ihedinobi2:
Help me understand here. I used those analogies to talk of a woman taking measures to secure her body. What does you use of them now correspond to? That the measures are meaningless because räpists exist? Are we going to do a chicken and egg debate too?

The measures are not meaningless. The measures are only inadequate if we do not make them understand that it is NEVER their fault, and which in turn will help more of them to cooperate in bringing down their assailants.

In security, there is no system that cannot be compromised. All it takes is time. It is like a dance. The intruder keeps trying to break in, and you keep looking for ways to delay him/her and identify him/her. No system is safe. When you spend more time delaying the intruder rather than identifying the intruder, your system security will fail faster than you can imagine.

I never said the measures are meaningless. I am saying that blaming a victim for whatsoever reason is counter-productive to helping them. That is, assuming that helping them is what you are really after.

ihedinobi2:

Thanks for coming in, bro.

In fact, the part about making herself an easy target puts the whole question here in another light. No one here would, despite their arguments, walk into a ghetto flashing valuables. That is not because it is ok to rob anyone who shows their wealth wherever they may be but because we all know that this is not Heaven yet. There are wicked people, broken people all over the world so we take measures to protect the things we value while we wait for the day that the lion and the lamb can lie down together and nothing threaten anything else.

I think the high emotion that the subject of räpe provokes makes it difficult to appreciate even someone is helping to fight it. Is it realistic to insist and expect that there will be no räpists threatening women's honor? It is not. Can women do anything to escape the wickedness of räpe? Is their fate wholly in the hands of the föol who wakes up one day and decides that he will soil another woman's honor? Can they do NOTHING at all?

The problem i see is that most of the guys responding are letting their emotions override their reasoning

InesQor:

We teach them to stay safe in the hopes that it can deter the more weak-willed assailants. It is a struct of self-defense. But NONE of that is adequate to prevent ra'pe when the rap'ist is determined!

Women have always protected their bodies. I am not sure how we need to start telling them to do so rather than telling their assailants not to act like wild animals.

Did black people become emancipated solely by making them value themselves more? Or MAINLY by making their oppressors see reason?

If weak-willed assailants do räpe at all, then räpe can be prevented by teaching little girls to "stay safe". And if they are taught but they fail to apply what they are taught, do they then not have fault in their predicament? If you know that you shouldn't let a drunk drive you and do it anyway, would you be free of blame for a crash even if you are badly injured? The point is that there is something that a woman can do to prevent räpe, so she should do it.

Women have always protected their bodies? As in, in every last case? Are you being serious here? Did you read the scenarios that texanomaly posted? How exactly would you say that the women in those scenarios protected their bodies?

Black people decided to take responsibility for themselves and protect their right to be treated as human beings. There was that woman who refused to give up her seat for the white guy on the bus. She wasn't making him see reason, she simply decided that her humanity was precious enough to protect with her very life, or at least her freedom.

ihedinobi2:
Women have always protected their bodies? As in, in every last case? Are you being serious here? Did you read the scenarios that texanomaly posted? How exactly would you say that the women in those scenarios protected their bodies?

How did they not protect their bodies? They resisted when they felt the guy was crossing the line. Or are they now also responsible for the repression of the guys' se'xual urges as well as their own?

InesQor:
The woman has always been concerned with her own safety. I do not know, nor have I heard, of any rap'ed person that was not concerned with her safety.

Oh, if you go to parties where drinks can be spiked and make no arrangement to save yourself from getting drugged and räped, how much concern exactly have you shown for your safety?

And you know this for sure, how?

Oh, the Bible says so. It's a perfect book that tells no lies. Not that everybody believes that though.

Still, we've been around on earth for a long time as a species and we have this host of moral faults in us that never fully go away even though we attack it with nuclear weapons. I don't see why I should expect now that whatever makes a räpist räpe will suddenly disappear because we talk even more to räpists. Räpe might reduce as a phenomenon but go away completely? I'd like to see how.

