U Not Gonna Like This

Answering the the headline from the column fron Men's News Daily by Marc Rudov:

Is Your Son Safe At College

I cannot repost the article (copywrigthed all rights reserved.)

However....

In the comments section......




amfortas said,

Many colleges that teach Law have 'Moot Courts' where students can practice presenting cases. A sound MRM strategy would be to develop moot court practice for young men to sue girls, University Administrators, Professors etc. Civil action practice. Prosecutors like Nifong can hide behind their protections from prosecution but the rest cannot.
April 16, 2007 at 7:52 pm


donnieboy57 said,

i just caught myself last week in a moment of weakness. at the last second, i asked her if she would vote for hillary. when she answered "of course", i wished her gods speed and called the date off. she actually called me a women hating c..k sucker. i tell ya, i have to pay more attention to detail. that was close.
April 16, 2007 at 9:00 pm


scottkirk said,

mark rudov…as someone who was falselly accussed, and the false accusser was never even charged..
I would say youre assesment is about accurate….
Our universitys are in a gynocentriclly hysterical crisis to find more rapists..and they will keep lowering the bar of proof as needed to keep the hysteria funding flow coming on….
April 16, 2007 at 9:36 pm


Roger Knight said,

Good advice, Marc.

Unfortunately, you are 100% correct on this one.

Didn't a Texas grand jury recently charge a women for manslaughter and false reporting of a crime when she provoked her husband into killing her lover by screaming "Rape!"? She led him to believe a felony was in progress and he used his Second Amendment right to protect her!

Therefore, in addition to Marc's Rules, don't have sex with a woman who has a jealous boyfriend or husband.
April 16, 2007 at 9:53 pm



fourthwire said,

Spot-on, Marc. America's "institutions of higher learning" have become vipet's nests of organized, taxpayer-funded misandry as you eloquently point out. The feminists' war on men and boys has reached hysterical magnitudes and young men are most vulnerable to false rape accusations.

As we see in the Duke false rape accusation, there will apparently be no negative consequences for Crystal Gail Mangum. Her name has been shielded through the MSM.

There apparently have been no adverse consequences for the 88 scumbag faculty member who found the lacrosse team members guilty even before their trial.

There have apparently been no adverse consequences for TV's talking heads, who also had the boys found guilty in the court of public opinion before their trial.

The lacrosse team coach lost his job. Nobody in power has mentioned reinstating him, with back pay.

The lacrosse team members on trial luckily were from family of means, but their names have been smeared with no payment for their troubles.

Feminist bitches have poisoned our universities for young men…… with taxypayers footing the bill. You are doing them all a service by providing your articulate warning words, Marc.

Keep up the great work, sir.
April 16, 2007 at 11:50 pm





Virtue said,

Video and audio tape all interactions that could lead to legal action.
April 17, 2007 at 11:03 am



roger said,

Good Article Mark.

And this is why 'men's studies' courses at high schools and universities around the country should routinely invite Mark to speak in their lectures.

Men's Studies should be a required course for all males in the educational system. Young men are not aware of the laws, as their Father's are not aware of them and have not taught these laws to their Son's.

Men should have every right and opportunity to set up these courses under government subsidies that the women's groups have been living off of for years.
April 17, 2007 at 2:57 pm


Jessetfan said,

I would like to point out that the laws you complain about will protect every victim of rape, not just women. If you are ever raped, and I hope you are not, rape shield laws will protect your identity from the media as well. The available statistics suggest that about 8% of reports are found to be unfounded upon investigation, but according to statistics this is similar to other crimes. While I believe that women should be prosecuted for false reporting, that does not make every women who reports rape a liar.

There is a piece of sound advice in your article, don't have sex with someone who is intoxicated, intoxication makes one legally unable to consent, which makes it rape.

April 19, 2007 at 11:54 pm


amfortas said,

Jessetfan, this isn't the jokes page.

April 20, 2007 at 12:27 am




Abaddon_fff said,

So Jessetfan, heres a question for your twisted viewpoint. What happens when both people are drunk? Do they both go to jail for "rape"? People like you are one of the reasons I stay constantly amused. Attempting to rationalize such obviously biased laws shows not only your lack of reason, but how small minded feminists are.

