lord of flies
-
Posts
309 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by lord of flies
-
-
By the way, just so we're clear, when I said this was "historically inaccurate," I was referring to how this had no basis whatsoever in reality. The modern defaulting of custody to the mother is a consequence of the "Tender Years Doctrine," a doctrine introduced in the 19th century which became legal standard until its de jure (but not de facto) removal fairly recently. It was introduced by...Mom typically gets the kids because, historically, mothers were ascribed the role of child rearer and not qualified or capable enough as a man to earn money via employment. So while you go "The man is screwed here," ironically it's because of systemic discrimination against women and what their capabilities were. In the end, because they were expected to be the ones raising the children, society evolved to feel that they must be the best at doing so. -
And I explained my point of view, which is that such cultural backdrop is irrelevant to actual suffering. Perhaps an alternative explanation would assist:It's only pointless to mention if it isn't reality. Unfortunately, it is.
Someone was suggesting that men get the bum rap and gave an example. I explained why.
After a long, grueling custody battle in court, two parents, one a cis male and the other a strong, empowered woman who don’t need no man and divorced his ass for partaking in the rape-culture fueled media of internet pornography, waited to hear who would be awarded custody.
The judge, a crusty old adherent to patriarchal societal norms, awards the children to the woman.
“WHAT! MISOGYNY! HOW DARE!” expresses the woman in an empowered tone, ignoring the cis male rules for order in the court.
“That you expect me to take the children (the children I have been fighting a court battle in order to keep) probably because I am a woman, is sexist and misogynistic. Raising a child is not woman’s work!”
Her ex-husband, smiling a rape-supporter’s smile, says “I am so glad that you have been awarded the children by sexism (against women, men can not be the target of sexism, even in incidents like this where they usually lose the court battle). I just fought a court battle to be handed the children, but this is much better!”
Perhaps you should read whatshisfaces posts where he claims that the website linked in the OP is a horrible misogynist hellhole for discussing the ways in which men are unfairly discriminated against in modern society?The only pointless thing mentioned so far has been
Since it's demonstrates a fantastic ability to state the obvious, in light of no one claiming otherwise.The idea that men never face discrimination for being men is one of the most absurd concepts the feminist movement ever tossed out. Sexism is not, and has not ever been, a one way street, unlike most other forms of discrimination.
-
I would, in fact, not ignore the advances of such a person when I was fifteen. They would almost certainly make me uncomfortable, just as most any sexual advance made by an individual in a position of temporal authority over me would make me at any point in my life.
And I'm sure at 15 you'd TOOOOOOTALLY ignore the advances of a hot person who's older than you."[T]here is an important distinction between a party who is injured
through no fault of his or her own and an injured party who willingly
participated in the offense about which a complaint is made." (Id., at
pp. 1046-1047.)
Tooooootally.
More importantly than my personal reaction, however, is the question of whether or not these acts qualify as rape. Whether or not the perpetrator was hot is besides the point. A rapist is a rapist, regardless of how sexually attractive they are.
Suppose that the genders of the victim and the perpetrator in this case were switched. A fifteen year old girl "willingly participates" in sex with an attractive, 34-year-old man. Would you offer even the slightest defense of the man? I propose you would not. And don't give me some nonsense about it being different for boys and girls: plenty of girls below the age of consent have daydreamed or fantasized about having sex with men much older than them. But fantasy and reality are very different things. One of the most popular sexual fantasies out there is the fantasy of being raped. That does not mean that the people who fantasize about it would actually enjoy being raped, or that they would somehow have magical resistance to the psychological damage it causes.
Child sexual abuse is a very serious issue. Female-perpetrated CSA especially, given that what limited evidence I have seen points towards it doing more damage that male-perpetrated CSA (e.g. "all seven victims who reported sexual abuse by men and women declared that the sexual abuse by women was more harmful and more damaging than the sexual abuse by men." and "Risk factors during childhood for later offending [by male victims of sexual abuse] included [...] sexual abuse by a female person ([odds ratio] 3.0, [95% confidence interval] 1.1–8.7)."). Please do not trivialize it or make light of it merely because the victim "consented" or the perpetrator was "hot."
-
That logic is so ****ing absurd and disgusting. If when he had been raped (bolded for reminding everyone that having sex with a 15 year old when you are 34 is rape) he had signed a contract which amounted to "you do some things for me, I'll pay you $10k when I'm 18," it would be voidable and basically unenforceable. But because he was raped, and some piece of **** family law judges decided he "voluntarily" engaged in sexual intercourse, his "consent" counts? But, oh, perhaps if he'd been 13 at the time it wouldn't.
