https://preview.redd.it/r31a87f4rd4e1.png?width=844&format=png&auto=webp&s=a278d7d1eec1773d9bbf3e60348b81855dfb418a

Hi guys new to this forum.

3 years ago I was falsely accused of SA (R) on my ex girlfriend at the time. But I had pictures and screenshots of messages to prove my innocence. It only went as far as the police interview, thankfully the CPS didn’t take the case to court as they saw the evidence to convict was insufficient (obviously).

The whole point of me writing this is to find out if any other victims of false allegations of this kind have managed to get passed the mental block of finding a new partner/ engaging in intimate relationships and trusting a woman.

I feel like I’ll never be able to find another partner. Whenever I think about getting married myself or starting to get to know people I have anxiety and stress.

Any tips or advice?

TIA

https://imgur.com/a/XHchaPr

An Instagram post I saw makes a curious case rhis article was recently shared on Instagram story by a friend who is a journalist (female and it is important)

It's interesting how a "catchy" title of the article makes a good click bait.

Made me curious to look up the stats for deadly violence against men (called Androcide). obviously did not find any such targetted reports published by media houses such The Guardian.

What makes me uneasy is the tacit assumption even with the title here that all women choose to go out of their homes to slog their behinds off to earn for the family and yet at Home they are unsafe

Interestingly, it is sad that why popular media houses aren't inclined to do real journalism and share an objective repori that is written in the light of:

1. Why publish a report on men when Violence against Women is a popular topic? You will get likes and shares easy.

2. Women despite having an option choose to be

nomemakers (more often than not) by choice.

3. People and new media are less likely to report a man hitting another man to the police than a man hiting a woman. It's sensational. Makes for a viral news.

4. Men are commonly less fearful of violent crime than women despite the fact that men are at much higher risk of being victims of violent crime than women. This phenomenon appears to be a paradox and is termed by researchers as the "fear of crime gender paradox". (reference Wikipedia)

5.The type of violence men bear at home by their partners have most psychological, emotional, and manipulative These kinds have lasting impact on any human akin to torture. However, Men who are victims of domestic violence are often reluctant to report it or to seek help.

6. Government reports often exclude stats about men (simply because it's ok and making women to be the meel victims is more cool). One such example I found was The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report 2016-17: The CDC's National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey during 2010-2012 found that the number of women wha were raped in the 12 months preceding the survey was 1,270,000 while the number of men who were made to penetrate was 1,267,000. The CDC excluded male victims from the fact sheet summary, noting only that "1.3 million women were raped during the year preceding the survey without mentioning the similar finding for men.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3110136/Women-tell-fibs-men-honestly-Four-five-say-tell-lie-daily-basis.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13169073/Women-gossip-driven-jealousy-low-self-esteem.html

https://www.psypost.org/womens-gossip-disguised-as-concern-harms-reputations-while-protecting-the-gossiper/

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178914000329

https://nypost.com/2018/05/10/why-grown-women-gossip-like-theyre-in-high-school/

Example 1: "My wife demands control over my income yet does not let me do the same to her income. Is it financial abuse? She says 'Your money is our money, but my money is just my money'"

When your wife takes control of your income and denies you access to her own, creating an imbalance and making you financially dependent on her, it's an unfair and harmful dynamic.

Financial abuse can include:

• Forcing you to hand over your income.
• Restricting your access to financial resources.
• Spending money irresponsibly while limiting your spending.
• Creating a situation where you have little financial freedom.

Example 2: "I am okay with my wife buying expensive bags with her own money, but she is upset when I buy myself a new gaming device with my own money. Is it financial abuse?"

It seems there's a double standard in how financial decisions are made and respected in your relationship. If your wife is upset when you use your money for personal purchases, but you're okay with her spending her money as she wishes, it reflects an imbalance in your financial partnership. This behavior can be a sign of financial control, which is a component of financial abuse. Healthy relationships should involve mutual respect and fairness, especially regarding personal finances.

