Rape, Violence and Terorism

[LadyJeanne]

So, ami, it sounds like women should wear lots of perfume so they don't entice the hormone-driven human male into rape?

I'd better go stock up.

 

[amicus]

LadyJeanne]So, ami, it sounds like women should wear lots of perfume so they don't entice the hormone-driven human male into rape?

I'd better go stock up.

[/I]

~~~~~~~~~~

Yeah, quarts of the stuff that makes your eyes water and smell like old lady pee.

But then, artificial scents can serve more than one purpose, as you well know, they can enhance rather than neutralize.

And if you have ever perused the history of perfume making, it is a marvelous journey, the length to which women have gone to 'enhance' that natural sexual scent.

amicus...thanks anyway, (rolls eyes)

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Yeah, I know, shut up, amicus....


But this femininist, male bashing group grope at least needs an alternative point of view, even if only of a devil's advocate type.

In this back patting pack out to demean the nasty male and glorify the virtuous female, it seems that chemicals are forgotten or passed over. Ferremones, testosterone and whatever they call the female one...


Modern man goes to great lengths to mask body odor, with perfumes and colognes, to hide those sexual signals and thas okay, the co mingling of the sexes in a neutral work setting requires such efforts or we would all be humping in the bathroom or underneath the desk.

I guess the feminists and equality police do not wish to admit that the human beast is sexual in nature and in different ways between male and female.

Nor is it control and domination or power, all are secondary. To be sexually attractive and then to attract a willing partner is an affirmation of life, the very deepest emotive function, save survival, that the beast possesses.

There is of course, violent forced sexual intercourse, just as there are criminals who murder, assault and burglarize, we know that and we know that is not the issue.

Feminists do not like to admit that being 'feminine' is a delightful excursion of teasing, promising, flirting, intimating, creating a web of mystery and doubt as they play the sexual game.

That is what we write about, not the mechanics of sex, how droll.

I have been stopped dead in my tracks in a lobby by the whiff of a woman in heat. I have even followed that delicious morsel to guage the availability; does she want to dance or not?(Pierce Brosnan, Rene Russo)

It is a marvelously exciting foray into the unknown and it is always predator and prey and you pick the gender that suits the word.

I enjoy the statements of Ogbashan, but our resident, self identified politician, a very practical man, the art of the possible, reminds us that bean counters, bureaucrats and court clerks must deal with codified behaviour, laws, that dictate response to alleged acts of violence.

So, if only for my benefit, get of this kick of male bashing feminists and sully up to the concept of the basic sexually of homo sapiens and get a grip on the fury of the anti male, anti masculine bias that is rampant here.

Admit also, that psychogically, some women desire to be 'taken', pursued, hunted, stalked, overwhelmed; some even prefer violence to gentility.

Admit also that once I get my mouth on a nipple and my hands between your legs, you are a lost cause and cannot control yourself, even though that waning rational part of your mind does not want to accept that.

Rational can play a large part in the concept of 'love', rational plays a very small part in the arena of sex, if I can sniff an odor from a block away (part wolf) or make that certain eye contact that says it all, then emotions and hard wired sexual drives kick in and rationality be damned.

Arrousal draws blood from the brain and places it in the more important areas, which means a diminution in cognitive awareness and the primal brain takes over.

But then, you already know all of this.




amicus...(the one you love to hate)

It is certainly true that some of these posts, including the initial article, strike me as "male-bashing" in some ways. However, much of this discussion is not. I am certainly no radical feminist, but I am aware of the "power dynamic" in rape. Sex is also a factor. I think that feminists often emphasize the control part too much, just as many men emphasize the sex too much. Why? Because men seek more sex (they already have a lot of power in most cases, though not always) and feminists seek more control. Hence, what they feel threatened is what they emphasize. That's just my take on it. You don't have to be a "male-bashing feminist" to see that.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Yeah, I know, shut up, amicus....


But this femininist, male bashing group grope at least needs an alternative point of view, even if only of a devil's advocate type.

In this back patting pack out to demean the nasty male and glorify the virtuous female, it seems that chemicals are forgotten or passed over. Ferremones, testosterone and whatever they call the female one...


Modern man goes to great lengths to mask body odor, with perfumes and colognes, to hide those sexual signals and thas okay, the co mingling of the sexes in a neutral work setting requires such efforts or we would all be humping in the bathroom or underneath the desk.

I guess the feminists and equality police do not wish to admit that the human beast is sexual in nature and in different ways between male and female.

