Category: Let's talk
I attend a group where ONE DAY, an article was read about an incident that ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE, but I forgot WHERE; ANYWAY, a woman was posting TOTALLY NUDE PICTURES of herself on the INTERNET, and she JUST SO HAPPENED to have come across this dude that APPARENTLY was SEXUALLY "SMITTEN" by her, and they conversed PUBLICLY for a while, later exchanged PERSONAL CONTACTS, agreed to meet, and ALL of WHATEVER ELSE. They MET, INDEED, went out to dinner and a movie, and WHILE AT the movie, it was SHE that THOROUGHLY EXPRESSED, INITIALLY, HER DESIRE to go back with him to HIS place, which is what he SECRETLY WISHED would happen, without EVER dropping ANY SUBTLE HINT, EVEN, ANYWAY, and was ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED when she DID fulfill his TOTALLY-UNREVEALED WISH. They get back to his place, she INSTANTLY DISROBES the VERY MINUTE the door's COMPLETELY LOCKED, BUT as soon as HE starts to remove HIS clothes, SHE SUDDENLY REJECTS HIS response. ANGRILY, he COMPLETELY IGNORED her BLATANT "NO'S" and RAPES her. She HELPLESSLY GIVES IN to him, and after he COMPLETELY HAD HIS WAY with her, he falls asleep. QUICKLY, she dresses, SUCCESSFULLY SNEAKS out of the apartment/house/whatever, calls the cops, and had charges pressed against him. UNBENOUNCED to HER, and PROBABLY/POSSIBLY HIM, as WELL, there were hidden cameras in the area that OBVIOUSLY captured BOTH OF THEM, ARM-IN-ARM, entering the area, and going into his private residence (there weren't any cameras IN his residence), and at NO TIME was there ANY look of distress on the WOMAN'S FACE, AT ALL, but ONLY of "DECEPTIONAL SECURITY (if there's any such)," so that when the cops DID arrive, arrested the guy, question him and so on, SHE, TOO, WAS ARRESTED. NOT ONLY was HE charged with RAPE, TRIED, and was slapped with LIFE, WITHOUT PROBATION/PAROLE/ETC., SHE was charged with "SEXUAL TEASING," although there ACTUALLY IS a LEGAL NAME for it, that I can't REMEMBER, and was EQUALLY SENTENCED.
ANOTHER ARTICLE that was shared was about TWO COUPLES-THAT-NEVER-BECAME, as the VERY RESULT of the ABSOLUTELY-APPALLING FOLLOWING: In either case, the BRIDE-TO-BE of ONE INDESCRIBABLY-EXPENSIVE WEDDING, as well as the GROOM-TO-BE of ANOTHER, were TOTALLY HUMILIATED in front of FAMILY, FRIENDS, and SO ON, after having been TOTALLY-INEXCUSABLY STOOD UP AT THE ALTAR by their COWARD SPOUSES-NEVER-TO-BE, but FORTUNATELY, NEITHER of the PERPETRATORS GOT VERY FAR; within 24 hours for ONE, and 12 hours for the OTHER, BOTH were APPREHENDED, FORCED to pay a HEAVY FINE of however much that the wedding, reception, AND honeymoon costed, PLUS WHATEVER UNTOLD HEFTY INTERESTS, and were EACH GIVEN a JAIL SENTENCE of THIRTY YEARS to LIFE, with the NON-GUARANTEED POSSIBILITY of BEING RELEASED on "GOOD BEHAVIOR" in NO LESS than after having served TWENTY-FIVE-and-a-HALF YEARS, UNLESS OTHERWISE FURTHER SENTENCED, with neither REASON NOR WARNING. What's YOUR feedback to ALL ABOVE?
I'd like to know where you read these articles? I don't quite understand the second one you paraphrased, as it lacks some details. Why were they humilliated? What do the two couples have to do with each other? Anyhow, though in regards to the first Artical. For starters, we don't know the whole story. Next, in my opinion, the woman invited herself to his place, obviously not to have pizza. She knew what she was doing. And by that I mean that not only does she post naked pictures of herself, but she asks to go to this man's place. Maybe she wanted the whole wine/relax thing before engaging in sexual activity, I don't know for sure. Do I think it's her fault? Lets see, sometimes you don't realize the danger you get yourself into with your behavior. I'm not excusing his behavior, I think he was an opportunistic prick. But I also think that She provoked it. And if she didn't look distressed in the cameras of the building, and they were arm in arm, that says something, right? Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my two-sence
I think these articles are false because of the fines and jail time unless they happened in some other country then America. You're not going to get that type of jail time for these crimes.
On the woman, this happened to someone I know. He didn't get charged, nor did she, but she did claim rape after she got up the next morning and left to go straight to the police.
It wasn't about pictures, but she did consent to come to his house, did have sex with him, stayed all night, and then felt she was raped. Smile.
Cost him some money defending himself.
If a woman, or man post such pictures, goes to a social outing, then asked to go home, what else would be assumed if she or he started undressing?
I say you need contracts for your prospects to sign. Lol.
Neither one makes sense. I am not a criminal law expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know this: the sentences don't seem to match up. Time and time again I have heard of stories like this either from college or high school. But more times than not, one and only one person was held responsible and punished. And also, most of the time it was the guy who was held responsible for rape. It doesn't make sense that the guy would be charged for rape if she admitted to provoking him. If this was the case I think his charges would have been dropped and she would be in trouble, but I could be wrong.
When it's six of one half a dozen of the other the law is usually most harsh towards the man. It should be punitive to both the men and women involved in those cases.
I think it is utterly ridiculous that someone can go to jail for standing up someone at a wedding yet millions of people get away with murder, every year, and are commended for it. I don't think standing up someone at their own wedding is right either, but, please people, if you're going to punish someone, punish someone dangerous.
Frankly, I don't believe these stories either, but I'll comment on them anyway. Nothing wrong with treating a fantasy seriously, is there?
Concerning the people leaving their not spouses at the altar, I guess that's better than screwing up your life forever.
As for the girl crying rape, I'm sorry folks, rape is rape--whether it's on the streets or the last time after making love seven times before. Sex should be concentual. However, don't forget that the aledged criminal is innocent until proven guilty.
Bob
Well, as I mentioned, I wasn't the one that was reading the ARTICLES, actually--it was the GROUP-FACILITATOR of a PEER GROUP, as part of a DAILY PROGRAM that I attend, that read them, so WHERE she got them from, whether it was on PAPER or from the INTERNET, somehow, YOUR GUESS is as GOOD AS MINE, and I'M NOT EVEN GUESSING, spare the NON-WORTHWHILE FRUSTRATION; now, as for MY input to the FIRST, I FORGOT where and when this took PLACE, but I'm COMPLETELY GLAD, SATISFACTORILY, that BOTH PARTIES that WERE INVOLVED, DID GET CHARGED EQUALLY, and I HONESTLY WISH that EVEN IF this COULD'VE BEEN a COMPLETELY HIDDEN (ALMOST hidden, otherwise, THIS wouldn't've even have been discovered and read to us) INCIDENT that COULD'VE TAKEN PLACE in THIS country in some PERHAPS-OBSCURE LOCATION, that SUCH WOULD go COMPLETELY PUBLIC to become an OFFICIAL LAW that WOULD be GENUINELY FAIR, because JUST as it was pointed out, it's USUALLY the MAN that's depicted as the MONSTER, ONLY, NEVER the WOMAN, who's ALWAYS hailed as the ONLY ONE that's the VICTIM, although SHE, TOO, is JUST AS GUILTY for HER BEHAVIOR as the MAN is for HIS.
ACTUAL CASE AND POINT: RIGHT HERE in the VERY RESIDENCE that I LIVE, there's a woman that I remember from when she used to attend the SAME PROGRAM that I'm currently attending, that I wanted to be involved with, who I invited to my room more than once, but EACH TIME, whenever SHE would INITIATE SEXUAL ADVANCES toward ME, and I would BEGIN to respond, NATURALLY, SHE would DEMANDINGLY tell me "NO," and would ORDER ME, in the VERY ROOM that I'M the "RENT-PAYER OF," to NOT TOUCH HER, and so on, which I DID RESPECT, for SURE--and the ONLY REASON, and NO OTHER, that I DID respect her, IS BECAUSE I don't wanna go to JAIL/PRISON! HELL NO! BUT what I DID was I DEMANDED that SHE was to GET OUT, since I have THAT VERY AUTHORIZATION, and I FOREWARNED HER that HER "COCK-TEASE BEHAVIOR" was going to COMPLETELY BACKFIRE on her, EVEN IF at the VERY EXPENSE of the VERY GUY that would be the VERY ONE to CAUSE the backfiring, but THAT GUY would CERTAINLY NOT BE ME. Sure enough, within HOWEVER MUCH TIME, as far as MONTHS that went by, JUST LAST MONTH, ANOTHER DUDE that ALSO lives/lived here WAS that VERY MONSTER that she pulled that VERY SAME CRAP with, and now, HE'S in jail, and PROBABLY MIGHT be EVICTED, while SHE, the "GUILTY INNOCENT," if any such, is parading around here, looking for her NEXT "VICTIM" to turn into ANOTHER "SUSPECT," without ONE IOTA of ANY CARE in the WORLD, WHATSOEVER. ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING!!
As far as the "WEDDING DISASTER," and as far as WHEN each took place and WHERE, it NEVER SAID that BOTH HAPPENED the VERY SAME DAY, nor did it say SPECIFICLY WHEN they happened, but I DO RECALL that it DID say that BOTH HAPPENED at SEPARATE TIMES, as well as SEPARATE LOCATIONS, WITHOUT NAMING ANYTHING, ANY TIME/PLACE, or ANYONE. Now, MY ONLY QUESTION is THIS: if YOU, I, or ANYONE (which I, MYSELF, DON'T) should EVER AUDACIOUSLY DARE to think that ABSOLUTELY NO WRONG had EVER BEEN DONE, WHATSOEVER, on the part of the "RUNAWAYS," so to speak, for which, we CERTAINLY should have our HEADS COMPLETELY KNOCKED against the FUCKIN' BRICK WALL for EVER CONDONING SUCH BEHAVIOR, WHAT the HELL would WE do, if THAT SHIT HAPPENED to ANY of US, and WHY would we do it?
troll alert.
I'm sorry, but any girl who hooks up with guys in an attempt to get them in trouble for rape is just as bad as a serial rapist. Period. They know how rapists are treated and viewed in society and there is no reason to feel sorry for anyone who tries to ruin a person's reputation like that.
I disagree. Any woman that teases, or whatever, and says no, is off.
No matter at what point in the sexual interaction she decides it should stop, the man should stop, and leave her alone.
If she does this once, he should be smart enough to understand she's a tease and find someone else.
I don't think it is fair, and of course it depends at what point she is saying no, but I am serious, at any point, and I mean any, if she expresses the wish to stop and be left alone, I'd stop. She could not expect me to be interested any more.
The law has been setup, because so many women are abused.
It is far better to be with a woman that wants to be with you, or is willing, even if she is nervous, then one that is teasing. The teaser is a predator.
If a woman can do that, what else might she do? She’s no good, and should be left alone until she can get mental help or something. That won’t be your problem though.
I am wondering what kind of group this is that you’d be read something like this?
DistanceRunner337 DEFINITELY COULDN'T'VE put that ANY BETTER, as with WHOM I CERTAINLY AGREE. COCK-TEASING is JUST AS MUCH, and ABSOLUTELY NO LESS THAN, an ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR as RAPE is, and BOTH PREDITORS, MALE AND FEMALE, SHOULD be charged as "SEX-CRIMINALS," because COCK-TEASING, JUST LIKE RAPE, is NEVER ANY LESS VICTIMIZING, the VICTIMS of EACH CRIME oughta SEEK SWIFT and HARSH JUSTICE, and the PERPETRATORS of each oughta SERVE IN FULL, with ABSOLUTELY NO PROBATION, PAROLE, RELEASE-for-"GOOD-BEHAVIOR," or ANY of that--and to REALLY lay it all down, BOTH OFFENDERS are to serve NO LESS than COUNTLESS MULTIPLE LIFE-SENTENCES, with ABSOLUTELY NO VISITORS, WHATSOEVER, NO CALLS to ANY FAMILY/FRIENDS/WHATEVER, NO INCOMING MAIL, and ANY OTHER MERCILESS DRASTIC MEASURE that I can't think of any further at THIS time.
Your crazy. But we all know that already. FYI, you cant' get a life sentence for rape. Not even if you rape a minor--statutory rape gives you ten years max...So this nut who supposedly read you this is either misinformed or you misinterpreted this. And until you become the dictator of the judicial system a cocktease, as you call it, doesnt' get any jail time in this country. lol. And in third-world countries, they get beheaded for even attempting to be a tease--or ignored and raped anyway. I still read your board topics because I'm always curious to see what mindless thing you can come up with--it never ceases to amaze me how out of this world you are, mentally. And before you get any ideas, this isnt' a compliment. lol
The stories sure do seem implausible, yes.
Here is my take on things, and I am going against the very cool, very popular, and extremely trendy femitheism / Christianity / whatever it's name is now, that pervades everything:
First, Wayne is right, boys. Get the hell out and sooner rather than later. When you're going to engage in sexual activity you as a man must have a mental backdoor ready at all times, because your biology is not a woman's. She can just arbitrarily say 'no', or hear a sound in the background and get out of the mood on an instant. We cannot so fast. So your backdoor policy in your mind is, as soon as she says no, imagine yourself in a situation that completely removes sex from the equation, like prison or something. This way you can take control of your own biology, something men are required to do but women not so much in this instance, and you can up and out of there. That doesn't mean you won't be charged for rape, it only means you won't actually rape.
The real problem is, the Christians / Femitheists have changed the definitions around, and done their magic show on the word rape and a number of other words.
The real problem is, boys, you don't even understand the half of what goes through a real rapist's mind, no matter what a woman tells you about all men raping. Rapists are evil subhumans that aren't so much interested in sex as they are in dominance, power, murder, and other assorted mayhem. The new crew has just given the real rapists a free pass by comparing all of us to them. That's a bit like comparing your average religious devotee to Bin Laden or Adolph Hitler. But they do it, and real victims are overshadowed by these other situations. Real women and young girls who are grabbed, molested, and *hated afterwards!*
Bet you didn't know this one, boys, but sexual criminals often express a direct hatred for their victims afterwards. Perty sick, huh? Anything like a young man's eagerness or a bad case of the blue balls? Not really, but because the Christofemitteists want fortune and fame, and you are low hanging fruit, they go after you. Going after these real hard core criminals is actually dangerous work. Life threatening, in fact. Judges and prosecutors both women and men who are involved in these cases are even sometimes under siege by these critters after the fact.
But the New Crew would much rather pick apart your life, find flaws which they could find in any of us, and expose that as a reason to cast you with those. This is why I refuse to answer the question women ask, why do you men rape? Because honestly? I don't think even the shrinks really get it. And certainly you don't, and I don't. Most people really don't get how someone can commit massw genocides, mass murders, rapes, etc. I can understand killing someone in a flight of passion, or out of defense. I can understand embezzlement of funds, shoplifting, a whole host of other crimes. Not condone, but understand.
But forefully having sex with someone who is trying to get away, crying or something else? Well, for one thing, even if I did have the motive, certain biological factors would prevent entry, as it were.
By changing definitions like this, the worst thing that I have seen come of these things, is real victims are reduced and diminished. We know this, even with a whole host of other crimes. We have differing terms for murder / manslaughter / reckless endangerment, etc. We don't hold someone who drove carelessly and killed someone as liable as we do serial murderers like the Manson Family.
People who uncritically just accept the new thinking and never challenge this, people who just say all of us are the same, they're primarily holding a theistic position and you can't talk sense with them.
This is why touching a woman is now called rape, saying something to somebody else about someboy entirely different, is called sexual harassment if a woman who wants to call it so, overhears it. Harassment is in the mind of the harassee.
So, imagine: Now there is no real law, it is all in the mind of the victim. So you could have someone so traumatized by prior events who doesn't see something as harassment, when critical analysis would say she was harassed, and somebody else raised in splendor and privilege, gets upset because she hears something she doesn't like can call it harassment. This I have actually seen, and I felt intense sympathy / compassion for the truly harassed. But because we have lost all critical analysis on these things, now it's which wheel can be the squeakiest, provided it's the correct gender, and have a win for the home team.
I only regret that I didn't beat the harasser in that instance, but went with the stupid-ass status quo. My fault, youth and ignorance being a reason, but not an excuse.
If we ever did become egalitarian, rather than the dikotomous reactionaries we have on both sides now, we would see things very differently, and for once real compassion for real victims of this stuff would get out. Although in modern society we hold impartiality and critical thinking in highest regard concerning justice, when it comes to sexual situations, we are uncritical, religious, dogmatic, and extremely partial. This is how the GodhatesFags crowd and the all men rape crowd are siblings. They love each other, need each other, and thrive on each other. Because it's easier and takes less effort, damn the swath of innocents left in their mutual wake.
For the children / specialtons among us, I'm nowhere near saying all women do this stuff. It is systemic, where gender is used for demarcation purposes to scapegoat a rival group, just as the gays are scapegoated.
In fact, the all men rape movement has at its racist roots the aversion to interracial copulation, but due to what was popular and cool, they had to remove the word 'black' from the slogan. All the ills painted on all men today were not that long ago restricted to black men only. In other words, they didn't learn anything, they just did a find and replace, removing the word 'Black'.
Well, I must have misread something here because I was under the impression that the two had sexual contact, and after that the woman ran and cried rape. I completely agree with the both of you that there is no reason to continue trying to satisfy yourself if the girl says get out/off/whatever. What I was talking about is a guy and girl have sex, and the girl goes to the authorities after this and says something along the lines that Bob threatened to kill me if I didn't let him rape me when that never happened. I will reread the post again as hard as it might be to understand the majority of it lol.
Oh wow, yeah I totally misread this. That's not being a cock tease, if anything that's just coming to your senses and having an oh shit moment.
I agree with wayne and Leo. I think that it's sad, because in these cases people go with it was his fault, claim. Not here, but generally speeking. And like I said, I was refering to the woman acting as the victom, when she provoked the behavior. A man should stop, but a woman should also be careful.
A man should be smart. Even if you are only charged, it is a waist of time, because some woman decided she got cold feet, liked to push the situation for whatever her reasons are, or whatever.
It takes time to go to court. You could better use that time to enjoy a woman that is interested, I say!
Oh of course, wayne. The same thing applys to a woman. She should be smart, and know what the hell she wants, instead of making a fool of herself.
I stand on what I said. Even a woman that isn't sure, won't be teasing. She'll explain before.
If it is religion, again, she'll explain if she's not out to get you, and with religion, if she's deeply religious, won't allow herself to get in a situation where she has made a man physically hot.
It will be the woman that is trying to hurt you that does this, or has that same need for power as a male rapist.
Ah yes, the unsure are generally very open about their unsureness, not just about sexual things but anything else.
Wayne is right. I'd say go into it with someone who knows what she wants and has nothing to prove.
NO GUARANTEE GRANTED, but if I remember to, I'll TRY to ask the staff person that facilitated the group that I was in if they remember reading the article/articles of these incidences, and where she got them from, but MY TAKE is that I already told you how I handled the ACTUAL SITUATION that took place RIGHT WHERE I LIVE, as opposed to the guy that ALSO lives (PROBABLY NOT ANY MORE, HOPEFULLY) there, as WELL. JUST LAST SATURDAY NIGHT, the woman that this PIECE of FUCKIN' SHIT raped, called me on the in-house phone and asked me if she could come over and spend the night with me, PROVIDED that I "RESPECT" her and not make ANY SEXUAL ADVANCES toward her, and that I sleep in the EXTRA BED in the SAME ROOM that's CURRENTLY UNOCCUPIED, TOTALLY SEPARATE from HER. I, VERY POLITELY, told her "ABSOLUTELY NOT," and when she VEHEMENTLY DEMANDED an EXPLANATION, I told her that it's ONE THING to REFUSE to be involved with me, SEXUALLY, which is CERTAINLY HER RIGHT, since it's HER BODY, ONLY, and HER DECISION, ONLY (as WELL) to either give or NOT give herself to ANYONE or NOONE, for that matter, AT ALL (like it or not), at HER OWN AUTHORIZED CHOOSING, WHATSOEVER, but when SHE'S ASKING ME to ALLOW HER to sleep in MY ROOM, EVEN if it was just OVERNIGHT, and she ALREADY has HER OWN ROOM to sleep in, so she's CERTAINLY NOT DESTITUTE, in any way, STRICTLY under the "ABSOLUTELY-NO-TOUCHING-AT-ALL" condition that she wanted to ENFORCE, and being that "SEX-DEPRIVATION" is JUST AS SEXUALLY-ABUSIVE as RAPE is, and being that I DEFINITELY REFUSE to be SUBJECTED to this JUST-AS-EQUALLY-BLATANT ABUSE, I calmly REMINDED HER that she ought to be JUST AS RESPECTFUL of MY decision to say "NO" to HER, JUST AS SHE HAS the VERY EQUAL RIGHT, as she ALREADY HAS, to say "NO" to ME, that I, ALSO, would have to respect. Did I ACTUALLY LIKE that she COCK-TEASED ME? If I DID, why did I throw her out of my room when she DID IT, and as if she TOTALLY FORGOT THAT NIGHT, follow up with a call to commit FURTHER ABUSE, ONLY to be JUST-AS-MERCILESSLY REJECTED as I was by HER? NEEDLESS to SAY, OF COURSE she was angry, and tried the TOTALLY-UNSUCCESSFUL-GUILT-TRIP ROUTINE, to which I CALMLY/VICTORIOUSLY replied: "you might or might not get OVER it, but ... oh, well!", which "EVEN-FURTHERED" the "INFERNO FLAMES of her FURY," whereas, it was THEN that I gently placed the receiver back into its holder, thus, hanging up on the RANTING and RAVING LUNATIC (without even so much as a polite "GOOD NIGHT" from me to HER) that SHE chose to behave like, COMPLETELY with a CLEAR-CLEAN CONSCIENCE that I had done MY part of what was the right thing to do, and slept VERY SOUNDLY. Now, I would've been in a TOTAL WORLD of IRREVERSABLE TROUBLE if I behaved EXACTLY the VERY WAY that SHE did when SHE rejected ME, and would've IMMEDIATELY been ADMINISTRATIVELY/LEGALLY PENALIZED for "SEXUAL HARRASSMENT," just as ANY OTHER DNA-BIOLOGICAL MALE would be, so JUST IMAGINE that I would have JUST AS MUCH AUTHORITY to SUCCESSFULLY have her charged with "SEX-DEPRIVATION HARRASSMENT )it SURE would be HUMANELY FAIR if such a law WAS enforced)!" I wonder what such instances would be like THEN.
Ok...OP to your last post, all I have to say is, heh?
And regarding rape and all that, and having a good head on your shoulders, boys and girls, listen to the wise men--leo and wayne--regarding this one. They are spot on.
I understood it, and still say, Huh?
I wonder how this woman even has your phone number?
Okay, so she has your phone number. You are actually keeping a line of communication open with this woman?
I say that, because, if the situation you stated is so, she feels comfortable enough to call and ask to spend a night in your room, in the next bed, so knows you have twins, so has been in your bed room, sense the time she put your friend in jail, and tried to fool you too?
Why?
Cry wolf. That's all I've got to say.
Ok, let me just say this, cuz I feel it needs to be said. Its been eluded to in other posts, but it needs to be flat out said. Listen up, cuz this is important.
If a girl says no, and you don't listen, its rape... period... end of sentence. I don't care if she was wearing a tight skirt and a thong. I don't care if she's naked at the bar and you like how she has her clit pierced. I don't care if you're having sex and you're about to cum. If she says no, or stop, or I'm not ready for this, or don't, or anything like that, you stop. You don't stop when you're finished, you don't stop when you want to, you stop right then.
It honestly disgusts me some of the excuses I've seen given on this post. Cock teasing? Really? That's the excuse you wanna go with? She kept giving me that look, I wasn't about to stop then. Man up and accept the word no. Men can't control their biology? So, when you get a hard on during a board meeting you take the secretary over the nearest table cuz you can't control your dick? Please, stop giving this tired line for your ineptitude and barbarism, its not the middle ages anymore.
Guess what guys, girls are allowed to wear what they want, say what they want, look at you how they want, tease you how they want, go where they want and act how they want. They can do this at any time they want, any place they want. That is the right they have as human beings. I realize that surprises some men, that women are human beings, but I promise its true. Raping them in any way is our masculine way of stripping them of their humanity. Is that the kind of man you want to be?
Now, I know for a fact that some of you are going to say, "Oh, I completely agree with you Cody. I don't think of women in that way". You're wrong. We all do it, even me. I judge women on many things I shouldn't, and its something I'm trying to change about myself. That being said though, I allow them to act how they want without molesting them.
So, I invite you. Read the posts on this board, see if you can pick out the slut shaming and the victim blaming that I saw. I'll even give you a hand. Here's a couple.
"in my opinion, the woman invited herself to his place, obviously not to have pizza. She knew what she was doing."
" If a woman, or man post such pictures, goes to a social outing, then asked to go home, what else would be assumed if she or he started undressing?"
"It doesn't make sense that the guy would be charged for rape if she admitted to provoking him."
" If she does this once, he should be smart enough to understand she's a tease and find someone else."
" First, Wayne is right, boys. Get the hell out and sooner rather than later. When you're going to engage in sexual activity you as a man must have a mental backdoor ready at all times, because your biology is not a woman's. She can just arbitrarily say 'no', or hear a sound in the background and get out of the mood on an instant. We cannot so fast. So your backdoor policy in your mind is, as soon as she says no, imagine yourself in a situation that completely removes sex from the equation, like prison or something. This way you can take control of your own biology, something men are required to do but women not so much in this instance, and you can up and out of there."
That's just a few, there are more. I'll brace myself for the wave of "that's not what I meant" and "you're taking this out of context". I'm sure its coming.
Instead, Cody, I will ask you, regarding what I said, is dehumanizing? I was talking about once you are actually having intercourse, something I have never done with a coworker at a board meeting. Maybe you have. However, you and I both indicate that the male is solely responsible to stop on demand, though you were obviously expressing more passion. I was offering a suggestion for someone who, maybe mid orgasm is told to stop. My suggestion was more one of mechanics. The practical and not the dogma is how you get it done. It doesn't matter how sensitive or trendy you are, if you don't have a plan, half a thrust mid intercourse could separate a man from doing something awful he never intended, and her from being terribly violated. You as much as agreed with me that women's sexuality is extremely fragile and tenuous.
I had not heard cock tease before this thread. Not all of us agreed re taking clothes off and such, and someone of your intellect should have caught that. But, the responsible party in any situation should have a personal plan for when things take a drastic turn, like once things really heat up during inter course. In matters of heterosexual intercourse, you are right: women may do as they like and we men are responsible. Good, bad or indifferent. I simply dared to address the mechanics of the situation. If that is cock teasing and slut shaming to you, what can I say?
Boys, I'll go further even. In your pre sex discussion, invite her to be on top. There are whole host of reasons for it, but an excellent one is that she has all the control at her disposal, and you can see how that makes sense.
Dogma will serve you nothing, but a good plan, a backout plan will save you and her from things going terribly wrong in a way you never intended. Having a mental plan for your thoughts will help reduce your erection, which is easier on her when you pull out right away like that if she tells you to stop or get out or whatever. It is dangerous to her at this point so you reducing in size to get out t that time means less friction on her. This is want I mean by women's sexuality being extremely fragile.
Maybe you read what I said before, but again I misunderstood the situation. I was under the impression that the couple in this scenario all ready had sex and after the fact, without saying anything to the guy, the chick went to the authorities and told them he raped her. Sorry I couldn't focus on this wildly written story.
Ryan, Cody isn't using his customary rationalism, but has fallen far to a dogmatic position instead. This is how he was able to tar us all with the same brush. This is also how people who pee on the sidewalk get on a sex offender registry for life.
I'll stand behind my prior posts because the law is clear on this issue. But we are a sorry lot, since we're too stupid to make the obvious separation between someone who didn't immediately stop mid-orgasm on her directive! and someone who took a flirt as license for assault and the perp stalking her from behind.
Cody did a great job of illustrating this for us.
Meanwhile, we haven't totally lost our marbles, we do differentiate with negligent homicide, manslaughter, premeditated murder, and so on. We can even be rational enough to know the difference, with varying degrees of sympathy. Even though a premeditated murder could be painless while a negligent homicide could hurt quite a lot. We can understand the distinctions, have even rational conversation about.
But judgment is nothing but religious, if it cannot deal with matters of degree. Resorting to dogmas is the easy way out.
A couple points before I respond to the two questions individually. I wasn't talking about the two people in this article, which for the record I doubt even exists in the first place. Its why I didn't engage the original poster. We all know what kind of posts he puts up. I'm not even convinced he exists, let alone his articles or support groups.
Now, runner, you're suffering from target fixation. You're focused on this article and only this article. Think of the greater ramifications of what you said, not only where this article is involved. Think of women and men in general, and ask yourself why you hold the opinions you do when you read posts like this.
As for the line from you I quoted, the issue was not with this article, but with your last word. You used the word provoke. When you say that a woman provoked a rape, you are saying that there are things women cannot do, that they do not have the right to do with themselves. Then ask yourself, if it is possible to provoke a rape, what would your girlfriend, present or future, need to do to provoke you to rape her. Answer that question for me. What would it take?
Now then, leo. You disappoint me. Not only are you old enough to know better, you have two charges which should force you by necessity to rethink your myopic ideals. You have daughters, I hope your ideology never has to be tested in the real world with them.
So lets just think here Leo. I asked runner up there what it would take for him to rape a girl. What would it take for you to admit your daughter deserved to get raped? When are you man enough to admit that Leo? Tell us how you'd handle your daughter coming home and saying her boyfriend didn't stop when she wasn't ready. How he just lost control of his biology. You'd forgive him, wouldn't you? He's a man after all. You always blather on about how men used to be men and women used to be women and you blame everything under the sun on feminism. So here's your chance to put your manly money where your manly mouth is. Tell us, I'm sure several women on here would like to know, at what point does your daughter deserved to get raped? Until you can answer that question, your opinion is nothing but the bloviating of an out of date sexist who hasn't updated his rolladex of worn out arguments.
Wake up Leo, women aren't the servants you seem to want them to be anymore. Its not the fault of the feminists or the Christians. In fact the Christians would agree with you on this Leo. You're firmly in their field right now. Now lets see what you're really made of.
I never said men were not responsible. I said quite the opposite and offered a couple suggestions, practical ones, for men already engaged in sexual intercourse. Obviously before that is easy to just walk away from the situation, no extrication necessary. You complete misread what I said, to point of accusing me of the direct opposite. Why you did this, I don't know.
And I agree it's impossible for a woman to provoke a rape, it's simply impossible on way so many levels.
If my daughter were a victim of rape, would I do my best to help her? Yes of course. No matter what it took. Would it ever be sufficient? Of course not. Rape is an awful, life-altering event. I actually think we should exterminate the perps, but that is a separate issue.
Even though you misinterpreted me, it seems to make me fit an image, I will agree: every rape victim is somebody's daughter, sister or friend. But you are patently unjust to accuse me of the direct opposite of what I said. I only offered a little advice to men on how to extricate themselves and be safe about it, where there had first been mutual agreement and In the middle of intercourse itself, she said no. It goes without saying the situation is different beforehand, since he had not been invited. Of course an invitation is deliberate, explicit, using words. Of course dress and other things aren't invitation, I'll admit I took all this as a given.
Accuse me for something I said, not the opposite. I'm appalled, it's as though you were making me a party to a drunk driving murder, because I dared to tell someone to be prepared and have a plan for your transportation before you have too much to drink.
I'll add that failing to report a crime makes you an accessory, aiding and abetting. Cody claims that I would be an accessory to rape in my daughter's case, and commit rape, perhaps, in my wife's case. I think we all know spouses can be charged for rape.
But here is where I will admit I went wrong in assuming. First, I assumed the original and related posts to be trolls.
Second, I was only talking about during sexual intercourse, because I asssumed everybody knows the facts, that a naked or scantily clad body, or alleged flirting, is *not* an invitation. In fact, an invitation is an invitation.
Just because someone after the fact would claim they did not know these things would not convince me they did not know these things. So yes, I took as a given these commonly-understood concepts.
Cody states that the Christians would agree with me. I haven't discussed sex or this aspect of sexual interactions with any of them, so let's take it apart.
So you're saying they operate on the above assumptions. Ok, so do most people: Christian, agnostic, rational objectivist and otherwise.
So you're saying that the Christians would agree with me that a man extricating himself as quickly and safely as possible if, during intercourse, she makes it clear or suggests that you are not any longer invited. That makes a lot of sense, biologically and otherwise.
I have in other threads drawn comparisons between Christianity and feminism. Not Christians and feminists, those are all human beings and not ideologies. I have made comparisons between the two competing, and sometimes quite similar, ideologies.
But any humans subscribing to either or both are far more complex than an ideology.
What I did was respond based on what I actually said. I refuse to play along with your macabre McCarthyist image you cast for me as a role the charade you are crafting. And that image is pretty macabre: one I actually have the good fortune to have never met in real life.
You describe a condition of slavery, and me the slaveholder.
But abandonment of my daughter after she suffered a rape, or doing the same to my wife, or even worse, these may be some of the worst accusations laid on somebody on this forum. I think the actual committing of such acts is beyond the imagination of most on this site, even you.
Hey dip shit, I know what I said so you don't have to repeat it. I choose my words carefully and I put down provoking, and I meant it. A girl that wears slutty clothes is going to attract the wrong attention no matter how she views it. Even if she wants guys to hit on her and flirt, she's going to get some guy who will not want to leave it at that. That is provoking. No where in my argument did I say she deserved to be raped if she provoked guys. I'm not stupid, I know raping isn't a very nice thing to do so quit talking down to me. Got it? I will call a spade a spade as they say. You do an exceptional job of twisting people's arguments up sometimes, even better than people twisting pretzle dough in a factory. Don't ask me some retarded question about what it would take for me to rape someone, because I would never stoop to that level. You caught me on a good day, and I encourage you to continue to try me again.
I don’t believe that Women’s sexuality is fragile and tenuous. I think women are as much in control, and understand their bodies completely.
I believe that women have just as strong urges as men, just that they pretend not to, and many times push them under the rug, so to speak.
This causes emotional, and physical problems, from what I understand.
Moving on.
If already engaged in intercourse, and she says no, and inculcates no, not just mummers it, you must stop. It really isn’t hard.
Men are 100% capable of controlling themselves at any point in a sexual interaction, so I don’t agree with loss of control.
I believe, but have to check, the law has guide lines for if you are engaged already.
I have noted women have, and can claim rape, even after they have had complete intercourse, and not left right away after, but waited until the next day. This is why some guidelines had to be set in order.
It will cause a man some wasted time, but she really has to have some concrete proof to how it was she finished, then changed her mind and decided it was rape. Was it guilt? I’m sure it is in many cases.
Mainly this complete situation on a woman’s side I strongly believe is the need, wish, or pleasure in making a man’s life miserable.
You also sense this, I believe, and when you do, you should get out.
Ryan, you weren’t wrong, some of the post did say the couple had already had sex.
Leo, I like that being on top. Never thought about it like that.
Seriously, I have a rule of thumb, and it seems to have served me well. If I have to chase a skirt to hard, I’m not interested. My reasons are because of what I wrote above. I really don’t feel women are special in this regard, so if she wants me, she needs to act like it. I’m not in to conquest.
As stated, this isn’t the middle ages.
I don't normally go there, but Leo my friend, A Christian would say that women don't know themselves. They'd say, that if you hold a women's hand, this can lead to her having sex with you, when she wasn't ready.
You are the man, so lead her astray. Smile.
She can claim rape, or not understanding, even after the act.
"well, he held my hand, and my panties dropped. I was confused your honor.
Ok, lets go with Leo first this time.
Leo, you are only addressing half of what you said. I agree, your system for pulling out is a good one. Though I'd say to think of your grandmother or something like that, rather than prison, but its a personal thing. The problem in your post is down a little farther.
My copy and paste wasn't very precise, so I'll be more specific. This way you can take control of your own biology, something men are required to do but women not so much in this instance.
Do you see the sexism in that sentence? Why are we required to control our biology, but not women? You can't say its because we can't come down from our orgasm as easily as they can, cuz that's not what your words say. You can throw a fit all you like, and accuse me of anything you want, but I have your direct quotes to work with. It makes proving you wrong really easy.
Now then, Runner. I keep meaning to learn your name, but I never do, sorry about that. Lets talk about your post.
You would never sink to the level of raping a girl. That's good, I believe you. I believe that no matter what a girl was wearing, doing, saying or signaling, you wouldn't rape her. You even used the words, "sink to that level". That's a great phrase.
So I have a question, if you know its wrong to sink to that level, why are you excusing those who do? Lets make something perfectly clear here Runner, the word "provoked" is an excuse. You might think back to when you were a kid, did you ever get in a fight or hit someone, then claim they provoked you when your parents got onto you? That's what you're now doing for rapests.
You're saying, and I honestly don't think you realize you're saying it, that if a woman wears a short skirt or a bikini she should expect to get abused either verbally or physically. If she'd only worn a parka, that wouldn't have happened. The term for that is victim blaming Runner, and its wrong.
That's why, if you look up at my first post, you'll see that I said women have the right to wear whatever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want. That means they have the right to do it without being assaulted, hit on inappropriately, or raped. That is the right they have as human beings.
We, as men of 2014, should get past this idea of "girls shouldn't wear sexy clothes, it makes us want things". We should instead be saying, "If you can't keep your penis under control enough to talk to a girl in a bikini without doing something inappropriate, you need to stay home". Stop making excuses for the despicable men in the world Runner.
Should all bare chested men be raped by women?
Cody's on par here. Statements point to women being unable to understand, so they need protecting.
I love a sexy girl, clothed, or naked.
I have the ability to enjoy her, but not abuse her.
thank you, Cody and Wayne, for saying what I'm feeling.
I'm sorry, but this idea that women can't be or aren't just as in control as men are or can be, is stupid.
many people in society subscribe to the view that women should be handled with extra care, or that certain things shouldn't be said in our presence, just cause we're women. I think differently.
Ryan, I must say, I'm shocked at the ignorance you display, in saying that, whenever a woman wears skimpy clothes, she's provoking men to act on that.
just presenting a scenario, here. consider that, before a man rapes a woman, in order to gain her trust, he has to make her feel at ease.
by doing this, he talks to her, maybe tells her something that tugs at her heartstrings.
then, he says, "remember when I asked you what size clothes you wore? I bought a mini skirt for you that I want you to put on."
when she fights back, indicating that she doesn't want to, and he, being over 6 feet, compared to her 5 feet, 90 pounds, grabs hold of her, strips her pants off, then puts the skirt on, are you still gonna claim that the girl was provoking this man?
I stand behind saying a woman cannot provoke rape. Dead women are raped, proving it's the sole responsibility of the rapist. A woman simply cannot provoke rape.
Ok.Cody, you are right that is what I said, though I see how you got that. I meant that if a woman didn't stop an orgasm, as you indicated, no harm no foul. But if I, a man, didn't stop mine on demand, lots of harm, lots of foul.
If that is sexist, I'm sorry, but it does ultimately fall to us men, and realizing and being prepared ahead of time is not supporting rape: it's making the situation safer for all. The pre-sex discussions do a lot to facilitate communication about this stuff. This is not hard, but takes some initial thought and preparedness on the part of the invited. Then again, if you're invited anywhere, don't you have a backout plan in case the invitation is called off, mid-celebration? Especially if you don't drive and it could be inconvenient getting out? That's where that cash for a cab comes in handy.
This is the responsibility of the invited. Maybe it is sexist of me, but I see sex for us men as an invitation. And I'll bet you've never been to a party you weren't invited to. And when a party in progress was called off by the host, you excercised your retreat as gracefully s possible, using whatever transport plan you already planned.
Yeah, I'll at least say I was heterosexist, since I don't know how the inviter / invitee relationship works.
Invitations are explicit and direct, using commonly-understood words, not implied symbols.
Chelsea, your point is well taken re treating women differently. It's understanding the situation, standing a taut watch as it were, so things don't go into the realm of the uninvited during sex.
I can't make any sense of the clothing and flirtation arguments, precisely because an invitation is direct and not implied. But I can see how the way I said things initially got misinterpreted. I was assuming everyone not trolling and not in the clothing debate saw sex like an invitation, and I didn't stop to think it all through first.
The problem with that Leo, is that not all rape is sex. Contrary to popular belief, women can commit rape. So you're incorrect in saying that there is no harm in a woman finishing her orgasm. If you don't want something sexual done to you, and its done anyway, its rape. Your gender doesn't matter in that instance.
If a woman were to tie you down and force herself on you, its rape. period. Whether you orgasm, she orgasms, both of you orgasm, the guy listening through the wall orgasms. None of that matters. Its rape, plain and simple. So biology has nothing to do with it.
You keep injecting this sense of sexism into the idea. Honestly, I can't really think of a post you don't do that with off the top of my head. Its a popular trope for you. The thing is, it isn't all about women wanting to be better or trying to make men into sissified boot-lickers. Its about affording women the same rights as men. That includes the right to not want to have sex.
I ALWAYS SAY that if at ANY TIME that it's a situation that I would have to "CHASE" a woman, NOT ONLY in order for me to HAVE her, but that I would also have to "FIGHT" to "KEEP" her, what THAT CLEARLY TELLS ME is that although SHE'S not the one for me, ANOTHER, WHENEVER, IS, which FURTHER MOTIVATES ME to "SOUND the TRUMPET" ALL the MORE, the LOUDER, in the VERY FORM OF, as ONE EXAMPLE out of OTHERS of mine, my "FACEBOOK"-profile-bio that CERTAINLY DOESN'T APPEAL to EVERY woman, SOLELY BECAUSE it's NOT SUPPOSED to. Why? Because the ONLY ONE, TRUE, SOLID LIFELONG HETEROSEXUAL-ONLY ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP, is that of TOTAL QUALITY, ZERO QUANTITY. I neither DENY nor REGRET ANY of what I've exposed of myself in my bio, and am CERTAINLY ANTICIPATING when I'll expose MORE, whenever I DO happen to update, AS LONG as my CURRENT "SINGLE-AND-AVAILABLE" status remains, until such time that it FINALLY CHANGES, whenever whoever she is CHANGES it, by FINALLY "STEPPING UP to the PLATE" with me, and whatever TO be "PUT OUT THERE" DOES happen to surface, mentally, as I write. YES, just as BEFORE, as well as NOW, I'm VERY SURE that I'll be PROBABLY/POSSIBLY/DEFINITELY CAUTIONED AGAINST public-posting in such a manner, which I'm gonna PURPOSELY go against ALL CAUTION and do it, ANYWAY, because in CLEAR LIGHT of our discussion, the ONLY ONE WOMAN/however many WOMEN, of which I'd ONLY choose to be chosen by one, NEVERTHELESS, that SHOULD respond, COMPLETELY, IS the one that's LIFELONG, without NO SELF-RESERVATION, WHATSOEVER, that will GUARANTEEINGLY COMMIT, REGARDLESS of ANY SELF-RISK for OUR sake of the COMPLETE LIFELONG PRESERVATION of EACH OTHER, desiring to give ALL of HER ALL in COMPLETE, GUARANTEED-IRREVERSABLE-EXCHANGE for ALL of MY ALL, and not ONE IOTA of ANY BIT LESS. which TOTALLY EXCLUDES ANY/ALL OTHER WOMEN that would rather do OTHERWISE, REGARDLESS of how ANGRY they might get at my TOTAL REFUSAL to accomodate THEM with what THEY want me to participate with whatever it is that THEY want, which is ENTIRELY NOT what I want, as in the VERY CASE AND POINT of what I told you about the woman that lives in my residence that was unfortunately violated in my LAST post.
SPEAKING OF, I wanna clear up the confusion that I unintentionally caused when I had mentioned the "in-house phone," which is a phone that's NOT MINE, PERSONALLY, and since I live in an independent-living adult home, the in-house phone system DOESN'T INCLUDE ANY LINE to make ANY OUTSIDE calls, but of COURSE, outside calls are ONLY INCOMING. I DO have TWO PERSONAL WIRELESS PHONE NUMBERS (VERIZON/WIRELESS and ASSURENCE/WIRELESS) that she NEVER HAD, nor WILL she EVER have the numbers to, as long as her decision remains as is, and I'm still single and available for whoever ANY OTHER chosen future bride would be for me. As far as the TOTAL IDIOT MONSTER that raped her, in response to whoever posted that he was "MY FRIEND," he is CERTAINLY NOT, and if he ever WAS, he CERTAINLY wouldn't be NOW or EVER ANY MORE, because of what he did, since it was a WOMAN that he did it to, and ABSOLUTELY NO MALE, EVER, that WOULD DELIBERATELY VIOLATE ANY WOMAN is one with whom I'll ALWAYS DECLINE to associate. EQUALLY, neither would I choose to associate with any WOMAN that's JUST AS SEX-OFFENSIVE as the woman, as described as the "COCK-TEASE" that she is, which she's prooven to be, COUNTLESS TIMES BEFORE, in my last post. According to what one of my neighbors that live on the very same floor told me, she's not the ONLY woman in there that's complained against him for sexual harrassment, but whether or not SHE, HERSELF, is the ONLY "SEX-DEPRIVATION-HARRASSER (so to speak)" that he's ever gone after, whether in THERE, anywhere ELSE, or BOTH, meaning EVERYWHERE, I have ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE OF--and to REALLY make matters even WORSE for HIM, I hear that he's ACTUALLY MARRIED, and that HIS MARRIAGE is SUPPOSEDLY STILL ACTIVE, even though his wife DOESN'T live THERE, but that he'd go to see and spend x-amount of time with her, until (I guess) THIS happened. NO, I'm not EVER SAYING that I'm EVER BETTER than ANYONE, because I'm NOT, neither is ANYONE ELSE, but it is what it IS.
QUICK ADDENDOM: NEVER START what you WON'T FINISH, whether you CAN or CAN'T; THIS WAY, this ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS HASSLE is TOTALLY AVOIDED, and NOONE on EITHER SIDE is hurt.
Cody, I can see all that, and of course all humans are owed the right of personal autonomy, and that does include sex.
I still contest the potential charges of victim abandonment and spousal rape. May sound hollow, but these are things I would never consider doing. i can see how someone could take the way I came across as a part of their excuse for what they did, and to be honest, it weighs unavoidably heavy on the conscience. I will say I have personally witnessed the humiliation you describe as not being part of the equation, but that in no way means I condone rape and other atrocities happening to other humans for any reason.
This is clearly much bigger than any one of us. I'll not be posting to such heavily charged topics anymore. If you take this as over the top response? You wears not charged with the types of things leveled at me, and nor should you be. I don't want to be part of someone's excuse for these types of atrocities either.
Rape is wrong!
Now that I’ve said that, let me take an unpopular view.
I believe women can, and do provoke rape. In some situations, it is their fault. I believe they provoke it deliberately, out of some sexual fantasy, or other misguided reasons.
Situation 1. She goes in to a bar, or place where only men hang out. She makes herself a regular, and while there constantly makes sexual remarks, sits on laps, and plays the guys. When she’s got them hot enough, she leaves.
She can’t be banned from the place, because she isn’t doing anything illegal, and she always says no to the guys that want to take her home. If rape should happen, she has provoked it.
Situation 2. It is a hot summer. Every night she gets dressed in her most revealing outfit, and takes a walk in the darkest, most crime ridden part of town. She’s out for a thrill. In this case, it is her fault.
Situation 3. She knows a man wants her. She is not sure yet, or has no intention of being with him. She send him provocative text messages, touches him when she walks near. Goes to his home, but always makes sure she stops short of sex. It is her fault.
Situation 4. She does exactly what is in post one. Sends pictures, accepts a date, goes to the man’s home, and undresses. Why has she done all this? Because it is sexual. She has set the scene, the mood, and put herself in the movie. It was her fault.
I know all rape is not about sex, or sexual, but in the first post it was, so I’m sticking with that theme.
When a provoking woman is raped, it is still a crime, but I believe the judge should deal both jail time, and the man should get half of the fine, or whatever the sentence is, and the woman the other half.
This does not happen, often times, but should.
Believe it or not, even prostitutes don’t provoke men. It is like banks, they don’t provoke robbery, but some people want to rob them.
So you're saying that if you went to a bar and saw a girl looking sexy and dancing with you and whatnot, you'd rape her? Or if you saw a girl in your neighborhood in a skirt you'd rape her? After all, its your neighborhood, if she didn't want to get raped she should have stayed at home. She should have known there were men out there and she was wearing a short skirt.
A common theme in all of your examples is that you took the men out of it. You had to because you would have had to admit that at some point the man was told no and didn't listen.
Why do we continue to give excuses for these men? Are we all so pathetic that we can't deny ourselves sex even if the girl is naked in front of us? Is that really what we want people seeing us as?
Wayne, you failed to demonstrate how the crime was provoked. Even murder is not said to be provoked. When I got into bar fights as a young man, someone may have deliberately pushed my buttons, but I was the one who threw the punch, unless it was defensive, I was in the wrong.
Since there is no way to rape as a defensive maneuver, it can't be provoked. I agree the situation is a bad egg, and I'd stay away from that bar. Not because I would fall down and rape or something, but because this person is engaging in some unsafe and compromising behavior. You would not need to rape to be accused in there: only be in the general area. It's impossible to provoke a rape, because a rape is entry into a space where not invited. When I had my buttons pushed as a young fool and started a fight, often the other guy wanted to get some action, didn't cry abuse, and we both were thrown out for fighting.
But a rape victim can't really provoke. I agree especially scenario 1 is unsafe. The dark area could be she took a shortcut, and was simply not adequately armed.
Anyway, some might also say I am wrong on this too, or a failure to communicate it according to popular thinking or what not. But I see it you have not yet been able to show how she actually provoked a crime. Do I provoke a mugging because I wear a nice leather jacket to go out downtown late? What if, as semi-regularly happens, I have quite a few at a bar, and head home. Getting drunk and distracted by a flock of birds, I follow them into a side street where some trees are, just so I can watch them bed down for the night, something I might well do. Being a bit drunk, I'm acting a bit unwisely for a late summer night. My sober self knows that hot nights equal crime. But in this event, I'm drunk. So I'm not thinking.
Foolish decision. But if she could provoke a rape, then I could be said to have drunkenly provoked someone beating me up, throwing me on the ground, tearing off the leather, digging for the wallet, and maybe killing me for good measure, since I didn't give them the money or PIN numbers they wanted.
Doesn't add up, and neither can I see sense in it adding up for rape. Again, willing to be wrong in my presentation of this, but standing by how I see it.
Wayne, you couldn't be more wrong.
saying that, due to how a woman dressed, or due to the fact she was in a bad part of town, she was provoking rape, is just as ridiculous as asserting that a woman asked to be raped cause people wanna claim she didn't fight hard enough to get the man off.
how can you claim to know a woman's heart, so to speak?
for all you know, she likes wearing skimpy clothing cause they make her feel sexy. I know I do.
so, I guess, by that logic, I'm always asking to be raped when I dress like that, cause you dumb men can't control your penises. really? is that how you want women such as myself to see your gender?
oh, and for the record, would you ever think to say that it's a man's fault he got raped? I doubt it, since you're probably of the misguided majority opinion that women never rape.
I will take issue with only one little thing in your post Leo. For the most part I agree with you entirely, except where you say that you would only have to be at the bar to be accused of rape.
The common idea of women claiming to have been raped without proof is largely a fictional one. Usually it stems from a few things. Either one, someone thinking a woman is claiming to have been raped when she isn't. This usually takes the form of news articles. Two, people assuming that because she didn't run away screaming that she wasn't raped. This is the one that disgusts me most of all. Or it could also be the idea that men often think that what we did isn't rape. After all, look at the posts above, you think every guy on here has a clear idea of what rape is?
So the chances of you going to a bar with a friend, sitting down and ordering a scotch, and having a girl come up and flirt with you, only to claim you raped her after you rebuff her, is practically nill. People just don't do that for the most part. Even if they did, the first thing the cops are going to do is run a rape kit on her and find her clean. They may run a kit on you and find none of her DNA anywhere, and you're clear. She has charges brought against her and you go back to your scotch.
I welcome you to try to find data which backs up your claim of women who do this. I'd be interested to see it. As of right now though, I think that's mostly an anti-feminist claim.
I should have been more clear: accused of misconduct, not a crime, and not coming from the woman in question, and applies only to me being in a long-term relationship. Someone posts a pic of me smiling while this woman is said to be flirting with me on their Facebook. Now I have an explanation to make, to some people at least. The wife, being already aware, isn't accusing, but others in friends and family who are saying "It looked like he was enjoying that" and so on. A far cry from a false rape accusation, even further from a actual rape. I should have been more clear, and I of course would t be the only one having to deal with the effects of that. It seems like a silly thing to worry about but I have seen similar. And it's a tough patch to work through. I said Facebook but I even heard of that sort of thing from the Polaroid era. Not saying live in a bubble, but he looked like he was enjoying her attention, as silly as that sound, is a tough accusation to beat. And equally tough on the wife or girlfriend who believes you and is ragged on for low self esteem or not being smart about a cheater.
And none of this is likely to be from the woman at the bar, who isn't even a home wrecker, as they used to call it, since the home was not wrecked. For better or worse, I think that term is a fallacy since homes are wrecked from within not without, and only those who made promises can break them. Again I know all this I'd far less than being raped, but I could save myself and those that believe me a lot of difficulty from people not keeping their noses where it doesn't belong.
Well that I can't comment on. I don't know your wife or the nature of your relationship.
You have all read my previous post, so you know my beliefs. Now I’ll defend my unpopular view.
It is not the manner of dress, nor the places the woman is in with the exception of the house, it is the woman’s actions.
Let’s look at the bar, or place full of men. It is not wrong for her to go there and have a drink, or whatever they do. It is not wrong for her to be a regular at this place. The provoking comes in when she acts in a sexual manner, sitting on laps, kissing, talking dirty, and generally making a sexual spectacle of herself.
Why does she choose to act in that manner in a room full of men, then when she understands they are aroused, get up and leave them in that state?
Why does she continually go to this place with the intent to do this action? She is deliberately causing this emotion, and playing with fire.
