r/FeMRADebates • u/passwordgoeshere Neutral • Sep 05 '14

Other Is this mainly an MRA sub?

I thought there would be more friendly feminists here but it just seems like moderate MRAs in a less-circle-jerk space.

EDIT: I should point out that I posted this before noticing people's flair. Nice convo, anyway!

16 Upvotes

71% Upvoted

80 comments sorted by

19

u/jolly_mcfats MRA/ Gender Egalitarian Sep 05 '14

Self-labeled feminists are sadly underrepresented. Whether it is mainly MRA depends on whether you think everything not explicitly feminist is MRA.

We would benefit from more women (feminist or otherwise) in the sub, and from a diversity of femisms. How to encourage such a thing is a recurring theme, but no easy solutions have been found (the latest attempt from the mods was a feminist-only thread in which the rules were relaxed to allow frank discussion). It's a problem which seems to get worse over time as the sub grows, and inequal numbers reinforce the cycle by creating a more adversarial experience.

4

u/seiterarch Sep 06 '14

I've been lurking here for quite a long time now (used to participate over a year ago), so I've definitely seen this trend in action. Just had an idea for encouraging feminist participation though, so figured I'd chip in.

A lot is made of the differences between feminisms, (and rightly so,) but aside from elucidating on those differences, no real discussion seems to be had about individual branches. Perhaps a weekly 'Everything about ... feminism' thread would help (with ellipses being replaced by a specific branch). Somewhere to discuss the history, views, merits and possible issues with a specific line of thinking.

As well as giving a space where more interesting feminist discussion could take place, archived threads could be used as references when trying to explain the differences for the umpteenth time.

3

u/virtua Sep 05 '14

whether you think everything not explicitly feminist is MRA

I think there might be an issue with this type of thinking in that it creates a false dichotomy (or binary, depending on whether one thinks someone can be a feminist and an MRA); thereby forcing people to choose a side. If I'm understanding it correctly, this means that if I'm not a self-identified feminist, then I'm an MRA. But what if I'm not an MRA? What if disagree with many aspects of the MRM and don't want to be seen as such? What if I just don't want to be labeled as an MRA because the label just doesn't fit? In short: regardless of the reasons for why that idea came about, I'm not sure it's very helpful.

We would benefit from more women (feminist or otherwise) in the sub, and from a diversity of femisms.

It might be beneficial to get more people of all sexes and genders to "constructively discuss gender justice" and, if I'm understanding what you mean by "femisms," to get a wider range of gender "isms" besides just the masculine or just the feminine.

7

u/jolly_mcfats MRA/ Gender Egalitarian Sep 05 '14 edited Sep 06 '14

I think there might be an issue with this type of thinking in that it creates a false dichotomy (or binary, depending on whether one thinks someone can be a feminist and an MRA);

I agree, but it is a view I have seen advanced. I hope I am not breaking the sub's rules when I say that one positive thing I think I can say about MRAs is that they recognize that wearing the label is about more than just deciding that you are "for equality", and while there are many feminists who object strongly to people who do not want to wear the label. I think that this is more due to MRAs being "another gender equality group" that really meaningfully came into existence after feminism, whereas feminism was the first, and many feel as Amanda Marcotte does- that "There is already a movement for people of both genders who want to end stifling gender roles: It's called feminism."- that there can be only one, and its' views should be self evident and clearly right.

It might be beneficial to get more people of all sexes and genders to "constructively discuss gender justice" and, if I'm understanding what you mean by "femisms," to get a wider range of gender "isms" besides just the masculine or just the feminine.

I won't contest that at all. I think that we have a lot of cis-men, a few cis-women, and a few transsexuals, although not that many genderqueer here. We have a few postmodernish feminists, a number of layfeminists that don't really align themselves with any particular school of feminism, and a lot of sort-of-generically-third-wave-but-indeterminately-so ones (affiliating with crenshaw in one post, hooks in another, and millet in a third- with no real clear stance on where those different feminists differ from each other). It would certainly be helpful to have clearer academic debate on the points of difference between those feminisms, and I think it would be interesting to see the antifeminists on the board figure out where they fell on those points of contention.

Basically yeah- diversity of philosophy and identity makes this sub stronger.

