mr_engineer

So, this whole scheme to criminalize 'needy behavior' really is bullshit. Because what you're saying, to justify this narrative, is that going for a loving individual is a coping-mechanism for internal issues. I mean, come on.

Blah blah blah personal attacks

@Javfly33 Ignore all of the power-talk. It's coming from jaded individuals who have not met loving feminine women. This whole issue of 'having needs is a problem' is pure nonsense. It's another ideological trap that dating-coaches came up with, bringing in a 'spiritual' angle to it, so that they would have more courses to sell on 'how to not be needy' and 'how to overcome your attachment using the power of meditation' or other crap like that. Bottom-line, there are loving individuals in this world. Pure souls. And, there are individuals who are unaware of these pure souls, because of which they only understand the transactional style of relationship. Associate with the pure souls, cut out the other people.

With all due respect, here's what I will say. If you say that 'rape is due to sexual frustration', this is enabling the issue of rape. It gives sexually frustrated individuals the idea that 'rape is a legitimate option for me, despite the consequences'. It's not! It could be a temporary catalyst, but it's definitely not at the root of the issue.

I'm talking about how religion can solve the problem and evolve the society up to Stage Blue. I'm not saying that's the only reason. But, this is how you can start to educate men into valuing women. These men have a certain degree of male arrogance, like 'women can't drive properly, women can't do this, women can't do that'. They're incredibly sexist! They truly see women as inferior creatures.

The psychology I'm talking about is SD Stage Red psyche. Which is all about power and domination, by hook or by crook. People need to become more religious and more God-fearing, honestly, they need to evolve up to Blue! If they learn that 'rapists go to hell', and if they learn to value women in general because they're potential mothers, and 'the mother is the giver of life', the culture will improve. Then, we'll think about evolving into an individualistic culture.

Fundamentally, boundaries aren't taken very seriously in this country. So, if a man is physically bigger and stronger, he's going to control the interaction with a woman. This gives men a certain 'power', logistically. And, some of them will abuse it. This culture has yet to evolve into individualism. People don't assert their individuality so easily because it is normal to judge those who do and who don't conform to certain norms. Some of them are sexist norms.

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.

@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!