Rape

People of weak constitution confuse how they wish the world was, with how the world is.

To say, for example, that predators cull the weak, is to say, in their pathetic minds, that one likes this fact, and that it is not merely a fact that also happens to have a genetic utility.

The moment you make an argument about the nature of reality, they resort to the typical personalization of issues...forming the question in a way that it has an emotional impact.

Saying, for instance, that I will not enter the ocean where great white sharks live, and that i repress my preferences, because I know the shark does not give a shit about my notions of justice and fairness and kindness, is, for the weakling a cop-out.
If I say a woman going out with her tits on display, pretending like it makes her feel nice, just because, and it is not to draw attention, and then demanding that the world adjust to her need to remain infantile and stupid, is the same as saying I like rape....and what is the typical reply?
If you had a daughter...


Well, if I had a daughter and she chose to go out half-naked i would tell her that if she is raped to not come crying to me.
The idea that women can be free to do whatever they feel like doing, but mean are not permitted the same "right", is the cult of victimhood on display.

Similarly...if a male chooses to rape a woman, then the repercussions of this choice are also his to accept as part of the risks and costs.

Satyr, but what about the innocent women, who DO dress appropriately, but still get harassed and violated? Let's just forget, for right now, the women you are specifying. What about the poor girls, who did nothing at all to merit their victimization?

Life is full of risks...Increasing those risks by tempting fate, is not the world's fault....DEAR.

If a moron wishes to jump out of a plane wearing a parachute and he dies, it is not the planet's fault, dear...the earth is not to be blamed.
He chose to go out in a parachute....it was his choice. He felt good, invigorated, free, whatever....

If a woman thinks she is safe, wearing a short skirt and no panties, and a man is willing to accept the risks of raping her, in the present environment, then both have acted and now face the consequences of their actions, their choices.

Each choice is the taking of responsibility.

Satyr wrote:

Life is full of risks...Increasing those risks by tempting fate, is not the world's fault....DEAR.

If a moron wishes to jump out of a plane wearing a parachute and he dies, it is not the planet's fault, dear...the earth is not to be blamed.
He chose to go out in a parachute....it was his choice. He felt good, invigorated, free, whatever....

If a woman thinks she is safe, wearing a short skirt and no panties, and a man is willing to accept the risks of raping her, in the present environment, then both have acted and now face the consequences of their actions, their choices.

Each choice is the taking of responsibility.

Okay, that makes sense, Satyr. I see what you are saying, but can you just answer me a question, pretty please? Do you ever feel bad for people, who get victimized unjustly?

Yes..and this does not prevent me from seeing reality for what it is.
When discussing philosophy, dear one discusses about the world...not about our dreams, our hopes, out fantasies...our feelings.


Dear victim...the world cares not.
We all live with the consequences of our choices....but you want to change the world to adjust to you, so that your choices have less of a risk than mine...
THAT is disgusting...

Now answer me one question...do you ever think outside your personal feelings and interests?
Ever?
Can you ever separate what you think "outght to be" from what is?

If not...fuck off...go back to the den of dimwits, you pathetic creature.

By the way, justice is a human construct. It has no meaning outside human systems
Get it?
A lamb being eaten alive by a pack of wolves is neither just or unjust...get it?

How I feel and what I think are not the same...you sad simple woman.

Satyr, please don't call me names....I'm not doing anything to merit such contempt from you...
Yes, I can separate my emotions from my thoughts. I understand that we don't live in a perfect world of peace, but that doesn't stop me from caring for the unfortunate. I have a heart and I believe that you do, too. I will come back later, as I have to cook some food. Talk later, you big meanie

So much for the "strong independent" woman who intimidates men...huh?
They want an uneven playing field to feel at par.

I discuss reality....dear....you discuss how you feel, or how man should feel, about reality....which you are blind to.
When I talk about the world I do not allow my emotions to dictate my perceptions.

Unlike you, I can also feel sorry for the man who must rape to get sexual gratification....you sad creature.

Already you've bored me.
Go cry somewhere else.

Ta, Ta,

Zara wrote:

I think, under that rough exterior, that Satyr IS a good person...a warm heart. I will try my best to show you the good, Satyr, even if you kick and cry hehe!

"Bastard coated bastards with bastard fillings."



Contrast with "inherent goodness."

In victim psychology, the cult of victims, the individual always associates with the weaker participant.