You can argue, that the fire shouldn’t get kindled in the smart man, and you’d be correct. The smart man ignores her and doesn’t participate in her childish game. All the men won’t see it that way. It only takes one. He has to have her, so acts in a violent manner. She has caused this behavior.
You could argue that strippers do this all the time, and they shouldn’t be raped, and that is also correct. The difference between the stripper, and the predatory woman, is the stripper is expected to behave as she does. The customers go to this place to be aroused, and there is an understanding that this in entertainment, not provoking.
The stripper does not leave you wanting in the boundaries of the entertainment, and she does not come to you, you go to her.
“I wear sexy clothes, because it makes me feel sexy.”
Why would you choose to walk in an area you know crime to be high at night when you have alternatives?
It was the shortcut, but you know the shortcut is risky. Why are you motivated to not only take the risk of the shortcut, for other reasons, like robbery, but you add to that danger by walking in your sexy outfits instead of covering up, if you must use that path?
Do you also sleep with your windows open, and your doors unlocked, because you should be free to live on the earth without being victimized? Should women not be held responsible for making an effort to secure their own safety?
It is true, I can’t know a woman’s heart, but I can know her actions.
If we say women should be allowed to deliberately provoke feelings of longing, lust, without responsibility, we are saying women are mentally inferior to men, and should be treated as such.
Go ahead ladies. Send men your naked pictures. Accept his date invitation, and on that date act in a sexual provocative manner to make him want you.
Go to his home after the date with him, continuing to act in a provocative manner and get undressed.
Allow him to touch you, kiss you. You can call off the game right now, or have enjoyable sex with him. Your option for claiming rape are never closed, and it is never your fault. You are a woman, and we all know women are not responsible for their actions.
A man’s wife can even claim rape against him.
Rape is wrong. It is a crime, but women can and do provoke it sometimes. The laws need to reflect this
So, by that logic, a candy shop owner who displays his wears shouldn't blame children for stealing the candy? After all, some know its wrong, and the smart child knows its only for display purposes, but he provoked the nonsmart kids.
By your logic the woman who nags her husband every day to take out the trash deserves to get her teeth knocked out. After all, she knew he was getting angry, but she just had to push it. Sure, the smart man would know not to punch his wife, but she provoked it.
I think the thing that you're failing to consider is this. There is a difference between provoking and opening the opportunity. I have slept with my windows open before. This is not me hanging a sign outside that says "please rob me". This is me enjoying the use of my own windows in my own house. I didn't provoke a person to climb through the window, they did that on their own.
So you believe that the law should reflect some of these provokations that you wrongly call provokations. So that would mean that the rapist or criminal could claim that the victim was provoking them. But by that exact same logic, I could claim you're provoking me. After all this is a hot button subject for me, I have too many friends and family members who have been raped. I've been wrongly accused before. This is a big issue for me. If you reply to this post, am I allowed to beat you half to death? Are you provoking me?
HONESTLY, I would just LOVE to be "RAPED" by a woman in a HEART-BEAT MILOSECOND! AFTER ALL, it wouldn't be considered "RAPE," ANYWAY! It would be PURELY CONSENTUAL (I'm being just as SERIOUS as I'm being FACETIOUS about this)!
INCIDENTALLY, I keep reading during this topic that NOT ALL RAPE is SEXUAL. What are these NON-SEXUAL-RAPE EXAMPLES?
yes, Wayne, I've slept with windows open before, but nowhere does that mean I'm sending a signal to society saying, "hey, come in and have me in whatever ways you see fit."
as Cody so accurately stated, there's a huge difference between a person provoking someone, and a person opening up an opportunity for something to happen.
as for you thinking you know women's actions, I'm sorry, but claim it all you want, since that's what seems to float your boat. myself and Cody will continue saying how ridiculous you are, in doing so.
how can you know for certain that there were other alternatives besides the dark street, that the woman could've gone down?
that's just it, you can't, unless you've traveled to every place, and have thoroughly learned the layout of each one.
I'm not a man, therefore, you won't ever see me assume that I know exactly what men are thinking.
it's one thing to have conversations with them, or to spend time with them, which would allow me to get to know things about them. however, if I were to start claiming things like, "one man raped me, so I now hate all men...just cause they have penises," any man in their right mind would, and should, tell me how idiotic it is to take that stance.
Wayne, all I can say is, take care of oneself before entering that situation, and you won't be physically uncomfortable. Rub out first, as it were. If you knew you were going to stand in line for 2 hours with a cup of hot coffee and a fountain leaking blissfully behind you, you just might want to pee first. Not reducing sex to going to the bathroom, but there is a very physical real element to the release factor, the pressure, the tension and so on. I'm not claiming that would keep someone from assaulting or doing some other uninvited thing, and I guess that will also offend the sensibilities of some, but I personally don't see anything demeaning or objectifying or anything about what one does by themselves.
Again, I'm not saying do that so you won't rape, I'm saying do that to clear the head and be less thinking about that and so on, more comfortably. Not something that gets brought up that often but we're treading in delicate territory on this thread.
Now i'm breaking with my own advice and perhaps feeding the troll:
To the last poster, that isn't rape because it is not uninvited advances. What you want, many of us like, and I did say us, yes I did: dominant, confident women, who know what they want. Most of the time, dominant women are demonstrated in the media and society as humiliating manipulators. I've been at the bad end of humiliating manipulators and I will say I do believe under the hood there that they are neither strong nor confident. The media / popular culture is wrong on this one. They're portraying the abusive kind, or saying that doesn't happen. But huge massive difference between real dominant / confident, and false dominant / manipulator / abusive. What ou are talking about is maybe the real thing.
It's not terribly uncommon for us human males to be most comfortable with someone who communicates what she wants and that goes with sex also. Less room for error on our part if she is expressing what and how she wants, and she wants to be with us. I'm probably stereotyping again, but I have personally never met a straight man who was anything but flattered when a woman was confident enough to make the approach, on all levels. The exception being the demeaning manipulating on-your-knees types. That's pretty terrifying no matter what age you're at.
But you're not talking uninvited territory. You want to be wanted. You want to be taken. So do I, I very much appreciate it also. That's radically different from someone who never saw it coming and tried to get away, but couldn't.
Let's sort of use the open windows idea as an example:
Sometimes you just have a house where you have the windows open. It's not an invitation for entry or peeping or walking around the outside.
But, as I did in Florida, sometimes you have a house with an open-pool policy, where your friends can come and go and use the pool. I hate the word slut, I think it's mean-spirited to women, but we're using the example, so I was a pool slut, if you will. That wasn't forced entry, because I wanted to have it that way. Lots of fellow Northern-raised friends suffering in the heat and if they came, "come on by and use our pool, even if we're not there!" That's not saying I wanted to have a break-and-entry robbery, or a trespasser. It was my land, mine and the mortgage company's anyway, so I exercised my personal right to have it open that way. I can't compare this in any way shape or form to the friends of mine who recently got robbed. One scenario is answering an invitation, another is violation.
It's probably way more complicated than that, and when is a pass a pass and when is it a violation, and so on. Most sexual harassment literature advocates males not make any sorts of advances at all to someone working at the same workplace, though of course outside of work it can't be mandated. Harassment in the courts is always in the mind of the harassee. So, again, you're right: one more reason besides the preference one, to get dates with people who are real confidents, ones that will let you know, not just imply.
A rape or a harassment or other similar terms is going where you're not invited. Invitations are never implied, they're explicit. I've never dropped in on a neighborhood party just because I smelled the barbecue, heard the music, and had a hankering for a cold beer. Not unless I'd been asked. I'm probably missing the target here, and this is ironic that it's only us men discussing this topic, we having the least rights to do so, but anyway. Someone dealing with a rape had their life torn up and turned upside down, felt dirty inside for it, couldn't help wondering what fault of this was theirs, fantasized maybe about how they got away, even though they didn't, and were afraid to report or even tell anyone about it. That's different from a preference for domant women. Radically different. So different in fact, It's hard to see any relationship between the two. Abusive donminators are not dominant or confident, they're just acting and you or the victim are a prop.
Anyway someone else can straighten that confuzzlement out.
You all have solid points.
I agree there is a difference in provoking, and opening up opportunity.
A woman walking down a dark street late at night, has opened up the opportunity.
If she is smart/aware, she understands this, so takes a calculated risk. If she is not smart/aware she still takes a risk, but an unknown one. If harm should come to her, she is a victim, not a provoker.
The woman that deliberately makes a point of walking down the same dark street, dressed in a provocative manner nightly, flirts with danger. She is smart, perfectly aware of it, but does it anyway. This woman is provoking.
Sleeping with your windows and doors unlocked opens up opportunity, but when you do this, do you also go down to the local bar and brag about your ability to do this? Do you place expensive items in your lighted open windows, so that any passerby can notice the fact your home is unprotected?
Instead of these little signs in the windows that say protected by alarm system, do your‘s say, open all the time?
If you do this, you have provoked a robbery, you would not be a victim.
Why is it so inconceivable a woman could actually be a provoker, not a victim?
Are you suggesting that all women should be absolved of blame, no matter their behavior, or actions?
Are you suggesting, that only men should be held accountable no matter the circumstances, and that all women are always victims?
At no time have I condone the crime of rape, but logic, and experience dictates my reasoning.
After an investigation, it can be proven a woman has provoked the crime that was acted on her, both parties in the case should be charged. She should not be absolved.
A personal note:
Cody, I am sorry for your pain. I have never been accused, of rape, and I believe this is due to my statements in another post.
I have known family, and friends, that were victims, and I have known some provokers that have not been raped.
Back to topic:
I fully understand my views are not popular, but what I claim is a fact of life, not my imagination. Women are perfectly aware of how they affect men, and should live by that knowledge.
Men are responsible for their actions as well, and I personally don’t believe in the loss of control.
Maybe this topic should be place on the list of all sex education courses, so that both male and female get to talk about it, and understand.
You're contradicting yourself. You can't both say that you think women can provoke rape, and then say that men should control themselves. Those are two contradictory ideas.
The truly bad thing about what you're saying is that you are indicating that you think women deserve to be punished for doing or wearing or acting in a way which doesn't conform with your view of the world. A woman who wears a short skirt, and knows she's wearing a short skirt, deserves to get raped. A girl walking down a dark street after dark deserves to get raped. She knew she shouldn't have been there. (parenthetically, what if she lives on that street)
It is impossible to provoke rape, but not only rape. Its also impossible to provoke molestation, robbery, mugging, assault, battery, theft, vandalism and murder. You can't provoke those things because the person who commits them always has a choice.
We, as society, have agreed that there are certain things which are legal, and certain things which are illegal. A woman flirting, no matter how brazenly she does it, is not illegal. A man raping her is illegal. The man always has a choice. He can leave at any point. He can tell the woman to leave him alone at any point. He can tell the manager of the bar to instruct her to leave him alone or to leave. He can do all sorts of things other than rape her. It doesn't matter what she is wearing, saying, doing, thinking or signaling. It doesn't matter.
The most shocking thing though, is that you have said multiple times that you wouldn't rape a girl. You've said many times now that you would walk away. So if you know that you have the opportunity and ability to walk away no matter what the circumstances, why are you making excuses for other men? If you can do it, why don't you hold the other men to the same standards to which you hold yourself?
Finally, in order for you to say that women deserve to get raped, which is exactly what you're saying when you say they're provoking it, you have to have decided what is acceptable behavior and what is not. So, please instruct the rest of us who don't have your supreme ability, how did you come to the conclusion that women can and cannot do certain things. How long should a skirt be to prevent rape in your mind? Are heels ok? What about makeup? Is it ok to rape a girl if her hair is down? I think girls with long hair are hot. Can I rape them now? At what point am I being provoked? If she smiles at me, can I take that to mean that she wants anal sex? where is the line that you seem to be able to make?
If men and women are equally responsible, then in my post about being a little drunk and wearing my leather jacket, the one that makes me feel like I'm in my 20s again, and the one I'm proud to walk down the street in, that I also should be punished by the law because here I go, middle-aged drunk guy, into a bird-laden, but addict-infested, area. Now two addicts approach me and mug me. They really need a fix. I mean, they need that fix so bad that blue balls would look like a holiday. I'm a smart guy, so shouldn't have gotten into that situation.
So by this same reasoning, not because of the clothes I took off but the ones I put on, and the place I went, I should be charged for provoking. I know addicts. I've known addicts for most of my adult life if not all of it. I know the need they describe. So then, men and women being equal, I would also need to be charged for provoking these, if the woman in question is to be charged for provoking the rape.
I am an egalitarian at heart. I've read the arguments by Karen Straughan and others about women no longer wanting to be infantilized, women wanting equal responsibility and so on. I understand this, because as a blind man that is all I have ever sought.
So, in that event, both things being actually equal, in your world I should also be punished for the addicts' sake. Their urges are way more powerful than a sexual urge. What controls they actually have and don't have, I can't say I fully know. Seems like a lot less than the control I have over my own sexuality though.
That's how that one would actually pan out, if your scenario is egalitarian in nature.
Now in real life, would I advise a young relative or friend to keep away from that one? Yeah you bet. Would I tell him to watch how she plays men like things? Yeah, you bet. Not because of the dress, but you indicate sitting in men's laps, any number of them, and playing them. You don't think when she's gone from the bar that word will get out? Sure it will. This stuff is not a binary situation. In none of that am I saying she is at fault for a rape, it doesn't even really involve her, just the guy, protecting himself. And in no way does that diminish her rights, nor the rights of actual confident women who express their sexuality as sexuality, and not a power play. But telling him to watch his step with that one there, doesn't slut shame her, or indict her. She's playing power games and there is more fodder out there for that. He's just one less gullible to take the bait is all. And that isn't even to protect against a rape, just a very unpleasant evening and possible heartache afterwords. None of that says it's her fault though.
Perhaps it would be wise of me to not walk in that area infested by craving addicts. I'd say yes to that one also. The city's large and no need. But if I were attacked, it would not be my fault or provocation in the eyes of the law that I was attacked. I might well feel like the fool afterwards, at least in my case, and do differently. But feeling is feeling: it's not the state of things, and the court would never hear of it from the addicts that the leather jacket tantalized their need for goods to buy drugs.
I agree with equal responsibility. I've listened to the likes of Karen Straughan talk about how insulting the infantilization of women in society is to her. This has been an evolving process for me in the past few years. But equal is equal: If what you said went, then I would be punished also for provoking the addicts. I pretty much think their urges are stronger than the worst case of the blue balls, and I have a lot of doubts about their abilities to control themselves, while I'm confident even the worst case of blue balls can be managed with a few steps at most. So actually, in your world, if men and women are in fact equally responsible, I would probably get punished worse because of an addict's inability to control what's going on there, unlike the rest of us.
Wayne, have you shared your views with any of the rape survivors you claim to know personally? if not, and you truly believe your stance holds true, why haven't you done so?
I hope you answer Cody's question about why you don't hold men to the same standards as you do women. I'd really like to know.
also, what's your answer to his question about the possibility that the woman who frequently goes down the dark street could be going to her house? since you didn't answer my question about how you know for certain that there are other alternatives, I'm eager to see if you blow Cody off, too.
I honestly haven't been so disgusted about someone's views in I don't know how long.
Maybe I misunderstood the article, I'm sorry. I do have to agree with post 33, though. I do think a woman should dress how she wants, talk dirty if she wants, do what she wants but if she's not cautious then come the results. Rape is wrong, I never excused it, so that's gotta be out of the way. It's like the man with the candy shop, not everyboddy is gonna follow the rules. He can have the shop, and still beware people. Just because we're tought not to steal, doesn't mean there won't be anyone who isn't tempted to do it at a shop. Is it right? Hell no! But I still stand by what I said.
Why is the concept that men should control themselves, and women can, and do provoke rape contradictory?
I insist on a man’s control, and I insist on a woman moderating her behavior. She can act in a manner doesn’t provoke the men that can’t control themselves.
To make that view stand, you must place the woman in the controlling place, and not the victims.
The woman I use in my example willfully behaves in a teasing, provocative manner. Her actions are not the woman’s going about her day to day business in a natural manner.
It is not the clothing she chooses to wear that makes her provoking, it is her deliberate action of putting herself in harm’s way, or creating a situation that might cause her harm.
A woman that lives on a dark street, and has no other options, but to live on that street makes an effort to protect herself. This can be done many ways. She won’t be going out at night to parade up and down her street naked, or wearing her must provocative outfit, so that her neighbors can see her.
Your list of crimes happen enough without provocation, but it is possible to bring them about through unwise actions.
It is correct that society, or in some countries, have decided that a woman’s brazen actions are not illegal, but if a man rapes her it is illegal, and that needs to be altered.
If she is of sound mind and body, she understands what she is doing, so bares some of the responsibility. Can you answer to why she should not?
I am making no excuses for rape, only understanding there are situations where the crime is provoked. Neither action is right.
My conclusions are based on reality, not what should or shouldn’t be.
I have never stated a woman deserves to be raped, I am saying that through her actions, she can cause it.
Why is that an impossible concept?
A side note:
Chelsea, all the persons I know that were actually raped were victims, not provokers. Many of them were children. Two of them have children by their fathers, as a result.
The children I have not expressed my views to, but my daughter, and the adult women I have.
In my community prevention was talked about and what was safer/proper for a woman to do and not do.
Girls and women were instructed to be in at night fall, or be escorted.
If you had no choice but to be out and unescorted after dark, proper dress, walking and protection behavior, and devices were discussed.
You wouldn’t find any of these women that took the instruction in a bar full of men alone. They simply wouldn’t go in. They would choose a place where there were both women and men.
There was a limit to how far flirting could go unless you were interested, and the women, if unescorted moved in groups.
In one place I lived, not the best, even the prostitutes had a safety network, and would not stand on a dark street, and other measures.
Back to post:
Take the woman out of the victim role you keep putting her in, and place her in the controlling role, and what I say makes sense, and is not disgusting at all. It is reality, and happens every day.
To answer your first question, its simple. The word rape has a definition. That definition means the sexual force of someone against their will. Its that last three word phrase that answers your question.
Now then, to address the rest of your post. The problem with your thinking is that you are only looking at the way things are, not how they should be. You even admit that the things that are happening are wrong. If they're wrong, how can they be provoked?
You still seem to be unable to absorb the concept that the man always has a choice. He has the choice of moving or not moving. Moving is illegal, not moving is legal. If he moves, he is criminally responsible. Women have every right to act how they please without threat from men.
Do you not see something wrong with the fact that women have to be escorted? How can you look at a world where women are escorted like cattle and think to yourself, "Yep, that's the world as it should be". I truly don't understand how you can think that way. And you still haven't answered a lot of questions. I'll add another to the pile, why is it you never include the men in your scenarios? Is it because you know that if you do your hippocritical ideals will entirely fall apart?
We don't punish victims of theft or physical assault, even though they may have been too tantalizing for an addict, or a homeless person who was rejected one too many times during the days panhandling session. Both those situations, they are far less of sound mind than us average guys. I'm saying this as an egalitarian at heart: never been all that fond of group-specific rulings. In your world, the situation I described would have a lot of crime victims punished, because us wearing leather, buying a taco at a food cart, and walking away eating it would be too much to resist for some unstable people. So would Cody, walking out of the bar after a show, with his guitar and gig bag.
You're still separating rape from other types of crime. I could almost sympathize if it was theft and addicts we were talking about since they're unstable and can't control themselves like us. This isn't infantilization of women like some now talk about, it's an unrealistic double standard you're applying, that you're unwilling to apply to other high crimes, including those where the perp is unstable compared to the rest of us.
Definitions are wonderful. They describe words for the writers, and give explanations, or meaning to actions and objects.
The problem with applying definition to life is they can’t cover variations, or reasons.
Definition never answers the question, why.
“She was raped. What happened? Well, she was forced against her will. Yes, but what happened, how did it happen? Well, you see the definition of rape is.”
I write about reality, because reality is what is happening. Idealism is nice, but doesn’t solve anything, until it becomes reality.
I am trying to answer as many of your questions as I can, so if I’ve missed something, please refresh it, and I’ll answer.
You site me for not saying how things should be, but when I read back over my post, I see I have stated exactly what I think things should be.
I’ve stated how I feel both male and females should behave. I’ve stated what I think should be done when they don’t behave. I’ve stated what a man should do when a women is misbehaving, and I’ve stated what a women should do to protect herself from a man’s misbehavior. What have I missed?
I’ll give you a man scenario.
A man walks in to a beauty shop, and sits down. He opens his Screw magazine and starts to read it, while sipping on a cup of coffee.
Each time he comes to a nice sex seen in his magazine he stares at the women in the place, and tells them he wishes it was him and them. He’s quiet, doesn’t touch anyone, nor does he use bad language.
Each time a new woman comes in, he displays his magazine, and invites her to give her opinion on the girl, and how she could improve on the seen if she were to have the chance
This man is not doing anything illegal.
Should this man be allowed the same standards as you say a provoking woman should have?
He’ll pay for each hairdo while he’s sitting, so he can’t be said to not be spending any money.
Why is it okay for the hairdresser to be able to call the police to remove him? He’s just having a little fun right?
Second. A man boards a flight. When the plane is level, he takes out his Playboy magazine, and starts to read it. The flight attendant comes by, and ask him to put it away.
He refuses. He is not harming anyone, just reading a magazine just like the lady in the next aisle is reading her Ladies Home Journal.
Why when the flight lands he can be arrested, and charged a fine, when Playboy is not an illegal item, and it is not technically illegal to read one on a plane?
Why can’t he exercise his freedom to enjoy his flight as he sees fit, as long as he’s not provoking anyone?
In my scenario’s at no time are women escorted like cattle, they are free willed and free doers.
We are not talking about treatment of all women, we are talking about some women being held accountable for their actions.
You say crimes can’t be provoked, the person being provoked should move.
When was the last time you went in to a place, set down next to a guy’s girl, and started talking to her, in a I want you fashion? You pick up her drink and sip from it. You try to feed her chicken wings from your fingers, tell the guy he should get lost: you’re taking his girl home.
Your actions just might make him try to knock you on your ass, but you never provoked him right? He should have moved, or left you with his girl.
aaahhh! thank you, thank you wayne! I think you hit the nail in the very head, because just as the man has a choice, the woman also has the choice of watching out her behavior or not. She was raped, but why? Note, we're not speaking of all cases, but the cases of rape where the woman acted in ways that not all men will keep to themselves. It's like having flashy bags and an expensive car and gold julary. Is it wrong to have these things if one can? No. Do I show it all off, even in the bad neighborhoods where I know I can be assaulted? Not if I'm in my right mind. It doesn't mean I can't use these things, but that if I'm assaulted or killed for not giving them to the theves, I could've avoided all that if I were more careful. I'm not comparing this in any way to rape, we're talking about crimes that are committed, and how some do have a cause.
I have to be QUICK about THIS POST, due to an EMERGENCY SITUATION that I have to take care of, but I heard of a situation where a man was ACTUALLY ARRESTED, JUST BECAUSE he JUST SO HAPPENED to be walking along, going wherever, and a woman, passing by, NON-SEXUAL-PROVOKATIVELY SMILED, and HE RESPONDED, EQUALLY. A few blocks LATER, he was SUDDENLY SURROUNDED by COPS, GUNS, AIMED at his HEAD, he was IMMEDIATELY CUFFED, and CHARGED with the SAME OLD "SEXUAL-HARRASSMENT" CRAP that OTHER MEN have been, for OTHER NON-SEXUALLY-PROVOKED-RESPONSE INTERACTION. THIS is a REMINDER of the STILL-NOT-ANSWERED QUESTION of POST 52, unless THIS SCENARIO JUST MIGHT BE one such example.
I'm not sure you can be arrested for sexual harassment. But harassment is a problem: it is unconstitutional. It is in the mind of the harassee only, which is why every harassment book at the workplaces always puts that ultimate qualifier for whatever the harasseee wants to report.
A woman I knew talked on a Monday about her barbecue over the weekend, others chiming in as usual. A particular vegan man was offended at the celebration of meat eating and so went and reported this harassment at the HR office. Harassment as currently undefined is terrible, most notably because people who actually get sexually harassed, are lumped in the same batch as people who had to hear a joke meant for someone else or had to hear people discussing the weekend barbecue.
Wayne your magazine example is valid, I think. If a woman can do as she will whenever wherever so can this man with the magazines. In Japan, you always saw guys on trains looking at pornos. There were even sex toys in the vending machines there.
This is where I say Feminism and Christianity, at their radical roots, are precisely the same on these types of situations. I'm talking the two ideologies, not the millions of humans who subscribe to them and interpret them as they see fit. I'm saying the ideologies, both have some strong hate in there, which most would find unpalatable to practice.
If he did comment to the other women, who didn't wish to participate in the comments, I think that is pretty rude and unkind and probably citable on multiple counts. But to look at a mag should be fine. Look at how often we excuse sighted people's behavior towards us, as a blind community. We don't want to be treated as infants, and so we put on the big human footwear and realize we don't own everything.
This is not something you would ever see a feminist or a Christian do when they don't get their own ideological way. With the exception of the more casual interpretations of either.
If there ever was a movement of men who wanted to take women's resources, had a radical component that wanted to reduce women's population to 10%, rewrite spousal abuse laws so that arrests were made to women first, whose radical roots said that past crimes excuse a hatred against current women, I would be at least as critical of that movement as I am the other two. Probably moreso being a father of a daughter, and being a husband.
How we would, correctly in my opinion, claim them as haters, if when a woman was pummelled and assaulted, people at the university said it wasn't politically expedient to press charges against a man because men are usually the victim, and the pummelled woman should just understand. How we would riot in the streets. And yet this happened to a friend of mine at a mainstream university, not by a bunch of strange people, but by fundamentalist feminists. I am unclear as to how much they hated my friend, or if my friend as a piece of meat simply got in the way of their ideology. People don't usually hate pieces of meat but they don't call them human either and move them out of the way.
There is a strong connection between feminism and Marxism / socialism. In short, it's hard to claim feminism as an ideology while being a critical-thinking Libertarian. Impossible. As impossible as it is for me to claim Christianity and say the old testament god was an unruly tyrant, out of control, and should have suffered the same fate as those who died at Nurenberg.
You can't be a feminist libertarian anymore than you could be a Christian atheist.
Cody has been right to say that Christians can't just disassociate themselves from the GodHatesFags movement and similar. And Feminists can't disassociate themselves either, from books like The End Of Men, or the Femitheist channel on Youtube, or any of the material we read in the 1980s and such in universities.
Truth be told, of course Christians and feminists alike can disassociate themselves. They can, they are human beings, human beings are complex creatures. But to critically look at an ideology, is not criticizing a particular human. Cody has said this time and again about the Christians. So have many other writers on the Internet and elsewhere.
Any atheist who is intellectually honest will acknowledge this stuff as they dig a bit.
Personally? I think most of us are pretty egalitarian. Sure, I defer to Her on a lot of things, but because I think She probably has a lot better perspective. But I don't defer to Her because of Her gender. That would be insulting and obvuscate all the effort She clearly has put into arriving at a conclusion. Karen Straughan and other writers have frequently said that being made to be right just because they're women is insulting. We, who are blind, should understand this. I feel like I really ought to have known better sooner but had spent decades going along with the status quo.
But back to what Wayne was talking about: So in a truly egalitarian sense, she should be wise, and I should be wise regarding my stuff and where I go. That is wisdom, but that is not the law. The law is not to punish fools, we fools get punished by our own folly. At least I have plenty of times. The law is to punish the wrongder, the one who has actually wronged another human being. Folly is not wrong, it's just foolish. In my case sometimes it's been just downright stupid, when I was younger and got myself into and out of some situations. We all humans have the right to do a lot of things, including the right to be smart about things. But this I would never say to a woman recovering from the catastrophe that is rape. And her assailant is wholly responsible.
So if there is a movement of men out there working to take women's resources and assail their credibility, that would be a movement of hate which would be attacking a woman's constitutional right to press charges in this instance, and her natural rights for justice and, dare I say it, retribution. The same can be said of any movement or ideologywho does the same to men.
I will never see clearly with these two groups because I am admittedly an individualist, individuals have responsibility for their own crimes irrespective of race, gender, sexual orientation, and what have you. And that being said, a woman cannot be held responsible for the one who attacked her. Even if there are some safer choices.
Let me say this, Wayne: A man who deliberately infected other gay men with AIDS in the 90s tried to claim that those men weren't interested in safer sex practices, so he should get off the hook. Wrong, because he knew well enough that he had the disease and did not disclose. Would it have been wise for them to engage in safer sex practices? Absolutely. But wisdom is not the law. Where wisdom is attempted to be turned into law, people like Cody and myself and any number of other freethinkers usually make comments about the Nanny State.
There are safer practices, and it's not slut shaming, or shame at all, to say so. But those are not excuses for the criminal in question. Whether we could change a rapist's mind, I don't know. Someone like Cody may say yes, but Cody has statistically speaking, most probably never raped, and most probably never considered raping. I don't know the answer to that one: I have my doubts, which is one reason I support swift and sure justice after absolute assurance we know who the perp is. Most safer practices don't even involve rape: wmen traveling in a group prevent other acts of misconduct like robbery, physical assault and kidnapping. They're not responsible to prevent any of these things, they're just looking out for number one and being smart about it. No shame, no blame, both of which are rather primitive means to answer difficult questions.
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner Cody, I'm Ryan. But anyway the question here is not what rape is, because it doesn't take a high IQ to understand that it is wrong to forcefully take advantage of a person sexually against their will. Even the ones who commit rape know it's wrong, yet they rape someone and try to discredit it by making any excuse they can think of, which by the way I'm not trying to do. The problem we have here is we do not agree on what provoking is. Please tell me if this is not the case, but I think you believe provoking has to be intentional, whereas I believe you can provoke someone without knowing you did it. For instance, going back to the example that's been braught up time and time again here is the one about the girl who goes out and flirts and dances up on guys. Now I'm not a girl nor have I ever had the urge to grind up on strangers, but I will try to understand the logic. She is not thinking, hmmm. Let's see if I can get a stupid idiot wound up enough for him to overstep my boundaries, so then I can get him in trouble for either raping me or attempting to rape me. That sounds like a great idea, something I definetly want to spend my time doing. Rather here is what she is probably thinking. Fuck, it's Friday night. I've had a long week, I just got paid, and I want to go out and have fun. When she gets to the club she has a few drinks. She spots a cute guy and thinks about dancing with him. She just wants to have fun. Little does she know she unintentially came across a guy who is lonely, who wants to take a girl back to his place and have sex with her. So they get to dancing and she gets up and personal with him, grinding against him a little. He's really enjoying this and he's thinking that maybe she will just come back to his place with him, and there won't be any problems. he smooth talks her. Her friends that she came with leave without telling her so she is alone with this guy undenounced to the others in the club around her who wouldn't even question whether or not they know each other. She tells him she's ready to leave because she is tired now and he walks her out. She says she wants to go home, but he tries to encourage her to come back with him. When she says no, he gets angry because he feels his chance of getting laid slipping away, so he grabs her and pulls her in to his truck. And I won't continue the situation because the thought of doing something like that turns my stomach, but I hope you understand where I am coming from. Of course it is not her fault that some prick can't be a civil human being. I really wish people, especially girls who are young and who want to have fun would think of these scenarios in advance and come up with a plan, as silly as it may sound. Something like refusing to leave alone or not going out alone to begin with could eliminate the chances of being put in a situation that puts her at risk. Because the easiest way to be taken advantage of is when a person is vulnerable and alone. You add to that a girl who might not want to hook up with a guy for sex, but who dances with a guy who has problems controlling his urges, it's a terrible situation. The worst part of it is that doesn't become a reality for her until it is too late. So I hope this makes some sense, and as of now I still stand behind my point that provoking does not have to be intentional, unless you can prove me wrong.
Oh, and you know what? I didn't even think of how much worse the guy could be. He could literally be more than just a guy who wanted to have sex with a girl but couldn't because she didn't want to. He could simply just want to rape a girl. I don't know the thought process of that guy (who I won't even refer to as a man), so I can't illustrate an example along those lines. I hope this is food for thought to some girls who like to go out and have fun though, who haven't had such a nasty experience, and I hope they never do. Don't let yourself be vulnerable to a situation like that. The world has some fucked up people in it, and the more we can catch and get rid of the better.
Ryan, people have choices. so, to say that a girl is provoking a guy "who has trouble controlling his urges," as you say, is incredibly ignorant.
I've asked this question of Wayne, and he didn't answer, so we'll see if you come up with anything logical.
are you really advocating that women shouldn't dance on guys, or wear skimpy clothes, cause the man shouldn't have to take responsibility for what he does with his penis when he sees such things?
maybe the girl has a naturally flirtatious personality, and, as I've stated in earlier posts, she enjoys wearing sexy clothes cause they make her feel...sexy.
also, Ryan, you didn't answer the scenario I presented, in an earlier post, where I asked if you'd consider a man who forcefully puts a mini skirt on a woman as her provoking him, even though she A, had no choice in the matter, and B, didn't want such a thing to happen.
Chelsea, that sinerrio doesn't make sence. Sorry. I think you have to reread his post, because no where did I read that a girl shouldn't dress or act sexy. What part of she just has to be careful, do you have trouble understanding? It's simple. No one here is suggesting that a woman be deprived from acting as she wishes, but that she moderates her behavior for the reasons I'm unwilling to repete, you can go back again and understand. Sure, she may just want to have fun, but not all people will respect that. It's not a perfect world. I mean if I'm in my right mind, I could plan very carefully if I decide to go out at night. If I dance with a guy, and start grinding up on him, it's like depositing trust where there hasn't been any. Because I don't know if he'll just want to leave it at that. And because I don't know, I just have to be very careful, nothing wrong in doing that, right? We can't be so trusting nowadays. I think it makes a lot of sence. Rape is not ok, period.
And just as the man has a choice, the woman also has a choice. Many, in fact. She has the choice, to take some safe measures or not. She has the choice, to moderate her behavior or not. She has the choice, to give herself some respect or not. She not only has a choice, but the thought capasity of being aware that if she doesn't watch out, even if she wants to have fun, not all guys are going to care about that. What's so hard about that? Again, no question that she doesn't want to be raped. Not one at all. I strongly believe that she's just as much as in control of her behavior as well.
Chelsea, your skirt argument is a false flag. What I mean is, here you and Cody and others have built a dynamite case. A really tight case. I mean, it's solid. But then you bring something in that doesn't relate: an abduction, forced putting on clothes, and so on. Of course that doesn't apply, the woman was first abducted, then forced into the clothes you describe, then raped, I presume. Since several serious felony crimes occurred before the rape itself, that is entirely different than someone meeting at a club and a predator taking advantage of a situation. And I agree with your stance on that, I think you and others made a really good case. It's a shame you resorted to the type of argument style that the Christian apologists do, when you used that skirt illustration. Because they have to, seeing as their case is usually flawed and flaccid, but yours so stout you could drive a truck on it safely.
Now, Ryan, if the woman could provoke rape, in the interest of nonideological egalitarianism, I could provoke the addicts that I spoke of earlier. In fact it would be easier for me to do that than it would for her, since they are inherently unstable and in financial and physical constant need.
your Feminist ideology supports me in this, except they would go so far as to say the State should pay for their sustenance whether or not they can make a recovery.
So by your logic, Ryan, I can provoke street addicts, and I am liable.
Now, Dolce Eleganza is right about safer practices. Nowhere is there shame in this. In fact, a great safer practice is self defense, and carrying a weapon you will actually use. So if the girl has a firearm, one she will actually use and not just wave around, then she is better protected. That is not to say it's her fault for not having a weapon, just that a weapon that she will actually use is a safer practice.
I do say "that she will actually use," because I knew a man out here who carried, but openly said he would never shoot somebody. This didn't end well.
Ironically, your feminist ideology at its radical roots would tell you my weapon suggestion is patriarchal, and in California and other states where this ideology is more common, they deny women the right to carry a weapon and protect themselves.
You just have to be careful in advocating safer practices: people don't provoke crimes. But there are safer practices that can be utilized, without the shame tactics based on the commonly-paid-for ideologies.
I feel like doing a lot of things that might remind me of my college days. But not all these things are either wise or safer practices when in certain areas of town. Because I am an adult, I am able to make the relevant compromises. If I didn't, that would not be provoking a criminal, but it would probably be unwise.
My friend who was pummelled by the feminist protesters screaming "dead men don't rape," refused to go by that bookstore again, and you could argue that was a safer practice. Some people may argue those feminists could have controlled their behavior, though society at large, at least in progressive states, was tolerant of it. He didn't provoke their attack, and their attack was even excused based on the fundamentals of their ideology, but he was also smart enough to stay clear of that particular spot after that.
By the way, so was I. Not a matter of shame, not a matter of not doing what I want with my own body, just a matter of being smart once I was made aware of it. Even now I guarantee you I will stand quite clear of such a protest. I don't think rapists have an ideology: I think they're brutes personally. But one could argue the same things. And you know what? People warned me off certain religious protesters in Florida for some similar reasoning. Those people threw rocks and cow's blood, picked fights, and were generally unstable and unreliable. I suspect their ideology at its radical roots would say they also could not control it, or weren't liable.
Violent people do violent things, and it's wise to stand clear. But victims don't provoke violent people to do violent things: they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. If I can evade such a place and time, I personally will do so.
I'm not going to answer your question, because it's a stupid one which you should all ready know the answer to. I didn't say people shouldn't go out, dress how they want to, get drunk, dance and grind on all the people they want, or even go home and fuck the shit out of a person they don't know. Do whatever the hell you want if it makes you happy. What I am trying to get through a couple thick skulls here is things can happen, and you should be prepared to react in some way when someone tries to take advantage of that. Now please, tell me what's so wrong with that. Please tell me what is so goddam ignorant about being prepared to protect yourself, or better yet keep yourself out of harm's way. Because guess what. Just like there are partiers in the world who want to have fun and act the fool, there are sick bastards out there who don't care if they will go to jail for raping someone. They are so fixated on getting their pleasure fulfilled that they don't care what happens to them after the fact. Don't try pulling the excuse card on me again because I'm just telling you how people are in this great world of ours. I'm sorry I'm not saying what you want to hear. Sorry I can't honestly say that rapists are some day going to disappear and go away forever. I'm sorry that everyone can't go out and act the fool without paying for it later, dressing provogatively and not be creeped on because of it, dance, bump and grind on a stranger and not have them take it as an invite to do what they please to each other. And that's all I have to say on this matter. Call me ignorant, stupid, unrealistic, or whatever you like, but don't ask me if I give a shit. Have a good day.
Lets just get a few things cleared and out of the way, here. First: rape is never ok, no matter what. Next: it's not a woman's fault if she gets raped. Next: Even though it's not her fault, she can put herself in harms way. Next: A woman should be smart, and a man must stop. next: A woman could do with herself what she wants, but things may sadly not turn out the way she wants. Furthermore, it's not that she's looking to be raped, but not every man she dances with or encounters will interpret things the way she feels or acts. N,O. Oh, I'm sorry if I've ruened the fun for ya. So with that said, if I'm viewed as ignorant by the very ignorant, I'd rather make sence rather than parot arguements and judge, because I don't know how to argue. I don't think this arguement is about being right or wrong, I need no one's approval to be right, and I don't need to have a popular view or a very high IQ to be a reasonable young woman and be accepted, sorry. Nuff said.
leo, the reason I brought up the skirt scenario was cause it's a real one that happened.
since the woman was forced to wear skimpy clothes, I wanted to see whether anyone would still claim the outcome was her fault. so, I'm unsure what you consider weak about that.
If she was forced, then she was forced. That is a totally separate argument before the rape. Forcing someone to do something, that involves criminal activity, even if it is forcing them to sit down and eat potato chips. So you r skirt scenario started out with a crime against the woman, presumably unlawful detention or something, probably assault in order to force her to wear the clothes.
You apply unwanted force on another person you have already committed at least one, but probably several, crimes.
Not you, Chelsea, but the person committing the actual crime.
yes, I know this, leo.
no worries, I knew you weren't personally saying I was at fault.
oh, and to address those who say I'm being a parrot, I'd just like to add this. the skirt scenario was a part of my story as a rape survivor. I purposely didn't state that from the start, so as not to sway anyone's opinion, or receive any comments claiming I'm trying to make things about me.
although I'm a survivor myself, I also do volunteer work with a local agency that handles rape cases on a daily basis.
that's where I was able to see firsthand that, contrary to what society often thinks, rape cases rarely go anywhere, even if charges are pressed.
so, when I strongly advocate that there's no such thing as provoking rape, a parrot is far from what I am.
aside from my own personal experience, I've heard numerous stories where incestuous relatives say, "my little girl provoked me. I just couldn't help myself, as she looked like her mother." again, that's just another illustration to back up why I feel the way I do.
Well it's technically impossible to provoke a crime, and the person saying it is just throwing out an excuse hoping that people will buy it. I can't pretend to say how things would go in the South or in Texas, though my stint in Florida might make me wonder and shudder.
But up here this would go nowhere, courts don't buy that shit.
Ryan. I agree with you it is possible to provoke someone by accident.
I also agree that the women needs to be careful/cashes in what she does.
In my unpopular view, the women I am talking about do this intentionally, not accidently.
Any woman who does as you suggest in your scenario would be a victim, not a provoker.
Leo, I’d agree that the man should have been punished for giving others his disease willfully. That is wrong, even if the men are not practicing safe sex.
Chelsea, I have answered your question in many different ways on several post, but I’ll do so again.
I've asked this question of Wayne, and he didn't answer, so we'll see if you come up with anything logical.
Are you really advocating that women shouldn't dance on guys, or wear skimpy clothes, because the man shouldn't have to take responsibility for what he does with his penis when he sees such things?
I have stated many times, it isn’t the manner of dress that is the problem, it is the woman’s actions. The woman going about her business in a normal way is not provoking, it is the woman who goes out of her way to tease in some fashion.
She understands exactly the effect she is creating and continues on with the date, the teasing, the baiting knowing fully well she has no intentions of falling through.
That women has provoked her rape. Her rape is still wrong, however, she must bare half of the responsibility for her rape.
Have I answered your question on what if the woman has no choice, but to be out at night?
What if she lives on the dark street, and much come home?
Now, I have a question you have not answered, even though I have answered yours many times, why do you feel the women in my scenario should not be held responsible?
I have answered another question I see I missed that Cody ask when I agreed with Ryan, that it is possible to accidentally provoke.
I think people see my view, and because it is so emotional, don't read my words fully.
I did say it was unpopular.
Chelsea, if you can show me in my post where I stated that any woman wearing skimpy, or sexy clothes has provoked please show this to me?
Leo, it depends on if you want to count this as a way of provoking crime but I can think of an example. I'm sure you've watched those Cop shows where a task force goes out to a highly popular area where drug crime is common. They have under cover personell go out as drug dealers or buyers, offer to buy or sell drugs to people, and bust the ones who accept the deal. They do the same thing for prostitution. But again it depends on how you see provoking, plus I haven't heard of a special task force that goes out to provoke rapists before. And though I guess they could do that I've never heard of that happening before. They have done this to people that were determined to hire a hit man to kill someone, though. I figure it doesn't hurt to put that example out there regardless because I'm curious to see what you have to say.
Oh my goodness, I think there are two sepparate issues here! Chelsea, we're talking about the women who's actions provoke the crime, even though they're not intended to. That's completely different than the little girls who have been raped by rotten fuckers. Of course they didn't provoke such atrosities. I never said it was ok. Ever! No one deserves to be raped, so just be careful, that's all I'm saying. Take it as you may. The end.
Wayne, you still haven't told us how you base your idea of what is acceptable action and what isn't. Why is it that you feel a woman does not have the right to tease? Do men have the right to tease? I flirt with girls all the time, I don't sleep with every girl I flirt with. Can I be raped?
Oh, and Ryan, the word provoke can't be unintentional. Provokation is, by definition, an active verb. It requires forethought. So no, you can't provoke inadvertently.
Let me also point out a few facts here. First of all, the vast majority of rape cases are not done in public places. They are done by people you know and trust. They're done by family members. So your safety argument falls apart there, but I can take it farther than that.
Dolce, you've said in other threads that you enjoy wearing dresses. I assume though, that because one of the more popular places for rapes to occur is at school, that you don't wear dresses to school. After all, its safer that way. I assume that you don't meet with your male family members. After all, its safer that way. I presume you're never alone with your boyfriend. That's the most common way of getting raped, so it would be safer never to do that. You give up those rights, don't you? In order to be safe? Right?
All sarcasm aside, though I would like a serious answer to those questions, let me make one thing clear. We, as a society, have a right to safety. We have a right to our own person being safe, and our own person being protected by law. That is why rape is illegal. That is why robbery is illegal. That is why murder is illegal. They're illegal because we each have rights to safety.
Those rights are not based on geography. You don't walk across the street and lose your right to vote. You don't walk down to the corner store and lose your right to privacy. You don't visit your grandma's house and lose your right to refuse unlawful search and seizure. The fifteenth amendment isn't dependent on whether you're in New York or Chicago. The American's with disabilities act isn't dependent on whether or not you're wearing a football jersey or not. The right for a blind person, which we all are here, to have equal rights under the law is dependent on nothing other than the fact that we are blind. So why, please explain to me, are the rights of women somehow dependent on geography, proximity, or the time of day it happens to be? Why do you feel that is right? Better yet, why do you feel that you have the right to tell someone else they don't have the right to do or act in a certain way?
Because let me make this perfectly clear. That is exactly what you are saying. You are saying that a woman only has the right to act in a way which you find pleasing and proper. You are saying that a woman only has the right to walk where you deem it necessary for her to do so. You are saying that a woman only has the right to say the things that you deem benign and unintrusive enough for her to dare utter. You are saying that the rights of a man who couldn't tell the difference between correct behavior and incorrect behavior; a man who didn't know to stop when the woman said it; a man who didn't realize that the offer of sex is an offer which can be retracted at any time by any party; a man who couldn't control his own penis enough to not force himself on someone. You are saying that his rights are more important than a woman's because she didn't act in the manner which you deem correct for her to act.
And I'm sick of hearing all these excuses. You want to continue the argument with your ignorant ideas that rape can be provoked by a girl shaking her ass, then fine. Answer this question that you've avoided all along. What would it take for you to rape a girl? If the answer is that you never would, then shut up and admit that rape can't be provoked. If you can't be provoked into doing it, and you are smart enough to realize that you shouldn't do it. Then there is no reason that every other man on the face of this planet can't be taught that same lesson.
no, Wayne, you haven't answered my questions, but I didn't expect you to.
oh, and, Dolce, never in this topic have I said that people shouldn't be careful. clearly, though, we both define what that means very differently.
judging from the posts you've made here, you're in agreement with Wayne that women shouldn't go down dark streets at night, or be sexual teases to men at bars/elsewhere. unlike you, I don't see either of those things as careless acts.
*sigh... Ok, Cody. Speeking for myself. I am not telling a woman what to do. I am not making up her rights, nor am I forbidding her from any of them. I'm not telling her how she should dress, talk, act, etc etc. She can do whatever she pleases with her boddy, but like in any situation, if she's not aware of the possible consiquences, she is also responsable. A woman has the right to flirt with guys, and she has the choice too. You may flirt with girls, but that doesn't mean you should be raped. Of course not. Now let me go on with your questions. First. I whare dresses, not micro minny skirts or dresses at night. If I wanted to, I would whare them, but that's a personal preference. Now if I ware them and go to the local club or bar, and start flirting with every guy I like then I'm not being careful, because I don't know the stranger, and he's not likely to just want to drink and dance with me. It's sad, but true. Hey, welcome to the real world, where not everyone will respect your rights. It's my right to flirt and talk dirty and such, but also my responsability to take safe measures. It's as simple as that, I'm not stupid. If you read my posts, most of my clothing is formalware, with no means to distract attention to the ocasion, such as the performance. So since it's formalware, I don't whare my dresses to school, because my dresses aren't casual. Now that wasn't so hard to deduce, right? Next: Most rape cases happen within family members, I can attest to that. But here, and if you read the "article", we're talking about women who teez and like to attract attention, but it's not always the right one. It's a completely different scenerrio. I know how good it makes you feel to be right, and you're not, I'm not either, nor am I trying to. We all have rights, choices and also responsibilities. Women are not always victomes. Oh, and something else. Even if I can relate to the family member scenerrio, It doesn't mean I won't be alone with my boyfriend, or that I'm going to stay away from my male family members or any other men, but that I'll have to be extra careful because it happened before, and I didn't provoke it. And if that means not attracting the wrong attention, without a doubt. I really think I've said enough, I'm not here to be aprooved or otherwise. I'm sorry if my answers didn't fulfil you, I'm not here to do that. Nor do I have to. I'm getting so sick and tired of beating a dead horse. Because I'm not excusing any rape, none at all. So I highly suggest you go back and have a good read on what some of us have said here. Cheers.
Why haven't I answered your questions? Why haven't you answered mine?
Cody, I'll be back with your answers.
What I think is happening here, is both of you refused to believe that there can be other reasons why the crime of rape happens.
In the real world there are multiple reasons why things happen.
You site most cases are done by, but that is not all cases.
I'll be back, because I want to cover all your questions.
Yeah, it's amazing that this example didn't come up until now, until after the fact that we threw it under the table and used our brains to think of ways to prevent it from happening. Gotta love it. I will give you props for trying very hard to prove me wrong sir, and you very well might have. But I'm not going to agree just because someone is better at debating than I am, or because the majority of the people on this thread disagree with me. I am no longer a follower.
I only have four words to say about this provoking nonsense. Verbs can be unintentional. You can unintentionally drop something. You can unintentionally break something. You can unintentionally fart in the middle of class while you are deeply concentrating on another matter. So you can unintentionally provoke someone as well. You can unintentionally provoke someone by getting them angry, for example by saying something that they find offensive without meaning to. And so, you can unintentionally set off a trigger that could turn on a guy who is in to raping an innocent victim. He Should of would of could of gone for help if he didn't feel that he could keep himself under control and done the right thing to do, but not everyone has the logical thought process that we have as hard as it might be to believe. It just blows your mind doesn't it? You wonder why people can't seem to understand you on some topics and it irritates the living hell out of you because they can't seem to understand. But there is the answer.
For a guy who understands that there are some shitty aspects of this world that we live in, and who told many people they just need to suck it up when they go through tragedies in their life, I figured that you would understand by now that there are people who don't give a damn in this world about anyone else's feelings and well being. There is a difference between making excuses and having a sense of understanding. It is also different from just accepting the fact that there are people who rape, rob, kill, etc. But I really don't know what else to say. I'm not going to shut up because you tell me to, or because you think I'm wrong and ignorant and all that crap. I'm just willing to be the bigger man and walk away from it all knowing that I'm right, and I don't have to try anymore to change the minds of the stubborn. I've said what I have to and it's just time to let it go.
But that's just it. These are guys whom we know are doing the wrong thing. They know its wrong. You know its wrong. The victim clearly knows its wrong. You seem to be the only ones making excuses for them.
Dolce, did you not notice that you always have to stop at "the guy wants"? Look back, you did. Look at your very last post. You stopped at, "the guy wants". Who cares what the guy wants? Why is it excusable for him to take what he wants? Is it right for him to take it simply because its displayed? No. Of course it isn't. You know it isn't. That's why you never finish that story. You always conveniently skip over the part where the guy loses control. You skip the part where he chooses to break the law and violate another person's rights. Why do you keep skipping that part? You all do it, all three of you do, every last time. You skip it. That's a clue.
Ryan, if you're going to act like you need remedial English, I'll give you remedial English. Pull up a chair and lets get started. There is such a thing called intent when dealing with a verb, and there is a thing called result. There are intent verbs, and there are result verbs. A good rule of thumb is if the whole word changes when you change the tense, its usually a result verb. For example. You can jump, and you can fall. You cannot accidentally jump, and you cannot intentionally fall.Intentionally falling is called tumbling. Accidentally jumping doesn't have a word because its impossible. With me so far?
Ok, now lets take them into the past tense. The past tense of jump is...? That's right, jumped. Good job. The past tense of fall is...? Good. Fell. See how the second word entirely changed and the first didn't? That's your clue that one is an intent verb, and one is a result verb.
Now lets take this word you seem to be unable to properly google. Provoke. What is the past tense of the word provoke children? No, it is not cookie Ryan, cookie is a noun. Its provoked. Se, we only added a letter. What does that tell us Ryan? That tells us that it is an intent verb.
Provokation requires intent. If you don't believe me. Look at the definition of the word provoke as it is being used here. I copied this from the dictionary and will site you the link. quote "
To bring about deliberately; induce: provoke a fight." end-quote. (citation http://www.thefreedictionary.com/provoke
Now, either learn how to use proper English, or sit down and let the grown ups talk. Since you seem to want to revoke other people's rights to do things. I'm revoking your right to be listened to until you can create a coherent board post without looking like a childish ignoramus. Since you seem to be perfectly willing to revoke without justification, I'll extend you the same courtesy. After all, fair is fair. That's what the board title says.
WELL, WELL, WELL! SPEAKING of UNANSWERED QUESTIONS, PERHAPS due to either INTENTIONAL AVOIDANCE or UNINTENTIONAL "MARK-MISSING," POST 52 is the VERY SUBJECT-REFERRENCE-REMINDER.
