NationStates Jolt Archive

Sure, why not -erm, a bit new though, not sure how

Sure, why not -erm, a bit new though, not sure how

Well, an IC alliance would basically mean we support each other in role play wars and such. We'd basically tell people we're allies in an announcement thread.

Then you can all rot in jail.
Those unwilling to live with the consequences of their own actions are not in touch with reality.

Ah right. Ok no problem

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.

Why are you struggling with this? You cited that guys weren't affected by the bees in the same way as evidence that men would be less effected by rape? I love that you do everything you can to focus this anywhere else but the point. Is it because you can't defend your point? Clearly you know what the point is since you mentioned your cousin.

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

Interesting that anyone thinking you were making this a gender issue is stupid when it is all you are focused on. Meanwhile, you're point is invalid. It's less likely for men to be victims of rape and a teenaged boy who consented in voice, though not legally, is not quite the same as a person who has sexual contact forced upon them. There are some things that legally qualify as rape that men would take better than women. You are, however, listing the more greivious reactions of women and then comparing it to the best reactions by men. A woman who completely loses it after a rape actually isn't that common. No more so than with men. You've not presented any evidence, not even logical evidence, that it would be otherwise.

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

Look up my post history. Try this. Don't make accusations that you don't have evidence for and suggesting that I might be someone claiming to be a woman in another thread is an accusation. More importantly, it's not something I can prove isn't true because I can't exactly link every post I've ever done. I'm sorry that your poor memory led you to embarass yourself. I'm a fairly well-known poster here as well as having a profile here that tells my age, sex and location. Why would I engage in such an obvious lie? I mean not everyone is willing to say just anything that makes them feel like they're winning the debate. I'll leave such things to you.

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.

That's not an argument. He doesn't get paid based on accusing people of committing crimes. More importantly, not solving a crime will not get them fired, but hiding evidence, mishandling evidence, or planting evidence will get him fired. Like you said, if he's after a paycheck, he's better taking the safe route and only going where the evidence leads.

Okay, definitly behindd Jocabia on this one - stuff like this probably happens on parking and speeding tickets, but serious crimes like murder/rape? Not a chance, trials like that are usually long and detailed, especiaally if their high profile. I wouldnt be stupid enough to risk my job - would you?

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'm disappointed as well about how rape is considered in today's society.
Rape is bad, but I don't believe it is as bad as murder. Many people today think rape is worse than murder, but it doesn't make sense, because if it was then the victim would kill him or herself and that would be equal to murder. I'd rather live and be raped than be murdered.

Psylos, if the victim were to commit suicide as a direct result of being raped, would that rape be equal to murder?

Psylos, if the victim were to commit suicide as a direct result of being raped, would that rape be equal to murder?
No.

Psylos, if the victim were to commit suicide as a direct result of being raped, would that rape be equal to murder?
I don't think so actually. I believe direct murder would be worse because the offender would be killing intentionally and the victim doesn't have the choice. Some people are more psychologically weak than others and would commit suicide but that's extremelly rare.

I'm disappointed as well about how rape is considered in today's society.
Rape is bad, but I don't believe it is as bad as murder. Many people today think rape is worse than murder, but it doesn't make sense, because if it was then the victim would kill him or herself and that would be equal to murder. I'd rather live and be raped than be murdered.

It is not at all unheard of for victims to kill themselves. It seems logical to assume that, in their cases, rape was indeed worse than murder.

It is not at all unheard of for victims to kill themselves. It seems logical to assume that, in their cases, rape was indeed worse than murder.
I don't agree 100%.
Let say someone is speeding and is killing a kid. Is it worse than shooting the kid? A lot of people are speeding and not killing anybody. In that case, it was fatal, but murder is always fatal. Rape victims rarely commit suicide.
Of course when it is your kid, you would say speeding is like murder, and if a drunk man accidentally killed your kid you would say alcohol drinkers should be jailed, but reasonably, can you say this?

I think that rape and murder are a lot closer than speeding and gunning down a kid in the street.

Rape is a violent act, which intentionally causes pain, and serious emotional and psychological trauma. It is often accompanied by death threats and causes physical pain, as well as the possibility of pregnancy.

My point is, speeding drivers, while possibly irresponsible, are not going out with the intention of causing serious pain and trauma.

Purely on the physical side a rape must rank with assault. Add to that serious emotional trauma, and the threat of death, and we have a crime that at while arguably not a murder, is certainly in the right area.

Oh, and saying that only weak willed people commit suicide, therefore it is not a crime, is like saying that if I punch a baby and it dies, its not my fault because an adult could have taken it. Sorry

Also its worth remembering that most victims of rape are girls under the age of 18, and it seems logical that they woould be more heavily influenced at such a young age.

I did not intend to say rape was like speeding.
Anyway I was just talking about the act of rape itself. Death threats and violence are a separate thing. You can steal a car and threat or act violent and you can rape with drugs without the victim even noticing until she wakes up.
I'm just talking about the act of rape, separated from the rest. Death threats and violence are more close to murder and should defenitely rank in the area of murder and be punished as such. rapists do not necessarily intend to cause trauma.

Some stats for you from http://www.taasa.org/sexual_assault/default.php

# Eighty-two percent of victims reported that the rape permanently changed them.
# The chances that a woman will develop PTSD after being raped are between 60 and 95 percent.
# Thirteen percent of rape victims attempt suicide. Thirty percent contemplated suicide.
# Half of rape victims describe being fearful of serious injury or death during the event.

The grand majority of rapes cause serious trauma. What you are describing is not the typical form of such an attack. the stas show that even nonviolent rapes can lead to post traumatic stress disorder.

The point is, you can't really say "This rape is better than this rape" It's a serious assault, it causes psychological harm, and makes the victims dramatically more likely to attempt suicide. It's much worse than assault, even before you add on the whole death threat stuff.

In my opinion, in starting a topic such as this that has so many conotations of various sorts, Undelia is probably one of three things:

1(and IMHO, the best case scenario). He is some little twit with no life(or maybe he does have a life-as one of those really "popular" people who feel the need to establish the proverbial food chain on occasion)that gets his jollies by bringing up such topics(as well as lying about his own views on them)in order to make people upset and to cause infighting(which makes those others on this board who also don't have lives, but are actually mostly honest indivduals, look bad by proxy). I knew several people like this from school, and I sincerely hope that if this is the case, that Undelia is not any older than a highschool graduate, or at the most, someone in the first two years of college/university. Because, the thought of someone in their 30's+ acting this immature about so serious a topic is just plain sad and pathetic.

2. Undelia is trying to justify some act(s) he is planning on doing or has done. This becomes gradually more likely the more he responds to the posts of others due to the way in which he responds.

3. He has psychological problems stemming from, more than likely, one of two things:
a. He just has some sort of mental disorder(or possibly many disorders)which has yet to either be diagnosed or has been diagnosed but left(probably purposefully)untreated, and thus, does not feel normal human emotions as we do(and this is not related to any form of previous trauma);
or b. He has had some sort of trauma(s)(that he may, in fact, not even decide to regard as traumatic)in his life which have, after leaving him feeling completely lost, alone, and self-blaming, left him wanting to blame society (and, apparently, most especially the Western Judeo-Christian "society")for his former "bad feelings", aswell as for the "bad feelings" of others who have also gone through traumatic experinces, that at one point possibly kept him from being a productive member of society(and possibly cost him a fair amount of money, to boot). Perhaps the reason for this is because the one(s) responsible for the traumatic act(s) were not judged(or maybe, never even caught?)in an emotionally satisfactory way-at least, not in accordance to the way that the "evil" Western Judeo-Christianity "society" in which it appears Undelia lives told him it would(yes, I do acknowledge I'm going even farther out on a limb with this last part).

Of course, it could also be any combination of the above(making a "fourth" option, but whatever), but no matter which it is, he is no doubt going to be laughing at every thread involving someone going off on a tangent at someone else(or several someone elses). Yes, various people have made some callous(and occasionally down right stupid)remarks in regards to rape, and I have on more than one occasion directed 'Thoughts of Doom' towards various posters(Undelia definitely included), but as I see this turn more and more into just another flame war I get more and more images in my head of Undelia laughing his ass off at everyone's infighting. I'd tell people to take a breather and then collectively kick his butt, but then I'd get my head ripped off in an even more painful way than just saying the above stuff, so I won't(I'm also tired, so that may be why I'm not cussing anyone out for being a complete and total idiot).

And, oh yes, Undelia? I believe somewhere in the one of the previous posts you told(yelled at)someone to not go all psycho-analysist on you. Well, if you honestly don't want that to happen, stay in neutral topics, or else in topics in which the majority agree with your anarcho-communist(I'm assuming you are this due to your signature-I am NOT saying that because of this discussion, you automatically are one who believes as such)views. Otherwise, people are going to look at your posts and say,"Oh SHIT!! This dude so totally had better not be for real, 'cause if he is, then I could have some kinda serial-rapist psycho pediphile freak right next door/cubicle/desk over and not even know it..." A topic this serious is often viewed as deserving some sort of explanation, and when one is not forthcoming from the one who brought it up, others are going to try and guess for themselves what the reasons for someone bringing up this topic in such a manner could be. You also stated in a previous post that some emotions are useless. I'm very curious as to which emotions you are referring, and also as to why they are useless. I would like these reasons to not be conspiratorial(as in, some variation of:"It's So-and-So's fault they are even considered important in the first place!"), nor you just saying some variation of:"Because I say so!", but instead actual empirical scientific evidence to prove your point. There has been research into emotions and what causes them, so it is indeed possible to do so. If you can not do so, this will probably cause people to further view you as a crackpot in need of Prozac, counseling, and a straight jacket(though not necessarily in that order). It will NOT help validate your point in any way, shape, or form to shout out more conspiracy theories and/or to resort to calling me names.

I don't think so actually. I believe direct murder would be worse because the offender would be killing intentionally and the victim doesn't have the choice. Some people are more psychologically weak than others and would commit suicide but that's extremelly rare.

The inverse, however, is also true. Think about the arguments used against the death penalty- that a life in jail is better punishment than death because the suffering is greater since it is continuous. For example, I know that Leslie Mahaffy's mother said she'd rather have her killer, Paul Bernardo, kept in his solitary cell than killed because he'd suffer more. The same can be applied here- a rape victim has a lifetime of suffering and guilt to endure, while a murder victim's only suffers just before their death. So I don't think the amount of suffering is as clearcut as you make it.

I'm with Undelia on this one.

I'm with Undelia on this one.

There's a surprise, mister I'd-Like-to-Fuck-Babies.

Veldinbom, Santa Barbara : you make this thread difficult to read because it is already more than 18 pages long. I think it is an interesting subject and I'd like to discuss it with people willing to discuss it. If you are not interested please refrain from posting. Ad-hominem is polluting an already way too long thread and brings nothing interesting. Veldinbom your post was way too long and I had to read it to see if you had something to say. Thanks for not responding to this post.

Veldinbom, Santa Barbara : you make this thread difficult to read because it is already more than 18 pages long. I think it is an interesting subject and I'd like to discuss it with people willing to discuss it. If you are not interested please refrain from posting. Ad-hominem is polluting an already way too long thread and brings nothing interesting. Veldinbom your post was way too long and I had to read it to see if you had something to say. Thanks for not responding to this post.

Excuse me what? And Dark Shadowy Nexus's cheerleading post is something interesting to say? Why you have a beef with me? It's not like I'm posting a lengthy and generally pointless post... like you are.

I think I'll post a lot more often, since you seem to have a problem with me exercising my right to post MY opinion. I just find it interesting that you think self admitted pedophiles can express their opinion and I can't.

Rape is not usually about sexual pleasure but about a sense of dominance. Rape installs in it's victims a sense of violation and horror, as well as physical injury. Rape can be said to be worse than murder because a rape victim must suffer each and everyday.

There is no forgiveness for rape, it is a purely evil act.

Some stats for you from http://www.taasa.org/sexual_assault/default.php

# Eighty-two percent of victims reported that the rape permanently changed them.
# The chances that a woman will develop PTSD after being raped are between 60 and 95 percent.
# Thirteen percent of rape victims attempt suicide. Thirty percent contemplated suicide.
# Half of rape victims describe being fearful of serious injury or death during the event.

The grand majority of rapes cause serious trauma. What you are describing is not the typical form of such an attack. the stas show that even nonviolent rapes can lead to post traumatic stress disorder.

The point is, you can't really say "This rape is better than this rape" It's a serious assault, it causes psychological harm, and makes the victims dramatically more likely to attempt suicide. It's much worse than assault, even before you add on the whole death threat stuff.I am no psychologist, but does suicide happen as a result of the violence or the raping itself, because the question here is about rape and if most of rapes are violent, I believe it is still the violence which is the worse and not the rape. I also believe the link posted only refers to violent rape (sexual assault).

Well, as an aside, I DO think that men cope with being raped a bit better than women based on the people that I know, however, the point of my original posting was that it isn't society's fault that rape is worse than regular violence, and that people who didn't understand the original question are stupid. (Yet you still haven't gotten that, no matter how many times I have repeated it...)
Jocabia, why do you focus on the method in which I present my points rather than the points themselves? I hardly think my poor memory "embarassing" will ruin my life but I guess that if this is all you have, it could. Judging by your 8,600 posts, it is. Nor do I think saying "I might be wrong, but..." and then being wrong is embarassing. I was hoping to have an intellectual conversation but all I get are these stupid arguments about nothing. *sigh* I guess that is what you get for thinking that people who spend their lives in online forums are capable of interacting with the rest of us...

I am no psychologist, but does suicide happen as a result of the violence or the raping itself, because the question here is about rape and if most of rapes are violent, I believe it is still the violence which is the worse and not the rape. I also believe the link posted only refers to violent rape (sexual assault).

I'm not entirely sure what precisely you're asking, but I'm quite certain that relatively few people try to kill themselves solely because someone beat them up, and I don't believe there's a strong correlation between the occurence of PTSD and/or suicidal impulses in victims and how much their attackers injured them physically.

I'm also not exactly sure what "nonviolent" rape would be - sticking one's penis in an unwilling victim seems pretty damn violent to me even if you're not threatening her (or his) life while you do so.

Rape is bad for the following reasons:
Potential unwanted pregnancy
Potential STD ( a possible death sentence)
Physical damage to the woman, or man, internally
Emotional damage
Fear of potential future repeats
Denies a person the right to decide who to have relations with
Any assault deserves punishment

Rape is bad for the following reasons:
Potential unwanted pregnancy
Potential STD ( a possible death sentence)
Physical damage to the woman, or man, internally
Emotional damage
Fear of potential future repeats
Denies a person the right to decide who to have relations with
Any assault deserves punishment
You are correct. One of the most serious areas of damage is to the rape victim's sense of safety. To many rape victims, the world becomes a very threatening place. This can be difficult in the extreme to overcome.

BTW ... love the name. :)

As someone who has dated women who were rape victims in their past, I’d say it was damned serious problem. Anyone who doesn’t think it’s a big deal is either just another Troll looking for a reaction; sociopathic; or suffering one or more other mental illnesses and should get themselves fixed.

The Bruce

The point is, you can't really say "This rape is better than this rape" It's a serious assault, it causes psychological harm, and makes the victims dramatically more likely to attempt suicide. It's much worse than assault, even before you add on the whole death threat stuff.
I don't quite agree... Assault is a wide category, so how can one say for certain that rape in general is worse than assault in general? I mean, is to be drugged and raped (and not remembering anything of the act) worse that being beaten to within an inch of your life, and to be paralysed from the neck down and becoming deaf and loosing the ability to speak as well? My point is, I doubt you can classify one as worse than the other, it's a on a case-by-case basis.

In my opinon, as I've expressed before in this thread, murder is much worse than rape. Rape should not be compared to murder, but rather with assault, because it is a form of assault. (Sexual assault)


(Clarification: My use of the term assault in this post includes serious assault, aggravated assault, and battery)

By the way, does rape require sexual intercourse?
Apparently it depends on the jurisdiction you're in - What country, and in the US even what state.
(In the US there seems to be 12 states that does not have laws conserning female-perpetrated rape, by the way.)

Hmm... a question to those men who advocate the death penalty for rape on this board: If you fall asleep at a party, and were awakened by a woman who was having sex with you, that's still a capital offence in your opinon is it not?

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.


Actually, if you look at the past of sex, it's only been in the last couple of thousand years that sex has been looked at as a personal and intimate situation, animals do "casual sex" and frankly, I've never really seen one try to fight it off in any more than the most casual manner. However, humans are above animal like behavior, in as much as they develop mental responses, rather than base emotional ones, to certain situations, ie: sex, death, pain, fear.

So in reality, you can look at it two ways, yes, in our current moral state, rape is not only wrong but wrong on the deepest levels, we are brought up viewing sex as something dirty and intimate and that it should only be done with a loved one, which creates a baseline mental response in a person who is forced into it without consent, making them feel emotional as well as physical pain. Also, a person in a rape situation will be more likely to resist, which can lead to additional physical pain as well.

There is also the added threat of sexual diseases, and unwanted pregnancies. As such, currently, raping someone is like pointing a gun at someone. They don't know if it's loaded or not, but would be scared either way, and will remember and fear the instance.

However, and though I have no proof of this, I believe that if the teachings of our people were that sex was something simple and basic, we would treat it like eating, "Oh hey, I'm horny, could you bend over for a minute?" "Oh sure."

Strangely enough, I also believe this would lead to less fetish based sexual preferences, as most of those are viewed to stem from sexual frustrations.

This would not make it Right, nor morally sound By OUR standards. Yet morals are built upon mutual understanding of other peoples situations. If you stab or shoot someone, it is wrong, why? Because they don't want to die, and you are taking away their choices. However, why is suicide wrong? Because religion says so? No, instead it's because you are causing emotional pain to those who care for you. Right and wrong are based on understanding that you should not have that level of control over another Human being. Yet what if someone WANTS to be controlled? Is it right?

And on that note, I'll shut up. ;)

Tricky subject. Difficult because a lot of women react very emotionally to this subject due to fear or their own experiences. I don't think rape warrants such punishments as death or dismemberment but I think each case should be viewed independently. Don't forget, there is still many grey areas here and some use the rape scream for cases when they are not raped and people are convicted incorrectly. There are far more serious crimes, in my opinion, murder being just 1.

feel emotional as well as physical pain. Also, a person in a rape situation will be more likely to resist, which can lead to physical pain as well.


Actually, maybe I should clarify this. Emotional situations can cause physical reactions, such as pain. Don't belive me? As a male, when you see another male get hit in the crotch in a very forceful manner, don't you feel a little "twinge"? Some may not, due to a lack of empathy, but most will know what I'm talking about. When a woman finds out another woman is on "That time" doesn't she say "Oooh, I know how you feel?" and actually feel some of the discomfort? Sympathy pain and is a response on an emotional level, yet it causes us to "feel" a small bit of whatever it was that occured. Feeling sad can cause sore muscles, happy makes you feel ready to do anything, anger can cause you to not feel anything. Fearful? Helpless? These cause extreme discomfort. So, thats why pain is listed twice there.

