Um, because some guy who does not turn you on is banging you against your will? I mean, isn't it obvious that it is the ultimate humiliation? Or can you think of something worse?Why would I be humiliated by it?
That doesn't explain why I should feel humiliated. Was does the concept of "humiliation" mean to you?Shahrazad wrote:Um, because some guy who does not turn you on is banging you against your will? I mean, isn't it obvious that it is the ultimate humiliation? Or can you think of something worse?Why would I be humiliated by it?
Prison rape is disturbingly common.Aside: I know a (high class) young politician who was raped in jail, iirc, by a gang of criminals. Even I feel awfully sorry for him, and I hate his politics.
I think you should be telling Victor that.At the risk of grossing you out, please keep in mind that the arse was not designed for entrance.
Well, that means at least 80% of all threads I've ever seen anywhere have a lot wrong with them.Unidian wrote:In my view, there's a lot wrong with this thread, primarily related to the idea that it contains people saying outlandishly stupid and/or insane things.There's nothing wrong with this thread. Don't assume I'll allow you pair to start shitting all over it because I won't.
Certainly, but you know that's not what I mean. When you pair get on a roll it's, well, you know what you're like.Am I not allowed to express that opinion?
Good news at last! At least SHE has the freedom of choice, unlike others that are driven by God’s will. Where does the God’s will go when she makes her choice I wonder! Perhaps it’s the Devil’s will at play.Rhett: …the very act of a woman pairing with a male is a giving away of her will to the man. She chooses this.
Well, not for the ones who don’t have a pussy I guess.Unidian wrote:It's not worse than torture, but it is very bad. Certainly worse than a "typical" assault. To me, given the psychological factors involved, rape *is* a form of torture in many cases.
-tomas-Unidian wrote:Tomas,
Nice of you to wedge that in there. Did you notice that the person speaking out loudest and longest against the misogynistic nonsense on this thread is a "welfare bum?"It's plain some of these people have not done a lick of work their entire lives. Sad. When times get really tough (and i've see it overseas many places over the years) the gov't will go after the welfare (wannabe) bums first.
-tomas-
Before reading this response... Well i'd cruised back and "edited" that part out as i was formulating it for a different thread on an entirely ethereal concept... Please, remember, i am working with a very limited analog WEB-TV unit (and dial-up), and not my latest computer gizmo (or my DSL etc. laptop). My cellphone is enough of a headache to put up with :-(
I grew up reading Dick Tracy with his two-way wrist radio :-)
-uni-
The rest of your post was on-target, as far as I'm concerned. Why you felt it necessary to take that final swipe is beyond me, since besides being inaccurate, I have no idea how it could even be relevant.
Ok, so our attitude to rape is about sex and our valuations thereof. This is more or less what I was after. So, this means that psychological considerations regarding rape and how it is experienced are perfectly valid things to examine. Rape has the status it does as a form of assault because of the status we grant to sexuality. Women suffer psychologically to the great degree they do because they place tremendous value on their sexuality. This would seem to follow from what you said, which I more or less agree with. So, much like a person who gets robbed but doesn't care that much about money so doesn't suffer as much, a woman who doesn't value her sexuality that much would not suffer so greatly upon being raped. It would just be an assault. This follows, doesn't it?Philosophaster wrote:The attitude toward rape is different because the attitude toward sex itself is different than the attitude toward other activities. Most people think of sex as something "special" to some extent, and so they want very strongly for it to be entirely voluntary and engaged in only under very specific circumstances with very specific people. Rape is a violation of all that. The rapist claims a right to the body of anyone he can subdue with violence. And for the victim there is a large emotional weight attached to it because there is a large emotional weight attached to sex.
Yeah, for much the same reasons - the valuations. Rape of course contains an entire spectrum of severity. Some rapes involve torture as we formally understand it.I would not consider rape worse than some other very severe forms of violence like torture, since those can involve comparable emotional harm and scarring.
Orwell alert...The people who refuse to work obviously are nothing more than slaves to the system.
