GENIUS FORUMS

I thought of that earlier.

BTW, you go, girl!

This behavior is quite feminine of us, you know.

I revel in it!

Katy wrote:The herd behavior of Nat, Philo and...... Victor?
Yep, I can see that group getting together and deciding to go lynch someone who didn't completely deserve it.

It's the manner of the reaction. It has mob hysteria written all over it. I included Victor because his reactions were just as emotionally reactive and close-mindedly dismissive as the others.

I think this thread wins for most disturbing Genius thread ever.

It's up there, for sure.

Somewhere along the lines, I think you've lost the line between fantasy and reality, Rhett. Rape isn't about sex; it's about power. Having a violent sexual fantasy, and even engaging in BDSM is not the same as being forced to do those things.

An attempt to engage with Rhett in a logical manner. Good to see. Things are on the up and up.

-

It's the manner of the reaction. It has mob hysteria written all over it.

No, it has moral outrage written all over it. If you don't see why such outrage is called for (and you don't), there's no helping you. You are what you have been caused to be.

People can only see what they have eyes to see. You don't have eyes to see why statements such as "women enjoy rape" are reprehensible. That is why you you will be viewed negatively for reasons that have nothing to do with your philosophy. Lacking empathy is not a philosophical position. It is a cognitive defect and a symptom of sociopathy.

Can you imagine the Buddha or Lao-Tzu saying, endorsing, excusing, rationalizing, or refusing to condemn such a statement? Nevermind, you probably can. And that too is a symptom of your defective psychology.

Ok, let's look at what Rhett wrote, and just for the hell of it, just for the sake of amusement, let's actually quote the entire paragraph, intellectual integrity being such a gay ol' thing:

Rape undoubtedly causes a great deal of distress in women and i consider it very harmful and wrong. I strongly speak against it. But in a hopefully sensible venue such as this point out that the distress is mostly caused by her enjoying it and that being in stark contrast to how society portrays she should feel about it. A common saying in women's help groups for rape victims is "It's okay if you enjoyed it". Again, i speak strongly against rape.

Now, as a preface, let's take out the parts that the lynch mob pretended didn't exist:

Rape undoubtedly causes a great deal of distress in women and i consider it very harmful and wrong. I strongly speak against it. Again, i speak strongly against rape.

Ok, let's just overlook that part because well, it's obviously unimportant. Now, we have:

But in a hopefully sensible venue such as this point out that the distress is mostly caused by her enjoying it and that being in stark contrast to how society portrays she should feel about it. A common saying in women's help groups for rape victims is "It's okay if you enjoyed it".

This is badly worded and carries false emphasis. For that reason it's a bad piece of writing, but it nevertheless states certain things that reflect a known reality. Rape is a psychologically complex crime. One can only speak in general terms about it. It is known - yes, known - that some women enjoy rape on one level. Some women orgasm. Some women experience a part of their psyche that enjoys the experience and, as Rhett states, this causes them distress in itself. However it is simply wrong to suggest it is the basis of most of her distress. That some women admit to part of them enjoying what is in most other ways a horrible experience, is known to rape counsellors and psychologists. If you don't know this, get an education; if you don't accept it, get an intellectual conscience. It's one of the most difficult aspects of rape for psychologists to deal with. It simply needs to be admitted that there's an aspect to such events that cause sexual stimulation and therefore enjoyment on some level. This doesn't make any difference to the nature and criminality of the thing. It's just a part of how psychology and physiology work. But we can't deal with it if we don't acknowledge it.

If a masochist gets randomly beaten there is no basis for moral or legal mitigation in the possible fact he might have enjoyed it on some level.

It's actually very interesting from a psychological and philosophical point of view that many women experience varying levels of enjoyment when raped. Discussing it neither endorses nor mitigates nor dilutes the crime itself. If you think it does, you're not thinking straight, or possibly not at all.

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.

Nobody is overlooking the fact that he doesn't endorse rape or that he acknowledges it has certain distressing consequences. That isn't the issue. The issue is his insistence that women enjoy rape in some sense. While it is possible that certain pleasant bodily sensations occur in some cases despite (not because of) the nature of the act, it is inexcusable to fail to understand that any such factors are outweighed 100,000% by the violation of a human being's most fundamental rights. Rape, by definition, involves such forcible violation. Regardless of anything that may go on physiologically, it is fundamentally impossible for a psychologically healthy individual to enjoy rape, because the definition of the act is predicated on a violation of one's rights against their will.

Katy wrote:I think this thread wins for most disturbing Genius thread ever.

Interesting.

Somewhere along the lines, I think you've lost the line between fantasy and reality, Rhett. Rape isn't about sex; it's about power. Having a violent sexual fantasy, and even engaging in BDSM is not the same as being forced to do those things.

