The Men's Rights Movement

[Jo498]

As one of the linked article spells it out: One source of madness is that the university/college should have jurisdiction in such a case.
Rape/assault is a serious crime that should be dealt with by the usual authorities, not a committee of professors, students and staff. So the university does deserve suffering because it is an idiotic policy to deal with charges of such serious crimes internally.
In any case, the guy was cleared of all charges, as I recall it. That mattress girl is most likely mentally ill in some fashion, I'd say.

[ibanezmonster]

Rape/assault is a serious crime that should be dealt with by the usual authorities, not a committee of professors, students and staff. So the university does deserve suffering because it is an idiotic policy to deal with charges of such serious crimes internally.

Yep. Though maybe this involves campus police as well?

That mattress girl is most likely mentally ill in some fashion, I'd say.

I'd say so, too. I wasn't surprised that the story was fabricated, simply because the whole carrying a mattress around thing just seemed fishy to me.

On another note, I might have to make friends with different girls in order to be convinced of this feminism stuff. Instead, I'm reminded how they can get out of traffic tickets by looking pretty and I can't. You're not doing a good job of convincing me of my male privilege!   

[NorthNYMark]

I'd say so, too. I wasn't surprised that the story was fabricated, simply because the whole carrying a mattress around thing just seemed fishy to me.

On another note, I might have to make friends with different girls in order to be convinced of this feminism stuff. Instead, I'm reminded how they can get out of traffic tickets by looking pretty and I can't. You're not doing a good job of convincing me of my male privilege!   

Since I didn't know the facts in this case, I had to look them up; I was curious as to what the proof was that the story was fabricated. From what I understand, there is no such proof--the only evidence I've seen in support of that claim is that there were friendly Facebook interactions posted after the event.  That to me is not proof--the accuser claims that she was trying at one point to set up a meeting recommended by her counselors, but decided she couldn't go through with it.  On the other hand, there was not enough evidence that a rape happened for him to be convicted.  All that means is that we simply don't know what really happened that night.  I tend to agree with the author of the Daily Beast story that first brought the accused's side of the story to light:

"It is likely that some facts in this case will never be known. Nungesser’s feminist upbringing does not make him incapable of sexual assault, and his former girlfriend’s reported psychological problems prior to their relationship do not mean that he did not abuse her. The reported interaction between Nungesser’s alleged victims does not necessarily prove that they unduly influenced each other’s stories."

So, it seems to me that it is quite possible that he is being unfairly accused and harrassed.  It is also possible that a rape is going unpunished due to lack of enough evidence, and the accuser's actions are justified (and the story of her hearing, in which she felt the questions were so explicit she wondered if she had to make a drawing for the questioners, explains why she might have felt compelled to make a video showing exactly what she think happened, to let people make up their own minds about whether the events constituted rape).  Without more evidence as to what actually happened that night, we may never know the truth. I don't see how it is fair to castigate either party.

[Jo498]

The suspicion of mental imbalance was not meant as a castigation but as a possible explanation.
Of course there are other possible explanations.

I do not want start this discussion all over but I believe that the current culture is an incoherent mix of would what have seen as libertinage (everything is allowed) until a few decades ago and puritanism (everything is sinful if there is the slightest suspicion of a "power gradient") makes it extremely difficult to prove anything at all. I mean, if e.g. SM is just seen as a harmless "kinky" preference, how could one ever prove whether things just got a little out of hand or whether someone deliberately ignored a safety procedure and things turned into assault?
(The Columbia case did not involve SM, but this would be an obvious example.)

I might sound like a prude (and that's probably true for today's standards) but for me the bottom line is that these are simply the risks we take if we want that kind of unlimited sexual liberty.
We could also reduce the deaths from car crashes if we enforced a speed limit of 40 mph everywhere but we do think it worth to restrict our freedom. Similarly, if random hookups and all kinds of kinks are taken as normal behavior (as long as consensual) we will often have only two contradicting statements whether something was consensual or not.

This is not an excuse for rapists. But the current culture seems to paradoxically make it both likely for a rapist to walk free AND for someone innocent to have to deal with slander because someone is angry about a breakup or mentally unstable or. I think both rape and slander are bad for both men and women and it's bad if they are facilitated. But if we all agree that we prefer going at 100 mph, we should not complain about an increase in fatal accidents.

I do not have a solution either, very probably more traditional mores have their own kind of roadkill (I'll beat you up if I find you alone in a room with my sister) and it's probably impossible to go back there anyway. I just think that becoming aware of the paradox could be a first step.

[ibanezmonster]

Since I didn't know the facts in this case, I had to look them up; I was curious as to what the proof was that the story was fabricated. From what I understand, there is no such proof--the only evidence I've seen in support of that claim is that there were friendly Facebook interactions posted after the event.  That to me is not proof--the accuser claims that she was trying at one point to set up a meeting recommended by her counselors, but decided she couldn't go through with it.  On the other hand, there was not enough evidence that a rape happened for him to be convicted.  All that means is that we simply don't know what really happened that night.  I tend to agree with the author of the Daily Beast story that first brought the accused's side of the story to light:

"It is likely that some facts in this case will never be known. Nungesser's feminist upbringing does not make him incapable of sexual assault, and his former girlfriend's reported psychological problems prior to their relationship do not mean that he did not abuse her. The reported interaction between Nungesser's alleged victims does not necessarily prove that they unduly influenced each other's stories."