That sounds like a concise definition of employment to me. But hey, you're entitled to your views, and I don't want to say anything further because this is totally off-topic.Sit, speak, lay down, roll-over. Lick the hand that feeds you...
But, in addition to the valuation of money, there's the fact of being violated itself. Of having one's freedom taken away. In rape you're combining a loss of freedom in general with a loss of the ability to choose your sex partners (which is highly valued in just about every society), the horror of having your body betray your mind by responding anatomically regardless of the emotional situation, and the baggage that society adds.Dan Rowden wrote:So, following this logic again, if say, we were to suggest that the suffering of a rich guy who got robbed was partly his responsibility because of his own valuations, why can't we say that to women who are raped? Does a rich man invite theft because he's rich (I guess he might if he got there by theft himself)?
Unidian wrote:Tomas,
I think Dan might need to babysit you in order to keep you from going off on a strange diatribe against welfare recipients in a thread which has nothing to do with that subject.
Orwell alert...The people who refuse to work obviously are nothing more than slaves to the system.
That sounds like a concise definition of employment to me. But hey, you're entitled to your views, and I don't want to say anything further because this is totally off-topic.Sit, speak, lay down, roll-over. Lick the hand that feeds you...
Dan Rowden wrote:Bizzare. I don't understand why the others weren't jailed too.Tomas wrote:Man Jailed for Urinating on Dying Woman
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=139512
A man who urinated on a disabled woman as she lay dying in the street while his friend filmed the incident was sentenced Friday to three years in prison.
Do I? What's that?Tomas wrote:Dan won't have much to say as he has a job...Unidian wrote:Tomas,
I think Dan might need to babysit you in order to keep you from going off on a strange diatribe against welfare recipients in a thread which has nothing to do with that subject.
Orwell alert...The people who refuse to work obviously are nothing more than slaves to the system.
That sounds like a concise definition of employment to me. But hey, you're entitled to your views, and I don't want to say anything further because this is totally off-topic.Sit, speak, lay down, roll-over. Lick the hand that feeds you...
I think he mowed the lawn last Friday. Does that count?However, as far as you go... All that need be said is honestly speaking, you are not capable of getting off your lazy ass and doing any - thing - what - so - ever.
He may do to some extent; shouldn't we all, really? Do you have any idea of Nat's intellectual history?You have a guilt trip of your intellectual laziness?
He thinks he's consciously peaked - does that count?Are you consciously piqued?
You must have missed his posts in this thread.Obviously you care not for the human suffering of the sexually molested, of any shape, form.
Are you saying one needs a career to be able to give advice to rape victims? Interesting premise, bit not necessarily in a good way.You have no life-history (sustainment) to fall back on for reference, no advice to give to a raped person, in essence, you have no accomplishments.
That's unfair. There's nothing common about Nat's delinquency.A common delinquent, no remorse.
That won't be a problem as she just keeled over and died of a heart attack.Your girlfriend has a baby, you will not even be able to support him/her.
Nah, you mean the local pedophile; see, the neat thing about those guys is they actually feed the kids.You'll take the kid to the corner to be picked up by the gov't bus,
Why did you put "home" in quotes? They own their place.go back "home" eat breakfast,
Actually, that sounds like my life.crawl back into bed, surf the net, see whats cookin' on Genius Forums, yup, the usual suspects doing what they do. Doze off for a few hours, wake up an' hit the net for Genius Forums, type in your nothingness void.
Damn, this is my life! Except the gov't pays monies into people's bank accounts so I don't do any queuing.Walk down to the corner and pick up the kid, go home and watch toons. Eat a TV dinner in front of the TV. Get on the net and hit Genius, same old crew... Get up at noon, go to the welfare department and stand in line with the women, some of whom who'd been molested as kids... you got no words of wisdom to pass on as you're waiting in line with some rapist just out of prison, start up a chat with the guy. My, he's prettier than you are! Play the game with the welfare office, oh man, there just ain't nothing out there... i put in my two applications that week and nobody will hire me! Back home squeeze the monthly take ($$$) from the gov't :-)
And a fine example to set too if I do say so myself.You're kid asks you "Daddy, what do you want to be when you grow up"?