MEANWHILE, here's ANOTHER SCENARIO of events to take MULTIPLE-MEGA-MONSTER-SIZED BITES out of: being that "FLIRTING" has been mentioned, I'm going to tell you about how I respond to such, and cite examples, and since there've been an unknown number of however many that's happened to ME, that ALL OF WHICH I've COMPLETELY REJECTED, and the responses that I'VE gotten BACK, DEFINITELY HAVE SHOWN JUST HOW MUCH the TOTAL HIPPOCRACY of the "DO-AS-I-SAY-NOT-AS-I-DO" POLICY is ALWAYS PROOVEN, CONSTANTLY, without EVER MISSING a SINGLE BEAT, WHATSOEVER. JUST as the WOMAN DOES have the VERY ABSOLUTE, GOD-GIVEN FREE WILL to say "NO" to the MAN'S SEXUAL ADVANCES to HER OVERTLY-FLIRTATIOUS BEHAVIOR, the MAN, as WELL, has the VERY EQUAL RIGHT to say a FLAT, EVER-RESOUNDING (just as "RESOUNDING" as the woman's), NON-COMPROMISING, NON-REGRETTABLE "NO," in COMPLETE RESPONSE to such, whenever such behavior rears its UGLY HEAD. CASE AND POINT: a woman was running her fingers through my hair, unbuttoning my shirt, and while standing behind me, grinding her EXTREMELY-LARGE BREASTS into the back of my head, and saying ALL SORTS of TOTALLY-UNINHIBITED, SEXUALLY-SUGGESTIVE things in a COMPLETELY SEXUAL-SOUNDING VOICE, and JUST AS I was about to reach for her THOUGHT-TO-HAVE-BEEN-INVITING BREASTS to start tenderly massaging and playing with them, as my SEXUAL ANTICIPATIONS were RAPIDLY ESCELLATING, she SUDDENLY STOPPED, YANKED MY HAND AWAY from HER, ROUGHLY PLOPPED them RIGHT ON MY OWN LAP, and had the UTTERLY-BLASTED GALL to say: "YOU FUCKIN', FILTHY BASTARD! Don't you EVER touch me!" Calmly, I got up from where I was sitting, and as I was walking away, I said: "Since I can't ""TOUCH" YOU, neither can you ""TOUCH" ME." HER ABSOLUTELY-RIDICULOUS RESPONSE to THAT was: "THAT'S the PROBLEM with YOU MEN! ALL YOU THINK ABOUT is USING US WOMEN for YOUR ""GRATIFICATIONAL" PLEASURE!" I then retorted: "Well, then, you have ABSOLUTELY NO ""MORAL" RIGHT to DECLARE ""RAPE," should whoever the NEXT GUY, WHENEVER that ever happens, DEMANDINGLY TAKES YOU OVER, COMPLETELY for THROWING YOURSELF at him, and ENJOY EVERY MOMENT at your VERY EXPENSE, and YOURS, ONLY. It CERTAINLY WON'T be ME, though, because YOU'RE NEVER WORTH ANY of MY TIME, WHATSOEVER, to be wasted BEHIND BARS!", and with THAT, as she was STILL RANTING and RAVING, even during MY DETAILED LAST WORDS to HER, I left her, TOTALLY BY HERSELF, and EVEN to this VERY DAY, I COMPLETELY IGNORE ANY of her ADVANCES-ATTEMPTS by simply saying, for example (whenever she asks me for MY number, and I responsively-ask her: "will you give me YOURS FIRST?", and she says, OF COURSE, "HELL NO!"), "OK--HERE'S MY NUMBER: 1-800-KICK-ROCKS!", which TOTALLY PISSES HER OFF, OBVIOUSLY.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE, QUITE SIMILAR to the IMMEDIATE-ABOVE-PREVIOUS, was back in the days of when I used to have LANDLINE SERVICE, and I had "ANNONYMOUS-CALLER REJECTION" activated on my line, and I had given my number to a woman on a local phone chatline, who was UNQUENCHABLY FURIOUS when she ATTEMPTED to call me with her RESTRICTED NUMBER, and ACTUALLY DEMANDED that I turn off the BLOCK, the next time that we were both logged on at the same time, and she messaged me; OBVIOUSLY, I DEFIANTLY REFUSED, to which, she called me a "SKIRT-CHASING MALE WHORE," and I ENDED ALL, by calling HER a "TOTALLY-MERCILESS COCK-TEASE," and IMMEDIATELY BLOCKED HER from sending me ANY MORE MESSAGES, breathed a sigh of TRIUMPHANT RELIEF, and KEPT to STEPPIN'.
Well Cody I can do nothing but concede on all counts, seeing as what you said regarding close acquaintances is correct. Not only for rape, but robbery, murder, and so on.
I still do say it might be wise for a woman, if she can, to carry a weapon she will actually use. One major beef I have had for years with feminist ideology is their anti-second-amendment stance. They deny the rights of the most vulnerable in our society to bear arms and protect themselves.
one thing has gone missing here: We've all called rapists every name in the book except one very important one. They're cowards, first and foremost. This I have taught my daughter since she was little. If a woman has a weapon, one she will actually be willing to use, the rapist is likely to go squealing home to mama before doing anything.
Women traveling in groups, hell human beings of all shapes, sizes and genders traveling in groups, suffer fewer crimes when out and about. I'm hypocritical here because I tend to do the lone wanderer act quite a bit. But one thing you see in societies where people travel in groups, crime is nearly nonexistent. Crime of this nature anyway. Predators have to get their prey away from the herd.
The disturbing part of this is, like Cody said, this most often happens in the home or some other setting where it's only the two participants. One is left to wonder if those island societies where public sex is a common part of life, if that very situation prevents this from happening. Again, the prey isn't getting away from the group.
And, let's face it, we're all, at least most of us, prey animals. That doesn't mean dumb: elephants are prey species also but good luck to the lion who tries to take one down in its prime, or approach a herd.
I finally came to that conclusion about us being prey species, and it made sense out of a lot of nonsense in my own formative years. Contrary to popular mythology, most prey animals don't get eaten. The trick is to figure out why and then do as they are to avoid predation.
I don't think skirts and footwear has anything to do with it. I've been booted from college women's studies courses for saying so, but I think a weapon does help. A weapon you're personally not afraid of.
And, I have never personally met a man who doesn't know to stop when she says stop. I'm still waiting to hear from one who learns this for the first time. The "I didn't know," response sure sounds like anyone when getting in trouble. You stole a bit of liquor as a teenager, you get caught, then you say yeah you knew that stealing was wrong. No, you didn't know the drinking age was 21, you thought it was 16. C'mon I can't be the only one here who tried to pull that shit as a kid. And nobody gets away with it then, and that's just a bit of a buzz going on.
People stop all the time. You stop running full tilt when told to stop. If you make a practice of running, you do prepare yourself ahead of time so you can stop. Skiers stop themselves at a dead stop, but they also prepare themselves ahead of time, both runners and skiers have techniques to make the stop as smooth as possible. Motorists stop on a dime, and again, Drivers' Ed is full of techniques on how to do this. Hence my earlier suggestions to men during sex.
But we all know to stop, we all do stop, all the time. You know what? Even women stop. She's crying on your shoulder, and I mean really crying. It's been a hard day, people have been exceptionally unkind, something at work is terribly wrong, or some other huge difficulty. But a call comes in and she can come to a dead stop, pick up the phone, and say hello in a normal voice.
We all stop. Some things, it's just helpful to have a bit of techniques so the stop is a bit more graceful, if you will.
I'm still waiting for a man who can actually convince me that he thought when she said no, she meant yes, and that he didn't know any different. We all know what it's like to be enlightened on something, you learn something that changes your perspective, you have questions, you reassess how you formerly thought. I know your Women's Studies curricula, at least in the 80s and early 90s, and your fundamental feminist leaders like Gloria Steinam, historically said all men have to be taught this regarding women. I can't say I was ever taught it. I can't say I ever didn't know it. How do you not know? Someone tell me: how can you possibly not know that no means no? I understand how it works to try to claim that you didn't know: like I tried to claim I thought the drinking age was 16. I'd say, personally, if someone tries to tell you they didn't know that no means no, call bullshit on 'em, just as they called bullshit on me.
Oh and in case someone thinks I'm inferring anything, if a woman doesn't carry a weapon, I'm not saying it's her fault or foolish. It's just another option you can use, remembering people who prey on other humans are predators.
Predatory animals always go for what they think is the weakest or most vulnerable in the herd. You won't see a lion take down a doe in her prime, or a 30-point buck.
There is a problem with this discussion.
All of us, myself included, except for Cody (Post 40), have only talked about rape in a heteronormative and cisgendered perspective.
Cody in Post 40 said things that nobody ever used to say, certainly not in the Women's Studies or sociology courses back in the 90s. At that time, only males were seen to be able to rape, and we were taught that Lesbians could only be raped by heterosexual males. They didn't have the word cisgendered then and trans people were even more marginalized than they are now.
But except for Cody, we've all fallen into the trap of leaving out several populations of humans in this discussion.
I think including those humans in this discussion sort of makes the clothing straw man arguments fall apart.
And the safer practices / carrying a weapon argument is in fact codified in several gay shooters' clubs around the country. I know people like my friend in San Francisco probably don't like it, on account of her fundamental feminist ideology, but I myself applaud them for being prepared. A bit different since they're preparing against the domestic terrorist attack some people call "homophobia," but the same does apply, at least outside of the private quarters situation Cody mentioned.
Leo, you're right. We do seem to be leaving certain people out of this, generally speaking. Of course women rape. It's nothing new. I don't understand what I'm leaving out from your questions, Cody. I think I've covered as much as I can to support my arguement. Time and time again I've expressed the lack of excuses for rape. Rape as in where someone not only wants, but can't control his own dick because he's so fucking turned on he doesn't give two shits about the person he's forcing himself on, but to satiate his own desires. Got it? And no, it's not only sexual, as there's lots of damage done. No doubt. I'm not leaving anything out to avoid discussion. I can say that I answer your questions, even if they're not satisfying. Oh, and here's a thought. Just as we know something's wrong, a woman can't say, "Oh, I didn't know that this guy was gonna rape me, I only wanted to flirt and have fun." Well duh, she may have wanted to have fun, but he didn't want to control himself. Is it so hard to actually think a little, that there are some people who don't care about what you want? That they are only out there to hurt people? Again, again, No one deserves it, And for the last time I'm not excusing it. Please, please, tell me what's wrong with what I'm saying?
I'll illustrate how Cody's more inclusive and less gendered descriptions completely destroy the clothing argument:
Gay man rapes Lesbian woman. Presumably not with a penis, since there's no sexual attraction, and a man can't control if his penis is flaccid and, er, unable to stand to attention, as it were. But rape is rape whatever he used. Where's the clothing provocative argument now?
Even if you are a fundamentalist God hates Fags Christian, or a fundamentalist womyn-born-womyn feminist, you'd agree this is rape, and the victim had no choice.
Male rapes male: in prison, out of prison, whatever. Most male on male rape is conducted by heterosexual men, though I'm unclear as to the physics of that one if it includes a penis. You saying the male rape victim was dressed provocatively?
Now we'll part ways with the fundamental womyn-born-womyn feminists, and probably the God Hates Fags people will have just thrown up in their mouth on this one:
Cisgendered male rapes F to M transsexual, or some other person whose biology was male at birth, but isn't , however yu slice and dice that one. Clothing argument is moot since this is generally an act of domestic terrorism the ideological types call some brand of phobia. It's not like fear of basements though, it's a directed attack on a human to create an example to a targeted group. Where's the provocative?
Same could be said for someone born female, but either a transman or some other gender identification. Raped to demonstrate that this person (often he) is actually born woman. Where's the provocation? He's wearing a suit and tie.
Couple lf Lesbians, one gets raped by the other. Your prior assersions don't add up.
Grandmother gets raped at 80 years old: where's the provocation?
Soon as you enter more gender types of humans into the equation, the fallacy breaks itself.
I'm at fault as anybody for not seeing this, since I'm a cisgendered heterosexual male and was thinking only within the confines of sexuality as I personally experience it.
I should have said m To F in that one example.
Leo, I'm sorry. The example I used for rape was a comun one, though not the only form. And it's not just the way she dresses, but the form. We all seem to be presenting different forms.
The thing you're leaving out Dolce is this. Follow me on this scenario.
You are going out with your friends; perfectly legal. You decide to wear your favorite skirt; also legal. You also decide, legally, to wear your favorite heels. You get to the movies, sit down with your popcorn, and watch the movie. The guy behind you thinks you're hot; legal. He thinks you'd look fantastic naked; also legal. He imagines you naked; still legal. Then you accidentally drop a piece of popcorn down your top and reach in to get it; cumbersome, but still legal. The man thinks this is more hot than he can stand; technically legal. He can't take his eyes off of you; creepy but still legal.
The movie ends, and you and your friends leave the theater; legal. The man, legally, follows you out of the theater. He watches the way your ass shakes as you walk; again, creepy but legal. You and your friends decide to play in the arcade; a little childish, but I admit I do it too, its legal. You're playing air hockey with your friend Emily; legally. You're bent over legally, making your breasts shake every time you sweep your arm to hit the puck; also legally. You have your ass stuck out because you're bending over; also legal. The man is watching you; legal, though still creepy. He stares at your ass, legally, and moves around to get a glimpse down your top, again technically legal though creepy. With me so far Dolce?
So, you and Emily finish your game, you giggle and hug, its hot to the guy so he watches. He's thinking of a threesome, legally. Then you leave, and he goes out to the parking lot, legally. He wants you badly. You're sexy as hell to him. You look so good, and you've been teasing him all night. He's sure you've been doing it just for him. He's sure you looked over and saw him and that you smiled. He's sure your ass moved just a bit more after that. He's sure you winked at him and flipped your hair as you and Emily left. You didn't, let me make that clear, you didn't, but he's sure you did.
So you and Emily are walking to her car. She slides into the driver's seat and you stroll around to the passenger seat; we're still doing everything legally here. No law has yet to be broken. Everthing you and he have done so far is legal and consentual.
As you're walking around the car, Emily gets a call on her phone. She answers it, and as she's distracted the man stepped up behind you. He grabs you, putting a hand over your mouth. And here we pause the tape.
Lets go back and replay that in slow motion. He grabs you from behind and puts his hand over your mouth. That, my dear Dolce, is illegal. Its against the law to do that. I'm sure you knew that already.
That point right there, that little bit of illegality is what you're leaving out. But lets explain farther. The man didn't just suddenly break the law. He wasn't pushed into you, he didn't trip, he didn't accidentally grab you. He willingly and with premeditation came up and grabbed you from behind. That is the part you're leaving out. The fact that he willingly and with premeditation chooses to violate your rights.
To give another example. Billy and lucy are playing monopoly. Billy decides to cheat. Is it Lucy's fault, in part or whole, because she chose to play with Billy, or is it billy's fault because he decided to cheat? You are saying now that lucy played a hand in it because she agreed to play the game. In reality, it is entirely Billy's fault.
When we go into public Dolce, we create a contract with other people. Actually many contracts. These contracts are controlled, by and large, by our laws. Its why you don't punch every person you meet. When someone breaks these laws, it isn't everyone around them who is responsible. It is only them.
Do you understand the mistake you're making now?
Ah and there, Cody, is an open and shut case, a defense of the victim as tight as a drum. They can't crack that.
Now to your questions.
First, at no time have I suggested taking any rights or freedoms from a woman. Women should dress, say, act, or walk, where they wish at any time of day or night.
I am not trying to decide, nor say what behavior is acceptable and what behavior is not acceptable.
What I have been trying to show, is some women can behave in such a fashion that she provokes the crime of rape to be acted upon her.
When she exercises her freedom to act in this fashion she also must accept half the blame for the crime.
Why? She is just as able as a man to control her emotions, and decide not to act in the fashion that creates the tension in the man. When the crime is committed, in this instants, both persons have contributed to that situation through her actions.
If the man can be punished for not controlling himself, why does the woman get to act in any fashion she pleases without responsibility?
Flirting, and blatant teasing are not the same. When you flirt, are you trying to stir the girl’s emotions to a boiling point to prove you can, then laughing at them for being silly women and leaving the scene?
I would say no, because when you flirt, you have hope that it will pay off.
I’ll have to use a different scenario for my next point, because women’s emotional switches are different then men’s.
This scenario is over the top, I admit, but it was the best I could come up with, that would be emotionally strong enough to cause a woman to want to violently act on a man.
It is perfectly legal for you to tell a woman you love her. You’re a great looking guy, so you tell 6 different women the same thing and promise to marry them. You juggle all these affairs with disposable contact information.
Each time one become pregnant, she never hears from you again, and you seem to have dropped off the face of the earth.
You’re living large, exercising your sex appeal. A man has the right to change his mind.
These women just got pregnant was all, it happens when you have sex you know and don’t use protection.
One tracks you down, and she’s still deeply in love, but you act as if you don’t even remember her name. You give her the above speech about how it was just how it worked, girls get pregnant you know, and men change their minds, and what did you say your name was again?
She shoots you.
You don’t die, but you have to spend time in rehab, and soon you heal, but you still have the scar from where she shot you, and it took you months to get better. The pain in your shoulder never goes away, and aches when it gets cold.
Everyone’s so sorry for you. All they know is some crazy woman shot you, and caused you all that pain and suffering, but they never know why!
You go to court, and the judge rules she has to spend 6 years in prison. You walk out of the court room with a smile on your face, and get back to doing what you were perfectly legally able to do. That woman was wrong.
“The word provoke can't be unintentional. Provocation is, by definition, an active verb. It requires forethought. So no, you can't provoke inadvertently. “
Really? Didn’t you tell me I was making you angry a few post back, because you had relatives that had been raped, and that you had been accused of rape?
Is Chelsea not also extremely angry with me, and states she has not been so disgusted by anyone views in a long time?
Where sir is forethought.
I don’t know about yours, but my world doesn’t run by definitions.
When the flight attendant ask politely for me to put my Playboy magazine away, I can’t explain to her that I’m not provoking, harassing anyone, because I’m not doing these things by definition.
I point out the fact the woman in seat 7 roll C has on less than most of the girls in my magazine. She’s sitting in an outside seat and I’m by the window, so she is directly visible and I am not.
As am American, I have the right to read my Playboy anyplace, including this air craft, and I’m not breaking any direct laws.
After my pretty educated speech, she will again ask me politely to put my magazine away. If I still refuse, I will be arrested when the flight lands.
Can you answer why it is so inconceivable for a woman to cause her rape through her actions now?
I am straying from my defense, but I’d like to address this.
“The vast majority of rape cases are not done in public places. They are done by people you know and trust. They're done by family members.”
Why does this make her safety measure not valid? The vast majority, are not all.
If she practices what she deems as safe behavior, she will practice this all the time, not just sometimes, because it is what she believe.
You have failed to answer the why your statement is true and valid, and that is these people are the ones that have access to the women at their lowest guard. Many times they have direct control of the women and girls.
There are a host of reasons for this, and these make it hard, or even impossible for a girl or woman to protect herself.
Some don’t even know they are rape victims until someone steps in to protect them.
So, her safety measures are extremely valid, because they work in controllable situations and that was her point.
Notice I called the other women and girls victims, not provokers?
I am behind a few arguments, but I will address these now.
First, Leo, the reason I personally have not address the other factors, female, male, male, male, and female, female, was due to the first post that started this.
It was male female.
I personally have not witnessed, or been party to a situation where a female provoked a female, so I can’t answer to that.
I also have not been witness or party to a male provoking a female, so I can’t answer to that.
I have been witness, and party to a straight male provoking a gay male, and a gay male provoking a straight male so that I can tell you about, if you want?
I have not purposely omitted the others, they just weren’t factors in the discussion, so I never brought them up.
In all the cases, I have witnessed and been party to victim’s rape, with the exception of female male.
I know it happens though, just like I know people get bitten by alligators, but I have never known anyone that has. I have never seen an alligator live.
I’ve eaten some, but that is a different subject.
Cody, I have not skipped over the subject of the right or wrongness of a man losing control.
If you have been reading, you’ll remember I stated I don’t believe in loss of control.
When the man that has been provoked rapes a woman, he has not lost control, he has become angry, or sexually frustrated and taken his aggression out on the woman.
He has gotten in that state of aggression because of her actions.
No place have I stated it was right, nor that he should be excused.
It is a crime of passion.
Oh my, Cody! ... Nice try, but let me tell you something. In your scenerrio You addressed the form of dress, but not her actions. I'll only grant you that in that one it's not her fault for dressing like that. She didn't drink or dance with the stranger guy, kiss the guy, or sat on his lap, or did she, Cody? She didn't invite him over to her place or go to his, did she, cody? Did she talk dirty or grind up on him in your very well written scenerrio? I don't think so. But clearly you keep refusing the minor cases where it can actually be provoked. And I honestly can almost sware that I have not left out the part that you seem to keep deliberately missing. Sorry, Ah well.
that's just it, Dolce. you're clearly missing the fact that a woman doesn't need to sit on a guy's lap, or grind up against him, in order for him to mistakenly believe she wants him sexually. so, the scenario Cody illustrated in his last post, is actually a very valid one.
that brings me to another point you and others are clearly missing, which is that part of this whole thing has nothing to do with the woman's actions, but with the way she's perceived by others, in acting however she chooses to.
as was said, a man could mistakenly be under the impression that a woman wants him sexually, if she so much as looks his way for a brief second, while trying to spot the popcorn that accidentally fell down her shirt.
knowing that, how can you and others claim she's the one at fault, if the man decides to make unwanted moves on her?
We are not. That woman was, is, and forever will be a victim Chelsea!
The thing that makes this provocative is this Cody/Chelsea. Follow me on this scenario.
She is going out with her friends; perfectly legal. She decide to wear her favorite skirt; also legal. She also decide, legally, to wear her favorite heels. She gets to the movies, sits down with her popcorn, and watch the movie. The guy behind her thinks she’s hot; legal. He thinks she’d look fantastic naked; also legal. He imagines her naked; still legal. Then she accidentally drops a piece of popcorn down her top and reaches in to get it; cumbersome, but still legal. She notices the guy looking at her; and decides to have a little fun; Turns around and smiles, then pops the piece of popcorn in his mouth; risky but legal. The man thinks this is more hot than he can stand; technically legal. He can't take his eyes off of her; creepy but still legal.
The movie ends, and her and her friends leave the theater; legal. The man, legally, follows her out of the theater. He watches the way she makes her ass shakes as she walk; again, creepy but legal. Her and her friends decide to play in the arcade; a little childish, but I admit I do it too, its legal. She’s playing air hockey with her friend Emily; legally. She’s bent over legally, making her breasts shake every time she sweep her arm to hit the puck; also legally. She have her ass stuck out because she’s bending over; also legal. She smiles, and winks at the man and licks her lips; legal. The man is watching her; legal, though still creepy. He stares at her ass, legally, and moves around to get a glimpse down her top, again technically legal though creepy. With me so far Cody?
So, her and Emily finish their game, they giggle and hug, and whisper how hot she’s probably making that poor guy; legal. It’s hot to the guy so he watches. He's thinking of a threesome, legally. Then she leave, and he goes out to the parking lot, legally. He wants her badly. She’s sexy as hell to him. She look so good, and she’s been teasing him all night. He's sure she’s been doing it just for him. He's sure she looked over and saw him when she smiled and winked and licked her lips. He's sure her ass moved just a bit more after that; and he’s right. He's sure she winked at him and flipped her hair as her and Emily left. She did, let me make that clear, she did, he’s sure she did.
She and Emily are walking to her car. Emily slides into the driver's seat and she strolls around to the passenger seat, scratches her crotch, then licks her fingers, and smiles at the guy; we're still doing everything legally here. No law has yet to be broken. Everything she and he have done so far is legal and consensual.
As she’s walking around the car, Emily gets a call on her phone. She answers it, and as she's distracted the man stepped up behind the walking girl.
You know the rest.
The thing that makes this provocative is this Cody. Follow me on this scenario.
She is going out with her friends; perfectly legal. She decide to wear her favorite skirt; also legal. She also decide, legally, to wear her favorite heels. She gets to the movies, sits down with her popcorn, and watch the movie. The guy behind her thinks she’s hot; legal. He thinks she’d look fantastic naked; also legal. He imagines her naked; still legal. Then she accidentally drops a piece of popcorn down her top and reaches in to get it; cumbersome, but still legal. She notices the guy looking at her; and decides to have a little fun; Turns around and smiles, then pops the piece of popcorn in his mouth; risky but legal. The man thinks this is more hot than he can stand; technically legal. He can't take his eyes off of her; creepy but still legal.
The movie ends, and her and her friends leave the theater; legal. The man, legally, follows her out of the theater. He watches the way she makes her ass shakes as she walk; again, creepy but legal. Her and her friends decide to play in the arcade; a little childish, but I admit I do it too, its legal. She’s playing air hockey with her friend Emily; legally. She’s bent over legally, making her breasts shake every time she sweep her arm to hit the puck; also legally. She have her ass stuck out because she’s bending over; also legal. She smiles, and winks at the man and licks her lips; legal. The man is watching her; legal, though still creepy. He stares at her ass, legally, and moves around to get a glimpse down her top, again technically legal though creepy. With me so far Cody?
So, her and Emily finish their game, they giggle and hug, and whisper how hot she’s probably making that poor guy; legal. It’s hot to the guy so he watches. He's thinking of a threesome, legally. Then she leave, and he goes out to the parking lot, legally. He wants her badly. She’s sexy as hell to him. She look so good, and she’s been teasing him all night. He's sure she’s been doing it just for him. He's sure she looked over and saw him when she smiled and winked and licked her lips. He's sure her ass moved just a bit more after that; and he’s right. He's sure she winked at him and flipped her hair as her and Emily left. She did, let me make that clear, she did, he’s sure she did.
She and Emily are walking to her car. Emily slides into the driver's seat and she strolls around to the passenger seat, scratches her crotch, then licks her fingers, and smiles at the guy; we're still doing everything legally here. No law has yet to be broken. Everything she and he have done so far is legal and consensual.
As she’s walking around the car, Emily gets a call on her phone. She answers it, and as she's distracted the man stepped up behind the walking girl.
You know the rest.
is she still blameless?
I don't see how my point it invalid. I don't refuse to understand that not all women provoke it, but you and Cody refuse and are clearly missing the point. It takes all kinds, I guess.
Yes, she is still blameless. I'll explain.
Everything you said in your scenario, or my scenario really, is an invitation for sex. She was acting sexy and looking hot to get the guy's attention. Perfectly fine, that's what she wants. The man is within his rights to get her number, invite her home, ask her if she'll blow him in the parking lot. He can do all those things. What he can't do is force her to do it.
I'll explain further, and use an example to make the two situations equal. At no point in your scenario that is my scenario does the girl force him to watch her. You never said that she tied him to the chair and forced her to watch her shake her ass. She never clamped a hand over his mouth and told him she'd slit her throat if he didn't try to catch a glimpse down her top. Everything she did was voluntary, and everything he did was voluntary. That is perfectly fine.
What is not fine is when any action on her part or on his part becomes involuntary. Wayne, you yourself said earlier in the posts that you avoid women who act like this. So clearly it is a voluntary act to partake in it. The man chose to watch, he chose to look, he chose to fantasize, he chose to let it get the better of him, he chose to rape her. That is the part you don't seem to get.
Now Dolce, I think I can understand in your case. Forgive me if this sounds insulting, but you're young enough to have not been to a lot, if any, night spots. You, and I admit I'm assuming a lot, don't realize that everything you do in a night spot is deemed as provocative by someone else.
I had a friend a few weeks ago who accidentally spilled a bit of beer on her chin while taking a drink. No less than three men tried to grab her because they saw her lick a drop of it off her lips. She didn't even know they were in the bar, let alone who they were, but they thought she was flirting with him.
That's why you can't say that it was provoked. Even if she were to have been willingly flirting, it is an invitation only to consentual sex. It is impossible to consent to rape. If you consent to rape, its called BDSM, and that's legal.
I'll give one more example. Wayne, lets say for just a moment I agree that provoking can be involuntary and accidental. I don't, but lets say I do for a second. Notice that I'm not currently beating down your door with a shotgun to kill you out of anger. see how I'm not doing that? That's because its illegal. You are within your rights to say these things. I'm within my rights to disagree. I'm not within my rights to harm you over it. Get the difference?
Ah Cody, I don't easally get offended. And you're right regarding my night spots. Anyhow, here's the thing, though. For the umpteenth time, Everything you describe in your scenario involves people taking voluntary actions. But again, life is not always going to work like your scenario. Everything they do is voluntary, except for the part where the woman gets raped, she's not consenting. Also, Cody, I don't know how else to make my point clear, that a woman doesn't deserve to be raped, nore does she look to be raped, nor does she choose to be raped, but sometimes, and by that I mean not in the majority of ocasions, do her actions say otherwise. Even if she doesn't want to, she's going to attract the wrong attention from a sick fucker. Ok, so if she knows what could or would or might attract the wrong attention, again, what's wrong with my safe arguement? She's free to do as she pleases, but just like anybody else, she's also responsible for her behavior. It's fair, isn't it?
So here's a thought. In your scenario, how was the other friend dressed? How come he doesn't flirt with her, stare at her? How is this friend of hers behaving? Does she wink at the guy too? I mean after all, he's just cute, right? So the main character in this scenario of yours flirted and winked and all host of other things, and the guy liked it, and eventually committed his monstrous attrosity. I don't know, but I feel if something or someone doesn't rub me the right way I can sence it. Especially a stranger. Maybe she didn't, but still, again, you can't be so trusting, that's all I'm triing to bring across here. So if you are trusting, without holding any bounderies well it pays off really badly. And just as a man should know when to stop, just as a man should be smart, a woman should do the same. Because if she doesn't stop, it can lead to these very horrible things. I feel you have to know when to do certain things, not just do them because you can and to hell everyone else. The other person may do the same. Some people really don't give two fucks about anything but themselves, I'm sure it's nothing new.
No one deserves Rape, ever. Both people have a choice in the situation, to stop when they are asked/when the person feels uncomfortable or not.
Even in the bar situation, where the girl leads guys in to believing she'll take them home, even if she vows to go home with you at the end of the night, and after sitting on your lap, maybe doing a little for play threw the clothes... Only to walk away laughing doesn't deserve to be raped. Was she disingenuous, yes. Is she rude, yes. If you see her back in the same bar trying to pull the stunt on some other guy, is it right to inform the guy what she's pulling, yes. But is it right to rape her? No. Is it right to punch her out? No. Its not legal to do either of the last things. Where as maybe the girl is riding a morally and ethically slippery slope, what she's doing isn't against the law.
Yu could take any number of legal actions. Never visit that bar, ask the owner to bar her from entering the bar. If someone is a nuisance, the owner of an establishment has every right to kick her out, or ban her from ever returning. If you wanted to humiliate her, you could call her out when she tries that tactic on a friend of yours. Point out that the girl comes in regularly, that though you didn't know it at the time, she's tried this stuff on other guys and its always ended the same way.., with her insulting them, and humiliating them for kicks. Odds are she'd be humiliated and never return to that bar.
So Wayne, in this situation, lets say that I told the friend of mine what this girl was known for, and as a result of her feeling humiliated, she decides to throw her glass of margarita and the glass itself in to my face. Lets say that it shatters against my forehead and nose, but that my nose breaks in the process, and shards cut my eyes to shreds. Did I provoke this outcome? Am I responsible for my condition, because I decided i'd help my friend, and the girl has anger issues I didn't know about? If not, why would she be responsible for my friend learning about her history and saying some sexist shit like "i'm going to teach this cunt a lesson" before bending her over one of the bars tables, and having his way with her? I don't have any friends like that, but lets say for arguments sake he was drunk, and i'd never seen him express such thoughts before. Both outcomes are acts of desire and anger. she desired to cause me harm, because I ended her little game, and she was angry about this. My friend desired to rape her, because she'd never give it up willingly to anyone, he'd been humiliated, and in his drunken state, he felt like that rape was the best way to in his words, "Teach her a lesson."
I didn't deserve to be struck in the face, and rationalize her actions all you want, but you can't say I provoked it either. Or that she provoked, desired, or intended to get raped.
Does the girl in this example need a better hobby than humiliating and trolling guys? for sure! But punishing her via raping her isn't the answer.
Barring her, or getting a restraining order that prevents her from entering your establishment though, is the best response.
NOW: for MY additional contribution--I've said this PERHAPS ENOUGH TIMES during this topic, even though NOW, I'm going to say it in a COMPLETELY-REVISED, CONCISE WAY--on the VERY PART of the MALE, the ONLY "PERFECT CURE" is "PREVENTION." As I told you YESTERDAY about the ONE, but NOT ONLY, EXAMPLE of when a woman was ROARING MAD at my having "ANNONYMOUS-CALLER REJECTION" activated on my landline, when I used to have one, because OBVIOUSLY, HER ATTEMPT to "TEASE" me would've been for HER to have FULL POWER; she'd have MY NUMBER, but I wouldn't have HERS, which TECHNICALLY, she DID have my number. What she DIDN'T have was ANY ACCESS, WHATSOEVER, to CONTACTING me. THAT'S the SUREFIRE WAY to test ANY WOMAN'S RESPONSIVE INTENTIONS to the GUY'S giving her HIS number, without EVER asking for HERS, because THEN, in the event that she happens to be a PROBABLE/POTENTIAL TEASE will ONLY SELF-PROOVE if he ever gets a call from her or not. AFTER ALL, HIS "NO" to HER SEXUALLY-DEPRIVING HIM is JUST AS VALID as HERS to HIS SEXUALLY-WANTING HER--I SOLIDLY DARE ANYONE, MALE OR FEMALE, to SUPER-CHALLENGE ME on THIS one!
UNFORTUNATELY, I CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE such BLESSING, now that I ONLY have MOBILE service, and a PRE-PAID ACCOUNT, at THAT, SO, what I do NOW is that whenever I get a call coming in that my TALKING ID announces as "RESTRICTED," as ABSOLUTELY ANNOYING, and as MUCH as I TOTALLY HATE such, I'm NEVER BOTHERED, AT ALL, by it, because I just SIMPLY DON'T ANSWER, and should such call ever go to my voice-mail, and the caller leaves a message, with ABSOLUTELY NO CONTACT for me to get back to her with, she's JUST AS GOOD as NULL AND VOID.
THIS REMINDS ME: being that I have a PRE-PAY account with VERIZON/WIRELESS, can I STILL have a block placed against RESTRICTED NUMBERS? IF SO, how is that done? I wanna do it TODAY.
Thank you james.
Dolce. You are right in saying that it would be safer to not do these things, but there's a problem with that argument. Saying that by not doing the safe thing she was provoking it, is taking away her rights. Consequently, its taking away your rights. It shouldn't be like this. Women shouldn't be afraid of getting raped, and men shouldn't feel they deserve sex whenever a girl teases them.
One of the reasons we still have this is because of the practice you are still promoting. The practice of victim blaming, either directly or indirectly, is one of the many reasons we have rape. It just happens to be one we can fix easily. Stop blaming the victim, and victim blaming will go away.
Like I said earlier, we all enter into a social contract when we agree to exist in a society. If you don't like our contract, you have every right to move to another country with another contract. You can go live in the woods and not be part of our contract. But while you are here, you have to follow our rules.
One of those rules is the idea that certain things are legal, and certain things are not. Rape is one of those things that is not. Flirting is one of those things that is. So everyone has the right to flirt, no one has the right to rape.
Is it safer not to, yes. But then its also safer not to go to clubs at all. In fact, I know girls that do that because of this exact subject. I know girls that don't go to clubs because of the fact that they feel sexualized when they go and are afraid of being raped. Businesses exist solely based on this principle. For example, the gym chain Curves was created to give women a place to go and work out without being stared at by men and being thought of as sex dolls.
So, since you seem to be clinging to this idea of taking the safer route Dolce, I'll ask this. Where do you draw the line between safe practices and victim blaming? When has a woman taken enough precautions to have you say that she didn't provoke the rape? How many of your rights are you willing to give up so that you won't be raped? When does it end? When do we finally say that we are going to protect the rights of everyone and deny the acts of those who do things that are illegal?
Ok, I'll return with a well thought out written posts in response to you, Cody. :)
Ah and here we have a major problem with the safer practices arguments. I think it's fair to say that people who promote safer practices, even safer sex practices, don't wish to blame victims. So, how as a society do we do this? I don't know. Few if any of us really want to blame the victim of a crime but it's pretty easy to see how some of this stuff, not just the so-called provocation arguments, could get taken that way.
Put another way: Identity theft is wrong. It's a crime that often takes years or a lifetime to recover from. We promote safer practices, and nobody can actually provoke an identity theft crime just as nobody can actually provoke a rape. The safer practices are not wrong, and don't even mean life in a bubble. They don't claim the perpetrator has immunity from retribution. What they are designed to do is minimize the risks associated while not minimizing the potential victim's freedom of movement. If you restrict a victim's potential freedom to act in society, chances are all safer practices or best practices will be done away with by the person out of frustration and need to just be free. It's that balance, I think. Carrying concealed, or carrying some kind of weapon, can help. Also not being afraid to ask for an escort out of a place can help. Having a couple people you can call for backup can help. None of these obvuscate all rapes, just as it is possible with safer practices to have your identity compromised. Don't believe that, ask everyone who had their account information stolen at Target this past December.
And a safer practice is not one that binds and constricts the person from living her / his life.
I have done safer practices lectures for parts of Homeland Security. Truth be told, I don't practice every safer practice there is. I'm quite a bit less anal than many panic-stricken people I know, about personal information and identity theft. But I do have my eyes wide open and practice those practices that make the most sense in my own life without living my life around safer practices. If that makes sense.
So a woman is young and likes to club, a safer practice would not be stop clubbing. Tell her that, and probably you won't have any effect. Say, for sake of argument, she is into casual encounters of a sexual nature. Grinds on guys, some have said. Certainly there are safer practices that can and do help so that she can continue this unabated but with some assistance. She and I in our mutual situations are not responsible for the other's actions, and no safer practice would say otherwise. But in both our cases we're just watching our step. Not paranoid, not altering our existence, just keeping the eyes open. It's not at all victim blaming to keep the eyes open, and to acknowledge that there are some humans out there who are evil enough to want to have absolute power over us. One response, typified by feminist ideology and Christianity both, is that the male is the primary arbiter of either sin or oppression. Acording to Radical Feminism, men are responsible for all the evil and violence of the world, and that a female-only society would be nonviolent and peace-loving. Some academic theorists who are obviously not biologists even go so far as to state that the male was a genetic accident, that parthenogenic reproduction is the ultimate and so on. Check out Testosterone poisoning on this one.
Their mirror image, Fundamentalist Christianity states that the Man Adam is the ultimate sinner, the one who created our natures, the one who left Eve alone with the serpent (both groups hate the phallus it seems), and then when caught for the crime blamed her and god and who knows what else instead of taking responsibility. According to them this is the reason for fatherlessness and all other malecentric crimes.
Here's the problem with these: It's not the case. Not all humans can murder, as the defense for the Manson girls said. Not all can cut somebody up 19 times, or hang somebody from the doorway. Bugliosi, one of the prosecutors for the Manson murders, said it best, when he said some people appear to be cut from different cloth. It's hard for us to even understand them.
I think probably Christianity and Feminism both as ideologies try to understand them by stating we all have this, because that's a safe bet. You and I really don't want to think that there are exceptionally cruel people out there, an individual whose ssense of empathy is nonexistent. You don't want to think it, I don't want to think it, we have nice neat ideologies that help us not think it, but science is simply not with us on this one. If you understand this, I think you really can never blame a victim of rape or any other crime.
Victims of rape come in all shapes, sizes, ages, genders / nongenders, races, orientations and so on. All varying levels of empathy and varying levels of survival abilities.
So I have this question: When a rapist says he didn't know, as many modern thinkers claim men don't know, why do you believe them? Not you the rape victim, you the average person, or maybe you the ideologue. This is someone who violated another human being. They know enough to not steal from stores, not joyride cars, and so on, so how is it they somehow fancy they don't know not to rape?
I'm sorry: that one sounds an awful lot like the marketing tactic when Conservative Commentator James Dobson went and interviewed Ted Bundy before his execution, and just swallowed Bundy's line with no comebacks, no questions no nothing. Bundy claimed a centerfold viewed at age 13 caused him to kill a lot of innocent people. Rape and kill. I was a young fool of 18 when this came out: I saw it on the news and thought, who the hell is this guy? Doesn't he know he's talking to a serial murderer? And he believes this guy? Hopefully I've grown since then, but my opinion on that has remained unchanged. Ted Bundy knew it was wrong, the rapist knows it's wrong. A magazine didn't make Ted do it, and it didn't act as a slippery slope that made him do it: Ted Bundy made Ted Bundy do it, because Ted bundy was an evil human being.
your skimpy dress didn't make the rapist rape you, your looks, and making eyes, and grinding on the guy didn't make him rape you, the rapist himself made him rape you, because he is an evil human being.
The problem with the we're-all-sinners, or all-men-are-sexist-pigs arguments is that the evil ones get a pass. Hell I know a man who was derelict as a father. At the time I tried to give him the typical lines given to most guys about fatherhood and responsibility. He was wrong in his actions, but right in his comment on society:
"You know, Leo, you and I are viewed exactly the same. The only difference between you and me is you don't actually act the way they say we all act. I'm just doing what they all say we all do. You're the one getting screwed."
I don't know about getting screwed on that one, I disagree. But there was a point: We don't properly shame and blame the perpetrators, because of the two competing ideologies' attitude about all being capable of this. The truth is, we're not. Yes, I've sat in college women's studies courses and nodded along saying yes I could rape. Yes, I have sat in church meetings and went with their magic show and claimed I was just like the guy who stepped out on his wife, slept with his secretary, and abandoned his two kids, or that I could abuse and kill just as O.J. Simson allegedly did.
In both places, I was being a bald-faced liar. In both places, you would be a bald-faced liar to make the same claims against yourself. Because you don't have a pattern in life that backs that up.
Cody's right: blame the perpetrator. Stop there. Not all men, not all women, not all gender-queers. The perpetrator for the perpetrator's own actions, and don't be like that conservative commentator and go buying their stories about not knowing any better.
Yes, we have a social contract, and we’ll base this on America, because as you know other countries have different rules, or social contracts.
Next, I think you on the other side believe I am saying the woman that provokes, in my view deserves to be raped. I am not.
If you expect the man to know better, and control himself, why does a woman get to behave in any manner she chooses without social checks?
I’ll have to concede our social contract allows for this, and is the very reason I can’t read my Playboy on a flight, but the woman next to me can sit in her seat and show me her panties due to her skirt being too short, and the majority of her breast, with her nipples showing, because she has on a low cut blouse and no bra. The blouse must cover her nipples, but there is no rule to control when showing when they get erect and are outlined.
I must wear a complete shirt, and if I open my fly to show my pretty underwear with my erection caused by natural causes, or the girl, I will be arrested as soon as this is noticed, even buy the girl sitting next to me. It is illegal.
This girl next to me can reach up her skirt, rub her crotch, rub her finger across my nose, and not be arrested, nor charged with anything, if she were so bold.
I’d have to take her to court, and prove that she gave me some sort of illness, or mental stress to even get her charged with a mister meaner.
The social contract make the man responsible for his actions as well as her actions, and this is why my view is unpopular.
Even here among sound and logical thinkers, I am the minority.
I don’t avoid what I deem as a provocative woman, I am in control of my emotions, urges, passions, at all times.
My reasons for this are first, it is what I believe a man should do, and be.
Second, I am subject to the rules of our social contract.
Third, and this is also an unpopular view, nature has delta me the male gene and that makes me the stronger, sex. This makes me responsible to nurture, protect, care for, and be responsible for the woman at all cost.
I have accepted the responsibility, but not completely.
We are no longer in the cave man age, but humans have not emotionally changed much it seems.
Women have a drive to be sexy, and this drives the emotion in men to want them.
If we, society, allow women freedom to be sexy, and on top of that freedom to rub her sex appeal in a man’s face deliberately, and wilfully, we need to update our social contract to reflect and respect nature and give her responsibility for her actions.
Otherwise, we have to do the man thing and restrict her freedoms for her protection.
I don’t want that responsibility.
I want grown women to be responsible, and young girls educated.
Cody, I'm sorry but I'll be using the information you posted in my response so that I can answer your questions and comment in an organized fassion. I'll capitalize my comments. "Dolce. You are right in saying that it would be safer to not do these things, but there's a problem with that argument. Saying that by not doing the safe thing she was provoking it, is taking away her rights." First: I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW THAT IS POSSIBLE? IF THERE'S SOMETHING I'VE REPEATED TIME AND TIME AGAIN IS THAT I'M NOT ADVOCATING THE RIGHTS OF ANYONE BEING TAKEN AWAY. I ALSO HAVE NEVER STATED A WOMAN SEEKS RAPE INTENTIONALLY. "Consequently, its taking away your rights. It shouldn't be like this." BUT CODY, WITH RIGHTS COME RESPONSIBILITYS. I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE LIKE THIS, BECAUSE NOWHERE AM I TRYING TO TAKE RIGHTS FROM PEOPLE. I'M NOONE TO DICTATE RIGHTS. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO AS WE PLEASE WITH OURSELVES, BUT IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP OURSELVES SAFE. PEOPLE WILL HURT, RAPE AND KILL NO MATTER WHAT. I THINK IT'S LOGICAL TO THINK THAT IF OTHER PEOPLE DON'T CARE, WE SHOULD. MINIMISING RISKS DOESN'T MEAN RESTRICTING, OR TAKING SOMEONE'S FREEDOM OR RIGHTS AWAY. "Women shouldn't be afraid of getting raped, and men shouldn't feel they deserve sex whenever a girl teases them. " YES, CODY. BUT WOMEN SHOULDN'T EVEN GET RAPED. I'M NOT TAKING A FEMINIST POINT OF VIEW HERE. I'M SIMPLEY RESPONDING TO YOUR POST. NO ONE SHOULD EVER GET RAPED. PERIOD. YOU GIVING ME EXTREME ARGUEMENTS ABOUT THE SAFE PRACTICES IS LIKE ME TELLING YOU TO NEVER LOCK THE DOORS OF YOUR HOUSE AT NIGHT, LEAVE IT UNLOCKED EVEN WHEN YOU'RE OUT BECAUSE IT'S A SAFE AREA SO NOTHING WILL EVER HAPPEN. NO ONE SHOULD BREAK IN. HEY, EVEN WHEN WINDOWS ARE CLOSED AND DOORS ARE LOCKED, ANYONE CAN BREAK IN WHEN YOU'RE OUT IN A SAFE AREA. MY POINT IS THAT ONE SHOULDN'T BE TOO CLINGY ABOUT SAFETY, NOR TRUSTING, BECAUSE NOTHING IS EVER A GUARANTEE THAT YOU'LL BE SAFE, OR THAT IF I FLIRT WITH A GUY AND ACT DIRTY WITH HIM I'LL NOT GET RAPED. i'm talking about chance, cody. A WOMAN SHOULDN'T BE AFRAID OF BEING HERSELF, BUT SHE SHOULD BE CAUCIOUS OF THE PEOPLE AROUND HER, AND WATCH HER BEHAVIOR. A MAN SHOULDN'T BE TEEZED EITHER, YET WOMEN DO IT BECAUSE SHE EXPECTS HIM TO DO NOTHING, IT HAPPENS. A MAN SHOULDN'T BE TREATED LIKE A MINDREADER. A MAN SHOULDN'T BE TREATED LIKE A HUMAN WALLET BY SOME WOMEN. WOMEN SHOULD SAY WHAT THEY MEAN, BUT THEY OFTEN DON'T. A WOMAN DOESN'T DESERVE RESPECT FOR SIMPLEY BEING FEMALE. A WOMAN MUST EARN HER SELF-RESPECT SHE DESERVES. i'm sorry, but it's true. A MAN SHOULDN'T BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, but they are. SO MUCH IS EXPECTED OF MEN, AND WOMEN ARE, IN MY OPINION, JUST AS CAPABLE OF BEING RESPONSIBLE AND IN CONTROL OF THEIR ACTIONS, BECAUSE EVERYTHING HAS CONSIQUENCES THAT ONE MAY NOT FORSEE UNTIL THE SAD REALITY STRUCKS them. to be continued...
YOU SPOKE OF THE WOMAN WHO NAGGS HER HUSBAND FOR NOT THROWING THE TRASH IN A FEW POSTS BACK. MAYBE IF HE DID THE TRASH BY INICIATIVE, SHE WOULDN'T NAG. IT'S NOT SO MUCH THE ACTIONS, BUT THE WAY THEY ARE DONE. WHAT IF SHE'S NOT ONLY NAGGING, BUT BEING BOSSY AND DEMANDING OF HER POOR HUSBAND. SHE DOESN'T DESERVE TO HAVE HER TEETH NOCKED OUT, AND HE SHOULDN'T BE SO FURIOUS IF HE DID THE TRASH ON HIS OWN COUNT. MEN DON'T ALWAYS HAVE TO BE SO TOLERATING, AND WOMEN SHOULD BE SMART ABOUT HOW THEY DO WHAT THEY DO. JUST AS A MAN SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS BEHAVIOR, A WOMAN ALSO MUST BE RESPONSIBLE, IF SHE HAS RIGHTS, DON'T YOU THINK? "One of the reasons we still have this is because of the practice you are still promoting. The practice of victim blaming, either directly or indirectly, is one of the many reasons we have rape. It just happens to be one we can fix easily. Stop blaming the victim, and victim blaming will go away." CODY, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT SOMETIMES RAPE IS BEING PRACTICED BECAUSE OF THE SAFE MEASURES I'M PROMOTING IN MY ARGUEMENT? WOW! BY THAT LOGIC, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN A WEPPEN, BECAUSE PEOPLE KILL WITH THEM, RIGHT? WHO CARES IF SOMETIMES THEY USE THEM FOR PROTECTION, OR A SAFE MEASURE, BUT PEOPLE HAPPEN TO SHOOT OTHERS TO DEATH WITH THEM IN THE VERY HEAT OF PASSION. IT SOUNDS STUPID, RIGHT? I KNOW. I'M TELLING YOU THIS BECAUSE I'M NOT ADVOCATING ANY RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY. PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS DO WHAT THEY SHOULD, BUT WHATEVER THEY WANT, EVEN IF THEY KNOW THEY SHOULDN'T AND IT'S NOT THE RIGHT THING. IT'S NOT A PERFECT WORLD. AND BECAUSE A SMART WOMAN KNOWS THAT, IT DOESN'T HURT TO BE A LITTLE CAREFUL ABOUT HER BEHAVIOR TWARDS STRANGERS, THAT'S ALL. "Like I said earlier, we all enter into a social contract when we agree to exist in a society. If you don't like our contract, you have every right to move to another country with another contract. You can go live in the woods and not be part of our contract. But while you are here, you have to follow our rules. One of those rules is the idea that certain things are legal, and certain things are not. Rape is one of those things that is not." Flirting is one of those things that is". So everyone has the right to flirt, no one has the right to rape. Is it safer not to, yes. But then its also safer not to go to clubs at all. In fact, I know girls that do that because of this exact subject. I know girls that don't go to clubs because of the fact that they feel sexualized when they go and are afraid of being raped. Businesses exist solely based on this principle. For example, the gym chain Curves was created to give women a place to go and work out without being stared at by men and being thought of as sex dolls." YES, CODY I'VE HEARD OF THIS. SEE I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT BEING EXTREMEST ABOUT SAFE PRACTICES. there's more to life than legality and rights, and the law doesn't cover all of that. t
to be continued, sorry. the law isn't always fair, you can't say it's being followed 100%. Life isn't fair either. I'M NOT EVEN SAYING WOMEN SHOULD DRESS AS NUNSS, AND NEVER GO OUT AND HAVE A FEW DRINKS AND NEVER FLIRT. I'M NOT TRYING TO TELL A WOMAN WHAT TO DO. IN FACT I'M NOT AGAINST RULES AT ALL, YOU SEE? I THINK I'VE SAID THAT ENOUGH. I DON'T BELIEVE A WOMAN SHOULD BE AFRAID, BUT CAUCIOUS. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE, WHICH I'LL DESCRIBE. I'M NOT AFRAID OF GOING OUT IN MY SEXY CLOTHES, I'M NOT AFRAID TO FLIRT, DRINK, DANCE AND ACT SEXY WITH GUYS. GOT IT? BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I DON'T DO IT RIGHT AWAY WITH THE FIRST HOTTEST MOST SEXIEST GUY I SPOT, BEFORE SOME OTHER GIRL INTERACTS WITH HIM. I WANNA TALK TO HIM FIRST, SEE WHAT HE'S LIKE AND OBSERVE HIM. IF I NOTICE THAT WHILE I'M DANCING AND ACTING SEXY HE WANTS TO ACTUALLY GO FURTHER AND I'M NOT PLANNING TO BECAUSE I'M JUST HAVING A GOOD TIME WITH HIM, I WANT TO FIND A WAY TO GET MYSELF OUT OF THAT BEFORE IT CAN HAPPEN. BUT IF I'M ASSUMING THAT HE WILL STOP WHEN I ASK HIM TO, AND STILL GRIND ON HIM AND SUCH, EVEN IF I KNOW HE WANTS ME SEXUALLY AND I DON'T, WHY AM I STILL CONTINUING THE ACTS THAT TURN HIM ON, IF I DON'T WANT TO HEAT THINGS UP WITH HIM? I'M PLAYING WITH FIRE, BECAUSE I DECIDED TO DANCE WITH HIM, TO DRINK WITH HIM, TO GRIND ON HIM, TO AROUSE HIM WITH OUT KNOWING FOR SURE IF HE'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. HEY, IF HE STOPS WHEN I DECIDE I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF HIM, GREAT!, BECAUSE WE BOTH THEN JUST HAD A GOOD TIME. we both did what was legal and right. BUT THAT'S NOT ALWAYS GONNA WORK. I WAS RAPED BY HIM, I DIDN'T DESERVE IT, I DIDN'T THINK IT WOULD HAPPEN, I DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH HIM. YET EVERYTHING WE DO HAS A CAUSE AND EFFECT. IT SHOULDN'T EVER BE THAT WAY, I THINK THAT'S LONG BEEN ESTABLISHED. I'M NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT MAJORITY OR MINORITY, BUT SOME RAPE CASES HERE. HOW ABOUT APART FROM NOT BLAMING THE VICTIM, NOT OPENING OPPORTUNITY OF BECOMING VICTIMS OF CRIMINALS THAT WILL NEVER CEASE TO HURT? "since you seem to be clinging to this idea of taking the safer route Dolce, I'll ask this." NO CODY, I'M NOT CLINGING, I'M DEFENDING MY ARGUEMENT. I DON'T THINK SAFETY IS THE PERFECT SOLUTION, IN FACT THERE'S NONE, SADLY. BECAUSE EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT, AND WILL REACT DIFFERENTLY TO VARIOUS SITUATIONS. NOT EVERYTHING WILL WORK THE SAME WAY FOR EVERYONE. I HOPE I'VE MADE MYSELF CLEARE REGARDING THAT. NOW TO YOUR QUESTIONS, ONE BY ONE. "Where do you draw the line between safe practices and victim blaming?" I THINK THAT WHEN I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING OR WHAT I CAN CAUSE BY MY ACTIONS AND IF I DO IT ANYWAY I'M PUTTING MYSELF IN HARM'S WAY, AND THE SAFE PRACTICE IS WHEN I TRY TO AVOID PLAYING WITH FIRE. When has a woman taken enough precautions to have you say that she didn't provoke the rape?" REREAD THREE PARAGRAPHS BACK. I THINK I'VE DESCRIBED IT ENOUGH. next post
"How many of your rights are you willing to give up so that you won't be raped?" NONE. I, HOWEVER, AM WILLING TO TAKE JUST AS MUCH RESPONSIBILITY OF MYSELF AND BEHAVIOR AS I HAVE RIGHTS. IT'S PART OF BEING A MATURE ADULT. I MUST ACT LIKE ONE, BEHAVE LIKE ONE ON HER RIGHT MIND. WILL I FUCK UP? HELL YEAH. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ALWAYS MAKING THE RIGHT CHOICES, BUT LEARNING HOW TO MAKE THEM WITHOUT HAVING TO SUFFER SEVERE SCARS FOR LIFE. "When does it end"? NEVER, SADLY. "When do we finally say that we are going to protect the rights of everyone and deny the acts of those who do things that are illegal?" WHEN EVERYONE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. NO ONE IS BEING DENIED RIGHTS, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE. BUT WE CAN'T EXPECT TO HAVE OUR RIGHTS PROTECTED OR PROTECT OTHER'S RIGHTS, IF WE ARE SO TRUSTING AND CAN'T PROTECT OURSELVES FIRST AND FOREMOST. I THINK THAT'S ESCENTIAL IN ORDER TO LIVE HEALTHY LIVES AND LEARN. ALL RIGHT CODY, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I MISSED SOMETHING. I'M TRYING very hard TO COVER AS MUCH AS I CAN FROM YOUR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. :!