By the by... Why do people go to mosh pits, to feel pain? Does that make causing pain to them okay? The mayans felt sacrifice was not only okay, but something beautiful, they were happy to die for their Deity. Did that make murder fine? Not by our standards, but we aren't them, are we?

I'm pretty sure the commandment was "Thou shalt not kill" not "Thou shall not kill people who agree with you, but anyone else is okay" Did that stop the crusades?

The norse Believed that to get to Valhalla, you had to die with a sword in hand, or in battle. Did that make fighting good? By their standards, yes. Ours? No.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that societies are what develop the morals, rather than a personal choice. Yet that does not exclude free will, people go against morals every day. Did you eat a donut, morally bankrupt I call you! Because right now being over weight is viewed as being incorrect, eating a piece of chocolate is "naughty." I overheard a coworker eating a chocolate bar saying "Oh, I'm so bad, I shouldn't be doing this!" Does she get thrills by making it seem as if eating something so simple as a chocolate bar is something bad? It reminds me of the way animals will play with their food to simulate the "hunting" experience, it makes it taste better for them.

Oh and on a side note, I think men handle post rape trauma better for three reasons. First, because from childhood they are taught to "Suck it up." "Be a man." "Do what you have to do." Second, because they have less to worry about afterward. Disease is the major one. Repeat male rapes are actually less likely than female, And I'm pretty sure we don't worry about pregnancy... Correct me if I'm wrong though. And third, Men are less emotionally involved than females (Don't bother with the calling me sexist, this is proven.)

At least that is the situation for now, however, later male generations may have it harder as in the last few years men have been encouraged to promote more emotional range in other males, and if that continues, it may be that the emotional buffer may decline.

Wow, I'm wordy tonight, sorry about all that, and Tah. ;)

The divide seems to be between those who rank the emotional damage of rape highly and those who don't

Purely on the physical side, when factoring in risk of STDs and pregnancy, I think rape factors in the same region as a GBH. Yes some rapes are probably less violent than others, just as some assaults are more violent than others, but I think that they are on a par.

The divide comes in the value placed on the emotional damage of rape. The majority of rape victims suffer from PTSD, and 30% have contemplate suicide, with 13% making an actual attempt. Saying that these are weak willed people is a copout, especially in the case of underage rape victims.

If you regard these as serious trauma on a level with assault, then that makes two couunts of GBH - double the sentence, and it'll be close to the amount of time that a lot of murderers serve.

Yes there are varying degrees of physical trauma in rapes, but the rapist goes in knowing they are very likely to cause serious emotional harm. I'm not saying, all rapists should serve 30 years, all assaults should serve 10 years, etc. because each case would be (and is) judged on it's merits. My point is that in general, rape is closer to murder than to assault in severity

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.


Absolutely.

Once again, my friend, you eloquently save me the need to type a response. :)

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?:


Absolutely. And, if I were dealing in emotion, I'd call your argument uninformed bullshit.

As it is, I'm just going to refer to it as uninformed.

Men and women use "different" emotions to deal with things? That just doesn't connect with ANY kind of reality. If a guy feels pain, he might cry, or he might get pissed. If a girl feels pain... the same thing.

You keep begging that no one discusses your posts being 'sexist'... but they are either VERY sexist... or you just have not the faintest idea.


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.

Jocabia has been on the forums a pretty good while now. In all that time, he has been a guy, certainly, in every thread I've seen him in.

Of course - his picture (in the picture thread) says he's a guy, too...

Oh - and those of us who have actually talked to him, have been fairly convinced that he was a guy, also...

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

Not really a rebuttal, my friend.

'Happy' people ARE healthier... so, at the very least, it has health benefits.

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

And you TOTALLY missed the possibility of man-on-man rape?

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.

Like I already said previously, I'm not going to argue with you.

Even this verse is taken out of context.

1. You will note that it was not a command from God. It nothing more than the personal opinion of Paul. Even Paul says so.

2. The reason he says these things is because the urge for sex distracted us from what Paul called a higher calling, which is a life of prayer. It is better to marry, get the sex act over with that way you can go back praying and doing more important things.

3. The immorality he speaks of is people sleeping with other people's spouses. He speaks of irresponsible sexual behavior that very often occurs outside of marriage. Marriage is a sacred and holy institution. Sex is the sanctification and resanctification of marriage.
Then as now, men perverted it and twisted it to make into nothing more than a meaningless toy. Sex was not meant to be toyed around with.
That is why, when you have sex with some one and you think they did it cause they liked you, people feel hurt emotionally. Sex is meant to cement a bond between man and woman. It was not meant to be "Let's have sex. But I don't want to be with you. I just want to use you as a toy and dump you when I'm done." That is not what God intended sex to be for.
People who do those things are guilty of sexual immorality more so than some gays are.

4. I myself know this. It is the main reason I am still a virgin even though I am already 32. Sex is a major detraction from a true spiritual life. You have to choose one or the other. That is why you don't have everyone volunteering to become monks or catholic priests. It takes a strong man to abstain from sex. Most men cannot cannot do this. To put it point blank, they are too weak minded. I don't say this as judgment, but as understanding. Everyone has weakness. This is a weakness that almost everyone has.
I thank God that I have been able to abstain this long cause there were so many close encounters that could have ended up differently if not for my devotion to the vows I have taken before God to:
1. abstain until marriage
2. never take advantage of a woman

and other stuff that is unrelated.
I take those vows seriously. I made those oaths when I was just a wee, 13 year old. I think I've done a pretty good job of keeping them.

In fact was by reading this passage and others like, that inspired me to make those oaths. But as Paul says, what works for me will not work you or other people reading this post.
It is not for all men to abstain as I have. You have to have a gift for it.
This is not the only gift that God has given me.

To the point you were making in your original post though that the passages proved that women were the property of men.
First off, God made woman from Adam's rib, not his foot. That in itself is symbolic. It's symbolic of the fact, found in scripture, that God intended for womankind to be equal with mankind.
I've already stated that the above passage you cited came from Paul and not God and that Paul himself, in the same passage, said it was nothing more than his personal opinion.
Now there is a passage in the scripture that people often use to back up that the woman is the property of the man. It states that women should submitt their husbands. But if you look closer at that passage, in the same sentence it says, for as the husband is the head of the house, so Jesus is the head of the church.
The church in the bible has always been depicted as a woman. The passage itself is meant to point the way to the way things work between the church and Christ.
That the man is the head of the household is prefigurative of Jesus being the head of the church. And like women, the church is capable of adultry and has at times committed adultry against the one true God.

God has always intended for men and women to be equal partners.

is a violation of one's sense of self. No other type of assault can compare with it.

First off, God made woman from Adam's rib, not his foot. That in itself is symbolic. It's symbolic of the fact....

That God didn't want Adam to have to hop everywhere?

is a violation of one's sense of self. No other type of assault can compare with it.
except torture. but then again rape is a form of torture.

Of course - his picture (in the picture thread) says he's a guy, too...Hm... it also says his name is Ian, while the name given is "Eric"...

I did not intend to say rape was like speeding.
Anyway I was just talking about the act of rape itself. Death threats and violence are a separate thing. You can steal a car and threat or act violent and you can rape with drugs without the victim even noticing until she wakes up.
I'm just talking about the act of rape, separated from the rest. Death threats and violence are more close to murder and should defenitely rank in the area of murder and be punished as such. rapists do not necessarily intend to cause trauma.

I disagree with the last sentence entirely. I believe it to be a fairly large part of the rapists´ "kick" so to speak. A rapist knows fully well well that his actions will lead to the traumatization of the victim. Only in the case of mentally retarded people could this be different. A (male) friend of mine experienced this and could not hate the person who´d raped him because the rapist was almost 'innocent', in not knowing what´d really happened, what he´d done.

But for the most part it is the act of domination that is rape. The act of preying on someone physically weaker with the intent of feeling stronger. The dominator knows the consequences of his actions and chooses not to care about the ramifications inside the mind of the victim. No rapist save for the rare case of true mental retardation can claim innocence to the wilfully causing of trauma, period

Hm... it also says his name is Ian, while the name given is "Eric"...

I work with a guy who's name is Sam.... called Toby.

And my bosses name is James. So he gets called Randy.

Names don't always seem to follow logical guidelines.

I work with a guy who's name is Sam.... called Toby.

And my bosses name is James. So he gets called Randy.

Names don't always seem to follow logical guidelines.Just had me puzzled, that's all...

Like I already said previously, I'm not going to argue with you.

No, you're just going to come in and sling a bunch of ad hominems in the first post. And now you're going to make a post to tell how pious and wonderful you are. How very gallant of you.

Even this verse is taken out of context.

1. You will note that it was not a command from God. It nothing more than the personal opinion of Paul. Even Paul says so.

Um, we were talking about Paul. Not God. You really should read what we're talking about BEFORE you speak.

2. The reason he says these things is because the urge for sex distracted us from what Paul called a higher calling, which is a life of prayer. It is better to marry, get the sex act over with that way you can go back praying and doing more important things.

Yes, which is exactly what I said he was saying. He says very clearly that if the urge for sex distracts from God, get married. Otherwise, don't. VERY CLEARLY. In fact, so clearly that you just agreed that it says this. How convenient for me? And here I thought I was going to have to explain it.

3. The immorality he speaks of is people sleeping with other people's spouses. He speaks of irresponsible sexual behavior that very often occurs outside of marriage. Marriage is a sacred and holy institution. Sex is the sanctification and resanctification of marriage.

What does that have to do with my point? Nothing.

Then as now, men perverted it and twisted it to make into nothing more than a meaningless toy. Sex was not meant to be toyed around with.

Save your lectures. I stopped being willing to accept moral guidance from you when I caught you regularly lying to make your point.

That is why, when you have sex with some one and you think they did it cause they liked you, people feel hurt emotionally. Sex is meant to cement a bond between man and woman. It was not meant to be "Let's have sex. But I don't want to be with you. I just want to use you as a toy and dump you when I'm done." That is not what God intended sex to be for.

And this is germaine to the point, how?

People who do those things are guilty of sexual immorality more so than some gays are.

Ha. Just couldn't miss slipping that one in there. How quaint? I'm sure God would be proud. Certainly Jesus thought you were put here on Earth to judge people. He certainly encouraged. Well, of course, unless you were actually listening to his teachings.

4. I myself know this. It is the main reason I am still a virgin even though I am already 32. Sex is a major detraction from a true spiritual life. You have to choose one or the other. That is why you don't have everyone volunteering to become monks or catholic priests. It takes a strong man to abstain from sex. Most men cannot cannot do this. To put it point blank, they are too weak minded. I don't say this as judgment, but as understanding. Everyone has weakness. This is a weakness that almost everyone has.
I thank God that I have been able to abstain this long cause there were so many close encounters that could have ended up differently if not for my devotion to the vows I have taken before God to:
1. abstain until marriage
2. never take advantage of a woman

and other stuff that is unrelated.
I take those vows seriously. I made those oaths when I was just a wee, 13 year old. I think I've done a pretty good job of keeping them.

In fact was by reading this passage and others like, that inspired me to make those oaths. But as Paul says, what works for me will not work you or other people reading this post.
It is not for all men to abstain as I have. You have to have a gift for it.
This is not the only gift that God has given me.

To the point you were making in your original post though that the passages proved that women were the property of men.
First off, God made woman from Adam's rib, not his foot. That in itself is symbolic. It's symbolic of the fact, found in scripture, that God intended for womankind to be equal with mankind.
I've already stated that the above passage you cited came from Paul and not God and that Paul himself, in the same passage, said it was nothing more than his personal opinion.
Now there is a passage in the scripture that people often use to back up that the woman is the property of the man. It states that women should submitt their husbands. But if you look closer at that passage, in the same sentence it says, for as the husband is the head of the house, so Jesus is the head of the church.
The church in the bible has always been depicted as a woman. The passage itself is meant to point the way to the way things work between the church and Christ.
That the man is the head of the household is prefigurative of Jesus being the head of the church. And like women, the church is capable of adultry and has at times committed adultry against the one true God.

God has always intended for men and women to be equal partners.

Good to know that you listened the words of Jesus as well as the words of Paul. Let's see if I can find something appropriate. I'm certain you've read this passage, being an expert and all, but I'll post it anyway.

Matthew 6:1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

...

16"When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 17But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

You gotta love those pharisees who can't wait to show their "good works", the ones that just HAVE to tell you about their fasting or abstaining from sex and how good they are because they do it. The fallacy of Pride. The Bible is riddled with lessons about this fallacy, and so many seem to close their eyes to such lessons.

By the way, you're understanding of the Bible is profound. I'm humbled. Because there is no other place that treats a woman like property than that place you mention. None. Color me amused.

Quick question though, who marries a woman when a man dies with no children, in order to carry on his family name, to have children for him? According to the Bible, I mean.

Hm... it also says his name is Ian, while the name given is "Eric"...

Actually, when I posted the picture I explained I was acting in an improv show, a murder mystery, at the time. Ian was the name of my character. If I could remember what show that was, I'd tell you what it was about, but I really don't.

I am no psychologist, but does suicide happen as a result of the violence or the raping itself, because the question here is about rape and if most of rapes are violent, I believe it is still the violence which is the worse and not the rape. I also believe the link posted only refers to violent rape (sexual assault).

You're confused. Sexual assault is grabbing a woman in the crotch. I can quite literally be charged with sexual assault for slapping a woman on the ass in a bar.

You are thinking of aggravated rape.

Well, as an aside, I DO think that men cope with being raped a bit better than women based on the people that I know, however, the point of my original posting was that it isn't society's fault that rape is worse than regular violence, and that people who didn't understand the original question are stupid. (Yet you still haven't gotten that, no matter how many times I have repeated it...)
Jocabia, why do you focus on the method in which I present my points rather than the points themselves? I hardly think my poor memory "embarassing" will ruin my life but I guess that if this is all you have, it could. Judging by your 8,600 posts, it is. Nor do I think saying "I might be wrong, but..." and then being wrong is embarassing. I was hoping to have an intellectual conversation but all I get are these stupid arguments about nothing. *sigh* I guess that is what you get for thinking that people who spend their lives in online forums are capable of interacting with the rest of us...


Making accusations that are unfounded and based on your ignorance is what should be embarrassing. You manage to miss the point of every post and then try to make it about something else.

And I think there is no one here who doesn't giggle every time you comment that people must agree with you or they're stupid. It's more amusing because originally you claimed that anyone who thought your point was gender-based was stupid.

Now, you claim your point was always either you agree that society is not at fault that rape is worse than other violence or one is stupid. The problem is that we weren't disagreeing with that point. We disagreed with the part of your post that was *gasp* gender-based. And when we did, you called us stupid.

For those of us actually following the conversation, we're not fooled. You tried to make a false point and got nailed to the wall on it so now you try to pretend you said something else. You didn't. Your rather emotional reply to the posts makes it pretty evident that your original point has no basis.

Now why don't you post a bunch of :upyours: smilies so I can really be humbled. I know the first time I nearly cried.

EDIT: By the way, was it the smilies that were supposed to inspire an intellectual conversation. I have 8600 posts because I spend a large portion of my time online at work. When I have time in between meetings rather than going outside and smoking or going to get coffee like many of my coworkers, I sit down and converse online. I've been here for 2 years. It takes about fifteen posts a day on work days in order to generate that number of posts. That's about fifteen minutes. It would be less if my posts simply consisted of ad hominems and smilies, but I'll leave that to you.

And you TOTALLY missed the possibility of man-on-man rape?

And you totally ignored the fact that I said that I didn't want stupid people like you getting led off on tangents and missing the point! (Like you just did...) This is the kind of "what if" that I was referring to...

EDIT: By the way, was it the smilies that were supposed to inspire an intellectual conversation. I have 8600 posts because I spend a large portion of my time online at work. When I have time in between meetings rather than going outside and smoking or going to get coffee like many of my coworkers, I sit down and converse online. I've been here for 2 years. It takes about fifteen posts a day on work days in order to generate that number of posts. That's about fifteen minutes. It would be less if my posts simply consisted of ad hominems and smilies, but I'll leave that to you.[/QUOTE]


OOOOOH! BURN! It would have been easier to type "I know you are, but what am I? My dad could beat up YOUR dad!"

So you're saying that in general, women getting raped don't have it worse off than men? How many female rape victims do you know?

Absolutely.

Once again, my friend, you eloquently save me the need to type a response. :)

Not really... You took the time to respond anyway...

And you totally ignored the fact that I said that I didn't want stupid people like you getting led off on tangents and missing the point! (Like you just did...)

Oh, now there's an argument. What he was saying is that the female-on-male rape that you so easily dismiss ignores that males are also the victims of male-on-male rape which you certainly aren't going to claim is view as less heinous than male on female rape, not logically anyway. You used a very mild example to explain why your argument is so gender-based, but it ignores a type of rape that is germaine to the discussion. Rather than addressing his succint argument, you called him stupid. How impressed you must be with yourself.

I was hoping to have an intellectual conversation

Let's see what you think passes for an intelectual conversation.

stupid people like you

all I get are these stupid arguments about nothing.

I guess that is what you get for thinking that people who spend their lives in online forums are capable of interacting with the rest of us...

that people who didn't understand the original question are stupid. (Yet you still haven't gotten that, no matter how many times I have repeated it...)

I went on to explain how you were stupid if you thought that I was trying to make this a gender issue.

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.

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.

THAT IS WHY IT IS AN ANALOGY, NOT A SIMILE, you dolt...

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

May I suggest hooked on phonics? Your reading comprehension is clearly lacking.:headbang:

:mad: You are what's wrong with America
...
don't just respond to how some of the sentences make you FEEL, you morons.

That was your first post in the thread by the way. Amusing, that you are a person claiming to seek an intellectual conversation.

And the coup du grace

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:
:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Yep, I think we can all see that you were seeking an intellectual conversation when you entered the thread insulting people and then put at least one insult to whomever replied to you in EVERY post after it. Perhaps you should rethink your approach and leave the logical fallacies and flaming at home.

By the way, I had to eliminate some of the smilies because you used so many of them that it offended the forums rules.

EDIT: Whoops missed one -
Perhaps "debate" is not "your thing".
If your were "debating," you would have addressed one of my propositions, which you did not, dumbass...

I would like to point out there are quotes here from half the posts you've ever made on this forum. I suspect if I looked for the other half I would find more. This is not the behavior of someone seeking an intellectual conversation. This is the behavior of someone who wishes to post their unfounded opinion and call everyone stupid (or morons, or dumbasses, or dolts, etc.) who pulls it apart at the seems.

<snip>

Ouch. That's what I call pwned.

OOOOOH! BURN! It would have been easier to type "I know you are, but what am I? My dad could beat up YOUR dad!"

So you're saying that in general, women getting raped don't have it worse off than men? How many female rape victims do you know?