I agree there is a big difference.

But women's inner instincts like to be forced around, they like to feel powerless, it's so close to lacking existence, it's the ultimate release for her. It knocks her ego for a six. Women are so far from enlightenment it is easier for them to go this way, the opposite way, to recede into a state like early childhood where the self is insubstantial and everything simply floats through with no sense of control, responsibility or purpose. Ultimate chaos. It's the very unpredictability of a rape scenario that gives full flight to her emotional longing for powerlessness and non-existence in the face of natures forces.

It is the masculine imported component in her mind, her ego, that fears a rape could lead to something bad, like a drop in social status, unwanted pregnancy, scarring, torture or death. And it is the imported male attitude against rape and that it should feel bad that render it a confused experience.

Unidian wrote:

It's the manner of the reaction. It has mob hysteria written all over it.

No, it has moral outrage written all over it. If you don't see why such outrage is called for (and you don't), there's no helping you. You are what you have been caused to be.

All praise to Allah.

People can only see what they have eyes to see. You don't have eyes to see why statements such as "women enjoy rape" are reprehensible.

I can see why conventional, unthinking people would find it reprehensible. But in you, I just see close-mindedness and a desire to avoid thinking about certain critical areas of life.

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.

-

Philo said,

Shame that the SA folks did their thing before this thread was kicking.

What a coincidence. I was just thinking the same thing.

Katy said,

The herd behavior of Nat, Philo and...... Victor?
Yep, I can see that group getting together and deciding to go lynch someone who didn't completely deserve it.

You can add Sher and Pyro, who have a history of fighting with Victor, to the list of those who would be willing to join Victor in the cyber lynching. Occasionally enemies unite when there's a greater and/or more dangerous enemy present.

.

Rhett wrote:But women's inner instincts like to be forced around, they like to feel powerless, it's so close to lacking existence, it's the ultimate release for her. It knocks her ego for a six...It's the very unpredictability of a rape scenario that gives full flight to her emotional longing for powerlessness and non-existence in the face of natures forces.

It is the masculine imported component in her mind, her ego, that fears a rape could lead to something bad, like a drop in social status, unwanted pregnancy, scarring, torture or death. And it is the imported male attitude against rape and that it should feel bad that render it a confused experience.

Evidence?

Unidian wrote:Nobody is overlooking the fact that he doesn't endorse rape or that he acknowledges it has certain distressing consequences.

Bullshit. You mightn't be, but others clearly did.

That isn't the issue.

It's part of the issue of the attempted lynching. Feel free to excuse yourself from that accusation.

The issue is his insistence that women enjoy rape in some sense.

It's a fact that many do, in varying ways and to varying degrees. It's one of the difficulties psychologists have in dealing with rape victims.

While it is possible that certain pleasant bodily sensations occur in some cases despite (not because of) the nature of the act, it is inexcusable to fail to understand that any such factors are outweighed 100,000% by the violation of a human being's most fundamental rights.

True, but from a psychological point of view, which is what Rhett has actually been discussing, it isn't all that pertinent.

Rape, by definition, involves such forcible violation.

Indeed. What's you point?

Regardless of anything that may go on physiologically, it is fundamentally impossible for a psychologically healthy individual to enjoy rape, because the definition of the act is predicated on a violation of one's rights against their will.

Oh, well done. You've just said that every woman who finds that she has enjoyed rape on some level is psychologically fucked up. I am morally outraged!

Unidian wrote:Nobody is overlooking the fact that he doesn't endorse rape or that he acknowledges it has certain distressing consequences. That isn't the issue. The issue is his insistence that women enjoy rape in some sense. While it is possible that certain pleasant bodily sensations occur in some cases despite (not because of) the nature of the act, it is inexcusable to fail to understand that any such factors are outweighed 100,000% by the violation of a human being's most fundamental rights. Rape, by definition, involves such forcible violation. Regardless of anything that may go on physiologically, it is fundamentally impossible for a psychologically healthy individual to enjoy rape, because the definition of the act is predicated on a violation of one's rights against their will.

I agree with you to a degree, and have acknowledged this already. You need to recognise that women are fractured, made up of components with different nigh opposing influences. Women's thoughts are male imports, but her emotions are female. That's why we don't get to hear much from women about women's drives.

For instance, the very act of a woman pairing with a male is a giving away of her will to the man. She chooses this. This is one of her biggest desires, and ecites her sexually. A man that treats her as if she has her own mind and will, will not be favourable to her.

Indeed, the woman i mentioned in my anecdote left me because i treated her like a human being (she later wanted to rejoin but i declined)(the only woman that has left me, by the way).

Oh, well done. You've just said that every woman who finds that she has enjoyed rape on some level is psychologically fucked up. I am morally outraged!

