Topfree Equal Rights Association (TERA)

**TheOldOligarch** · 22nd-October-2009

Quote from AlekNovy

I was referring to the social nature of the hyper-sexualization of female breasts, not why they should or shouldn't be exposed in public. I didn't read all posts, I'll be honest, but from what I saw most of TOO's arguments were about the "should or shouldn't be allowed in public" aspect... No the social constructive aspect. That one was just brushed from everyone as "nonsense".

Oh I see, so you didnt even bother to read what I wrote properly yet still feel entitled to your ridiculous opinions on my use of logic?

From a purely libertarian perspective, this is a simple question of justice. Many of you have the right idea that "you shouldn't be able to legislate morality". What you mean to say is that "It is not a legitimate function of government to make laws promoting virtue or prohibiting vice merely for the sake of doing so." That is a time honored libertarian ideal. However, decency laws aren't "moral laws" like that.

First of all, forget about public sex acts. How can you tell the difference between an assault and a sexual assault? For instance, a man tackles a woman and pins her to the ground, perhaps to prevent her from doing something. Or, a man tackles a woman and rips her shirt off and starts licking her breasts. Are these two things to be treated the same? Why is sex even special at all if not for social norms that makes it so? Suppose a man drugs a woman and, causing little or no actual physical harm to her as well as neither causing pregnancy nor disease in the process, he proceeds to engage in intercourse with her until he ejaculates inside of her without a condom. Is this to be treated as a very minor assault? You have all the same problems in "drawing the line" between sexual assault and just regular assault that you do with decency laws.

Yes the nasty man with no hygiene will, at some point, have to either take a shower or go somewhere private. You may not go around nude. You may not say sufficiently lewd things to children you might run into on the street. You may not play your music too loud in public. You may not get in a little target practice down at the city park -- not even if you promise to be really careful. You, generally, may not have a lion or an elephant, for instance, as a pet, and if you are an exception to that rule, you may not take them for a walk through your neighborhood. You may not do experiments involving high explosives in your house in the suburbs. You may not have a little camp out in the middle of the road even if that is just the perfect cleared out spot for you to pitch your tent. There are lots of things you are not allowed to do, even from a purely libertarian perspective because it is a straightforward violation of other people's rights if you do them. Specifically with regard to public acts or displays of a sexual nature, you do not have the right to force such a thing on other people if they do not wish it, which simply means that you must take reasonable precautions to obscure your activities so people don't have to see them or experience them if they are in the wrong place at the wrong time out in public (i.e. do them in private).

But, of course, I cannot possibly mean that one may not do any acts or display anything of a sexual nature, so where do I draw the line? I "draw the line" in the same manner that I draw the line between a regular assault and a sexual assault, for instance. I essentially rely on social norms. Legally speaking, this translates into having codified into law some general stipulations that reflect the will of the people and then leaving any other borderline cases to the courts and case law (which is essentially calling on a random sample of people -- a "jury" -- to make a judgment about whether or not that particular instance violated the prevailing social norms aka the law). This sort of thing is entirely different than the moral police handing down social norms to the people that the people may not actually have, themselves. This is the local ambient culture setting the norms and enacting them into law so that it is safe for them to go out into public. It should largely be a local thing -- like municipal codes -- and not decided by some far away place -- San Francisco, perhaps -- what norms should be reflected in some small rural Texas town half way across the country. This is the same way we decide how much "harm" and assault really entails. This is the same way we decide how much someone should have to pay in restitution for vandalizing someone's property. Practically everything will come to rely on this same sort of thing.

This, the above, is actually more like the standard libertarian response to the issue of decency laws. It certainly is the classical liberal one. If all public spaces were actually privately owned, such as with Homeowners Associations or something like that, then they would still just put this kind of stuff in their bylaws if it wasn't already taken care of in the law and it ever started becoming a problem. As to whether this is a men's issue, it certainly is and a nontrivial one, at that. However, I will admit that just why it is one is not at all obvious on the face of it. But, given who the players are, there is a lot of reason to be suspicious about it. I'll leave a more elaborate discussion about that for some other post....

Yeah thats exactly what I was getting at, if you say the law must absolutely and totally leave this alone then you have to allow naked men to run up to children and wave their erect penises in their faces. It really doesn't take a genius to realize that some basic rules must be enforced.

RV: The reason i havent responded to that point is because you still havent told me where you stand. I do not know the nature of the disagreement. Is it simply a matter of me drawing the line further out than you, or do you really not have a line at all. Should I, for example, be allowed to stand outside a school gate naked and masturbate as all the children file past me leaving school? Because if you don't have a line at all this is what you have to allow.

**Ernie** · 22nd-October-2009

Quote from Feckless

Yes, yes, yes....there was a lot of name calling and bikering in there. If this thread doesn´t return to normal, it is closed, just so that you know.

As a guideline, attack the argument, not the one making it.

(incredible...on a site about anti-misandry people are arguing about tits)

We stopped the arguments about tits a while ago. We are talking about whether a female supporter here can get away with comparing AKUUS
to an out of control chimpanzee that just climbed down out of a tree;
accusing shazaam of lacking moral integrity; attacking my english, as well as my reading comprehension, and telling me to shut up.