April 20, 2007 at 12:37 am



amfortas said,

Going out soon. Let's check the kit. Condoms, consent forms (triplicate - and 2 spares), breathalizer, cell phone with video capability pre-programmed to send images to my spare, bodyguard/gentleman's gentleman, clean underpants with the MGTOW logo, Glock.

Oh Jessetfan, honey, I'm ready.

April 20, 2007 at 6:32 am



conservativation said,

A perfect example of nonlinear thought. Jess has to state a truth (not all women who claim rape are liars) and feel like she scored. In fact though its in the same topic, it is 100% irrelevant to the discussion here.

Jess, read slowly, the topic is the ones who DO falsely accuse and some of the institutionalized reasons why they can and do. No debate was opened about statistics and zero broad scope all encompassing notions were posited.
Please, please see the stupidity in your lame defensiveness.

April 20, 2007 at 6:50 am




Nancy H said,

This artical appears to be personal to the author, and is clearly lacking in objectivity or expertise.

Being written for the standpoint of a father, it is interesting that the author cites "Parental Alibi: She needs to explain to her parents why she is pregnant. So, by accusing her partner of rape, she's off the hook for her promiscuity." as one of the 'reasons' women falsly accuse people of rape ('reasons' like the world and peoples actions are so simple they can be boiled down into a short cause-and-effect list). This leads me to wonder if the author might perhaps be in denial about his son's actions or hypothetical actions. How many of you know parents with children who are angels in the eyes of the parents, but everyone else can see that they are trouble?

One strong point of the artical however is the rules that are listed near the end that are useful for young people of BOTH genders. Seriously, why are we treating gender issues as if it is 'us' and 'them'?

Another point of the artical that I do agree with is that 'Women's Studies' are just that, the study of Women's issues and not men's. There really should be place for more balanced and realistic gender studies programs, to perhaps avoid highly emotional reactions and biases such as the author's and many of the commenters'.

This leads me to tell you of something that happened to me when I was in High School:

In my senior year, I was date raped. It wasnt violent, but it sure was creepy X 10000. We were both young and I was wasted. He was drunk as well, but not nearly as drunk as I was. He was also my boyfriend, who a week later I broke up with 'randomly' and 'for no reason'. I didnt tell anyone, firstly because it wasnt a clearly defined 'rape' in the eyes of society and it was the result of my boyfriend's self-centeredness, pushyness, and just being unaware of the affect his actions had on others. It wasnt malicious.

Anyway, I knew that the opinions of the majority and the majority of the commenters here would think I was lying. Especially because my boyfriend was much more popular and well known than I was. I had heard a stat once that only 12% of people that a person reports rape to will believe them. INTERESTING, hey?

It took me a couple of years to get over it. 'Get over it' might make it sound like I was terribley upset or something, I wasn't, but as I said, it was pretty creepy and I actually havent had anything but summer flings, etc ever since. I dont want to resort to the same cause-and-effect logic that this article uses, but I do think that that that violation of my trust contributes greatly to why I cant be bothered to get emotionally attached to anybody who I am 'involved' with. I have actually been called a 'heartbreaker', Isnt that sad (not to mention very CHEESY on the part of who was calling me that)?

My ex-boyfriend never put two and two together, and goes on living in oblivion of very creepy his actions were (and likely still are). We actually get along great when we run into eachother. I think that if I were to have talked to him about it and let him know how I felt (even in the very most constructive way possible, which, by the way, I was not capable of, being an immiture teenaged girl), he would have slipped into a state of denial big time, probably would have told everybody, and Im sure the whole town would have accused me of lying or being a confused little girl or whatever, because that is the society we live in, and it sucks.

Thank god 'society' is a dynamic thing, but I have to say that reading this article, and all of the following comments made me a little cynical…

AND ps, "Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables" is about the stupidest name I can think of for a book about turning women on. Likening women to machines is telling of the author's point of view. Either that of he clearly very much considerate thought into it!


