NationStates Jolt Archive

Why is rape considered so awful, that some call for it to be punishable by death, as it was for quite a while in many US states? Can the argument not be made that it is really nothing more than assault? Is it possible that residual Judeo-Christian/Romantic notions of morality influence society’s disdain for the crime, or is there something naturally wrong with the act?

Why is rape considered so awful, that some call for it to be punishable by death, as it was for quite a while in many US states? Can the argument not be made that it is really nothing more than assault? Is it possible that residual Judeo-Christian/Romantic notions of morality influence society’s disdain for the crime, or is there something naturally wrong with the act?
*fights off knee-jerk reaction*

I, personally, think it has to do with the psychological impact upon the rape victim. It is far more severe than if it was merely assault. It's an incredibly personal assault, one far more serious than just a simple physical beating. You'd know this if you've ever spoken with a rape victim. My girlfriend was a victim of rape. I personally saw to it that her raper was placed in jail for life. My two sisters were also raped, by my older half-brother, no less, whom I also got placed in jail. Do not FUCK with me about rape.

Why is rape considered so awful, that some call for it to be punishable by death, as it was for quite a while in many US states? Can the argument not be made that it is really nothing more than assault? Is it possible that residual Judeo-Christian/Romantic notions of morality influence society’s disdain for the crime, or is there something naturally wrong with the act?If it weren't for the drastic emotional damages rape causes, you might actually have a point.

*fights off knee-jerk reaction*
I regret offending you, but everything must be questioned, especially morality.
It's an incredibly personal assault, one far more serious than just a simple physical beating.
But is that only because society tells people that is what they are supposed to think? If we were truly sexually liberated, would it even be that big of a deal?

I regret offending you, but everything must be questioned, especially morality.

But is that only because society tells people that is what they are supposed to think? If we were truly sexually liberated, would it even be that big of a deal?
Try having two sisters and a girlfriend, all three of which were rape victims. Then see what you say. I'm sorry, but your reasoning is just plain bullshit. You don't know what you're talking about, and while I understand why you're questioning it, you're simply wrong to do so in this instance.

If it weren't for the drastic emotional damages rape causes, you might actually have a point.
I have no point. Just a question. Is it possible that the only reason rape is a big deal is because of the society in which we live, and if we freed ourselves from the moral restraints of that society, would it matter less?

If I have a point, it is that I think the answer could be yes.

UGH! Is this going to be the new hot topic on here? The new abortion? *cries in horror*

http://tfp.killbots.com/fanart/paul/071_leela-oh-no.jpg

But is that only because society tells people that is what they are supposed to think? If we were truly sexually liberated, would it even be that big of a deal?

I'm going with no and yes, respectively.

Unless "sexual liberation" involves "liberating" rape victims from their self-respect and their rights as human beings, it has no impact on the issue.

I have no point. Just a question. Is it possible that the only reason rape is a big deal is because of the society in which we live, and if we freed ourselves from the moral restraints of that society, would it matter less?

If I have a point, it is that I think the answer could be yes.Rape is a form of "I'm going to take what I want from you and there's nothing you can do to stop it." It's an act that's rather profound and deep in conveying that message. It has little to do with sex, with regards to why it's "such a big deal." A change in our system of morality wouldn't change that.

Unless "sexual liberation" involves "liberating" rape victims from their self-respect and their rights as human beings, it has no impact on the issue.
If sex had no emotional attachment, as it rightfully should not, than a rape would mean little more than assault or robbery.

If sex had no emotional attachment, as it rightfully should not, than a rape would mean little more than assault or robbery.Robbery? Can you replace lost dignity?

If sex had no emotional attachment, as it rightfully should not, than a rape would mean little more than assault or robbery.
Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You really just don't. You've obviously never spoken with a rape victim. For your own sake, shut up and go speak to one. THEN come back and see what you have to say about this.

Robbery? Can you replace lost dignity?
Dignity is a societal construct. Just like love and honor, it doesn’t really exist.

Dignity is a societal construct. Just like love and honor, it doesn’t really exist.If we lacked these societal constructs, we'd simply be mindless drones.

Dignity is a societal construct. Just like love and honor, it doesn’t really exist.
Hah. So says the man who has no dignity, who has never known love, more than likely. And you certainly have no honor, you [edited for peace's sake]

...

Or just ignore me in my rightious rage and do as I suggested earlier regarding speaking to rape victims. That would probably make more sense.

If sex had no emotional attachment, as it rightfully should not, than a rape would mean little more than assault or robbery.

That's not just sex having no emotional attachment, that's people considering themselves as human beings to have no more worth than their wallets, and is an utterly repulsive thought.

If we lacked these societal constructs, we'd simply be mindless drones.
No we would be free. Those societal constructs are what the government, personhood granted corporations and religious institutions all use to keep us in line.

So... who wants to sign these papers to get Undelia commited as a dangerous sociopath?

So... who wants to sign these papers to get Undelia commited as a dangerous sociopath?
I'll be first on that list, thank you very much. *pulls out pen*

No we would be free. Those societal constructs are what the government, personhood granted corporations and religious institutions all use to keep us in line.And what would you do? Or rather, what would you want to do? You've abolished ambition, pride, self-gratification, all these social constructs. Now what do you want to do?

No we would be free. Those societal constructs are what the government, personhood granted corporations and religious institutions all use to keep us in line.

I had no idea the government was using love to keep me in line - those bastards! I'd better go find my tinfoil love-repellant hat!

No we would be free. Those societal constructs are what the government, personhood granted corporations and religious institutions all use to keep us in line.

And having an orderly society is a bad thing why?

Sex is one of the most profound ways to share intimacy with another human being. The emotional attachment to sex is one of the things that makes us uniquely human. It's about giving. Therefor when giving becomes taking, you take away one of the things that makes a person human - the right to decide for themselves whom they share their bodies with. This is why rape is so emotionally damaging, and why it would be impossible to pay the victim back in any way.

You seem to be very hung up about society, but advanced social structures, like emotional attachment to sex, is yet another thing that makes us human. When you say we should ignore what society teaches us about things like rape, you're essentially telling us we should devolve to predatory herds where the strong rule and the weak die, where merit becomes so utterly unimportant that it would be impossible to tell us from the rest of the animals.

And what would you do? Or rather, what would you want to do? You've abolished ambition, pride, self-gratification, all these social constructs. Now what do you want to do?
Self-gratification isn’t a social construct. Food, sex, alcohol, these things feel good on an individual level. It doesn’t take a society to establish that.

Self-gratification isn’t a social construct. Food, sex, alcohol, these things feel good on an individual level. It doesn’t take a society to establish that.I don't think I need society to tell me that it feels worse to be raped than to be robbed...

No, but it takes a society, or more precisely morals established by a society, to restrain self-gratification to a point where it doesn't obstruct the survival and advancement of both the individiual and the species.

Imagine what life would be like if Newton had just shrugged and eaten the apple...

Self-gratification isn’t a social construct. Food, sex, alcohol, these things feel good on an individual level. It doesn’t take a society to establish that.

Yes, but it does typically take a society to successfully farm, hunt, gather, inspect, pasteurize, ship, and prepare food, a society to invent the idea of farming hops or your starting ingredient of choice for the purpose of fermenting them, bottling them, and getting them to you, and even at least a very small society to have sex with you. Homo sapiens has been a social creature for the entirety of his existence, and it would be entirely unnatural for him to be anything else.

To everyone who's giving the OP a hard time- do you think rape is worse than murder?

No we would be free. Those societal constructs are what the government, personhood granted corporations and religious institutions all use to keep us in line.

You confuse the fact that the "oppressors" are not fundamentally different from the "opressed" (From your veiw point), they (we actually-maybe not you or I personally, but we) made these social constructs, not only to controll others, but to controll themselves. This is however self-controll.

Your main mistake, however, is assuming that just because a concept is a social construct that it doesn't rightly exist. They exist just as much as any idea to which we apply a definition.

Thirdly, emotions are not social constructs but instincts common to most social vertebrates. Culture merely dictates when they should be properly expressed.

Fourthly, you are right that liberating us from these ideas and emotions would make us absolutely free. I have tried to reach this end,and found it is not a freedom to be desired, it leaves one more efficient and durable for hardship, but it strips away any possible sense of purpose (except self preservation which is inevitably inane). This sort of freedom is synonymous with having nothing left to lose.

I admire that you are examining and peeling away the onion layers of your personal upbringing/culture in a search for truth, but realise that at some point in history the social constructs you dislike did not exist. At some point (theoretically) everyone thought as you are trying/succeeding to. Then realise that all modern permutations of culture are reactions to a society with your state of mind. People soon make up social contracts- fraternal love as a buffer, honor as a form of credit.

These things maybe incorrect when they are asumed part of some absolute reality, but they are usefull tools to promote (as you say) heirachy, but realise that heirachies are foremost allianses, and without allianses we are all rivals, and often enemies.

To everyone who's giving the OP a hard time- do you think rape is worse than murder?Maybe not worse, but it can be argued to be on parr with murder. It takes life in a different sense.

The victim of a murder doesn't have to live with the aftermath....

It takes life in a different sense

only if you let it

The victim of a murder doesn't have to live with the aftermath....

Sounds like your trying to justify murder

I agree with questioning morality but this is probably the most ridiculous argument I have ever seen in my life. You should yourself be raped and/or watch it happen to your family to realize how brutal it is. The violence experienced in rape is simply unspeakable, it's not a matter of social values/ethics/behaviours. Even harassment can cause trauma, much along rape.

Sounds like your trying to justify murder

Clearly. Similarly, if I say that cutting your arms and legs off would be worse than just cutting your arms off, I'm really saying that everyone's arms should be cut off. Also, if I say that a million dollars is worth more than $999,000, I'm saying that $999,000 is entirely worthless.

Arguments are so much fun when they don't involve even a semblance of logic!

You should yourself be raped and/or watch it happen to your family to realize how brutal it is.
NO!

I can't believe you just suggested that. I don't want ANYONE to EVER go through what my sisters and girlfriend suffered. He may be ignorant. He may even be a disgusting person. But that is not something to wish upon anyone.

Dignity is a societal construct. Just like love and honor, it doesn’t really exist.
I'm not suddenly going to believe it is so just because you stated as much. I've seen evidence of dignity in all kinds of creatures including non-human ones, so you'd have a damn good argument to get me to buy into that one.

Kryonea, I appreciate how you feel about this.

I'm not suddenly going to believe it is so just because you stated as much. I've seen evidence of dignity in all kinds of creatures including non-human ones, so you'd have a damn good argument to get me to buy into that one.

Kryonea, I appreciate how you feel about this however I wouldnt want to see you get in trouble. I think it'd be a great idea to edit your post on page 1 (last post on page). It's...er...very strongly worded.
Righto. Done.

He may even be a disgusting person. But that is not something to wish upon anyone.

It's no problem for him, he thinks it's not a big deal...

It's no problem for him, he thinks it's not a big deal...
Regardless, it is simply not an option.

Why is rape considered so awful, that some call for it to be punishable by death, as it was for quite a while in many US states? Can the argument not be made that it is really nothing more than assault? Is it possible that residual Judeo-Christian/Romantic notions of morality influence society’s disdain for the crime, or is there something naturally wrong with the act?

Well, how about I grab you unexpectantly, violently rape you, and then you can tell me how bad it was, and let me know then if you feel is is naturally wrong.

only if you let itYeah, easy to say. You probably wouldn't be so dismissive if you were on the recieving end of a bruttal rape.



Sounds like your trying to justify murderNot at all. I'm just pointing out that the psycological aftermath of a rape is what makes the crime so terrible.

If you ever knew someone well who was a victim and saw the repercussions firsthand you might understand.

I agree with questioning morality but this is probably the most ridiculous argument I have ever seen in my life.

And your response -as well as that of many other people in this topic - clearly shows that the OP is *right* in questioning it. Just yelling "BAD! BAD! BAD!" is an extremely poor argument. If it is truly bad one should be able to easily give decent arguments to support that claim.

To the generalites in general: I never got why some many people think that "questioning morals" necessarily means you will arrive at a different conclusion. It can after all also mean you will strengthen the basis of the original idea... Can anyone enlighten me ?

Well, how about I grab you unexpectantly, violently rape you, and then you can tell me how bad it was, and let me know then if you feel is is naturally wrong.

Um, I don't think scare tactics, emotional responses, anecdotes or flames are going to reach Undelia. I'm sure he was expecting these when he made this thread. He's approaching this purely philosophically, and is trying to have a conversation more about our reactions to sexuality and our morality then whether being raped feels bad. No anecdote about someones sisters or anyone I know is going to make much of an impression.

See my prior post.

And your response -as well as that of many other people in this topic - clearly shows that the OP is *right* in questioning it. Just yelling "BAD! BAD! BAD!" is an extremely poor argument. If it is truly bad one should be able to easily give decent arguments to support that claim.

To the generalites in general: I never got why some many people think that "questioning morals" necessarily means you will arrive at a different conclusion. It can after all also mean you will strengthen the basis of the original idea... Can anyone enlighten me ?
And if you read some of the posts you would see they did have valid arguments. Further, it has been my experience that the only ones who ever question the horribleness of rape either have neither spoken to a rape victim nor been raped themselves. As I've said repeatedly, two of my sisters have been raped, as has my girlfriend. Finally, it's one of those things that can be pretty damned hard to explain. Words are often incredibly limiting. It's times like this that I wish we had a better way of communicating.

And if you read some of the posts you would see they did have valid arguments.

Some had arguments, yes. Some decent, others weak. However, the "BADBADBAD" mantra is quite present.

Further, it has been my experience that the only ones who ever question the horribleness of rape either have neither spoken to a rape victim nor been raped themselves.
That does not make the questioning any less valid though...

Finally, it's one of those things that can be pretty damned hard to explain. Words are often incredibly limiting. It's times like this that I wish we had a better way of communicating.
:(

That does not make the questioning any less valid though...


What does tend to undermine the validity of the OP's moral questioning, though, at least in my opinion, is a statement like this:

If sex had no emotional attachment, as it rightfully should not...

As long as "associating sex with love or affection is WRONG" is assumed, I can hardly blame posters for figuring "raping people is WRONG" can also be assumed. If we're throwing out preconceived notions for the purpose of an abstract philosophical discussion, then it seems to me, at least, that we ought to be doing so in a consistent fashion.

Self-gratification isn’t a social construct. Food, sex, alcohol, these things feel good on an individual level. It doesn’t take a society to establish that.
Rape doesn't feel good.

To everyone who's giving the OP a hard time- do you think rape is worse than murder?
No, of course not. The rapist is not taking away his/her victim's life, but the murderer is.

No, of course not. The rapist is not taking away his/her victim's life, but the murderer is.I don't know... is it worse to have your life ended or to have your life ruined?

Well if we look at it logically then Undelia is correct. Sex is held sacred only by societal custom, many older societies saw rape as entirely reasonable (particularly in war). There are accounts as recent as the Victorian era in Britain of rape being so commonplace that it could occur publicly and no-one cared. (This was in the poorest and most downtrodden areas where morals in any case took second place to survival).

Rape could be considered a good thing if you really felt darwinist enough, after all the person able to take things by force is evidently more physically fit to the situation.

(Disclaimer, I consider rape one of the worst crimes around but I'm keeping an objective view on the debate).

only if you let it





What he said.

Rape could be considered a good thing if you really felt darwinist enough, after all the person able to take things by force is evidently more physically fit to the situation.


But the rapist who gets lynched by the family of the victim is sociologically, and perhaps intellectually, unfit. Plus it says nothing of the offsprings physical viability really, as the mother had to be unable to resist.

But the rapist who gets lynched by the family of the victim is sociologically, and perhaps intellectually, unfit. Plus it says nothing of the offsprings physical viability really, as the mother had to be unable to resist.

True, but then a rapist who got lynched was then out-darwined :p

Unless of course the construct of 'family' no longer existed.

Of couse humans haven't been able to do much ouside social constructs, being as they are the catalyst of our evolution up to this point...