Well, the SAFEST RESTRICTION of ANY COCK-TEASER'S FREEDOM to COCK-TEASE, without ANY SEXUALLY-PROVOKED REPROCUSSIONS from whoever the GUY/GUYS would be, if not the ONLY, is to ALWAYS ENFORCE the "NO-FOR-NO" POLICY--example: in my day program, there's a woman that ONLY ONCE attempted to play in my HAIR, which is MY "SEX-TRIGGER," and COUNTLESS TIMES, she's done this VERY SAME THING with OTHER guys, who'd attempt to feel her up, and the whole WHATEVER, and she's IMMEDIATELY CUT THEM OFF RIGHT at the VERY PASS, with a COMPLETELY FIRM "STOP TOUCHING ME LIKE THAT," and without ANY WORD of PROTEST, they comply, and of COURSE, she'd continue HER "SEX-DEPRIVATION-VIOLATION BEHAVIOR on them, which to THEM, THEY PRACTICALLY WELCOMED it, and were ACTUALLY CONDITIONED to BELIEVE that if they were to even THINK anything sexual, without even ACTING on it, they acted as though they were JUST AS GUILTY as if they HAD, because they'd say: "GET YOUR MIND OUT of the GUTTER (SO-AND-SO)! It AIN'T THAT KIND of PARTY" to EACH OTHER, much to HER EMOTIONALLY-SADDISTIC DELIGHT. I, as a COMPLETE, UTTER SHOCK to HER, IMMEDIATELY CUT HER OFF, the VERY SECOND that I felt the VERY START of her fingers in my hair, and I was VERY HONEST with her in telling her that I'm INSTANTLY ARROUSED when she DOES that, and I AUTHORITATIVELY RESTRICTED HER, by LETTING HER KNOW that not ANY of her TEASING FINGERS will SHE LAY ON ME (I worded it JUST LIKE THAT to her), until SHE allows ME to COMPLETELY HAVE MY WAY with HER, FIRST, JUST as she was BARELY STARTING. HER protest of how "UNFAIR" I was being did ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD for her, and it was OBVIOUS that MY BLATANT REFUSAL to ENDURE the EMOTIONAL/MENTAL AGONY, CAUSED by the SEXUAL-BEHAVIOR-CONSTRAINT that I would've been FORCED to LIVE with, ALL to the VERY SATISFACTION of HER PROVOKATIVE/FLIRTATIOUS (WHATEVER you choose to label it) BEHAVIOR, by depriving HER, just as she did, ME, which COMPLETELY ROBBED HER of ALL of the "CONTROL POWER that she THINKS she deserves, which she DOESN'T, NEVER HAD, nor EVER WILL, FORCED HER, TOTALLY AGAINST HER WILL, to endure the VERY EMOTIONAL AGONY that "SEX-TEASING-DEPRAVATION" caused HER, and VERY WELL SHOULD, which means that EVERY TIME that SHE SEES me, and asks me why I'M not like the guys that allow her to do that shit to THEM, MY ONLY RESPONSE would be NO MORE than just a SIMPLE: "GO FIGURE." I could've REALLY let her have it with ALL BARRELS, but BECAUSE I don't wanna be hauled into the director's office and PROBABLY/POSSIBLY/DEFINITELY SLAPPED with SUSPENTION/TERMINATION for any SEXUAL-HARRASSMENT-STATEMENT I COULD'VE made, THOSE ONLY TWO WORDS to HER do PERFECTLY to have the VERY AFFECT that I ABSOLUTELY WANT them to, and by the end of the DAY, it's yet ANOTHER CONQUERING VICTORY that I ALWAYS WIN, without EVER having to do ANYTHING ILLEGAL/against DAY-PROGRAM POLICY, WHATSOEVER.
I only loosely follow anything the OP writes. Its disorganized, anecdotal, and seems wishy washy at best. For once one of his topics lead to an interesting conversation, yet he doesn't realize just how far from the center of such conversation he is.
I don't understand what kind of program this is, i'm assuming its some kind of group therapy/group home... I suppose that would explain all the strange people in the stories. then again, we're getting one perspective, that's not being communicated well, if i'm being charitable.
The OP is the only one from whom I have heard the expression "cock tease," and it sounds more like a bitter enraged than an actual word.
But anyway, sounds like she wants your wallet, not your cock. Only using distraction so she can make off with the goods. I'd be checking my back pocket, and worrying less about the front of my pants. Because as a man, this would be really hard to report.
If you are really serious about this, I would never admit to a state of sexual arousal, or even being perturbed: it only gives them fuel to the fire. You are right, you could be charged for sexual harassment for mentioning that what she did aroused you. And harassment is in the mind of the harassee only so you are guilty until and after proven innocent.
Instead, I would politely ask her to stop, and then tell a lie. Tell her you have a communicable scalp disease and advise she maybe wash her hands. Humans are naturally afraid of disease, so she'll leave you alone.
I'd skip the bitter, though. You are a pawn, I am a pawn, all of us men are pawns, and the system is the Queen. Would you ever move a pawn against a queen? I wouldn't, and in all cases where I've seen it tried, I've seen it fail, for males. You just have to know how to gracefully step out. That doesn't mean all women would do this, I believe most wouldn't. But for those that would you have an entire system dedicated to helping them. A system of men and women, all of us, myself included, who are biologically wired to respond to a woman's distress and ignore a man's. This is how our government has spent more money on laws to prevent women from seeing things they don't like, and overhearing dirty jokes, than it has onreducing workplace injuries in high-risk jobs typically held by lower-paid men. That being said, trust your wits and not the system, as a man.
You can be smart about things without compromising your identity, and certainly without violating the law.
Put another way, Terrence: You have white cane laws. But if a car is coming at 50 miles per hour, wave that white cane if you wish, but physics is against you. If that motorist is coming around a blind corner, you are dead. In that instance, the law doesn't matter. Social ideals don't matter. And after you're dead, the blind community will rise up against you in self-righteous indignation, and say how dare you get hit and not know ahead of time.
You're a pawn, and so am I. As males, we are far more disposable than females. Feminism fully backs me up on this one, and the Men's Rights Movement, in my opinion, is unrealistic in its zeal to overturn it. By men, I do not mean the rich alphas, I mean the rest of us who will live and die unrecognized.
I actually wrote about our pawn dispensable status in a women's sociology course in college, and I aced that one: she loved it. Understanding this, you can't be bitter against an individual as you now are. If you're bitter against the system, part of that system being yourself, you may as well bang your head against the wall. Your best bet is to stay under the radar.
Again, once you understand the nature of the situation, who would you be bitter against? I may claim to have abandoned feminism as an ideology, but that doesn't mean they're all wrong, or that I am unrealistic as to how things actually are.
I don't think it wise to be bitter, like the OP appears to be, any more than I think it wise to shout at an oncoming vehicle like the Men's Rights group does, or make serious allegations of spousal rape and victim abandonment, without evidence, as Cody has.
Just keep your head down, as a man. I can agree with everything Dolce said, only applying it to myself as a man instead, and watching my step. I've seen firsthand the wreckage that false allegations brought by the system, on behalf of a woman, against a man can produce. No more job, no more business contacts, nobody wants to associate professionally and otherwise with someone accused of this stuff. Everyone has doubts in that situation. Everyone included me. To the OP, I'd say, be careful. Instead of admitting to sexual arousal, I'd fabricate a communicable scalp itch. Who's gonna get hurt by that one? I get the feeling the OP wants to prove he's right. But does being right matter if you're being run down by an oncoming vehicle on an icy road, having come around a blind corner? Just be smart and stay the fuck out of the way.
Ok, since you don't seem to want to listen to me when I tell you things, take it from a lecturer on the subject. Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_4dPB9MVS8
Cody. We are listening. We just disagree
Dolte, maybe it is how we were taught.
You see things as I see things. Dolte for woman teacher, I say!
You understand your power, and you understand what it can do.
I have lots of respect for a woman that does so. She shows she is not a child.
No, you really aren't listening. IF you listened, you would be able to face the issue.
My hope is that it is simply the reason I find so often when debating blind people. The idea that you haven't been exposed. I don't know if that's true, but its my hope. It is also my hope you never have to experience it yourself.
IN fairness, I used to feel the same as you two do. I used to think that women can provoke rape, that women who acted provocatively were just asking to get rape. I used to blame the victim as much as you two do now. Then, I met the victims. I read the case file of the Steubenville rape. I invite you to do the same. Expose yourself to more. You'll learn more than I could ever teach you.
Dolce, when you're old enough, go to a club. Find out just how sexualized it really is there. Wayne, go talk to more women. If they don't knock your teeth out for saying you have to protect them because of your genetics, they'll teach you things about how it is to be a woman. Most of the ones I know will do both.
Cody, I’m going to tell you the same thing you told Dolte,and myself, because in all your arguments, your woman are victims.
Maybe you can’t make the mental leap to how powerful a woman that flaunts her sex appeal can be, because you’ve not had enough life experience to understand what I’ve seen firsthand.
Cody, I know a whole comunity of woman and men that agree with what I'm pitching here. I know the reasons why they do, and have witnessed the reasons why.
I am sure I know, and have known far more women, and I mean in the sexual manner and as friends.
I've been exposed.
Blame is not what I am saying, responsibility is what I'm suggesting. .
I'll not get you to agree, but flaunting is psychological abuse.
It generates feelings of longing, physical need, and anger.
I’d go so far to say it causes victim rape in some cases.
Maybe you got teased all night, so you go home and rape your little sister, because you have power over her, and you can do it without going to jail.
Every man is not able to deal with it, and that needs respecting.
Like Dolt says, if you aren’t responsible, you shouldn’t be allowed to carry a gun as you say you do. Women that are not responsible, or made to be shouldn’t be allowed to dress, and be sexy. It is dangerous.
The girl next to me on the flight talks with me, smiles and is polite, but at no time does she try to draw my attention to her manner of dress would turn me on.
If that same girl invited me to share her body, she’d blow my mind.
She is an adult and understand her power, and is using it responsibly.
If that same girl started to do all she could to get me to notice her, rubbing on my pants, and being familiar with me and she doesn’t even know my name turns me off. She makes me want to toss a blanket over her and protect her, because she doesn’t understand her power. She is a child.
Here’s an odd concept to try on.
In our social contract, what if we made sex for sex sake the rule or allowed.
We lift the restraints of marriage, commitment, love.
Would it take the edge off of sex, or sexualness?
We tell are women, not only is it good to be sexy, but you are free to indulge as much and as often as you want.
Not only would that kill the power of the temptress, because if she won’t, the girl next to you is offering.
Maybe it also take away the need to abuse men, because we all know men are just pigs, so we’ll humiliate them.
Just a thought.
Oh, and I tossed the man thing in there as thought.
I know that ones a touchy one Cody.
My friend,and I know you'll not believe this either. I know many women that would feel a guy that didn't think that way had no balls and wasn't a real man.
They want there men to respect them as women, and I mean the whole nature, soft deal.
They can make twice the money, have a better job, but when they get home, they want a man, not a boy.
He doesn't have to have the money, in all cases, but many yes, but the main thing he must have is balls dude.
Okay, that was off topic. Lol
Not calling you a liar, Cody but I find it hard to believe you ever thought that, being you exhibit most if not all the qualities of a rational objectivist.
To anyone who actually thinks this, do you believe all violent crime can be provoked? Why is rape pro vocable if others are not? To a street addict looking off that fix, that twenty you just pulled from the ATM looks awful tempting. And that disdainful "get away from me" look you gave him looked like a challenge to come and get some. I mean, you're an adult: you should know to hide the money and look not directly at him, so you provoked him to beat you up, take your money, and get your credit cards.
Call me ignorant, paternalistic or any other name that suits your fancy, but if my little ATM scenario looks like nonsense to you, I see claims she provoked as the same kind of nonsense.
Cody, not sure it's a blind thing, though I had to come on this site to hear a provocation argument live and in color. Oh sure we read about it in textbooks and we all dismissed the idea of someone thinking it.
May be more a regional thing than anything else. But anyway, if you think it can be provoked, is that true for all violent crime? All crime? Or just sex crimes? I'm actually curious about how you do that. If it is for all crimes, I'm due for some time. I should have known better than to leave the car to be vandalized, it being a hot summer night, and those poor kids not having a nice neighborhood to play in. To bastardized the OP's term, I was a car tease. Don't you think I was acting like a child and provoked it?
I also don't understand why you or anyone else can't see that crime actually can be provoked.
No, not all crime, but it is possible.
I'm a pretty good sized guy. I'm weighing in at almost 200, and that is because I've been lazy at late. I'm normally at that mark.
I'm all muscle, no fat, and I think I can defend myself decently.
There is a place not far from me called 5 points, and there are some rough bars there, or even downtown in what they call lodo.
Now, I'm not afraid to go to any of these places, and do. I never have a problem.
That is because I know how to act and what not to act like.
If I get in to one of these bars, and because I'm a decent sized guy all muscle, and think I can defend myself, I push some dude.
He don't react, and I don't say excuse me.
I push him again, and knock his hat off.
If he ain't slapped me yet, he is about to. Okay, so I'm still cool right.
I spit on him.
I'm be damned if I don't get to find out how good my size is and is all that muscle I've been working hard to get is going to help me now.
Nope, can't provoke a crime at all! Smile.
Ok, Wayne, I'll take the bait on this one: you and I know a fight is different . If you spit on the guy, there's no question about the interpretation. And bar fights are mutual mayhem most times.
I had just a similar fool incident in Florida almost 15 years ago now. I went into a local bar there, all pumped up with that disdainful northern attitude Floridians hate. Bet you Cody has experienced it and knows what I'm talking about. I'm not proud of it now, but that's the fool I was then. Now unbenounced to us, a couple Sons of The Confederates were there. When one taunted, "Look at the Northern Invaders!" This fool shoulda kept the pie hole shut. Instead, I shot back something akin to, "Look at the ignorant stump-breakin slave masters!" Ask Cody, that was a really stupid move. Naturally the locals sided against us. But we we were both looking for a fight. No mixed signals, though I was in for a bit of cultural education, "teach that boy some manners," was part of what got said.
They threw the lot of us out: hot-blooded "northern invader" fools, and Sons of Confederates. We're lucky they didn't call the cops.
None of that remotely resembles rape, though. Rape is uninvited, and there's no question we were cruising for trouble. But we wanted trouble. There wasn't any crying going on. Yes, the others could have ignored and not taunted us. And yes, I could have shut the pie hole. And maybe they could have even ignored it when I didn't shut my hole. But we were both clearly looking for some. You'd have never seen that petrified look from us, or heard us say with any sincerity we never wanted that to happen. Bar fights like that are mutual. Yes, we fools were outnumbered. But unlike rape, there was no hidden agenda, no secrecy, and no manipulation.
Now, if the others had sent someone to follow us, that would have been a different issue, and I'd say we would have not provoked that. Been fools, yes. Full of piss and attitude, yes. Deserved what we got from the others in the fight? I'd say yes, though most cops might've stuck something on the guy who jumped at me to teach new some manners. He Dix make the first move physically.
But there wasn't any manipulation or evil intent. Rape, robbery, home invasions, stuff like that, you can't look for or provoke that stuff, no matter how much piss and attitude you got. I've been beat to teach me a lesson when I was younger, but whoever heard of raping to teach someone a lesson? Fights are a fool's business, yes, but they're mutual with no hidden agenda or manipulation.
Maybe I understand why you, Leo are thinking differently.
Let me see.
Rape is not invited. I agree with that. No matter what a woman is doing, she doesn't expect to be raped.
I understand that.
Here is the idea I can't convay, and maybe I never will be able to.
Because rape is not like a fight the way to provoke it is different.
What if I did this to a little guy. Maybe that guy was 5 foot tall and 100 pounds soaking wet. He know's he can't whip me, so he's got to take it, but it makes him mad still the same.
What he's got to do is wait until I get drunk and unaware.
He takes advantage of that.
It is notthat the woman that is teasing is trying to get raped, she is pushing the buttons that make the guy sexually frustrated, angry, and needy.
He waits until she leaves the place to teach her a lesson. That is what I mean.
She made him angry, mad, frustrated, and he raped her because of it, not because she was trying to get raped.
I hafe said, so I'll say again. The man that rapes any woman is wrong flat out.
But it a woman sets out to abuse him mentally by waving a red flag in his face so that she makes him angry, frustrated, and sexually wanting with her body and sexual actions, she contributes to the act or violent act the man does to her.
She flip the switch that made him what to rape her.
Every man doesn't have that switch that can be flipped, but as Dolte tried to explain, a woman has no way of knowing what man has one and what man does not.
So, to hopefully protect herself she is careful.
Now, if she wants sex, and not rape from a man, she flips the switch that makes him want her, and she provides the release.
If she just flipping switches for the hell of it, she is not a responsible adult woman, but a tease.
I keep asking this question, and I'll stop at this time.
Can any of you that disagree with me explain why a woman that sets out to flip a switch is not partly, not conpletely, but half responsible for the violence acted on her?
I forgot to say.
My fight example, the first one, wasn't related to rape. It was related to Cody saying you couldn't provoke a crime.
You go to jail for a fight, even if someone else started it.
It is only called self defense if you are attacked.
I'll address both issues at hand for you wayne, starting with the fight.
When you go to training to get your concealed weapons license you are taught many things. The most important one is that when you have a gun, you are required to have an absolute hold on your anger. You can't let it get out of control, because when you do you kill people. You have to know what is acceptable, and what is not, because the stakes get much higher when you have a loaded fourty-five tucked into your waistband.
The thing which connects these two issues is this. There are things which are allowed in our society. One of those things, provided you have the training, is carrying a gun. Another is a girl flirting and grinding and what have you. Those are things which are acceptable.
Also acceptable is the guy who is getting teased by the girl asking for her phone number, grinding back on her, and most especially leaving the bar. That's why you can't provoke rape, because there are two choices that can be made. The woman has the choice to stop, and the man has the choice to walk away. If the woman chooses to stop, the man has to respect that or its illegal. If the man chooses to walk away, the woman has to respect that or its illegal.
Unfortunately, we live in a society where we have demed it acceptable for men to lose control. We've given this catch all idea that men are the protectors, you've even fallen into that yourself wayne. We give men this bulletproof excuse of not being able to control themselves. WE need sex, the girls tease us, and so we have to have it.
That's the thing. You used the word need in your post, physical need. No woman has ever, is ever or will ever be able to instill physical need. Desire, sure, but not need. That's not how biochemistry works.
I'll finish with this Wayne. When you say you want to cover the girl up with a blanket and protect her because she's being a child. She isn't being a child Wayne. You are. You're not understanding why she's doing that. You're not able to comprehend the reasons why she has to do that. To put it bluntly, you're the problem that needs to be fixed.
not only are you and Dolce the ones who need to be fixed, Wayne, but it's people like the two of you who perpetuate the idea that rape is sometimes okay.
I'll let Dolce off slightly, for being young/not having much life experience under her belt. but, you, Wayne, are old enough to know better, and not be the child that you claim a woman is being, in coming onto you.
sure, with your words, you keep saying, "I assure you, Cody, Chelsea, and leo, I think rape is always wrong." with your actual statements, though, you're saying, "I know exactly what women's actions are meant to mean, when she does these certain things to get my attention."
as was asked of you, before, how can you claim to know what's going on in her head?
according to your scenarios, she hasn't explicitly told you anything with words, and she doesn't even know your name. so, as was also pointed out, before, you're flat out assuming what she means/wants from you, or other guys around. in other words, you're being the child, in that instance.
Again you all have interesting views.
Cody, I wasn’t talking about the gun in the sense of why you carry one, I was just pointing out that there are rules on when and if one can carry one.
I think this is the same reason Dolte used it as well.
I think women should understand their power.
To be a woman means many things, and her sexual power is an important part of this.
The reason you all keep suggestion I’m saying one thing and meaning another, is because I’m not agreeing with you, so you need a reason for that.
You say I’m excusing the man for losing control, because that is the only way you can put what I think in to perspective, I guess.
I don’t know this, so don’t slap me with that either. It is just what I think.
I have flatly said I think mean should control themselves, but I also face the fact some can’t, or won’t.
I don’t know what is in a girls mind, that is a fact, but after a while she keeps going on about how tight she is, and she knows I want it, and making a spectacle of herself, then tells me on top of that, I can’t have any, I don’t need to read her mind, she has told me.
Can you tell me why a girl would do that? Can you tell me why a woman would want to taunt a man?
Maybe you’ve never witness what I’m talking about, I don’t know that either.
When I see taunting, yes, I want to protect her. I don’t want any harm to come to her, so my reaction is to protect and educate. It is how I’m built.
To me it’s like a baby with an ice cream. That baby doesn’t understand that after finishing the ice cream, if it puts its hands on your white shirt, it will make a mess. It is your responsibility to clean the baby up, and explain that washing ones hands after eating ice cream is better then making a mess.
Will you all do me the favor of answering my taunting questions?
Last, chemistry, this is a bad statement, but here goes.
Cody, I happen to need sex. Right now at this point in my life it is not a want, but something I require. It is like food or money.
Now, I’m not going to steal it, I’m willing to work for it, but it is a need.
Maybe sometime it won’t be, and I understand you might not feel that way, but that is how I am.
It would take some real effort to teach myself to do without. Sure, I could get there if I had to, but it be a painful, difficult process for me.
If I ever felt I couldn’t control myself, I’d go seek mental help, but again, everyone won’t see it that way.
Remember rape isn’t just about sex, you’ve got that anger factor, and the wish to hurt someone in the worst way for whatever reasons go through a rapist mind.
If a woman happens to come across a man that already has this problems, and then taunts him on top of that, she is in serious danger. She’ll not know this until after that fact, and that is sad.
You all suggest I should be fixed. Tell me how. Tell me what you think I should think? I’m interested in your answers.
I wonder if I've revealed a little to much about myself in my last post.
I did not do it for affect or to win. I'm not trying to win, I'm learning.
I knew as you can see anyone reading this board, my view was not popular.
I do know many that share it, and I know many that want that view changed, so I'm not in the dark on this as suggested.
In response to LeoGuardian's POST 118 message, if ONLY ONE OF US, out of BOTH, is the one with ANGER ISSUES for having been "COUNTER-REJECTED," due to THEIR INITIAL BEHAVIOR toward the one, upon whom THEIR INITIAL REJECTION was INFLICTED, the VERY SECOND that the "INITIAL REJECTEE" made the UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT to RESPOND ACCORDINGLY when APPROACHED, HOW VALID, IF AT ALL, is YOUR "BITTER-CLAIM" CONCLUSION of the "INITIAL REJECTEE'S" BEHAVIOR, who DEMONSTRATED the HEALTHY (NOT PERFECT) COPING STRATEGY of SIMPLY WALKING AWAY, DISAPPOINTED (which SUCH UNAVOIDABLE INEVITABLE is ABSOLUTELY NO OBSTACLE, WHATSOEVER, that's IMPOSSIBLE to GET OVER, ANYWAY), but NEVER DEFEATED, THUS, having OFFICIALLY ESTABLISHED the TOTALLY SUCCESSFUL "NO-FOR-NO" policy, from the INITIATOR, COMPLETELY UNSCATHED, as opposed to making such claim of the "MAIN CULPRIT," who's the one that's COMPLETELY PISSED OFF, because I BRAZENLY DIDN'T "PROPERLY ACCOMMODATE" HER, by ENDURING the EMOTIONAL SUFFERING that I was TOTALLY SPARED of, INSTEAD? WHAT "NON-BITTER" REFERENCE could BEST be made of her that would be JUST AS ACCURATE and AFFECTIVE as calling her a "COCK-TEASE," has been, UNTIL NOW, which was ONLY IN RESPONSE to what SHE called ME for COUNTER-REJECTING HER FLIRTATIOUSNESS, as according to YOUR "LOGIC," or WHATEVER ELSE of yours, to call it?
I know the power a woman has, which Wayne was talking about. I've been mistreated to that when I was younger, being played along, then her and her friends start laughing and singing that bigoted and hateful song"I know What Boys Like." That didn't make me feel like sex, it made me feel like used shit. The irony of that situation was, that girl could never elicit that kind of a response again. We hadn't moved to full on grinding, but still.
Know what else? One of her friends had a change of heart, came to me and wanted to make up. Even asked me out. I couldn't have been less interested. Sure, I did the decent thing and said it was all okay, women had the right to do as they wish with their own bodies, all the right things, yunno. But shit is shit, and I was nothing but used shit to them.
Maybe rapists are looking for these taunters I don't know, trolling?
Wayne, as to why they taunt and laugh, i don't know! Maybe they are taking revenge on the nearest perceived weakest link.
But the frustration is the dehumanization and being treated worse than shit. It's like ice to the nuts and being held up naked in front of a laughing class. Tell me you could keep interested and it would stay at attention while they moved on to parrot all the accusations against men they learned at school. That kind of power trip and scapegoating takes any sexual interest away from me and it happens before you can blink. A man can lose his erection with one well-placed accusation or harsh remark. This is written about in many couples sex books.
As Chelsea says, they have a right to do as they wish with their own bodies. I'll add that unlike their song I mentioned earlier, you're not being a baby, or wrongly denying them power, by turning away and leaving them be. While women doing stuff like that are celebrated for being empowered, men are jerks if they lead a woman on emotionally then drop her. None deserve to be raped or led on emotionally, what many call emotional rape, and, radical as this sounds to many, none refuse to be toyed with, deliberately played along for pleasure of the other party. Wayne, they probably do it because they have yet to accept the radical notion that male humans are viable humans with feelings and emotions also.
There are a few adult relationship books out now that suggest a little less nagging, that men have feelings also, and try and outline this for people who were previously unaware. That notion made quite a splash, and I wasn't the only fool who tried to minimize what I said, lessen the blow as it were. The very idea of us having equal emotions and not being the de facto scapegoat, goes against every system we got.
What I want, I know we won't get. Too little power for the powerful. Everyone be responsible for themselves. No sinner complex, no I'm-a-pig complex, everyone pay for what they actually did and not for the actions of others. I told ya I can't have that.
Fair questions wayne. Let me see if I can get them all in one post. If I don't, please remind me and I'll get them in two posts.
As for taunting, there is a part of that you're not addressing. Taunting is legal. Its part of the first amendment.
Lets take a non-rape issue as our example. The westboro Baptist Christians say some of the worst things I have ever heard any human say with utter seriousness. They are the worst examples of religion I've ever encountered. They taunt every thinking and respectable person every day with their signs, their protesting of soldier's funerals, their slogans likegod hates fags" and "thank god for IED's". They cause absolute hatred in myself and nearly every person I am close to. I'm sure you'd feel the same if you went and read their website.
However, under no circumstances would I accept that as an excuse for someone mowing them down with a submachine gun. I hate them, but that hatred does not excuse me violating their basic human rights. Much as I may think the world would be better if they stopped breathing. I would not think it an excuse for them to be murdered.
Another thing you need to understand Wayne, is that we, and by we I mean you and I and leo and other men, have created a world in which a woman has to be sexual. Its not a power wayne. You keep calling it this power like its a weapon. Its a defense. Its the only way they can be seen as women. Its really the only way we can se them as people at all.
Women are branded by their bodies. We se them as nothing more than breasts and ass and lips and legs and something fun between those legs. Women are often dehumanized. Look in commercials, television programming, movies, music videos. Women are seen as sex objects, not as humans. Watch that video I posted, it explains better than I can.
So, the problem with your taunting and provoking arguments wayne is twofold. First, you create slaves out of men. You present men as a slave to their penis. I don't know about you, but I'm not a slave to my penis. I'm a better man than that, a better human than that. Second, you present women as slave drivers. That is simply untrue.
Let me add to that a few facts about myself. I love sex. I adore it. Its my favorite pastime. I'm extremely good at it. But I'm not a slave to it.
You Wayne, are apparently a slave to it. You say you need sex. I say you're being childish. Only thirteen year old boys could even come close to needing something sexual. We're past that stage in our lives wayne. We're mature enough to know that sex isn't a need. It may be fun, it may be good, it may be wholesome and wonderful and the best thing even before sliced bread, but it isn't a need. Breath is a need, food is a need, water is a need, shelter is a need. Sex is not.
So, what did I mis Wayne? I'm sure I missed something.
Chelsea, you are not much older than me to claim my lack of experience. You were at least 1/4th of my age. Sorry, granny, but not much different. Age doesn't define experience or maturitty. And no, before all of you jump the gun I'm not saying I'm the most experienced and mature woman, because I'm not. I don't need to elevate myself. But I'm not just pulling my arguments out of my ass, I know what the hell I'm talking about, and why I'm saying what I do. I also practice what I preach. Cody, I'm listening, you're not. You don't wish to understand my arguement. What I've said doesn't require much thinking, or to be 75 years of age to grasp. And I wasn't personally exposed to the types of scenarios I've argued, but I did go through sexual abuse by a family member. Are you saying that my point is not valid because I'm what, 4 years younger than you and because acording to you elder foaks, I have no experience? So maybe your point is also not valid, because wayne is older than you, and he's had more experience than you and chelsea. It's fine, I honestly don't care. All I've been doing here is defending my arguement. I'm not going to repeat myself or what others have said on this thread. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm not even trying to. I'm learning from this too. But you're not right either, and I'm not wrong or inexperienced or idealistic because you people in your 20s claim I am. Live large, fuck with as many people as you want, flirt with as many people as you wish, I don't care it's your life. I'm just offering a suggestion, and it's up to you to take it or not. It really frustrates me that no matter how much I try to bring my point across, in the various forms, some of you are not listening. There's no point in beating a dead horse. I can't force you to get my point. So, just watch out, and be safe.
Oh, I have to clear something. Wayne and I are not perpetuating the idea that rape is sometimes ok. What a load of crap you've got. Clean your ears, and go have a read at our posts. Because we never ever excused rape, or said it's ok. We're trying to equalize the responsibilitys here. How the hell is that giving an ok to rape? Please, please, tell me how? You've all brought some good points here, one doesn't know what goes inside a woman's head. But I don't know what's inside a man's head either, and I'm not just going to jump in the pool without knowing how to swim. You're talking about what he should do, but not what he might can and will do. I'm talking about what a woman should do, might do and can do as well. This world is dangerous. Sorry, it's the truth. And no, not all crimes can be provoked. We can't avoid crime, but we can be responsible of our actions. I understand that as a woman too. I'm not basing this on gender, this is about my arguement that we women do have the capasity of understanding our sexual power and behavior. So...
Ok Dolce, a couple things. One, yes, four years makes a huge amount of difference. However, its not just age. Its the experience you gain when you live on your own and go out on your own and survive on your own. I'm sorry, but you just ain't got that yet. It isn't your fault, its just how it is. You'll se what I mean when you have the experience of what I'm talking about.
Now then. Simple mathematics. If you have 100 percent of a candy bar, and you give half to Jimmy, you only have fifty percent left. You can't give 50 percent of the candy bar to Jimmy and still have 100 percent yourself. If you give some to Jimmy, you have les yourself. You'd have to have two candy bars.
Now, the candy bar is the responsibility for the rape, and its on a sliding scale. On one end of the scale is a person being totally at fault, at the other end is the person not being at fault at all. You can picture it like a slide.
For the sake of easing into this, lets take another example. Lets say you're in the lunch room at school and you're carrying your tray. Somehow your mashed potatoes end up all over some girl's face. Now, if it happened that you accidentally tripped and the mashed potatoes hit her in the face completely on accident, you're not at fault. You are a zero on our scale. If it happens you picked up those potatoes and smashed them into her face, you're entirely at fault. You're a 100 on our scale.
So for you to say that a woman is provoking the rape by saying that if she hadn't ben doing this, or she hadn't been wearing that, she wouldn't have gotten raped, you are taking the man down from a 100 on the scale, to a fifty on the scale. You're taking half the candy bar and giving it to Jimmy. Now, you have les of the candy bar. The man has les of the responsibility of raping the girl.
Yet, you still contend that rape is wrong, and Wayne even contends that he would never do it. You're trying to say that its entirely wrong that the man did it, which puts him at a 100 on the scale, but that the woman also did it, which puts her at a 100 on the scale. That's 200 percent, which you can't have.
Lowering the man's position on the scale removes some of his responsibility. This means that, in essence you are saying that its a little more ok for him to rape because the woman was taunting him or wearing a thong. You might not be saying its all perfectly fine and dandy, but its more ok because you are taking some of the responsibility away from him and giving it to her. That's why I'm saying you're wrong, because you are trying to have 200 percent responsibility, and you can't have that.
I'd also like to address something you asked earlier that I completely forgot to clarify. You asked how you are taking away a woman's rights. Let me use a bit of reducto ad absurdium to answer that.
In the 1920's, black people had the right to vote. It was legal for them to appear at the voting booth and cast a vote for whoever they thought should run the country. White people in the south hated this. So they showed up with guns and assaulted black people who came to the voting booths. There is a famous case of them stapling a black man's leg to a log to keep him from voting. Awful, right? It turns your stomach to think about. I know it does mine.
Now, as a consequence of this violence, black people stopped voting. They stopped registering to vote because they were getting attacked when they did, and they stopped going to the polls because they were getting attacked when they did that too. They effectively had their right taken away from them by the white people with staples and guns. They still had the right to vote of course, it was on the books. However, they effectively didn't have the right because they would get beaten to death if they tried It.
That led, in turn, to northern college students coming into the south in masses during the 1960's to register thousands of black people to vote. The black people had had the right for decades, almost a century, but they effectively were denied that right because of the violence perpetrated against them.
That's what you're doing. Right now, you are the white guy with the staples. You are saying, "Yeah, its your right to dress how you want and act how you want, but when you get attacked for it, its your fault to". You're acting just like the KKK members did when they said, "Yeah, you've got the right to vote, but I've got a staple here that says you ain't gonna do it".
Do you see now why I, and several million other people like me, are saying this is wrong? Do you se why we're trying to correct you? Because make no mistake Dolce, you're just as wrong as those KKK members were. True, you aren't stapling women's legs to logs, but when you effectively deny anyone the rights they are afforded as human beings, you are doing the exact same things those southern white folks were doing a few decades ago. Civil rights are civil wrights. There should never be any consequence, implied or actualized, for acting upon those civil rights. Just because you may not want to avail yourself of them personally, does not mean others don't have the right to do them. You, as a woman, should wish to be as free as you possibly can without the threat of violence. Its time we, as a people, move past that.
yes, Dolce, I, too, am saying that four years makes every bit of difference between you and I.
you don't live on your own, you haven't experienced the struggles that often come with doing so, nor have you seen numerous awful things that people do, or conditions that some people have that make every day tasks impossible, at times.
am I saying you're less of a person cause of the things I just stated? no. however, I'm wise enough, now, to say that even I wasn't as well versed in life four years ago as I am now.
I hadn't seen a lot in life, despite how much I thought the opposite were true, and I hadn't been burned much, either...again, despite how much I thought I had. and, I, like you, was trying to convince people I knew it all, every time I spoke, when I didn't have any actual thoughts of my own.
I'm sure you'll just skip over these words like they're nothing, but I hope someone else can convey what I've tried, without being met with deaf ears on your part.
believe me, I say that as someone who used to spend more time talking, than I did listening...which, I eventually realized, got me nowhere I wanted to be.
I'm just going to chime in here really quickly.
In a perfect world, women - nay, people of all persuasions - would walk where they wished, wearing what they wished and doing what they wished to do. This is not a perfect world.
I completely agree that rape is wrong, and entirely the fault of the rapist and not the victim. If things the victim says or does make it easier for the rapist to enact or justify his desire, that's not the victim's fault.
If you say "Do that, and you're asking to be raped", you're in some ways doing little more than saying "Don't walk in that swamp...alligators live there". Sad but true. We live in a world where sick excuses for people will rape you if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time. If you are advising that a potential victim use common sense, then surely that is not the sort of thing which bears comparison to the KKK and their demonizing of blacks.
I really do wish people could keep hot topics in some semblance of a rational framework, but it never happens. Disagreeing isn't good enough; your opponent in a debate has to become an extreme so you can target them better. That's nearsighted and distracts from the point...the point being that, unfortunately, we have a society where bad things happen.
You say that a woman should walk where she wants, do what she wants? Congratulate a rape victim for exercising her right to do that the morning after she's been brutalized, and see where it gets you.
So tell me SW, why, if we don't live in a perfect world, shouldn't we be doing everything humanly possible to make it better? No, right now it isn't perfect. It will never be perfect, but why in the world should we not continuously strike down each and every individual thing that makes it just a little more imperfect?
By saying, "Well the world sucks", you're surrendering. I'm saying don't surrender. The world doesn't have to be the way it is. Men don't have to se women the way they do. We don't have to excuse them anymore. Until we all stop doing this little tapdances where we act like we're not victim blaming because it makes us scared of what we see in the mirror, but we still hold to victim blaming beliefs, then we still have work to do. I, for one, am going to do that work. I invite you to get off your metaphoric but and join me.
Cody, I agree. I'm not surrendering, as it were. I'm simply saying that until such time that the world is made better - because it's not going to happen on its own - offering such wisdom as "be careful where you walk at night" is cogent and may well save a lot of bad things happening.
It's like a chemical spill. It shouldn't have happened. We need to clean it up somehow. But telling people not to walk in it is just common sense. There's nothing attached to that mentality which immediately suggests that you'll have to navigate around this chemical spill for all time.
I personally wonder how it is we can fix this part of our species. I'm a little cynical. That doesn't leave me completely without hope, mind you, and it doesn't mean for a second that I think it's okay. I don't. At best, all I'm saying is that minimizing the risks is a palatable stopgap till things become saner, as they should be.
I invite you to quote me passages from this entire conversation that made it clear that's what the others were arguing.
Damn it! I was posting and it logged me out. I congratulate you cody, for distorting what I said, and chelsea for simpley posting after Cody because you have to have a reason to post. I also congratulate you for repeating what I said about not having all the life experience. You two are so good at that, keep on practicing! The difference here in this arguement, is that I don't claim to be right, to be better than anyone else and to judge people because we don't agree. You, Chelsea, claim to know my life, when you have no clue about how I've dealt with situations and the decisions I've made. I'm not gonna sway from this topic, as you two love to do. Anyhow, saying it's not a perfect world is like saying the world is not full of rainbows and unicorns. So you're just as unrealistic as I am, gotta love it! I'm not saying we should conform with that, which is why I've stated about being safety. I believe things should change, and it depends on us. I'm not surrendering. Now, enjoy going around in endless circles.
I'm copying MY POST-133 MESSAGE in THIS post, IN HOPES that LeoGuardian, to whom my questions were directed, even though it's a TOTALLY CLEAR OPEN INVITATION to ANYONE ELSE, as WELL, to answer: "In response to LeoGuardian's POST 118 message, if ONLY ONE OF US, out of BOTH, is the one with ANGER ISSUES for having been "COUNTER-REJECTED," due to THEIR INITIAL BEHAVIOR toward the one, upon whom THEIR INITIAL REJECTION was INFLICTED, the VERY SECOND that the "INITIAL REJECTEE" made the UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT to RESPOND ACCORDINGLY when APPROACHED, HOW VALID, IF AT ALL, is YOUR "BITTER-CLAIM" CONCLUSION of the "INITIAL REJECTEE'S" BEHAVIOR, who DEMONSTRATED the HEALTHY (NOT PERFECT) COPING STRATEGY of SIMPLY WALKING AWAY, DISAPPOINTED (which SUCH UNAVOIDABLE INEVITABLE is ABSOLUTELY NO OBSTACLE, WHATSOEVER, that's IMPOSSIBLE to GET OVER, ANYWAY), but NEVER DEFEATED, THUS, having OFFICIALLY ESTABLISHED the TOTALLY SUCCESSFUL "NO-FOR-NO" policy, from the INITIATOR, COMPLETELY UNSCATHED, as opposed to making such claim of the "MAIN CULPRIT," who's the one that's COMPLETELY PISSED OFF, because I BRAZENLY DIDN'T "PROPERLY ACCOMMODATE" HER, by ENDURING the EMOTIONAL SUFFERING that I was TOTALLY SPARED of, INSTEAD? WHAT "NON-BITTER" REFERENCE could BEST be made of her that would be JUST AS ACCURATE and AFFECTIVE as calling her a "COCK-TEASE," has been, UNTIL NOW, which was ONLY IN RESPONSE to what SHE called ME for COUNTER-REJECTING HER FLIRTATIOUSNESS, as according to YOUR "LOGIC," or WHATEVER ELSE of yours, to call it?"
NOW, to respond to the UNFORTUNATE FACT that ALTHOUGH TAUNTING IS LEGAL, it's SIMULTANEOUSLY IMMORAL, which CLEARLY DESCRIBES US, as MANKIND, and THIS WORLD SYSTEM, to which we ARE SLAVES, but SUCH is ONLY by CHOICE. Although it's ALSO true that THIS WORLD ISN'T PERFECT, ANYMORE, and that although it'll never be AGAIN, there IS to come, the VERY PERFECT WORLD to replace THIS CURRENTLY-EXISTING WORLD, ONLY AFTER it's COMPLETELY DESTROYED, which is ANOTHER subject matter, but this ALSO leads ME to admit, MYSELF, that I AM a "SLAVE," as it were, to SEX, because for ME, it IS a NEED that I have made it into, ONLY BECAUSE I "IDOLIZE" it, which COMPLETELY KILLS the VERY PREMISE of it being a matter of AGE-APPROPRIATE/INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR, but only a SPIRITUAL matter that I KNOW that I NEED to be "DELIVERED" from, but I UNFORTUNATELY DON'T WANT to be, and I don't know if I'll EVER want to be, but IF SUCH a time DOES ARRIVE, FINALLY, that I DO, I HOPE and PRAY that I wouldn't even notice the "TRANSFORMING CHANGE," because I'm DEFINITELY AFRAID that I'll COMPLETELY RESIST IT, if I DO. As far as the so-called "SINNER-COMPLEX" REFERENCE, the very ABSOLUTE EXPLANATION to why we're NOT perfect IS that we're EXACTLY THAT--SINNERS; there's ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER REASON, WHATSOEVER, that COMPLETE-UNADULTERATED-TRUTHFULLY DECLARES our TOTAL IMPERFECTION.
But GETTING back to THIS board-topic, I HONESTLY RECOMMEND the VERY INSTITUTION of the "NO-FOR-NO" policy, and even though I'll NEVER mislead you into thinking that it's a guarantee to getting your (the male) sexual way of the TAUNTER, it WILL equalize YOUR power of authority with HERS, and even if she's enraged by YOUR so-called "INSUBORDINATE" RESPONSE to HER TAUNTING, it's ENTIRELY HER CHOICE to either GET OVER IT, realizing that JUST LIKE ME, the SEX-SLAVE, we're not ALWAYS going to GET OUR OWN WAY, or if she chooses NOT to get over it, it would be the ABSOLUTELY WISE, NOT JUST SMART, THING, to TOTALLY "RESIGN" from the FIELD of SEX-TAUNTING.
Let me REALLY bring this into the COMPLETE LIGHT--I'm REALLY a SLAVE/MASTER to sex--the SLAVE part is that I DESPERATELY MUST HAVE it, EVEN to the VERY POINT that I'll even THROW MYSELF at ANY woman, REGARDLESS if she has WHATEVER STD or NOT, for example, as described in my "FB"-profile-bio message, which I invite ANY WOMAN who either HASN'T read it YET, or wants to read it AGAIN, to do so as many times as you WANT/NEED/BOTH, and I MUST HAVE IT NOW, meaning that I ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to play the "WAITING-BULLSHIT GAME." The MASTER part is that I CAREFULLY DISCRIMINATE to ONLY express my DESPERATION HETEROSEXUALLY, in a TOTALLY CONSENTUAL MANNER, ONLY, with whoever she might be, of course. I ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to MASTURBATE, because I'm TOTALLY AGAINST "SELF-LOVE," TOTALLY UNLIKE if I was a SEX-SLAVE, ONLY, which is what I'll NEVER be, which CERTAINLY DOESN'T, nor WILL IT EVER, make ME ANY BETTER/LESSER than ANYONE ELSE who DOES choose to be such. JUST as a matter of PERHAPS-NEEDED CLARIFICATION, a "SEX-SLAVE-ONLY" person DOESN'T/WOULDN'T SEXUALLY-DISCRIMINATE, AT ALL, whereas, the "SEX-SLAVE/MASTER DOES/WILL.
Seriously, whatever your name is, was that really necesary? Can't you wait till Leo gets back to your post? He can decide to answer them or not, because they lack sence. Just saying.
I'm VERY PROUD OF YOU for ACTUALLY HIGHLIGHTING the VERY CORE of the VERY EXISTING MULTITUDE of the VERY REASONS as to why we DO cause/contribute to the VERY PROBLEMS that make up for the ABSOLUTE SHIT that we GET OURSELVES INTO in the VERY FIRST PLACE, Dolce --speaking of "ENSLAVEMENT," HUMAN LOGIC, IF YOU LET IT, can CERTAINLY be the ROOT CAUSE of ALL DOWNFALLS that WE TEND to blame EVERYTHING/EVERYONE ELSE for!
ALSO, I already SAID that it's an OPEN INVITATION for ANYONE to answer--AFTER ALL, this IS a PUBLIC BOARD. There's ABSOLUTELY NO NEED to WAIT for LEOGUARDIAN to answer, and if he DOESN'T, which you're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT about it being HIS RIGHT NOT to, that PROBABLY MIGHT PROOVE, TOTALLY ON ITS OWN, with ABSOLUTELY NO HELP from ME, WHATSOEVER, that he CAN'T, because he JUST MIGHT be AFRAID to. WHY, if that were ACTUALLY SO? COULDN'T TELL YOU! Ever think of THAT?
Cody, I'm not saying that everyone who put their nose into this thread and decided to post feels the same way I do, but I very very strongly suspect that Dolce, in particular, has been trying to say something similar to what I just said for the better part of the last couple of days. I could be wrong about that, but that's what I read from her posts: "The world isn't perfect, we should make it better, but until it gets better, certain wisdom that shouldn't be wisdom at all ought to at least be considered".
There's also been a lot of back and forth about the word "provoke". People use this word wrongly all the time. You can't provoke a rapist. All you can ever do - and let me stress that you are never at fault for being raped - is say or do things that may help facilitate said rapist simply giving in to his urges.
If I leave my house unlocked and you can see a lot of choice items through the window, you're still breaking the law if you let yourself in and help yourself to what you saw. Maybe I was foolish for leaving the door open, but people probably aren't going to be telling me that if I'm the victim of burglary. Similarly, if a woman goes to great lengths to attract the attention of a would-be rapist - does it deliberately, even - and is then raped...well, the worst that can be said is that she made bad choices, but the rapist made at least one choice that was far far worse. I'm not going to be punished for leaving my door unlocked. A victim should not be punished for what amounts to the same thing. It doesn't matter how tempting breaking the law is; if you do it, then you're guilty. Open and shut.
For once sW, we agree. On the last point that is.
no, Dolce, I wasn't just posting to say something. I was backing up what Cody said, to explain things to you clearly.
to answer the question of why someone that's a victim isn't responsible for the crime committed against him or her, here are some definitions from the dictionary of what the word "victim" means.
"a person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed by someone else."
"a person who's cheated or fooled by someone else."
"someone or something that's harmed by an unpleasant event, such as an illness, or accident."
this means that, no matter what the victim says to the perpatrator, no matter what the victim does in the perpatrator's presence, he or she plays no active role in the crime that has been committed against him or her. if the opposite were true, no one would be a victim. there would only be willing participants.
I don't personally like using the word victim, but I used it to illustrate the point I'm trying to drive home.
THIS is when it's ALWAYS the PERFECT TIME to ENFORCE the "NO-FOR-NO" policy, because THEN, there's neither a victim nor a preditor in THAT case, and that the ONLY CONCLUSIVE MATTER is when the "GAME-PLAYER" is played by their VERY OWN GAME, as CAREFULLY NOTED in my PREVIOUS POSTS. It's a CLEAR DEMONSTRATION of how INITIAL POWER is "DE-POWERED" by ITSELF, used by the VERY INTENDED "PLAYEE," without EVER breaking the law.
SW, you understood exactly what I tried to bring across, thank you! All it comes down to is commun sence. It doesn't take 3/4s of a century or a very high levil of intelligence to understand that being smart about ones actions could serve you well. If a woman thinks she can go out and be free without some caution, she's completely naive. Life is not solely based on textbooks and defenitions. They're great, because they help us understand many things. But there's a cause and effect, the what's and how's of a situation too, not just the victim and the criminal end of story. Like I said, we can't avoid crimes, but it is on us to take some safe measures in life. Take it as you wish, it's your life not mine. I'm done.
No matter how many times you say it Dolce, you're still wrong. Rape is not caused by women being flirtaceous. Rape is caused by men and men alone. Being caucious may be a good idea, but you not being caucious is not a provocation for rape. So you're still mistaken, no matter how many times you say it.
Cody is leaving something out, and so did I: grandmothers get raped. Nuns in their habits get raped. Muslim women covered from head to toe get raped. Pre-op transsexuals get raped. Rape isn't about sex, it's about power and control. That's why you and I are able to understand the street addicts' need for a fix, even if we don't like being mugged. But rapists we collectively and individually don't.
This is why both provocation is impossible, and also why Cody's all-men-are-responsible argument is also misguided, though understandable as we understand religious rhetoric.
I'll go further: Cody's right about taunting being legal. My illustration from my own life attempted to show it leads to less, not more, sexual interest. Rape isn't about the sex, though. It's about overpowering and destroying another human being.
It's all in the rapist's control. Cody brought up the Westboro Baptists, he's right they're legal. I have family serving overseas, both women and men, so this is a real personal issue for me. Add to that my friend and her wife and daughter and some Trans folk I know, I am aware I would lose control of myself and do things to the Westboro Baptists which Cody rightly points out as highly illegal. So the best thing for me to do if they're going to be there, is to stay home, or quietly leave when they show up and I'm made aware of their presence. It's all on me, as it should be.
Terrence, I can't make sense of all that you said. I interpret the word cock tease as being bitter, right or wrong. I've freely admitted I had not seen that before this thread. Also, I'm not a woman, and so don't have full rights to say. Ask some of them on here about that term.
Sorry Leo, I should have chosen better words. When I said the responsibility of rape is on men, I meant the one doing the raping. Not that we're all responsible. WE're all responsible for the culture we have where rape is ok, humorous and accepted though. That I will defend. We buy into the culture, we're responsible for it.
Some of you folks are overcomplicating the living fuck out of this.
The world isn't what it ought to be. It's currently a world where rape happens. That isn't good by anyone's standards. Not taking precautions means, unfortunately, that you may increase the likelihood of something bad happening to you, whether it's burglary or rape or swindling or any number of things. Some of our number are not very nice, to put it baldly.
Dolce would be wrong to say it's a woman's fault. She's not saying that. She's saying only that a woman who in this day and age expects to take what amounts to a foolish risk may fall afoul of a not-so-nice individual. It's still that individual's fault, she just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
There is no guarantee against being mugged, raped, cheated or anything else, but in the same mindset that you learn self-defense or lock your doors, you may want to avoid walking home alone in certain neighbourhoods. This is nothing but common sense, so stop dogpiling and let's get on with whatever might be left of rational discussion, because this has become circuitous.
Sorry, Only one more thing before I'm really done with this discussion. unfortunately, true reasoning doesn't occur in things that we'd like to, or in the convenience of being right. This is not about being right or wrong, but about reasoning and having comun sence. This is not about telling people to shut up, because certain individuals think we're wrong, that's not even the goddamn point! We all think we're right, and we all think we have the truth and wisdom but really we are all growing and learning. This discussion, at least for me, has not been for the sake of argueing. I'm not even trying to convince, or tell anyone what to do, or take people's right, that's beyond idiotic and foolish to think. I do agree that the arguement that men are responsible of rape is just as misguided as a woman being at fault for rape. I never stated such thing. Leo brought forth some very well thought out points. It's true, rape isn't just sexual, and it can happen to anyone, I think that's been said time and time again. Greg and wayne explained it all better than myself. The idea of having Comun sence isn't so hard to grasp, I thought so. Thank you! :)
I think women as far more then sexual creatures. It is amazing what nature has created in a female, and what purposes they can be given credit for a man can’t. If a woman can do nothing but be, and cause the header sexual male to desire her in a sexual fashion, that is powerful.
She as the ability to change the intensity of that energy level with or through her actions.
I see this as nature created, not man created, and I don’t see it as a defense. If you make it a defense, why do other animals do it? They have no concept of pleasing the male for defense reasons.
If there were no power, why do some men have problems controlling themselves when they are rejected or taunted?
Even the woman who is a victim, and has done nothing can turn on this switch.
It is not slavery, because as you point out, it can be resisted. All women don’t use the power, or taunt, so are not slave drivers.
A point is, some men decide not to control themselves, and others mentally can’t.
Anger and sexual frustration are the flash points. Men that can control decide to take the risk and have her anyway. They reason it out that she might like being forced, or she won’t tell, or any number of things.
Men that can’t control do it because they aren’t able to control their emotions. I can’t tell you what goes on in their minds, because I don’t have the non-control mentality.
I suspect it is like blacking out, and coming to yourself after the fact.
