Counterproposal: Don't dress like a slut...

Are you having reading comprehension issues, Tiassa? Where did I justify rape? Did you read my post?

Think about it. Yeah, I said "rape is a fact." What's wrong with saying things that are true? I could have equally said "murder is a fact," or "falling out of rollercoasters is a fact." I'm also saying that rape happens sometimes because of stupid decisions women make. Again, true. I'm not saying the men who did it aren't evil and shouldn't be punished.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(Sigh)

Nope.

You tried to be subtle about it over the course of a couple of posts.

Sure I did. Both the relevant posts.

Poor you. There's nothing wrong with saying things are true. But it's absolutely disgusting to turn around and mitigate the fact you're acknowledging.

In the meantime, I might ask if you actually paid attention to my response.

Would you care to actually respond to it, or is this the best you can do?

To reiterate:

Given that going out on a date counts as slutting it up for some men, I would hope women never give this attempt to excuse sexual violence serious consideration ....

.... Just to cover a few excuses along these lines, in order to be safe from rape, women should not:

• Dress in any manner that might possibly sexually stimulate a male
• Consume any sort of intoxicant around a male
• Allow herself to be alone with any male
• Respond in any affirmative way to a male's general advances (don't give him the idea that he can ask you out in the first place)​

Is there anything there you would like to respond to, or do you intend to continue to ignore the counterpoint in order to complain about how maligned you feel because someone else in the world doesn't agree with your attempts to justify rape and blame women for men's actions?

Now pay attention. Closely.

People do stupid things all the time. A broken neck might happen sometimes because of someone's stupid decision to roller skate on the roof. Okay?

But rape happens because someone decides to commit rape.

Is that too hard for you to grasp?

Rape happens because of stupid decisions women make? Oh, right. A rapist just happened to slip on her skank juices and accidentally slide in between her thighs, causing them both to accidentally tumble to the ground where his fists just happened to accidentally pummel her about the face until she just happened to make the bad decision to stop trying to make him get off her in hope that at least he won't kill her?

Rape does not happen because of a woman's stupid decision. Rape happens because a rapist makes a decision.

Period.

So stop trying to justify rape by saying it happens because of a woman.

Now let's go back to one of your earlier posts:

That's a great comparison. You have a condition or "she totally didn't deserve that[/i]. This would imply that, according to the condition—e.g., for dressing like a skank—she did deserve to get raped. You know, at least, partially. Because we all know it takes two to rape. A rapist to rape and a victim to be raped. And it just wouldn't be fair to the rapist to put all the blame on him, would it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So suggesting that someone lock their car doors is advocating grand theft auto? :shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is hilarious that you're trying to be condescending toward me, Tiassa. It's you who's being incredibly dense here.

No, as a matter of fact, I didn't. I simply said rape happens. That's not justifying it. I made a statement about an objective reality. I did not make a normative statement. It's a simple statement of what is. What's hard to understand? What's hard about taking what I say at face value? If you're incapable of understanding this, then I don't know what I can say to you.

All I can say is wow. Do you ever find yourself surprised by the things you say?

No crap dude. I know rape happens because someone decides to commit rape. I don't know where I implied that I didn't know or acknowledge that. Would you care to point out exactly where I said or implied that? This should be fun. Again, your condescension is hilarious.

This right here is the crux of the matter. Why you didn't just come out with this from the outset is beyond me. Anyway, as I said, obviously one of the reasons women get raped is because there is a motivated rapist. But it seems like you're saying that's the only reason it happens. That's where we disagree. Unlike you, I acknowledge that events can have multiple causes. As a matter of fact there are things women can do that can help reduce the probability of getting raped. Such as dressing less scantily.

For example, I already made this example, if a woman decides to stay home one night with her roommates instead of going out in a dangerous city by herself wearing barely any clothes, the the probability of her being raped is as a matter of fact less. Do you seriously disagree with this?

 

(Sigh)

You know, we've covered this recently. Apparently you didn't understand?

Because one thing I don't understand is people who raise an issue, do not acknowledge the responses, and then raise the issue anew a week later as if it's an original point.

I addressed your question about locking the car, as well as your comparison of wolf-whistles and catcalls to carjacking and physical assault. Well, okay, there wasn't much to address on that latter. It was a ridiculous comparison.

But still, Bells addressed your question about locking the car. And, much like your earlier post in this topic, you responded by complaining that we'd missed your point, complaining about the length of our posts, and complained that you didn't have time to read it.

And here you are, about a week later, raising the same point that has already been addressed, and without adding anything new or ever acknowledging the prior responses.

It is both stupid and dishonest.

Like I said before: Do better.

• • •​

Whatever you say. After all—

—we believe you.

Stop pretending that just because you said one thing you didn't say another. Ignore all you want my quotations of your posts. Pretend all you want that you never said that some rapes happen because of a woman's stupid choices.

