Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Cysterhood

Main / National fem' bashing
Nov 17, 2014, 05:09 AM
This is just to highlight some welcome listening I heard today. This whent to air on Australia's national radio network, and that is very rare to hear in todays media. It is an opinion that sternly attacks feminism and its connected ideas.
There are other similar topics in todays show and related ones in the previous weeks. The first link gets you to the media file of the story, this one to the show listings.
There are other media streams through the 'listen' button if you need them.
Your ears should be refreshed after heaing, though the 'violence against women' topic does support the usual false premise that "its worse for women".

"What's behind this incredible mainstreaming of feminism? Is it something to celebrate? Is it really about winning full freedom and equality for women, or is it more about sanitising and controlling society in a new way, to make it suitable to what are patronisingly described as female sensitivities? Many feminists now spread fear about male behaviour and the culture of violence, and call for censorship of sexual images or punishment of men who catcall, leer and say sexist things so is this really a new and brilliant strike for human equality, or a new and scary form of authoritarianism?"
Main / Star Wars fights Feminist tokenism
Apr 30, 2014, 05:24 PM
Found this interesting. In the comments section of this report on the casting announcement of the new Star Wars movie there are a string of posters rejecting Feminist principles.

" Rory • 6 hours ago
Thankfully he didn't cast this by asking how many vaginas would keep the feminazi's happy."

The Huffington Post - need I say more?

Will Baring Our Breasts End the Culture of Rape?

According to a recent survey, 65 percent of Brazilians either partially or wholly believe that "if dressed provocatively, women deserve to be attacked and raped." The findings also revealed that 58.5 percent think, "if women knew how to behave, there would be less rape."

In response to these shocking stats, Brazilian women have launched a campaign posting semi-nude images of themselves, yet covering their nipples with a sign that reads #NãoMereçoSerEstuprada, which translates to #IDontDeserveToBeRaped. The message is clear. No matter what I am wearing, or not wearing, I don't deserve to be violated.
This attitude that women have:
"I should be able to do, say and treat any man the way I like" and be immune from any negative outcomes can cause problems. Like oubursts of vindictive spite. If women treated men with more respect and didn't use their attractivness to flirt manipulate, gain favour and privilages then perhaps the small percentage that might might react in vidictive spite may lessen.
I as a man don't get the privelage to treat people however I like and be immune from negative results. As a man how you dress and behave affects the way you are treated, particulaly by women. I have been treated like a potential paedophile, rapist or wife-basher simply by being near women or children. So women clearly think that men should be treated this way based on how some men behave, similar to how Brazilians think that if women knew how to behave, there would be less rape.
But I don't believe women deserve to be raped.

The mentality of blaming the victim holds women entirely responsible for being raped, while simultaneously excusing men for their actions. That is as absurd as suggesting it was my fault I got mugged because I had money in my wallet that a robber wanted. Can you imagine a police officer telling someone if they didn't want to get their car stolen, it shouldn't have been parked where it could be seen and desired?
The mentality that women should do whatever to whoever at anytime and be immune from the results means women have no responsibility for their actions - or respect for anybody else. If you walked down the street waving thousands of dollars in cash in everybodys face each day it wouldn't be a suprise if it was eventually stollen by somebody. Here I've heard many times the Police telling people not to leave valuables visible in thier car, or their car unlocked. Why? Because it may get stollen. There are allways certain places, occasions when you shouldn't do certain things.
But I don't believe women deserve to be raped.

I appreciate this campaign as it directly challenges the offensive notion that "she asked for it." An appalling number of people are living with the belief system that the clothes a woman chooses to wear can be linked to whether a man rapes her or not. This logic confuses me. Women in Burka's get raped. Were they asking for it by exposing too much eyelid? Indigenous tribal cultures, where women are bare chested, aren't plagued with rape as a societal issue. Men don't rape because of an alluring mini skirt. Men rape for power.

A number of people might believe that how you behave and dress might sometimes have something to do with how you are treated. Like being treated as a paedophile based on how you (males) look. If I were to put on a dress, a wigg and makeup and appeared to be a woman I wouldn't be treated that way. That treatment would be based on what I wear. Indigenous cultures might not be plagued with rape because the Feminists have not arrived to do any surveys yet. I don't really know why some men rape, but I doubt its for power. Women fixate on that point because its the time when they have the power that is given them taken away. But I don't believe women deserve to be raped.

