To be sick of victim blaming on MN?

[CherryChasingDotMuncher]

I'm sick to the back teeth of reading victim blaming comments on here. Am I the only one who's noticed the tides turning on MN recently?

Heaven forbid women who've been through a trauma wear clothes from their actual wardrobe and don't buy a "victim outfit" to wear in public. It appears they're not a real victim unless they adhere to a certain set of behaviours.

That's just one thread today. I've seen comments recently about what sexual assault victims wear, how drunk they are. Yesterday people were equating raping a woman with a woman lying about taking a contraceptive pill (someone even said this was the same as rape) and not too long ago someone commented that it was Amber Heard's own fault that she got hit by the phone Jonny Depp threw at her because she didn't duck.

If you challenge these comments then you're often called a feminazi, an idiot or a man-hater.

I know this is kind of a TAAT (or several threads) but I'm beyond disappointed that a website predominantly for women would have so many people letting the side down and believing that other women are either lying until they can prove otherwise or that they deserve the abuse they get from men. And if that woman has ever displayed any sexual behaviour ever, then it's even worse.

"They agreed with Cherry"

Well cherry said it's rape, they've said sexual assault so they've equally agreed with those who've pointed out that cherry wants to adopt parts of other jurisdictions that she agrees with but then dismiss the parts that don't.

And mens issues should be addressed. Rather peoples issues if anything. Men are half the population. They are your fathers, brothers, sons, uncles, nephews etc

Course they should got. What are the specific issues, and where are the campaigns for them?

Got why do you feel the need for men to be centred when people discuss women's issues? Some of us don't want to discuss "people's issues", we want to discuss issues that affect women. I can't believe that offends people. Almost like some can't bear the thought of men having to take a back seat.

Yes I'd also like to know specifically what got is doing to help men. I'd be interested to know the (fact based) key issues that mean men are oppressed.

Talk to me about "men's issues".......

And, out of interest, why are men not dealing with men's issues? They seem generally to dismiss or minimize women's issues, so they must have plenty of time on their hands.......

Disclaimer. Of course violence against men is outrageous, and tragic and should stop. But it is almost always carried out by other men, so what are men doing about it?
The normal list of men's issues-family court, suicide,dangerous jobs and health screening are all things that, if they exist at all, need men's input. Why should feminists put them front and centre?

Well cherry said it's rape, they've said sexual assault - well yes, as you've pointed out there is no crime called 'rape' in Canada.

But in Canada, a man 'stealthing' is sexual assault, a woman lying about contraception isn't, for precisely the reason Cherry gave.

The various legal definitions accross jurisdictions adds a layer of complexity to the discussion and I think Cherry, or anyone else, is wrong to point to their local legal definitions as universally binding, but fundamentally I think Cherry is correct on the contraception issue, per the Canadian judgments.

"The various legal definitions accross jurisdictions adds a layer of complexity to the discussion and I think Cherry, or anyone else, is wrong to point to their local legal definitions as universally binding,"

Which was my only point because that's exactly what she did.

She's correct in that a jurisdiction has deemed removal of a condom as being enough to viciate consent when they've decided dishonesty as to taking the pill hasn't in that jurisdiction.

But she also relied on the English definition of rape needing a penis whereas that's not the case in Canada where there is no offence of rape and it's all dealt with as sexual assault.
Unless she'd be willing to accept that women can't be raped in Canada then it makes it a bit of a nonsense to cherry pick from different jurisdictions to suit her argument but to also proclaim posters who refer to women raping men as being factually wrong as women can't rape men because of what the law in another particular jurisdiction says.

Did anyone actually read the judge's comments on why hevwouldn't let the case in Canada go ahead? It's very interesting.

"Perell did recognize that if DD had lied about taking the pill, it would have undermined PP’s consent to their sexual activity — potentially making him the victim of a civil sexual assault."

@IdoHaveAName It's because MNHQ have DoveMen or Gillette potentially advertising on here. Or similar.

You do know the ads shown are based on you internet search history?

I think the definition of rape is a separate point and, as I said, I think Cherry is wrong to rely on one particular legal definition.

But with regards to whether or not a female lying about contraception is the same as a male lying about contraception, I think she's spot on in her reasoning for the two not being the same, whatever name you want to apply to the crime (or the non-crime in the case of the former). Courts in Canada, at least, agree with her.

*Mumof56

Did anyone actually read the judge's comments on why hevwouldn't let the case in Canada go ahead? It's very interesting.