Do you believe this is possible, but controlled and uncontrolled men? Do these men exist?
There is only 100%. You have the tray of potatoes, and the other person likes and wants some. You hold your potatoes just in front of their nose so they can smell them, but tell them they can’t have any. The try to take the potatoes, and they end up on there face. 100%. If you’d set down and ate your potatoes, they could see them and want some, but wouldn’t have gotten mad and tried to take them.
I also want the world to be a better place. Through educating young girls it is not okay to taunt, and making them responsible for their direct actions, not accidental actions, will save them some pain and suffering.
Reason goes a lot further then years. Knowing something is wrong just takes reasoning it out.
You can’t see the difference between flirtatious and taunting. Taunting doesn’t create the rape it contributes to it happening.
That to me requires some responsibility.
The only question that you didn’t answer, and that question requires you to know the difference between flirtatious, and taunting.
If you have no concept of the difference, you can’t answer the question, and that is how it will be that we’ll never agree on this situation.
Why should women have no responsibility in what might happen, if they willfully, deliberately, mentally decide, to taunt a man, and the outcome of that action leads to their harm?
If two people walk towards each other on a narrow path and neither refuses to step aside, do they not have 50% responsibility for bumping heads?
Ok--I'm gonna take a stab at this, and if I get it wrong, which I MIGHT, I appreciate the correction, COMPLETELY HUMBLY. If I'm not mistaken, to be "FLIRTATIOUS" would be EXACTLY what the woman did to ME, as described in one of my earlier posts. Now, let me clear something up that MIGHT'VE been a "CONFUSION-CAUSER" that I might've unintentionally caused, for which I do apologize, and such COULD'VE happened when I expressed previous comments about "FLIRTING," ITSELF, which ACTUALLY ISN'T the PROBLEM. Let me say that again: FLIRTING, ONLY when done APPROPRIATELY, IS in FACT, ACTUAL FOREPLAY, MEANING THAT the ONLY TIME that "FLIRTING" IS ACCEPTABLE" IS when BOTH CONSENTING PARTIES COMPLETE the ENTIRE MOMENT, WHICH DOES INCLUDE HAVING FULL-FLEDGED SEX. THEN, and THEN, ONLY, is when it's TOTALLY UNLIKE what I've spoken AGAINST, and will ALWAYS CONTINUE TO, because SHE'S DEMONSTRATED TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR, the VERY SECOND that she's FINISHED what she's STARTED. SHE, along with ALL OTHER WOMEN, JUST LIKE HER, are the ONLY ONES to GENUINELY RESPECT. It's ONLY THOSE, such as the VERY EXAMPLE of my earlier posts, that should ONLY be respected, LEGALLY, NEVER GENUINELY. For example, this woman that I've TOTALLY DESTROYED ALL OPPORTUNITIES for HER to do to ME what the OTHER GUYS ALLOW HER to do to THEM calls me "KILLJOY" EVERY TIME she sees me, and whenever I answer her, without ANY OBJECTION, WHATSOEVER, to being called that name, she REALLY gets pissed, WORSE than when I initially rejected her TEASING, and AS ALWAYS, I keep movin' on, leaving her in a TANTRUM SESSION, ALL BY HERSELF. Even though it's been suggested/advised/whatever to me to STOP ANSWERING to "KILLJOY," by even PRETENDING to NOT LIKE IT, so that OTHERS AROUND HER wouldn't have to continue to deal with her UNCONTROLLABLE FITS, I COMPLETELY REFUSE, because even though I can't get any SEX with me out of her, LEGALLY, and of course, I EQUALLY REFUSE to get it out of her, ILLEGALLY, which would've been IMMORALLY, as WELL, I might as well get SOMETHING out of her, but that SHE, with ABSOLUTELY NO HELP, WHATSOEVER, from ME, would be the VERY ONE to PISS HERSELF OFF, and compared to her OWN EXPENSE, it costs me a PERFECT ZERO, ALL AROUND, and might I add that she's doing a VERY DAMN GOOD JOB of making herself MORE and MORE MISERABLE, whenever she does it. THAT'S how I "LEGALLY-RESPECT/GENUINELY-DISRESPECT" her, which is PERFECTLY LEGAL.
Speaking of the Westboro Baptists as being LEGAL, which ACTUALLY, they ARE, but what they're NOT is MORAL. PERFECT EXAMPLE: their OUT-AND-OUT LIE is THEIR CLAIM that "GOD HATES ... (YOU can fill in the blank, IF YOU SO CHOOSE). THIS GROUP CERTAINLY CAN'T BE ANY FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH: GOD is the VERY ONE and ONLY GOD of the ONE and ONLY LOVE, which is PERFECT LOVE. SIMULTANEOUSLY, HOWEVER, GOD is ALSO a PERFECTLY HOLY and PERFECTLY JUST GOD, which ONLY MEANS SIMPLY THIS: although HE DOES love those who choose the SAME-SEX LIFE-STYLE, it's the LIFE-STYLE, and NEVER ANYONE that's LIVING the LIFE-STYLE, that HE HATES, JUST AS HE HATES SIN, which the SAME-SEX LIFE-STYLE DOES QUALIFY AS, as according to GOD'S INERRENT WORD, but he NEVER HATES the SINNER, which ALL of us are, including the Westboro Baptists, who GOD CERTAINLY LOVES, but CERTAINLY DOESN'T LOVE their "SELF-RIGHTEOUS" BEHAVIOR.
TAUNTING, which DEFINITELY has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to EVER DO with APPROPRIATE/INAPPROPRIATE FLIRTING, is JUST AS LEGAL, as it's JUST AS IMMORAL as the behavior of the Westboro Baptists.
i think the sentence did not match the crime. it must have been the actual taking presedance over the judge himself. example, in florida we have mandatory sentences for certain crimes. the use of a fire arm will get you a mandotory prison sentence. no matte what. so, in my opinion it was not faire the mandatory sentences undermine the judgesa duty of passing sentences and the ability to distinguish degrees of criminal actions.
I missed one other question.
If you do believe in taunting, I call it provoking, why do women do it, and why should these that do it be held not responsible?
You can only answer that as well, if you agree that taunting exist.
Wayne, should you be charged with taunting if you show up in my neighbourhood with a really nice car and a leather jacket when I and all of my neighbours are poor?
Should you be charged if I come to your house instead, and it's loaded with all sorts of stuff I want and can't have?
Personally, I don't think so.
A girl (or a guy for that matter) who goes and sexually taunts or teases to a serious extent is foolish and is playing with fire, but technically they're not doing anything illegal just by the act of taunting.
Oh, one other thing. I want to call bullshit on a post from way way back, about the word "provoke". Okay, so I agree that you can't provoke completely by mistake, but all that about the past participle is bullshit. English is full of verbs with odd participles: ate, swam, flew, ran, went, had, was, left, fought, thought, taught, sprang...I rest my case.
Just in case this wasn't clear:
Intent verbs are apparently going to be similar when in past tense. This part may be true.
However, to label a verb as an intent verb using this definition is awfully shaky, especially with the "jump" and "fall" definitions. Eat is an intent verb, but guess what it does in past tense? Spring, go, and most of the others I listed are intent verbs as well, and yet they are odd in the past tense.
Way to nail up a straw-man there.
Please remember: I'm not arguing that provoke is not an intent verb, only that the pedantic little rant about intent verbs was ironically lacking in grammatical accuracy, given the examples you tried to make.
It was meant to be SW. Its called belittling. Its why I said remedial English.
Now then, wayne, I'll answer your question... again. Please do try to pay attention this time.
Women are forced by our society to act the way they do because that is the only way they are viewed as people. We, that would be men, view women as body parts, rather than as entire beings. WE se lips, eyes, breasts, a nice ass and a long pair of legs. We don't se a woman. This principle has ben studied and proven in numerous scientific experiments. You would have known that had you watch the video I posted a long time ago.
So, the reason girls do this thing you stupidly keep calling taunting, is so they will be noticed. Its why men make a nuisance of themselves at bars too. That is the box that we, and here I mean ignorant men such as yourself, have forced them into. Its the box which inexperienced women such as Dolce up there continue to hold shut from the inside without realizing it. The sooner we can get people of your ilk to get out of the way, the sooner we can open that box and actually have something approaching gender equality.
RE-QUOTING, REVISING, and RESPONDING to Shepherdwolf, PARTIALLY: "Wayne, should you be charged with taunting if you show up in my neighbourhood with a really nice car and a leather jacket, and MERCILESSLY "THROW IT in OUR FACES," and even have your CREW that you hang with, show up with you, having and doing the VERY SAME with THEIRS, when I and all of my neighbours are poor?
Should you be charged if I come to your house instead, and it's loaded with all sorts of stuff I want and can't have, and all the while that I'm there, until I'm just TOTALLY HUMILIATED FAR ENOUGH, get up and ANGRILY STORM OUT, VIOLENTLY SLAMMING your FUCKIN' DOOR, without EVER GIVING a FUCKIN' SHIT, in response to your ON-and-ON-BOASTING about HOW MUCH BETTER OFF YOU ARE, which DEFINITELY SAYS MORE than what I could EVER SAY for MYSELF, IF ANYTHING, and that YOU were GOD-CHOSEN to be THIS FORTUNATE, and I WASN'T, and that YOU GOT ALL that it TAKES to ALWAYS have such "LUCKY BREAKS," etc., etc.?
Personally, I don't think so.
A girl (or a guy for that matter) who goes and sexually taunts or teases to a serious extent is foolish and is playing with fire, but technically they're not doing anything illegal just by the act of taunting."
FYI: TAUNTING EQUALS BULLEYING; THEREFORE, the VERY ANSWER to the ABOVE-REVISED EXAMPLES is a BOOMINGLY-RESOUNDING "YES, to the very ABSOLUTE, FULLEST EXTENT of the LAW!"
Well, Cody, the last time I checked, remedial English did not share a definition with bullshit. If you're admitting it's bullshit then you're basically admitting that the whole point of that post from way back was to use an irrelevant and unprovable example to try and look superior. Good job, I...guess?
And as far as this holding-the-box-shut-from-inside idea, I want to put a hard question to you.
So, you know a girl who is going to be going somewhere in the evening. She's well-dressed and pretty. She's going to be returning home at a late hour, and she's going to be able, physically, to walk the distance. There isn't going to be issues of serious alcohol consumption compromising her safety (as in, she's not going to drink more than a beer or two, let's say, because she just doesn't do that). You know all of this ahead of time. So here's the question, and it's multi-part:
1. Do you assume that she will walk home through a bad neighbourhood late at night?
2. Do you encourage her to walk home, if she starts talking about, say, having a friend drive her home owing to the neighbourhood?
3. If you do somehow get her to walk home, how do you feel when she gets raped? Because somehow, I think "she had a right to be there" is going to be awfully thin on the ground, for you and for her, even if it's factually true.
And before anyone tries to say so, I know that the likelihood of rape isn't terribly high. The girl might be able to go on her way completely unharmed, and that's the far more likely scenario.
Let me reiterate, once again, that Dolce, in particular, is not in any way suggesting that this caution is ideal. It's not, but right now, in the world we live in, you are better off considering being cautious than standing up for your rights and perhaps falling afoul of a predator. Put another way, if all the women of the world spontaneously decided that, from today onward, they were going to walk wherever the hell they want while wearing whatever the hell they want, the problem would not be solved; the predators of whom we've been speaking wouldn't collectively say, "Oh my. These women have spines now. Better not rape them, or else...".
Lol why do you think I stopped giving this post the time of day sw. If the fact that I won't agree with the literal definition of a word in the dictionary makes me look ignorant then so be it. I don't really give a shit about what people think of me on here, and attempting to get close to people on here wouldn't make me feel better about myself for gaining friends on an online forum. I have better things to do with my life than to try and win a stupid debate or agree with every single point that a person brings up. And I have better things to do than to try my hardest to prove some person wrong by looking up the literal definition of a word. That's all it's come down to here. If you can't agree then you are completely wrong and I refuse to go along with that close-minded logic.
Cody. I watched the video.
I disagreed with it not all of it, but much of it.
Shep, I understand victims. I understand just doing something, or in this case being something is not a reason to be robbed or raped.
If you’ve read mine and others post, you’ll see I’ve stated this.
The concept I can’t get the others to agree with, accept, or even comprehend, ire provoke, taunting, deliberately teasing, making one’s self a spectacle, rubbing a man’s nose with the fluids from your vagina, then telling him he can’t have you, and continuing to push the sexual envelope until you click on the switch that makes him want to take it from you. These ideas, concepts, actions mean nothing.
The other side won’t or refuses to address this directly. If a person has never experienced this, watched it, known women that do it, maybe that is why the concept doesn’t click.
On the other side, I have gotten the impression that you feel it is all the above actions are impossible, and if done are not actions that can trigger a man to just forget about the law, consequences, and commit the crime of rape.
Either you don’t believe women do this, or you won’t admit these sorts of things go on every day.
I understand that, and take my hat off.
I have given credit where credit is due, and I can totally see your victim side of the coin, but you cannot see my provoker side. It just doesn’t exist for you.
As to men only see women as lips, asses, tits, and so on:
Humans just aren't that one-dimensional in real life. The whole mythos around men think of sex every 2 seconds, has been proven just that, mythology.
If Wayne is childish for needing sex, then women who just need to vent are also childish. I am childish also: sometimes I feel like I really need to unwind with a beer, play the ukulele, go for a brisk walk. Only I am not said to be childish for these things, even if, if I did them at some times, it would inconvenience another. But because we are programmed and conditioned to put a stigma on sex we can call Wayne childish, ignoring every other thing we say we need all the time, and the markets who cater to those needs. And by we, I do mean myself also.
But ok, let's go with this on the rape thing:
Womyn-born-womyn wants to be able to flash her body, and at least womyn-born-womyn may be allowed to. Well, for better or worse, I also read in a parenting magazine to be mindful before grounding kids from their mobile devices, because mobile devices are more and more part of their identity, with pictures and all sorts of things. Maybe you will think me the fool, maybe you will wish I'd been your dad instead of the one who used that as a punishment more liberally, maybe you just think it's dumb: but that article made sense to me, and so I was cautious in that respect. Not afraid, cautious and thoughtful. Work with me here, this does actually relate. So young people like to flash that new Nexus 7 or Galaxy Note or even iPhone. They like to pull it out on the trains, at bus stops, at theme parks, not just to use it but maybe admire it a little. Now, am I buying into theft culture because I caution the daughter, nieces, assorted boyfriends and others, about people who will come up to you and run off with your phone? Are we promoting theft culture when we tell people to be mindful of this stuff on trains, especially near stops? Is there even a theft culture? And how about identity theft culture? After all, for those of us who haven't lost the ability to think critically, if we're going to say this about rape, why not every other crime we all take some safer practices to avoid?
Know what else? I am sorry I did, but I actually had this conversation with a Fundamentalist who claimed people like me who promote safer sex practices are responsible for the spreading of STDs and even rape. I should not have bothered asking her to explain the physics of that one, it was a fool's errand, and I will readily admit I was the fool. Cody, I agree with you in primciple, we humans of whatever gender and persuasion, not just womyn born womyn between the ages of 18 and 44, deserve to be treated with humanity and respect as human beings first. I'd say you're right, to only treat a human as a sex object, a slave labor object, an object of ridicule for no reason, is dehumanizing and should be stopped. Where I personally do it, I will take personal responsibility for having done so.
And honestly, I part ways with Wayne on this because I personally would not tell a woman any advice for safer practices regarding rape, though I would offer my services to accompany her to a safe place if she needed that.
But even if they say I am getting in the way of a girl's identity, and she has the right to flash her identity and her cell phone around, because cell phones are now an extension of oneself, be this person male or female, I would caution against doing so in certain environments because is simply isn't safe. Are there ways to work around that? Sure. Did a teenager who will remain nameless maybe get dramatic and try and say something like "What are you saying? That we can't text anywhere in public?" Yes, and that is what we would expect of a drama-filled teenager, but not of a critical-thinking adult.
I'll admit I didn't watch this video, but I am pretty well aware of the typical arguments about objectification and all men and all sorts of similar things. And I even agree that any human who is treated as less than human deserves better, and we should lend a hand, individually, where individually relevant. And I do mean any human, not just those womyn born womyn between ages 18 and 44.
I think we need to stop the trafficking of young girls out of the country into brothels, a practice your women's studies instructors of the early 90s claimed was a Hollywood myth.
And aside from these instances, so-called rape culture does not account for all the groups that get raped that are not so-called you,ng, pretty, and womyn-born-womyn. The sexualized argument, if it didn't sound so much like Testimony Time, would only account for some of the rapes. Rape impacts people across the board. Hence the same safer practices argument of where to go may be directed to your grandmother as well as anybody else.
Meanwhile, I just did as many parents do with college kids: Gave her a roll of money to help her out. And, you guessed it, suggested she take the most inhabited path to her car to get home. Since we as a country idolize greed and materialism, making people material / money objects, I guess I also promoted theft culture by my action, even though nowhere did I imply it is her fault should something happen. It's not about crimping your style, it's about being flexible, something we humans are remarkably good at and our Neanderthal predecessors not so much. Flexible enough to live your lifestyle, come and go as you will where you will, keep your eyes open, and be smart. Remember what I said in a prior post about prey species. We act as predators sometimes, but mainly we human animals are prey, and it is entirely possible for me and you and anyone else to be smart prey. Smart prey doesn't live timidly in a box somewhere, they just keep their eyes peeled and their wits about them. If that's so wrong, then elephants and zebras are wrong too.
* I meant so-called young, pretty, and womyn-born-womyn. One of the greatest tragedies that is unspoken is the pre-op M2F transsexuals who get raped. You know what? The fantasy of the sexy hunk of a guy, or maybe even bucktooth Charlie Pervert, jumping a cheerleader just doesn't fit into this one very well does it? We're talking a group who are often androgynous at best, and I don't intend to be cruel and demean their position, that is not my intent here. But they are a large group of rape victims.
There are a lot more, too. Many women are raped because they remind serial rapists and other disturbed people of their mother. You're going to tell me with a straight face that women your mother's age are being objectified by eligible young men?
Hell I have cautioned a safer practice or two to my own mother in law. Amn I promoting elder abuse culture because of it? After all, you could say so, if you wanted: People her age aren't really that respected, often seen as a financial burden in general, no matter how well they have personally taken care of things, "shut up old lady" would be the least of their worries in many quarters. And the awful truth is, violent people, not people who are sexually attracted, will prey on the elderly for any number of reasons. And the elderly do get raped. Only because it doesn't fit into the proper demographic to prove a point, it's not talked about. Testimony Time only accounts for those stories that bolster the desired belief system outcome. This is not how critical thinkers manage things, certainly not how roads and bridges are made.
Your fervor is well-intentioned, your sympathies for the victims makes you a human being. But this particular ideology has always fallen apart at the seams precisely because it only holds for one demographic, assumes we're talking about young hunks or old perverts waylaying young attractive women. That's what is being said by bringing up how men think of women as sex objects, and it also flies in the face of forensic science, where we actually know, not some soft core sociology survey, but know, that rapists are not motivated by sex at all. They're motivated for power, control, and domination. If a woman can have a little extra power by maybe carrying a bit of firepower, or maybe walk through the same area but be a bit cautious, well, she'll probably outsmart the predators. Predatory animals are usually opportunistic feeders, and in this context, cowards that go after low hanging fruit.
Do I think it's possible there would be a predator trolling in a night club waiting for someone to be vulnerable? Sure, but you know what, your suburbs out here have had their series of rapes. Soccer moms getting raped, people in huge overcoats where you couldn't possibly say shwe was flaunting anything sexual getting raped, and so on.
That context of men sexualizing causing a non-sex-motivated crime just falls flat on its ass as much now as it did 25 years ago. It bespeaks more of the echo chamber that is your state-sponsored universities. And for all their bespeaking inclusion, the argument makes it clear their only acknowledged victims are womyn born womyn between ages 18 and 44, roughly speaking. Sad truth is, humans of any age are statistically as likely to get raped, mugged, and any number of other personally-violating crimes. And just because a human happens to be a woman or a womyn over age 44 or maybe a m2f transsexual, either demographic maybe not being so titillating for the state-sponsored school kiddies, it frankly makes it no less a tragedy when it happens.
I'd rather look to forensic science, which is a real science and not a religion or an echo chamber, for answers.
Just like James Dobson with Ted Bundy's interview was totally incapable of listening to the reason from the forensic pathologist across the table from him, these people in this particular echo chamber are making stuff up so they can talk bad about the boys, while totally ignoring most of the demographics who get raped, since rape statistically happens across age demographics.
In fact, women in their 50s are slightly higher on average to be raped, because they are the age that can resemble the serial rapist's mother, most of these being in their 30s when they start their macabre careers. You want to know why I turned my back completely on feminism as an ideology, whose ideas I formerly embraced? I can't personally live with that kind of insincerity, any more than many of us can live with the old testament Christian god.
Safer sex practices don't spread STDs or cause rape, and safer practices when out and about don't create or cause acceptance of rape, burglary, assault or any number of other crimes.
And as to the idea that men only see women as lips and asses and tits? Sorry buddy, at your horniest you se a lot more than that. Your ancestors would never have evolved the complicated social structures and multidimensionality that is us humans, if we did do that. That's as weak an argument as the communists of the 1980s who told us capitalists are only concerned with what they can get, when, and for how much, and care for absolutely nothing else. Except we just aren't that one-dimensional.
Thanks, Leo. While I'm not following everything you say, I agree with the overall point of it as I can grasp it.
I can also say that as aroused as I've ever been, I have categorically never objectified a woman to the point where she's only an accessory, not in the way that has been implied in previous posts anyway. Maybe some men can, but I sure as hell can't.
I'll start with SW's question because it was a good one.
Sw, I would feel the following. A, pissed off that she was raped. B, anxious over her physical well-being and mental stability. C, frustrated with the knowledge that most likely the police aren't going to find the man who raped her unless they get lucky. Period, end of feelings.
Under no circumstances would I ever look at someone who just got raped and ask them why they chose that color skirt, or why they chose that particular sidewalk. I wouldn't ask those reasons for the same reason I wouldn't ask gay rights activists why they didn't shut up and marry a girl. I won't ask for the same reason I wouldn't ask the numerous atheists I know who have gotten beaten up why they didn't just say they believed in God. I won't ask for the same reason I won't ask the muslim child who got shot in the head why she didn't just settle for the slave-life she was given. I won't ask because it has nothing to do with it. Whether that girl walked home, skateboarded, drove or flew on the rocket propulsion of a burrito fart makes no difference. I would never feel the need to blame the innocent for the harm done them by predators.
Moving on. No, if all women sarted doing exactly as they want and stood up to men, the problem wouldn't be solved. Its why I've never said, here or elsewhere, that women should go out and disregard all logic and reason. What I have done is say that its high time we stop giving the men who rape them a pass, even a small one. Notice the gender in that SW. The men, the men, the men. I blame the men who do the raping, not the women. I don't see why that is such a hard thing to understand.
Now then, Wayne. Yes, I know the provokers as you call them. I've experienced what you're talking about. Guess what, I didn't rape them. IN one case I slept with her because she said yes. In another I got her number. IN most I laughed at them for being desperate and walked off to get another beer.
You yourself said you walk away from these types of girls. You yourself still can't grow the balls required to answer my fucking question for the ninety-fourth time I've asked it. If rape can be provoked, what would it take for you to rape a woman? I'll answer it for me. It would require an absolute change of my moral being. Another way to phrase that is, its never going to fucking happen.
So why Wayne, why, would I accept any excuse whatsoever from any man who doesn't have the very very little amount of willpower it requires me not to commit rape? I don't give them any leeway when it comes to murder, robbery, spousal abuse or drug use. All of which are things that can be provoked by your sad excuse for logic. None of which I've ever done or will do. I'm guessing you're in the same boat. But for some reason you can't make the simplest of connections.
Leo, you're up. I'll admit, I skipped most of your post. You've gotta work on sticking to the subject in your paragraph. It makes it very hard to read your posts when they go all over the place. I also think you need to look up the meaning of a few words you use commonly. Feminist for one. The meaning changed. Update. Now to your points.
No, there is no theft culture, but there is a rape culture. sorry to say it, but by using the word feminist as you do, you are perpetrating that rape culture. By seing women as women and men as men we continuate the arbitrary differences we've placed between our sexes. By using the word feminist in a negative way, you make it seem as if its a bad thing for women not to want to cook, clean house and birth babies. So stop using that language Leo, you're a better man than that.
Finally, Ryan. Yes, not wanting to use the word as it is defined makes you ignorant. That's why words have definitions Ryan. That's what they do. If a word has no definition, such as a;ljdf;jfi, it is utterly meaningless. Try using the wrong word in an esay and see how quickly you fail. Try using the excuse that you don't agree with that definition and see how long it takes the teacher to stop laughing.
Cody, you'd have a point where I'm concerned if I ever once blamed a woman, in any way, for being raped, or if I gave the rapist a pass. I have done neither. In other words, you're agreeing with me. Following up on common sense is a good idea, even if we shouldn't have to do these things to enact said common sense. The world is how it is, and the best thing we can do is get rid of the problem. The problem is rapists. The problem is not rape victims.
There's no need for condescending talk about things being hard to understand. You, I think, have been misunderstanding, by assuming that people like Dolce and I have been putting some sort of responsibility or blame upon rape victims, when nothing that happens to them (where the rape is concerned) is their fault. Did there being in the wrong place at the wrong time help facilitate it? Maybe, but that's like blaming someone struck by a falling cornice for being below it when it finally let go, or like blaming a rich guy for being rich when a burglar busts into his house. Stupid, in other words. Your problem is that you deliberately, and without due cause in about eighty percent of cases, assume everyone is wrong or stupid. I'll continue to call this fault out when I see it, but I will forgive you your naivete...you're still young yet, at an age where you think you know everything about everyone at a glance because it fits some sort of expectation you concoct. You ought to be perceptive enough to know that you often kill rational discussion by doing this, because you insult the intelligence of others to the point that they no longer wish to deal with you. You ought to be perceptive enough to take your own bloody advice and read what's being said instead of making snap judgments. Instead, you continue doing what you do, for reasons only you will probably ever understand.
The very fact that this thread is nearly two hundred posts long, and the fact that a good thirty percent or so of these posts amount to you attacking or other people defending themselves, is extremely indicative. This should be about rape. Not about Cody being right, or about Gregg being right for that matter. This was a topic started by a known troll, and the last thing anyone ought to have done was take things way the hell out of context for no good reason.
So listen. I'm summarizing the point I made before.
Rapists: guilty
Rape victims: not at fault and can do as they wish if it doesn't break the law
I'm wondering how many of us have to say that, and how many times we'll have to say it, before it sticks.
I think Cody diliberitly disagrees with me because I'm a great 3 years younger than him and inexperienced and I haven't been as exposed to the world as he has and such, therefore, I am not as smart as he is. And I need to be fixed as Chelsea has said here? I wonder how? Who can fix me from taking smart choices and using my comun sence? Lol gotta love it! Greg is right about insulting other's intelligence with arrogance. I as a woman understand my sexual power and how I'll use it as well. It's comun sence, that's all. I just had to say that, thank you! :) :)
I'm the VERY "TROLL" who CONTROLS ALL of THOSE that "TROLL ALONG" WITH the "TROLL," which is an ALL-TOO-FAMILIAR "TRACK RECORD" of PRIOR PAST BOARD-TOPICS--and DON'T YOU FOR-GET IT, FELLOW TROLLER/TROLLERS!
Now, LET'S SEE what we're ALL REALLY MADE OF, since up to NOW, EACH and EVERY ONE OF US have been "BANG-CLANGING the BELLS of LOYAL LAW-ABIDANCE," as far as "RAPE" is concerned, but JUST SUPPOSE if there was ABSOLUTELY NO LAW, WHATSOEVER, against US GUYS to answer to, in the VERY EVENT that ANY of the WOMEN were to behave JUST LIKE the VERY WOMAN that I told you about, who COMPLETELY FLIPS the FUCK OUT, whenever I answer, APPROOVINGLY, to "KILLJOY," that VERY SAME WAY in THIS HYPOTHETICAL INSTANCE? WHAT WOULD/WOULDN'T YOU DO, and WHY? As for ME, YES, I would've DESERVINGLY VIOLATED HER, for ABSOLUTE SURE! Would I feel MORALLY GUILTY AFTERWARDS? I HONESTLY HOPE that I would. What if I DON'T ...? I DEFINITELY need time at the "DRAWING BOARD" for THAT one!
Let me put it this way.
If we lived in a society where rape did not break the law, and where rapists would go unpunished, I'd probably not want to be there. Such a society would probably be okay with murder, theft and a whole host of other crimes as well. That's not really a world I'd want to live in.
Since I don't objectify people enough to even think of raping them, and have never been petty or jealous enough to steal from someone, and have never possessed the requisite mindset to seriously consider killing someone, I wouldn't really fit in. I wager that the fair majority of the people I know would be in exactly the same position.
In other words, interesting conjecture but I don't think it's going to go anywhere. In many cases, law is law because the grand majority accept morally that breaking said law is wrong. This goes for major crimes especially.
Agreed with the last post. While as a young man I did steal things on occasion, and I did pick fights on occasion, and did get a beating for my efforts on occasion, I have never considered rape. You're asking for a true hell on earth if you had a culture where these types of crimes were no longer crimes. I'll say this to the original poser: In that type of a society, you, my boy, would not survive very long, because one who beats their chest as you do would be taken out in short order.
Now Cody I will take all your points as they are regarding my own rambling writing, this I understand, tried to address too much in little time and with feeble effort at being concise.
But you said that by questioning the ideology of feminism, I relegate women to the kitchen? I rather enjoy my spot in the kitchen doing domestic stuff to be honest. But seriously, you also said that by questioning the ideology, I contribute to rape culture. You know better than this: The Christians have given you no end of grief claiming that because you question religion, you violate a basic moral compass, and many other accusations that cannot be proven.
Again, I don't really question the humans that subscribe to a particular ideology. I don't question feminists, I have been critical of the ideology known as feminism. I would be as equally critical, or more so, if there were a serious contender on the opposite front claiming masculism or blaming women for all sorts of things individual women have never done. By way of example, you, as a dog guide handler, will probably hear from members of PETA who will accuse you of contributing to animal cruelty, not just for handling a dog guide, but being critical of their ideology. You may actually agree with them about a lot of things, even understand them, and yes, empathize. Back to that e word, but you can't get away from empathizing because you're human. Empathy is one of our more redeemable traits.
I think people who do join these ideologies, yourself included, probably do so for a whole host of noble reasons. You as much as said so: you made that decision. I did not, I grew up around it, was marinated in it the same as some are marinated in private Christian schools and so never think outside of that box. I have no excuse for having been a sheeple.
That being said, it is possible to question an ideology's radical roots, without questioning the hiumans who subscribe to it. The terms I used, womyn born womyn, and the age demographics, these are their terms and their age demographics.
If you are right and I am completely wrong, then they will have disavowed themselves of all their radical roots, and those who have the authority to make the definitions for the ideology, will declare those radical roots to be non-feminist. You yourself have made these claims against Christianity, so have a whole host of other critical thinkers, and all of you have been right 100% to tell Christians they would need to distance themselves from their radical roots to gain credibility.
You accused me of genderifying. I am not genderifying, if anything I'd rather we treat this like any other crime, human on human, not just man on womyn-born-womyn between ages 18 and 44.
But I don't think it's constructive to claim that an ideology's critic is by definition a contributor to the criminal mind, or a contributor to the enslavement of other humans, both of which you have accused me. Just because I have been critical to the ideology, at its radical roots, does not mean I'm critical of its adherents. Quite the contrary, I think most feminists are compassionate and empathetic people, and it's possible to understand how they think as they do, and to agree with them on a great many things but remain critical of their ideology's radical roots. You as a guide dog handler agree with PETA members on a great many things, even though you're probably very critical of their core ideology.
Humans being what they are, we can be critical, or call into question, an ideology without criticizing the multi-faceted humans who subscribe to it. In fact, that is more common than not. But when someone says, "You criticize our ideology, you must be a big bad meany, enslave people, hold groups hostage," and so on, you have an elementary cop-out. I'm not even saying you in particular, this is a common argument with almost every ideology.
And that's exactly the type of cop-out the Christians have tried with you and many of the rest of us.
I'll admit it, I'm an egalitarian. Straight up pure and simple. Not real sexy and doesn't carry a lot of firepower or gain a lot of crowds but there you go. If someone is critical of egalitarianism and individual responsibility as an ideology, that doesn't mean automatically that they are contributing to an irresponsible or groupthink culture.
And speaking of individual responsibility, I agree with you, the blame for the rape lies specifically on the men. I have a problem with many feminist thinkers would also advocate against a woman's right to carry concealed. Worse still, the same ones we saw going out with the dead men don't rape campaigns, were quite likely to participate in a vigil against the death penalty. I have no criticism with the individuals, but ask yourself critically, why does the ideology support that? It would make logical sense for feminism as an ideology to support the death penalty for rapists, and to support women's right to bear arms. I know out here we have several women's groups who help train and certify women to carry concealed. Women who have served as police officers and military personnel are often the volunteer instructors. I applaud these groups for empowering women. But why does feminist ideology not take the lead on this? Why is it usually tied to an anti-arms stance?
And why the trouble with the transgendered persons who identify as female? Why do they have such a tough time with the term cisgendered, which describes people like you and me, the same gender as our biological sex?
These are all relevant questions, and in no way sponsor a culture of rape.
Like you, I concur the blame and the responsibility starts and stops with the man who raped. Many women who strongly deny connection with feminism at all, libertarians and others who carry weapons or do other things outside the ideology, cannot be classed as contributing to a culture of rape either. You could claim it's a woman's right to step outside the ideology, but that a man may not for fear of contributing to this rape culture. Anymore I cannot buy that type of uncritical thinking. And stepping outside of an ideology is not combative against other humans, nor does it even mean you disagree on all counts. Humans are just way too multifaceted and extradimensional for that.
I'll take these in order.
SW, I evangelized to make a point, not to criticize you in specificity. I apologize if you felt singled out. For once, you and I agree on something. I just don't get why you're asking if you already knew I was agreeing.
As for the rest of your post. You should already know my stance on it, but I'll cover it again. I don't care if people don't engage with me, because most of the people on this site wouldn't know intellectualism if it bit them on the ass and gave them a reach around. Everyone has stupid ideas. Its the responsibility of the ones who know better to point them out. I couldn't really give a shit less if someone doesn't like the fact that I take that responsibility seriously.
Now then, Dolce. There is a difference between what you meant and what you said. If you meant something other than what you said, say something different.
I'm sorry you se your sexuality as some risky weapon that you must keep your hands off of in case it goes off. I hope one day you realize that the truth is the exact opposite.
Now then, Leo. The problem with your rebuttal is that you are using feminism as a catch all term. That is why I said you are using it with the negative connotation. Whenever I read your posts, I see you spouting off about how the feminists have changed this and that, and how a man just isn't a man anymore. How back in the seventies a man could do this and that and not get yelled at, but now we have to be more sensitive.
You connect that idea with the word feminism, which gives feminism a negative connotation. That's why I said the meaning has ben updated. Feminism is the term for equality between all genders focused on women and from a woman's perspective. It isn't the ultra activists who want women to rule the world and have all men castrated. They're separate ideologies. Just as the liberal Christian and the fundamentalist Christian are individual ideologies.
To put it bluntly, you need to be more specific. That's all I'm saying.
Now, one last point. I kep hearing people say that this isn't about being right or wrong, that I just want to be right and I think everyone else is wrong. To which I'd like to respond. Read this next sentence really forcefully. No shit Sherlock.
Any time you have two opposing opinions, one of them, or both of them, is wrong. If both of them are wrong there is always a third opinion which is right. Smart people go looking for someone who holds that opinion and asks to be educated. That's called intellectualism.
As for me being right. News flash. I have years of scientific research on my side. I have evidence. I have experts in the fields of discussion. I have annicdotal evidence. I have testimonial. I have primary resources, decades worth of primary resources. I even have personal experience.
You have some bullshit story about Wayne getting his nose wiped by some girl who was fingering herself on a plane. You lose. The fact that you don't want to accept that, or that you want to claim that this isn't about being right or wrong is testament to your intellectual cowardice and dishonesty. It has nothing to do with me.
I am here to answer the question I felt I've covered, but here we go.
Cody you ask "If rape can be provoked, what would it take for you to rape a woman?"
When I see women acting in the provoking fashion, you'll remember I said it turns me off. The thing it causes in me is the want to protect them. I want to toss a blanket over her and explain facts to her.
I understand she doesn't know any better, and feels she is safe, because of that social contract.
She doesn't make me angry, she doesn't make me feel frustrated, I don't have the need to hurt or teach her a lesson. There is no need in me to take anything from her, but to give her some wisdom hopefully.
I talked about how a man was responsible, and you that have been on the other side have driven that home again.
It seems nothing a woman does can make her responsible ever.
Remember, I don't mean completely responsible, only half, or to some degree. She can't rape herself, so the man has to have the other half.
I don't want her punished, because the rape in itself isenough, but I want her to have to bare some of the blame. Maybe be sent to a class, like an anger management, or like that.
I want her educated, so she doesn't feel she can continue in her direction, because I don't want her harmed again.
There you go! Ask any more, I'll be happy to answer.
Sorry for the type o.
I see what you're saying Cody and as I said I'd admit wen wrong, and I can see I was. If the ideology has redefined itself, and there are words to describe the two separate ones now, I have no right to hold it to something that it isn't.
PARTIALLY RE-QUOTING SHEPHERDWOLF: "Let me put it this way.
If we lived in a society where rape did not break the law, and where rapists would go unpunished, I'd probably not want to be there. Such a society would probably be okay with murder, theft and a whole host of other crimes as well. That's not really a world I'd want to live in."
COUNTLESS POSTS BACK within this topic, it was stated that "RAPE," ITSELF, isn't ONLY a SEXUAL VIOLATION, and that since ALL the WHILE, the ONLY "RAPE SUBJECT" that we've been arguing IS that of the SEXUAL NATURE, which OBVIOUSLY DOES BREAK the LAW ONCE COMMITTED, unless I'm STILL NOT CLEAR on this, THAT ONLY MEANS that THERE ARE STILL UNMENTIONED "RAPE" CATEGORIES that are COMPLETELY NON-SEXUAL that DON'T break the law, AT ALL, EVER, and that of COURSE, such types of THOSE RAPISTS DO GO UNPUNISHED, how is it NOT that you've JUST CONTRADICTED yourself, or JUST MAYBE, you've chosen NOT to DEFINITIZE your statement, PERHAPS BECAUSE you COULD be UNDECIDED about living in such a society as you described, which I above re-quoted?
A lot of the more major crimes today share a similarity. At their core, they strip someone else of their free will or their everyday rights. Theft is the removal of something I have a right to own. Breaking and entering is the removal of safety/sanctity I possess when in my own home, a home which I maintain and pay for. Murder is the removal of my life, thus giving me no further ability to live as I please. Rape is the overmastering of my own will with that of someone else for no perceivable benefit to myself, in a sexual sense and on a temporary basis.
Every one of these crimes, at their base, has the guilty party essentially saying, "I'm going to do what I want to you and to what you own. I am putting my need before yours, to my benefit and against your own. Your harm is secondary or unimportant." And while I know damn well that this makes crime look a lot more genteel and less barbaric than it really is, that's a psychological tap root of sorts. Yes, I know it's a lot uglier than that, and a lot more complicated, you don't have to tell me.
The point is, there's a definition for rape. Go read it. As for why it's wrong? It's wrong because we've decided that every individual has rights, and that one of said rights is to not be sexually compromised. Put another way, we as a society have decided that, past a certain point, stripping people of their rights is illegal and will be severely punished.
Cody, while I stand by being wrong, if you so much as point me to a source where the feminists have gone back on their former thinking, and are true egalitarians, not only will I go read it, I will share it with the two transsexuals I know who were spurned by this movement, and show it to the gays I know who feel betrayed by its radical components having argued against gay marriage, because they think marriage is wrong or whatever. You show me that source, I am going to be quite the happy man to show this to the people I mentioned, real humans as real as you and I. That's not a challenge, that's an offer, at least, I hope, it's an offer for my friends.
SW, very eloquently put. I approve.
Leo, research Laci Green. She's the one who put up the video I shared earlier. Her blog and her youtube videos should answer your questions and give you some really good information about feminism and sex plus; which is a related subject.
Wayne, you didn't answer the question. You said what you felt when a girl flirts with you. Its a little sad and your sex life has my sympathies, as does any girl you date in the future, but it doesn't answer my question. My question was not, what happens when a girl flirts with you or shakes her ass for you. My question is what it would take for you to rape a girl. If its provokable, it must be provokable in you. So what does it take.
I'll give you an example. Disgust is provokable. That feeling you get when you feel like you're about to throw up, that's provokable. Now, what makes it happen for you is probably different than what makes it happen for me. In my case its noises. You know that seen in Kill Bill Volume II when the main lady steps on the other lady's eyeball and squishes it? Yeah, that sound makes me physically ill. I have to skip that part. You might be fine with it.
So my question is not what you feel Wayne. Its what would provoke you to rape someone. I'm not asking how you feel when the eyeball gets stepped on. I'm asking what it would take for you to feel the way I do when the eyeball gets stepped on.
Now, about classes for women. The reason anger management classes exist is because anger can be a harmful thing. Alcohol treatment exists because alcoholism is a harmful thing. Drug treatment, gun safety, driver's training school, etiquette classes, manners classes, sensitivity training, and a whole other list exist because the opposite idea is harmful. You need to learn how to control them because they're harmful if you don't. So you more or les just admitted that you think women's bodies are harmul weapons that they need to keep in control. We, and by we I mean the smart people around here, call that sexism. Sexism, I don't know if you knew this, is a type of bigotry. Why are you being a bigot Wayne?
I'll check her out, and pass the name along, especially if she has answers to some of these questions, to the friends of mine betrayed by aforementioned factions.
Thanks for the feedback on both Laci Green and Sex Plus
Wayne, your argument such as it is completely breaks down when you consider that 80 year old women are raped, in nursing homes. hell, in the past few years i've seen several articles about someone breaking in to an older women's house, or the house of a mentally disabled girl and raping her. How were they provoking it? how were they asking for it? In rare cases, men rape other men, or women rape men... while in some cases the victims have contact before hand, a lot of people that are raped excluding friends and family are raped by a stranger, they've never met. they haven't provoked anything. how do we hold them responsible, for just happening to be the unlucky person that gets raped?
James in one clear post makes the case against Wayne, and those that claim rape is caused because we sexuality women .
Oh and if you have Trans friends, don't refer them to Laci Green as an inclusive feminist. She trots out the same cisgender rhetoric devaluing their need to transition as a cultural construct, irrespective of what's now being explored in the neurosciences, and what some people have tried to tell the rest of us for 30 plus years. Apparently this othering is refreshingly not true of her sex plus feminism counterparts.
FINALLY, SHEPHERDWOLF (POST 183), you MIRACULOUSLY ANSWERED my VERY QUESTION that was posted MULTI-CENTURIES AGO, during this ENTIRE TOPIC! CONGRADULATIONS!
As for SILVERLIGHTNING'S question, I'LL answer it, GLADLY: one of the COUNTLESS rape-provokable triggers for ME is that for the PAST FIVE SUMMERS at the camp that I attend, I would PURPOSELY pick a PARTICULAR DORM that's COMPLETELY CO-ED-OCCUPANT, to reside in during my STAY for only ONE REASON: BOTH PUBLIC BATHROOMS within that SAME DORM, ITSELF, are COMPLETELY CO-ED, believe it or not, and EVEN THOUGH there are those women, ALSO RESIDING IN, or probably/possibly VISITING that SAME DORM that DO have the option of LOCKING the DOOR of each, to insure the TOTAL SECURITY of their PRIVACY, NOT ALL would DO that, MUCH to MY ABSOLUTE SEXUAL PLEASURE and LIBERTY that I HAVE TAKEN to just WALK IN, TOTALLY UNANNOUNCED, as if I wanted to use any of the stalls for either/both of the "REGULARS," and should I happen to hear ANYONE in ANY of the ONLY TWO STALLS AVAILABLE, either urinating, moving THEIR bowels, or BOTH, to make ABSOLUTE SURE that it's ONLY a WOMAN, and that HOPEFULLY, that ONE OTHER STALL is COMPLETELY EMPTY, I would PRETEND to MISTAKENLY KNOCK on the door of the ALREADY-OCCUPIED STALL, and if I hear that it's a FEMALE'S voice that says: "I'M IN HERE," I would QUICKLY slip into the EMPTY one, pull my pants and underwear down, and as if I'm ACTUALLY taking a SHIT, which OBVIOUSLY is NOT the case, I'd do what I HOPE that I said POSTS AGO that I'd NORMALLY NEVER do, since I'm TOTALLY NOT into myself, AT ALL, which means that I'm TOTALLY AGAINST SELF-LOVE, and ADMITTEDLY, I'd QUICKLY COMMENCE to JERKING OFF, HOPING to COME while she's STILL in the NEXT STALL, STILL NOT FINISHED, ESPECIALLY if she has THE RUNS! TECHNICALLY, the ONLY POSITIVE ASPECT of JERKING OFF is that EVEN THOUGH the ONLY UNFORTUNATE AVAILABLE-CHOICE "VEHICLE," as it were, would of course be MYSELF, METAPHYSICALLY, it's NOT. Now, being the case that it doesn't matter if the WOMAN, HERSELF, is either aware or unaware of my presence, since this is the dorm that ALL AREAS WITHIN are COMPLETELY GENDER-UNRESTRICTED, ANYWAY, and that she's TOTALLY UNSUSPECTING of MY METAPHYSICAL INVOLVEMENT with HER, EVEN THOUGH I could VERY WELL be VIOLATING her, it's SO COMPLETELY UNOBVIOUS that the ONLY VIOLATION LEVEL that it could/would EVER be is MORAL. If there was ABSOLUTELY NO LEGAL/CAMP-ADMINISTRATIVE-CONSTRAINT that I'd NEVER DARE to EVER STEP OVER, ONLY BECAUSE I ABSOLUTELY DON'T EVER WANT to EXPERIENCE the DREADED INEVITABLE, no telling WHAT I would/wouldn't do, as SEXUALLY WILD-DRIVEN as I'd be, at THIS point--WILD, YES, but TOTALLY NON-AGGRESSIVE; I'm not into RIPPING OFF CLOTHES and/or MAN-HANDLING. ABSOLUTELY NO WOMAN (DNA-BIOLOGICAL, ONLY) is to be subjected to ANY SUCH TREATMENT, EVER. ANY/EVERYTHING that would be done would ONLY be of ABSOLUTE GENTLE-INTENT, although YES, there ARE women that DO want the "ROUGH STUFF." I'M JUST NOT WILLING to be the MALE to be the INTENDED PROVIDER of such. ALSO, being that ANY TRANSGENDER in EITHER DIRECTION is ONLY the ORIGINAL DNA-BIOLOGICAL GENDER that THEY'RE BORN AS, and shall ALWAYS ONLY REMAIN AS, REGARDLESS of what they CHOOSE to "FEEL AS," just because of WHATEVER "CHEMICAL CONFUSION," which is COMPLETELY PSYCHOLOGICAL, ANYWAY, I ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to INTENTIONALLY BE INVOLVED with any MTF-TRANSGENDER, which ONLY MEANS that if SUCH should EVER HAPPEN that I'm with one, TOTALLY UNBENOUNCED to ME, until WHATEVER would happen to REVEAL the TRUTH, I would CALMLY DISCONTINUE THE RELATIONSHIP, NO MATTER HOW DEEP it would've gotten, REGARDLESS of how either HURT or UNHURT HE would be.
The last post is as vile as those who other groups like the trans folk, atheists, and others.
I've been to Japan where they do have unisex bathrooms with multiple people of different genders in there, and it's not at all like the last poster makes it sound. Do what you want in your own stall, and though the Christiand and some feminists would say yhou're violating her on the astral plane or spiritually or what have you, I think you're doing nothing wrong by and with yourself. Except the delicate balance there is you are peeping. If you could see through the hole in the stall and stare at her while she was going to the bathroom, most societies would class that a serious violation. But listening, you can't help overhearing, and so long as you quietly and discreetly discard the evidence as it were, you are probably safe. If you ever tell her you did that, now you have a pretty serious violation.
I just can't get behind the 1984-style thought control that is much of Christianity and more classic feminism's view on what you can and can't think, or do in the privacy of your own bathroom stall, as it were. But never tell a girl you were thinking of her that way, not like that, or then you have at least a sexual harassment violation. I don't know how peeping works when it comes to listening in: if you could see and were staring through the hole deliberately, you'd be in a world of hurt for good reasons. In theory it should work the same, but peeping often can include eye contact and more vulnerability because she has been visually exposed. Your last post makes me glad I'm not in law enforcement.
My personal ethics? For better or worse, it seems you're setting up the situation to your advantage, using an unwitting lving person. On the surface I'd say that's pretty fucked up, but then we all do it in different ways, a vast majority of them not being anything to do with sex. Who hasn't visualized themselves in that really nice house someone has, eathing the food you can see them eating through the window, engaging in the high roller party whose sounds drift out so even the blind can pick up on this? We imagine ourselves there all the time, and yes, lots of rubber neckers do this in neighborhoods and often. But we don't call this home invasion, and we don't call the unwitting participants vulnerable. There are even neighborhoods where the participants are willing, flash their wares to be gawked at. You can't even move in there unless you're prepared to in some ways make a spectacle of yourself and your stuff, and the rest of us come by and gawk. Nobody calls those peple either sluts or emotionally troubled with low self esteem, and nobody calls us gawkers dirty peepers.
Anyway all theoretical stuff aside, just keep it to yourself, pal, and never tell her, or expect the shit to hit the fan for a very long time, for some very understandable reasons. understandable at least to the rest of us.
Explanations are not excuses, here's my explanation: I was not yet caffeinated.
you say you are following a woman into the bathroom and knocking on her stall door. Wrong term: You're stalking her. People can say sexual harassment is or isn't a crime, enforceable by the criminal courts. But stalking is in all states a crime. You are putting her at grave risk by doing this behavior, you are engaging in a very serious criminal act. I don't mean overhearing something, I don't mean beating off. Those are red herrings thrown up by the weak. The real problem is stalking in this case.
In short, stop it, or suffer the consequences. Someone will catch you at it, someone always does, and then they'll figure you've been doing this a long time and your ass will be in the grass and nobody will remember or give two shits for you. I'd quit now and forever.
Stalking is a form of invasion. We don't call it home invasion because it isn't in the home, but it's a form of invasion.
You are as guilty as George Zimmerman of Florida was. He got off, for now, but someday the poor fool is going to pull that shit in maybe a Northern state and get his ass in the grass. You and he think you can follow people around for your own individual reasons, for your own gratification, and someday you may be treated to a woman who has a firearm. again, when it finally comes home to roost, neither you nor Zimmerman will get two shits of consideration from anybody.
I am back to answer again.
“What it would take for you to rape a girl. If it’s provokable, it must be provokable in you.”
No, rape is not provokable in me. Nothing a woman can do or say can make me want to rape her.
Remember, I said I don’t get the feelings of sexual frustration, anger, longing when a woman is sexually taunting me. I don’t want to teach her a lesson, harm her, and take her. I don’t have the switch. Nothing!
But, I am not every man, and these things can and do cause the switch to click.
I have written in other post what I felt a man should do, but unfortunately, all men will not think as I do. This is what makes it possible to provoke some men to rape, just not myself.
Understand again, I am not talking the regular situation where a girl changes her mind during a date.
Nothing!
Now James, understand I am not talking about victim rape. I don’t know if you’ve read my other post.
The idea, concept I am talking about is when a women deliberately sets out to tease a man. Now, that teasing does not bring all men to the point where they feel rejected, and whatever when she teases them until they are hot, then tells them they can’t have her, but that taunting can and does cause her to be harmed.
Understand, I am not talking about an 80 year old woman living in a nursing home normally, nor am I talking about a disabled woman being attacked in her home. These women are victims James, not saunters nor provokers.
The concept I can’t get across is the concept of women actually meaning to do this activity. I guess to understand what I’m talking about, you’d have to accept that some women can and do deliberately try to sexually harass a man. Maybe harass is a more understandable concept over provoke.
If these concept are not acceptable, my whole argument is not valid, because it doesn’t exist for you that disagree with me.
I would have to accept that my argument is like trying to make you understand it is possible to be filled by smelling food being cooked, or warmed by a fire you could see miles away from a freezing mountain top.
If I did both of these things and never ate a bite of food, nor needed heating and I knew them to be so, you couldn’t understand it. It not be a part of your mental makeup or world. You’d tell me I was lying.
That is a very well scripted scenario. It is just too ironic to actually be real, how it could be set up in such a way. The thing that would put it to rest and spoil its chances of actually being real is the fact that they are public bathrooms that are co-ed. Now, I could be wrong but I have never in my 21 years of life heard of bathrooms that are public where men and women can both occupy, and I am very curious if there are such bathrooms that exist. But even if there are such bathrooms I still am convinced that this is just another story to try and real in the bait. It is a very unchristian act, if there is such a word I don't know but if not I suppose it is fitting regardless. But it's like Cody said in an earlier post, some things we do may be creepy but they don't break the law. I have to see what is said about stalking because I figured it had to be done simultaneously to a person to be considered stalking. I've never played out a scenario like this one in my head.
Ryan there are unisex, or co-ed if you prefer, bathrooms. I went in many of them in Japan. If someone did something like that nobody else knew.
It's just unfamiliar to us in the West because of the ideologies who would simply freak out.
But yes, they are there, and I have heard Japan is not the only place to have them.
In a few places here I understand we have these bathrooms too. You have your stall, so it isn't like you can watch the girl next to you pee. Lol
Leo, Laci Green apologized for the video you mentioned, just so you know. She removed it too, but it keeps popping up because people want desperately to find a way to hate her. Most just settle for her boobs, but some go the extra mile and find that video. She did that video when she was eighteen. I think we can give her a bit of leeway for that.
Now, Wayne, ever wondered why you can't really describe things? Its because you haven't thought them through. That applies here.
Now, yes, I agree with you that women set out to tantalize men. Men also set out to tantalize women. We wear colognes or certain clothes, we say certain things, we drive certain cars, we do certain activities to tantalize women. Its called rituals and seduction. But what you are failing to take into account is that all of those things; all of the things you're talking about are invitations for sex.