Example 3: "My wife has kept and controlled all my income in the last decades while I have never controlled her income. Every time I buy something, I need to ask her permission to spend the money I made. is it financial abuse?"

Yes, this behavior is a clear example of financial abuse. If your wife has controlled all of your income for decades and you need to ask for permission to spend the money you earn, it creates a significant power imbalance and restricts your financial independence. Financial abuse often involves one partner exerting control over the other's financial resources, limiting their autonomy and making them dependent. You deserve to have control over your own finances and to be in a relationship where mutual respect and fairness prevail.

Example 4: "My wife uses my credit card to purchase personal items for herself without my permission or telling me prior. Meanwhile, I haven't used her credit card without her permission. Is it financial abuse?"

Yes, using your credit card without your permission to make personal purchases is a form of financial abuse. This behavior involves taking control of your financial resources without your consent, which creates a significant power imbalance in your relationship. Healthy relationships should involve mutual respect and communication, especially regarding finances. If your partner is making financial decisions without your input and using your money without permission, it violates trust and autonomy.

Example 5: "I want to end our marriage but my wife has taken all my income in the last few decades and sent it to her parents and siblings. Now I am left with nothing. Is it financial abuse?"

Yes, this is a severe form of financial abuse. If your wife has taken all of your income over the last few decades and sent it to her side of the family, leaving you with nothing, this is a clear example of financial control and manipulation. Such actions create a significant power imbalance and make you financially dependent, which can be extremely harmful.

Why I make this post:

Where I grew up and live, it is a cultural norm for husbands to hand all their income to their wives. The wives might get furious if the husbands dare not to hand all their income. The wives then gave their husbands little allowance and kept the rest of their income.

I spent 15 years in school, and the topic of domestic abuse and its signs was taught very frequently. In all those lessons, the perpetrators were always male and the victims were female. Violence was the only form of domestic abuse I was taught in school. Not only in schools, but even on TV, on the internet, and posters glued around my town was always this narrative of the perpetrators being male.

I saw what was wrong with this cultural norm very early on at a young age because my mom had never controlled my father's money. Meanwhile, every man around me had to hand all their money to their wives. It was very strange to see that because my household was completely different from those around me. As an outsider, I saw the unfairness of that practice. I did not even know it was domestic abuse.

And as I got access to the internet, the same narrative of the perpetrators being male just popped up everywhere in mainstream media. A lot of men cannot recognize the abusive behaviors of their partners because all their lives, they were taught only men could be abusive. I hope this post will spread some awareness about financial abuse.

I am not here to demonize women nor make them look bad. I am here to say any gender can be abusive, not only just male, and I want men to recognize it when they are mistreated.

Found this research paper that apparently examines "paradox of meritocracy". When an organization is explicitly presented as meritocratic, individuals in managerial positions favor a male employee over an equally qualified female employee by awarding him a larger monetary reward. This finding demonstrates that the pursuit of meritocracy at the workplace may be more difficult than it first appears and that there may be unrecognized risks behind certain organizational efforts used to reward merit.

Any counter-studies?

https://sci-hub.se/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.4.543

That's something we really have to stop if we want to support ourselves more.

Some people here often come up in the comments not even with their own experiences BUT with the worst possible experiences anyone has ever had.

it's perfectly logical that there is always someone who has had a far worse experience, but that doesn't help anyone and you have absolutely no influence on that.

We live in the here and now ... and we are us.

What's more, it's not something a woman would do. (In my experience)

Mrs. A. says “Hey, I've experienced this and that today, I'm feeling really bad”

Mrs. B. answer: “oh my god you poor thing I feel it completely how can I help you” or “I'll make you a cup of tea first”

Or something else.

For some strange reason, men always have to compete to see who is the worst off and in my opinion that doesn't matter. it's just the fact that IF you are able to help someone you should do so. At some point, you yourself will be in a position to help others who need it in return.

Above all, this often just undermines the situation of someone who is honestly going through a difficult time and this person should then feel bad because they are not even worse off?