"Perell did recognize that if DD had lied about taking the pill, it would have undermined PP’s consent to their sexual activity — potentially making him the victim of a civil sexual assault."*
That was a comment by the judge in the lower court, before the Court of Appeal judgment saying that it wasn't assault.

Not taking a pill does not break sexual consent, as it does not involve the act of sex. Of course it involves sex!!!! Blimey!

If a man consents to sex because he has been told by the woman that she is on the pill, and she isn't on the pill, his consent is void. He isn't consenting to have unprotected, possible baby-making sex. Yes, all PIV has the potential to lead to conception, but in that moment, when told she is on the pill he is consenting to at least trying to prevent conception.

You are shouting your view point so loud, you are refusing to see that consent CAN be voided by the action of a woman lying.

If a man consents to sex because he has been told by the woman that she is on the pill, and she isn't on the pill, his consent is void.
Do you have any legal authority for this? Per my above posts, that isn't the case in Canada (where I am). The key bit from the link was;

"the Court of Appeal concluded that the plaintiff’s consent to the sex he had with the defendant had not been cancelled out by her alleged fraud, because a woman who lies about being on birth control does not expose her male partner to any risk of significant bodily harm."

Not sure if the law is different in the UK but can't see anything to suggest that a woman lying about contraception voids consent.

Or are you expressing your personal opinion, regardless of the law? (Fine if you are, nothing wrong with thinking the law is wrong).

Conversely, here at least, if a woman lied about something like her HIV status to obtain consent for unprotected sex, that would void consent, as it could/would cause bodily harm.

Got what are you doing for men than? Why don't you carry on doing whatever your doing and us feminists will keep trying to change rape culture.

Why do you get angry at feminists for trying to help women?
Do you not think that's fucking stupid?
Cat protection are a right bunch of cunts not fighting for dogs aren't they?

Is it just anger at women?

This thread could run and run, going around in circles with neither side being open to what the other side is saying.

In essence, I think we all (or most of us) agree that victim blaming is rife, out of control, damaging and needs to stop.

What is also rife, out of control, damaging and needs to stop is this belief that men can't be victims of women's actions.

The issue being the false belief that only bodily harm is important to the removal of consent. What about if he had fathered a baby he didn't want as a result of her lying?

Or shall we blame the victim and say he should have used a condom?

I have noticed a lot of bitchy comments on here, not supportive at all. Just mean and horrible some of them 😢 Not all of them though thank god xxx

The issue being the false belief that only bodily harm is important to the removal of consent. What about if he had fathered a baby he didn't want as a result of her lying?
Not sure if you're addressing me, but if you are - he did. That's why he brought the case. He lost.

Not that I think he wasn't wronged, but it wasn't a sexual assault or any other crime.

I agree with the OP.
There's always been MRAs on here. There are always more GFs during the summer. I think the main shift is that moderation has become much poorer. Threads that would have been pulled and posts that would have been deleted are now allowed to stand.
But the GFs and MRAs are so transparent that most posters eventually see through them and ignore them.

i'm not going to read the last 9 pages and i really could use some help with this "victim blaming" concept. in theory could all posters who disagree or offer different perspectives on any topic (from relationships to money management) be guilty of victim blaming or gas lighting?

Out2pasture

Sometimes people are the architects of their own misfortune.

I'm sure we've all known some.

Creepy, predatory guys who complain they never get laid, is an example.

Or aggressive, bullying kids who are unpopular.

However, being aware of victim blaming, has the underlying concept of trying to understand people's actions (like the bully).

But where victim blaming really becomes significant is when you are blaming a person for someone else's actions. With little or no reason.

Like the gaslighting of 'she made me hit her'.

In terms of rape culture, it's extremely significant. Because traditionally women who acted or behaved in a certain way, wore revealing clothing, etc, were considered 'less than' and therefore not worthy of the same consideration as women who didn't.

A misogynistic concept if ever there was one.

Allowing men to view women as two sides of the same coin. Madonna/whore. So any bad behaviour on their part is justified, as long as the woman falls into the whore category. So asking a woman what she was wearing, or what she was doing, is the fast track way to eke out any 'undesirable' behaviour that can then justify the behaviour of someone else entirely

In reality, women who are raped do not fall into any category other than that of woman.

So being aware of victim blaming has a double purpose. Firstly that the actions of a rapist are dependent on them and them alone, and that men are disabused of the fond notion that they must the arbiters of women's behaviour.

Likewise blaming a woman for not leaving an abusive man. Shifting focus on to her, rather than him.