To which you'll reply "To surf Genius Forums"!!
To reveal how messed up many people still are, I reckon.xerox wrote:Remind me someone, the point of this thread is... ?
I was trying to convey the fact that I find men who are not misogynist to be above those who are. It wasn't meant as a slight in any way.clyde said:
I do not dwell in a lofty realm
I can speak for myself, and did. As did Katy and Sher. None of us need rescue or protection from horrible comments. But, I see plenty of men around here coming to the rescue of their brothers when they are attacked. Is it new QRS policy to only rescue (I prefer the word defend, btw) those who have balls?DHodges said:
So... women need men to come in and rescue them and protect them from these horrible comments?
Lost control to her lust perhaps, that's awesome! But not to the physical control of her own body. Losing control of the physical body to that of a rapist has nothing to do with sexual arousal - nothing! Not even to the rapist. Rape is not a sexual act per se, it is an act of violence and hatred toward the victim. Prison rape, as example, is a sexual act. It is caused by the males uncontrollable sexual drive. Probably 99.9% of prison rapes would be unheard of if the guys had access to a woman (sans the gay men). And probably the vast majority of those who had that access wouldn't want to rape the woman. I'm just guessing here, as I am not a man. I suppose I should ask; would you rape a woman if you had the chance? You seem to believe her sexual arousal is highest when she has no control. Wouldn't you want your woman to be at that point when with her?skipair said:
a woman's sexual arousal is highest when she has totally lost control, and in that sense there is a very fine line between rape and consensual sex.
So you believe these things are true, but you have yet to hear direct conformation. That explains your ridiculous responses and beliefs about women!skipair said:
There are many things that are true about women that you can never get a direct confirmation from verbally.
This is almost too foolish to respond to with more than a LOL - almost. If women did have a code to be cracked, we females can all rest easy knowing you wouldn't be able to crack it.skipair said:
Because once you've cracked the code to one, you've cracked the code to them all. Once you figure it out, you can SEE her, and every woman knows what it feels like to be SEEN in this way. They know who knows.
Consent goes out the window with rape-like sex? The fact that it is consensual is what makes it rape-like. If consent went out the window, it would be actual rape. Are you really this illiterate?skipair said:
As I mentioned in a previous post, the trump card for me is if it starts out consensual. If it turns into highly charged (rape-like) sex, then consent basically goes out the window.
I am the girlfriend, and I can tell you first-hand that if Uni had any of the illusions about sex that you have, he would be in a celibate relationship!skipair said:
It's funny, you actually think I'm making this shit up, when in reality I'm giving you the key to have whatever women you want, or even just to make your own girlfriend happier than she would ever imagine in her wildest dreams.
For someone who admits his own ignorance, you sure have a lot to say about the matter.skipair said:
From the beginning I've said I don't know what the truth is in this regard.
skipair said:
Your GF isn't interested in mind blowing, wall-shaking sex? I find that hard to believe. I find it hard to believe you're not interested either.
One conclusion to be made in regards to this comment: you're clueless.skipair said:
I have claimed universality on her need to be 100% submissive to maximize sexual experience.
I have no idea what woman in your life goads (or did goad) you toward your behavior, David. But I have never goaded Uni into doing much of anything - aside from mowing the yard or taking out the trash. Besides, if what you say it true, why would I need to goad him into doing something you believe he loves doing anyway? duh-duh-duhDavid Quinn said:
I'm referring specifically to Unidian (who is well-known for his love of leading mob-lynchings), Pyro (who no doubt goads him towards this behaviour), Philosophaster, and Victor (on a related thread).
Can we see the number of hands who thought your response would be anything other than this?David Quinn said:
I have to pick and choose and, to be honest, I didn't find Rhett's comments all that controversial.