Also it's nice that even judges use the phrase "seduce" to describe child rape.
-
The idea that men never face discrimination for being men is one of the most absurd concepts the feminist movement ever tossed out. Sexism is not, and has not ever been, a one way street, unlike most other forms of discrimination. Whites do not serve more time for the same crime than blacks. Cisgendered heterosexuals are not more likely to be homeless than LGBT people. The rich are not less likely to make it to college than the poor. The disabled are not more likely to get custody of their kids than able-bodied people. Et cetera.
This isn't really historically accurate, but more to the point, it's pointless to mention. Who cares whether this or that thing is actually because of dangerous gender ideas which hurt men or which hurt women?Mom typically gets the kids because, historically, mothers were ascribed the role of child rearer and not qualified or capable enough as a man to earn money via employment. So while you go "The man is screwed here," ironically it's because of systemic discrimination against women and what their capabilities were. In the end, because they were expected to be the ones raising the children, society evolved to feel that they must be the best at doing so.
To give an example, the idea that women who "tease" men have brought their rapes on themselves (in the same way that, say, someone who smokes has brought their lung cancer on themselves) is, at its core, ludicrously misandrist. It is based on the idea that male sexuality is just one step shy of rape at any given time and that men lack any real capacity for self-control in regards to their behavior. I use the term "misandry," very particularly here: the hatred and fear of men. To say that women who "tease" men bring their rapes on themselves is to say that men are all, at their core, rapists. That is nothing less than hatred and fear.
Yet, obviously, it is women who suffer here. Bringing up how this particular rape myth is ACTUALLY misandrist is ridiculous, just as your point is. Pretty much every ****ty gender idea is based on ****ty ideas about both men and women. Who actually gets hurt by discrimination in family court? Fathers.
-
It must be cool to base all your opinions about reality on the most blatant of suppositions and boring of strawmen. It probably takes a lot less time and effort than basing them on reason or evidence.I'm not even clicking on that link because once I hovered over it and saw the URL, I could smell the rank malodor of "White men are the most oppressed minority in the history of the world, especially in America! Ron Paul 2008/2012/2016! Do you even know who John Galt is?" all over it.
-
3
-
-
If you had sat me down in a room and told me to come up with the most awful legal ideas, I would never, in a million years, have come up with this ****. You almost have to laugh at how absurdly, unbelievably evil this is, and "evil" isn't a term I use lightly. **** this planet, I want off.Historically, statutory rape laws were designed to protect teenage girls from males who may take their virginity, impregnate them, and refuse to take responsibility and marry them. Thus, they served the purpose of protecting the honor of the girl and of preventing teenage pregnancy. They also helped to ensure the child would have a means of support. It wasn’t until much later that these laws began to be applied to protect boys as well. However, the application remains quite uneven.
In California, an appellate court upheld an order (San Luis Obispo Count y v. Nathan J., 1996) forcing a 15 year old boy to pay child support to his rapist after she became pregnant and gave birth.
According to the DOJ, 95% of statutory rape victims reported to law enforcement are female, yet many studies have determined that boys comprise a much higher percentage of the victims. For instance, Dorais estimates that one in six boys will be sexually abused before the age of 16.
Social attitudes are primarily responsible for the double standard. According to Miriam Denov, there is a “myth of innocence” surrounding female sexuality that frequently regards sex between a young male and an older female to be a rite of passage and that it is somehow acceptable or less harmful than when the other way around. Further, boys are taught not to view themselves as victims as this is “unmanly.”
Law enforcement may not take such complaints seriously. In a previous post (Living in a Culture of Denial), I discussed the problems with the attitude of law enforcement towards male victims. Officers and other professionals may even redefine the act so as to make it acceptable. Even the male victims may view it as a positive experience and not a crime, leading to gross underreporting. In what may be the most bizarre denial of the existence of male victims, courts have held that male victims of rape can be held responsible for child support.
In California, an appellate court upheld an order (San Luis Obispo Count y v. Nathan J., 1996) forcing a 15 year old boy to pay child support to his rapist after she became pregnant and gave birth. The court ruled that although the boy was considered too young to provide consent to the sex act, he was an admitted willing participant and therefore liable to pay support stating that he was not an “innocent victim” because he had discussed it with his rapist prior to having sex.