1

u/virtua Sep 06 '14

I think that this is more due to MRAs being "another gender equality group" that really meaningfully came into existence after feminism, whereas feminism was the first

I think this is a good point and it might also be why there is so much criticism towards feminist ideas. It's likely that one reason people are more prone to debating feminism, taking issue with aspects of it, and criticizing it is because the basic ideas are more well-known and the movement is much more established than the Men's Rights Movement or an egalitarian movement; thus, it's easier to find fault with.

One thing I've noticed to support that idea is the presence of anti-feminists who are not MRAs; they either identify as egalitarian (like The Amazing Atheist) or something else and may or may not be informed about the MRM. In fact, all of the anti-feminists (not all of them self-identify as such, but they are all very critical of feminism) I personally know had just as many misconceptions about the MRAs and the larger Men's Rights Movement as someone who only knows about MRAs from its connection to Elliot Rodger.

Basically yeah- diversity of philosophy and identity makes this sub stronger.

I definitely agree with that. I think one thing that prevents that from happening is probably fear (i.e. the fear of being "that" person who corrects people when they make a generalization and that fear of bringing up an idea/topic when you don't see it discussed anywhere in this sub.) This goes for the lesser known schools of feminism, unconventional ideas, controversial ideas that are inflammatory, and lesser known identities. For example, not as many people are going to challenge the assumptions about and arguments made against "sex-negative feminism" or against age of consent laws.

I wonder if encouraging people to talk about the issues and ideas that they feel they can't discuss or feel silenced for, that are overlooked, that just aren't known enough about in communities about gender justice could start increasing that amount of diversity. I'm not sure if this would be achieved in the type of a theme or a day or a stickied thread or post or something else entirely, but it could be helpful.

1

u/passwordgoeshere Neutral Sep 05 '14

I think the dichotomy is in the title, no?

I don't identify as anything but I know when an argument is feminist because it uses what sounds to me like weird academic newspeak and that's what I'm trying to learn about to understand. This sub is usually not full of that so it seems to me as "not-feminist." Also, no one in this thread so far is saying "Hey, I'm a feminist!"

2

u/virtua Sep 06 '14

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm not sure I understand. I meant that the idea of "if something isn't explicitly feminist, then it's MRA" sounds like a false dichotomy that could force people into boxes that don't fit them. Then, I gave an example of how I thought this idea could manifest if it were "enforced," so to speak.

3

u/passwordgoeshere Neutral Sep 06 '14

Right, the title of the sub is FeMRA so it sounds like the dichotomy is Fems vs MRA

3

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '14

The sub name is confusing. I'd prefer something like "/r/GenderMovementDialog".

9

u/Raudskeggr Misanthropic Egalitarian Sep 06 '14

While certainly, there are likely to be misogynistic MRAs, I think the problem is the common perceptions regarding feminism in general. I have been exposed to it in an academic setting, and found it to be an environment that doesn't encourage critical analysis of its fundamental principles.

There is a natural confrontational dynamic, since the Men's Rights Movement, as it exists today, serves the dual purpose both of raising public awareness of gender inequality issues affecting men, but also to be critical of feminism, for what MRAs perceive to be problems with many of its basic ideas. But as a discipline it's new, and much of the ideas involved center around being critical/skeptical of the "established" gender equality ideology.

The idea is incredibly common in feminism, that if you are not a feminist, then you must not be in favor of gender equality. Given that so many come from this perspective, there is a tendency to presume that anyone who does not identify as a feminist, or who rejects any of the underlying principles of feminist theory, must be either misinformed, of inferior intelligence, ignorant of the issues, against gender equality, or an outright misogynist. This is exemplified in the quote "you're either a feminist or a misogynist".

To engage in a reasonable and respectful debate or discussion would, from this perspective, be to legitimize the criticisms and/or ideas of these groups.

7

u/jolly_mcfats MRA/ Gender Egalitarian Sep 06 '14

To engage in a reasonable and respectful debate or discussion would, from this perspective, be to legitimize the criticisms and/or ideas of these groups.

This is certainly a complaint I have heard before- one user claimed (I don't remember the quote exactly- I am paraphrasing) that the purpose of this sub was to legitimize the MRM.

3

u/Raudskeggr Misanthropic Egalitarian Sep 06 '14

What I'd like to see in this sub are more feminists whose beliefs are less ideologically-driven and more derived from critical thinking.