But is that only because society tells people that is what they are supposed to think? If we were truly sexually liberated, would it even be that big of a deal?
Hell fucking yeah! Have you ever been held down and raped? Do you realise how serious a rape victum is mentally injured? A friend of mine almost commited suicide because she was raped. Her whole world seemed to cave in around her. Their trust in other people is shattared.
Rape is one of the worst crimes in my opinion. It is (again, in my opinion) worse than murder because the victum actually has to live with the consiquences(and the family and friends too). If you were murdered then you're not really having to go into therapy sessions twice a week just to continue on. I don't know if it warants death but... I'm not sure if anything warants death...*shrugs*
But that is just my 2 cents...

Why is rape considered so awful, that some call for it to be punishable by death, as it was for quite a while in many US states? Can the argument not be made that it is really nothing more than assault? Is it possible that residual Judeo-Christian/Romantic notions of morality influence society’s disdain for the crime, or is there something naturally wrong with the act?

Maybe if I hunted you down and raped the living shit outta you, you would have a different view.

Why is rape considered so awful, that some call for it to be punishable by death, as it was for quite a while in many US states? Can the argument not be made that it is really nothing more than assault? Is it possible that residual Judeo-Christian/Romantic notions of morality influence society’s disdain for the crime, or is there something naturally wrong with the act?
You're obviously a male, and convinced being raped is something that cannot ever happen to you.

Stop and think, for a minute. Imagine yourself alone with a man. You might or might not know him, it doesn't matter. That man is stronger than you are. At some point, he starts making adavnces to you. You refuse, but he doesn't care, and he proceeds to undress you despite your opposition. You fight, but you're no match. You're scared, you're crying, you're helpless because he's stronger than you are and he's not stopping no matter how hard you fight. He gets a hold of your wrists to stop you from punching, and perhaps throws in a punch of his right into your stomach for good measure. YOu lose your breath, see stars, stop fighting long enough for him to finish tearing your clothes off. Once you're naked, he pins you against the wall, and undo his fly...

I leave the rest to your imagination. Can you even imagine the feelings of humiliation, helplessness, and despair rape causes in the victim? One of my former roomate was a rape victim, and she was screwed up for years afterwards. Even 10 years after, she was still unable to have a healthy, fulfilling relationship because she could never get herself to trust a man, so haunted she was by this experience.

So no, comparing rape with assault doesn't do the trick. Assault and rape may both leave physical scars, but it's the emotionnal wounds from the rape that take the most time to heal.

I can understand the basis of your questioning. If sex was divorced from our personhood, then a sexually based assault would be certainly be of lesser impact. It would be similar to any humiliating assault against a person.

I can also understand the reactions of people of people to this topic. It is obviously an extremely emotive one with strong personal resonances for some readers. It probably is not easy to have this discussed so clinically, but the topic is a valid one, if painful - I can see no evidence of it being raised to cause pain, nor to insult the pain that has already occurred.

It interests me (somewhat morbidly I'll admit) that feminists claim that men as a collective group use rape as a form of oppression on the whole gender, when I've only ever found men to despise it's very concept as unmanly. Not to mention the sheer rage it engenders in male relatives seems inappropriate if the act was for their benefit.

While not wanting to denigrate in any way the suffering of rape victims I consider it likely, based upon some small knowledge of social history, that at least part of the impact is due to social conditioning. Having said that, it does not make the suffering of the victims any less real or significant. Nor must the nature of the crime be forgotten; Remember, the criminal has been subject to the same societal conditioning and is usually fully aware of the enormity of his act. Such sick scum should be eliminated from the genepool and preferably terminated permanently.

All sexual offenders should be shot and their bodies shot into the Sun.

All sexual offenders should be shot and their bodies shot into the Sun.

Might be difficult to reverse if they're found innocent on appeal.

Might be difficult to reverse if they're found innocent on appeal.
Oh, come on, let's not quibble over such a small and insignificant mistake as killing an innocent man. Send flowers to the family, a nice letter of apology, and life goes on.

[/sarcasm]

All sexual offenders should be shot and their bodies shot into the Sun.

I'd prefer old way where after you shoot them, cut off their head and stick it on a pike outside the city the crime was committed. Have it as a warning to all sex offenders that it is not tolerated!

Might be difficult to reverse if they're found innocent on appeal.

Well, we are in the age of DNA testing.

Why is rape considered so awful, that some call for it to be punishable by death, as it was for quite a while in many US states? Can the argument not be made that it is really nothing more than assault? Is it possible that residual Judeo-Christian/Romantic notions of morality influence society’s disdain for the crime, or is there something naturally wrong with the act?

The point is essentially true, however the deplorability of rape, illogical to an extent, is sufficiently ingerained to be irrevocable. A tad like child abuse, or "satanic activities" were prior to the twentieth century.

I understand what Undelia is asking. If societal constructs were abolished, either individually or otherwise, then would not rape be reduced to a form of assault since its emotional and psychological trappings are gone? I would to say, theoretically, I suppose it would. But right now it's nearly impossible to do so.
I certainly hope the time never comes when sex is completely cut off from it's emotionnal and psychological dimensions.

Sex without love is like a cake without icing. Bland.

It's because sex is so intimate and tied to our emotions that rape produces such strong emotional scars. But the problem lies with rape taking place, not with our tendency to mix emotions and sexuality.

I don't know if I'm making any sense to you guys, my thoughts are rather hard to transpose into writing.

rape is not the sexual equivalent of a bar fight that you are on the losing end of.

its a form of torture.

it ranges from, at the most mild, being manipulated, intimidated, or drugged into a sex act that you would not otherwise be interested in. your choice is overridden by the rapist

at its worst its being kidnapped, held captive, being beaten into submission. being raped over and over again by one or more people, being told that in the end you will be killed, not knowing if you will survive, when it will end, if you will be kept for years of abuse or tossed into an alley like a bag of trash. the rapist can do anything he wants any time he wants, he can pass you off to a "friend" or sell you to a stranger. you are reduced to nothing. your only chance at survival is total submission to the will of the rapist.

not quite the same as getting sucker punched at a party.

Why is rape considered so awful, that some call for it to be punishable by death, as it was for quite a while in many US states? Can the argument not be made that it is really nothing more than assault? Is it possible that residual Judeo-Christian/Romantic notions of morality influence society’s disdain for the crime, or is there something naturally wrong with the act?


Its considered so awful because it is.

Society's disdain? I think the specific victims have some disdain.

There is something very wrong with the act of dominating/humiliating/victimizing someone weaker so totally against their will.
Rape isnt some natural instinct to promote the species-its not the result of being horny-its a twisted response to feelings of hatred, amongst other things. Its a hateful,violent act,specifically menat to degrade and victimize.

I'm going with no and yes, respectively.

Unless "sexual liberation" involves "liberating" rape victims from their self-respect and their rights as human beings, it has no impact on the issue.

Rape victims shouldn't lose any self-respect, dignity, ect, they never did anything wrong.

Rape victims shouldn't lose any self-respect, dignity, ect, they never did anything wrong.
Of course ecause emotional resposes are completly logical and not irrational at all:rolleyes:

I have no point. Just a question. Is it possible that the only reason rape is a big deal is because of the society in which we live, and if we freed ourselves from the moral restraints of that society, would it matter less?

If I have a point, it is that I think the answer could be yes.
If we freed ourselves from moral restraints like that, we would descend into utter anarchy and eventually collapse. Rape is a big deal not because society causes the psychological trauma, but the victim's morals and sense of privacy feels compromised because some lunatic is forcing someone into doing what they don't want to do.

The simple notion that rape isn't as bad as you think is near insane.

Rape victims shouldn't lose any self-respect, dignity, ect, they never did anything wrong.
They shouldn't feel less dignified, but they can't help it. It can seriously affect a person physically and mentally, not to mention the chance of the spread of STDs, which could even cause death.

Rape victims shouldn't lose any self-respect, dignity, ect, they never did anything wrong.

Why not try telling a rape victim that and watch them suddenly realise that all is well in the world and they have total control over their emotions. Regardless of whether they should or shouldn't I think it goes without saying that most do.

rape is not the sexual equivalent of a bar fight that you are on the losing end of.

its a form of torture.

it ranges from, at the most mild, being manipulated, intimidated, or drugged into a sex act that you would not otherwise be interested in. your choice is overridden by the rapist

at its worst its being kidnapped, held captive, being beaten into submission. being raped over and over again by one or more people, being told that in the end you will be killed, not knowing if you will survive, when it will end, if you will be kept for years of abuse or tossed into an alley like a bag of trash. the rapist can do anything he wants any time he wants, he can pass you off to a "friend" or sell you to a stranger. you are reduced to nothing. your only chance at survival is total submission to the will of the rapist.

not quite the same as getting sucker punched at a party.

Ashmoria has nicely summed up the defining point of my argument: in my view, rape is a special form of torture. I consider any form of torture to be a greater crime than murder, simply because the victim doesn't have to live with the memories for the rest of his/her life. I would personally much rather prefer a nice, clean bullet to the heart than being beaten to the point of disability and then being forced to live with the aftermath of the beating for the next 20 years.

Note that I define murder as the actual act of killing. Shooting a man cleanly in the heart is murder, as is poisoning the victim. However, in my view, beating a man to death to be both torture and murder, and should be subject to the appropriate penalties for both.

(Side note: This general argument is also the main reason that I don't generally approve of capital punishment: it's too humane for the criminals that I think deserve special punishment beyond solitary confinement. I'd much rather paralyse the crook and dump him alone in a room until he dies - that way, the offender is completely helpless (remember, torture is a crime of control - to paraphrase Orwell, "A man asserts his power over another by making him suffer") and has to live with his helplessness until he dies. The possibility of medical reversal of paralysis for innocents is just a secondary concern.)

If sex had no emotional attachment, as it rightfully should not, than a rape would mean little more than assault or robbery.

No, it's much different. See, in a rape an assualt occurs, but at that same time you are not just injured or attacked but also dominated in a way. You try to equivocate it with a stigma with sex, but rape is not about sex, it's about power. Rape deserves a harsher punishment because like hate crimes it terrorizes the victim by making them feel helpless.

It has nothing to do with actually be forced to have sex or the stigmas associated with sex. It's unfortunate that you begin with an assumption with no basis, that it's no different than assault and then ignore all evidence otherwise while claimiing not to have a point. You're argument is so vapor thin it's transparent.

Of course ecause emotional resposes are completly logical and not irrational at all:rolleyes:

Oh, I understand that completely, humans are irrational creatures.

But, objectively speaking...

No, it's much different. See, in a rape an assualt occurs, but at that same time you are not just injured or attacked but also dominated in a way. You try to equivocate it with a stigma with sex, but rape is not about sex, it's about power. Rape deserves a harsher punishment because like hate crimes it terrorizes the victim by making them feel helpless.
I am well aware that serial rapists rape for the power it brings them. The ability to humiliate others (especially women who most rapists have some uncomfortable association with) makes them feel powerful, and what better way to humiliate someone than to attack them, in what society has deemed, the intimate way?

Perhaps if organized regions seeking to make God a part of everything we do and governments wishing to better organize (and this control) society had never turned sex from an activity often enjoyed in public to a private, “intimate” activity, rape would not hold the same level of appeal for rapists.

Considering some of the reactions in this thread, I was reluctant to join the debate, but I think it is an interesting question. Now, before I go on, let me make some of my positions on this matter clear:

* I do not dispute that rape is a ghastly crime. It is.
* As far as I understand, rape is less about sex and more about power and control.
* Rape victims are not to blame for being raped. Never.

But also, rape is not a singular type of crime. There are huge differences between the girl who changes her mind during sex and the boyfriend who won't stop, and the girl who gets attacked by a stranger and brutally raped (a lá the movie 'Irréversible'). Both are acts of rape, but I claim that the last scenario is usually far worse than the first. And it's because of this distinction that I strongly disagree with the idea that all rapists should be punished the same way (i.e. recieving the death penalty)

Now, is rape worse than assault? I don't think you can answer that generally. Just as rape, every case of assault is individual - and so is the consequenses. There are victims of rape who somehow manage to live their lives without thinking of the incident ever again. There are some who are completely destroyed by it. It is the same with assault. There are some who, as it were, get back on their feet and get on with their lives after getting kicked in their teeth, and there are others who do not dare to walk the streets after dark - and some who are hurt so bad that they never recover, like some who suffer brain damage and/or paralysis.

So in my opinion, if I had to answer, I would say that rape was not worse than assault - in general. They are two of a kind, really.

Murder, however, is far worse than rape.

I am well aware that serial rapists rape for the power it brings them. The ability to humiliate others (especially women who most rapists have some uncomfortable association with) makes them feel powerful, and what better way to humiliate someone than to attack them, in what society has deemed, the intimate way?

Perhaps if organized regions seeking to make God a part of everything we do and governments wishing to better organize (and this control) society had never turned sex from an activity often enjoyed in public to a private, “intimate” activity, rape would not hold the same level of appeal for rapists.

Rape isn't a new activity and it has nothing to do with sex. You could evidence you claims by showing that rape did not occur in any society similar to what you describe. You could evidence your claims by showing that making sex more free that rape ceases to occur. However, you can't, because access to sex has no effect on rape. They aren't related and no matter how much people explain that to you, you cover your ears and scream "lalalala" and keeping making the same ignorant proclamations that its anybody's fault BUT the rapists.

In many wars, sex was more readily available than it is in this country. Take Viet Nam. Sex was readily available at low or no price and still because of the relationship that soldiers had with the population they were fighting with, the dehumanization and attempts to dominates the minds of the enemy, rape occurred regularly and often publicly. It's not about sex. It's about power.

(Side note: This general argument is also the main reason that I don't generally approve of capital punishment: it's too humane for the criminals that I think deserve special punishment beyond solitary confinement. I'd much rather paralyse the crook and dump him alone in a room until he dies - that way, the offender is completely helpless (remember, torture is a crime of control - to paraphrase Orwell, "A man asserts his power over another by making him suffer") and has to live with his helplessness until he dies. The possibility of medical reversal of paralysis for innocents is just a secondary concern.)
Remember it's sometimes a fine line between justice and revenge. Justice is about protecting the innocent and making sure the guilty cannot make them suffer anymore.

What you propose sounds a lot more like revenge, for it aims to inflict as terrible a punishment as the crime was. As a society, we have the responsibility to protect our citizens, but also to set an example for them. So torturing those found guilty of torture is rather hypocritical, and sends the message that there are double standards for what the state feels justified in doing, and what the individual cannot.

Considering some of the reactions in this thread, I was reluctant to join the debate, but I think it is an interesting question. Now, before I go on, let me make some of my positions on this matter clear:

* I do not dispute that rape is a ghastly crime. It is.
* As far as I understand, rape is less about sex and more about power and control.
* Rape victims are not to blame for being raped. Never.

But also, rape is not a singular type of crime. There are huge differences between the girl who changes her mind during sex and the boyfriend who won't stop, and the girl who gets attacked by a stranger and brutally raped (a lá the movie 'Irréversible'). Both are acts of rape, but I claim that the last scenario is usually far worse than the first. And it's because of this distinction that I strongly disagree with the idea that all rapists should be punished the same way (i.e. recieving the death penalty)

Now, is rape worse than assault? I don't think you can answer that generally. Just as rape, every case of assault is individual - and so is the consequenses. There are victims of rape who somehow manage to live their lives without thinking of the incident ever again. There are some who are completely destroyed by it. It is the same with assault. There are some who, as it were, get back on their feet and get on with their lives after getting kicked in their teeth, and there are others who do not dare to walk the streets after dark - and some who are hurt so bad that they never recover, like some who suffer brain damage and/or paralysis.

So in my opinion, if I had to answer, I would say that rape was not worse than assault - in general. They are two of a kind, really.

Murder, however, is far worse than rape.

Look up what qualifies for assault. If I yell at you and poke you in the chest just once, that is assault. There is pretty much no rape that is comparable to such an incident. Before assault becomes a very traumatic event, it usually becomes aggravated battery or felony assault. Yes, there are degrees of assault and degrees of rape but the reason rape is generally considered worse than assault is because it generally IS worse than assault. It doesn't mean it's not sometimes the other way around, just that in general it goes one way.

