Rape Threats and Free Speech

Oh, I'm sorry. You didn't specify what percentage of the blame went towards the victim. Forgive me for thinking the term "double-edged sword" implied the blame was equally shared.

Again, stop playing the victim. You're not being oppressed or treated unfairly. In fact, in the country you live in, you are part of the majority. The reason no-one else has been called out for stating an opinion is because no-one's worded their opinion as a cold, hard fact. For fear of getting another "stop misquoting me" response from you, here's an example: "We already know that watching porn leads to negative consequences both emotionally and psychologically, the same cannot be said for being hungry or wanting a new car."

So what? I'm supposed to tolerate intolerance because of a quote from a moderator?

 

So now my Christian faith perpetuates violence toward women, make my wife a lower human being and now I have 'no real skill or worth as a human being'? This is so far from the truth and has no basis in reality. But, please, continue to ignore all my posts so you can further your hatred.

 

As this thread has taken a turn toward hatred and bullying, I will take my leave. Take care.

 

[MENTION=44992]JJ_Maxx[/MENTION]: It was an exaggerated statement, and if you believe that freedom is a property that may be given away, it doesn't go against libertarianism. My statement was simply referring to the fact that libertarians almost always are against taking away the freedoms of others; in contrast, your relationship with your wife gives you such authority, and you have already practiced this authority. Whether or not you and your wife are happy is irrelevant to me and my statement. I was implying that it is unbecoming of a libertarian to take away the freedoms of others; more importantly, it is perverted that one shares an ideology such as libertarianism with another that implores the infringement of freedoms of others. I'm not saying what you should or what you shouldn't do, but I just found it ironic and funny.

 

I don't see Christianity at fault here, but your interpretation of it, yes, to a degree anyway. You say "my wife is under me," and since the context implies you didn't mean it literally, but figuratively, it means what? That you and your wife are equal? Since she's below you, how could she be equal to you? And if she's not above or equal, there's only one conclusion left: she's below you, i.e. sub-par, and that simply because of her sex.
You honestly don't see a correlation between that kind of an attitude, one that puts women down in relation to men (i.e. they are "under" men like your wife is under you), and men who view women as lesser humans, something that can be used for whatever purpose the men, who are above women, choose?

You are right about not having specified 50/50 blame, but you did say "It's a loaded question, of course to remove the guilt of a woman who dresses provocatively and drinks in excess. My point is that there is guilt on both sides." Bolding added by yours truly.

The point others are trying to convey here is that no blame of the act of rape should be placed on the woman, no matter her dress or level of intoxication. She may be guilty of stupidity, but that's not the same thing. Should we blame teenage girls (13-15yo) if they get molested while wearing tiny shorts and a string top? Most girls that age already understand there's a relationship between showing skin and looking sexy, so since they, like adult women, do understand, at least on some level, that their attires can be seen by some as arousing, should we think that part of the blame of getting molested lies on them? If not, why should we do so when it comes to women?

 

[MENTION=44992]JJ_Maxx[/MENTION]

Are you serious? Jesus Christ, I thought I was having a dialogue with you. Hatred and bullying? Really?

You give fucking Macklemore (out of all the rappers you could choose) as an example of Western civilisation's moral decay, you make false claims backed up with shoddy statistics, you imply that the act of rape is partly the victim's fault, you criticise women who dress "provocatively" or are promiscuous (failing to put promiscuous men under the same scrutiny), you ramble on about your beliefs all of a sudden way out of left field, you falsely accuse a member of targeting you out of some personal grudge against religious people, you spew some misguided 'facts' about pornography, you display a blurred understanding of opinions, you get called out on your behaviour and instead of apologising, you respond as if people are teaming up against you, you post a quote from Lemex and when even Lemex disagrees with you, you post a response attempting to "clarify" the horribly misconstrued things people have put in your mouth, you justify all of this with a few bible verses, you're no longer a militant puritan, but an innocent Christian being victimised by the majority, when I don't buy your bullshit, you act all offended, you twist jazzabel's WHOLE post into making you look like you're being attacked and now you bow out? Like we're the bad guys?

 

I heard Billy Bob Thornton is starring in a new movie - Bad Sanco!

 

Actually, yes, as T.Trian says, "to a degree".

Which you don't seem to notice in your own posts.

And herein lies an important underlying issue, perceived male authority/dominance and how it contributes to rape culture.

Victim blaming is an extension of attempting to exert control.