A guy doesn't put on a nice cologne because he wants to get raped. He does it because he wants to gain a woman's attention. A girl doesn't shake her ass because she wants to get raped. She does it because she wants attention. Rape is not sex Wayne. I've said that before, and I'll say it again. Rape is not sex. Rape has nothing to do with sex. Rape is not a sexual act. Blow jobs are sexual acts. Forcing a girl to put her mouth on your penis is rape. They aren't the same thing.
Let me illustrate for you. Lets say you decide to go fishing. You get a boat and a pole and some bait and go out fishing. You're casting your line, catching a few fish but tossing them back, when suddenly an alligator leaps out of the water and bites your hand off. Apparently you were fishing in florida.
Now, you were baiting the alligator. You were tossing bits of chicken liver into the water. That's baiting the alligator Wayne. But that wasn't what your intentions were. You were there fishing. The alligator was there hunting. The gator is a predator, just like a rapist. They prey on innocent women who are trying to catch the attention of men, not the attention of predators.
Now, yes, some precautions should be taken. Everyone should be careful. But rapist are still predators Wayne. No matter how much you want to make them victims of some conspiracy by the Victoria's secret catalog.
Just in case you don't get it; which I already know you don't because apparently you live in an echo chamber, I'll further illustrate. Lets say you finished fishing and are now going back to your office job. You're sitting at your desk, working on memos and what have you, when you notice the woman in the cubical next to you calling to a friend to help her with something. she keeps calling and calling, and its distracting you. The friend comes over once or twice, helps, then the patern repeats. Finally, you snap and shoot the woman in the face.
Its not the woman's fault that you couldn't keep your emotions in check Wayne. Its your fault. Entirely your fault. She's perfectly within her rights to call out for help, and you're perfectly within your rights to tell her to shut the fuck up and walk over to her friend. You are not within your rights to shoot her in the face.
Get it now, or are you just going to keep proving your sexism and bigotry?
Cody, fair enough. we all said and did stupid things at 18. I was transphobic, as they call it, at 18. I was also homophobic, as they call it, at 18. I call it being a punk. And yeah we did know better, no matter what some 40 something tells you about what we didn't know I. The 80s. Uh, we did.
So I am not one to judge an 18-year old. It's just too bad now, with people growing up on the Internet. I ought to have dug deeper than I did..
I, SELECTIVELY, am DEFINITELY CRAZY, OBVIOUSLY, but STUPID, I NEVER WAS, STILL NOT EVER, nor WILL I EVER BE! NONE of the women that I've METAPHYSICALLY HAD MY SEXUAL WAY WITH that were in the next stall will EVER-IN-LIFE know about THIS, NOR will I ever tell anyone that knows ME, as well as THEM, EITHER--so, being that I have ABSOLUTELY NO ASSOCIATION with MYSELF, which is PROBABLY ANOTHER BOARD-TOPIC to "INVADE" the "ZONE," with, at whichever future point, I'd STILL NEVER keep it to MYSELF, but CERTAINLY will share it ONLY WITH THOSE, such as YOU, for example, that are TOTALLY NOT CONNECTED with any of those who I'll NEVER share this with. BESIDES, since this ONLY happens in a CO-ED bathroom, where men and women HAVE had COUNTLESS SEXUAL ACTIVITIES going on from time to time, where they've either DISROBED, COMPLETELY, SHOWERED, and the WHOLE WHATEVER in front of each other, and it's ALL been done, COMPLETELY WITHOUT ANY INCIDENT, WHATSOEVER, the shit, like what I pull off, as long as it's done in a COMPLETELY DISCRETE MANNER, is ALWAYS BOUND to HAPPEN with OTHERS that could be doing the VERY SAME, and THAT could/would include any of the WOMEN as being the INITIATORS, as WELL, and I'm VERY SURE that the ADMINS. know that this type of bathroom setting DOES EXIST on the grounds, and are JUST AS WELL AWARE of the PROBABILITY/POSSIBILITY of such "GOINGS-ON" GOING ON, and being that this COMPLETELY OPEN CO-ED EXISTENCE within THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION of UNSAID FACILITY has ALWAYS EXISTED LONG before I was EVEN CONCEIVED, if there was ANY INKLING of ANY CONCERN, AT ALL, either THIS might've been a TEMPORARY thing, then SUDDENLY DISCONTINUED, or it would've NEVER EVEN EXISTED in the FIRST place.
Just a heads-up: people need to see the whole rather than focusing on one part.
If you wear perfume or cologne or clothes that show off your figure, you're trying to attract someone, get attention.
If you're deliberately winding someone up once you've got their attention, then telling them they can't have you...well, I'm not going to say it makes men rape (because I don't think it does), but it doesn't fall in the category of "completely harmless fun" either. There comes a point when the excuse of "I was just trying to get their attention" falls flat and becomes irresponsible.
I don't believe Wayne is actually trying to say that any attempt to get someone's attention is considered tantamount to provocation and licenses a rapist to rape. What's more, I think you know that. Stop trying to use a base definition, without all the other things present, to hang someone. It doesn't work, and the fact that neither of you see eye to eye proves it.
Incidentally, the alligator and coworker scenarios you presented were both rather bad analogies that make your point look stronger and more well-directed than it is. You do that a lot, but it's what you resort to when facts, as you see facts at least, don't seem to work.
I will say this much, though. Wayne, you aren't making this easy on yourself sometimes. So instead of asking over and over what would make you rape, I want to turn the tables. What, if anything, would make you acquit or sympathize openly with a rapist? Let's say you were a judge. What would sway you toward leniency for the rapist?
As it's ALL POINTING TO is: REGARDLESS of ANY/ALL of the RATIONALIZATIONS, EXPLANATIONS, SUMMATIONS, JUSTIFICATIONS, ADVOCATIONS, along with ANY OTHER "ATION" that could be added, VIOLATION, as far as THIS topic is addressed, is DEFINITELY NOT ONE-SIDED, neither is there any ONE SIDE MORE-OR-LESS INNOCENT/GUILTY than the OTHER. ALL OF US are JUST AS EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE for OUR EQUALLY-IRRESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOR toward one another, and JUST BECAUSE LIFE, ONLY AT TIMES, might not ALWAYS BE FAIR, NEVER MEANS that WE should behave JUST AS UNFAIRLY, ACCORDINGLY, EVEN IF LIFE, ITSELF, DICTATES that we HAVE to. If we abide by THIS guideline, we CERTAINLY wouldn't EVER HAVE this problem. NO, this NEVER MEANS that we'll be PERFECT on THIS SIDE of ETERNITY, because we'll NEVER be, as there are OTHER SOCIAL ISSUES that are DEFINITELY PROBLEMATIC, whether MORE, JUST AS, or LESS than THIS, but we DEFINITELY would be TOTALLY FREE of THIS, for SURE! It ONLY TAKES JUST ONE of us, out of the ENTIRE GLOBAL COMMUNITY to be willing to "WALK the VERY WALK" that it would CERTAINLY HAVE to TAKE to TOTALLY ALLIMINATE this problem, but it DEFINITELY JUST DOESN'T START and STOP with JUST THAT ONE, but it's for ALL of the REST OF US to follow, DIRECTLY.
JUST SO YOU'RE NOT MISLEAD, THIS COMMENT is ONLY APPLICABLE to the SITUATION of the SEX-TAUNTER/SEX-DEPRIVED-PROVOKED case.
The last post illustrates what happens when you mix hallucinogens with uppers.
SW, the problem with your rebuttal is that being wound up and being let down isn't harmful. We've gotten so used to getting what we want that we're starting to think its harmful. No one has ever died of blueballs. There is absolutely no difference between a girl who does something flirtaceous and denies your advances, and one who does something physical and denies your advances.
Sure, one might be a bit more of a dick move, but that is asthetics, and we're not arguing asthetics. Its the same as a guy flirting with a girl, and a guy doing that little hug thing some guys do. One is a dick move, one is not, but that's asthetics.
There is nothing harmful in a girl being forward about sexuality. None at all. It won't hurt you, other than that twinge of pain you get when you get a hard on and your jeans aren't spacious enough to accommodate. So lets not start saying that women are doing something harmful. They're grinding on you, not injecting you with PCP or something.
And yes, they were bad examples. The reason they were bad examples is because I've exhausted all my good examples. This isn't something that should be argued anymore. People like Wayne should have been relegated to the laughing stock and antiquated barbarism bins a long time ago. Its 2014, and we're still arguing this. I think we're past the point where facts are going to help us get them to sit down and stop using their faceholes.
I am back to answer.
Cody, I think you understand I am not talking about simple acts of dressing nice, making one’s self smell good, driving an expensive car, and the other examples you used to attract the opposite sex. I have written several descriptive examples of what I mean.
The fault doesn’t lie in my descriptions, but your and others ability to grasp the concept.
It is a difficult feat to describe butter to a person who has never tasted anything close to it, nor seen the color. The only way to make your description come a reality for that person would be to put some in there mouth.
Sense I don’t have the ability to cause you to witness what I’m describing, and you aren’t open minded to the possibility, any, and all my points will be, and have been moot.
Others have understood me perfectly well, so I’m not alone in my thinking.
I never wonder why I have a problem describing things either. Not only have I thought it through, I’ve witnessed the acts and the results of these actions.
You, on the other hand can’t relate, I think, because it is something you’ve not seen, or has anyone else explained it to you.
You don’t know any women that do this as a hobby sort of, and you don’t know any men that might rape if the actions I’ve talked about occur.
I know, and have seen them all my friend.
I wonder if you spoke to a police officer, or a professional call girl, or rape center worker, and they told you I was right, would your mind open to the concept?
Next, because you hopefully don’t have the trigger, or switch, as I don’t, you can’t comprehend how it works.
Shep, you asked a great question, so I’ll answer that.
The short answer is as a judge I’d have to convict a rapist no matter what circumstances the rape happened under.
In my previous post, I have never excused the crime, but have stated there are circumstances in where a woman might deliberately try, and actually trigger the result.
I have written what I felt should be the judges judgment in a case such as this.
Wayne, at this point I think we're just quibbling about words.
The woman doesn't trigger the man breaking the law. The man triggers it when he makes that choice.
Cody, I would take your point under normal circumstances. In general, it's a good one. At worst I'm saying that certain dick moves should be much more frowned upon than they are. I'm not by extension saying that performing one of these dick moves leaves you open to rape, because it doesn't. It means I'll probably think you're a dick if you do it, to put it bluntly. I have no real patience for anyone who teases or baits people for sport. I'm not going to go so far as to say they deserve what they gaet, but for me there's a difference between them and the people who are accosted without warning or reason or explanation. Note, I'm not saying excuse. There is no excuse.
The man wouldn't break the law without the taunt.
Sure, he has done it, but he was well, that word "provoked. Smile.
I won't disagree with you there SW. That's why they're called dick moves. But like you said, there's no excuse.
Wayne, I live in a state where women can get away wearing nothing but a bikini ten months out of the year, and many frequently do it. I know and have hung out with girls who willingly dance naked on bartops. Lets take it even further though. I've hung out with strippers. You said some girls make it a hobby, those girls make it a profession, and its still not right for them to get raped. I've read writings and interviews by Victoria secret models who frequently get told that they want to get raped because people make that assumption, just like you're doing. They get blamed for using the relative attractiveness of their body for pleasure or profit, while men ogle them like they're a pound of bacon they want to eat.
And yeah Wayne, I've talked to escorts and call girls too. I've talked to several police officers on the subject. Not all of them said what I'm saying to you. I know a lot of people who believe that women who wear a short skirt are inviting it. That's even a direct quote from one person I know. You probably know people like that yourself.
But guess what Wayne, all those people that believe that are wrong. They're just as wrong as the people who think that the world is flat and accelerating upward at 9.8 meters per second squared. They're just as wrong as the people who think all life poofed into being six thousand years ago at the whim of an invisible man in the sky. They're just as wrong as the people who think George Washington and both George bushes are reptilian shapeshifters from other planets who have come to rule our world. They're just as wrong as the people who think there's a giant monkey roaming the woods of Washington that somehow hasn't ben killed by the millions of hunters in our country.
Just because you know a lot of your friends who agree with this Wayne, doesn't mean shit. Your friends are just as fucked up as you are in this regard, and you're welcome to bring them on here and let me beat there ass at debating too.
I'm sick of mother fuckers like you who think that because they have some piddly little bit of annicdotal evidence for their fucked up claims that they should be taken seriously and allowed to voice an opinion on the major stages of our world. We're not dealing with an issue like whose a better band, beatles or stones. We're not dealing with whether chocolate is better than strawberry when in the form of a frozen dairy treat. We're not talking about fucking opinions here people. Get out, get a book, and learn the god damn difference between a fact and an opinion.
Wayne, I don't give two tiny pieces of rat shit what your friend's opinions are. They're as backward and barbaric as you are, and please tell them I said so. Your opinion is absolutely and entirely meaningless here. Everyone's opinion is entirely and absolutely meaningless here. Because we aren't in a debate over an opinion. Its not a matter of opinion whether gravity exists or not. Its a matter of fact. The fact is that Wayne doesn't know his asshole from a tootsypop, and I'm sick and tired of trying my best to be polite when debating him.
I said earlier that I don't think the vast majority of people on here know what the hell intellectualism is. I don't think the vast majority on here would know how to form a fact if I wrote them a list of instructions. I include you in that Wayne. I've seen it too many times when you pull out your opinions and try to wave them around as if you should be taken seriously in an argument that was based on fact and fictions, not opinions and counter -opinions.
So zip up your pants Wayne, put your opinion away. what facts have you given us? Just one, some girls do some things that are hot. Well fuck me sideways Wayne. what a revolution of thought you had there. Now tell us why we should rape them.
I don't require you to be polite . Say it like you want to.
Now, if you'd been reading my post, and not only reading them taking in what I have been saying, you'd not have posted the top stuff about what women wear causing rape.
At no time did I suggest it was how a woman was dressed, or undressed.
She could be naked, and in a room full of men, and still not provoke rape.
Your last post, and I have said this before, shows that your anger is in the way of your reason.
You see me saying that women can and do sometimes cause themselves to be raped, and the red gets in your brain and you don't see why I say it.
I have understood for a while that you can't accept the concept, and others can just fine, as you yourself has just said.
But because the crime of rape makes you angry, and it should, it clouds your reason, so even a police officer that works the street daily telling you from his or her experience that some women do things they shouldn't and that leads to them being raped is wrong.
You know why that officer is wrong? They and I am wrong, because we disagree with you.
Life, my friend is full of things that aren't black and white. I believe the sooner you start to accept this, the better you'll be at understanding different views.
Facts, as you say are facts, and disagreeing with a fact doesn't make it wrong, it just means you don't understand it, or you refuse to accept it.
Cody, I am not talking about women living on the land like a lingerie model who some when want to rape because of her dress, or lack of it, and call that an excuse for raping her.
Well, she shouldn't have been dressed that way. No, that is not what I'm talking about at all.
You have shown me you have missed it totally.
No, that police officer is wrong because of the fact that correlation is not causation. You're making a corelation, not a causation. The man causes the rape. The woman may have some correlary connection to it, but she does not cause it.
Now, if you'd like to again play the, "But you're not understanding what I'm saying card". I suppose you can do that. It wouldn't shock me since your basis for argument for about fourty posts now has been to not be able to find the right words. And people wonder why I can't bring myself to care about the opinions of others on here. They can't even express them when they don't matter, let alone when they do.
oh, and, Wayne, to address your question about what people at a rape center, as you called it, would think of the view you're expressing, here, they'd be utterly appalled.
actually, more than that, they'd be absolutely disgusted that someone like you is allowed to walk this earth.
they'd tell you, as Cody and I've tried to countless times, that rape is never, I repeat, never, provoked.
Good. Then quit wasting your time on this if you don't care about our opinions so much. *coughs contradiction*. Because you won't change our minds either.
No, but I will change the minds of other people, or sway them off the fence, as happens countless times on this and other pages. I don't put these posts up here to change the minds of two people. I put them up for two reasons. One, practice. You wanna last in the ring with someone who knows what they're doing, gotta have a little fun with people who don't know ahkum's razor from the razor they use to shave their face. Two, for those people who are looking for conviction of the idea they secretly think. Its more the second than the first, but damn if the first one isn't fun sometimes.
OK--for the MAJORITY of THIS TOPIC, INTELLIGENCE, MATURITY, SUCKING-UP-GETTING-OVER-GROWING-PAIRS-ETC. ARROWS have been FLYIN' ALL OVER the place, but the PERFECT ARROW-PROOF against such is THIS: although it's a SOLID FACT that having "BLUE BALLS" isn't what's the life-threatener to be the TOTALLY UNFORTUNATE "SUFFERER" OF, EXPERIENCING the very DEVASTATION of a COMPLETELY IRREPAIRABLE BROKEN HEART, which can ACTUALLY be FATAL, let alone LIFE-THREATENING, IS. JUST BECAUSE there ARE GUYS that CERTAINLY would NEVER RESORT to RAPE, when COCK-TEASED, DOESN'T ALWAYS MEAN that they COULDN'T/WOULDN'T RESORT to SUICIDE, for example, which is EQUALLY JUST AS HORRIFIC. THIS is EXACTLY WHY I'VE established the "NO-FOR-NO DEFENSE POLICY (NFNDP)," which ALWAYS WORKS in MY FAVOR EVERY TIME that I have to USE it. At the EXACT, SAME TIME that the COCK-TEASER, HERSELF, ISN'T VIOLATED, HER COCK-TEASING POWER, of course, not only IS, but is COMPLETELY DESTROYED, but SUCH can ONLY HAPPEN on an INDIVIDUAL LEVEL, meaning: remember what I told you about the woman who gave me the PERFECTLY WELL-EARNED NAME of "KILLJOY," and who ACTUALLY SPAZZES TOTALLY the FUCK OUT, whenever I ALWAYS answer to it, as if it's my ACTUAL NAME, instead of giving HER the VERY TEMPER-TANTRUM RESPONSE that SHE throws, which folks are CONSTANTLY BEGGING me to STOP ANSWERING THAT WAY, as it ONLY makes her do it ALL the MORE, but I'll ALWAYS KEEP ANSWERING that way, ANYWAY? THAT NEVER MEANS that she could NEVER COCK-TEASE ANY OTHER GUY, as WELL, EVER AGAIN in LIFE; it's JUST ME that she never can, SIMPLY BECAUSE I don't (KEY WORD COMING UP) ALLOW her to, ABSOLUTELY NO THANKS, WHATSOEVER, to any GROWING-UP-INTELLIGENCE-GROWING-PAIRS-BULLSHIT RHETORIC. BELIEVE IT or NOT, there ARE PEOPLE that hold EXTREMELY HIGH POSITIONS in WHATEVER "INTELLIGENCE" FIELD, with WHATEVER LICENSE/LICENSES, DEGREES, or WHAT HAVE YOU, that are the MOST SOPHISTICATEDLY-AGE-MATURE-SERIOUS-STUFF-SHIRT/TIE PROFESSIONALS--the ACTUAL CRUST of the VERY "YUPPITY-YUPS" of ALL "YUPPYDOM," that are STILL just as vulnerable to cock-teasing as earlier-described in this post, which ALWAYS PROOVES, without ME, or ANYONE ELSE, having to prove such, since it's DEFINITELY NOT within ANY HUMAN GRASP to prove, that HUMAN-LEVEL-INTELLIGENCE is JUST AS FLAWED as we ALL are. How do you ACTUALLY DISPROOVE THIS, if you can?
OBVIOUSLY, for THOSE GUYS who AREN'T POWERLESS to COCK-TEASING, who DO CHOOSE to COMPLY, ONLY to prove to THEMSELVES and the ENTIRE REST of WHATEVER POPULATION HOW WELL THEY'VE MATURED to NOT RAPE, by "GRITTING and BARING" the TOTAL PRESSURE-PAIN of SEX-DEPRAVATION who are the ANGRIEST, and at ANY TIME, JUST like an UNEXPECTED TIME-BOMB, they WILL EXPLODE. What good will SUCH LEVEL of THEIR INTELLIGENCE do them THEN? If ANYTHING, they WOULDN'T allow it, if they weren't enjoying it. Plain and simple.
I've not been searching for words at all. I've found every word I've wanted to write.
You disagree with what I'm saying, that is fine, but I've found the words.
I have explained, that we'll never agree, because the concept I'm stressing doesn't exist for you. I accept that.
What you won't do is sway the world to your side. The reason you won't is because it is a fact that some women deliberately set out to taunt.
They go to a place specificly to taunt.
Remember that thing I posted about going in to a bar and asking for a fight? They do it, but use there bodies and actions.
"Here it is boys! I've got it, and I know you want it. But guess what boys! Suck it up, because you can't have me."
Do that enough, and one of these boys is going to prove to her he can.
WELL, MY "NO-FOR-NO" DEFENSE POLICY is CERTAINLY NEVER DESIGNED to "SWAY (as YOU put it)" ANYONE to agree with doing the VERY SAME as I do, because as I JUST posted in POST 212, I am FOREVER "SEX-TAUNT-PROOF" to my "KILLJOY" friend, as well as ALL OTHERS, JUST LIKE HER, and that's just PERFECTLY FINE with ME; as far as the OTHER GUYS AND HER, I have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT, WHATSOEVER, and like I've CONCLUDED my POST 212 with, it's ONLY THOSE GUYS that she DOES cock-tease, who either WHININGLY/COMPLAININGLY PROTEST, or who are the "GRIT/BARE/SUCK-UPPERS" that CHOOSE to ALLOW this, since they DO have the COMPLETE AUTHORITY to NOT allow this behavior, to be ENFORCED in a COMPLETELY LEGAL/MORAL WAY, but DON'T USE THEIR AUTHORITY, that SIMPLY ENJOY this torture. THEY'LL be PERFECTLY OK!
@Last poster: Put down the drugs dude. At your and my age, we are just plain too old for that shit. You are seriously hallucinating and tweaking out on the keyboard.
Yes Wayne, girls do go with the express idea of getting the attention of men. Very good, you've expressed a fact that is absolutely obvious and has been agreed to repeatedly. Now if those men happened to be thre, and her ass happened to be a lollypop their mommy wasn't willing to buy them from the store, your ideas might be viable. As it happens though, I know of no club that allows three year olds, and I know of no girls whose bodies are made of lollypops.
Saying that the girl denied them the body she was showing them, so they raped her, and so its partly her fault, is not only degrading to women by saying they're basically duty bound to either cover up or put up when it comes to their flesh, but its degrading to men. You're basically making men into permanent children. Sorry Wayne, but that's just not how the world works. You were talking about the realities of the world earlier. Well one of those realities is that you don't get to act like a child when you aren't a child anymore and then put part of the responsibility on someone else.
If you stole, it isn't partly the store owner's fault for putting the wares on shelves where you could easily access them. If you rob, it isn't the fault of the homeowner for putting the stereo in view of the window where you could see it and covet it. If you murder, it isn't the fault of your X girlfriend for kissing her new husband where you happened to be able to see. So logically, if you rape, it isn't the fault of the woman for not giving you access to the hole you wanted to insert your penis into.
Raise your standards Wayne. We've left the middle ages. I don't know if you've realized that, but we have. No longer is it the middle ages; 2014 Wayne, we kinda had a big celebration about that a little over a month ago; you might remember a big ball dropping. We don't se women as property anymore Wayne, and that's what you're making them. You are saying that either she acts in a way which you, and you alone, deem appropriate, or she gives every man who wants her access to her body whenever they wish it, or she gets raped. That's the situation you're setting up. Your ideals are pathetic. Improve them.
Leo, stop feeding the troll.
No. Not what I'm saying at all, but that I can't get across.
Next question?
I'll post when directly asked a question as I was before. Otherwise, my point is dead with some valid with others. Yin and Yang.
You know, the funny thing is when writing, the purpose is to get the other person to realize what you're saying. If that person doesn't understand what you're saying, its your fault, not theirs.
Just like, if an architect builds a house, and the people who paid him to do that hate what he built, its his fault, not the people. So if pretty much everyone who reads your words misunderstands them, try cracking a dictionary and writing better. It might help to actualy have ground to stand on, which you don't, but I can't help that. I can direct you to some writing and debating classes if you really want to improve though.
Hold on, if we take the way back machine way, way back to the first page of this topic. I thought basically everyone but Wayne agreed that if someone is setting out to taunt someone of the opposite sex, lead them on and then leave them humiliated in public, they're being a dick. this isn't a contested point any more. Neither is the point that being a dick isn't cause for rape. Just as I can take advantage of freedom of speech to tell what ever crewel, offensive and vial jokes in public I want, assuming that I avoid some language that isn't covered under our first amendment, someone can't legally punch me in the face, because i've offended them. they can ask me to leave, tell their friends that I have no social grace or that my sense of humor is dreadfully appropriate for the venue in question, or do any number of things to inform the public about what a character I am.But again, they can't carry out a violent act against me, legally. Provocation doesn't play in to it. We've provided countless situations where Wayne and others of his ilk have agreed that you can't provoke violent crime, robbery, or misconduct,so why are people making an exception to rape? this has been going on for over 150 posts now. I agree with everyone saying here that people who make a hobby out of leading people on, be they women or men, and holding out on them just for their amusement are dicks, you can't justify raping them, because rape is a violent crime at heart. Not a sexual one.
Wayne, i'm sorry, but I don't understand how you can create a factual argument that responds to this. All your refutations rely on some level of misinterpretation about the facts of rape. Your arguments couldn't function otherwise. Its about logic at this point, not opinions. Particularly as you've neatly framed yourself in to a box over the last few pages of back and forth. You're bound by the very logic you agreed to, and you can't just throw that away to save a little face/prove a point that doesn't make any sense.
For fuck's sake.
Wayne is saying that women shouldn't taunt. He's saying that when they do, they push the door open a little more than it otherwise would be. He is not putting the onus on a woman when she's raped. He is saying that, in certain cases, a woman does something she probably shouldn't - one of those aforementioned dick moves - and then suffers far more than she ought to for it.
This has nothing to do with backward standards and living in medieval times, so shut the hell up and argue with facts instead of insults.
If you were in a bar, and I walked up to you and started insulting you in a way that made you furious, and then you punched me, it's your fault that you punched me, but there's going to be someone out there who tells me, or at the very least thinks to tell me, to wise up next time so I don't lose any more teeth.
When a woman cockteases - and I'm not just talking about wearing nice clothing or a bit of makeup or being openly friendly either, I mean the dick-move sort of thing outlined far above, many times - and then the victim of her cockteasing rapes her, she's not at fault. The big difference is that rape is a far far greater magnitude of violence and injury, in many ways, than a punch in the face. Otherwise, what I said just now also rings true. Probably someone out there would be thinking, "Well, you need to not do that next time", and they would be right to think this. It would be rather indelicate to say it to the woman's face right after she was raped, mind you.
Dolce and Wayne have, I believe, both been basically saying this all along. No one deserves to be raped, but if you do certain things, you may more easily facilitate it happening to you. It pays to not do those things, not because the rapist has any right to do that - he does not - but simply because the world is a horrible place, and we are often punished harshly for poor judgment.
That is still making excuses for rapists SW. Saying, "Well if she hadn't ben doing A B or C then it wouldn't have happened" is making an excuse for the rapist. It is giving him a reason for doing what he did. But its even more elemental than that.
You said that she pushes the door open just a little farther. There is no door SW. It doesn't exist. There is no, absolutely none, not a single one, zero reasons for rape. Not being taunted, not blueballs, not desperation, not her grinding on you, not the fact that she wiped her finger across your nose after scratching her vagina, nothing. This door you're accusing a woman of pushing open doesn't exist.
Wayne, and partly dolce though not as much, have been saying that it is partly the responsibility of the woman. This is literally restricting her rights. She no longer has the right to act in a way which Wayne feels is wrong because it carries consequences. That is what responsibility means, consequences. Rape is not a consequence. Rape was a consequence in the medieval age, and in biblical times, and in roman times. Rape was a form of execution, or of punishment, or of foreign invasion controlling the female population. That is not the case anymore, and it was still wrong even back then.
I will say this again. I do not care if a girl is fingering herself and putting those fingers into your mouth. If she ever says no, ever, at any time, its rape. Its not provoked rape, its not her responsibility, its not her fault. She said no, you ignored her. You are completely and entirely in the wrong. Period, end of story. There's no degrees of greyness on this. You're simply wrong and you're a rapist.
Let me lay this out for you in a sort of code-like sense.
We have variables, Jack and Jill.
If Jack is angry, his actions are inappropriate.
Else, Jack's actions are not inappropriate.
Jill enjoys taunting. Taunting makes Jack angry. And since we know from the previous if statement that angry Jack acts inappropriately, it is a simple causal statement to say that Jill's action )taunting) led to Jack's inappropriate behaviour.
More importantly, however, is the inverse. Without Jill's action, Jack is not angry and does not act inappropriately. This demonstrates that unacceptable actions will not occur in the absence of the trigger.
1. Jill is not to blame for the result. Jill is responsible for only the initiation of the trigger.
2. Jack is not responsible for the initiation of the trigger but is wholly responsible for the result.
3. All the facts and correlations discussed above demonstrate nothing more or less than sequences of events.
In this way, it can be seen that I am in no way making excuses for rapists. I am no more doing this than I am making excuses for burglars by telling you not to leave your door unlocked.
We live in a world where actions beget consequences. While no one deserves to be acted out against in a criminal fashion, they do need to be aware of the sort of stupid or downright dick-move behaviour which may more easily facilitate bad things happening to them.
Oh my fucking god! Why doesn't it exist? Why do people have to be careful about everything else, but their god damn behavior? I think we agree, that there's no excuse for rape, none, at, all! Ok, you ignored her, but what about the man 12 feet away from you? What can you say about him? He didn't ignore, he raped her. She didn't want to, but he did. It's certainly not her fault, because she has the right to scratch herself and have you lick her fingers or put her fingers down your pants and she can say no in the end. She can kiss you, grind you and sit on your lap and you don't have to do anything, but not all men are going to act like you. What's so hard to understand about that? What's so hard to understand about moderating my behavior as a woman, and men too? I'm not excusing her rape. I don't look for words, I know what I'm talking about here. I don't care one bit if you care about my opinion/thoughts on this topic, I'm just trying to give my own feedback on it. If you like it, good. If not, Oh well I can't do anything about it. There's a difference between not being able to understand, and refusing to understand what we're trying to say here. My, this is beyond ridiculous.
There's one variable you left out in your code SW. BTW, I love that format. Can I use that in the future?
Now, lets add in the missing link. I mentioned it in my last post.
Jill enjoys taunting. But pause. That's the crux of the argument. We are saying here that it is wrong, because taunting is a negative term, for Jill to act in manner X. This means that if Jill acts in manner X then she is responsible for reaction Y. Because manner X causes action Y. This would mean that Jill causes action Y.
Action Y is Jack getting angry. So Jack rapes Jill. But pause again, because we never established the causal link between Jack gets angry and Jack rapes Jill. Jack has a lot of other possible responses rather than action Z which is raping Jill. Jack could leave, Jack could drink, Jack could find a sluttier girl and fuck the shit out of her while fantasizing about Jill, Jack could jack off. (sorry, had to put that one in there)
So, for Wayne's idea to work and the woman to be even slightly responsible for the rape, we must demonstrate a causal link not between Jill acting and Jack getting angry, but with Jill taunting and Jack raping her. Its three steps, not two. That's the problem.
Now then, Dolce. I understand what you're saying, but in saying it, you're saying more. By saying that women should be careful is saying they are partly responsible for the inadvertent consequences of their actions. This is why we say rape is not a consequence, because consequences are your responsibility. You can't both be told that you have to be careful otherwise you'll be raped, and still say that it isn't her fault at all. What you have to say is that no matter what women do men have no excuse for raping them.
Now, I will admit that we don't have that world, and the reason we don't is because we have people like you and wayne who continue to cling to this idea of power. You want women to be the cause. If they're not, your worldview falls apart. You want women to be the cause of their own rape when its convenient. That is part of the sexism of our culture. See the difference now?
Honestly, at this point, what I see is what amounts to slightly - and I do mean slightly - more intelligent trolling than that of the topic creator.
You are aware of the thrust of the argument. Most of the large points are agreed upon. Yet, you continue to twist things and cling to a view of the situation that cannot be supported, or which suggests a double standard.
I'll explain. You're saying that people should have the right to be dicks and make bad choices in life without fearing illegal consequences. That, all by itself in a bubble, is fine and dandy. I think the same thing. You're going that one insufferable step further, however, and suggesting that anyone who either takes extra steps, or who recommends that others take said extra steps, is contributing to the problem.
1. Women aren't raped because men know they're trying to avoid it. Men rape for their own reasons, sick as they might be. Maybe they're pushed too far, maybe they just want it badly enough, it doesn't matter. They sure as hell don't do it just because a girl's making some sort of concerted effort to walk on well-lit streets.
2. I don't believe you would recommend that I leave my door and windows open when I leave the house. More than that, I bet you'd probably wonder why I'd do such a silly thing in the first place, with the risk of burglary or vandalism. Even one step further, you advocate the use of guns and self-defense, both for yourself and for others if they'll use it, yet in a perfect world you wouldn't need any of that. Cody, you do these things because they make sense. And if I offhandedly advised a girl I knew not to go down Elm Street after ten, it doesn't mean I'm contributing to the problem, it means I recognize, as you do, that we don't live in a world without harm. I don't see how you can get off declaiming against people being careful about where they go or what they do, yet can go to the great lengths about self-defense which suggests that you do not wish to be attacked. Surely, by arming yourself thus, you are perpetuating the problem of assault in a similar fashion to Dolce perpetuating the problem of rape.
You honestly astound me. On one hand, you seem to accept that the world is full of scum. On the other, you seem to suggest that people who act to protect themselves from said scum are in some fashion enabling it. You really can't have it both ways.
Remember:
Dolce isn't saying that it's a woman's fault if she gets raped.
Wayne isn't saying it's a woman's fault if she gets raped.
I, even in my example, am only illustrating that a causal relationship can exist between what a woman does and whether or not she gets raped. If she's not there, no rape; if she doesn't spark the guy's anger enough that he snaps, no rape. She can't be expected to know every man's triggers, nor should she be paralyzed out of a fear of what might happen; it comes back to "reasonable precautions". I'd argue that making someone really angry for sport is never a good idea. I'd argue that choosing what you wear, when you go out, where you go out and how you get there and back is on a par with choosing how to defend or not defend your home from would-be thieves. You're never at fault if the other person broke the law, unless you also broke the law, but there sure as hell are better choices than others to make.
And this circles neatly back to my statement about trolling. You're surely intelligent enough to see all of this. Note that I said that the trolling, not the person, is unintelligent. You must, in your way, be doing exactly the sort of thing a woman does if she's cockteasing. It's a power game. You get off on convincing yourself that you have control, or are in the right. It probably gives you a kick to set up straw men and then knock them down, even though T.S. Eliot tells us they're hollow. You're winding people up to watch them squirm. Good job for the second example of hypocrisy to be cited in this post.
Now, for once and for all, I'm going to take your advice. You said it best in a previous post: "Don't feed the troll". Besides, this should be plenty enough for you to choke on.
The link that is missing is refusal to accept the points. No matter how well he presented it, if you refuse to accept it his skills are wasted.
I am others that agree with me have never suggested rape should be excused, but I keep reading where I am excusing it.
This board proves our social contract is still written in the woman’s favor, even though we supposedly have given them equal rights.
Two wonderful examples of this are these.
A little boy and girl are playing in a sand pile. The little girl gets mad and throws sand in the boy’s face, and it hurts. He throws sand back at her, and she starts to cry.
The adult watching all this comes over and punishes the little boy for hurting the girl. He is told he is a little man and shouldn’t throw sand in girl’s faces. She is picked up, her face is washed, and she is soothed.
A man puts his used condom in the trash after love making. His girlfriend retrieves it later, and gives it to her friend who wants a child who’s trying to get pregnant.
She does this until her friend is successful.
Her friend decides she needs money to support her new baby, so they call the boyfriend on the phone and inform him he is going to soon be a daddy, and she would like for him to start helping her with his baby.
He doesn’t even really know the mothers name, because he’s not really paid attention to her, but he now must open his wallet and start to send her regular payments in the amount set by the judge.
He is the man, and is 100% responsible for his off spring and the women that have them.
In these examples the women have zilch responsibility, and are even rewarded for their actions.
Next I will read all about how I’m trying to say men that rape women under the circumstances I’ve laid out shouldn’t be punished.
For the record, I’m not, but go ahead, you can blame me for it. I’m a man!
AGAIN and AGAIN and COUNTLESS TIMES AGAIN and AGAIN, the NFNDP (see earlier posts on either THIS or PAGE 2 for what these initials stand for), as OBVIOUSLY SIMPLE as it IS, remains COMPLETELY UNDISCUSSED. AMAZING!
To FURTHER CONTINUE to call EXACTLY AS IS, TOTALLY NON-DIALECTICALLY, under ABSOLUTELY NO CIRCUMSTANCE, at ANY TIME, ANYWHERE, WHATSOEVER, does ANY WOMAN, who COMPLETELY KNOWINGLY/WILLINGLY COCK-TEASES, TOTALLY NOT CONCERNED, WHATSOEVER, of ANY PROBABLE/POSSIBLE REPROCUSSIVE RESULT/RESULTS, HAS the RIGHT to BEHAVE in this manner, under the COMPLETE DILLUSION that she'll ALWAYS GET AWAY WITH IT with ANY/EVERY MAN on the PLANET, POINT BLANK. NEITHER does ANY MAN, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, WHATSOEVER, at ANY TIME, ANYWHERE, ESPECIALLY ONE who HAS had the UNFORTUNATE EXPERIENCE of HAVING been COCK-TEASED, to WHATEVER IMAGINABLE/UNIMAGINABLE DEGREE, SEEN/UNSEEN, HAVE the RIGHT to RAPE in RETALIATION, ANY/EVERY TIME he's COCK-TEASED, POINT BLANK. Am I saying that ABSOLUTELY NO WOMAN, EVER, should KNOWINGLY/WILLINGLY COCK-TEASE? Of COURSE not! Am I ALSO saying that the MAN who HAS been COCK-TEASED SHOULDN'T EVER, AT-ALL-IN-LIFE RETALIATE? AGAIN, of COURSE not! In THIS SPECIFIC CASE, CAN the MAN ACTUALLY CHOOSE "LEGAL/MORAL RETALIATION" as his DEFENSE to being COCK-TEASED, and SHOULD he? YOU BET! CAN the COCK-TEASER ACTUALLY be TOTALLY STRIPPED of HER "COCK-TEASING-BEHAVING RIGHT," TOTALLY WITHOUT being RAPED, which she should NEVER be, to BEGIN WITH? ABSOLUTELY! STILL, is the COCK-TEASER VIOLATED, NONE-THE-LESS? POWERWISE, and THAT, ONLY, ABSOLUTELY! Can she RIGHTFULLY CHOOSE to be SCORNFUL, even in THIS CASE? CHOICEWISE, since we ALL DO have GOD-GIVEN FREE WILL, and THAT, ONLY, NATURALLY! Is the guy EVER GUILTY, SPECIFICLY in THIS CASE, JUST as he WOULD, as well as SHOULD be, if he WERE to have raped her, INSTEAD? HELL-to-the-NO (are YOU FRICKIN' NUTS?)!
I have yet ANOTHER challenge for you: the VERY REASON that I mock-marveled at how the NFNDP method seems to be CONVENIENTLY UNDISCUSSED is because I DARE ANY, if not ALL of you, reading/posting, to answer THIS: EVEN in THIS PRESENT, IMPERFECT WORLD that WE IMPERFECT PEOPLE LIVE IN, who choose to either be OF or NOT, if EVERY MAN of ALL of GOD (and HE, ONLY)-CREATED MANKIND, ACTUALLY FULLY-EXERCISED NFNDP against ANY/ALL WOMAN/WOMEN of ALL of GOD-CREATED MANKIND of ANY/ALL ACTIVE DEGREE-LEVELS of COCK-TEASING, what do YOU think it would be like, would it either be GOOD or BAD, and if EITHER/OR, why?
WELL, I TRIED MY EXTREME VERY HARDEST TO FOLLOW EXACTLY, WORD FOR WORD, WHAT IT IS THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ASK OF US RATIONAL, COMPLETELY 100 PERCENT TRUSTWORTHY ZONERS BEHIND THE COMFORT AND SAFETY OF OUR COMPUTERS, BUT I HAVE FOUND THAT IT IS OH SO DIFFICLT, IF NOT COMPLETELY 10,000 PERCENT IM-POSSIBLE TO FOLLOW YOUR POINTS, AS I AM TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE BY WRITING IN THIS EXTRA MEGA-PROFESSIONAL MANNER. BUT I WILL TRY TO PUT MY POINT-OF-VIEW IN A WAY THAT YOU MIGHT UNDERSTAND, IN A WAY THAT WILL GET ACROSS TO YOU. FIRSTLY I WANT TO MAKE IT KNOWN, RIGHT OFF THE BAT, RIGHT FROM THE STARTING GATE, THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS EVER A GOD IN EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY. THE IDEA OF AN ALL MIGHTY GOD IS SO TWISTED AND VARIOUS, AMONG ALL THINGS, AND THE VARIOUS TYPES OF SILLY VARIETIES OF RELIGIONS ACROSS EARTH, AND POSSIBLY, ON OTHER PLANETS THAT OTHER HUMANS MIGHT POSSIBLY INHIBIT, WHICH MIGHT JUST BY CHANCE INCLUDE MARS, BUT THAT IT IS STILL UP-IN-THE-AIR, AS FAR AS I KNOW. CHRISTIANITY IS FILLED UP LIKE A GLASS OF ICE WATER WITH SO MANY CONTRADICTIONS, THAT I, A HUMAN BEING WITH AN INCREDIBLY HIGH IQ LEVEL OF 100-00, STRUGGLE, OH-SO-HARDLY, TO GRASP IT BY THE REINS WITH MY STRONG MANLY FINGERS. IF THERE WAS A GOD, WHY, IN ALL HIS OH-HOLY LOGIC, WOULD HE CREATE A WORLD THAT WOULD IN ESSENCE OF ESSENCE, SLOWLY AND COMPLETELY DESTROY ITSELF FROM THE INSIDE OUT, LIKE AN EVIL OUT-OF-CONTROL VIRUS? WHY, IN ALL HIS HOLLY BEING LOGIC, WOULD HE MAKE 10 COMMANDMENTS, THAT HE ASKS OF HIS PUPPET-STICK FIGURES OF PEOPLE (IN CASE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, I AM TALKING ABOUT ALL OF YOU, MYSELF, AND THE MEGA BILLIONS OF OTHER LIVING AND BREATHING HUMANS THAT INHABIT THE HARSH PLANET OF E ARTH), ONLY TO BREAK THEM HIMSELF THROUGH HIS STICK FIGURE PUPPETS? THERE ARE COUNTLESS, NUMBEROUS, EXAMPLES AFTER EXAMPLES THAT I CAN POINT OUT TO YOU IN THE BIBLE, THE HOLY BOOK THAT HAS BEEN CREATED IN SEVERAL EDITIONS, WHICH BY THE WAY DO NOT ALL AGREE ON EVERY SINGLE ITTY BITTY ASPECT OF CHRISTIANITY THAT THERE IS, BUT I WILL LEAVE THAT UP TO YOU, MY FRIEND, AS I AM NOT REALLY IN THE MOOD TO SIFT THROUGH THE FLOUR IN THE PAN AS I CALL IT AT THIS VERY EXACT MOMENT IN TIME, AND BECAUSE I AM THE FUCKIN' BOMB DIGGITY, AS IF YOU DIDN'T ALL READY KNOW THAT ABOUT ME, AND I DON'T HAVE TO FIVE EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!! BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SINCERELY APPOLOGIZE, TO EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU FABULOUS ZONERS, BECAUSE IT HAS SEEMED THAT I HAVE GONE ON A BIT OF A WINDY, ZIG-ZAGGED TANGENT, THAT OF WHICH I AM NOT SURE WHAT IT IS EXACTLY I WAS EVEN GOING AT, AND I WILL NOW TO ATTEMPT, WITH EVERY OUNCE OF MY STRENGTH, TO BRING THIS PARTY BOAT BACK TO SHORE WITHOUT SINKING IT ANY FURTHER IN TO THE BOTTOMLESS ABYSS. NOW, AS I WAS SAYING, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A CONTRADICTORY HOLY GOD ALL MIGHTY, IT DOES NOT, AT ALL, MAKE THE WORLD, BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINE (SANE OR NOT), ANY SAFER OF A PLACE. IN FACT, I WILL GO OUT ON THE LIMB OF A 5,000 FOOT TREE, AND PREACH, AS MANY OF US STRONG-WILLED, HEARTLESS, EVIL ATHEISTS DO OH-SO-FREQUENTLY, JUST TO PISS OFF EVERYONE TO NO AVAIL, (SORRY IF I SPELLED THAT WRONG, BUT PLEASE BELIEVE I AM REALLY REALLY TRYING HERE TO PROVE MY POINT FLAWLESSNESSLY), THAT ALL RELIGION IS MISLEADING, CORRUPT IN SOME WAY, AND MORE CONTRADICTORY THAN A VIRGIN SLUT.
Regardless of whether or not we disagree on this topic, I hope some of you find that amusing. Hopefully it lightens up the mood a little.
lol ryan. just...lol
Lmao Ryan! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Thank you, I needed this amusement! :D
ON a serious note, though. Cody, you're talking about what COULD happen, What he COULD do, but what about what really happens? Of course he has all these choices, but not some people like the easy way out, even if that sounds cynical...
Oh damn, I meant not all people, sorry...
SW, look back, Wayne and dolce both said that it is partly the woman's fault that she got raped if it is in this situation. Chelsea then asked Dolce if it was her own fault that she, Chelsea, got raped. Dolce then said no and said that it was not her, dolce's fault either. So yes, they are saying it is partly the woman's fault. That is the part I take issue with. Not the fact that they are saying not to wear skimpy clothing or scratch your vagina and wipe a guy's nose. I'm taking issue with the fact that they're saying it is partly a woman's fault that she gets raped. Eventually I hope we will reach a world where people no longer have to carry guns, or women no longer have to worry if some guy is going to rape her for what she wears or does, but we aren't there yet and probably never will be. But that doesn't mean I agree that its her fault when she gets raped. I carry a gun, that doesn't mean its my fault if I get robbed. They're not connected.
Wayne, your first example is, I agree, gender biased. We do that to our young girls and boys. Its wrong, both to the boys and to the girls. We put so much pressure on both of them to conform to centuries old twisted ideals of what men and women should be. We agree, we should stop doing that.
Your second example is just stupid. The man doesn't have to pay child support for that child. No more than a woman has the right to call the man who donated sperm to a sperm bank for child support. The judge would laugh that woman out of court.
You've ben pulling a lot of these wacky ideas out of your ass Wayne. I'm willing to bet that is part of the reason you hold these ideals. You have these twisted and ignorant ideas of what women and men are allowed to get away with in the world. You're like a republican. You see a headline, forget to read the article, and then go off half-cocked. I'm telling you right here and now wayne, the vast majority of these extremest scenarios you've illustrated, don't happen. If you can cite me an article, I'd be happy to retract that statement, but I doubt you ever will.
I have to say that it’s really amusing to see how much emotion has been generated by one inane and lunatic posting. And it didn’t stop with just the one. I’ve read posts 1 and 228, as well as the others he has written, and they remind me of some of the legal briefs I used to have to read for a living back in my bad old days. I chose those postings as reference because the first by this guy is just as incomprehensible as the last. Reading one and then another and then another is the psychic equivalent of taking a hammer and nailing a spike through my own forehead! Infact, I’d almost rather ram a spike through my forehead. (Post 229 did make me laugh though, because I see what he was trying to do in response.)
Anyway, it seems to me that regarding the more intelligent discussion of whether a woman ever deserves to be raped or whether Wayne or Dolce even actually said that, it seems to me the answer is no to both questions. There is no justification for rape just as there is no justification for any other crime simply because the victim of that rape or other crime made oneself more vulnerable. Having said that, it seems to me that purposely tempting fate is a pretty foolish thing to do, and I think from reading Wayne’s and Dolce’s postings, this is all they were saying. They were not saying that a woman who hypothetically taunts her rapist should be blamed for the rape, or that the rapist should in any way be excused from his decision to rape. We have to recognize that there are no excuses for rape or any other crime save, perhaps, for a possible brain tumor that could have affected the perpetrator’s emotions and judgments in such a way that would have made him more likely to commit a crime he would not ordinarily have committed. But we do have to recognize that there are people out in the world who are not nice. And sure, sometimes we are going to be victims of those not so nice people no matter what we do, even if we’re sitting in our living-rooms minding our own business and a home invasion occurs. We didn’t do anything whatsoever to tempt fate.
But there are things we can and should do, for our own sakes, not to put ourselves in more vulnerable positions. If we know, for instance, that it is a bad idea to walk in a certain neighborhood at a certain time of day because it’s notorious for being a high-crime area, aren’t the most of us gunna avoid that neighborhood? If we know that flashing jewelry around in public makes us more likely to get that jewelry taken away from us by people who want that jewelry, are the most of us gunna flash that jewelry around? I’d say no to both questions, but that’s just me. And if I were a woman who presumably did not want to be raped, why would I not do what I can to avoid it? If I know that even if I don’t do anything to quote end-quote tempt fate I could still be raped, why would I do things to possibly provoke it? Take the example of the woman who goes up to a guy, grinds herself against him and scratches herself down there only to wave her finger in front of his nose and then laugh at him when he makes a play for her. (This seems to be the favorite example of this discussion, but I have to say I’m not acquainted with anyone who’s ever done this or experienced it.) If this is a total stranger to her, what the hellis she doing? I presume she knows about rape. She knows that at any point in time she could be raped no matter what she’s doing. If her motivations for grinding against the guy, rubbing her finger in his face and otherwise quote end-quote taunting him are for her own pleasure and she doesn’t know whether or not this guy has the capacity to ignore her, laugh at her and walk away, isn’t she taking a chance she might be raped? If I’m a friend or relative of this woman and I see she’s doing something like this and I know what could happen, aren’t I at least a little bit obligated to say hey, you’re acting stupid? This isn’t blaming. This isn’t saying well, you were stupid to put yourself in that position so we’re not gunna charge the guy who raped you with a crime because it’s your own fault. It’s saying that you should know there are some possibly dangerous people out there and you should protect yourself. And, by the way, you shouldn’t do something so obviously moronic as to go up to a total stranger, grind yourself against him, scratch your crotch, wave your essence in his face and say nyah nyah, you’ll never get this and not at least think about your own personal safety and how you might be jeopardizing it. I mean, you don’t know this guy. You don’t know whether he’s a totally sane human male or a serial killer. Intellectually speaking (and not legally), why would you do something like that? This is not excusing rape; this is saying there are things you do to prevent it or ameliorate the chances of it happening to you. You’ll never totally stop rape, at least as far as we’ve evolved up to this point, and that’s been as true now as in the Dark Ages. But now as in the Dark Ages, you do things to prevent it, and you don’t do things you know are stupid and dangerous. Why? Because you know some people aren’t nice.
Cody. My second example actually came from the legal section of an article in the Playboy magazine. I'm going to try an find that article.
Ryan you made me laugh hard.
The poster above me, thank you. There are women that do this, and I feel they are partly responsible for their rape, if it should happen. It is good to see a legal mind agree.
I have a very difficult time believing girls do this. I know some incredibly sexual girls, and even they wouldn't do something like that because it isn't sexy. So I chose to ignore it as a patently silly scenario.
I can understand that. It is some of the reason you reject my opinion without experience, nor any examples.
It is something you haven't even thought through as a possibility.
I talked about this as well.
In my experience it isn't the sexy girl, it is the mean ones.
Sexy girls know they are such, so have no need.
I have stated what I felt about women who are quietly sexy, but that is another subject.
Here are some different examples of my second point.
They will all have different ways the women got the sperm, but they will illustrate what I'm saying.
ABC new Jan. 1. 2013
http://abcnews.go.com/US/kansas-sperm-donor-pay-child-support/story?id=18102778
In this case a man agreed to donate his sperm to a Lesbian couple. They offered him $50, but he and his wife decided not to take it. They had a contract saying he’d never be responsible. Now the state of Kansas has filed suit on the women’s behalf.
Reason, he didn’t donate it through a license doctor. The agreement meant nothing.
In this next case a man and his wife separated. He had some sperm stored. She used it to conceive twins without him knowing.
http://www.universalhub.com/2012/man-ordered-pay-child-support-twins-conceived-thro
This one is a bit more complicated. Basically a women used sperm after oral sex.
http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TT76UD289PGQSGSCN
Another complicated case.
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/02/01/illinois-court-rules-man-can-sue-over-deceptive-use-of-sperm-by-girlfriend-to-impregnate-herself/
There are lots of these cases.
The law basically says a man is responsible for his sperm if he is voluntarily involved with a women sexually no matter what she does with it after he leaves, or without his consent.
When you give your sperm, ejaculate, it is hers.
My humble advice, if you don’t enjoy shooting it inside her, take it with you.
Sorry, just had to. A man childish statement. Sue me!.
From what I can find out, most of those linked articles can be traced back to a daily mail article. That's about as journalistically dependable as dating a history claim back to a dan brown novel, but I'll give it to you. What's your point?
Post 227 says my point, but I’ll tie it in.
In the male/femail relationship arena, our social contract has created a situation in where a woman bares no responsibility for her actions.
Her actions can be mentally abusive. They can be fraudulent, in the situation where she makes a physical, and verbal promise to consent, than when the man is over the edge with draws them.
If these actions trigger a violent reaction in the man, she bares no responsibility. It is his 100%.
Also, if the ABC video news report wasn't strong enough, I could go to public court records.
There are lots and lots of cases like this.
Wayne, I'll address you directly here.
The man, shoved over the edge or whatnot, should still be responsible for what he does. If he rapes a woman, it's still rape. However, in certain cases I daresay it would be good to somehow punish a woman who was basically doing things that would, in the minds of some, amount to some form of sexual harassment on the man. To wit: woman harasses man, man gets really excited/angry/upset, man rapes woman. Man is very wrong; woman is still wrong, but not on the same order of magnitude.
Incidentally, the ideas presented in your links are quite frankly horrible. I wouldn't want to think that a girl could collect my sperm and then basically hang me with it. This is especially true if I'm using a condom and have absolutely no intention of fathering a child with her. That this is even a thing...well, it sickens me.
