www.intjforum.com

Puffi #sexist intjforum.com

I could never knowingly date a woman who was not a virgin. I find them disgusting. I don't find married women or women who have boyfriends disgusting because I don't think about them that way, but when it's time to actually date someone, I would never be with a woman if she was not a virgin.

Years ago when I first started analyzing this I thought it was only the "slutty" women I didn't like, but no, it's the sex act itself. That someone else has been inside my girlfriend or wife... I don't understand how anyone can live with that thought. I see an extremely vivid image of that happening in my mind and I feel such disgust I can't live with it.

I'm not religious and I have no moral objection to any of this stuff. I simply find it disgusting. I just don't want to believe that no women that I (initially) like are romantic or strong-willed enough to wait for the right man.

This way of thinking seems very rare in Western countries. Some may say they prefer a virgin, but are too realistic to completely shut non-virgins out of their dating life. So, any thoughts? Do you know anyone like me? Have you ever met a woman who thinks this way? I sure haven't.

Zsych #fundie intjforum.com

[Let's keep it real. No one is under any illusions about a man being pulled from the street and brutally blowjobbed and plough in the anus by the fists of masked female rapists. That is definitely rape because OBVIOUSLY no consent was provided.

Now if he was in the bar, he was provided drink after drink by an inticing lady who slowly proceeded to allow him to willingly take the drinks and drink the alcohol and then suggest they go back to her place and then she proceeds to undress him while he's too drunk to resist or consent and have sex with him. Is that rape?]

The reason punishment is harsh, and that it is considered serious business, is because of the old definition - which is pretty much the violent, non-consensual stuff... and born of a time when marriage was sacrosanct.

The current definition includes any number of cases that are basically meaningless and in no way deserving of any particular punishment... like the case in question. Punishing the woman is more retardedness than justice. There is no real victim, and in the real world, the man would never charge her with rape (unless he's crazy and wants to be laughed at)... but it would still be legally defined as rape.

Which points to the basic fact that the law has become funky and far removed from the source that made if meaningful. Human systems have a tendency to become corrupt and perverted after a certain point (mostly because individual human intelligence is such a marginal thing).


[Naturally. Lack of ability to consent in your example above is rape.]


The problem is with the expanded use of the word "rape" with all its existing connotations, so that it is seen as something horrible that has happened to someone, for which we as a society want to exact vengeance on their behalf - as well as strongly deter anyone from engaging in such activities... Thus rapists spending years in jail and generally having their lives destroyed for all practical purposes by being registered as sex offenders and likely not being able to get decent jobs in the future, etc. etc... and everyone being fine with the amount of harm visited on these living incarnations of evil.

... Except obviously, this guy hasn't come to any harm that justifies horribly harming someone else, or declaring them an ungodly evil to be forever maligned and rejected by everyone, on his behalf.

BlackLieutenant #fundie intjforum.com

[Categorical BS. I'm a blatantly feminist (GASP) conservatively dressed intj woman and I still get more male attention than I can handle. I've mentioned this before on here, but if you need others to pretend to be weak in order to allow you to feel powerful, then what you need is psychological help, not a girlfriend]


This is what feminists says all the time, 'heard this response millions times.
But men like women this way, it's not because we're scared, weak or something. It's our natural dominance/male ego that don't want to be "challenged" (like that would happen with an other "man").

If women want men or her husband to "feel" good, acting feminine is definetely the solution. The longer marriages are the ones where women are traditional.

Men have to "conquer" to have sex with women (and only want that from women), so it's logic that they go to "submissive/weak/fragile" women (Like a war strategy). It incousciously means that their chances to reproduce are higher.

There are also the motherhood qualities that are feminine (caring, nurtiuring, sensitive etc.. )

Women pretending to be men are the ones who need psychological help (aka feminists). But you can't, so now feminists try to turn men into females. Your "gender equity" obsession has no limit.


[I also think that in matters such as rape, women are indeed victims (as are some men) and rape prevention is a feminist issue.]

If rape victimes are also men, why is it a "feminist" issue ? It seems to be about man-hating (99% rapists are men).

["no, her skirt doesn't mean she wanted to get raped"]

If feminists care about women safety, feminists should also say to women that dressing in a certain way can lead to problems.