April 26, 2007 at 3:19 pm




Marc H. Rudov said,

Nancy H,

I'm so glad you chose to expose yourself with your irrational comments. As a typical feminist, your objectivity and expertise are on display for all to see.
April 26, 2007 at 4:01 pm




thurston861 said,

Really Nancy? What expertise did you think was missing for the "artical".

CLEAN UP IN ISLE 18 NANCY H BLEW HER CREDIBILITY OUT THE BACK OF HER HEAD IN THE FIRST SENTENCE.

Dear Woman. If you are going to critique a man on his writing and work, ye should get your own mess in order first.

GadS! Woman. What do you mean objectivity or experience?

This is about his son, his flesh and blood, the child he loves. That is the object of the article. Not the opinion of a Woman who cannot spell and Judges who need to find people guilty to receive court costs, and prosecutors who need the Female vote!

The man is trying to save his son. I am sure your article regarding your daughter will be so much better.

What you do not have a daughter? (Later I read on in her commetn and it is confirmed)

Woman, you appear to live in denial or I have been asleep. What is this "women falsly accuse people of rape" ?

When have you heard of a woman accusing a woman of rape falsely?

Say it woman! Say it! M-A-N. Say it again now not so slowly Man.

Now that you can say Man you can see a singular individual, focus becomes sharp, he becomes personal, a face like your Father, your brother, or…Bill Clinton…yeah that's the ticket!

A man, an individual, alone. Feels scary to personalize a Man doesn't it? (Later I read her post and see how she is a man user and ice queen.)

More hilarity woman, you say "like the world and peoples actions are so simple they can be boiled down into a short cause-and-effect list"

Well, that is what Police Detectives, Prosecutors, and VAWA says of Men, and Feminists and Feminism infected women say all men are the same!

Me thinkest that ye cannot handle thy Bigotry and double standard exposed.

If children are trouble, all the more reason for a Man to tell his son unobjectively to avoid these situations. 'For if you do not, if you reveal weakness in character and hire the stripper, I cannot afford the lawyer.' (Note: that later in reading about her she has no children at all, so what does she know of the investment required in teaching a child the way to go?)

Woman, your question "why are we treating gender issues as if it is ‘us’ and ‘them’?" reveals that you lack common wisdom of current events.

The studies are showing 40-50% of Rape allegations are ……..[tinnie type here] false. And women are not sent to prison for destroying men with their falsity.

There is a War against the Man and his Son. It is us and them, as the instability of them is wel documented, and the result of them in leadership gives you Sociopaths like Hillary Clinton who says she was named after the presently ailing Sir Edmond Hillary, who nobody knew a damned thing about when she was born.

The War is against Men carried forth by Women and Courts who do not care what the truth is. Only the milage that can be made of emotion.

Well, I am impressed with your comments about wymyns studies. I wrote a whole story given to Mr. LaSalle as to why there will never be a Men's Studies program in college. It all starts with the Feminist Professors creating the cirriculum which starts with "Self-Loathing 101" along with "Stupid Looks 101" and "Beginning, Intermediate, and Advanced Dismissive Thought", "easy Chair History, you get the picture?

Not going to happen Dear. It will jsut be more indoctrination and Institutionalized Misandry.

As for " to perhaps avoid highly emotional reactions and biases", perhaps one day that will happen when the Marxist Feminists stop using invective, bigotry, and emotionalism as their Power Tools of choice.

For now, we must live with the reality of the Newtonian principle in that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Men are hurt, bleeding, screaming in their hearts for the hugs of their children like Alec Baldwin, having heart attacks, and killing themselves in huge numbers over what has been done to them.

If you do not have compassion, get out of the kitchen here. Things are cooking, and when it is ready to serve I am sure the temperature will be much more appropriate before we serve it.

Your story is sad, "We were both young and I was wasted. He was drunk as well, but not nearly as drunk as I was." Let us face it, this reveals an issue of character, and a lack of training in how to spot character as well.

You were simply left to your own devices, without regards for morals. One has to wonder if you had sex before-with him? This was not a date Rape Dearest. This was not someone that you were getting to know. You were an item. Your problem with his actions were not the actions of an agressive stranger. He was your boyfriend, and you chose poorly.