That this act was illegal and may have constituted coercion was apparently lost on the court. If the boy is considered legally incapable of providing consent, how can he be considered legally liable for giving that consent? Any consent or cooperation on his part should have been considered coercion and therefore not consent at all.
California is not the only state where this is the case. Kansas, Texas, Ohio, and other states also force rape victims to pay child support to their rapists. In Kentucky, a prosecutor stated that he would help a woman collect child support from a man who was 14 at the time she raped him while neglecting to charge the woman with statutory rape. The state of Colorado attempted to recover AFDC payments from a man who was just 12 when he became a father with an older woman. Contrast this with the allowances made for abortion for women who are raped (including statutory rape) even from many who are opposed to abortion in other circumstances.
Mothers are also permitted to give up their children for adoption, no questions asked, should they not want their children. In no case is a woman forced to raise or pay for a child conceived during a rape.
But this is not the case with fathers. Two separate cases indicate that even when sperm is stolen or a man is forcibly raped, the man remains liable for child support. In Louisiana a man was ordered to pay child support to a woman who had him wear a condom during oral sex. She then took the condom extracted the sperm and impregnated herself. In Alabama, a man was actually raped by a woman and was still ordered to pay child support. This man got drunk at a party and passed out. The next morning he awoke in bed, naked from the waist down. He testified that he did not remember having sex. Others testified that the mother had actually bragged about having sex with him when he was “passed out” and “wasn’t even aware of it.” This constitutes rape in most states, yet the man was ordered to pay support to the woman who was apparently not even criminally charged. [my note: this is S.F. v. State ex rel. T.M.]
The National Legal Research Group refers to this as “a strict liability theory of sperm,” i.e. a man is liable for his sperm no matter what the circumstance. One court has attempted to justify its actions on the basis of biology rather than admit discrimination:
“[w]hile it is true that after conception a woman has more control than a man over the decision whether to bear a child, and may unilaterally refuse to obtain an abortion, those facts were known to the father at the time of conception. The choice available to a woman vests in her by the fact that she, and not the man, must carry the child and must undergo whatever traumas, physical and mental, may be attendant to either childbirth or abortion. Any differing treatment accorded men and women . . . is owed not to the operation of [state law] but to the operation of nature.”
While there may be natural differences between men and women, in this day and age, it is simply wrong to place all the rights in the hands of women and all the responsibility on the shoulders of men. Rights carry responsibilities. If a woman desires the right to choose, then the woman must be required to bear the responsibility for her decision. If, as the above court stated, the “facts were known to the father at the time of conception” then certainly they were also known to the mother. To hold her to a different standard simply because of biology is morally wrong. She should have the right to choose, but her decision should not be forced upon the father. She may have to bear the burden of either childbirth or abortion, but she also has a wide variety of options for birth control that the man simply doesn’t have. Further, in this day and age, she also has career opportunities that will permit her to support a child on her own.
This is especially true in circumstances where the father was a victim of rape or statutory rape. Ordering a victim of rape (even statutory rape) to pay child support to his rapist is tantamount to allowing the rapist to rape him over and over again. Not only is it a constant reminder, it is like he is being punished for being a victim of a crime. It is unthinkable that our court system not only condones, but has legalized this draconian practice. It is not only an injustice, it is an obscenity that is being perpetrated on male victims. It needs to end.
[1] Child Abuse Effects, Male victims of child abuse. Retrieved 10/03/2010 from: http://www.child-abuse-effects.com/male-victims-of-sexual-abuse.html
[2] Divorce Source. Its ten o’clock: Do you know where your sperm are? Retrieved 10/03/2010 from: http://www.divorcesource.com/research/dl/paternity/99jan1.shtml
[3] Dorais, M. (2002). Don’t tell: The sexual abuse of boys. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.
[4] Troup-Leasure, Karyl and Snyder, Howard N. Statutory rape known to law enforcement. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, August 2005. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/208803.pdf
[5] Wikipedia. Statutory Rape. Retrieved 10/03/2010 from: http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=child+support+rape+victim&d=4680324777181235&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=cb25fe37,dc60d545
-
Yeah, people didn't care about the best Obsidian game to date. Fly away troll.People didn't really care about Alpha Protocol, period.
