The Broad Brush? Women and Men; Prejudice and Necessity

[Bells]

I mean, seriously?

This is what it comes to?

I bring you Mississippi's rape prevention list. Their "On the Street" rape prevention list (they broke it down for in the house, on the street, in the car, on the phone, etc):

Walk near the curb, in the middle of the street, and away from buildings, trees, and shrubbery, which can hide potential assailants.

Ermm.. I don't think we need to even discuss or imagine why walking down the middle of the street might present its own risk to one's life.. Perhaps they feel that dying is better than being raped or than the risk of someone jumping out from behind a shrub.

When walking near the car to your home or apartment, carry your house keys in your hand, not in your purse. Don't stand in a doorway and fumble in your purse or pocket for your keys. Have them ready to use.

And the rapist can simply push you in as soon as you open the door..

Be aware, at all times, of your surroundings. Look over your shoulder and behind you several times while walking. Better to look and/or feel foolish or suspicious than to be raped.

Because it's always better to have everyone think there is something wrong with you, that you are paranoid and afraid.. Yeah, a rapist will stay away from someone like that..

Don't give friendly answers to men who attempt to strike up conversations on the street. Walk briskly and with purpose keep walking.

Yes, just be rude to all males you don't know on the street because all men are potential rapists. Coupled with looking over your shoulder all the time and doing the bolt for your front door and yes, couple all of this with walking down the street and jumping at shadows..

Use a grocery cart when you have many packages. You make a good mark when your arms are full.

Struggling with a full grocery cart makes you less of a target?

One can only hope she's not pushing it down the middle of the street.

Always dress so that movement is not restricted and your clothing does not make you more vulnerable.

I suppose you need to be able to move fast if you're walking down the middle of the street and running away from all men you see on the street.. But how does one dress if one wants to be unrestricted but also less vulnerable? Jeans? Well they can be a tad restrictive sometimes. Shorts? But then that's showing legs and makes the person more vulnerable. Skirts and dresses? Well, they're out automatically. Same with certain types of footwear. Soooo...

Try to vary your routine routes of travel. Most rapists have been found to study their victim's habitual patterns.

Act like you are a spy with State secrets and agents from an enemy state is after you.. Check!

While waiting for public transportation, keep your back against a wall (or pole) so that you cannot be surprised from behind.

I suppose if that's all it takes, she can just have a custom made backpack that creates a fake wall behind her so she can't be surprised from behind. Let's just hope she's not looking over her shoulder when she's waiting for the bus, because that would look awkward.

Know your routes. Notice lighting, alleys, abandoned buildings, and street people.

If all else fails, take a lesson in obstacle course so you can identify friendly or dangerous folks at a glance... like a commando.

Pick out places that you consider safer, places where you can either make a stand or reassure yourself that you are not being followed or watched (i.e., lit porches, bus stops, stores, etc.).

If you're walking down the middle of the street, jumping at shadows caused by trees, shrubs or buildings and constantly looking over your shoulder for anyone who may or may not be following you (with or without the shopping cart) and not speaking to anyone at all for fear they may be a rapist, people are going to be watching you.. Guaranteed. I'd suggest battling it out in the middle of the street personally. Why would you make a stand in an enclosed place, and away from others who may see you and possibly come to your aid? Well, since you're so rude, the guys you're rude to on your street or in your neighbourhood may not do nothing.. but really... why suggest you make a stand against a potential attacker away from the very public eye?

If you are going somewhere in a city with which you aren't familiar, check a map, know where you are going. Looking lost increases vulnerability.

So does walking down the middle of the street, looking like a paranoid idiot.

Be aware that walking alone at night may be hazardous to your health.

Ermm.. Okay..

So is walking down the middle of the street and not always looking where you are going because you're too busy looking behind you.



The majority of the rest of the list, from how to prevent being raped when you're alone at home and in your car (don't wind the car window down more than 1-2 inches, check your car before getting in it, don't get into it if you see a man or group of men leaning on or being near your car)..

My favourite is how to keep a weapon on the passenger seat near you and within easy reach and easy to use. Apparently a road flare is a great weapon to keep in the car, on the passenger seat next to you.. Yes, a road flare..

Here are the steps for using a road flare:

1 Have a location in mind to place the flare before you light it. A level, paved surface, free of dried vegetation, is best. If you are lighting the flare for roadside use, you should place multiple flares well behind the vehicle, so that oncoming traffic has time to move over. A hundred steps behind or "upstream" of your vehicle is a good distance for the first one. Make certain there is no gasoline leaking from any cars nearby and if there is gasoline leaking, consider NOT using a flare.

2 Locate the cap at one end of the flare. It will generally have a rough striking surface on the outside edge. Remove the plastic lid or cap to expose this surface, if necessary.

3 Look at the cap. Often, the caps are designed with a fold-out tabs or a flat side that will help prevent the lit flare from rolling around. Identify this feature and get it ready before lighting the flare.

4 Remove the cap, exposing the end of the flare. You may need to twist gently. The end of the flare will have an ignition surface or "button". This is the end you will light.

5 Hold the flare as far away from your body and face as possible. Stand with your left or right shoulder facing into the wind. Point it away from yourself and others. Also, remember to hold the flare by the middle, with your hand away from the end you will be lighting.

6 Light the flare much the same way as you would light a match. Rub the end of the flare briskly against the coarse striking surface on the cap. There is no need to strike too firmly. Remember, the flare will spray ignited, molten material from its end so if you are wearing good clothing you may damage your clothing

7 Carry the lighted flare pointed downward and away from yourself, so that no burning residues can drip back onto your hand. Keep the burning end of the flare away from hair and clothing.

8 Replace the cap on the back end of the flare (the end that is not burning).

9 Set the flare on the ground, away from vehicles and flammable materials and be sure that it will not roll. Do not drop it. If you drop the flare you will have less control over its location, and the flare could break. If you think you need to extend the burn time of a flare, you can stack one burning flare over the other non-burning flare (bottom of burning flare crosses over the head of the non-burning flare)

10 Make sure that the flare is extinguished before leaving the site. If you wish to extinguish a lighted flare before it burns out, either douse it completely with water or tap the lighted end against the ground to break the burning part off of the rest of the flare. Smothering the flame is unlikely to be effective. [1]
​

Remember, this product is recommended as a "very good weapon" to keep on the seat next to you by the Mississippi State Department of Health as a rape prevention strategy:

If you carry a small weapon on the front seat next to you, be sure you know how to use it and that it is easily accessible. Weapons carried in glove compartments or under seats may mean nothing if you must hastily search or struggle for them. Road flares are very good weapons to keep in the car.

The dangers of setting yourself and your car on fire obviously escaped their notice and the rigmarole to lighting one, in a closed environment like your car, releasing fumes and again, setting yourself on fire and your car on fire with you locked in your car with your windows wound up is a rape prevention strategy..

They then recommend things like not stopping if you see a car accident or someone stranded or injured (possibly another woman who has been struck by a car because she was too busy walking down and looking over her shoulder the road to avoid being raped), but to drive on and find a phone to call for help (after telling you to not leave your car)..

And it goes on and on..