We live in a culture of dominance, and most boys are raised and conditioned to think about how to dominate others. The alpha male complex permeates past the physical realm, and deep into the psyche. Men dominate each other. Bosses often dominate employees. Politicians too frequently attempt domination over society. War is how we often solve problems in the geopolitical atmosphere. This culture of dominance has saturated nearly all facets of life.
The culture of dominance exits to benifite women. It forces men to compete against one another so women can pick the winners for themselves. As soon as the most desireable women in society start marrying the local toilet cleaner and not the highest placed male they can get, it will stop. Should we ignore the very clear desire of women to dominate men in modern days? The enless campaign to show how women are better at everything and how usles men are. But I don't believe women deserve to be raped.

The paradigm of domination is embedded into the archetype of the successful man. This mentality is ingrained in the definition of manliness and what is means to be powerful. It is not hard to make the leap to see how this indoctrination bleeds into a man's sexuality.
Yeah,but I don't see how that might make him into a thief.

The campaign these Brazilians launched is a response to the assumption that women are at fault for being the victim of sexual assault. I applaud their pushing the envelope on this issue. The reality is I could be naked and passed out in front of 20 guys who would never take advantage of my vulnerability. I could also be minding my own business, wearing a potato sack, and attacked by a man in broad daylight.
Yet the culture of dominace should make them all try to rape you, but none of them did. It will however changed their interaction with you, though it shouldn't - apparently. I look forward to the day I can walk naked and not be charged with (being male) anything. Yet if I did that people would interperate my behaviour and intentions wrongly. But I don't believe women deserve to be raped.

Dressing like a nun and avoiding dark alleys does not dissolve the culture of rape. The only way women won't be raped by men is when men stop raping women. Shaming women will never end this pandemic. According to the National Violence Against Women Survey, 1 in 6 U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime. Whether or not we're aware of it, we all know someone who has been raped. Statistically that means we also know a rapist. Let's follow the Brazilian's initiative and expand this conversation. It is time we heal the stunted masculinity that drives men to commit heinous acts against women. Rape doesn't stop with women, it stops with men.
If its a pandemic for women then if you consider the point that if you include the numbers from prisons more men are raped than women - it must be a double pandemic. A triple pandemic if "accidental" pregnancy was included. But then this is all done for power, couldn't have anything to do with sex money or wanting to get something from the interaction. Statistically it doesn't mean we know a male rapist because 90% of rapists are recidivists. A very small number of men commiting most of the rapes. Yet "we" have a rape culture apparently, even though only the potato sack rapist succeded. That might give you a clue that most men aren't crosswired enough to rape - despite the culture - or misinterpret how you treat them . I am probably unaware of how many female rapists I know, I'll agree. Must do a studdy.

But I don't believe women deserve to be raped. But I do believe men and people are treated certain ways based on how they look, and there are two sides to a coin and a story.

Main / Women on juries
Nov 06, 2013, 03:52 AM
This is another blow in the campaign to prevent women from having to face any consequences, of any sort, for thier actions, attitudes or performance - in any sphere. They are women and must be included in everything - no exclusions allowed. Passing judgement on a woman for any reason will not be tollerated!

I love how the jury ends up almost 50-50 and that is still reason for complaint.
Women are twice as likely to be excluded from criminal juries as men.

In Victoria, people accused of a crime can make up to six peremptory challenges to their potential jurors based on their job, appearance and, in some cases, their name. Defendants do not have to give a reason for challenges.

The Juries Commissioner's Office found that while an almost equal number of men and women were randomly summoned for jury service, in the past year, of 2405 peremptory challenges, 67 per cent were to women compared with 33 per cent to men.

However, the proportion of men to women in final juries was more equal, with 44 per cent of jurors female and 56 per cent male.

The Law Reform Commission is currently reviewing a range of factors in the jury selection process, including whether such challenges should continue to exist. It is also investigating their effect on jurors and on the fairness of trials.

The commission's consultation paper said: ''These statistics suggest that the under-representation of women on criminal juries in Victoria is primarily the result of the peremptory challenge process. This gender imbalance is not reflected in civil trials.''

The commission's chairman, retired Supreme Court judge Philip Cummins, said prosecutors rarely mounted similar challenges.

