Sexual Discrimination and Violence: Changing men's attitudes
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Jericho is not the earliest town.james said:
Remains of towns without walls are harder to find, and seldom mentioned in legends of battles, etc. Archaeologists have documented many timelines of towns acquiring walls after long existnece without them, and it's likely that the earliest towns had no walls.
A wall is for excluding violence, not enabling it. Also, the attackers of towns were often not from towns. China's Great Wall is not a sign of the role of violence in setting up Chinese civilization, but of the necessity of excluding barbarian violence from the civilization in China.
Which is hardly surprising, given that the earliest towns were built by people wiling to suspend at least their mutual aggression, at least for a while.
The hierarchy of personal violence runs (most to least) nomad - farmer - townie - small city. The effect of civilization on the untamed, violent nomad is so commonly recognized as to be a stereotype. Soldiers do not go to war to set up little neighborhoods and form civilizations.
People recognising the necessity of curbing violence to form a civilization have even theorized that an important cause of war - which destroys whatever civilizations it can - is the outlet opportunity it offers to men for rape.
But on the OP:
If the violent male is viewed as a cheater - someone who by reneging on his part of the deal ruins the opportunities of the cooperative setup - he might be thereby excluded, and his status made unenviable. The requirement of a social pressure campaign in that direction would be a cooperative setup that did offer benefits.
Nice guys would have to get laid, maybe.
That's not as improbable as it sounds at first. The few times I have been in a situation in which I was pretty much guaranteed the company of several attractive, naked, and potentially at least willing women, were situations in which over-aggressive men had been socially excluded or at least curbed in expression.
So there's a social carrot here, not just a disciplinary stick. And there's a satisfactory direction of displacement for the natural male aggression - excluding the asshole who ruins it for the rest will take confrontation, occasionally. Teamwork.
I dunno - direction of inquiry ?
Women who are attracted to violently aggressive men tend to have serious psychological issues. I would even hazard a guess that such women were raised in families that exhibited the same behaviours which then become internalised. That is, having experienced violence and aggression from either one or both parents the female child (or indeed male child) would see this as normal in a relationship.
And violent aggression does not a healthy relationship make.
And violent aggression does not a healthy relationship make.
You're actually assuming to tell me what is and isn't in my nature?!
Fair enough, then.
Yeah, but if it's in you're nature to do something, that usually means you want to do it. I can't see people, say, taking up jobs they don't want to trying to change their personalities just for the sake of ideology.
Visceral Instinct:
I speak of women, not of (a) woman. It could be in your nature as an individual.
People go against their nature all the time. Especially when educated/indoctrinated with viewpoints. It's insidious the degree of control.
I speak of women, not of (a) woman. It could be in your nature as an individual.
People go against their nature all the time. Especially when educated/indoctrinated with viewpoints. It's insidious the degree of control.
Iceaura:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho - Jericho dates back to 9000-7000 BC. It is by far the earliest town in a traditional sense known to man.
Irrelevant. It is notable that the earliest town had walls and a guard tower.
Walls are defensible structures. As such, they imply a knowledge of how to wage war, both defensively and presumably offensively.
Also, China had plenty of internal violence.
Only internally.
Nomads find civilization on the ashes of others. Moreover, city dwellers tend to have massive wars amongst one another, often for more abstract things than just immediate wealth and living space.
Rape is more a matter of course than an objective. War is profitable for the immediate benefits it gives the victors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho - Jericho dates back to 9000-7000 BC. It is by far the earliest town in a traditional sense known to man.
Irrelevant. It is notable that the earliest town had walls and a guard tower.
Walls are defensible structures. As such, they imply a knowledge of how to wage war, both defensively and presumably offensively.
Also, China had plenty of internal violence.
Only internally.
Nomads find civilization on the ashes of others. Moreover, city dwellers tend to have massive wars amongst one another, often for more abstract things than just immediate wealth and living space.
Rape is more a matter of course than an objective. War is profitable for the immediate benefits it gives the victors.
I don't see it as a zero sum game. The rapist's guilt does not decrease because the victim put herself in a dangerous situation.
It wasn't men that created the environment where women are at greater risk then men, it was nature.
Nature has endowed women with something men want (their bodies). And it has endowed men with the physical strength to take what they want by force. No amount of education will change these basic facts, or the fact that some men will always be ready to commit rape.