Nope. Nor am I surprised by the crap in your posts, either.

Good for you, sweetheart.

Apparently you missed it the first time I quoted you? Here, let's do it again:

So, yeah. Quit with the deliberate statements that are observably untrue.

Too bad your advocacy of rape isn't so amusing.

(chortle!)

And if you want to reduce the chance of being murdered, you can always commit suicide. Do you seriously disagree with this?

Look at your recommendation: stay home. And look at your stereotype: dressing scantily.

Like I said before, and as you still have refused to acknowledge:

Given that going out on a date counts as slutting it up for some men, I would hope women never give this attempt to excuse sexual violence serious consideration ....

.... Just to cover a few excuses along these lines, in order to be safe from rape, women should not:

• Dress in any manner that might possibly sexually stimulate a male
• Consume any sort of intoxicant around a male
• Allow herself to be alone with any male
• Respond in any affirmative way to a male's general advances (don't give him the idea that he can ask you out in the first place)​

At some point, I would hope you start at least pretending you're paying attention. I'll tell you what's condescending, Francois, your attempt to pretend that just because you said one thing means you didn't actually say something else as well.

Not everyone is going to be so selective, Francois. We want to give you credit for what you have to say. You, on the other hand, would apparently prefer to hide from it.

Your deliberate attempt to convince me of something that is observably untrue certainly doesn't help your case.

 

Tiassa, we might as well be talking about murder.

My stance is that murderers are bad and evil, but regardless, there are things you can do to reduce the probability of getting murdered. The same is true about rape and... everything else.

If we were talking about murder and I was talking about things people can do to avoid murder would you tell me YOU SON OF A BITCH! YOUR JUSTIFYING MURDER.

Get a grip man.

 

Francois, I tried to use a similar analogy with locking your car door to avoid getting car jacked, and not walking down a dark alley so you won't get bashed. But apparently the relevance is way over the head of Tiassa. He claims to have 'rebutted' the analogy, yet I have yet to see this.

He just can't seem to grasp the concept that if you don't like suffering from X, then you should take precautions to lower the chance of X happening.

It's not about placing blame, or mitigating a crime. It's about plain common sense. A woman who parades down a dark alley scantily dressed is fucking stupid, much like an individual who leaves their car door unlocked and then acts bemused when they return to find their Porsche has disappeared.

 

Lepus:

If you would, then fair enough...

 

some apparent assumptions in thread need to qualified

*acquaintance, date, and marital rape constitute the majority of reported cases.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

*we have evolved somewhat from that

 

I think your overreacting just slightly with this absurd comparison.

It's typical of Western women who have been indoctrinated into the false beliefs of women's rights - an ideology driven by greed - and now think they are equal to or the same as men, or even deserving of the same level of consideration.

You had to add the napalm in to your example, because really, how would a woman threaten a man, let alone rape him, just using her own body?

Nature has made things the way they are, and if we cannot accept that we just bring more suffering upon ourselves.

 

1. Did you actually just intimate that women do not deserve the same amount of consideration as men? That they are not equal in that they do not deserve the same rights and freedoms??!!

Fucking Christ, I need to hit something really bad.

2. How would I threaten a man using merely my own body? Well, a roundhouse kick to the face usually does it...

Yeah, and according to your logic, who cares if I had to add the napalm? He's still lying there with his skin melted off. Survival of the fittest, or rather, the ones who know how to make napalm. Nature made us that way, you know, and if the men couldn't accept that they would have brought more suffering on themselves.

And you didn't actually answer my post.

Note to everyone else: I'm not actually this misandristic. I'm just trying to make a point.

 

Like I said, why bring suffering upon yourself?

Women are certainly not entitled to the same rights and freedoms as men, due to their physical and psychological natures being very different. You can clearly see from all the problems in the West caused by women's rights - such as alcoholism, drug addiction, prostitution, family breakdowns, etc... - that a fundamental reevaluation of our society is necessary.

The 'independent woman' is a media fabrication of late capitalism,
as private enterprises and governments have sought to turn women into greater consumers.

Quite simply you couldn't.

You could make a fool of yourself trying, but would eventually have to learn that some things are just inevitable. If it rained nearly every day, would you leave the house without an umbrella?

Men invented napalm.

 

How true.
We most certainly had none of those problems at all before women's emancipation. Not a single one.

You know, every time you post you completely betray your user name.
Congratulations.

And again.
I took kick boxing with women half my size that could take you AND me down without breaking stride.
Learn something before spouting crap.

Nah, one person per thread is fine.

You missed the point in the pursuit of pedantry.

 

i'm sorry this needs to be asked are you that out of touch with reality. I mean really.

 

Women and men are not the same. One of the central tenants of feminism was that sex roles were wholely a societal convention. This is clearly not the case.

Males and females are different from the day they are born. They develop at different rates, often have different strengths, and play very different roles in reproduction.