InesQor, I would be proud to know you.

ihedinobi2:
Oh, if you go to parties where drinks can be spiked and make no arrangement to save yourself from getting drugged and räped, how much concern exactly have you shown for your safety?

Drinks can be spiked anywhere. Even in your own home by your own friend / sibling if they have the mind to do that. So what's your point here?

ihedinobi2:
Oh, the Bible says so. It's a perfect book that tells no lies. Not that everybody believes that though.

Still, we've been around on earth for a long time as a species and we have this host of moral faults in us that never fully go away even though we attack it with nuclear weapons. I don't see why I should expect now that whatever makes a räpist räpe will suddenly disappear because we talk even more to räpists. Räpe might reduce as a phenomenon but go away completely? I'd like to see how.

I've probably read the Bible as many times as you have. I would not say more times. Where does it say rap'e will continue till Jesus returns?

Are you one of those Christians that say rap'e is sometimes something that God intended to happen?

InesQor:
No. Driving a nice car in a crime-infested neighbourhood means you went into THEIR domain, knowing it is crime infested. Like, say, a woman who goes to an ALREADY-KNOWN rap.ist's house! If you did not willingly go into their hands, then how does your analogy above apply? Or the whole earth belongs to rapis'ts now "till Jesus comes"?

No. The whole earth today lies in the wicked one so there is great evil still in it. Today's world is like a violent ghetto. There are decent people in it but it is largely a melting pot for wickedness. It is not realistic to expect good from the world.

Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't ask for little thought to be spent on security. I said there is a balance to be struck, and we always seem to be tossing blame at the victims rather than fixing the damn root problem. I do not believe there are any impossibilities until Christ returns (there again, with that). For instance there was a time it was considered an impossibility that a black man could ever be educated, let alone become president of the United states.

How are you fighting for a balance when you are vehemently denying any responsibility on the woman's part?

There are impossibilities. Mostly of a moral nature, things that only Divine Judgment will make possible.

If you DO know, then you should know better that blaming victims for WHATEVER reason is the very worst way to deal with these issues. Many rapi'sts are said to make the victims believe it was their fault they got rap'ed which is ONE reason they never come forward. Now you want to help them and you are also looking for a reason to blame them?

You are saying that it is better to ignore any responsibility on the part of the woman even though doing so means that more women will fall prey to räpists?

Let me tell you, bro. It is not merely because women feel that they must have caused the räpe that they do not come forward. They don't because räpe is shameful. It takes away from a woman's self-esteem and her sense of dignity. Even if she knows without a doubt that it was not her fault, she won't easily talk about it or share the experience in any way.

What you are doing refusing to face the woman's part in her own protection is why the situation will only get more frustrating.

InesQor:

Alright then, the question is whether they can ever be blame-worthy? The answer is that räpe victims are never blame worthy. By definition, a räped person did not consent to be räped. This is simply ineluctable. Inasmuch as they did not consent to be räped, then they were beguiled or otherwise fell into an unfortunate circumstance. None of this is a sensible reason to "blame" the räpe victim.

If they never are, we shouldn't talk about lessons to "stay safe". The whole point of teaching is to pass on knowledge. That helps us to identify deceit and unfortunate circumstances. A potential räpe victim can learn how to identify amd neutralize deception and avoid unfortunate circumstances. If they possess this knowledge and fail to apply it anyway, they are culpable.

The laws are not enough to "take care of them". Tell you why? Because most of them are never caught. Most are never revealed. And why is that? Because people like you look for reasons to make them blame themselves for the horrible acts done to them. That in itself is a worse lost virtue.

Wrong. They are not revealed because we are failing to teach correctly what a woman's responsibility in preserving the sanctity of her body is and what it is not so that in the event of such violations, the natural shame that is attached to räpe does not prevent them from denouncing their violaters. That is a lost virtue, the one you can really call 'worse'.

InesQor:

The measures are not meaningless. The measures are only inadequate if we do not make them understand that it is NEVER their fault, and which in turn will help more of them to cooperate in bringing down their assailants.