You got saused like a Trolip and he treated you like one, and your ongoing relationship should have revealed the risk prior to this.

Shame. HE took advantage of the situation, not Rape.

Did you have bruises. Did he tie you down, did you have cuts, did he hold a gun to your head and make you drink. Rape is a crime of violence.

You got screwed, taken advantage of, you saw it coming and walked right and drank into it.

Advantage is not a crime. Especially when you appear to have been giving it away. In actuallity, he appears to fit the profile of Men that Women want to TAKE it from them.

Women get off on the scenarios where fantasy and reality get blurred, he was strong and virile, she was shy, weak, inhibited. She could nto say yes because she wanted to feel his power like a motor cycle engine between her legs… You get the picture.

If you didn't you would not have trusted alcohol and him together.

Everybody, sometime, plays the fool Nancy, and that comes from experience.

Cynical? Oh yes we are here! We tried the nice guy go with the flow idealistic route. We got destroyed. We are done with that.

Your comment about the book Title! Hilarity never ceases from you does it Woman!?

Ah, ye are a work in progress aren't you?

You are self centered, and probably too young to remember when every guy who had enough money had a car and worked on it himself, because he could not afford the mechanic.

Mechanical terms for mechanical minds.

So self-centered that you cannot see allegory, even to the folds that hood the most sensitive parts of a woman's clitoris, that hides and sheilds her even in intimacy?

Nancy, it is time to grow up Dear…stop blaming others that you have chosen to be a fearful child, and be as sophisticated as your fortitude to post here proves you can be.

Stick around Nancy, maybe you can absorb some logic by osmosis here.

Maybe you get over it and realize it is time to stop being an Ice Queen, have compassion, have emotions, but do not be a user, victimizer, nor on the otherside, a fool.
April 26, 2007 at 4:35 pm




windle2007 said,

Thurston, you might as well give it up- it's evident that 'Nancy H' got under your skin and of course exactly like any other woman, that was all that droning, pointless daytime TV show style/junk/pop psychology drivel she wrote was for. The 'points' she attempting to make are not even 'points,' just mindless rambling that doesn't even make any sense, but she's so obviously clueless and an idiot, she doesn't even know she is a drooling idiot. Ever notice that women are not phased by insults to their intelligence? It's because it doesn't matter to a woman- only insults to the way they look (or smell- ha ha)

April 26, 2007 at 5:52 pm


thurston861 said,

She might not come back, but in case others appear we shall see what they think of my intuition from the facts she admitted to.

It was an amazing work.

April 26, 2007 at 6:22 pm



Marc H. Rudov said,

You are right, thurston861: Nancy H got drunk and banged her boyfriend. Then she turned around to call that date rape. Now you know why the "rape" statistics are flawed and why boys and men are falsely accused of rape. This wasn't at all rape. Lies, lies, and more lies.

Nancy H was ashamed of her behavior (see reason #1 for false rape claims in my article) and blamed it on a man. Typical feminist, cowardice behavior.

Thank you, Nancy H, for validating my article.
April 26, 2007 at 6:54 pm




amfortas said,

Gentlemen, I do believe we have our first self-confessed rapist appearing on MND.

Nancy H says - "I had heard a stat once that only 12% of people that a person reports rape to will believe them. INTERESTING, hey?

Interesting? Inventive more like. Not even a 'study' quote. Perhaps she misheard when she was drunk or heard it from an equally thick girl in the toilets. If Nancy 'had heard' that the sky falls in every 200 years on the first Friday of June, no doubt she'd be telling all and sundry about it with interest too.

Nancy, we had an article here just a week or so ago from a prosectutor who reported that well over 40% of all rape accusations are untrue. So a bit of disbelief is quite justified, dearie.

Belief is insufficient for a 'Guilty' finding Nancy. One needs evidence and proof. Except in Rape cases of course. Arrest and reputation destruction on the basis of accusation alone certainly do seem to only require 'belief' by the cops and the Nifong's of the world. But that is hardly a good thing. The major problem with the Rape-Shield laws is this totally unjustified and unjust reliance on believing the word of a false accuser without corroboration.