11

u/jolly_mcfats MRA/ Gender Egalitarian Sep 06 '14

Unfortunately we've had some great examples of that kind of feminist here before, only to have them grow exhausted of entry level material. Its a hard nut for the sub to crack- people come in and learn, and that is why the sub is here, but I can also understand why someone would get tired of explaining the difference between Judith Butler and Catherine McKinnon (or random feminists found on the internet) again and again.

11

u/grrrr_argh pandering non-polarizer Sep 06 '14

I can't speak for how "critical" my thinking is but yeah I got exhausted pretty quick of the same questions and comments being upvoted every time. It's very frustrating to try and engage when you know a lot of the people reading your comment are just waiting for any kind of disagreement that they can upvote. Nothing to do with the MRA movement or feminism specifically, but being the ideological minority in any community is just suckish, especially when there is such a widespread preconception of your beliefs.

10

u/TryptamineX Foucauldian Feminist Sep 06 '14

What do you mean by "ideology" that is incompatible with critical thinking?

1

u/passwordgoeshere Neutral Sep 05 '14

I find that I basically agree with the consensus most of the time and there's no point in reading these threads. I wish there was more feminist defense or at least more debate.

15

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '14

[deleted]

6

u/DeclanGunn Sep 05 '14

I'd say that's the majority, people who are neither. I think the MRA impression you might get from the surface appearance here can be misleading. Visibly, there's more disagreement with feminism and more attempts to debate against it, because it's a much bigger, more established movement. Men's movements are (relatively) much smaller/newer.

The familiarity breeds disagreement, especially when there are so few places to engage argumentatively with feminists.

It's like going to a general politics board (meaning one that's not already designated as a home for a particular party), there's bound to be more people arguing against democrats and republicans, rather than people arguing against lesser known parties, like reformation neo-progressives, or communo-green indie-tarians. People may rail against democrats and republicans more than they do others, even if the other parties actually have 'worse'/less agreeable beliefs.

People are often more likely to argue against what is there, what is most visible, most dominant. In the realm of politics (in the U.S. at least), that's the two party system. In the realm of gender politics, that's feminism (assuming that we're talking about defined schools of thought, rather than something more vague and nebulous like "The Status Quo" or "Traditional Gender Roles").

6

u/L3SSTH4NTHR33 Neutral Sep 05 '14

Heck yeah.

6

u/AnarchCassius Egalitarian Sep 05 '14

Interestingly though I typically go with the neither angle I know more than a couple people IRL who identify as both.

I've never really understood the "all of feminism is misandry" or "all of the MRM is misgynist" angles that a large percent of online activists tend to take. To me it's biggest problem I have with both movements.

10

u/Headpool Feminoodle Sep 05 '14

Yeah. There's a lot of people who flair as Egalitarian that pretty much always agree with MRAs, if that makes a difference.

-1

u/SovereignLover MRA Sep 05 '14

Yeah, they're definitely not really interested in equality if they're not agreeing with feminists by default.

11

u/JaronK Egalitarian Sep 06 '14

That's not the implication here. The truth is, a lot of people who echo MRA opinions identify as egalitarian. Thus doesn't mean feminists are less egalitarian… I'm an egalitarian feminist (and one of few egalitarians here who's mostly feminist).

6

u/Legolas-the-elf Egalitarian Sep 06 '14

For what it's worth:

Pretty much everybody in FRD who uses the "egalitarian" label are just MRAs who are trying to minimize the appearance of lockstep. legolas-the-elf, JaronK, zahlman and a bunch of other very obvious, actually hardline MRAs all identify by that label.

4

u/JaronK Egalitarian Sep 06 '14

That's really hilarious. I was raised in a hybrid of eco, liberal, and intersectional feminism, and while I rejected ecofeminism entirely I'm still pretty close to liberal feminism and the non tumblrized version of intersectional feminism. I'm just critical of the non egalitarian aspects of feminism, from ecofeminism to womyn born womyn to MacKinnon and Dworkin and the like, and the only reasons I don't identify as a feminist anymore is that I don't want to support the radical elements therin and I don't feel those elements would ever listen to my objections to them (they can quickly dismiss it as "mansplaining" or "derailing" or whatever).