[We already talked about it at length, so let me summarize : 1, the clothes a woman wear doesn't "lead" her to getting raped, 2, even if it did, it wouldn't mean women have to change something but that men should change their mentality (just because her clothes were sexy doesn't mean she wants sex or that you are entitled to sex), 3, it's a problem if victims are discredited because of the clothes they wore at the time of the rape. I won't go into more details. Read the topic about the slut pride again if you want to.]


Really ? What's the point of dressing sexy then ? Men won't change, yes we want sex 24/7/365 and we have to go for it. It's part of Nature. I think women got it now. You can't shake fresh meat in front of hungry dogs, and then cry because a dog ate your hand.
Not it's not, I think it's good argument. I can't let the door of my house open all night, and then blame people that robbed it. There are certain dangers in our society, you can avoid them or provoke them.


[I find this degrading and insulting to men. As a civilised man, I have self-control and decency which prevents me from acting like a wild animal. How is it that you, yourself, are not in jail for sexual assault by now?]


Because I behave in a civilized manner most of the time. But asking men to stop wanting to have (forceful) sex with provocative women, or hoping that rape will disappear completely tomorrow is useless.


[If you rape a woman because of her clothes, the truth is that you didn't do it because you got so horny you couldn't stop yourself. You did it because you though that because she was clothed that way, she wanted sex, or couldn't refuse sex. It's not biological, it's sociological.]


It's both. If a man is "not" horny and see a woman dressed like a slut, he won't care.


[So he was horny before and just happened to see a convenient victim ?]


Yes, so ? I'm just saying that women have responsabilities in the way they dress. You can't put it all on men and just say to women dress like sluts if you want.

[yes you can. Adults are either responsible for their own actions or they're not.]


Women are also responsible when dressing like sluts.

[
By saying that a woman is responsible for the actions of men around her, just by dressing a certain way, you are saying that men should be treated the same as young children and the mentally handicapped when it comes to the subject of rape: incapable of rational self-determination.]


No, if you go to a shitty neigborhood, with all your expensive clothes, you're are provoking danger. It doesn't mean robbers aren't responsible, but you can attract even more danger by your actions.


[If you start justifying rape that way and restricting the way woman's wear, where does it end ? You'll find people who tell you veils are necessary because hair are too sexual, and then other people who think even hands or ankles are sexual so all women need to be dressed in integral veils. I say, you can control your penis.]


Showing all your legs, most of your boobs is universally seen as sexual. Women know it. And when showing it, they definetely want to (or they, at least, accept) men to have "horny" thoughts. Horny thoughs can lead men to rape.


[Also, do you suppose women have no sexual needs ? If I see a beautiful man without a shirt on, and I threaten him with a gun to rape him, is it his fault ? Or is that scenario impossible because men can't get raped ?]


Women can rape men (when they have weapons), but rarely do. Men (that are physically stronger) can do it more easily. So, it's so rare that there's no need for men to do anything. And when women rape, it's most of the time for other reasons than sexual attraction.


[There's a difference between saying "be cautious, don't go there alone at night" and saying "be cautious, never wear a short skirt".]

Women could reveal her body only to her boyfriend.


[But by definition it is not her choice to be robbed, assaulted or raped - it was somebody else's, and that person bears the entire fault.]


I never said women dressing like sluts were making "the choice to be raped" or that it's natural that men could rape them in that situation. But, in some situations, women have a (moral) responsibility.

And women dressing sluts are sexualizing themselves, and making them appear as sex objects. Why would a feminist defend the right for women to "dress like sluts", is this how they want women to appear ?


[It is not the woman's fault if she was raped, any more than if you were to go to the gym locker room and got raped by another guy, it would be your fault. Everyone is responsible for his or her actions.]

Not comparable. When a woman is dressing like a slut, is drunk, and/or barely conscious when going outta a nightclub, she's putting herself in a situation that could lead to rape. I never said this is how most rapes occurs, but this is also a reality.

BlackLieutenant #fundie intjforum.com


First, men and women don't naturally have the same interests.
Then, if we have, and if both parties "click", they will want to grow into something more, romantically, sexually etc...

As a man, I become friends with other men by "default", but with women, it's because there's a problem : she has a boyfriend, she's too ugly, something is wrong in her personality etc...
If there's attraction mentally and physically, it's hard to pretend to be "friends" and to keep it that way.

Personally I don't have a lot of females friends, as it grows generally romantically. The women I'm friend with are mostly "women not attractive enough to grow romantic interest" or my exes.


