The Broad Brush? Women and Men; Prejudice and Necessity

[GeoffP]

Simply unbelievable

Can you show me where I am accusing you of it? I am asking you what you would call it.

You are asking what I would call what? Suggesting that in the real world, it may behoove one to be cautious? How about cautious?

Do you advocate rape prevention ideology as espoused by your defenders in this thread? Do you support it?

What in the hell is "rape prevention ideology"?

Shove it up my arse? Charming..

So you want the license to make insidious little inferences without response. Hunt your witches elsewhere.

Umm I did ask you about it in the rape thread. I even warned you that making rape about biology and/or sex will more often than not result in rape prevention ideology where the onus is placed on the woman to not be raped

And who has done this, and where? Why would I support putting the onus on women?

But we did discuss this. For example, I bring it up here as a concern that when people make it about sex or biology, that it will often come down to what the woman can do to prevent being raped. You respond to it and declare that in no way should that happen, but then teamed it with a bizarre exposed meat analogy which one can only hope you were not comparing to women....

My apologies: "uncovered meat" is an oblique and ironic political reference to a reactionary imam in Australia who blamed women for their own rape. I think it should be apparent to you that I was deploring this concept. It doesn't particularly matter that the "meat is uncovered". It's still a crime. Period. So in fact, I was referring to women, but not in the way that you think.

No, I'm asking you what you think of rape prevention theory and placing the onus on women to not be raped by demanding that if she doesn't want to be raped, then she should be responsible and not marry a man who could rape her, not get drunk, watch what parties she goes to, who she talks to, what she wears, not take her clothes off in front of a guy or get into bed with a guy, etc? What do you think of all of these rape prevention strategies, GeoffP?

What does one think of prevention strategies for anything, Bells?

I got a virus warning with the link. But ermm okay, I'll take your word for it.

So you agree to cease lawyering in the thread?

Is that what you call it?..

That's what it's called. It's on that link, too, and I didn't get any kind of warning. It is said that when the truth affects a lawyer's case, the objective is to suppress that truth. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Well it's just sex, isn't it? "Illicit sex".

Is it just that? Why do you think so?

I see. Selective stupidity or blindness? The laptop comparison was posted just above one of your posts, as in your response came right after it. Do you often not read what people post in threads?

I usually have more than enough to do with dealing with those accusing me of the lowest positions imaginable. I am constrained to the constant defense of my character by those driven more by agendas, and for whom the sacrifice of a little honesty is a small thing.

And as has been noted many times before, the issue with rape prevention theories is that they are preaching common sense and applying a system whereby it puts pressure on women and often, the result is if they somehow failed to comply with particular prevention strategies, then she may have wanted it.

And whom - with a specific quote, in context - is making that case here?

When people like billvon declare that women should simply be more responsible and not marry men who can rape her..

Now, is that the actual quote? Or has it been... processed, shall we say?

Me? Perish the thought.

Pretty much seals it: you're just looking for any excuse to argue. Although this was a little revealing again:

I disagree. You are applying a standard by which you believe all rapists are simply trying to spread their seed.

And that's yet another lie. That's why this thing is difficult sometimes: your inability to argue honestly. You already know that I make no such claims. We even discussed how Palmer and Thornhill were wrong, above. I guess at this point what you really have to ask yourself is whether or not you want to have an honest discussion. Me, I already know what your answer is. But I'd like you to just come out and say it. Come on: no harm could possibly come to your account here, you understand. No one would demote you, or embarrass you. Frankly, no one gives a shit. You quite literally have nothing to lose. Why not just say that you're not here for an honest debate, and that your discussion is just tactics for your preconceptions? I promise you, no one could possibly judge you for it at this point.

You don't think power comes into play when the assailant has absolute control and violently rapes an elderly person or a child? You don't think humiliation comes into it?

I don't? ... Sorry, where exactly don't I think this? I think I do think this. I just think that I don't think there's a single uniform basis for this, although humiliation/power is certainly the vast majority of it.

What do you think is the biological imperative?

We've already discussed the heterogeneity of the phenomenon: First, what do you take as 'imperative'? Second, why would this imperative be identical across all types of sexual assault?

There is more than enough evidence within the human species that would make rape a non-viable means for breeding. Since a rape is wholly unpleasant and an awful experience for the female, the chances that she will want to care for any off-spring from that rape drop dramatically.

Prior to the development of abortion (that is, 'in caveman times'), there only exists the withdrawal of support; that then also exists prior to language. She might not choose to raise the offspring... but it's been suggested that her sick, collaborationist genes might encourage her to do it anyway, because she does have a baby at the moment. What if in a few years she dies of dysentary? Will she have a chance to breed again and raise that infant to effective independence? There's a host of the weird in there, although much of it's probably untestable.

Thornhill and Palmer equate it to being about males raping because they would not normally be able to have sex or copulate. One would assume that the females are partnered with more dominant males or stronger males able to protect her and her subsequent off-spring - especially amongst primates. In such a case, her off-spring would more than likely be killed by the more dominant male - again, hardly an evolutionary trait that would be passed on through the generations and hardly beneficial from an evolutionary perspective.

You're thinking in group selection. Genes are selfish. If a more dominant male can kill her offspring and procreate with her, then that is a kind of beneficiality - for his selfish genes. That's why they promoted infanticide in the first place. In humans, that kind of impulse must surely have been bred almost to extinction by now, because of the rise of real sociality and the creation of a more elaborate forebrain, which fuzzes the signal with more pre-eminent impulses like "co-operate" and "go paint a horse on that cave wall", or whatever.

And if you think that drugging someone so she can't fight back and raping her is not about a power issue, then really, you know very little about the subject.

I think there are mixed bases in that specific kind of case, as I've said.

"OMIGOD!"..

I'm going to savour this moment.

Yeah, see, this is what I've been talking about indirectly for, well, some time now. You speak constantly in absolutes: things are only one thing or another. If I propose that there may exist some distal, minor promoter of sexual assault in some of the population once used as some kind of ancient evolutionary strategy and which is probably about extinct after many generations of selection against it, you read this as you think rape is only about sex. Written in this way, do you begin to see how the one does not imply your conclusion? You seem to have this overarching intimidation factor around me, so that you're desperate to prove me wrong in some way... only I'm not at all advancing the case you seem to think. Well, shit, savour. Hell. I give up.

Contrary to popular belief, I am not an irrational female.

Bells, I have no truck with your inferiority complex. I have my issues with your apparent personality, but they are not based in you being female. I actually have no idea whether you are female or not - and I do not want to know.

I've just seen too much of this crap to have much patience for it.

Yes, I'm rapidly locating this area myself.

Does that invalidate his research?

I only have his books, but I will look into it and see if I can find it.

