Misogyny, Guns, Rape and Culture..
- Thread starter Bells
- Start date
- Status
Yep. Which is what Trooper said.
well except for the fact she seems to be a proponent of negative consent. which is unless the victim flat out says no its there own damn fault.
As expressed colloquially, it's Dry Foot - but not Dry Foot, of course!.... but Dry Foot.
pjdude1219 said:
Nope. Not even close. Besides, I think that most men want our continued affirmation during intercourse, don't you?
“Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967
I don't think she ever said that. Do you have a link to where she did?
This and That
It's an extraneous choice, one that must be eliminated.
Document that statement.
No. Zero is exactly the right answer. It's the parts of your post that try to work around that outcome that are problematic.
So if, say, I required sustenance, I could drink your blood?
And the problem with the slavery analogy is that its applicable limitations make it rather quite the stupid analogy, especially when you insist on it this long. Women are people, not mere things or locations.
A woman is not real estate.
You need to learn this fact.
You're the one who argues that women are property. You're the one who argues that women are mere locations. You're the one arguing women as real estate.
If you're disgusted, you did it to yourself.
As I recall, your whole purpose in wanting to stuff babies back inside women had to do with location, location, location.
Because birth itself carries enough hazards; you can't perform a D&C; you can't perform a saline bath; D&X is illegal, even under emergency circumstances. Attempting to perform a D&C or saline bath at that time creates a risk potential that most doctors wisely avoid. Even if they see only one patient at that point, i.e., the mother, it is a difficult call to invoke that risk without medical necessity.
Statistically, as it is, though, you're fretting over your own fantasy.
It's hard to believe that you really don't get the difference between a physical coordinate on the face of the planet and the volume inside a person's body.
A woman's uterus is not the back forty. Period.
Within your plantation metaphor it would be important to remember that the doctor has already promised that he won't burn down the house.
It's kind of part of being a doctor.
Trying to ride the property metaphor out of this ditch isn't really working, Capracus. In the end, you're just digging deeper.
And please try to remember that as a parent, it should not be any point of pride to me that the first time her parents held her, our daughter was wanted, loved, and not looked upon as a curse.
What you really need to do, Capracus, is start dealing with reality.
Parents who choose to bring a pregnancy to term generally start working to accommodate the new arrival before it arrives. Been through it as a parent, myself.
Next time, try a relevant article. What prosecutors and judges say about a woman's mind when they're sending her to prison is not an accurate evaluation of her mental state.
As it is, your response is one of cowardice. You're the one fantasizing about this implication; what do you think is going on in a woman's mind?
Meanwhile, you're dealing with a different set of laws; remember that Dryfoot applies under American law. Perhaps you remember that? The discussion about American policies and the Constitution? So in the first place, it's English law, which is a whole other set of circumstances.
In the second, the only hints we have at her state of mind are the facts that she had previously been denied abortion access, she was having an affair, and it required a psychiatrist to dig in her mind for the facts.
So, yes, there is, additionally, the point about characterizations of Ms. Catt being offered by law enforcement and judges; we don't have anything in her words.
And, lastly, the Chief Inspector did note that the case was unusual.
In the end, your article offers no insight toward the relevant point, and cosntitutes a dodge.
You know, it's morbidly funny. The people so dedicated to FAPping women also look very poorly upon women.
Life is a lot more complicated than a dime mystery plot, Capracus.
This issue came to the fore in the 1980s, when states started passing fetal homicide laws. Abortion rights advocates protested that the laws, ostensibly passed to protect pregnant women, would be used against those women. Their predictions have proven true; in South Carolina, I believe it is, they only ever charged one abuser under that standard, and then overturned his conviction. Meanwhile, the law has been used to prosecute hundreds of women.
This is exactly as they planned.
Which does, in a way, bring us 'round the circle to the question of misogyny, rape, and culture.
Your anti-abortion outlook views women as things. So do rape advocacy and Infinite Prevention Advocacy.
And this objectification of women is very close to the heart of the problem.
Any time some abuser becomes abusive, whether he's slapping her around or shooting her down, he is reducing her to an object. Because you don't do that to a person just for not wanting whatever it is you think they should want.
What you provide is an example of how misogyny overlaps between diverse subjects.
Yes, but you advocate for rape and rapists, so your opinion is just that: Another rape advocate's opinion.
Chronologically speaking, what you're objecting to is other people's objections to telling women to reduce their quality of life drastically in vain hope of "preventing" a rape.