And to remain "friend" with a woman I find attractive feels like to remain in a state of constant failure or being a loser. Men don't like that.
Even if I make an effort to remain "friend", the hypocrisy and bottled-up sexual attraction/seduction in not healthy at all.


@Antares
If your male friends are friend with you, it's because they are attracted to you already, to your personality at least. Some of them probably find you also physically attractive.

If you're still friend with some of them, its because
- you (or they) already have a partner,
- you don't find them (or they don't find you) attractive enough

Otherwise, it's hard to understand why a single male and single female attracted to each other, mentally and physically, wouldn't hook up (or try to).


This male-female friendship thing is very new, very Western, and very unrealistic. Friendship are supposed to be platonic, which is natural and easier with same-sex (heterosexual) people. If a male and a female are friend (therefore platonic), it logically means something is wrong in their mutual attraction.

Men, women can be friends, but should they?


All men like to have their "ugly" female friend they can talk to, without feeling the pressure to "conquer" or "seduce".

BlackLieutenant #fundie intjforum.com

Women's Sexuality Is Meaningless Without Men


[Sexuality emerges in stages from the very earliest years of life, when a child discovers that there is something 'down there' and starts to feel around, on through to puberty, and onward from that point to mature understanding of their own and others' sexuality (in an ideal trajectory). Many, many factors can damage that trajectory, social norms being particularly strong.]

First masturbations, especially for girls, can hardly be described has a "sexuality".

Masturbation is "hardly" having a sexuality. And girls and boys sexuality is very different. Girls that has vaginas and can masturbate earlier than boys. But we can't really call it "sexuality", but more "curiosity" (they're not sexually active).
Boys can't really experience sexuality until they produce sperm around early puberty, so for boys it's kinda simple. Personally when I ejaculated the first time, I was 12, I don't think I could've done it earlier.

[Then what can the discovery of what brings your body to orgasm be described as? And, yes, the purpose of masturbation is orgasm. When she feels that sensation and perues it, she's exploring and interacting with her sexuality.]


Female sexuality is different from males. If I'm right, they can experience orgasm before (and after) being sexually active, which is very weird from a natural POV... I don't really thought about this before, but that brings a lot of questions.

Women pleasure is apparently not linked to her sexuality. Whereas men pleasure is completely linked to his sexuality. Do women really "have" a sexuality ? Do these orgasms aren't just illusions to support "men's sexuality" ?


[http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GE...S/CHILDORG.HTM Your amazing knowledge of female sexuality must surely give you a suave way with Teh Ladeez.]


I still don't think that female orgasm is a "sexuality", if they can have it before and after being "sexually" active, you can't call it "sexuality". I stick to my theory that women doesnt have one, and that female orgasm is just an evolutionary function to make them appreciate "men" sexuality. I can be wrong though.

Men "have" to dominate. We have to dominate animals to get food, we have to dominate our enemies, dangers etc...we have to sexually dominate women to reproduce. Domination is a whole part of what men are.


[1) I love how you're putting human females on the same list as animals, enemies and natural disasters. Like women are 'things' that must be 'done unto.' That's great. (Not.)]


This is not what I meant, humans have to survive through eating and reproducing, so from a male perspective, it's through animals and women


[2) It also implies that, like animals, enemies, and avalanches, women are going to resist the man's efforts. "Get over here, Matilda, it's penis time." "No, no, no!" "I said GET OVER HERE, Tillie. We gotta keep populating the goddamn human race. Don't you try and run out on me!" "NO! NO!" "Shaddup." "Let me go!" "Sorry, kiddo. Gotta dominate ya. I'm a man."]


No not especially with rape, but even in consensual sex, the woman is dominated, because she is penetrated.


[3) But one of your core beliefs appears to be that women are naturally submissive. So why would a man have to dominate someone who has already lain back with stars in her eyes? And if he loves her (and is vanilla), why would he want to?]


Women learn through time and evolution to be submissive, it's not "natural", but I think it's more an evolutionary attitute that was necessary. I assume the submissive ones was the one getting fucked, so maybe women adopted this attitude for procreation/to be attractive. Or maybe they were forced because men were raping them, I don't know. But this attitude is still clearly visible today.