No, I'm saying that in general women don't handle rape worse than men. Women may be victims of rape more often and their rapes may be more aggravated and involve more damage, but given the same level of violence in the rape, I think men and women will have a similar degree of problem dealing with the trauma.

That I know of? A dozen or so, but I suspect it's actually higher than that and I'm simply not aware of it. My cousin was sodomized by a tree branch from a former friend who knocked her out from behind. I doubt very many people would have handled it better than she did. The trauma she suffered was not because she was a woman, but because she was SODOMIZED by a tree branch.

And you totally ignored the fact that I said that I didn't want stupid people like you getting led off on tangents and missing the point! (Like you just did...) This is the kind of "what if" that I was referring to...

Let's look again at the post I respond to...

"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".

Es[pecially here, we are looking at this part: "The reason I mentioned women is because that is what people generally think of... clearly most people view abuse of men by women as pretty much a non-issue."

So - BECAUSE it is considered less tragic, perhaps, when a woman rapes a man... according to YOUR logic, we should be able to draw all the necessary information about how different genders handle it... from man-on-woman rape.

OF COURSE the 'man' acts and feels different in man-on-woman rape... he IS the rapist.

The problem is, your logic WAS NOT logical - even where men are the VICTIM, it is STILL men that are the most common 'rapists'... by a hell of a long way.

So - if ANYTHING is a tangent, it is the woman-on-man rape that you mentioned.

The point I was making was that - male AND female victims of "man-on-x" rape react much the same, during and after the event.

Your attempt to pretend otherwise is not borne out... can you even cite sources to support it?

A friendly word of warning, also... you seem to feel pretty full of yourself... I'm still deciding if this means you are a puppet of an established NS member. If so - the warning will be wasted - but, on the offchance you are genuine, and just very brash, I shall give you a gentle nudge.

NS forum rules frown upon the kind of behaviour you employ, my friend. These forums require some degree of civility... otherwise the Mods get a little bothered, and people get suspensions.

I'll not lower myself to exchanging flamery, but let me show you the KIND of comments you have made, that are LIKELY to garner you Mod attention, sooner or later (if you haven't ALREADY encountered it):

You made a direct 'flame' on me - "I didn't want stupid people like you..."

Not acceptable, friend. You might want to rethink your approach.

Not really... You took the time to respond anyway...

Actually - look back. I responded to Jocabia. He saved me the effort of having to formulate a response to your 'post'...

Oh, now there's an argument. What he was saying is that the female-on-male rape that you so easily dismiss ignores that males are also the victims of male-on-male rape which you certainly aren't going to claim is view as less heinous than male on female rape, not logically anyway. You used a very mild example to explain why your argument is so gender-based, but it ignores a type of rape that is germaine to the discussion. Rather than addressing his succint argument, you called him stupid. How impressed you must be with yourself.

But I was specifically addressing male on female rape and asked that he not be distracted by alternate scenarios, and he was anyway...

Now, you claim your point was always either you agree that society is not at fault that rape is worse than other violence or one is stupid.
I claimed that the people who didn't get the question were stupid, not the people who agree with the author. Were you addressing two different remarks in a single sentence or do you need to reread what I wrote?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nationalist Genius
THAT IS WHY IT IS AN ANALOGY, NOT A SIMILE, you dolt...
Sorry for calling you a dolt. You did appear to miss the fact that it was a PTSS analogy though.

Quote: ...congrats on actually addressing a sentence AND addressing it with something other than rhetoric...

Which you faild to do in your most recent post, mostly making personal attacks and complaining about the way in which i have presented my ideas, rather than the ideas which were presented...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nationalist Genius
May I suggest hooked on phonics? Your reading comprehension is clearly lacking.

I stand by this. He didn't addresss what I said AT ALL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nationalist Genius
...don't just respond to how some of the sentences make you FEEL, you morons.

Which is what GnI proceeded to do anyway, and then you defended him for it. He implied that I claimed that I would have no problem being raped, I had no knowledge of the issue, and I never considered what I might experience personally if I were raped. That blows my mind that this was the conclusion he reached after reading my original post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nationalist Genius
Perhaps "debate" is not "your thing".

Don't be intellectually dishonest just to make a point. doing so makes a number of ad hominems quite valid. That is just immoral. I was quoting GnI, and you attributed it to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nationalist Genius
If your were "debating," you would have addressed one of my propositions, which you did not, dumbass...

Sorry about responding with an insult, but I stand by the fact that he didn't actually respond to what I said.

PS
Ad hominems are your specialty. In fact, you have used this particular expression a dozen times in this thread immediately preceeding or immediately following a remark about how my arguments are invalid because you are distracted by smileys or how I finnished a sentence with the word "dolt." Are you trying to throw in a little satire to see if I get it or what?

Now that I read through this thread, I don't know why I am even arguing with you; most of my arguments were directed towards Gni. You frequently make sense.

Let's look again at the post I respond to...

That wasn't the one, if you read them in order. I hadn't even made that post yet


A friendly word of warning, also... you seem to feel pretty full of yourself...

Pretty much


You made a direct 'flame' on me - "I didn't want stupid people like you..."


Sorry; I meant "stupid arguments like yours."

*snip HTML badness*

Attacking the style in which you present is not attacking you, but you know that, right? Regardless, I believe your behavior to be a mod issue, so I'm done addressing it after this post

I commented on your smilies and insults because they were germaine to showing that your argument relies on fallacies. I also commented on and evidenced strawmen.

GnI makes sense as well, you're simply to busy attacking him rather than reading his comments. GnI is simply more succinct in his arguments whereas I see that since you aren't doing well with his arguments that I need to explain them more fully. I have understood and agreed with every point made by GnI so far in this thread. As I've seen others agree with his points as well, it appears to be you who is having the problem. Fortunately for you, GnI tends to be more patient and less blunt than I am. Otherwise, you'd recognize that he's doing decent job of destroying your arguments and making you look a bit confused.

That wasn't the one, if you read them in order. I hadn't even made that post yet


Come now, is this serious?

Chronology - you made a post, I made a post, you attacked my post...

In context - I showed that attack post, then showed the original post I'd been replying to.

Now you claim that you haven't made that FIRST post, yet?


Pretty much


Don't get me wrong, assurance is a GOOD thing. But, assurance is just arrogance if you don't back it up.

And, right now...


Sorry; I meant "stupid arguments like yours."

See - that's just the kind of comment that has me convinced I'm allegorically trying to arm-wrestle an egg.

Come now, is this serious?

Chronology - you made a post, I made a post, you attacked my post...

In context - I showed that attack post, then showed the original post I'd been replying to.

Now you claim that you haven't made that FIRST post, yet?

You didn't snip the first post, you must have snipped the wrong one on accident

Quote:
Ad hominems are your specialty. In fact, you have used this particular expression a dozen times in this thread immediately preceeding or immediately following a remark about how my arguments are invalid because you are distracted by smileys or how I finnished a sentence with the word "dolt." Are you trying to throw in a little satire to see if I get it or what?

You never answered. I sincerely want to know. Do I maybe not understand what an ad hominem is or were you trying to be funny?

Forgetting everything else I have said (*insert immature joke here*) and starting afresh, perhaps I think that men would handle rape in a different way than women because I am a particularly calloused person, and while I couldn't tell you exactly how I would react, I'm pretty sure that it would be different than some of my close friends. Plus, Don't you think that men tend to have a lot less respect for sex than women do? Don't get me wrong, I waited until I was married, but it is a fact that women equate sex with love much more often than men do, and I can e-mail you studies and articles if you like. Look at nature. Sex is always at the discression of the female. The male deer prance around and fight until the woman makes the choice. This makes me further believe that rape is more personally violating to women than men.

You never answered. I sincerely want to know. Do I maybe not understand what an ad hominem is or were you trying to be funny?

You actually dismissed arguments by calling people stupid rather than actually making an argument. That is called *gasp* an ad hominem.

In contrast, I suggested you stop calling people names and using smilies and that you instead simply present arguments. Then I addressed every one of your arguments. That is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem is not simply addressing the poster or person, but using it as a dismissal. My comments were actually an attempt to discourage the behavior.

The smilies and ad hominems evidence that you have a purpose in this thread counter to the one you claimed. You presented your purpose as reasoning why some of us are stupid, so it makes it ground for making an argument against it.

And, please, start using html properly. I'm tired of fixing it for you.

Forgetting everything else I have said (*insert immature joke here*) and starting afresh, perhaps I think that men would handle rape in a different way than women because I am a particularly calloused person, and while I couldn't tell you exactly how I would react, I'm pretty sure that it would be different than some of my close friends. Plus, Don't you think that men tend to have a lot less respect for sex than women do? Don't get me wrong, I waited until I was married, but it is a fact that women equate sex with love much more often than men do, and I can e-mail you studies and articles if you like. Look at nature. Sex is always at the discression of the female. The male deer prance around and fight until the woman makes the choice. This makes me further believe that rape is more personally violating to women than men.

You realize this isn't true of every animal species, no?

And how YOU would handle it is not evidence. You're not seriously suggesting there isn't at least ONE woman out there that would handle a rape in the exact same way you would, are you? And if there is, then using you as an example is pointless. You have to show logically or through evidence that women would generally handle being physically dominated and raped than a man would handle the exact same treatment. In order for the events to be similar it would probably require rape by either a very large woman or a man. The latter is more likely as GnI pointed out SEVERAL TIMES and you ignored.

Now, do I think that a woman sodomized by a man and a man sodomized by a man would handle it qualitatively different? Nope. Not at all.

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 OP,

My answer.

Ok, i cant really beleive someone was asking if rape is associated with society's view of sex. Sex is just a means in the act, its more about one person forcing someone to do something that they DO NOT WANT to do.

its someone doing something against another persons consent. More about power than the sexual act.

Would you like to be at the whim of another? Without any say about what happens to you? Hardly.

And theres the bit that matters.

To take away the free will of another is wrong. This is not due to societies conditioning towards sex, its to do with human psychology. basically being forced to do anything against our will is potentially psychologically damaging FOR ANYONE!

Its not about sex, its about power. Its not about conditioning from society, its all about being able to choose what and when and with whom you CHOOSE to have intimate relations with, rather than some asshole take away the choice.

Its my choice to consider the original poster to be an insensitive person who's head is in Lala Land, and to hope they never have to deal with it first or second hand, and actually then fully understand why imposing the will of one person over another is wrong.

Folks, the thing is that in a relativist society morality doesn't really exist. So rape hurts someone? Big deal. As long as it doesn't affect you why should you care? After all, these are all "societal constructs" anyway, right? Love for one's neighbour and family and all that craziness. Maybe to my way of thinking rape is a good thing. So if I did it would I really be wrong? If you say yes, isn't that imposing on my interpretation of morality? At least, that's where this argument logically goes if you want to follow the bunny trail. Get with it, dude. Either morality exists or it doesn't.

You realize this isn't true of every animal species, no?

And how YOU would handle it is not evidence. You're not seriously suggesting there isn't at least ONE woman out there that would handle a rape in the exact same way you would, are you? And if there is, then using you as an example is pointless. You have to show logically or through evidence that women would generally handle being physically dominated and raped than a man would handle the exact same treatment. In order for the events to be similar it would probably require rape by either a very large woman or a man. The latter is more likely as GnI pointed out SEVERAL TIMES and you ignored.

Now, do I think that a woman sodomized by a man and a man sodomized by a man would handle it qualitatively different? Nope. Not at all.

I'm sorry for not saying "in general" after every single sentence, allthough I thought that it was implied. I was saying that maybe that is why I err; because I may have assumed all men are just like me. However, I would say that the vast majority of land mammals do fit this social structure. Need I say again that I am speaking in generalities.
Also, I don't recall dismissing arguments because I thought someone was "stupid," I generally explained why they were stupid, though it is difficult to address every single sentence the both of you type. You, however, have constantly made it a point to imply that my arguments are flawed because of smileys, insults, and not putting my own quotes in html quote boxes because I am too busy/lazy.

I don't really have a reply to most women's and most men's reaction to being sodomized being equal. I just can't believe that. I know too many victims.

I'm sorry for not saying "in general" after every single sentence, allthough I thought that it was implied. I was saying that maybe that is why I err; because I may have assumed all men are just like me. However, I would say that the vast majority of land mammals do fit this social structure. Need I say again that I am speaking in generalities.
Also, I don't recall dismissing arguments because I thought someone was "stupid," I generally explained why they were stupid, though it is difficult to address every single sentence the both of you type. You, however, have constantly made it a point to imply that my arguments are flawed because of smileys, insults, and not putting my own quotes in html quote boxes because I am too busy/lazy.

I don't really have a reply to most women's and most men's reaction to being sodomized being equal. I just can't believe that. I know too many victims.

No, I have made the point that smilies and insults do not help your argument and undermine your claim that you are interested in intelligent conversation. I don't think they have anything to do with your argument as I've said repeatedly, but I do think they evidence your purpose which is also germaine. The html comment I made once and it was because I was quite literally not interested in correcting your posts each time I quoted them, it has nothing to do with the arguments at all.

As far as you claim that you know too many victims, well to be honest, your behavior here requires me to take that claim with a grain of salt. In other words, evidence I've gathered suggests that you're not really that good at noticing nuance. Nuance is an important form of examination of these kinds of issues because while the men and women deal with things is not qualitatively different it is different in approach. My experience with you is that if someone doesn't conk you over the head with their point you don't recognize the point being made. Again, it's not an attack, but the only evidence you've offered for your counter-intuitive assertions is that the people you know and what you know of them, so your ability to perceive their trauma is definitely germaine to the issue.

...but skimming through the previous posts, I am stunned that no one mentioned one particularly heinous aspect of rape:

Rape takes a normal and highly pleasurable function of our human nature, and turns it into a painful and traumatic experience. It takes something which we would normally seek and desire and enjoy, in our own way and in our own time, and forever associates it with pain, humiliation, and disempowerment. It takes one of the central CHOICES of our lives as human beings ~ with whom we will mate ~ and strips away all the aspects of volition and delight.

So no, it's not an ordinary assault. By and large, there's typically no fun, pleasurable, and meaningful way to be beaten up or tortured, so when you're assaulted in such a manner, it's simply that, an assault. But when you are raped, it's someone else getting his kicks by totally violating an aspect of your physical and psychological being that ought to be highly pleasurable and UP TO YOU. It hurts like shit physically, and it damages a very complex physical and emotional system deeply tied to our sense of self and our capacity for pleasure and intimacy.

The shame that victims experience, which is also very damaging, is probably the only aspect of the awfulness of rape which can be laid mostly at the feet of society's messed up attitudes towards sex.

I completely disagree with the notion that rape isn't about sex. OF COURSE it's about sex... (hello: sexual acts, penetration, etc.), but it's not JUST about sex in its most limited definition (orgasmic relief for one of the individuals involved). It's about that deeply problematic linkage of control, power, domination, and sexual gratification that apparently drives some individuals who cannot fully empathize with others, and are incapable of seeking or appreciating gratification of their sexual and emotional needs in a consensual scenario.

And that, right there, is why rapists are ~ appropriately ~ regarding with disgust and fear by people with normal psychological make-up.

...but skimming through the previous posts, I am stunned that no one mentioned one particularly heinous aspect of rape:

Rape takes a normal and highly pleasurable function of our human nature, and turns it into a painful and traumatic experience. It takes something which we would normally seek and desire and enjoy, in our own way and in our own time, and forever associates it with pain, humiliation, and disempowerment. It takes one of the central CHOICES of our lives as human beings ~ with whom we will mate ~ and strips away all the aspects of volition and delight.

So no, it's not an ordinary assault. By and large, there's typically no fun, pleasurable, and meaningful way to be beaten up or tortured, so when you're assaulted in such a manner, it's simply that, an assault. But when you are raped, it's someone else getting his kicks by totally violating an aspect of your physical and psychological being that ought to be highly pleasurable and UP TO YOU. It hurts like shit physically, and it damages a very complex physical and emotional system deeply tied to our sense of self and our capacity for pleasure and intimacy.

I've already addressed the issues that I cut from your post, but this part is well-said. We have made this point earlier, but I think you put this very well and should be commended.

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.

Jocabia, the nation that brought you rape without intercourse.

In a defense of NG, I have seen a study that shows that men have genes that make them more likely to get angry than women. So, if you want to take it that way, men are more likely to get pissed than traumatized if they were raped. Not by a lot, but a little.

Jocabia, the nation that brought you rape without intercourse.

Rape actually doesn't require intercourse, actually. But I'm not talking about intercourse. I'm talking about sex. Sex can include insertion of the fingers but when a doctor does it, it's not sex, now is it?

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

I reject your premese that sex should have no emotionally attachment.

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

It's a construct, true, it doesn't exist, false.

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.

Government didn't create conctructs. Evolution did. The capacity to form constructs and abstricts is what has allowed human beings to survive, reason, and, well, survive. Things just sound better in threes.


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.

So we should be as animals? Because without constructs, that's what we are.

By and large, there's typically no fun, pleasurable, and meaningful way to be beaten up or tortured

I disagree.

No, you're just going to come in and sling a bunch of ad hominems in the first post. And now you're going to make a post to tell how pious and wonderful you are. How very gallant of you.



Um, we were talking about Paul. Not God. You really should read what we're talking about BEFORE you speak.



Yes, which is exactly what I said he was saying. He says very clearly that if the urge for sex distracts from God, get married. Otherwise, don't. VERY CLEARLY. In fact, so clearly that you just agreed that it says this. How convenient for me? And here I thought I was going to have to explain it.



What does that have to do with my point? Nothing.



Save your lectures. I stopped being willing to accept moral guidance from you when I caught you regularly lying to make your point.



And this is germaine to the point, how?



Ha. Just couldn't miss slipping that one in there. How quaint? I'm sure God would be proud. Certainly Jesus thought you were put here on Earth to judge people. He certainly encouraged. Well, of course, unless you were actually listening to his teachings.



Good to know that you listened the words of Jesus as well as the words of Paul. Let's see if I can find something appropriate. I'm certain you've read this passage, being an expert and all, but I'll post it anyway.

Matthew 6:1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

...

16"When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 17But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

You gotta love those pharisees who can't wait to show their "good works", the ones that just HAVE to tell you about their fasting or abstaining from sex and how good they are because they do it. The fallacy of Pride. The Bible is riddled with lessons about this fallacy, and so many seem to close their eyes to such lessons.

By the way, you're understanding of the Bible is profound. I'm humbled. Because there is no other place that treats a woman like property than that place you mention. None. Color me amused.

Quick question though, who marries a woman when a man dies with no children, in order to carry on his family name, to have children for him? According to the Bible, I mean.
1. The wording of your post made it sound like you were saying it came from God. I was just pointing out that it came from Paul, not God.

2. Your post's wording sounded a lot like you were saying that the Bible declares women the property of men outright.

3. If I was wrong on both of the above then I stand corrected. That is how is how I read the wording in your post.

4. Hmmm. I would have expected better than you. Just a moment ago, you said I was detracting from the subject. Here you are, doing it yourself.