In security, there is no system that cannot be compromised. All it takes is time. It is like a dance. The intruder keeps trying to break in, and you keep looking for ways to delay him/her and identify him/her. No system is safe. When you spend more time delaying the intruder rather than identifying the intruder, your system security will fail faster than you can imagine.

I never said the measures are meaningless. I am saying that blaming a victim for whatsoever reason is counter-productive to helping them. That is, assuming that helping them is what you are really after.

As I have already said, it is not a sense of guilt that prevents women from coming forward, it is a natural sense of shame. Inordinate guilt does compound it significantly. And that latter is why you should educate women on what their responsibility really is and what it is not to enable them have the firm ground on which to stand and denounce their attackers.

MrAnony1:
The problem i see is that most of the guys responding are letting their emotions override their reasoning

Indeed.

@MissMeiya Thanks

@ihedinobi2

ihedinobi2:
No. The whole earth today lies in the wicked one so there is great evil still in it. Today's world is like a violent ghetto. There are decent people in it but it is largely a melting pot for wickedness. It is not realistic to expect good from the world.

My world is not a violent ghetto though. When you say it is not realistic to expect good from the world, I wonder from whose perspective. Yours? You say the world is largely a melting pot of wickedness, but are you saying you're defeatist about the wickedness, and would rather try to avoid it than deal with it?

ihedinobi2: How are you fighting for a balance when you are vehemently denying any responsibility on the woman's part?

Again and again I have told you that I am not denying the woman's responsibility. I am only saying, stop living in that fantastic world where a woman's responsibility is anywhere near enough to keep her safe from rapis'ts.

ihedinobi2: There are impossibilities. Mostly of a moral nature, things that only Divine Judgment will make possible

And I guess I have to take your word for this?

ihedinobi2:
You are saying that it is better to ignore any responsibility on the part of the woman even though doing so means that more women will fall prey to räpists?

I never mentioned ignoring responsibility. Are you saying that women who were rap'ed in India, who were not up to any funky business but were just doing their thing when they got attacked, were irresponsible? Or many other cases of people attacked for no reason at all? Any of those people could have been any of the women that you know, whether you deem them morally reprehensible or responsible.

ihedinobi2:
Let me tell you, bro. It is not merely because women feel that they must have caused the räpe that they do not come forward. They don't because räpe is shameful. It takes away from a woman's self-esteem and her sense of dignity. Even if she knows without a doubt that it was not her fault, she won't easily talk about it or share the experience in any way./quote]
And does it not increase the shame when you tell her that she was the self-same reason she was rap'ed and another woman was not? How is this helpful, then?

[quote author=ihedinobi2]
What you are doing refusing to face the woman's part in her own protection is why the situation will only get more frustrating.

I have done no such thing. The woman has a part in her protection, which she ALREADY knows except she is a child or unconscious. All human beings innately seek to defend themselves.

Castigating them for not attempting to defend themselves (in some other way that you THINK - as you do not KNOW for sure - is more likely to achieve results) is only easy to say from the greener side of the divide.

ihedinobi2: Ok. Is a woman never culpable if she is räped no matter what the circumstances?

Okay...Somehow I missed this question. I'm glad I saw it, because frankly you are wrong when you said this question was asked in the op. It is not. A question mark at the end of a statement does not make it a question.

He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption.

Have I missed the post where you tell us what you think those circumstances are. I'm not talking about the one where the n.ude woman walks into the den of ra.pist.
Maybe I missed it. I'm sorry. Could you please show me, if I have.

You are the one who made the statement. Tell me what the circumstances are and we can discuss them.

ihedinobi2:

Help me understand here. I used those analogies to talk of a woman taking measures to secure her body. What does you use of them now correspond to? That the measures are meaningless because räpists exist? Are we going to do a chicken and egg debate too?

They are not meaningless...unless you only discuss them with the girls and you don't have a discussion with the boys.

