What taf is wrong with men?!

[guinnessguzzler]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78vgm0e3zzo

Wtaf?! After the Pelicot case in France, and I'm sure someone posted about a similar situation in Germany the other day, and now this. Why are they so awful?

And yes I know it's not all men but ffs.

I read about this recently for the first time via a link on another thread in this forum. Honestly, my jaw hit the flaw. Is this what people are really like when they are given permission to do what they want? Or, should I say, what men are really like? (Though it says "predominantly men", so some women must have abused her as well.)

I don't like girls being made to feel as if they need to show flesh to fit in. The online environment is toxic for girls and boys and that's part of it.

But the problem is that in this case she was drugged and abused by the man who had stood in a church in front of their family and friends and sworn to cherish and protect her. I don't think what she was wearing would have made much difference in this case. Even women who dress modestly don't tend to worry about their husbands seeing them in different states of undress. And I doubt the clothes she was wearing whilst unconscious made much difference to the men who had come to the house with the explicit intention of raping a drugged woman.

I would tell a teenager not to wear a football scarf from the wrong team in a dodgy pub/area. I would tell them not to show their money/expensive items in places like central London. But that's because there is a clear statistical link between busy city centres and phone/money theft and a clear link between showing your money and a thief deciding to steal it. No such link exists for clothes and rape. Since most people are raped by people they know the most statistically informed way of avoiding rape would be to not know anyone. But that's not a way to live. The problem is when you suggest changing behaviour will keep women safe, you are basically telling women to avoid any relationships men but if I were to actively advise this it would be misandry. But men encourage it with their take accountability nonsense.

Even for stranger attacks, victims are chosen based on how they walk, whether they look like they know where they are going or are vulnerable or alone well above clothes. I am all for advising girls to take steps to keep safe even if in a perfect world they shouldn't have to. For example I would advise women not to leave their drink unattended when put and about. But we shouldn't have to do this in our own homes around our husbands FFS.

Or, if I'm wrong, maybe there is a specific outfit we should wear to make our husbands not drug us and invite random men to assault us. If there is please share.

Also I just remembered that even if you only ever leave the house in a hijab and fully covering dress men/boys can still make pornographic images of you using AI. So even if dressing modestly to avoid triggering men was ever a viable thing in the past that horse has now bolted. So realistically what is the point of telling girls to cover themselves except to exacerbate the social humiliation they feel when someone creates porn with their face.

It doesn't matter if a woman is in a bikini or a burkha, a man knows she has a vulva underneath it.

Boys need to be protected from porn.
There are too many men with a porn addiction already.
It never ends, they just keep pushing boundaries out further and further - there is no limit.

Men with a porn addiction cannot enjoy a normal relationship with a woman.
They often have erectile dysfunction and are constantly chasing whatever will give them a boner. It's pathetic.

We've all seen enough middle-aged men declaring themselves to be women to know what they have been doing for decades.
It doesn't make you go blind but it could make you think you're a woman (if you end up believing that the porn actresses are having a better time than their male counterparts).

Honestly, I think I agree with pretty much everything you say but not sure it addresses or refers to anything at all in the (perhaps too tangential) post you quoted.

I am no expert on porn addiction, but I agree 100% with sentence 1 and 2. I agree with sentence 3 assuming the "they" refers to men with porn addictions.

Para 2 first sentence - I am not sure whether this is true or not, but I am certain it is true of many or most if not all. Sentences 2 and 3 spot on, para 3 spot on

Pleaded guilty. Fucking bastard.

Pleading guilty is arguably the best outcome, as his ex-wife doesn't have to testify.

I have just been watching a YT about what happened to German women at the end of the war, and it shocked me to realise that there is a host of Germans out there, my age, who are the progeny of rape. Not as I am, of VE Day rejoicing.
And it's made me think again about male biology, and that thing the 'intelligent design' bunch of Christians don't address.

Purpose of penis.

