MrAnony1: Ok

Do you admit your claim about it being justifiable that a molester should get molested is wrong?


Or are you just agreeing to disagree?

TheBigUrban2:


Do you admit your claim about it being justifiable that a molester should get molested is wrong?


Or are you just agreeing to disagree?

I am agreeing to disagree.

MrAnony1:
I am agreeing to disagree.

As predicted you would do when you know that your points were exposed as being flawed.

Jeez, could you be any more shallow and predictable?

MrAnony1:
Thanks for educating me on that. I agree that the instances that you have provided qualify as rape

You're welcome.

MrAnony1:
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.

I deliberately added this one for the sake of completeness. It is the most subtle case of rap'e, and in some cases has been historically dismissed entirely as a subjective matter. Realize however, that this is certainly rap'e on a case-by-case basis. E.g. the woman has a husband/partner who she'd rather sleep with, but someone else is taking advantage of her because she is facing pressure about having no children. She may then not physically resist the attacker (in her desperation) even though she is entirely disgusted by the means to her end. For some victims, when rap'e is set into motion, they cope with the event by forcing their minds to think of themselves as third party observers. This is the only way their minds can deal with the violation they are experiencing. Such as this example would often involve such a coping mechanism. But never forget that rap'e is always about CONSENT. Not purpose.

MrAnony1:
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.

Well I do not necessary believe that murderers deserve to be killed, neither do I believe that punishment is not aimed at building character.

Pray tell, of what use is punishment, then? If you do not build an offender's character but you punish him/her to dissuade them from the same offence in future, what prevents them from carrying out ANOTHER offence for which you did not punish them - if you did not build up their character as a whole?

MrAnony1:
P/s: I am not granting the premise that rape cannot build any useful character in an offender.

Now, I am curious. What useful characters can r'ape build in any offender?

TheBigUrban2:


As predicted you would do when you know that your points were exposed as being flawed.

Jeez, could you be any more shallow and predictable?

Lol so essentially the question you actually asked was "Do you agree that you are wrong or are disagreeing because you are wrong?" i.e. "You are wrong because I say so"

It is precisely because of such poor reasoning like this that make me unwilling to continue with you. It's just not worth my time.

Agreeing to disagree does not make my position flawed in any way at all it only means that I am unwilling to continue. But hey if you really need to pat yourself on the back, please go right ahead. Cheers

MrAnony1:
Lol so essentially the question you actually asked was "Do you agree that you are wrong or are disagreeing because you are wrong?" i.e. "You are wrong because I say so"

It is precisely because of such poor reasoning like this that make me unwilling to continue with you. It's just not worth my time.

Agreeing to disagree does not make my position flawed in any way at all it only means that I am unwilling to continue. But hey if you really need to pat yourself on the back, please go right ahead. Cheers

You will regret your comments soon enough even without me replying you.



I wont reply you again on this thread.

Quick hide your daughters!!!!

This thread bores me biko. Back and forth over a non-issue all because men want another thing to blame women for

InesQor:
I deliberately added this one for the sake of completeness. It is the most subtle case of rap'e, and in some cases has been historically dismissed entirely as a subjective matter. Realize however, that this is certainly rap'e on a case-by-case basis. E.g. the woman has a husband/partner who she'd rather sleep with, [size=15pt]but someone else is taking advantage[/size] of her because she is facing pressure about having no children. She may then not physically resist [size=15pt]the attacker[/size] (in her desperation) even though she is entirely disgusted by the means to her end. For some victims, when rap'e is set into motion, they cope with the event by forcing their minds to think of themselves as third party observers. This is the only way their minds can deal with the [size=15pt]violation[/size] they are experiencing. Such as this example would often involve such a coping mechanism. But never forget that rap'e is always about CONSENT. Not purpose.