I came across a fascinating new website of social commentary, The Hampton Institute - A Working-Class Think Tank. It's quite left leaning and I've not had time to fully digest the content, but their piece on the rape culture within pornography was well written:

Creampies, Gang-bangs and Cumshots: What Pornography Reveals about Rape Culture

My only complaint about the piece is it not addressing other types of porn that might present women as sexual beings in their own right. Personally, porn isn't my thing. But I do insist on my right to enjoy sex and not be called a whore or slut because of it. So if some women like some kinds of porn, more power to them.

A woman dressing provocatively has every right to do so. It's not just that she shouldn't be blamed, it's that she shouldn't been seen as contributing to any assault. This is completely different from risk reduction. And we should be able to talk about risk reduction without conflating it with victim blame. Not walking down a dark alley alone, that's risk reduction. Being careful what you consume in the way of alcohol and drugs, that's risk reduction (for a number of reasons).

If I choose to get in my car and drive somewhere, I'm taking risks. There's no guilt assigned in driving one's car. I might have guilt if I drive recklessly or while intoxicated, but the decision to drive the car is not assigned any guilt despite the fact that decision poses risk.

Risk reduction is always a matter of choices. It's easy to choose to use a seatbelt, so that risk reduction decision is a no brainer. But who would choose to never go anywhere in a vehicle in order to reduce one's risk? Not too many people. If I choose to go out to a bar, or a party, and dress in a way I think is sexy, that's a choice which is essentially no different from choosing to risk driving my car. I wouldn't choose to go home with a stranger these days, but at the time I did it and the idiot sat on me, it was a socially common thing to do and I don't regret all the other guys I liked when I first met them. I'm glad I have such an adventurous nature. The rewards have been well worth the risks. I'm lucky not to have suffered any serious physical injury. But what a shame it would have been to miss everything I've experienced because I feared I would come across one of those dangerous men.

 

The post that JJ_Maxx quoted from me about intolerance was not made in this thread, and even if it was this wouldn't matter at all. The fact that I disagree with some of what he said here does not make what I said in the post JJ quoted redundant.

Besides, I actually agree with something JJ said, that we shouldn't be so frivolous and light-hearted about sex. I think it should be treated in a more sober, mature way than it is in our current society. This is part of what he was saying, and this part I fully agree with. I have my reasons - for example, overpopulation is starting to be a problem for our planet's resources. What I was doing was more offering a critique of a post he made, it certainly cannot be reduced to a simple 'Yey or Ney'.

 

Just curious. Why does she need do?

That's question 1. Question 2. What if men and women dressed exactly the same?

I'm not arguing...yet. Just genuinely curious.

 

Human nature. We evolved to flirt and strut, men and women both. And then there is the massive cultural pressure, marketing, the media, and all that.

 

I dress like my wife at Halloween fancy dress parties but during the rest of the year? That's just silly!

 

Didn't read this thread too carefully...but I thought the whole discussion of this thread was about quelling human nature?

 

I think your first sentence here is on point. I don't think Libertarianism really enters into things here. As a Liberatarian you have your own agency and are presumably free to interact with others in whatever way is mutually agreeable to the both parties. That would include being in a relationship that creates a gender-based hierarchy.

I don't agree with the approach. I'm not a religious person, nor would I want to be in a relationship with a subservient woman. That said, however, if JJ_Maxx and his wife both freely enter into that relationship, and both choose to freely remain in it, then no one's liberties or freedoms have been taken from them. They're living as they both wish to, and have the freedom to make that decision.

 

What if the danger in the risks hurt you? How might that affect the way you feel today? There are surfers who have been attacked and killed by sharks. Surfers still surf and respect the threat of sharks. In fact, most of the reported views I see on shark attacks place little blame on the shark. "I was in its back yard. It was just doing what it does," or the likes. It is a risk taken by thousands of people who know a possible negative outcome to their actions, and, you're right; nobody should tell surfers they can't surf. Do they have some sort of blame or guilt imposed on them for doing what they enjoy?

Ginger admitted she took risks (a situation that exposed her to danger) and she is glad she did. People do it every day from the mundane acts of commuting to work to free-climbing. The danger in the risk was defined as dangerous men. If we are to accept the fact that there are "dangerous men", do we treat them with the same view as surfers view sharks or climbers view gravity? I think not, but the example given could lead to that logic.

 

Exactly. Moreover, lots of girls I've discussed this with, have said they don't always even dress sexy to attract attention, but to feel sexy / feel good about themselves. I can relate to this since although I'm a guy, I suppose I'm a tad more vain than your average lumberjack (no offense to lumberjacks), and since I'm happily married and don't flirt with other women, sometimes I do like to dress in clothes that I think make me look a bit better than some alternatives; it boosts my confidence and sometimes I do that even in the confines of our own home or even if there was nobody else left in the world. It has nothing to do with attracting sexual attention and definitely has nothing to do with being a (man)slut / whore. That being said, who am I to call a girl in a miniskirt and see-through top a whore? Only morons with imperfect genitalia do that.