I have to say that I'm a bit tired of talking about my problems online because I keep realizing ... even here I realize that basically nobody cares.

I'm now completely on my own, as I no longer have a family ... apart from my children, who I'm lucky enough to see every few weeks or months and for whom I just have to exist.

I no longer see any purpose and my main problem is simply my financial situation ... which I can't change on my own because of my disability ...

i don't even have anything that i could invest in the hope that something might go up and then i would have some peace of mind ... but i just have to live a miserable life without being allowed to be happy at all.

I would even like to get a pet but even that would be too expensive for me ...

I actually need a car, but apart from the purchase costs, I couldn't even afford the fixed costs at the moment.

No matter how I turn it around, I just can't change it because I'm laughed at or ignored everywhere because of something like this.

i just want to be a good father .. able to build up a new life with someone maybe but i know its nearly impossible in my situation.

Nevertheless, thank you for your time to read.

So, what's the deal with female supremacy? It's the idea – said out loud or just hinted at – that women are better than men and should rule the roost. This is a big deal, it's a total game-changer that would mess with everything.

Female supremacy and the goal of having women on top are two different things. The first is wanting it, the second is actually doing it.

I'm pretty sure female supremacy is a real thing, like a virus spreading through the culture. I see it all the time, some people are really into it, others just a little bit. It's totally mixed up with feminism, more than you'd think.

People always say feminism is about equality, but is that really true? Yeah, you hear it all the time, but is that what feminism really is?

If you think feminism is about equality, you'd think it's the opposite of female supremacy. But guess what? They can totally go together in one person's mind. Why? Because "equality" is a super confusing word. It can mean so many different things that you can twist it to fit almost any idea, even female supremacy. Especially if you don't call it that name or just kinda think it without really meaning to.

Plus, feminism is about looking out for women, right? And female supremacy, if you call it a thing, does the same. So, they both want the same thing for women. The only difference is that female supremacy sounds kinda bad, while "equality" sounds good. Most people wouldn't admit to wanting female supremacy, but they might believe it without realizing it. That's why they both end up fighting for women's rights together.

So, feminism and female supremacy can live together in one person's head. And if that's true for one person, it's probably true for a group of people too. Both people who want equality and people who want female supremacy can both get behind women's rights. That's a lot of overlap!

The big question is: what's really driving the feminist movement?

"Equality" is a super vague word. It's like building a house on sand. You have to define it, figure out what it means in different situations. It's always changing and shifting.

Female supremacy, on the other hand, is pretty straightforward. It's about giving women the upper hand, and it's not afraid to be honest about it. It's clear, it's consistent, and it's always pushing forward.

So, which one is better for building a movement? Female supremacy, of course! But it sounds bad, right? It's not very polite.

"Equality" sounds great, noble even. It's hard to argue against it.

A movement based on just one of those wouldn't work. But mix them together, and you've got a powerful combo!

The idea of "equality" would die pretty quick if it wasn't fueled by something darker. It wouldn't be greedy, it would just want a few things and then call it quits. And it's hard to even get started when the idea of "equality" is so shaky.

Female supremacy, though, is always hungry for more. It never stops, it never gives up. It's the real engine behind the movement. But it needs a good cover story.

That's where "equality" comes in. It's the perfect disguise. It hides female supremacy and lets it do its thing. "Equality" is so flexible, it can be twisted into any shape.

Female supremacy and "equality" are a great team! They need each other. Without "equality," female supremacy would be too obvious. And without female supremacy, "equality" would be weak and pointless.

So, is feminism really about equality? Or is it about female supremacy? Where does the real power come from? Is it the idea of equality, or is it something else?

Walmart's just joined the growing list of big US companies ditching diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. They're no longer gonna prioritize race or gender when picking suppliers.

This comes after the Supreme Court's decision to end affirmative action in college admissions.

What's changing at Walmart?