I think you have used a lot of loaded language here amongst other things (Highlighted by increased font). You have assumed that she is being attacked, violated and taken advantage of in order to prove that she is being attacked, violated and taken advantage of. Let us examine your comment. Consider the following comment (I hope it illustrates the point I'm making to you):

"I would rather sleep with my wife but I sleep with my female colleague Jennifer because I am desperate to have children. As you can see, she is obviously taking advantage of me.
I may not physically resist her when she touches me even though I am entirely disgusted by the sex we are having but I let it happen because I am desperate for children. Clearly you can see that Jennifer from the office is attacking me
For victims like myself, when my co-worker starts having sex with me raping me, I can only cope by forcing my mind to think I am outside my body watching the act. This is the only way I can deal with the experience of being "violated" by her.

Never forget that rape is always about CONSENT. Not purpose. The fact that I didn't resist Jennifer because I actually want a baby is irrelevant. All that matters is that I never actually said yes to Jennifer."

It seems to me that according to your argument, Jennifer is a rapist in this case. Is this the position you hold?

Well I do not necessary believe that murderers deserve to be killed, neither do I believe that punishment is not aimed at building character.

Pray tell, of what use is punishment, then? If you do not build an offender's character but you punish him/her to dissuade them from the same offence in future, what prevents them from carrying out ANOTHER offence for which you did not punish them - if you did not build up their character as a whole?

Punishment is simply the penalty inflicted for an offense. It has nothing to do with building the character of the offender. If you want to fashion a punishment such that it builds the character of the offender in the process, then that's another matter entirely. The aim of punishment is not necessarily to build character.

If you hold that punishment must necessarily build an offender's character as a whole, then you must hold that such things as the death penalty and paying a fine are unjust punishments because they don't come with a full re-education package for the "whole character"of the offender.

After all, If you do not build an offender's character but you make him/her pay a fine to dissuade them from the same offence in future, what prevents them from carrying out another offence for which you did not make them to pay a fine - if you did not build up their character as a whole?

Now, I am curious. What useful characters can r'ape build in any offender?

For starters, it could deter the offenders from repeating the rape offense having had a taste of the pain themselves. This to me is a useful character.


EDIT: In case you missed the point I was trying to make (as people often tend to miss the point of my analogies). Regarding the statement "Rape is about consent and not purpose" in reference to your example, I disagree with you because she engaged in an act based on her own internal motivations. The will of her sexual partner didn't play any part in coercing her to have intercourse and therefore he cannot in any way be accused of rape.

InesQor: @MissMeiya Thanks

@ihedinobi2

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?

You have a very pretty world then, quite like the one in movies.

God's perspective that I agree with.

Not defeatist, just realistic. I deal with it by exposing it not wishing it away.

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.

Then I must say again that you are talking from both sides of your mouth. If a woman has responsibility then it is by definition enough to count.

And I think the fantastic world would be one where räpists magically stop räping before Jesus comes.

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

It's only the Bible's that I've got. That it is when Christ returns and gathers out of His Kingdom (the entire spiritual and material universe) all things that hurt or offend that hurt and offence will cease. That's somewhere in Matthew, I think. I've seen no reason to believe otherwise. Men have tried to eliminate war by talking but trillions are spent yearly in dollars financing it anyway. Even peace is not all that peaceful in this world. Why should I expect better for räpe?

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.

Yes, in fact, you did. Insisting that women can do nothing whatsoever to prevent räpe and that a räpe victim can never be culpable is exactly dismissing responsibility on the women's part. Nor have I denied that räpe can happen even when a woman has done what she can to protect herself; what I have asked is whether she can minimize the possibility of räpe not totally eliminate it. And knowing the women involved personally would not take away from my argument at all. In fact, it would add to it.

MrAnony1:
I think you have used a lot of loaded language here amongst other things (Highlighted by increased font). You have assumed that she is being attacked, violated and taken advantage of in order to prove that she is being attacked, violated and taken advantage of. Let us examine your comment. Consider the following comment (I hope it illustrates the point I'm making to you):

"I would rather sleep with my wife but I sleep with my female colleague Jennifer because I am desperate to have children. As you can see, she is obviously taking advantage of me.
I may not physically resist her when she touches me even though I am entirely disgusted by the sex we are having but I let it happen because I am desperate for children. Clearly you can see that Jennifer from the office is attacking me
For victims like myself, when my co-worker starts having sex with me raping me, I can only cope by forcing my mind to think I am outside my body watching the act. This is the only way I can deal with the experience of being "violated" by her.

