Men's Group

datasuspect

(26,591 posts)

15. alert results

Mon May 27, 2013, 10:52 AM

May 2013

At Mon May 27, 2013, 03:28 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

The usual suspects make a big deal about it if the subject is breached
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=8752

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Once again this Warren Farrell fan is posting his favorites flimsy, flawed study. It proves that women really do say no but mean yes, therefore "the no means no meme is bullshit"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=905760
3rd paragraph

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=2100

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=7415

I'm sick of this guy repeatedly pushing this date rape apologia.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon May 27, 2013, 03:50 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Once again the alerter is alerting on information he or she doesn't LIKE I'm sick of this alerter censoring someone because they don't like the material referenced. Alerter, you might want to check out the link to the author of the study--it's not some sexist guy's study, it comes from a female professor in a university Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies department. This is a really frivolous alert; the alerter's goal is to shut this poster up and not discuss the topic. . If you don't like the citations, alerter, argue with the poster about them--but blatant censorship of an academic study? That makes DU suck, big time.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I agree with everything the person who alerted says but see no violation on board standards. Debate the ignoramus on this.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: What does this have to do with Warren Farrell? Oh, right, nothing. Apparently screaming that name is like yelling "Hitler" and ends all discussion.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: A .gov website would seem to be an acceptable source to cite.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

93 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Let's talk about "Coercive Sex". [View all] Bonobo May 2013 OP

Yesterday I read on DU that preschool boys who knock down block towers are being trained to rape. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #1

It's silly, but the attempt to redefine "coercion" is worse. Bonobo May 2013 #2

If you look at the anecdote, it seems to be missing some info. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #3

Of course something is being left out. Bonobo May 2013 #4

People are complex, and allowed to change their minds. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #5

On EDIT: Read the last line: "He'd gotten her consent after all". Bonobo May 2013 #8

It also demands that we fully understand and teach what those things mean Major Nikon May 2013 #10

If they built the blocks to look like girls and fucked the structure first, maybe. Gore1FL May 2013 #6

What it was was taking an example of shitty parenting and trying to sketch some Warren DeMontague May 2013 #7

I'm not sure that building and knocking over block buildings qualifies as shitty parenting, either. Gore1FL May 2013 #11

No, it was that the parents excused it by saying "boys will be boys", supposedly. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #12

additional clarification: yes, the point of block towers is to build and knock them down. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #13

I appreciate the clarification Gore1FL May 2013 #14

The usual suspects make a big deal about it if the subject is breached Major Nikon May 2013 #9

alert results datasuspect May 2013 #15

I was on that jury too (#5) ProudToBeBlueInRhody May 2013 #16

They will continue to engage in it because they know it succeeds occassionally Major Nikon May 2013 #18

Regarding your comment Major Nikon May 2013 #19

Apparently you're a "Warren Farrell Fan with a Flimsy, Flawed Study" Warren DeMontague May 2013 #20

Warren Farrell Fan with a Flimsy, Flawed Study Major Nikon May 2013 #21

Warren farrell fan with a flimsy flawed study Warren DeMontague May 2013 #32

Looks like the beginnings of a C&W hit Major Nikon May 2013 #33

Could be the spark that reignites Randy Travis' career! opiate69 May 2013 #35

What can I say, I'm a poet. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #36

Aw cute, look who agrees with you! redqueen May 2013 #22

Very telling how some believe in the validity of guilt-by-association fallacies Major Nikon May 2013 #24

He's me. SHHHH! DON'T TELL ANYONE! Warren DeMontague May 2013 #25

If you think about it, the only thing stopping you is a $15 domain registration Major Nikon May 2013 #26

the only thing stopping me from what? Wearing yellow shirts? Warren DeMontague May 2013 #27

Hey now! For some of us, the goatee is the best we can do! opiate69 May 2013 #28

Oh, it looks good on you, though! Warren DeMontague May 2013 #29

lmao! Well played, Judge Smails! opiate69 May 2013 #30

When I was growing up, my friends and I lived that movie. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #31

Heh.. my friends and I were more like Dante & Randall.. opiate69 May 2013 #34

Yeah, I was those guys too. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #37

lol opiate69 May 2013 #38

Yeah, I really got a kick out of it at the time. It hit exactly the right spot for where I was in my Warren DeMontague May 2013 #40

