Rape Threats and Free Speech

See my edit.

 

To be honest, I generally avoid responding to your posts anymore for a number of reasons. So the fact that I am doing so here means this post really, really caught my eye, and to put it bluntly, it's probably the best post I've read of yours in quite some time. The statistics speak for themselves, and when you incorporate the two largest ones, that most of the attacks happen at home, and when the person is asleep, that really says a lot.

To that point, it is the very reason I believe that anyone (especially female) that lives alone should have some type of early warning device (alarm or dog that is a breed that will be protective enough to bark repeatedly when someone is entering the house), and the ability to defend themselves thereafter. I won't turn this into a thread on using firearms to protect against rape, but it is my belief. The sad fact is the saying, which I originally heard from a State Patrol officer: when you need us in seconds, we're only minutes away. Anyone and everyone should keep that in mind when thinking through self-defense scenarios.

Excellent post, Ginger.

 

Very true. I guess defending your position makes you more vigilant about leaving weaknesses, because readers can be ruthless cynics if you don't have your position well established.

Edit: Also, I like JJ. He has strong and deep convictions and I think that's commendable. I disagree with a lot of it, but that's ok. I understand his position and respect it.

 

You haven't been voting for him in the short story contests, have you?

 

123 I already said I am not his slave and heck yeah I voted for Stephenie and Jason write a story... I helped and it had my name in it...duhhhhhh

 

Thank you WAC I respect that. I am not being controlled I think in sense that you are use to. I can do what I want and hang out with who I want whenever I want (though that is hard with a 3 year old I must say). I can wear what I want. There is no control most of it I believe is just J.J using the wrong words. Like I said before it is out of respect. I respect him and he really is a great guy if you can get past his pig headedness. lol

 

The problem with that however, is that many people miss the rest of that principle. It was the man who (1) was at her side but remained silent thus showing his failure along hers and causing him to be no less guilty, (2) while she was deceived, he made the choice to create separation from God, placing a greater share of the burden on him. This understanding is reinforced in chapter three due to the patterning of questioning/condemning. Eve is found in the middle, which, while accounting for part of the structure, is not highlighted in any way. Adam however, is mentioned first and last, highlighting his foundational failure and ultimate punishment. The Serpent is mentioned third, pointing to the ultimate responsibility of one greater than Adam or Eve for the deception.

That, plus the theology of the writer/redactor of Genesis 1-2 points to Eve not as less fully human, but as exactly equal, a helpmate when anything that was not fully human was not acceptable as an equal. Theologically, the author/redactor has placed the creation of man/woman together in the end of Genesis one, "let us make the adam in our image, and so God created him (referenced here is a singular whole, rather than man as opposite of woman), male and female He created them."

In the second account of creation in chapter two, the command was not given to the woman, but to the man. Then, God took from the man to make woman. This is not a subservience, but a splitting of the whole into parts, as the use of the rib evidences. Furthermore, the "bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" is covenantal language identifying the sameness over and against the otherness of everything else that was created. The idea of paternalism is further destroyed in this text by the inclusion of sapiential literature in the following verse: this is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh. Notice that the house that is left isn't the woman's house, it's the man's house, and the man's family. When this is read in light of the above, what is derived is an equality between man and woman.

That then flows into the story of the fall and the serpent, whereby Adam was silent, thus gaining the harsher punishment. By that I mean, according to the theology of the text, the woman suffers for Eve's actions only during childbirth (yes, I recognize the utter painfulness of childbirth, the idea here in an agrarian society however, is not level of pain, but length of suffering). The man must suffer everyday for his silence, both by working the fields that are now cursed, and then by coming home and step out of being silent by being the "authority" in the household, when, according to the text, the man would rather remain silent.

Don't have the time (or the desire) right now to go through it all, but a good portion of that "authority" in the house means specifically the responsibility to engage and be active with the family, again, the very thing Adam did not do in the Garden.

So I struggle with the idea of placing justification of dehumanizing women on the biblical text, especially that of the creation and the fall. Instead, I would place it on the multitude of bad/cultural interpretation that has eisegeted it into the text. (Unless of course, the author is dead!)
_______________

By the way, a great big tip of the cap to you for the way you handled your above post (the whole thing, not just the part I snipped) in an area that really was pretty sensitive. I'm very impressed and think an extremely lot of you for the way you did that.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIgFbqRngjA

 

Are all the guys in your hypotheticals either horndogs or prudes? Considering this is a writing forum, I'd think you'd come up with hypothetical characters that weren't so one-dimensional.