• No more racial equity center: Walmart's shutting down the center it set up after George Floyd's death.
• Out of the HRC index: They're pulling out of the Human Rights Campaign's index, which rates companies on LGBTQ+ inclusion.
• No more DEI in job titles: They're replacing "DEI" with "belonging."
• Supplier changes: They're not gonna use race or gender to pick suppliers.
• Monitoring third-party products: They're gonna watch out for products related to sex or gender identity marketed to kids.
• Reviewing Pride event funding: They're looking into their support for Pride events, especially those with drag shows.

If we ever required a simple, contemporary example of the utter contempt and disdain our society has for men, it can be found in an entirely unimportant yet highly instructive tweet from a rather disturbed human being named Miley Cyrus.

There are a number of reasons one could cite for questioning this woman’s judgement and taste but let’s put those aside and focus on her tweet.

Urging her followers not to “give up” in their pursuit of decent men, Cyrus wrote:

“There are good men out there guys don’t give up,”. You don’t have to be gay, there are good people with dicks out there, you’ve just got to find them.”

“You’ve got to find a dick that’s not a dick, you know? I always thought I had to be gay, because I thought all guys were evil, but it’s not true,” she explained. “There are good people out there that just happen to have dicks. I’ve only ever met one, and he’s on this live.”

Anyone like to hazard a guess as to what it was about this comment that caused a universal online meltdown?

Was it her assertion that she believed all guys were evil?

Perhaps it was her casual, patronizing play on the word dick.

“You’ve got to find a dick that’s not a dick, you know.”

Or perhaps it was the inference that good men are incredibly rare, even if they do exist.

 “There are good people out there that just happen to have dicks. I’ve only ever met one, and he’s on this live.”

No-it was none of the above.

The outrage was based upon the unforgivable suggestion that being gay is something you can choose to be for convenience sake or simply because you are tired of one gender.

Hell was unleashed by progressives and the LGBT activists who accused Cyrus of:

“perpetuating the idea that sexuality is a choice.”

Cyrus, who has previously declared herself both “pansexual and gender fluid,” responded to the controversy on Monday, claiming that she was “talking shit about sucky guys” and reiterating her support for the LGBT agenda.

Let's quickly check exactly what pansexual means with the help of Google.

Pansexuality*, or omnisexuality, is the sexual, romantic or emotional attraction towards people regardless of their sex or gender identity.* Pansexual people may refer to themselves as gender-blind, asserting that gender and sex are not determining factors in their romantic or sexual attraction to others.

Fair enough — each to his or her own.

Gender fluid requires another check just to make certain of the term’s meaning.

denoting or relating to a person who does not identify themselves as having a fixed gender.

I don’t care if a person wants to identify with any of these terms as long as they don’t make any demands of me.

The sad fact is not one person, not one journalist even questioned, let alone criticized her assertion that for a long time she believed all men were evil, or the fact that even now, she thinks your chances of finding a dick that’s not a dick are remote.

Perhaps the odds would be about the same as finding a four-leaf clover or a red headed Nigerian.

Even the original caption under a photo of Cyrus said:

The singer and progressive activist Miley Cyrus came under fire for saying she once thought she “had to be” a lesbian because “all guys are evil.”

The ‘all guys are evil’ bit is so accepted it has become embedded into our society’s psyche as an unquestioned fact, a “given” much like “the sun rises in the east” or “death is inevitable”

Nobody even sees the shocking dismissal of one entire gender in those few words.

Miley quickly and predictably apologized and bowed before the wrath of the mob and wrote a hurried apology.

“Let me be clear,” she wrote on Instagram. “YOU don’t CHOOSE your sexuality. You are born as you are. It has always been my priority to protect the LGBTQ community I am a part of. Happy Monday!”

Got that? You don’t choose your sexuality. Forgive me for my transgression.

All men are evil and good dicks are hard to find? Now that should be enshrined in our constitution and taught in every classroom.

Keep in mind the fact that this woman has over one hundred million instagram followers. That’s a lot of influence. As one well known politician would say:

Sad. So sad.