 

[GeoffP]

Giving a fair shill

Ermm not really. You're scrambling in the hope that you can point to someone else to tell me "see!!"..

Ah, no, I'm just underscoring the essential hypocrisy that drives part of this discussion. You know, where someone doesn't advocate rape, and is called a "rape advocate", and where someone else actually alludes to a set of circumstances where a woman is "asking for it" - which is sort of the key evil phrase, rape-wise - and is not a "rape advocate" in your book. I think this would justify characterising you as an "inequity advocate".

He's not the one advocating that women behave a certain way if they want to avoid being raped.

Certainly seems that way. Not once has even he taken up this strange oblique "sex party gone wrong" angle regarding rape, chief.

Several in this thread have argued for this point. Perhaps you can turn your maniacal eye onto them

Gotcha: please, Geoff, forget the way in which you've been viciously slandered - in a way no person would dare do except on an internet forum with the fullest protections of our position - and go after these other people. You know, Bells, I'm an amazingly fair person. I'd be happy to critique such a stance as you're describing. Now, the way this forum works is that you identify a specific example and that generates a specific response. I offered this same option back in post #268. I offer it again now. I'm not doing your homework for you, Bells. If you can mine to try to slag me, surely you can mine to try to slag others. Why should I be such a favoured son?

No, I'm an atheist. I don't believe that kind of stuff. Perhaps you should take your woowoo to the appropriate forums, hmm?

Coals to Newcastle.

See, this is where you troll.

At no time did he say that rape is okay in some circumstances. Rape role playing is not rape because both consent to the role play well in advance and plan it to be a role play.

:bugeye: Maybe it was lost in the general shock yesterday - after a couple years on here, anything seems less weird by definition - but today this is striking me as really odd.

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

I'm... looking at his statement very closely. I'm scanning it. Not seeing this "role play" argument. Checking his other posts... doesn't seem to have come up. He does offer a scenario wherein some supposed girl is apparently trying to get some supposed friend of his to have sex with her. The anger, juxtaposed with these "exceptions" in which the victim then is "asking for it", suggests a certain Freudian frame wherein she was "asking for it" it in his mind. Kitta doesn't say that explicitly, but it's a weird example to raise in context of the phrase "asking for it" (falsifying a rape charge, as he alleges, doesn't really dovetail with the concept of "exceptions" in which the victim is "asking for it"), and neither has he taken up with your "role play" defense. So, no, I'm not buying your argument here at all, and neither would anyone else. Not even Kitta, seemingly.

Rape is sex without consent. Sex with consent, even when role playing, is not rape. It would become rape if one uses the safe word to stop and the other does not stop.

You know, since you're keen on highlighting the creeper aspects of SF discussion from time to time, this ranks as one of the creepier excuses raised on the forum.

If I were you faced with such a situation, I have to infer that I'd start in with a round of "I can't believe you'd dare excuse rape for this reason" and then make all kinds of nasty allusions about it in succeeding posts - you know the kind of thing you'd do with this: "Bells thinks all rape is just role play", "Bells expects that all sexual assault is just role play 'gone bad'", "Bells is a rape advocate because she defended a guy who actually did suggest that sometimes women are asking for it" and so on - but frankly I barely care to bother highlighting your basic and essential hypocrisy regarding Kitta in such a way just now.

It couldn't help anything, could it? You're not going to learn from it. You're certainly not going to apologise - that's never happened yet. Why would I bother, I wonder? I guess it's just an amusingly ironic instance in the midst of constant, unsubstantiated character attacks on me where you're actually defending an actual rape apologist, and on basis of a substantially creepy excuse. I'm sure that's indicative of nothing.

 

[Capracus]

Meanwhile, just out of curiosity, would you suggest measures aimed to prevent the most common types of rape fall under that rubric? There are some who would argue against that, such as Billvon. See, that's one of the reasons this Infinite Protection Advocacy annoys the hell out of other people; it's bullshit.

Most physical assault regardless of its nature occurs between acquaintances, if one assesses their familiar relations to pose and elevated risk of violence then one ideally should be prepared to deal with it in some effective manner. And is this Infinite Protection Advocacy another brand from your personal lexicon?

And when a woman is circumstantially obliged to train herself to defend against rape, we have a problem. As a human rights issue, women have every right to live in this world as carefree as I do.

The fact is that we all live in a world that has associated risk, to be ignorant of it may enhance your sense of bliss, but it will also enhance your potential victimhood. I’ve been robbed at gunpoint twice in my life and physically assaulted during another robbery. Do I wish my society was free of violent criminals? Of course I do. Is society working toward that goal? I would imagine it is. Are we there yet? No. Should I learn from my experience and take personal steps to reduce my future risk of victimhood? I would say yes.

Avoid being alone with questionable men in unsafe environments:

It seems rather quite ludicrous to presume women are so fucking stupid that they need to be told, "Avoid being alone with questionable men in unsafe environments". Indeed, when I dive into such advice with people face to face, it consistently emerges that that they don't think women are so stupid as to need the advice, but too ignorant to know who is questionable and what is unsafe. Strangely, none of these people ever include themselves among the questionable or unsafe. Well, okay, it's not all that strange. It's expected.

My quote was :

Avoiding being alone with questionable men or in unsafe environments

You’d think that people in general would have enough sense not to associate with individuals of questionable character, or venture into dangerous places without any backup, yet most of us at some point in our lives have done so. Often uneventful but potentially risky encounters with people and places can lead to a false sense of security, and such complacence can lead to tragedy.

We can classify "rape dogs" with other certified guide dogs, because just like being blind, we've arrived at the point that being female is a disability. Or we can try a sex-based, discriminatory approach: Women can bring dogs in, but men can't. Daresay the result of that is predictable: How dare you discriminate against the poor, innocent, defenseless men!

You can look at the dog as a proxy bodyguard. Just like the two legged kind, as long as it can be responsibly controlled, it doesn’t matter who its master is. A dog is going to have greater utility when there are not other people around to lend assistance. The assault incident described by Bells would be such an example.

The problem with Infinite Protection Advice is that it obliges a woman to consider every man she encounters as a potential rapist, and guard against him.

Not just women, we all have to asses the risk posed by the people we encounter in our daily lives. Some are more skilled than others and are better able to navigate the pitfalls of more risky encounters.

So consider this: A woman taking the advice of the Seattle Police Department, various advocacy organizations, and the men in her life that it is her job to prevent men from raping, decides to protect herself, and decides that should include a gun.

A man walks up to her, lays down a cheesy pickup line.

She shoots him to death on the spot, standing her ground against a potential rapist.

Right, we should expect no sense of discretion amongst armed citizens. Packing Mrs. Zimmerman meet PAU Martin.

It's like the whole NRA vision for America; if we build a society in which the only pretense of civility is that everyone is a lethal threat to everyone else, the only people who win are the arms manufacturers and sellers.

As long as violence is practiced by some members of society, it will be necessary to exert some type of force to keep such behavior in check. We already employ moral conditioning, social engineering and threats of punishment, yet the problem persists. Does the fact that someone is armed or capable of inflicting harm make them uncivilized?