The deer, being eaten by wolves, is the victim...they do not feel sorry for the wolves who hunger and might die if they do not kill the deer, and they risk life and limb to survive.
They pity the poor woman, who went out wearing no bra, because no matter what, the weaker, stupider, participant is always the one to be sided with...not the poor pathetic male, who has been rejected so often, excluded from the gene pool, that he must resort to rape, risking jail-time, to get his rocks off...to feel like he is a man.  

The choices of the weaker one are always excusable, because the weaker one is the most pitiful, and the one that must be protected from its own weakness.
They do not want the weaker one to get stronger, smarter, but they dream of a world where the weakness is accommodated, perpetuating it indefinitely, making it weaker and weaker...dumber and dumber.

No matter how stupid the victim is, he or she is excusable, because we are all victims of reality...and we must identify with the weakest of the weak.

How is it just for a child to get leukemia...?
Justice they say.

What fucking retards.

They come here expecting respect with tactics such as:
"What if it were your daughter?"

What if a lion ate your son?
Would that be just?
Why not make lions illegal?
Protect the children from those vicious killers.
Lets make the world safe from lions, and train the lion out of them.

They go to ILP sharing their wet-dreams, and their personal emotional expectations, and they call it philosophy...what a joke!!!

Satyr wrote:

So much for the "strong independent" woman who intimidates men...huh?
They want an uneven playing field to feel at par.

I discuss reality....dear....you discuss how you feel, or how man should feel, about reality....which you are blind to.
When I talk about the world I do not allow my emotions to dictate my perceptions.

Unlike you, I can also feel sorry for the man who must rape to get sexual gratification....you sad creature.

Already you've bored me.
Go cry somewhere else.

Ta, Ta,

You feel sorry for the weak?
Why not just rub one out if you can't direct/expend that energy (libido) elsewhere.

Great post Satyr.

Pity is condescending...
I do not use it to shape my opinions.

I remember once being asked how I would feel if my son turned out to be a homosexual, after I had written something on homosexuality.
As if my son, my personal circumstances, would alter the shape of the real. Suddenly I would change my mind, because now I was personally involved.

For the weakling subjectivity, and personal feelings shape the real.
There is no objective world that cares not for our subjective reactions to it...all is subjective.
If I have a normal son, then homosexuality is different than when I have a gay son.

These eternal victims, always personalize their conceptions.
It's not about how the world is, but how they are within it.
How does the real impact them....shapes their perspective.

They always must find the personal behind every opinion.
I mean, there are still turds, out there, convinced that I am claiming to be an alpha-male.

Whatever..

Laws when isolated from the larger culture-complex:

Quote :

"Women were trained to protect their honor--their chastity--above all things. They were scolded for lustful or adulterous thoughts that, it was rightly feared, might lead to misbehavior. In rigidly religious and socially complex bourgeois societies, they were discouraged from thinking of themselves as sexual creatures at all. Sex was something women were expected to simply “grin and bear” as a punishment for being born female.

Modern contraception, industrialization, globalism, and women’s suffrage changed the whole game. The lie of female chastity was exposed, and the institutions of marriage and the nuclear family collapsed. Male investment in civilization and order continues to decrease, and women--who are far better consumers and sedentary employees--have collectively reached a position which offers them the means to exert their own influence and tell their own lies about sex.

So they tell us about “rape culture.”

When they say that there is a “culture of rape” that perpetuates rape, men are hesitant to disagree because they don’t want to be regarded as forgiving of rape or accessories to rape. It is precisely because most men are already against rape that women are able to use rape as a kind of personal holocaust. Anti-“rape culture” advocates are exploiting male disgust for rape and using it as a tool to silence criticism of women and exert control over men’s sexual behavior and conceptions of their own masculinity."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Satyr wrote:

Zara wrote:

There is much division within the feminist community. Some factions believe, for example, that women should be able to dress however they want and be as lewd as they want, while other feminists believe that would be objectifying.

I'm a radical...I think women should dress as they like, but, BUT, BUUUUUUUT, if they do, then they should also be ready to accept the consequences of their choices.
Sure, you can go out naked, thinking it's your right, that you feel good doing so and that you are not doing it to get noticed, but if someone, out there, attacks and rapes you, then you should, at the very least, have the dignity, to say "yes, I accept the risks of my actions, my choices, and so I accept the consequences".
Otherwise...what a stupid, hypocritical, cunt you are.  