I appreciate this effort. It doesn't invalidate his research, per se... but everyone does like to sell books, don't they?

Oh no, I am curious.

Do you know how to keep a needlessly belligerent commentator in suspense?

Oh witch hunt now?

Gets better. I am curious as to your opinion on rape prevention ideology as espoused by various members who have rushed to your support in this thread.

And I am curious to their specific comments. It's very unlikely I will do your homework for you here. Link me a link.

"Shove your notice up your ass"...

:shrug: Cease trying to assassinate my character. It's not such a hard request, is it?

I mean... well, hell, there was more of the same crapola immediately following this, so I guess it was after all.

As I noted, your sociobiological argument always revolves around what the woman should have been doing to prevent her rape and it always involves whines about the feminist movement, and about women in general.

Yes, yes, surely. That surely must be my point, though I've specifically refuted it several times. So clear of thought is Bells that when someone rebuts, Bells just affirms the consequent. It's so clear, isn't it? So psychotic. So Freudian. It's all cigars, all day long, surely. When is a cigar not a cigar? No, you fool: it's always a cigar. Even if you say it isn't. Or maybe it's never a cigar. I forget how the joke goes.

What would I like to see? More studies on what motivates a rapist. And yes, I would love for there to be genetic studies on rapists

Oh God, make it stop.

Do you realise, just on the edge of the crazy wave, that making a genetic study of it would - and this is your argument here - provide, in your synopsis, the fuel to blame women? You rant on for pages and pages about how terrible Geoff is for even considering such an idea... and then propose it yourself! You, who made endless bones about how I was either i) playing into the hands of the whatever-movement that had just been invented in the thread, or ii) sekretly sekretly rilly rilly was all for them a-rapin' types, have now proposed that which you castigated me even for wondering about, or iii) that I thought it was really all biological, or sometimes all three ideas simultaneously.

There are no words. To wit, I note that below you swing round to a different extreme in some cases, in which the problem is now entirely biological, apparently. Lord. I give up.

It only primarily works on paedophiles who are sexually attracted only to children.

So it works on sexual predators who are sexually attracted.. Such as those who are sexually aroused only by children, for example. It does not work on rapists who date rape, for example, or violent rapists who break into the homes of an elderly woman and violently rapes her, as another example, it does not work on most rapists actually. It's usually on sexual offenders who.. ermm.. show a constant state of arousal and sexual attraction towards their victims, such as paedophiles. And in such cases, certainly, sexual attraction is biological. But a heterosexual rapist who rapes a young woman and is imprisoned and then goes on to rape a man in prison to assert his position in prison hierarchy.. Would the same apply? I don't think so. And the drugs do not work on such individuals. Which tells you what?

That the basis is heterogenous. Good day.

 

[Kittamaru]

"Self-evident"?! Can you explain to me what you mean when you say that "there is a sexual motive"? And what do you understand "motive" to mean?

And while you're at it, please explain what you mean when you say that "most rapes" do not follow the "date rape pattern."

Simple: Self evident- as in obvious, without question. If there was ZERO sexual intent/motive behind rape, then what would differentiate it from assault and battery? Oh, it's the fact that, usually, some sort of sexual act takes place, be it coitus, fellatio, some form of sexual touching, penetration with another object, etc. You know... the whole sexual aspect? As for motive - I'm pretty sure you are smart enough to figure that out on your own, but just in case:

1.: something (as a need or desire) that causes a person to act

1: of, relating to, or associated with sex or the sexes <sexual differentiation> <sexual conflict>
2: having or involving sex <sexual reproduction>

So, as you can see, a "sexual motive" would be one in which the reason for an action is of a matter of sex or intimate desire.

Pretty simple so far, yes?

Now, if the sexual desire was the only motive, then there are plenty of ways to satisfy that desire without infringing on the rights (or body) of another. Rape implies another motive as well... power, control, coercion, etc.

The rub is that, rape also occurs in situations where the sexual aspect makes no sense... such as the 8 month old baby that required surgery to repair her internal organs after mothers boyfriend raped her, quite nearly, to death.

Now... maybe someone that sick in the head can consider coitus with an infant to be sex... I don't know, I'm not that fucked up in the head.

And as for what I mean by the "date rape" pattern - again, thought it was pretty obvious. Date Rape involves some sort of sexual or romantic relationship between the parties before the rape occurs. My point was that, while rape does involve a romantic partner, a larger majority of it involves a simple acquaintance... you know, someone you know "in passing" or from work/school/et al as opposed to a "friend"... and then a small percentage of rape occurs between total strangers. There is a reason for this - rape between acquaintances/friends/previous partners is easier to "control"... by that, I mean that, as statistics show, most rape occurs between people that know one another in some way, and it is harder for someone to accuse a person they KNOW, be it friend, family, or acquaintance, of something so heinous, than someone they do not. This can be because of shame, coercion, or the fear of implicating a friend/family member.

 

[Kittamaru]

Now let's put you in this situation. If she had come to you instead of Ken, what would you have said?

1) "That 'I can tell who's a rapist' thing is a crock. You can't tell who's a rapist and who's not; that's a fact. Look, here's a lineup of people, I DARE you to tell me who the rapist is!"
2) "OK point him out."

She was fortunate that we had someone there who fell into the second "infinite protection advocacy" camp.

That is a very interesting false-dichotomy there... so because someone believes that you cannot simply point out "the rapist" in a lineup of men, they are automatically unwilling or incapable of action when someone is being obviously and willfully targeted for potential rape?

 

[parmalee]

...

Have you even read this thread? If so, are you sure that you understand what you've read?

 

[Kittamaru]

Have you even read this thread? If so, are you sure that you understand what you've read?

Argumentum ad Hominem instead of any sort of real rebuttal... I accept your concession.

 

[Bells]

You are asking what I would call what? Suggesting that in the real world, it may behoove one to be cautious? How about cautious?

Okay.. And?

I mean people don't do that anyway? That we need people to tell us how women should be acting to prevent rape, from how she dresses to who she speaks to?

What in the hell is "rape prevention ideology"?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or are you really this dim and simply do not read what has been posted in this thread?

So you want the license to make insidious little inferences without response. Hunt your witches elsewhere.

No, it was in response to your claim of how you were trying to be polite and frankly, the charming manner in which you conduct yourself. I suppose I should be thankful that you didn't tell me to shove it up my woowoo instead, but I figure even you would recognise just how well that would have gone down with the staff.

And who has done this, and where? Why would I support putting the onus on women?

Refer to above about you being deliberately obtuse and frankly, dishonest? Or are you really this dim?

