Egoy3k: No it doesn't. It never has and probably never will glorify killing hookers. This is either a falshood that nobody has explained to you yet or an outright lie.

You really shouldnt white knight a game named after a crime.

/weirdest girl-boner...

Egoy3k: I read your whole post but you are still wrong. Mistreating prostitutes does not 'exist' in the game any more than it does in real life. You can pay for their 'services' or not as you like. The game never actually gives any indications that this is even possible let alone encouraged and it's a pretty obscure part of the game as it is. Once the transaction is complete the hooker walks away. If you decide to kill her she drops some money just like any other random person on the street will drop some money when you kill them.

Killing hookers has never been a mechanic in GTA just like flying into the World Trade Center isn't a mechanic in a flight sim.

GTA isn't a game about objectives. It's about potential. The first one was top down. That means you don't have to go right, you can go any direction. It's called been called "open world" or "sandbox." It pioneered the farking genre. And this was the first thing a friend of mine showed me when demonstrating the game. I don't care if you're penalized - you can do it. You can straight-up murder prostitutes in assassins creed.

If the only difference between GTA's murder sprees and this game's domestic violence is that one is an objective, your position is flimsy.

Either way, both are JUST GAMES. FFS.  If slapping your boyfriend in this game influences real life, I can't wait until they release a game where you shoot at people.

WhippingBoy: That's exactly what I'd expect a patriarchal oppressor to say. A vain attempt to remain in power, under the guise of "personal responsibility".

Man, do you really think feminists think this way? Damn,y ou're just as bad as the folks that were ragging on you in that other thread a few weeks back. So much for claiming you wanted to try and understand stuff and actually have a discussion. =/.

Felgraf: WhippingBoy: That's exactly what I'd expect a patriarchal oppressor to say. A vain attempt to remain in power, under the guise of "personal responsibility".

Man, do you really think feminists think this way? Damn,y ou're just as bad as the folks that were ragging on you in that other thread a few weeks back. So much for claiming you wanted to try and understand stuff and actually have a discussion. =/.

It's like some people are blind to the vile bigotry some people love flying under the guise of 'feminism'.

Was I the only person who read Julie Burchill's recent article in The Guardian, or did that not happen?

Theaetetus: I wouldn't bother with him. He basically admitted he just does this to troll in another thread.

I'm just frustrated because I (pseudo) defended him in a thread a few months back, more because I believed he was just being ineloquent (And was able to, it seems, help at least a few people understand where some of the frustration comes from in feminism threads from the male perspective. That is, why some people jump into such threads venting frustrations that they're ignored or treated unfairly, since the topics don't occur in a vacuum. And one can make the case that issues for men can be *perceived* as being dismissed outright, rather than simply being treated as lower priority, and that is where some frustration can build from, etc etc...).

And I'm pissed that I wasted good will on trying to help someone who was just farking around and being a dick. I suppose the fact that such pseudo-defense lead to a (small bit) of useful conversation should temper that frustration, though...

Quinsisdos: It's like some people are blind to the vile bigotry some people love flying under the guise of 'feminism'.

Perhaps I should rephrase it as "all feminine." Yeah, there are some horrible people and misandrists in the movement, from what I understand. There's horrible folks everywhere.

Also, in a previous thread, he had simply claimed to seek understanding discussion (and was not falling on the 'rabid misandrist' area of the spectrum), sooooo... yeah, he's being a dick here.

Egoy3k: moothemagiccow: Egoy3k: No it doesn't. It never has and probably never will glorify killing hookers. This is either a falshood that nobody has explained to you yet or an outright lie.

You really shouldnt white knight a game named after a crime.

It's not white knighting it's a statement of fact. The game does not glorify killing hookers. It's untrue to say that it does. Once again, GTA glorifiys killing hookers just like a pre-2001 flight sim glorifies flying planes into the world trade center. In other words it doesn't. I'm not the one fixating on GTA here. I responded to the OPs whole post, you are the ones who have focused on the game, not me.

I'm a big fan of GTA and I don't think it's fair to say that the game doesn't glorify killing hookers. It glorifies killing pretty much anyone, including hookers.