Again, I do not see the actions of the female in putting herself in a dangerous situation as affecting whether or how guilty the rapist is. But they most certainly do affect her chances of being victimized. In a perfect world, a woman would be able to get blind drunk with no worries over getting raped, but this is not a perfect world, is it? Nor will it ever be.
Crime is not usually completely random. You can do things to avoid being a victim. You lock your doors at night. You lock the doors of your car. You don't go to bad neighborhoods, especially at night. Maybe you get a dog, or a gun.
For women, being physically weaker and possessing something that men want, the list of things to do to keep yourself safe is longer.
That's life. That's reality. You can pretend otherwise, but you do so at your own peril. Reality has a way of biting you in the ass if you ignore it.
The Human Context
Thoughts on the Human Context
One of the morbid aspects of the debate about rape is the number of men who, while they would acknowledge that rape is a crime and tell us how horrible they think it is, would nonetheless attempt to mitigate or justify it. We have already seen the assertion that violence—including sexual—is a male birthright that is beautiful and brings fine things such as civilization. Of this last, the civilization of the Palestinian territories and, indeed, Lebanon to the north, make outstanding testaments. Compton in the 1980s, or Tacoma's K Street were raised to the height of civilization by the kind of violence that saw a young shot to death, her car riddled with hundreds of bullets, because she waved to a friend. Indeed, since the most part of the violence in Liberia has calmed, that beleaguered nation's recovery has been stalled. The prosperity that comes with civilization will only return when the factions take up their weapons and start tearing the place to hell again. The beauty of violence and the gifts it brings are so apparent.
Indeed in this context we should realize that it is not the participants who make violence, but rather "Nature", in this case a faceless stand-in where others might assert God. Men are merely instruments of the natural way, unable to behave according to the rules of civilization which they have apparently worked so hard to raise despite themselves.
Nature has endowed women with something men want, and it is natural that men should simply take it. Let us pay no mind to the fact that masculinity is soon to be extraneous, a genetic quirk that will, without artificial intervention, soon fade away again only to reassert itself in a new form. Perhaps in the next cycle, nature will get it right, or at least make progress toward that end.
And what is right, in this case? Perhaps something less raw, more refined. Something more capable of the cooperative behavior that lends itself to the perpetuity of our species. For we have reached a chapter in our human endeavor in which violence is neither desirable nor efficient. How, then, to reconcile the conflict of what patriarchy and phallocracy have wrought, a civilization in which men must deny their alleged true nature?
Could it possibly be that men are given to civilization, and that the conflicts between the demands of cooperative society and the violence that seems so inherent to males that some would call it a birthright is merely handed down by those who refuse to adapt? For, indeed, the appeal to nature either overlooks certain dimensions of humanity or deliberately ignores it altogether. The dog, the bear, the earthworm, the bacterium, the birds and the bees and the fish in the seas cannot choose as humans do. And pretending that men cannot choose is among most repugnant degrees of sexism. This is the fallacy that casts men as animals who do not ask permission, that pretends them simple machines with an inevitable response to any given stimulus. In short, it pretends men are unfit for civilized society, presumes them incapable of the finer human judgment that has, thus far, served our species so well. Despite the vital demand that gives rise to our existence, we are apparently a detriment to the future of our species, given over to violence and blind individualism against which any obligation to our fellow humans is oppressive.
True enough there is no crime in humanity which can be wholly erased. But to pretend that marital rape is an inevitability, that acquaintance rape is unavoidable, is merely an excuse to never try. Perhaps, on some level, savage masculinity is fighting to assert itself, to increase the odds of fulfilling its one single duty. The more we mitigate rape, the better our chances of getting laid; perhaps, one day, humanity will become so "civilized" that men no longer need ask, and simply take again whatever nature inclines them toward, just as they did in the days before civilization, indeed in the days before we were human.
And it will be, to borrow a word, beautiful.
