Rape

perpetualburn wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

Still doesn't explain those sassy little indian girls in their uluris.
Nice ass, no?

What's your point?  Those are small isolated communities.

The isolated, and more importantly small community factor is actually pretty relevant - small communities are self-regulating because of the difficulty in staying under the radar. You're easily caught and punished in a small community, you can't rape and get away with it no matter how naked or alluring any girls might be (unless the community really is so small that one person can overpower the rest, or if he can team with others toward the same effect).

Hiding inside the swarm of today's humans is easy. Without the same social fear, we suddenly need intangible rules and other creative means to find and deal with rapists in order to achieve the same effect. Unfortunately, most of this in today's incarnation relies on word of mouth which is easily manipulable due to all kinds of artifacts of human psychology, such as hindsight bias, denial, forgetfulness, foolishness etc. It can easily be abused, and this requires a bunch of people to take this side (like we have on this forum) to balance the feminist side that's pushing the maximum conviction rate to ensure a minimum rate of "getting away with actual rape" - whatever the cost.

So good job guys, keep it up.

Imbesil wrote:

Myself, I'm fine with rape being unacceptable, and with the contradictory measures of forcing others not to force themselves on others - so long as the net result is greater negative liberty. I like not being interfered with.

You are being interfered with every day. What you are preferring here is not being interfered with overtly. Overall a preference for covert methods.

perpetualburn wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

It is not as if you are giving me much to go by.

lol, what kind of response is that... "I don't have much to go by, so I'll just make a bunch of stuff up"

Just trying to help

In homogenous societies one cares more for ones fellow tribesmen and rapes are much less likely to happen. In heterogenous, well you see what we have...

Anfang wrote:

You are being interfered with every day. What you are preferring here is not being interfered with overtly. Overall a preference for covert methods.

And yet I am not being as interfered with as a rape victim. I prefer it that way too strangely enough.
Shades.

Of course there are forces of nature that interfere with me that I am utterly unable to contend with, and there are social forces with which I am - to an extent. I'm working on increasing that extent all the time, and am pretty happy with how it's turning out given my abilities and preferences.

Not jumping to conclusions helps, though at least your overt versus covert interference theory certainly seems to apply to many others - the mere perception of less interference often appears sufficient. Ability would be a significant factor in this one - to identify sources of interference as well as to overcome them, but also willingness. Indeed many women aren't willing to admit the risk they put themselves under when they test men's restraint, and indeed they are most likely finding themselves conflicted between self-esteem issues and their own safety. I would imagine they are compelled to attract the attention and compliments, but not asking for anything further. They've become complacent with their environment of negative liberty, and foolishly taken off guard once things turn too real for them. They shouldn't, and yet they are justified in expecting things not to turn too real for them - it takes two to rape in today's social climate.
Both sides can help with the issue, and should. I really don't see how male sexuality is compromised here, you can still get laid consensually if you're able. If you're not able then blame Feminism all you like.

Imbesil wrote:

Both sides can help with the issue, and should. I really don't see how male sexuality is compromised here, you can still get laid consensually if you're able. If you're not able then blame Feminism all you like.

If there were no possibility of rape then there would be no possibility for consent. And possibility means it is happening in reality because if it's only a 'theoretical possibility' with about zero chance of actually occurring then consent becomes a 'theoretical consent' as well with zero depth and meaning.

So I am saying, if there were no rape occurring then the experience of consent would disappear as well.

Anfang wrote:

So I am saying, if there were no rape occurring then the experience of consent would disappear as well.

Good job that rape exists then

Interesting point, though the sex would still exist - just without any issue with consent, in much the same as it exists now without any issues with magic. Consent could still exist perhaps with regard to other things, and indeed be only theoretically applied to sex - just as non-consensual sex would then be only theoretically applicable to it. It would have theoretical meaning but no practical significance. But I imagine that Feminists would be just as happy with this possibility in much the same way that chickens seem quite happy that sex just happens to them by their male counterparts, and then they just get on with their lives without consent having any practical significance to them either. It's only if consent applies AND isn't given that they have issues (negative liberty).