Also, there is a difference between aggravated rape and date rape. Your comments make it sound as if the law doesn't note the difference. It does.

I am well aware that serial rapists rape for the power it brings them. The ability to humiliate others (especially women who most rapists have some uncomfortable association with) makes them feel powerful, and what better way to humiliate someone than to attack them, in what society has deemed, the intimate way?

Perhaps if organized regions seeking to make God a part of everything we do and governments wishing to better organize (and this control) society had never turned sex from an activity often enjoyed in public to a private, “intimate” activity, rape would not hold the same level of appeal for rapists.

yes, if we were not HUMAN, we could shake off all forms of torture as soon as the pain fades and the wounds heal

but as we ARE human and as rape is considered (rightly) as an horrific crime in every society in the world (although definitions of what constitutes rape varies) id say it isnt just driven by religion.

Remember it's sometimes a fine line between justice and revenge. Justice is about protecting the innocent and making sure the guilty cannot make them suffer anymore.

What you propose sounds a lot more like revenge, for it aims to inflict as terrible a punishment as the crime was. As a society, we have the responsibility to protect our citizens, but also to set an example for them. So torturing those found guilty of torture is rather hypocritical, and sends the message that there are double standards for what the state feels justified in doing, and what the individual cannot.

I'll be honest: it is revenge. That's the sort of "punishment" I would reserve for those cases so heinous that my logical brain gets overwhelmed by my emotions (a serial rapist and murderer who freely admits his guilt and shows no repentance comes to mind), and such punishment would definitely need to be backed up by overwhelming evidence of guilt ("beyond a shadow of a doubt"). Perhaps a wiser course of action would be to give final say on the punishment of such a person over to the victim(s) and/or the victim's family, freeing the state from the necessity of finding a balance between justice and revenge...

That said, I tend to view the death penalty as closer to revenge than justice as well. For simply preventing a heinous offender from committing future offenses, I tend to favor strict solitary confinement (no human contact whatsoever), as solitary confinement is irreversible. Hmm, AI-run solitary confinement facilities for those convicted of capital crimes could work...

[/threadjack]

Why is rape considered so awful, that some call for it to be punishable by death, as it was for quite a while in many US states? Can the argument not be made that it is really nothing more than assault?

I don't know, let's try an experiment.

First we'll have someone beat the living hell out of you. Then we'll have him shove his penis in and out of your ass for a few minutes.

I look forward to discovering which one you think is worse.

I'll be honest: it is revenge. That's the sort of "punishment" I would reserve for those cases so heinous that my logical brain gets overwhelmed by my emotions (a serial rapist and murderer who freely admits his guilt and shows no repentance comes to mind), and such punishment would definitely need to be backed up by overwhelming evidence of guilt ("beyond a shadow of a doubt"). Perhaps a wiser course of action would be to give final say on the punishment of such a person over to the victim(s) and/or the victim's family, freeing the state from the necessity of finding a balance between justice and revenge...

That said, I tend to view the death penalty as closer to revenge than justice as well. For simply preventing a heinous offender from committing future offenses, I tend to favor strict solitary confinement (no human contact whatsoever), as solitary confinement is irreversible. Hmm, AI-run solitary confinement facilities for those convicted of capital crimes could work...

[/threadjack]

I disagree. The state should never indulge in revenge, for it is not it's mission. It should instead provide justice. If the crime is heinous and the criminal unrepentant, then he must be isolated of the rest of society to avoid further harm. Preferably in a state prison.

Some rapists can be rehabilitated, others cannot. Those who show genuine distress after realizing what they have done aren't fit for life sentences, but those who repeatedly rape helpless victims and derive pleasure from it must not be released for the well-being of the population as a whole.

If sex had no emotional attachment, as it rightfully should not, than a rape would mean little more than assault or robbery.

What makes you think that sex "rightfully" should not involve emotional attachment?

I don't know, let's try an experiment.

First we'll have someone beat the living hell out of you. Then we'll have him shove his penis in and out of your ass for a few minutes.

I look forward to discovering which one you think is worse.

Careful here, AL. I know you don't mean it that way, but you don't want to seem like you are wishing harm on him.

Dignity is a societal construct. Just like love and honor, it doesn’t really exist.

Obviously we must be employing radically different definitions of the word "really" and/or the word "exist."

If sex had no emotional attachment, as it rightfully should not, than a rape would mean little more than assault or robbery.

First, what is your evidence for claiming that sex SHOULD NOT have any emotional attachment. Second, no matter how you slice it rape =/= sex. Sex could become a way of greeting one another and rape would still not be sex or a remarkably different activity than it is now. Rape and sex may be physically related with SOME related physical consequences, they have not anything to do with one another otherwise. It's like arguing that beating the shit out of someone is the same as or related to boxing.

Considering some of the reactions in this thread, I was reluctant to join the debate, but I think it is an interesting question. Now, before I go on, let me make some of my positions on this matter clear:

* I do not dispute that rape is a ghastly crime. It is.
* As far as I understand, rape is less about sex and more about power and control.
* Rape victims are not to blame for being raped. Never.

But also, rape is not a singular type of crime. There are huge differences between the girl who changes her mind during sex and the boyfriend who won't stop, and the girl who gets attacked by a stranger and brutally raped (a lá the movie 'Irréversible'). Both are acts of rape, but I claim that the last scenario is usually far worse than the first. And it's because of this distinction that I strongly disagree with the idea that all rapists should be punished the same way (i.e. recieving the death penalty)

Now, is rape worse than assault? I don't think you can answer that generally. Just as rape, every case of assault is individual - and so is the consequenses. There are victims of rape who somehow manage to live their lives without thinking of the incident ever again. There are some who are completely destroyed by it. It is the same with assault. There are some who, as it were, get back on their feet and get on with their lives after getting kicked in their teeth, and there are others who do not dare to walk the streets after dark - and some who are hurt so bad that they never recover, like some who suffer brain damage and/or paralysis.

So in my opinion, if I had to answer, I would say that rape was not worse than assault - in general. They are two of a kind, really.

Murder, however, is far worse than rape.
i dont think that you should get too involved in the discussion of whether or not all rape should carry a death penalty. thats just macho bravado by boys on the board trying to "out tough" each other

most states have different levels of rape just like they have different levels of murder/manslaughter. the law recognizes that rape is bad but that some are worse than others. only a fool would suggest that a 19 year old caught having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend should suffer the same punishment as the man who kept a woman in his attic as a sex slave for 6 months.

rape is a different crime than assault and they dont parallel each other very well. to compare them would require specific crimes that only compare to each other.

Well if we look at it logically then Undelia is correct. Sex is held sacred only by societal custom, many older societies saw rape as entirely reasonable (particularly in war).

... Yes, and the same could be true of torture. That does not mean that torture and robbery are morally fungible in any way. Nor rape.

Look up what qualifies for assault. If I yell at you and poke you in the chest just once, that is assault. There is pretty much no rape that is comparable to such an incident. Before assault becomes a very traumatic event, it usually becomes aggravated battery or felony assault. Yes, there are degrees of assault and degrees of rape but the reason rape is generally considered worse than assault is because it generally IS worse than assault. It doesn't mean it's not sometimes the other way around, just that in general it goes one way.
Well, I'll guess we'll disagree here. I would probably agree if you said that generally rape was worse in terms of causing emotional trauma, while assault was worse in terms of physical damage.
Also, there is a difference between aggravated rape and date rape. Your comments make it sound as if the law doesn't note the difference. It does.
It does? Why? Surely a date rape can be an aggravated rape as well?
I would guess it depends on the law... As far as I know, there are still no universal legal classification about what constitutes rape in the United States, and that it may differ from state to state.

My point was that both the act itself and the consequences for the victims are incredibly diverse, both in the case of rape and of assault.

What makes you think that sex "rightfully" should not involve emotional attachment?
Emotion is only involved in sex because it is such a convenient way to control society. Convince people that God (or the gods) care about your sex life, and that automatically inspires emotion. Then, a religious leader has not only created artificial intimacy, he has control over it. From there, it is only natural taht he should control less intimate activities.

Today, residual religious values still affect even the most secular amongst us. Quite unfortunate in my opinion.

Well, I suppose you could take a Nietzschean standpoint and argue that rape is a way of the strong exerting their will to power over the weak and that any opposition to rape is just the ressentiment of weak women toward strong men. A rather disgusting view, but then, Nietzsche was quite the sociopath.

rape is a different crime than assault and they dont parallel each other very well. to compare them would require specific crimes that only compare to each other.
I guess I agree with you, but I'm not sure... The reason is that both rape and assault are violations of another persons physical integrity - both are acts of violence comited upon that person - and thus they must be comparable?

I'm afraid I'm a bit too tired to make up my mind. ;)

Following the logic that the aversion to rape is a social "construction," one has to assume that this construction contributes to the restraint of potential rapists as well as to the horrible feelings of their victims.

That is, if this social construction has any force whatsoever, then it must be partially preventative: there are at least some potential rapists, at the margins, who--though tempted--refuse to succumb to their desires because this contrary desire, this revulsion, has been planted in them by society.

So, if one attempts to deconstruct this social conception of rape, one may (to follow the argument) be diminishing the suffering of the victims of rape. But one would also be increasing the prevalence of rape.

Is this a worthwhile social trade-off?

If the "diminished effect" will never be perfect--that is, if no matter what society says victims still feel uniquely violated by rape--then how much is it worth? How many more victims are you willing to allow because you do not think that society should add the weight of its revulsion to a person's natural desire to command her/his sexual autonomy?

oh, yes, because it was ok in the dark ages when people raped and pillaged all the time, it is surely still acceptable. you're a tard. i agree that puritanism is still alive and well in society, and agree that it wouldn't be a bad thing if there were nudists or whatever, but being "sexually liberated" is NOT the same thing as having a man forcibly shove a part of his body inside you against your will. even if society were sexually liberated, sex would still remain a choice. and, even if society imposed the negative psychological reactions in the victim of rape, it doesn't make it any less horrible.

Emotion is only involved in sex because it is such a convenient way to control society. Convince people that God (or the gods) care about your sex life, and that automatically inspires emotion. Then, a religious leader has not only created artificial intimacy, he has control over it. From there, it is only natural taht he should control less intimate activities.

Today, residual religious values still affect even the most secular amongst us. Quite unfortunate in my opinion.
I disagree with this. Sex is very personnal, and every person has a different view of it. While some may prefer to detach it from the emotionnal dimension, those who do still attach a great sentimental value on sexual acts do not necessarily do so at the urging of a religion group or others who would want to control them.

It can be quite the contrary: most religions try to control sex through guilt and moral laws. I personally chose to have a meaningful sex life where my sexual activities are mere physical manifestations of my love for the other. So even though I attach great emotion to the act, you would be hard-pressed to find a lever to try to control my life through it.

Emotion is only involved in sex because it is such a convenient way to control society. Convince people that God (or the gods) care about your sex life, and that automatically inspires emotion. Then, a religious leader has not only created artificial intimacy, he has control over it. From there, it is only natural taht he should control less intimate activities.

Today, residual religious values still affect even the most secular amongst us. Quite unfortunate in my opinion.
emotion is involved in sex because of biology. it binds a man to a woman and her children, keeps her faithful to him and keeps him feeding her and the kids when it would be easier to walk away.

those who do still attach a great sentimental value on sexual acts do not necessarily do so at the urging of a religion group or others who would want to control them.
And thus, residual religious values affecting the secular.

emotion is involved in sex because of biology. it binds a man to a woman and her children, keeps her faithful to him and keeps him feeding her and the kids when it would be easier to walk away.
Well, it’s a pretty flawed then.
Plenty of men walk away.

I guess I agree with you, but I'm not sure... The reason is that both rape and assault are violations of another persons physical integrity - both are acts of violence comited upon that person - and thus they must be comparable?

I'm afraid I'm a bit too tired to make up my mind. ;)
give me some time and i see if i can come up with another set of seemingly similar crimes that are hard to compare. maybe i cant

there are probably assaults (or is battery the word we want?) that are comparable due to the intended infliction of emotional distress. i think of assault as intending to inflict pain only.

rape isnt about sexual satisfaction and its not just about pain, its about dominance and in more brutal cases about breaking another person mentally. its this psychological and emotional aspect that moves it from assault and into torture.

Well, it’s a pretty flawed then.
Plenty of men walk away.
most men dont.

Well, I'll guess we'll disagree here. I would probably agree if you said that generally rape was worse in terms of causing emotional trauma, while assault was worse in terms of physical damage.

And this is based on? I'm not making it up. I watched someone get convicted of assault for poking his girlfriend in the chest during an argument. It is assault to lay your hands on another person against their will. It's that simple. Rape cannot occur without assault also occurring.

It does? Why? Surely a date rape can be an aggravated rape as well?
I would guess it depends on the law... As far as I know, there are still no universal legal classification about what constitutes rape in the United States, and that it may differ from state to state.

My point was that both the act itself and the consequences for the victims are incredibly diverse, both in the case of rape and of assault.
It can be, but you made the point of the difference and the law recognizes the difference between a physically damaging rape and one that only involves not stopping when told to do so.

most men dont.
Only because being forced to pay child support has a worse affect on one’s standard of living than sleeping around and going on “business trips.”

Emotion is only involved in sex because it is such a convenient way to control society. Convince people that God (or the gods) care about your sex life, and that automatically inspires emotion. Then, a religious leader has not only created artificial intimacy, he has control over it. From there, it is only natural taht he should control less intimate activities.

Today, residual religious values still affect even the most secular amongst us. Quite unfortunate in my opinion.

Wow. Still has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, for one thing. For a second, you limit yourself to very specific western societies. Some societies have no such stigma. As I have hinted at several times, this is just a backhanded way to blame religion for the damage of rape, or basically anything you can pull out of your butt.

Only because being forced to pay child support has a worse affect on one’s standard of living than sleeping around and going on “business trips.”

Ha. Ridiculous. I see you're not actually attempting to keep this conversation seated in reality. Most men are quite happy to care for their children and to love the mothers of those children, despite your made-up arguments. This whole thing is just silly.

Wow. Still has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, for one thing. For a second, you limit yourself to very specific western societies. Some societies have no such stigma.
Some primitive tribal societies, yes, but those are gradually being wiped out.
It isn’t just the West, ever heard of Islam? Most Hindu religions? Oriental tradition?
As I have hinted at several times, this is just a backhanded way to blame religion for the damage of rape, or basically anything you can pull out of your butt.
Organised religion is one of society's worst caners.

Well, Undelia, I don't see the problem, either. If those women are too weak to defend themselves against big, strong, rapists, they deserve it. Let the strong exert their will without the Church getting in the way with its sentimentalizing of sex for the purposes of prudism.

Ha. Ridiculous. I see you're not actually attempting to keep this conversation seated in reality. Most men are quite happy to care for their children and to love the mothers of those children, despite your made-up arguments. This whole thing is just silly.
There are very clear limitations to what infidelity statistics can tell us: we do not know how honest the respondents are, whether they claim to not have affairs out of shame, or boast of affairs they didn't have.

Keeping in mind these limitations, here are some infidelity statistics provided by Associated Press at the time of President Clinton's "intern" scandal.

- 22 percent of men and 14 percent of women admitted to having sexual relations outside their marriage sometime in their past.

- 70 percent of married women and 54 percent of married men did not know of their spouses' extramarital activity.

- 17 percent of divorces in the United States are caused by infidelity.
And that is just what people will admit to. Imagine how much more the real numbers are.

And that is just what people will admit to. Imagine how much more the real numbers are.

So. That's still not the majority, despite your claims to the contrary. It also doesn't make the claim of whether the infidelity was a result of other problems or the other way around so it doesn't evidence your claim.