[4) And all of the above is assuming you're even correct that men have to dominate things. You can get food by working WITH the earth instead of against it (e.g. biodynamic farming, free-range animal husbandry, humane slaughtering methods). You can deflect and self-defend against enemies without needing to destroy them. You can (gasp!) have fun in bed with your woman. She'll still get just as pregnant, if that's what you want]


When men wanna have wheat to eat it they have to cut it (kill it), when they wanna eat beef, they have kill it (even if it's nicely), and when there's a venomous snake or a crocodile going next to his 3-year old kid, the man will not just "push it" nicely, he "has" to kill it to be sure the dangerous animals won't come again. And for sex, I never said women shouldnt have fun, but she is dominated (not raped) in any case, because the penetration is domination.


[Yeah, in fantasy, sure. In the "real life" which you believe you're so in touch with, men carry around a significant degree of fear that they're not going to be good enough to be chosen, not going to be hard enough to penetrate, not going to be big enough to satisfy.
Or as the inestimable sage Rihanna put it,
The desire to find a "submissive" woman is the desire to avoid being straight-up challenged like that. The desire to believe that all women are "naturally" submissive, and any woman who thinks otherwise has been manipulated, is complete self-delusion.]


Men that haven't got erectile problems don't ask these questions to themselves (maybe when they turn 50). The "be chosen" part is before the sex, and has nothing to do with the sexual act.

The submissive women love from men just means higher chances to get laid, and more feminine, it has nothing to do with "good, she'll accept my little non-erectile dong when I'll try to get her orgasms". The world is not turning around women desires. And I never said that "all" women are submissive but a big majority, and even if some are not, that's how most men like them.

Some feminists like to say "weak men like submissive women", this is a lot of BS. The submissive women are the ones getting married and laid, that may be why these dry feminists try to turn these women into "strong-dominant" masculine women to be like them.

Look at black women, their feminist non-submissive attitude is the reason why 70% of them are single and 42% never been married. As a black man, I can tell you this is a widely known fact in our community. A lot of white, black western men now have go to China, Russia, Latin America to get their "feminine" submissive women. A black friend is getting married with a chinese woman this year, we talked about it, he is in this case. Sad.

[In other words, you mean black women are insufficiently interested in flattering men's egos.

Gosh, that's horrible. How did blacks survive in the millennia before the diaspora, when black women were the only women around!?!! How do black men who are still on the African continent manage!?? Clearly, the UN needs to start a task force to address this urgent problem. Funds must be raised to enable black men in Africa to import properly submissive females from Thailand.]


American black women were fine and feminine before feminism corrupted them. African non-westernized women are still feminine.

How Black Women SHOULD Treat Black Men



Black men are also responsible for being overrepresented in thugs, prison population, leaving their children alone with their moms, taking drugs, being uneducated, dealing drugs, being affliated with gangs etc...

But responsible black men like me don't find these "strong" "independant" black women attractive. I also find them repulsive physically, I prefer caucasian females so I'm kinda biased... The only black woman I've dated was mixed and was very feminine. A rarity among black women.

PS : I do advocate equal rights, but there's a point where western women "have" to do kids.

[How about if I said to you, "American blacks were fine before the civil rights movement corrupted them"?

There are lots of white Americans who believe this is true. There are lots of white Americans who much preferred to have blacks living under segregation and treating white people with automatic respect lest the Klan pay a visit to their house that night.

These folks became shocked, scared and angry when American blacks started raising their fists to the sky and demanding equal rights as human beings.

They have spent the last fifty years laboring mightily to try and re-frame the civil rights movement as an unpopular, unwanted aberration led by a band of whiny misfits who just wanted special perks.

These people shrewdly concede that, yes, the separate bathroom and separate drinking fountain thing was bad, and they certainly do not advocate returning to THAT state of affairs. No, they certainly want black people to be as free and equal as the day is long. It's just...couldn't the blacks go be free and equal somewhere else? Why, ask these white people, must we be forced to have them in our schools and clubs and workplaces?

Special ire is reserved for blacks who seem "angry." This particular white population is forever on the lookout for "angry" black people. Naturally, therefore, they find them everywhere. They are quite sure that this "anger" would go away, and American blacks would return to their "natural" state of being...well...submissive...if we could just get rid of civil rights and affirmative action.]


I am a black separatist and a pan-africanist, so I don't blame whiteys for wanting their land to be black-free and/or mostly White. I support them.

And I never said women shouldn't have rights.


[Do you see any parallels between the attitude of white American racists towards blacks in general, and your attitude towards black women in particular?]

