|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 10, 2016 08:15 PM |
|
|
No, cats work differently. 
No sex, except when they are hot, and WHEN they are, there is no holding back and eventually everyone gets a turn - until it's over, and then tomcat gets a hiss and a slap if he wants something.
Hot cat sounds like a baby's crying, and if that happens, tomcats stand in line, strongest being first.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 08:18 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:23, 10 Jun 2016.
|
Btw, I feel like I must elaborate on one thing. When people say "rape is not about sex, but power," what they usually mean isn't what Brownmiller suggests. It's not that men, in a collective and deliberate manner, try to sustain rape as a barrier of intimidation to protect some social status quo. It's certainly not that, although some historical examples of such a thing may also exist here or there, I haven't dug up on that. Male sexuality mostly revolves around potency, compared to women's sexuality which rather revolves around attraction. That is, within the frames of a context based on sexual health, men feel like adequate men when they feel potent and women feel like adequate women when they are attractive. There are many examples of men who have no physiological handicap, yet, they are still impotent in performing because they feel "inadequate" for this reason or that. In most cases (and when I say most, I really mean it), a rape is not about a man who immediately needs to ejaculate because he saw some tantalizing cleavage and can't help himself from having it. It's a pathological attempt to cure that feeling of inadequacy. This attempt can indeed have its motivation in feeling inferior because of social background (like a poor guy from a ghetto, raping a high-class girl) but that would be just one of the probable motivations, so refuting that or any other specific example statistically is kind of missing the point. When we're talking about sexual frustration, saying it is by definition priorly sexual can mislead to a shallow way of thinking that it is about to get laid immediately like a junkie needing his fix. It's not. It's mostly about the rapist trying to debunk the "inadequacy" to himself and to women which he feels hostile towards because he also feels insecure. To understand this, an evolutionary perspective even helps, because dominance and male sexuality are not isolated concepts from that perspective.
@Zenofex
Dude, we're at a point where we're both repeating ourselves rather than elaborating and accusing each other of missing the essence. Let's just agree to disagree on this one.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 08:20 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
artu said:
No, it's not. Because what is considered as plain stupidity and recklessness does not exactly have a common criteria about it and the more conservative people are about this, the more they have a tendency to consider some behavior or dress code as dangerously suggestive. I can link you a dozen Muslims who think wearing a bikini in the summer qualifies. "Of course, they don't approve of rape but those women could have walked around in their underwear as well and there's something called common sense!" The difference between you and the person who takes a harsher stand about a rape where the woman is considered reckless is not that he is suggesting recklessness is wonderful, it is that he doesn't think it is a legitimate explanation, just like you don't think the Muslim's is. Now, if we had one, singled out, extreme example about a woman who used heroin, went to a playboy's house, got undressed and went to bed with him, and changed her mind right in the middle of intercourse and if this was just one of those "too hard to believe" incidents, I may have agreed with your "in theory she has the right to do so but come oonn, get real" stance. However, at the core of this, we are actually talking about a cultural pattern, harsher in some countries, softer on others but if you skip away the quantitative difference, it is a pattern of presenting a traditional "virtuous woman" model and suggesting that model as the "reasonable" answer to not getting raped. And I see this as an obnoxious double standard.
Then you just don't follow me. Women can play virtuous or naughty all they want, it's their rightful choice. But if they have something in their heads they will also take into account that there is a line beyond which they are inviting more attention that they can probably handle. If they can't see that line, i.e. go to a party with all sorts of strangers, deliberately dressed in a "I wanna sex tonight" fashion, get dead drunk and end up being raped by some equally wasted "macho", that's both bad and expected. What I object against the unconditional reliance on the rights mantra to justify such a behaviour as obviously the results from it are less than satisfactory. I don't expect that if you have a daughter, you will encourage her to do whatever she wants just for the sake of showing how emancipated she is - and especially if this gets her into trouble.
Be a good [n-word] and keep on the seats reserved for you. You know what happens when you take the seats reserved for whites.
That what you want to teach?
Being 2nd-class people who have to look down and play shy?
You could just as well hand them all a burqa.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 08:23 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Btw, I feel like I must elaborate on one thing. When people say "rape is not about sex, but power," what they usually mean isn't what Brownmiller suggests. It's not that men, in a collective and deliberate manner, try to sustain rape as a barrier of intimidation to protect some social status quo. It's certainly not that, although some historical examples of such a thing may also exist here or there, I haven't dug up on that. Male sexuality mostly revolves around potency, compared to women's sexuality which rather revolves around attraction. That is, within the frames of a context based on sexual health, men feel like adequate men when they feel potent and women feel like adequate women when they are attractive. There are many examples of men who have no physiological handicap, yet, they are still impotent in performing because they feel "inadequate" for this reason or that. In most cases (and when I say most, I really mean it), a rape is not about a man who immediately needs to ejaculate because he saw some tantalizing cleavage and can't help himself from having it. It's a pathological attempt to cure that feeling of inadequacy. This attempt can indeed have its motivation in feeling inferior because of social background (like a poor guy from a ghetto, raping a high-class girl) but that would be just one of the probable motivations, so refuting that or any other specific example statistically is kind of missing the point. When we're talking about sexual frustration, saying it is by definition priorly sexual can mislead to a shallow way of thinking that it is about to get laid immediately like a junkie needing his fix. It's not. It's mostly about the rapist trying to debunk the "inadequacy" to himself and to women which he feels hostile towards because he also feels insecure.