Never forget that rape is always about CONSENT. Not purpose. The fact that I didn't resist Jennifer because I actually want a baby is irrelevant. All that matters is that I never actually said yes to Jennifer."

It seems to me that according to your argument, Jennifer is a rapist in this case. Is this the position you hold?

Are you for real? Did you NOT see where I said on a CASE-BY-CASE basis it could be a case of ra'pe, but in some cases it is dismissed as subjective? THEN I gave an example to clarify a sample case?

MrAnony1:
Punishment is simply the penalty inflicted for an offense. It has nothing to do with building the character of the offender. If you want to fashion a punishment such that it builds the character of the offender in the process, then that's another matter entirely. The aim of punishment is not necessarily to build character.

If you hold that punishment must necessarily build an offender's character as a whole, then you must hold that such things as the death penalty and paying a fine are unjust punishments because they don't come with a full re-education package for the "whole character"of the offender.

After all, If you do not build an offender's character but you make him/her pay a fine to dissuade them from the same offence in future, what prevents them from carrying out another offence for which you did not make them to pay a fine - if you did not build up their character as a whole?

For starters, it could deter the offenders from repeating the rape offense having had a taste of the pain themselves. This to me is a useful character.

EDIT: In case you missed the point I was trying to make (as people often tend to miss the point of my analogies). Regarding the statement "Rape is about consent and not purpose" in reference to your example, I disagree with you because she engaged in an act based on her own internal motivations. The will of her sexual partner didn't play any part in coercing her to have intercourse and therefore he cannot in any way be accused of rape.

Alright then. I for one do not believe in the efficacy of death penalties, neither will I recommend rap'ing for a rap'ist, or any other eye for an eye. Your mileage apparently varies, and you are entitled to your viewpoint.

As for your claims of a "useful character" developing out of ra'ping someone who rap'ed another one, I have no further comments.

@ihedinobi2

I really don't want to continue this conversation any further. Thanks.

InesQor:
Are you for real? Did you NOT see where I said on a CASE-BY-CASE basis it could be a case of ra'pe, but in some cases it is dismissed as subjective? THEN I gave an example to clarify a sample case?

Yes I am for real. . . .And I saw where you said a "case by case basis" that is why I used an identitical case as your sample case. The only thing I did differently was to interchange the genders of the alleged victim and perpetrator. If this significantly alters the case for you such that one can be deemed as rape and the other not, then I think your definition of rape is faulty as it is biased towards a particular gender (the female gender) over the other.
You are welcome to show how my sample case fundamentally differs from yours apart from the genders of the participants.

Alright then. I for one do not believe in the efficacy of death penalties, neither will I recommend rap'ing for a rap'ist, or any other eye for an eye. Your mileage apparently varies, and you are entitled to your viewpoint.

Of course I am entitled to my view as you are to yours but first understand what I am saying. I am saying that the question of efficacy is unnecessary to the nature of a fair punishment. I have shown why this is the case by pointing out to you (using the example of fines and the death penalty) that a fair punishment does not necessarily have to reform the offender's character, it only has to make him/her bear suffering that is commensurate to his/her offense.

Because you have denied the above fact, you do not hold a logically consistent position concerning crime and punishment and this makes your disapproval of the death penalty or "rape for rape" or "an eye for an eye" a mere preferential opinion that you have so far provided no good reasons for holding.....but then again, you are entitled to your opinion whether or not you can give good reasons for it.

As for your claims of a "useful character" developing out of ra'ping someone who rap'ed another one, I have no further comments.

Ok. I must point out though that you did not deny that a useful character has been formed in the offender if making the offender a victim of his/her offense deters him/her from further crime.

InesQor: 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?

First off, have I said anything so far to suggest that "she" herself is ever the reason she is räped. Negligence on her part may be, carelessness on her part may be, but she herself never is. Let's not mix things up.