The judge said critics argued challenges could not predict how a juror would perform and were humiliating to jurors, while supporters believed they were important to ensuring the accused had a fair trial.

''The real question is whether the selected jury is representative of the community because a jury is the voice of the community,'' Mr Cummins said. ''If it is not representative because of the challenges, that affects the validity of the system.''

Criminal defence lawyers the commission interviewed said that defendants would sometimes use the challenges ''to exclude a prospective juror they are not comfortable with because they assume the person will not judge them fairly''.

They conceded they often assessed potential jurors' ability to be impartial based on assumptions and stereotypes, but defended this ''on the grounds that that is the only information available and that there is sometimes an element of truth in stereotypes''.

Common stereotypes of potential jurors included:

■ Young women, counsellors, nurses and doctors may be more sympathetic to victims in sexual offence cases.

■ White-collar professionals may be less sympathetic to a person accused of affray than tradespeople.

Mr Cummins encouraged members of the public to submit their views to the commission - particularly if they had been involved in the jury selection process - by November 14.
Main / Abducted in Australia
Sep 28, 2013, 05:18 AM
I was quite enraged and discusted in 2012 when this story came out. But I'm pleased to post this update as my suspicions at the time have been confirmed. This 'thing' Laura Garrett made claims of abuse etc, against the Italin father, then conned the Australian government into performing an illegal abduction of her children to gain custody.

Now we have proof that she and several other women (including a female child) conspired to lie to gain posetion of the children. Original video:
60 Minutes interview: Australian government helps in abduction of children from their father.

"It's hard to forget the traumatic scene - as four young girls were dragged kicking and screaming from their mother and put on a plane home to Italy.
It was the culmination of a most extraordinary battle between Australian mum Laura Garrett and her Italian husband Tommaso Vincenti.

Last year, we revealed how Laura conspired with Australia's Embassy in Italy to breach the Hague Convention and kidnap her own children.
Now, the case against Laura deepens.

You'll see how she manipulated her daughters to win sympathy from the public and then began a torrid facebook campaign against Tommaso.

Now Laura's friends are turning on her and an old accusation has come back to haunt her."

Update video:

So women aren't really being lesbianised by marketing. Its just a representation of the truth about women.

OK so nonetheless why is the innate truth only so recent to the forefront?

From my perspective its now because society is sufficiently save and cosy for women that is seems perfectly acceptable to now dismiss men. We don't need men anymore, we have machines to do our work, we're getting everything simplified so we can do it, we're arranging things so almost evrythig is given to us on a plate, we can have sex with the man we want and then get the man we don't really actually want to raise the kids, we even own your baby seed via the sperm banks. We are now so free we can do what we really want with whoever we want. We've used you now we dispose of you. Bye-bye men. You couldn't fail to get this impression from feminism.

I caught the end of a documentary not that long ago, which pointed out that women get sexually aroused when looking at pictures of other naked women - whereas men don't with photos of men, unless their gay. This was proven with measuring instruments placed in/on the genitals. The kicker was - of course - that women lied about being aroused. The scientific evidence contradicted their claims conclusively.

Could you provide a link to that documentary?

Sorry for the delay. There was no way to find the programme mentioned due to me not making notes at the time, but I did come across the study today.
I had to smile, when reading at the end, their theory on the female orgasm which concurs with mine of a long time ago. I refer to the clitoris as the 'infidelity button', because its clear to me that it is designed to make women cheat (have sex with multiple partners) in evolutionary terms. From a practical functional perspective it can have no other perpos.
Men are animals. On matters of eros, we accept this as a kind of psychological axiom. Men are tamed by society, yet the subduing isn't so complete as to hide their natural state, which announces itself in endless ways - through pornography, through promiscuity. Men are programmed by evolutionary forces to increase the odds that their genes will survive in perpetuity and hence they are compelled to spread their seed.

   What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire
   by Daniel Bergner

   Tell us what you think: Star-rate and review this book

But why don't we say that women, too, are animals? Meredith Chivers, a psychologist trying to discover this, carried out research using a plethysmograph: a miniature bulb and light sensor placed inside the vagina. Semi-reclining, each of her female subjects watched an array of porn on an old, bulky computer monitor. The 2in-long tube of the plethysmograph beams light against the vaginal walls and reads the illumination that bounces back. In this way, it measures the blood flow to the vagina and finds out, at a primitive level, what turns women on.