I apologize for my hot headed replies. I was one of the people incensed by the tittle. After that I could not read the op objectively.

If you wish to state scenarios in which you think the woman is culpable, I am willing to attempt civility.


Ok I did miss this.

ihedinobi2:

Oh, if you go to parties where drinks can be spiked and make no arrangement to save yourself from getting drugged and räped, how much concern exactly have you shown for your safety?

This is your scenario? Now girls can't go to parties? It is sad that this is actually a possibility, but you are right it is. I'm not sure the girl can be blamed here for going to a party and think there will be decent, law abiding citizens there. This defense would not hold up in court.

ihedinobi2:
Oh, the Bible says so. It's a perfect book that tells no lies. Not that everybody believes that though.

Still, we've been around on earth for a long time as a species and we have this host of moral faults in us that never fully go away even though we attack it with nuclear weapons. I don't see why I should expect now that whatever makes a räpist räpe will suddenly disappear because we talk even more to räpists. Räpe might reduce as a phenomenon but go away completely? I'd like to see how.

I feel I may have gone to far and attacked you personally, and not the op itself. I do apologize for that.


The bolded can never be used as an excuse for bad behavior. It is not the rap.ists we need to talk to. You are right.

We need talk to our girls about safety. You are absolutely right about that. It does no good, however, if we don't talk to the boys about what is appropriate, and how to treat girls. It is a two-way street. Girls need to be taught to respect themselves, and demand that respect from the boys. In turn, boys need to be taught to respect themselves and to treat girls with respect.

InesQor:
How did they not protect their bodies? They resisted when they felt the guy was crossing the line. Or are they now also responsible for the repression of the guys' se'xual urges as well as their own?

Wow. InesQor, cats are fun animals to have and play with. But the big ones can kill you with a playful nip.

What adult woman thinks lightly of the average man's libido? Those girls were pushing their luck and if I have to argue that, we have a pretty serious problem on our hands. You don't stoke a fire whose heat you don't want.

ihedinobi2:
If they never are, we shouldn't talk about lessons to "stay safe". The whole point of teaching is to pass on knowledge. That helps us to identify deceit and unfortunate circumstances. A potential räpe victim can learn how to identify amd neutralize deception and avoid unfortunate circumstances. If they possess this knowledge and fail to apply it anyway, they are culpable.

These ideas about identifying circumstances are highfalutin in the light of life's curve-balls. Why seek to avoid all unfortunate circumstances via any sort of instruction, if we can - in any way - prevent or dissuade the agents behind the circumstances in the first case? Isn't attack the best form of defence?

ihedinobi2:
Wrong. They are not revealed because we are failing to teach correctly what a woman's responsibility in preserving the sanctity of her body is and what it is not so that in the event of such violations, the natural shame that is attached to räpe does not prevent them from denouncing their violaters. That is a lost virtue, the one you can really call 'worse'.

Hold your horse. It is our duty to teach a woman her responsibility in preserving the sanctity of her body? Not hers, to protect her own body from harm? Really?

InesQor:
Drinks can be spiked anywhere. Even in your own home by your own friend / sibling if they have the mind to do that. So what's your point here?

Are the chances the same for räpe? What kind of friend would I trust enough to let in my house and share a drink who will drug and räpe me? Please, some scenarios are patently ridiculous. What you have described here is analogous to saying that policemen should wear kevlon at home too because they wear it on the job.

I've probably read the Bible as many times as you have. I would not say more times. Where does it say rap'e will continue till Jesus returns?

Are you one of those Christians that say rap'e is sometimes something that God intended to happen?

Let him that does evil continue to do evil. Revelation 22, I think. Evil will not be destroyed from the earth except by that Divine Judgment for which Christians pray and wait.

ihedinobi2:
As I have already said, it is not a sense of guilt that prevents women from coming forward, it is a natural sense of shame. Inordinate guilt does compound it significantly. And that latter is why you should educate women on what their responsibility really is and what it is not to enable them have the firm ground on which to stand and denounce their attackers.