1. Elimination of waste
2. Reproduction

Neither of which is effectively served by rape. In battle, it's 1, which I gather may happen in heightened fear, spontaneously. But that isn't sexual. Not at all intelligent. I suppose the IDCs (see above) would say it's because of the Fall and we, being daughters of Eve deserve it. Or perhaps they wouldn't because that makes God no better than Zeus et al.

But as a flaw it's bloody stupid. Why on earth has evolution built it in? Have we been having so much war that we can't eliminate it? In peacetime too? A man should not get an erection unless in a context with a receptive and enthusiastic woman. Or thinking of her, a person. What t f is wrong is their wiring, and how we put that right is beyond imagination. Can you imagine getting someone to fund research at Harvard (Other research depts are available)? Since all the people with money are friends of Epstein.

I'll stop the rant now. Still thinking of those girls jumping from upstairs windows to escape, and the women bearing the blame for what the 'liberators' did/

@Treaclewell You're mistaking evolution for design, in evolution, nothing is intended, shit just happens & maladaptations exist. It's a weak evolutionary case that rape is any kind of adaptation rather than a social phenomen, we're not bed bugs, after all (the female bed bug has no reproductive opening & mating is achieved via "traumatic insemination" anywhere the male jabs his paramere through her carapace).

Ironically I think classical Christianity, while it tended to blame women more than men (yay mysogyny) also had the idea that not all human urges were good, that people could be inherently sinful. Hence stereotypes of Catholic guilt for example.

What's ironic is that the more recent emanations of Christianity (coming from America) castigate "liberalism/individualism" etc for allowing hedonism. But actually they are the worst offenders for it. Any criticism of male behaviour is seen as guilting men for their natural selves. Well, before we had the concept of "toxic masculinity" we had the idea of evil. So maybe we should go back to that. It's evil to want to rape women. It's evil to shoot protesters in the head. It's evil to hoard wealth while your workers are starving Etc etc. That doesn't automatically make all men/people with the potential to do those things evil. There is such a thing as free will. But the intelligent design notion gets rid of that - if men were created by god then the stuff they want to do is natural therefore good. And negative emotions like guilt are bad and caused by external sources (feminists/woke). It's an absolute bizarre perversion of traditional Christian thought.

I'm not expressing myself properly but I think that "Christians" like JD Vance or Hegseth somehow manage to embody the worst aspects of past religion AND the worst aspects of liberal secularism.

The ID reason is that it's because men are naturally primed to want to spread their seed..which is a very pop-evolutionary-biology argument really. But you just replace "it's of evolutionary advantage" with "god wants" and you are good to go.

It's not her mistaking evolution for design. It's a particular religious idea that sort of mixes the theories about evolution that seeps into popular consciousness and adds a religious veneer. But I completely agree about the maladaptions! I think there is real evolutionary biology and the pop-culture kind. And then the even more batshit intelligent design angle.

I came across an interesting argument on MSN yesterday, a variation of one of the misogyny points; it's all our fault.
Before the Neolithic introduced farming and land ownership, there was a wide range of mitochondrial types inherited through women, and a wide range of Y chromsomes inherited among men. Then came a significant bottleneck, after which females were still varying, but males were tremendously reduced. It seems that societies developed where there were 17 women to one man, who fathered most of the children. Worldwide, not just the Beaker people who wiped out the original Y chromosome people in Europe. According to the article, it was the fault of the women chosing to share the dominant male. Which makes us less picky than chimp females who will carry on mating unobtrusively with non-dominant males when the alpha isn't looking.
I can think of other ways than female choice that lead to this change, involving observable male behaviour seen in history. Harems, eunuchs etc. But it may explain wtf is wrong with men, being descended from the wrong sort because if the alpha thought there was a challenger about, he sent them off to the front line as David did with Bathsheba's husband.
So men are as they are because of the bottleneck, but who caused the bottleneck is up for debate.

