They've invented another fake rape crisis--it's called "stealthing." See here.
Sounds sneaky and dishonest, doesn't it? It sure does--so therefore, it has to be something that college men are doing.
"Stealthing" is where men secretly remove their condoms during consensual sex to transform it into rape.
The theory goes that the woman consented to have sex with a condom-covered dick, not a dick without a condom, so it must be rape. Presumably, if the guy deceived her about any other aspect of his life as a way to induce her to have sex, that's rape, too. For example, if a woman agrees to have sex thinking that the guy is a honors student but later finds out he's got a "B" average, that's got to be rape, too, right? I mean, consent has to be based on complete and accurate information, doesn't it?
Put all that aside, let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is a form of sexual assault. Is "stealthing" a crisis?
You bet it is! USA Today calls is "a disturbing sex trend" that is "on the rise."
I knew it! Another rape epidemic! These college boys lie awake at night dreaming up ways to subjugate women with their penises.
"What's the evidence for this trend?" you ask.
Do you really have to ruin the narrative by injecting "evidence" into this? But okay, since you asked, the evidence for this "disturbing trend" is "a doctoral student named Rebecca who works for a local rape crisis hotline." And no, I'm not kidding. (Rebecca herself, of course, was a victim of "stealthing" in college.) Oh, and Kathleen Kempke, with the Crisis Center of Tampa Bay, verifies the "trend" because she has had "other cases" of stealthing. Oh, and "online forums" where dastardly men brag about doing it. Everyone knows that "online forums" where men brag about their nasty sexual exploits are terribly scientific and reliable indicators of "trends."
They never stop, folks. Just when you think the hysteria can't get any loonier--it gets loonier.
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
Can we stop lecturing to "men" as a class about how evil they are?
An arm of the UN is out to "educate" men by teaching them how evil their penises are--see here.
Their idiotic campaign is out to "show" men how uncomfortable it is to sit on a penis.
Okay, we get it--progressives think that men, as a class are evil. Progressive men think they belong to an inferior gender and that they are in need of enlightenment to tame their male privilege.
Imagine if the UN launched a campaign to tell minorities not to steal or kill. How do you think that would go over?
The people behind this campaign aren't out to reduce sexual violence--they are out to demonize traditional Western culture, maleness, and anyone who doesn't share their view of the world that everyone is a victim except for straight white males.
There's no bridge that can allow for discourse with these people. They are nuts, pure and simple.
Their idiotic campaign is out to "show" men how uncomfortable it is to sit on a penis.
Okay, we get it--progressives think that men, as a class are evil. Progressive men think they belong to an inferior gender and that they are in need of enlightenment to tame their male privilege.
Imagine if the UN launched a campaign to tell minorities not to steal or kill. How do you think that would go over?
The people behind this campaign aren't out to reduce sexual violence--they are out to demonize traditional Western culture, maleness, and anyone who doesn't share their view of the world that everyone is a victim except for straight white males.
There's no bridge that can allow for discourse with these people. They are nuts, pure and simple.
Thursday, May 26, 2016
Student charged with felony for harmless penis prank
This is how screwy our sex laws are. Last August, an 18-year-old high school football player named Hunter Osborn was dared by a teammate to expose his penis in his team's official photo that was taken for the school yearbook. As the photo was being taken, Hunter pulled the top of his dick out of his waistband.
The photo was developed and was placed in the yearbook, and nobody noticed Hunter's dickie because--sorry guys--it's not that big of a deal. The school received no complaints about it. Nobody went blind or was otherwise scarred for life over it.
Eventually, someone noticed the offending appendage, and when school officials realized what happened, they did what school officials are good at doing: they overreacted. They called the police. The police launched an investigation, which led to a charge of furnishing harmful items to minors—a Class 4 felony that carries up to 3.75 years in prison—and 69 misdemeanor counts of indecent exposure, one for each student present when Hunter did the diabolical thing. And they fitted Hunter with an ankle monitor.
