Lila9

Yes, they remain forever psychologically and emotionally immature. They are encouraged to stay lack of accountability by patriarchy. Society enables them. While women are socialized to mature too early.

There is a difference between millions of men worldwide participating in the rape of their unconscious, drugged wives or underage girls who cannot give consent and women who consume smut involving fictional characters that hurt no one. Both are unhealthy because these people are sexually addicted, but the first is much worse than the second.

He forced Christine and Tolga to take videos of him running and jumping like a bison in the wild. For hours. Hahaha they had so much tolerance for his attention-seeking behavior and constant need for validation. The way he fishes for compliments. They also tried to stay polite when he said such disturbing things about the girls in order to not expose the fact that they are trying to collect evidence of him sexually abusing the girls. It clearly wasn't easy for them. It gives a glimpse into the emotionally immature mind of a narcissist and a cult leader. This is why it is easy to catch criminals with this profile of attention- and validation-seeking behavior. Christine and Tolga did a very good job.

This is why I believe that rape and sexual violence are mainly caused by the socialization of men rather than uncontrollable lust or lust that is too strong to control. If the latter is the case, then why do we even trust men to be in power? The truth is, of course, that adult men can control it. This explains how a man can be a president and still rape underage women, not because he cannot control his sexuality, but because he is violent and misogynistic.

Thank you for your geniune attemp to understand and value truth. I am not surprised by the forest creep behavior. I hope such men will be forever isolated from women and children because they are not safe. If all they have to say in a thread talking about rape of women is to bring the focus and attention back to their victimhood mentality or provide justifications to the rape culture, then they don't really like or care about women.