I haven't said that, and if you think I have, your reading comprehension skills are piss-poor in this case. Either that, or you are intentionally misrepresenting my point.

Again, possible enjoyment of certain physical sensations isn't the issue. It's the idea that such enjoyment has any relevance whatsoever in the context of the enormous violent crime that is rape.

Unidian wrote:This makes me ashamed that you agreed with my position in "Unemployment: Best Indicator of Integrity."

Thank God for that!

Rhett wrote:For instance, the very act of a woman pairing with a male is a giving away of her will to the man. She chooses this. This is one of her biggest desires, and ecites her sexually. A man that treats her as if she has her own mind and will, will not be favourable to her.

Silly me, I thought that women enjoyed being treated as human beings who had thoughts and desires worth my consideration. How wrong I was! Genius Logic (TM) has convinced me.

Unidian wrote:Regardless of anything that may go on physiologically, it is fundamentally impossible for a psychologically healthy individual to enjoy rape, because the definition of the act is predicated on a violation of one's rights against their will.

Well, since women and being "psychologically healthy" mix about as well as oil and water...

Rhett,

Women's thoughts are male imports, but her emotions are female.

Ah yes, I forgot. Women can't think on their own. Any thoughts they have must be "imported" from men. Only emotions truly belong to a female, hysterical animal that she is. Without men generously providing thoughts and consciousness, a woman is hardly even human.

How silly of me to forget the doctrine. My bad.

That's why we don't get to hear much from women about women's drives.

We don't? I thought you QRS-clones were of the opinion that mainstream society is totally inundated by the female perspective. We don't hear much about women's drives? Maybe you don't, perhaps because you don't listen and don't care. The rest of us hear quite a bit about women's perspective on just about everything.

Nick Treklis wrote:Well, since women and being "psychologically healthy" mix about as well as oil and water...

Evidence?

Philosophaster wrote:

Rhett wrote:For instance, the very act of a woman pairing with a male is a giving away of her will to the man. She chooses this. This is one of her biggest desires, and ecites her sexually. A man that treats her as if she has her own mind and will, will not be favourable to her.

Silly me, I thought that women enjoyed being treated as human beings who had thoughts and desires worth my consideration. How wrong I was! Genius Logic (TM) has convinced me.

Don't worry bud, I'm sure every man has made that mistake at least once in his life.

Philosophaster wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:Well, since women and being "psychologically healthy" mix about as well as oil and water...

Evidence?

Have you ever met a woman who thinks like me?

Nick Treklis wrote:Don't worry bud, I'm sure every man has made that mistake at least once in his life.

Indeed, now all I must do is treat women like silly sex toys and they will flock to me, for there is only one sort of woman in the world: the insecure type that flocks to the careless jerks. Genius Logic (TM) proves it.

Nick Treklis wrote:

Philosophaster wrote:

Nick Treklis wrote:Well, since women and being "psychologically healthy" mix about as well as oil and water...

Evidence?

Have you ever met a woman who thinks like me?

LOL.

Oh man...

Thank you for saying that. There are tears in my eyes now.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Unidian wrote:

Oh, well done. You've just said that every woman who finds that she has enjoyed rape on some level is psychologically fucked up. I am morally outraged!

I haven't said that, and if you think I have, your reading comprehension skills are piss-poor in this case. Either that, or you are intentionally misrepresenting my point.

This is what you said: "it is fundamentally impossible for a psychologically healthy individual to enjoy rape, because the definition of the act is predicated on a violation of one's rights against their will.

How was my interpretation of that wrong? Unless you're saying "enjoy" in the sense of the greater part of the experience. But then, had you meant that you would have been misrepresenting what I said.

Again, possible enjoyment of certain physical sensations isn't the issue.

No, it's not, so we can stop mentioning it.

It's the idea that such enjoyment has any relevance whatsoever in the context of the enormous violent crime that is rape.

That's just a red-herring you've brought to the table. I've already stated that it does not have any mitigating power over the crime that rape is. One would have to be pretty lame-brained to think that it could.

I love this. The criterion for psychological health is thinking like the dolts at this forum.

LOL.

David,

If you have a problem with what Rhett said, then point out his errors. Be calm and rational about it.

I did. Several times.

Engaging in moral outrage is just an indulgence which will only result in the closing and diminishing of your own mind.

No, it's a valid and necessary part of cultural work. Unless we send a strong message that acts such as rape will be treated only as the monstrous crimes that they are (and not rationalized in any manner), we implicitly encourage the society to view such acts as increasingly acceptable. In other words, through our own moral irresponsibility, we contribute our own small part toward acting as a cause of such behavior.

Society cannot function properly without certain firm moral standards which people are willing to support. We may disagree as to what these should be, but the necessity of having one such set of standards or another should be self-evident.