Godstud wrote:Read the definition, FFS>
a society or environment whose prevailing social attitudes have the effect of normalizing or trivializing sexual assault and abuse.
Western society trivilizes and normalizes recreational sex outside of marriage, eugenic and economic abortion, homosexuality and so forth. Patriarchy traditionally protected women, but did not treat them as equals. Those protections have been forcibly removed as women assert that they are equal to men. Men who open the door for women get shamed by feminists. I'm pretty sure you aren't a big fan of patriarchy.
As a man, I would be concerned if I thought there were a lot of chances that I would be raped. However, as it stands, I'm apparently not so compelling to the same sex that someone would go to violent lengths to forcibly compel me to copulate with them. Consequently, I have little to fear. I would imagine an attractive woman that doesn't feel that she is the equal of a man might be concerned. I would guess women who feel themselves to be the equal of men generally aren't too concerned with this sort of thing.
Albert wrote:I think today there is respect lost between both sexes, and women are as responsible for it as men.
I think the more perverse notions of egalitarianism, very popular in leftist circles, is more to blame.
Albert wrote:Potemkin mentioned that when he was growing up in 70s men were very disrespectful towards women, whereas someone else had mentioned that before the cultural revolution of the west men were considerably respectful.
It does seem that many women are trying to rebuild what other women and leftists destroyed in terms of women being protected by men.
Albert wrote:I personally believe the forgoing of traditional values in relation between men and women have led to deterioration of respect between the two sexes.
A lazy way to think is that generally everything the left touches turns to shit. That way you really don't have to consider their arguments. Just consider the source. However, I think they were successful in selling all their horseshit, because so-called conservatives didn't know why
traditional values worked.
Godstud wrote:@Albert, if by respectful to women you mean beating, or raping, their wives in private, then no, traditional values are shit.
Traditionally, you cannot rape a wife. This is something that the left tries to change too, as though sex requires something like negotiated consent every time. In traditional societies, only husbands can have sex with their wives. Marriage is consent, since it literally means having heterosexual sex.
Godstud wrote:A woman is not disrespecting herself when she wears clothing that makes her attractive. Were this also a thing that men get(shamed), it might be an argument. It's not.
Let's set Albert's argument aside for a moment. First, you are assuming that an argument is only valid if it has mutuality, which is a legal concept and not a biological one. Whether a woman is disrespecting herself or not, biologically she is inviting sexual competition.
Godstud wrote:Only if you're an Incel or MGTOW, otherwise you realize that women are still the same.
Why do you theorize that only the very nascent Incel and MGTOW groups are the origin of sexual competition.
Godstud wrote:Men are not getting raped by women on any reasonable level, so no, the hate is not mutual.
That is because nature generally makes the males of a species compete for females, and for males to use aggression where competition and consent are not present. Consent in biology is typically given if the female thinks the male is worthy, which should give rise to selective preferences.
Pants-of-dog wrote:1. The fact that you are more likley to get raped somewhere else does not mean that we do not live in a “rape culture”.
It does make it somewhat ridiculous to try to isolate that as a trait of a society that is the least likely to embrace such behavior relative to all others.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Speaking of a “better” past and assaulting your partner with impunity, spousal rape was only criminalised recently.
Congratulations on once in awhile saying something intelligent.
Pants-of-dog wrote:How is it “better” when rape is actually legal?
In a traditional marriage, it may increase the birth rate.
Albert wrote:I do not think men raped and abused their wives with impunity in traditional society.
Yes, but today's extreme left considers a woman having sex when she's not in the mood or utterly begging for it to be rape. That's where things differ, and in some ways it also has to do with the type of media involved. The sort of extreme retard arguments that we hear from the left work well on television, but other media doesn't necessarily treat conflict in such stark terms.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Instead, I pointed out that men could legally rape their wives. Marital rape was only criminalised here in 1983. So, yes, men could rape and abuse their wives with impunity in traditional society. It is almost certain that many did so.
True enough, but it is almost pointless statute. How do you prove such a charge when you have only he-said-she-said? It creates a situation where one person can file a criminal charge against the other as blackmail, and there isn't an easy way to defend it. That is why traditional values prevailed for so long, and why they still do although we have a bifurcation of society based on those who adopt liberal lifestyle and those who don't as noted by Charles Murray in "Coming Apart."
Pants-of-dog wrote:Obviously, the idea that things were better in the past is a nostalgic myth and not an actual fact.
The idea of progressives that everything always gets better is also a myth.
Rancid wrote:I long for the days where you can just grab the secretaries ass.
And receive a firm smack on the face... No need for excessive law enforcement...
Albert wrote:Considering that rape could get you hanged in the past.
Stealing a man's horse could get you hanged in the past too, whereas cattle rustling would get you a long-term prison sentence. Today, nobody gets hung for car theft, or even violent car-jacking for that matter. Society is far too tolerant of criminal behavior.
Albert wrote:Also communities were much closer in the past so abuse could get exposed quicker, similarly fathers ware much more involved in his daughter's lives, whereas they were obligated culturally and legally to provide for their daughters especially if they were not married.
Right. Men beating the living shit out of a wife beater also wouldn't get punished too harshly either.
Albert wrote:Prosecuting abuse on the ground of marital rape makes the whole issue of abuse in marriage much ridiculous. It just does not make sense.
Right. It also tends to make someone automatically unemployable. That is to say, it will almost certainly destroy a marriage and put a women in a worse situation financially more often than not.
Albert wrote:You have to go back to the Sexual Revolution of the 60s-70s for that. Otherwise depending how far you want to go back in traditional society, that could get you shot in a duel.
I think dueling should be lawful as well. That would do a lot to restore manners.
One Degree wrote:Liberal democracy seems to be based upon passing more and more laws on every social interaction and then complaining about too many people going to prison.
Yes. Especially if they are black. I always find it humorous that today's left doesn't seem to recall that gun control was really just "negro control," and still is. Who gets tagged for violating gun control laws the most? Is that because the police are racist?
One Degree wrote:It just created a more serious crime because ‘spousal abuse’ was so poorly enforced mainly due to the victims refusing to press charges.
We seem to prefer creating stricter laws to correct our failure in enforcing less strict laws. A process that results in harsh and unequal treatment for the few who are charged.
Very well put, One Degree. You should get medal for that post. All the people clamoring for "Black Lives Matter" are the same one clamoring for strict spousal abuse laws. These laws fall disproportionately on the poor, where frustration-aggression responses are the most common. Since inner city poor are often minorities and municipal police are involved in every aspect of life, these types of things will likely fall disproportionately on poor minorities. Then, we will be called racist for enforcing the law on top of it.
Albert wrote:Guys as well take daily precaution to not get raped or beaten up or tricked, cheated, get together with a woman who only uses you for money and then takes your kids and leaves you with nothing.
Yeah. As much as I want to wear spandex and high heels and a push-up bra everywhere I go, I don't do that, because I don't want to get raped. Sometimes, I want to go roller skating in a pink speedo, but then I think about how I might get raped. So I don't do that either.
Albert wrote:Nature has also made women less stronger then man so naturally they will feel more vulnerable, nothing can be done about it, it is just factor of life that we all live in. In turn nature gave protective instinct for men towards women, so women benefit from that and it balance itself out. Nature already took care of that, why need fix it.
That's generally why leftist ideas don't work, because they are not consistent with nature. It is also why people with odd gender identity and sexual preference issues always seem to need some sort of rule-based system and seek to impose it on everyone else.