Rape Threats and Free Speech

That's hilarious, JJ. But you convince no one but yourself.

 

I'm not seeing the phrase "I feel" anywhere in the below. Looks to me like it's phrased as a statement of fact, accusing Ginger of being against things that are right and moral. I can understand that people lose their tempers, but I think that people who want to do right are able to apologize when they lose their tempers and say inappropriate things like the things that you said in the quote below. You owe Ginger a clear, unambiguous apology without excuses.

Yes, it's none of my business; it was Ginger that you attacked. I disagree with almost every social and political opinion that you have, so it's not as if I can say this as a member of your world. But seeing you behave in a way that I see as below your own standards, bothers me. So be it.

 

That's my point. To a lot of younger people the literal threat is no longer seen that way.

 

Ah, so the teams are being chosen then? 'Us vs. Them' and all that nasty little playground squabble?

Haven't you learned by now that I don't play childish games?

Ah, and just for posterity:

 

Two thoughts sprung to mind whilst reading this:
1) Is, e.g. a female politician more likely to receive rape threats if she's quite young, dresses in what's considered feminine (colorful skirts and blouses, high heels), and makes sure she's always well made-up with the perfect hairdo whenever the press is around?
2) This was already discussed on the previous page, but... I'm still very much torn when it comes to attires. I do think it's foolish of a girl to walk out at night, in a possibly bad neighborhood, dressed in high heels, a mini-skirt, and a tiny top, because to me that's a way to invite trouble (like going to a gang territory toting their rivals' tattoos, or barging into a pub wearing the wrong team's shirt), but on the other hand, if someone did rape her, I wouldn't blame her because if someone wants to dress like that, they should be able to do it without having to fear physical harm.

That is a terrible mindset, to consider every man a potential perp, but unfortunately in some rape victims the trauma causes them to fear men, or certain type of men. It's irrational, but in a way understandable. But I'd like to believe everyone here knows that yeah, you can trust a guy to take care of a drunk girl without him taking advantage of her. At least I've noticed that the men I've met and befriended have been more likely to go white knight than horny mongrel on me (and my female friends... omg or maybe we're just so fugly! j/k).

 

To the first point: it can be so close, as long as the circumstances are right, that it might as well be the same thing. For instance, if you've known true poverty and real hunger (and I don't mean a nip in the pit of your stomach -hungry, but not having eaten a single morsel in 3 days -hungry), at one point or another, you've probably considered stealing or doing something equally illegal, just to e.g. prevent having your family evicted from your home or to bring food to your starving children. I would say an urge to steal in a situation like that, especially if the perfect opportunity presented itself, can be far stronger than a horny guy's lust over a passed out, scantily clad girl. Yet most people would expect the poor man to still be able to tell right from wrong, and to choose the former, to find some other way to fix his problems. So, to comment on the second point, my question regarding rape is: what on Earth does the woman's looks / dress / level of intoxication have to do with anything?

The answer is 'absolutely nothing.' Bringing them up is just making excuses on behalf of the rapist. Placing any guilt on the woman is just cowardice that likely stems from one's own fears of falling from grace and committing rape if presented with that perfect opportunity.
I've seen scantily clad girls, even naked girls not ten yards from me while I've been married, yet I've never, ever had the urge to rape any of those girls (come to think of it, my marital status had nothing to do with it). At one of my band's gigs (at a fairly crummy bar), a girl climbed onstage and flashed her tits to the entire audience, yet she did not get raped even though she was drunk at the time and surrounded by horny guys. The same goes for the girl who dropped her pants and panties at a house party with plenty of drunken people around her: nobody laid a hand on her without her consent.

The complete absence of rape in both instances ought to be something of a miracle if exposed skin basically drove men crazy and made them unable to control their urges. Everyone kept their heads, however, despite their notable levels of intoxication, which would indicate that there's not much of a relationship between revealing outfits and rape, especially since incidents like these happen all around the world. The same goes for fully dressed, even unattractive women: they do get raped every now and then, but not when there are men present; they get raped when there are rapists present.
How come nobody is wondering why the girls present didn't force themselves on the guys who took off their pants / boxers at another house party? The restraint the females displayed was never even brought up to be marveled. I wonder why? Perhaps because any normal human can control their urges and their actions aren't dictated by simple visual stimuli?