It always cracks me up when someone says they can't imagine something happening while it's actually going on. The reason people are sick and tired of this Infinite Protection Advocacy is that it's all that ever happens.

So by your reasoning everything an individual does to enhance their security is a form of IPA. And by extension, anything society does collectively to enhance its security is a form of IPA. I guess we should just do away with our criminal justice system and all forms of personal security and just trust people to do the right thing, because we all know everyone in society is presently on the same page as to what the right thing actually is.

Furthermore, you're attempting something consummately dishonest:
"I know you want to hear us say that society needs to do more to condition it's male members to not be rapists, misogynists, murderers, thieves and swindlers so that women will be less burdened with matters of personal security."

There are any number of crimes we all have to guard against; theft, murder, fraud, &c. But compared to you or me as men, the rape question in this context is aimed exclusively at women. When a man rapes another man, the police don't put out a list of things men are doing wrong that encourage rapists. Nobody tells the victim he shouldn't have been downtown, in a well-populated area, without a companion. Nobody tells him his haircut is too rapey, or that he wears the wrong shoes, or that it's dangerous for him to use his mobile phone in public.

We are all potential victim of physical assault, and there are strategies that we can employ to mitigate our risk of victimhood.

So a guy walking through a high crime neighborhood wearing an expensive suit and a Rolex watch would not be at greater risk because of his appearance of wealth?

It is absolutely, egregiously dishonest and stupid to say you "can't imagine anyone participating in this thread that doesn't share that sentiment and would love to see it happen ASAP" when there are people participating in this thread trying to stave off that very outcome.

This is where your logic falls completely flat. To assert that advocating security can only be accomplished at the expense of concurrent social remedies is ridiculous. I can teach my child not to drink Drano and still put child locks on the cabinets.

The hate Elliot Rodger had for women, their male partners, and society in general was derived from the delusional perception that each represented a roadblock to the realization of his ill conceived social order.

Well, you're almost there. There is a functional difference, however: Men are the competition, while women are the prizes to be won.

Did you read his manifesto? To him, other men are fellow beauty contestants and the women are not only the prize, but also the judges. The women are not won by the men; they have to be chosen by them. Since they refused to recognize his perceived superiority, he figured the pageant was rigged and needed to be destroyed.

The guy announces his misogyny to the world, and people want us to look away from that. Hell, Trooper nearly swoons at Rodger's victimhood. ("And then he saw a beautiful girl while out for a walk"? Well, sure; he saw a bauble that he wanted for his own.)

You might as well tell me that triangles and octagons are the same thing because they're both polygons.

The guy obviously had some kind of life long psychosocial defect that confounded his understanding of social behavior and fueled his hatred of society, so in that sense he can be seen as a victim.

Capracus, remember that she's not arguing on principle, but because she doesn't like Bells. And remember, she's the one romanticizing the mass-murdering misogynist.

Furthermore, she's had this burr under her saddle for a while. She got pissed off on your behalf, so you can consider your debt of absurd humiliation paid.

So I’m disagreeing with your characterization of Trooper as a misogynist because she called you and Bells out for being pricks in the other thread? It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the illogic of your premise that entertaining questions of psychology and risk prevention equals rape advocacy and misogyny?

 

[Kittamaru]

Oh, certainly. And that just came up now. And his own definition doesn't match that at all. Otherwise, perfect.
I have no doubt you felt it quite clear. It contradicts a bit with his statements below, but, well, whatever.
Oh come on: given the above, I bet there's a least a 50% chance you'd buy the idea I'd ensorcelled him somehow.

Clarity. Fullness of thought. Do you prefer deep discussions at a 140-character max?

If I was after something like that, I would go to Twitter.
However, if it actually takes you a thousand plus words to say, in essence, "Rape is Bad"... that is not clarity, nor is it fullness of thought. Closest thing I can think of to compare it to would be filibustering... which, ironically enough, you are very nearly doing - you have this entire thread so mired down in YOUR drama as to make the original discussion almost untenable...

Because you again described my position as a complete unitary effect. It isn't. Precise language matters, particularly so in this debate, because of those involved.

I did? Show me.

I am saying that there may well be some biological impulses for the behaviour. Such a system, however, would be incredibly complicated and residual at this point, and further be inconsistent among types of sexual assault and perpetrators. It is exceedingly unlikely that it could be a major effect, since human sociality should have generated severe selection against it since the development of civilisation and language. It's much more likely to exist or have been common in early hominids or common ancestors of hominids and apes. Furthermore, the effect itself would be largely concealed by the behavioural lability imposed by the forebrain; that is, human personality.

Is my not stating a definitive cause - all-or-nothing - what you are complaining about when you say you don't understand the composition of this proposition? It isn't all-or-nothing. Even the existence of this effect isn't certain, only possible. That's the boundary of statistical genetics: likelihood.

That sounds interestingly familiar to the Freudian "Id, Ego, Super-Ego" model... the Id being the basal instinctive desires, the Super-Ego, which pushes for perfection and the following of social norms and graces, and the Ego, trying to mediate between the two and balance short term pleasures with long term goals. (DISCLAIMER - that is a highly compacted, highly over-simplified, and very trimmed version of Freud's Psychic Apparatus)
In that case... would that, in your opinion, make the Urge to Rape a Mental Disorder?

Like "rape advocate", presumably.

Well, as already stated - several people, members, mods, and admins alike, got that impression from you. Perhaps you should stop going for "fullness of thought" and instead get "to the point" a bit quicker, eh bub?

Oh good. That just brings us back to the statement about special conditions in which it's okay to rape a woman if she's "asking for it". Maybe you could plug a fortunate apostrophe in there.

Actually, an apostrophe there would be incorrect. In my original statement, it actually changes the meaning somewhat; instead of meaning

I see you are, once again, using intentional dishonesty and twisting of statement to try and allude that I am somehow saying rape is okay in all situations

It becomes, with that apostrophe

I see you are, once again, using intentional dishonesty and twisting of statement to try and allude that I am somehow saying that there is any situation in which rape is okay

Now, in all reality, any intelligent, unbiased individual reading the original statement could figure out my actual intent without problem. Which begs the question - are you unintelligent, or biased?

That does not match the construction of the language you used previously.

Oh? Well, since you have just taken off your "biologist" hat and put on your "linguistics professor" hat, how about you educate us all on how that is? Or... are you incapable of doing so and just making more unfounded claims, as I suspect, in an attempt to discredit the debater since you cannot discredit his argument? After all, you do so love your logical fallacies.

Well, you're the only actual one I've come across so far. Which tune have I changed again? Pics or it didn't happen. I'm afraid I have to insist on this kind of thing.

Oh dear dear, now we have fallen into delusions of grandeur and catastrophic failure in the discerning of reality... a pity.

If so, I've certainly had two good tutors on this thread. I reiterate: "rape advocate". Remember that phrase? That's okay to accuse me of, as far as you're concerned, on absolutely no evidence, while you seem to think rape is okay in some circumstances while also pushing the biological cause on no evidence you've presented at all, for which Bells had another grande mal freakout. Little fishy, chief. That's okay though: I guarantee Bells will find no fault with it whatsoever. Chill! You're in the clear.