Let's put this in perspective. The 69 students who were the victims of Hunter's heinous act were not looking at Hunter when he whipped out the top of his dick. Moreover, they, and everyone else, could barely see the offending object in the official photo.
These same victims presumably saw Hunter's whole penis--and everything else--in the team shower before and after games and practices without anyone suggesting the sight of Hunter's naked flesh victimized anyone.
The charges were later dropped--presumably everyone realized this was overkill. What Hunter did was stupid and it shouldn't be excused by the school. But the initial reaction by the school of involving the police, and the police reaction in charging Hunter, were typical hysterical overreactions to anything penis.
Hunter probably got a good scare--albeit more than the good scare he deserved--and my guess is he'll never do anything this stupid again. And yes, this was pretty stupid.
There's also a lesson for the adult and student editors of the yearbook: ya need to carefully check photos featuring boys to make sure they aren't showing more boy than they're supposed to.
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Fear and loathing of penises in the girls' locker room
Some 150 students walked out of Hillsboro High School in Missouri on Monday in a protest over a transgender classmate’s use of the girls’ locker room and bathrooms at the school. Lila Perry, 17, was born with a penis and still has it. She previously came out as a gay male, but she has identified as a female since she was 13. Now she wants to be treated like a girl.
One student told a reporter: “I find it offensive because Lila has not went through any procedure to become female, putting on a dress and putting on a wig is not transgender to me.” A parent paraded around with a sign that said: “Girls Rights Matter.” Another parent said:“The girls have rights, and they shouldn’t have to share a bathroom with a boy." Another parent said: “They [the other girls made uncomfortable by Lila] should have the ability to do whatever they need to do in the privacy of the bathroom without having a male in there,”
But Amanda Jette Knox wrote: "Defining a girl by her body parts is the most misogynistic thing we can do."
Yes, Amanda, it's misogyny, but it also underscores something more basic--a fear and loathing of penises, and their owners, that is sadly predictable.
The girls who are so upset about Lila's presence in their bathroom apparently had no concerns about boys' privacy when Lila Perry identified as a gay male and used the boys' bathroom and locker room. It is no stretch to assume that Lila was/is sexually attracted to males and--in case my sisters need to have it spelled out--in both the boys' bathroom and locker room, penises are exposed. If the students were concerned about privacy and modesty and all, that's when they should have been concerned.
If you are wondering how students would react if the genders were reversed, you don't have to look very far. When a transgender high school student in Virginia who was born as female but identifies as male used the men's room, it was a far different reaction: the other students never complained (although some parents did). A similar case in New Jersey actually led to a petition signed by 2,000 people in favor of allowing the student to use the boys' bathroom.
I guess boys don't have the same fear and loathing of vaginas as girls have of penises.
One student told a reporter: “I find it offensive because Lila has not went through any procedure to become female, putting on a dress and putting on a wig is not transgender to me.” A parent paraded around with a sign that said: “Girls Rights Matter.” Another parent said:“The girls have rights, and they shouldn’t have to share a bathroom with a boy." Another parent said: “They [the other girls made uncomfortable by Lila] should have the ability to do whatever they need to do in the privacy of the bathroom without having a male in there,”
But Amanda Jette Knox wrote: "Defining a girl by her body parts is the most misogynistic thing we can do."
Yes, Amanda, it's misogyny, but it also underscores something more basic--a fear and loathing of penises, and their owners, that is sadly predictable.
The girls who are so upset about Lila's presence in their bathroom apparently had no concerns about boys' privacy when Lila Perry identified as a gay male and used the boys' bathroom and locker room. It is no stretch to assume that Lila was/is sexually attracted to males and--in case my sisters need to have it spelled out--in both the boys' bathroom and locker room, penises are exposed. If the students were concerned about privacy and modesty and all, that's when they should have been concerned.
If you are wondering how students would react if the genders were reversed, you don't have to look very far. When a transgender high school student in Virginia who was born as female but identifies as male used the men's room, it was a far different reaction: the other students never complained (although some parents did). A similar case in New Jersey actually led to a petition signed by 2,000 people in favor of allowing the student to use the boys' bathroom.