Full: https://lettersfromafeminist.substack.com/p/the-good-men-behind-the-online-rape The "Good Men" behind the Online Rape Academy Men, you think you aren't upholding the rape culture. But most of you are passive enforcers of the patriarchy. You have heard how the story goes. A porn website called “Motherless” had been viewed by 62.7 million pairs of eyes in the shortest month of the year. 80 million visits in March. That’s 140 million instances of men consuming porn that depicts the literal violation of women’s bodies in every possible dehumanising angle. Millions of video and images categorized by tags like #passedout and #eyecheck. The “eyecheck” tag, where men film themselves lifting the closed eyelids of sedated women to prove they are unconscious, has videos surpassing 50,000 views. And this website is still not down. It remains up on the internet, where any young boys with wifi and unrestricted access can access. It is protected by legal shields like Section 230, which allows platforms to remain “moral free” while the men who scroll past the “crying”, the “execution,” and the “strangled” tags convince themselves that their consumption is victimless. Women’s bodies are turned into “slaughterhouse meat,” as survivor Valentina described it. Her husband of 20 years had filmed him abusing her after he had drugged her with alcohol and sedatives. Then there’s the online rape academy. A telegram channel called “Zzz” with 1,000 active members. Drugging their wives. Stripping them off their rights and bodily autonomy. Their husbands then record them raping their spouses, as their wedding band’s shine at the camera mockingly. This is a global brotherhood where men find a sense of belonging. It is a world where a man based in West Africa or Poland can reach out to a digital community to validate the drugging of his sleeping wife, finding “brotherhood” in the collective violation of women’s autonomy. In these groups, “video is king.” Husbands livestream the abuse of their drugged wives in real-time for $20 a viewer, taking direction from paying participants on what to do next. “They told me what to do and I did it,” one user told CNN. I read the CNN report again and again and tried to blink back the tears. Maybe this was how you felt too. Nauseous. Stick to your stomach and your sweaty palms and rising stress levels don’t help. Women are not safe. I wish I could say I was shocked to read this. But I wasn't. It only solidified the truth women have been carrying their whole lives as they try to survive the patriarchy– that the men we devoted our lives to and sworn vows to is statistically more likely to end up defiling us into inanimate objects. Sex is a conquest to be won over by men. And our bodies are mere trophies to bear witness that ugly path to victory. Winning for men is not to merely have consensual sex with their spouses. It’s not even turning a deaf ear when we plead ‘no’ until our sanity shatters into a million pieces. Now, winning over women looks like turning us into a lifeless doll. We no longer have the mouth to plead for mercy. Women are left with a sore body and bruises they swear they don’t remember seeing yesterday. The question that was left ringing in our heads after learning of this appalling crime was why. What is the motive? Men already have access to our bodies because it is our husbands, fiancees, boyfriends behind this. How in the world will we recover from yet another revelation that male violence will continue to thrive in the rape culture we live in today? The answer is not simple. We can’t just tell men to be more accountable because as a society, ‘good men’ continue to uphold rape culture. Continue to consume porn that degrades and objectifies women’s bodies. The Rape Culture that thrives today Let me paint you an image. At this very moment, a group of boys are sitting in a classroom, watching a game, in the restaurant or in a locker room talking about women. Their conversation is not a “good” one. It’s not polite. It’s not wholesome. It’s not a respectful one. It’s a conversation that dehumanizes girls so that they are mere bodies; they do not have to go about assessing the mutuality of their attractions and then their desired behaviors. Consent isn’t the standard. Consent isn’t expected of them. Power, domination, and control by any means necessary are the learned lessons that are far too often taken into sexual interactions. It’s true that not all men are predators. Some are sympathizers. Some are apologists. Some are victim-blamers. Some suddenly become investigators the moment a woman speaks, demanding unattainable “evidence” before they’ll believe her. Others are more concerned about a man’s reputation than a survivor’s reality. Many men just simply stay quiet. They won’t challenge the friend who makes rape jokes. They won’t distance themselves from the guy with multiple allegations. They won’t risk their social life to confront harmful behavior. And then there are those who just don’t care as long as it doesn’t affect them directly. So before you reach for “not all men,” ask yourself: Are you actively holding predatory men in your life accountable? Do you challenge misogynistic language in real time? Do you support survivors even when it’s inconvenient? If the answer is no, then you’re directly contributing to a culture that allows male violence to thrive. So the issue isn’t whether you personally would inflict unspeakable sexual violence to someone. The question is whether you’re disrupting an environment that protects the ones who do. The “Not All Men” Defense The reflex to these horrific accounts of rape is predictably, exhaustingly: “Not all men.” But the category of “good men” is not what is in dispute here. We are tracking how organized social infrastructure sustains the behavior of the predators. When men rush to announce their non-rapist status, they are centering their own ego instead of confronting the crisis that is currently staring them in the face and their social life. The real risk sits in the weight distributed across the “good men” who stay quiet. It runs on the silence of the locker room. When men are more agitated by the precision of the traffic stats than the existence of the “rape academy,” they are performing a specific type of social tax—a deflection that ensures the infrastructure of abuse remains unexamined. Abuse is not just committed but it is taught, normalized, and sustained in communities that enforce it to feel ordinary. The culture of male violence cannot survive without the rule of male silence. Being a “good man” means taking accountability for the world we live in, regardless of personal actions. It means recognizing that over 99 percent of rape is perpetrated by men, and that statistics are not just numbers—they are the recorded history of women’s fear. If you stay quiet when a friend makes a rape joke, or if you consume the very porn that degrades and objectifies the women you claim to respect, you are part of the problem. You are the tolerance that allows the monsters to thrive. The question is not whether you personally would inflict violence, but whether you are disrupting the environment that protects those who do. Shame Must Finally Change Sides We are watching the moral fabric of our society tear under the weight of systemic misogyny. This pattern is visible in the news items we try to ignore: the murders of Nancy Metayer and Cerina Fairfax by their husbands, the resignations of congressmen over sexual assault, and the sneers of powerful men at the survivors of the Epstein files. In one week, the evidence of systemic rot is everywhere, and yet the reflex is still to protect the male ego from discomfort. Survivors are called “psyops” or dismissed, while public sympathy is wasted on the men who kill. We are treating women like slaughterhouse meat in both our digital spaces and our judicial ones. The solution is not for women to map more escape routes, carry more mace, or do more emotional labor to “explain” their humanity to men. It is for men to do the work. To refuse the joke. To refuse the shrug. To refuse the content. Shame must finally change sides. We must decide whether we will continue to watch the consequences of this collective failure, or whether men will finally choose to be better than the systems that protect them. The question is no longer “are you a good man?” The question is: What do you refuse to carry?