But to reiterate: as someone here already pointed out, guilt is one thing, stupidity another entirely. Yes, it's stupid of a girl to pass out naked in front of a rowdy pub at three in the morning, but it doesn't make her even a little guilty of getting raped. Stupid, sure.

Perhaps a slight OT, but for some reason I find the first half of that sentence a bit disturbing, especially in the context of contemporary Western societies. I would never forbid my wife from doing anything; she's as free to make up her own mind about everything as she was when she was single. Sure, the consequence of, say, adultery would be a divorce, but I'd never forbid it.
Just like I'd never forbid women from wearing whatever they wanted, getting drunk, or flirting. They just have to live with the possible consequences of their choices, and sometimes those consequences can be bad, such as getting raped, simply because there are men in this world who see the above mentioned things as excuses to assault women. Stupidity, as long as it doesn't harm others, shouldn't be punishable.
I'm just glad that I'm married to a woman who thinks, like I do, that it's a good idea (and fun) to practice self-defense (its physical, psychological, and social aspects), that pubs / clubs, drinking, and flirting are boring as hell, and that a hoodie, BDU pants, and combat boots are far sexier (and much more pragmatic / comfortable) than miniskirts and high heels.

You're just too picky.

 

I have read the rest of this discussion, this post just seems to be the crux of the argument for me so I'll deal with it here.

This relies entirely on your understanding of the phrase 'sexuality frustrated' I think. It seems to me the enjoyment of sex is an evolutionary bonus that might be supercharged given our more complex brains, but if properly handled can be very heightened and enjoyable. Sex is so integral to any species survival that it seems to me obvious and perfectly natural that the sex drive (which is what assume we are both thinking about here) be a source of frustration if you are lonely and just aren't 'getting any'.

In my own experience this is very much not the case, but I'm the kind of person who sees a time and a place for titillation. As I said earlier, the human brain is a very complex thing, it can't be reduced to 'types', or generalities. That's why I was careful to write 'In my own experience' at the beginning of that previous sentence. To generalize in such a way as to equate the sex drive as a drug - interesting choice of imaginary too, I made the curious connection between sex and heroin as I read this. If someone is so emotionally immature that each sexual image they see chips away at the part of them that is more 'upright' then you might have a point, but I do not think this is exactly the case with most people. I especally don't think it is something that equates to sexual frustration in the sense I gave before.

Not at all. Sexual energies can be managed in other ways, it just so happens that sex and masturbation are jolly good fun. I've never had a so called 'dry-patch' in which if I didn't watch porn I would go out on the prowl; I really don't like your line of thinking here either, it doesn't sit right with me at all.

You are assuming here that a sexually charged culture is 'ours', you really need to define who the 'our' is in this sentence because sexualisation is certainly not unique to the modern world at all.

On a tour of Italy my parents took recently they visited Pompeii, one of the most amazing places my dad said he had ever visited, and while there they visited the well-known ruins of old Roman brothels. My dad as a good, 70s grammar school knowledge of Latin and was able to read some of the graffiti that can apparently still be seen on the walls (I've never been to Pompeii myself, I plan to soon though) and he said the thing that struck the most him was just how like us the Roman people where. The conversation in graffiti was exactly the sort of things that can be heard between any friends when the subject went in that direction. 'I have the biggest penis around' signed one Roman, 'Not as big as mine' signed another in response. 'My penis is so big it could pleasure Venus' signed another, and just on and one like that.

The Romans are famed for this (apparently wrongly, Roman orgies were apparently not as common place as is believed), they are in no way alone in this. The Greeks were very accepting sexuality, and very experimental. In fact to the Greeks it was considered best to be bisexual and not shy. I've seen with my own eyes (I think it was on either Rhodes or Kos - something tells me Kos) a Greek vase with a line of men having anal sex, in a kind of train. Sex was a huge part of the classical world.

And it doesn't stop there, I'm willing to bet that most human cultures in history were highly charged sexually. I'm also willing to bet that those cultures that rejected the pleasures of casual sex are perhaps something of an anomaly.

Sex is a good way to help a culture, and our species, to survive. Our modern world is barely even unique, aside from the fact that it's just more readily available to those who want it. The question I can't help but ask myself is 'is such a frivolous attitude to sex a good thing?' and honestly, I don't think it is. Surprising, I know.

 

Sorry JJ, this might look like I'm picking you out but I'm really not - there is just so much of your 'speak' that I disagree with, feel free to counter or ignore.