So, it seems to me that it is quite possible that he is being unfairly accused and harrassed.  It is also possible that a rape is going unpunished due to lack of enough evidence, and the accuser's actions are justified (and the story of her hearing, in which she felt the questions were so explicit she wondered if she had to make a drawing for the questioners, explains why she might have felt compelled to make a video showing exactly what she think happened, to let people make up their own minds about whether the events constituted rape).  Without more evidence as to what actually happened that night, we may never know the truth. I don't see how it is fair to castigate either party.

Ah, okay. Cool, I didn't really look into it as much as I should have before jumping to a conclusion.

Yeah, seems like your take is pretty fair, as what seems to be the usual for you.

The suspicion of mental imbalance was not meant as a castigation but as a possible explanation.
Of course there are other possible explanations.

I do not want start this discussion all over but I believe that the current culture is an incoherent mix of would what have seen as libertinage (everything is allowed) until a few decades ago and puritanism (everything is sinful if there is the slightest suspicion of a "power gradient") makes it extremely difficult to prove anything at all. I mean, if e.g. SM is just seen as a harmless "kinky" preference, how could one ever prove whether things just got a little out of hand or whether someone deliberately ignored a safety procedure and things turned into assault?
(The Columbia case did not involve SM, but this would be an obvious example.)

I might sound like a prude (and that's probably true for today's standards) but for me the bottom line is that these are simply the risks we take if we want that kind of unlimited sexual liberty.
We could also reduce the deaths from car crashes if we enforced a speed limit of 40 mph everywhere but we do think it worth to restrict our freedom. Similarly, if random hookups and all kinds of kinks are taken as normal behavior (as long as consensual) we will often have only two contradicting statements whether something was consensual or not.

This is not an excuse for rapists. But the current culture seems to paradoxically make it both likely for a rapist to walk free AND for someone innocent to have to deal with slander because someone is angry about a breakup or mentally unstable or. I think both rape and slander are bad for both men and women and it's bad if they are facilitated. But if we all agree that we prefer going at 100 mph, we should not complain about an increase in fatal accidents.

I do not have a solution either, very probably more traditional mores have their own kind of roadkill (I'll beat you up if I find you alone in a room with my sister) and it's probably impossible to go back there anyway. I just think that becoming aware of the paradox could be a first step.

This is a really interesting analogy! 

[Ken B]

Since I didn't know the facts in this case, I had to look them up; I was curious as to what the proof was that the story was fabricated. From what I understand, there is no such proof--the only evidence I've seen in support of that claim is that there were friendly Facebook interactions posted after the event.  That to me is not proof--the accuser claims that she was trying at one point to set up a meeting recommended by her counselors, but decided she couldn't go through with it.  On the other hand, there was not enough evidence that a rape happened for him to be convicted.  All that means is that we simply don't know what really happened that night.  I tend to agree with the author of the Daily Beast story that first brought the accused's side of the story to light:

"It is likely that some facts in this case will never be known. Nungesser's feminist upbringing does not make him incapable of sexual assault, and his former girlfriend's reported psychological problems prior to their relationship do not mean that he did not abuse her. The reported interaction between Nungesser's alleged victims does not necessarily prove that they unduly influenced each other's stories."

So, it seems to me that it is quite possible that he is being unfairly accused and harrassed.  It is also possible that a rape is going unpunished due to lack of enough evidence, and the accuser's actions are justified (and the story of her hearing, in which she felt the questions were so explicit she wondered if she had to make a drawing for the questioners, explains why she might have felt compelled to make a video showing exactly what she think happened, to let people make up their own minds about whether the events constituted rape).  Without more evidence as to what actually happened that night, we may never know the truth. I don't see how it is fair to castigate either party.

Of course we can never know for sure, just as we can never know for sure whether you researched my address and sent me nude selfies which I destroyed ( he said, he said). But we can, and in normal situations do, look at the circumstantial evidence. And in this case it supports Nungesser (and you about the selfies.) We even know a little bit now of the mostly sealed investigations by Columbia. For example http://reason.com/archives/2015/05/20/columbia-rape-saga-lingers-after-mattres/ This particular accusation surely seems like it was a put-up job, and that surely reflects on motives and credibility.
There is an ongoing lawsuit. Much will come out, so eventually we will know more. Can we ever be completely certain? No. but that won't necessarily leave it a 50-50 guess either.

Here is a summary of Sulkowicz's credibility problems. http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2015/06/did-mattress-girl-tell-the-truth-not-very-likely/

[aquablob]

Can we ever be completely certain? No. but that won't necessarily leave it a 50-50 guess either.

Thank you.

[Ken B]

This seems the best thread for this, simply because we put all the rape stuff here.
Two teens have consensual sex. They agree on that.  http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/16/male-teen-has-consensual-sex-with-female

[ibanezmonster]

You went online, to use a fisherman's expression, trolling for women to meet and have sex with


I don't even know where to begin...