😊 I was a teenager as well, and I remember experiencing very strong sexual impulses. This is a normal part of adolescent development, as this stage of life involves significant hormonal changes. What distinguishes humans is the presence of a developed frontal cortex, which supports thoughtful decision-making and the ability to regulate impulses. Teenagers may have weaker impulse control because the frontal cortex is still maturing during this period. This is why masturbation among teens is considered a healthy and normal aspect of sexual development because it allows them a safe and healthy release. There are also adults whose frontal cortex development and the impulse control hasn't been fully developed due to factors such as genetics, socialization, or trauma. I recommend to read this article about the myth of male hypersexuality: https://razkia.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-male-hypersexuality

People will go so far with various justifications and rationalizations for various phenomenon which can be easily explained by patriarchy. I see rational people fail to this trap because they involve their strong survival bias. Where is the epistemological police? I want to report an epistemological crime.

When they grow up in a system which ties the male sexuality to manhood and status while female sexuality is tied to repression and shame then obviously this will be the result.

This is a good map for understanding your emotions, by the way.

This is what I see as well. Men judge women for being emotional, but men are emotional too. Being human is being emotional. This is why the version of manhood within patriarchy is false and doesn't match men's behavior in reality. And yes, huge shadow work is required.

Human sexuality is neither monogamous or polyamorous. It's both. For both sexes.

I certainly will. I also made a tiny addition to your original post:

I definitely will.

Not, it hasn't been debankued. What you shared called a criticism. Scholars always argue and criticize each other's papers. The point of gender labor flexibility still stands. If survival require certain skills, it doesn't matter what you have between your legs.

This is why gender roles are a social construct. Sex is a biological fact but gender roles are flexible. https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aman.13914 "The Paleo-fantasy of a deep history to a sexual division of labor, often described as “Man the Hunter and Woman the Gatherer,” continues to dominate the literature. We see it used as the default hypothesis in anatomical and physiological reconstructions of the past as well as studies of modern people evoking evolutionary explanations. However, the idea of a strict sexual labor division in the Paleolithic is an assumption with little supporting evidence, which reflects a failure to question how modern gender roles color our reconstructions of the past. Here we present examples to support women's roles as hunters in the past as well as challenge oft-cited interpretations of the material culture. Such evidence includes stone tool function, diet, art, anatomy and paleopathology, and burials. By pulling together the current state of the archaeological evidence along with the modern human physiology presented in the accompanying paper (Ocobock and Lacy, this issue), we argue that not only are women well-suited to endurance activities like hunting, but there is little evidence to support that they were not hunting in the Paleolithic. Going forward, paleoanthropology should embrace the idea that all sexes contributed equally to life in the past, including via hunting activities"