I think we should define 'frivolous' and 'light-hearted' attitudes because I honestly believe that a one-night stand between people who don't know one another may end up being a mistake, mundane, or a truly beautiful encounter of two lost souls seeking solace in each other; both know it's nothing more than that (the rules should always be clear to all parties involved), but also that it's nothing less either. This, of course, does in no way mean that frivolous and light-hearted attitudes towards sex don't exist because they do, but one-nighters or friends-with-benefits -type relationships don't belong in that group by default.

ETA: See my answer to question 1 in the first paragraph of this post. As for question 2: women look cool in men's clothing, men look ridiculous in women's clothing (unless you have the body for it, which is quite rare, but I'd just look grotesque at 6'/185cm and 190lbs/86kg ).

PS. Good things can come out of frivolous behavior. I have been married to the love of my life for 6 years, undoubtedly the best years of that life, and it all started with frivolous behavior: I wanted her, she wanted me, we got together, and by the time the infatuation faded, we realized we'd already fallen deeply in love. If we'd gone along the long and winding route of traditional courtship, I doubt we'd ended up together because both of us were at a point in our lives where we had thick emotional armors and didn't let anyone close (emotionally speaking), so if it wasn't for this 'frivolous' behavior (personally I just think of it as a beautiful encounter in a cold concrete jungle), we'd probably ended up moving on before anything could come out of it.


ETA2:

I don't think that comparison works all that well because sharks aren't sentient enough in comparison to rapists. I would imagine most shark attacks are the result of the shark looking for food or the surfer ending up on the shark's territory, i.e. it was thinking its actions were done in self-defense whereas a rapist knows full well he's not satisfying any need his life depends on, but he's just enjoying himself (be the act sexually driven or with another motivator like power, dominance etc). That being said, a rapist has no real reasons to rape while an animal (a shark, a grizzly, a cougar etc) may be hunting for food to feed their young or defending their homes etc.

 

LOL

I understand that. But I was highlighting the fact that he quoted you about being tolerant as a response to me pointing out his own intolerance, as if he had justification from an authority figure or someone he actually respects.

Condoms and abortion rights also help, but yes I'm all about striking a healthy balance.

 

I've been out on gay night in my town. It's amazing.

Apparently, in a short amount of time (maybe without our lifetimes) androgyny is going to be a big thing in the developed world. My source for this? The Karl Pilkington podcasts.

 

Oh, yeah

 

Word. Karl Pilkington is a genius.

 

I see what you are saying, but I am purely using it in terms of rampant reproduction in all honesty. I am rather concerned that the human race is beginning to outgrow it's resources. What two people do between themselves is none of my business, and I really don't care. What I do care about is the bigger picture. I think their should be more and better education on this subject, and the possible dangers of something like overpopulation if it is as big a threat as I've heard claimed.

 

I've no desire to take a side on this argument, but two things bother me in general about the sentiments expressed here.

1. Let's assume provocative clothing isn't just about attracting attention. So what? We don't live in a jungle. This is a society. We recognize what we do, wear, say, has external repercussions. I'm not going to wear a shirt saying "old people who live in nursing homes failed", because it will elicit unfavorable reactions in certain individuals. Very provocative clothing can do the same, to all sorts of people, fat people, insecure wives, married men, priests, not just the worse sort. Please understand me, I am not saying evocative clothing necessarily causes rape. Even if it doesn't, I'm not sure the more civilized part of myself can condone it in most settings.

2. Calling men with certain more traditional beliefs "morons with imperfect genitalia" makes me feel this argument has a gender agenda, rather than simply be against rape threats. Second, phrases like that are just as geared toward dis-empowering males as other words listed above are used towards dis-empowering females. Please watch out for double standards.

 

I have no hatred towards you JJ, you are projecting. Also, thank you for the permission to ignore you! However, I prefer to exercise my right to make my own decisions and currently, I choose to call you out on your misogyny. And will continue to do so as long as I feel like it

 

This would be a concern if a majority of sexually 'open' people thought the sole purpose of sex was reproduction.

 

I don't completely agree. Preventative measures do not always work, and people do not always take them for one reason or another. There is also the typically human thought of well 'well, I am not doing anything wrong, what's the harm?'.