Your lack of respect for people in general is part of your problem. You took a bad position for stupid reasons, and instead of just dealing with that, you now flail about trying to turn your argument into something it isn't.
That sounds a bit more sane than blaming rape victims.
My only question is why it took months to come around to this position.
Meanwhile, the affirmative consent discourse is officially under way in the U.S. How long do you think it will go on in this round? And do you really think our society will get anything substantial out of it?
Capracus said:
It's an extraneous choice, one that must be eliminated.
Document that statement.
No. Zero is exactly the right answer. It's the parts of your post that try to work around that outcome that are problematic.
So if, say, I required sustenance, I could drink your blood?
And the problem with the slavery analogy is that its applicable limitations make it rather quite the stupid analogy, especially when you insist on it this long. Women are people, not mere things or locations.
A woman is not real estate.
You need to learn this fact.
You're the one who argues that women are property. You're the one who argues that women are mere locations. You're the one arguing women as real estate.
If you're disgusted, you did it to yourself.
As I recall, your whole purpose in wanting to stuff babies back inside women had to do with location, location, location.
Because birth itself carries enough hazards; you can't perform a D&C; you can't perform a saline bath; D&X is illegal, even under emergency circumstances. Attempting to perform a D&C or saline bath at that time creates a risk potential that most doctors wisely avoid. Even if they see only one patient at that point, i.e., the mother, it is a difficult call to invoke that risk without medical necessity.
Statistically, as it is, though, you're fretting over your own fantasy.
It's hard to believe that you really don't get the difference between a physical coordinate on the face of the planet and the volume inside a person's body.
A woman's uterus is not the back forty. Period.
Within your plantation metaphor it would be important to remember that the doctor has already promised that he won't burn down the house.
It's kind of part of being a doctor.
Trying to ride the property metaphor out of this ditch isn't really working, Capracus. In the end, you're just digging deeper.
And please try to remember that as a parent, it should not be any point of pride to me that the first time her parents held her, our daughter was wanted, loved, and not looked upon as a curse.
What you really need to do, Capracus, is start dealing with reality.
Parents who choose to bring a pregnancy to term generally start working to accommodate the new arrival before it arrives. Been through it as a parent, myself.
Next time, try a relevant article. What prosecutors and judges say about a woman's mind when they're sending her to prison is not an accurate evaluation of her mental state.
As it is, your response is one of cowardice. You're the one fantasizing about this implication; what do you think is going on in a woman's mind?
Meanwhile, you're dealing with a different set of laws; remember that Dryfoot applies under American law. Perhaps you remember that? The discussion about American policies and the Constitution? So in the first place, it's English law, which is a whole other set of circumstances.
In the second, the only hints we have at her state of mind are the facts that she had previously been denied abortion access, she was having an affair, and it required a psychiatrist to dig in her mind for the facts.
So, yes, there is, additionally, the point about characterizations of Ms. Catt being offered by law enforcement and judges; we don't have anything in her words.
And, lastly, the Chief Inspector did note that the case was unusual.
In the end, your article offers no insight toward the relevant point, and cosntitutes a dodge.
You know, it's morbidly funny. The people so dedicated to FAPping women also look very poorly upon women.
Life is a lot more complicated than a dime mystery plot, Capracus.
This issue came to the fore in the 1980s, when states started passing fetal homicide laws. Abortion rights advocates protested that the laws, ostensibly passed to protect pregnant women, would be used against those women. Their predictions have proven true; in South Carolina, I believe it is, they only ever charged one abuser under that standard, and then overturned his conviction. Meanwhile, the law has been used to prosecute hundreds of women.
This is exactly as they planned.
Which does, in a way, bring us 'round the circle to the question of misogyny, rape, and culture.
Your anti-abortion outlook views women as things. So do rape advocacy and Infinite Prevention Advocacy.
And this objectification of women is very close to the heart of the problem.
Any time some abuser becomes abusive, whether he's slapping her around or shooting her down, he is reducing her to an object. Because you don't do that to a person just for not wanting whatever it is you think they should want.
What you provide is an example of how misogyny overlaps between diverse subjects.
• • •
Trooper said:
Yes, but you advocate for rape and rapists, so your opinion is just that: Another rape advocate's opinion.
Chronologically speaking, what you're objecting to is other people's objections to telling women to reduce their quality of life drastically in vain hope of "preventing" a rape.