[Ken B]

You went online, to use a fisherman's expression, trolling for women to meet and have sex with


I don't even know where to begin...

Yeah. Had he been looking for 14 year olds that'd be one thing. But it seems he was looking for someone close to his own age. And the judge's comment isn't about "trolling for underage girls" It implies that wanting to have sex with women is despicable!

[ibanezmonster]

Yeah. Had he been looking for 14 year olds that'd be one thing. But it seems he was looking for someone close to his own age. And the judge's comment isn't about "trolling for underage girls" It implies that wanting to have sex with women is despicable!

I think the problem is that the judge is just jealous and wants to take his anger out on someone...

[ibanezmonster]

I'm laughing at this whole argument about the "friend zone..." the SJW's repeat their whole "just being nice because they feel like the other person owes them sex" shtick, and then get destroyed by a torrent of comments saying how it really is. The friend zone isn't gender specific, for one, and it's just when someone wants to be just friends. I don't view the girls I've friendzoned before as people just acting nice because to me because they think they are owed something- where do you even come up with that level of cynicism? 

[ibanezmonster]

Interesting.

http://www.thelocal.se/20150617/sweden-announces-first-centre-for-raped-men

[lisa needs braces]

Just bought the kindle version of this:

http://www.amazon.com/Sexual-Utopia-Power-Feminist-Civilization-ebook/dp/B00ZTENZZ4/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1435018076&sr=1-1&keywords=sexual+utopia

It's a collection of his works which are already availble online, the more famous of which is this one:

https://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/sexualutopia.pdf


Quote...

..."The well-worn phrase "sexual revolution" ought, I believe, to be taken
with more than customary seriousness. Like the French Revolution, the
paradigmatic political revolution of modern times, it was an attempt to
realize a utopia, but a sexual rather than political utopia. And like the French
Revolution, it has gone through three phases: fi rst, a libertarian or anarchic
phase in which the utopia was supposed to occur spontaneously once old
ways had been swept aside; second, a reign of terror, in which one faction
seized power and attempted to realize its schemes dictatorially; and third, a
"reaction" in which human nature gradually reasserted itself. We shall follow
this order in the present essay."

He uses the "date rape" hysteria of earlier decades as example of the reign of terror but surely the current rape hysteria on college campuses means the reign of terror continues...

[Florestan]

https://dontmarry.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/sexualutopia.pdf

Exceptional article! And funnily written, too: I laughed out loud more than once. Thank you very much for posting the link.

[Rinaldo]

Never heard of the author but he sure sounds like a swell guy!

F. Roger Devlin is a white nationalist and men's rights activist. He is a contributing editor for racist screed The Occidental Quarterly and writes for VDARE.

RationalWiki

Yes, "Sexual Utopia in Power" originally ran in The Occidental Quarterly, an explicitly racist journal that described its mission as protecting "the civilization and free governments that whites have created" from the rise of the evil non-white hordes. Indeed, Devlin is on the editorial advisory board of the journal, which currently features an article on its site praising Disney's Snow White as "a White Nationalist classic."

While the bulk of Devlin's essay deals with gender, not race, it is framed — in the very first sentence — by his concern over what he calls the "catastrophic decline" of "white birthrates worldwide." In other words, no one who has read his article, even if they don't know what the Occidental Quarterly is, can possibly miss Devlin's fundamental racism (which is spelled out even more explicitly at the end of this piece).

Hypergamy: How the harebrained notions of white nationalist F. Roger Devlin took the Manosphere by storm

[Florestan]

Never heard of the author but he sure sounds like a swell guy!

Not surprisingly, you have the typical mentality of a leftist ideologue: when presented with an article by someone you haven´t heard of before, your first reaction is not to read it and see if it´s any good, but to look for the guy´s ideological record. 

[Rinaldo]

Not surprisingly, you have the typical mentality of a leftist ideologue: when presented with an article by someone you haven´t heard of before, your first reaction is not to read it and see if it´s any good, but to look for the guy´s ideological record. 

I've read the opening paragraphs, which seemed quite fishy, so I checked who the guy is. And yeah, I don't have time to read through racist rants. I know they must be full of brilliant knowledge, but I'll pass, thanks. Leftist ideology? Common sense. From the citations I've read, it's obvious the guy's an idiot and a typical example of an MRA: someone who didn't get laid as much as he'd wanted / got burned by women so now he has to construct bullshit arguments to get back at the 'fickle' females.

It's sad you guys find trash like this worthwhile.

[Florestan]

I've read the opening paragraphs, which seemed quite fishy, so I checked who the guy is. And yeah, I don't have time to read through racist rants. I know they must be full of brilliant knowledge, but I'll pass, thanks. Leftist ideology? Common sense. From the citations I've read, it's obvious the guy's an idiot and a typical example of an MRA: someone who didn't get laid as much as he'd wanted / got burned by women so now he has to construct bullshit arguments to get back at the 'fickle' females.

It's sad you guys find trash like this worthwhile.

You´re hopeless. I give up.

[ibanezmonster]

I didn't read it because yawn...

You´re hopeless. I give up.

Good decision.