How does "educating them" that "sometimes it is their fault that they got rap'ed" help to reduce their shame if they eventually do get rap'ed anyway? This does not make any sense to me. Do you care to clarify?

ihedinobi2:
If they never are, we shouldn't talk about lessons to "stay safe". The whole point of teaching is to pass on knowledge. That helps us to identify deceit and unfortunate circumstances. A potential räpe victim can learn how to identify amd neutralize deception and avoid unfortunate circumstances. If they possess this knowledge and fail to apply it anyway, they are culpable.




Wrong. They are not revealed because we are failing to teach correctly what a woman's responsibility in preserving the sanctity of her body is and what it is not so that in the event of such violations, the natural shame that is attached to räpe does not prevent them from denouncing their violaters. That is a lost virtue, the one you can really call 'worse'.

Okay...now you've gone too far!! Are you kidding me?!! Natural Shame!! Sorry reason is lost at this point!

Now I'm pissed. I can't even see straight at this point. It is obvious where you stand on this issue. It doesn't matter what anyone says.

I'm done. Read your statement over again. Never mind. Don't bother.


@MrAnony...yes I'm acting from emotion here. "Pissed off" is the emotion.

*unfollows thread*

ihedinobi2:
Are the chances the same for räpe? What kind of friend would I trust enough to let in my house and share a drink who will drug and räpe me? Please, some scenarios are patently ridiculous. What you have described here is analogous to saying that policemen should wear kevlon at home too because they wear it on the job.

You spoke of attending a party where drinks might be spiked. By inference, not necessarily spiked by the one who will rap'e you. So why can't your friend spike your drink at home cos she wants you to get high, but someone else happens to take advantage of your ambiguous state to rap'e you? Is it that ridiculous to conceive? And, I really don't think I should touch that policeman / kevlon *sic* analogy.

ihedinobi2:
Let him that does evil continue to do evil. Revelation 22, I think. Evil will not be destroyed from the earth except by that Divine Judgment for which Christians pray and wait.

This cannot in any way be made to show what you are trying to construe here. Does not Romans 12:21 ask you to overcome evil with good, and not be overcome with evil?

ihedinobi2:
Wow. InesQor, cats are fun animals to have and play with. But the big ones can kill you with a playful nip.

Okay I'm struggling with this analogy. Does this mean, like, rapists are fun to have and play with, until they act? So we can just wait till it eventually happens, by which time it will be our fault for having them around in the first case? Or, rather than domesticate the cat in the first case, like I have been saying, we wait till it does that mortal playful nip?

ihedinobi2: What adult woman thinks lightly of the average man's libido? Those girls were pushing their luck and if I have to argue that, we have a pretty serious problem on our hands. You don't stoke a fire whose heat you don't want.

They were pushing their luck, you say? So you mean the girl was wrong to have invited her boyfriend into her house, or to have followed him into his? What is a relationship or friendship about, if not trust? Who is the qualified arbiter?

Any girl that follows the advice you seem to be touting here will likely end up with paranoia and delusions of persecution.

Poor InesQor, lol hope your aren't too tired?

sailormoon: Poor InesQor, lol hope your aren't too tired?

Sigh. I guess I'll just leave the argument be. I think I've identified some perspectives on feminism (as seen by myself and the OP) that make our views too far apart to find any common ground. And there are probably other ones too.

InesQor: There are generally 3 ways people get ra'ped.

A - When physically subdued / overpowered either by the number of offenders or by comparative sheer strength of one
B - When blackmailed or otherwise emotionally coerced
C - When inagent. i.e. unconscious (e.g. in a coma, drunk or drugged) or too young to possibly understand what's going on

When most people think of ra'pe, they think of case A. Some other sensitive ones think of case C as well as the popular case A. Few people understand that case B is ra'pe as well!

I understand A and C to be rape. I don't think B is. Perhaps you can explain by giving an example scenario of where someone is "emotionally coerced" into sex to help my understanding.