My apologies: "uncovered meat" is an oblique and ironic political reference to a reactionary imam in Australia who blamed women for their own rape. I think it should be apparent to you that I was deploring this concept. It doesn't particularly matter that the "meat is uncovered". It's still a crime. Period. So in fact, I was referring to women, but not in the way that you think.

I see..

What does one think of prevention strategies for anything, Bells?

The main issue with rape prevention, which as you know, places a constantly changing onus on the victim to not be raped. So how does one prevent one's self from being raped if the rules and situation is constantly changing? Want to prevent car theft? Lock your car, check. Want to stop someone breaking into your house, lock your doors, check. These are fairly set practices. But when you apply it to some random individual that you may or may not know, that you may or may not be intimate with, that you may or may not be related to, that could be any individual, how do you prevent them from raping you? We don't know who they are, what they want, how they may approach us. With car theft, we have a fair idea of what they are after and how they would approach the car, for example. With rape, we have no clue. So when people suggest watching how we dress (such as what billvon suggested), how should we dress? People are raped regardless of how they dress. So when people say we should watch how we dress, they fail to tell us how to dress. Then of course comes what to do if you find yourself in a situation where you feel you will be raped. Not all rapists are the same. As Groth notes in his typology of rapists, how one responds or should respond depends on the type of rapist raping you. Fighting back against a sadistic rapist could result in increased harm or death. Because sadistic rapists get off on the violence, they get off on overpowering their victims and they get off on those who fight back. But not all rapists fit exactly within these little boxes. There is a lot of overlap. So unless the victim is trained to know what he or she is facing, how she responds to try to actively prevent his/her rape could mean the difference between life and death. And there is a stupid amount of conflicting advice when it comes to rape prevention.

So how do you prevent, or more to the point, what type of prevention strategies should one adopt for a situation that is completely unknown and unpredictable and could go either way? Eenie, miney moe? We can't know with how we dress, we can't know for certain if we drink alcohol, after all, it could end up being anyone or no one at all, so women should just simply not drink alcohol? Okay. But what about the guy or girl that spikes your soft drink? So just don't eat or drink anything at all? Ermm okay.. Billvon advises to learn to read the signs, to be able to pick out a potential rapist. What signs? How can you tell who is a rapist? I posted images of 6 men. One of the first signs, you'd think, would be how one looks like. Only one person got the answer right. The test was actually with images of 32 men. So say a woman or man goes to a party, they are meant to be able to scan the people in the party and identify by their behaviour who is the potential rapist? They are more likely to be raped by the people they know or are intimately involved in. So, don't drink with people you know, don't get undressed in front of your intimate partner, don't get into bed with them? So which prevention strategies would you recommend? Which do you apply for yourself?

Then of course we move onto the rape prevention strategies while being attacked. Presuming you are conscious, as I noted above, that depends on who your rapist is. We all remember the ridiculous advice one college advised, such as peeing on the rapist, throwing up on them or telling them that you have a disease or menstruating if you are being raped.. Does this mean women have to keep some pee in the tank, so to speak, just in case? Induce vomiting? Hope he doesn't pull your pants down and see that you're not menstruating? Others say scream, but then others say don't scream because screaming could make the rapist angry and he could kill you to shut you up.

In short, there is no guide to preventing rape. Because every single rapist is different and every rape is different. So how are potential victims supposed to know what to prevent? Which type? Self defense? Sure. But with some types of rapists, that could result in the victim being killed.

So how does a victim prevent a rape?

Is it just that? Why do you think so?

You are the one who made the argument, remember?

I usually have more than enough to do with dealing with those accusing me of the lowest positions imaginable. I am constrained to the constant defense of my character by those driven more by agendas, and for whom the sacrifice of a little honesty is a small thing.

It would help if you were not so inherently dishonest.

And whom - with a specific quote, in context - is making that case here?

What? Did I say it was being said here?

Now, is that the actual quote? Or has it been... processed, shall we say?

Processed?

Captain Kremmen's rape prevention comments, where he argued what someone would do to protect their laptop from theft by not leaving it in a car in full view, but locked in the boot and his continued assertion that women are like laptops, objects that are desired and what men want to own, so they should put a lock on it if they don't want to be raped, Trooper's defense of rape prevention that women should simply not drink or get into bed with men who could rape them and don't take clothes off in front of men who could rape them, and that women can somehow prevent being raped by establishing clear boundaries and that women should be using sound judgement to prevent being raped and Billvon's comments that women should simply know better because well, she should not date or marry a man who could rape her as common sense dictates, that she should take precautions to prevent herself from being raped by curtailing her actions and simply being a more responsible woman. And she can simply watch what she wears, who she dates, which party she goes to, etc.. Because there are signs, apparently..

And that's yet another lie. That's why this thing is difficult sometimes: your inability to argue honestly. You already know that I make no such claims. We even discussed how Palmer and Thornhill were wrong, above. I guess at this point what you really have to ask yourself is whether or not you want to have an honest discussion. Me, I already know what your answer is. But I'd like you to just come out and say it. Come on: no harm could possibly come to your account here, you understand. No one would demote you, or embarrass you. Frankly, no one gives a shit. You quite literally have nothing to lose. Why not just say that you're not here for an honest debate, and that your discussion is just tactics for your preconceptions? I promise you, no one could possibly judge you for it at this point.

So you forgot how you viewed rape used as a weapon of war, for example? You refused to even acknowledge power and control as a cause. As I later noted in this thread, people are yet to explain the biological or sexual trigger of forcing a live rat into a woman's vagina and raping her with it.

I don't? ... Sorry, where exactly don't I think this? I think I do think this. I just think that I don't think there's a single uniform basis for this, although humiliation/power is certainly the vast majority of it.

No shit sherlock. So what would be the biological trigger for a 16 year old to break into the home of an elderly woman and violently rape her repeatedly?

We've already discussed the heterogeneity of the phenomenon: First, what do you take as 'imperative'? Second, why would this imperative be identical across all types of sexual assault?

Let me guess.. "I assume from the above you've never heard of inappropriate breeding attempts or hybridization"..?

Who said it was.

You have studies of rapists who rape elderly women to support your claims? Articles about it?

Prior to the development of abortion (that is, 'in caveman times'), there only exists the withdrawal of support; that then also exists prior to language. She might not choose to raise the offspring... but it's been suggested that her sick, collaborationist genes might encourage her to do it anyway, because she does have a baby at the moment. What if in a few years she dies of dysentary? Will she have a chance to breed again and raise that infant to effective independence? There's a host of the weird in there, although much of it's probably untestable.

And that is the issue, isn't it. It's untestable. Which begs the question why some may demand it has to be true or correct.