Well, Undelia, I don't see the problem, either. If those women are too weak to defend themselves against big, strong, rapists, they deserve it. Let the strong exert their will without the Church getting in the way with its sentimentalizing of sex for the purposes of prudism.
I’m not saying that rape isn’t bad, especially with the societal constructs currently in place, but it is possible that we exaggerate its severity.
Forcing someone to so something against their will is a definite no-no, but rape could by comparable to any other exploitation if we let go of the limitations put on us by those in power.

Some primitive tribal societies, yes, but those are gradually being wiped out.
It isn’t just the West, ever heard of Islam? Most Hindu religions? Oriental tradition?

Your knowledge of these societies is astounding. I wonder how many people actually fall for your particular brand of dung. Seriously, read a book.

Organised religion is one of society's worst caners.
Well, I see that we're stay on the reasoned path. Hyperbole is one of society's worst cancers.

As for this forum, I'd say trolls are the worst cancer here.

So. That's still not the majority, despite your claims to the contrary. It also doesn't make the claim of whether the infidelity was a result of other problems or the other way around so it doesn't evidence your claim.
You honestly think that any man wants to spend the rest of his life with a gradually fattening hag and help her raise her grubby, disgusting parasites to adult-hood? Society and civil consequences force him to.

I’m not saying that rape isn’t bad, especially with the societal constructs currently in place, but it is possible that we exaggerate its severity.
Forcing someone to so something against their will is a definite no-no, but rape could by comparable to any other exploitation if we let go of the limitations put on us by those in power.

You keep making this claim, with no support, no logical connection, no real argument of any sort other than "religion is a cancer". We know what your goal is here and it's transparent. Nobody is fooled by your attempts to hide it by trolling.

You honestly think that any man want spend the rest of his life with a gradually fattening hag and help her raise her grubby, disgusting parasites to adult-hood? Society and civil consequences force him to.

Well, hey, I see reason has been completely abandoned. You've decided that rather than make arguments you will just throw out generalizations, hyperbole and ridicule. Good to know, troll.

I can't wait to spend the rest of my life with my "gradually-fattening hag and to help her raise her grubby, disgusting parasites to adulthood". Not all children are you. Some people are actually quite proud of their "grubby, disgusting parasites."

Well, it’s a pretty flawed then.
Plenty of men walk away.

More men stay than walk away.

And rape is about using force to deprive the victim of their freedom to refuse. The emotions arise because none of us wants to be forced to do things against our will.

Even masochistic people choose whom they will allow to bind or hurt them. Taking the choice away is what elicits the strong emotions, not any religious or societal construct.

I would argue that emotions are part of being human.

That is why it is so difficult to argue this topic---it is completely and essentially personal, and about personal freedom from assault, sexual or otherwise. And for anyone to suggest that if we were unemotional Vulcans, that we would somehow welcome someone taking away our choices, forcing us into something we don't want, is not only repulsive, but illogical.

So, I say, BADBADBADBADBAD!:headbang:

Your knowledge of these societies is astounding. I wonder how many people actually fall for your particular brand of dung. Seriously, read a book.
Are you honestly going to sit there and assert that Islam doesn’t brutally enforce the marriage contract?
My knowledge of Hinduism comes from first hand contact with Hindus, do I have little doubt of its accuracy.
As for the Orient, ever dealt with a traditional family from that part of the world? Worse than Christians.

Are you honestly going to sit there and assert that Islam doesn’t brutally enforce the marriage contract?
My knowledge of Hinduism comes from first hand contact with Hindus, do I have little doubt of its accuracy.
As for the Orient, ever dealt with a traditional family from that part of the world? Worse than Christians.

You mistake your knowledge of some societies with all societies and that is the problem. You haven't listed even the majority of societies that exist or have existed on this planet. You treat Hindus like they are a hive-mind with only one brand of Hinduism. You don't even touch Buddhism or various other religions. And you reference societies that are very young in the grand scheme of human existence.

Emotion is only involved in sex because it is such a convenient way to control society. Convince people that God (or the gods) care about your sex life, and that automatically inspires emotion. Then, a religious leader has not only created artificial intimacy, he has control over it. From there, it is only natural taht he should control less intimate activities.

Today, residual religious values still affect even the most secular amongst us. Quite unfortunate in my opinion.

I would love to know if this idea about emotions being artificially connected with sex came from some book or teacher, or just out of your own head?

I ask because I have never heard this argument about rape, sex and emotions before.

You honestly think that any man wants to spend the rest of his life with a gradually fattening hag and help her raise her grubby, disgusting parasites to adult-hood? Society and civil consequences force him to.
its not like there are tons of young childless women who are willing to take up with old balding paunchy men who have just abandonded their families.

and regardless of your cynicism, most men love their wives, love their children and grandchildren and have no desire to leave. cheating is not an expression wanting a divorce, its "playing with fire" and taking the chance that if the other finds out they will insist on divorce.

Why is rape considered so awful, that some call for it to be punishable by death, as it was for quite a while in many US states? Can the argument not be made that it is really nothing more than assault? Is it possible that residual Judeo-Christian/Romantic notions of morality influence society’s disdain for the crime, or is there something naturally wrong with the act?

Go ask a woman who has been raped if it's similar to assault; if the long term psychological damage, the nightmares, the feelings of humiation, the physical intimacy with other men, if anything is similar.

*sigh* the past week, I've had 2 friends tell me about some of that shit that happened to them...

rape is not the sexual equivalent of a bar fight that you are on the losing end of.

its a form of torture.

it ranges from, at the most mild, being manipulated, intimidated, or drugged into a sex act that you would not otherwise be interested in. your choice is overridden by the rapist

at its worst its being kidnapped, held captive, being beaten into submission. being raped over and over again by one or more people, being told that in the end you will be killed, not knowing if you will survive, when it will end, if you will be kept for years of abuse or tossed into an alley like a bag of trash. the rapist can do anything he wants any time he wants, he can pass you off to a "friend" or sell you to a stranger. you are reduced to nothing. your only chance at survival is total submission to the will of the rapist.

not quite the same as getting sucker punched at a party.

I agree and I'll take this further.

Now, I'm all for sexual liberation in that it's not act that should be "shamed" (it's enjoyable- nothing wrong with that), but the idea that once sexual liberation is achieved, rape loses its appeal is incorrect.

I equate rape like a kidnapping, as Ashmoria has done. It's forcing an activity that can only be enjoyed by two or more people onto unwilling partners, and the trauma of that action carries over even if society had no hang-ups about sex. Yes, sex becomes more "readily available", but even under the most casual of circumstances, there will still be people who will not want sex at particular times, either because they're tired (or busy or whatever other excuse) or they just don't like the person who is offering. Hence, rape can still occur, and it can still be damaging. We're liberal over who we can associate with, when and where, but a kidnapping is still traumatizing- so why wouldn't a rape be in a similar situation regarding sex?

its not like there are tons of young childless women who are willing to take up with old balding paunchy men who have just abandonded their families.

and regardless of your cynicism, most men love their wives, love their children and grandchildren and have no desire to leave. cheating is not an expression wanting a divorce, its "playing with fire" and taking the chance that if the other finds out they will insist on divorce.

Shhhh... don't try to inject reason into his fantasies. All people must think like him because he says so.

More men stay than walk away.

And rape is about using force to deprive the victim of their freedom to refuse. The emotions arise because none of us wants to be forced to do things against our will.

Even masochistic people choose whom they will allow to bind or hurt them. Taking the choice away is what elicits the strong emotions, not any religious or societal construct.

I would argue that emotions are part of being human.

That is why it is so difficult to argue this topic---it is completely and essentially personal, and about personal freedom from assault, sexual or otherwise. And for anyone to suggest that if we were unemotional Vulcans, that we would somehow welcome someone taking away our choices, forcing us into something we don't want, is not only repulsive, but illogical.

So, I say, BADBADBADBADBAD!:headbang:
not only that, but who would WANT to be so unemotional? would it improve our lives if there was no connection between sex and love? if bodily integrity and self respect had no meaning to us?

would it be better to be a race of robots immune to psychological damage?

I think it's clear the person who is making these claims is already psychologically-damaged, so they place a premium on the idea of being immune to such damage. It's kind of like people who argue we would be better off never falling in love because then we could never lose the loves of our lives. Now, if I had to guess the psychological damage came from someone associated with organized religion and it is the cause of the vitriol of a person who can't disassociate an individual from the group.

I agree and I'll take this further.

Now, I'm all for sexual liberation in that it's not act that should be "shamed" (it's enjoyable- nothing wrong with that), but the idea that once sexual liberation is achieved, rape loses its appeal is incorrect.

I equate rape like a kidnapping, as Ashmoria has done. It's forcing an activity that can only be enjoyed by two or more people onto unwilling partners, and the trauma of that action carries over even if society had no hang-ups about sex. Yes, sex becomes more "readily available", but even under the most casual of circumstances, there will still be people who will not want sex at particular times, either because they're tired (or busy or whatever other excuse) or they just don't like the person who is offering. Hence, rape can still occur, and it can still be damaging. We're liberal over who we can associate with, when and where, but a kidnapping is still traumatizing- so why wouldn't a rape be in a similar situation regarding sex?
good post.

its like supposing that if you only invite prosperous people over to your house no guest will ever steal anything from you.

rape isnt about the scarecity of free sex. its about the desire to dominate someone sexually. that wont go away and it isnt bad because of religious prejudice but because of human psychology.

Why is rape considered so awful, that some call for it to be punishable by death, as it was for quite a while in many US states? Can the argument not be made that it is really nothing more than assault? Is it possible that residual Judeo-Christian/Romantic notions of morality influence society’s disdain for the crime, or is there something naturally wrong with the act?
I am hurting you with my mind.

not only that, but who would WANT to be so unemotional? would it improve our lives if there was no connection between sex and love? if bodily integrity and self respect had no meaning to us?

would it be better to be a race of robots immune to psychological damage?
Yes on all counts.
I think it's clear the person who is making these claims is already psychologically-damaged, so they place a premium on the idea of being immune to such damage. It's kind of like people who argue we would be better off never falling in love because then we could never lose the loves of our lives. Now, if I had to guess the psychological damage came from someone associated with organized religion and it is the cause of the vitriol of a person who can't disassociate an individual from the group.
Don't try to psychoanalyze me.
You mistake your knowledge of some societies with all societies and that is the problem. You haven't listed even the majority of societies that exist or have existed on this planet.
I beleive I've covered the vast majority of the world's current land area.
You treat Hindus like they are a hive-mind with only one brand of Hinduism.
I have talked with length to the various Hindus I know about the many different varieties of Hinduism, and not just the ones that they follow.
I would love to know if this idea about emotions being artificially connected with sex came from some book or teacher, or just out of your own head?
My own musings.

Why don't you take a look at this page? To say something as strong as your initial post and to not read these would be a disgrace.

http://escapinghades.pandys.org/Survivors.html

I really shouldn't click that... should I?

Why don't you take a look at this page? To say something as strong as your initial post and to not read these would be a disgrace.

http://escapinghades.pandys.org/Survivors.html
But do they only feel the way they do because of societal constructs?

But do they only feel the way they do because of societal constructs?
Figure it out.

I really shouldn't click that... should I?
I think everyone should.

I think everyone should.
Why? So they can be sucked into your scared of your own shadow world?
I have no way of knowing if those stories are true. All I know is that they are trying to emotionally manipulate me and everyone else.

Why? So they can be sucked into your scared of your own shadow world?
I have no way of knowing if those stories are true. All I know is that they are trying to emotionally manipulate me and everyone else.
Wouldn't want to appeal to your emotions, would I?

Really, I have never seen such an idiotic assumption. Rape is wrong from it's very starting point: a breach of individual freedom. From that point on already a woman (or man) who was raped has the right to defend themself, and seek retribution.

Now, if you think that this act is not humiliating, degrading or disgusting, that would be your personal opinion. Were you to be raped, I would venture a guess that you would drop it instantly. Then again, you may be inhuman. Regardless of whether or not a person has societal constructs in mind, they do have a concept of their own freedom. I would not tolerate being raped. I would go as far as killing my would-be rapist in self-defence. You seem to think that were societal constructs to be removed, crimes would no longer matter. Were this so, I would love someone to steal a large portion of your property, and you to remain completely un-phased and stoic. Show absolutely no emotional distress. This is simply property. Now imagine your own body.

I think everyone should.

But if you are very sensitive, I wouldn't recommend it. Just reading the first page was difficult.

And if it will make pictures in your mind that you cannot dismiss, don't click on it.

Wouldn't want to appeal to your emotions, would I?
Well why would you?

But if you are very sensitive, I wouldn't recommend it. Just reading the first page was difficult.

And if it will make pictures in your mind that you cannot dismiss, don't click on it.

Thanks for the warning.

But why in heck would you say rape isn't a crime that should be punishable by death?

Well why would you?
If you're not willing to open yourself to merely the emotional abuse that these women and men endured (in many cases years after the fact), I think that takes your right from discussing the physical brutality in such an off handed manner.

if we freed ourselves from the moral restraints of that society, would it matter less?

Would murder matter less? Torture?

Would murder matter less? Torture?
Murder would certainly matter less to the people who aren’t being murdered.

As for torture, it depends on the variety of torture. Some torture is almost entirely emotional, so that would matter less.

Why? So they can be sucked into your scared of your own shadow world?
I have no way of knowing if those stories are true. All I know is that they are trying to emotionally manipulate me and everyone else.

Since you do not accept personal testimonies as evidence, I hope you are never called to serve on a jury...

You do realize that your point of view comes across these pages as inhuman? Or as the musings of someone who must surely have been either severly damaged or has never been loved?

Emotions are okay. Okay to have, okay to express. J

ust because someone cries out to you does not mean that they are trying to "manipulate you." Sometimes things hurt so much that we have to express them.

IMHO, those who do not express their emotions wind up with other problems, including physical problems, diseases.

Since you do not accept personal testimonies as evidence, I hope you are never called to serve on a jury...

You do realize that your point of view comes across these pages as inhuman? Or as the musings of someone who must surely have been either severly damaged or has never been loved?

Emotions are okay. Okay to have, okay to express. J

ust because someone cries out to you does not mean that they are trying to "manipulate you." Sometimes things hurt so much that we have to express them.

IMHO, those who do not express their emotions wind up with other problems, including physical problems, diseases.

That's true you know.

Thanks for the warning.

But why in heck would you say rape isn't a crime that should be punishable by death?

I wouldn't say that. In fact, I would stand in line to pull the switch or push the plunger or hit the button or pull the trigger. Having had two people close to me raped did not change my opinion, which I have had since I was about 10 years of age.

And since as someone here more eloquent than I correctly described rape as a form of torture, I would wish that I could bring myself to advocate torturing the rapist to death. But I can't. Make it quick and painless.

Send the thing to meet its maker.

Since you do not accept personal testimonies as evidence, I hope you are never called to serve on a jury...
I hope so too.
You do realize that your point of view comes across these pages as inhuman?
I'm not an idiot.
Or as the musings of someone who must surely have been either severly damaged or has never been loved?
Now that I don't get. Must someone be damaged to not accept the world as it is presented?
Emotions are okay. Okay to have, okay to express.
They are anoying, plain and simple.
Just because someone cries out to you does not mean that they are trying to "manipulate you."
I've never seen any evidance that they are not.
Sometimes things hurt so much that we have to express them.
That's what the central nervous system is for.
IMHO, those who do not express their emotions wind up with other problems, including physical problems, diseases.
An old wive's tale.

I wouldn't say that. In fact, I would stand in line to pull the switch or push the plunger or hit the button or pull the trigger. Having had two people close to me raped did not change my opinion, which I have had since I was about 10 years of age.

And since as someone here more eloquent than I correctly described rape as a form of torture, I would wish that I could bring myself to advocate torturing the rapist to death. But I can't. Make it quick and painless.

Send the thing to meet its maker.

Then we share our views on this. I say firing squad. Cheap and effective.

They are anoying, plain and simple.
They are part of human existence. Disregarding them means you practically disregard human nature.

If we were truly sexually liberated, would it even be that big of a deal?

What is this "sexual liberation"? What does it look like?