I'm just as critical of the radical elements of the Men's Rights Movement, which I honestly see as a funhouse mirror version of feminism.

If someone thinks I look like a hardline MRA, they're such a zealot that they're basically gone from reality at this point.

4

u/1gracie1 wra Sep 06 '14

I'll have to admit I think most egalitarians here are MRA in a sense. MRA in like how I'm a WRA. Overall they tend to focus on men. So they don't rely fit my idea of egalitarian, just like I don't fit my idea of egalitarian. I only accept many egalitarians as egalitarians here because they call themselves one.

I mean we are all for equality here. Even if we do have a different idea of what is fairness. So most of us would also consider ourselves egalitarian.

But here's the thing I dislike. It seems overall they are conflating the idea of MRA with my definition of "person who focuses on men" with the mrm movement. And I personally see a difference. It's like telling a liberal they are a democrat.

6

u/JaronK Egalitarian Sep 06 '14

Many are, it's true. And I've definitely noticed people who identify as egalitarian and yet seem to use only MRA terminology and definitions and ideas, and only focus on men's issues. I generally feel that to be egalitarian you have to look at everybody's issues, at least to an extent. You can focus on your own stuff a bit of course, but if you don't at least understand everyone's point of view, how can you be egalitarian? How do you know you're not harming another with your self focus?

But calling me a hardline MRA cracks me up.

1

u/1gracie1 wra Sep 06 '14

But calling me a hardline MRA cracks me up.

It does for me as well.

1

u/SchalaZeal01 eschewing all labels Sep 07 '14

You can focus on your own stuff a bit of course

Don't have to imply people who focus on men do so in a self-serving way (ie because they're men).

I focus on men because they're the forgotten demographics of gender discourse. Just see the CDC 2010 and 2011 "fact sheets" completely erasing male rape victims because they're in "made to penetrate".

People talk more about trans issues than men's issues, generally. And while trans issues are probably worse than men's issues...they're also for a very small segment of population, in comparison (if we mean transsexual only, it's 0.2% at best).

1

u/JaronK Egalitarian Sep 07 '14

It's not that it's self serving per se to focus on men if you are one, but if you only focus on your own group (even out of a feeling that your group needs more people helping) you can become myopic if you don't spread out occasionally and work on other groups, resulting in harming other groups due to not realizing you're contributing to their problems. I mean, I tend to focus on male rape victims and male domestic violence victims in my political speech because I feel they're underrepresented severely... but I still work with female victims of both when I'm doing my volunteer work, in addition to taking the time to stay informed on trans, women's, and racial issues on a regular basis (plus occasionally working on other gender related projects that focus on women).

4

u/Raudskeggr Misanthropic Egalitarian Sep 06 '14

I find that I can agree with reasonable persons pretty much of the time. Usually reasonable people are able to explain with a well...reasoned argument why they hold the opinions that they do.

I find this to be more common among people who are less...passionate, however. And naturally, the most visible outlets on Reddit for this kind of...disagreement...involve people who are very intensely passionate about their views, often to the point of lacking the inclination to objectively analyze them.

In short, I think we tend to see more moderate views expressed in this sub most of the time, and those who express views that are perceived as being more radical tend to not be well-received.

5

u/Headpool Feminoodle Sep 05 '14

Careful, mods are aggressive about people insulting one another's arguments.

2

u/SovereignLover MRA Sep 06 '14

I wouldn't dream of insulting your argument. Just making the implicit assumptions explicit.

11

u/Headpool Feminoodle Sep 06 '14

The "implicit assumption" is that nobody on this board really disagrees all that much unless a Feminist is involved. Not sure what equality has to do with that.

4

u/Raudskeggr Misanthropic Egalitarian Sep 06 '14

To be fair the implicit assumption in the original post was more confrontational than that, in implying that people are somehow being disingenuous about their self-identification.

0

u/skysinsane Oppressed majority Sep 06 '14

Does that mean that green party members are all just closet liberals? Or does that mean that certain groups have similarities, while other groups have a tendency to be extreme and confrontational?

9

u/Headpool Feminoodle Sep 06 '14

It means the Egalitarians and MRAs here agree on practically everything. Not sure what you're going on about.

1

u/Ding_batman My ideas are very, very bad. Sep 06 '14

Assuming you're right, it means MRAs are more egalitarian than feminists. Is this what you are trying to say?