Most common? Most women? Care to share the studies you have read that reflect this notion? Relying on your word (on matters like this) is like asking a mouse how to build a better mouse trap. You ignore requests like this quite often. Think you could find the time in your busy schedule to answer just once?David Quinn said:
The reality is, rape fantasies are the most common form of sexual fantasy entertained by women; most women are sexually turned on by dangerous, powerful men; most women do like to be seized and handled somewhat roughly in the act of sex (as per their rape fantasies), and women do get a lot of pleasure playing the victim card, which is what an event like being raped enables them to do.
Really? Then slap yourself for doing just this over the trip Kevin made. Actually, don't slap yourself for the moral outrage, I doubt you have any sense of what that truly is. Slap yourself anyway. ;)David Quinn said:
Engaging in moral outrage is just an indulgence which will only result in the closing and diminishing of your own mind.
Would but that we had that luxury! There are women like that, just as there are men who are rapist. But women are more likely to be concerned with others (partner, family, friends) than themselves. It's in that thing that's called- our Nurture, er, I mean Nature. Men like to think that women just want their money, but to be honest, women who focus on what men can give them materially, usually do so because the man has little else to offer, so they take it. These types usually find each other.Rhett said:
I place women's values as follows: 1.Materialism 2.Man as partner 3.Sex 4.Children 5.Family 6.Friends.
Women did not write "To Honor and Obey" either, but you guys sure want us to do it.Rhett said:
Women did not write "Till death do we part", but they sure love men saying it.
LOLRhett said:
Plus let's not forget how feminine most men are, especially those in pubs.
Would you say that a child needs an "imported male attitude" to feel 'bad' and confused if he/she were sexually molested? If not, then where does it come from?Rhett said:
And it is the imported male attitude against rape and that it should feel bad that render it a confused experience.
Where do you live?!Rhett said:
That's why we don't get to hear much from women about women's drives.
A man that treats some women as if they have their own mind and will, will not be favorable to them. The fact that you guys believe all women are the same proves your ignorance comes from personal experiences rather than reality.Rhett said:
A man that treats her as if she has her own mind and will, will not be favourable to her.
Considering your views on rape and the female of the species, I don't believe that for a second. Did you actually ever ask the girl why she left you? I bet she won't say "Because you treated me with respect."Rhett said:
the woman i mentioned in my anecdote left me because i treated her like a human being
Rapist are not desirable in this society. I think that is a given. But if you are saying something like - "If a good-looking doctor raped me I'd go bragging to the other gals," you're sick.Neil said:
Since rape is usually conducted by people who are not desirable in this society, it is seen as a bad thing.
In a different society how desirable of guys raped you might be part of the status game for women.
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." I'll never demand you to ever take a stance again, If you will stop complaining that David (and the whole concept of Woman) is misunderstood, and that GF promotes QRS views. Until that time, I will consider you to be a "good man" who is willing to keep his "sheltered workshop" free of shit. Actually, I take that back. I could care less about your "sheltered workshop" becoming a "shithole." So, don't worry, you'll never hear me demand anything of you again. I'll let the "shithole" do the talking.Dan said:
Finally, to the moral fascists who demanded I take a particular stance on this matter, or that I take any stance at all: go masturbate somewhere else. I don't have any time for that sort of drivel.
What complete idiocy!David Quinn wrote:If you have a problem with what Rhett said, then point out his errors. Be calm and rational about it. Engaging in moral outrage is just an indulgence which will only result in the closing and diminishing of your own mind.
Right, for daily practical matters, I agree - common sense. For higher reasoned thought, such as the nature of reality, or the nature of women, the common have no idea what they're talking about. For instance, no answer to the "does this make me look fat?" question is incorrect.The overwhelmingly common view is often correct. Everyone knows it is a bad idea to place one's hand on a hot stove or give any response to the question "does this make me look fat?"
Bisexual huh? Good for you.vicdan wrote:I have had multiple relationships with both women and men.
Yes, and I'm sure she says the same thing behind your back.........My wife and i have been together for over 12 years. Our relationship is actually getting better over time, and sex gets better too.
It doesn't matter how many relationships or sexual experiences I've had. The fact remains, for those who know, that there is a flip side to the world of men and women that most don't know. I wish you the best of luck to find it.You base your whole schtick on one experience with one woman