That study is from 1988. redqueen May 2013 #39

Farrell's book came out 5 years later Major Nikon May 2013 #44

"the no means no meme is bullshit" - followed by quoting a nearly *30* year old study... redqueen May 2013 #45

It means exactly what the study says it means Major Nikon May 2013 #50

You're still not answering the question. Why do you repeatedly quote a 25 year old study, alongside redqueen May 2013 #51

Let's be clear here Major Nikon May 2013 #63

Yes means yes. It does not mean "no" or even "maybe" lumberjack_jeff May 2013 #41

Are you seriously ignoring the subject being discussed (that "the no means no meme is bullshit")? redqueen May 2013 #42

No means no to the receiver Major Nikon May 2013 #46

Explain why you quote it along with your defense of Farrell being 'quoted out of context'. nt redqueen May 2013 #47

First try reading what was posted with and without context and see if you derive the same meaning Major Nikon May 2013 #48

You quoted him. At length. redqueen May 2013 #49

Based on what? Your opinion? Major Nikon May 2013 #54

Now who's quoting things out of context? redqueen May 2013 #55

Nowhere does that study say "no means no is bullshit" opiate69 May 2013 #59

Are you for fucking real? redqueen May 2013 #62

Are you?? opiate69 May 2013 #71

Even redqueen admitted "no means no" meme was bullshit Major Nikon May 2013 #79

Yep.. exhibit # 531,140,998 as to why I hate "bumper sticker ideology". opiate69 May 2013 #82

I posted the excerpt you are quoting from Major Nikon May 2013 #67

That is precisely the subject. nt Bonobo May 2013 #52

Another thread, in another forum... opiate69 May 2013 #53

ROFL, ... unfuckingreal. No, opiate69, THAT thread inspired THIS one. AS USUAL! redqueen May 2013 #57

Right.. because 3:50 pm today is before yesterday, which was when bonobo started this thread.. opiate69 May 2013 #61

Uggggggghhh... redqueen May 2013 #66

I'll settle this. Redqueen is correct. Bonobo May 2013 #68

No problem with that at all, and thanks for clearing it up. redqueen May 2013 #70

Right.. except... opiate69 May 2013 #72

Consent should be a bright line, clearly communicated and understood. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #43

That nuanced view leans toward yes meaning MAYBE and maybe meaning NO. redqueen May 2013 #56

Question: Bonobo May 2013 #58

Yeah, like when they're married to someone they don't love, but don't want to cheat, redqueen May 2013 #60

Please don't tell me what I WANT to hear. Bonobo May 2013 #65

Actually quite a few of those are saying yes Major Nikon May 2013 #76

There's an awful lot of straw, in that post. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #64

Last year my ass, he posted it today. redqueen May 2013 #69

No you have it backwards Bonobo May 2013 #73

I've said over and over that I don't give a flying philadelphia fuck about Warren Farrell. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #74

You were done some time back Major Nikon May 2013 #75

In no other realm would you expect me to substitute my judgement for hers. lumberjack_jeff May 2013 #80

And looks like somebody else is fond of posting 40+ year old videos. opiate69 Jun 2013 #92

"Have sex with me or I'll give you an F for the semester" is coercive. lumberjack_jeff May 2013 #17

by unpacking the xojane article galileoreloaded May 2013 #23

Bottom line for Radfems is: Bonobo May 2013 #77

Everything that gets posted here goes through the funhouse mirror. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #83

Associative logic tends to make one lose their grip on reality Major Nikon May 2013 #84

It must KILL them... Bonobo May 2013 #85

Im going to stick with my earlier statement. Warren DeMontague May 2013 #86

I heard puppies are kind of gamy tasting Gore1FL May 2013 #87

I only use farm raised puppies Major Nikon May 2013 #88

Here is how Smith college defines sexual assault and consent Bonobo May 2013 #78

Even their definition leaves a lot to be desired Major Nikon May 2013 #81

For me, it's simply being conscientious of what the other person wants or doesn't want. nomorenomore08 May 2013 #89

Yes, we do all know how we should act. Bonobo May 2013 #90

In general, I think I agree with you. And I think splitting hairs over someone's "real intentions" nomorenomore08 May 2013 #91

Try looking at the definition of the word 'coerce' LanternWaste Oct 2017 #93