So, you were drunk when you had your regretted, "creepy X 10000" experience. Lo and behold so was he! So, did you rape him, Nancy? By the modern definitions of rape you DID, simply by having sex with someone who was drunk. That is one of the new definitions of rape. One of the many new definitions workshopped in the Womyn's Studies depts.

So, Nancy, with your 'holier than thou' attitude, are you going to turn yourself in for a 12-20 year stretch in the pokey? Note, the only proof of 'Rape' that the law needs is proof of having sex with a drunk person. No need even for creepy x 1.

Nancy H says - "I had heard a stat once that only 12% of people that a person reports rape to will believe them. INTERESTING, hey?

Hey, Nancy. I believe you.
April 26, 2007 at 7:58 pm



thurston861 said,

Yes Marc, she vindicated you from the begining, because she attacked you.

She revealed a host of ill-logic that I sought to make a meal of for all who would read comments and see how I went from confrontational and sarcastic to feeling sorry for her that she is now a woman who objectifies men.

Yes Men, Feminists Objectify you if you are just a Screw or an ATM!

So far she has not gotten to megalmanic that she objectifies them and then tries to destroy them…yet…

The idea was give her the logic she wanted, yet make her pay the price for the disingenuous words.

Perhaps she will read, I think not. But the women who come behind her…they will see logic. The Men too, and will hopefully move from pain to making logic, so they will be sharp to help women face to face see if not think and become True Women as I have exhorted Nancy to be.

The Word wil not return void Gentlemen, if we can curb our emotions, the light will shine. Not today, But it will.

It takes a return to thought and experience.

I could nto help but think of all here when I read this:

"In the Constitutional Convention of 1787 at Philadelphia, certain revolutionary proposals were made by pseudo-philosophers that were untried and unjustified by history and experience of man. They were overwhelmingly rejected. Men like George Mason, Elbridge Gerry, James Wilson, John Dickenson and others who knew history and who were learned in the science of government, kept driving the delegates back to fundamentals. They kept saying: "Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us." Our constitutions are the children of history. Experience stands forth in majesty in every sentence of them. The only constitution American has ever had that was written by a philosopher was that written for the Carolinas by John Locke near 300 years ago. As I have said elsewhere: "It was the worst constitution in the history of the Anglo-Saxon race and died in childbirth from congenital deformities."

Every free government that has fallen in this world was the victim of some "new philosophy" that was as old as tyranny itself. In order to preserve our democratic society as we know it we must again emulate our forefathers and avail ourselves of the rich store of experience that is recorded in the history of man, …"

Pseudo= False False Intellectuals…..

New Philosophy - Law of Brotherly Love Philadelphia, to Philamalevolence

We Must again emulate our forefathers and avil ourselves the rich store of experience of History…

All of this sounds as if it was presented here.
April 26, 2007 at 8:04 pm




Nancy H said,

hmmm, I must say that after I left my previous comment and went to read other articles from this site, I was immedietely ammused. I had left a comment about what I had experienced on a woman-hating web page. You expect that I will never come back to read your response, probably because so few women are stupid enough to waste their time with your 'logic' and visit your page twice. You are no better than the man-hating brand of feminists that you loath so much.

You did prove me right about the disbelief though. Now I will give you the details and you will probably think I'm lying. I told my boyfriend "no, fuck off" cause wanted to 'sleep' and then passed out. He then had 'sex' with my limp passed out body. 1. I said no 2. I was unconscious for most of it. Most of the following responses attacked me and accused me of calling consented sex rape, and proved my point.

And about stats, the commenter who discreted my 'stat' was right, it isnt sourced, but if you read carefully, I talking about my understanding off society at the time and why I thought no one would believe me and why I didnt do anything. I was a teenager and like many of you, foolishly believed that something has credibility just because it is a 'statistic' or has statistics backing it up. I am almost certain I could find plenty of 'credible' sources for it or any other stat. The thing with statistics is that you can scew anything to make it look more or less like something. PS the author clearly doesnt understand stats either re his most recent article on the income gap, another issue which he also has a very loose grasp on.