-
Is it also racist to notice that East Asian people are more likely to speak Mandarin than white people? To point out that other cultures have different rules for eye contact, personal space, and touch? My god. I never knew.I'm saying you're racist because you're making broad, largely if not completely negative generalised statements about a specific race: ie, white people.You're then going on to say that you can tell I'm white because I'm calling you out on your hypocrisy.
That's a mirror.I'm sorry, but I really don't credit you with the mental capacity to hold a meaningful debate with anyone here, you're simply throwing around wild accusations and insults at anyone who disagrees with you. -
lol your country literally killed more people than Stalin could've ever dreamed, and you call it "blessed". C'mon, son.In all the time he's posted here I've not seen anything that wasn't provocative and / or disputatious. At first I thought he was a clever troll using a .alt then I realised he was just an old-skool troll. Get him onto Stalin. He'll defend purges, famines and genocide. The guy is, literally, vile.
-
Not really.There's a difference beetween including a basic social normm and shoe-horning in an agenda.
Nobody's asking for the latter.That isn't what I said at all, clearly. I said it shouldn't be a soap box for somebody's political agenda, it should be a platform to tell a story that the player can be a part of, not interactive propaganda.
Because the people who disagree with me, are, in this case, intolerant?? Shocking.No, you're being intolerant of anybody who doesn't agree with you.
Go ahead, underline it. Please. I'm desperately waiting with baited breath for you to explain how I'm so racist that I can correctly identify your race by your connection to certain cultural ideas that are virtually exclusively the domain of white people? I notice you've yet to say "aha, but I'm not white!" because you are, and I'm right.I'm having to use every ounce of civility in my body to stop myself from underlining how moronic that statement isYou are a racist, my friend, and a hypocrite to boot.
-
I'm the one acting like a child? You're the one who literally, literally, not figuratively but literally, is taking your ball and going home.Okay at this stage I am going to ignore you. You are acting like a child. The only thing your doing is throwing around insults.
I am done with you.
-
No, but some of the posters in this thread do, and they're who I'm arguing with.Did the writing in any game made by Obsidian or Black Isle strike you as misogynist?
Right, so let's remove heterosexuals and men, so as not to reinforce a political agenda.It's a game, not a soap box.
So because it's a game, it shouldn't include any political issues at all. Problem: this is literally impossible.Again, it's a game.
Because...?There are a lot of complex and important issues that need to be explored, examined and debated, but not in a medieval fantasy game.
I'm being intolerant of intolerance. How horrible.Exactly accusations of intolerance, because you are being intolerant.
Good question. Let me answer it. This:How do you know I'm white?
is how I know you're white.If that isn't a racist statement then what is?
Literally no one is arguing for this. I know you live in some ridiculous alternate universe where everyone who disagrees with you wants 22nd century social mores in their socially medieval fantasy setting, but what I want is for the objective reality of the setting (again, not the characters, or the cultures) not to fit with the regressive bull**** y'all are spouting.If you wish to create a game with social and political agenda attached, modern world issues projected into a fantasy setting thats your choice. You can do it and I would wish you luck (put it on kickstarter and maybe I will pledge or maybe not), however this is not a game being made to further your own political and social standing or views. It actually makes very little if any sense enforcing real world issues (forced equality and everyone holding hands singing the hills are alive with the sound of music in peaceful harmony) into this game when this game is set in a fantasy world with potential a vastly darker setting and non evolved civilisations.
-
Please, feel free to explain how misogynistic writing is appealing to people who are not misogynists. Go on. I'm waiting.Agreeing with you is only attractive to People With Bad Opinions. Objectively speaking
-
Sexuality is complex, labeling it is also complex, not seeing the problem.No it doesn't.
The term 'Social Justice' in the context I used it is a reference to the over complication in labeling sexualities,
Sexual politics is complex and needs to be examined, not seeing the problem.sexual politics
Accusations of intolerance because of intolerance? Shock! Horror! World ending now!and the zealotry of those who follow the fad when it comes to forcing it down other peoples' throats and accusing people of intolerance simply because they don't agree with the same hyper-liberal standpoint they do.
I know that white people are really whiny about being called out on racism, but no it isn't.Screaming RACISM or MISOGYNY any time somebody doesn't agree with you is akin to tarring and feathering them because they have a different opinion from you. -
What a shocker, an anti-SJ type is trying to threaten me to keep my mouth shut. Nice.I suggest you go get some fresh air and gain some composure before you post again. Your pretty close to being reported for the belligerent and vile melodramatic accusations directed at people of different opinion than your own.