I am a radical as well. I think personal responsibility is for everyone.
A woman should accept the risks that come with dressing provocatively and attracting unwanted attention.
A man should accept the risk of forcefully giving unwanted attention.

Satyr wrote:

Zara wrote:

Women should never be harmed...idc what they did....it's just wrong to take advantage of other women...This is why people need to be instilled with the proper virtues.

So, no matter how dull and stupid the other is, if she is female she deserves special privileges?

What about effete boys, or retarded males?

Who else deserves special rules?
Do special rules come with a special fee, a cost?
No, these same ones will then demand special rules in payment in law, in all areas...

At what point does stupidity have a high price?
If not...then why be surprised in the world is going to the shit-hole, dear?
Sit back and enjoy your special vantage point.  

What special priviledges are you talking about?

perpetualburn wrote:

Zara wrote:

Women should never be harmed...idc what they did....it's just wrong to take advantage of other women...This is why people need to be instilled with the proper virtues.

Does it "harm" men to be exposed to excessive, unfiltered displays of the female body growing up in a soft, feminized public education system that caters to the "objectified" and "victimized" (that "instills" the "proper virtues" to support a woman's "choice")?

You are a man, so why don't you answer that?
Specifically, are you harmed by exposure of the female body?

Satyr wrote:

Rape is a natural option, dear.

So is murder. Should we go out and do some killings? Those weaklings out there are bringing it upon themselves by just not being strong enough.

Satyr wrote:

Rape is a natural option, dear. If women want to return to natural sexual displays and behaviors, then they should expect the same from all, as a response.

Rape is natural, huh?
A return to a natural sexual display?

Do you long for those former rape-ful days of imagined nostalgic past?

Try this afterthought of yours first:

Satyr wrote:

Similarly...if a male chooses to rape a woman, then the repercussions of this choice are also his to accept as part of the risks and costs.

There is no causal link between female behaviour and male reaction (and vice versa). Or perhaps you are crying victim for the poor men who are a victim of their own nature or rape culture, when exposed to a scantily clad female?

I would have thought you'd be all like "well the strong male is sexually satisfied and doesn't fall prey to impulses that he hasn't already been able to action in an entirely consentual way."

Instead you're arguing passionately for the weak, omegas and non-whites.

It intrigues me that indigenous tribes of south are able to exist without the proper modest attire required to prevent women from being brutally assaulted by men day and night. Those ever kind missions from more civilized places would do them a great service to provide them with shirts and knickers, just in case.

What this "rape culture" popularizing is going to do is make life difficult for the traditional man AND woman. While making life easier for cads and sluts. That's what it is geared towards. This is not about all women, it's for promoting a certain type of woman and a certain type of man.

Will the fight against "rape culture" reduce actual rape? On the contrary, actual rape is going to increase in the long run, in part precisely because of this social engineering with the "rape culture" meme.
"Rape culture" is not about reducing rape. The opposite is going to be achieved.

The emotional appeal is the most typical appeal used by Moderns.
It's, as if, pleading with you, and your honest, subjective, description of the objective, indifferent, world, would somehow change this objective world.
They live in the cult of deluded victims, part of those chosen to suffer for eternity, where altering your perspective, or creating a uniformity of popular fantasies, somehow changes the fabric of reality.
If we all get together and decide to suspend the unjust force of gravity, who will jump off a cliff first?
Not I.
I live in reality where my subjective perspective tries to perceive an objective, indifferent to my wishes, reality, which is dynamic forcing me to remain vigilant.  

Actually, it's a psychological appeal to ignorance that we are observing here.
When simpletons cannot reason, they appeal, they emote.
Ad hominem angles.
"What if you had a daughter?"...."What if your son were gay?"..."What if you are also weak?"...and so on.  
They plead with you to remain silent, or to fall in-line with the popular positions, because they have no response to what you are saying, and would rather not hear it...wanting to bury it, forget it, cover it up.
A-lithea...lithe...to negate the uncovering of reality.
To drink from the river of forgetfulness and live as a brain-dead zombie in limbo.

That aside, the idea that a man wants to rape, that he prefers to rape, is so ignorant of human psychology that it can only expose the overall shit-for-brains one becomes used to when dealing the majority, these days.
No doubt some do, and this can also be explained genetically and psychologically, as a dis-ease, a sexual dysfunction brought about by sexual energies within particular environments.
As is homosexuality.  
That a woman would willingly surrender to a man, sexually, is a thrill for the male.
A validation of his genetic value.
That a man would stoop to the level of considering rape, has to do with the omega-male psychology, in a world returning to primal sexual discourses due to the liberation of female sexuality.