I guess boys don't have the same fear and loathing of vaginas as girls have of penises.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
The latest female martyr is a school girl protesting unjust gender standards -- that also apply to boys
Lauren Wiggins, a senior at Harrison Trimble High School in Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada, was given detention Monday for wearing a floor-length halter dress to school. A school official supposedly told her it was a "distraction" to her male classmates. Wiggins says the school’s dress policy is an example of “unjust standards that we as women are held up to.”
Hooray! Another female martyr standing up to the evils of patriarchy!
Except that the school's dress policy applies to boys, too. The school's dress policy forbids "shirts exposing shoulders and/or backs and/or midriffs (spaghetti straps, tube tops, halter tops)." And it includes a ban on “muscle shirts,” a particularly male garment designed to expose male underarms.
Hmm. I haven't seen any boys protesting the ban on muscle shirts. And if they did, I wonder if they'd get in the news.
So why is Lauren Wiggins the feminist icon-of-the-day while her just-as-oppressed male classmates aren't protesting anything -- in fact, they are considered the bad guys in the Lauren Wiggins saga who need to learn to exercise self control while Lauren wears whatever the hell she wants?
The fact is, boys are more oppressed at school than girls. Have been for a long time. From the grade spike girls enjoy just for being girls, to the gender imbalance in incidents of corporal punishment, to dress codes, boys are second class citizens in schools. This is not to say that girls don't have their share of problems, it's just that the scales are more stacked against boys nowadays, and the burdens that girls shoulder are blown out of proportion--Lauren Wiggins is a case in point.
Take the whole baring underarms thing. Schools are more likely to let girls show underarms than boys. You see, there's something threatening to teachers and administrators about boys' underarms. A lot of school districts have told boys they can't display their underarms even though their female classmates are free to do so. Why is this, you ask? Because girls' underarms are considered "more aesthetically pleasing," some say. Some school administrators are more blunt. They justify the double standard by nothing that boys' "hairy armpits are not attractive," in fact they're "really gross."
In contrast, pre-pubescent boys are often permitted to wear tank tops because "there is nothing sexually alluring about a kindergarten boy in a tank shirt."
Sexually alluring? Oh, now I get it. The whole underarm thing is about sex. Hairy armpits are a no-no because they remind teachers that pubescent boys are . . . pubescent boys. We mustn't remind horny teachers that boys are sexual creatures. (By the way, the tank top double standard is just fine and dandy with girls.)
For a long time, some boys had to fight to have long hair. Boys have been sent home en masse to shave--they are often told it's either shave or leave school. Little 12-year-old boys with peach fuzz mustaches have been threatened with indefinite suspension. Whole debates raged over whether a boy was sporting a mustache or just peach fuzz.
Then there's the whole thing about boys' feet. In some high schools, girls don't have to wear socks, but sexy bare boy feet are too much for some administrators--boys must wear socks and may not wear sandals.
These double standards are acceptable because it's just the way it is, and only female martyrs are allowed to challenge the way it is. When boys challenge it, they're just trying to get away with something.
Hooray! Another female martyr standing up to the evils of patriarchy!
Except that the school's dress policy applies to boys, too. The school's dress policy forbids "shirts exposing shoulders and/or backs and/or midriffs (spaghetti straps, tube tops, halter tops)." And it includes a ban on “muscle shirts,” a particularly male garment designed to expose male underarms.
Hmm. I haven't seen any boys protesting the ban on muscle shirts. And if they did, I wonder if they'd get in the news.
So why is Lauren Wiggins the feminist icon-of-the-day while her just-as-oppressed male classmates aren't protesting anything -- in fact, they are considered the bad guys in the Lauren Wiggins saga who need to learn to exercise self control while Lauren wears whatever the hell she wants?
The fact is, boys are more oppressed at school than girls. Have been for a long time. From the grade spike girls enjoy just for being girls, to the gender imbalance in incidents of corporal punishment, to dress codes, boys are second class citizens in schools. This is not to say that girls don't have their share of problems, it's just that the scales are more stacked against boys nowadays, and the burdens that girls shoulder are blown out of proportion--Lauren Wiggins is a case in point.