To understand this, an evolutionary perspective even helps, because dominance and male sexuality are not isolated concepts from that perspective.
Yes. I always thought that rape had to be the consequence of wishing to punish women (maybe as a proxy for mum) or take revenge for feeling inadequate for this or that.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 08:23 PM |
|
|
|
A rather weak attempt at ridiculing what I said, it only works if you actually understand it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 10:12 PM |
|
|
It's not the least bit ridiculous.
I bet you don't have a daughter.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 10:27 PM |
|
|
|
What's your point anyway?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 10, 2016 10:52 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
I don't expect that if you have a daughter, you will encourage her to do whatever she wants just for the sake of showing how emancipated she is - and especially if this gets her into trouble.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 05:38 AM |
|
|
|
I guess I have to ask again then, what's your point?
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 05:58 AM |
|
|
You're not going to address rape by dressing discretely and that's because rape isn't fueled by visual stimuli but by, as has already been said by posters here, severe unresolved issues of self-worth and how that reflects on the opposite sex (or potentially same sex). Visual stimuli will excite a man but being excited isn't at all equivalent to being malevolent. The sex drive is potent, but even for a raging 14-year-old boy, it isn't so potent that it will drive a person out of control. Not by a long shot. To say such might even be veiled sexism. Hardcore street drugs can drive a person out of control, and they have a measured effect on the brain that is multiple, multiple times more potent than any chemical releases from sexual arousal.
Evolutionarily, men aren't at all designed to malevolently overpower women and that is because such a community of creatures is unsustainable and highly destructive. Humans require childrearing & bonding that literally never ends. A 60-year-old is still childrearing a 40-year-old in some capacity. Men have an inbuilt drive to be nurturing & protective towards women & children, which really isn't at all different from women, except that men are also built to be more discrete with their emotions since they're the conventional "front line" in high-trauma situations. Of course, circumstances of life, or on rare occasions major disorders, can warp this, and crises of self-worth will drive violent behavior, which rape is a part of.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 08:36 AM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
I guess I have to ask again then, what's your point?
The question is, what is yours? Because depending on where you live, passing out, drunk or not, can not only lead to waking up without your knickers, it can lead to waking up without your purse or clothing, a kidney short or finding yourself in hell.
And I still think you don't even have a daughter, and in this case that means your point is moot. It's as moot as telling billionaires what they don't want to do with their money.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 08:57 AM |
|
|
|
You see, that's where you are wrong. I'm not telling anyone what to do, quite unlike you I might add. If a woman can handle a potential rapist, she might as well throw herself naked in prison among the convicts for the said offense for all I care. If you are able to protect yourself, then do whatever you want (although it's not a bad idea to keep in mind that there's always a bigger fish). If you are not, relying solely on people's good upbringing, especially if you don't know them, is a stupid gamble which may end badly - you're free to cry how barbaric, twisted, insecure and evil males are as much as you want after that. I find your position shallow and irresponsible, you find mine archaic and obnoxious, none of these is moving in any other direction so let's just drop it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 09:27 AM |
|
|
No offense, but you sound like a paranoid US politician seeing terrorists at every corner: Quote:
If a woman can handle a potential rapist
.
A potential rapist? You gotta be kidding.
Anyway, YOU HAVE NO POINT. You HAD a point, if the only cases of rape would happen with drunk half-naked girls flashing their boobs at a rows of leering spectators, but that's not the case. You even had a point, if EVERY TIME a girl got drunk and scantily clad a rape would happen - or at least most of the time. But that's not the case either.
You could just as well say, if you leave your door open and fix a sign on the wall "not at home", you shouldn't complain when you are burgled. That's in no way a contribution, though, when you talk about the fact that burglary as a crime has seen a significant rise in Germany in the course of the last years.
Not even staying at home is an insurance against being raped, by the way, you may fall victim of a relative.
So what was your point again?
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 10:41 AM |
|
|
I think his point -which I shared too, is that we have the responsibility of informing our kids about the dangers in a society, how to act preventive, how to avoid conflictual situations possibly leading to physical harm, all this based on crime statistics, personal experience and observation, then leaving the dogmatism away.
You keep repeating as a parrot that doing this is considering a women as a nig*er while you have no realistic propositions on how those dangers could be addressed, except talking about some hypothetical laws -which is quite proved that they always fail to prevent; so I wonder who has an idea about what is having a daughter here and how to protect her. So what's your point indeed?
If it is proved that dressing lightly raises the possibility of physical harm and sexual temptation -and it is proved, dress your 15yo daughter in a mini skirt, send her take a walk in town, listen to comments and watch attitudes, then you have no choice but tell her to dress less provocative, according to the event. Of course, you won't force your daughter to go swim in a burqa, but when going to a drink party, surrounded by young males with excess of testosterone, dress and behave appropriately -or even don't go, is so simple like that.
