>Campus creep out
>
 |
| Damn you, accursed temptress! |
In a discussion of rape on campus over on Love-shy.com, one of the regulars, a college student, complains that people see him as “creepy,” for no good reason. His tale of injustice begins:
Whenever I’m on campus, I’m eyed by the security guards. Not because I’m dangerous, but because I’m MALE.
Being male and a college student seems to be a crime of sorts.
Let’s stop right here. Bullshit. On most campuses, guys make up half the population. Dude, unless you’ve accidentally wandered onto the main quad of Wellesley College with your dick hanging out, or you’re otherwise acting weirdly or suspiciously, campus security guards aren’t going to give you a second look. Either you’re lying, or you’re imagining things, or you aren’t telling us the whole story.
Back to the comment:
What about the women who taunt the men sexually? I’m not saying that women are asking to be raped, but a LOT of women give blowjobs to professors for higher grades, and trade sexual favors, all because they’re HOT.
Uh, ok, that’s not actually true. Unless by “a LOT” you mean “a tiny number.” But it is an … interesting assumption. Also, starting any sentence with the phrase “I’m not saying that women are asking to be raped” is generally a bad sign, in the same way that Richard Nixon saying “I am not a crook” was a bad sign.
On with the rest of the comment:
And since I’m not HOT, I’m automatically seen as a creepy rapist? Fuck that shit. I respect women, I have NEVER made an inappropriate comment towards women. I’m also afraid to express myself sexually, for fear of it taken the wrong way.
Thank you, feminist hags, for making me into something I’m not: a criminal!
Ok. Let’s break this down. You “respect women,” yet you complain about them “taunt[ing] … men sexually,” and assume that “a LOT” of them are getting good grades just because they give blow jobs to profs. You’ve “NEVER made an inappropriate comment towards women,” yet given a little bit of internet anonymity you’re happy to call feminists “hags,” a gender-specific insult if ever there were one.
I don’t know. Could it be that women — and, heck, maybe even a few security guards — find you creepy because, uh, you’re walking around angry all the time, full of hatred and resentment towards half the population?
Just a guess.
EDITED TO ADD: More on the “creep” issue here.
Posted on December 26, 2010, in antifeminism, creepy, evil women, incel, misogyny, sex, sluts, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 154 Comments.
>…though keep in mind that the greater susceptibility of women to VDs like herpes isn't necessarily proof/evidence that they're *not* hypergamous eitherThat's a valid point, just as, for instance, lack of evidence to go to trial or to obtain a guilty verdict in a rape trial does *not* necessarily mean that the defendant is innocent/not guilty in actuality or that the complainant has made a false accusation. But MRAs would not likely accept that same logic as I have applied it here.
>Why are feminists so bad at math? The women are not contracting herpes from uninfected individuals now are they?Let's completely ignore the fact that those women who are FOUR TIMES MORE LIKELY to contract herpes got it from the same % of men with herpes.The fact that they are FOUR TIMES MORE LIKELY to contract herpes only serves to highlight the case that they are all vying for the attentions of the same small percent of males and it bit them in the ass (so to speak).
>@Pam,Glenn Sacks reported on a study which found that a large percent of rape claims were false. They didn't use lack of evidence to prove these stats, they used the women's own admissions that they were false and further went to a panel of observers to determine if they thought a particular woman was coerced into that admission. If they determined she may have been coerced, the claim was put back on the viable pile. http://www.glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=1334
>witman, what part of if a non-infected man and woman each have intercourse with an infected partner, the woman is more likely than the man to contract a herpes simplex virus infection. do you not understand? I posted that in a comment above; Pam posted the same information with some links; I also posted about this in my latest post. Please read before commenting.And on false rape accusations:http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/11/mens-rights-myth-false-rape-accusations.html
>Obviously I don't understand the part that conveniently ignores the fact that many women contracted Herpes from half as many men.And I fully understand (NOT) that when a woman claims to be raped, she is 100% credible but when she recants her testimony she is a liar.
>BTW, I read the entire OP and all the comments. I am merely pointing out the rather large elephant in the room that everyone else is ignoring.They aren't getting herpes from non-infected individuals so the hypergamy theory holds water.
>Witman, It's clearly you that has difficulty with math. The point that women can contract herpes more easily than men doesn't prove hypergamy at all.Example:A woman sleeps with one infected male and contracts herpes herself.She then has sex with 20 other men (all uninfected), but none of them contracts herpes off of her. All it proves is that she did sleep with one man who had herpes, not how many other men she slept with.
>And it proves that a small number of men infected twice as many women. The women are not catching Herpes from toilet seats or from un-infected individuals.Do you get the other side of the math coin here?
>Or a large number of women infected half as many men. Unless there are a disproportionate amount of rug munchers who are infected with Herpes, it's sound math.
>Sigh. I'll try to explain this one last time.People, male and female, sleep with multiple partners.Let's say a woman sleeps with 5 guys, 2 of whom have herpes. Meanwhile, a man sleeps with 5 women, 2 of whom have herpes. Even though they've each slept with the same number of partners, the woman is much more likely to end up with herpes from these encounters than the man is.When this happens again and again in a large population, you end up with more women than men having herpes.So the difference in rates of herpes does not in any way prove widespread hypergamy.
>I assume you're just being willfully ignorant at this point.Men who have herpes might indeed be having a lot of sex, which would explain why they're spreading it to so many women. But the herpes stats say nothing about the men who DON'T have herpes. For all we know from the numbers, they could be having as much, if not more sex than the herpes group, and just aren't contracting the disease from women who have it. You're saying that the stats prove that a small number of men are having sex with a large number of women, whereas it could equally be the case that a large number of men are having sex with a large number of women. The point is WE CAN'T KNOW based on the information given what percentage of men are having sex with what percentage of women, given that it's entirely possible that men without herpes could have had as much sex as the herpes group without having contracting the disease.
>The willful ignorance being that he's applying his math atop his begging the question. Sure, your math works, sort of, if you're already assuming that the smaller percentage of infected men is highly localized within a very small segment of the entire male population.
>Twist it all you want, the women caught the disease from half their number. There is no way to twist this stat!
>"Twist it all you want, the women caught the disease from half their number. There is no way to twist this stat! "which implies precisely nothing about the number of uninfected men they've slept with, or whether the herpes-carriers are in fact "alphas", as everyone is trying to explain to you. you're innumerate.