In ALL cases, the victim is NOTHING ELSE but a victim and should never be blamed for whatsoever reason.

The victim was not asking for it!

I don't think so. I believe that the victim should bear some blame if he/she knowing the danger deliberately walks into harm's way. . . .or if rape is used as an appropriate punishment for a crime. Wouldn't you agree?

One of the most dangerous constructs popular in modern society is the notion of a "friendzone", that terrible, terrible place where someone you obviously dig a lot does not let you dig at all. So the "unloved" person is frustrated and will in many cases end up finding a way to ra'pe the object of their frustration. Well, wake up and smell the horse breath: NOBODY OWES YOU SEX. Well maybe a prepaid prostitu'te or gig'olo if you're into that kind of hellish existence.

I agree with the sentiment expressed here.

MrAnony1:
Lol I have only read the first page so far but it was funny to see how people jumped on Ihedinobi for asking a question. It is funny how people tend to judge what they percieve to be the intents of a person before he/she has declared them.

Now to answer your question, I think there are cases where rape can be justified. For instance if a woman rapes someone, I won't be opposed to rape as a punishment for her crime.

So If a woman molests someone, it is okay for her to be molested in return as punishment.


There are two obvious reasons why your comment is not only wrong but very silly


1) There is a difference between justice and revenge. A molester should be locked up in jail and counselled to see the errors of her way. Molesting the molester is just revenge and it only exacerbates the problem

2) You are a christian and through your shallow heterosexual reasoning, you are assuming that

a) The woman molested a man and not a woman
b) The reverse is beyond the point (A man molesting another man)

In these two instances (a and b) calling for molestation of the molester as punishment means that you are advocating for GAY S.EX.

ihedinobi2:

According to Caracta, one possible instance is walking into a den of räpists näked.

So, If a woman walks into a den of molesters while being nude, she can be blamed for the molestation that would probably occur.

Well, you should try to reason things out before you make claims




There are two reasons why your stance is wrong but first we must make something clear-

It is either
a) The woman walks into the den out of ignorance (She doesnt know that they are molesters)
b) The woman walks into the den with the knowledge that they are molesters



Why you are wrong

If the woman is ignorant
1) No woman would walk naked into a room full of strangers. Let's say she did walk naked because her clothes were wet from the rain outside (IT IS DEEP IN WINTER) and she ran into the first house she could (SO THAT SHE WOULDNT FREEZE TO DEATH) and then, removed her cLothes. If she didnt know that the house had 10 molesters, IT CAN NEVER BE HER FAULT THAT SHE GOT MOLESTED. She didnt know.


If the woman knows that they are molesters
1) Then it is not molestation. If you know that molesters are being held in a house and you as a woman, go into the house naked, you have no excuse.
NO COURT OF LAW WOULD ACCEPT R.APE CHARGES UNDER THIS SCENARIO. IT WILL BE ASSUMED THAT THE WOMAN GAVE NON-VERBAL CONSENT. THE SAME WAY NO COURT WOULD ACCEPT R.APE CHARGES IF A WOMAN GOES TO MEET A MAN IN A HOTEL ROOM AND KISSES HIM AND HAS SE.X WITH HIM (WITHOUT ANY VERBAL RETRACTION OF CONSENT).

The simple summary is that it can not be deemed to be ra.pe. Her actions already prove consent. And even if she gave a verbal retraction of consent during the molestation, the opposition lawyers would validly argue that the woman enjoys "acting out r.ape scenarios" and as such, the verbal retraction is deemed null

MrAnony1:
I understand A and C to be rape. I don't think B is. Perhaps you can explain by giving an example scenario of where someone is "emotionally coerced" into sex to help my understanding.