You're thinking in group selection. Genes are selfish. If a more dominant male can kill her offspring and procreate with her, then that is a kind of beneficiality - for his selfish genes. That's why they promoted infanticide in the first place. In humans, that kind of impulse must surely have been bred almost to extinction by now, because of the rise of real sociality and the creation of a more elaborate forebrain, which fuzzes the signal with more pre-eminent impulses like "co-operate" and "go paint a horse on that cave wall", or whatever.

There is no evolutionary or biological imperative to put one self out there to feed, shelter and protect the off-spring of another male that raped your female. Absolutely none. Her continued breastfeeding, for example, caring the the baby, will also lessen the chances or desire she may have to breed. If you want to consider how well it's been bred to extinction, just ask any guy what he would do if he found out that the 12 year old child he had been paying child support for for the last 4 years was not really his. That is biological. The imperative to rape however? No. There is no proof of it in regards to scientific research. Just pure speculation.

I think there are mixed bases in that specific kind of case, as I've said.

And as you know, I disagree.

Yeah, see, this is what I've been talking about indirectly for, well, some time now. You speak constantly in absolutes: things are only one thing or another. If I propose that there may exist some distal, minor promoter of sexual assault in some of the population once used as some kind of ancient evolutionary strategy and which is probably about extinct after many generations of selection against it, you read this as you think rape is only about sex. Written in this way, do you begin to see how the one does not imply your conclusion? You seem to have this overarching intimidation factor around me, so that you're desperate to prove me wrong in some way... only I'm not at all advancing the case you seem to think. Well, shit, savour. Hell. I give up.

If I am to be honest, I think you are trying to defend something that even you think is repugnant. You have openly disregarded all proof, and you are arguing from a position of opinion. All I ask is that you support your argument. Studies on rapists would be a great start.

I appreciate this effort. It doesn't invalidate his research, per se... but everyone does like to sell books, don't they?

His studies were not written as books, per se. In other words, the 'books' are actually scientific studies. So when I say he wrote the book, I don't mean literally. But he did release books afterwards.

Do you know how to keep a needlessly belligerent commentator in suspense?

I would not ask if I did not want to know the answer.

And I am curious to their specific comments. It's very unlikely I will do your homework for you here. Link me a link.

Has been provided. Unless of course you are going to argue that you do not read what people are writing before commenting on them?

:shrug: Cease trying to assassinate my character. It's not such a hard request, is it?

Then stop posting like a tool. No, really, you are now reduced to arguing the 'I didn't see it' point, and denying it just out of a reflex. I mean really, it's kind of pathetic.

Yes, yes, surely. That surely must be my point, though I've specifically refuted it several times. So clear of thought is Bells that when someone rebuts, Bells just affirms the consequent. It's so clear, isn't it? So psychotic. So Freudian. It's all cigars, all day long, surely. When is a cigar not a cigar? No, you fool: it's always a cigar. Even if you say it isn't. Or maybe it's never a cigar. I forget how the joke goes.

You have provided nothing to discount or to even disagree with it. And that's the problem. You dug your hole, you advised you were deliberately downplaying the power issue because you have a new alternate theory. So really, you can argue what you like, but that's what you're down to.

Oh God, make it stop.

Do you realise, just on the edge of the crazy wave, that making a genetic study of it would - and this is your argument here - provide, in your synopsis, the fuel to blame women? You rant on for pages and pages about how terrible Geoff is for even considering such an idea... and then propose it yourself! You, who made endless bones about how I was either i) playing into the hands of the whatever-movement that had just been invented in the thread, or ii) sekretly sekretly rilly rilly was all for them a-rapin' types, have now proposed that which you castigated me even for wondering about, or iii) that I thought it was really all biological, or sometimes all three ideas simultaneously.

There are no words. To wit, I note that below you swing round to a different extreme in some cases, in which the problem is now entirely biological, apparently. Lord. I give up.

And as I repeatedly told you, I would love it if a biological trigger was found. But as yet, it has not been found. So I don't understand this latest.. display.. Who are you appealing to, well except your God that is?

That the basis is heterogenous. Good day.

It works on the biological but does not work on the non-biological.

First, I have not commented on your experience, because it doesn't matter to this discussion and because I cannot verify it: I do not know you, Bells. At all. I cannot verify any personal facts you care to present, and I do not wish to

Just one final thing about this.. You demand that we take you at your word that you are involved with genetics and statistics and that somehow has greater bearing in a discussion about rape. I'd suggest you don't dismiss my experiences as someone who has spent years prosecuting rapists and being a rape victim as not mattering to this discussion. I have absolutely no idea that you are what you say you are, for all I know, you could be selling newspapers at your local train station. For your lack of providing scientific research while demanding others provide it, that could very well be the case. But don't think that my experiences professionally and what I experienced as a victim has no bearing in this discussion. I hope that's clear enough for you.

Good day to you..

 

[GeoffP]

It works on the biological but does not work on the non-biological.

A quick word here: oh, so now there are biological and non-biological impulses in this, and not just minor ones either.

See, this strikes me as strange, because earlier in this 'discussion' even suggesting that there was some minor, low-frequency biological impulse associated with sexual assault was enough for me to be labelled as a... "rape advocate", was it? And now here you're claiming not that it's a minor promoter, but actually responsible for the majority of sexual assault of children, since most paedos are fixed by the drug cocktail in question, which you state - above - "works on the biological", which is far beyond even my musings.

It's harder to judge what's more extreme - your duplicity, Tiassa's politics or Kittamaru's delusion. Just for amusement value, could you three fight it out for supremacy? If it's any consolation, my money's on you, for sheer weight of posts.

 

[Kittamaru]

A quick word here: oh, so now there are biological and non-biological impulses in this, and not just minor ones either.

See, this strikes me as strange, because earlier in this 'discussion' even suggesting that there was some minor, low-frequency biological impulse associated with sexual assault was enough for me to be labelled as a... "rape advocate", was it? And now here you're claiming not that it's a minor promoter, but actually responsible for the majority of sexual assault of children, since most paedos are fixed by the drug cocktail in question, which you state - above - "works on the biological", which is far beyond even my musings.

It's harder to judge what's more extreme - your duplicity, Tiassa's politics or Kittamaru's delusion. Just for amusement value, could you three fight it out for supremacy? If it's any consolation, my money's on you, for sheer weight of posts.

*chuckles sadly* AH Geoff... I have to question if you could actually do a to-the-facts discussion on a topic without resorting to evasive tactics and intentional vagueness...

"earlier in this discussion", the quotes and posts being thrown around were not "suggesting a minor biological impulse", but rather that the biological urge to reproduce was THE REASON for rape.

That is why people lost their shit over it - because it was so stupidly wrong that one couldn't fathom how anyone of an intellectual capacity would believe such a thing.