5. I must have touched a nerve there. I pass judgment on no one. The reason I say that some gays will have an easier time than straight people who are promiscuos has to do with that fact that promiscuous straight people tend to be arrogant whereas there are gays who are more humble than the typical straight person who has promiscuous sex. It was an observation, not a judgment.
I am not boasting of this. For some reason, it has touched a nerve and now you are upset. I am doing nothing more than recounting my own personal experience. It is nothing I should ashamed of, neither is it something that I should hide. Nor does it make me better than other people. Though I sin not in sex, there have been other areas in which I have sinned. One of which is fabrication of stories. Which I used to do a lot more, to get more support for my side of an issue or an action I wanted to take. Much like how AI is pumping up the numbers in their report to get support for their side of the rape issue. Everyone has their faults. Only Jesus was completely sinless. If you think about that passage you just qouted, he is not saying that it is bad to pray in public places or that it is bad to give gifts that help people. Nor is he saying that it is bad to abstain from sex and then recount your own experience. In fact to do such things in the closet is the same as being ashamed of doing them. And if you are ashamed of that then you are ashamed of God. And if you are ashamed of God, then God will be ashamed of you and shun you.
The problem he was addressing was on of pride. As in the parable he told of two people. A pharisee who went into the city center and began praying loudly, "Thank you God for making me better than these filthy sinners. Thank you for making me cleaner than they." Whereas, nearby, also praying in the city center where there was a lot of people, was a tax collector who prayed, softly, "Forgive my sins Lord...." They were both praying in a place where other people could see them. The difference was that the pharisee had an arrogant attitude and as such his prayers never reached God. The tax collector on the other hand, prostrated himself before God. He knew his own spiritual status and hence, his prayers did reach God.
As for fasting, I don't tell anyone. I just do it. The only time I mention it is when I am offered food during the period in which I am fasting.
It has nothing to do with me being better than anyone else. But I do note, that it does give me a higher moral standing to attack those who criticize people for being morally inferior to themselves.
Sexually speaking, I stand on the moral high ground watching the rest of the world wallow in sin and evil. I don't cast judgment on those below me on this issue. What is the point. Judging it won't make it stop. What I can do from this moral high ground how ever, is raise up a standard that other people can look to for encouragement. That standard includes doing stuff like, if Debbie and Arnold had lots of promiscuous sex when they were younger, and now they are wanting to arrest people for having promiscuos sex, my higher grounding gives me a sacred duty to tap them on the shoulder and remind them of their hypocrisy.
In fact, this is one of the few places where I can justifiably claim the higher ground and hence any sense of superiority over my peers. There are many areas where there are a lot of people who are my moral superiors. But in this one, it can't be denied that I outdo most people out there. But its not something that I brag about everyday.
From your response, I take it that you are offended by this. You ought not to take this to mean that you should be ashamed of stuff you did earlier in your life. They are the past, there is nothing you can do about them except to live a better life now. Feeling bad about them now will get you no where. The best thing to do is learn from them and always keep moving forward with your eyes focused on the future.

Quite frankly, I have always found this "it's not about sex, it's about power" argument to be completely unfounded. Yes, it IS about sex. Intimacy, personal space, and people expectations of and build ups around the act. That it IS about sex is what makes it so damaging to people.

I also think the idea that if people were completely sexually liberated that the act would be less damaging for people than it is now is valid. I still think that it would be worse than normal assault, even then, however. Sex is special, it'll never not be special because sex IS special and forcing it unwanted on someone will always hurt. Hopefully one day as a society we'll have become accepting and practical about sex and the capability of rape doing damage to people will be lessened. But I don't think it'll be ever the same as assault.

I think someone who is capable of comitting rape has to be mentally ill in some fashion or another. To do that to another human being must represent a complete lack of morality. I don't approve of the death penalty ever being even remotely considered for anything except murder but very long or lifelong prison sentences would be appropriate to punish rape.

1. The wording of your post made it sound like you were saying it came from God. I was just pointing out that it came from Paul, not God.

2. Your post's wording sounded a lot like you were saying that the Bible declares women the property of men outright.

3. If I was wrong on both of the above then I stand corrected. That is how is how I read the wording in your post.

4. Hmmm. I would have expected better than you. Just a moment ago, you said I was detracting from the subject. Here you are, doing it yourself.

5. I must have touched a nerve there. I pass judgment on no one. The reason I say that some gays will have an easier time than straight people who are promiscuos has to do with that fact that promiscuous straight people tend to be arrogant whereas there are gays who are more humble than the typical straight person who has promiscuous sex. It was an observation, not a judgment.
I am not boasting of this. For some reason, it has touched a nerve and now you are upset. I am doing nothing more than recounting my own personal experience. It is nothing I should ashamed of, neither is it something that I should hide. Nor does it make me better than other people. Though I sin not in sex, there have been other areas in which I have sinned. One of which is fabrication of stories. Which I used to do a lot more, to get more support for my side of an issue or an action I wanted to take. Much like how AI is pumping up the numbers in their report to get support for their side of the rape issue. Everyone has their faults. Only Jesus was completely sinless. If you think about that passage you just qouted, he is not saying that it is bad to pray in public places or that it is bad to give gifts that help people. Nor is he saying that it is bad to abstain from sex and then recount your own experience. In fact to do such things in the closet is the same as being ashamed of doing them. And if you are ashamed of that then you are ashamed of God. And if you are ashamed of God, then God will be ashamed of you and shun you.
The problem he was addressing was on of pride. As in the parable he told of two people. A pharisee who went into the city center and began praying loudly, "Thank you God for making me better than these filthy sinners. Thank you for making me cleaner than they." Whereas, nearby, also praying in the city center where there was a lot of people, was a tax collector who prayed, softly, "Forgive my sins Lord...." They were both praying in a place where other people could see them. The difference was that the pharisee had an arrogant attitude and as such his prayers never reached God. The tax collector on the other hand, prostrated himself before God. He knew his own spiritual status and hence, his prayers did reach God.
As for fasting, I don't tell anyone. I just do it. The only time I mention it is when I am offered food during the period in which I am fasting.
It has nothing to do with me being better than anyone else. But I do note, that it does give me a higher moral standing to attack those who criticize people for being morally inferior to themselves.
Sexually speaking, I stand on the moral high ground watching the rest of the world wallow in sin and evil. I don't cast judgment on those below me on this issue. What is the point. Judging it won't make it stop. What I can do from this moral high ground how ever, is raise up a standard that other people can look to for encouragement. That standard includes doing stuff like, if Debbie and Arnold had lots of promiscuous sex when they were younger, and now they are wanting to arrest people for having promiscuos sex, my higher grounding gives me a sacred duty to tap them on the shoulder and remind them of their hypocrisy.
In fact, this is one of the few places where I can justifiably claim the higher ground and hence any sense of superiority over my peers. There are many areas where there are a lot of people who are my moral superiors. But in this one, it can't be denied that I outdo most people out there. But its not something that I brag about everyday.
From your response, I take it that you are offended by this. You ought not to take this to mean that you should be ashamed of stuff you did earlier in your life. They are the past, there is nothing you can do about them except to live a better life now. Feeling bad about them now will get you no where. The best thing to do is learn from them and always keep moving forward with your eyes focused on the future.

I think, if you want to explore this avenue, you should perhaps start a new thread. THis could be the first post in it if you like.

I can see much to object to in your interpretation of scripture... but I'm not going to 'rip it a new one' in THIS thread.

First, I'm going to put your first post here because I want people to see the vitriol with which you entered the thread. Just because you goldfish, doesn't mean we will.
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.

Notice how you claim you were reading my posts. Hmmm... let's see what those posts say.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10610284&postcount=172
Paul actually suggests that if one desires sex that it's the only reason to get married.

Later, you agree with me. Seems for someone who as you put it "has no real knowledge of the Bible", I did pretty well. But then, you could just have been lying when you said you read my posts. I mean this was a whole two posts after the one you replied to. Perhaps reading up to post 172 from post 170 is not something you do before claiming to have read my posts. Honesty - it's not just for Popes.


1. The wording of your post made it sound like you were saying it came from God. I was just pointing out that it came from Paul, not God.

I'm sorry you think your ability to understand my posts is my problem.

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 wishes 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.
Yep. I can see how you got that out of post that references that PAUL said some thin four different times and never mentions God once. Notice how the pronouns aren't capitalized. Notice that I said he WISHES. Why would God have to WISH? Next time, respond to what the post says, not what gives you an opportunity to be correct people who aren't wrong. I believe the words your looking for at this point are "Doh, I'm sorry."

2. Your post's wording sounded a lot like you were saying that the Bible declares women the property of men outright. [/QUOTE]

No. I said it TREATS them like property. Need evidence?

It treats women like property

Hmmmm... I could see how one could miss that it treats them like property. However, I was actually posting that passage because I also said in that same post that it rarely treats marriage like a sacred union and I mentioned in an nearby post that Paul for example treats marriage as if it should be entered into simply for sex. It was in response to Undelia's claim that marriage is all about love in the Bible and procreation and sex are never mentioned in relation to it. I said it was provably false and show that to be true.

3. If I was wrong on both of the above then I stand corrected. That is how is how I read the wording in your post.

Then you should work on that because the fact that you misinterpreted a P word to be G word is a little disconcerting.

4. Hmmm. I would have expected better than you. Just a moment ago, you said I was detracting from the subject. Here you are, doing it yourself.

Yes, I correct people when they're wrong. I'm silly like that. You simply went out of your way to tell us how dirty sex is and how wonderful you are. That's fairly different. I directly responded to the information in your post.

5. I must have touched a nerve there. I pass judgment on no one. The reason I say that some gays will have an easier time than straight people who are promiscuos has to do with that fact that promiscuous straight people tend to be arrogant whereas there are gays who are more humble than the typical straight person who has promiscuous sex. It was an observation, not a judgment.

I'm not angry. I think you're a hypocrite, but I'm not mad about it. You make bizarre comments that have nothing to do with nothing. You suggest you're not judgemental, but you ENTERED the thread attacking me and jumping into a conversation you clearly hadn't actually read (since after saying I didn't know what I was talking about you backed up my point).

I am not boasting of this. For some reason, it has touched a nerve and now you are upset. I am doing nothing more than recounting my own personal experience. It is nothing I should ashamed of, neither is it something that I should hide. Nor does it make me better than other people. Though I sin not in sex, there have been other areas in which I have sinned. One of which is fabrication of stories. Which I used to do a lot more, to get more support for my side of an issue or an action I wanted to take. Much like how AI is pumping up the numbers in their report to get support for their side of the rape issue. Everyone has their faults. Only Jesus was completely sinless. If you think about that passage you just qouted, he is not saying that it is bad to pray in public places or that it is bad to give gifts that help people. Nor is he saying that it is bad to abstain from sex and then recount your own experience. In fact to do such things in the closet is the same as being ashamed of doing them. And if you are ashamed of that then you are ashamed of God. And if you are ashamed of God, then God will be ashamed of you and shun you.

I'm not upset and I'm not talking about me. You clearly miss the point. It doesn't matter how fallible you admit you are. By holding yourself up, out of the blue and for no real reason, you explemplify what Jesus was speaking about. Jesus said to do good things in private and be rewarded in private and do it in public and you have already received your reward. You announced it on the internet completely out of the blue. It had nothing to do with what we were discussing other than the fact that the passage mentioned sex. You jumped all over that opportunity to announce how chaste you are. I'm not upset about it, but you should be.

The problem he was addressing was on of pride. As in the parable he told of two people. A pharisee who went into the city center and began praying loudly, "Thank you God for making me better than these filthy sinners. Thank you for making me cleaner than they." Whereas, nearby, also praying in the city center where there was a lot of people, was a tax collector who prayed, softly, "Forgive my sins Lord...." They were both praying in a place where other people could see them. The difference was that the pharisee had an arrogant attitude and as such his prayers never reached God. The tax collector on the other hand, prostrated himself before God. He knew his own spiritual status and hence, his prayers did reach God.

One, you were being prideful. Second, WHAT? Did you even read that passage? Here, I'll help you out here.

Matthew6:5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Notice he addresses both babbling on and praying in public. Amusingly, that's not the part I was addressing. I was actually pointed out the parts I was talking about.

You gotta love those pharisees who can't wait to show their "good works", the ones that just HAVE to tell you about their fasting or abstaining from sex and how good they are because they do it. The fallacy of Pride. The Bible is riddled with lessons about this fallacy, and so many seem to close their eyes to such lessons.

I love how you act like you're correcting me when I said exactly what you're claiming I didn't get.

The problem he was addressing was on of pride.

As for fasting, I don't tell anyone. I just do it. The only time I mention it is when I am offered food during the period in which I am fasting.

You don't understand do you? You announce your 'fasting from sex' on the internet to everyone here as a point of pride when no one brought it up. I'm fairly certain I wasn't offering you sex, so the part above about fasting is fairly well proven to be false.

Next time, keep your mouth shut and don't announce to your left hand what your right hand is doing.

It has nothing to do with me being better than anyone else. But I do note, that it does give me a higher moral standing to attack those who criticize people for being morally inferior to themselves.

Ha. It doesn't make you better it only 'gives [you] a higher moral standing'? Seriously, the pride is simply flooring. You don't have a higher moral standing than ANYONE else and you are in no position to judge such things. Nor I. No one is. Your position is one of equality and if there is any hierarchy, that hierarchy is for God to decide and no other, prideful one.

Sexually speaking, I stand on the moral high ground watching the rest of the world wallow in sin and evil. I don't cast judgment on those below me on this issue. What is the point. Judging it won't make it stop. What I can do from this moral high ground how ever, is raise up a standard that other people can look to for encouragement. That standard includes doing stuff like, if Debbie and Arnold had lots of promiscuous sex when they were younger, and now they are wanting to arrest people for having promiscuos sex, my higher grounding gives me a sacred duty to tap them on the shoulder and remind them of their hypocrisy.

Ha. Yep, no pride there. It's not enough to read the Bible. You actually have to learn the lessons of it. Particularly the ones about PRIDE. Jesus tells you to keep these kinds of things to yourself, but you know better, huh? He tells you to pray in the corner, but you know better right? He tells you to keep your acts of morality to yourself, but you know better right? Forgive me if I follow his teaching and not yours. I'm pretty certain He had the moral high ground.

In fact, I'm certain the only human being that has ever had the moral high ground is Jesus and it takes a prideful human to say otherwise.

By the way, the hypocrites where the ones who tapped people on the shoulder to tell them about the dust in their eyes while they had a plank in their own. When Jesus said that he wasn't talking about specific areas, he was talking in general. That's also the lesson he teaches when he says "let he who is without sin..." You missed all of that. How about "do not judge"?

Matthew7:1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

He called your behavior, hypocrisy, and called you a hypocrite and you twisted it to your means. How can that be less than PRIDE?

[indent]John 8:1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."[/quote]

He teaches through example and here he teaches that we are not in a position of judgement on any sin unless we are sinless. He doesn't "If any one of you is without THIS sin, let him..."

In fact, this is one of the few places where I can justifiably claim the higher ground and hence any sense of superiority over my peers. There are many areas where there are a lot of people who are my moral superiors. But in this one, it can't be denied that I outdo most people out there. But its not something that I brag about everyday.

"I'm not prideful, I only have a sense of superiority." Son, you are in no position to decide superiority. The PRIDE here is just sad. Jesus said you can NEVER justifiably claim the high ground and that it is what hypocrites and pharisees do. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean it as a compliment.

From your response, I take it that you are offended by this. You ought not to take this to mean that you should be ashamed of stuff you did earlier in your life. They are the past, there is nothing you can do about them except to live a better life now. Feeling bad about them now will get you no where. The best thing to do is learn from them and always keep moving forward with your eyes focused on the future.
I'm not offended. You should be. You needn't be ashamed of your are. But there aren't only two choices, shame and pride. Both are unhealthy acts. Try this. How about confidence and humility? Heard of humility? Try it.

First, I'm going to put your first post here because I want people to see the vitriol with which you entered the thread. Just because you goldfish, doesn't mean we will.


Notice how you claim you were reading my posts. Hmmm... let's see what those posts say.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10610284&postcount=172


Later, you agree with me. Seems for someone who as you put it "has no real knowledge of the Bible", I did pretty well. But then, you could just have been lying when you said you read my posts. I mean this was a whole two posts after the one you replied to. Perhaps reading up to post 172 from post 170 is not something you do before claiming to have read my posts. Honesty - it's not just for Popes.




I'm sorry you think your ability to understand my posts is my problem.


Yep. I can see how you got that out of post that references that PAUL said some thin four different times and never mentions God once. Notice how the pronouns aren't capitalized. Notice that I said he WISHES. Why would God have to WISH? Next time, respond to what the post says, not what gives you an opportunity to be correct people who aren't wrong. I believe the words your looking for at this point are "Doh, I'm sorry."

2. Your post's wording sounded a lot like you were saying that the Bible declares women the property of men outright.

No. I said it TREATS them like property. Need evidence?



Hmmmm... I could see how one could miss that it treats them like property. However, I was actually posting that passage because I also said in that same post that it rarely treats marriage like a sacred union and I mentioned in an nearby post that Paul for example treats marriage as if it should be entered into simply for sex. It was in response to Undelia's claim that marriage is all about love in the Bible and procreation and sex are never mentioned in relation to it. I said it was provably false and show that to be true.



Then you should work on that because the fact that you misinterpreted a P word to be G word is a little disconcerting.



Yes, I correct people when they're wrong. I'm silly like that. You simply went out of your way to tell us how dirty sex is and how wonderful you are. That's fairly different. I directly responded to the information in your post.



I'm not angry. I think you're a hypocrite, but I'm not mad about it. You make bizarre comments that have nothing to do with nothing. You suggest you're not judgemental, but you ENTERED the thread attacking me and jumping into a conversation you clearly hadn't actually read (since after saying I didn't know what I was talking about you backed up my point).



I'm not upset and I'm not talking about me. You clearly miss the point. It doesn't matter how fallible you admit you are. By holding yourself up, out of the blue and for no real reason, you explemplify what Jesus was speaking about. Jesus said to do good things in private and be rewarded in private and do it in public and you have already received your reward. You announced it on the internet completely out of the blue. It had nothing to do with what we were discussing other than the fact that the passage mentioned sex. You jumped all over that opportunity to announce how chaste you are. I'm not upset about it, but you should be.



One, you were being prideful. Second, WHAT? Did you even read that passage? Here, I'll help you out here.

Matthew6:5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Notice he addresses both babbling on and praying in public. Amusingly, that's not the part I was addressing. I was actually pointed out the parts I was talking about.



I love how you act like you're correcting me when I said exactly what you're claiming I didn't get.





You don't understand do you? You announce your 'fasting from sex' on the internet to everyone here as a point of pride when no one brought it up. I'm fairly certain I wasn't offering you sex, so the part above about fasting is fairly well proven to be false.

Next time, keep your mouth shut and don't announce to your left hand what your right hand is doing.