No. Black women adopted the "feminist" attitude and they lose their feminity. Black (or any) men don't like that.

[Wow. Just...wow. I don't even know what to say.

So I'll say this.

You may not like what black women have to say. You may not like the fact that they dare to say it. But you know what? They're speaking their truth to you.

White and Asian women are trained not to do that. I remember once when I was around 6 or 7 years old, a friend of mine called and invited me over to her house. I didn't feel like going, but I honestly didn't think I had the right to say so. I thought it would be mean, impolite, friendship-shattering. In a panic, I told her I would come, because I simply didn't know what else to do. But, I really didn't want to go. So...I didn't.

She ended up calling me two more times, asking when I was going to show up.

If I had felt free to speak the truth to her--to wound her in a smaller way--I would not have wounded her in the much bigger way I ended up doing.

BEWARE THE SILENCE AND INGRATIATING SMILES of white and Asian women. They're cultural in origin, not personal. They're about training, not temperament. Sometimes they're genuine. A lot of times, though, they're a front put on to disguise emotions that we either can't or don't know how to express.

The women who have attacked you for your attitudes--the ones you find "hateful" and even "physically repulsive"--those women are your friends. The ones who seem all sweet and submissive are not.]


I (and most men) prefer this moderate/civilized attitude than the generally loud and annoying black women. Especially if they talk to me about the "I'm strong, independant" thing, "black men sucks" etc....

I find them so ugly, and digusting, I don't even look at them, and try to avoid them most of the time. And when I told them that, they call me self-hating black, I reply you're objectively just plain ugly gtfo.

Video : a Black man speaks out ! : Black Women Are Not Submissive & Feminine Enough For BLACK MEN (Starts at 04:00)


[you claim to be a pan-africanst And yet, you hate black women. Methinks I see a problem there.]

I'm honest with myself, maybe it's because I was raised in a predominantly white country, but my sexual attraction goes toward White causasian females. But I still do think that Black/afro-descent people need their own independant country/continent and that interracial countries are a mess. Blacks are not socially welcomed in the western world.


[What you said was, "I'm in favor of equal rights BUT."

You do believe that, at a certain point, women "have to" have babies.

Which is a huge decision, and you think you have the right to make it for them--AND their husbands, too, I might add.

So, you think women should have some rights...but not equal rights, not the right to do whatever they want with their own lives and their own bodies as long as they're not harming other people.

Which makes you the male equivalent of a Jim Crow white person in pre-civil-rights America.

You wouldn't find one person down south, outside of an active Klan member, who believed blacks should not have ANY rights. Heavens, no. They'd be in favor of LOTS of rights for blacks......as long as those rights didn't go "too far." "At a certain point," like, say, being allowed to marry a white person if they choose, they have to go to the back of the bus.

American blacks rejected this wholesale, as they should.

And by the way--THAT is what created the tough, truth-to-power, outspoken black woman whom you so charmingly despise. Not feminism. American feminism tends to be embarrassingly white ]

It's not comparable. women have a natural biological role. Blacks are not "naturally" supposed to sit on the back of the bus, or be hung on a tree.

And sadly feminism is a model for most black women.

BlackLieutenant #fundie intjforum.com

here's no overpopulation around and in the western world, there's not enough babies made to sustain modern societies, retirement plans, public debts etc...

We need women to make 3 kids per family to have a regular growth, right now with numbers like 1.2 or 1.3, the extinction of the civilized world is around. Most country leaders let immigrants come in everywhere to ameliorate the situation, but not all countries are economically attractive. Countries like LIthuania, Italy or Spain are gonna die if women don't go back to gender roles.

BlackLieutenant #fundie intjforum.com

Every relationships I got into turned very badly, and when the gal is seriously crying, I try to give a damn but I can't. Sometimes this coldness makes me laugh in my head (because it still surprises me), and the girl can see a little smile on my face while she's in tears, which makes things worse.

And I read this too : "Women married to INTP men had the highest level of dissatisfaction, at 31%." Which not surprise me, but when we're objective it's kinda shocking.

Seeing all this destroyed people around me just because of me is getting weird. Am I an asshole, or is it IxTPs people in general ? In both case I know I won't change so it kinda sucks in a way.

And how can women knowing MBTI can look after ISTP or INTP (men), there's nothing likable in us . This is a suicide.


[Just because women are biologically built to have children doesn't mean that we're built to stay home with those children.]

