especially on Afghanistan. I seriously doubt that other politicians at the time would have acted differently, between the anger and the bad intel, war in Iraq was more or less inevitable. Even a really pacifistic president would have probably gone to war in Afghanistan.

[Worffan101]

But if you've got a functional human neonate that you contributed DNA to? Unless you waive parental rights, you owe child support, and since men are paid more than women for the same work...I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the dude to contribute more, especially since our society still shunts women towards the primary-caregiver role, leaving them less capable of financial support.

This is exactly what I was talking about and you do not even realize how far down the rabbit hole you already are.
First you get presented with cases were women rape, but don't even get charged with sexual assault at the least. You get presented cases were women used coercion, fraud and uther such disreputable means to get themselves pregnant and then wave it off with this gold nugget: "that you contributed DNA to", to justify women forcing themselves on men and get them forced to pay their expenses via "child support".
And then the "women earn less then men" bullshit, which was one of the things I was aiming at in my initial post, which is treated as gospel and echoed by Shillary herself and that is provably false. Women earn the exact same as men, if they actually work as much as men, which they just do not do. They do not take to the same jobs, they do not work the same amount of overhours and they do not even work full-time for the most part. You are literally comparing someone going to work for 5 hours each week as a cashier to someone who works 48 hours a week in a sewage canal and then declare that it's unfair that the later earns more than the former. What is wrong with you people?!

1. I got presented one case of female-on-male rape and acknowledged places where it's more common.

2. Nice quote-mine. I'll do the same to you. You used this golden nugget:

women forcing themselves on men

to describe what you called "fraud", which quite frankly is a huge reach under the best of circumstances, since fraud isn't using force but lying, two fundamentally very different things. And since you used this tactic to avoid having to read my actual post or understand my point, I'll do the same here and discard your entire post because I can quote-mine it.



3. I'd like to see your statistics, buddy, because last I checked women still made 70% what men do for equal work, and they typically don't get executive positions long-term, instead being either used as expendable interim execs during crisis periods, or being shafted into low-responsibility low-salary positions because the company doesn't want them taking maternity leave.

[Worffan101]

You and I have very, VERY different ideas about what constitutes a 'decent fashion.' My son was born in 2001. He's now old enough to fight in the war Bush started that year. Seventeen fucking years of war. For nothing. I guess you're cool with that, but personally, I find it to be the most massive waste of blood and treasure this country has ever set out on. And then he went and followed it up with yet ANOTHER pointless war. Tens of thousands of dead Americans. Millions of dead Afghans and Iraqis. Trillions of dollars. And nothing anywhere made any better for the effort.

Trump hasn't come close to that kind of damage.

I'm willing to cut Bush some slack there, especially on Afghanistan. I seriously doubt that other politicians at the time would have acted differently, between the anger and the bad intel, war in Iraq was more or less inevitable. Even a really pacifistic president would have probably gone to war in Afghanistan.

War in Iraq was not inevitable, the entire Bush administration was packed to the gills with HW's cronies who wanted to fight the Gulf War again with a smaller and less-prepared force. They made that one happen out of sheer pride and malice.

Afghanistan was damn near inevitable, yeah, but it was handled SO incredibly badly it's not even funny. It doesn't help that the Bush administration went in and tried to play a tribal politics game that the Reagan administration doused in gasoline and lit on fire by arming the muhajadeen against the USSR. Occupying the whole damn country was Vietnam on steroids.

[Antiboyscout]

But if you've got a functional human neonate that you contributed DNA to? Unless you waive parental rights, you owe child support, and since men are paid more than women for the same work...I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the dude to contribute more, especially since our society still shunts women towards the primary-caregiver role, leaving them less capable of financial support.

This is exactly what I was talking about and you do not even realize how far down the rabbit hole you already are.
First you get presented with cases were women rape, but don't even get charged with sexual assault at the least. You get presented cases were women used coercion, fraud and uther such disreputable means to get themselves pregnant and then wave it off with this gold nugget: "that you contributed DNA to", to justify women forcing themselves on men and get them forced to pay their expenses via "child support".
And then the "women earn less then men" bullshit, which was one of the things I was aiming at in my initial post, which is treated as gospel and echoed by Shillary herself and that is provably false. Women earn the exact same as men, if they actually work as much as men, which they just do not do. They do not take to the same jobs, they do not work the same amount of overhours and they do not even work full-time for the most part. You are literally comparing someone going to work for 5 hours each week as a cashier to someone who works 48 hours a week in a sewage canal and then declare that it's unfair that the later earns more than the former. What is wrong with you people?!

1. I got presented one case of female-on-male rape and acknowledged places where it's more common.

2. Nice quote-mine. I'll do the same to you. You used this golden nugget:

women forcing themselves on men

to describe what you called "fraud", which quite frankly is a huge reach under the best of circumstances, since fraud isn't using force but lying, two fundamentally very different things. And since you used this tactic to avoid having to read my actual post or understand my point, I'll do the same here and discard your entire post because I can quote-mine it.



3. I'd like to see your statistics, buddy, because last I checked women still made 70% what men do for equal work, and they typically don't get executive positions long-term, instead being either used as expendable interim execs during crisis periods, or being shafted into low-responsibility low-salary positions because the company doesn't want them taking maternity leave.

You are so brainwashed it's not even funny. I notice you call a human fetus a "parasite" earlier. I hope you realize that this is a form of dehumanizing propaganda? You wouldn't accept Jews or the homeless being called "parasites", why is it acceptable for a human fetus, because it "fits" the definition? Please

This is the current definition of rape in the US
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/bl ... ition-rape
“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
This is the updated version. The old one mandated a female victim and a male perpetrator. The law is still like that in many places. This definition is still skewed in favor of women. If the only thing that matters is penetration, then forcing someone to penetrate you is not rape.

As for the pay gap:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160327195 ... Report.pdf
"There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent."

In addition to:
http://nordicparadox.se/
Or:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask

You on the other hand, continue to use the Total Average between men and women and attempting to apply it to individual jobs. It's not a gap of 20-30% For The Same Work but On Average.

[TGLS]

This is the current definition of rape in the US
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/bl ... ition-rape
“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
This is the updated version. The old one mandated a female victim and a male perpetrator. The law is still like that in many places. This definition is still skewed in favor of women. If the only thing that matters is penetration, then forcing someone to penetrate you is not rape.

Two things:
1) It doesn't say who the victim is. It could very well be the victim was the penetrator and the perpetrator was the penetrated.
2) The definition here is only used for the UCR, which has little bearing on what is legal or not.

As for the pay gap:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160327195 ... Report.pdf
"There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent."

I've read about this, and the numbers are a collection of alternative facts (classical definition, not the new one). Earnings gap is about 31% where I live. You account for hours differences, and it drops about 5 percentage points (the so-called wage gap). Then you account for age, education, locale, union status, tenure, occupation, industry and so on, and it falls to about 8%.

[Worffan101]

Wait, there's a definition of "alternative fact" OTHER than "blatant lie"?

[TGLS]

Yes. Alternative fact originally meant things like: "Sure the unemployment rate is 2%, but the poverty rate is higher than ever!" You have two facts that disagree, when by all rights they should be in agreement.

[Worffan101]

Yes. Alternative fact originally meant things like: "Sure the unemployment rate is 2%, but the poverty rate is higher than ever!" You have two facts that disagree, when by all rights they should be in agreement.

Fair enough, I wasn't familiar with the term before Kellyanne Conway made it a meme under the current definition.