Ha. It doesn't make you better it only 'gives [you] a higher moral standing'? Seriously, the pride is simply flooring. You don't have a higher moral standing than ANYONE else and you are in no position to judge such things. Nor I. No one is. Your position is one of equality and if there is any hierarchy, that hierarchy is for God to decide and no other, prideful one.



Ha. Yep, no pride there. It's not enough to read the Bible. You actually have to learn the lessons of it. Particularly the ones about PRIDE. Jesus tells you to keep these kinds of things to yourself, but you know better, huh? He tells you to pray in the corner, but you know better right? He tells you to keep your acts of morality to yourself, but you know better right? Forgive me if I follow his teaching and not yours. I'm pretty certain He had the moral high ground.

In fact, I'm certain the only human being that has ever had the moral high ground is Jesus and it takes a prideful human to say otherwise.

By the way, the hypocrites where the ones who tapped people on the shoulder to tell them about the dust in their eyes while they had a plank in their own. When Jesus said that he wasn't talking about specific areas, he was talking in general. That's also the lesson he teaches when he says "let he who is without sin..." You missed all of that. How about "do not judge"?

Matthew7:1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

He called your behavior, hypocrisy, and called you a hypocrite and you twisted it to your means. How can that be less than PRIDE?

[indent]John 8:1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

He teaches through example and here he teaches that we are not in a position of judgement on any sin unless we are sinless. He doesn't "If any one of you is without THIS sin, let him..."



"I'm not prideful, I only have a sense of superiority." Son, you are in no position to decide superiority. The PRIDE here is just sad. Jesus said you can NEVER justifiably claim the high ground and that it is what hypocrites and pharisees do. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean it as a compliment.


I'm not offended. You should be. You needn't be ashamed of your are. But there aren't only two choices, shame and pride. Both are unhealthy acts. Try this. How about confidence and humility? Heard of humility? Try it.
Ok. Step back a minute. This has nothing to do with me having pride or being arrogant. You like most people wrongfully think that being a virgin makes a person evil and arrogant.
You say it was not related to what we were talking about. I brought it up to show that it was possible for people to abstain from sex as Paul had done. Now you are the one being prideful and arrogant. You talk about the splinter in my eye when their is a whole plank in your own.
You say I should never mention that I am a virgin and that I should keep to it myself like a closet virgin. I am not a closet virgin. I have nothing to be ashamed of. Nor did Jesus preach that praying in a public place itself was bad.
Now I ask you, what gain do I get from admitting I am a virgin on public internet forum? I will tell you what I gain from it. Absolutely nothing.
In fact, when the subject comes up and I say that I am a virgin (the one thing I have never lied about), people like you come along screaming how evil I am for being a virgin and how evil I am for not hiding it.
I am not ashamed for being virgin, nor am I ashamed for mentioning it when I think it would prove a point. Which in this case it was supposed to.
Most people think it is absolutely impossible to abstain from sex as long as I have. My bringing it up, is not a judgement about others, it is to show that it abstaining for as long as I have, is very much possible for men to do.
Your way of thinking and my way thinking clearly conflict here. You think its bad thing and I think its a good thing.
If you really think that tapping someone on the shoulder and pointing them their hypocrisy is a bad thing, then you need to remember that the same finger points back at you as well. Not just to me or some other guy.

Ok. Step back a minute. This has nothing to do with me having pride or being arrogant. You like most people wrongfully think that being a virgin makes a person evil and arrogant.
You say it was not related to what we were talking about. I brought it up to show that it was possible for people to abstain from sex as Paul had done. Now you are the one being prideful and arrogant. You talk about the splinter in my eye when their is a whole plank in your own.
You say I should never mention that I am a virgin and that I should keep to it myself like a closet virgin. I am not a closet virgin. I have nothing to be ashamed of. Nor did Jesus preach that praying in a public place itself was bad.
Now I ask you, what gain do I get from admitting I am a virgin on public internet forum? I will tell you what I gain from it. Absolutely nothing.
In fact, when the subject comes up and I say that I am a virgin (the one thing I have never lied about), people like you come along screaming how evil I am for being a virgin and how evil I am for not hiding it.
I am not ashamed for being virgin, nor am I ashamed for mentioning it when I think it would prove a point. Which in this case it was supposed to.
Most people think it is absolutely impossible to abstain from sex as long as I have. My bringing it up, is not a judgement about others, it is to show that it abstaining for as long as I have, is very much possible for men to do.
Your way of thinking and my way thinking clearly conflict here. You think its bad thing and I think its a good thing.
If you really think that tapping someone on the shoulder and pointing them their hypocrisy is a bad thing, then you need to remember that the same finger points back at you as well. Not just to me or some other guy.

I still think you should start a separate thread for this.

There are a number of points in this post worth discussing, but not at the cost of further derailing the thread.

Nevermind. I started a thread for this. Please join us there, GnI and Bob -

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10624745&posted=1#post10624745

Ok. Step back a minute. This has nothing to do with me having pride or being arrogant. You like most people wrongfully think that being a virgin makes a person evil and arrogant.

No. I think being a virgin is commendable. However, I think claiming that you have the moral high ground and announcing to the world that you're morally superior, even if it's only in this way, is arrogant. Who you are doesn't make you evil or arrogant. It's what comes out of you that makes you arrogant (I don't judge evil nor do would I guess that you are).

You say it was not related to what we were talking about. I brought it up to show that it was possible for people to abstain from sex as Paul had done. Now you are the one being prideful and arrogant. You talk about the splinter in my eye when their is a whole plank in your own.

Who suggested it wasn't possible? Paul was the one talking about it, not me. I abstained from sex until the first time I fell in love. We viewed ourselves as married and were simply waiting until our parents could plan a ceremony (it was a tradition thing). I was 21. We didn't end up legally marrying, because she cheated. I think sex should be reserved for real love. However, that doesn't give me the moral high ground. Whether I've done well is for God to judge and myself to judge and none other. See the difference in the way I tell that. I did what I thought was the right thing to do. Whether it was is for God to decide. I'm not better than the man who had sex at thirteen and I'm not worse than you despite your claims. T

I don't judge whether you are a moral person or not in terms of sin. I do see that you are prideful and as you have involved me in your pride I'm telling you that you're doing so. I don't think I'm better than you because I'm not boasting about my personal moral achievements. But I do think you would do better to follow the lessons of the Bible and I point you to them.

I have a huge plank in my own eye. I don't judge you in terms of sin. I tell you that you are not of the moral high ground. I didn't say that I was. I dis say you can't be. It's not possible. None of us are good, not one.

You say I should never mention that I am a virgin and that I should keep to it myself like a closet virgin. I am not a closet virgin. I have nothing to be ashamed of. Nor did Jesus preach that praying in a public place itself was bad.

No. I didn't say that. You boasted of it proudly. It wasn't germaine to the conversation. Even if you thought it was germaine. You didn't say, "some can abstain from sex. I do." You gave a good long speech about how you're so good because you abstain from sex and how bad the world is, etc. Those two actions are not equivalent.

Now I ask you, what gain do I get from admitting I am a virgin on public internet forum? I will tell you what I gain from it. Absolutely nothing.

You boasted of it proudly and claimed the moral high ground. It was PRIDEFUL. You don't have to get rewards to be proud. That's the point. Humble yourself, hypocrite.

In fact, when the subject comes up and I say that I am a virgin (the one thing I have never lied about), people like you come along screaming how evil I am for being a virgin and how evil I am for not hiding it.
Really? Quote me. I didn't call you anything for being a virgin. I called you a hypocrite for boasting and being prideful. Virginity has nothing to do with it.

I am not ashamed for being virgin, nor am I ashamed for mentioning it when I think it would prove a point. Which in this case it was supposed to.
Most people think it is absolutely impossible to abstain from sex as long as I have. My bringing it up, is not a judgement about others, it is to show that it abstaining for as long as I have, is very much possible for men to do.

You didn't just bring it up. You boasted. I never chastised you for being a virgin. I never chastised you for even admitting you were a virgin. I chastised you for PRIDE and for claiming superiority. You could have been talking about virginity or barbequeing.

Your way of thinking and my way thinking clearly conflict here. You think its bad thing and I think its a good thing.
If you really think that tapping someone on the shoulder and pointing them their hypocrisy is a bad thing, then you need to remember that the same finger points back at you as well. Not just to me or some other guy.

No, I think it's a great thing. Get off the cross, chop that bad boy up and try building a bridge to the realm of reading comprehension. I'm not claiming the moral high ground here. I know that I am sometimes prideful and I love when people point it out to me. GnI does it all the time. I know that I'm not better than you. But I'm not claiming superiority. You ARE. I'm simply pointing out the fallacy. I'm not judging you as a Christian. I'm debating with you as a person and your failing. You claim moral high ground contrary to EVERY lesson of Jesus. Your virginity is not the problem or a problem at all. It's not even a problem that you mentioned it. It's being boastful and proud that belies your fault here. You don't deserve to be put on a pedestal for your virginity or anything else. You deserve be down here in the muck with the rest of us, doing your best to get yourself clean. Christianity is about personal responsibility, personal accountability, personal relationships with God. The fact that you would interfere with the relationship others have to God is the height of pride. The fact that you think you can EVER speak as a Christian from a position of superiority says you don't read the simplest lesson in the Bible even though you spoke of it earlier.

*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.

Wow...you sound...troubled...you must be really sensitive about this...

Many people today think rape is worse than murder, but it doesn't make sense, because if it was then the victim would kill him or herself and that would be equal to murder.
Some of them do.I'd rather live and be raped than be murdered.
Good for you, but that's subjective.

So... who wants to sign these papers to get Undelia commited as a dangerous sociopath?
I'll sign, in blood no less. *slits wrists (down the street not across the road) so it will be the last act, and therefore lend importance to it.*

My mom was raped by a sisters husband when she was growing up. Try being raised by a rape victim. Oh yeah, and the mental issues that come with it, along with the inherited ones; yeah, my childhood was the best possible. **editted to remove a flame, apologies, but I'm not sorry**

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

Yes, because rape leaves the victim alive to deal with the consequences of what happened to them. Some say "then the victims would just kill themselves" however, this doesn't take into account that suicide also flows contrary to most things in life. Rape pits a victims experience of horrible things with their need to live. That is why many rape victims don't kill themselves. Murder is finite, rape lasts a life time. No victim of rape is ever the same. The rest of their life they must deal with a plethora of feelings. A victim of murder doesn't have anything to deal with. So yes I believe rape is worse.

only if you let it

Let it Let it WTF is wrong with you. Have you ever been raped. Seriously, have you ever talked to a rape victim. There is no "let it" involved. The rest of a victims life a stuggle just to deal with the aftermath. How about you let it happen to you. Then you not let it affect the rest of your life. Afterall, that is the aftermath; that it affects the rest of one's life.

Sounds like your trying to justify murder
Murder can be justified, we do it all the time in war. However, even in war rape is not justfied. Rape is never justified, it is wrong. Pure and simple, not due to social constructions but due to its very nature.

What foul creature out the crypt is this? What slow horror has shumbled from beyond the grave to curse the light once more? What mad being would reanimate DEAD THREADS?!

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.
Then you would be my Gunga Din. For I do, in fact, wish it upon people. I hope for it. But, then again, I am a morally ambiguous person. HOWEVER, I still know rape is wrong.

What foul creature out the crypt is this? What slow horror has shumbled from beyond the grave to curse the light once more? What mad being would reanimate DEAD THREADS?!
And one of my threads no less.

Fucking rofl is all i have to say to this guy, along with a strong wtf?

going back to the original question, I think what may be implied from his question is how would rape be construed in either: a) a society where sex is completely not taboo (like in Brave New World), where everyone has (lets say in a world where AIDS is cured and birth control is 100% effective) guilt free sex or b) in a world where people are defined by their minds and the dualism of mind and body is complete. In the latter case, rape would cause more physical pain. Of course, these are two "for instances" and do not apply to real life.

It's suprise sex.

What foul creature out the crypt is this? What slow horror has shumbled from beyond the grave to curse the light once more? What mad being would reanimate DEAD THREADS?!
I animate dead threads. I am that slow horror. I, and perhaps no other. Why, you ask. Because, I was browsing, read this, and could not restrain myself. Besides, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. And shambling zombies and wailing ghosts tend to hover around me in an imperceptible aura of dread and fear. Not me of them, but them of me. You should see the reactions I get from dogs. And, yet, small children gravitate towards me. Proof we have harmed ourselves. Corruption, that is why I revive the dead. Corruption and wrath, with a bit of loathing thrown in for creative flavor. Yum, necrosis flesh.

I animate dead threads. I am that slow horror. I, and perhaps no other. Why, you ask. Because, I was browsing, read this, and could not restrain myself. Besides, those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. And shambling zombies and wailing ghosts tend to hover around me in an imperceptible aura of dread and fear. Not me of them, but them of me. You should see the reactions I get from dogs. And, yet, small children gravitate towards me. Proof we have harmed ourselves. Corruption, that is why I revive the dead. Corruption and wrath, with a bit of loathing thrown in for creative flavor. Yum, necrosis flesh.
That's nice, but why didn't you just make a new thread instead of trying to bring this one back to life in violation of the rules?

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).

Darwinism only gets one so far. After all, only the most human animals actually rape (monkeys/apes, and dolphins). That tells one something. It shows us that rape is an anomaly. Also many children of rape never make it to term. Sometime the stress is too great and the mother simply aborts it. Now add that to the repercussions and you get another horrible outcome. Looking at rape from a biological and therefore obviously {edit: sarcasm}objective point of view, the health issues it causes, mental and physical, are counterproductive to the continuation of a species such as ours. Abortions, physical and emotional damage; these don't create a good set of circumstances for a child to be born, nor an environment for the facilitation of a healthy offspring.

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

Sex rightfully should have no emotional attachment?

What a novel idea.

You should celebrate the day when you can afford decent sex robots then.

I will personally celebrate the day that you afford decent sex robots, that is certain.

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?

Rape to the victim...is about never feeling safe again. About knowing, deep in your core, that even if you are a good girl, even if you are careful, even if you lock the doors at night, even if you never wear short skirts, even if you are a faithfully married woman with family around her....that there is nothing in the world that can keep you safe, in control of how your body and soul are treated...if someone else has decided they want to violate you.

You are not safe. Never safe. Even moving on, dealing with it, intellectually and emotionally knowing YOU WEREN'T TO BLAME doesn't remove the now inbuilt knowledge that you are only safe because no one has CHOSEN today to violate you.

I don't feel that has got much to do with society's residual inhibitions, sexual liberation or religion? More with the desire to provide a safe place for every one to live and make their own choices in life. Which is an illusion, anyway.

I think that's why rape is considered so awful. We all want to feel safe. But we can't. Rape victims remind of us of this everyday...and we can't fix it for them. Murder victims aren't as visible, thou the crime is as horrific.

The thread may be old, but I am new to it. :-p

I totally agree with kyronea. my girlfriend was raped at the age of 13, and that's how she lost her virginity. something that's THAT emotionally scarring? how can you possibly tell me that that's not the worst possible crime against another human being. I mean, i've been through a LOT of shit during my life, but none of it compares to what she's been through. including beating the rapists to within inches of their lifes, and getting both of them thrown in prison. but none of that even comes close. so SHUT THE FUCK UP.

That's nice, but why didn't you just make a new thread instead of trying to bring this one back to life in violation of the rules?
Simple, this way it allows people to read what was previously written without haveing to find this one and read it. I don't have enough faith in the commitment of other people to track down previously mentioned things, just to gain an understanding of what was said if that is not part of the thread on which they are replying. And, yes, I do have a non-concrete proof (i.e. I don't feel like finding it, needless to say it exists. Find threads in which Straughn has posted on a previously similar topic. People don't go find his arguments.) to base this off of. As to violation of rules, sorry. I couldn't really help myself.

Screw it. This thread's going to get locked because of the gravediging anyway.
I totally agree with kyronea. my girlfriend was raped at the age of 13, and that's how she lost her virginity. something that's THAT emotionally scarring? how can you possibly tell me that that's not the worst possible crime against another human being. I mean, i've been through a LOT of shit during my life, but none of it compares to what she's been through. including beating the rapists to within inches of their lifes, and getting both of them thrown in prison. but none of that even comes close. so SHUT THE FUCK UP.
You're proving my point. Virginity is only considered lofty in our society because we place emotional value on (heterosexual) sex. If we didn't, your entire point is null, which was my point. Rape is bad in our society because of the experiences and expectations of the victim. All I'm saying, is that doesn't mean it's a natural response.

The thread may be old, but I am new to it. :-p

And this also might be a reason. Plus, I know ignorance of a rule doesn't mean the rule doesn't apply, but umm... which rule is it? Where is it? Can I see this list of rules? If I can see them, I might try to follow them. However, I can be a real bastard. I might just quote everything on a thread, just to make sure everything is available, if I were to start a new thread.

and who out of all of you can't honestly say that rape is worse than murder? every day, i hate myself simply because i can't give my girlfriend her dignity or choice back. Fuckers. And, it should have been her choice to share her body for the first time, not have it forced upon her. it has absolutely nothing to do with society's views on virginity. it has to do with respect. fuck.

And this also might be a reason. Plus, I know ignorance of a rule doesn't mean the rule doesn't apply, but umm... which rule is it? Where is it? Can I see this list of rules? If I can see them, I might try to follow them. However, I can be a real bastard. I might just quote everything on a thread, just to make sure everything is available, if I were to start a new thread.
One-Stop-Rules-Shop: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410573

Your thread for all NationStates Forum Rules.

And this also might be a reason. Plus, I know ignorance of a rule doesn't mean the rule doesn't apply, but umm... which rule is it? Where is it? Can I see this list of rules? If I can see them, I might try to follow them. However, I can be a real bastard. I might just quote everything on a thread, just to make sure everything is available, if I were to start a new thread.

When you go to the list of topics, you might note the "sticky" topics that always remain on top. One is supposed to read them all ;)

Screw it. This thread's going to get locked because of the gravediging anyway.

You're proving my point. Virginity is only considered lofty in our society because we place emotional value on (heterosexual) sex. If we didn't, your entire point is null, which was my point. Rape is bad in our society because of the experiences and expectations of the victim. All I'm saying, is that doesn't mean it's a natural response.

I cannot speak for males, but one reason girls place emotional value on losing our virginity because it is something painful (if you still have your hymen) and really very intimidating and scary, to let someone inside your body for the first time. Even knowing as much as I did, using contraception, adoring the my fionce, who was also a virgin...didn't take the whole terrifying, venturing into unexplored territory aspect away from my first time. It was really, really scary. It did mean (10 seconds later) afterwards I was a happy girl.

I didn't have many religious or social hangups regarding losing my virginity (I think) as my only thought was that I was going to wait until I was 16 and it was legal.

Emotion is part of sex for me. I think that is partly due to feminine brain wiring vs male brain wiring. AS in both our brain hemispheres are very interconnected, where as males usually use each one seperately.

On a seperate issue, I have followed links to old threads. Not always, but occasionally.