Shep, you understand I do agree the man is responsible right?
My issue is that in some cases, no matter what the woman has done, the people that apose me say she bares no responsibility at all.
Even if she sets out to do him wrong, well, we didn't know what was in her mind!
I’ve explained my position on this.
What is the law in Canada on the examples of the sperm collection?
I wasn't just saying something to be saying, as accused, this is actually a rule in the US. It is far better to give your sperm to a women in the act of enjoyable sex. If you don't want her to have it, do not give it to her, or leave it behind.
As soon as you release it, and she takes it, no matter how she takes it, you will be held responsible for her, or anyone else that she decides gets pregnant.
With the advancement of DNA there has even been talk of tracking down men that donate to sperm banks, in the event a woman that buys a baby can't support it.
Here is another interesting thought that came to mind.
Seems the law protects a man to some degree, but not always still, that donated his sperm under a license doctor.
What if the donor was the doctor?
A nurse knows a doctor that donates. She got a friend that wants a child, and enjoys the good life.
What if that nurse told that friend to come in to her sperm bank, and she’d fix her up with not only a child, but the means to live well?
The nurse would only have to have had sexual relations with the doctor to make it work.
Nasty thought, I know, but all she’d need do is reveal the identity of the sperm donor, the doctor, and he’d maybe have a fight on his hands.
How could he prove that the sperm that impregnated the girl that came to the sperm bank was not the sperm he willing gave in sexual relations to the nurse?
I have known these things for a long time, and when using condoms, I tie it up and take it home.
If you truly do not want a baby with a woman that is your only recourse. Anything else, and you take a chance, so when you are having sex with her, you have to accept this.
If she uses a female condom, she could collect a wonderful sample. Even if it goes in to her body, with the exception of down her throat, she could share it!
Wicked.
I think that here in the States, a woman does get punished enough in cases where it can be argued that she quote end-quote provoked a rape. To wit, these thoughts occur to me. Take again the woman who taunts the guy, shakes her ass in his face, teases him, scratches her crotch and waves her fingers in his face. Then she says the equivalent of you'll never get this because you're not good enough, or you're not enough of a man to take it. Granted these are extreme behaviors, and I hardly think such things occur even on a semi-regular basis. But let's say it does, and the end result is a rape. The guy she treats so abominably is so incensed at her brazenness, so pissed off that she would taunt him in this way that he takes what she seemingly offers and then withdraws so callously. Whether you like it or not, even a semi-decent defense attorney is going to present a case of reasonable doubt. She wanted it. She clearly showed she wanted it. What woman would act in such a way and not want it? In the end, it would all boil down to who is believed. Neither side's actions are particularly rational here, but if nobody witnessed the supposed rape and nearly everyone around both this woman and this man witnessed her actions, that's at least some moderate case of reasonable doubt that a rape occurred. And if the jury believes his testimony, or his defense counsel's assertions that everything was consensual, the end result is that the woman ends up being disbelieved and the man gets off scot-free. I would say that if it can be argued that rape is ever provoked and if this scenario is an example of how it can be done, then she is punished by her rapist being acquitted and herself being painted as a slut. You don't need any other legal remedies or debates over how to punish her.
I HAVE NOW RETURNED, BECAUSE I FEEL THAT IT IS IN THE UTMOST OF IMPORTANCE THAT I, (THE FUCKIN' BOMB DIGGITY), THE CHOSEN ONE, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS OF GOD OR ANY OTHER COMICAL REASONS, MUST FULFILL THE DUTY OF INFORMING THE ORIGINAL POSTER, THE CHOSEN GROOM, THAT HE, TO MUCH OF HIS UTMOST POSSIBLE DISAPPOINTMENT, HE IS NOT THE CENTER OF ATTENTION ON THIS TOPIC OF WHICH HE HAS CREATED WITH HIS SUPER MEGA PROFESSIONAL WRITING TALLENT AND VIA THE USE OF HIS CAPS LOCK KEY. IT SHOULD BE APPARENT BY NOW, THAT THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT BEYOND THAT MATTER, IF NOT SEVERAL DISAGREEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT, IN FACT, UNDER ANY POSSIBLE CIRCUMSTANCE OR SCENARIO ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET E ARTH, IF IN FACT, A WOMAN SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR PERPETRATING THE ACT OF "COCK TEASING," AS HE, GOD'S CHOSEN GROOM PUPPET STICK FIGURE CALLS IT. I HAVE SAT IN THE VERY SPOT THAT I WAS SITTING IN YESTERDAY, AT APPROXIMATELY 10 SOMETHING IN THE MORNING, WHEN I CONCOCKED MY FIRST MATTERIAL, THAT OF WHICH I POSTED ON THIS VERY BOARD TOPIC IN POST TWO HUNDRED AND THE TWENTY NINETH, DIRECTLY AFTER THE CHOSEN GROOM'S TOPIC. AND I AM SAD TO SAY, THAT HE, WHETHER IT WAS INTENTIONAL OR NOT, DID NOT RESPOND TO MY MAGNIFICENT MASTERPIECE, WHICH I SPENT ALL OF 20 MINUTES STRAINING EVERY MUSCLE IN MY HEAD AND BODY JUST ABOUT, BECAUSE WRITING IN THIS FORM TAKES BRUTALY HARSH EFFORT. BUT THE OTHER REASON WHY I HAVE DECIDED TO POST THE NEXT, PROBABLY EVEN BETTER OF THE TWO PIECES OF ART, IS TO ANSWER HIS QUESTION, BECAUSE I GOT SIDE TRACKED WHILE PUTTING TOGETHER THE ONE OF YESTERDAY AS THE RESULT OF PAYING MORE MIND TO THE NON-EXISTENCE OF THE LORD. BUT AT TIMES, WHEN I AM BORED LIKE I AM ON THIS VERY EVENING, I ENJOY PLAYING OUT SCENARIOES, LIKE THIS ONE AND ANY OTHER ONE, THAT MIGHT POSSIBLY NOT MAKE ANY UNEARTHLY SENSE WHATSOEVER. SO, WITH THAT SAID, AND WITH ALL DUCKS PUT IN A ROW, LET US BEGIN SETTING THIS SCENARIO UP. LET US ASSUME, THAT IN FACT, UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS A GOD WHO EXISTS. EVERYONE ON EARTH BELIEVES THERE IS A GOD, BUT THEY, THE STICK-FIGURE-PUPPETS THAT THEY ARE, HAVE NO SAY IN WHAT GOD, THE RULER, DECIDES IS APPROPRIATE IN SOCIETY OR INAPPROPRIATE IN SOCIETY. HE HAS THE POWER TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS WITH WHOEVER OR WHATEVER HE WANTS, WHENEVER HE PLEASES, BECAUSE HE IS GOD AND GOD CAN DO WHATEVER THE HELL HE DESIRES, AND HE CAN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE DEEMED TO GO TO HEAVEN OR HELL. SO ONCE UPON A TIME, IN A PLACE I WILL CALL THE GARDEN OF EDEN, THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE NAMED ADAM AND EEVE, WHO JUST SO HAPPENED TO BE ATTRACTED TO EACH OTHER, VERY STRONGLY AND INTIMATELY, AND THEY DESIRED EACH OTHER'S BODIES GREATLY. BUT THERE IS A TWIST, JUST LIKE MOST OF THESE AWESOME, BAD ASS FAIRY TALES DO --- EEVE WANTS TO PLAY AS "A COCK-TEASE", AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ADAM'S MANHOOD, TOTALLY AGAINST HIS WILL, WHETHER HE WANTS TO PLAY ALONG WITH IT OR NOT, POINT BLANK, PERIOD, END OF STORY. ONLY, THAT, MY FRIEND, WILL NOT BE THE END OF THE STORY, BECAUSE I AM PERSONALLY NOT THE FAN OF A CLIFF HANGER, THOUGH THAT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO WATCH UNFOLD. SO, EEVE APPROACHES ADAM SLOWLY AND SEDUCTIVELY, EVEN MORE SEDUCTIVELY THAN MRS. ROBINSON DID TO THE GUY IN THE GRADUATE, WITH HER BREASTS SAGGING, HER LIPS PARTED, AS SHE BREATHED SLOWLY AND WITH A SOFFT MOAN, AND SHE SAYS ADAM, HOWEVER THE HELL THEY SAY IT IN THAT CRAZY SHAKESPEARE SORT OF LANGUAGE OR WHATEVER THEIR STYLE WAS, "I WANT YOU ADAM, I WANT YOU AND THE D MORE THAN YOU CAN EVER IMAGINE BOY, GIVE IT TO ME." SO, ADAM KNOWS THE ROUTINE, AND HE ENFOLDS HER INSIDE OF HIS BIG MANLY SHWARTZINEGAR BICEPS. THEN HE PROCEEDS TO REMOVE HER CLOTHING, BUT THE MOMENT HE GOES TO INSERT HIS SOLID STAFF INSIDE THE WET WONDERLAND, SHE SAYS, "AH AH AH, NO NO NO. YOU, MY FRIEND, ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT, BECAUSE I HAVE DECIDED TO PLAY GAMES WITH YOU, AND KEEP YOU FROM DOING THAT, WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIKE IT." SO HE DOES, IN FACT, REMOVE HIMSELF FROM THE SITUATION, BUT ONCE AGAIN, AS IT IS TOTALLY UNEXPECTED TO ADAM, SHE APPROACHES HIM YET AGAIN AND TRIES TO SEDUCE HIM. BUT LIKE YOU, GOD'S CHOSEN BRIDE, ADAM REFUSES TO FALL FOR THE "COCK-TEASING BOOBY TRAP," AND REFUSES, COMPLETELY, IN ABSOLUTELY EVERY WAY POSSIBLE, THAT HE WILL NOT PLAY THE COCK TEASING GAME, NOR BE THE VICTIM OF THIS AWEFUL UNGODLY BEHAVIOR. SO, IF YOU HAVE NOT FIGURED IT OUT YET, MY FRIEND, THIS "COCK TEASING FAIRY TALE," OF YOURS IS PURPOSELY BEING IGNORED, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE LEAST BIT OF ATTENTION. AND, AS A RESULT OF THIS, THE OTHER POSTS THAT YOU MAKE TO THIS VERY EXISTING FUSTER CLUCK OF A BOARD TOPIC, WILL BE PASSED BY WITH A PASSING GLANCE (I HOPE WITH ALL OF MY HEART I DO NOT OFFEND THE BLIND WHO ARE TOUCHY ON REFERENCES TO SEEING), AND IGNORED JUST LIKE POST 228. I AM SIMPLY RESPONDING BECAUSE I COULDN'T LIVE ANOTHER DAY WITH OUT LETTING SOMEONE FEEL LEFT OUT, AND TO SEE, HOW LONG IN FACT, IF IT WOULD TURN OUT LONG AT ALL, MY NEXT RUBBISH OF A POST COULD BE, IF I COULD POSSIBLY COMPETE WITH THOSE WHO WRITE SUPER MEGA LONG TOPICS LIKE MY FRIEND LEO GUARDIAN, AND I FEEL LIKE I HAVE ACCOMPLISHED A PHEAT NEVER ACCOMPLISHED BY ANY SANE MAN. BUT WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ADUE, I SHALL NOW EXIT WITH GRACE, AND ALLOW THINGS TO GO BACK TO THEIR PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED PLANS, AND MAY THE BEST MAN WIN.
Johndy: that would be a great defense, but as you can see, most people, and even the law mainly disagree.
When I first opened the idea, I understood I'd be met with much anger and disagreement, and that seems to be how the people in America view it anyway.
I have pointed out that other countries don't.
First Johndy, people have to accept and give women responsibility who act in this fashion.
In Cody's example, I turned around, the girl goes at it with no plans to do anything but frustrate a man. She'd not be held responsible.
I painted the exact picture you have, and still, most say she's not responsible.
In one example, the woman send the man nude pictures of herself, accepted a date with him. After the date she agreed and went home with him. At that point she undressed, and started sexual relations with him. You know what? No matter how far she is in to the sexual interaction, if a man continues after she has expressed the desire to stop, he has raped her, even though he has used no force, anger, or intent to harm her. He has just finished the sexual relations she agreed to start.
She would bear no blame.
Remember the boxer Mike Tyson? The woman was in bed with him fully nude at 2 A.M in the morning after sneaking away from her chaperones. He finished the act they started, calling her a baby. Went to jail for 6 years.
She didn’t even get the fact of life explained.
Sure, he had to be wrong, but was it fair? That boy should have handed her clothes, and called somebody else, but he was dumb.
If you have a case you'd like to put up here, I'd love to see that.
Again, before it is suggested I be exstermenated or worse, I don't want her punished, but she does need to bare some responsibility. The rape, if that should happen is enough.
WELL, being that DIGRESSION from THIS BOARD-TOPIC is INEVITABLE and UNAVOIDABLE, due to any "SUBTRIGGER" to the "MAIN TRIGGER" OF this board-topic, I have an INCOMPLETE-DIRECT RESPONSE to ATHEISM, as has been expressed, and I CERTAINLY HOPE to add ANY PROBABLE/POSSIBLE FOLLOW-UPS, either HERE or PERHAPS I MIGHT CREATE a NEW BOARD-TOPIC of its nature, as posted below.
Evolution vs. Creationsim! The other night, Bill Nye "the science guy" debated Ken Ham of the Creation Museum. Having publicly debated many evolutionists over the years, I have found it always the easiest of all debates to not just win, but in so doing, open the door to share the Gospel. If God really did create us, than He created us with an eternal soul that is destined to hell because of our sin without putting our faith in Jesus Christ!
*How sad with all of the publicity surrounding the event last night Ham didn't take a few minutes to give people, INCLUDING NYE, an invitation to come to faith in Jesus Christ. What is the use of these hyped events unless it is also used to give the lost the opportunity to be saved???
There is probably nothing that angers me more than Christians, followers of Christ, who don't have the guts to stand up for the Truth of the Bible. Believers who feel the pressure of this lost world we live in to compromise the immutable truths of the Bible. A new term we have created to talk about Biblical creationism is "intelligent design." I get livid every time I hear that word used since we have created it solely for the purpose of being able to share our beliefs on how this world we live in and we came to exist. I submit to you today that "intelligent design" is simply a gutless word for those too afraid to say we believe what the Bible teaches about creation in Genesis 1-2:3! There are two competing views on how this world and how we came to exist. One is the theory of evolution that suggests over millions of years we evolved. This is the position held by those in the scientific community that reject the notion of "God." The other view is that there is a Supreme Being, a God who created everything. This is the position people of faith and those in the scientific community who accept the reality of a "God" hold. Let me end decades of arguments on this issue right now and tell you exactly how this world and we came to exist.
GOD TELLS US IN GREAT DETAIL IN GENESIS CHAPTER ONE THROUGH CHAPTER TWO VERSE THREE!!!
My friend, this world and all that is in it, including us, came into existence EXACTLY how the Bible tells us in Genesis 1-2:3! For every child and young adult out there that is in school, your homework assignment today is to read the first chapter of Genesis through the first 3 verses of chapter 2. Now you will never have to wonder or guess again how we came to be or how this world and all that is in it came to exist.
GOD SPOKE IT INTO EXISTENCE EXACTLY AS THE BIBLE SAYS! GOD CREATED MAN FROM THE DUST OF THE EARTH AND MADE HIM IN HIS IMAGE EXACTLY AS THE BIBLE SAYS! PERIOD! END OF DEBATE!
First of all, the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. A completely foolish one I might add. Not only have a large percentage of those in the scientific community abandoned it, the only reason it is still taught is because those who reject the existence of God have to have some explanation how this world came to exist and how we came to be. That is why I pity those who champion this theory, since even they have no explanation when you take what they believe back to the very beginning.
They say we evolved from monkeys. As you walk them backwards all the way to the very beginning, you are still left with the unanswered question of where did that first cell come from? It is the same problem those who try to explain the existence of the earth and all that is in it without there being a "God." You take them back to the very beginning and you are still left with the unanswered question of how did that first event come to be without the involvement of a "God."
The biggest problems with those who hold to a position that this world, we, came into existence without a "God," is that it means this is all an accident and we exist by mere chance with no real plan or purpose. If you believe we evolved from pond scum to monkeys, then our lives are utterly meaningless and this life has no purpose to it at all. For those who truly believe this, they are to be pitied among all men. What a sad existence if you go through this life believing you were an accident and your life has zero meaning or purpose.
That leaves us with the position held by those who do believe there is a "God" who created the earth and all that is in it, including us. I spent several semesters in seminary studying all of the various theories put forth to explain Biblically how the Bible could be correct and there could still have been million of years involved in the creation process. Theories that accepted the existence of a "God," but not exactly how the Bible describes creation.
After many hours alone with the Holy Spirit and God's Word, I came to one conclusion. THE ONLY ACCOUNT OF HOW THIS WORLD CAME TO EXIST AND HOW WE CAME TO BE WAS GOD'S ACCOUNT IN GENESIS CHAPTER 1! God literally spoke the world and all that is in it into existence in 6 literal days. and this world we live in is less than 7,000 years old!!!
News broke a few months ago that they had discovered a 50 MILLION year old fossil. Every time I hear one of these stories I cringe, since it only reinforces in the minds of the masses that this world did NOT come into existence the way God, the Creator Himself, said it did in the Bible. It only bolsters the myth generations who have now grown up in schools have been taught, that we "evolved" from a drop of pond scum and that we are little more than a genetic accident with no meaning or purpose.
Of course, to believe there is a 50 million year old fossil means you believe in the scientific dating method used to make that determination. Here is why carbon dating and all other methods used for dating these types of archaeological finds are flawed. When God spoke the earth into existence, it was created in a mature state. Unless you knew the mature age at the moment God spoke the world into existence, it is IMPOSSIBLE for any dating methods to be accurate!!!
Here is the problem if you take any other position. Once you start making excuses for what God's Word says, once you start finding ways for it to say something other than what it clearly and literally says, you are now playing a dangerous game. If the Biblical account of creation is not exactly as God says, what else isn't exactly as God says?
Did the walls of Jericho really come down the way the Bible says, or is there another explanation? Did the Red Sea really part as the Bible says, or is there another explanation? Did Noah's ark really exist as the Bible says or is their another explanation? Did Jesus really rise from that tomb on the third day as the Bible says, or is there another explanation? ARE WE REALLY SAVED BY FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST AS THE BIBLE SAYS, OR IS THERE ANOTHER EXPLANATION?
You see the problem? Once you start to doubt one part of God's Word, you have to start to doubt other parts of the Bible. My friend, you are free to believe whatever you want about the creation of this earth and all that is in it, about how we came to exist. I am NOT going to argue with you. There are many great ministries out there that deal with these issues. There are tons of great books that go into great detail on this subject. I choose to put my faith and belief in God's Word alone. I believe in BIBLICAL CREATIONISM. This world and all that is in it and we came to exist EXACTLY how God says in His Word!
I love you and care about you so much. One hundred years ago, even those who rejected God and His Word knew that God created
Haha lmfao Ryan! I love it! And yes, may the best man win. Wayne, the problem here is that people cease to grasp or accept that there are in fact some factors that women are not held responsible for. I'm not trying to be right. I'm just saying that a woman, especially when she teezes, and knows exactly what she's doing and still does it without thinking of the possible consequences is completely stupid and naive. I don't give a flying fuck if she's 45 and lives on her own and has two doctorate degrees. She may be educated, yet still remain a fool if she acts in an unmannerly, self-destructive fassion. I'm not talking about some fucking prick who was sexually frustrated and decided to rape a woman for no apparent reason. That's just beyond me. What I'm trying to get across is that even though it's not ever her fault, it wouldn't hurt to avoid certain behaviors when the circumstances deem appropriate for her to do so. If she wishes to arouse a guy, and kiss him and have him lick her fingers after scratching her crotch, and then decides to have a passionate fuck with this person, more power to her, it ain't my boddy, I can't judge. But if she does this, and leads on to something she won't consent to in the end, and the guy doesn't respect that, of course he's a dick. I think he doesn't deserve to live, he might rape more people in prison or elsewhere. That's just me, though. But that's why I'm saying that I as a woman never know, and I'll only make those moves, in this case, on my man, because I so want the end results of it with him. And lets just say, lets say, that I were to go to clubs and I wanted to have sex with a stranger, Like I said before I'd be extra careful, not just because I want to have sex with this person, but because I don't know what is in his mind. And because I don't know what is in his mind, and he doesn't either, I want to be sure I can get myself out of a situation where I can't defend myself if I decide not to consent to sexual intercourse. . Thaj's all.
the heavens and earth and created them as well. Fifty years ago, those in the scientific community that rejected God was doing its best to propagate this laughable theory of evolution even though the vast majority of people thoroughly rejected it.
Now, in 2014 after 40+ years of no prayer and Bible teaching in school, having allowed society to take God out of every aspect of public life, those who hold to the Biblical account of Creation are laughed at as narrow-minded mental midgets while those who "know how to think" hold to a theory that says we came from pond scum and makes our life nothing more than an accident with no purpose.
For those who know the Bible to be God's inspired, inerrant Word, representing Absolute Truth and our final authority in all matters, we have NOTHING to apologize for and nothing to be ashamed of. We certainly have no reason to be trying to hide our beliefs by creating terms like "intelligent design" so we appear to be more intellectual to this nonbelieving world. The fact we are even discussing what is so clear from God's Word only shows how void of God and His Truth our society has become.
The last thing those who know Chris as their Savior and hold to the Truth of His Word need to be doing is compromising or minimizing the power of that Truth. The world is HUNGRY for the truth we possess. The next time someone asks you how the world came to exist, how we came to be, tell them the answer is exactly as described in Genesis 1-2:3. God Himself tells us the answer and that is good enough for me!
Although this response to the prior atheistic posts is STILL incomplete, because I DO have a DIRECT RESPONSE to DISTANCE RUNNER'S post of: "WELL, I TRIED MY EXTREME VERY HARDEST TO FOLLOW EXACTLY, WORD FOR WORD, WHAT IT IS THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ASK OF US RATIONAL, COMPLETELY 100 PERCENT TRUSTWORTHY ZONERS BEHIND THE COMFORT AND SAFETY OF OUR COMPUTERS, BUT I HAVE FOUND THAT IT IS OH SO DIFFICLT, IF NOT COMPLETELY 10,000 PERCENT IM-POSSIBLE TO FOLLOW YOUR POINTS, AS I AM TRYING TO ILLUSTRATE BY WRITING IN THIS EXTRA MEGA-PROFESSIONAL MANNER. BUT I WILL TRY TO PUT MY POINT-OF-VIEW IN A WAY THAT YOU MIGHT UNDERSTAND, IN A WAY THAT WILL GET ACROSS TO YOU. FIRSTLY I WANT TO MAKE IT KNOWN, RIGHT OFF THE BAT, RIGHT FROM THE STARTING GATE, THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS EVER A GOD IN EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY. THE IDEA OF AN ALL MIGHTY GOD IS SO TWISTED AND VARIOUS, AMONG ALL THINGS, AND THE VARIOUS TYPES OF SILLY VARIETIES OF RELIGIONS ACROSS EARTH, AND POSSIBLY, ON OTHER PLANETS THAT OTHER HUMANS MIGHT POSSIBLY INHIBIT, WHICH MIGHT JUST BY CHANCE INCLUDE MARS, BUT THAT IT IS STILL UP-IN-THE-AIR, AS FAR AS I KNOW. CHRISTIANITY IS FILLED UP LIKE A GLASS OF ICE WATER WITH SO MANY CONTRADICTIONS, THAT I, A HUMAN BEING WITH AN INCREDIBLY HIGH IQ LEVEL OF 100-00, STRUGGLE, OH-SO-HARDLY, TO GRASP IT BY THE REINS WITH MY STRONG MANLY FINGERS. IF THERE WAS A GOD, WHY, IN ALL HIS OH-HOLY LOGIC, WOULD HE CREATE A WORLD THAT WOULD IN ESSENCE OF ESSENCE, SLOWLY AND COMPLETELY DESTROY ITSELF FROM THE INSIDE OUT, LIKE AN EVIL OUT-OF-CONTROL VIRUS? WHY, IN ALL HIS HOLLY BEING LOGIC, WOULD HE MAKE 10 COMMANDMENTS, THAT HE ASKS OF HIS PUPPET-STICK FIGURES OF PEOPLE (IN CASE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, I AM TALKING ABOUT ALL OF YOU, MYSELF, AND THE MEGA BILLIONS OF OTHER LIVING AND BREATHING HUMANS THAT INHABIT THE HARSH PLANET OF E ARTH), ONLY TO BREAK THEM HIMSELF THROUGH HIS STICK FIGURE PUPPETS? THERE ARE COUNTLESS, NUMBEROUS, EXAMPLES AFTER EXAMPLES THAT I CAN POINT OUT TO YOU IN THE BIBLE, THE HOLY BOOK THAT HAS BEEN CREATED IN SEVERAL EDITIONS, WHICH BY THE WAY DO NOT ALL AGREE ON EVERY SINGLE ITTY BITTY ASPECT OF CHRISTIANITY THAT THERE IS, BUT I WILL LEAVE THAT UP TO YOU, MY FRIEND, AS I AM NOT REALLY IN THE MOOD TO SIFT THROUGH THE FLOUR IN THE PAN AS I CALL IT AT THIS VERY EXACT MOMENT IN TIME, AND BECAUSE I AM THE FUCKIN' BOMB DIGGITY, AS IF YOU DIDN'T ALL READY KNOW THAT ABOUT ME, AND I DON'T HAVE TO FIVE EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!! BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SINCERELY APPOLOGIZE, TO EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU FABULOUS ZONERS, BECAUSE IT HAS SEEMED THAT I HAVE GONE ON A BIT OF A WINDY, ZIG-ZAGGED TANGENT, THAT OF WHICH I AM NOT SURE WHAT IT IS EXACTLY I WAS EVEN GOING AT, AND I WILL NOW TO ATTEMPT, WITH EVERY OUNCE OF MY STRENGTH, TO BRING THIS PARTY BOAT BACK TO SHORE WITHOUT SINKING IT ANY FURTHER IN TO THE BOTTOMLESS ABYSS. NOW, AS I WAS SAYING, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A CONTRADICTORY HOLY GOD ALL MIGHTY, IT DOES NOT, AT ALL, MAKE THE WORLD, BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINE (SANE OR NOT), ANY SAFER OF A PLACE. IN FACT, I WILL GO OUT ON THE LIMB OF A 5,000 FOOT TREE, AND PREACH, AS MANY OF US STRONG-WILLED, HEARTLESS, EVIL ATHEISTS DO OH-SO-FREQUENTLY, JUST TO PISS OFF EVERYONE TO NO AVAIL, (SORRY IF I SPELLED THAT WRONG, BUT PLEASE BELIEVE I AM REALLY REALLY TRYING HERE TO PROVE MY POINT FLAWLESSNESSLY), THAT ALL RELIGION IS MISLEADING, CORRUPT IN SOME WAY, AND MORE CONTRADICTORY THAN A VIRGIN SLUT," which MIGHT be in a FUTURE post, if not HERE, due to my CURRENT MULTI-TASKING becoming UNMANAGEABLE, THIS DOES, so far, AND CONTINUES TO, MAKE LAUGHABLE SUCH BLASPHEMOUS, TOTALLY NON-AFFECTIVE VENOM, such as what's been SPEWED. MEANWHILE:
In Response to all the Religions
Why do Christians claim Jesus is God? Why do we ignore other teachers and teachings from other religions. Why do we say He is the only way and we cannot accept that there are other ways to God? These are the questions most often asked about us.
When we look at other religions they are not just asking us to add on their teacher but to ignore Jesus, and give their leader equal or a greater prominence. Jesus is then superceded by another, something no Christian would never do. Many leaders of these other religions often are opposed to what Jesus said or they change His statements to make them suitable in their own religious framework. Jesus asked the people to follow him alone, not only for that time and then look for another afterwards. Islam, Bahai, Mormonism [and others] all claim their prophet was to come with a new revelation in line with all the prophets. But why should accept these men’s claims unless they have proof. If Jesus is God follow him, if Mohammed, Baha’u’llah, Buddha or Krishna is God then follow him. Just about anyone can claim to be God and many have. Even in our modern times, there have been many but it is a whole other thing to prove it. Only one came from heaven died and raised from the dead, and ascended back to where He came from. This becomes the eliminating factor that makes it the Grand Canyon jump that no one can survive.
Some claim there are similarities to the moral ethical commands of Judaism/Christianity and other religions, such as in the teachings in Buddhism. This can be agreed upon to a certain extent. However there is a historical and Biblical reason for this. Religion can instill moral values and improve ones life temporarily but in the end it cannot affect our eternal state that continues after this life. The reason is that it does not have the solution to mans disease, it does not have the cure.
Romans chapter1 teaches that we all had a common ancestry and had the knowledge of God in common until mankind left the truth and started to worship the creation (paganism) instead of the creator of creation. From the time of Genesis God gave one man and woman together to be husband and wife and make a family. There was harmony in the family. Man knew it was wrong to murder, steal and lie from the beginning.
Rom 1:19-25: “Because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were
thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-- and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”
Romans 1:28-32: “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.” Notice these are things that religions address, moral and ethical issues.
Also, we all have a conscience to instruct us in the basic guidance of what is right and wrong, he is like the umpire in certain respects. It is built into us as instinct to know what to do and not to do certain things. For example no matter what continent someone is on they know its wrong to murder another person. This would only change if a whole society or culture mandated a opposite philosophy as law which would go against ones conscience. The Bible also teaches that God has put eternity in our hearts. Man knows what he sees in this lifetime is not all there is. This is why almost unanimously all religions have a teaching on an afterlife, its built in knowledge there is an unseen afterlife. So we can trace many of the moral codes in the various religions to a common source from mans beginnings. But then Christianity rises above all the rest of the worlds religions in that it explains these thing in truth by the one who is the source of all things.
Even within the framework of Judaism and Christianity men like Moses and the prophets or Paul and Peter might have been replaced by other equally good men, but it is not so with Christ. On this theme Charles Gore writes: “To recognize this truth is to be struck by the contrast which in this respect Christianity presents to other-'religions. For example, the place which Mohammed holds in Islam is not the place which Jesus Christ holds in Christianity, but that which Moses holds in Judaism. The Arabian prophet made for himself no claim other than that which Jewish prophets made, other than that which all prophets, true or false, or partly true an partly false, have always made,--to speak the word of the Lord. The substance of Mohammedanism, considered as a religion, lies simply in the message which the Koran contains. It is, as no other religion is, founded upon a book. The person of the Prophet has its significance only so far as he is, supposed to have certificated the reality of the revelations which the book records.
Gautama, again, the founder of Buddhism, one, I suppose, of the noblest and greatest of mankind, is only the discoverer or rediscoverer of a method or way, the way of salvation, by which is meant the way to win final emancipation from the weary chain of existence, and to attain Nirvana, or Parinirvana, the final blessed extinction. Having found this way, after many years of weary searching, he can teach it to others, -but he is, all the time, only a preeminent example of the success of his own method, one of a series of Buddha's or enlightened ones, who shed on other men the light of their superior knowledge....”
The men who inaugurated these religious systems did not remain as the fountain source of all that they proposed, they were all cut short by the enemy of mankind, death. Nor do they remain as living executors of the order in the universe but have relinquished any control they had to another.
So many say I believe in Jesus, what they mean is they believe He existed and is a great teacher and a good man, but not that He is who Christians (and the Bible) claim He said He is. How do we know that that He claimed He was God? The Bible says this. It is this same Bible that Jesus quoted from the Old Testament about His teachings and Himself in prophecy.
If this is not true, then Jesus is neither a good man nor a true teacher. What other teacher do you know that said to make Jesus our Lord and follow Him ONLY. Or claimed they created the universe and then had organic miracles to prove it. If we look at the three or four main religions it was NOT Mohammed, Baha’u’llah, Krishna nor Buddha that claimed this,-- they couldn't. The Christian Gospel is not one truth among many “truths” that people nowadays can choose from, like going to a smorgasbord and choosing what one will or will not eat. It is either all true or not true at all. Because it claims to be all true and it is God who is watching over His word to preserve it.
Are you an honest skeptic willing to look at the evidence? We welcome those who are pursuing truth. There is an immense difference between a dishonest and honest skeptic. A dishonest skeptic will not believe even if they have the evidence, they will not call it evidence even if it is. It is then when the religious person needs to check his own heart to see if they care for truth.
If you can't recognize your sin then you can't have Jesus as a savior and you will as He said “unless you believe I Am you will de in your sins.” Jesus is the God of Moses that came only once in human flesh. This is the message of Christianity and it is what separates the wheat from the chaff of other religious teachers. If Jesus is who he said He is, (which is by proof, no one else has any contrary.) Then if you don't listen to Him it becomes the ultimate danger to ones soul. Religions are not all the same, like the example that all human are of the same species. No, not all religions lead to God. because there is only one from God. The only thing we do all hold these things in common is our sinful nature. But the solution is not the same in all religions that is offered to all. If it is only sin that needs to be given up for one to be pleasing to God or to go to heaven, than all we would need to do is give up our bad habits, but it goes much deeper than this.
All religion's have in common man pleasing God by his own hands and deeds, they are trying to reach upward to God. Christianity teaches man is unable to reach God, it took God himself to reach downward from heaven. He personally became a man to accomplish the solution for our dilemma which has always been sin.
Spiritual sayings are not enough it has to be the eternal truth that never changes from the God who came last of all in the person of JESUS CHRIST the ONLY TRUE GOD and savior. Christianity is summed up in the person of Christ. If you take Buddha out of Buddhism, Mohammed out of Islam…,Krishna out of Hinduism…, Baha'u'lla out of Bahaism…you still have their teachings intact, they are all doing quite well without their originator and teacher not being alive today. If you take Christ out of Christianity, if He didn’t rise you have nothing. All the religions “ point to' the graves of their leaders, no matter how brave or how ingenious they are. They all lie there waiting for their day to stand before the God they wanted to know; only Christianity points to an empty tomb and the promise to empty the graves by the one who rose first to live eternally.
None of these men were confirmed by the power of God, they are still dead, Jesus was resurrected and will judge the
and the dead.
John 3:19-21: “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. “For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. “But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.” How does one know whether they practice the truth or a lie? By coming to the light (truth) found in Christ and the Bible.
Salvation is not by believing in God but by believing inthe gospel
To believe in God only makes us no longer an atheist. We are then a theist, but no one could have there sins forgiven by just believing in God. One must believe in the God who became man and died for your sins to be washed away. It is an act of unprecedented love that is not seen in any other religion. No other came from heaven and died for your sins while you rejected and hated Him. What Jesus did would be like you taking your worst enemy, someone who did evil to you personally, out to the best dinner he ever had and treat him as family and give the very best you have.
1 Peter 3:15: "Sanctify the lord in your hearts and always be ready to give a defense. To everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you." Not many people have hope and some have a false hope. All need hope but it needs to be true or its not real hope. As Christians were are asked to explain and defend the truth of Christ and God. So if we do this, don’t be offended, we only want you to come into a relationship with the same God that we now know. It is for no other reason than out of love and care for you as individuals. Because God cares so do we, Jesus Christ is still alive and changes hearts and lives today as He did when He first came nearly 2,000 years ago.
Maybe your tire from all the religious activities, the rituals you do; all the do's and don'ts you have to obey to please God. Jesus offered - “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. “Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. “For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.” (Matt 11:28-30)
NOW, to get BACK to the ORIGINAL TOPIC, as well as say what I've ALWAYS been saying ALL ALONG, which is: while "YALL" continue to "RUN a TOTAL MUCK" with this, I, MYSELF, am COMPLETELY ARMED against ALL who COCK-TEASE, and JUST AS they'll ALWAYS UNSUCCESSFULLY PROTEST, I'LL ALWAYS be FULLY-BENEFITTED by their AT-TIMES-ENTERTAINING REACTIONS, AFTER the VERY FACT of THEIR having been REJECTED, THEMSELVES, BY ME, for THEIR INITIALLY REJECTING me.
CORRECTION to my LAST PREVIOUS POST: in the VERY BEGINNING, I ACCIDENTALLY FORGOT to add: "LIVING" to complete where it read, beginning with the VERY ENDING of my IMMEDIATE NEXT-ABOVE POST, segwaying into the VERY BEGINNING of my IMMEDIATE-ABOVE-to-THIS POST: " None of these men were confirmed by the power of God, they are still dead, Jesus was resurrected and will judge the living and the dead."
Lol what the fuck? Wow! This has got to be a joke, right? I do have my comments, but I'll reserve them for the appropriate debate/discussion. Either way, I'm highly amused! :)
I do want to address one thing though I had sworn off being on this topic. Cody accused me of hearkening to some sort of maybury time when men were men and all that.
Problem with that is, on here and any number of fatherhood places on the web, I've been pretty open about being a domestic type, one who doesn't mind any number of domestic duties and all that. And I've also been honest about finding the stereotype nearly whimsical. Where I came from, humans of all shapes and sizes and genders did pretty much any task inside or out, and only the feminists and the fundamentalists were the ones talking roles. Lol maybe Karen Straughan is right when she says the feminists and religious get their ideas for roles from being generally upper class people At least for us two shits working class types, if you can do it, get 'er done.
Of the two of us, when The Chick and I met, I was the one who cooked, not she. And not out of some obligation taught by the guilters at schools and churches: I just happened to know how and never minded doing it. When it came to assembling the new furniture from Ikea, I helped yes, but She is the obviously better at it. And not because of Her sight, but because of Her abilities.
Only upper class privileged types can afford to sit around and make up stories about / talk about roles. The rest of us stiffs just go out there and get 'er done. I don't really hearken back to anything. I do question whether such a Maybury actually existed then. I get that division of labor is something that separated us from our pre-homo-sapien ancestors and allowed us to surpass them, but that probably has more to do with abilities than genitalia.
Wayne, how do you have someone bear responsibility without punishing them? You suggested classes, but those are meaded out as punishments. Anger management, when legally mandated as your scenarios would have to be, would be a punishment. You're trying to dance the line, and you're just not able to do it.
Yes Wayne, if you are having sex with a girl, and she says stop, and you don't, its rape. She has no responsibility for what happens after she says stop. Its like when you're kids, and you're playing, if you say stop, anything after that is not your fault. You can be roughhousing, but if you say stop, its no longer playing. The word stop takes it from innocent sex, to rape. Whether the man says it, or the woman says it.
As for your cases, I've done more investigation, and in almost all of them the women were found guilty of some sort of fraud. So you're not right in saying they aren't punished. Its also a very rare thing. Its actually more rare than mass shootings, and those are rare as can be.
Leo, I didn't address what you do, I addressed what you said. Its entirely possible what you said and what you did are totally different things.
I'll concede any type of thing given to the women would be a form of punishment.
I don't mean like jail time or a fine.
I would think some reading, or a class on sexual behavior, but the punishment, I'll have to call it that, would have to be decided depending on what happened.
I've agreed and stated a man should stop no matter the place in the sexual interaction, so we agree there. Even so, I feel it is unfair for a woman to do that just to exsert power.
That situation I've been in personally. We were not having sex completely, but she did put a stop on it, and told me she just wanted to see how far I'd go.
When I say I don't want her punished, I mean harshly, like the man has to face.
But you still feel she should be punished, not for doing something harmful, but for doing something that you feel is inappropriate. (please have your screen reader scream the words "you feel" in that sentence) Would you like to come down off your power trip and grow up for a bit Wayne. Its fun, I promise. The term growing pains doesn't actually mean its painful.
Guess what Wayne, people do things that pis me off all the time. I'm a passionate person, I'm pissed off by a lot of things. I was pissed off by those stupid people who thought the Coke commercial was anti-American. I get pissed off at sighted people who don't open doors when you're walking behind them, or hold them open that is. I get pissed when doors are left half open. I get pissed when people treat me as if I'm four while trying to give me directions, which they usually get wrong anyway, which also pisses me off. And then I swear under my breath, silently call them a son-of-a-bitch, and get the fuck on about my day. I don't beat them senseless with a crowbar.
So yes, is it a dick move for a woman to lead you on like that? Yes Wayne, its a dick move. You would have been totally in your rights to call her a bitch. You would have been within your right to never talk to her again. You would have been in your right to laugh at her. You would have ben in your right to ridicule her. You would have ben in your right to go give her sister the best sex she's ever had, and pay her to tell the original girl in graphic detail how you ruined her for other men. You're within your right to tell every single one of your friends and family not to let that girl seduce them because she's trouble. You are within your right to go home and jack off while thinking of her. You're within your right to jack off while thinking of her eighty-four times a day if you want to. But you're not within your right to rape her. So, if you were to do it, she would not be responsible.
Responsible for pissing you off, sure. Responsible for being a bitch, absolutely. Responsible for being a purveyor of dick moves, right there with you. Responsible for getting raped? Abso-fucking-lutely not.
And that brings me back to one of my original objections. If you had the testicular fortitude not to rape her. If you had the courage not to rape her. If you had the understanding not to rape her. If you had the ability not to rape her. If you had the adverse desire not to rape her. If you had the slightest inkling of a sense that told you not to rape her. If, as I presume you did, you had any reason rhyme or wherewithal not to rape the girl. Why are you saying that its ok for men in that exact same position to do what you were man enough not to do?
Lastly Wayne, I have a bit of a childish question. Who the fuck died and made you the morality police? If a girl wants to do what she did, its her right. She's a dick, but she's not breaking any law. Why do you want to make nonharmful actions a law? That's on the same logical level as saying that anal sex is wrong because you think its yucky. You are literally making the argument wayne that you think it should be illegal, or at the very least grounds for punishment which is the same as being illegal, for a woman to act in a way which makes you feel yucky. That, and this will wound SW's sensibilities, is pathetic, and that's also one of my original points.
Seems like I'm pretty well grown.
You see your list of things that piss you off, wouldn't faze me at all.
Even what issue I'm talking about doesn't piss me off, because I don't have the trigger.
However, I do feel it is unsafe, and unfair for women to be allowed to beheave in such a fasion and not be educated.
In the cases I have stated, she needs some education.
I keep saying, and I will say again, I am not every man.
A woman could do all, and more all day to me and never trigger anything in me but pitty.
She deliberately does the other to some guy, who doesn't have control, and she might get harmed.
There needs to be a law, because you are correct. A woman can act in anyway she likes, and it is not against the law as is stands.
We've got laws in place for the man's behavior, why is it so hard to do the same for women?
Probably goes back to that playground situation.
No Wayne, it doesn't. It goes back to the fact that our laws are based on an idea by a man named John Locke. He lived in England in the seventeenth century. He wrote this little thing called the "second treatess on government". Its worth a read. Its a bit of a hard one, but I highly suggest picking it up. You can find it online for fre.
Now, in this little page turner, Locke laid out an idea. This idea was that any man in a society has the right to act as he wishes until it harms another man or that man's property. He used the word man, but he meant human, so its every person really. So, every person has the right to do as they wish until they harm another person or another person's property.
Rape, is harming another person Wayne. I'm sure you agree on that. Teasing is not. That is why I keep repeating that little point you seem to be skimming over. You're trying to punish, and don't back away from the word punishment now Wayne, you already wrote it down. You are trying to punish women for doing something which harms no one.
Now, you used the word unsafe, and yes, it is unsafe. Now, do you know what we do with unsafe places or things Wayne? We make them safe again. That's what we do.
Guns have this little switch, most of them anyway, its called the safety. People with knowledge will see an unsafe gun, and flip that little switch to put it on safe. Thus, they take an unsafe thing and make it safe.
Lets make it simpler though. What do you do when you find glass on the beach Wayne? Do you sit back and say to anyone who cuts there foot, "well you knew walking barefoot on the beach was dangerous you dumbass", or do you pick up the glass and make it safe?
The answer is, you put up a little notice saying, "broken glass". Then, you pick up the glass. You inconvenience people for a short time until you can fix the problem. You don't punish them for being injured.
Right now, we have to put up little signs for women saying, "don't do these things", or "danger, rapests". Then, we fix the problem. The problem here wayne, is not the women. Its the men with the triggers. Rapests are the problem. Lets fix the rapests, not the women who aren't hurting anyone.
What do we do about the people that put the glass down, then get cut? Do we allow them to sue the owners of the beach, because they got cut?
What is your solution to what we should do about these rapist?
Maybe as soon as a man drops his testies, he gets tested to learn if he has the trigger. If so, we castrate him?
Now, we can't be testing women. It isn't right.
Oh, and I forgot. Why doesn't that man's little document that lived in the 17th centrury allow me to read my Playboy magazine on a domestic flight.
Why can't I sit in a beauty shop and unbuttom my fly and show off the fact I've got on nice, clean pretty underwear?
That little free document doesn't protect me from getting arrested, and find for having an erection in some states, because it is a state law, that a man seen with an erection on a public street can be arrested.
Have you ever been going about your daily business and gotten one? It is on the books in some states believe it or not.
That little document doesn't protect me, an 18 year old male that falls in love with a 17 year old girl, from getting charged with statutory rape, because I was making love to my consenting girlfriend on a Saturday night when her daddy came home, got mad, and called the police?
She can swear up and down she wanted me, but it won't matter.
I harmed no one, but yet, I am now listed on the sexual crimes list a felon, so now I can't vote, can't own property, can't carry my hunting rifle, all because I was a man, that some girls daddy got mad at.
Who claims that my 18 year old girlfriend, I am enjoying on a Saturday night when I'm 17 is molesting me? No one.
Hell, its my fault, and I get my cellphone and car taken for a week for having that girl in my room.
In your first example, you used a two step process. I've detailed time and time again that we are dealing with a three step process. It isn't, girl looks hot, guy rapes girl. Its girl looks hot, guy likes but can't have girl, guy decides to violate girl's rights. You failed to take that into consideration in your scenario. Rape is not a direct result of any action. There is no action which leads directly, without fail, to rape. None.
As for your other questions. I invite you to show me a gene for rape. Cuz there ain't one. Go ahead, the entire human genome is online to be studied. Point out this trigger gene you think exists.
Guess what, there isn't a precognition or a preset for rape. Rape and the prreclivity for rape is environmentaly and socially engrained. The only exception to that is the case of torture which can be brought on by some forms of mental disorder. and if we could find a test for those, and even better a cure, yes, we should do that.
Yes, girls get tested all the time, but girls do not rape as often, or as easily as men. When a girl rapes it is called molestation or assault because it is anatomically improbable to the point of impossibility for a girl to force penetration of the vagina on a guy. I'm sure you can imagine why, if you can't, jack off more and you'll get it eventually.
Now, as for the law being on the books. There is also a law that says showering naked in the state of florida can get you arrested. There's a law that says any horse which eats a fire hydrant in the state of ohio or some such Midwestern state can be fined. There is a law that says all drivers in the country must pull off the road when they se a horse and buggy approaching. There are stupid laws on the books. There is an entire website dedicated to nothing but stupid laws of every shape and kind. None of them are enforced.
The reason you're not allowed to go into a shop and unbutton your fly is because of decency laws. We, as a society, going back to Locke's ideas here, have decided that certain things are damaging to the public good. That is one of them. And you, who want to be all male biased, should know that women are not allowed to do that either. Women are actually allowed to show les than men are.
Finally, wayne, go to google and look up the dictionary definition of statutory rape. Sweetie, I don't know if you know this, but its not the same frickin thing. IF you're eighteen and sleeping with a sixteen year old, it isn't rape, its statutory rape. Unles she was unwilling then it is rape, and only the parents of the girl can charge statutory rape.
And yes, you clueless bastard, women get charged with that all the time. There was a news report about that exact thing happening less than a month ago. She found Jesus, it made national news.
Wayne, use your brain a bit, stop listening to the guys in the tin foil hats, they're making you look stupid. Oh, and read your magazine all you want to. People read playboy on planes all the time without a problem. I promise.
You promise? Can I call you when they fine me and hold me up from catching my next connecting flight?
I use the example of unbuttoning my fly, because I use to see women's panties all the time.
You've never been visual, so that would be odd to you how.
You know the style low rise jeans right?
Next a mini skirt shows panties quite nicely, I'll admit. Wish I had the sight back. Smile.
I did say the daddy got mad, and file charges.
We, as I've said just can't agree here. No matter how you tell me to grow up, I just can't.
I love women dearly, and don't want them harmed, but sadly, I've seen some do some silly stuff, or mean things, than wonder why they got harmed.
Some knew better, others didn't.
My last childish statement, and then I really won't post unless asked a question directly, or someone makes a direct statement.
Yes I lied about that.
Now my statement.
I absolutely love women. I adore them. I personally would hate to live without them in my humble life.
A girl in a midriff shirt, low rise jeans, so I can see the top of her thong, ad the crack of her butt, sandles, and the shirt is tight across her chest is a lovely sight to see.
Let freedom last!
I love how people say that they love women, and then proceed to say absolutely nothing about women. They just prattle off a list of parts of women they love to see.
Its never, give me a sharp whit and a pretty laugh and one who can knock back a beer or a shot of whiskey and I'm happy. Never, give me one that can dance and knows the difference between Dickins and Dickinson and I'm happy. Its never, give me one who can sing like an angel, likes to curl up in front of a fire during a snowstorm, and knows how to judge a wine by the type of grape used in it making rather than the arbitrary color of it and I'm happy. None of those things. Just, give me a skirt and a thong. So very sad.
If you'll remember, I said a while back that there were studies done that proved men did that. That we only se parts of women, not women in general or as whole humans. Leo, I believe it was, told me he didn't believe it. Do you believe it now Leo?
Ok wayne, let me explain it to you. It is not illegal for you to unzip your jeans. Its just considered weird. So long as your penis is not visible, it isn't illegal. Just like it is not illegal for a woman to show off hers so long as her vagina or anal opening is not showing, or her nipples and areolas. Those are the rules. Now whether the owner of a private business wishes to serve you while you are dressed that way, is up to them.
And yes, you can call me when you get arrested after your flight. I'll buy you a lawyer.
He didn't notice my "childish statement.
I knew he'd come back with his "skirt and thoung stuff.
If you remember about a zillion posts back, I told you women meant way more to me than that video depicts?
I disagreed with it. Not completely, but mostly.
An aircraft seems to be rated as a private business, and the flight attendant can ask me to put my girlie book away.
Send me the money, If you are going to waste it, I'll spend it wisely. I can read anytime, over a whiskey with your legal fees in my pocket.
Yep, that be real nice. Probably could sshare it with a skirt and thong even.
ONE THING'S CERTAIN that IN ADDITION to those of us who post to this topic, you ALSO have READERS, ONLY, as WELL, who at ANY TIME, of course, DO HAVE THE LIBERTY to JUMP RIGHT ON IN and JOIN the REST of us posters. WHO'S to DETERMINE that there COULDN'T/WOULDN'T be ANYONE who's CURRENTLY READING this VERY TOPIC, and even PROBABLY/POSSIBLY have been from the VERY BEGINNING, without ANY DISTRACTION, WHATSOEVER, that's INFLUENTIAL ENOUGH to ACTUALLY have a bill, NOT ONLY just ON THE BOOKS, but OFFICIALLY SIGNED into LAW and ENFORCED against THOSE WOMEN, ONLY, who DELIBERATELY COCK-TEASE, and THEIR PUNISHMENT would ONLY/ALWAYS EQUAL THAT of the MEN that RAPE, as a result of having been provoked BY such women? WHAT, THEN, would THIS TOPIC ACTUALLY be like? LET'S SEE HOW CREATIVE WE ALL can be in answering THIS!
Lol there's very few woman that I know of who are in to doing shots of whiskey, at least in my experience. I tell most girls how I enjoy Jack Daniel's or Jaimison and 9 times out of 10 they say it's too much. It is less likely with beer but it seems like a lot of them don't like beer either, especially the darker types that I like. But I get where you are coming from though.
Just a sidelight, and I'll address this to Wayne without any animosity:
Locke is in many ways the basis for a lot of our laws these days. The bit about harming a man or his property and all that. However, property is suspect, as is harm, at least to a certain degree. It explains very neatly why things like rape and murder and burglary are against the law, and I'm pretty sure I explained this awhile back (didn't mention Locke, mind you).
Personally, I think your point about, say, exposing yourself in public is a fairly decent one, most notably because it stops the idea of "harm" being purely physical. If I've got my jeans unzipped sitting in an airport,,I may be offending the hell out of someone if my penis is showing but I'm not hurting them physically, not a bit.
In the same way, certain forms of harassment don't physically hurt the person being victimized, but the definition of harm can still be satisfied if the victim is angered, upset or otherwise seriously inconvenienced. In that light, I would personally think that a woman who really and truly cockteased a man (or a man who really and truly fucked around with a woman in the same fashion), could and maybe should be dealt with. If there is currently no law that says you can't do this sort of dick move, maybe there ought to be. Sexual liberation is kind of pale as an argument against this, since if you have to be a jerk in order to get your jollies, you're probably doing it wrong. Locke, too, seems kind of thin on the ground here. Either there should be more laws regarding the harm people can do to one another, or that particular yardstick should be put back in the seventeenth-century cupboard where it came from.
In the meantime though, I'd not advise exposing yourself in public. Also, thanks for the impromptu advice about playboy..I wasn't exactly planning to bring semi-pornographic material on my next flight, but now that I know I might be detained over it, it really puts paid to things. Amazing the shit you learn if you listen.
Also, I think there's very little wrong with finding appeal in how a man or a woman looks, provided the respect you have for that woman or man is healthy and honest. If you break it down, a lot of the things we like are...sort of arbitrary. I don't give a shit about wine, for instance, and my girlfriend really doesn't care too much about video games. So what? We find what works for both of us, and that should suffice. In other words, if you like the way a woman looks in tight jeans and a low top, have on. I just hope you like a little more than that, or that this particular woman you're admiring doesn't mind that you feel that way. Knowing you, I suspect you're one of those people who appreciates a lot of things, not just looks. In any case, other sensibilities be damned. You don't answer to them when you find someone attractive.
Off topic I know, but I just had to say it. You don't know a lot of southern chicks, do you Ryan?
when you listen to people like Wayne, in this case, you don't learn a damn thing but how moronic views will forever be the reason some claim women are refusing to take responsibility for their actions.
if you consider Wayne knowledgeable on the subject of rape, you're just as much of an idiot, if not more of one, than he is.
and, to address an earlier point he made, regarding a man having to pay child support, that isn't true.
a man doesn't have to pay. laws are in place that say he should, but that's very different from saying he absolutely has to.