Anyway, have fun tearing this comment apart as you woman haters surely all will!!! No but seriously, do any of you have women friends who you actually respect? (and that is a rhetorical question, its easy enough to lie and say yes, or ramble on in nonsense)

PS This brand of men's rights is too involved in woman hating. Too bad that a few nut jobs have the potential to discredit a valid movement… Sort of like how the man haters have discredetid feminism in the mainstream. Good job repeating feminism's big mistake retards!

Ice Queen
April 26, 2007 at 9:54 pm





thurston861 said,

Excuse me…where did I say consented?

I said taken advantage of.

Stupid is invective used by Marxists, I suppose Marc was right about y9ou, and I wanted to be nice. Oh Well.

Touche on the Statistic point. There are lies, there are damned lies, then there are statistics. That is why individuals need to ahve Rights and facts of the case should be important.

How do you know if you were unconcious for most of an event if you were slipping in and out of conciousness? That seems hard to believe that one could measure an event in such a state of mind.

Ramble… Nonsense. Seems she is well trained at Dismissive Thought in Wymyns studies.

"Retards"… She is obviously under the age of 24, and needs Rehab for her disparaging remark about the Mentally Hadicapped like Autistics.

She might grow up in 6 years, who knows.

I did not think I was so hateful, harsh, but not hateful.

OH yes I keep forgetting!

Silly me.

Men are not allowed dissatisfaction or critique of women's thoughts of words, even their bowel movements and used hygene products are to be consumed and worshiped by us.

I guess she is really pissed about the Objectification of Men line, since she is admittedly emotionally vacant about the ones she has sex with.

She cannot handle the heat. Cannot handle the fact that she is broken, half of a Woman.

She will never be willing to take the pressure where Iron sharpens Iron.

Ding!

NEXT!!!!
April 26, 2007 at 10:14 pm




thurston861 said,

Am!!!!!:D

You evil man, you made the little girl cry.

April 26, 2007 at 10:20 pm




amfortas said,

Nancy says, - "You expect that I will never come back to read your response, ,,,"

Nancy, I addressed you. Of course I expected you to come back and read it. Otherwise I would not have addressed you.

"No but seriously, do any of you have women friends who you actually respect?", you ask.

It might come as a shock that I do have many women friends that I respect. As with everyone else, it is up to a point. Everyone has a basic claim on my respect, Nancy, but their words and deeds and demeanour are all up for assessment.

"I told my boyfriend no, fuck off cause wanted to go to sleep and then passed out.", you say.

My word, if that's how you speak to your boyfriends, how do you speak to people you don't sleep with? And if I had a dollar for every time my wife pestered me for sex while I was sleepy, I would be able to fund a good night on the tiles. Maybe a fortnight. And I have been pleasantly awokened quite a few times by her getting it on. I never cried it was 'rape' though.

But you just love the idea of having been raped. It gives you that 'right' to be so thoughtless. A real victim problem you have there, Nancy.

April 26, 2007 at 10:37 pm




Nancy H said,

amfortas, your right that is a rude way to talk to someone. However, maybe I didnt mention that I was telling my boyfriend no over and over, and he wasnt getting it. I dont think that means I loose the right to say no, does it? I think being pushy is rude as well.

OK NOW I am deleting this web page's address forever from my browser history so as I am not tempted to read and get dragged into your hateful flaming. Have fun with your heartattacks and high blood pressure everybody!
April 26, 2007 at 11:19 pm


amfortas said,

My measured reponses can only be called 'hateful flaming' by someone who does not wish to contribute sensibly. (I am fairly confident you will come back to read this).

So you tell a tiny bit of your story and expect us all to read your mind for the rest. Then spin it out with a bit more and a bit more as justification for your action. And then you compound it with an admission that that you 'knew' you'd had intercourse, but conveniently didn't know it at the time.

The mind boggles.

By the way, you say you went to college and say "your right", when you mean to say "you're right". Some college education!

My blood pressure is fine thanks.
April 27, 2007 at 12:22 am