Misogyny, Guns, Rape and Culture..

No, not really. I'm also quite sure you don't want me as Judge, Jury and Executioner.
I think I've taken great pains, over the years, to explain that while I might understand motive, it would not stop me from rendering extreme judgement. You still don't get that?

Now, Bells, I'm not really all that keen to take a shot at you here, I hope you're aware of that.
But do not ever try to tell me that having been a victim of rape, you're an expert on the rapist.

I once took Asgard to task for assuming much the same thing, with regard to depression.
Do you not remember?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

While she may not be "an expert" on it... she would most certainly have a unique perspective, as well as experience dealing with, the subject... something most people do not have.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And in one fell swoop, you dismiss the viability of the overview.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This and That

What makes this atypical is its magnitude, i.e., access to a firearm.

That bitch-slaps generally don't kill doesn't make them right or even morally and functionally neutral.

Just how would that work?

No, they couldn't.

The slave does not exist inside the master's body.

See, your perpetual disregard for the woman's body is a defining aspect of your bigotry.

Turducken.

There were no rational arguments offered. Period.

I mean, you can keep trying to play make-believe, but you can't actually make any evidentiary case.

• • •​

Well, so is arguing that other people need to look at you like a movie character. But I admit, I generally skip Joel Schumacher films; it's hard to explain how bad of a director he is. That is to say, I adore The Lost Boys, but that's a purely sentimental thing; it's actually a terrible film. Which, in turn, is better than I can say of Flatliners, Dying Young, or Batman Forever. Those were just plain terrible films. I don't think I've enjoyed a film he's made since Cousins, and that's a film I only ever watched once.

(Lost Boys? Well, it's like Hughes' Weird Science or de Bont's Twister to me, a class of bad films I could watch forever.)

What is striking about this construction is your vice.

Do you actually have any idea how easy it is for anyone to simply walk on by? Sometimes we do need to walk with our feet on the ground.

It's true, the last couple horriffic screams I've heard in the neighborhood were just drunk passengers hollering out the window, and the weather has fewer people walking. The reverberations have quieted considerably, and yet I still have no answers. It strikes a little closer to home than certain abstract recognitions of just how common rape and intimate abuse are. It does little good to puff one's chest at the club; statistically speaking, a rape happening there while I'm there is an exceptionally rare expectation. The rapes happen later, in other places, after we've all gone home. There's not much to be done, so eventually the horror recedes.

But no, it's not actually about me. That godawful tale is about how easy it is to walk away.

Perhaps you think it's about my humanity and suffering because that sort of selfishness, for whatever reason, holds priority in your assessment criteria.

And you want to discuss the complexities of rapists?

Very well; this can only be disastrous.

Tell us, then, about the complexities of the rapist. Have at it. The stage is yours.

This seems rather quite ... well, it's not exactly non sequitur, because you were off the rails well before this. But at this point you seem to be simply ranting.

There are days that I wonder if part of the problem is that both of us remember a time when we were allowed to absolutely throw down and have it out. Like a poetry pissing pageant or something. Good times, good times.

But not every argument and emotion are mere performance art. Life may be performance art but it's not all we do, just like breathing isn't all we do. One without breath is one without life; one without performance art is one without will.

One question in pretty much any art is why it exists.

Some art exists merely for aesthetics; this is especially popular in our contemporary age. Mass production makes that possible. But even abstract art communicates a purpose, and as you're well aware what the viewer perceives is, ultimately, the important experience in art regardless of what the artist intends. Psychoanalyzing the critique can be insightful, but not every critique, nor every psychoanalysis thereof, is necessarily accurate insofar as with art that sort of inquiry falls somewhere between less than behavioral research analysis and only marginally more than reading tea leaves or calculating astrological outcomes.

In this case, whatever it is you're trying to communicate is entirely your own. Think of some of the popular paintings in the 1980 and '90s. Nagel's famous serigraphs (e.g., "Rio") did, indeed, include in their purpose some commentary about the dimensional limitations of how modern society viewed women at the time. Many of the original photographs were Playboy images. Ty Wilson, on the other hand, pushed a series of simple romantic paintings, largely aesthetic and intended to invoke nostalgia or other warm, comfortable, even intimate feelings. Meanwhile, Steve Hanks has a longstanding focus on the beauty and intimacy of the female form, and in truth at some point it started to seem nearly obsessive. But that last is also my perspective; I can't say what anyone else sees in that catalog. One can certainly objectively establish the technical quality of his paintings; beyond that, everything else is to the beholder.