As Frans B. M. de Waal says:

Rape is sexual violence. There is no doubt in my mind that people who try to reduce rape to either sex or violence miss its complexity. By adopting one biased position -- that rape is primarily sexual -- ''A Natural History of Rape'' could be seen as providing a necessary antidote to the other dogmatic position, that it's principally about power. Rape (defined as forced copulation) is mechanically impossible in the absence of male genital arousal. Hence the view of rape as a hate crime pure and simple is silly. A penis is no fist. This doesn't imply, however, that rape rests on natural urges, as Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer want us to believe. As sexually reproducing animals, people have sexual urges. But to say that all men will rape under particular circumstances is like saying that all people will eat human flesh when stranded in the Andes. Even if true, does that make us born cannibals?

In other words, Thornhill and Palmer are trading one extreme (that Rape is all about violence and power) for the other (that Rape is all about the biological urge to reproduce).
NEITHER stance is right... as most parties in this discussion have been trying to get through a few rather thick skulls here, who insist on arguing the point... for what purpose? The science is there... the collective agreement from psychologist, biologist, and more is there...why continue arguing? Oh, right, because you dislike some of the people in the thread, and so you will CONTINUE to argue against them for the sake of conflict.

Much like in politics... even if the Democrats have a good idea, the Republicans will try to stop it. If the Republicans have a good idea, the Democrats will try to stop it. Why? Because God FORBID the other side be made to look good!

Seriously... its this kind of dick-waving that people are tired of.

Lots of questions remain. Wouldn't one assume that among our ancestors, who lived in small communities, rape was punished and so may have reduced rather than enhanced a male's future reproduction? If rape is about reproduction, why are about one-third of its victims young children and the elderly, too young or old to reproduce? Why do men rape lovers and wives, with whom they also have consensual sex? Perhaps some of these issues could have been resolved if the authors had not lumped all kinds of rape. Are date rapes on university campuses really comparable to the rapes by Serbian soldiers in Kosovo? Isn't it likely that some rapes are mainly sexually motivated and others mainly acts of hostility and misogyny?

Thornhill and Palmer write dryly and obtusely, spending less time on rape itself than on explaining evolutionary biology and blasting feminist scholars like Susan Brownmiller, the author of ''Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape'' (1975). But even though ''A Natural History of Rape'' is highly polemical, it does review relevant information, and the authors, who admit that they themselves disagree, are honest in exposing some of the problems with their line of reasoning. They are also careful not to condone or excuse rape in any way. They make the strongest possible case for their position; it simply isn't strong enough.

Much like yourself, Thornhill and Palmer spend much their time not on the subject at hand, but rather attacking those who have a differing opinion...

 

[GeoffP]

"earlier in this discussion", the quotes and posts being thrown around were not "suggesting a minor biological impulse", but rather that the biological urge to reproduce was THE REASON for rape.

Tee-hee, oh-ho! - well, then - hehe, hoo-hoo! - why don't you ask your mommy to go back and see if she can locate those posts of mine while simultaneously dodging all my posts that very explicitly don't show that? I know she has no interest in this forum, but maybe you need your hand held while you wander the corridors of the confusing. Life's so complex sometimes, isn't it, Kitta?

Otherwise, if I want to hear from Bells' dog, I'll kick it, all right?

 

[Kittamaru]

Oooh, better watch out GeoffP In the words of the Big Dog Daddy himself: This big dog will fight when you rattle his cage.

Seems I've struck a chord with you... are you ashamed that your bullshit can be sniffed out so easily? That your allies petty little distractions can be cast aside so easily like the chaff they are, even after planning and conniving with one another on how to try and trap someone in a fabricated lie?

Lets see: You have spent considerable time arguing for and defending "biological triggers" for rape.
This post, in particular, has a whole lot of words without saying much of anything - you flip flop back and forth between:

Rape as a phenomenon is primarily psychological;

and

As far as ‘downplaying power’, it is necessary to argue the alternate model! (In which power is not the sole motivation, not one in which biology is the only or primary.)

back to

By the by, I reiterate here that ‘biological triggers’ do not in my writeup correspond to absolute or even primary causation: see the argument at large for a description of the above. Neither am I proposing that rape, as distinct from general assault, is the result of such triggers.

Back to

These things do exist in the animal kingdom, and in social mammals, which do not have our degree of sociological evolution; resulting biological impetus may exist, but in the margins as an atavism against many, many generations of selection.

So... it is biological, then its about power, then its about both, then its about neither... you flip flop like a pancake in that one post. The fact that you keep resorting back to

You then go on to say:

GeoffP:
Do you agree with Thornhill and Palmer, that rape is an evolved adaptation? That it may have provided an evolutionary advantage? Was elevated levels aggression a reproductive advantage?

In the distant past, it seems likely under some circumstances: but social evolution in humans probably generated strong negative consequences for it, when it was detected. In species without sociality or language, what purpose does rape serve except to abrogate mate choice? Language was probably helpful in detecting and punishing rape... but language is also turned against women in this respect also.

That, in essence, rape is about furthering ones gene pool...

You then claim that "Motive is Irrelevant"

I'm not familiar with Pinker's work, but I agree that no one can "just not help" raping another any more, morally, than just not preventing themselves from stealing or killing - motive certainly is irrelevant.

Hell, even James is of the opinion you feel Rape is primarily biological:

Also, GeoffP, it sounds to me like you think that most, if not all, rape has a biological (i.e. sexual) urge behind it, while you're going to some effort to downplay the elements of dominance, power and control that rape involves. Why is that? Or am I misunderstanding you?

However, let us put things to rest in the simplest way possible:

GeoffP - yes or no.

Do you agree that Rape is a multi-faceted crime, consisting of and inclusive of biological, sociological, psychological, and to an extent even situational triggers? That no ONE of those is a singular cause or trigger for rape, but it is the combined failing therein that would drive someone to do so?

Do you agree that, perhaps with exception, the victim is not "asking for it" to happen?

Do you agree that, among humans, Rape is not generally committed for the sake of reproduction, given the fact that such an action generally limits or inhibits the ability to successfully "spread ones genes" due to the punishments incurred and the likelihood of the victim not carrying the child to term?

 

[GeoffP]

The No-English Alternative

Oooh, better watch out GeoffP In the words of the Big Dog Daddy himself: This big dog will fight when you rattle his cage.

Well, I will take the piss out of idiots.

Seems I've struck a chord with you... are you ashamed that your bullshit can be sniffed out so easily?

It's more what I've been saying all along: if you don't get the gist, why are you commenting? Why attack character when you have no idea what you're talking about? Instead, why don't you ask? And you're a mod. Well. To wit, there, Winston:

Lets [sic] see: You have spent considerable time arguing for and defending "biological triggers" for rape.