Second, if a woman knows clearly what her responsibility is, then she also knows what it is not. If she has this knowledge then she can shrug off the irrational sense of guilt and boldly denounce her assailant.

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.

Women have two natural desires that don't always agree, I wonder if you appreciate that. The woman wants to be alluring and desirable. But she also wants her body to be treated with respect and received as a sublime gift when it is given. These two desires don't always work out well together. Because when a woman is radiating allure, she radiates a desire to be taken. It is then up to the man's appreciation of value where she is concerned to take her the right way.

This means that she has to learn to know how and when to radiate that allure or else the wrong man will exploit it. And then her honor would be spoiled. She doesn't come into the world prepackaged with that kind of knowledge. Her natural instincts in this matter are only a desire to be appealing and desirable and a desire to be respected as to her body.

InesQor: @ihedinobi2

I really don't want to continue this conversation any further. Thanks.

Ok. Thank you for coming in to share your thoughts on the matter. I am still catching up with the discussion and may answer some of your past comments. You do not have to consider those answers as calling you out any further, the answers will be to communicate any new thoughts the comments provoke me to or to clarify and consolidate thoughts already shared.

Thank you again for stopping by and for engaging as remarkably as you have.

MrAnony1:
Yes I am for real. . . .And I saw where you said a "case by case basis" that is why I used an identitical case as your sample case. The only thing I did differently was to interchange the genders of the alleged victim and perpetrator. If this significantly alters the case for you such that one can be deemed as rape and the other not, then I think your definition of rape is faulty as it is biased towards a particular gender (the female gender) over the other.
You are welcome to show how my sample case fundamentally differs from yours apart from the genders of the participants.

Don't be ridiculous, man. Your example and mine are totally different and it has nothing to do with gender. In my example, I illustrated an INSTANCE of someone who was being physically subdued but did not fend off the rap'ist, while you came up with some story about a guy bedding his work colleague and saying that he was being taken advantage of. If you cannot see the difference between the two then never mind.

MrAnony1:
Ok. I must point out though that you did not deny that a useful character has been formed in the offender if making the offender a victim of his/her offense deters him/her from further crime.

The only thing your arguments above have convinced me of, is that you do not have the faintest idea what character building really means.

Thus with you, as well, I am done conversing here.

I'm certain however that you still have some remarkable gems - such as these about character building via a transferred violation of human sanctity and being - to share with those that visit this thread going forward. By all means, carry on.

InesQor deserves a round of applause.

Ihe, reading through this thread, I've come to understand that you feel women can do something to prevent themeselves from being ra.ped?

Well, what do you think could have been done by an Indian lady who while standing with a male friend by the roadside waved down a taxi and upon entering got severly r.ap.ed she died the next two days?

With reference to your post, would you say she could have eluded these rapists if she had been able to fufil this:

ihedinobi2:
she has to learn to know how and when to radiate that allure or else the wrong man will exploit it. And then her honor would be spoiled. She doesn't come into the world prepackaged with that kind of knowledge. Her natural instincts in this matter are only a desire to be appealing and desirable and a desire to be respected as to her body.

It just doesn't add up.

The best solution you should have proffered here is for women to adopt Electra's style in the movie, Meet The Spartans. They should instead of wearing panties wear metal guards with metal locks.

The above soluTion can not win over a realistic mind.

The indian lady I mentioned was properly dressed in her sari and was returning from work. You should knoiw that she must have been very tired and was not in any way intending to radiate any form of allure.

I understand what you mean and I tell you this, trying to make sense from your point of view is quite a futile effort. The ra.p.ed is always the victim and since the ra.p.ist has got a perverted mind he or she remains the culprit and the one the whole blame should be apportioned.

Would you tell a girl of 6 who was ra.ped to find a way not to radiate allure when she barely knows what allure is? You shouldn't blame her or tell her how it was the fault of her allure radiation but bang the head of the f.U̶̲̥̅̊.c.king pervert against the egde of a pavement.