Take the whole baring underarms thing. Schools are more likely to let girls show underarms than boys. You see, there's something threatening to teachers and administrators about boys' underarms. A lot of school districts have told boys they can't display their underarms even though their female classmates are free to do so. Why is this, you ask? Because girls' underarms are considered "more aesthetically pleasing," some say. Some school administrators are more blunt. They justify the double standard by nothing that boys' "hairy armpits are not attractive," in fact they're "really gross."
In contrast, pre-pubescent boys are often permitted to wear tank tops because "there is nothing sexually alluring about a kindergarten boy in a tank shirt."
Sexually alluring? Oh, now I get it. The whole underarm thing is about sex. Hairy armpits are a no-no because they remind teachers that pubescent boys are . . . pubescent boys. We mustn't remind horny teachers that boys are sexual creatures. (By the way, the tank top double standard is just fine and dandy with girls.)
For a long time, some boys had to fight to have long hair. Boys have been sent home en masse to shave--they are often told it's either shave or leave school. Little 12-year-old boys with peach fuzz mustaches have been threatened with indefinite suspension. Whole debates raged over whether a boy was sporting a mustache or just peach fuzz.
Then there's the whole thing about boys' feet. In some high schools, girls don't have to wear socks, but sexy bare boy feet are too much for some administrators--boys must wear socks and may not wear sandals.
These double standards are acceptable because it's just the way it is, and only female martyrs are allowed to challenge the way it is. When boys challenge it, they're just trying to get away with something.
Friday, May 15, 2015
Outrage over "naked" lady ad on bus, a lot of people ignore that bus company also ran a naked man ad
The New York Daily News ran a story with this headline: "Bus company apologizes for ‘Ride me all day’ ads with pictures of topless women." In various publications, people complained: Commuter Indianna Murphy said: "This advert is horrendous. Using a naked women and sexual innuendo to promote a bus service is disgraceful and seriously misguided. It makes me seriously uncomfortable." Customer Marianne Rhiannon said that New Adventure Travel "clearly have a shocking attitude towards half the population." She added: "This is an absolutely disgraceful advert promoting sexism and rape culture. I will not be using the service until these as removed and assurances are given that women are safe travelling on these buses."
Someone else said this: "Do they seriously think they can get away with this? Women should take a stand on this and boycott that bus company." We are Cardiff said: “It represents the commodification of a woman’s body and trivialisation of prostitution, and has no place in 2015.”
Xavier tweeted to the company: “@NAT_Group bus in Cardiff is vile. Women face enough harassment on busses without use of sexually explicit language”. Here's a tweet: "@swpolice @EverydaySexism @NAT_Group inciting rape with disgusting advert on buses - ride me all day for £3" Another tweet: Apparently @NAT_Group runs special buses for those creepy sweaty-handed heavy-breathing guys who make women feel uncomfortable on the bus.
Such misogyny!
Except that the bus company's ad campaign didn't just feature an apparently topless woman. The bus company also ran this ad--a bare-chested man, showing more skin than the ad with the woman.
The news reports mentioned the men's ad, but a lot of people are singling out the ad with the woman, suggesting it's the real problem. I haven't seen anyone do that to the man ad.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Boys were routinely forced to swim in the nude for much of the 20th Century for reasons that don't hold up
NSFW picture below!
For much of the 20th Century, boys in American high schools and colleges were routinely required to swim in the nude. The girls wore swimsuits.
Below is a picture that appeared in Life Magazine in 1938, the guys of Michigan State's swim team in all their bare-ass glory. Can you imagine a mainstream magazine printing this today?
For much of the 20th Century, boys in American high schools and colleges were routinely required to swim in the nude. The girls wore swimsuits.
Below is a picture that appeared in Life Magazine in 1938, the guys of Michigan State's swim team in all their bare-ass glory. Can you imagine a mainstream magazine printing this today?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)