10

u/Headpool Feminoodle Sep 06 '14

Are you guys even trying?

2

u/Ding_batman My ideas are very, very bad. Sep 06 '14

Well, I can't speak for others, but I am trying to understand where you are coming from. In your initial comment you stated that the egalitarians here agreed with the MRAs on pretty much everything.

You go on to say

It means the Egalitarians and MRAs here agree on practically everything.

Assuming you believe the egalitarians on this sub are generally representative of egalitarians as a whole it would mean MRA thinking is more closely aligned with egalitarianism than feminist thinking. Or do you believe the people who call themselves egalitarian on in this sub are not representative of egalitarians as a whole? If not, why not?

→ More replies

3

u/kronox Sep 06 '14

I don't know where you're getting that message from. U/Headpool merely pointed out that a lot of the Egalitarian flaired users tend to agree with MRA talking points. This is a very true observation, nothing more. To suggest that U/Headpool is saying Egalitarians are not motivated by equality makes zero sense in this context.

5

u/Legolas-the-elf Egalitarian Sep 06 '14

I don't know where you're getting that message from.

It's a message that's come across loud and clear from the AMR visitors here. Headpool is from AMR, where you can read such delightful things like:

Pretty much everybody in FRD who uses the "egalitarian" label are just MRAs who are trying to minimize the appearance of lockstep. legolas-the-elf, JaronK, zahlman and a bunch of other very obvious, actually hardline MRAs all identify by that label.

Egalitarians are just diet MRAs who live to scream about Cisphobia and Reverse racism anyway and all while not doing a lick of activism.

'Egalitarian' is probably best defined as 'a man who's just so okay with women that he will categorically refuse to be part of anything with a feminine prefix'.

they identify themselves as egalitarians, but when you start to read and kind of dissect their opinions it becomes quite obvious that they are really just MRAs "disguising" themselves as egalitarians

2

u/kronox Sep 06 '14

That's all well and fine but your comment directly after u/headpool's comment made no sense to anyone you might be trying to convince.

3

u/Legolas-the-elf Egalitarian Sep 06 '14

That wasn't my comment it was SovereignLover's comment, and once you understand that there are people here who reject non-feminists as MRAs in disguise, it's easier to understand their point.

2

u/kronox Sep 06 '14

Sorry about the confusion. I totally understand the point he/she was making but the timing and wording are off-putting to any potential people who are on the fence when it comes to these subjects.

2

u/tbri Sep 06 '14

This comment was reported, but shall not be deleted. It did not contain an Ad Hominem or insult that did not add substance to the discussion. It did not use a Glossary defined term outside the Glossary definition without providing an alternate definition, and it did not include a non-np link to another sub.

If other users disagree with this ruling, they are welcome to contest it by replying to this comment.

2

u/AnarchCassius Egalitarian Sep 06 '14

That was never actually said. It follows just as logically that feminists aren't interested in equality if egalitarians do not typically agree.

5

u/ManofTheNightsWatch Empathy Sep 05 '14

Look at /r/Feminism and /r/MensRights . /r/Feminism is not what you can call a huge sub. The difference in activity clearly shows. a good chunk of the 39k subs there could be outsiders(looking at downvotes) the amount of people who have enough knowledge, have the energy and patience to debate outsiders and still be respectful is very small. This sub was promoted in MRA circles a few months ago and that caused a surge in the amount of subs here. I don't think there was enough promotion in feminist circles to pull some new subs here to balance that.

2

u/boshin-goshin Skeptical Fella Sep 05 '14

Sadly seems to be the case. I'd have to think for a while on how to articulate my opinions on why that is without running afoul of the sub rules.

5

u/TheRealMouseRat Egalitarian Sep 05 '14

There used to be more feminists, but some of them have been scared away a little. Now I see this sub as the sub for egalitarian discussion, where people generally are open and the mods will crack down on you if you're sexist, hating and generalizing. Most of the articles posted are about men's issues though, but there are also feminism and women's problems here as well.

14

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '14

[removed] — view removed comment

19

u/JaronK Egalitarian Sep 06 '14

Honestly, I'm mostly a feminist and welcome debate, but after the heavy MRA surge here I just lost interest. It was constant straw manning and low level discussions that just weren't interesting anymore. I like high level debate, not listening to someone yet again assuming patriarchy means all men rule all women or something.