It also has to do with genetic pollutions accumulated due to centuries of un-culled reproduction amongst homo, so called, sapients.
It's because females have a sexual choice that leaves 80% of males out of the game, seeking for ways to become participants (playas), to be included in the gene-pool possibilities.

No justice appeals necessary when dealing with nature.
On a personal level I think it's pathetic.
I am the opposite.
The moment I, even, suspect the other does not want to be with me I do not wait for them to tell me.
I make an excuse myself, and I leave.
Rape and forcing someone to give themselves to me, unwillingly, is totally outside the realm of my options.

But, I also know that other men are different: different testosterone levels, different intellectual levels, different genetics...and because they are different I must understand why.
And I have.
The social experiment concerning cat-calling placed a fit female, wearing skin tight clothing, in neighborhoods populated by Negroes.
They did not use a fat, ugly, woman, and made her walk through a white neighborhood, did they?
They didn't even take an average looking female.
They took a fit, well-proportioned, female, and dressed her in a tight top and skin-tight pants.
 
And here's the funny part, exposing the hypocrisy that passes for "civilized discourse" : when defending the unfit, genetic mutation of homosexuality, the typical modern moron will say things like "Homosexuality is common in other species", this time using nature to validate what he wants to defend, when in other cases he dismisses nature as non-applicable because humans are too complex, and not chimps.
Even here, when the typical modern moron does this he does not go further and explore why homosexuality is found amongst social organisms who experience a shortage of females, as in penguins, requiring an outlet for libidinal energies, or how it is used as a display of dominance, typically a dominant male going through mock coitus as a symbol of his alpha status, and the emasculation of the lower ranked male...or how coitus is often used as a stress reliever, to avoid violence...
The modern moron refuses to accept the innate aggressive essence of sex.
For him its is a magical, ethereal, deified, idealized, sacred process.

The very act of penetrating a female is an act of imposing one's will upon her...an intrusion into an other creature's organic space.
It explains why the two sexes evolved different psychological predispositions, and why emotions, such as lust/love evolve to deal with the fight/flight mechanism so as to make heterosexual reproduction possible.
Modern morons do not want to go all the way...they want to go only as far as their emotional needs are met.
Even a consensual surrender to a male, by a female, is fraught with intrusions and violating spaces.
The act of fucking is full of aggressive displays, such as sucking, biting, scratching, penetrating...and so on.  

Now we are getting to the hypocritical part.
Although they, these modern morons, are quick to point to how common and natural homosexual behavior is (about which they know nothing), they do not do the same with rape.
Rape is ALSO common in nature, and is observed as a male option for lower ranking males.
They never mention it, because here it contradicts their desired utopian world where women can remain as irresponsible, carefree, infantile, as possible, because men are shouldering the integrity and responsibility for them.
So, homosexuality is found in nature, and is a behavior one can observe in other species, but then so is rape...so is RAPE!!!
Here, as well, the reasons for it are obvious, and one need not advocate it or support such behavior to explain it rationally, rather than emotionally, making appeals to personal feelings.

Of course a healthy man would never rape a woman...but in this feminized world the concept of "health" has also bee overturned.
Liberals defend the very principles that then result in undesirable, to them, circumstances, and then they try to flee from the responsibility of their own stupidity by blaming the other, by expecting the other to correct it for them.
In this case female sexual emancipation has as a collateral effect the increasing numbers of males with no social investment, no genetic commonalities, and nothnig to lose...free radicals.
Families are destroyed by the destruction of Paternalism but feminists blame men, again.

Should it surprise these naive dolts that rape would increase as a risky final option, a behavior amongst men with no social ties, because genetics and race has also been discredited, and nobility is mocked by cynical imbeciles only interested in immediate gratification?
No...but when you are a simpleton everything surprises you.

The idea that "there is someone for everyone", imposed on the man-made world with the still precious rule concerning fidelity and monogamy, is another indication of how stupid the average human has become in this sheltering system of nihilistic inversions.  
In fact, feminine choice is a return to female filtering...genetic and memetic...meaning the majority of males will remain outside the social fabric; will remain un-invested, and uninterested, in the common modern ideals.
Some become violent...others, like the MRA detach completely, wanting to remain, like females, as infantile as they possibly can.


Provocative, provocation....