But remember that what the eye of the beholder sees is defined solely by the beholder.

To use an example from the past: What if someone actually comes out and says they are arguing what an objectionable view of a general issue because they don't like a particular person participating in the discussion? I mean, it's one thing to test theses for their logical outcomes, but to test roadkill just because one is annoyed at another? That sort of context really does color what that person has to say.

For our purposes here, 'twixt you and me, it ought to be sufficient to say that there really is a larger issue here than what we think of each other.

So for now, as you've asked so kindly, certes, the spotlight is all yours.

Explain to us, please, the complexities of the rapist that we are so cruelly ignoring because of our incapacity for understanding and tolerance of rape and rapists.

You're on.

It's showtime.

 

The point was that when society defines a woman's body as not hers, as by nature belonging to someone else chosen by others and not hers to control and defend, that society is doing evil. You have the analogy inverted - the slaveowner here is you, the slave is the woman whose body you seek to use.

 

So... you deny that Bells, as someone who experienced what is being discussed, has a somewhat unique and personal understanding and viewpoint on the subject?

I am (morbidly) curious to know how you come to that conclusion...

 

In that case, they should have have any expectation that I would withhold my size eleven foot from going up their ass

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So now you’re also implying that the typical American male is prone to bitch-slap women who reject their advances, or that bitch-slaps are intended to be lethal, or that gunshots are not. Which is it? In your experience is it common for men in nightclubs to physically assault the women they attempt to score with?

By your reckoning its commonplace for the men in that grieving community to beat and murder its women over trivial matters. A bit insulting don’t you think?

Over your future objection, slave holders did claim that losing control of their slaves would compromise their social and physical well being.

When you define the master’s body as a plantation of the Antebellum South it does.

You act as if pregnancy is a death sentence, and abortion its reprieve. I take it that out of compassion for your wife you hired a surrogate rather than saddle her with the mortal wound of maternity.

The Tiassa Dry Foot Policy.

Make believe? Are you saying I just imagined a proposition of yours stating that any stage of fetal development short of delivery should be open to termination at the sole discretion of the mother?

So by your reasoning because society imposes responsibilities on mothers to care for the children in their custody, society has made slaves of these women? And if that custody is extended a dozen weeks into pregnancy, that too is to be considered a period of slavery? I guess since society also puts the same burden on fathers, we are victims of this savage oppression as well.

 

Hint: Reality Should Suffice

What the hell are you on about, now?

You seem to be suffering some logical dysfunction.

Here, try it this way: What's your minimum quota for women being physically assaulted for rejecting a man's advances? What number is acceptable to you?

I'm not so worried about insults to my manhood or masculinity; there are more important things going on than any resentment I could postulate toward a woman who doesn't know me holding me in suspicion of being dangerous.

When the counterpoint to victimization is abstract pride in order to change the subject, you're not doing well.

That is what we call a problem of the business model. The slave owners did that to themselves. There is no such thing as an accidental, unplanned, or unintended slave purchase.

And the slaves do not require feeding off the master's blood, from inside the master's body.

You need to learn that people aren't property.

Here, consider this:

• The state of Kentucky offered a bunch of tax breaks to some religious nuts who want to build a Noah's Ark museum. This was controversial enough, but it's not the general principle of mixing religion and state that endangers those tax breaks. Rather, it is that the museum just announced it intends to enforce hiring discrimination policies so strict that it isn't just that being an atheist or Muslim would disqualify you from being an employee, but, furthermore, that one can be insufficiently Christian. This is plainly illegal under law. Thus, the state is threatening to pull the tax breaks. The museum organizers are preparing to sue the state if it does so, charging a violation of First Amendment right to free speech.​

The simple fact that the museum invokes its right to free speech does not make its action protected speech.

Just like invoking real estate as a part of the human body does not make real estate part of the human body:

That you can invent an abstract argument does not make it useful, appropriate, or even functional.