I don't know what kind of porn you watch but we've already had this is another thread. There is good honest porn where the participants are treated and paid well to entertain their audience. Other porn is vile and evil - I think we all know which is which.

You would never allow her? Seriously? If you're wife decided she wanted to see the inside of one of those houses of sin that sold beer you wouldn't allow her?

Yeah, Let's all vote for the Taliban!

My mam used to say that when I was six - clean pants, Jesus might come back!

There's only ever one person guilty of rape - the rapist.

As a Christian you have the right to feel the way you do but as a Catholic so do I and I think you give all Christians a bible-bashing bad name. They didn't have those beliefs when Jesus himself was knocking about so why now? It reminds me of Bush saying America should be more like the Waltons and less like the Simpsons. Yeah let's all go back and live on Walton Mountain with no money and no tech and no freedom watching our sons getting dragged off to world wars.

I can't believe any man in the Western World would not 'allow' his wife to do anything. It's her choice. Who are you (or I) to say our women must live by our rules? You have the idea that if a girl dresses sexily and drinks in a bar she's advertising she's on heat. I love to see women dressed up in bars. How shit would bars be otherwise? I can appreciate a good looking woman, in a mini skirt or a long dress, in a boob tube or an Arran jumper. I don't go around with my dick out looking to force it in somewhere like you seem to suggest - correct me if I'm wrong and I'll be glad to back down but I'll say it again, when rape has been committed there is only one person to blame.

I'm sure a lot of guys here have been in the situation where 'the deal' was on until the last second and the guy has backed out graciously. I know I have and when I say last second I mean last second but the girl changed her mind and that was that. I don't expect a medal for respecting unwritten rules and neither should any man. I have 2 girls and a wife - I hope men respect them as much as I respect the wishes of other women I have known.

 

Whenever I hear thinking like JJ's I can't help but wonder whether all American men (as he describes them) would turn into dribbling messes and sex offenders if they came on a holiday on my little island in the Adriatic. Everyone walks around in tiny bikinis, topless, mini skirts, boob tubes etc. 'Scantily clad' or 'sexually attractive' doesn't even begin to describe our stunning, tanned, athletic, gorgeous women and girls, and guess what? Men are completely used to that and there are no gropings or staring or anything. In fact, they appreciate a good body, as do women, but that's all it is - an appreciative smile or a compliment. It is the puritanism and compulsive hiding of women's bodes, that make men into mad dogs when they finally see some T&A.

Men shouldn't have to surf for porn in order to see women, they should be able to see, experience and finally, come to terms with women, their bodies and appeal, in everyday life. It is perfectly possible and not only does it not create frustrates rapists, it vastly decreases sexual inappropriatness towards women.

All this has absolutely nothing with rape. Rapists are violent power-driven criminals, who will rape a nun or an elderly women as well as young and attractive college student, it makes no difference. Because rape is NOT about sex, it's about power which is gained by sexually harming another. It's more analogous with knife stabbing, than intercourse.

 

The first time I was going to have sex with my then girlfriend, there was contact without penetration when she said she wasn't sure. No sexytime that night. So yeah, it's all on the rapist - even if she says "rape me".

Worst. Libertarian. Ever.

 

[MENTION=35110]jazzabel[/MENTION]:
Maybe saunas should be introduced to every culture? x)

Reminds me of our confirmation camp (not sure if e.g. Americans or Brits have these camps or if it's a Nordic thing). Teenagers, nudity and God. Sinful or perfectly normal?

You guessed it (or maybe not). But it was the latter.

Also, no rapes.

 

[MENTION=55406]Orihalcon[/MENTION]: That's hilarious
[MENTION=53403]KaTrian[/MENTION]: Definitely saunas for everybody

 

Hell yeah!

 

[MENTION=35110]jazzabel[/MENTION]

I'm glad this point was reiterated. It seems sexually driven, alcohol induced date rape has become analogous with all rapes and is being used as the main representative. Do you have a statistic on what percentage of rape and sexual assaults are felt to be sexually driven?

 

Woah, where the fuck did that come from? You had me until you started sounding like Kevin Spacey in Se7en.

Yes, that explains the many denominations of Christianity and countless debates between theists, atheists, biblical scholars and theologians.

I agree with ChickenFreak, you owe Ginger an apology. You're throwing around accusations of intolerance, completely disregarding the fact that NONE of Ginger's previous arguments had any subtext of prejudice towards your beliefs. The only reason she associated you with your Christian beliefs was because YOU brought them up, going all John Doe on us. I'm sorry, but in an objective, facts-based discussion, your beliefs are irrelevant.