This is except of course for the case of Feminists who believe in learning how to see issues with any given thing - such as the ones who have learnt to deconstruct every thought and action in terms of male privilege... Unfortunately they exist and have some semblance of political influence. The application of reason that undoes such a position tends to be written off through the use of appeals to emotion and generalisations - as seems to be perfectly possible for any movements that have gained momentum.

Am I to understand that the only thing keeping men from raping at will is the fear of law?

phoneutria wrote:

Am I to understand that the only thing keeping men from raping at will is the fear of law?

I would hope that your understanding might incorporate not only what stops men from raping but also what starts them.
Even if it was only the fear of law that stopped them, if the law was changed or removed then they would still need to start in order for any rape to occur - and even then, only if the man were able. But what I'm guessing you're trying to get at here is that men ought to consider the feelings of the potential victim and not just law. In most cases this is of course true, though not in all. And this forum is hardly a shining example of the former since the theme running through this place is the attempted projection of maximum invulnerability, which is apparently deemed to be compromised by any admission of compassion as opposed to any thought that one may become strengthened by it.

Imbesil wrote:

I would hope that your understanding might incorporate not only what stops men from raping but also what starts them.
Even if it was only the fear of law that stopped them, if the law was changed or removed then they would still need to start in order for any rape to occur - and even then, only if the man were able. But what I'm guessing you're trying to get at here is that men ought to consider the feelings of the potential victim and not just law. In most cases this is of course true, though not in all. And this forum is hardly a shining example of the former since the theme running through this place is the attempted projection of maximum invulnerability, which is apparently deemed to be compromised by any admission of compassion as opposed to any thought that one may become strengthened by it.

Be careful not to project what isn't there "imbesil"

Anfang wrote:

Imbesil wrote:

Both sides can help with the issue, and should. I really don't see how male sexuality is compromised here, you can still get laid consensually if you're able. If you're not able then blame Feminism all you like.

If there were no possibility of rape then there would be no possibility for consent. And possibility means it is happening in reality because if it's only a 'theoretical possibility' with about zero chance of actually occurring then consent becomes a 'theoretical consent' as well with zero depth and meaning.

So I am saying, if there were no rape occurring then the experience of consent would disappear as well.

If there is consent, where consent is where an act occurs, non consent is when an act does not occur.

Imbesil wrote:

I would hope that your understanding might incorporate not only what stops men from raping but also what starts them.
Even if it was only the fear of law that stopped them, if the law was changed or removed then they would still need to start in order for any rape to occur - and even then, only if the man were able.

Though I did say "raping at will", I do mean those cases in which the matter of provocation is arguable. *

I repeat that feel strongly about personal responsibility, and in cases where provocation is clear, I guess dem bitches had it comin'.


*What constitutes a provocation is, naturally, a subjective matter and as such it is a difficult topic to legislate against, not only in matters of rape but also any case of violence. The best that can be done is to legislate as though no provocation justifies an assault, and the matter of provocation is not as much a definer between guilt and innocence, but a matter of how heavy a sentence should be applied.

Quote :

But what I'm guessing you're trying to get at here is that men ought to consider the feelings of the potential victim and not just law. In most cases this is of course true, though not in all. And this forum is hardly a shining example of the former since the theme running through this place is the attempted projection of maximum invulnerability, which is apparently deemed to be compromised by any admission of compassion as opposed to any thought that one may become strengthened by it.

Indeed.

perpetualburn wrote:

Be careful not to project what isn't there "imbesil"

Are you going to make the case that this forum is not a lair of nietzscheans... you, from the nietzsche forum old guard?

Imbesil wrote:

Interesting point, though the sex would still exist - just without any issue with consent, in much the same as it exists now without any issues with magic.

