mr_engineer

This is a fundamentally sexist society, women are seen as inferior to men. And the 'superior party', of course, will assert their dominance on the 'inferior party'! (Not condoning it, just explaining the psychology based on what I've heard.) Not because that individual has a fetish, because he's a 'man' and a 'man' is superior to a 'woman'. Religion has done a lot, actually, to combat this, by making motherhood the highest-status position to be in, because 'the mother is the giver of life'. There are pros and cons to this solution. This makes it so women have to be 'good mothers' and 'good homemakers' to get any sense of social esteem.

You can have a certain fetish. Whether you engage in it consensually or non-consensually, is your choice (there are consequences either way). Rape has nothing to do with your fetishes. It has to do with mental attitudes towards sex and towards women. It's due to the conquest-mindset and objectification of women. This idea of 'consent' is a foreign idea to these individuals. They're literally just uneducated about the fact that non-consensual sex is called 'rape' and it's illegal. That being said, the media does have a way of sensationalizing the most gory cases. That is the media's job, after all - sensationalizing and glamourizing negativity. 'There were stab-marks on her private parts' Today people are angry about this, tomorrow people will find something else to be angry about. It evokes emotional reactions and people don't think rationally about the issue.

When some rape-case happens, feminists start to really psycho-analyze men, saying all men are this, that and the other. That 'this is the problem with men'. When this happens, a lot of men, reasonably, say 'not all men'. Because there are good men out there, and we don't want to be hated for our gender. Why does this make feminists so butthurt? Why are they so insistent on hating on all men?

@Emerald What's up with saying 'if you're saying not all men, you're probably harassing women'?! Why are feminists so set on falsely accusing innocent men?!

I will not be shamed just because I have male parts. Enough is enough. No more sexist rhetoric against men. Not All Men. Is that clear?

Now, back to my question. What's the actual problem with saying 'not all men'. Is it false?

I understand them fine. I understand that their empathy is partial and that their hatred for men blinds them. That's why they say shit like 'if you say 'not all men', you're part of the problem'. That's nonsense. They really like to tell men to 'look in the mirror' and 'learn'. That's just hypocritical. When's the last time they looked in the mirror?! Do they think they're the only ones who can psycho-analyze?! We can also do that. Do not mess with innocent men.

As a matter of fact, they already are dismissing those concerns. Not that I care, I know that this is a performance of wokeness, not real wokeness. This is not about anyone's feelings, this is about the truth. Not all men!

Because they're full of shit, as far as I'm concerned. No, I'm not 'part of the problem'. I don't watch porn, I don't engage in casual sexism, I'm not a misogynist. I love women.

My problem is that they enable false-accusations using this rhetoric. And, ultimately, they're shooting themselves in the foot by doing this, because it makes it harder to believe real victims. All because they're waging a war against men.

Have you considered the fact that when they attack us for saying 'not all men', this enables false accusations?!

The loneliness-statistics say it all.

I can't find the post where Leo told me to 'not be needy'. It was something along the lines of me saying 'I shouldn't put up with disrespectful treatment from women' and Leo was like 'the fact that you need women to treat you with respect is you being needy. Have fun, no matter what gets thrown at you'. If someone can find that thread, it would be much appreciated. What is 'neediness', though?

Mods, you can lock this thread. I am considering this idea of 'neediness' debunked.

This is a glorification of separation inside the relationship. Obviously, you're going to fight more when you end up talking, obviously, you're going to have break-ups, obviously, you're going to then think 'me need me-time to heal, so me be single right now'. Obviously, millennials and Gen-Z are the loneliest generation. Obviously, they are the instant-gratification generation. This pathological thought-process, this mind-virus of 'don't be needy' is at the root of it!

What's 'healthy'? Both people don't spend any time together, both people are doing their own thing? Is that 'healthy'?

What if two needy people want to be together? Is that illegal, in your books?

Would you sue someone who's being needy? Would you call the police on them for 'being needy'?

I was being persistent with a question that I knew people would not take seriously, because I wanted an answer. It got answered. If I cared about you perceiving it as 'needy', it would not have gotten answered! What's your answer, by the way? Is it illegal to be needy?

So, nobody has the courage to answer my question. I knew it. There are no ethical considerations relative to the issue of 'neediness' either. Therefore, there is no logical reason to not be 'needy'!

Bump

Bump

The conversation won't move forward if nobody answers. So, Bump.

Bump

Bump