Nor is it control and domination or power, all are secondary. To be sexually attractive and then to attract a willing partner is an affirmation of life, the very deepest emotive function, save survival, that the beast possesses.

There is of course, violent forced sexual intercourse, just as there are criminals who murder, assault and burglarize, we know that and we know that is not the issue.

Feminists do not like to admit that being 'feminine' is a delightful excursion of teasing, promising, flirting, intimating, creating a web of mystery and doubt as they play the sexual game.

That is what we write about, not the mechanics of sex, how droll.

I have been stopped dead in my tracks in a lobby by the whiff of a woman in heat. I have even followed that delicious morsel to guage the availability; does she want to dance or not?(Pierce Brosnan, Rene Russo)

It is a marvelously exciting foray into the unknown and it is always predator and prey and you pick the gender that suits the word.

I enjoy the statements of Ogbashan, but our resident, self identified politician, a very practical man, the art of the possible, reminds us that bean counters, bureaucrats and court clerks must deal with codified behaviour, laws, that dictate response to alleged acts of violence.

So, if only for my benefit, get of this kick of male bashing feminists and sully up to the concept of the basic sexually of homo sapiens and get a grip on the fury of the anti male, anti masculine bias that is rampant here.

Admit also, that psychogically, some women desire to be 'taken', pursued, hunted, stalked, overwhelmed; some even prefer violence to gentility.

Admit also that once I get my mouth on a nipple and my hands between your legs, you are a lost cause and cannot control yourself, even though that waning rational part of your mind does not want to accept that.

Rational can play a large part in the concept of 'love', rational plays a very small part in the arena of sex, if I can sniff an odor from a block away (part wolf) or make that certain eye contact that says it all, then emotions and hard wired sexual drives kick in and rationality be damned.

Arrousal draws blood from the brain and places it in the more important areas, which means a diminution in cognitive awareness and the primal brain takes over.

But then, you already know all of this.




amicus...(the one you love to hate)

Tell ya what Amicus, when you start pissing on the carpet to mark your territoriy, I'll give some creedence to that load of crap. When you can tell me what woman is ovulating because youi can smell it, I'll pay some attention. Till then, this isn't a devil's advoate argument, it's pure bullshit written to inspire an angry response.

Has your motto become if you have nothing intelligent to add to a conversation the best course is to say something pointlessly offensive?

It certainly seems you have outdone yourself with this one if that is the case.

 

[yui]

Just for the record, Box, so you don't continue to misunderstand the term:

"Date rape is no different from "regular" rape, except the victim knows her rapist. The crime can be perpetrated by friends, partners, acquaintances, or dates. It's important to remember that it doesn't matter if you know your rapist or not. If it's done without your consent, then it's rape, and it's a felony."

I'm aware that it's a felony but I think it should be a lesser felony than what I have called "violent rape" and you call "regular rape". One is a violent crime while the other results from a misunderstanding. To make an analogy, compare first degree murder with manslaughter.

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Have you ever been coy or played hard to get? Have you ever pretended to be not interested in a guy when you actually were? Unfortunately, this kind of thing is a fairly common practice with women, and men know it.

So, you are saying, if I have done any of these things, then it's okay for a man of my acquaintance to rape me? That's all it takes to justify rape in your mind? Just askin' ....

No, I am saying that frequently women will say one thing and mean something quite different. If she is saying "We shouldn't be doing this" while helping him remove her panties, should he listen to her her words or go by her actions?


Conversely, have you ever gotten a guy to do something he didn't want to do? Have you ever dragged him onto a dance floor when he didn't really want to dance? Have you ever nagged him into taking you someplace he didn't want to go, or into doing something he didn't want to go? Maybe such things should be a form of date rape.

And converse to your conversely, have you ever gotten a woman to go to a game she didn't want to go to? Or a party? Or to a car show? Or to a freaking dumb movie that she knew was going to suck? Does this mean you raped her? Just askin’ ....

And to be quite honest, Box, the very fact that you are attempting to compare that to rape is a frightening thing.

No, I haven't. If I asked another person if he or she wanted to do something or go somewhere, and that person said "No" that would be the end of the discussion. I tend to assume that people know their own minds. I am being strictly hypothetical here, by the way; I have never raped anybody, date rape or otherwise, nor will I ever do so.

But I have often been nagged or cajoled into doing things with a woman that I didn't actually want to. That is, taken her places or buying things against my wishes. I didn't feel raped but I certainly felt used at such times.