Let's see: no shit, Sherlock. What I don't argue is their primacy. (Which, ironically, Bells does above in cases of paedophilia.)

This post, in particular, has a whole lot of words without saying much of anything - you flip flop back and forth between:

In none of those or at any point do I ever call any biological impulses primary, for the simple fact that they are not. Again ironically, you postulated above that "a lot of rapes were sexual", didn't you? Care to explain that one in context of what you're attempting to drag over the coals now?

So... it is biological, then its about power, then its about both, then its about neither... you flip flop like a pancake in that one post.

That is easily the most idiotic impression all day. Arguing the alternate does not mean that the alternate postulates biology as primary. Neither does their existence in the animal kingdom. You're so far from having either a well-thought-out response here that you don't even notice how I state, repeatedly, again and again until I'm sick of writing it, that the psychology basis is surely the primary and that the biological is not. I offer you Tiassa's Choice here: are you deluded or just dishonest? I suspect deluded but I'll accept either answer.

You then go on to say:

That, in essence, rape is about furthering ones gene pool...

Read carefully, because I want this to sink in.

In. The. Distant. Evolutionary. Past. At. The. Dawn. Of. Mankind. Or. In. Related. Species. Not. Now. Also, define "is", if you can.

You then claim that "Motive is Irrelevant"

To the criminal case, yes. Unless you feel that it really is okay to rape someone because you'ns got an' itch you jest cain't scratch. Is that really your feeling, Kitta?

Hell, even James is of the opinion you feel Rape is primarily biological:

People do seem to fall into that hole, don't they? How is that my fault?

However, let us put things to rest in the simplest way possible:

GeoffP - yes or no.

Do you agree that Rape is a multi-faceted crime, consisting of and inclusive of biological, sociological, psychological, and to an extent even situational triggers? That no ONE of those is a singular cause or trigger for rape, but it is the combined failing therein that would drive someone to do so?

YES. As I've written in plain English about a hundred times now. If you don't read my comments, don't comment on them.

Do you agree that, perhaps with exception, the victim is not "asking for it" to happen?

...

What the fuck did you just write?

"Perhaps with exception"? Are you for real? What possible "exceptions" exist wherein the victim "is asking for it", Kitta? And I'm the 'rape apologist', is that right, Kitta?

 

[Kittamaru]

Well, I will take the piss out of idiots.

Ooh, resorting to base insults now. How petty.

It's more what I've been saying all along: if you don't get the gist, why are you commenting? Why attack character when you have no idea what you're talking about?

Funny, the same could be asked of you... and it has been, to no reply.

Instead, why don't you ask? And you're a mod. Well. To wit, there, Winston:

Let's see: no shit, Sherlock. What I don't argue is their primacy. (Which, ironically, Bells does above in cases of paedophilia.)

Then the questions should be simple - why do you continue to obfuscate the dilemma?

In none of those or at any point do I ever call any biological impulses primary, for the simple fact that they are not. Again ironically, you postulated above that "a lot of rapes were sexual", didn't you? Care to explain that one in context of what you're attempting to drag over the coals now?

Are you incapable of rational thought, or just trying to be obtuse? Of course there is a sexual component to most, if not all, rape. Is it the only component? Hell no, and I will eat my shoe if you can point out even one instance where I have said, or even alluded, to that being the case.

That is easily the most idiotic impression all day. Arguing the alternate does not mean that the alternate postulates biology as primary. Neither does their existence in the animal kingdom. You're so far from having either a well-thought-out response here that you don't even notice how I state, repeatedly, again and again until I'm sick of writing it, that the psychology basis is surely the primary and that the biological is not. I offer you Tiassa's Choice here: are you deluded or just dishonest? I suspect deluded but I'll accept either answer.

There is no dishonesty, and the delusion is yours - you flip flop, constantly, until nobody seems to have a clear picture what you are arguing anymore. It's the same tactic John Kerry used... and we see how well it worked for him. Doesn't seem to be working any better for you or your posse either.

You then go on to say:

Read carefully, because I want this to sink in.
In. The. Distant. Evolutionary. Past. At. The. Dawn. Of. Mankind. Or. In. Related. Species. Not. Now.

So, in other words, it has no relevance to the discussion of rape today among homo-sapiens? Again, why are you obfuscating the issue with irrelevant information?

Also, define "is", if you can.

Definition of IS

present 3d singular of be
dialect present 1st & 2d singular of be
dialect present plural of be
Origin of IS

Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German ist is (from sīn to be), Latin est (from esse to be), Greek esti (from einai to be)

Doesn't seem all that complicated.

To the criminal case, yes. Unless you feel that it really is okay to rape someone because you'ns got an' itch you jest cain't scratch. Is that really your feeling, Kitta?

Oooh, more false dichotomy! Delicious. No, rape is never okay, and never excusable. I don't care what God you follow, what social norms your so-called society has, or what mental conditions, biological urges, repressed memories, or anything else is trying to tell you to do. In fact, the simple idea that someone could "get off the hook" as being incapable of standing trial leaves me simply aghast - if they are so mentally unstable as to be unable to stand trial, yet they are capable of raping another, then perhaps chemical castration would be a good solution.

People do seem to fall into that hole, don't they? How is that my fault?

Simple - if you are presenting yourself in such a way that this many people, ranging from regular members, moderators, and all the way up to the Administration, are coming to that conclusion, then perhaps the issue is not with "all of us", but rather with "you".

Or are all the rest of us insane and you are the only sane one here?
See, I can do false dichotomy as well! It's fun, isn't it?

YES. As I've written in plain English about a hundred times now. If you don't read my comments, don't comment on them.

Good, a simple answer. Then the argument SHOULD be considered settled.

What the fuck did you just write?

"Perhaps with exception"? Are you for real? What possible "exceptions" exist wherein the victim "is asking for it", Kitta? And I'm the 'rape apologist', is that right, Kitta?

Actually, there are situations in which the "victim" wanted the "rape" to happen. A notable one from my high school days - this girl and a friend of mine were dating for a while... both were rather edging on the "juvenile delinquent" side, but whatever, they seemed genuinely happy together. They had sex several times, and he came to find out she enjoyed light bondage and such - she was particularly fond of being held down and, well, rutted, especially while gagged. Hey, I'm not going to judge someone on their fetish.

It came to pass that her parents found out about it... and didn't approve. Oh, damn, it appears I neglected to mention that my friend was black. Her parents are racist... like, "Negro's is only good for two things - fukin and plowin" racist... the kind of people I'd like to hit with a bat given the opportunity.

In school one day, she came in dressed in this little short skirt and low cut top that she knew he liked (and she had worn it for him on SEVERAL occasions). Not knowing that anything was amiss, he was pretty grabby with her - nothing unusual for these two as their relationship was highly physical.