There are those in society who are truly incapable of helping themselves, of controlling their behavior. That men should aspire to be psychiatrically dysfunctional within society, even sociopathic, is a chilling fallacy. How many of us who attend the internet culture would be defeated and devoured in such a primal state as preceded human civilization? Without guns or even swords, without schools to refine our knowledge, given only to blunt force and blind hunger, how many of us would perish? British commentator Mark Steel once pointed out that "survival of the fittest" was the political philosophy of his nation's conservatives, which is why the land was ruled by such specimens of the physically adept as Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Jack Straw, and Peter Mandelson. The contrast is obvious: civilization is passing by the "birthright" of males. Brute force is reduced to a spectacle of entertainment; even in open warfare, brute force is denounced, as humanity conceives better ambitions.
That the world is imperfect does not excuse. That someone might commit a certain crime given the perception of opportunity does not license any one person's choice to be that someone. To argue, on the merits of imperfection, against the education of our younger generations toward human dignity and respect is to forestall human progress in pursuit of a greedy end. It is the antithesis of our human endeavor and all the progress we have made, and all, apparently, so that some individuals might feel justified in their sexual ambition.
If one should claim that we men have all had these violent thoughts before, I would certainly grant that as an argumentative generalization. But that fact does not in any way justify such thoughts or the acts they represent. We all have entertained thoughts of murder, as well.
The reality of our existence is that humanity is a social creature, given to cooperation and, as such, civilization. Refusing to take part is to refuse our human heritage. To harken back to a primal state might provide some myopic gratification. The lesson of Thelema is clear: preserve your ability to do what thou wilt. To consider a contemporary variation, the Witches' Rede, which draws a limit—And thou harm none—for those who need explicit reminding.
Humanity has come a long way. We should not throw that all to the rubbish tip in pursuit of an orgasm or an untenable, ill-conceived assertion of self-worth.
Asking women to cope with reality is one thing. But doing so while refusing our own obligations to society and our fellow human beings is despicable, and marks manhood itself as something that humanity, when it so adapts, will be better off without.
Mind is a disease of semen.
All that a man is or may be is hidden therein.
Bodily functions are parts of the machine; silent, unless in dis-ease.
This I persisteth not, posteth not through generations, changeth momently, finally is dead.
Therefore is man only himself when lost to himself in The Charioting.
(Perdurabo, Psalm 8)
All that a man is or may be is hidden therein.
Bodily functions are parts of the machine; silent, unless in dis-ease.
This I persisteth not, posteth not through generations, changeth momently, finally is dead.
Therefore is man only himself when lost to himself in The Charioting.
(Perdurabo, Psalm 8)
Thoughts on the Human Context
Madanthonywayne said:
One of the morbid aspects of the debate about rape is the number of men who, while they would acknowledge that rape is a crime and tell us how horrible they think it is, would nonetheless attempt to mitigate or justify it. We have already seen the assertion that violence—including sexual—is a male birthright that is beautiful and brings fine things such as civilization. Of this last, the civilization of the Palestinian territories and, indeed, Lebanon to the north, make outstanding testaments. Compton in the 1980s, or Tacoma's K Street were raised to the height of civilization by the kind of violence that saw a young shot to death, her car riddled with hundreds of bullets, because she waved to a friend. Indeed, since the most part of the violence in Liberia has calmed, that beleaguered nation's recovery has been stalled. The prosperity that comes with civilization will only return when the factions take up their weapons and start tearing the place to hell again. The beauty of violence and the gifts it brings are so apparent.
Indeed in this context we should realize that it is not the participants who make violence, but rather "Nature", in this case a faceless stand-in where others might assert God. Men are merely instruments of the natural way, unable to behave according to the rules of civilization which they have apparently worked so hard to raise despite themselves.
Nature has endowed women with something men want, and it is natural that men should simply take it. Let us pay no mind to the fact that masculinity is soon to be extraneous, a genetic quirk that will, without artificial intervention, soon fade away again only to reassert itself in a new form. Perhaps in the next cycle, nature will get it right, or at least make progress toward that end.
And what is right, in this case? Perhaps something less raw, more refined. Something more capable of the cooperative behavior that lends itself to the perpetuity of our species. For we have reached a chapter in our human endeavor in which violence is neither desirable nor efficient. How, then, to reconcile the conflict of what patriarchy and phallocracy have wrought, a civilization in which men must deny their alleged true nature?