I think you haven't been thinking this through. If there were no experience of consent then women would not be acting as genetic filters. Then every kind of imbecile who happens to fall over himself and land with his dick in a vagina would have an equal chance of reproduction, in this negative liberties, 'you brute are not allowed to brutalize me'-utopia.
Now that I've said this - me thinks, maybe you have been thinking this through...

phono wrote:

If there is consent, where consent is where an act occurs, non consent is when an act does not occur.

You will have to explain this sentence to me better, otherwise I'll go with what it looks like to me which is trying to formulate an a priori truth - a tautology which is by necessity not referring to anything real. And at the same time you are alluding that it says something which contradicts what I said, by quoting me and using the words 'consent' and 'occur' which are also used in what I wrote.

Anfang wrote:

phono wrote:

If there is consent, where consent is where an act occurs, non consent is when an act does not occur.

You will have to explain this sentence to me better, otherwise I'll go with what it looks like to me which is trying to formulate an a priori truth - a tautology which is by necessity not referring to anything real. And at the same time you are alluding that it says something which contradicts what I said, by quoting me and using the words 'consent' and 'occur' which are also used in what I wrote.

Really?

In other words, rape is not the opposite of consent.
Non-consent is the opposite of consent.
Non-consent does not equal rape.
Rape is when the action occurs in the presence of non-consent.
If there is no action, there is no rape, there is still non-consent, except everyone goes home unharmed.

Rape for a man, would be devastating.
It would shatter his masculine ego.

Rape for a woman is not devastating, if she refrains from dramatizing it and playing the eternal victim, exploiting it to receive attention, and to be pitied.
She is made to receive penis, and if she is not abused, severely, no harm is done to her.
But, where it does challenge her ego is in her role as genetic and memetic filter.
It usurps this natural role, and, as a consequence, her sexual power of choice.
It diminishes her value, because for an average woman sex and relationships are where she finds the only value she can have.

Giving herself to a man, as a means towards his end, she finds self-esteem.
Take this choice away from her, and she feels violated.

Paternalism also violates this role.

Are you speaking as a woman?

phoneutria wrote:

Are you speaking as a woman?

As a mind.
Spare me your games, sweets.

I know getting attention and "keeping it real" is how you find your own self-esteem, but do me a favor and be more subtle about it.

You are becoming boring, and if not for the fact that most avoid me, you would not be noticed.
See, I want to reach a more sophisticated audience, by using you as my tool...but your dullness is making it hard to sharpen my own message.

But, I guess you'll have to do, given the level on ILP.
Soft stone only requires a rigid, dull, instrument.
You'll do, until some other shows up.

Are men and women the same? Is it honest for you to speak on behalf of women?

phoneutria wrote:

Are men and women the same? Is it honest for you to speak on behalf of women?

I'll answer that, dear...if you answer this first:

Is it "honest" for a human to speak on behalf of an animal, or to cut to the chase, you duplicitous woman, can a human know a chimp more than it can know itself, or do we need the chimps approval and its own self-evaluation before we can proceed with a judgment?

Listen, I don't mind the simple little tricks you've developed, over the years, to remain sane...but I only want you to step-up your game, when dealing with me.
I'm bored with the typical, dear.
I can have Zara, for that feminine simplicity, so complex it remains mystical.  
That Jerry Springer "You don know me!!!" Negress, white-trash, cry...

I'll give you attention...but you'll have to reciprocate with something.


Sweetie, I told you in the ChatBox...I don't care what you think, or why you come here, or what you tell yourself to explain it...all I care about is that you continue coming, and reading...
That's all.
Pussy power.
You are a means, or you are worthless to me.
My end, is none of your business.
Your skeptical, cynicism; your reward in receiving attention, and how proud you are that you manage it; the pleasure you consider a good-enough, 'just because' outcome; your desire to "bring it all down to earth", to humble it, to "keep it real" and find an affinity with it...is fine by me.