Theaetetus: The cure for many of the MRA complaints - family courts that assume that women are primary caretakers and/or can't be self-sufficient, maternity leave that's not reflected in paternity leave, etc

I don't think that's quite so simple (the cultural believe isn't going to morph overnight), but it would be a step in the right direction, I agree. I was simply helping explain that some of the (percieved) anti-feminist backlash came from, to an extent, miscommunucation. You can even see some of it coming from (Some of) the pro-feminist posts in this thread: Not arguing (as you did) that yes, it is a problem, and pushing hard for equality will fix it*for everyone*, but arguing that it's not an issue or dudes should just leave or really, what are they complaining about? Which in turn can give those who have experienced such abuse (or know people who have), an almost *reflexive* dislike of the speaker's goals, since,w ell, they're belittling a harrow, traumatic, and quite frankly farked up scenario they had to live through.

So I think we're in agreement here.


Theaetetus: Who is less likely to sabotage birth control or try to trap a man into marriage?

I would argue this has more to do with crazy and less to do with feminism.

MikeBoomshadow: My view of this app is that I have the right to strongly disapprove, and that's about it.

Everyone will feel strongly against some form of expression. Now if the app is specifically ADVOCATING criminal abuse, then I think we all have not only the right but the duty to request its removal.

But in this specific case, anyone who claims that the app influences their decision to abuse a boyfriend, they were gonna do it regardless of the app, and so are full of crap.

I think most people are saying "It is farked up that there is an app that makes light of such a thing. A similar app targeting women would never have been approved."

I sound fat: g4lt: I sound fat: g4lt: super_grass: This isn't real violence, and volume against men by women isn't a real issue.

Get over you victim complexes.

Annnd we're back to the Stone age.  Throw in the towel, civilization, it's over.

I'm going to try to say this without being condescending or insensitive.  It will be hard.

Tip:  If your woman is abusing you, LEAVE.  You don't have to fight back (lord god, dont do that, you will go to jail) or care if she loves you back or not.  You are a MAN, you most likely have the ability to get a minimum wage job and a studio apartment.   If not, sleeping behind the dumpster is a whole lot easier on men then women, and preferable to being afraid of your girl.   I dont get this at ALL.

I'm going to try to say this without saying you're a damn fool, it won't work.  I meant what I said about civilization failing, civilization is the distinct part of humanity that makes it so that we can determine if someone is suffering harm and alleviate it.  This is the part that is failing.  Blaming the victim DOESN'T WORK, get that through your pointy little head.  If someone is committing criminal acts, they shouldn't be the one to stay put while their victim has to quit the field, that is UNCIVILIZED, get it yet?

Listen, im going to try and say... screw it, no im not.  learn to read jackhat...

Im not blaming the victim, im telling the "victim" to remove himself from the situation.  If you cant see that is the rational thing to do, there is ZERO hope for you, fair or not.

It's a matter of verb tense that some people just can't seem to grasp.

Blame:  "If you had  left after the first beating, it wouldn't have  happened again."

Help:  "Leave before it happens again."

Blame's focus is on the past.  Help's focus is on the present and future.

RobSeace: g4lt: It's only rational when there's no civilization to remove the abuser from the situation. That is the entire point of a law enforcement apparatus, to get the person doing the unethical harm out of the situation and let the victim get on with their life.

Yes, but that requires cooperation from the victim, in actually calling the cops, and then going through with pressing charges and testifying and all that... Many times, for whatever reason, they choose not to cooperate... In the case of guys hit by women, I think many of them don't want to admit to being abused for fear of being labeled weakling pussies... In the case of women hit by men, I think it's more often that they have a sort of Stockholm syndrome and blame themselves for the abuse rather than the abuser... But, in any case, if the victim won't cooperate with law enforcement, I'm not sure how you expect "civilization" to just swoop in and magically save the day (all while probably being cursed by the victim for their interference)...

The same way civilization steps into a case of homicide even though the victim won't cooperate.

Felgraf: Theaetetus: I wouldn't bother with him. He basically admitted he just does this to troll in another thread.