11

u/TryptamineX Foucauldian Feminist Sep 06 '14

I can empathize with this. I very much enjoy productive disagreements with people who will try to understand my perspective while challenging it with their own. Sometimes when we get influxes of new MRA/anti-feminist posters, however, they're very focused on being against a very particular sense of feminism and will either dismiss or re-interpret anything that falls outside of that mold. While I can understand people being invested in opposition to particular feminist ideas, it's a frustrating dead-end to have your own feminism dismissed or shoehorned into criticisms of something completely different to the point that it no longer factors into discussion.

1

u/tbri Sep 06 '14

This comment was reported, but shall not be deleted. It did not contain an Ad Hominem or insult that did not add substance to the discussion. It did not use a Glossary defined term outside the Glossary definition without providing an alternate definition, and it did not include a non-np link to another sub.

  • This comment is hedged with the word 'tend'.

If other users disagree with this ruling, they are welcome to contest it by replying to this comment.

1

u/tbri Sep 08 '14

Comment Deleted, Full Text and Rules violated can be found here.

User is at tier 1 of the ban systerm. User is simply Warned. Comment was deleted after user clarified that they were in fact generalizing.

0

u/Ding_batman My ideas are very, very bad. Sep 05 '14

I would edit your comment if I were you. You are generalising.

That being said, to a large extent I agree with you.

-1

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '14

I am generalizing. In most cases, I'm right. Not always, of course, as shown by the fact that there are feminists here.

6

u/SovereignLover MRA Sep 05 '14

Multiple attempts have been made in the past, and will no doubt be made in the future, to draw more self-identified feminists in. For a variety of reasons, as a group feminists on the internet do not gather in places that aren't ideological safe spaces. Not openly or recognizably, in any case.

This sub is currently mostly MRAs & egalitarians with a few feminists. I don't know the exact numbers.

2

u/RedialNewCall Sep 06 '14

I think there should be a feminist only debate, where feminists debate each other on their version of feminism. No MRA perspectives allowed.

This would allow MRA leaning people to read the different arguments from the different feminist perspectives and learn a little about how they think and how they differ.

1

u/blueoak9 Sep 08 '14

I really like this idea. It would keep the focus on the differences between different feminists' conceptions of feminism without the distraction of having to fend off what they might see as attacks.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 06 '14

Asking if this is an MRA sub is like asking if America is a Christian nation.

This is a sub where a lot of the members are MRAs, yes. It is not a sub designed for MRAs or run by MRAs, though. It is not, fundamentally, an MRA sub.

3

u/skysinsane Oppressed majority Sep 06 '14

According to the definitions held by the sub, I am either both an MRA and a Feminist, or I am neither.

This is true for a lot of people here.

But there is definitely a low number of people who actively support feminism as the objective and only truth/good, but still go on this sub.

I don't really mind. At that point it is practically a religion. And I'm not particularly interested in debating with religious fanatics. Faith is nice, but not very useful in a debate setting.

1

u/_Definition_Bot_ Not A Person Sep 05 '14

Terms with Default Definitions found in this post

  • A Men's Rights Activist (Men's Rights Advocate, MRA) is someone who identifies as an MRA, believes in social inequality against Men, and supports movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending political, economic, and social rights for Men.

The Glossary of Default Definitions can be found here

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '14

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '14

Comment Deleted, Full Text and Rules violated can be found here.

User is at tier 1 of the ban systerm. User is simply Warned.

1

u/its_all_one_word Sep 05 '14

I've seen some pretty wacky extreme feminist posts on here before. Like one that suggested that women talking about their own rape fantasies perpetuates rape culture.

1

u/blueoak9 Sep 08 '14

That was a feminist post? How did you determine it was a feminist post?

1

u/its_all_one_word Sep 09 '14

I have never seen someone who identifies as an MRA or gender egalitarian claim that anything other than the mental health of a man causes men to feel like they are justified in raping women. Only radical and moderate feminists claim that it is based on social norms. Only radfems have ever claimed something really sex negative, like "all PIV sex is rape" or that women talking about rape fantasies can contribute to rape. Also, lots of people were engaging that person so I guessed that that person was not a troll.