Screw it. This thread's going to get locked because of the gravediging anyway.
Pretty much.

You're proving my point. Virginity is only considered lofty in our society because we place emotional value on (heterosexual) sex. If we didn't, your entire point is null, which was my point. Rape is bad in our society because of the experiences and expectations of the victim. All I'm saying, is that doesn't mean it's a natural response.
Hmm, I think you may have overlooked both the physical aspects of it as well as the chance of unwanted pregnancies and STDs that may occure do to rape. Those alone would give good reasons as to why rape is bad.

Screw it. This thread's going to get locked because of the gravediging anyway.

You're proving my point. Virginity is only considered lofty in our society because we place emotional value on (heterosexual) sex. If we didn't, your entire point is null, which was my point. Rape is bad in our society because of the experiences and expectations of the victim. All I'm saying, is that doesn't mean it's a natural response.

Perhaps it is the biological responses of our species to place an emotional value on sex. I think the chemicals are oxytocin and testosterone (for some reason I looked it up once, but I deleted the word document that I put it in[didn't think I'd need it]). Oxytocin is produced when people have sex. The more released the more the person wants to cuddle and believe in some value in what has occured. Testosterone does the opposite, IIRC. Not surprisingly, women tend to release more oxytocin than men. Hence why women tend to want to cuddle afterwards and men don't. Therefore, society is actually placing a value upon the biological responses to sex, not some ficticious ideal. Both men and women release both chemicals. Now, put rape in the equation. This is sex based on the need for power and domination. Not for procreation. Add to the fact that a person's body may respond contradictorily (sp?, maybe not even a word) to the person's mental response. Sex with no emotional involvement doesn't equal rape. Which, sometimes, it seems you believe.

POINT??? what point? let's say that, for just one second, we say fuck society's views. OK? let's say that, as it should be, sex is only considered as a way for two people to show that they love each other. as a sort of joining of souls. when they do it for the very first time, it sets a standard for the rest of their similar experiences. if our first sexual experience is one of rape, it will be a lot harder to have sex in the future. or ever again. so don't tell me that it's just because of society's lofty view of virginity.

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?

No. As all the good crime dramas tell us :rolleyes: rape is not even about sex but rather power. While it borders assault in that regard, it departs from that drastically because of the shear emotional domination. It is a personal invasion, in more ways than one. Aside from any question of sexual ethics, it is about power over one's self, and the negating of self-control is what makes it so wrong, in my mind's eye. If you were in control of the situation, it would not be rape.

Fortunatly, I am lucky enough to not no any victims of rape. I defer to those with personal experience, and understand the knee-jerk reaction, because I think it is a fair one. I also respect the question, though it is a tad... blunt?

Go spend a week in an American prison cell with a big black gorilla up your ass every day and then come back and tell us if you feel anything more that "ASSaulted". I think it is difficult for men to imagine the trauma caused to rape victims, unless they were raped themselves. The problem comes with date rape and other "he said , she said" crimes where there is little or no evidence. It can be pretty difficult to prove verbal consent, which is the crux of the rape issue.

14/88

When you go to the list of topics, you might note the "sticky" topics that always remain on top. One is supposed to read them all ;)

Ohhh, thanks. Oh well. Live and learn. I'll read that now.

dude, sex without an emotional response is a fucking hooker. and as for a knee-jerk reaction? my girlfriend told me about it and i broke into tears. it's so evil of a sin, it effects people that it didn't happen to. that's fucked up.

big black gorilla

Racism is unneccessary

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?

OK... apart from society. Apart from religion. Apart from my feelings of incredulity.

Let's go Darwin here. Sex drive is the most basic instinct we have, right there with hunger and fear. Think of the deep pain of rejection or of a breakup. Think of how picky we can be when dating. Or how unpicky we can be when horny.

At any rate, from a Darwinist, naturalistic viewpoint, women don't simply want to carry the seed of any male -- they want to choose the best male sex partner they can. Rape takes away that choice, and perhaps that could be a reason society has made such a law.

But in reality, Undelia, I absolutely resent arguments like yours that takes something greater, or worse, than words can describe, and demands us to take on a completely reductionist view of it in order to satisfy your supposed intellectual superiority.

It geuninely saddens and angers me. Everything is not a philosophical question. Use some common sense, man, and realize that just because you haven't heard a convention explained eloquently enough for you, doesn't mean it's a conspiracy of religious nuts and crooked politicians of antiquity.

you're right, Briau. i myself am a man, and i personally would have no idea what it would be like to be raped, or how i would feel about it or be effected afterwards. it's so fucking heinious that even i can't fathom what it would be like. personally, i am agaoinst all sins to humanity, but the fact that my girlfriend was raped by two men changes even that. one of them is rotting in prison, but one of them got off without being charged. now he's dead. i have been informed that he had his balls cut off and stuffed down his throat. i personally find that disgusting, but he deserved it. that's fucked up.

Go spend a week in an American prison cell with a big black gorilla up your ass every day and then come back and tell us if you feel anything more that "ASSaulted". I think it is difficult for men to imagine the trauma caused to rape victims, unless they were raped themselves. The problem comes with date rape and other "he said , she said" crimes where there is little or no evidence. It can be pretty difficult to prove verbal consent, which is the crux of the rape issue.

14/88

Your first post. How unfortunate that you chose to use it to post something this completely ignorant? Generally, people don't like to be referred to as 'big balck gorillas'. It's not impressive that you try to clear up one ignorant fallacy by introducing another.

Undelia, how dare you? what the fuck do you think you are trying to do, de-personalizing rape? you expect that that is a valid arguement? motherfuckers like you disgust me.

it may have been racist, but i think that it was still a valid point. alright then, a big white gorilla. being a caucasian, i can say that.

Undelia, how dare you? what the fuck do you think you are trying to do, de-personalizing rape? you expect that that is a valid arguement? motherfuckers like you disgust me.

If you don't learn how to express yourself without flaming, I suspect your stint here and Camp NS is going to be a short one. It would be a good idea to involve yourself with the One-Stop Rules Shop which is stickied at the top of this forum.

i have been informed that he had his balls cut off and stuffed down his throat. i personally find that disgusting, but he deserved it. that's fucked up.
Just so you know, if you were forced to testify, it would be heresay (unless the exclaimed it to you). Also the whole aiding and abetting might allow the 5th to apply (if in the US). Not really that f'd up. Think about the tortures/punishments that were previously conceived (i.e. things like pitch hats and the Viking intenstine pull; but even those don't bother me too much).

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?
"Rape isn't a sexual crime. It's a violent crime, except you cum at the end. It's exactly like assault and battery, but you cum at the end." --Adam Carolla
:rolleyes:

That said, rape is in its own class because it is one of the most psychologically traumatic things that can happen to a person. Granted, the stigma historically associated with rape in our culture (and our forebears' culture) can exacerbate the trauma and make it harder to heal. But nevertheless it is an experience that is horrifying at a very basic level. Our physiology associates sexuality with intimacy, and when it becomes associated with violence, that can lead to some very serious issues. It most certainly is a natural response. The question you should be asking is not whether the trauma from rape is to be blamed on our cultural heritage but rather what changes we can make so that victims can find healing more easily.

Screw it. This thread's going to get locked because of the gravediging anyway.

You're proving my point. Virginity is only considered lofty in our society because we place emotional value on (heterosexual) sex. If we didn't, your entire point is null, which was my point. Rape is bad in our society because of the experiences and expectations of the victim. All I'm saying, is that doesn't mean it's a natural response.

Given this argument, and the fact that as human being our experiences and expectations are not homogenous, you should be able to link to numerous people who were raped and thought it was a wildly pleasant experience. I'll wait.

jocabia, fair enough. i'll stop the "flaming". deal.

If you don't learn how to express yourself without flaming, I suspect your stint here and Camp NS is going to be a short one. It would be a good idea to involve yourself with the One-Stop Rules Shop which is stickied at the top of this forum.

Jocabia, I agree with that "flame"... the OP was absurd, and is either a sociopath or a flamebaiter. I don't think there's a middle ground.

jocabia, fair enough. i'll stop the "flaming". deal.

Glad to hear it. I think you probably have a very valid point and much to add to the conversation. However, with the way you're expressing it, you come across as someone very young and/or as someone who has difficulty controlling their temper. Neither of those interpretations of who you are, regardless of whether they are true, are to your benefit. Express yourself clearly and calmly and let people value your contribution on its merits rather than dismissing it because you used the word 'fuck' too many times in a rage.

Although flaming is still to be condemned, you shouldn't be surprised at it in a thread about rape. . . that's a sensitive issue if ever there was one.

"Rape isn't a sexual crime. It's a violent crime, except you cum at the end. It's exactly like assault and battery, but you cum at the end." --Adam Carolla
:rolleyes:

That said, rape is in its own class because it is one of the most psychologically traumatic things that can happen to a person. Granted, the stigma historically associated with rape in our culture (and our forebears' culture) can exacerbate the trauma and make it harder to heal. But nevertheless it is an experience that is horrifying at a very basic level. Our physiology associates sexuality with intimacy, and when it becomes associated with violence, that can lead to some very serious issues. It most certainly is a natural response. The question you should be asking is not whether the trauma from rape is to be blamed on our cultural heritage but rather what changes we can make so that victims can find healing more easily.
there is no healing from rape, not on the level that you claim. and the statement that it is the same as assault and battery is disguisting. i mean fuck. punching someone in the nose and fucking them against their will is as different as night and day.

Jocabia, I agree with that "flame"... the OP was absurd, and is either a sociopath or a flamebaiter. I don't think there's a middle ground.

Or someone exploring a topic on an internet board. Regardless of whether you agree with calling someone names, it is against the rules as set forth and linked in this thread. You'd do well you familiarize yourself with those rules. If you think the OP has a point that is so easy to invalidate, do so. Given that only a sociopath or a flamebaiter would agree with him, according to you, you should be able to do so handily in just a couple of posts.

it may have been racist, but i think that it was still a valid point. alright then, a big white gorilla. being a caucasian, i can say that.
Actually, due to the fact that gorilla has historically been used as a racial slur against people of African descent, that would be an albino person of african descent not a caucasian. The whole point is that the "gorilla" comment showed a racist view point of the poster. Monkey, ape, gorilla have, historically, all been used as racial slurs against people of African descent specifically. I can't think of any instance when it was used against a caucasian.

Actually, due to the fact that gorilla has historically been used as a racial slur against people of African descent, that would be an albino person of african descent not a caucasian. The whole point is that the "gorilla" comment showed a racist view point of the poster. Monkey, ape, gorilla have, historically, all been used as racial slurs against people of African descent specifically. I can't think of any instance when it was used against a caucasian.

To be fair, it was fairly commonly used against several minorities. Japanese instantly springs to mind during WWII.

again, jacobia, valid point. i just happen to find it a very sensitive issue. and i swear a lot. but think about it. i disagree with the statement that it makes me look like someone very young, it just touches a very sensitive nerve.

Or someone exploring a topic on an internet board. Regardless of whether you agree with calling someone names, it is against the rules as set forth and linked in this thread. You'd do well you familiarize yourself with those rules. If you think the OP has a point that is so easy to invalidate, do so. Given that only a sociopath or a flamebaiter would agree with him, according to you, you should be able to do so handily in just a couple of posts.

Well, I know this is a foreign concept to many of us at NSG, but some topics don't deserve dignified debate. Some of them deserve to be dismissed as patently absurd.

This board bans all kinds of offensive stuff... swastikas, etc... but allows people to argue that rape isn't that bad... good God, that is more offensive to more people in a PERSONAL sense than any symbol.

Good night all.

fine, then substitute gorilla with any other animal. just to get the guy's point across without sounding ignorant.

the arguement isn't how bad rape is, but rather why it is bad.

I think it is terrible assault is as well. if everyone showed an :upyours: to it then everyne would be like :cool: , :) , :D or possibly :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

I think it is terrible assault is as well. if everyone showed an :upyours: to it then everyne would be like :cool: , :) , :D or possibly :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

What the Hell did you just say?

there is no healing from rape, not on the level that you claim. and the statement that it is the same as assault and battery is disguisting. i mean fuck. punching someone in the nose and fucking them against their will is as different as night and day.
Ok, first of all, Adam Carolla was being sarcastic when he said that. Sarcastic or caustic or something along those lines. I don't agree with the statement (hence the :rolleyes: ), it just came to mind.

Second of all, there can be healing from rape--I don't know what level you think I'm claiming, but I'm certainly NOT claiming that you can somehow just wipe the problem and the memory completely away. However, you can certainly do things do help deal with the problem. Like therapy.

Oh, and I have used the term "gorilla" in describing one of my friends... it was not as a racial slur, and I was hardly aware at the time of its connotation as a racial slur. And although the above usage of it was clearly racist (despite the attempted amendment), do not assume that it is always used as such.

I think it is terrible assault is as well. if everyone showed an :upyours: to it then everyne would be like :cool: , :) , :D or possibly :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
way what?

And one more thing: the originial question could have been purely and harmlessly intellectual, and I had little problem with it. However, that proved to not be the case when OP repeatedly minimized the trauma of rape, and tried to turn it into an academic/philosophical matter for the sake of an argument... to me, that's not cool.

Really now, good night.

To be fair, it was fairly commonly used against several minorities. Japanese instantly springs to mind during WWII.
True, I accept the correction. I even thought about that just as I hit the submit reply button. However, IIRC it has been used far more prolifically against blacks.

again, it sounds like they're just de-personalizing rape. no wonder it's just not cool. and as for the racist comment, the poor guy says he's sorry, and i'm willing to forgive him.

fine, then substitute gorilla with any other animal. just to get the guy's point across without sounding ignorant.
How about yetis? They're white.

Well, I know this is a foreign concept to many of us at NSG, but some topics don't deserve dignified debate. Some of them deserve to be dismissed as patently absurd.
Here at NS, we will NEVER no never drop a topic until we've pinned the blame on religion or satisfied ourselves that it's impossible :rolleyes: . You should know that by now.

How about yetis? They're white.

I only know of cracker.

how about cracker yeti? do we all agree with that?

how about cracker yeti? do we all agree with that?

No, their penises are too big. :P

how did the topic change from rape to cracker-yeti penises?

how did the topic change from rape to cracker-yeti penises?

Humor?

well, as much as i'd like to talke about the social implications of rape, i gotta go. If you're on NS, go to the region of jethnea. search for the republic of A-lex. talk to me any time and i'll answer. later y'all

Hmm, I think you may have overlooked both the physical aspects of it as well as the chance of unwanted pregnancies and STDs that may occure do to rape. Those alone would give good reasons as to why rape is bad.
Look. Somebody actually answered the question. Though, with abortion, pregnancy is fairly avoidable, but you have a point with the whole STD thing.

Look. Somebody actually answered the question. Though, with abortion, pregnancy is fairly avoidable, but you have a point with the whole STD thing.
Hey, I answered the question. In a few different posts. Granted, the first was a little uncouth, but did you read the one about oxytocin and testosterone. I'll try to find the article if you wish. But I need to sleep now.

how did the topic change from rape to cracker-yeti penises?
With great and disastrous speed?

I think we forgot 'honky' for white slurs. . .

With great and disastrous speed?

I think we forgot 'honky' for white slurs. . .
I wonder if man_in_black will show up now. I know, I have not been given permission to call him that, so I shant. However, I didn't forget it. I just find it too funny to take seriously. I mean really, have you heard someone say honkey and not had even the slightest urge to laugh.

how did the topic change from rape to cracker-yeti penises?
You, I believe. You with your suggestion of some other animal. I mean really, how could you not expect cracker-yeti penises to brought into the mix. I was kind of expecting it since the racism part was introduced.

I wonder if man_in_black will show up now. I know, I have not been given permission to call him that, so I shant. However, I didn't forget it. I just find it too funny to take seriously. I mean really, have you heard someone say honkey and not had even the slightest urge to laugh.
You're right, I can't help myself from grinning at the term.

I wonder if man_in_black will show up now. I know, I have not been given permission to call him that, so I shant. However, I didn't forget it. I just find it too funny to take seriously. I mean really, have you heard someone say honkey and not had even the slightest urge to laugh.

Man in Black? If we're thinking of the same guy, I know him from another forum.

Man in Black? If we're thinking of the same guy, I know him from another forum.
Probably. I know that he and Straughn came to an understanding regarding the word honkey. However, the agreement is between them, so the privileges stay within the bounds of the parties involved.

I think it'd help to view sex in a detached sense like any other property. Taking that into account, the theft of a quilt your grandmother made for you when you were young right before she died is more valuable than the theft of a quilt from the flea market. In a similar sense, although no one consents to theft, I'd sooner approve of the theft of my wristwatch than I would to the theft of my grandfather's pocketwatch, which is of less monetary value but greater personal value. Sex is a personal act, done between people for either emotional gain, physical pleasure, or reproduction (or some combination thereof). When being raped, the victim recieves none of these (well, reproduction- but forced-pregnancy is another issue altogether), and even with an emotional detachment there is no pleasure to be had (Don't know about you, but I wouldn't take pleasure in being forcibly penetrated). So, from how I see it, when something of a personal nature is taken from someone by force- it constitutes a severe crime, far more severe than something impersonal being taken by force, or merely being done harm by force. On a similar topic, imagine if someone's reproductive rights were taken away by force. Reproduction, much like sexuality, is considered to be an area where personal choice plays a VERY important role. Imagine your reproductive rights being taken by force (visualize being grabbed by government agents and being taken somewhere where a guy is "milked" against his will by having a syringe take sperm from his vas deferens and that semen is then placed into a fertile woman, who is also having this done against her will) This, to me, constitutes an unspeakable violation of personal choice. Rape goes in a similar vein, with sex being the choice of the individual to give.

again, jacobia, valid point. i just happen to find it a very sensitive issue. and i swear a lot. but think about it. i disagree with the statement that it makes me look like someone very young, it just touches a very sensitive nerve.

I'm certain you do and I'm certain it does. You'll find swearing to become more and more rare in intellectual conversation as you age.

Well, I know this is a foreign concept to many of us at NSG, but some topics don't deserve dignified debate. Some of them deserve to be dismissed as patently absurd.

This board bans all kinds of offensive stuff... swastikas, etc... but allows people to argue that rape isn't that bad... good God, that is more offensive to more people in a PERSONAL sense than any symbol.

Good night all.

If you don't understand the difference between a swastika and a conversation then I can't help, my friend.

If the topic doesn't deserve dignified debate, you'd be doing yourself a favor by avoiding it.

I have only read the first page, but I have to say
IMHO murder is worse than rape, you can recover from rape, but you can't recover from death

I think it's because society is neurotic about sex. If someone pinned me down and stuck his or her finger with a small cut on it up my nose multiple times, would that be rape? Lets see...

Penetration...

Risk of disease...

Emotional trauma...

It should be...it wouldn't be...