Could it possibly be that men are given to civilization, and that the conflicts between the demands of cooperative society and the violence that seems so inherent to males that some would call it a birthright is merely handed down by those who refuse to adapt? For, indeed, the appeal to nature either overlooks certain dimensions of humanity or deliberately ignores it altogether. The dog, the bear, the earthworm, the bacterium, the birds and the bees and the fish in the seas cannot choose as humans do. And pretending that men cannot choose is among most repugnant degrees of sexism. This is the fallacy that casts men as animals who do not ask permission, that pretends them simple machines with an inevitable response to any given stimulus. In short, it pretends men are unfit for civilized society, presumes them incapable of the finer human judgment that has, thus far, served our species so well. Despite the vital demand that gives rise to our existence, we are apparently a detriment to the future of our species, given over to violence and blind individualism against which any obligation to our fellow humans is oppressive.
True enough there is no crime in humanity which can be wholly erased. But to pretend that marital rape is an inevitability, that acquaintance rape is unavoidable, is merely an excuse to never try. Perhaps, on some level, savage masculinity is fighting to assert itself, to increase the odds of fulfilling its one single duty. The more we mitigate rape, the better our chances of getting laid; perhaps, one day, humanity will become so "civilized" that men no longer need ask, and simply take again whatever nature inclines them toward, just as they did in the days before civilization, indeed in the days before we were human.
And it will be, to borrow a word, beautiful.
There are those in society who are truly incapable of helping themselves, of controlling their behavior. That men should aspire to be psychiatrically dysfunctional within society, even sociopathic, is a chilling fallacy. How many of us who attend the internet culture would be defeated and devoured in such a primal state as preceded human civilization? Without guns or even swords, without schools to refine our knowledge, given only to blunt force and blind hunger, how many of us would perish? British commentator Mark Steel once pointed out that "survival of the fittest" was the political philosophy of his nation's conservatives, which is why the land was ruled by such specimens of the physically adept as Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Jack Straw, and Peter Mandelson. The contrast is obvious: civilization is passing by the "birthright" of males. Brute force is reduced to a spectacle of entertainment; even in open warfare, brute force is denounced, as humanity conceives better ambitions.
That the world is imperfect does not excuse. That someone might commit a certain crime given the perception of opportunity does not license any one person's choice to be that someone. To argue, on the merits of imperfection, against the education of our younger generations toward human dignity and respect is to forestall human progress in pursuit of a greedy end. It is the antithesis of our human endeavor and all the progress we have made, and all, apparently, so that some individuals might feel justified in their sexual ambition.
If one should claim that we men have all had these violent thoughts before, I would certainly grant that as an argumentative generalization. But that fact does not in any way justify such thoughts or the acts they represent. We all have entertained thoughts of murder, as well.
The reality of our existence is that humanity is a social creature, given to cooperation and, as such, civilization. Refusing to take part is to refuse our human heritage. To harken back to a primal state might provide some myopic gratification. The lesson of Thelema is clear: preserve your ability to do what thou wilt. To consider a contemporary variation, the Witches' Rede, which draws a limit—And thou harm none—for those who need explicit reminding.
Humanity has come a long way. We should not throw that all to the rubbish tip in pursuit of an orgasm or an untenable, ill-conceived assertion of self-worth.
Asking women to cope with reality is one thing. But doing so while refusing our own obligations to society and our fellow human beings is despicable, and marks manhood itself as something that humanity, when it so adapts, will be better off without.
Mighty and erect is this Will of mine, this Pyramid of fire whose
summit is lost in Heaven. Upon it have I burned the corpse of my
desires.
Mighty and erect is this Φαλλος of my Will. The seed thereof is
That which I have borne within me from Eternity; and it is lost
within the Body of Our Lady of the Stars.
I am not I; I am but an hollow tube to bring down Fire from
Heaven.
Mighty and marvellous is this Weakness, this Heaven which
draweth me into Her Womb, this Dome which hideth, which
absorbeth, Me.
This is The Night wherein I am lost, the Love through which I am
no longer I.
(Perdurabo, Psalm 15)
summit is lost in Heaven. Upon it have I burned the corpse of my
desires.
Mighty and erect is this Φαλλος of my Will. The seed thereof is
That which I have borne within me from Eternity; and it is lost
within the Body of Our Lady of the Stars.
I am not I; I am but an hollow tube to bring down Fire from
Heaven.