Indeed, Balerion is an excellent tutor in your aggressive, nonsensical tirades. Might I ask who the other one was so we know who to keep an eye on, hm?

I am still awaiting some semblance of evidence that I have somehow excused rape in any situation. (or are you still unable to differentiate between rape and someone who has not been raped CLAIMING rape as a means of coercion?)

I'm... looking at his statement very closely. I'm scanning it. Not seeing this "role play" argument. Checking his other posts... doesn't seem to have come up. He does offer a scenario wherein some supposed girl is apparently trying to get some supposed friend of his to have sex with her. The anger, juxtaposed with these "exceptions" in which the victim then is "asking for it", suggests a certain Freudian frame wherein she was "asking for it" it in his mind. Kitta doesn't say that explicitly, but it's a weird example to raise in context of the phrase "asking for it" (falsifying a rape charge, as he alleges, doesn't really dovetail with the concept of "exceptions" in which the victim is "asking for it"), and neither has he taken up with your "role play" defense. So, no, I'm not buying your argument here at all, and neither would anyone else. Not even Kitta, seemingly.

Bwahaha, that's what you are hung up on? Wow... okay, let me break it down for you, since you are apparently entirely inept at understanding the English Language:
I try not to deal in absolutes with this, because there are some fucked up people out there. There are people out there who will "get raped" in order to use it for coercive purposes. Obviously, this isn't actually a case of rape, but rather someone saying they were in order to further an agenda.

Is it sick? Yes. Does it happen often? Thankfully, not as far as I'm aware. But it DOES happen.
So, using an absolute statement, such as "The victim is never asking for it to happen" would be somewhat improper.

 

[Bells]

Ah, no, I'm just underscoring the essential hypocrisy that drives part of this discussion. You know, where someone doesn't advocate rape, and is called a "rape advocate", and where someone else actually alludes to a set of circumstances where a woman is "asking for it" - which is sort of the key evil phrase, rape-wise - and is not a "rape advocate" in your book. I think this would justify characterising you as an "inequity advocate".

Hmm..

It's a good question.. Why rape?

The attacker can beat them up... It's also a show of force and power over another.

I mean, if it's not a power play to pin a woman down, rip her pants off, stick his cock into her vagina against her will, then what is?

Well I think it might be deviant sexual 'expression', or sheer lust in the vernacular. What the hell would be the right term? Not sure here.

Then the it's sexual arguments because a moose tries to hump a tree..

When you try and think up other terms to call it, try and rebrand it as being biological and sexual...

Certainly seems that way. Not once has even he taken up this strange oblique "sex party gone wrong" angle regarding rape, chief.

It was kind of obvious.

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

The only exception where this occurs is rape role playing. So the exception is not even her asking for it, because it's something she and/or he consented to previously. So it's not even classified as rape. I mean he's classified it for you, he's explained it. Why are we still having this discussion?

Gotcha: please, Geoff, forget the way in which you've been viciously slandered - in a way no person would dare do except on an internet forum with the fullest protections of our position - and go after these other people. You know, Bells, I'm an amazingly fair person. I'd be happy to critique such a stance as you're describing. Now, the way this forum works is that you identify a specific example and that generates a specific response. I offered this same option back in post #268. I offer it again now. I'm not doing your homework for you, Bells. If you can mine to try to slag me, surely you can mine to try to slag others. Why should I be such a favoured son?

See, you argue a point, many rush to your defense from the big bad moderators. They start arguing rape prevention theories, you disappear for a spell. And as I have told you before, you have yet to provide anything to support your argument in this thread. Nothing that pertains to rapists, which, well, seeing this is a discussion about rape and rapists, it's not much of a stretch of the imagination that the guy claiming that he knows what he's talking about would at least be able to support his argument with actual proof. Instead, you keep demanding more proof from others while offering nothing in return. Oh wait no, I forget. You provided a link to a google scholar search page. Which still did not support your argument... I provided links to actual studies, I quoted them. You? Ermm.. pretty much zip. If you are too lazy to even click on a link that was provided earlier, then really, that's not my problem. And you don't get to whine about doing homework for others when you are incapable of doing it even for yourself and your argument in this and the various other threads you have participated in on this site.

We've noticed this about you.. You rarely ever provide any evidence to support your argument and instead, you expect everyone to just believe everything you say. It doesn't work that way. You are the absolutely last person to be demanding links or whining about having to do other people's homework because you don't click on links provided.

Coals to Newcastle.

They think your brand of woo woo is pointless as well?

:bugeye: Maybe it was lost in the general shock yesterday - after a couple years on here, anything seems less weird by definition - but today this is striking me as really odd.

Do you know what would be less weird? You supporting your argument with actual science and not just your opinion. Just saying.

I'm... looking at his statement very closely. I'm scanning it. Not seeing this "role play" argument. Checking his other posts... doesn't seem to have come up. He does offer a scenario wherein some supposed girl is apparently trying to get some supposed friend of his to have sex with her. The anger, juxtaposed with these "exceptions" in which the victim then is "asking for it", suggests a certain Freudian frame wherein she was "asking for it" it in his mind. Kitta doesn't say that explicitly, but it's a weird example to raise in context of the phrase "asking for it" (falsifying a rape charge, as he alleges, doesn't really dovetail with the concept of "exceptions" in which the victim is "asking for it"), and neither has he taken up with your "role play" defense. So, no, I'm not buying your argument here at all, and neither would anyone else. Not even Kitta, seemingly.

Well of course you would find it hard to figure out.

Because the only time it could be an exception is if she actually is asking to be raped, which is what she would do if she and her sexual partner have a rape role playing fantasy. Get it now?

You know, since you're keen on highlighting the creeper aspects of SF discussion from time to time, this ranks as one of the creepier excuses raised on the forum.

Don't worry. Your 'moose humping a tree' so it has to have some sexual impetus still wins that hands down.

If I were you faced with such a situation, I have to infer that I'd start in with a round of "I can't believe you'd dare excuse rape for this reason" and then make all kinds of nasty allusions about it in succeeding posts - you know the kind of thing you'd do with this: "Bells thinks all rape is just role play", "Bells expects that all sexual assault is just role play 'gone bad'", "Bells is a rape advocate because she defended a guy who actually did suggest that sometimes women are asking for it" and so on - but frankly I barely care to bother highlighting your basic and essential hypocrisy regarding Kitta in such a way just now.

You could try and get away with it, but you wouldn't get far.

Because it would be so clear that you were lying. But thank you for confirming that you are the type to try and blatantly lie that I said "all rape is just role play".

It couldn't help anything, could it? You're not going to learn from it. You're certainly not going to apologise - that's never happened yet. Why would I bother, I wonder? I guess it's just an amusingly ironic instance in the midst of constant, unsubstantiated character attacks on me where you're actually defending an actual rape apologist, and on basis of a substantially creepy excuse. I'm sure that's indicative of nothing.

It's because you're spesh to us.