As they enrolled in the study, Chivers' subjects identified themselves as straight or lesbian. They were shown images of sex between men and women, women and women, men and men, and a pair of bonobos (a species of ape). The subjects, straight and lesbian, were turned on right away by all of it, including the copulating apes. While they watched, they also held a keypad on which they rated their own feelings of arousal. So Chivers had physiological and self-reported scores. They hardly matched at all. Chivers' objective numbers, tracking what's technically called vaginal pulse amplitude, soared no matter who was on screen and regardless of what they were doing, to each other, to themselves. The keypad contradicted the plethysmograph entirely. The self-reports announced indifference to the bonobos. But that was only for starters. When the films were of women touching themselves or enmeshed with each other, the straight subjects said they were a lot less excited than their genitals declared. During the segments of gay male sex, the ratings of heterosexual women were even more muted.

Chivers put heterosexual and homosexual males through the same procedure. Strapped to their type of plethysmograph, they responded in predictable patterns she labelled "category specific". The straight men did swell slightly as they watched men masturbating and slightly more as they stared at men together, but this was dwarfed by their physiological arousal when the films featured women alone, women with men and, above all, women with women. Category specific applied still more to the gay males. Their readings jumped when men masturbated, rocketed when men had sex with men, and climbed, though less steeply, when the clips showed men with women; the plethysmograph rested close to dead when women owned the screen.

As for the bonobos, the genitals of both gay and straight men reacted to them the same way they did to the landscapes, to the pannings of mountains and plateaus. And with the men, the objective and subjective were in sync. Bodies and minds told the same story.

How to explain the conflict between what the women claimed and what their genitals said? Were the women either consciously diminishing or unconsciously blocking out the fact that a vast scope of things stoked them instantly toward lust?

The discord within Chivers' readings converged with the results of a study by Terri Fisher, a psychologist at Ohio State University, who asked 200 female and male undergraduates to complete a questionnaire dealing with masturbation and the use of porn. The subjects were split into groups and wrote their answers under three different conditions: either they were instructed to hand the finished questionnaire to a fellow student, who waited just beyond an open door and was able to watch the subjects work; or they were given explicit assurances that their answers would be kept anonymous; or they were hooked up to a fake polygraph machine, with bogus electrodes taped to their hands, forearms and necks.

The male replies were about the same under each of the three conditions, but for the females the circumstances were crucial. Many women in the first group said they'd never masturbated, never checked out anything X-rated. The women who were told they would have strict confidentiality answered yes a lot more. And those who thought they were wired to a lie detector replied almost identically to the men.

Fisher's research pointed to wilful denial. Yet, Chivers believed, something more subtle had to be at play. In journals, she found glimmers of evidence that women are less connected to the sensations of their bodies than men are, not just erotically but in other ways. Was this a product of genetic or societal codes? Were girls and women somehow taught to keep a psychic distance from their physical selves?

In a new experiment, Chivers played pornographic audio tapes for straight female subjects. She wanted to know, partly, whether spoken stories would have a different effect on the blood, on the mind. The scenes her subjects heard varied not only by whether they featured a man or a woman in the seductive role, but by whether the scenario involved someone unknown, known well as a friend, or known long as a lover.

Once again, the gap was dramatic: the subjects reported being much more turned on by the scenes starring males than by those with females; the plethysmograph contradicted them. But, this time, it was something else that interested Chivers. Genital blood throbbed when the tapes described X-rated episodes with female friends, but the throbbing for female strangers was twice as powerful. The male friends were deadening; with them, vaginal pulse almost flatlined. Male strangers stirred eight times more blood. Chivers' subjects maintained that the strangers aroused them least of all. The plethysmograph said the opposite: sex with strangers delivered a blood storm.

This didn't fit well with the societal assumption that female sexuality thrives on emotional connection, on established intimacy, on feelings of safety. Instead, the erotic might run best on something raw.

Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, a primatologist and anthropology professor, raised evolutionary reasons why this might be. Her ideas challenged evolutionary psychologists who insisted that women are the less libidinous sex, the sex more suited to monogamy. Hrdy had begun her career studying langur monkeys in India, whose males swoop in to kill newborns not their own. The same goes for the males in a number of other primate species. And female promiscuity among these types of monkeys and baboons evolved, Hrdy believed, partially as a shield: it masked paternity. If a male couldn't be sure which babies were his, he would be less prone to murder them.