Mighty and marvellous is this Weakness, this Heaven which
draweth me into Her Womb, this Dome which hideth, which
absorbeth, Me.
This is The Night wherein I am lost, the Love through which I am
no longer I.
(Perdurabo, Psalm 15)
(Insert title here)
As a stand-alone point, the question pertains to men's attitudes toward women, how those affect and contribute to sexual harassment and violence, and what can be done to change these outlooks.
From a Utopian perspective, nature dictates certain outcomes that cannot be avoided, including a range of psychiatric dysfunctions ranging all the way to sociopathy and psychopathy. The idyllic question would wonder how we could reduce rape to only these rapists. Of course, that's unrealistic. Nature also dictates that some people are simply too stupid to understand. Nonetheless, a tremendous portion of acquaintance and marital rapes, at least, could be prevented if the rapist had a better education in relevant matters. There really are men out there who believe such classic excuses as, "Sure, she said 'no', but you could tell by looking in her eyes that she meant, 'yes'."
To what degree can we reasonably alter men's attitudes and behavior in the long run?
To consider the question in terms of the running discussion, the proposition originally arose that women invited sexual harassment—e.g., catcalling—by their attire. A sarcastic counterpoint drew a powerful response, that a woman, by her attire, was "asking" to be raped. And while plenty of men would—and did—denounce such an attitude, its essence persists in a series of arguments assigning women the ungodly burden of taking precautions that account for countless factors; in other words, it is a woman's obligation to figure out what turns a man on, and take pains to avoid such behavior. Indeed, the alteration of men's outlooks and behavior was even added to the list of precautions a woman should take.
From there, the topic post speaks for itself. A series of suggestions was presented, leading to the inevitable question of what those suggestions involved. This topic, intended to explore that question as well as the general issue of men's outlooks and behavior, has resulted most markedly in further focus on women and a general misanthropy that, on the one hand, assigns the burdens of other people's perspectives and behavior onto any given woman while, to the other, once again casts men as helpless before their sexual urges. All in all, what we have is a desperate defense of status quo.
Would we tell a raped woman what she should have done? Or should we strive to raise the next generation of men to conduct themselves better than our own? One of those routes lets us pretend to feel wise. The other seeks to actually address what is a massive problem of our society.
There is no permanent and complete fix, no total solution. But that does not mean, compared to chasing women into hiding in the vain hope that by sequestering themselves in fear they will achieve their due respect as human beings, that we should not at least make a proper good-faith effort to alleviate as much of the threat as possible. And this despite those who would claim sexual violence as a birthright of human males.
John99 said:
As a stand-alone point, the question pertains to men's attitudes toward women, how those affect and contribute to sexual harassment and violence, and what can be done to change these outlooks.
From a Utopian perspective, nature dictates certain outcomes that cannot be avoided, including a range of psychiatric dysfunctions ranging all the way to sociopathy and psychopathy. The idyllic question would wonder how we could reduce rape to only these rapists. Of course, that's unrealistic. Nature also dictates that some people are simply too stupid to understand. Nonetheless, a tremendous portion of acquaintance and marital rapes, at least, could be prevented if the rapist had a better education in relevant matters. There really are men out there who believe such classic excuses as, "Sure, she said 'no', but you could tell by looking in her eyes that she meant, 'yes'."
To what degree can we reasonably alter men's attitudes and behavior in the long run?
To consider the question in terms of the running discussion, the proposition originally arose that women invited sexual harassment—e.g., catcalling—by their attire. A sarcastic counterpoint drew a powerful response, that a woman, by her attire, was "asking" to be raped. And while plenty of men would—and did—denounce such an attitude, its essence persists in a series of arguments assigning women the ungodly burden of taking precautions that account for countless factors; in other words, it is a woman's obligation to figure out what turns a man on, and take pains to avoid such behavior. Indeed, the alteration of men's outlooks and behavior was even added to the list of precautions a woman should take.
From there, the topic post speaks for itself. A series of suggestions was presented, leading to the inevitable question of what those suggestions involved. This topic, intended to explore that question as well as the general issue of men's outlooks and behavior, has resulted most markedly in further focus on women and a general misanthropy that, on the one hand, assigns the burdens of other people's perspectives and behavior onto any given woman while, to the other, once again casts men as helpless before their sexual urges. All in all, what we have is a desperate defense of status quo.