What of banks that get robbed? What of Nairaland that got hacked? What of persons killed by stray bullets? Or those killed in impromptu street fights? And other many what of's....

Yes, measures should be taken to prevent oneself from known and unknown danger but that only solves 1% of the problem. The solution is in fixing the 99%; pervese hearts.....

Quit thinking about the 1%, think about eliminating the 99%.

I might reply late if I'm quoted.

InesQor:
Don't be ridiculous, man. Your example and mine are totally different and it has nothing to do with gender. In my example, I illustrated an INSTANCE of someone who was being physically subdued but did not fend off the rap'ist, while you came up with some story about a guy bedding his work colleague and saying that he was being taken advantage of. If you cannot see the difference between the two then never mind.

Responding to the part highlighted in bold: I wonder how you can say that the woman was "physically subdued" when not only did she not physically resist sex from the man, she also wanted to have sex because she hoped to conceive by the act.

The scenario I showed you isn't any different. The man in my case equally did not physically resist his attacker because he wanted to have babies by her.

If you can't see that all you really presented was a woman who was committing adultery with the intent of having a child and saying that she was being taken advantage of then you are truly blinded by your bias towards the fairer sex.

The only thing your arguments above have convinced me of, is that you do not have the faintest idea what character building really means.

Thus with you, as well, I am done conversing here.

Since you clearly don't count a rapist turned from his evil ways as an example of an improved character, I would have liked you to explain to me what character building really means but alas you are gone.

I'm certain however that you still have some remarkable gems - such as these about character building via a transferred violation of human sanctity and being - to share with those that visit this thread going forward. By all means, carry on.

I see no problem with violating a person who violates someone else. This to me is fair and deserved punishment for crimes committed. You never gave a single reason why it isn't. Thanks for your time anyway.


Edit: I have rephrased my senario again (I know you won't respond but please read it now and judge for yourself if I am really being ridiculous or if I have been right about you being biased towards females. Only you can truly answer that question to yourself)

"I would rather sleep with my husband but I sleep with my male colleague John because I am desperate to have children. As you can see, he is obviously taking advantage of me.
I do not physically resist him when he touches me even though I am entirely disgusted by the sex we are having but I let it happen because I am desperate for children. Clearly you can see that John from the office is attacking me
For victims like myself, when my co-worker starts having sex with me raping me, I can only cope by forcing my mind to think I am outside my body watching the act. This is the only way I can deal with the experience of being "violated" by him.

Never forget that rape is always about CONSENT. Not purpose. The fact that I didn't resist John because I actually want a baby is irrelevant. All that matters is that I never actually said yes to John."

Is John a rapist in this scenario? You be the judge.

vickyO: InesQor deserves a round of applause.

Ihe, reading through this thread, I've come to understand that you feel women can do something to prevent themeselves from being ra.ped?

Well, what do you think could have been done by an Indian lady who while standing with a male friend by the roadside waved down a taxi and upon entering got severly r.ap.ed she died the next two days?

With reference to your post, would you say she could have eluded these rapists if she had been able to fufil this:

It just doesn't add up.

The best solution you should have proffered here is for women to adopt Electra's style in the movie, Meet The Spartans. They should instead of wearing panties wear metal guards with metal locks.

The above soluTion can not win over a realistic mind.

The indian lady I mentioned was properly dressed in her sari and was returning from work. You should knoiw that she must have been very tired and was not in any way intending to radiate any form of allure.

I understand what you mean and I tell you this, trying to make sense from your point of view is quite a futile effort. The ra.p.ed is always the victim and since the ra.p.ist has got a perverted mind he or she remains the culprit and the one the whole blame should be apportioned.

Would you tell a girl of 6 who was ra.ped to find a way not to radiate allure when she barely knows what allure is? You shouldn't blame her or tell her how it was the fault of her allure radiation but bang the head of the f.U̶̲̥̅̊.c.king pervert against the egde of a pavement.

What of banks that get robbed? What of Nairaland that got hacked? What of persons killed by stray bullets? Or those killed in impromptu street fights? And other many what of's....