No, really, he says that she never asks for it with one exception and that is obviously when she does ask for it literally and consents to rape role play. I get that your little tanty and the little PM directing me to his comment, but it was clear to me what he meant. Perhaps it's because I know Kitta is not the type of guy to even believe that a rape victim asks for it, so I know he's not the type of guy who would say such a thing and I also know that the only exception is in the case of role playing rape - which isn't rape but consensual planned sex between two consenting adults, which we have discussed in the past in previous rape threads. In other words, I know Kitta would never argue what you are saying he did and the fact that he corrected your misconception and explained it very clearly and he has never argued 'is rape even the correct word?' or tried to redefine rape to be something else entirely..

 

[Bells]

I try not to deal in absolutes with this, because there are some fucked up people out there. There are people out there who will "get raped" in order to use it for coercive purposes. Obviously, this isn't actually a case of rape, but rather someone saying they were in order to further an agenda.

Is it sick? Yes. Does it happen often? Thankfully, not as far as I'm aware. But it DOES happen.
So, using an absolute statement, such as "The victim is never asking for it to happen" would be somewhat improper.

I disagree..

It does happen sometimes in domestic violence cases where the man is the victim of spousal abuse.

She says to him that she will tell people that he raped her instead of the other way around. It's a form of sick and twisted control. She tells him that if he leaves her or tries to call the police, then she will accuse him of rape. He instantly loses his job, access to his kids, everything.. If he tries to leave her if she does abuse him.

However aside from domestic violence cases of false rape allegations as you are stating is very rare.

A person who falsely accuses another of rape is not a victim of rape. They are a perptrator, an abuser, a blackmailer. So I disagree when you say that it would be improper to suggest that a victim never asks for it to happen. An actual victim does not ask for it. There is a difference.

 

[Kittamaru]

I disagree..

It does happen sometimes in domestic violence cases where the man is the victim of spousal abuse.

She says to him that she will tell people that he raped her instead of the other way around. It's a form of sick and twisted control. She tells him that if he leaves her or tries to call the police, then she will accuse him of rape. He instantly loses his job, access to his kids, everything.. If he tries to leave her if she does abuse him.

However aside from domestic violence cases of false rape allegations as you are stating is very rare.

A person who falsely accuses another of rape is not a victim of rape. They are a perptrator, an abuser, a blackmailer. So I disagree when you say that it would be improper to suggest that a victim never asks for it to happen. An actual victim does not ask for it. There is a difference.

*nods* I find people that use false accusations of anything to be incredibly low-brow and particularly disdainful... to ruin someones life via a court of law using false allegations is just disgusting.

 

[krash661]

bells,
(even tho it took days to read) i understand exactly everything that has been stated.
trust me, it's not you.
and i'm a male (shrugs)

i'm also an asexual.
(without sexual desire or activity )

 

[GeoffP]

If I was after something like that, I would go to Twitter. However, if it actually takes you a thousand plus words to say, in essence, "Rape is Bad"... that is not clarity, nor is it fullness of thought. Closest thing I can think of to compare it to would be filibustering... which, ironically enough, you are very nearly doing - you have this entire thread so mired down in YOUR drama as to make the original discussion almost untenable...

I'm not sure which is worse - that you think this is 'very nearly' filibustering, or that you don't understand what "tenable" means, or that you just keep failing to do the right thing. Let me know how you get on.

I did? Show me.

Kitta, did you forget what you said again?

"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.

Hmm! I do wonder how anyone of an 'intellectual capacity' could forget such a statement of sheer tripe. It was remarkable.

That sounds interestingly familiar to the Freudian "Id, Ego, Super-Ego" model... the Id being the basal instinctive desires, the Super-Ego, which pushes for perfection and the following of social norms and graces, and the Ego, trying to mediate between the two and balance short term pleasures with long term goals. (DISCLAIMER - that is a highly compacted, highly over-simplified, and very trimmed version of Freud's Psychic Apparatus)
In that case... would that, in your opinion, make the Urge to Rape a Mental Disorder?

Possibly so.

Well, as already stated - several people, members, mods, and admins alike, got that impression from you.

Well, several members took nothing like that at all from me, and there's more of them than yours. Sooo... :shrug:

Actually, an apostrophe there would be incorrect. In my original statement, it actually changes the meaning somewhat; instead of meaning

No, no: you're taking too long to get to the point. Clearly this is just filibustering to try to derail the discussion. I ask again: under what "exceptions" is a woman "asking for [rape]". I mean, if you can't be succinct, and "fullness of thought" is frowned upon, we're really back to the original question, right? I mean, that's justified using your own methodologies, isn't it?

... any of this sinking in? :bugeye:

Now, in all reality, any intelligent, unbiased individual reading the original statement could figure out my actual intent without problem. Which begs the question - are you unintelligent, or biased?

What a question! I don't wish to fall into some kind of "bifurcation trap". Clever, but not nearly clever enough! Not so?

Oh? Well, since you have just taken off your "biologist" hat and put on your "linguistics professor" hat, how about you educate us all on how that is? Or... are you incapable of doing so and just making more unfounded claims, as I suspect, in an attempt to discredit the debater since you cannot discredit his argument? After all, you do so love your logical fallacies.

Oh, I wear all the hats simultaneously. I wonder how it might be possible to misinterpret this statement:

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

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...nd-Necessity&p=3201024&viewfull=1#post3201024

It's pretty clear what you mean here: there are apparently some exceptions in which the victim is asking for rape to happen. Which exceptions are those? It's not a case where someone is trying to get a false claim of rape on another, because in such an instance one would put the word victim in quotes.

You know, it's amazing that we have to go so far on such an issue instead of you just doing the right thing. Are you really possessed of neither principle nor honour? Certainly seems that way.

Oh dear dear, now we have fallen into delusions of grandeur and catastrophic failure in the discerning of reality... a pity.

:shrug: I repeat: Well, you're the only actual one I've come across so far. Which tune have I changed again? Pics or it didn't happen. I'm afraid I have to insist on this kind of thing. So let's see the evidence.

Indeed, Balerion is an excellent tutor in your aggressive, nonsensical tirades. Might I ask who the other one was so we know who to keep an eye on, hm?

Are you planning to hack into other poster's accounts?

I try not to deal in absolutes with this, because there are some fucked up people out there.

Oh, of course don't deal in absolutes:

"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.

Nothing absolute about that kind of misrepresentation, is there?

 

[billvon]

The problem is that when people keep that pressure on women to prevent their own rapes, when obviously, it's not exactly easy (1 in 6 women raped means that it's nearly impossible), it creates an atmosphere that women are literally held to a particular standard in how they behave and what they do.

It may create that atmosphere, just as the "just make men stop raping" thing creates a toxic atmosphere where even innocent people are conflated with rapists. Both are unfortunate side effects of rape-reduction efforts. However, reducing the incidence of rape is a good thing, even if it creates a negative atmosphere.

Let's look at me as a prime example. My house is overly secure. I have taken self-defense classes. And yet, I was still raped in my own overly secure property by someone I know.

You cannot stop all rapes; no amount of precautions that the victims take will prevent all rapes, and no amount of threatening/punishment of rapists will prevent all rapes. However, through better preparation, better enforcement and better education you can reduce the number of rapes - and that is a good thing.