In front of one of the cameras in a stairwell, she started getting... provocative. Lead him on, and got him to start getting REALLY grabby. Next thing he knows, she cries rape and gives this sob story about how he's "raped her several times" and what not.

Her parents took him to court... he got expelled... yadda yadda. Pretty typical "white man vs black man" kinda bullshit.

Now, technically speaking, at most what as on camera COULD be considered as molestation. And was there ever any rape? No. But, instead of suffering her parents wrath at dating someone they didn't approve of (and note, the dating had been going on for several months) she used a rape claim as a way to lay all the blame on him.




Now, obviously this isn't truly a case of rape. The point behind it, though, is that sometimes the "victim" isn't really the victim. Is it common? Hell no... or at least I hope to God it isn't, but there are twisted SOB's out there that will use the system to their advantage in any way possible.

Hypothetical situation for you - a good looking but positively broke young lady goes to the bar and sees an decent looking, single, middle aged guy who is known to be rather affluent. She gets him piss drunk, gets flirty with him, gets grabby with him, then starts to "fight back" when he gets touchy and claims he is trying to rape her. Bam, instant lawsuit, just add liqour.

Does it happen? Once in a great while.

This is why I said "perhaps with exception" - nothing is outside the realm of possibility... it is one of the reasons why trying to deal in absolutes is such a poor idea.

Oh, and by the way... you missed the third question there... or are you just trying to avoid it by trying to paint me as "da big ebil rape bigot"...

 

[Bells]

Tee-hee, oh-ho! - well, then - hehe, hoo-hoo! - why don't you ask your mommy to go back and see if she can locate those posts of mine while simultaneously dodging all my posts that very explicitly don't show that? I know she has no interest in this forum, but maybe you need your hand held while you wander the corridors of the confusing. Life's so complex sometimes, isn't it, Kitta?

Otherwise, if I want to hear from Bells' dog, I'll kick it, all right?

What?!

Are you high?

Had a few too many pots down at the local with the girls or something?

 

[Bells]

What the fuck did you just write?

"Perhaps with exception"? Are you for real? What possible "exceptions" exist wherein the victim "is asking for it", Kitta? And I'm the 'rape apologist', is that right, Kitta?

Settle down champ.

He's talking about people who have rape role playing sex. You know, BDSM and the like. Well we don't want to know if you know about it.. We don't need that visual.

Let's see: no shit, Sherlock. What I don't argue is their primacy. (Which, ironically, Bells does above in cases of paedophilia.)

Paedophilia is its own brand of nasty. We are talking about people who have sexual desires for children and towards children. In that regard, it is very much biological.. They are sexually attracted to children and they aren't really interested in others. It is very specific. Hence why the drugs work for them for the most part (it does not work on sadistic paedophiles - who go for power plays). It doesn't really compare. It wouldn't even work on your run of the mill rapists. Since so many of those get off on the power play and that is what they are after. That is what triggers their arousal. So it's not so much who they are raping but the rape itself. The act of controlling another person. The drugs would not work on such individuals.

 

[Kittamaru]

Settle down champ.

He's talking about people who have rape role playing sex. You know, BDSM and the like. Well we don't want to know if you know about it.. We don't need that visual.

Actually, I had forgotten all about that... particular... fantasy genre... but yeah, there are people that do that as well. I guess it's a "surrender of power" thing for em? I dunno *shrugs* Like I said, I won't judge someone for their fetish... though I will amend that statement - I won't judge someone for their fetish so long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of others.

 

[GeoffP]

Ooh, resorting to base insults now. How petty.

:shrug: About as petty as character assassination and misrepresentation.

Then the questions should be simple - why do you continue to obfuscate the dilemma?

Oh, I agree that complexity does sometimes appear as obfuscation. It shouldn't, but it does.

Are you incapable of rational thought, or just trying to be obtuse? Of course there is a sexual component to most, if not all, rape. Is it the only component? Hell no, and I will eat my shoe if you can point out even one instance where I have said, or even alluded, to that being the case.

False dilemma. I never said "all". But now you're arguing "most". Have any evidence for this? I have to tell you, it does run a bit counter-current to your posse's concepts... and they do wield a bit more power than little old me. Food for thought.

There is no dishonesty, and the delusion is yours - you flip flop, constantly

Kitta, again, if you don't get the proposition, ask or don't comment. Don't try to make it into something it's not just to score points.

So, in other words, it has no relevance to the discussion of rape today among homo-sapiens?

It's written Homo sapiens, without referring to the subspecies. Let's discuss: does "minor effect" translate to "no relevance" or "absolute effect"? You're arguing the latter about my point as a kind of false dichotomy. Or: "All about biology" and "no relevance" are taking up very different positions on importance. The latter is closer, mathematically.

Oooh, more false dichotomy! Delicious. No, rape is never okay, and never excusable. I don't care what God you follow, what social norms your so-called society has, or what mental conditions, biological urges, repressed memories, or anything else is trying to tell you to do. In fact, the simple idea that someone could "get off the hook" as being incapable of standing trial leaves me simply aghast - if they are so mentally unstable as to be unable to stand trial, yet they are capable of raping another, then perhaps chemical castration would be a good solution.

Doesn't much explain your concluding thoughts earlier.

Simple - if you are presenting yourself in such a way that this many people, ranging from regular members, moderators, and all the way up to the Administration, are coming to that conclusion, then perhaps the issue is not with "all of us", but rather with "you".

How strange. I seem to have attracted a 'posse' anyway. (Maybe we're are all the crazy ones, eh amigo?)

Good, a simple answer. Then the argument SHOULD be considered settled.

Will it be? Will it really? Or will we be back on this again an hour later? "Geoff, why do you consider all rape biological?" "I don't." "Geoff, why do you consider all rape biological?" Etc. Excuse me if I don't write this sucker down in my Dream Diary.

And speaking of "rape apologist"... or was it "advocate"? I forget...

Actually, there are situations in which the "victim" wanted the "rape" to happen.

So, in concert with your above statement, the victim is sometimes indeed "asking for it" to happen. Keeping in mind you're referring to rape here, not sex. Your example afterwards then confounds the two. And I'm the "rape apologist/advocate/whatever". Right.

Kitta, do you have any other unusual talents, like backpedaling or juggling? Useful in a circus, I hear.

 

[parmalee]

This thread is really getting under my skin. Lots of reasons, but there’s a particular something…
(IOW why I continue to hammer away at that which I am hammering away at.)

Most are familiar with the notion that abused persons are often attracted to other abusers; lesser known, but perhaps more truthful, is the notion that abused persons are drawn to each other.