Being provocative is a matter of juxtaposition.
In the past wearing a holstered weapon was common sense, today it is provocative.
In fanatical Islamic countries a woman showing her hair is provocative...in Europe's past seeing a woman's ankle was provocative.
To provoke the common aesthetic is to provoke attention.
But with attention comes a price, a risk.

If you are ugly you are invisible...if you are born pretty, your rarity provokes.
Juxtaposition....determines value.
If you are stupid you disappear in the average...the degree above the average you are, in intelligence, determines the degree of provocation you will produce amongst the mediocre.
Juxtaposition....determines value.

Paternalism set-up rules which integrated males and made them investors in the shared social system by restricting provocative displays and enforcing strict rules of behavior, and of sexual options.
Like in economics, when no restrictions are imposed by the government a free-for-all collapses the system.
There is no regulating authoritarian body, and humans are not self-regulating if they are base, infantile, and primitive in psychology and in intellect.
A loss of respect, built on the loss of fear.
Fear is a self-regulating emotion.

When a female is made to feel fearless, like it's her "right" to be so, then she will be as provocative as she can.
Have you heard the female lie:
"I do not dress for others, I do so for myself"
What, utter bullshit!!!!
A woman's self-esteem, her sense of self-worth is intimately linked to her social appeal, her popularity.
A woman is a quintessential social organism...because her sexual role imposes risks and costs which must be shared, if she is to survive them.
Everything she does is meant to raise her, in estimation, in the eyes of others.
She dresses to be seen, admired, noticed...and yes to provoke attention.

(Edit: Content erased for lacking relevance.)

Anfang wrote:

"Rape culture" is not about reducing rape. The opposite is going to be achieved.

How are feminists going to get fat off of it if they help it disappear?

phoneutria wrote:

It intrigues me that indigenous tribes of south are able to exist without the proper modest attire required to prevent women from being brutally assaulted by men day and night.

The more protection from family a women has the less reserved she must be. Why do you think American women are generally so lacking in femininity?

For the sufficiently strong, an understanding of reality is necessary for their strength. For the weak victim a denial of reality is necessary for their persistence.

(Edited content lacking value.)

Quote :

"According to the social science model, rape is culturally determined, not genetically determined. Cultural determinism is consistent with free will and with the ability of humans to change their behavior easily by adopting new social constructs. This model is in conflict with everything that is known about the interaction of genetic and environmental factors in the development of all behavioral abilities and about the effects of selection on the shaping of all the adaptations involved in behavioral development. The evolutionary approach holds that no behavior is inevitable. Only by understanding this point can we hope to understand how humanmediated alterations in the developmental environment can produce desirable behavioral changes." [Randy Thornhill, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion]

As Satyr said, rather than raising the bar of culture and one's memetic environment, one rather level it down. The idea of Free Will is the liberal's favourite weapon.

Stuart- wrote:

I no longer claim to be a victim and yet I admit that if I thought such a claim could be directly beneficial to me, as opposed to just part of an emotional argument, I would possibly make it. The question is when the material used in an emotional argument becomes directly beneficially to one. My ego doesn't have much of a foundation, if it were to be shattered due to unfortunate circumstances, would I not accept death rather than renew my membership in the cult of victimhood by begging the proud to accept my weakness as a strength?

For the sufficiently strong, an understanding of reality is necessary for their strength. For the weak victim a denial of reality is necessary for their persistence.

What; because you're Black?

Stuart- wrote:

Anfang wrote:

"Rape culture" is not about reducing rape. The opposite is going to be achieved.

How are feminists going to get fat off of it if they help it disappear?

It's not exclusively about money though. It's a rage, not about men, but about nature, about who they are - not some 'social construct', that's just an excuse. It's self-hatred, hate of the body-aspect. A psyche raging against its own nature. Raging against itself.

Reminded me of an old post of his...

Satyr wrote:

""Justice" is a man-made uniformity, an intrusion upon nature to produce an artificial parity.

This is also called social eugenics, as it manipulates natural processes to produce a desirable outcome.

The criminal’s divergence from the norm makes them unpredictable to us and this makes them dangerous; it makes them “monsters” that must be re-harmonized and re-educated back into the fold. We prefer the predictability of conformity and imitation. The civilized man should be a reflection of his neighbour, speaking the words he was taught, wearing the facades we wear ourselves, acting in the same ways as we do, being ambitious in the same arenas we are, dreaming the same dreams, eating the same foods, owning the same stuff, fucking in the same manner. The civilized man should be a defender of the status quo, a conservative force, a repairer of the pretentious fabric that envelopes us all with its calming grace and soothing safety.