Your post is so fascile it'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. Not paying any attention to treatment of women will result in a "political and social agenda," but that agenda will be misogynistic and unfun for anyone who dislikes such things in their video games. The inclusion of misogynistic writing (not characters, not cultures, but writing, that is, the universe itself siding with misogynistic ideology) is only attractive to People With Bad Opinions. Objectively speakingAs I said here...If you want to make a game that makes a political statement, force your view of right and wrong on the world (whatever the aspect is) then more power to you. But you should not be bullying or trying to force other developers and every game into furthering your own political and social agenda. If you want to make something for that yourself then do so, but this game is not a tool of your political and social panderings. -
"How can you be so intolerant... of INTOLERANCE?!?"That's a pretty broad and uneducated generalisation for somebody trying to come across as a liberal and accepting sort of person; opposed to that sort of thinking.
So other than being a hypocrite, calling people racists and sub-humans for not agreeing with you (much like every other nazi before you) do you have any valid points or are you going to sit there hurling insults?
Did you ever consider that being against "social justice" and "political correctness" literally means being for racism and misogyny? Just a thought.
-
1
-
-
People who complain about the "social justice types" and "political correctness" are basically not really human beings but some kind of horrible p-zombie incapable of thought or empathy. Obsidian games have generally been very good about portraying women and minorities in a positive light, so if you're so angry about the PC police go play that one white supremacist game where you kill loads of brown people for spurious reasons. It's called Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. KABOOSH!
-
2
-
-
lmao at all the opinions of the "NO NOT THE PC POLICE" crowd. How dare you propose that this game not be a sexist racist pile of crap! Don't you get that it's not for you?!? How entitled, not to want incessantly misogynistic stereotypes and ideas to appear in games! Damn you all to hell! I hate all this, why can't we go back to the Good Old Days (note: good old days never actually existed) back when men were real men, women were real women, and misogyny in this fantasy setting with elves, wizards, gods and dragons was a realistic portrayal of medieval culture (note: realistic here means a reproduction of the worst sexual mores of the worst of gangster rap)!
-
4
-
-
It's just really bad feminism. It's the kind of thing that I would post if I was trolling as a pretend feminist: all the language, none of the comprehension or relevance.Nevertheless, for me that video is pretty fringe because....well wtf I can't make sense of it. -
For the umpteenth time, every single Obsidian game that was good except, kind of, FO:NV, has had romances. Y'all's claim that romances ruin RPGs is quite frankly baseless nonsense.Yeah we're whiners because we're discussing how much time and resources it takes to create romances and how they tend to feel tacked on in RPGs and ruin them.
-
Anita Sarkeesian has really banal commentary. Get the lady behind Requires Only That You Hate involved. She's even a Planescape fan! It's a match made in heaven.
I'd like to note now that all too often fantasy settings (or even fictional reproductions of real-world history) engage in "historical misogyny" that is nothing of the sort. The forms which modern misogyny takes are very different from the forms it took in the 6th century, the 11th century, the 16th century, and indeed even the 19th century.
-
1
-
-
Alright, great, romances confirmed to be in it and the Obs team is clearly going to put in the time and effort. Now everybody can go home and we can all wait to play another great Obsidian game, in the vein of MotB or Alpha Protocol.
-
Rest spam is me playing the game optimally, which yes, is "bad implementation." Why would I strategically manage my arsenal when I could, you know, not? There's nothing to stop me from burning through my spells, then taking a nap after every single encounter. And if there's nothing to stop me, it is exactly what I will do.If the game's any good, you're not supposed to use your entire arsenal in every battle - rest spam is a sign of a bad implementation. You're actually supposed to strategically manage your very powerful arsenal, as opposed to casting crappy magic in every battle like a PvZ peashooter.
No it isn't. Every spell that "remains useful" is something stupid like Knock which serves the sole purpose of invalidating a fellow party member's abilities. Spells that fulfill caster-specific roles (AoE attacks, heals, buffs, debuffs, etc) become almost completely useless after a couple levels. Unless you really were still casting Sleep after you got Disintegrate.Which is the case of a considerable amount of spells in D&D.
Legally Obscene: Rape, Statutory Rape, and Child Support
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
So, okay, it's been a while, I want to make sure I've got everything straight. I'm Kreyzak, obyknven, and Cyclone Man, right?