Women are weaker and therefore, less adequate for outside work. Even if most jobs today do not require physical strength, women are more emotional, more sensitive, more unstable (periods), less competitive and therefore less adequate for the workplace.

Men are physically stronger, women weaker. It's science. And denying that men have always searched for weaker, fragile, feminine etc... women, and women for stronger, muscular, tall, dominant men is bullshit.

[The fact that you think of women solely in the context of your sexual attraction to them is an example of sexism.]

I'm telling my way (and most men's) to behave with women is linked to our heterosexuality. Yes we prefer women be weaker than us, more fragile, nicer, sweeter etc... More feminine.


[I know a lot of men who believe they'd like to be stay at home dads and if that's what works for families then it's really not your concern. Babies are still being born, someone is staying home with them, doesn't matter if they have "milky boobs" or not]

First, most men would probably not want that. Second, you just screw with Nature. All women body functions, psychology etc... are made for motherhood. The existence of women is linked to motherhood actually. You wouldn't have your periods every freaking month otherwise.

[HOWEVER, "serial monogamy" (one mate AT A TIME) is absolutely something we're capable of. Essentially, the thing we should be asking for is not monogamy, but "exclusivity".

Exclusivity is the term and condition in a closed relationship social contract.]

Serial monogamy is BS and a social construction. It's the crap women tell us to make us believe "romantic monogamic love" exists (and is the norm). When I date somepne, my love for women don't go away and my dong too. Forbidding men to be themselves can make us go sneaky, hide stuffs and cheat.


Maybe. And because of this, women shouldn't impose "monogamous love" on men. Men and women don't have the same perspective on sex, one is active (and physical), the other passive (and almost emotional).
Sex has nothing to do with love/emotional bonding for most of us (men).

And because women want us to "love" them before we fuck, most of us (unfortunately) lie to get laid.

[Why not install chastity belts on women from the nursery homes until marriage (with a MAN only of course)?]

Women should be "correct" and "modest" about sex. I like women preserving for marriage, like Christians and Muslims. It's more correct and clean.

Men are not meant to be monogamous. Let the man live. We separate love/affection and sex quite easily. It doesnt mean we don't like you, just that other sexy/lovely women are very easy to love for us.

Personally,a beautiful woman sincerly smiling and being kind with me is enough for me to "fall in love". Even a silent/mysterious sexy woman is enough.

I already date women for a nice pair of ass, tits, beautiful eyes or hair, it's about little things sometimes.

Love is very physical for men. Love is more emotional for women. "Physical love" is more easy to have because you don't need a lot of bonding to have it. Men can look "promiscuous" because of that.

A lot of men think like me I guess.

For my sexual life, I don't think I could stay with one woman all my life, it's crazy. It's almost depressing. I would probably cheat on her or watch porn for a change. That's why men prefer submissive women, they won't leave you if you make "some" accidents sometimes. After pregnancies, women generally get fat, stretch marks and all, this is just disgusting. I don't know where the monogamy myth come from, at least for men.

Zsych #fundie intjforum.com

Time to see how terrifying men find that idea. And I'm asking this question seriously. IMO:

1) If a woman didn't get a guy's consent before having sex, and there's no serious harm or STDs or a resulting kid to deal with... I'm not sure the guy would consider it a huge deal.

Especially not if she was decent looking... The male worldview doesn't have lots of ideas around the rape of men by women being a horrible and catastrophic thing for a guy embedded in it.

If women try to tell us in an extension of the ideas of equality, that a woman having sex with a man without expressly getting his consent beforehand, is super horrible - Don't think that would convince most of us to see it that way.

2) Saying that you got raped as a guy, is almost definitely not worth the resulting disruption for a guy. Especially if it was by a woman... Because nothing that other guys consider particularly bad or worth noticing actually happened... And from a male perspective means that you're basically asking for attention, of the same kind that women get on saying they've been raped.

Most men are not naturally protective of men the way we are of women. Asking to be treated like a woman that has been raped, for having been raped by a woman - would not get you taken seriously - if you didn't get laughed at for bringing it up and trying to make a large emotional issue of it.

--

So (straight) guys, who finds the idea of unexpectedly or even somewhat forcefully being made to have sex with a woman without getting formal agreement, maybe while you're drunk, particularly horrifying and highly punishable when say: No physical harm happens, you don't get STDs, and she doesn't end up pregnant - so no long term real world consequences?

