Yes, think hard about that. Seems fair?
About as much and as is clear that you rarely think.
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...
Who was the witch being hunted. If I recall correctly, you entered the thread agreed with the guy who once told another member that his son should simply just gang rape his ex-girlfriend, and then commented about me in regards to your idiotic opinion that sexual attraction and biology is the reason for rape. When you jump up and down demanding attention, don't complain when you finally get it. I notice this about you. You quite literally go out of your way to get my negative attention and then you whine when you finally do get it. You did it in this thread and in the rape thread. See, we had you at your first post, Geoffyboy.
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.
And the libido suppressing drugs do not work for the greater majority of rapists. Why do you disregard this?
It is a psychiatric disorder. So medical intervention, such as the chemical castration will work in the greater majority of cases because the
cause of the attraction to children is biological.
Although what causes pedophilia is not yet known, beginning in 2002, researchers began reporting a series of findings linking pedophilia with brain structure and function. Testing individuals from a variety of referral sources inside and outside the criminal justice system as well as controls, these studies found associations between pedophilia and lower IQs,[76][77][78] poorer scores on memory tests,[77] greater rates of non-right-handedness,[76][77][79][80] greater rates of school grade failure over and above the IQ differences,[81] lesser physical height,[82] greater probability of having suffered childhood head injuries resulting in unconsciousness,[65][83] and several differences in MRI-detected brain structures.[84][85][86] They report that their findings suggest that there are one or more neurological characteristics present at birth that cause or increase the likelihood of being pedophilic. Evidence of familial transmittability "suggests, but does not prove that genetic factors are responsible" for the development of pedophilia.[87]
Another study, using structural MRI, shows that male pedophiles have a lower volume of white matter than a control group.[84] Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has shown that child molesters diagnosed with pedophilia have reduced activation of the hypothalamus as compared with non-pedophilic persons when viewing sexually arousing pictures of adults.[88] A 2008 functional neuroimaging study notes that central processing of sexual stimuli in heterosexual "paedophile forensic inpatients" may be altered by a disturbance in the prefrontal networks, which "may be associated with stimulus-controlled behaviours, such as sexual compulsive behaviours". The findings may also suggest "a dysfunction at the cognitive stage of sexual arousal processing".[89]
Blanchard, Cantor, and Robichaud (2006) reviewed the research that attempted to identify hormonal aspects of pedophiles.[64] They concluded that there is some evidence that pedophilic men have less testosterone than controls, but that the research is of poor quality and that it is difficult to draw any firm conclusion from it.
A study analyzing the sexual fantasies of 200 heterosexual men by using the Wilson Sex Fantasy Questionnaire exam determined that males with a pronounced degree of paraphilic interest (including pedophilia) had a greater number of older brothers, a high 2D:4D digit ratio (which would indicate excessive prenatal estrogen exposure), and an elevated probability of being left-handed, suggesting that disturbed hemispheric brain lateralization may play a role in deviant attractions.
Chemical castration does not work on the average rapist, because it's not a sexual attraction that makes a rapist rape,
but psychological need to control and humiliate their victim.
Do you understand now?
Or are you going to try and lie some more?
Previously falsified, and a lie to boot, since you know this. See, I did say I'd regret this above.
Even Quinnsong saw how you meant it, hence why she asked you if it was just sexual - ie, a moose humping a tree.
You keep making such ridiculous comments and then you try to deny you ever made such arguments. James R saw it, everyone who read it saw it. Stop being such a god damn coward and own up to your own words.
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.
Once more, since you are obviously having a bit of a "slow day". It was kind of obvious what he meant, he then confirmed what he meant, repeatedly.
So what more do you want?
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.
Yes I do. Which is why I find your sense of 'I'm the victim' to be bizarre because you are never "well meaning".
You have repeatedly dismissed all evidence to the contrary because it does not support your theory about rape. You have consistently failed to support your theory about rape. You are perhaps incapable of supporting it? Or you are lazy. See, if I can't support my argument, I don't make the argument and demand that everyone just believes me because I say so, which is essentially what you are doing here. What you have spent a ridiculous amount of time doing is trying to redefine rape because the word does not fit into your personal theory of rape, you have repeatedly attempted to deny that I was raped and then tried to claim how it has no bearing on this discussion (about rape), attempting to dismiss personal experience, you have repeatedly attempted to deny my professional experience, while demanding that we take you at your word for yours (considering how you can't even provide a single study to support your argument, I doubt that you are what you say you are).. See, for you, it all comes down to what you say and then you whine when we don't take you seriously. We get it. You don't feel that this site recognises your greatness. You don't like it that it hasn't rewarded your greatness.. But when you leap into a discussion about rape, agree with the rape advocate, try to redefine rape to suit your personal belief and opinion with zero scientific evidence or even studies on rapists to support your beliefs, that doesn't really point to greatness. Just someone who is clutching at straws and jumping up and down for attention.
Your cause failed. Dismally.
Hmm - bit of a misrepresentation there, isn't it? The actual sequence goes a little more like:
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?
Once again, GeoffP,
I provided the links. Just because you are either too thick to recognise what a link looks like or too dishonest to click on them is not my concern. See, this is what you do. Evidence is provided. You pretend and lie, claiming that it hasn't been and then you keep demanding more. This is why you are seen to be inherently dishonest. As the saying goes.. we can lead the dumbass to the water, if he keeps defecating in it, he shouldn't then complain that he has no water to drink.
Previously falsified. I just ignored the personal attacks; kind of irrelevant.
You read
all those links from that search? Jesus.
They don't support your claims that rape has a biological impetus, or even a sexual impetus. If they did, then chemical castration would work on the majority of rapists. It does not. Since rape is not about sexual attraction, but is about the psychological desire to control and humiliate and dominate the victim.