OP is an attention and view count whore = FACT.
Confidential to Ryan: thanks for the laughs at posts 229 and 245... I needed it.
Hey--I like beer. Never tried wiskey, but that might just be added to my bucket list. Thanks for the idea.
Chelsea you are dead wrong about child support being optional. Maybe in Texas, Tennessee, or Florida, but in more developed / industrialized regions, employers are required to garnish his wages and send it to her. Only the poorest and unemployed don't pay. Even a male entitlements subscriber in some cases have their entitlement garnished.
At LaneKeys: I know a few from Louisiana in particular and a few others from other parts of the South, but I am not as accustomed to their lifestyle and culture as I am to the culture of where I live. I'm sure that makes sense. The ones I do know don't drink much though. Hope you enjoy it if you try it Bernadetta. It will certainly wake you up lol.
And glad people have enjoyed posts 229 and 245. I wasn't expecting for him to go that route after the fact.
The ABSOLUTELY FUCKED UP THING that I can't get over is that I, the GUY, could be ACTUALLY ARRESTED for JUST HAVING an ERECTION that's NOTICEABLE in such states where this BULLSHIT LAW has the OBLITERATED GALL to EVER EXIST! I WONDER if whether or not any WOMAN in THESE SAME STATES are EQUALLY PENALIZED (ESPECIALLY THOSE who are UNCONTROLLABLY OBESE, which is the ABSOLUTE CORE of ALL TURN-ONS for ME), for having EXTREMELY LARGE BREASTS that are JUST AS NOTICEABLE. UN-FUCKIN'-REAL!
Shep. For the record, I didn't mean exposing your penis. What I mean is showing your underwear. Smile.
Sometimes a girl will show her panties, not on purpose, but because her skirt is short, or the waist band of her pants is low riding. Well, accept for the waist band and tops of their buttocks, that is purpose.
They also have some very nice colors and such for men to wear, as far as underwear, but you can't go unzipped in public, or show the front.
You are correct I appreciate many things, and women to me, are far more than the sum of their skirts and thongs.
I do admit, I like a sexy dressed lady however. Just one of the things I appreciate along with good whiskey.
Chelsea, I’m sorry, but men must pay the child support as Leo pointed out. I’ll bet Texas is harder, not softer on men about this issue.
Some men try to duck it, but if they are pursued, they will pay one way or the other.
Wayne, as I already said, it is perfectly legal to show your underwear. People might tell you to zip up your fly, but that is just norms, not legality. Though I will also point out that there is a difference between unzipped jeans and low cut jeans. I know a lot of men who show off their underwear because of low-cut jeans. One guy even made a terrible rap song about it called pants on the ground. Its so prevalent its a meme. Really Wayne, you need to get more in touch with the world. You obviously have a computer, try using it.
Yes, if an airline is a private company, which none of them are I might add, they can ask you to leave for whatever reason, or put any book away for any reason. But wayne, that doesn't have to be playboy, it could be playgirl, it could be women's home journal, it could be moby dick, it could literally be anything. Its their plane, they can ask you to follow any rule they want. If you pay, you follow those rules. But considering the fact that airlines are some of the largest companies this world has ever seen, and are some of the most expensive, I doubt there are any that are privately owned entirely. They may have once been, but they aren't anymore.
So again I will say, its perfectly fine to read your playboy. I even went searching last night to find out if there were any record of people being kicked off of planes for playboy. I found the exact opposite. I found a whole lot of people asking why people hadn't been kicked off when they complained because the person beside them was reading playboy. So please wayne, either learn some facts, or just shut up. You're like someone from the history channel with your hairbrained theories. Next you'll be telling us that Obama is planning to wipe out America with a WMD just because you read it on the internet.
I know that should I HAPPEN to impregnate whoever the woman is that I'm with, EVEN IF IT MEANS to get an OFF-THE-BOOKS JOB, which is the ONLY WORK that I'll EVER do, because I don't EVER wanna pay TAXES, and I DEFINITELY INTEND to keep ALL of my SSI, without ANY of it COMPROMISED, which I'll CERTAINLY BE SURE to get COMPLETELY AWAY, without the US GOVERNMENT EVER FINDING OUT, of COURSE, I'll pay child-support, because I'm JUST AS MUCH a CONSENTING, RESPONSIBLE SEX-PARTICIPANT as the MOTHER of OUR CHILD/CHILDREN would be, as WELL.
I know the pants thing Cody is referring to. We used to make fun of kids doing it, it's trashy and gangsterish. Also, metrosexual tight-jeans-wearing hipsters have got to be showing their package.
But it is true that we demonize male sexuality. The phallus is vilify from the snake in Genesis to the anti-penis writings of the 1980s.
There is no promotion of testicle cancer awareness, not like breast cancer. No slight on breast cancer, I for one, think we should do all we can to find a cure.
But since breasts are good and testes are bad, young men like Cody have probably never heard of doing a testicle exam. Young men like Cody don't know they have it until it gets into other glands in the groin area, then end up dead in the prime of their lives. Another instance? Everyone gets a kick out of women cutting off penises. I laughed like the rest at jokes about John Bobbett in the 90s, and went along with the popular view that he must have deserved it. Only, I was wrong. As has been stated before, nobody can provoke a violent crime.
And, we've made some great efforts toward eliminating female genital mutolation, we still widely accept the equally horrid practice of male genital mutilation. I to this day admire the courage of the birth class instructors 20 years ago who went against the tide and informed our class. Most of us hadn't thought of it before.
And, I'm not saying this is one group's fault. Nope, it's society's, partially mine for being a sheeple and sticking with the popular view for so long. This is why I self describe as an egalitarian individualist. Neither sexuality should be vilified for any reason, and so long as some are not free, none of us are.
Well, of COURSE, John Bobbett DID deserve what happened to him ONLY BECAUSE he was ABUSIVE to her. She should've NEVER been arrested; the ONLY FLAW that I find in her action is that she shouldn't've thrown this guy's shlong out of the car window, only to be later discovered; she should've had it BURNED, SOMEHOW, to ALL ASHES, then she should've FLUSHED the ashes down the FUCKIN' TOILET.
Growing up in Texas I can say they're actually rather harsh about making sure the parent with custody gets their child support. that is, of corse if the parent does the paperwork, files the complaints, etc. a lot of people bitch they are not getting the child support, but they don't want to file against the other person to get it, so go figure.
and most of the time, if you duck child support long enough, that's time in the county lockup, you can look forward to. particularly if you're a guy. the system seems a lot softer on women who owe child support to the more capable father who has custody. Granted what i'm saying is somewhat anecdotal, and somewhat experiential, considering the crazy family situation I had.
On the contrary Leo, I know all about testicular cancer tests. I know all about the self test, and I get tested for several kinds of cancer on a regular basis since I am a cancer survivor. Though I agree that we don't focus on testicular cancer nearly enough.
But the thing you fail to take into account Leo is the method by which we popularize the breast cancer awareness. We use slogans like "save the boobies", and "I like boobies too". Its gone from being a cancer to a threat on those two things on the front of women men like to stare at and play with. Its actually become sexualized, and that is sad.
Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of things wrong with how we view and treat men in this society also, but that wasn't what this board post is about. If someone wants to have a debate about over masculinization or the brutal destruction of male emotions, I'd be happy to engage, just not here. We have enough subjects to deal with here. without getting into a debate over how we're fine slicing off part of a penis, but slicing off a clitoris gets our panties in a bunch in America.
Op, I sincerely hope you never do impregnate anyone. I mean, I'd almost pray for it if I weren't an atheist. lol. We dont' need any more entitled, crazy douches infultrating this world--it's already more fucked up than it should be.
Also Bobbett was never formally charged. And the most recent case where a woman tried this it failed. John Bobbett was tried in the media and found guilty as so many are but in court was not.
Cody I had not seen those slogans, and you're right that is terrible to take advantage of a very difficult situation. I know quite a few breast cancer survivors, people in some cases who were able to avoid it getting to their lymph nodes but others, sadly, not.
Slogans like 'I like Boobies' or teachers in the 80s telling young boys that the mammogram is all men's fault, both distort and take away from what's going on there.
I agree with the last post. If I knew the OP was a real human, I would front the $400 or so that it takes for him to get it snipped, since probably he's too religious to use the services of Planned Parenthood. That organization will pay for the fvassectomies of poor men, and in my opinion anyway, during the 90s, they handled things with a high level of professionalism.
I guess you don't read Playboy. If you read Playboy, you'd read from time to time about men that have been asked to put their books away. You'd probably read about how cases are going to the supreme corts over it.
I have read these things recently, not a long time ago.
I don't know, maybe these articles, and form letters and such are just something Playboy tosses in for fun?
I know all about low ride jeans, but I'm specificly talking about unzipped jeans, pants. They don't have to be jeans.
There was a designer some years back that was pushing a style where you purchased your jeans, in this case, so that they were tight enough to stay up, but you couldn't zip them.
The style didn't hold, due to all the uproar in some places, not all.
I am laughing about all the flack an off hand remark about how it was a man would get told to zip his pants, or even put out of places to illustrate a point. It was a point, not a rule, law, or state to state facts memo.
I listen to rap, live in the community for a long time.
Boys buy their pants to big so they sag. I know this.
It isn't the showing of underwear I was using the point for, it was the unzipped state of pants causing problems.
Did you know Obama is planning to wipe out America with a WMD ?
Wayne, site your sources of these supreme court cases. All supreme court cases have names. Think Brown VS. Board of Education, Roe V Wayde, can you give us a name please? And no, a playboy newsletter of someone being asked to put away a magazine does not count. Because its not a frickin' law Wayne. Rape is a law, the law books say don't do it.
Lets get one thing straight here. There is a diference between social uproar and law. Get the difference straight before you try to make up scenarios, cuz its really starting to make you look like a moron. There are laws about what bodypart you can show, there is social uproar about showing your underwear. Look up the difference, learn it, then come talk to me. I'm not on this board to fix every problem with your narrow minded view of the world you think exists.
To ROT AWAY and LEO GARBAGE MUCK, who are PROBABLY just as NON-HUMAN as I'M supposedly not, I DO commend you for ONLY HOPING that I don't impregnate whoever she might be, since ANY/ALL of YOUR hopes, involving ME, UNLESS there's any of such that would be JUST AS MUCH ALL in MY FAVOR as it would be ALL at YOUR EXPENSE, the ONLY FLAW that I find is that you NEVER say what PENALTY that YOU, YOURSELVES, would carry out if I VIOLATED your "HOPELESS HOPE, which ANY/ALL of YOUR penalties are a COMPLETE, LAUGHABLE MOCKERY, ANYWAY.
What was that? lol! I thought religious people don't wish others to rot? Haha, right! I think the penalty would be for your poor god chosen bride and your helpless inoscent child. Any hopes of you are fond hopes, so if you violate any of them nobody gives a flying fuck. I might sound like a bitch, but I don't think what you're doing is nice. I think you're utterly stupid for posting shit like you not paying taxes and how you can get away with it and such. Really? What's your point? If you can't be responsible for yourself, and that includes important payments, you couldn't be any more responsible for a child you so easily bring into this world. I'm starting to doubt any of this is even real, lol!
Cody, You ask what makes people the moral police? No one is. I ask you,, Who or what makes you the wisest man with the most open minded view of the world? I'm asking you because the thing I keep seeing in your posts is: "You're wrong," "grow up," "your views are narrow minded," "morron,"" and "You clueless bastard" on the posts you disagree with. I think all of us, myself included, have tones of growing up to do. So what? I think the only one trying to be right here is you. Wayne, Greg, others and I are not trying to be right, that's not the point of this discussion. I have no beef, I'm asking because Yes you do bring some good points to the table, and yet we must gain your approval to make our points valid? I don't need it. I honestly don't see how my views are contributing to rape, if anything I'm simply suggesting it, not imposing it. Do you really think that common sense is intended to contribute to rape? Cody, I'm sure you know this but in life there are more things than rules and the law, which doesn't cover everything. It's not her fault if she gets raped, but again, it doesn't hurt to think or plan when one travels and goes on with their life. I don't think it would hurt to take the time to observe a person before making sexual moves,. I don't think it hurts at all to be a little careful and smarter of one's actions and moderating one's behavior. What's wrong with taking some safe measures to protect oneself? ..................
Dolce, I've answered all those points before, but I'll do it again because its a big board and I don't feel like going back to site passages.
First, everyone who voices an opinion is trying to be right. So stop trying to couch your convictions in this "I'm innocent" persona. An opinion is either right or it is wrong. Those are your choices. You cannot try to be anything other than that. If you only want to be heard, you don't have an opinion, you have noise; or I suppose in this context you have letters. So yes, you are trying to be right. That's why its a discussion and not a babble. If you weren't trying to be right, you would talk about your love for flamingos or something rather than responding to my posts. So please drop the act, its annoying and dishonest.
second, I've already said there is nothing wrong with taking precautions. I've also said that it is sad women have to, but that is neither here nor there. I'm glad you went back on your earlier stance that it is her fault for getting raped though. Thank you for seing reason. Now if others could do the same.
Finally, as for who made me wisest and most open minded, the circumstances of this board did. You have all, minus SW I believe and Leo to a large extent and of course Chelsea and Bernadetta, have shown, to varying degrees, levels of close-mindedness, backwardness, barbarism, sexism and prejudice. You have expressed opinions which are demonstrably fallacious, and have touted beliefs based on easily refuted sudo-evidences. So, if you have two groups in a conversation, one of which is close-minded and backward and barbaric and sexist and prejudice, that makes the other group by default the more open-minded, wise, intellectual and frankly superior. Its a simple matter of logic. So the short answer to your question Dolce is... you did.
OK, with JUST a LITTLE TOUCH of REVISION of PART of DOLCE'S POST 288 MESSAGE: "If you can't be responsible for yourself, and that includes important payments, you (SHOULDN'T) be any more responsible for a child you so easily bring into this world." THANKS, DOLCE, for yet ANOTHER VIOLATION-MOTIVATIONAL to add to the COUNTLESS OTHERS from THOSE to whom I GLADLY OWE THANKS to, for allowing THEMSELVES to be TOYED WITH by me, as WELL, TOTALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION, as well as ANY NEED for ANY SUCH of those that I'll ALWAYS BLATANTLY DEFY, COMPLETELY WITHOUT even BEING AWARE of it, WHATSOEVER, with just ONE QUESTION; since you ALREADY KNOW that I'm ALWAYS going to violate ANY ORDER that I DEFIANTLY OPPOSE, NO MATTER who it's FROM, REGARDLESS of WHATEVER AUTHORITY, IF ANY, and you CLAIM that NOONE GIVES a "FLYING FUCK," as if YOU ACTUALLY ARE the AUTHORITY-EXPERT on the ENTIRE WORLD of who ACTUALLY DOESN'T, JUST BECAUSE YOU CLAIM that you DON'T, which I ABSOLUTELY DOUBT, OTHERWISE, you wouldn't've made such a COMPLETE-ASS LAUGHABLE COMMENT that I'VE had the TOTAL PLEASURE of PARTIAL/BUTCHERINGLY-REVISING, why tell me to do or not do ANYTHING that you're ALREADY either PREPARED or UNPREPARED for me to do the EXACT OPPOSITE OF--and will EVEN GRAB the FULL OPPORTUNITY, if SUCH were EVER AVAILABLE, to be RIGHT IN YOUR FACE, doing it, NOT AT ALL CARING if whether YOU'LL do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING ABOUT it?
ALSO, JUST for the RECORD, JUST BECAUSE I'm HOPEFULLY as TRUE of a CHRISTIAN that ONLY JESUS wants to MAKE of ME and/or ANYONE ELSE who chooses such, NEVER MEANS that I'm RELIGIOUS, nor do I EVER WANNA be--the TRUE DEFINITION of ONE who's a CHRISTIAN is ONE who's an IMPERFECT, HELL-DESERVING SINNER, who WILLINGLY ACCEPTED the VERY PERFECT GIFT of GOD'S UNCONDITIONAL GRACE, which HE/SHE KNOWS that HE/SHE DOESN'T, nor could EVER DESERVE, by which HE/SHE'S ETERNALLY-SECURED-SAVED. JUST BECAUSE I referred to WRITE AWAY as "ROT AWAY" was NOT BECAUSE I was WISHING that he WOULD, but AGAIN, AS ALWAYS, YOU made an "ASS" out of "u," instead of "ME," with THAT one! It CERTAINLY DOESN'T MATTER to ME if whether or not he does, ANYWAY, so ... care to indulge further?
OH--NOT to FORGET: as long as I'm FINANCIALLY CARING for MY FAMILY, EVEN IF I'm doing it ABSOLUTELY ILLEGALLY/DISCRETELY, and I'm ALWAYS THERE forthem, THAT SAYS ABSOLUTELY AS MUCH, EQUALLY, as it does for ANYONE who DOES earn money legally, so WHAT'S YOUR POINTLESS POINT?OK, with JUST a LITTLE TOUCH of REVISION of PART of DOLCE'S POST 288 MESSAGE: "If you can't be responsible for yourself, and that includes important payments, you (SHOULDN'T) be any more responsible for a child you so easily bring into this world." THANKS, DOLCE, for yet ANOTHER VIOLATION-MOTIVATIONAL to add to the COUNTLESS OTHERS from THOSE to whom I GLADLY OWE THANKS to, for allowing THEMSELVES to be TOYED WITH by me, as WELL, TOTALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION, as well as ANY NEED for ANY SUCH of those that I'll ALWAYS BLATANTLY DEFY, COMPLETELY WITHOUT even BEING AWARE of it, WHATSOEVER, with just ONE QUESTION; since you ALREADY KNOW that I'm ALWAYS going to violate ANY ORDER that I DEFIANTLY OPPOSE, NO MATTER who it's FROM, REGARDLESS of WHATEVER AUTHORITY, IF ANY, and you CLAIM that NOONE GIVES a "FLYING FUCK," as if YOU ACTUALLY ARE the AUTHORITY-EXPERT on the ENTIRE WORLD of who ACTUALLY DOESN'T, JUST BECAUSE YOU CLAIM that you DON'T, which I ABSOLUTELY DOUBT, OTHERWISE, you wouldn't've made such a COMPLETE-ASS LAUGHABLE COMMENT that I'VE had the TOTAL PLEASURE of PARTIAL/BUTCHERINGLY-REVISING, why tell me to do or not do ANYTHING that you're ALREADY either PREPARED or UNPREPARED for me to do the EXACT OPPOSITE OF--and will EVEN GRAB the FULL OPPORTUNITY, if SUCH were EVER AVAILABLE, to be RIGHT IN YOUR FACE, doing it, NOT AT ALL CARING if whether or not YOU'LL do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING ABOUT it?
ALSO, JUST for the RECORD, JUST BECAUSE I'm HOPEFULLY as TRUE of a CHRISTIAN that ONLY JESUS wants to MAKE of ME and/or ANYONE ELSE who chooses such, NEVER MEANS that I'm RELIGIOUS, nor do I EVER WANNA be--the TRUE DEFINITION of ONE who's a CHRISTIAN is ONE who's an IMPERFECT, HELL-DESERVING SINNER, who WILLINGLY ACCEPTED the VERY PERFECT GIFT of GOD'S UNCONDITIONAL GRACE, which HE/SHE KNOWS that HE/SHE DOESN'T, nor could EVER DESERVE, by which HE/SHE'S ETERNALLY-SECURED-SAVED. JUST BECAUSE I referred to WRITE AWAY as "ROT AWAY" was NOT BECAUSE I was WISHING that he WOULD, but AGAIN, AS ALWAYS, YOU made an "ASS" out of "u," instead of "ME," with THAT one! It CERTAINLY DOESN'T MATTER to ME if whether or not he does, ANYWAY, so ... care to indulge further?
OH--NOT to FORGET: as long as I'm FINANCIALLY CARING for MY FAMILY, EVEN IF I'm doing it ABSOLUTELY ILLEGALLY/DISCRETELY, and I'm ALWAYS THERE forthem, THAT SAYS ABSOLUTELY AS MUCH, EQUALLY, as it does for ANYONE who DOES earn money legally, so WHAT'S YOUR POINTLESS POINT?
leo, you misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that child support payments are optional. I was simply saying that there's only so much that can be done to hold men responsible for paying, whether we like it or not.
my dad never paid, so was in and out of jail, and back and forth in court, to try to force him to do so. and, did he? nope.
obviously, others have had different experiences, but that's mine.
Well, it's CERTAINLY NOT MY BUSINESS to say what OTHER MEN SHOULD or SHOULDN'T DO, as far as CHILD-SUPPORT is concerned; I'M ONLY gonna comment on what I should/would do.
What you SHOULD do is pay any and all taxes that you owe in the event that you actually get a paid job... what woman is going to want to be your much desired "sugar mama" much less the mother of your future child with your attitude, especially if you're deliberately a sponge on the system?
Oh, and if I were you and you got an under the table job, I'd watch out about bragging about being paid under the table and in benefit of SSI... a single anonymous phone call to the IRS/SSI Administration could see your benefit audited and reduced and/or you being forced to pay back money that the government paid to you... the phone call could come from an acquaintance, or stranger on the street, or someone who just doesn't like you or wants to stir some shit... you never know who is out there listening in when you least expect it.
WELL, Westcoastcdngrl, since you're cautioning ME, as if I need ANY cautioning, at ALL, let me likewise caution YOU that THAT VERY WOMAN, WHOEVER SHE IS, whether she's READING THIS TOPIC or NOT, ANYWHERE on THIS SITE or NOT, at ANY TIME, WHENEVER/WHEREVER could VERY WELL HELP ME ANSWER your PROBABLY/POSSIBLY-MEANT (RIDICULOUS)-RHETORICAL QUESTION in the VERY INEVITABLE FORM of US, MARCHING ARM-IN-ARM, DOWN the VERY AISLE that you PROBABLY HOPE that YOU would have the VERY ABSOLUTE POWER to ACTUALLY PREVENT SUCH from ACTUALLY HAPPENING; if YOU'RE the VERY TYPE to have ABSOLUTE 0-TOLERANCE of ANY VIOLATION, WHATSOEVER, to YOUR POWER to FORBID what YOU THINK that YOU CAN, and SUCH VIOLATION DOES ACTUALLY DARE OCCUR, are you prepared for what FURTHER could happen to you, should you happen to TEMPER-TANTRUMATICLY REACT (NOT AT ALL SAYING that you WOULD, but you COULD)?
As far as any BRAGGING, SUCH BEHAVIOR, with its GUARANTEED BACKFIRING RESULTS, is NO MORE WORTH MY WHILE than REMAINING a BATCHELOR would ever be. CRAZY, I PROUDLY ALWAYS AM, but NEVER HAVE, AM, nor EVER WOULD I BE, STUPID (didn't I already say that COUNTLESS POSTS BACK in this topic?)!
I FEEL LIKE I SHOULD STEP IN HERE, FOR AT LEAST ONE FINAL TIME, TO STOMP ON THE OP'S HOPES AND DREAMS OF ATTEMPTING TO BE THE SPOTLIGHT OF THIS OH-SO-LONG-WIRLY BIRD OF A TOPIC. JUST LET ME DOUBLE CHECK AND MAKE SURE THAT MY CAPS LOCK KEY IS INDEED INITIATED, BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS DONE CORRECTLY, AND IN A WAY THAT HE WILL BE ABLE TO READ WITH ABSOLUTE COMPLETE EASE AND UNDERSTANDING. I WOULD LIKE TO FIRST TAKE A QUOTE OF HIS, A QUOTE THAT IS ONE OF THE MOST LAUGHABLE THINGS I HAVE EVER READ ON ANY OF THE HUNDREDS OF BOARD TOPICS I HAVE READ ON THIS WEBSITE, AND YOU TELL ME, BEFORE YOU CONTINUE TO READ WHAT IT IS THAT IS WRONG WITH THIS STATEMENT. I'LL GIVE YOU ONE AND ONLY ONE HINT, THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT ARE WRONG WITH IT, SO HAVE A FIELD DAY. "DOLCE, for yet ANOTHER VIOLATION-MOTIVATIONAL to add to the COUNTLESS OTHERS from THOSE to whom I GLADLY OWE THANKS to, for allowing THEMSELVES to be TOYED WITH by me, as WELL, TOTALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION, as well as ANY NEED for ANY SUCH of those that I'll ALWAYS BLATANTLY DEFY, COMPLETELY WITHOUT even BEING AWARE of it, WHATSOEVER, with just ONE QUESTION; since you ALREADY KNOW that I'm ALWAYS going to violate ANY ORDER that I DEFIANTLY OPPOSE, NO MATTER who it's FROM, REGARDLESS of WHATEVER AUTHORITY, IF ANY, and you CLAIM that NOONE GIVES a "FLYING FUCK," as if YOU ACTUALLY ARE the AUTHORITY-EXPERT on the ENTIRE WORLD of who ACTUALLY DOESN'T, JUST BECAUSE YOU CLAIM that you DON'T, which I ABSOLUTELY DOUBT, OTHERWISE, you wouldn't've made such a COMPLETE-ASS LAUGHABLE COMMENT that I'VE had the TOTAL PLEASURE of PARTIAL/BUTCHERINGLY-REVISING, why tell me to do or not do ANYTHING that you're ALREADY either PREPARED or UNPREPARED for me to do the EXACT OPPOSITE OF--and will EVEN GRAB the FULL OPPORTUNITY, if SUCH were EVER AVAILABLE, to be RIGHT IN YOUR FACE, doing it, NOT AT ALL CARING if whether YOU'LL do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING ABOUT it?" NOW, IT IS BEST, WHEN SOMEONE WRITES SUCH YEE HAW STATEMENTS THAT ARE EXTREMELY VERY HARD TO UNDERSTAND TO TAKE IT APART PIECE BY PIECE, AND THEN YOU TRY AND JUDGE WHAT THAT PERSON SAID IN THE YEE HAW STATEMENT BY THE PAST THINGS THAT THEY HAVE SAID AND COME TO A CONCLUSION BASED ON WHETEHR OR NOT THEY MATCH. SO FIRST THING IS FIRST FROM THE START, THIS GUY CLAIMS THAT HE WOULD NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, NO MATTER HOW BADLY HE WANTED THE V (WHICH BY THE WAY STANDS FOR THE VAG, WHICH STANDS FOR VAGINA, I LIKE USING THE V CUZ NO ONE ELSE DOES PLUS IT ADDS SOME MORE HUMOR TO THIS), HE SAYS HE WOULD NEVER EVER EVER PLAY THE GAME OF A COCK-TEASE, IF SHE WERE TO TRY AND GET HIM IN A POSITION WHERE HE WOULD BE ABOUT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER AND THEN SHE WOULD PULL AWAY AT THE LAST MINUTE. WELL LET ME EXPLAIN SOMETHING TO YOU BUSTER BROWN, WHETHER OR NOT YOU JUST SO HAPPENED TO MEET A GIRL, GO BACK TO YOUR ROOM WITH HER, KISS AND MAKE OUT WITH HER, THEN TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER AND NEARLY HAVE SEX WITH HER, AND THEN SHE REFUSES SEX, YOU'VE ALL READY PLAYED THE GAME. IN A REALISTIC SITUATION IT IS EXTREMELY HARD IF NOT POSSIBLE TO GAGE WHETHER OR NOT SHE IS TOYING WITH YOU. THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW IS IF SHE DOES THIS TO YOU SEVERAL TIMES. NOW I AM STARTING TO GO OFF ON A TANGENT AGAIN <3 [DAMMIT] :( :( :(, SO LET ME BACK TRACK HERE AND SAY WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY IN REGARDS TO THE MAGNIFICENT QUOTE. YOU STRONGLY BELIEVE YOU WOULDN'T DO THIS, YET YOU SAY HOW YOU WOULD COMPLETELY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF PEOPLE WHETHER OR NOT THEY APPROVE OF IT OR NOT ON HERE, SO IN ESSENCE YOU ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PEOPLE BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY BECAUSE YOU CAN AND IT ISN'T AGAINST THE RULES. YOU ALSO CLAIM YOU WILL ALWAYS AND COMPLETELY VIOLATE ANY RULES SET BY AN AUTHORITY FIGURE, IF I READ THAT CORRECTLY WHICH I KNOW I DID SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT I DID. YOUR STATEMENTS ARE NOT ADDING UP AND MAKING SENSE MY FRIEND, YOUR LOGIC IS VERY DISTORTED. I'D LOVE TO SEE HOW YOU TRY AND JUSTIFY THIS NONSENSE. SHALL I CONTINUE WITH MORE PARTS OF THIS QUOTE? WELL, WHETHER OR NOT YOU APPROVE OF ME DOING SO, I'M GOING TO TAKE ANOTHER STEP ON IT AND STOMP IT IN TO THE GROUND AND RUB MY FOOT ON IT, SO TO SPEAK, BECAUSE I CAN AND IT ISN'T AGAINST THE RULES, AND BECAUSE AT TIMES I ENJOY ACTING LIKE AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BULLY BECAUSE I CAN'T FIND A BETTER WAY TO WAY TO DEAL WITH MY PROBLEMS. OOPS SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO TAKE IT TO THAT LEVEL THAT YOU ARE SO FAMILAIAR WITH YOURSELF. YOU SAY YOU BUTCHERED HER COMMENT, YET ALL I SEE IS A DUMB ASS TRYING TO ACT TOUGH BUT MAKING HIMSELF LOOK LIKE A COMPLETE IDIOT IN THE PROCESS. AND BEFORE YOU TRY AND MAKE ME FEEL BAD IN SOME SORT OF WAY, BEFORE YOU TRY "BUTCHERING" THIS COMMENT OF MINE, THAT IS TAKING ME EXTREME EFFORT AND DEDICATION TO THE TASK AT HAND, WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE OTHER RESPONSES FROM OTHER PEOPLE AND SEE WHO THE ONE WHO IS MAKING THE "ASS-LAUGHABLE COMMENTS" IS. IT ISN'T DOLCE, IT ISN'T LEO, IT ISN'T WRITER EITHER. I KNOW THIS MAY BE SURPRISING, BUT YOU LISTEN AND LISTEN CAREFULLY BECAUSE I WILL ONLY SAY THIS ONCE. THEY MAY BE LAUGHING AT MY OH-SO-FUNNY-RIDICULOUS POSTS, BUT THEY AREN'T LAUGHING AT ME MY GOD CHOSEN GROOM FRIEND, THEY ARE ACTUALLY LAUGHING AT THE CROCKERY COMMENTS THAT YOU CONCOCK IN A MEANS TO CREATE ANNOYANCE AND DISPAIR, BUT IT ALL DOES NOTHING BUT GIVE SOMEONE TO LAUGH AT AS THEY SIT ON THEIR SOFA AS THEY READ IT WHILE SIPPING ON A BEER, SO TO SPEAK. NOW THAT I HAVE SPOKEN MY PEACE THERE IS ONE LAST FINAL THING I WILL SAY TO YOU BEFORE I FINISH AND TYPE THE VERY LAST LETTER AND PUNCTUATION OF THIS OH-SO-LONG AND MASTERFUL POST. YOU GO ON AND TRY TO BUTCHER THIS THING MY FRIEND, YOU TRY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ME BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, THE HELPLESS VULNERABLE VICTIM THAT I AM. MAKE ME CHOKE ON THE WORDS I SPEWED ON TO THIS PAGE IF THAT IS WHAT GOD PUT YOU ON THIS EARTH TO DO. ONLY YOU CAN'T, AND DO YOU KNOW WHY? THE REASON WHY YOU CAN'T DO THAT IS BECAUSE I GAVE YOU PERMISSION TO DO WHATEVER YOU PLEASE. YOU CAN'T TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SOMEONE WHO GIVES YOU PERMISSION TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. NOW GO AHEAD, I'LL BE WAITING AND EAGER TO READ WHAT IS POSTED NEXT TO BRING US THAT MUCH CLOSER TO 300 POSTS. IF I COULD, I WOULD PLAY HARD AND BACK OUT AT THE LAST MINUTE JUST BECAUSE I COULD, BECAUSE I'M SURE IT WOULD ANNOY YOU TO NO END, BUT THAT WOULD BE FRANKLY IMPOSSIBLE AT THIS POINT IN TIME. BUT I HOPE I HAVE PROVEN MY POINT, AND ANY PERSON WITH AN OUNCE OF COMMON SENSE WOULD UNDERSTAND BY NOW WHAT IT IS I AM SAYING.
DISTANCE, RIGHT OFF the VERY TOP, there's NO ABSOLUTE WAY that YOU or ANYONE, for this matter could EVER annoy ME, by NO LONGER either READING/POSTING TO, or JUST POSTING, to THIS, or ANY of my BOARD-TOPICS, PAST OR FUTURE, in ADDITION to NOW, so let's nip THAT in the bud. ANOTHER is the VERY KNOWN FACT of NOT ONLY YOU, but OTHERS of YOUR ILK that would PROBABLY be TOTALLY DILLUSIONED by this WHATEVER it is that's CAUSING your DILLUSION of YOUR INTENTIONAL "PLAYING STUPID," when YOU know EXACTLY what SO-CALLED "AUTHORITY" I was REFERRING to, as I PLAINLY LAID OUT, REGARDLESS of YOUR FAILURE to GRASP, by ONLY YOUR OWN CHOOSING NOT TO, the ABSOLUTE FULL CONCEPT OF, NO MATTER HOW either SIMPLE or COMPLICATED it VERY WELL MIGHT'VE BEEN--I'm VERY SURE that out of THOSE that are READING, ONLY, as well as READING/POSTING, there WOULD be, EVEN if it's JUST ONE, that has NO DIFFICULTY, WHATSOEVER, with any/all of MY POSTS to WHATEVER, INCLUDING THIS, of ANY of my created topics. Now, whether or not should anyone care to step forward and ADMIT SUCH is ENTIRELY UP to THAT/THOSE INDIVIDUAL/INDIVIDUALS, ONLY. The WHOLE NUT-SHELL is: JUST BECAUSE YOUR PROBLEM of "OVER-INTELLECTUALIZATION" seems to be YOUR FAILURE to COMPREHEND ANY/ALL of what I'm SAYING, NEVER MEANS that ANY of THAT FAULT is MINE. Now, of COURSE, I'm NEVER SAYING that to those who HONESTLY DON'T COMPREHEND what I'm saying, who DO FULLY GRASP the FULL QUALITY of my message, rather than TUGGING AT the VERY STRAWS of ANY SAMANTICS (I don't know if THAT was spelled correctly, but SCREW IT) of it, like YOU do, of course, because it DEFINITELY SHOWS THEIR GENUINITY of HAVING PAID FULL ATTENTION, which NEVER REQUIRES ANY IQ-LEVEL, WHATSOEVER, to be able to DO that.
Now, as far as this deal of my so-called "BOUGHT" or "BROUGHT" into this COCK-TEASING GAME, AGAIN, you MISERABLY FAIL, WILLINGLY, I'll add, to REALIZE that DESPITE MY NOT KNOWING that she'll "UNSUCCESSFULLY ATTEMPT" to PLAY me, the VERY FACT that HER TABLES are VERY EASILY OVER-TURNED when I do to HER, EXACTLY what I did to the one that calls me "KILLJOY," the VERY EXACT WAY that I DID IT, OFFICIALLY MAKES ME the ALL-TIME WINNER, EVEN THOUGH I STILL DIDN'T get my SEX with HER, which is SO MINIMAL of a WHATEVER--NOT EVEN ANY DISAPPOINTMENT, compared to HER LOSS, because I COMPLETELY STRIPPED HER of HER POWER, CLEANLY without VIOLATING HER, SEXUALLY, just as ANOTHER GUY could have; so, YES, YOU'RE RIGHT about me PLAYING ALONG, but you're ABSOLUTELY WRONG if YOU THINK that I'm VICTIMIZED by it.
Is it just me, or do all that guys posts fall in to the TLDR category?
What the fuck is "genuinity?" And in large caps? Really?
My disagreeing doesn't make me narrow minded, it makes me not accept all you believe.
My examples about underwear were not about underwear, but unzipped flies.
I know it isn't a law, but stated a fact of what happened when a designer had a style. It caused an uproar. I didn't create the uproar, nor did I say I agreed or disagreed.
I never said an uproar was law.
You are decideing what I'm saying so you can attempt to make my statements wrong. Go back and read them.
Well, you're right about one thing. Your disagreement doesn't make you narrow minded. Your opinions and outlook needed absolutely no help in doing that from your disagreement.
The thing you're still failing to get is that rape is a law. I know, its a shcok, but there's a law against rape. Has been since... well pretty much the start of law in our country. It was one of the first laws the states made in their penal code. There's no law against you having your pants unzipped unles you don't have underwear underneath, and even then the law would be about indecent exposure, not unzipped pants. So you're tilting windmills here Wayne. You've completely lost all semblance of a point. Your opinions have been whittled away by me and Chelsea and SW, and you can't just admit that you're wrong. Its too hard for you to let go of this egotistical misogynistic outlook of perceived unfairness against your penis-possession. You've painted yourself into multiple corners, so that your only way to even attempt to escape is to throw off blame and try to argue from misunderstanding. Face it, you're simply wrong. Once you admit it, you can start learning from it and become a more enlightened person. Somehow I'm not hopeful though.
@Stormwing: Yes, they do. If he'd stop arbitrarily switching to ALL CAPS and employed the concepts of a) proper spacing and paragraph breaks and b) *coherent* and logical diction, then the rest of us would have half a chance to read and understand his drivel.
EXACTLY MY POINT PROOVEN--and YOU OVER-INTELLECTUALIZING-DISORDERED-DIAGNOSED IDIOTS needed ABSOLUTELY NO HELP from ME, WHATSOEVER, to PROOVE MY POINT, so AGAIN, knowing that you're CERTAINLY NOT the only ones who post that DO read MY posts, out of the VERY COUNTLESS OTHERS who read and DON'T POST at ALL, YOUR EVALUATION of MY STYLE of WRITING and WORDING what I write, and ALL of WHATEVER ELSE that's MOCKINGLY LAUGHABLE against you, is FOREVER NULL AND VOID. Now, you can ALWAYS TRY AGAIN, though, much to YOUR continued failure!
Life experience won't allow me to say I'm wrong. If I'd not seen what I described, a woman deliberately teasing, I'd have to second guess my opinion to a degree, but not totally.
My reason for the unzip deal was to illustrate men are made more responsible for our actions in the sexual arena, be they legal or not.
Just like the sterm deal. If is totally unfair for a women to be able to use a man's sperm in whatever fashion she wishes because he technically gave it to her, but people are trying to make men be responsible for her behavior.
In my mind, in these cases, the woman is totally wrong, and should have to support herself and the child she stole, but that isn't the feeling of many communities.
When I toss that situation out, your first reactions was I was "pulling stuff out of my ass.", but you see, I'm not.
You felt it was wrong, really wrong, but as you can see, society disagrees with you.
So you see, my opinion about a woman causing her rape, or that she should bare some responsibility for provoking it comes from my thought about responsibility, and how our society views men, and how we give men the lions share of the blame no matter what the circomstances are.
But, again, we'll not agree, and that doesn't bother me. I've given this much thought, and I have seen it happen more than once.. Due to these things is why I can't agree no matter how you try to make me look bad by calling me unchoice names a such.
You invited me to "use my computer'" to learn about the world. I prefer what I've been doing, going out and experiencing it.
Then you might want to try experiencing more than your small little slice of it. That environment is turning you into a misogynist, and you're bordering on needing to be put on right wing watch if you spout off any more crackpot ideas. Rush lymba could learn a thing or two from you.
oh, and I really shouldn't have to point this out, but I'm going to anyway, cuz if I don't most aren't going to pick up on it. There is a difference between a woman taking a man's sperm and a man forcing himself onto a woman. One is fraud, one is rape. Fraud can be brought on by stupidity, though not always. Rape cannot be brought on by anything except a guy not being man enough to control his penis.
THIS FRIDAY, of course, is the VERY DAY that's set aside for COMPLETELY HONORING YOUR SPOUSE, if you happen to HAVE one. Now, EVEN THOUGH THIS might SOUND like it's OFF-TOPIC, is ACTUALLY NOT, once we REALLY get into it, which MIGHT NOT be TOO COMPLICATED to DO.
I was on "MY TELESPACE (a phone-system-social-community-similarity version of HERE" yesterday, cleaning out my "FEEDBACK" box, due to OVER-ACCUMULATING MESSAGES, so's to NOT add to ANY PROBABLY/POSSIBLY-EXISTING PROBLEM of DISC-SPACE-OVERCROWDING, and I HAPPENED to have COME ACROSS a message from LAST YEAR that I FINALLY DELETED, sent to me RIGHT AROUND THIS TIME THEN, from someone that had a copy of a story about a situation, involving this married couple, where the HUSBAND was ALWAYS ATTENTIVE to his wife--EVEN to the VERY POINT that he was CONSTANTLY SHOWERING HER with CONSTANT AFFECTION, both SEXUAL and NON-SEXUAL, and on THIS PARTICULAR DAY, FEB. 14, 2013, he had planned for the BOTH of them a SOLID ONE-MONTH GETAWAY to WHEREVER, and JUST as he arrived home from his daily routine, and was about to open the door to THEIR HOME, he was met by TWO COPS that were hiding out nearby that QUICKLY APPEARED out of NOWHERE, CUFFED him, took him to the station, and for HOURS, they INTERROGATED him as to the FALSE CHARGES of KIDNAPPING that HIS WIFE, believe it or NOT, ACTUALLY FILED AGAINST HIM, but FORTUNATELY, being that he had ALL of his LEGAL DOCUMENTS, which OBVIOUSLY INCLUDED HIS COPY of THEIR MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE, the charges were IMMEDIATELY DROPPED, he was released and was offered money for the trouble that he was put through, which he declined, and when he DID return home to find that the ENTIRE HOUSE had been CLEANED OUT of ALL FURNITURE, and the ONLY PLACE to sit/lay down was the FLOOR, and EVEN the REFRIGERATOR, with ALL of ITS CONTENTS, was gone, he hung himself. As far as the WIFE, SHE, HERSELF, was tracked down and arrested on filing false charges, due to the fact that the husband was FULLY-EQUIPPED with the proper necessaries, the very little good THAT did, of course.
From what I know it doesn't take one day to unfernish a house, unless of course you have a crew at your disposition
You can empty a house in a couple hours. Smile.
Let me see if I’m understanding you right?
You are saying a man that gets his sperm stolen, or used without his knowledge is stupid, right?
You read about the man and his wife that had frozen his sperm right? Was he stupid?
How about the man that wanted to help the lesbian couple, and they put together a contract on paper just like any other business deal, and he was paid. Later, they changed their minds, and even the state of Kansas thinks he should pay. Was he stupid?
I don’t know how sexually active you are, but I’d like to ask a question.
If you’ve ever used condoms while having sex, have you just toss the used on in the trash can, or left it behind after you left?
Suppose for the sake of argument, a girl ask you to use a particular brand of condoms, because she likes them best. Would you agree, and maybe leave that used, and full sample behind in her trash can, or maybe on her nightstand?
What if she said let her have it, she’d was going to the bathroom so would toss it, or maybe she picks it up while you are relaxing after sex. Would you ask her where it was?
Honest answers now.
You say it be fraud, and I agree, but whole states, judges, and such disagree with us.
Remember, the man had a contract. He was not hiding, just technically providing a service under contract, so it technically isn’t fraud, it is just the opinion that he should help with his child.
How were these men stupid??
*yawns*
WELL, noone ever said if whether or not she had any HELP with her DASTEREDLY DEEDS, but I would imagine that she did, which PROBABLY COULD EXPLAIN how it MIGHT'VE been pulled off as easily and as quickly as it WAS, within the time-window of when he wasn't THERE. WHO'S to even SAY if whether or not ANY COP, HIMSELF, might've participated in this TOTALLY EVIL DEED. Just because a cop's a COP, such NEVER makes him/her ANY MORE ABOVE ANY SUCH DOING than any CIVILIAN wouldn't be.
Go back, read it again, then ask your questions having used reading comprehention skills wayne. They won't hurt you, I promise.
Well, again, this latest story provided by the OP sounds like bullshit, because as far as I know, cops don't pay you for the inconvenience of dealing with a false arrest.
REMEMBER: the source from where the story came is neither RELIABLE nor UNRELIABLE, which ONLY GUARANTEES the DEFINITE FLEXIBILITY of "THE NORM," so HOW is there ANY PROOF of ANY EVIDENCE, WHATSOEVER, of whether or not the story is ACTUALLY TRUE if NONE OF US were neither INVOLVED, DIRECTLY/INDIRECTLY, nor were any of us EYE/EAR-WITNESSES? UNTIL it's PROOVEN as SOLID BOGUS or TRUTH, it STILL REMAINS BELIEVABLE, which NEVER SAYS if whether or not I believe it, MYSELF, which PERSONALLY, I know that on ANY PHONE or ONLINE SOCIAL SYSTEM, ANYTHING'S PROBABLE/POSSIBLE, but NOT EVERYTHING'S CERTAIN.
No, anything is not probable or possible. Why are you sharing bullshit tall tales you don't believe.
Oh, for the sake of controversy. that's right. You know nothing. Sto stop muddying the water. with your bullshit assessments
If a story is neither probable nor improbable, then it means nothing, so why bother mentioning it?
OK, so EVEN THOUGH I wasn't TOTALLY CLEAR on MY BELIEF of it, if there's ANYTHING that I DO believe about that story, I DO BELIEVE that it's BELIEVABLE; whether it's not it's ACTUALLY TRUE, and I was neither DIRECTLY nor INDIRECTLY INVOLVED, and I know VERY LITTLE about the person that TOLD the story, I neither believe it's TRUE nor NOT TRUE. As far as ANYTHING to neither be PROBABLE nor POSSIBLE, according to YOUR idiotic claim that NONE of such EVER EXISTS, ESPECIALLY in THIS ABSOLUTELY IMPERFECT WORLD of ABSOLUTELY IMPERFECT PEOPLE, such as which that we ALL are, that WE LIVE IN, how's that claim of yours so?
I'm RE-QUOTING PART of my LAST post, do to an error, WITH, of course, the CORRECTION: "whether (or) not it's ACTUALLY TRUE, and I was neither DIRECTLY nor INDIRECTLY INVOLVED, and I know VERY LITTLE about the person that TOLD the story, I neither believe it's TRUE nor NOT TRUE."
WELL, johndy, since YOURS was ONLY a RHETORICAL question, which COULD be subjected to ANY sort of CHALLENGING RESPONSE, COUNTLESS ACCOUNTS that are neither PROBABLE/IMPROBABLE/POSSIBLE/IMPOSSIBLE are NO MORE MENTION-PREVENTABLE than those of the COMPLETE OPPOSITE. What response do YOU think you could challenge THAT fact with?
How about writing a string of sentences that actually makes sense, for one thing? Such as this:
So, Johndy, you’re asking a rhetorical question. Such questions can be subject to challenge as any other posting or response. Also, it makes no difference whether my story is either probable or improbable, possible or impossible because in either case, every story is worth mentioning, and I have the absolute untrammeled freedom to say whatever I want whenever I want to. Whaddya gotta say about that?
If in fact that’s what you’re saying, I guess I’m forced to agree with both conclusions. Everyone on this site has the freedom to say whatever the hell they wanna say whether it’s true or not, and whether it makes sense or not. The problem is that it took me at least five minutes just to figure out what I think you’ve said, and I’m only half-convinced that I interpreted your wording correctly. In fact, somehow I sense that I’m completely wrong, that I’ve done you a grave disservice, and that you’ve actually succeeded in saying absolutely nothing about anything. Keep it up. You’ll go far.
Johndy, I ABSOLUTELY REFUSE to play the "INTELLECTUALIZATION-ADDICTION" GAME with you--since it's COMPLETELY NOT MY FAULT, WHATSOEVER, for YOUR DIFFICULT TIME of LISTENING to ANY/ALL of my messages that YOU READ, due to your "SUPER-BRAIN" that SHORT-CIRCUITED, ONLY BECAUSE YOU ALWAYS FORCE it into "MULTI-OVERTIME MODE." OBVIOUSLY, "LISTEN" ONLY INTERDEPENDS WITH, but is NEVER DEPENDENT ON, HEARING, which explains my usage of the word, and JUST BECAUSE I've CHOSEN to even explain ANYTHING, at ALL, neither puts me at any ADVANTAGE nor DISADVANTAGE, EITHER, for ANY SERVICE or DISSERVICE to be done, ANYWAY. It ONLY SHOWS that the more "INTELLIGENT" you are, the "BIGGER IDIOT (on the road to COMPLETION)" you've become. HOW EXCELLENT!
I’m curious. Why do you put quotes around “intellectualization-addiction”? Whom are you quoting or trying to quote? And why the need to press the shift key on so many of your words, phrases and/or sentences? It’s the equivalent of shouting, just in case you didn’t know, and we can hear you just fine. But at the risk of speaking too much for other people, what the most of us can’t seem to do is grasp what you’re saying, and I don’t think it’s because you’re so smart that you’re light-years ahead of everyone on this board. Not when you use words like “genuinity,” which is something I’ve never heard anyone in my entire life ever saying. (See, I put quotes around that word because I’m quoting you. Get how it works?) As for you labeling me an idiot I think I’ll consider the source and call it a compliment, so thank you very much.
FIRST, by ABSOLUTELY NO MEANS, WHATSOEVER, am I, at ABSOLUTELY NO TIME, EVER, ANY MORE/LESS SMARTER than ANYONE, whether on this BOARD-TOPIC, on ANY/ALL of the other BOARDS, on this ENTIRE SITE, or ANYWHERE/EVERYWHERE in the ENTIRE WORLD/UNIVERSE, nor was I EVER, nor will I EVER BE--I am JUST AS MUCH YOUR EQUAL, as you are DEFINITELY MINE, LIKE IT or NOT, so MY WRITING STYLE has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to EVER DO with ANY LEVEL of ANY INTELLIGENCE, on MY part, IF ANY, that ONLY GOD, HIMSELF, would EVER ALLOW me to have, to whom, I COMPLETELY OWE ALL HUMBLE THANKS FOR, which HE DIDN'T EVER have to give me, AT ALL.
SECOND, as a segway from the FIRST, even though this is a new PARAGRAPH, "CAPSLOCKING" isn't JUST for YELLING, because YELLING, ITSELF, isn't the ONLY FORM of EMPHASIZING. And as far as why QUOTES are placed WHERE, and who's being QUOTED is a question that I have ABSOLUTELY NO COMPATIBLE (I might've spelled wrong) ANSWER for.
At the risk of sounding like a totally total absolutely big large snob. I more or less think you are lesser smarter than the majority of the most of us. Sorry fella. God didnt' create us equal. I'm sorry you didnt' get the message--but I'll be kind enough to point it out to you--because I'm greater or lesser than or absolutely posatively majorly blunter than you can possibly imagine.
I took care to write in your dialect and language--only uniquer to you than to most of the majority of us, so that you might possibly absolutely get to understanding my pointy point.
I think the OP writes like that to trick people in to believing he's smarter than he actually is. He clearly doesn't have a great grasp of language, or he'd realize so many of the words he uses are not actually real words.
Why do you guys think I've ben ignoring the OP since the beginning of this thread? He says nothing, thinks nothing, types nothing, does nothing and is nothing important or worth reading, or even worth pissing on. Why are you guys responding to him when its impossible to tell what he's saying because he's never saying anything?
for the same reason you respond to stupid people sometimes, cody. Because it's entertaining. Sometimes, you just need a laugh. I realize this probably doesnt' paint me in the best of lights--but hey, at least I never defended any rapists or justified their actions. lol.
Fair point Bernadetta, cary on.
It obviously doesn't say much about me, I suppose, but I was getting frustrated and pissed at someone trying their damnedest to prove they've got a brain and demonstrating that they really don't. It's like the balloon burst and there was no more room for air, especially hot air. And by the way, I don't think I've justified rape either.
As I've ALWAYS VARIFIED in MOST, if not ALL of my BOARD-TOPICS--ONE THING that NEVER FAILS (nor EVER WILL) is the VERY FACT that the VERY SAME PEOPLE of ABSOLUTELY NO QUALITY of ANY WORTH, WHATSOEVER, are ALWAYS the VERY ONES that NEVER RUN OUT of ANY of THEIR TIME that they just LOVE to CLAIM that THEY'RE WASTING, because RATHER than clicking the "IGNORE" link, which they're ABSOLUTELY PETRIFIED of DOING, they would rather CONTINUE to come to where I am, MAINLY, if not SOLELY, to put up with (ENJOYINGLY, don't forget) MY ABUSE, and as I've ALSO always said that it's ALWAYS the "SUPER-INTELLECTS" that are ALWAYS the VERY ONES that are HIT the HARDEST, COMPLAIN the LOUDEST, and without EVER MISSING a BEAT, are ALWAYS FIRST IN LINE within HOURS or LESS of ANY TIME-WINDOW of ANY of my topics that are NEWLY POSTED, WHICH REMINDS ME: one such idiot DEFINITELY hit the VERY NAIL-HEAD with THIS post: "Why do you guys think I've ben (PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION) ""ignoring" the OP since the beginning of this thread? He says nothing, thinks nothing, types nothing, does nothing and is nothing important or worth reading, or even worth pissing on. Why are you guys responding to him when its impossible to tell what he's saying because he's never saying anything?" I MULTI-MEGA-SUPERSIZE-DARE ANY OF YOU to ACTUALLY COUNT within THIS ENTIRE THREAD, ALONE, and I SOLIDLY GUARANTEE that you'll see SilverLightning's name ONLY ONCE, and ONLY IF you can ACTUALLY PROOVE that I'm ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, MY SOLID OATH to ALL OF YOU is MY IMMEDIATE, VOLUNTARY REMOVAL from THIS SITE, from "FACEBOOK," from ANY/ALL OTHER ADDITIONAL SOCIAL COMMUNITIES, PHONE/SIBERWORLDWIDE, NEVER to be HEARD FROM AGAIN--and THIS TASK MUST BE PERFORMED by NO LATER than MIDNIGHT (US EASTERN TIME) TONIGHT, with ALL UNMISTAKABLE EVIDENCE of YOUR HAVING SCANNED ALL FOUR-PLUS PAGES of ANY SUCH FINDING POSTED RIGHT HERE.
No, not gunna do it. I'm officially bored.
lmfao
COULDN'T DO IT? I WONDER WHY (LOL WITH ATTITUDE)! That makes yet ANOTHER SCORE for your SELF-INFLATED IQ! NICE GOIN'!