Mega-cities, super-organisms can, in this way, become functional entities. Nation states become reality. Globalization becomes plausible. And the mind attains that state of release into the whole, losing the uncomfortable self in the conglomeration and unloading its fears and anxieties unto the communal shoulders of unity.

This need for hypocrisy isn’t a matter of personal choice; it is a matter of survival, forced upon us through the environment as it is shaped by systemic control. Human existence is no longer dependant on adapting to natural environments but now it is dependant on adapting to artificial, man-made ones. Being acceptable and tolerable to the greater whole makes some form of insincerity crucial and it makes reason’s control over natural drives essential.
The entire social fabric is woven with the strings of deceptive courteousness - social graces covering the vastness of suppressed personality and repressed nature. Civilization is built on the foundations of bullshit. Bullshit isn’t just some topic a philosophy professor can write an essay about, as if it’s an exception to an ethical rule that soils our general purity and something only the few ignoble are guilty of, as opposed to some imagined ideal man. Nor is it some vice that requires virtuous intervention to right its wrong. Bullshit is simply a social strategy, nothing more, nothing less. It is, in fact, what makes communal living and human interaction possible; a social lubricant that enables two dissimilar entities to work together with as little friction as possible. Everything from a casual greeting to a leader provoking a nation intowar is fraught with untruthfulness. Everything from a marketing ploy to sexual seduction is fraught with dishonesty.

A friend, choosing his words carefully as to not hurt us, is just as guilty of deception as a grifter is, doing the same thing to hurt us. The outcome might appear different on the surface and the degrees may vary, but the underlying, self-serving motives and psychological insecurities involved are alike. We are being just as hypocritical when we watch our tone of voice or when we insinuate agreement through silence - when inside we are really ranting and raving or laughing or cursing or feeling indifferent - as when we go out of our way to mislead. Even our “honest” expressions of personal opinion, expressed from time to time at our own risk, are mostly pulled punches, purposefully ambiguous, censored judgments and/or probing events meant to partially vent suppressed views and repressed emotions without completely revealing them and facing the consequences.

Social unities can become so powerfully cohesive that, in time, this need for extension, for a release from self, results in the individual losing his immediate sense of uniqueness and with him replacing it with an annexed self, which now includes multiple participants, of which he is but a part of. This loss of autonomy is felt as an unburdening from personal responsibility and the weight of free-will which, as Sartre claimed, terrifies man to no end. Then the sense of self is acquired from the group itself and our senseof self-worth and identity can only be found within the larger entities common principles and how they reflect upon us. We relieve ourselves from existence by sharing it. We experience this loss as a partial return to the greater Self, as it is connected to a larger identity that protects us from the ravages of the unknown and the indifference of a universe we feel so tiny in relation to, and it offers us the illusion of immortality through the promise of posterity.

The first thing that happens with every new assembly is an automatic sizing-up of the other(s), followed by a search for the other’s preferences, qualities and boundaries, once an initial physical attraction/ repulsion or a social/economic affiliation has been established. The second thing that happens is a muted power struggle, where balances are established through symbolic body movements, and subtle linguistic cues - maybe, sometimes, through more obvious means – and after we have assessed the other’s boundaries, qualities, strengths and weaknesses - all this, most often, on a subconscious level and within culturally allowable parameters. We adapt our persona to the other’s sensitivities if we desire to make a connection - and we censor our words and actions, as much as possible and in accordance with our evaluations of the other’s personality, status, feedback and communal role. We no more make sexual jokes in the presence of clergy than we express confrontational convictions in the presence of our boss.

This creates a connection with definable restrictions which determineall further relations, from here on in, with this same individual and is affected by all the intermediary and interconnected side-relationships within the extended group. In time, as comfort levels rise or as they fall, these restrictions might be readjusted. But even in the most comfortable, long-term relationships, there is always an element of restriction and confidentiality.
No human relationship can ever survive total disclosure for long. There will always be an element of the other’s “honesty” that grates at our soul and blemishes our tolerance of them. No matter how minute an offence might be, it taints the entirety and cannot be ignored for long. Just like a fly in our milk: The pallid liquid becomes the background for that speck of vile darkness, we cannot avoid focusing upon, until the whole glass becomes distasteful; a contrasting difference making the apparent cleanliness of the whole doubtful."