I'm just frustrated because I (pseudo) defended him in a thread a few months back, more because I believed he was just being ineloquent (And was able to, it seems, help at least a few people understand where some of the frustration comes from in feminism threads from the male perspective. That is, why some people jump into such threads venting frustrations that they're ignored or treated unfairly, since the topics don't occur in a vacuum. And one can make the case that issues for men can be *perceived* as being dismissed outright, rather than simply being treated as lower priority, and that is where some frustration can build from, etc etc...).

And I'm pissed that I wasted good will on trying to help someone who was just farking around and being a dick. I suppose the fact that such pseudo-defense lead to a (small bit) of useful conversation should temper that frustration, though...

Quinsisdos: It's like some people are blind to the vile bigotry some people love flying under the guise of 'feminism'.

Perhaps I should rephrase it as "all feminine." Yeah, there are some horrible people and misandrists in the movement, from what I understand. There's horrible folks everywhere.

Also, in a previous thread, he had simply claimed to seek understanding discussion (and was not falling on the 'rabid misandrist' area of the spectrum), sooooo... yeah, he's being a dick here.

Felgraf, I sincerely appreciated what you did for me in that other thread; I was, and am, absolutely sincere, and am attempting to accomplish more than just "being a dick". I'm sorry to have disappointed you; I tend to act without much thought sometimes when an idea pops into my head, and sometimes (most times), I'm not nearly as clever as I think I am (that I freely admit).

Flakeloaf: ajt167: I was under the impression that violent video games don't influence people and lead them to believe violence is okay. What am I missing?

Came here to say this. You can't argue that something is harmless and howl about how it threatens a group that includes you in the same breath.

Violence against men is a real thing that really exists and it is a problem. This problem is in no way related to pretend video game violence against an imaginary man any more than a "beat your wife" game creates or enhances actual violence against women. That said, subby is absolutely right that a Chris Brown simulator would bring out the torch and pitchfork brigade before it was even done compiling.

Video games may not cause violence IRL.  But an obsession with violent games is indicative of a taste for violence.  If  you agree, then violent video games  should NOT be restricted; they're a useful diagnostic and forensic tool.

Sex offenders should not be banned from social media, by the same logic.  Facebook makes them easier to monitor.  Given people's propensity to post shiat without consulting their inner censors, it may make treatment more effective.

Theaetetus: Felgraf: WhippingBoy: That's exactly what I'd expect a patriarchal oppressor to say. A vain attempt to remain in power, under the guise of "personal responsibility".

Man, do you really think feminists think this way? Damn,y ou're just as bad as the folks that were ragging on you in that other thread a few weeks back. So much for claiming you wanted to try and understand stuff and actually have a discussion. =/.

I wouldn't bother with him. He basically admitted he just does this to troll in another thread.

I admitted to no such thing. Regardless of your opinion of me, my intent in these types of threads is most definitely not to troll. I may be a misguided, bumbling, buffoon, but my intent is sincere.

onyxruby: In the state I live in there isn't a single domestic abuse shelter that allows men to stay. Their is a system wide state of denial that domestic abuse against men exists in this country.

True.  Sounds like a great business opportunity.  "Non-profit" business, of course. ;-)  The statistics and discrimination laws virtually compel government funding.  Even if tax dollars and donations are not forthcoming, you could always sell insurance to men who dig crazy.

"The American Male Card:  don't go home without it." :-)

Egoy3k: Treygreen13: I'm a big fan of GTA and I don't think it's fair to say that the game doesn't glorify killing hookers. It glorifies killing pretty much anyone, including hookers.

That's fair to say, but the implication of that logic is that if they were to make hookers invulnerable in GTV V that it would be sexist.

They should really just arm them all: you try to shoot or run-over a hooker, she whips out one of the more powerful guns and fills your ass full of lead! You still might be able to take one out, but at least it would be a more fair fight... And, if you try to kill a few of them, they should make all the others refuse to do business with you after that, and in fact will start to shoot at you on sight, just like some of the rival gang members do when you piss them off...