Clearly, by "sexually liberated," you do not mean that people (women in particular) are to be free from the unwanted sexual advances and coercive sexual encounters. In fact, you seem to believe that "sexual liberation" has little to do with the freedom to choose one's partners, because you mean to degrade sex to the point that it "doesn't matter" who has sex with me... at least, I can find no other way to interpret your assertion that rape might not be "that big of a deal."

And of course, you want to do away with the emotions that accompany sexual relations. What kind of freedom is this? While I have had some amazing "casual" sexual encounters, even these were heightened when my partner and I were "into each other" emotionally; we desired each other as particular individuals, rather than merely desiring the physical pleasure of sex and acting it out on the most convenient person available. Indeed, the least fulfilling sex I have had was with women who wanted to do it "just to do it"... because all we got from each other was physical pleasure, which we could in fact have done for ourselves. Meanwhile, the most fulfilling and enjoyable sex I have had has invariably been with someone I love.

But in your world, people should not be free to have these experiences; they should accord no emotional significance to sexual intercourse. (Indeed, it seems as if they should have no emotions at all!)

Meanwhile, I wonder how this "sexual liberation" is to be instilled, if it means eroding all conceptions of sex as "special" or sexual violation as "wrong." I suppose we'll have to stop telling our children that people should not touch them in genital "private" areas, since this is the very beginning of what you consider sexual "repression." Naturally, if child molesters are to be punished at all, their punishment should match the punishment of someone who strikes a child... since there is nothing special about sex, and rape is the same as assault, right?

Actually, I guess we probably wouldn't care. In your world, we wouldn't love our children. In fact, if we are forced to raise them at all, at least they will be convenient objects for our sexual desires. Perhaps, given that parents will not love their children, their motivation for raising and protecting them will be that, at the very least, children provide very handy sexual servants.

This is not meant to be a "slippery slope" in any way. It does not seem to me that your argument would lead to such a world. It appears, instead, that this is merely a more thorough description of your ideal.

You honestly think that any man wants to spend the rest of his life with a gradually fattening hag and help her raise her grubby, disgusting parasites to adult-hood? Society and civil consequences force him to.

Yes, I honestly do. I give men enough credit to assume that they are not just walking penises, and that they are capable of actual human interactions.

And out of curiosity, in your worldview, what "forces" a woman to stay with a gradually fattening man and help him raise his "grubby, disgusting parasites"?

I hope so too.

I'm not an idiot.

Now that I don't get. Must someone be damaged to not accept the world as it is presented?

They are anoying, plain and simple.

I've never seen any evidance that they are not.

That's what the central nervous system is for.

An old wive's tale.
Those testimonials were not written to manipulate you. As much as you'd like to think that they are after your pity, they are not. They are to help victims to face their own fears about coming out to people and getting help for what has been done to them. You understand nothing about human emotion or trauma. Maybe you should get of your head and get into the real world sometime and join the rest of humanity.

I'm pretty much done discussing this with you.

I hope so too.

I'm not an idiot.

Now that I don't get. Must someone be damaged to not accept the world as it is presented?

They are anoying, plain and simple.

I've never seen any evidance that they are not.

That's what the central nervous system is for.

An old wive's tale.

The central nervous system causes the mouth to open and the sobs to come forth, the eyelids to squeeze out tears, etc.

Perfectly natural and normal. I

ncidentally, do animals have societal constructs? Because I have seen animals express emotions as well...

And yes, some parts of life can seem to be quite annoying. But that does not mean that they do not exist, or were artificially imposed, or are an attempt at manipulation.

Never having seen evidence that emotions are used for anything but manipulation says that you must have been in some seriously damaging situations.

Uplifting situations do not lead to these conclusions.

And if you think that you are the only one to have had these thoughts, you are seriously mistaken.

I wish you well in your search for the truth of life. I really hope you find God.

do you think rape is worse than murder?

I think that's entirely subjective. Some women may say, after being raped, "I'd rather be dead." In fact, they may be driven to kill themselves. For them, it seems, rape is worse than murder.

Yet many other women endure, overcoming the damage done to them by a rapist. They go on to live productive, happy lives. Presumably, murder would have harmed them more than the rape.

Is there anyone who doesn't see through this attempt by someone who is trying to fake a wall around their heart constantly by depersonalizing every experience to point of erasing emotion? Undelia, I think you need a hug.

Is there anyone who doesn't see through this attempt by someone who is trying to fake a wall around their heart constantly by depersonalizing every experience to point of erasing emotion? Undelia, I think you need a hug.
Or shock therapy. :)

Yes, I honestly do. I give men enough credit to assume that they are not just walking penises, and that they are capable of actual human interactions.

And out of curiosity, in your worldview, what "forces" a woman to stay with a gradually fattening man and help him raise his "grubby, disgusting parasites"?
The same.
-snip-
If society had evolved differently, that world would be perfectly acceptable.

No we would be free. Those societal constructs are what the government, personhood granted corporations and religious institutions all use to keep us in line.
I stopped reading here. For real, get a grip. Rape is not a "societal construct." It's a crime against a person's innate right to control their body. That is why it is horrible.

Emotion is only involved in sex because it is such a convenient way to control society.
Evidence? The facts seem to point to the opposite conclusion: while people used to frequently marry for political or economic reasons (and in some places they still do), as the world becomes more secular the tide definitely seems to be shifting toward marrying (and having sex with) a person one loves.

Convince people that God (or the gods) care about your sex life, and that automatically inspires emotion.
Really? What emotions are those? Generally speaking the "religious doctrine" I have heard most frequently concerning sex has been something akin to "only do it to procreate." The concept of having sex with someone because you love them is very secular indeed.

Then, a religious leader has not only created artificial intimacy, he has control over it.
Given that people inspired by passion seem prone to defy authority to be together, to skip class and work to enjoy one another's company, and otherwise to become anti-social because they are so wrapped up in one another, I would say that the burden of proof on this one is definitely on your side.

From there, it is only natural taht he should control less intimate activities.
Ummm.... could this be more non sequitur? Surely my personal physician exercises a great degree of control (by way of authority) over my most intimate and personal behaviors. If he says "don't eat this," or "exercise thus" I am fairly likely to obey. But it does not follow that "from there, it is only natural that he should control less intimate activities."

Seriously, where do you get this stuff?

Today, residual religious values still affect even the most secular amongst us. Quite unfortunate in my opinion.
Considering that you would insist that rape was once commonplace and accepted, in what was surely a less secular society than ours, once again it seems that the less religious we become, the more we care about respecting one another's (sexual) dignity.

But is that only because society tells people that is what they are supposed to think? If we were truly sexually liberated, would it even be that big of a deal?
yes it would be.
having a man force himself on you is not a pleasant thing.
sex is consentual, its not some thing that can be taken when ever someone has the urge.

I’m not saying that rape isn’t bad, especially with the societal constructs currently in place, but it is possible that we exaggerate its severity.
Forcing someone to so something against their will is a definite no-no, but rape could by comparable to any other exploitation if we let go of the limitations put on us by those in power.

You cannot simply assert that emotions constitute "limitations put on us by those in power." You would need to provide evidence. Moreover, you would need to provide evidence that contravenes the extensive scientific literature that links emotions to a combination of biology and the ordinary events of growing up.

Originally Posted by Ashmoria
not only that, but who would WANT to be so unemotional? would it improve our lives if there was no connection between sex and love? if bodily integrity and self respect had no meaning to us

would it be better to be a race of robots immune to psychological damage?


Originally posted by Undelia
Yes on all counts.


In that case, I want to read your list of values. What that we ought to value would be improved and advanced by the abandonment of emotion, and why ought we value it?

The same.


Interesting. So you're arguing that the only reason children aren't abandoned at birth is that society somehow "forces" people not to do so.

I'm hoping you do, in fact, realize that the existence of the human race disproves your argument. A human newborn is incapable of independent survival. Long before H. sapiens even existed, our very very distant ancestors' parents were voluntarily taking care of their offspring - as do mothers and often fathers of many, many non-human species today. Your ignorance of basic evolutionary biology and of common sense is becoming just plain silly...

Really? What emotions are those? Generally speaking the "religious doctrine" I have heard most frequently concerning sex has been something akin to "only do it to procreate." The concept of having sex with someone because you love them is very secular indeed.
You aren’t very knowledgeable of religion are you? The Bible glorifies sex and romantic love, as long as it is between two people bound by the church’s traditions of course.

The whole “procreation only” thing didn’t occur until after religion’s authority over society was firmly established.

You aren’t very knowledgeable of religion are you? The Bible glorifies sex and romantic love, as long as it is between two people bound by the church’s traditions of course.

The whole “procreation only” thing didn’t occur until after religion’s authority over society was firmly established.
Have you even read the Bible? I think the Old Testament does, but the New Testament doesn't.

You aren’t very knowledgeable of religion are you? The Bible glorifies sex and romantic love, as long as it is between two people bound by the church’s traditions of course.
And if this is such an effective means of "control," why does it appear to fail so miserably?

What did biblical leaders get people to do because they loved their spouses that they might not otherwise have done?

You have not answered the problem of passionate disobedience: people in love seem bound to defy authority, not to obey it.

But come on, a sexual ruler would be a little like a horny pencil: they both help you with articulating compex mathematical problems and... can't help with the... washing!!! Har har har!

I stopped reading here. For real, get a grip. Rape is not a "societal construct." It's a crime against a person's innate right to control their body. That is why it is horrible.

I concur. Being a smartass aside

You aren’t very knowledgeable of religion are you? The Bible glorifies sex and romantic love, as long as it is between two people bound by the church’s traditions of course.

The whole “procreation only” thing didn’t occur until after religion’s authority over society was firmly established.

Wasn't there a group in France labeled heretics and burned for believing in romantic love back in the middle ages?

It's about power, but it's also about sex, otherwise they would just repeatedly poke them with their finger up the nose.

Indeed, it seems he's already come to his conclusions long ago and is simply trying to stir up shit. Ignored most of the posts to his "question" and focused primarily on bitching about "social constructs", in which case I didn't realize having control over your own body was considered a social construct instituted by the evil organized religions. Because that's what rape is, someone taking control over your body. And I would hope you would consider that something bad (otherwise, mind if I borrow yours for a bit? :D )

I guess rape could be similar to being robbed while the robber has his knife so close to your throat that it is touching the windpipe. Sure, having something stolen from you, like having sex, is no biggie. However, it's the psychological impact that devestates. With the robbery, you know that the robber could just easily kill you. Two millimeters more and you'll literally drown in your own blood. It's the knowledge(with the robbery example) that he holds your life in his hands and he can just do what he wants to you.

Rape is similar. The criminal is getting what he wants from you. He isn't doing it for the sex. He's doing it just to show you that he's boss. It's showing you that you are nothing more than his sex toy, not a human being with feelings, emotions, or thoughts. Worst of all, the victims often feel that it is their fault. That is a side effect from the trauma. It's so traumatizing that you feel that you could have avoided it. It's the control he has over you that is so traumatizing. Once you understand that, you'll understand why rape isn't something you'd want to happen to you.

It's about power, but it's also about sex, otherwise they would just repeatedly poke them with their finger up the nose.

Sex is not just penetration, otherwise my girlfriend's OB/Gyn has a lot to answer for.

You aren’t very knowledgeable of religion are you? The Bible glorifies sex and romantic love, as long as it is between two people bound by the church’s traditions of course.

The whole “procreation only” thing didn’t occur until after religion’s authority over society was firmly established.

Wow. You really should read the Bible. It treats women like property and love is almost never mentioned in relation to sex or marriage. Seriously, where are you talking to people about this where people don't just laugh at you? Almost everything you say is provably false.

Wow. You really should read the Bible. It treats women like property and love is almost never mentioned in relation to sex or marriage.
The Old Testament, and the writings of Paul in the New Testament, yes.

The Old Testament, and the writings of Paul in the New Testament, yes.

Paul actually suggests that if one desires sex that it's the only reason to get married.

Paul actually suggests that if one desires sex that it's the only reason to get married.
Good old Paul. :rolleyes:

Paul actually suggests that if one desires sex that it's the only reason to get married.

He also said, all you need is love.

Sex is not just penetration, otherwise my girlfriend's OB/Gyn has a lot to answer for.

Don't over analyze. Just catch my drift.

Don't over analyze. Just catch my drift.

I caught your drift. Rape isn't sex any more than getting jumped and having your wallet stolen is a boxing match.

Paul actually suggests that if one desires sex that it's the only reason to get married.
You are misinterpreting the scriptures. That is not what Paul meant at all.

Rape isn't sex any more than getting jumped and having your wallet stolen is a boxing match.


I disagree. Rape isn't exclusively sex or violence; it's both.

It's a horrible crime and to dismiss the explicit sexual element, as you appear to be doing above, is to disregard precisely what makes it so damaging to its victims.

Wow. You really should read the Bible. It treats women like property and love is almost never mentioned in relation to sex or marriage. Seriously, where are you talking to people about this where people don't just laugh at you? Almost everything you say is provably false.
Not trying to get into an argument but what you are saying is what is false. Reading your posts, you are proving that you have no real knowledge of the Bible or of christianity.
But I am not going to debate cause I know from all of your previous posts that you think you know everything just because as you put it:
you're an "ex marine" which I put in qouation marks cause you haven't proven it.
you're a teacher. though I find even that questionable.
Now what are you claiming it is that makes you qualified to talk to about the Bible?
I suppose you are going to say that just because you read it once, that makes you a complete expert on it.
Have you actually studied it though, with people who know more about it than you? You can't get everything from it from simply reading it. If you do, you often end up misreading passages.

I disagree. Rape isn't exclusively sex or violence; it's both.

It's a horrible crime and to dismiss the explicit sexual element, as you appear to be doing above, is to disregard precisely what makes it so damaging to its victims.

A sexual element does not make it sex. Watching porn has an explicit sexual element, but I didn't have sex with the porn stars.

It involves acts that are sexual in nature but you can't have sex with someone who didn't have sex with you. It's impossible. A raped woman did not have sex. She was sexually assaulted and there's a differrence. If someone conks me over the head, we didn't get in a fight. It has an explicit fighting element, but the reality is much more complicated than that.

I disagree. Rape isn't exclusively sex or violence; it's both.

It's a horrible crime and to dismiss the explicit sexual element, as you appear to be doing above, is to disregard precisely what makes it so damaging to its victims.

I think the point is - it is VIOLENCE by the rapist, that has a SEXUAL connotation to the victim.

From the point of view of the rapist, rape is entirely about force... about proving something, maybe... definitely about causing harm, and probably about causing degradation.

From the point of view of the victim, it is obviously harm, and we can clearly see that it is about degradation... but ADDED 'pain' comes from the perversion of 'intimacy'.

Not trying to get into an argument but what you are saying is what is false. Reading your posts, you are proving that you have no real knowledge of the Bible or of christianity.
But I am not going to debate cause I know from all of your previous posts that you think you know everything just because as you put it:
you're an "ex marine" which I put in qouation marks cause you haven't proven it.
you're a teacher. though I find even that questionable.
Now what are you claiming it is that makes you qualified to talk to about the Bible?
I suppose you are going to say that just because you read it once, that makes you a complete expert on it.
Have you actually studied it though, with people who know more about it than you? You can't get everything from it from simply reading it. If you do, you often end up misreading passages.

Ha. Are you sure you want to do this, because I'm about to embarass you?

And I'm not an ex-marine. I'm a former Marine. But you knew that. I love your ad hominems. What else I am not, pray tell?

I'll tell you what. Wanna play the Bible game, what does fornication mean in the King James Version of the Bible? You studied it so thoroughly, that you must realize that what the word meant at the time of translation and what it means now are different, no? Tell me a little bit about the culture surrounding when Paul lived, because that's an important part of the his letters. Tell me a little bit about how the Bible was compiled and who compiled it. I know. Do you? Explain to me some things about the culture in which Jesus lived, since that is of course germaine to the stories. And tell me where you got the informaiton, because it can't be found in the BIble. Anyone who relies solely on the Bible is ignoring the important context that is necessary to understand it as much as a person reading The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn needs to know the culture of the time in which the book is set. However, the majority of people know nothing about these things and then attack anyone who dares to actuall understand the Bible and what it ACTUALLY means.