So the point is that I don't believe rape risks can be addressed, but I believe they can be prevented with a common sense attitude.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 12:14 PM |
|
|
So your point is, in a nutshell, that every rape victim didn't enough for prevention? If that is your point, shame on you.
If that is NOT your point - you don't have one. Because if no girl ever drank any alcohol or wear a mini skirt, there would STILL be basically the same amount of rape victims, male or female, family or stranger, drugged or clubbed, threatened with a weapon or kidnapped, burqa or not.
WORSE. You suggest that a drinking, mini-skirted girl must actually EXPECT a rape attempt in a company of boys - and it's HER fault. So don't you think, if that's the case, it's the BOYS who are the problem? That BOYS should be forbidden to drink, because when they do they will be a ticking time bomb until they go and rape a skirt?
Incidentally, this is the same line of arguing that got cocaine banned in the US: You don't want black people rape your (white) daughters, because that's what cocaine supposedly does with black people: strengthen their animal part (which is high in the first place) so that they will rape every (white) girl they put eyes upon.
So you could simply say, ban alcohol for men under 30, if you think alcohol and testosterone are such an explosive mix in a young male body. After all, if that's true and no girl comes to their parties, what is keeping them from looking for victims on the streets?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 12:48 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
I think his point -which I shared too, is that we have the responsibility of informing our kids about the dangers in a society, how to act preventive, how to avoid conflictual situations possibly leading to physical harm, all this based on crime statistics, personal experience and observation, then leaving the dogmatism away.
You keep repeating as a parrot that doing this is considering a women as a nig*er while you have no realistic propositions on how those dangers could be addressed, except talking about some hypothetical laws -which is quite proved that they always fail to prevent; so I wonder who has an idea about what is having a daughter here and how to protect her. So what's your point indeed?
I already addressed the difference about that here but what's more important is, there is a difference between teaching your child not to talk to strangers and teaching your child not to talk to black strangers, the second case tells something else about you. Now, this is not a situation where you are sending out your 15 year-old to her first night out alone, it's a situation where you learn about a rape case on the internet and when a person does that and his first reaction is something like "well, if she dresses like that..." this also tells something about that person and it's not exactly something like "oh, what a precautious gentleman."
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 01:21 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
So your point is, in a nutshell, that every rape victim didn't enough for prevention? If that is your point, shame on you.
No, I didn't say that, stop twisting my words. And about shame, I don't give you any credentials for saying what is shameful or not, within so light to none arguments.
JollyJoker said:
If that is NOT your point - you don't have one. Because if no girl ever drank any alcohol or wear a mini skirt, there would STILL be basically the same amount of rape victims, male or female, family or stranger, drugged or clubbed, threatened with a weapon or kidnapped, burqa or not.
I think you have difficulty to read and understand opinions which are not yours.
JollyJoker said:
WORSE. You suggest that a drinking, mini-skirted girl must actually EXPECT a rape attempt in a company of boys - and it's HER fault. So don't you think, if that's the case, it's the BOYS who are the problem? That BOYS should be forbidden to drink, because when they do they will be a ticking time bomb until they go and rape a skirt?
No, I say common sense can prevent a lot of unwanted things. I don't say it will address the whole problems; rape, crime and arrogant nitwits screaming in forums will continue to exist.
artu said:
...
The thoughts I put here have as starting point the present case: a half naked girl is found drunk and unconscious behind a garbage shelter while a guy touches her. While I say nothing to exonerate him and his obviously wrong actions, I affirm that we can take a moment and ponder about what lead to this issue and how we could prevent it.
Instead, you wrongly give me credit for suggesting she deserved it because lightly dressed. The science of preventing -as educative concept, nurtures from analyzing criminal situations and offering a solution, it does not accuse the victims, but tries to understand the criminals temptations and how to get around them.
If you both twist to such point others sayings, then we can just let drop. An exchange must not always end by one side being convinced, especially when the other distorts what's being said.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 01:26 PM |
|
|
Well, the "you" was rhetorical, not specifically you. However, you say you agree with this: "You go to the bar half naked, skirt barely covering your panties, neckline exposing everything but your nipples and whatever remaining clothes specifically chosen to show the shape of your figure and expect that only well-mannered gentlemen will want to "get acquainted" with you is simply daft. That's not how it works on a basic biological level." And this is simply a polished way of saying "if you dress a certain way, you're asking for it." I'm not even getting into details about how rape is not about that or this one more time.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 01:37 PM |
|
|
No, I don't agree with that. I am all for entire liberty of dress or speech, within the law limits. Because, even if the look at bouncing big boobs on street naturally arouses me, I have no problems controlling my urges, ask her phone number first, then drop it if answer negative.
The problem is that criminals don't think that way, so you may have to think twice before genuinely believing the world is a place where you are 100% free and safe of your choices and actions.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 11, 2016 01:37 PM |
|
|
|
Sal, it is you who put words in other people's mouth. Obviously, nobody says the world is a perfectly safe place and there are no criminals. But I already explained why I don't see this only as caution more than once and in detail, so, I won't do it again.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