 

@JJ: Your attitudes are misogynistic. I am not quite sure how bringing a new nickname that claims to be your wife changes anything you said so far? Don't you understand that it is the ridiculous things you said, claiming that women are second class citizens and partly to blame when they get raped, the only thing anyone's objecting to? Sheesh..

@EC Scrubb: The only problem with the Bible is that it rests on an utterly ludicrous and inaccurate claims that a 'woman was made from man's rib'. However, the science of embryology has taught us that in utero it's exactly the opposite. All foetuses develop 'female' sexual proto-organs which are then changed in male foetuses by specific hormones which 'masculinise' the reproductive organs. If the hormone gene is missing, or malfunctioning, genetic males will be born with ambiguous or female genitalia and many will not even know they are genetic males until they get investigated for infertility later in life.

Default state (the 'primary' 'first' and the rest of oversimplified terminology that can be applied) will always develop into what looks like a female.

So, you see, the Bible got it 100% wrong, because, if you want to simplify it to meaningless banality, as it's simplified in the Bible, then the female form and physiology IS the elementary state gender-wise, and males are a 'version' on the theme. Not that it matters at all, people are free to believe in Lord Xenu the Omnipotent if they wish, but when I see people claim the biblical 'truth' in order to justify misogynistic values, which aim to represent a women as an afterthought, a secondary creation and by default 'below' a man, (thus trying to justify the claim that men have unquestionable power over any and every woman just because of their genitals) I can't help but cringe at the ignorance, lack of education and lack of understanding of biology.

To imagine women were subjugated for centuries, even burnt at stakes as witches and all the rest of it, based on complete BS, just makes me determined to do anything I can to not let it happen again. And given half the chance, many substandard males would jump at the opportunity to control women again. After all, you can't say NO to your master, can you?

 

Look, if the man isn't the head of the household, Family Feud has been misconstructed for almost thirty years. Who are you to argue with one of the most popular game shows ever?

 

Hi, the name's [corrupted text]. Now you know two.

The one time I had a one-night stand it was just a boring experience, the sex was so mediocre because there wasn't anything else to it. This was in my undergraduate days, when I was getting busy a lot more than I do now but that experience has colored my opinion of it.

Looking over his posts ... no, I wouldn't define JJ as a misogynist. A misogynist is someone who hates women, I don't see any hatred in what he's saying. JJ's views are certainly chauvinistic, but not misogynistic. They don't mean the same thing. His views are actually pretty typical of people who hold strongly religious views, and even - also - among fringe communities, like Travelers. It is an old-fashioned, but still pretty common view.

 

[MENTION=44992]JJ_Maxx[/MENTION] & [MENTION=49152]Nameless Wildflower[/MENTION], I'm glad to hear you have a happy marriage even though it's pretty much the opposite of mine when it comes to beliefs Wildflower, we do share a lot though; like how we don't want to do things that make the other feel uncomfortable out of respect towards them, not out of slavery. It goes both ways though. If my man purposefully annoyed me because it's his right, I'm pretty darn sure I could get a guy who wouldn't do that.

However, I feel kind of bad that your marriage has been dragged through a dark, dark thread like this, and calling someone a misogynist is hurtful when they perceive themselves not to be such (and like Lemex pointed out, is not, but this isn't the first time the word's being thrown around rather lightly). Hey, but at least you haven't been called Fred and Rosemary West! (like T.Trian and I... ) Your words just have gotten twisted around a bit; chewed, processed, and regurgitated. Basically it's the same stuff, but it looks very different and way uglier.

All the best to you guys! Hugs

And it's not always a guy who takes advantage of a girl in these type of situations.
Unfortunately I can't link the story here because it's nowadays password protected, but it's about a teenage boy who was taken advantage of by a girl who didn't take no for an answer because the guy had already "opened the door" by making out with her earlier. When he was drunk and groggy, she rid him off his virginity. He wasn't happy because he had wanted to lose it on his own terms, hence not taking the random girl all the way to the last base in the first place.

 

The question of the bible being right or wrong is not up for debate. It is a matter of faith, and by definition, faith is not debatable and I won't do that here.

What I was debating, however, was how the narrative was interpreted. So if you would like to discuss the method of interpretation of the verses above, I would love to have that discussion as it involves the general topic and also involves the way I was answering WAC.

But again, the issue of the Bible being right or wrong in itself isn't something I'm willing to debate. And to reiterate, I say that as a matter of faith, not as a matter of "scientific fact" or anything else.