You did very little for your agument when you attacked me. I can't prove to you that I was a Marine. And what difference does it make if I do? It doesn't make my arguments have any more merit. I can't prove to you that I teach. And what difference does it make if I do? My arguments stand on their own.

You're upset because I pwned you when you made expertise claim that didn't hold up under cross. Fine. Be upset. But attack my arguments or walk away.

1 Corinthians 7:1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Now, of course, you'll notice that the Paul says that man should not marry, but if a man cannot abstain from sex then he should have a wife and a wife a husband so that may fulfill their carnal desires without sinning. However, feel free to better interpret this passage if you'd like. Notice how Paul says he wish all men were chaste as he is, but that he knows they won't be. Notice how he says sex is a duty of marriage. Notice how he says that the marriage is necessary to avoid sinning for those that are not like him.

I think the point is - it is VIOLENCE by the rapist, that has a SEXUAL connotation to the victim.

From the point of view of the rapist, rape is entirely about force... about proving something, maybe... definitely about causing harm, and probably about causing degradation.

From the point of view of the victim, it is obviously harm, and we can clearly see that it is about degradation... but ADDED 'pain' comes from the perversion of 'intimacy'.

Hey, GnI, how nice of you to come? Apparently, I'm not qualified to discuss Paul.

I'm always amused by the person who claims that being accredited somehow adds something to your arguments. It says a lot about their ability to make an argument absent of claims of expertise.

I just thought I'd point out the Paul argument by our good friend, Whittier. It's reasoned and careful and only relies ENTIRELY on attacking me.

I caught your drift. Rape isn't sex any more than getting jumped and having your wallet stolen is a boxing match.

Sex can be defined as just sexual intercourse. Rape involves sexual intercourse. Rape thus involves sex. If you are forced to have sex against your will, that is the very definition of rape.

That seems to bother you because you don't like to associate loving, mutually gratifying sex with rape. But whatever your personal feelings are, that doesn't change the definition.

This has got to be the most worthless post EVER. What do you mean rape isn't so bad? Would you like it if your daughter was raped? Geez, people....

If sex had no emotional attachment, as it rightfully should not, than a rape would mean little more than assault or robbery.

Why should sex have no emotional attachment?

"Sexual liberty" doesn't mean raping other people, just as financial liberty doesn't mean stealing from other people.

Sex has, and always will have, a deeply emotional response in people, as it rightfully should.

Rape isn't about Christian ethics, it's about human morality.

I don't think you'd appreciate it if someone raped you.

Hey, GnI, how nice of you to come? Apparently, I'm not qualified to discuss Paul.

I'm always amused by the person who claims that being accredited somehow adds something to your arguments. It says a lot about their ability to make an argument absent of claims of expertise.

I just thought I'd point out the Paul argument by our good friend, Whittier. It's reasoned and careful and only relies ENTIRELY on attacking me.

I did see something in his 'argument' that made me stop and think...

"You can't get everything from it from simply reading it".

I agree with this to an extent... if you don't understand the CONTEXT of the time, you are going to miss a lot. If you don't understand the language of the time, you are going to miss a lot.

But, I find this curiously close to a 'Pharisee' approach to scripture.... that the Word MUST be moderated by an external 'expert', in order for it to be comprehensible...?

Sex can be defined as just sexual intercourse. Rape involves sexual intercourse. Rape thus involves sex. If you are forced to have sex against your will, that is the very definition of rape.

That seems to bother you because you don't like to associate loving, mutually gratifying sex with rape. But whatever your personal feelings are, that doesn't change the definition.

It's a motivation thing, I believe.

For me, sexual intercourse is about two people being close, intimate... especially it is about trusting. Often, it is also about love, and a wish to express something common to both individuals.

As for rape, rape is about one person getting something they want, at the expense of another. It is about harm, it is about forced submission.

One is sexual intercourse, one is a perversion of sexual intercourse.

Sex can be defined as just sexual intercourse. Rape involves sexual intercourse. Rape thus involves sex. If you are forced to have sex against your will, that is the very definition of rape.

That seems to bother you because you don't like to associate loving, mutually gratifying sex with rape. But whatever your personal feelings are, that doesn't change the definition.

It doesn't bother me. Sex is not sexual intercourse. I find them to be interrelated but not the same. I can have oral sex. Masturbation is a form of sex. Manual manipulation is sex. Dictionaries have very basic definitions of sex, but they often leave out some aspects and don't include others. If I use my fingers on a girl we are engaging in sex, but if a doctor does, he's not. If I rub my penis for gratification, I'm having sex. If I rub it to wash it, I'm not. The purpose of the act is very much a part of the act.

I did see something in his 'argument' that made me stop and think...

"You can't get everything from it from simply reading it".

I agree with this to an extent... if you don't understand the CONTEXT of the time, you are going to miss a lot. If you don't understand the language of the time, you are going to miss a lot.

But, I find this curiously close to a 'Pharisee' approach to scripture.... that the Word MUST be moderated by an external 'expert', in order for it to be comprehensible...?

It's amazing how many adopt that approach however. It's like we mentioned in the other thread. It's amazing how many read the Bible and to actually see what it says.

It doesn't bother me. Sex is not sexual intercourse. I find them to be interrelated but not the same. I can have oral sex. Masturbation is a form of sex. Manual manipulation is sex. Dictionaries have very basic definitions of sex, but they often leave out some aspects and don't include others. If I use my fingers on a girl we are engaging in sex, but if a doctor does, he's not. If I rub my penis for gratification, I'm having sex. If I rub it to wash it, I'm not. The purpose of the act is very much a part of the act.

Sex is not sexual intercourse, but sexual intercourse is sex. The latter is an abbreviation of the former.

this site (http://www.rainn.org/types-of-assault/sexual-assault/rape.html) at least defines rape as:

Forced sexual intercourse,

Rape is not JUST sex. No one is saying that. But to deny that it involves sex in any way is just ignorance, and in fact it denies one of the most horrible aspects of the crime itself.

Rape is far more of a personal violation than simply assault. For one, the experience lasts longer, and can lead to pregnancy and horrible disease, not to mention permanent loss of fertility. But also, you are completely and totally forcing yourself *into* a person and bringing them under your control. Equalize rape to assault you're essentially saying 'People do not have an implicit and sacred right to control what happens to their own bodies'.

But, one thing I don't get, is people who say rape is worse than murder. Don't get me wrong, rape should be punishable by life in prison or at the very least a few decades without parole. But..worse than murder? Don't now about you, but I'd rather live with emotional trauma than die.

It's amazing how many adopt that approach however. It's like we mentioned in the other thread. It's amazing how many read the Bible and to actually see what it says.
The funny thing is if you do choose to read the Bible properly you will get attacked, and viscerally so, by both literalist Christians as well as non-believers who say you are a Christian apologist.

Sex is not sexual intercourse, but sexual intercourse is sex. The latter is an abbreviation of the former.

this site (http://www.rainn.org/types-of-assault/sexual-assault/rape.html) at least defines rape as:



Rape is not JUST sex. No one is saying that. But to deny that it involves sex in any way is just ignorance, and in fact it denies one of the most horrible aspects of the crime itself.

Sex is a lot more than sexual intercourse. It is not just a brevity thing. Rape involves forced sexual acts, but it is still not sex. If sex was only sexual intercourse, then there would be no forms of sex that are not sexual intercourse. We know this not to be true.

*fights off knee-jerk reaction*

I, personally, think it has to do with the psychological impact upon the rape victim. It is far more severe than if it was merely assault. It's an incredibly personal assault, one far more serious than just a simple physical beating. You'd know this if you've ever spoken with a rape victim. My girlfriend was a victim of rape. I personally saw to it that her raper was placed in jail for life. My two sisters were also raped, by my older half-brother, no less, whom I also got placed in jail. Do not FUCK with me about rape.

Were they drugged?

First, I highly suggest those who are not victims and those who have not personally known victims to learn something of the subject before naively running your mouths.

Next, rape is a stronger form of assualt, therefore much more detremental then assualt. There are violent rapes where women are beaten while also being raped....that is far greater then having the shit slapped out of you, so to speak.

Also, rape strips women bare, forces them into a sort of submission and inferiority that makes right wrong and black white, and all the other paradoxes and conflicts of life suddenly vastly overwhelming. It destroys the worlds women live in, not so much the fact that were abused, but to which extent at that they were abused.

Rape is an unexcusable act because it is an extreme violation of the rights of others. Even murder is "generous" in this case, because it takes away from the agony and pain that a rape victim suffers after the event....the severe psychological distortions that they are forced into and torn between, where emotions and thought are so disconnected they do not exist on the same level.

Any victim generally understands what I am saying, and women tend to agree.....men, I would not be surprised if you do not see this side of events. Although, I was quite impressed that some men have seen the other side of events....I commend those who step out of their shoes and set ways of thinking to see the other side of the issue.

To be treated as something no more then a Raggity Ann sex object is rather impacting. And it might not be so much the very act of rape, but the uncontrolled action of having something we have to right to dictate whether or not we have being taken away from us. It's a vile act, not so much morally or religiously speaking. It has many complications, as others have pointed out, ranging from pregnancy to disease, to psychological destruction. Morality is not the issue, its' the violation of our rights as women.

It does not matter that America may not be a sexually driven nation, that morality is an issue during sex, it is the sheer violation of our personal bodies and in a way that is far worse then being punched and beaten. We all can fight, we can all be hit, both why then both men and women alike, tend to suffer so much when they are raped? It should be indication enough that there is something more then just morality when someone is raped.

So yes, end of my rant.

Also, rape strips women bare, forces them into a sort of submission and inferiority that makes right wrong and black white, and all the other paradoxes and conflicts of life suddenly vastly overwhelming. It destroys the worlds women live in, not so much the fact that were abused, but to which extent at that they were abused.

It goes both ways, by the way. Besides that, if rape was truely as dramatic and devastating as you exaggerate it out to be, then the human mind would disassociate itself from the situation, thereby no longer actively involving the mind and no longer forging a memory of the situation. The victim would only remember that he or she was near someone he or she knew, then there'd be a large blank in their memory composing of atleast two to three hours. You're forgetting that one of the things the human mind does best is cope with mental damage.

Rape is an unexcusable act because it is an extreme violation of the rights of others. Even murder is "generous" in this case, because it takes away from the agony and pain that a rape victim suffers after the event....the severe psychological distortions that they are forced into and torn between, where emotions and thought are so disconnected they do not exist on the same level.

What about the victim's family? Do they not suffer massive emotional trauma? Do they not have to live day-to-day knowing that their son/daughter/husband/wife/father/mother is never coming home and is laying six feet under the ground in a casket? Emotional attachments are just as strong with murder as with rape, and considering rape only emotionally damages the victim while murder damages everyone the victim knew.. You're gonna need to rethink that psychological damage angle.

Any victim generally understands what I am saying, and women tend to agree.....men, I would not be surprised if you do not see this side of events. Although, I was quite impressed that some men have seen the other side of events....I commend those who step out of their shoes and set ways of thinking to see the other side of the issue.

From the way you talk, you seem to be saying that men don't get raped as well. Is it purely male-to-female when it comes to rape? As far as I knew, it only took a deranged mind and a victim to start a rape, not just a penis.

To be treated as something no more then a Raggity Ann sex object is rather impacting. And it might not be so much the very act of rape, but the uncontrolled action of having something we have to right to dictate whether or not we have being taken away from us. It's a vile act, not so much morally or religiously speaking. It has many complications, as others have pointed out, ranging from pregnancy to disease, to psychological destruction. Morality is not the issue, its' the violation of our rights as women.

Once again, third time I've seen the 'Rape only happens to women and men don't understand how emotionally damaging it is' arguement. It seems you are as disassociated from men as you claim men are to women, maybe you should remedy that. As to the rape being a vile act, wouldn't that sort of require you to have morals in the first place to qualify as a vile act? If so, then it would be speaking morally. Besides that, we live in an age of abortions, the morning pill, and STD drug-control. Theres little physical damage that can be done by rape.

As to his original morality concept, I believe he isn't saying that rape =/= bad like everyone assumes. Infact, he is -asking- us if rape should qualify as a horrendous of a crime as murder, despite the fact that murder damages far more people than rape does. In response to that question, I pose this question. In a world in which sex isn't as emotionally attached and is viewed purely for reproduction purposes, wouldn't we have then descended to the level of animals in our logic? Therefore, would we not condone murder, rendering your point moot?

Seriously, this walking on eggshells be offended by everything PC bullshit is why America has become so partisan and politics have become so corrupt and dishonest. Now, I do not suppose to speak for the author of the thread, but I don't believe that he ever disputed the fact that rape IS so mentally damaging. He proposed a hypothetical question for critical thinking and discussion. The fact that most of you on here provide a kneejerk reaction to the word "rape" rather than actually respond to the question is quite discouraging.
Now then...
I think that rape is so damaging, not because of society or religion, but because the victims are generally women. Women are more instinctive, emotional creatures. If you reason through it without feeling, it would have no effect on your psyche. In most cases, there are no permanent physichal damages. Women tend to think with their emotions, regardless of what religion or society may tell them. Women are many times more suseptable to post traumatic stress syndrome because of the way that their brains are engineered and the hormones that they produce.
I was backpacking in Costa Rica with some friends several years back when we were attacked by killer bees. Seven years later, some of the girls are still terrified of bees. One girl has a panic attack if she plays basketball or dodgeball because she can't rid herself of the feelings she developed being swarmed and attacked from all sides. Strangely, none of the guys seem to be affected in the slightest.
Now before I get some "You're so sexist" bullshit, read the post and UNDERSTAND it, don't just respond to how some of the sentences make you FEEL, you morons. I have a few close friends who have been victims of rape and/or were molested. Men AND Women. So don't accuse me of flying of the handle, full of bologna.:upyours:

Seriously, this walking on eggshells be offended by everything PC bullshit is why America has become so partisan and politics have become so corrupt and dishonest. Now, I do not suppose to speak for the author of the thread, but I don't believe that he ever disputed the fact that rape IS so mentally damaging. He proposed a hypothetical question for critical thinking and discussion. The fact that most of you on here provide a kneejerk reaction to the word "rape" rather than actually respond to the question is quite discouraging.
Now then...
I think that rape is so damaging, not because of society or religion, but because the victims are generally women. Women are more instinctive, emotional creatures. If you reason through it without feeling, it would have no effect on your psyche. In most cases, there are no permanent physichal damages. Women tend to think with their emotions, regardless of what religion or society may tell them. Women are many times more suseptable to post traumatic stress syndrome because of the way that their brains are engineered and the hormones that they produce.
I was backpacking in Costa Rica with some friends several years back when we were attacked by killer bees. Seven years later, some of the girls are still terrified of bees. One girl has a panic attack if she plays basketball or dodgeball because she can't rid herself of the feelings she developed being swarmed and attacked from all sides. Strangely, none of the guys seem to be affected in the slightest.
Now before I get some "You're so sexist" bullshit, read the post and UNDERSTAND it, don't just respond to how some of the sentences make you FEEL, you morons. I have a few close friends who have been victims of rape and/or were molested. Men AND Women. So don't accuse me of flying of the handle, full of bologna.:upyours:

So, you're a guy then, right?

I wonder if you'd feel "emotional" if a man nearly twice YOUR size, forced himself, physically, into a position where he was 'sexually penetrating' you, against (one assumes) your wishes?

To be honest, male OR female, I doubt you'd be very able to "reason through it without feeling"...

"No permanent psychical damages?" BULLSHIT!

An ex-girlfriend of mine (who I'm still very good friends with) was raped about two years ago. She's still got some major issues because of it. So don't even give me this bullshit about it not causing any permanent damage. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Sex is a lot more than sexual intercourse. It is not just a brevity thing. Rape involves forced sexual acts, but it is still not sex. If sex was only sexual intercourse, then there would be no forms of sex that are not sexual intercourse. We know this not to be true.