Would we tell a raped woman what she should have done? Or should we strive to raise the next generation of men to conduct themselves better than our own? One of those routes lets us pretend to feel wise. The other seeks to actually address what is a massive problem of our society.
There is no permanent and complete fix, no total solution. But that does not mean, compared to chasing women into hiding in the vain hope that by sequestering themselves in fear they will achieve their due respect as human beings, that we should not at least make a proper good-faith effort to alleviate as much of the threat as possible. And this despite those who would claim sexual violence as a birthright of human males.
It is not irrelevant, it is what you are basing your argument on - not only are other towns in Jericho's age range known (Catal Haryuk in Turkey, et al) but most old towns are found by their walls - after which, it sometimes happens that earlier settlings are found on the site, without walls. We have little record of wall-less towns, probably not because they are unlikely (they are almost inevitable) but because they are hard to find.Prince said:
In the New World the beginnings are more recent, and here where preservation is more likely and discovery easier we find the earliest brick or stone towns have no walls. http://www.philipcoppens.com/caral.html
Walls - and the civilizations inside them - are usually built by the less violent, not the more violent, in any given neighborhood.Prince said:
Walled monasteries, for example, are historically common. The Mongol Horde did not build walled cities of their own.
It's a start - further decreases in violence further enable growth of the town, establishment of trade links, etc. As the violent are curbed, civilization arises. As the violent gain the upper hand, civilizations are crippled, even destroyed completely.Prince said:
Among them, sexual opportunity otherwise unavailable. Whether that is an important motive in the first place is a matter of discussion - it's certainly possible.Prince said:
At any rate, we see that civilization itself depends on curbing violence and guiding "human nature" into better arrangements, and that there are benefits - not just avoidance of punishments - possible for men who arrange thier culture so as to threaten and abuse women less than this culture does.
Maybe if the harasser of women was more and more frequently referred to, viewed, and treated, as just another species of cheat and betrayer, someone who "ruins it for everyone" by punishing women for the freedom and availability upon which better optimized male desires depend, we could make a beginning ?
Human nature is built to handle perceived cheating.
But the payoff would have to be there, for the cooperator.
I don't think young boys are controlling by nature. From what I've noticed and experienced when I was little is that they are rather passive. Girls are controlling and assertive. These behaviors are different in people post puberty. I don't think its so much natural as it is taught. I hear parents doing it all of the time. Teaching their daughters to be more passive by yelling at them for being bossy to other kids and teaching their sons to stand up for themselves and be more aggressive if they ever want to get anywhere in life. On the playground girls are the ones who make demands and are unbending unless everyone follows said demands. Boys are very bending always trying to please everyone. If an argument breaks out among them someone will simply call a do over and thats that. Girls do not appease they have a my way or the highway attitude and their games are commonly cut short. Recess drama is so entertaining its like watching a soap opera or something.
But your claims at best are too general and at worst make no sense. Rape is a sex crime, this is not to say that violence does not occur during rapes and is common but the motivating factor is sex. All cases are different but a violent person is not always prone to rape. By the same token aggressive men are not always a danger to women because a female may not be and sometimes are never the object of their aggression. You can have a male who gets into fights all the time yet would never harm a female or you can have generally passive men who are rapists.
That is just BS. A child understands the word NO, it is just a poor excuse. Very rarely can you put much credence into interviewing the criminal for insight into their motivations. The theory being that telling a lie pales in comparison to what they are being charged with.
Last edited:
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
Which is what I said.
So the men's behavior is inevitable but women can be taught to reduce rape. We must simply accept that culture, training, education, and challenging men's attitudes about women, etc. can have no effect on men, so we should focus on women.
What if women engaging in what might be considered slightly risky to risky behavior is as hardwired as what you seem to think is completely biological in men?
(Sigh)
And yet it comes up. Or some form of that. Sure, we don't like to think of men as being so stupid, but some of them are.
From someone who compares a woman being raped to a man hurting himself or someone else, that's a curious complaint.
Rape is violence.
John99 said:
And yet it comes up. Or some form of that. Sure, we don't like to think of men as being so stupid, but some of them are.
From someone who compares a woman being raped to a man hurting himself or someone else, that's a curious complaint.
Rape is violence.
Where did i make that comparison?
