Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Men's Group
In reply to the discussion: Let's talk about "Coercive Sex". [View all]redqueen
(115,164 posts)22. Aw cute, look who agrees with you!
http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/no-means-no-sure-whatever/
Looks like Paul Elam is also quite fond of citing that nearly 40-year-old-study.
Looks like Paul Elam is also quite fond of citing that nearly 40-year-old-study.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
93 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Yesterday I read on DU that preschool boys who knock down block towers are being trained to rape.
Warren DeMontague
May 2013
#1
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
They will continue to engage in it because they know it succeeds occassionally
Major Nikon
May 2013
#18
Very telling how some believe in the validity of guilt-by-association fallacies
Major Nikon
May 2013
#24
If you think about it, the only thing stopping you is a $15 domain registration
Major Nikon
May 2013
#26
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
"the no means no meme is bullshit" - followed by quoting a nearly *30* year old study...
redqueen
May 2013
#45
You're still not answering the question. Why do you repeatedly quote a 25 year old study, alongside
redqueen
May 2013
#51
Are you seriously ignoring the subject being discussed (that "the no means no meme is bullshit")?
redqueen
May 2013
#42
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
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
Consent should be a bright line, clearly communicated and understood.
Warren DeMontague
May 2013
#43
Yeah, like when they're married to someone they don't love, but don't want to cheat,
redqueen
May 2013
#60
I've said over and over that I don't give a flying philadelphia fuck about Warren Farrell.
Warren DeMontague
May 2013
#74
In no other realm would you expect me to substitute my judgement for hers.
lumberjack_jeff
May 2013
#80
For me, it's simply being conscientious of what the other person wants or doesn't want.
nomorenomore08
May 2013
#89
In general, I think I agree with you. And I think splitting hairs over someone's "real intentions"
nomorenomore08
May 2013
#91