Women. They'll blame women

I've seen that.
It's very silly because whilst the sudden bottleneck is real, and surprisingly widespread no-one actually knows why. It could be:

• a devastating disease that killed mostly men
• mass infertility in men (maybe disease again, maybe something else)
• extreme and devastating war leading to mass male casualties
• extreme war leading to mass kidnap and gang rape of women. Sort of like Ghengis Khan.
• extreme forced polygamy due to sudden changes in social structures rather than just war. (There have been tribes like that in more recent history. Women don't have much choice over who they marry and are normally married of very young).
• Voluntary polygamy- females showing their natural hypergamous nature and all going for the same high status makes because that's just what we're like
• maybe all the men started listening to their version of red pill podcasters and Went They're Own Way as modern man is advised to do. Or they all randomly decided to be gay

The last 2 possibilities are the least likely really. But the femal hypergamy myth is preferred by certain type of person because it fits with the views they already hold. It's the difference between real science (noticing the bottleneck) and "person that goes on a lot of podcasts" science.

You could just as easily construct a pseudo feminist narrative about how the genetic evidence shows pre agrarian revolution women and men were equal, living in harmony etc. But then agriculture led to women being bought and sold as commodities etc and patriarchy. That would be plausible but it's equally pure speculation because we don't know. In more recent human history, most heavily polygamous societies are ones where women have least agency. Where women have more agency more men tend to get to procreate (actually men today have never had it so good). Which suggests the females choosing the bottleneck is the least likely explanation of all of them. But even then, to assume what happened was forced because of that is extrapolation.

All we know is that this change seems to have coincided with the rise in farming. But that doesn't remove any of the explanations from the list of possibilities. It definitely brought about changes in social structure and new diseases. Maybe all the men got mumps?

I see your point that it could explain why men are the way they are because only men who acted in a sexually aggressive way at that point in time got to pass on their genes. But it could also simply explain why men are no longer rendered infertile by man flu. Because men that were rendered infertile never got to pass on their weak man-flu succeptible genes. The reason men wear the dressing gown of doom and appear to make a big fuss when they are ill is not actually them being babies. It's a deeply buried ancestral memory of those dark days.

Heh, I like the ancestral sterilising man-flu hypothesis!

There were actually two Great Y Haplogroup Replacements in Western Europe, and they were at their most dramatic in Britain.
12,000 ya: Western Hunter Gatherers (Cheddar Man)
6,000 ya: Anatolian Farmers (Monument Builders)
4,500 ya: Steppe Herders (Beaker People)

An outstanding feature of both incoming populations is that they had strong social hierarchies, showing significant differences in diet and burial style between the elites and the lower orders. The herders brought intricate metal ornamentations, reminiscent of their Yamnaya origins.

I'm going off the idea that farming is to blame for patriarchy, partly because the beaker people were less attached to farming than their neolithic predecessors. They were animal breeders by preference, coming from a nomadic background. It was probably more to do with overt displays of wealth and power. The harem theory seems likely - or a combination of that with widespread rape, even more likely imho.

I've just got an economic history book called 5,000 Years of Debt. The author thinks patriarchy came in with a transition from 'human economy' to 'money economy'. I'll be interested to see exactly what he means.

More reading. from a more trad view on YouTube. There are European mass graves, of mostly adult males, mostly with horrific death wounds, from the period. Most reported in Germany. So trad the writers that women are viewed as resources to fight for, and spoil. The same numbers, 1 to 17 male female, so the same event.
They asked what could have caused what a widespread outbreak of violence, but had no answer.
Men now, with instincts like those single dominants, want their share of 17, and we won't let them have it. It's surprising how few nasty ones there are.

Interesting coincidence, @Treaclewell - years ago, two women researchers did a meta-study of rape and rapists. Their aim was to see if they could reach a figure indicating what proportion of men were rapists. The premise was that the number of rape victims doesn't tell you anything about the number of perpetrators, as perpetrators are likely to rape more than one victim.

As I recall, they couldn't really do it because the sources are too disparate. They plugged away, however, reporting what findings they could with confidence levels. Their most confident outcome was that, on average, a rapist rapes around ... 17 women.

Lisak and Miller reckoned 5.6 victims per rapist. Either way, it's clear that rapists repeat offend.