Alongside this theory, she put forward an idea that revolved around orgasm. Female climax - in humans and, if it exists, in animals - has been viewed by many evolutionary psychologists as a biologically meaningless by-product with no effect on reproduction. Hrdy believed, however, that female orgasm could be thoroughly relevant among our ancestors. It was evolution's method of making sure that females are libertines, that they move efficiently from one round of sex to the next and frequently from one partner to the next, that they transfer the turn-on of one encounter to the stimulation of the next, building towards climax.

The possibility of multiple orgasms compounded libertine motives. The advantages female animals get from their pleasure-driven behaviour, Hrdy asserted, range from the safeguarding against infanticide in some primate species to, in all, gathering more varied sperm and so gaining better odds of genetic compatibility, of becoming pregnant, of bearing and raising healthy offspring.

In the end, recent science and women's stories left me with pointed lessons: that women's desire - its inherent range and innate power - is an underestimated and constrained force, even in our times. That, despite the notions our culture continues to imbue, this force is not, for the most part, sparked or sustained by emotional intimacy and safety. And that one of our most comforting assumptions - soothing perhaps above all to men, but clung to by both sexes - that female eros is much better made for monogamy than the male libido, is scarcely more than a fairytale.
Main / False abuse weapons
Jul 06, 2013, 09:23 PM

Nice to see the word gets out sometimes....

Allegations of child sexual abuse are being increasingly invented by mothers to stop fathers from seeing their children, says a retiring Family Court judge.

Justice David Collier, retiring from Parramatta Family Court at the end of the month after 14 years on the bench, sees unprecedented hostility infiltrating the Family Court, and a willingness by parents to use their children to damage one another.

''If a husband and wife really get down to it in this day and age, dirt flies,'' Justice Collier said.

The worst are those mothers who direct false allegations of abuse against former partners.

''When you have heard the evidence, you realise that this is a person who's so determined to win that he or she will say anything. I'm satisfied that a number of people who have appeared before me have known that it is one of the ways of completely shutting husbands out of the child's life.

''It's a horrible weapon.''

Such cases are fraught for Family Court judges. Once an allegation has been made it is impossible to ignore. The court must deem whether there is an ''unacceptable risk'' of abuse occurring in the father's care.

Sometimes the allegations are obviously fabricated, other times they are probably true.

''It's that grey area in the middle that you lose sleep over at night, and you do lose sleep,'' Justice Collier said.

''They're difficult to disprove. The allegation lingers there.''

Barrister Esther Lawson, who sits on the family law committee at the NSW Bar Association, said anecdotally there appeared to be an increase in allegations of sexual abuse coming before the court, but the reasons were unclear.

She also warned that the consequence of false allegations could return to haunt the accuser, including the loss of time with their children.

''Clearly there are cases where there is reliable evidence that sexual abuse has taken place and these matters need to be properly ventilated,'' Ms Lawson said.

''But if the court finds that allegations have been maliciously motivated then there may be potential consequences, including a change in the child's primary residence.''

It is rare for Family Court judges to speak publicly about their views. Many are still haunted by the 1980 murder of Justice David Opas and 1984 bombings of the Parramatta Family Court building and homes of two judges.

Judgments are now more involved, partly so the losing party can understand the reasoning behind decisions. Justice Collier said the cases were also more complicated, as litigants raise more matters and run each of them to earth. Facebook pages are frequently called into evidence.

''A mother declares she lives a chaste and modest life and then on Facebook says, 'Guess what I did last night', and Dad's only too happy to put it before you.''

He puts much of the venom down to a generation of people more assertive of their rights, and now entering relationships.

But it disheartens him to leave the court so, after a satisfying career. He used to keep a magic wand, which he has now passed on to his colleague Justice Bill Johnson.

''I wished I could wave that magic wand and say, 'Be nice to each other','' Justice Collier said. ''That's the only order I would have to make.''

Read more:
I love the 'logic' of this crap. These women are good enough to defend our countries but not good enough to defend themselves from sexual assault.
Main / Re: Mister mom
Jun 08, 2013, 04:09 AM

So when's the reversing "trend" part where Husbands/Fathers are NOW making most of the "domestic"spending decisions?