Yes, measures should be taken to prevent oneself from known and unknown danger but that only solves 1% of the problem. The solution is in fixing the 99%; pervese hearts.....

Quit thinking about the 1%, think about eliminating the 99%.

I might reply late if I'm quoted.

First off, it was never my claim that women do not get raped when they have taken care to protect themselves from rape. What I asked here on this thread is whether or not a woman can do anything to avoid rape. And I have gone on to explain that when a woman knows what her responsibility is and what it is not, she will become a little bit bolder about exposing anybody who either attempts to rape or succeeds at raping her and that would help to further curb rape.

To the meat of your response: if you think that measures should be taken at all, what exactly are you disagreeing with me on? The fact that 1% of rapes is not enough to matter? Would it matter more to you if you or someone you cared about was in that one per cent? Besides, like InesQor and pretty much everyone else who came in to insist that the victim can never be culpable, you too are talking from both sides of your mouth. If measures can be taken and they are not, the victim is not inculpable.

By the way, do you know for sure that it is only 1% of all rapes that is avoidable?

texanomaly:

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.

In the op, I examined another poster's comparison of rape to murder and attempted to point out that what makes a killing murder instead of, say, manslaughter or accidental death is usually the circumstances of the case under examination. I carried that over to rape to point out that thus sometimes, the circumstances of a rape matter. I pointed out that like in a killing that may be ruled as self-defence which places some of the fault for the killing on the victim themselves a woman may by that poster's comparison also be culpable in a rape although she may be the victim too. Then I asked what your logic was.

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.

The issue here is merely what the woman can do for herself. The man has his own responsibility and it is obvious: he has the power of choice. I don't think there's much more to say to that.

Ok I did miss this.




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.

I am sure that I didn't say that they couldn't go. I said that going without making arrangements for their safety is not a very good idea. I read once of a girl who went to a party where their drinks were spiked. Because she went in a group of girlfriends, they somehow managed to get each other home without falling prey to the logical end of that expedition. Besides there are parties that are not meant for law-abiding citizens.

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

I don't think you attacked me personally at any point. I just think that you did not give the op any merit at all and that reflected in your dismissal of everything I had to say. I do realize though that it is a very touchy issue. Women are normally weaker than men physically and it is inhumane for any male to take advantage of that, provocation or no. Men who are provoked have both the choice and the right to walk away from the temptation. Regardless how a woman is dressed or how she reacts to a man's sexual advances or how she appears to radiate sexual desire for a man, a man always has both the choice and the right to walk away. Thus, he lacks any excuse to force himself on her. This is so self-evident that I don't consider it worthy of further discussion.

I focus now on women because it is a fact that there are men who are poorly brought up, who are cruel, who are weak-willed and so on. They are as unrepentant a reality as the sun's heat. Therefore, women should be careful to protect themselves in case they ever encounter such men.

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.

I totally agree. And I thank you for seeing my point clearly now.

InesQor:
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?

Ok. So how do you propose that we prevent or dissuade the agents in this case? Shall we round up all rapists and shoot them dead? Who will you leave out during the census? The impotent men? Some women would advocate that they be shot too. Besides, unless they are fertile and their seed harvestable somehow or the fertile, potent men are harvested before they're all killed, the human race will die out. And if they're harvested and men are still born, rape will carry on because men hunt and conquer by instinct, not by learning.

And if you thought to instruct men to stop raping, doesn't that hopeful act contradict your thought that rapists can't be reasoned with? How then could you hope to reform them by instruction?

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?

Ok. I don't know whether you're trying to make my point and deliberately contradicting yourself into the bargain or something. If you consider protection of her body from harm a woman's own duty, how are you opposing me? Again, are you not the one who said earlier that we teach our girls to 'stay safe'? Why are you contradicting yourself now?

InesQor:

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?

If a woman knows what it is that she does or fails to do to attract rape, she can tell whether she did it or failed to do it if she suffers rape. Then she can either have the boldness to denounce her attacker or forgive herself and denounce him still. As long as it is unclear, all she has is a lot of confusion that makes her unwilling to face her experience and resolve it completely.

iheidnobi2 I'd appreciate if you can kindly stop mentioning me on this thread; if you choose to.