 

Thank you. I'd give you rep, but I can't yet. Need to spread it around a bit.

Everyone, can we move this thread away from a debate on the Bible. Please have a little respect and consideration for to other forum users and their personally held beliefs.

 

I will have to strongly disagree. Male chauvinism is a strong part of misogynistic culture and is directly exacerbating rape culture. This is a fact proven in just about any study on this topic. I shan't quote any here, as it is common knowledge, but all you need to do is open any textbook of psychology, sociology, women's studies, police manuals, the list is endless. Many books and thesis were written on women's issues and I simply assumed that everyone is reasonably educated in recognising these damaging attitudes.

I was also pointing out to JJ to stop using Christianity as an excuse for his views, as I know many devout Christians, my closest family, who find his views as abhorrent as I do.

I am not saying anything about JJ, I am criticising the attitudes he displayed here. You'll notice that I never said JJ is a misogynist. I never met him in real life and I have absolutely no idea who he is as a person. I said he has misogynist attitudes, and I stand by my statement. Reading his posts I am shocked, frankly, at ignorance and the rest if it (I said enough by now, I'd be only repeating myself). However, I give him the right, I emphasised this numerous times, to hold utterly offensive views. And I will exercise my right to point them out politely every time I see it. I consider this my duty, as the citizen of the free world, as a woman, sister, wife, friend, neighbour, health professional, writer. All these compel me to not keep quiet when I encounter a person who is vehemently maintaining male chauvinistic and correspondingly, misogynistic views.

If we must agree to disagree on this, I am more than happy to do so, as always

 

I'm well aware of the link between the two - I have a reasonable understanding of psychology and sociology myself. I'm just being careful to separate the two because I know there is also a separation between them. Just because they might even overlap doesn't mean they are the same thing, but this is just semantics I guess.

 

Hm, I think I'll have to pass E.C, since your very offer already contains logical fallacies, and you know it's impossible to even have a debate unless both sides are prepared to work without resorting to logical fallacies instead of valid arguments. I still respect your views, of course

 

[MENTION=2124]Lemex[/MENTION]: Yeah, it is only semantics, none of these can be viewed in isolation, they are all less or more socially acceptable expressions of same underlying idea, of making women lesser then men by default. All these other problems stem from that single motivation. Psychologically speaking.

 

That's right. It's dominance. It's something you find in a lot of people who hold strong beliefs, especally those who think in a hierarchy. Rather masochistic, but if both parties are ok with the idea I really don't give an owl's hoot.

 

[MENTION=2124]Lemex[/MENTION]: Neither do I. Couples are free to create any dynamic between themselves that suits them, and you'd be surprised at how creative people can get. But when these misogynistic views are presented as 'God's will' and when everyone who lives a different kind of life is derided as a 'vile sinner' and when a woman is forced to share the blame for her rape just because she went to a bar or wore a short skirt, on the background of centuries of torture in which a woman was a possession, and a vessel with no human rights, then I have a problem with it.

 

[MENTION=35110]jazzabel[/MENTION] - I think it's funny that you are the most entrenched in your extreme views than anyone else in this thread.

There are derogatory words for your type of female-centered thinking but out of respect for you I would never use them.

Numerous people here have debunked your claim that Bible-believing Christians are misogynists. You have completely ignored every post that has been made by myself and multiple others pointing out the flaws in your thinking about a Christ-centered marriage.

I get it that your virulently anti-religion and anti-traditional marriage. You have that right but insinuating someone hates women and alleging that my wife is fictitious just kind of shows a deep lack of respect for diversity.

EC is dead on. My job is to 'love my wife as Christ loved the church.' Well, what did Christ do for the church? He was tortured and killed for the church. He sacrificed everything. That's what I am commanded to do.

I don't think you will find any scientific evidence that a true Christian relationship causes anything but a closer walk with God. Rape goes contrary to everything a Christian stands for and I think saying there's a connection is just your feminist views overriding your common sense.

 

Slippery slope my friend.


@ JJ-

Ignore, Jazzabel, dude. You have a loving wife, who, seemingly touched many of us here by her decision to defend you. You've explained your views clearly, and, despite vast liberal bias on this thread, definitely got some good points across. You don't need to worry about her vitriol.

 

Thanks. I am the most blessed man in the world for having such a wonderfully woman in my life. I don't know where I would be without her. Without going into detail, she saved me through a very difficult time in my life. She is truly a shining jewel.