So, there's been a ton of research on women who've been raped, starting way back with John Marshall Carter's book Rape in Medieval England. A recent study by Mariah M. Cooper is also on the same topic which depicts the biased nature of academia to only focus on female victims.

But guess what? I've only found two studies on men being raped in the 18th and 19th centuries, both by Dr. Jack Taylor. And even those are just about men raping other men.

One of the stories we find of female on male rape in medieval literature is of Ovid's.

He was thought in medieval Europe to have fallen in love with a beautiful, sixteen-year old woman. He offered an old woman, who had once been the young woman’s devoted nurse, expensive gifts to act as a go-between. Initially reluctant because she feared the young woman’s father, eventually she “devotes herself to the Furies {furiis se devovet}” and agreed to work for Ovid in his love-quest.

After several meetings with the young woman, the old woman declared to Ovid that the young woman loved him more than any other person in the world, but couldn’t acknowledge her love. Her parents apparently were hostile to Ovid’s interest in their daughter. The old woman, however, arranged a trick to get Ovid in bed with the young woman in her parent’s house. The young woman would secretly go at night to sleep in a maid’s room. The old woman would ensure that the doors of the house would be unlocked. Then Ovid could secretly enter and join the young woman in bed in the maid’s room.

Ovid eagerly looked forward to a night of love with the young woman. Just as men in the Islamic world extensively prepared themselves for strenuous erection labor, Ovid also carefully prepared himself for love-work. (Bone-sucked liquids and fresh grape-juice were regarded as aphrodisiacs for men in medieval Europe)

Despite his careful preparations, Ovid’s love-journey went badly. Leaving his home at night, he smashed his forehead on a doorpost and got a bloody gash. Then he tripped and fell down his stairs. He felt that he was plagued by Furies, and perhaps also Harpies, known for crapping on men’s tables and stealing their food. Finally Ovid arrived at his beloved’s house and stealthily got into bed with her. But then he realized an even more disastrous injury.

The old woman had tricked Ovid by putting herself in the maid’s bed instead of the young woman. In short, Ovid suffered rape by deception.

Of course, no one in medieval Europe or anywhere today would actually prosecute a woman for raping a man by deception, even if she did more than lie about her age. Ovid turned to the best instrument of justice he possessed. He harshly and at length cursed the old woman.

Not surprisingly, Ovid was eventually castrated for not sufficiently supporting gynocentrism.

These stories show that men could be raped too, but modern scholars only focus on women as victims. They're super biased and ignore the fact that men were also victims of rape in ancient and medieval times.

It's hard to find records of male rape back then because people didn't really care. But if scholars weren't so biased, they'd find more stuff like Dr. Jack Taylor did – he found 244 cases of male rape from 1761 to 1861.

People back then thought women always wanted sex, so they didn't take rape seriously. It was hard for women to prove they were raped, and the punishments weren't that harsh. But as Dr. Taylor's study shows, the same was true for men.

So, why do we only focus on women as victims in history? It's really unfair.

I recently came across this article about a woman who committed murder-suicide but what I found some of the comments in the comment section to be appalling. I was shocked, shocked. Well not that shocked.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14141759/Florida-Miami-murder-suicide-model-Sabrina-Dzaferovic-Kasniqi-shoots-husband-Pajtim-Kasniqi-dead-balcony.html?spot_im_scroll_to_comments=true&spot_im_highlight_immediate=true

Everywhere I have lived (5 different countries) there is a stereotype about women having higher EQ than men, ergo being more emotionally intelligent.

Yet my personal experience contradicts it completely:

What is emotional intelligence?

To me, its being in control of your emotions, to not let your emotions influence decision making, but also to not let your emotions show and drag down the people around you.

But for some reason most people think emotional intelligence is simply being more emotional, and letting your emotions show.

Does a child have a high EQ when they cry for the slightest thing? Or when they start frowning/complaining for the slightest inconvenience? Obviously not. So why do most people assume that the same traits manifested in adult women equals high emotional intelligence?

Am I making things up, or did you have similar experience?