That would provide more fodder for that form of "family violence". Any form of male dominence can't be anything but that. "Family violence" is what its (DV) called this month down here.
Main / Re: Extremists
Jun 03, 2013, 04:41 AM

Actually, this is an important conversation to have.  Several higher profile MRAs have pandered to the mainstream, and labelled other longtime MRAs as 'extremist'.  As has been pointed out here, several longtime MRAs have been 'ousted' from AVfM (myself included), because we are 'too extreme'.  The question never answered is 'in comparison to what?'

The 'fear of looking bad' crowd is what drives this tendency, in my view.  Those who still have not internalized that Government KNOWS all this shit, and has for years, and yet they still follow the Feminist line...  Why is that, do you think?  This is not a battle for polite reasoned debate.  Ever read the Agent Orange files?  DO you seriously think RadFems (and only these radfems) don't infest nearly every arm of Government?  Do you think RadFems are the only Eugenicists in existence?

Ever notice how nicely the Village Busybody attitude of Feminism fits with a Totalitarian Police State?  Ever think maybe Government is USING Feminism precisely to enact these measures, and restrict these freedoms?  Even if they aren't, this whole battle is for the 'undecided vote'....those that haven't paid much attention.

We are most effective when we try and reach men that are unsatisfied, but haven't figured out why.  We are LEAST effective when we try to appeal to women, to bring them on board.  Men do not ...I repeat NOT....respect 'soft, sensitive men' any more than women do.  Men love the lines Bad GUys get in the movies every bit as much as women do.

Feminists have been trying to label us 'extremists' for years, hoping to get us to curb our own effectiveness.  They continue to mislead the public explicitly for the purpose of smearing us...aka, make us 'look bad' no matter what we actually are.  And now we have a sizeable chunk of the MRM following their lead, and taking their advice.  And 'self policing' some of the more effective (or vocal, or tenacious) MRAs right out of having any interest in continuing.

The label 'extremist' should be, on every BBS and Forum, a charge that MUST be backed up with a coherent point or argument, to the point that baseless accusations of being 'extremist' should be a bannable offense.  Same goes for accusations of 'misogyny'...back them up, or you're gone.

The MRM has long been open to detractors, and counter argument.  But we are shooting ourselves in the foot, in exactly the same manner wider society has, when we accomodate the hysterics, and try and walk on eggshells.  The 'fear of looking bad' is the meme that has been used to utterly control the West since the mid '80-'s.  Let's not continue the trend, seeing as how we view ourselves as the guys with some answers.
That's the way women work: they seep-in ,undermine, obfuscate and throw somany demands in the air that you don't know which to go for. This will be the result of women at AVfM and everywhere else.
Main / Re: Subtle Feminist Messaging
Jun 03, 2013, 04:18 AM

Why hype the woman-getting-raped angle in order to get that legit point across?


Because there's a woman victim for every situation, don' ya know. And if there isn't we'll make one just so we can have power over you.

Its just another example of something being a problem only if it affects women in any way.

That's pretty much society in a nutshell.

He has an interesting tactic though in the 'video': Making women feel like they're the victims in order to oppose the bad treatment of men.
Main / Male rapper sexually assaulted
May 18, 2013, 07:11 AM

Interesting article. Note how half the women are treading water trying not to pin it down as assault. Also no mention of the posibiity that the attitudes of women might have something to do with why men are reluctant to claim victim status.


Meet hip hop artist Danny Brown.

Originally born Daniel Dewan Sewell, he's a rapper from Michigan and has been described by MTV as "one of rap's most unique figures in recent memory."

And recently, when performing on stage in Minneapolis, a female fan pulled down Brown's pants and attempted to perform oral sex on him.


(You can see the photo - NSFW - here)

Everyone had a great laugh at this young woman's audacity and the internet erupted with blokes congratulating Brown on the ultimate pop star achievement. The chorus got louder as more and more joined in the commentary.

Largely Brown was labelled either a womaniser, who had used a poor girl to reinforce his 'rep', or as the coolest guy ever, for getting a blowjob on stage and not even missing a beat.

Music websites that wrote about the incident used congratulatory language, saying things like 'he brought a twist to a recent concert by receiving a blowjob on stage'.  News Ltd reported that Brown had "outraged fans by allegedly receiving oral sex from an audience member while performing".