No, sex CAN be JUST sexual intercourse.

The "then" part of your "if/then" statement is totally false and doesn't follow. There ARE forms of sex that are NOT sexual intercourse, true. But it is ALSO true that sexual intercourse IS a form of sex.

Undelia, you make a big deal about rape not being a big deal. Are you trying to justify something you did? Come on, you can tell Scruff McGruff the Crime Fighting Dog.

No, sex CAN be JUST sexual intercourse.

The "then" part of your "if/then" statement is totally false and doesn't follow. There ARE forms of sex that are NOT sexual intercourse, true. But it is ALSO true that sexual intercourse IS a form of sex.

You fail to realize that sex is more complicated than the physical. As I said, and you ignored, inserting your fingers into a woman can be sex, by definition. It fits the physical requirements to be sex. However, there is no argument that a doctor is not "fingering" a woman when he examines her. Manipulating a woman's breast is explicitly sexual at times, but it's not sex when a doctor examines her breasts. A blowjob is oral sex, but when Mojels used to use their mouths on babies during a circumcision, it was not sex. Sex is more than the physical activity. It's not sex if it's not done under the consent of both people, and most would add the clause done for pleasure, though I don't. It's sexual intercourse, but that's not the same thing. Sexual intercourse can be sex and sex CAN BE sexual intercourse, but rape is not sex and has NOTHING to do with the act itself.

By the way, does rape require sexual intercourse?

So, you're a guy then, right?

I wonder if you'd feel "emotional" if a man nearly twice YOUR size, forced himself, physically, into a position where he was 'sexually penetrating' you, against (one assumes) your wishes?

To be honest, male OR female, I doubt you'd be very able to "reason through it without feeling"...

Okay everyone, did he not just do exactly what I said NOT to do? <SARCASM> YES! I would have NO problem with being raped. I CLEARLY have no idea what I am talking about. After writing ALL of this, it had NEVER occurred to me to even consider myself being raped</SARCASM>

:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

"No permanent psychical damages?" BULLSHIT!

An ex-girlfriend of mine (who I'm still very good friends with) was raped about two years ago. She's still got some major issues because of it. So don't even give me this bullshit about it not causing any permanent damage. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Now let me repeat WHOLE the sentence: "In most cases, there are no permanent physichal damages."
I am truly very sorry to hear about your friend's experience, but please understand that you entirely missed the boat on which I was sailing. May I suggest hooked on phonics? Your reading comprehension is clearly lacking.:headbang:

Okay everyone, did he not just do exactly what I said NOT to do? <SARCASM> YES! I would have NO problem with being raped. I CLEARLY have no idea what I am talking about. After writing ALL of this, it had NEVER occurred to me to even consider myself being raped</SARCASM>

:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

You feel somehow offended at my response, I assume? You certainly seem incapable of producing a coherent, rational response. I men... really, how many 'upyours' smilies does it take to convey a point?

You basically implied that the reason 'women' get so 'bent out of shape' over rape, is that they are more emotional than men. I'm calling 'bullshit'. The reason they get 'bent out of shape' is because it's no fun when someone sticks their genitals in you against your will.

There IS no parallel with bees. I mean, bees? Seriously? Come on...

I have also had friends that were victims of rape. My ex-fiancee was a victim of rape... so I'm WELL aware of what a person has to deal with, and the repurcussions LONG after the incident, on people that were IN NO WAY involved.

I have no problem with you supporting the Original Poster. I think he is almost ridiculously wrong, and I think you are almost ridiculously wrong... but I defend the right of each of you, to BE wrong.

However, that doesn't mean I'm going to protect your 'wrongness'. I'm not going to pretend you are right, if you are not. I'm certainly not going to kowtow to some format you've imagined where people are not 'allowed' to respond to your posts in a way you don't like.

I read your post. I understood it. I haven't accused you of 'flying off the handle'. All I've done, is pointed out that your seeming assurance it is a 'woman' thing, is poppycock of the highest order.

If you don't LIKE having your arguments deflated, perhaps 'debate' is not going to be 'your thing'.

And, I'm not going to ameliorate my response because of your sarcasm, or your vitriol. I'm certainly not going to moderate my response 'down' because of your low post count. I'm going to treat you just like any other poster, which means I will attack your arguments, whether you like it or not.

I don't quite understand why my post count would somehow give anyone the impression that I am an imbecile. It simply means that this forum is not my life. (Not an attack, just an observation)

I didn't mean to convey that it is a "woman thing," I was simply disagreeing with the author and explaining that I believe that it is mostly emotion caused by biological response, not society, that makes rape worse than assault. Again with the sexist crap. Let me break it down:

1) It is stupid that people are screaming about how bad rape is when the original question was about WHY rape is so bad

2) I disagree with the author. I think that it is chemistry and biology that cause the damage, not society.

If my daughter were raped, my reaction would be to kill the rapist. My "man biology" makes me feel that way. (And don't give me some BS about women can kill too, I get it, okay?) But when I think through it without emotion, I realize that killing him = Lucy has no dad, she and her mother have to live with parents rather than in a house of their own, and she would probably rather not suffer the loss of her father AND be deflowered, if presented the choice.

Bees are a good parallel, because while the only actual remains of the attack is a bee allergy, the emotional damage lives on. I think I would rather be bum-rushed than stung by 450 bees simultaneously. But that is just me. As to how I would personally deal with being raped, I don't know; nor have I claimed to know. I am simply saying that emotions and hormones cause the anguish. Men AND women have them. I GET IT.

PS My male cousin who was raped 9 years ago is the most normal and mentally healthy of the 7 children in his family by FAR. Just food for thought. Please don't assume that I am somehow implying a sweeping generalization about anything, because I am not.

So, you're a guy then, right?

I wonder if you'd feel "emotional" if a man nearly twice YOUR size, forced himself, physically, into a position where he was 'sexually penetrating' you, against (one assumes) your wishes?

To be honest, male OR female, I doubt you'd be very able to "reason through it without feeling"...

If you don't LIKE having your arguments deflated, perhaps 'debate' is not going to be 'your thing'.

You didn't actually address ANY of my arguments, you simply responded with how my statements made you FEEL, which is what I asked you not to do. You responded to what you FELT I said. Perhaps "debate" is not "your thing".

de·bate n
A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

If your were "debating," you would have addressed one of my propositions, which you did not, dumbass...

I don't quite understand why my post count would somehow give anyone the impression that I am an imbecile. It simply means that this forum is not my life. (Not an attack, just an observation)

I didn't mean to convey that it is a "woman thing," I was simply disagreeing with the author and explaining that I believe that it is mostly emotion caused by biological response, not society, that makes rape worse than assault. Again with the sexist crap. Let me break it down:

1) It is stupid that people are screaming about how bad rape is when the original question was about WHY rape is so bad

2) I disagree with the author. I think that it is chemistry and biology that cause the damage, not society.

If my daughter were raped, my reaction would be to kill the rapist. My "man biology" makes me feel that way. (And don't give me some BS about women can kill too, I get it, okay?) But when I think through it without emotion, I realize that killing him = Lucy has no dad, she and her mother have to live with parents rather than in a house of their own, and she would probably rather not suffer the loss of her father AND be deflowered, if presented the choice.

Bees are a good parallel, because while the only actual remains of the attack is a bee allergy, the emotional damage lives on. I think I would rather be bum-rushed than stung by 450 bees simultaneously. But that is just me. As to how I would personally deal with being raped, I don't know; nor have I claimed to know. I am simply saying that emotions and hormones cause the anguish. Men AND women have them. I GET IT.

PS My male cousin who was raped 9 years ago is the most normal and mentally healthy of the 7 children in his family by FAR. Just food for thought. Please don't assume that I am somehow implying a sweeping generalization about anything, because I am not.

A good analogy? Quick questions how large of a part of the average life is beekeeping? Or interaction with bees in any form? How many people actually like interacting with bees? You and your male friends do you look forward to your next encounter? All you illustrated is that women are sometimes more open about their reactions or sometimes more dramatic. I suspect that generally the male response and the female response to being attacked by bees is not very different, thought I am compelled by a single story I heard from a guy on the internet, not.

However, sexual intercourse is often a fairly prevalent part of our lives. In order to continue with that part of our lives, people who are raped or molested actually have to deal with the emotions surrounding the attack. Comparing it to a bee attack or a bear attack or something is so stunningly ridiculous I'd be tempted to type more if you use of smilies hadn't already made abundantly clear that a reasoned approach to this topic is not something you're capable of.

Now, I was molested as a child by a woman and I'm a man. I know from experience that though the outward response to the act might seem different between men and women and the actual effect on them physically, emotionally and psychologically is very similar. The occurance of dissociative disorders is similar. The occurance of sexual malfunction is very similar (though it manifests differently obviously).

Your story about bees aside, your claims don't match up with the facts.

PS. I suspect that you don't actually know how well your male cousin deals with his rape unless you're dating him. And even then, only if you've been dating for quite some time. There isn't a checklist of things that are widely visible in a rape victim. Almost all rape victims learn to cope outwardly with their lives. It is not a measure of the trauma they suffered from the rape.

Oh, and by the by, having both been attacked by a swarm of bees and forced to have perform sexual acts, I'm quite aware that they have exactly nothing in common.

Now let me repeat WHOLE the sentence: "In most cases, there are no permanent physichal damages."
I am truly very sorry to hear about your friend's experience, but please understand that you entirely missed the boat on which I was sailing. May I suggest hooked on phonics? Your reading comprehension is clearly lacking.:headbang:

Wow, ad hominems and vitriol, the mark of the reasoned debator. The number of smilies you use evidence a lot of emotion in your posts. Why are you getting so emotional? I mean, men reason through everything, don't they? Why don't you "reason through" these posts instead of showing that you figured out how to click on smilies?

If rape was truely as dramatic and devastating as you exaggerate it out to be, then the human mind would disassociate itself from the situation, thereby no longer actively involving the mind and no longer forging a memory of the situation.....You're forgetting that one of the things the human mind does best is cope with mental damage.

Denial is one of the most primitive means of coping; disassociation is more complex and usually takes extremely traumatic situations and repeation of activities to develop the disassociation. Rape is traumatic and thus you suffer many psychological problems. And if you disassociate the problem, it manifests in others aspects of your life and therefore, still exemplify as psychological problems. I know this....do not assume that I "forgot" something when you do not even know me the slightest to assume that I do not know something or have forgotten something else. I would very much appreciate that....I am not you, I do not act in the manner in which you may.




....considering rape only emotionally damages the victim while murder damages everyone the victim knew.


Not necessarily true. Parents of rape victims feel great emotional anguish, an over protective sense that their child had been violated, that they could not protect their child from harm.....and they have to live with watching a person who becomes numb and dead inside walking, changing their life, and powerless to do anything to help them. Au contriare Nagero, it effects more then just the victim....in the event the victim's family and friends find out.



From the way you talk, you seem to be saying that men don't get raped as well. Is it purely male-to-female when it comes to rape?


I do tend to speak women a lot during a rape issue since generally women are the ones who mostly experience rape and speak of it. Sorry if that offended you, but I tend to accomodate the general experiences in my arguements. However, I did point out that the effects are the same for MEN and women. Or perhaps you were too careless to pick that. I've known both sides of the spectrum, men and women who were raped, I've been there myself. It's incredible to see the damage that many people suffer from rape, and the way familes and friends fall apart because of it.



Once again, third time I've seen the 'Rape only happens to women and men don't understand how emotionally damaging it is' arguement.... Besides that, we live in an age of abortions, the morning pill, and STD drug-control. Theres little physical damage that can be done by rape.

Reverse psychology Nagero, "wow, are you in the arguement that it's that it's the victims responsibility for the action and the rapist isn't at fault?" Let's get real, this is not a perfect world, even with the existence of those things, there are many outsider factors that incorperate into the unavilability of those products. And since some people strictly oppose abortions, then they have the child, the morning after pill is of course only if you approve of those methods, STD drug control does not prevent STDs and in no way cures you from some STD's. Also, if you rape children, they can DIE from it.....just "minor" physical damage that can come from rape.



As to his original morality concept, I believe he isn't saying that rape =/= bad like everyone assumes. Infact, he is -asking- us if rape should qualify as a horrendous of a crime as murder, despite the fact that murder damages far more people than rape does. In response to that question, I pose this question. In a world in which sex isn't as emotionally attached and is viewed purely for reproduction purposes, wouldn't we have then descended to the level of animals in our logic? Therefore, would we not condone murder, rendering your point moot?


Perhaps he is asking "if rape should qualify as a horrendous of a crime as murder" as you suggest. However, humans live in a world of social interactions and not primitive instincts; hence, rape and murder are punishable crimes on the contrary to what you have stated might happen. Our world is what it is, and there really is no use arguing what the issue would be like if were were in another mindset, because we simply are not.

First, I highly suggest those who are not victims and those who have not personally known victims to learn something of the subject before naively running your mouths.

< snippage >

So yes, end of my rant.
I agree. I've been watching this thread and trying to contain myself on this subject, but I do have this much to say:

Anyone who either advocates or minimizes rape should be locked into a room with Bubba and five of his closest friends for the rest of eternity.

I have a wife, three daughters, one daughter-in-law, two grandaughters, and my older boy has a long-term girlfriend, and all of us have numerous female friends. Any man who rapes one of them will be terminated by my two sons, my two sons-in-law and me. No questions, no pleas, no appeals ... nothing. End of story.

I don't quite understand why my post count would somehow give anyone the impression that I am an imbecile. It simply means that this forum is not my life. (Not an attack, just an observation)

I didn't mean to convey that it is a "woman thing," I was simply disagreeing with the author and explaining that I believe that it is mostly emotion caused by biological response, not society, that makes rape worse than assault. Again with the sexist crap. Let me break it down:

1) It is stupid that people are screaming about how bad rape is when the original question was about WHY rape is so bad

2) I disagree with the author. I think that it is chemistry and biology that cause the damage, not society.

If my daughter were raped, my reaction would be to kill the rapist. My "man biology" makes me feel that way. (And don't give me some BS about women can kill too, I get it, okay?) But when I think through it without emotion, I realize that killing him = Lucy has no dad, she and her mother have to live with parents rather than in a house of their own, and she would probably rather not suffer the loss of her father AND be deflowered, if presented the choice.

Bees are a good parallel, because while the only actual remains of the attack is a bee allergy, the emotional damage lives on. I think I would rather be bum-rushed than stung by 450 bees simultaneously. But that is just me. As to how I would personally deal with being raped, I don't know; nor have I claimed to know. I am simply saying that emotions and hormones cause the anguish. Men AND women have them. I GET IT.

PS My male cousin who was raped 9 years ago is the most normal and mentally healthy of the 7 children in his family by FAR. Just food for thought. Please don't assume that I am somehow implying a sweeping generalization about anything, because I am not.Yes, because having a genital pushed into your body really compares to Bees. Yeah, right.
-Coming from a man.

Any man who rapes one of them will be terminated by my two sons, my two sons-in-law and me. No questions, no pleas, no appeals ... nothing. End of story.
Then you can all rot in jail.

I agree. I've been watching this thread and trying to contain myself on this subject, but I do have this much to say:

Anyone who either advocates or minimizes rape should be locked into a room with Bubba and five of his closest friends for the rest of eternity.

I have a wife, three daughters, one daughter-in-law, two grandaughters, and my older boy has a long-term girlfriend, and all of us have numerous female friends. Any man who rapes one of them will be terminated by my two sons, my two sons-in-law and me. No questions, no pleas, no appeals ... nothing. End of story.

Now, I have not experienced rape, nor has anyone I know been raped, but I agree with you. Anyone saying "it's not bad" isn't right in the head. And I like that system of justice. Really. That's what I RP in Pythogria.

Then you can all rot in jail.

Shut up. You know absolutely nothing about this, do you?

