Scrotes bash a single mum for trying to protect her teen daughters

Yes, why not, just let rapists decide if women can date in the next 20 years.

I think it is the better strategy to just not disclose this information and vet. Men hide children all the time for worse reasons.

This is not about rapists deciding anything. It's about protecting your children from harm instead of proving a point ("Rapists won't stop me from dating"). Saying "Rapists won't stop me from dating" (or "Shark attacks won't stop me from going into the water on that beach") is fine if the choice only impacts your own safety. If you have children it impacts their safety, too.

A study among college students showed that one in nine male students admitted to rape. One in nine.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/sexual-assault-male-university-students-uk-b1947837.html

And those are just the ones who admitted it. The real number is a lot higher because men - as we all know very well - don't really give a fuck about consent when they want something and still feel like a good guy after nagging or pressuring a woman until she gives in and wouldn't call that rape. But let's assume it's just one in nine men for the time being, because not all rapists target minors.

So you have a bowl of candy containing nine pieces, one of which is poisoned. You as an adult might say "Hey, candy is so delicious, I have a lot of experience identifying poisoned candy and I will look at every piece really carefully before choosing one. I'll take the risk because I don't want a life without candy." That's your choice. You're an adult and the consequences will only impact you.

But would you let your child choose candy from that bowl? Would you even let your child be around that bowl unsupervised? Would you let them eat the candy you chose (because even if you are 95% sure that candy is safe there is still a small chance you are wrong)? That's what dating men is like when you have children.

It actually becomes about exactly that with this stance. And that is literally a big part of why men babytrap women. To prevent them from finding love. To prevent them from being happy. Just because you say it is not about that does not make it not about that. It is a fact. A direct consequence.

Closing your eyes and ears and humming doesn't change the reality of this insane demand.

Protect your children by protecting your children. Not by becoming a lunatic recluse and giving yourself up.

The whole stance is a logical fallacy. You draw an arbitrary line at : dating after you had children.

Yet, you could protect them even BETTER by:

- Not having them in the first place

Or by:

- using sperma donors exclusively

-> Ask all the people who got assaulted by their fathers.

But you do not draw the line there. And you know why? Because you still want to get to date and have children on your terms. Egoism. As long as it doesn't affect you it is fine. You draw the line exactly there, where you are not affected.

There is no law that says just because someone has 2X chromosomes that they have to be preoccupied with children like some pathetic lunatic. Granted some women make their child obsession the only content of their personality. There is no evidence of better outcomes in children with obessive anxious parenting. There is actually evidence of smaller Hypothalamus in children subjected to such tendencies.

And just because a rapist impregnated a woman doesn't make the rapists child safety a priority over the womans life. Good luck with that stance and that bold mouth if that actually happens to you.

Liberal men are the worst hypocrites in the world.

This world treats mothers like absolute shit.. and then they wonder why we don't want to have kids. Like why would we!?!

"it's fine it's just a fantasy!" Like uhh doesn't that make it worse? Of all the things to fantasize about and they pick that