I suspect your opinions would be more welcome if they weren't disguised as facts supported by numbers YOU made up.

Word? Here are some opinions of my own:
- I think your views on pretty much everything you've said are appalling, outdated and worthy of a little ridicule.
- I believe you need http://www.auburn.edu/academic/education/reading_genie/Fact-opinion.html more than anyone else in this thread.
- In my opinion, your wife has the right to go wherever the fuck she pleases.

 

[MENTION=53984]Garball[/MENTION]: There are no rapes that are purely sexually motivated. All rapes are primarily motivated by aggression. However, there are prolific, serial rapists (they are pretty rare) that have been found to have constant intrusive fantasies and high sex drive. There are various studies out there, that attempted to analyse the relationship between sex and violence, that measured arousal response to various images in normal men and the offenders, which amongst other things found that these compulsive rapists are most aroused by extremely violent images, even those not involving sexual themes. This was in stark contrast to normal men, who didn't show such response.

However those studies showed that being exposed to violent pornography for even short periods of time (hours) decreased the negative response in normal men, showing that tolerance to violent images develops quickly, and decreases empathic response to women and victims of sexual violence. Look around Google, these studies have been out for many years, they all show the same thing.

Sex and aggression centres in men's brain are related, and in some they get crosswired so the only way they can get aroused (get an erection and orgasm) is by utilising violence. Obviously, in vast majority of men, it leads to no violence whatsoever, rather, it accounts for a slightly aggressive, dominant manner that they go about pursuing things they want (not just sex but anything). In other words, it's completely safe and normal. The biggest effect of this tolerance is lack of empathy for victims of violence, which is anyway very firmly established trend in most if not all societies and this is the rationale for decreasing violence and sexual violence in the media, to re-set the empathy back where it should be in order to have a less violent world.

So, these compulsive rapists are probably as rare as psychopaths, the rest of men who rape (still a huge minority of men) do so out of personal hangups or need to assert power over someone. Sadly enough, it's as simple as that. This is why chemical castration doesn't work for the majority of the offenders.

 

amen to that!

and it was originally written down on indestructible paper by god himself, in perfect southern baptist dialect english, right?... with all humans born since being capable of reading and understanding that language?

 

While I am convinced, as you say, that rape is not primarily a sexual act, where do you put date rape in this scheme?

 

[MENTION=53143]GingerCoffee[/MENTION]: The same place where I put a married doctor or a dentist who drugs their patients and rapes them during an appointment. It's the same profile of premeditated violence, usually consistent with power-reassurance type rapists. It takes them buying a drug, selecting the victim, grooming her to make her let her guard down, slipping it into her drink, dragging her back somewhere and doing it. You think that's about sex? Think again.

Date rapists aren't just 'college kids with a whole future ahead of them, who did one stupid thing'. They are violent predators who got caught early.

Dr Michele Pathe did some early classifications of types of rapists years ago, since then they've become popular terms. I can only find a few papers of hers on stalking on Google, but if you are researching, her and her other colleagues (prof Mullen etc) have some excellent quality papers on all this.

 

I feel I need to clarify a few things.

I understand I am in the minority on this message board and even more so in this thread. That's alright. I will try to clarify some things that have been wrongly labeled on me.

Regarding Rape: There is no excuse for a rapist. They are guilty of a serious crime and, in my opinion should be punished on par with murder, because you are basically destroying any type of normal life for that woman. If you read my previous posts in their entirety, you will see that I never excused a man who commits a rape. I believe that when that man stands before God, he will be the lone person to answer for his sin.

Regarding Women's Clothing: Women are free to make their own choices on what they wish to wear. It is not my place to judge others outside my family and my faith. My personal belief however, is that the overall sexualization of our young women contributes to the the sexual deviancy in our culture. [MENTION=2124]Lemex[/MENTION] - ...and by 'our' culture I mean Western civilization and the modern world.

And yes, my belief comes from my faith, and from the Bible, and I am not ashamed of that. The Bible says:

I don't believe that exposing your breasts or wearing clothes meant to show to others those things which should be private, is acceptable and holy to God. Again, I am not forcing any of you to believe this, but this is my belief as a Christian.