I'll put it this way. When you get into bed at night, do you fall asleep prepared and knowing how to act if someone tries to rape you? Yet there is this expectation that a woman should know and be prepared in even the most mundane times, like going to bed to go to sleep.

Nope. Nor do I fall asleep prepared and knowing what to do if there is a serious earthquake, a fire or a medical emergency. However, all those three have happened to me, and _previous_ training/preparation helped me to deal with the problem.

Alcohol. That's always the big one. Don't drink alcohol if you want to avoid being raped. Okay. But the potential rapist can still spike your soft drink, juice or even glass of water or food you may consume.

Yes, they might. But by far the largest effect that alcohol has in increasing the incidence of rape is the impairment of the victim caused by the alcohol. Thus drinking moderately instead of excessively reduces (but does not eliminate) your odds of being raped.

Want to drink excessively? Then you are free to do so. If you are then raped, it is still 100% the rapist's fault.

You may say you don't want women to behave a certain way, but then you say she should be responsible, etc and then you list what you think that entails if she does not want to be raped. What that does is apply this particular standard and a woman who fails to adhere to this..? How does she feel then?

If a women's advocacy group makes such recommendations to 100 women, and 5 of them manage to avoid being raped as a result, then it is worth the other people feeling bad. Being raped is worse than feeling bad.

 

[krash661]

I'm not sure which is worse - that you think this is 'very nearly' filibustering, or that you don't understand what "tenable" means, or that you just keep failing to do the right thing. Let me know how you get on.



Kitta, did you forget what you said again?



Hmm! I do wonder how anyone of an 'intellectual capacity' could forget such a statement of sheer tripe. It was remarkable.



Possibly so.



Well, several members took nothing like that at all from me, and there's more of them than yours. Sooo... :shrug:



No, no: you're taking too long to get to the point. Clearly this is just filibustering to try to derail the discussion. I ask again: under what "exceptions" is a woman "asking for [rape]". I mean, if you can't be succinct, and "fullness of thought" is frowned upon, we're really back to the original question, right? I mean, that's justified using your own methodologies, isn't it?

... any of this sinking in? :bugeye:



What a question! I don't wish to fall into some kind of "bifurcation trap". Clever, but not nearly clever enough! Not so?



Oh, I wear all the hats simultaneously. I wonder how it might be possible to misinterpret this statement:



It's pretty clear what you mean here: there are apparently some exceptions in which the victim is asking for rape to happen. Which exceptions are those? It's not a case where someone is trying to get a false claim of rape on another, because in such an instance one would put the word victim in quotes.

You know, it's amazing that we have to go so far on such an issue instead of you just doing the right thing. Are you really possessed of neither principle nor honour? Certainly seems that way.



:shrug: I repeat: Well, you're the only actual one I've come across so far. Which tune have I changed again? Pics or it didn't happen. I'm afraid I have to insist on this kind of thing. So let's see the evidence.



Are you planning to hack into other poster's accounts?



Oh, of course don't deal in absolutes:

Nothing absolute about that kind of misrepresentation, is there?

your secluded auto pilot mind is amusing.

 

[GeoffP]

Lying liars and the lies they... lie? Tell? I forget

Hmm..

Yes, think hard about that. Seems fair?

Then the it's sexual arguments because a moose tries to hump a tree..

Ah - I finally see what's got you so in knots there. I'm sure I'll regret trying to have an intellectual argument in the middle of a witch-hunt, but...

You were explaining earlier how paedophilia was based in the libido just a few posts ago, since libido-suppressing drugs prevented the majority of recidivism. Since the libido is "a person's overall sexual drive or desire for sexual activity, that implies that paedophilia is a (criminally and immorally) misdirected sexual interest and similar to the failure of an animal also driven by its libido into sexually attacking something that could not possibly result in successful copulation. Similarly, male animals will attempt to mate with the wrong species and with individuals who cannot possibly produce offspring, such as males, and I expect also the very young. Humans are particularly heterogenous for this, with all kinds of bizarre urges, some of which fall into the area of criminality or vice. I don't consider paedophilia to be primarily biological despite your evidence, however, as the existence of the forebrain means that all behaviour is filtered through the window of personality first. In such an instance, it is very difficult to place direct blame on biological impulses, as you are doing for this latter issue.

When you try and think up other terms to call it, try and rebrand it as being biological and sexual...

Previously falsified, and a lie to boot, since you know this. See, I did say I'd regret this above.

It was kind of obvious.

Then it is most strange when Kittamaru has never taken up this excuse even after several posts of you suggesting it. Maybe you should ask him to read your recent work, so that he can get up to date on what he really meant.

The only exception where this occurs is rape role playing. So the exception is not even her asking for it, because it's something she and/or he consented to previously. So it's not even classified as rape. I mean he's classified it for you, he's explained it. Why are we still having this discussion?

Hmm, that's a good question... good question. I dunno. Ever notice how sometimes well-meaning people get unfairly labelled in a thread, and then are sort of obligated to defend themselves again and again because the other guys kind of repeatedly dismiss clarifications, even when the implicit message doesn't justify the original assertions? Ever notice that? Crazy, isn't it? I'm not saying this is happening to Kitta, but his situation does sound familiar for some reason.

See, you argue a point, many rush to your defense from the big bad moderators.

Hmm - bit of a misrepresentation there, isn't it? The actual sequence goes a little more like:

See, you make a suggestion, big bad moderators label you something unbelievably false and offensive, and then some posters defend you from the unfounded allegations.

They start arguing rape prevention theories, you disappear for a spell.

Do they? Where is this? I'm not sure what more I can do here, Bells. Do I need to search their quotes for you?

And as I have told you before, you have yet to provide anything to support your argument in this thread.

Previously falsified. I just ignored the personal attacks; kind of irrelevant.

Which still did not support your argument...

You read all those links from that search? Jesus.

I provided links to actual studies, I quoted them.

False. These were internet reports and book reviews, not primary articles. I cited you a list of primary articles and can do so again.

And you don't get to whine about doing homework for others when you are incapable of doing it even for yourself and your argument

I love it when you do this. You claim that my defenders/posse have been pushing 'rape prevention theory' and that I should denounce them. (Funnily, you don't mind all your own faults, but never mind that right now.) I ask you to cite these events. You don't. I ask you again: I say something like "all right, cite where this has happened and I shall look at it". You still don't.

Let's dig deeper, though: you're obviously not going to cite the relevant posts - a clear violation of SF rules... sometimes - but you desperately want me to attack or critique these people. Why? Ethics? Haha! Are you kidding? This is the Ethics, Justice and Morality subforum!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFkazjodpeQ

But, seriously: let's say I did. Let's say I found great fault with them. And? How would that affect the outcome of this discussion? To what end would it be? I am not a moderator. I am not obligated to assist the flow or the ethics of the forum. That is your job, as I recall. Is it that you would feel better if I would dismiss these people? Or instead do you think it would be a great blow for justice or something? I guess what I'm asking is what would this get for Bells?

We've noticed this about you..

:eep: Please, tell me "we" isn't... them. Because if "we" is "them", that makes "me" "us". And that can't be right.