InesQor:
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.


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?

It isn't ridiculous, I'll freely admit. But the analogy still applies. The rules are different in one's private home than they are in public space. That is the point. Thanks for the correction, by the way, it's 'kevlar'.


Do you consider overcoming evil with good as meaning that we can eradicate evil on earth before Jesus comes back?

InesQor: iheidnobi2 I'd appreciate if you can kindly stop mentioning me on this thread; if you choose to.

I beg your pardon, but I did explain that I might do this. Bear with me please. Don't consider it as a call for you to come answer anything. If we had been discussing in private, I would have no need to do this.

InesQor:
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?

I mean that a man's sexual attention may be fun to have but it can turn nasty very fast. Cats are all of them playful, whether big or small. A domesticated tiger is just a big fluffy cat and it will nip like its tiny cousins but its nip could kill you. The same way a man's sexual attention when fully gained can be very dangerous.

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.

I wonder if you really think so. Would you keep your money with your doctor and go under the knife with your lawyer in charge or ask your accountant to defend you in the law court? A boyfriend is not a husband. You should not trust him with stuff you should be trusting your husband with.

MrAnony1:
Responding to the part highlighted in bold: I wonder how you can say that the woman was "physically subdued" when not only did she not physically resist sex from the man, she also wanted to have sex because she hoped to conceive by the act.

The scenario I showed you isn't any different. The man in my case equally did not physically resist his attacker because he wanted to have babies by her.

If you can't see that all you really presented was a woman who was committing adultery with the intent of having a child and saying that she was being taken advantage of then you are truly blinded by your bias towards the fairer sex.


Since you clearly don't count a rapist turned from his evil ways as an example of an improved character, I would have liked you to explain to me what character building really means but alas you are gone.


I see no problem with violating a person who violates someone else. This to me is fair and deserved punishment for crimes committed. You never gave a single reason why it isn't. Thanks for your time anyway.


Edit: I have rephrased my senario again (I know you won't respond but please read it now and judge for yourself if I am really being ridiculous or if I have been right about you being biased towards females. Only you can truly answer that question to yourself)

"I would rather sleep with my husband but I sleep with my male colleague John because I am desperate to have children. As you can see, he is obviously taking advantage of me.
I do not physically resist him when he touches me even though I am entirely disgusted by the sex we are having but I let it happen because I am desperate for children. Clearly you can see that John from the office is attacking me
For victims like myself, when my co-worker starts having sex with me raping me, I can only cope by forcing my mind to think I am outside my body watching the act. This is the only way I can deal with the experience of being "violated" by him.

Never forget that rape is always about CONSENT. Not purpose. The fact that I didn't resist John because I actually want a baby is irrelevant. All that matters is that I never actually said yes to John."

Is John a rapist in this scenario? You be the judge.

john is no r@pist in this scenario

rape as a crime is not just about plain consent,consent could also be obtained by coercion or under duress,u knw

lanaVello1: rape as a crime is not just about plain consent,consent could also be obtained by coercion or under duress,u knw

Thank you

These people dont know anything about law.
They argue out of ignorance


They know nothing of consent and duress.

lanaVello1:
john is no r@pist in this scenario

Good now consider this scenario presented by InesQor

" 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. . .

E.g. the woman has a husband/partner who she'd rather sleep with, but someone else is taking advantage of her because she is facing pressure about having no children. She may then not physically resist the attacker (in her desperation) even though she is entirely disgusted by the means to her end. For some victims, when rap'e is set into motion, they cope with the event by forcing their minds to think of themselves as third party observers. This is the only way their minds can deal with the violation they are experiencing. Such as this example would often involve such a coping mechanism. But never forget that rap'e is always about CONSENT. Not purpose."