False. These were internet reports and book reviews, not primary articles. I cited you a list of primary articles and can do so again.
Ermm.. You're a biologist and supposedly work in a university and you cannot open the links? The majority I posted were studies in full. All of which support my argument. You provided zip. I mean sure, when Randwolf answered your call and posted about the mallard duck, we had a chuckle at your expense. Then the links about the high prevalence of pregnancy from rape.. However that is simply countered by the fact that the greater majority end up being aborted.. Which if that is a female's response to rape, the desire to kill the offspring from rape would also be a biological response and evolutionary trait in females. Your links about primates also does not support the evolutionary benefits of rape, since the male will simply kill off any offspring the female is caring for so he can mate with her. And amongst humans, maternal divestment even before the off-spring is born results in the greater majority being aborted.
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.
As I said, it was linked. Not my problem that you didn't click on it. In short, we led you to the water, we gave you a cup. Just because you chose to relieve yourself in said water is not our problem that you now have no clean water to drink.
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!
See, this is when you are once again caught out in a lie. As noted repeatedly, it was provided to you, Kitta even quoted directly for your perusal. I linked them as well.. You are taken to the water, you dropping your pants and taking a dump in the water, is why you are now thirsty.
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?
That's the thing. Your lack of ethics, your admitted greed means that you won't. And you never will. I asked for your opinion of them because in the rape thread, you argued against rape prevention and the onus being placed on the woman. Yet when push comes to shove, when you are asked about your friends plainly advocating that a woman has to be responsible if she wishes to prevent being raped (you know, placing the onus on her), you deny seeing it, you refuse to click on the links to those posts and pretend it never happened and then whine, as you always do, that it wasn't shown to you.. Then when it becomes clear, you allude to agreeing with rape prevention to an extent and then fluff your hands in the air and try and change the subject. What's the matter GeoffP? Scared of losing the fan base?
: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.
I beg to differ.
You might want to try and switch that lie around a bit.
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.
Nah, I don't do woo woo like you woo woo. If I did, I'd just visit the local Catholic Church.
Know what would be more weird? You linking those people you're dying for me to argue with instead of you.
As I said, you might want to not lie at this point.
You should let Kitta know that that was what he meant, all along.
Err can't you read? It's his argument. I'm sure he knows what he's talking about.
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?
I am shocked that you can even spell the words, Geoffy. Let alone understand their meaning.
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.
The proof is in
reading the words.
You should try it sometime.
Randwolf said:
I'm quite shocked to hear this Bells. Why in the world would you ever secure your dwelling or take self defense courses? I'm so confused...
Why is that?
Self-defense was not for rape prevention. It was for survival. The policeman who taught us told us, rape is the least of our concerns. Our sole concern is to survive. So if we struggle and the rapist causes us more pain and gets off on it, stop struggling. Because the most important thing is to live. In fact, as he told us, unless we understood the psychological make-up of the rapist, it could result in costing us our lives if we were ever faced with such a situation. Because not all rapists are the same. Not all respond to the same thing. Some don't like it if you scream and try to fight back and they end up losing their erection because they are convinced that their sexual prowess will simply win you over, so if they are sadistic enough, they can end up raping you with an object like a knife, or bottle, or they rape you with their fist. Others get a sadistic pleasure out of you fighting and beat you and threaten you with a possible weapon, and sometimes they put a knife to your neck while they rape you, and tell you how you will come to love it. So unless rape prevention classes involves an intensive lesson in the psychological make up of rapists, which they do not, self defense classes here tell us that the primary thing is to survive. Rape is secondary to survival. In short, the worst thing that can happen is to be killed. Self defense classes teach to survive and live. You do get that, right? Unless of course you believe that being raped is worse than being killed, so it's more important to learn to prevent a rape than to learn how to survive a violent attack on your person? Rape prevention doesn't teach you about how it's most likely to be the man or woman you sleep next to every night who ends up raping you.
And just something that rape prevention advocates should keep in mind..
Importantly, some researchers have found that compared to batterers, men who batter and rape are particularly dangerous men and are more likely to severely injure their wives and potentially escalate the violence to murder (Browne, 1987; Campbell, 1989).
Rape prevention advocates always discuss rape prevention in terms of stranger rape. Marital rape is vastly different to stranger rape and self defense classes do not deal with marital rape. They teach women how to fend off an unknown attacker. Not the man sleeping next to you in your bed. Which sets a dangerous picture for these women, because if you keep going on about rape prevention and tailoring it to stranger rape, which they all do, women who are raped by their husbands don't even believe that it is rape. That marital rape is "rape", because the language about rape is so catered to other types of rape, especially rape prevention, that none cater to the large number of women who are raped by someone they intimately know. Rape prevention ideology that caters to the minority of rape has a lot to answer for.
A final compelling reason for women’s under-reporting is that many do not define their experiences of forced sex in marriage as rape. Some believe that only stranger rape is “real rape;” and other women see sex in marriage as an obligation and define forced sex as a “wifely duty,” not rape (Bergen, 1996). If they do not define their experiences as rape, women are unlikely to seek outside assistance to stop the violence. Research indicates that when women do seek assistance for marital rape, there is often a failure on behalf of others including police officers, religious advisers, battered women’s shelter advocates, and rape crisis counselors to provide adequate assistance.
I would advise not continuing to support an ideology that results in and supports the continued belief shared by such a large portion of rape victims who believe they aren't being raped when their husband rapes them, especially because all rape prevention advocacy supports stranger rape, not marital rape or even acquaintance rape.
High fences around my house? You think that was to prevent being raped in my home? Okay then, you run with that. Good luck!