As I said, most people do not see case B as rap'e because it is the most subtle instance of r'ape. Some examples include:

- Oga sleeping with the house-help who cannot say anything but willingly submits herself without physical resistance while her soul is wailing to her ancestors.
- Sleeping with an illegal immigrant in the US, knowing fully well that she has nowhere to run to, or anyone to report to. A sort of blackmail.
- Having one's way with someone who one has monetary (or other) control over: who has begged one not to do it, but which the victim cannot physically resist for the sake of the power you wield over the victim
- A pastor/rockstar forcing himself upon a church member/fan. She offers no physical resistance because she is currently deluded in the name of her faith/devotion, but her emotions are all confused because she clearly does not consent. She later realizes she was rap'ed in that instance.
- Classic blackmail:: A: "I know what you did last summer" B: "Please don't expose me" C: "Okay, shut up and bend over"
etc etc

In short, se'x is not only discordant when the victim physically resists the perpetrator. Sometimes physical resistance is not feasible at that particular time, even though the victim is conscious and old enough to understand what is going on. Yet the perpetrator is clearly rap'ing the victim because their consent is being overridden.

Now I will drop a really very subtle one here; the case of a woman that lets a man have his way without any physical resistance because she is desperate for a child. But she does not actually consent to the se'x.

MrAnony1:
I don't think so. I believe that the victim should bear some blame if he/she knowing the danger deliberately walks into harm's way. . . .or if rape is used as an appropriate punishment for a crime. Wouldn't you agree?

No I do not agree that rap'e can be used as a punishment for any crime, as I do not see how rap'ing them can build any useful character in any offender.

MrAnony1:
I agree with the sentiment expressed here.

Alright then.

Hmm I smell logicboy...

TheBigUrban2:
So If a woman molests someone, it is okay for her to be molested in return as punishment.

Yes

There are two obvious reasons why your comment is not only wrong but very silly

Okay...let's hear them

1) There is a difference between justice and revenge. A molester should be locked up in jail and counselled to see the errors of her way. Molesting the molester is just revenge and it only exacerbates the problem

What is the significant difference between justice and vengeance that makes it wrong for a rapist to deserve to be raped?

2) You are a christian and through your shallow heterosexual reasoning, you are assuming that

Ad hominem fallacy: "You are a christian therefore you have shallow heterosexual reasoning therefore...."

a) The woman molested a man and not a woman

Please show from my statements how I assumed this

b) The reverse is beyond the point (A man molesting another man)

Please show from my statements how I assumed this

In these two instances (a and b) calling for molestation of the molester as punishment means that you are advocating for GAY S.EX.

Since you started with false premises, I am not surprised that you ended up with an illogical conclusion such as this

Or I can as well say that "Since you are BigUrban2, you have a shallow homosexual reasoning therefore you assume that gay sex is defined as molesting the molester."

MrAnony1: Hmm I smell logicboy...


Yes



Okay...let's hear them



What is the significant difference between justice and vengeance that makes it wrong for a rapist to deserve to be raped?


Ad hominem fallacy: "You are a christian therefore you have shallow heterosexual reasoning therefore...."


Please show from my statements how I assumed this


Please show from my statements how I assumed this


Since you started with false premises, I am not surprised that you ended up with an illogical conclusion such as this

Or I can as well say that "Since you are BigUrban2, you have a shallow homosexual reasoning therefore you assume that gay sex is defined as molesting the molester."

Yawn.

The facts remain


a) Molestation for molestation is not justice. Who gets to molest the molester? We have laws based on reason for a reason. Common sense would tell you that a molesting criminal woman should be jailed with counselling and that is the law.

b) Even your bible frowns at "an eye for an eye" judgement.

c) Lets say a woman molests another woman. Are you now going to say that the molester should be molested back in the same way? Are you asking for gay sex?