I think that from a sentencing perspective rapists should be similar to murder sentence guidelines. The level of violence during commission should be factored in.
Varying degrees:
http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/homicide.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=defi...=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a
CutsieMarie69:
Boys work under a rule mindset with their fellow men. They develop structure and heirarchy which permits htings like "do overs" to resolve conflict, as the game is still important. Women are insufferably incapable of any sort of discourse and friendship and society amongst eachother for a long time, and some never really develop that. That being said, they are not as controlling or aggressive, and the history of civilization and pre-history point to men being the controlling, aggressive sex.
Boys work under a rule mindset with their fellow men. They develop structure and heirarchy which permits htings like "do overs" to resolve conflict, as the game is still important. Women are insufferably incapable of any sort of discourse and friendship and society amongst eachother for a long time, and some never really develop that. That being said, they are not as controlling or aggressive, and the history of civilization and pre-history point to men being the controlling, aggressive sex.
Iceaura:
They are more recent, as you said. As such, they aren't very useful for the discussion attempting to be made. Human history had walled towns thousands of years before them and mankind was waging war at the time. Indeed, even war during that period was known - as it is known even in the most primitive tribes.
Because they were nomads until they held regal titles after conquering. Then you find the Mongols, in variuos names, rule a dominion that stretched across the entire continent of Asia and into Europe and North Africa.
You clearly know nothing about kingdoms and empires if you say that civilization depends on "curbed violence". Conquering is how societies have worked since time immemorial. It is periods of intense peace which are degenerate to these societies: The Pax Romana was followed quickly by the dissolution of the Roman state. The Pax Tokugawa was followed by the massive overturning of the Meiji REvolution in Japan. The Qing Peace by the Opium Wars and civil war.
Considering war is generally fought for "living space" and the wealth war brings, rape is of secondary or even tritary focus. It certainly boosts morale to, as Hannibal said of the Celts, "to leave with their dicks wet".
Not particularly. Women can offer very little to men, abused or not. Abused they often "give it up". As they say, women "like jerks".
Also, human civilization depends on vital powers. These include warfare. Men built civilization on the back of bloodshed.
Save women adore them. It is their biological imperative.
They are more recent, as you said. As such, they aren't very useful for the discussion attempting to be made. Human history had walled towns thousands of years before them and mankind was waging war at the time. Indeed, even war during that period was known - as it is known even in the most primitive tribes.
Because they were nomads until they held regal titles after conquering. Then you find the Mongols, in variuos names, rule a dominion that stretched across the entire continent of Asia and into Europe and North Africa.
You clearly know nothing about kingdoms and empires if you say that civilization depends on "curbed violence". Conquering is how societies have worked since time immemorial. It is periods of intense peace which are degenerate to these societies: The Pax Romana was followed quickly by the dissolution of the Roman state. The Pax Tokugawa was followed by the massive overturning of the Meiji REvolution in Japan. The Qing Peace by the Opium Wars and civil war.
Considering war is generally fought for "living space" and the wealth war brings, rape is of secondary or even tritary focus. It certainly boosts morale to, as Hannibal said of the Celts, "to leave with their dicks wet".
Not particularly. Women can offer very little to men, abused or not. Abused they often "give it up". As they say, women "like jerks".
Also, human civilization depends on vital powers. These include warfare. Men built civilization on the back of bloodshed.
Save women adore them. It is their biological imperative.
You know, there's a reason I asked if that's what you really intended
Originally in post #5:
And reiterated quite specifically in #27:
John99 said:
Originally in post #5:
"They are all drunk, 17-25 year olds getting drunk and what do you expect to happen? Female passes out or cannot walk in a straight line is prime target for horny males. Only solution is to not put themselves in that situation. Same for a male getting drunk and falling off of a balcony or killing someone in a car accident."
And reiterated quite specifically in #27:
"John: They are all drunk, 17-25 year olds getting drunk and what do you expect to happen? Female passes out or cannot walk in a straight line is prime target for horny males. Only solution is to not put themselves in that situation. Same for a male getting drunk and falling off of a balcony or killing someone in a car accident. In the latter example they will be prosecuted and held accountable ....
.... Of course the rapist is responsible. That is why i added the car accident scenario."
.... Of course the rapist is responsible. That is why i added the car accident scenario."