By the way, if you have ever dragged a guy out onto the dance floor against his wishes, that wold not be rape but, technically, it is abduction, which is also a felony.

Box, I'm not going to argue with you, because I don't think I can change your opinion; though I disagree with you strongly. I know what rape is, as I like to think most people do; it's not being "not in the mood," but you are entitled to your opinion and I'm not going to waste my time or my energy trying to change that opinion. I do recognize brick walls and you are an alley I would stay out of.

Peace,

Yui

 

[Boxlicker101]

Box, I'm not going to argue with you, because I don't think I can change your opinion; though I disagree with you strongly. I know what rape is, as I like to think most people do; it's not being "not in the mood," but you are entitled to your opinion and I'm not going to waste my time or my energy trying to change that opinion. I do recognize brick walls and you are an alley I would stay out of.

Peace,

Yui[/QUOTE]

That's too bad because I think this is just a failure to communicate. When I refer to date rape, I don't mean the jerk who thinks the woman owes him something, and collects it against her will, overpowering her even though she fights back. As far as I am concerned, that is rape, and I would not call it date rape, just because they had been on a date. That asshole deserves at least as much time in prison as the judge sentences him to, and probably more.

When I refer to date rape, I mean where there is miscommunication. The guy hears her demurrals but, because of what they have done in the past and are doing right then, thinks she doesn't really mean them, especially when she is somebody who normally speaks her mind. Technically, this might be called rape too, but it is certainly not as reprehensible as the first case I described or the guy who drugs a woman before sex.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I still find his labeling of even men and middle of the roaders (and even conservatives in some cases) as "male-bashing, radical feminists" just for participating in this thread as annoying. Just like when he described me as a "lefty". Yeah, right! I'm not a lefty and I'm not a fundamentalist either.

Let me repeat what I have told all of you, though only for amicus's benefit and for the record, since he is willfully ignorant of people's actual politics. Perhaps this will encourage him to check more carefully before categorizing people. I am 45% Libertarian, 25% Centrist, 10% Social Darwinist, 10% Anarcho-Syndicalist, 5% Paleo-Conservative, and 5% Jacobin. Not a self-hating feminist. Not a Marxist. Not a religious fanatic. Not a pacifist. I don't expect much, but accurate labeling is one of the things that I do expect, amicus. Get it right.

I have already stated my proposed description and categorization of rape, vis a vis terrorism. I would rather no one twist or distort my views on this subject in the future. Thank you.

 

[Guest]

. . . . .

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Ah, but MAX, your error here is that you honestly believe ami actually thinks about anyone else or gives a damn if he has the current or correct information.

He's just a small-minded shit-stirrer.

That's becoming painfully obvious, Sarah. Apparently, anyone who isn't a neo-con like himself is automatically a "cafe leftist". Although, he was nice to me during the whole non-existent "death threat" (as IF) incident with Svenskaflicka, where a lot of people ganged up on me. I haven't forgotten who did what and have a hard time forgiving the people involved. I just make sure never to say anything that could be misconstrued as that anymore. So I do have a soft spot for the old SOB.

 

[Liar]

That's becoming painfully obvious, Sarah. Apparently, anyone who isn't a neo-con like himself is automatically a "cafe leftist".

Or a pinko, humanity-hating commie.

 

[Pure]

hey us humanity-hating pinkos, self-loathing collectivists, and life-hating nihilists have to stick together.

(it's unfortunate that Ami's own intolerence is reinforced by Rand's, and her tendency to personal attack; the view of Calvinists, Catholics, and Randists is that disagreement is a sign of moral failing-- disagreement with 'objective truth' --clearly staring one in the face-- indicates willful refusal to face reality)

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

hey us humanity-hating pinkos, self-loathing collectivists, and life-hating nihilists have to stick together.

(it's unfortunate that Ami's own intolerence is reinforced by Rand's, and her tendency to personal attack; the view of Calvinists, Catholics, and Randists is that disagreement is a sign of moral failing-- disagreement with 'objective truth' --clearly staring one in the face-- indicates willful refusal to face reality)

I guess that I would labeled as a "New Age charlatan", yet a 4th category that should stick together.

 

[Pure]

but sev,

new agers are notoriously 'subjective'--so in fact 'new age Charlatans' are one caucus in the 'life hating nihilists league.'

 

[amicus]

Geez and all that outpouring of love and affection because the ole amicus said woemen smell good?

Egads and Lil fishes.

amicupableless

 

[Guest]

. . . . .

 

[Liar]