Sorry, it is neither sensible or justifiable for a r.apist to be ra.ped as punishment. Try again

texanomaly:
Okay...now you've gone too far!! Are you kidding me?!! Natural Shame!! Sorry reason is lost at this point!
Now I'm pissed. I can't even see straight at this point. It is obvious where you stand on this issue. It doesn't matter what anyone says.
I'm done. Read your statement over again. Never mind. Don't bother.
@MrAnony...yes I'm acting from emotion here. "Pissed off" is the emotion.
*unfollows thread*

Tex, I promise you that you aren't the only one dealing with emotion here. I find it extremely upsetting that everything I can say on this issue is already colored by some assumption that I think that räpe can be excused and räpists justified. I've explained so many times and tried to look so many times at my explanations through your eyes that I've grown quite tired of these subtle accusations myself. What is it that is suddenly obvious about where I stand that hasn't been all this time?

Please tell me if women don't feel a sense of shame from the violation they experience. I've heard and read so much about it that I've come to take it to be true especially since when I've thought about it it has made sense to me that they do feel shame.

ihedinobi2:

Tex, I promise you that you aren't the only one dealing with emotion here. I find it extremely upsetting that everything I can say on this issue is already colored by some assumption that I think that räpe can be excused and räpists justified. I've explained so many times and tried to look so many times at my explanations through your eyes that I've grown quite tired of these subtle accusations myself. What is it that is suddenly obvious about where I stand that hasn't been all this time?

Please tell me if women don't feel a sense of shame from the violation they experience. I've heard and read so much about it that I've come to take it to be true especially since when I've thought about it it has made sense to me that they do feel shame.

I'm happy that women are disgusted by your op.


Please, continue

InesQor:
As I said, most people do not see case B as rap'e because it is the most subtle instance of r'ape. Some examples include:

- Oga sleeping with the house-help who cannot say anything but willingly submits herself without physical resistance while her soul is wailing to her ancestors.
- Sleeping with an illegal immigrant in the US, knowing fully well that she has nowhere to run to, or anyone to report to. A sort of blackmail.
- Having one's way with someone who one has monetary (or other) control over: who has begged one not to do it, but which the victim cannot physically resist for the sake of the power you wield over the victim
- A pastor/rockstar forcing himself upon a church member/fan. She offers no physical resistance because she is currently deluded in the name of her faith/devotion, but her emotions are all confused because she clearly does not consent. She later realizes she was rap'ed in that instance.
- Classic blackmail:: A: "I know what you did last summer" B: "Please don't expose me" C: "Okay, shut up and bend over"
etc etc

In short, se'x is not only discordant when the victim physically resists the perpetrator. Sometimes physical resistance is not feasible at that particular time, even though the victim is conscious and old enough to understand what is going on. Yet the perpetrator is clearly rap'ing the victim because their consent is being overridden.

Thanks for educating me on that. I agree that the instances that you have provided qualify as rape

Now I will drop a really very subtle one here; the case of a woman that lets a man have his way without any physical resistance because she is desperate for a child. But she does not actually consent to the se'x.

I don't agree that rape has occurred here. The woman has practically consented in this case because she engaged in sex with the intent of having a baby.
Women are human beings with the capacity to have intentions and the ability to engage in actions that actualize their intents.

Your argument is like saying that you desperately wanted to give away money so you kept your money in an open place and when someone took it, you cried robbery. I don't see in what sense it is robbery if a person took away something that you desperately wanted to give away.

No I do not agree that rap'e can be used as a punishment for any crime, as I do not see how rap'ing them can build any useful character in any offender.

The aim of punishment is not necessarily to build character. I think a rapist deserves to be raped in much the same way a murderer deserves to be killed.

P/s: I am not granting the premise that rape cannot build any useful character in an offender.

TheBigUrban2:




Yawn.

The facts remain


a) Molestation for molestation is not justice. Who gets to molest the molester? We have laws based on reason for a reason. Common sense would tell you that a molesting criminal woman should be jailed with counselling and that is the law.

b) Even your bible frowns at "an eye for an eye" judgement.

c) Lets say a woman molests another woman. Are you now going to say that the molester should be molested back in the same way? Are you asking for gay sex?



Sorry, it is neither sensible or justifiable for a r.apist to be ra.ped as punishment. Try again

Ok