Wow, ad hominems and vitriol, the mark of the reasoned debator. The number of smilies you use evidence a lot of emotion in your posts. Why are you getting so emotional? I mean, men reason through everything, don't they? Why don't you "reason through" these posts instead of showing that you figured out how to click on smilies?

This is why life is so discouraging: I explicitly stated that I do not claim to know how I would react in such a situation. I was also pretty clear that men are prone to deal with problems using their emotions, albeit different ones. I went on to explain how you were stupid if you thought that I was trying to make this a gender issue.

Yet you JUST DIDN'T GET IT. That is what makes me emotional. Stupidity. Your views on the human psyche couldn't matter less, but the inability of people to see the forest for the trees is why this whole planet is going down the shitter.

DO YOU DISAGREE?:

In most cases, the damage rape causes is due to the emotions that it causes, not because of how society/religion views sex.

PS Jocabia, I may be wrong on this one, but didn't you claim to be a woman who enjoyed pornography on another thread? Quite strange that you would now be a man who was raped and attacked by hundreds of bees. Not to discount rape victims in any way, but I think that you are comparing beesting to rape. 450 beestings is a little different. And my point was to illustrate that being attacked is generally more adverse to a woman's psyche then a mans, not to prove that there are worse things than rape, because there are very very few.

Then you can all rot in jail.That's not the point. You can't figure it out, can you? Humans are EMOTIONAL. That cannot be changed, and it's damned better than to be some damn robots.

I think the difference in opinions comes from the emotional effects of rape. Purely in terms of it's physical effects, rape is on a par with serious assault, rather than murder. However emotionally the victims are affected differently - for some, they can go on and live relativly normal lives, for some it scars them permanently, and some sadly commit suicide. Note that emotional damage is just as serious as physical damage. My point is, how much a rape affects the victim varies.

It's like the difference between someone stealing a book and stealing a diary. The book would annoy far less than the diary, but the diary is variable. If it's just basicly an appointment book, filled with meetings and dates, it's not nearly so bad as a diary filled with intimate thoughts, loveletters, etc.

Personally I would rank sex as a murder level crime, simply because the criminal has no idea of the emotional effects of his crime, and does it anyway. Is a rape less of a crime if the victim manages to get on with their life?

Rape is a act that causes serious emotional harm in most cases, so a rapist knows that his actions have a fair chance of destroying his victims life.

That's not the point. You can't figure it out, can you? Humans are EMOTIONAL. That cannot be changed, and it's damned better than to be some damn robots.

Though I support robotic technology, I couldn't agree more. Emotions are good. That is the mark of being alive and human.

Though I support robotic technology, I couldn't agree more. Emotions are good. That is the mark of being alive and human.
Robotic technology is fine, but I'm keeping my own body.

Robotic technology is fine, but I'm keeping my own body.

Exactly. (Unless its like an artificial arm, but the brain and most of us has got to stay.)

Your story about bees aside, your claims don't match up with the facts.

State one then...

PS. I suspect that you don't actually know how well your male cousin deals with his rape unless you're dating him. And even then, only if you've been dating for quite some time. There isn't a checklist of things that are widely visible in a rape victim. Almost all rape victims learn to cope outwardly with their lives. It is not a measure of the trauma they suffered from the rape.

Oh, and by the by, having both been attacked by a swarm of bees and forced to have perform sexual acts, I'm quite aware that they have exactly nothing in common.

Sock is to foot as socialism is to England. Socks have nothing to do with England. THAT IS WHY IT IS AN ANALOGY, NOT A SIMILE, you dolt...
Praise to the info on coping with rape though. I'm pretty sure that I know my cousin a lot better than you do, but still, congrats on actually addressing a sentence AND addressing it with something other than rhetoric:)

Shut up. You know absolutely nothing about this, do you?
I know that I’m somewhat happy to live under a justice system where they lock away people who are crazy enough to kill anybody, even a rapist.
That's not the point. You can't figure it out, can you? Humans are EMOTIONAL. That cannot be changed, and it's damned better than to be some damn robots.
Emotions don’t excuse murder.

I know that I’m somewhat happy to live under a justice system where they lock away people who are crazy enough to kill anybody, even a rapist.

Emotions don’t excuse murder.

1st point:

Yeah. How would you feel if you were raped and a portion of your tax goes to feeding, clothing and housing him? I say we kill them.

2nd point:

They do in some very rare cases such as this.

I know that I’m somewhat happy to live under a justice system where they lock away people who are crazy enough to kill anybody, even a rapist.

Emotions don’t excuse murder.
Can't you get this through your head? Humans are meant to be emotional! No, emotions don't excuse murder. That's called "controlling emotions." You think that humans are supposed to be machine like in thinking. Well, you're wrong.

1st point:

Yeah. How would you feel if you were raped and a portion of your tax goes to feeding, clothing and housing him? I say we kill them.
It costs more to kill them. How do you feel about your tax dollars going to endless appeals. Much more expensive. I know, let's make it so they don't have that legal protection. Who care if the man is innocent and the real rapist might be out there, at least I got my emotional satisfaction.
2nd point:

They do in some very rare cases such as this.
They shouldn't. Emotion has no place in justice.

Can't you get this through your head? Humans are meant to beemotional! No, emotions don't excuse murder. That's called "controlling emotions." You think that humans are supposed to be machine like in thinking. Well, you're wrong.
Humans are “meant to be” nothing.

It costs more to kill them. How do you feel about your tax dollars going to endless appeals. Much more expensive. I know, let's make it so they don't have that legal protection. Who care if the man is innocent and the real rapist might be out there, at least I got my emotional satisfaction.

They shouldn't. Emotion has no place in justice.

1st point:

I don't feel good about it. Also, we are in the age of DNA testing. We'll make sure that we have the right guy first. And it's much cheaper to shoot them.

2nd point:

It does. Why do we make murder illegal? Because it removes someone from the world and deeply hurts his/her friends and family.

This is why life is so discouraging: I explicitly stated that I do not claim to know how I would react in such a situation. I was also pretty clear that men are prone to deal with problems using their emotions, albeit different ones. I went on to explain how you were stupid if you thought that I was trying to make this a gender issue.

I love that when people do something and then say you're stupid if you call them on it. You did make it a gender issue. You clearly claimed that women made a big deal of the bee attack while the men went on with their lives nonplussed and claimed it was a parallel for rape. You made it a gender issue. People who noticed aren't stupid, they're alert.

Yet you JUST DIDN'T GET IT. That is what makes me emotional. Stupidity. Your views on the human psyche couldn't matter less, but the inability of people to see the forest for the trees is why this whole planet is going down the shitter.

You really should be mad at yourself then. You made the entire issue about genders and how they handle things and then got mad that people noticed you made it a gender issue. It's like saying, "I'm not making this a race issue, but black people are simply more prone to flunk out of school." The fact that you lied or were wrong when you said it wasn't a gender issue reflects on you, not GnI or myself.

DO YOU DISAGREE?:

No, I completely agree that it's annoying when people make a clear and obvious statement based on gender and then claim gender doesn't have anything to do with it, i.e. no see the forest for the trees.

In most cases, the damage rape causes is due to the emotions that it causes, not because of how society/religion views sex.

Agreed. Of course, we weren't objecting to that part of your post.

PS Jocabia, I may be wrong on this one, but didn't you claim to be a woman who enjoyed pornography on another thread? Quite strange that you would now be a man who was raped and attacked by hundreds of bees. Not to discount rape victims in any way, but I think that you are comparing beesting to rape. 450 beestings is a little different. And my point was to illustrate that being attacked is generally more adverse to a woman's psyche then a mans, not to prove that there are worse things than rape, because there are very very few.
You are correct, you may be wrong on that one. You are confusing me with some other poster. Instead of embarassing yourself in the future with plausibly-deniable accusations of being a liar, perhaps you should simply look at that thread and see who you are actually thinking of.

I was not attacked by a bee, I accidentally upset a hive when I was ten inside of a enclosed 8 foot by 8 foot area. I know what it's like to be attacked by bees. It hardly affected me at all (I am fortunate enough to not be allergic to them). Being forced to have intercourse with my babysitter is another issue altogether.

I love that you say that being attacking is more adverse to one gender than another and then claim you aren't making it a gender thing. One must wonder how that passes the logic centers in your brain. What else? Are people stupid if they think you wrote your post in English?

Humans are “meant to be” nothing.

I'd rather die than be an emotionless robot.

1st point:

I don't feel good about it. Also, we are in the age of DNA testing. We'll make sure that we have the right guy first. And it's much cheaper to shoot them.
DNA testing is not fool-proof. Cops are just regular people. A sample could be easily contaminated.
2nd point:

It does. Why do we make murder illegal? Because it removes someone from the world and deeply hurts his/her friends and family.
We lock away murderers so they can not disrupt society by killing again.

Many say it is for punishment.

Some of us even believe they should be locked up so they can be rehabilitated and allowed to live their lives upon confirmation of said rehabilitation.

I'd rather die than be an emotionless robot.
If an emotion serves you no useful purpose, why pay any attention to it?

State one then...



Sock is to foot as socialism is to England. Socks have nothing to do with England. THAT IS WHY IT IS AN ANALOGY, NOT A SIMILE, you dolt...
Praise to the info on coping with rape though. I'm pretty sure that I know my cousin a lot better than you do, but still, congrats on actually addressing a sentence AND addressing it with something other than rhetoric:)

Ha. I see that when you can't actually address a topic, you resort to ad hominems. I find it amusing that in a post that is nothing but ad hominems, you complain that people only reply with rhetoric. You made assertions that your personal experiences with BEES is parallel to the effect of rape. Back it up. Or stop making absurd comments. They are not parallel.

I went fishing once and my girlfriend though putting a worm on a hook was icky. Clearly the reason rape bothers women is because they think it's icky. Yes, I know they're not related, but if I just say they are, perhaps people won't laugh at me. Wait, why are you laughing?

By the way, give me your address. I'll send you a dictionary. Analogies are generally used in debate to show when one or more things agree with each other or are similar there are probably other agreements or similarities. The problem is that the similarities you claimed, don't exist. I'm sorry that asking you to use an analogy properly offends you.

If an emotion serves you no useful purpose, why pay any attention to it?

Because without it, we have descended to the level of robots. Also, it serves a purpose. Happy people are said to be healthier.

Because without it, we have descended to the level of robots. Also, it serves a purpose. Happy people are said to be healthier.
Ah, conventional wisdom. So revolting and naïve at the same time.

DNA testing is not fool-proof. Cops are just regular people. A sample could be easily contaminated.

We lock away murderers so they can not disrupt society by killing again.

Many say it is for punishment.

Some of us even believe they should be locked up so they can be rehabilitated and allowed to live their lives upon confirmation of said rehabilitation.

1st: A contaminated sample is easily detected.

2nd: And so? I'm pretty sure you'd be hurt if someone murdered your parents.

It costs more to kill them. How do you feel about your tax dollars going to endless appeals. Much more expensive. I know, let's make it so they don't have that legal protection. Who care if the man is innocent and the real rapist might be out there, at least I got my emotional satisfaction.

They shouldn't. Emotion has no place in justice.

As far as the first part goes, Undelia has a point. Death row inmates wait for years and years while appeal after appeal is filed, even in clear cut cases. most of the time they dont even push for an appeal, but for a delay, to lodge more appeals to create more delays. In contrast, someone who gets life doesnt file many actions, unless the case is shaky and they reckon they have a chance of getting out.

On the second point, I have to disagree somewhat. Yes, anyone who takes the right to end another life into their own hands is dangerous and needs to be confined for their own and others safety. However, there is a definite difference between someone who is severly provoked, or frigtened or (to a lesser extent) angry, and feels genuine remorse for there crime, and someone who kills in full knowledge of what they are doing, and with no remorse, or even with pleasure.

Ah, conventional wisdom. So revolting and naïve at the same time.

It's kind of true. And give me a reason why emotion is so bad.

1st: A contaminated sample is easily detected.
The cops don’t care. They’re out to get someone booked. They really don’t care who.
2nd: And so? I'm pretty sure you'd be hurt if someone murdered your parents.
I’d want them to go to jail sure, but the event wouldn’t be entirely disastrous. My parents are fairly wealthy. I’d probably end up with a few hundred thousand, easy.
It's kind of true. And give me a reason why emotion is so bad.
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/E/N/cheney_911.jpg

The cops don’t care. They’re out to get someone booked. They really don’t care who.

I’d want them to go to jail sure, but the event wouldn’t be entirely disastrous. My parents are fairly wealthy. I’d probably end up with a few hundred thousand, easy.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/E/N/cheney_911.jpg

1: If the cop has brains, he's out to get justice.

2: You have no emotion at all, do you?

3: How does this prove anything?

The cops don’t care. They’re out to get someone booked. They really don’t care who.

I’d want them to go to jail sure, but the event wouldn’t be entirely disastrous. My parents are fairly wealthy. I’d probably end up with a few hundred thousand, easy.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/E/N/cheney_911.jpg

Oh, yay. I was wondering when conspiracy theories would arrive on the scene. The cops are just out to throw anyone they can in jail. Yep. That's why they risk their lives, because it's so much more beneficial to throw random people in jail than, oh, I don't know, the people who actually committed a violent crime like rape. They would prefer that rapists stay on the street. Otherwise, they'd be out of a job.

Ha. I see that when you can't actually address a topic, you resort to ad hominems. I find it amusing that in a post that is nothing but ad hominems, you complain that people only reply with rhetoric. You made assertions that your personal experiences with BEES is parallel to the effect of rape. Back it up. Or stop making absurd comments. They are not parallel.

I went fishing once and my girlfriend though putting a worm on a hook was icky. Clearly the reason rape bothers women is because they think it's icky. Yes, I know they're not related, but if I just say they are, perhaps people won't laugh at me. Wait, why are you laughing?

By the way, give me your address. I'll send you a dictionary. Analogies are generally used in debate to show when one or more things agree with each other or are similar there are probably other agreements or similarities. The problem is that the similarities you claimed, don't exist. I'm sorry that asking you to use an analogy properly offends you.

Men tend to react emotionally to different things and in different ways is all I am saying. Now explain to me how there is no similarity in this analogy: Rape victim mentally shuts down and becomes hysterical for hours after a creepy guy knocks on her door. Bee victims mentally shuts down and is hysterical for hours after dodge balls come at her from more directions than she can percieve.

The reason that I mentioned women is because that is what people generally think of when they mention rape victims, and I didn't want to get off on a tangent discussing too many "what ifs." As testified by Debra LaFave case, clearly most people view abuse of men by women as pretty much a non-issue. Please, I do not mean to downgrade your experience's validity, but seriously, how can you dance around the fact that rape is one issue that men handle very differently

Also, I can't remember the thread, and can't be bothered to look it up

1: If the cop has brains, he's out to get justice.
No, he's out for a paycheck, just like everybody else.
2: You have no emotion at all, do you?

I've been told that I can be very hateful.
3: How does this prove anything?
Must I spell it out?
The neo-con controlled government uses emotional appeals centered on 9/11 to justify and cause people to ignore their largely emotion driven and ideology based crimes.

No, he's out for a paycheck, just like everybody else.

I've been told that I can be very hateful.

Must I spell it out?
The neo-con controlled government uses emotional appeals centered on 9/11 to justify and cause people to ignore their largely emotion driven and ideology based crimes.

1st: Then he isn't like the cops I know.

2nd: Well, still.

3rd: And what proof do you have of that?

3rd: And what proof do you have of that?
Logic.

There are always a few people in all walks of life, who are lazy or selfish, and end up disgracing their collegues -all cops are lazy and bent, all lawyers are lying thieves, and all doctors are incompetent, yes, bad things happen, but dont tar all with one brush

Logic.

Emotion is not a crime. I don't support US troops in Iraq, but I do support anti-terrorism. They killed many, and knocked down the World Trade Center. They should be shot.

Sorry, Undelia, but just because your comments are unemotional doesnt make them logical.

My logical analysis of the world gives me my moral social and religious views. That doesn't mean all other views are suddenly invalid just because I find my ones the most logical

Irnland, you seem like a sensible person. Want to set up an IC alliance?