Is this scenario above different from the one involving John? If so how? Secondly, would you say that the woman has been raped in this scenario? If so why?

ihedinobi2:

First off, it was never my claim that women do not get raped when they have taken care to protect themselves from rape. What I asked here on this thread is whether or not a woman can do anything to avoid rape. And I have gone on to explain that when a woman knows what her responsibility is and what it is not, she will become a little bit bolder about exposing anybody who either attempts to rape or succeeds at raping her and that would help to further curb rape.

To the meat of your response: if you think that measures should be taken at all, what exactly are you disagreeing with me on? The fact that 1% of rapes is not enough to matter? Would it matter more to you if you or someone you cared about was in that one per cent? Besides, like InesQor and pretty much everyone else who came in to insist that the victim can never be culpable, you too are talking from both sides of your mouth. If measures can be taken and they are not, the victim is not inculpable.

By the way, do you know for sure that it is only 1% of all rapes that is avoidable?

You fail to realise that the backdrop of my post was based on what you posted. Check my post to see was it was.

The culpability of a potential female ra.pe victim is not based on the fact that a woman radiates allure and even if she does radiate allure should it strike a man as an opportunity to pounce? A normal well thinking and psychologicallystable man wouldn't see a radiation of allure as a pass to dehumanized a female because female always radiate alure whether in a subtle way or a pronounced way; all it takes is a moment to have it figured out.

The one percent I mentioned is about the radiation of allure in women. As you'll only have to kill a leopard to remove its spot will you have to kill a woman to 'not' radiate allure. No matter who the woman is radiation of allure is particular to all of them no matter how substantially subtle.

Did you neglect my story of the six year old girl or the indian lady?

Forget about her balancing the allure cause once there is a trace of a trait no matter how minimal, it wil be found.

That's why I said quit the 1% solution you're suggesting, the problem is finding 100% solution to the 100% problem: the perv
ese heart of the ra.pist.

The only thing a woman can do to prevent herself from rape is to exemplify the illustration Electra portrayed in Meet The Spartan or blast his head with a shot gun.

vickyO:
You fail to realise that the backdrop of my post was based on what you posted. Check my post to see was it was.

The culpability of a potential female ra.pe victim is not based on the fact that a woman radiates allure and even if she does radiate allure should it strike a man as an opportunity to pounce? A normal well thinking and psychologicallystable man wouldn't see a radiation of allure as a pass to dehumanized a female because female always radiate alure whether in a subtle way or a pronounced way; all it takes is a moment to have it figured out.

The one percent I mentioned is about the radiation of allure in women. As you'll only have to kill a leopard to remove its spot will you have to kill a woman to 'not' radiate allure. No matter who the woman is radiation of allure is particular to all of them no matter how substantially subtle.

Did you neglect my story of the six year old girl or the indian lady?

Forget about her balancing the allure cause once there is a trace of a trait no matter how minimal, it wil be found.

That's why I said quit the 1% solution you're suggesting, the problem is finding 100% solution to the 100% problem: the perv
ese heart of the ra.pist.

The only thing a woman can do to prevent herself from rape is to exemplify the illustration Electra portrayed in Meet The Spartan or blast his head with a shot gun.

Do you think that the way women dress in a red light district encourages sexüal attention? Or does it not?

I did not neglect it. As I said, räpe is not eliminated completely by anything women do or don't do. But it is severely mitigated.

If that is your answer to räpe, you'll need a very large gun indeed because as long as there is a male human alive, räpe cannot be totally eliminated...unless Jesus has returned and judged the world.

this topic is disgusting.
ihedinobi, I hate to say this but your posts are very repulsive. There is no excuse for rap.e.

red101: this topic is disgusting.
ihedinobi, I hate to say this but your posts are very repulsive. There is no excuse for rap.e.

You must be really upset to come back and edit this post to tag me specifically. I'm not quite sure what you expect me to say to you. 'Sorry' for my repulsive posts? Or 'sorry' for the existence of râpists? Or 'sorry' that we live in an evil world and I have to remind women of that?

If you think there is no excuse (not that anyone here thinks that räpe is really excusable, if anything at all it is that it can be provoked or encouraged), you are very welcome to your opinion.