You rarely ever provide any evidence to support your argument and instead, you expect everyone to just believe everything you say. It doesn't work that way. You are the absolutely last person to be demanding links or whining about having to do other people's homework because you don't click on links provided.

:shrug: You have provided no links to the promulgation of this 'rape prevention theory' posted by other people. If one were to wish me to critique them - which in light of the above I am unconvinced I ought to do anyway - you must post such links. This is the 'homework' to which I refer. it's funny, your bitching about this when you don't bother to provide a link to what it is you're asking about. So, I await your selection on tenterhooks! ... well, I'm not really 'awaiting' it. I mean, the world is going to end eventually, and I have things to do in the meantime.

They think your brand of woo woo is pointless as well?

No, they were wondering where you'd got to. I didn't have the heart to tell them you were monitoring an internet forum for evildoers.

Do you know what would be less weird? You supporting your argument with actual science and not just your opinion. Just saying.

Know what would be more weird? You linking those people you're dying for me to argue with instead of you.

Well of course you would find it hard to figure out.

Because the only time it could be an exception is if she actually is asking to be raped, which is what she would do if she and her sexual partner have a rape role playing fantasy. Get it now?

You should let Kitta know that that was what he meant, all along.

You could try and get away with it, but you wouldn't get far.

Because it would be so clear that you were lying. But thank you for confirming that you are the type to try and blatantly lie that I said "all rape is just role play".

Well, I could scarcely have missed the lessons about 'fair' debate you were trying to impart for pages now, Obi-Wannabe. Isn't turnabout fair play?

No, really, he says that she never asks for it with one exception and that is obviously when she does ask for it literally and consents to rape role play.

I guess it would be just too hard to prove this. All tuckered out, are we? There there. I mean, your feckless defense of Kitta makes so much sense when you stop to consider he actually does think that there's a major biological element to rape... and I... don't. Huh. All right, I guess it doesn't make that much sense after all.

 

[GeoffP]

your secluded auto pilot mind is amusing.

That was fascinatingly unintelligible. Do you do stage performances?

 

[Tiassa]

A Strain of Misogyny

I bring you Mississippi's rape prevention list. Their "On the Street" rape prevention list (they broke it down for in the house, on the street, in the car, on the phone, etc):

There is an odd phenomenon taking place in certain, seemingly exceptionally limited quarters among Christians; I don't even like to discuss it because I can't figure out how popular or prevalent it actually is, half the data available really does seem like fake testimonials written for pornographic purposes, and it's not a practice or custom I look forward to researching for analysis.

I would estimate it is probably several to many thousand practitioners, out of that many millions of Christians.

But it is a nearly mythical assertion of the family unit in which the husband and father, as HOH (head of household) infantilizes wife and children. To what degree there are any genuine practitioners, compared to how many are "puritan pornographers" who are unknowingly crossing the line into real pornography, or simply genuine pornographers and perverts constructing a sex-game fantasy, is unknown.

But in terms of Freud, the more genuine the sentiments, the more significant they are of a slow return of the repressed, complete with unexpected bleeding of the soul or psyche.

Everything about it is a head-spinning phenomenon that one recognizes as simultaneously (ahem!) "fucking bonkers" and "entirely expected, when you stop and think about it". In Freudian terms, these people are near to neurotic rupture.

I raise this spectre of asserted (ahem!) "'religious' discipline" specifically because of its infantilization, because when I read through the Mississippi checklist, it seems a mix of, "Hey, this sounds like it might sound good, throw it on the list", and neurotic juvenilization of women.

I like the part about telephone calls.

Well, no, I don't, but you know what I mean.

It's like the advice we gave children back in the day, when we expected them to answer the land line at a much earlier age; my daughter only answers my mobile phone if it's her grandparents or a friend's phone number that I already have logged. And generally speaking, that only happens because we're on the road when the phone rings, so I hand it to her and say, "Answer it". These are different protocols than the days of phones with cables and no answering machines, even with cassettes in them. But that's what the rules sound like. To the other, note the third point about telephone calls: "If the caller persists, blow a whistle loudly into the mouthpiece." Given that this is part of crime prevention, how about, "If the caller persists, hang up and dial 911, and please be prepared to tell the dispatcher as much as you can about the phone calls, as with this sort of harassment police need as much as they can get in order to track down unknown offenders."

But, you know, it's only a crime prevention measure. Blow a whistle. Sure. It works. Won't tell you not to. But apparently they don't think calling the police needs to go alongside the rest of the boneheaded tips. Are women, then, smart enough to figure that part out? Or is it just that the state doesn't want to bother the police with crime prevention in issues of sexual harassment and violence?

That list is insane. Trying to imagine every woman taking that list to heart and obediently following its advice? Two things stand out:

(1) These protocols won't prevent rape.

(2) Taken in sum, as an expression of attitude prevalence, perhaps I should rephrase my earlier question: Holy fucking shit! This is what it comes to? No, really, the juvenilization and diminution of is the kind of screaming insanity that can be perceived from the distant reaches of the Universe.​

For me, it returns to the dialectic of neurosis. In the United States, it is just starting to happen that feminist exasperation is leading some to start pushing back against the phrase "women's issues". Reproductive health services are health issues, not women's issues, as such. Sexual harassment and violence are human rights issues. I don't object, but the trend on this is inchoate; it surprised me the first time I heard it on msnbc a couple months ago, but as I look around it turns out I'm just late to a low-key party. This frustration, that the idea of women's issues is still distinct from general and human issues in our society, that our culture continues to validate de Beauvoir about the difference between women and human beings, has been smoldering for a while, and while I don't see flashover coming soon, that also depends entirely on what one considers soon. That is to say, the change can't arrive fast enough, as far as I'm concerned, but politics are mechanical and inhuman insofar as all the passionate arguments about what is important (#NotAllMen!) mean is that it's just another day without much to call progress.

Yet in that re-emergence of the repressed, that behavioral manifestation between the conflicting impulses of self as animal and self in society, between instinct and conscience, accounting for the diverse isolations of women's issues as compared to human or people's issues, it is observable that a distinctive pattern asserts itself. To the other, definition of that pattern, or even recognition that it somehow constitutes a pattern, is in the eye of the beholder.

And that seems nearly a two-bit nutshell of the problem.

But so much of this pushback against women's humanity seems to be blind to this coincidence of outcomes. Women need to be told over and over how to protect themselves, just like the advice and instruction we give children.

Women also need to be instructed in doctors' offices what to think about their pregnancies, because the state considers them too immature intellectually to know what's going on in their own bodies or what to think or how to feel about it.

It does not surprise me, when aspects of these presuppositions combine with all the other neuroses that go into that oddball "'religious' discipline", that even more than throwing her over his knee the recommended method for a husband to spank his wife is called the "diaper position".

The theme here, obviously, is the juvenilization of women, not the paraphilia masquerading as (ahem!) "religion".

But it seems as if for some the implications of what they're saying either do not exist or are simply irrelevant. There is on record in this thread in advocacy of a biological trigger impulse to rape that requires, when applied as a genuine concept and not simply a custom-designed, issue-specific argument, that homosexuals are merely "mistaken". That such arguments coincide with, say, Republicans in Texas, might make for a good punch line, but at some point the mere fact that the joke can work seems a bit discouraging; the setup is morbid.