Your lack of respect for people in general is part of your problem. You took a bad position for stupid reasons, and instead of just dealing with that, you now flail about trying to turn your argument into something it isn't.
That sounds a bit more sane than blaming rape victims.
My only question is why it took months to come around to this position.
Meanwhile, the affirmative consent discourse is officially under way in the U.S. How long do you think it will go on in this round? And do you really think our society will get anything substantial out of it?
Affirmative Consent: Apparently, It's Confusing
After years of confusing people with the idea of "No Means No", the evil feminists and their social justice allies are back with another scurrilous hit, that "Yes Means Yes". Why can't the social justice usurpers realize that it's just not fair to rapists to keep confusing them like this?
And if the preceding paragraph seemed rather odd, perhaps there is a reason. Chuck Todd, the newly-minted host of NBC's Meet the Press, decided to run a drive-by segment last week: "Make the Case: Is Affirmative Consent the Best Way to Handle Sexual Assaults on Campus?"
It wasn't an interview, but, rather a presented "argument" of edited statements from an attorney named Matt Kaiser and NOW President Terry O'Neill. While O'Neill discussed issues of law and equal protection, Kaiser argued that it is unfair to schools to expect that they not aid and abet rape, unfair to rapists to invoke an affirmative consent standard, and somehow unfair to rape victims and survivors that they should expect the right to consent to sexual intercourse:
Besides, he argues, women still have recourse to justice:
And, yes, schools also know how much lawyers cost. Still, though, as Kaiser argues, these dishonest women can "run to the Department of Education" or "run to file a civil lawsuit".
The question arises: Really?
It really is a strange segment, one dedicated by format to basic equivocation—that somebody says this and somebody else says that, and there really are no facts to observe.
Except that there are facts to observe.
How is affirmative consent unfair to rapists?
And how is it unfair to the people being raped?
Given that we already have an infamous case on record in which affirmative consent was part of the prosecutor's reason for not charging a confessed rape, it would seem that issues of affirmative consent demand settlement.
____________________
Notes:
NBC News. "Make the Case: Is Affirmative Consent the Best Way to Handle Sexual Assaults on Campus?" Meet the Press 24/7. October 9, 2014. NBCNews.com. October 13, 2014. http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/meet...est-way-handle-sexual-assaults-campus-n222451
After years of confusing people with the idea of "No Means No", the evil feminists and their social justice allies are back with another scurrilous hit, that "Yes Means Yes". Why can't the social justice usurpers realize that it's just not fair to rapists to keep confusing them like this?
And if the preceding paragraph seemed rather odd, perhaps there is a reason. Chuck Todd, the newly-minted host of NBC's Meet the Press, decided to run a drive-by segment last week: "Make the Case: Is Affirmative Consent the Best Way to Handle Sexual Assaults on Campus?"
It wasn't an interview, but, rather a presented "argument" of edited statements from an attorney named Matt Kaiser and NOW President Terry O'Neill. While O'Neill discussed issues of law and equal protection, Kaiser argued that it is unfair to schools to expect that they not aid and abet rape, unfair to rapists to invoke an affirmative consent standard, and somehow unfair to rape victims and survivors that they should expect the right to consent to sexual intercourse:
Sexual assault is a horrible thing, whether it’s on campus or not. And, obviously, as a society we need to figure out a way to respond to that.
Asking colleges to do this, it isn’t fair to schools, it isn’t fair to the people who are accused, and it isn’t fair to the women who suffer through this.
Asking colleges to do this, it isn’t fair to schools, it isn’t fair to the people who are accused, and it isn’t fair to the women who suffer through this.
Besides, he argues, women still have recourse to justice:
The school still has an incentive to find the man responsible. If the woman is found to not be credible, if the woman is found to be lying, if she has been treated in any way she objects to, she can run to the Department of Education. She can run to file a civil lawsuit against the school. And schools know that.
And, yes, schools also know how much lawyers cost. Still, though, as Kaiser argues, these dishonest women can "run to the Department of Education" or "run to file a civil lawsuit".
The question arises: Really?
It really is a strange segment, one dedicated by format to basic equivocation—that somebody says this and somebody else says that, and there really are no facts to observe.
Except that there are facts to observe.
How is affirmative consent unfair to rapists?
And how is it unfair to the people being raped?
Given that we already have an infamous case on record in which affirmative consent was part of the prosecutor's reason for not charging a confessed rape, it would seem that issues of affirmative consent demand settlement.