Treating males and females exactly the same ignores these different roles we play. Is it mere coincidence that most modern industrial societies where feminism have taken root are no longer reproducing at a rate high enough to even replace themselves?

Women were told they could "have it all". Career, family, everything. But the reality is a little different. Yes women are perfectly capable of doing damned near every job a man can do. But that takes time. Many of your single successful women find themselves wanting a family and realize they're too old. They've missed their chance.

The result? Many nations (like Spain) have a fertility rate of around 1, meaning their population drops by half with each generation. Clearly if this were to continue indefinitely, it would result in the extinction of the human species.

But, of course, it won't. Populations with different ideas about sexual roles and much higher fertility rates will simply replace the feminist societies by sheer demographics.

We are a sexually reproducing species, and unless feminism becomes compatible with reproduction, it will force itself into extinction.

 

The first part of your argument was alright for defending why there should be different rights awarded between males and females (girls getting to move through school faster than their male counterparts, for example), but the second half is bullshit. Social engineering is disgustingly fascist.

[edit]
I mean, as a fascist, I support your views. You make a strong argument. How do you feel about the Negro?

 

But its the great conundrum of the west....we evolved to maximize our chances of reproductive success, but western values now lead us to consciously maximize our personal happiness...the problem being that in any wealthy society, more children tend to be suboptimal from the standpoint of personal satisfaction. That's true for both men and women. At the end of the day though, what is more important to me? My personal happiness or my self-imposed duty to stave off replacement by other people who derive more happiness from child-reading that my wife or I do? It seems to me that my personal happiness wins.

(In the poorer past, that might not have been the case. Apart from sex having been far and away the most entertaining thing there was to do with one's day as compared to the next best alternative ("Let's see what's on 'Fire' tonight....hmm look like rerun of last night's Fire...Fire pretty"), children were more vital to hunting/gathering/farming surplus food and resources. With expanded wealth, the utility generated by that surplus production declines. At the most extreme level...when the parents become too old or sick to produce anything...we know have cushy medical insurance and 401K's to take care of us, wo who needs children? If one did need chilren, then having lots of them was a good idea, given how likely they were to die before your golden years.)

I trust that evolution will kick in before we go extinct and the people who enjoy having children the most will pass that trait forward....but I include men and women in that, as I don't see men pining away for large families either.

I do agree that feminism is a part of the trend, but I think the role of feminism was to tell women "do what makes you happy." It just so happens that the happiness derived from the second income and spending that income on modern conveniences and fun things, generally trumps having (or spending income on) a first, second, third, fourth, etc., child.

In fact...the rubric of capitalism leads us to exactly the same problem. Economics shows that the creat strength of capitalism is that it leads to efficient outcomes, but all of economics is underpinned by marginal utility theory. The "efficient" outcomes of modern capitalism mean "good at promoting personal happiness," which children tend not to do. The birth rates on the west were declining before the rise of feminism, which I tend to think is a wealth effect buttressed by the logic of capitalism.

Not that children can't make you happy, but studies have shown that from infancy through adolescence a married couple's satisfaction generally declines with children, only returning to pre-child levels after that latter stage. That's a big investment of 12+ years with no clear payoff in long-run happiness according to the research. Psychologists have also found that people are generally less happy when dealing directly with their children than they are while exercising, watching TV, or otherwise doing things that do not relate to the children.

The net effect is seems to be that having a child is a very small net negative of personal happiness...but subsequent children don't seem to make the numbers any better. They are also a small net negative.

Perhaps what we should do is (a) scrap social security and make it illegal to save for retirement; then (b) require by law that children tithe their income (pre-tax income) to their parents to pay for their support and care after retirement. Parents can then be free to declare retirement at any age they wish. That should increase the satisfaction obtained from children, just like in the good old days, by making our future physical well-being tied to their own. ;D

[For clarity, my "solution" above was made facetiously.]

 

Practically every culture on earth considers women of lesser value than men.

Womens femininity and physical weakness made them poor hunter gatherers, and even poorer philosophers. In the case of the physical argument, it should be obvious that the reason we separate the sexes in sport is because men would dominate otherwise. They are superior both in terms of strength and dexterity.

On the psychological side, femininity (a disconnection from the physical) makes women poor philosophers and decision makers. Descartes jumped the gun when he imagined complete separation of the mind and body, something only a few European male thinkers have achieved.

Equal rights are an intellectual abomination on a par with belief in the Holy Trinity or the resurrection. They must be abolished, and Western people steered away from seeking to gratify their appetites at every turn.

A single parent family is an abusive relationship.

Yes, and what are they doing? Consuming more than if they were mothers living a family life. They need their own accommodation, transport, holidays, social lives etc..., all of which adds up to a multi billion dollar market in economic terms.

Don't be fooled, there's not an ounce of intellectual credibility behind the concept of 'rights'.