If you don't understand the difference between a swastika and a conversation then I can't help, my friend.
I believe the person views this thread as flamebaiting. However, if they feel that way, they shouldn't respond. Swastikas and conversations aren't the same. But some of the OP's comments and those of others cause people to think of the OP (and the aforementioned others) as callous, monstrous, and horribly lacking in common sense and common decency (not that which is gathered from society, but that which is gathered from personal experience and extrapolating one's reactions to other circumstances that contain similar elements)

If the topic doesn't deserve dignified debate, you'd be doing yourself a favor by avoiding it. Agreed. And, aside from my initial aghast reaction, I do believe this topic should be debated. If only to provide three things. 1)A way for people to learn how to debate with facts and logic, not emotions. Which are far easier to debate with since they don't need to be backed up. 2)Practice in articulating ones thoughts so they can be comprehended by others. 3)A pointless debate to while away the hours. Afterall; logically, emotionally, and from experience (others, and mine of similar elements and nature but not the same) rape is wrong.

I have given reason why it is wrong. Reasons from the standpoint of a son of a rape victim, reasons from a darwinian standpoint, reasons from a biological standpoint, and emotionally, well, that's part of the whole extrapolating bit.

death is too good for rapists

sodomise them daily i say!

I think it's because society is neurotic about sex. If someone pinned me down and stuck his or her finger with a small cut on it up my nose multiple times, would that be rape? Lets see...

Penetration...

Risk of disease...

Emotional trauma...

It should be...it wouldn't be...

I think it would be illegal transportation of mucus.

Firstly, I'd like to point out that nowhere is Undelia saying that rape isn't an incredibly traumatic event for victims. He's just questioning why it is traumatic, and whether - in a different society - it would be viewed differently.

Secondly, I guess one thing that springs to mind (after an initial knee jerk-reaction which won't add much to the debate) is children who are sexually abused. They don't have the same views of sex, the same morality formed in their mind, the same impacts from society, and probably learn to view being raped as normal. However, the experience still has effects on them throughout life. They still have a strong sense of it being wrong, feel violated, can lose trust in all people and have broken down relationships because of it, can feel unsafe and unloved deep down, feel dirty and used... many of the psychological aspects are still there, despite a lack of development in their view of sex and probably being raised to think this behaviour is normal.

I think it's because society is neurotic about sex. If someone pinned me down and stuck his or her finger with a small cut on it up my nose multiple times, would that be rape? Lets see...

Penetration...

Risk of disease...

Emotional trauma...

It should be...it wouldn't be...
It depends, do you have the same reations to picking your nose and having others do the same, as you do to masturbation and sex. If so, that is possibly the easiest and most publically easy-to-pull-off-without-getting-caught-orgasm that I have ever heard of. What's your secret? Personally I think I would enjoy doing that at churches and community centers. Does it also occur if you just rub the outside of the nostrils, causing friction on the interior, or is penetration of a digit or other appendage necessary?.

death is too good for rapists

sodomise them daily i say!
Yeah, if we just rape the rapists, there'll be no more rape...

Oh, wait a minute. There would.
____________________________

At any rate, as to whether it is inherently traumatic or is a learned thing, I just have to say that my cat absolutely abhors even being held still for two minutes so that we can trim his claws. If you want to claim that that's a result of his Judeo-Christian cultural heritage, fine.

It depends, do you have the same reations to picking your nose and having others do the same, as you do to masturbation and sex. If so, that is possibly the easiest and most publically easy-to-pull-off-without-getting-caught-orgasm that I have ever heard of. What's your secret? Personally I think I would enjoy doing that at churches and community centers. Does it also occur if you just rub the outside of the nostrils, causing friction on the interior, or is penetration of a digit or other appendage necessary?.
This thread is getting really weird... I think I get your point, but damn, that's a strange way to put it.

Oh yeah, Jocabia, as for the swear word and youngness thing: I think it's more the lack of capitalization which implies the youth. With proper grammar, cursing can be used effectively and without seeming boorish.

[QUOTE=Glitziness]Firstly, I'd like to point out that nowhere is Undelia saying that rape isn't an incredibly traumatic event for victims. He's just questioning why it is traumatic, and whether - in a different society - it would be viewed differently. [QUOTE]
Except that in some of his posts he seems to be marginalizing the emotional aspect of it in search for some completely logical and scientific explanation.

Firstly, I'd like to point out that nowhere is Undelia saying that rape isn't an incredibly traumatic event for victims. He's just questioning why it is traumatic, and whether - in a different society - it would be viewed differently.
Except that in some of his posts he seems to be marginalizing the emotional aspect of it in search for some completely logical and scientific explanation.
Oh, come on, we all know that any emotional experience can be fully understood if you approach it from a sociologist's point of view :rolleyes:

It depends, do you have the same reations to picking your nose and having others do the same, as you do to masturbation and sex. If so, that is possibly the easiest and most publically easy-to-pull-off-without-getting-caught-orgasm that I have ever heard of. What's your secret? Personally I think I would enjoy doing that at churches and community centers. Does it also occur if you just rub the outside of the nostrils, causing friction on the interior, or is penetration of a digit or other appendage necessary?. My point exactly. If soceity weren't so neurotic about sex, rape wouldn't be much different than someone else picking my nose without my consent. Why? Because rape is about control, not sex. So rape has very little to do with the orgasm, just controlling the victim of the rape, violating them. If we weren't all crazy when it came to sex, it would be no different than someone picking my nose.

My point exactly. If soceity weren't so neurotic about sex, rape wouldn't be much different than someone else picking my nose without my consent. Why? Because rape is about control, not sex. So rape has very little to do with the orgasm, just controlling the victim of the rape, violating them. If we weren't all crazy when it came to sex, it would be no different than someone picking my nose.
I think that's the most absolutely idiotic and poorly thought out idea I've ever heard in my life. First of all, rape is not about "control". It's about animal instincts unregulated by conscience. The only thing that our culture's sexual neurosis really does is make it more shameful for the victim afterwards.

Pal--lard, I suggest that you take your ideas about society and shove them up your ass. Repeatedly, for several minutes.

Oh, come on, we all know that any emotional experience can be fully understood if you approach it from a sociologist's point of view :rolleyes:
Oh right, I forgot. The only way to understand human response is to divest one's self from that human aspect of their own being. Damn, I knew I forgot something *flips through some pages, stops... flips a few more, stops... scribbles down some notes, slams book shut* Sorry, was just fileing that bit of bullshit away for future use. It should come in handy when I next need to debate with my history teacher about the fact that defunct societies are not accurately portrayed due to the fact that we use a filter of our own... which gets us back to the original topic. The effect of societary influences on something as heinous as rape. Gotta agree with the :rolleyes:.

Except that in some of his posts he seems to be marginalizing the emotional aspect of it in search for some completely logical and scientific explanation.
I don't think he's saying that the emotional aspect doesn't exist. It obviously does and he reaffirms that and it's the very thing he's questioning.

Him taking that away, or asking if it can be taken away, however disturbing the question may feel, is perfectly valid and worthwhile because if it were a vague possible, would we not want to look into it and decrease the traumatisation of rape victims?

I simply think that this is not possible to the extent he poses it may be. I definitly recognise the huge effect society does have on rape victims, and I think any rape victim would agree that peoples' reactions and worries about peoples' reactions, and the general view people hold about rape does have a large impact and makes it all harder to deal with. However I do believe rape is an incredibly awful experience devoid of all this, and something uncompareable to anything else.

Pal--lard, I suggest that you take your ideas about society and shove them up your ass. Repeatedly, for several minutes.

I've tried that before. It feels really strange, but good.

First of all, rape is not about "control". It's about animal instincts unregulated by conscience.
Actually, while I'm on your "side" of the argument, the vast majority of psychologists and psychiatrists agree that rape is an act of gaining power and control over someone, sometimes mixed with sadism.

However, I'm not sure how that means you can equate picking someone's nose to intercourse.

I think that's the most absolutely idiotic and poorly thought out idea I've ever heard in my life. First of all, rape is not about "control". It's about animal instincts unregulated by conscience. The only thing that our culture's sexual neurosis really does is make it more shameful for the victim afterwards.

Pal--lard, I suggest that you take your ideas about society and shove them up your ass. Repeatedly, for several minutes.
Incorrect.

Most rapists plan out their rapes, and go on to rape again. Also, most rape victims know their rapist, meaning the rapist must plan to see their victim, or know where they are, or something of that manner. Not exactly animal instinct now is it?

I've tried that before. It feels really strange, but good.
Why is there no vomit smilie?:confused: :eek: :headbang: :sniper: :(
I hope those captured my feeling.

At any rate, when rape happens in the animal world, the victims sure as hell don't like it. Partly because it's often quite violent, but still. I know that we can't measure the effect on a hen's self-esteem, but they definitely don't like it. Therefore I'm going to make the bold assertion that being held down and having a penis rammed into you against your will is an unpleasant experience no matter what. Our more complicated minds just mean that the repercussions are more complicated.

Incorrect.

Most rapists plan out their rapes, and go on to rape again. Also, most rape victims know their rapist, meaning the rapist must plan to see their victim, or know where they are, or something of that manner. Not exactly animal instinct now is it?

i suppose it's animal in the sense that it's predatory

My point exactly. If soceity weren't so neurotic about sex, rape wouldn't be much different than someone else picking my nose without my consent. Why? Because rape is about control, not sex. So rape has very little to do with the orgasm, just controlling the victim of the rape, violating them. If we weren't all crazy when it came to sex, it would be no different than someone picking my nose.
I have had someone else pick my nose. It creeped the hell out of me. Because of that and other reasons, I still involutarily lash out at people that even motion within a foot of my head. Usually I hit a nerve ending and cause them great pain. Now extrapolate that to rape... hmm not a pretty thing. Rape is about control, yet it still deals with the orgasm. Why? Because the body responds to the stimulation, therefore it may orgasm. Many rapists use that as justification that the victim really wanted it. They even use that sometimes unavoidable bodily function to coerce the victim into blaiming themselves. Also on the rapists side, an orgasm inside the victim lays claim to them, further extending their sense of power and control. BTW, by crazy do you prudish? If so I am not "crazy" about sex. That doesn't mean that I want to be raped, which seems to be almost what you are suggesting. Only people crazy (prudish) about sex need fear rape; therefore, anyone not crazy (prudish) about sex either want to be raped or don't have a problem with it. If I could orgasm by picking my nose, I definately wouldn't let people finger my nostrils. Again, it would be about control. They would be controlling a function of my body against my will.

Why is there no vomit smilie?:confused: :eek: :headbang: :sniper: :(
I hope those captured my feeling.

Maybe I should have put a ":P" in there...

Maybe I should have put a ":P" in there...
My reaction is the same. DON'T JOKE ABOUT THAT!!!!

Incorrect.

Most rapists plan out their rapes, and go on to rape again. Also, most rape victims know their rapist, meaning the rapist must plan to see their victim, or know where they are, or something of that manner. Not exactly animal instinct now is it?
Can you at least get me a source on that first bit? I still don't see what part isn't animal instinct. Even assuming what you say is correct, it is totally animal instinct. First of all, the sexual drive. That's the primary motivator. If it were about control, rapists would just tie their victims up and beat them or something. And just because a rapist knows someone doesn't mean it was premeditated. It just means that the rapist sees that person more often than they do some stranger. At any rate, sex is an animal instinct, and even if it is about control, the alpha male thing is a very animal instinct.

Does anyone else here find it peculiar that some people who ardently argued on this topic about how terrible rape is turn around and advocate raping the original poster? Surely, rape is trauma that no one should experience nor wish upon someone else.

Furthermore, from my interpretation of the original article, I don’t think that Undelia is trying to belittle the suffering that rape victims experience in any way; but rather raise and honest question about why rapists are punished out of proportion with those who have committed similar crimes. If anything, the question introduced is very provocative and I can understand why it is arousing such passionate responses. But to amount to some rather hateful and vicious responses…please, we are civilized people here. No one should have to endure degradation for expressing one’s views, no matter how unpopular they may be as long as they are expressed without malicious intent. And I honestly don’t believe that Undelia was trying to hurt anyone.

There were a few points that I saw repeatedly that I would like to comment on.

1. Many posters accused Undelia of defending rape.

I don’t think anyone on this thread truly supports rape and I hope that those who suggested that Undelia be raped do not seriously think so.

2. Rape is far worse than physical assault because it leaves emotional pain, which physical assault doesn’t.

I don’t think that one can dismissively consider physical assault far less serious than rape anymore than one can consider rape less serious than physical assault. They both inflict terrible pain upon the victim and are experiences that no one should have to endure. Furthermore, it is fallacious to assume that physical assault does not leave emotional pain. A lot of assaults do and many assault victims never fully recover from the trauma, especially from cases of hate crimes.

Kyronea
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.

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.

I’m sorry to hear about your girlfriend and your sisters and I hope that they are safe and recovered now. But please, do not get angry at Undelia. If you don’t agree with him, you don’t have to tell him to “shut the fuck up.”


Undelia
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 consider myself to be an advocate of greater sexual liberation, but no one should be forced to commit a sexual act against his or her will. Sex should not inflict unwanted suffering. As for whether or not the American legal system might have had less severe punishments for rapists under a different set of values, I see no reason to suppose that is not the case.

Poliwanacraca
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.

I disagree with the reasoning that people who have sex without love necessarily feel less than human, nor do I find it degrading. I personally believe in love and feel that it is far more worthwhile than sex. However, I do not believe that I have any right to judge the sexual behavior of others as long as the sex is consensual. Every individual has unique sexual drives and attitudes towards sex. If it brings them happiness and cause no harm to anyone, then I have a hard time finding it repulsive.

Oneiro
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.

I mostly agree with you except in the interpretation that Undelia is trying to advocate devolving society into predatory herds. If anything, I think that Undelia is merely questioning an assumption about societal customs; some of which may be beneficial while some may be harmful.

Laerod
I don't think I need society to tell me that it feels worse to be raped than to be robbed

It depends upon the individual situation and the individual person (not that either option is appealing). The legal definition of physical assault may include being beaten within an inch of one’s life and is considered a separate event from robbery.


Oneiro
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...

Just as it would be fallacious to assume that a person is completely isolated from society (with very few exceptions), it would be fallacious to assume that an individual cannot construct a set of morals independently of society. Such morals may not reflect what many of us are accustomed to, however they are still a set of morals nonetheless. Also, I feel that the analogy with Newton is unfair. It does not show an example of how society’s laws promoted the advancement of “the species.” In fact, Newton composed his theories of gravity and the Calculus at home alone because Cambridge had closed due to the plague. This is not to say that Newton completed his accomplishment without the influence of others. Most certainly, he could not have done it without benefiting from the works of Galileo, Kepler, Cavalieri, Torricelli, Descarte, Fermat, and Wallis. This is why he once said that “if [he] had seen farther than others, it is because [he] stood on the shoulders of giants.” None of this, however, suggests that morals or conventional thought advanced his discovery. In fact, the morals and conventional thoughts at the time 1.) threw Galileo into prison where he was tortured 2.) accused Kepler’s mother of being a witch 3.) banned Torricelli from his hometown and several universities because people thought that his experiments were products of the occult 4.) prevented Descarte from going further than he did 5.) prevented Fermat from publishing a lot of his works 6.) resulted in a civil war during the life of Wallis and 7.) was considered a nuisance by Newton.

Fair Progress
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.

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

I don’t think anyone here is questioning that rape is an unspeakably terrible experience. And I truly hope that you do not seriously wish for anyone to be raped. Read Undelia’s post again. It is not saying that rape should by any means be condoned nor considered anything less than hell. Rather, Undelia is asking whether or not the punishment for rape is taken out of proportion to the crime.

Anarchic Christians
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.

While it is true that various cultures at various times held different opinions about the nature of rape, I would like to believe that we have moved past the age when societies had no qualms with people dying on the streets. The Social-Darwinist argument is a terrible concept (as well as a mutilation of science) and I find it hard to accept that the strong have any right to abuse the weak. They may have the power to do so. But power rarely determines what is right.

So I suppose to answer Undelia’s original questions:

Why is rape considered so terrible?

It is an unjust that creates unwarranted damage and injury to individuals against their wills.

Is it right for rapists to be sentenced more harshly than perpetrators of similar crimes?

In my opinion, no. Punishment should be appropriate for the crime. The punishement of rape should be similar to that of a crime of equally horrendous magnitude

Were harsher rapist sentences a result of social values?

As this forum has clearly indicated, most definitely.

I don't think he's saying that the emotional aspect doesn't exist. It obviously does and he reaffirms that and it's the very thing he's questioning.

Him taking that away, or asking if it can be taken away, however disturbing the question may feel, is perfectly valid and worthwhile because if it were a vague possible, would we not want to look into it and decrease the traumatisation of rape victims?
I guess, because I have looked into the chemical reactions of the human body during and after intercourse, it seems that the OP is marginalizing the emotional aspect by trying to separate emotions from biological responses. Some emotional responses are learned, yes. However, the body produces chemicals that control these and others. The whole oxytocin and testosterone thing. Here let me go find that article.

in your bible it is said men raped other men to mark them as females and no more warriors.
Rape was the mark of the strongest.

In your middle dark age the local prince had to be the first to fuck the promised, it was rape.

Rape is now a bit down 'coz your egalitarism hypocritical establishment says you're all equal...
Dream about it. You're equal to be the slave to sale shit to other slaves.
The prince fuck you by taxing you, the promised is no more a virgin and give her money to the big machine.
That's enough. Rape has a new form to show you're not good to fight the corporate, it's well established you're the female passive partner of this system exploiting your credulity.

Amen

Why is there no vomit smilie?:confused: :eek: :headbang: :sniper: :(
Perhaps because the whole cracker-yeti penis thing, perhaps the whole nose orgasm thing.

For United Chicken Kleptos: To borrow these ideas from a friend: Have you ever tried masturbating with wasabi and a cheese grater, or maybe a saurkraut enema? (Thank you Straughn... oh, Anglachel and Anguirel, maybe no vomit smilies because people have read what Straughn posts).

Random tidbit: in certain Middle Eastern cultures, being raped is worthy of death. Some weird stigma they have about shame. So regardless of our own sexual neuroses, it could certainly be worse.

in your bible it is said men raped other men to mark them as females and no more warriors.
Rape was the mark of the strongest.

In your middle dark age the local prince had to be the first to fuck the promised, it was rape.

Rape is now a bit down 'coz your egalitarism hypocritical establishment says you're all equal...
Dream about it. You're equal to be the slave to sale shit to other slaves.
The prince fuck you by taxing you, the promised is no more a virgin and give her money to the big machine.
That's enough. Rape has a new form to show you're not good to fight the corporate, it's well established you're the female passive partner of this system exploiting your credulity.
My middle dark ages, eh? Mine? I wasn't around, so I don't think they're really mine. I mean, that's like calling it "MY big bang" or "MY Battle of New Orleans." I really don't own any of them, and they really can't be called mine. I know you're trying to set yourself apart, but whatever.

