Why Are Right Wing Men So Sad?

Post Reply New Topic

Most liberals barely even understand conservatives, let alone understand the "far right".

The fact that pedos have attempted to align themselves with LGTBQ causes doesn't make the Left "pro-pedo."

Ate dress, actions, and location asked about the victims of other crimes?

If I'm walking home from work at night, does that mean I consent to being mugged?

In the military, it was explicitly stated that failure to offer verbal or physical resistance is NOT consent. I don't buy that most men are so socially inept that they think a woman merely existing within their vicinity means she's fine with being groped, assaulted, or raped.

Agreed.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thever ... hilia-tape

This.
Further I'd suggest that the fact pedos exist within the membership and supporters of queer causes is just proof that not all pedos are straight men, not that pedos are trying to be part of or taking over the queer community.

Notice that most of the attempts at painting the left as pro-pedo seem to basically hinge on attempts at smearing the queer community as pedos? Yeah, that old canard again.

^ At this point, I'm not surprised.

Considering how what a woman wears is being considered "consent" in this thread, I doubt certain right-wingers are really all that concerned with sexual morality.

Pedos have been trying to sneak into the gay movement for ages. They've also been rejected by said gay movement.

I read the articles, and they don't prove Jack. The video being discussed in this topic is about recent trends, not stuff from over 40 years ago. Let alone that paedophiles trying to attach themselves to LGBT rights does not prove a link at all that there is a trend at all to want to accept it, these are all super old stories that especially look silly when you consider things like homosexuality was not legalised across the USA until 2003. Not to mention that people that are politically right can be LGBT.

On that Derrick Jensen guy, kind of looked like he gave away around the 13 minute mark he gives away his interpretation that gives him his hate of queer theory. He sees queer theory as just an attack on anything that is "normal", which is an incredibly loaded understanding, kind of sounds like he think that paedophilia could be interpreted as not a norm of sexuality and thus can be included into queer theory. It sounds kind of bogus when I watch a lot of stuff that involves queer theory, such be as recently on the connection of vampires in fiction to queer people, and especially in modern day senses there is nothing that advocates along the paedophilia line. As it stands, the Left has a strong stand on consent, and as evidenced earlier is more defined that the Right wing definition, which apparently takes dress into consideration of whether consent is given.

Not to mention, Derrick Jensen seems to be kind of a sh***y person. His Wikipedia page mentions him being a founding member of an organisation that is noted as very anti-trans (TERF links), and you can kind of see it in the last section of that video where he is very weaselly on his opinions. That he apparently refuses to commit to statements like saying that trans-women are women, and instead just asks for a defined definition of a woman, and doesn't accept one when he is given it, either confused by the complexity to the answer or being given a summary sees it as tautological (I think that is the word).

I actually tried to track down what is being referred to with regards to comments of Gayle Rubin comparing a paedophilia to a preference to spicy food, and I think that I found it. I think that it is from the 80s, and is used in a context of people taking sex too seriously, this being in a time where homosexuality was considered illegal, and was used for a comparison of the idea of someone masturbating over a shoe to a person wearing a shoe. Indeed, it did mention something about "the sexuality of the young is denied", in addition to adult sexuality treated as a variant of toxic waste, but there doesn't seem to be a specific line here about about adult sexuality with children. If anything sexuality of the young could be in reference to teenagers needing to have comprehensive sex education rather than having their sexuality ignored and told just abstinence. As far as I can gleam from this section, it could be just about the possibility people refusing to see the sexuality of non-adults as anything but heterosexual, which is relevant even today where some people see the idea of a kid being represented as gay as inherently deviant when no such standard exists for a kid being represented as hetero.

I could see how someone could interpret those words together to see it as saying that it could include paedophilia as a sexuality outside of the norm, but it is a really dishonest interpretation that ignores an importance placed on the concept of consent. At the time, probably that a gay man could consent to have another gay man stick it up there, which I think was contested at the time of the writing due to sodomy laws.

@slam_thunderhide a nice little bit of digging there. Amusing that I misremembered PIE as PIS.

Not to the same extent, but the crime and problem of sexual encounters is unique in some ways, so that isn't saying much. There some partial parallels with self-defense, where the behaviour and even attire of the (potentially either murdered or righteously killed) victim is very important in determining guilt.



No, but if you are in a nightclub, dressed to attract attention, spend several hours talking to a guy, he initiated something physical which you do not want but you freeze up and neither push him off or say no - he might reasonably think you consented. And a court might see that a reasonable person might think you consented - then he is not guilty of rape.



It depends on the circumstances, but this can't be a blanket rule rigidly followed, because either everyone would have to change their behaviour in absurd and unreasonable ways or great injustices would be done to innocent people.



Uh-huh because that follows from what I said. We are not discussing stranger attacks in roadside ditches or weirdos on buses here. The problems we are talking about with mens rea is mainly things like one night stands, where there is alcohol involved or drugs, several hours of history or even more between the two parties involved - usually in a charged environment like a nightclub - where people go to find sexual partners and dress to attract sexual attention. These are all valid factors in determining the state of the perpetrator's mind and their guilt.

You know, people can dress sexy for themselves, just because someone is in an incredibly sexy dress, doesn't mean they are necessarily doing it just because they are hoping to attract the attention of dudes to pull them into something. And this talking to a guy thing seems kind of off too, since this is the sort of thing where many guys might take someone just being nice as coming onto them, and it does not at all mean that that talking to someone means they want that guy to feel them up. And regardless of that perceived context, that situation could be very scary to a woman who might suddenly find that the guy has interpreted her actions as wanting to do something, and might be afraid of being assaulted after being called a tease or playing hard to get.

Men need to be taught that dressing a certain way is not an invitation to touch them, nor is being friendly or not fighting back giving consent. A woman could walk around in her underwear, and that is still in no way an excuse for men attacking her, or puts any responsibility for being attacked on her.

Dressing a certain way, or hanging out at a particular location is not consent to sex.

What men find "provocative" varies with education and culture. It is not a universal constant.

I get tired of the narrative that "boys will be boys," and that men can't control themselves.

It seems to me the peadophiles will try and grab onto anything or anyone to make themselves legitimate. They seek out vulnerable institutions and security flaws and work out how to take advantage. They're awful people who ruin good things.

Look at how they ruined the YouTube children's section. They saw a vulnerability in how they could use the comments. That doesn't mean YouTube supported them or endorsed them. It means they got taken advantage of and had to completely remove comments from children's videos and restructure their content.

So the LGBTQ movement aren't endorsing them, the left wing aren't endorsing them, they've just been targeted by them.

What is it you would like us to know? that people who are conservative don't oppose "progress", but then they aren't conservative anymore right?

What is there to understand about the far right we don't already know? That they are actually normal decent people who hate? can;t really reconcile hatred with normal behavior.

Agreed. This thread is horrible. So if I entertain the attention of a guy for a few hours whilst looking nice the logic is just because some people are into one night stands that means I'm automatically assumed to be one of those people because I like to dance and got on well with someone I met whilst out dancing. Yuck.

And men wonder why women ignore them whilst their out having fun with their friends.

Pedophilia is an addiction, and pedophiles behave like addicts in manipulating their environment and people around them (just like addicts) to make accessing what they crave closer.

The QAnon people have used pedophilia as both a red-herring and a weapon to attack the left.

The good thing about this thread is that we all agree that we hate them.

I consider them dangerous. It's like being a hungry vampire seeing people with blood all around them.