Intresting. Prompt: Is there an evidence of women fighting in wars in pre patriarchal socities? Response: Yes — there is evidence. But it’s often misunderstood because we tend to project later patriarchal war models onto much older societies. Across archaeology, anthropology, and ethnography, we have multiple independent lines of evidence showing that in many egalitarian, pre-state, and likely pre-patriarchal societies, women did participate in warfare, raids, and defense. Importantly: they were not exceptions, “disguised as men,” or symbolic figures. In some cultures, it was normal. Archaeological evidence (graves with weapons) Andean highland burial near Wilamaya Patjxa (9,000 years ago) A burial of a young woman with a full big-game hunting toolkit: projectile points, knives, scraping tools. Analysis of many similar burials in the region showed 30–50% of big-game hunters were women. In these societies, big-game hunting and warfare skills overlap (projectiles, tracking, group tactics). This strongly suggests women were trained in the same combat/hunting skills as men. Birka grave Bj 581 (Viking Age) A high-status warrior grave with sword, axe, arrows, shield, horses, and a war strategy board game. Long assumed to be a male warrior. DNA (2017) proved the skeleton is biologically female. Not just a fighter — likely a military leader/strategist. This overturned a century of assumptions about “male-only” Viking warfare. Ethnographic evidence (tribes observed in recent centuries) Dahomey Amazons (West Africa) An all-female military regiment for centuries. Elite shock troops of the kingdom. European observers documented their combat effectiveness in detail. A surviving example of a much older tradition of women as formal warriors. Scythians (Eurasian Steppe) Multiple female burials with bows, arrows, horse gear, and battle injuries. Greek accounts of “Amazons” likely came from encounters with these steppe cultures. Women rode horses, hunted, and fought like men. Anthropological observations of egalitarian tribes In several egalitarian forager groups recorded in the 19–20th centuries: Women joined defensive raids Women used bows, spears, and clubs Warfare was seen as community protection, not male domination Skill mattered more than sex Examples documented in classic ethnographies include: Agta — women hunt with bows and join raids. Mbuti — collective defense; no strict male monopoly on violence. Inuit — women trained in weapons for survival and defense. What changed with patriarchy and states As societies shifted to: Property Lineage control Standing armies Territorial conquest Warfare became: Professionalized Male-dominated Hierarchical About domination, not protection Women were excluded, not because they couldn’t fight — but because war became tied to male political power. Key takeaway In many pre-patriarchal / egalitarian societies: Fighting was a human skill, not a male role. Women hunted. Women defended. Women fought. The idea that “war has always been men’s domain” is historically recent.

All or at least most of the societies you describe started as egalitarian/mterlineal/matriarchal. Then they transformed to be more patriarchal a few thousands years ago. Egalitarian and matriarchal societies also understood the the reality and of war, please check the links I shared. But rather seeing war as a tool for control and dominantion of others they saw it as a nessecaty and a protective tool if attacked or in danger, which also was ritualized.

Yes but here you describe the transition from purple to red, at the dawn of patriarchy, not solid purple in which humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years. Purple had its harsh survival reality, but men weren’t the absolute masters of women. Though many tribes today have some patriarchal influence, there are still some old tribes that remain egalitarian or matriarchal. Mosuo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo minangkabau: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minangkabau_people Khasi: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khasi_people Akan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akan_people Iroquois/Haudenosaunee: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois Bribri: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribri_people Tuareg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuareg_people

This failure of a man had the nerve to take a life of a child, to kill her daughter. He deserves it. I understand her. This is a valid rage. This motherly protective rage can be seen in nature as well. I like this comment: "She died the day her daughter died. She didn’t care, she did what she had to do"

"We can't be in our full, mature woman power and still be a damsel in distress." Totally, the system wants women to be submissive and weak, which has nothing to do with the divine feminine. Patriarchy wants women to dismantle their power, and even smart women buy this lie that femininity equals weakness. For me, as a feminist, it is painful to see women with internalized patriarchy and misogyny who hate feminists (and compete and compare themselves with other women) just to get approval and protection from men and patriarchy. They don't understand that patriarchy is trying to sperate and isolate us women so we would be more easy to control and police. They don't understand that no woman is protected from patriarchy, not even them. In fact, the more a woman is supportive of patriarchy, the more vulnerable she is to harm.

Definitely. I am amazed that Leo doesn’t see it. The one who talks about deception doesn’t realize how patriarchy and colonialism have been so integrated into our perception of reality that we don’t notice them and confuse them with nature. The truth cannot be found within the limited and false paradigm of white supremacy and patriarchy. One has to deconstruct both. This is why I don’t believe that spirituality is separate from politics. People think that they can be spiritual without true concern about politics and political paradigms. But we are all intertwined and connected rather than separated and isolated islands. This has to be taken into account.