**Celtic Druid** · 22nd-October-2009

Quote from Ernie

We stopped the arguments about tits a while ago. We are talking about whether a female supporter here can get away with comparing AKUUS
to an out of control chimpanzee that just climbed down out of a tree;
accusing shazaam of lacking moral integrity; attacking my english, as well as my reading comprehension, and telling me to shut up.

Ernie, i'm intrigued, you've never made a formal introduction, yet I find you're ready familiarity with the men's movement and it's intricate language to have beginnings elsewhere? Could I ask you where else you have inhabited, and under which guise?

Besides, aren't most Frenchmen just essentially more 'accomplished' pussy-beggars than most?

**contraeverything** · 22nd-October-2009

Quote from Ernie

We stopped the arguments about tits a while ago. We are talking about whether a female supporter here can get away with...

Yes, a female supporter can get away with saying anything as long as it is true. Mind you, I am not saying whether any of the things that you have said are, in fact, true, but to men, who deal in the realm of truth and principle rather than emotions, it doesn't matter whether a man, woman, chimpanzee, or braying ass (I mean, TERA/Incognito and julie are still here!) says it, if it is true we can accept it.

When truth is in short supply, as it is in the modern world, it doesn't matter who says it. I can accept it no matter the source because I love the truth and because I am a person of principle rather than bundle of neuroses becoming an emotional wreck, as are femtards.

Quote from Ernie

comparing AKUUS to an out of control chimpanzee that just climbed down out of a tree; accusing shazaam of lacking moral integrity; attacking my english, as well as my reading comprehension, and telling me to shut up.

Chimp? Shut up?

I am a big admirer of AKUUS (and have even used his material at times - with permission, of course), but come on - he's a big boy. If somebody calls him a chimp, how about letting him handle it? We're not cowardly femtards here, who need a community powwow or governmental intervention every time someone gets their feelings hurt.

Heck, my wife called me worse than a chimp this morning! And I am no worse the wear for it.

I suppose next we gents will need to be filing sexual harassment lawsuits for having firefighter-sans-shirt calendars on the wall? Or maybe we can devise a continuing ed course for judges that will persuade them that calling someone a "chimp" is Domestic Violence?

Are you serious?

Somebody is offended over being told to "shut up?"

You can't see that the mere QUESTION makes you just like a feminist?

How about we boil this whole thing down to a discussion of principles? And let's be big boys - if some little girl attacks us personally, maybe we shouldn't run away or get our butts placed too high on our shoulders.

Maybe we should remember the lesson my sister taught me when I was four and she was seven: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

Doesn't it bother you people that MEN have become as sensitized and melodramatic as the femtard/pc crowd? Don't make me break out the Planters Peanuts in here - somebody has to have at least two testicles in these parts....

Now could we PLEASE get back to that whole BOOB thing?

**Ernie** · 22nd-October-2009

I am assuming neither of you will be offended by this.

**Celtic Druid** · 22nd-October-2009

Quote from Ernie

I am assuming neither of you will be offended by this.

Don't you want to play Ernie?

**Feckless** · 22nd-October-2009

Quote from Ernie

We stopped the arguments about tits a while ago. We are talking about whether a female supporter here can get away with comparing AKUUS
to an out of control chimpanzee that just climbed down out of a tree;
accusing shazaam of lacking moral integrity; attacking my english, as well as my reading comprehension, and telling me to shut up.

And that was what I am talking about.

*Pointing at the thread title*

Stay on topic please!

**Ernie** · 23rd-October-2009

Quote from Celtic Druid

Ernie, i'm intrigued, you've never made a formal introduction, yet I find you're ready familiarity with the men's movement and it's intricate language to have beginnings elsewhere? Could I ask you where else you have inhabited, and under which guise?

Besides, aren't most Frenchmen just essentially more 'accomplished' pussy-beggars than most?

Could I ask what you mean by the words inhabited and guise?

You don't use words like pussy beggar on my countrymen, and I
will refrain from making references to sodomites with bad teeth about
yours. OK?

**Ernie** · 23rd-October-2009

Quote from Celtic Druid

Don't you want to play Ernie?

It depends on what you have in mind Druid man.

**dad_savage** · 23rd-October-2009

Could I ask what you mean by the words inhabited and guise?

Marx is bassically just asking how you attained the level of familiarity with the MRA you seem to possess; whether you've been on any other boards or communities, and if so under which name you posted.

You don't use words like pussy beggar on my countrymen, and I
will refrain from making references to sodomites with bad teeth about
yours. OK?

Just to note Ernie the smiley Marx used was an indication that he was only poking fun, not taking a serious jab at the French.

**Percy** · 23rd-October-2009

Maybe we should remember the lesson my sister taught me when I was four and she was seven: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

If only it were thus.

While at seven ys/o it may be true in the main, beyond that age words become honed weapons. Written down and elevated above us in Laws they can calumnise dispossess, ruin and kill. A false accusation sobbed into biased ears can incarcerate a man and rob him of friends, family, work and safety, or have a mob set upon him.

A calumny taught to the young adult in the lecture theatre can create an army of rent-seeking scum to populate our legal system and bring down a civilisation.

And the lack of words can be equally devastating. The years of silence from a loved child, poisoned against you, can break your heart and spirit.

Words have power.