Are you the bed partner of a chimp? Would you have a chimp raise your kids? Can a chimp be your partner? Would your species become extinct should you kill every chimp?
Do bananas taste like apples?

No answer then?

To the question...

Ask me if my son turns out to be a homosexual if this will change what homosexuality is...or ask me if I had a daughter if this would change the reality of what a female is.
Jeez...and you think you are more clever than the Zara types?

You answered my question with a question. I only ever reciprocate

What would be the consequences to you of grossly misinterpreting the feelings of a chimp?

phoneutria wrote:

Anfang wrote:

phono wrote:

If there is consent, where consent is where an act occurs, non consent is when an act does not occur.

You will have to explain this sentence to me better, otherwise I'll go with what it looks like to me which is trying to formulate an a priori truth - a tautology which is by necessity not referring to anything real. And at the same time you are alluding that it says something which contradicts what I said, by quoting me and using the words 'consent' and 'occur' which are also used in what I wrote.

Really?

In other words, rape is not the opposite of consent.
Non-consent is the opposite of consent.
Non-consent does not equal rape.
Rape is when the action occurs in the presence of non-consent.
If there is no action, there is no rape, there is still non-consent, except everyone goes home unharmed.

So it is what it looks like to me. I'm fine with that.
About rape - I didn't say rape is not the opposite of consent.
I said -

Anfang wrote:

So I am saying, if there were no rape occurring then the experience of consent would disappear as well.

This is not an immediate effect.
I'll even go further -

It is the existence of brutes which makes it possible for women to develop the experience of consent.
Just like there would be no gills if there weren't puddles of water, large enough for the organism in question to swim and dive in.

phonee wrote:

You answered my question with a question. I only ever reciprocate

What would be the consequences to you of grossly misinterpreting the feelings of a chimp?

Ha!!!
A hypothetical negative.
What would be the rewards in interpreting then correctly?

Dear....sex and emotions do not alter the essence of the other.
If I fucked a chimp it would not change what a chimp is.
If I love something it does not alter it, in reality.
My personal feelings do not change reality.

Are you daft?

My errors will result in a cost....my accuracy in benefits.

So, someone with a more sophisticated mind CAN know someone with a less sophisticated mind more than he or she can ever, EVER, know himself/herself.
The rest of your emotional appeals and gamesmanship, are appreciated.

Dear, if your personal feelings do not change reality, and you are not a woman, how can you speak about the feelings of a woman?

I need not feel a thing to empathize, dear.
This is where you have become so confused by modern nihilism that you fall into myth...and you fall in line with the common.
Sympathy and empathy are not the same, dear.
Christians have trained you to think otherwise.

And, while we're on it, respect is about anxiety/fear, dear...it is selfish, as it wishes to preserve.

A hunter enters his prey's mind, to achieve his goal, of killing it.
One can respect his enemies...and not hate them, just as one can hurt the one's he, supposedly, loves, when he has no clue what love and respect are.

One need not change reality to understand it, you sad woman.
I do not have to be a cow to get into a cow's mind, and exploit this simple creature.
I can, subsequently, grow fond of a particular cow, because she's served me well, but this is after-the-fact.

Anfang wrote:

It is the existence of brutes which makes it possible for women to develop the experience of consent.
Just like there would be no gills if there weren't puddles of water, large enough for the organism in question to swim and dive in.

No, it is the existence of a hole which makes it possible for women to develop the experience of consent. A hole into which something can be allowed to be placed, or not.
If there were no brutes, there would still be non-consent. We don't fuck everyone who asks nicely.

Satyr wrote:

I need not feel a thing to empathize, dear. This s where you have become so confused by modern nihilism that you fall into myth.
Sympathy and empathy are not the same.

A hunter enters his prey's mind, to achieve his goal, of killing it.

One need not change reality to understand it, you sad woman.

So if I just go ahead and say you are wrong, where does that leave you? Does your empathy alter reality?