This article applies to young men from 18–20 to 35–40. They are called "boys" because society sees them as boys; it infantilizes them and does not hold them accountable. The point is that young women also go through isolation and even more (oppression, discrimination, violence) and still do not behave like those men, which implies specific indoctrination in those men to hate, devalue, and objectify women. Actual boys and girls (children, underage) are obviously vulnerable and do not have the mental capacity to think critically about it. But young adults do.

https://lettersfromnomfundo.substack.com/p/stop-calling-it-a-fucking-pipeline Stop Calling It a fucking Pipeline Why boys who idolize misogynists aren’t being groomed, they’re making a choice There is something deeply dishonest about the way we talk about boys who idolize men like Andrew Tate. We are told they are “vulnerable.” That they are “falling down a pipeline.” That they are being “groomed” into misogyny. But listen carefully to what that framing actually implies. It implies that when men are not centered, praised, or rewarded, they drift toward cruelty. That without constant validation, they become dangerous. That their violence is something that happens to them, not something they choose. That is not compassion but rather quiet admission. It is an admission that male morality is conditional. Because let’s be honest about what is being said in all these headlines about “alienated young men” and “lost boys.” Strip away the soft language and the therapeutic tone, and the message becomes clear. Men are angry that women have autonomy. They are angry that women can say no. Angry that women can leave. Angry that women are no longer economically or socially forced to tolerate them. And instead of confronting that reality, we dress it up as a crisis of male loneliness. But loneliness does not create abusers. Plenty of people are lonely. Women experience isolation, rejection, trauma, and systemic violence at staggering rates. Girls grow up in a culture saturated with objectification, sexualization, and threat. And yet, women are not forming mass movements around the world to exploit, dominate, or violate men. So what exactly are we saying when we claim boys are being “groomed” into misogyny? We are saying that exposure to the idea of female autonomy is enough to radicalize them. We are saying that when boys encounter a world where women are not subordinate, some of them interpret that as oppression. And instead of holding that reaction accountable, we pathologize it. We soften it. We explain it away. “He felt rejected.” “He was bullied.” “He didn’t have a father figure.” “He was looking for belonging.” No!!!!! At some point, we need to draw a line between explanation and excuse. Because the truth is, not every boy exposed to this content embraces it. Not every man who feels rejected turns to misogyny. Not every person who suffers becomes someone who harms others. There is a choice being made. And the refusal to name that choice is part of the problem. The idea that boys need “better role models” is also worth interrogating. Better than what? History, culture, politics, religion, business. Nearly every domain of power and influence has been dominated by men. Boys are not growing up in a vacuum devoid of male figures to emulate. What they are losing is not role models. They are losing entitlement. And that loss is being reframed as injustice. So instead of asking why some boys admire men who openly degrade and exploit women, we are asked to empathize with the boys. We are told to understand their pain. We are told to meet them with compassion. But where is that same urgency when women speak about fear? About violence? About the daily calculations they make to stay safe? Why is male anger treated as a crisis to be solved, while female suffering is treated as background noise? There is also something deeply disturbing in the suggestion that giving men access to relationships, families, or social status will “stabilize” them. Stabilize them from what? From harming others? Because if the argument is that men need women in order to remain non-violent, then what is being proposed is not partnership. It is containment. It is the idea that women should absorb male frustration so that it does not spill out into the wider world. That is not empathy. That is sacrifice dressed up as social policy. And women are expected to play along. To be more understanding. More patient. More accommodating. To fix a problem they did not create. Here is the uncomfortable truth. Some men are not confused. They are not lost. They are not being misled. They are responding exactly as intended to a worldview that tells them they are entitled to dominance, and that any deviation from that is an injustice. Figures like Tate do not create that mindset. They capitalize on it. They articulate it. They give it permission to speak out loud. And the boys who cheer are not doing so because they have been hypnotized. They are doing so because something in that message resonates. That is what needs to be confronted. Not excused. Confronted. Because if we keep insisting that men who embrace misogyny are simply victims of circumstance, we will never hold them accountable for the harm they cause.And without accountability, nothing changes. Women are not responsible for managing male reactions to their freedom. And the sooner we stop pretending otherwise, the clearer this conversation becomes.