____________________
Notes:
NBC News. "Make the Case: Is Affirmative Consent the Best Way to Handle Sexual Assaults on Campus?" Meet the Press 24/7. October 9, 2014. NBCNews.com. October 13, 2014. http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/meet...est-way-handle-sexual-assaults-campus-n222451
No she never came out and said she believed in it. but than again rascist never say they are rascist either. when someone starts talking about how women are to blame for what they wear and the like they are being proponents of negative consent. so i'm sorry I'm not going to play your game so you can protect a rape advocate.
No your a weak woman. who attacks her fellow women for not submitting to male rules on female behavior. you have no credibility. your attacks on tiassa only showcase your own fragile ego.
Hmm, and she never said that either.
If someone never says they are a racist, and does not say or do racist things, would you call them a racist?
um yeah she did. what do you think harping on what women are wearing is?
you creating a strawman to defend a fellow rape advocate
No. Read your history. It was, for example, the slaveowners who were lobbying to have their slaves counted as persons in the US. Slavery is completely compatible with personhood - nothing but law and custom prevents people from being a category of property.capracus said:
That is the problem with your slavery analogy - you have inverted it, in a basic confusion and reflexive denial of the fact that the body and the person you are attempting to denigrate and control is the woman's.
No, they didn't. And if they had, for some reason, failed to produce their food and clothing as well as their master's, the blame fell on them (and the punishment).capracus said:
You have the basic dependency relationship completely backwards. Slaves sustained masters, not the other way around.
Of course they are. Many persons are dependent on others. Those others remain persons, however, entitled to defend themselves - right?capracus said:
Some approaches to rape prevention do lead directly to victim blaming, in real life and right here on this forum. Do you not see that? I provided the example of Saudi Arabia's regulation of women's lives, and you have provided examples of how easily victim blaming slips in (and realistic rape prevention gets forgotten) when one's focus is on the potential victims behavior and "preparation".trooper said:
No one here except the victim blamers is confusing those approaches with rape prevention in general.
And of course the behaviors we want to change are the rapists's behaviors. Right?trooper said:
Last edited:
The punishment isn't the problem, Bells.
It's the blanket "authority" under which that punishment is rendered.
This one is a touch too large for me at the moment. Other than to say... would you really want to live in Tiassa's particular Utopia?
The various brands of Socialism and Authoritarianism are not so far apart, in terms of eventual outcomes.
Everything is about control, as much as it may purport otherwise.
You didn't. Noise got in the way, and I made an assumption. You can have that one.
You do have a habit of making quick emotional judgements, though.
I was actually commenting on those who think they do, Bells. I wasn't saying I had it myself.
I'm not an overly tolerant person.
Empathy should never preclude or prevent action. But in this world, it has a tendency to drive it, which is perhaps even more dangerous.
I do "softly softly" comment on just about everything. Strange choice of words, that, by the way.
I see the problems, Bells, with your "answers". Does this preclude me from the right to protest yours?
I don't have any of my own. You and Tiassa can't see the forest for the trees, though. You think idealism cannot coincide with reality. There is no "right now", Bells. You deal with life, and you figure out ways you might improve it. That's all humanity has ever done, and all it can do. So often, we leave the improvements to those not exactly qualified to make them.
That isn't the point, Bells.
Your comments annoyed me because as a rebuttal of Trooper advocating preparedness, you've used the example of a 100-year old woman being raped as evidence of the advocation of preparedness contributing to "Rape Culture".
Don't you see?
Last edited:
Off-topic, sorry, but ... what?!
Do you ever wonder, Tiassa, why it is I'll often single you out for a drunken swing with a baseball bat?
The thought probably hasn't crossed your mind.
That was worth coming here for.
And on that note, I'll ignore the rest.
I had a plant on my balcony, James.
It got as much water and care as the others, but it wasn't doing so well.
It grew, all right. But it was supposed to be a bushy plant, lush and green, plenty of leaves.
I ended up with something that looked a bit like a very tall and skinny man... with an Afro.
What I didn't know, until I did some reading, was that it didn't need that much water. That much light. That much love.
I'd cared for it just a little too much.
So I took a pair of secateurs, and cut it right back to the base. I don't imagine the plant, had it it's own voice, would have approved.
But it does look rather beautiful now. As it was supposed to be.
Empathy can be a preventative for humanity making those decisions which need to be made.
- Status