I’ve never been molested or raped, but… …well, my sister and I grew up with our father. (My sister, however, was molested by our grandfather (and possibly associates of his). ) And as an adult I’ve found that I tend to commingle best with people who’ve experienced more than a fair share of abuse, of one sort or another, in their lifetimes. In fact, when I lived in Baltimore I can honestly state that a majority of my closest friends (in reality, a small number, as I mostly associate with other humans only out of necessity) had been raped at some point in their lives, or molested by a parent, uncle, or other known and trusted adult. Baltimore is a truly fucked place, yet oddly (or perhaps not) great for musicians and artists. Anyway.

Over time I discovered a certain quality that most of these people share, myself included: namely, a penchant for going on the offensive against anyone and everyone who says something that is objectionable, or just plain wrong. By which I mean, all notions of “sides” become irrelevant, and everyone is fair game. Maybe this quality has nothing at all to do with having had to endure so much shit—perhaps it’s just a coincidence, or that I’m simply drawn to those sorts of persons as well.

Regardless, it pisses me off when people let shit slide simply because the originator of said shit happens to be on their “side” in the debate. Especially when I am by-and-large mostly in agreement with those persons who are letting shit slide.

So when I see people who purportedly truly believe in what they are saying allow their “allies” to say unbelievably idiotic shit that goes exactly contrary to what they (that is, the party who allows this) believe just so as to not, apparently, lose an ally (I guess, fuck if I know their “reasoning”), it… well, I’m just speechless.

 

[Bells]

A quick word here: oh, so now there are biological and non-biological impulses in this, and not just minor ones either.

See, this strikes me as strange, because earlier in this 'discussion' even suggesting that there was some minor, low-frequency biological impulse associated with sexual assault was enough for me to be labelled as a... "rape advocate", was it? And now here you're claiming not that it's a minor promoter, but actually responsible for the majority of sexual assault of children, since most paedos are fixed by the drug cocktail in question, which you state - above - "works on the biological", which is far beyond even my musings.

It's harder to judge what's more extreme - your duplicity, Tiassa's politics or Kittamaru's delusion. Just for amusement value, could you three fight it out for supremacy? If it's any consolation, my money's on you, for sheer weight of posts.

Only if you are stuffed with lollies and we get to whack you with a big stick like we would a pinata.

As I explained in a previous post, the drugs work very well on paedophiles, who are sexually attracted and become sexually aroused by children. But it would not work on a paedophile who had sadistic tendencies, such as getting off on dominating the child using sex. A rapist rapes because they like to control their victim, it's why they rape. A paedophile rapes children because children is who they are attracted to sexually. So one is psychological and the other is biological in the sense of arousal. So a rapist who rapes a victim with a broom stick, for example.. The drug would not work on them. It's not about "sex" with rapists. If it was, then there would be no rape because the rapist could just go and see a hooker or have a one night stand. Rapist respond to the psychological aspect of rape - such as power, domination and control. Whereas for a non-sadistic paedophile, it is about the sex and the sexual act itself with the child and those with that type of fixation.. the drugs can usually work for them. the power and control for these types of paedophiles comes by way in which they groom the child, they control the child's attention and manipulate it.. Whereas a rapist, it's about dominating the victim, taking away their control over their bodies, not giving them a say, which is where the psychology comes in. A non-sadistic paedophile works by convincing the child that they want to have sex with them, usually after extensive grooming.

Ugh..

 

[Bells]

This thread is really getting under my skin. Lots of reasons, but there’s a particular something…
(IOW why I continue to hammer away at that which I am hammering away at.)

Most are familiar with the notion that abused persons are often attracted to other abusers; lesser known, but perhaps more truthful, is the notion that abused persons are drawn to each other.

I’ve never been molested or raped, but… …well, my sister and I grew up with our father. (My sister, however, was molested by our grandfather (and possibly associates of his). ) And as an adult I’ve found that I tend to commingle best with people who’ve experienced more than a fair share of abuse, of one sort or another, in their lifetimes. In fact, when I lived in Baltimore I can honestly state that a majority of my closest friends (in reality, a small number, as I mostly associate with other humans only out of necessity) had been raped at some point in their lives, or molested by a parent, uncle, or other known and trusted adult. Baltimore is a truly fucked place, yet oddly (or perhaps not) great for musicians and artists. Anyway.

Over time I discovered a certain quality that most of these people share, myself included: namely, a penchant for going on the offensive against anyone and everyone who says something that is objectionable, or just plain wrong. By which I mean, all notions of “sides” become irrelevant, and everyone is fair game. Maybe this quality has nothing at all to do with having had to endure so much shit—perhaps it’s just a coincidence, or that I’m simply drawn to those sorts of persons as well.

Regardless, it pisses me off when people let shit slide simply because the originator of said shit happens to be on their “side” in the debate. Especially when I am by-and-large mostly in agreement with those persons who are letting shit slide.

So when I see people who purportedly truly believe in what they are saying allow their “allies” to say unbelievably idiotic shit that goes exactly contrary to what they (that is, the party who allows this) believe just so as to not, apparently, lose an ally (I guess, fuck if I know their “reasoning”), it… well, I’m just speechless.

Firstly, I am sorry about your sister. The grooming process involves that element of control, the power dynamic in the relationship where the offender makes the victim believe that he/she is in love with them. It is tragically not uncommon. And having been brought up in an atmosphere where this was happening, having to relate to your sister during that is possibly why you are drawn to other victims, it's something that you know and understand, if that makes sense?

The thing with GeoffP.. Was spread out over several weeks and across a few threads. He has argued from a position that is, well, bizarre for quite a few of us and kind of all over the place. While his earlier comments were posted and linked, it is a matter of context and how it is perceived. This has been linked earlier and it's probably better to read the links so that you can apply the context and so you can know and understand where we are coming from. Particular comments were made, such as the moose humping the tree to demonstrate it's just sexual example would have to be one of the worst thus far and others also took it to mean about sex or sexual. So it's not just us here in this thread. It's in the last few pages of the rape thread.

 

[Trooper]

If he's skipping trial, then a hundred metres isn't far enough.

I worked for the District Attorney's Office, years ago. Ours was the standard 100 yards, as well, still is. Their low reporting and conviction rates are also similar to ours.

In Australia there has been significant improvement in relation to sexual offences, including major modifications to the law. Even though Australia has witnessed significant culture changes and recent reform, research suggests success has been partial at best.

Like I said, it’s unfortunate that her prosecuting attorney made the decision to not file charges because his mental instability wouldn't have hindered the case and the use of physical force has been found to improve substantially the chance of conviction.

Keep in mind that even we didn't have any major changes in rape law legislation until 1955, but the code wasn't even published until 1980.