Regarding My Wife: [MENTION=55406]Orihalcon[/MENTION] - I'm afraid you are misunderstanding my marriage. My wife and I are both Christians, and we both entered into our relationship with the understanding that we will live our lives according to God. As the man, God is the head of my family, and my wife is under me, and the children under her. She is not chained in my basement as I'm sure you are imagining. In fact, she is standing here reading this with me right now and is offended at the thought that you think of her as not having freedom. We both follow the Bible, which says:

Notice there is more text about how a husband should treat his wife? I am responsible for my wife in every aspect of her well-being, financially, physically, emotionally and spiritually and I will be held accountable for how I shepherded my family.

If my wife is willingly and happily in a relationship based on commonly held beliefs, how does that make me less of a libertarian? It doesn't.

So there you have it, in my own words. Many people are paraphrasing my beliefs or simplifying my opinions incorrectly, I would ask that even if you don't believe in my Christianity, that you respect my religious beliefs as much as you would respect an atheist, or Mormon, or Muslim.

I respect everyone's right to have a broad array of views and opinions. As was stated in the other thread that got shut down, there's no reason we can't remain friendly and respectful even if we disagree.

Now that I have clarified these things, I think we can get back on topic.

 

No, but you also put half the blame on his victim.

You're entitled to hold that belief, man. Just know that when you phrase an opinion as a factual statement, people are going to wanna see some evidence for your claim. Also, expect people to disagree with your opinions.

You're not forcing us to believe it, but you've been parading your beliefs around like it's the absolute truth. That you're unquestionably right. Because you think God is unquestionably right. And anyone who disagrees is immoral, vile or deviant (I'm paraphrasing but these are words you used).

Excellent example of freedom and equality. Also a great jab at a straw-man.

Now you wanna play the victim? I respect your right to hold those beliefs, even if I think they are ridiculous.


EDIT:

Barry believes he's inferior to Larry and that it's his duty to be subservient to him. Larry shares this belief. Larry is a libertarian.

The thing is, your beliefs are fundamentally contradictory. But look, I'm glad to hear you treat your wife well and all.

 

As sanco pointed out, you still place half the blame on the rape victim. That's what people are calling you out on, because, I'm sorry, but it is BS.

Thank God the laws of Western societies don't view women like that anymore, as 2nd class citizens. Must be good to be man in your household when you wield absolute power since you're the highest real authority (as far as I know, God will never appear and point it out to you if / when you are misinterpreting His word for your personal benefit).

Both of those attitudes share a link: they are a good breeding ground for violence towards women because they place blame on the victim (even if not entirely) and lessen the severity of rape as an act when it's a man, a 1st class citizen, trodding down a woman, a 2nd class citizen, a lesser human.

 

Half? No. I never said that. I have clarified myself twice now, and if you refuse to critically read my specific points, then I'm not going to repeat myself. Please re-read all my posts in their entirety. Thank you.

This is a discussion forum and everything should be assumed to be an an opinion, unless backed up by evidence. Am I held to a different standard than everyone else? I could quote scores of other posts here that are peoples opinions, and they have not been targeted as I have. But again, I understand the bias most people have toward 'religious folks'. I shouldn't have to place a disclaimer on every one of my posts. As I said, everyone has the right to disagree with my opinions, and a lot of people do, what makes the difference is how you respond to someone you disagree with.

See above reply and I will post this from one of our moderators one more time:

Him and I get together wonderfully. We disagree on a great many things but he respects my views and I respect his.

This makes no sense. Are you insinuating my wife isn't free? Who are you to tell her how to live her life? She is happy living the life that she chose and she would get on here and tell you so herself.

Not the victim, just the minority and I know how easy it is for people to gang up on others who are different or don't conform to a certain set of beliefs.

 

I hold her higher than myself and treat her as the precious gift that she is. In no way do I consider her 'lower than me'. Don't confuse authority with worth.

 

I completely agree. These kinds of blatantly hypocritical attitudes designed to cater to power-tripping males is what keeps most of the today's fundamentalist forms of religion alive. Many, if they had no religion to call upon, would have no real skill or worth as human beings, to inspire anyone to actually willingly follow their authority. Using 'fear of God' to intimidate is just so damn easy. Church gives them the power to do so, purely based on external appendage located, usually, somewhere in the groin area.

My parents in law are devout Catholics and they consider this kind of 'doctrine' sickening. Using Jesus or Christianity to perpetuate shameless subjugation of women should be illegal. Just call it a consensual BDSM relationship and be done with it...