A very common scenario is a guy doing his thing, thinking that everything is hunky-dory, and a girl who did not explicitly consent, but did not explicitly say no either, and when it gone too far, is too intimidated/shocked to speak up. This is very common, I've heard and read about scores of cases like that. And they ARE filed as the same thing as violent, deliberate assault rape, even if there's not the slightest trace of malice from the "rapist". Dumb, drunk and maybe having a criminal lack of attention, yes. But it's NOT always cases of "she's not putting out so I'll go ahead and take what I want anyway". What should I call this then?

Would still want someone's view on that...

When the guy doesn't know she is unwilling, and merrily humps on, is it rape? The law seems to say it is, because I've seen cases lke that go to court as rape. Of course it's a guy's responsibility (or a girl's on the not-as-common cases when the roles are reversed) to back off when told to or resisted.

But when not told to? Should there be a "consent validation protocol", like saying beetlejuice three times, and interruping every other minute to ask "are you sure"?

 

[rgraham666]

I don't hate you, friend. I rather pity you.

And I regard you as an exemplar of that favourite aphorism of mine. "What you resist, you become."

 

[Liar]

I don't hate you, friend. I rather pity you.

And I regard you as an exemplar of that favourite aphorism of mine. "What you resist, you become."

Moi? And if so, a lil more explanation wouldn't harm.

 

[LadyJeanne]

Would still want someone's view on that...

When the guy doesn't know she is unwilling, and merrily humps on, is it rape? The law seems to say it is, because I've seen cases lke that go to court as rape. Of course it's a guy's responsibility (or a girl's on the not-as-common cases when the roles are reversed) to back off when told to or resisted.

But when not told to? Should there be a "consent validation protocol", like saying beetlejuice three times, and interruping every other minute to ask "are you sure"?

I think some universities in the US have these 'sex contracts' couples are supposed to review and sign with each other before having sex...

If she doesn't say anything at the time, nor offers any resistance even though she's capable (she's not tied up with a gag in her mouth, sort of thing ) then it's hard to see how he would be expected to know she was unwilling, or became unwilling at some point in the process.

Certainly, couples who are close can learn to interpret each other's responses over time. You usually know the difference between cries of ecstasy and cries of pain, like when you accidentally bump her cervix and it hurts, or she moves her head to find that your arm is lying on her hair, or your boys get accidentally squished. You can try to pay attention to signs, like if she was an active particpant and then suddenly stopped moving or touching you, but it's tough for people who don't know each other to read each other that way.

What makes it all harder is that "she wanted it" and "i didn't know" are common defenses in rapes, so you can't figure out when that's a bullshit defense or true.

 

[rgraham666]

Moi? And if so, a lil more explanation wouldn't harm.

I beg your pardon, Liar.

Amicus (pauses to wash taste out of his mouth) means 'friend' in Latin.

My post was not directed at you in any way.

My apologies.

 

[Liar]

What makes it all harder is that "she wanted it" and "i didn't know" are common defenses in rapes, so you can't figure out when that's a bullshit defense or true.

Indeedio. it's words against words. but then again, it almost always is, as long as there's no witnesses or evidence of physical struggle. Most cases of date rape or spousal rape would probably qualify here, which is why so few gets reported and even fewer convicted.

A sad dilemma, that.

 

[Liar]

I beg your pardon, Liar.

Amicus (pauses to wash taste out of his mouth) means 'friend' in Latin.

My post was not directed at you in any way.

My apologies.

None needed. I really need to brush up on my latin.

The only problem is that he resists almost everything. So what does that say?

 

[Guest]

. . . . .

 

[Guest]

. . . . .

 

[Liar]

Agreed.

If she didn't speak up, it is difficult for some men to know.

On the other hand, some men wouldn't notice a damn thing.

I'm not talking about the sex act itself, but the foreplay leading up to it - the disrobing, touching, licking, fondling, etc. A woman who isn't interested would probably not be contributing too much in this area, correct?

Correctamundo, I guess. However, being active in that doesn't atomatically mean that she wants to get involved in any penetration business. Right? That's where the miscommunication often happens. She's ok with a little snogging and fondling, he wants the whole enchilada, when he gets worked up, she gets too intimidated to tell him no. Not unusual at all among the young and unexperienced. The guy is not sensible enough to intepret an implicit 'no', and she is not experienced enough to dare to disspoint him (or knee him in the gonads). Rape or no rape, she'll suffer for it, and most probably shift even more blame to herself than if she'd actually been physically forced.

Can having an erection cause so little brain function that some men are completely unaware of obvious negative signals?

The short anset to that would be: No. The long that there probablty wasn't enough brain function there to begin with. Maybe we should start charging people with FUI and FUS? Fucking Under Influence and Fucking Under Stupidity?