 

[krash661]

That was fascinatingly unintelligible. Do you do stage performances?

from your own words,
" Lying liars and the lies they... lie? Tell? I forget "

you forget ?
what's funny is it's usually lie-rs who cannot remember .
funny

 

[GeoffP]

I refer you to your own SNOTWUH, sir.

 

[Kittamaru]

I'm not sure which is worse - that you think this is 'very nearly' filibustering, or that you don't understand what "tenable" means, or that you just keep failing to do the right thing. Let me know how you get on.

Hm... lets see what Merriam Webster says:

ten·a·ble adjective \ˈte-nə-bəl\
: capable of being defended against attack or criticism

Full Definition of TENABLE
: capable of being held, maintained, or defended

This discussion is so mired down in your drama and whinging that it cannot be held/defended from it... yeah, i would say that was pretty accurate.

Gee, Geoff, it must suck to be wrong so often.

Kitta, did you forget what you said again?

Not at all - I am merely curious to see how you will lie and try to spin-doctor your way out of this

Hmm! I do wonder how anyone of an 'intellectual capacity' could forget such a statement of sheer tripe. It was remarkable.

And I wonder how anyone of intellectual capacity could fail to understand it as wholly as you have... then again, it may be my mistake, assuming you to be capable of rational thought and understanding to begin with. My bad.

Possibly so.

Then one should question whether chemical castration/etc actually is effective in preventing those whom suffer from this disorder from raping, or if we should perhaps utilize psychotherapy or, even, partial lobotomy or other such methods.

Well, several members took nothing like that at all from me, and there's more of them than yours. Sooo... :shrug:

Oh dear, it seems you've forgotten how to count.

No, no: you're taking too long to get to the point. Clearly this is just filibustering to try to derail the discussion. I ask again: under what "exceptions" is a woman "asking for [rape]". I mean, if you can't be succinct, and "fullness of thought" is frowned upon, we're really back to the original question, right? I mean, that's justified using your own methodologies, isn't it?

Ah, now you are back to outright lying and misrepresentation. Your continued intellectual dishonesty has gone on quite far enough.

... any of this sinking in? :bugeye:

The only thing "sinking" is the limited credibility you ever had.

What a question! I don't wish to fall into some kind of "bifurcation trap". Clever, but not nearly clever enough! Not so?

Oh dear, it seems you are incapable of even answering such a simple question - you could have simply said neither - after all, I never made it an "either/or" question, much as you wish it were true. I merely asked if you were either of those.

Oh, I wear all the hats simultaneously. I wonder how it might be possible to misinterpret this statement:

There is only one hat you seem to wear anymore:

And look, we even put it and the stool in the corner for you; don't want you to strain yourself trying to figure out where to sit while you wear it, do we now.

It's pretty clear what you mean here: there are apparently some exceptions in which the victim is asking for rape to happen. Which exceptions are those? It's not a case where someone is trying to get a false claim of rape on another, because in such an instance one would put the word victim in quotes.

The reason I didn't use quotes in my original statement was to prevent diminishing the importance that a person who IS raped is the victim. Again, should be pretty obvious, but then again, I fear I have given you way too much credit.

You know, it's amazing that we have to go so far on such an issue instead of you just doing the right thing. Are you really possessed of neither principle nor honour? Certainly seems that way.

Indeed, my honor is my life; that is why I will defend it vigorously from unscrupulous miscreants such as yourself.

:shrug: I repeat: Well, you're the only actual one I've come across so far. Which tune have I changed again? Pics or it didn't happen. I'm afraid I have to insist on this kind of thing. So let's see the evidence.

The proof is in the pudding, as they say - the fact that you are desperate to make someone else seem like more of an apologist rather than simply admit your own wrongdoing, while hilarious, is damning... but then again, this thread was never about rape to you, as evidenced by your continued (and persistent) attacks on anything said by anyone whom you have decided you dislike. As usual, it matters not the subject; you will come in and cause a ruckus just spite them.

Are you planning to hack into other poster's accounts?

Oh my, quite the claim there. Considering you are alleging some sort of Illegal action on my part, then you will do well to provide evidence of this action or retract your claim; otherwise, I will hold you for libel.

Oh, of course don't deal in absolutes:

Nothing absolute about that kind of misrepresentation, is there?

Indeed - nothing at all. Merely stating how your sources came across. Again, if you are incapable of supporting an argument properly, perhaps you should simply not make one, hm?

Then it is most strange when Kittamaru has never taken up this excuse even after several posts of you suggesting it. Maybe you should ask him to read your recent work, so that he can get up to date on what he really meant.

Nothing more than another lie from GeoffP... how stagnant.

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.

I stated quite plainly: I had not even thought of that particular instance, but it was none the less just as valid a point...

I guess it would be just too hard to prove this. All tuckered out, are we? There there. I mean, your feckless defense of Kitta makes so much sense when you stop to consider he actually does think that there's a major biological element to rape... and I... don't. Huh. All right, I guess it doesn't make that much sense after all.

Oh my, more misrepresentation.
I have said that there must be some sort of biological element to rape; I never said if it was major, minor, or otherwise quantified it. That would be, once again, your own flavor text, added to try and make those you disagree with look bad. Shame the only flavor you can add to something is... well...

Bon Appétit

You have 24 hours to either provide evidence that I have hacked into someones user account or retract your statement.

 

[krash661]

I refer you to your own SNOTWUH, sir.

i'm sure you would/do,
why would i expect anything else ?
like i said, typical.
again,
do you even listen to your self ?
i also want to ask, do you even understand your own comments ?
it's obvious you do not.

 

[pjdude1219]

to all the people whining how about how their not absolving rapists of their resposibilty when pushing rape prevention.

their is nothing wrong with teaching preventive techniques on their own; its a rather laudible goal. However when you have all been doing what you have in this thread constantly pushing that in response to how misogyny creates rape and violence against woman and how to get that attitude done away with does mean you are absolving rapists of responsibility and that is not ok.

 

[Kittamaru]

to all the people whining how about how their not absolving rapists of their resposibilty when pushing rape prevention.

their is nothing wrong with teaching preventive techniques on their own; its a rather laudible goal. However when you have all been doing what you have in this thread constantly pushing that in response to how misogyny creates rape and violence against woman and how to get that attitude done away with does mean you are absolving rapists of responsibility and that is not ok.

Teaching preventive techniques is good and all (though, in all honesty, the best prevention is some simple common sense)... the problem is there are plenty of times where the victim simply CANNOT reasonably prevent it from happening, such as when someone breaks into your house to get at you... sure, you can potentially protect yourself by being armed... but that assumes you keep the weapon (and ammo if applicable) somewhere you can quickly get to it in an emergency, not an option if you have children. You could have a large dog I guess, but not everybody likes dogs, can afford a dog, or lives somewhere where large breeds are even allowed... and then there is the whole aspect of training a dog to be a guard dog (lets face it, some dogs know it by instinct, many do not).

The point that most of us are trying to get at is that asking the woman to do all the work to prevent the rape is not only unfair, it's completely illogical and utterly foolish.