(Instead of assuming that she's pretty or ordinary, we can also assume that she isn't attractive if you prefer)

-----

Or to make it simpler: If you remove the word rape and look at:

1) A woman forcing a man to have sex with her.
2) A woman not getting a guy's consent before having sex with him where he doesn't expressly refuse.
3) A woman ignoring a man's refusal of consent before and / or during having sex with him.

Assume no relevant laws currently exist: What punishment do you honestly think these women deserve for these acts, and what support do you think the men deserve for having had those experiences?

-----

Or, another way to simplify thinking about this: Imagine a woman you find repulsive managing to somehow have sex with you without you being okay with it.

Would you prefer:

a) Forget this nonsense ever happened - and definitely not discuss this with anyone.
b) I'm gonna punch her in the face.
c) She should go to jail for a week, and maybe do some community service.
d) She should go to jail for a month, and maybe do some community service.
e) She should go to jail for a year.
f) She should do hard time for a year.
g) She should be exiled from the country.
h) She should be put on pills that kill her sex drive and be forced to take them.
i) She should be forced into a sex change operation (this idea could be a problem)
j) She should be killed.
k) I should kill her myself.

Lone Wolf #fundie intjforum.com

In the interests of ensuring the law is objective I support women being sent to jail for raping men. But I really don't have any sympathy for the men who get raped by women (male on male rape is a different matter). I can't, any more than I would a drunken slut who gets used and abused.

zysch #fundie intjforum.com

I'm not sure I even sympathize with a man being raped by a woman. A man being raped by a man...maybe... still feels like something he should deal with himself and not bring the law into.


[The stronger usually holds responsibility, just as parents hold that over their offspring.

Why shouldn't a man who was raped report it?]


Its personally humiliating, it makes the idea that men can be raped more common (unwanted beliefs prevailing in the society are definitely not a good thing). Men are expected to be strong enough to handle their own problems - I'd basically put this under being assaulted in a humiliating fashion. Your physical wounds will heal, and a man is expected to be strong enough to deal with his mental issues.

That and having someone else deal with your problem for you in something like this, is likely not going to give you any satisfaction and may do permanent damage to your mind - by making you accept the reality that you were a weak person who couldn't defend himself, was a victim, and needed some kind of (not quite meaningful) justice to be provided by someone else - in a way that mostly just satisfies other people and not you.

For his own sake, he should deal with it by himself. We are not women. We don't have support structures like women, nor do we really want them. Having someone try to console you and make you feel better, because you got raped would be no minor humiliation. Practically sounds worse than getting raped (which, if no one knows about it - isn't so bad... getting physically hurt some, isn't necessarily a big deal)

Zsych #fundie intjforum.com

*trying to imagine a guy trying to file a complaint of having been gotten drunk and raped by a woman* -> Feel like the guy needs to be made fun of. Rape of a guy by a woman, is just not negative in the same way (except in the eyes of equalists who take the idea of rape being bad for a woman and then try to remove gender from the equation)

... The only way I'd consider the above guy as having been treated badly, would be if she knowingly gave him an STD, or if she got pregnant (both for potential child support issues, and for the more basic fact that its offensive that someone you don't respect potentially end up having your kid). Otherwise, meh. On the guy's side, sex is not something to be taken all that seriously.

Lone Wolf #fundie intjforum.com

"Rights" to me fall into two categories: things essential for your survival, and non essential things that have no impact on others (either now or in the future). Due to the latter, I accept gay sex/marriage, but not interracial sex/marriage. I think you have a right to work but not a right to vote. You have a right to shoot intruders but not to carry a gun around with you. Etc...

Anza #fundie intjforum.com

We all know how government welfare makes people dependent and lazy and decreases their incentive to work. This should clearly be done away with. What about private charity, though?

It's true that this form of "helping" those with low or no productivity doesn't directly cost the tax-payer anything and thus removes maybe the most disgusting aspect of the current system: redistribution of wealth from hard-working people to lazy bums. However, it still reduces the incentive to work and is thus harmful.

Some may point out that some people are simply incapable of working. To this I answer: we should let natural selection take its place. Starvation is apparently a quite uncomfortable way to perish, so as an act of kindness those who can't support themselves should be euthanized humanely, with the most cost-effective method of course, we don't want wasteful government spending. This would encourage people to save for old age or disability and thus increase capital accumulation.