Another rapper, Kendrick Lamar, tweeted Brown asking "U really just got the h-- on stage stanny???"  Brown reportedly replied, "didn't miss one bar" - but the tweet has since been deleted.

But, um, hold on a second.

Danny Brown backed away the moment he was approached by the woman.

He did not look welcoming, he looked a bit shocked and confused.

He did not consent.

So wasn't Danny Brown sexually assaulted?

Danny Brown is currently touring with a female rapper who goes by the name 'Kitty Pryde' - her real name is Kathryn Beckwith. Pryde wrote a piece for Vice magazine after the incident, in which she outright called what happened to Brown sexual assault. She wrote:

   Screen shot 2013 05 13 at 10.42.33 PM What a female fan did to this rapper was sexual assault, right?

   Kitty Pryde

   I'm mad that a person thought it was okay to pull another person's pants down during their performance in front of about 700 other people.

   I'm mad that a person thought it was a good idea to perform a sex act on another person without their consent. I'm mad that nobody made her leave. I'm mad that Danny had to actually wonder what he was supposed to do at that point.

   What is Danny supposed to do? The girl was at mouth-to-d**k level already and to push her away, he would've had to either push her face or kick her, and even the most gentle of either motion would immediately be labeled "abuse" by anyone watching.

Pryde says that the reaction on the internet is an example of double standards, where the public is inclined to side with women when they are sexually assaulted - but not with men. Pryde continued, "It's obvious that the reason nobody cares is because a girl did it to a boy... Everyone wants the option of blaming it on Danny, because people can't accept the fact that a white girl raped a black dude in front of a bunch of people."

The fact that Brown has retweeted his defence by Kitty Pryde a number of times since it was published, suggests that he agrees with her point of view. The most important argument that Pryde makes, it that Brown's assault is much like any other. It's just that people aren't calling it that.

Sexual assaults often occur when the victim is vulnerable or otherwise distracted - as Brown probably would have been while performing on stage.

But there are conflicting reports of the evening.

One audience member who saw the incident, described the night on website Reddit:

   I was right behind the girl and saw everything it was scaring edit: Okay so this is how it all went down, I was near the front row and all night Danny had been going up to the crowd and having random girls touch his d*ck through his pants. Then this girl in front of me starts flashing him and he goes up to her and grabs her t*ts.

   Then all of a sudden gets up close pulls his shirt up a little and she start blowing him. Then I'm behind her and I start getting pushed against her by the crowd shifting. It's horrible and I hope you guys will be donating to my future therapy sessions but also i came back with a story. He rapped the entire time during too.

The verdict by social media has come down to a "he said, she said" situation. And sadly, many cases of sexual assault often do amount to this.

Brown has, to some extent, been blamed for being the victim. People have claimed that Brown was "walking around the stage getting girls to grab his dick" before the incident.

Some online commentators have mentioned that Brown raps frequently about sex, and his lyrics are highly sexualized. Both of these facts have been used to 'explain away' what happened to Brown on stage.

This line of reasoning bares striking similarities to claiming girls are 'asking for it' if they wear revealing clothing, or are flirting with boys, before they are sexually assaulted.

Brown is also unlikely to speak out about the incident - another hallmark of sexual assault cases - for fear of appearing emasculated or 'uncool'.

Victims of sexual assault often feel pressure not to report the incident. Women, because they fear being blamed or having their behaviour questioned, and the backlash that comes with speaking out. Men, because they fear that people won't believe a man could be assaulted, or because they don't want to appear 'weak'.

As Pryde points out, if Brown were to admit that he didn't enjoy having oral sex forced upon him, that could actually be damaging for his career. She writes that even if Brown has extricated himself more swiftly from the situation, he'd be "faced with attacks on his masculinity by every douchebro in the building. 'Yo dude, you don't want your dick sucked, bro? Are you gay? Haha you're gay you don't want girls to suck your dick haha gay dude bro man swag!' And that's a rapper's literal nightmare."

It's impossible to know all the details of this case. The YouTube footage of the incident lasts for barely 30 seconds, and the blurry photographs from the performance are unclear and unverified.

Maybe Brown was sexually assaulted, and maybe he wasn't.

But he seems to feel he that was.

Do you think we're more ready to label something as an assault just because it happens to a woman?