Jesuites, I am ignoring all the points you made for several reasons:
1) They're unintelligible
2) You didn't capitalize the first word of your first sentence. That's inexcusable
3) You're spouting sewage
4) I think you're a commie
5) You're paranoid
6) I'm starting to understand what you mean and only reinforcing my desire not to put up with you

in your bible it is said men raped other men to mark them as females and no more warriors.
Rape was the mark of the strongest.
The bible also said a bunch of other F*CKED up stuff.

Rape is now a bit down 'coz your egalitarism hypocritical establishment says you're all equal...
Dream about it. You're equal to be the slave to sale shit to other slaves.
The prince fuck you by taxing you, the promised is no more a virgin and give her money to the big machine.
That's enough. Rape has a new form to show you're not good to fight the corporate, it's well established you're the female passive partner of this system exploiting your credulity.

Amen

Okay, hmm, I think you need learn a bit of varying degrees. Taxes don't equal a big fat purple-headed bulging vein up one's ass, mouth, or vagina (said in that order because both males and females have asses and mouths, but only females have vaginas... excluding operations... not to convey any sort of prominence). Also, I am having trouble understanding all of the nuances of what you are trying to say. Sorry. However, we are talking literal rape, not poetic, nor theoretical, nor non-physical rape.

For United Chicken Kleptos: To borrow these ideas from a friend: Have you ever tried masturbating with wasabi and a cheese grater, or maybe a saurkraut enema?

o.0

Your friend needs to get laid.

And yes, that's a no.

o.0

Your friend needs to get laid.
If that's how he masturbates, I wouldn't want to find out how he has sex.

My reaction is the same. DON'T JOKE ABOUT THAT!!!!
Why not?

If it were about control, rapists would just tie their victims up and beat them or something. And just because a rapist knows someone doesn't mean it was premeditated. It just means that the rapist sees that person more often than they do some stranger. At any rate, sex is an animal instinct, and even if it is about control, the alpha male thing is a very animal instinct.
Except that not everyone enjoys the same form of control. I for instance, derive great pleasure from saying a few words and getting people (friends, acquaintences, no one is safe) to do what I suggest. Things they would necessarily do. By your logic every murderer would have the same M.O.: find victim, shot with gun. However, we know that is not true. The details change even if the end result differs. Hence, the actions are not animalistic. Some rapist like to make the victim choose, either rape or something they think is more horrendous. Very few things establish a sense of control than rape. Why, because it satisfies; that animalistic urge that you parade around so much; a sense of domination only felt through torture; and a lasting impression upon the victim. Rapist enjoy the idea that they will be remembered by their victims until the victim dies. Even if the rapist were to be sent to jail, the victim remembers; even if the rapist is killed, the victim remembers. Rape satisfies another human issue. Not a purely animalistic one. The human need to be remembered. As to the sees the person more often bit; how'd Hannible put it... "We covet what we see." A rapist begins to covet that which they see most often, that fits their particular fetish. Your argument reminds me of that Family guy episode "You can't hug your kids with nuclear arms"

Can you at least get me a source on that first bit?
Rape has been regarded as "a crime of violence and control" since the 1970s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape
Sexual assault is a crime motivated by a need to control, humiliate and harm. Perpetrators use sexual assault as a weapon to hurt and dominate others.
http://www.rainn.org/types-of-assault/sexual-assault.html
"Rape is not about sex to the rapist; it has to do with control and power." “Experts say that rape is an expression of sexual aggression rather than an expression of sexuality. Rape is rooted in nonsexual motivation in the psychology of the offender; it is tied to hostility and anger and the need to exert power and control.”
http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip//wp.html
Fact: Rape is not about sexual preference or desire - it is an act of power and control. The motivation of the rapist is to humiliate and brutalize another person. A survey of convicted rapists found that at least half of these men did not care about the sex of their victims; they raped both men and women.
http://www.crescentlife.com/psychissues/myths_about_male_rape.htm
RAPE is an act of violence. It is an attempt to control and degrade using sex as a weapon.
http://www.cityofmesa.org/police/literature/rape.asp
Sexual assault crimes are motivated by the need to control, humiliate and harm
http://www.alternet.org/story/38334/
Sexual assault and rape are acts of violence
www.ncpc.org/cms/cms-upload/ncpc/File/assltpwr.pdf
Many people believe that rape is a crime of passion: that men rape because they get so sexually aroused that they cannot help themselves. This assumes that men are incapable of delaying gratification or controlling sexual urges, which is clearly untrue. It also suggests that rape is impulsive.
Interviews with rapists reveal that most rapes are premeditated and planned. Rapists rape to feel powerful and in control, not for sexual pleasure. Many rapists fail to get an erection or ejaculate. Many rapists are involved in sexually satisfying relationships at the time of the rape.
Facts:
research and evidence from rapists themselves suggests that most rapes are premeditated and planned
many rapists fail to get an erection or ejaculate
interviews with rapists reveal that they rape to feel powerful and in control, not for sexual pleasure
stereotypically unattractive women are raped, including the elderly and babies
many rapists are involved in sexually satisfying relationships with wives or girlfriends at the time of the rape
http://www.powa.co.za/Display.asp?ID=13
Again, men rape out of anger, and/or a need for absolute control over someone, not because they need sex. The one quality most common among rapists is a very low sense of self-esteem. Their need to control, humiliate, frighten, and degrade other human beings allows them a sense of power, of being superior over at least one other person, even if it is for a very short while. Sexual assault is the tool they choose to obtain power and control--two feelings that don't otherwise exist in their lives.
http://www.sfrcc.org/families.html

I guess, because I have looked into the chemical reactions of the human body during and after intercourse, it seems that the OP is marginalizing the emotional aspect by trying to separate emotions from biological responses. Some emotional responses are learned, yes. However, the body produces chemicals that control these and others. The whole oxytocin and testosterone thing. Here let me go find that article.
I think the main point is that he's not saying that the emotional aspect is seperate and purely formed by society etc. He's simply questioning it. There's a big difference.

Rape is bad because you are forcing somebody to have sex with you against their will. I can't believe some people try to rationalize this! Its a crime and the offender needs to be locked up for 25 years.

Why not?
I'm not saying don't joke about rape; I fully agree with George Carlin that Rape Can Be Funny ("Just picture Elmer Fudd raping Porky Pig.") At least I think I agree with him. Maybe. Whatever.


Except that not everyone enjoys the same form of control. I for instance, derive great pleasure from saying a few words and getting people (friends, acquaintences, no one is safe) to do what I suggest. Things they would necessarily do. By your logic every murderer would have the same M.O.: find victim, shot with gun. However, we know that is not true. The details change even if the end result differs. Hence, the actions are not animalistic. Some rapist like to make the victim choose, either rape or something they think is more horrendous. Very few things establish a sense of control than rape. Why, because it satisfies; that animalistic urge that you parade around so much; a sense of domination only felt through torture; and a lasting impression upon the victim. Rapist enjoy the idea that they will be remembered by their victims until the victim dies. Even if the rapist were to be sent to jail, the victim remembers; even if the rapist is killed, the victim remembers. Rape satisfies another human issue. Not a purely animalistic one. The human need to be remembered. As to the sees the person more often bit; how'd Hannible put it... "We covet what we see." A rapist begins to covet that which they see most often, that fits their particular fetish. Your argument reminds me of that Family guy episode "You can't hug your kids with nuclear arms"
Tragically, I don't watch enough Family Guy to know which one you're talking about.

In some instances, rape can be about control. But in general, it is not. Occam's Razor. The sex drive is the simpler and more direct motive, and can certainly lead to rape.

I really don't think that most rapists commit rape in order to go down in history in some small way... I think that may be part of the motive behind things like Columbine, but not rape. Call me simplistic, but I think that it is quite obvious that unchecked sex drives can and do lead to rape. A rapist need not intellectualize things.

Rape is bad because you are forcing somebody to have sex with you against their will. I can't believe some people try to rationalize this! Its a crime and the offender needs to be locked up for 25 years.
...so that the offender can be raped in prison.

...so that the offender can be raped in prison.


So you are saying let the rapist go free so he can rape another innocent person? I need a bucket!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

http://www.rainn.org/types-of-assault/sexual-assault.html

http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip//wp.html

http://www.crescentlife.com/psychissues/myths_about_male_rape.htm

http://www.cityofmesa.org/police/literature/rape.asp

http://www.alternet.org/story/38334/

www.ncpc.org/cms/cms-upload/ncpc/File/assltpwr.pdf

http://www.powa.co.za/Display.asp?ID=13

http://www.sfrcc.org/families.html
Nicely done. Here are some links about oxytocin; after reading it imagine the contradicting impulse this would cause when one is raped.

http://www.oxytocin.org/cuddle-hormone/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin

http://www.biolreprod.org/cgi/content/abstract/52/6/1268

Just do a google for oxytocin and testosterone if you want more

So you are saying let the rapist go free so he can rape another innocent person? I need a bucket!

Prison could change him.

I'm not reading this thread. I read the title and was stultified and stunned into posting just this: Yikes.

Prison could change him.



Thats the general idea.

I'm not saying don't joke about rape; I fully agree with George Carlin that Rape Can Be Funny ("Just picture Elmer Fudd raping Porky Pig.") At least I think I agree with him. Maybe. Whatever.



Tragically, I don't watch enough Family Guy to know which one you're talking about.

In some instances, rape can be about control. But in general, it is not. Occam's Razor. The sex drive is the simpler and more direct motive, and can certainly lead to rape.

I really don't think that most rapists commit rape in order to go down in history in some small way... I think that may be part of the motive behind things like Columbine, but not rape. Call me simplistic, but I think that it is quite obvious that unchecked sex drives can and do lead to rape. A rapist need not intellectualize things.
Family guy episode where death goes on a date with pet shop girl.

I'm not saying they conciously think that. However, most people, at some point, question what their legacy shall be. I think it is simplistic to think that sex drive is the sole motive, or at least the leading cause, of rape. I think it is too simplistic because people are too complex, at the same time as exceedingly simplistic. I have to sleep now. I'll check back later this morning.

I'm not reading this thread. I read the title and was stultified and stunned into posting just this: Yikes.
Well, if you read it, it isn't as bad as all that.
Undelia is simply questioning whether the reason rape is such a traumatic experience is the way society views sex and rape.

Well, if you read it, it isn't as bad as all that.
Undelia is simply questioning whether the reason rape is such a traumatic experience is the way society views sex and rape.


The title alone comes off like s/he is ok with rape. that is just the way it looks to some.

Speaking as a survivor of rape, let me tell you that the very fact that this idiot has to even ask this type of question speaks volumes about his emotional intelagence. Most of those volumes are not flattering.


Society did not tell me that this was a bad thing to happen to me. Society instead told me that at age 13 walking home from a funeral that it was somehow my fault!!!! (that is exactly what the cop on duty that day told me.)

Rape strips a person of all sence of security, self assurance, self respect, and leaves indelable emotional scars that last a life time. It is not a matter of "if you let it" if a person is raped this is an automatic human responce deeply rooted into the very core of human beings. I doubt that even cro-magnon man liked being taken against their will.

In my life, I've survived child abuse, being raped, being held up at gun point, and having my home broken into. The memory that still haunts me 27 years later is of being raped. My abillity to trust any man was shattered that day, and has never fully recovered.

As a survivor I would never wish a rape on anyone, But I must say that I am beyond the word offended that anyone would even ask such a question. The fact that it has been asked in an open forum where the very thought can cause so much hurt to anyone who like me has managed to create a new sense of self, or watched rather helplessly as a loved one creates a new sense of self after being horrifically violated by rape only componds the offence in my oppinion.

If sex had no emotional attachment, as it rightfully should not, than a rape would mean little more than assault or robbery.
Okay, I'm over "yikes" and seeing this for what it is.

This is an ethical objectivist trying to make a point about how emotions and cultural "training" can cause a society to rule on certain behaviors in certain ways. If I strip away my subjectivity, I can fully understand and even appreciate this exercise.

However, my experience is that this kind of "pure" objectivism is often a mask for someone just trying to get a rise out of people for their own kicks. I'm not sure how similar this is to the "pedophiles are just an alternative sexuality" thread and idea, but I don't think this is necessarily the place to walk such a fine line -- too many breezes.

There's a time and a place for this kind of philosophical enterprise, and a forum full of what are effectively complete strangers is not it. This is something better suited to a conversation among friends who understand that you're not trivializing, but delving into the absolutes of ethics/morality.

That's about all I have with regard to defending the OP. Take it or leave it, after this he's on his own (sure as shit the OP is NOT female).

I think the main point is that he's not saying that the emotional aspect is seperate and purely formed by society etc. He's simply questioning it. There's a big difference.
Fair enough. However, at this point we shall have to agree to disagree. Mainly due to the fact that both of us are viewing this through different rose tinted glasses. Afterall, our perceptions of what he means are based on our own view of the world. Barring him explaining which is true, either saying or questioning. I must sleep so I'll check back later.

Speaking as a survivor of rape, let me tell you that the very fact that this idiot has to even ask this type of question speaks volumes about his emotional intelagence. Most of those volumes are not flattering.


Society did not tell me that this was a bad thing to happen to me. Society instead told me that at age 13 walking home from a funeral that it was somehow my fault!!!! (that is exactly what the cop on duty that day told me.)

Rape strips a person of all sence of security, self assurance, self respect, and leaves indelable emotional scars that last a life time. It is not a matter of "if you let it" if a person is raped this is an automatic human responce deeply rooted into the very core of human beings. I doubt that even cro-magnon man liked being taken against their will.

In my life, I've survived child abuse, being raped, being held up at gun point, and having my home broken into. The memory that still haunts me 27 years later is of being raped. My abillity to trust any man was shattered that day, and has never fully recovered.

As a survivor I would never wish a rape on anyone, But I must say that I am beyond the word offended that anyone would even ask such a question. The fact that it has been asked in an open forum where the very thought can cause so much hurt to anyone who like me has managed to create a new sense of self, or watched rather helplessly as a loved one creates a new sense of self after being horrifically violated by rape only componds the offence in my oppinion.
I'm truly sorry that happened.

Nicely done. Here are some links about oxytocin; after reading it imagine the contradicting impulse this would cause when one is raped.

http://www.oxytocin.org/cuddle-hormone/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin

http://www.biolreprod.org/cgi/content/abstract/52/6/1268

Just do a google for oxytocin and testosterone if you want more
I think I read a Popular Science article about that a couple years ago. . . it's all coming back to me. I think. Oh, and Glitziness, gracias for the links.

So you are saying let the rapist go free so he can rape another innocent person? I need a bucket!
No, you dumbshit. (sorry for the flaming, but I'm obviously not advocating that!)

I was pointing out that a large portion of the rape in the US (if not the majority) happens in prisons. If you send someone to jail to be raped for 25 years, are they going to come out a nicer person if they were a rapist to start with? My guess is no. And besides that, jail for rapists is like the death penalty for murderers. If you're into the Eye for an Eye philosophy, then it's a great system. But if you're interested in fixing things rather than blind retribution, it absofuckinglutely sucks.

Oh, and it's 2:40 AM, so I'm going to make my grand escape now.

*disappears in a whirl of the cape and a puff of green smoke, only to be found struggling to open the window in the next room because he's too tired to plan his act*

Well, if you read it, it isn't as bad as all that.
Undelia is simply questioning whether the reason rape is such a traumatic experience is the way society views sex and rape.
Well, the thread bears a very unfortunate and ill-chosen title. I might have gone for "an episteomlogical examination of rape". Yeah, that sounds like a thesis, but that's essentially what Undelia is proposing.

Rape as a crime was, and I'm reaching into memory as I'm on vacation and have no access to my home library, largely viewed as a property infraction way back in the day. That's largely because an unwed/virgin daughter was a marriageable commodity back then. Deals, alliances and other contracts were sealed with marriages, which were contingent upon the bride-to-be's "intact" state. Rape deprived the family of that asset back then -- the emotional trauma suffered by the young woman was barely a concern.

In short, I can appreciate Undelia's attempt to strip away the stigma and emotional trappings of sexuality with regard to sexual assault, but as I mentioned in my previous post, I don't think this is the right forum to try it.

The title alone comes off like s/he is ok with rape. that is just the way it looks to some.
I know, and either the OP was blissfully unaware of that or looking to grab people's attention. I'm guessing the second. But still, people could take the time to read the OP and look at what he's actually saying. I have very very strong views about rape, but creating strawmen does nothing.

Okay, I'm over "yikes" and seeing this for what it is.

This is an ethical objectivist trying to make a point about how emotions and cultural "training" can cause a society to rule on certain behaviors in certain ways. If I strip away my subjectivity, I can fully understand and even appreciate this exercise.

However, my experience is that this kind of "pure" objectivism is often a mask for someone just trying to get a rise out of people for their own kicks...
Second all of the above.


There's a time and a place for this kind of philosophical enterprise, and a forum full of what are effectively complete strangers is not it. This is something better suited to a conversation among friends who understand that you're not trivializing, but delving into the absolutes of ethics/morality.

Actually, I think this is a great place to ask this. It allows anonymity and safety. Often times friends and family are the hardest to speak one's mind in front of (not the case with me, I'll dance the Rev. 22:20 through the middle of my town). The nature of this issu is one that either all involved must be completely trusting of the others, or mostly trusting in the security of the anonymity of the net. However, the original poster has an obligation to state that they don't intend to triviaize. They should say something to the effect that this "is an ethical objectivist trying to make a point about how emotions and cultural "training" can cause a society to rule on certain behaviors in certain ways." To not do so invites flaming, and hurt feelings (by far the worst of the two). After more discourse, my main problem with the OP is that it did explicitely state such a fact. It just asked the question with little regard to how others would view what was said, not what they may have meant.

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 used to question that myself... until I had sex for the first time really. It may be a bit odd, but one of my first thoughts after that was "There's no way I could ever cope with having this forced on me"
It's an entirely emotional response, the physical aspect would be equal to assault. How much of this emotional reaction is actually programed into me by my upbringing and cultural background is hard to say, but it wouldn't change the fact that an act like that would most likely leave serious psychological damage.

Actually, I think this is a great place to ask this. It allows anonymity and safety. Often times friends and family are the hardest to speak one's mind in front of (not the case with me, I'll dance the Rev. 22:20 through the middle of my town). The nature of this issu is one that either all involved must be completely trusting of the others, or mostly trusting in the security of the anonymity of the net. However, the original poster has an obligation to state that they don't intend to triviaize. They should say something to the effect that this "is an ethical objectivist trying to make a point about how emotions and cultural "training" can cause a society to rule on certain behaviors in certain ways." To not do so invites flaming, and hurt feelings (by far the worst of the two). After more discourse, my main problem with the OP is that it did explicitely state such a fact. It just asked the question with little regard to how others would view what was said, not what they may have meant.
Well put, kind sir. Allow me a slight adjustment to my earlier post by agreeing with you.

I used to question that myself... until I had sex for the first time really. It may be a bit odd, but one of my first thoughts after that was "There's no way I could ever cope with having this forced on me"
Not odd at all. I had similar thoughts *nods*