Stop acting as if someone else's body is yours to own.

Stop comparing people to real estate.

Learn that all figurative speech has limits to its application; that is, metaphors such as slave owners and real estate only work to a certain degree.

In the end, you're reducing a woman to real estate. Which isn't anything new for you, but that doesn't make it any less disgusting.

Much easier to comprehend than stuffing babies back inside women. It's also much easier to justify as a juristic argument, in no small part because one does not require redefinition of ontology by force of law in order to validate the legal principles.

Yet you stil can't point to the rational argument.

A nickel's worth of free advice: When all you do is tilt windmills of your own construction, people will eventually stop giving you the attention you beg for.

I would, however, point out that in accounting for all things, it's not solely the mother. Short of a sci-fi adventure film, most doctors would refuse to terminate after labor has begun, and there would be severe ethical concern about those who wouldn't. One of the striking things about this is that the social-cosnervative fantasy of doctors without ethics rather neatly matches the economic-conservative idea of how things should be. That is to say, in a completely unregulated environment, you can find a doctor who will try pretty much anything for money. Yet the United States is not such an environment, the best efforts of the anti-abortion movement's political allies notwithstanding.

Rather than just making shit up, try formulating a real, genuinely logical argument. A woman isn't real estate, and the back forty isn't in her abdomen.

Under your presuppositions, it can equal whatever you want it to. I mean, you're perfectly welcome to try to unravel the nuclear family, but, strangely, when I was younger I was always told it was us dirty liberals who were trying to do that.

Not that you have to answer for Cold War propaganda; I just find it ironic for my own sake.

We do have certain juristic analogies in history; consider that while states tried to vote on whether or not gay people could get married, nobody ever voted on whether or not heterosexuals could get married.

The nuclear family, such as we know it, is generally presupposed in the Constitution. Find me a court decision, anywhere in this country's history, striking parental authority strictly on the grounds that it has never been statutorily affirmed.

And, you know, it does occur to wonder what you think goes on in a woman's head.

I would, for instance, assert that generally speaking, by the time a woman reaches labor, the choice is made that this organism is intended to be born. On the abortion rights side, it is what we call a "wanted" child, as in, "Every child a wanted child".

So tell us, please, what you think is going on in a woman's head that she should decide to terminate during labor (i.e., a "stage of fetal development short of delivery")? Shall we push it back, some? My partner's doctor gave appointed a time to induce labor; we were to return the next morning at eight o'clock. Our daughter decided to blaze her trail at about five in the morning, and ended up being born around that time. But what if, at that penultimate appointment, Tig had decided to terminate the pregnancy? Now, it turns out I never really had a clue what was going on in her mind. But for this? Go for it. What would she be thinking at that time? What's pushing this decision to terminate the day before birth is planned?

Tell us, please. What do you really think is going on in her mind when she makes one of these decisions you're so terribly afraid of?

See, one person I know once suggested she would do it to take revenge against the father, for whatever reason. But he was also one who would argue that a man should have a financial out if she doesn't abort a pregnancy he didn't want to father. Flip a coin, there.

But do tell us: What do you think she's thinking?

 

*shakes head*

The fact that so many of our members seem to think a persons body can be "owned" or should be controlled by anyone other than themselves is... well, rather scary...

Given the way society is... I doubt it will be long before everyone is drugged up on soma and rendered infertile... "for the good of the people" of course.

 

No, I didn’t. Bells did.

And I’ll ask you again, Tiassa. Is that where we are? Where advising our loved ones how to reduce their risk of sexual assault somehow betrays your feminist ideal and counts as victim blaming?

They're not complex, and yet, there are many types, and we need to study psychology to understand them. Wow, you sure talk out of both sides of your mouth, don’t you?

Yes, there are different types. Why don’t you explain that to Tiassa. I don’t know. Try relating it to beerology or something that he could understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_rape

Marquis, can I ask you something? Is the real world a parody? It would all make sense then, wouldn't it?

This forum, though, as far as it’s concerned, maybe there’s some objective that you have to complete. What happens if you get more trophies? Do you get to a level where they start making more sense?

If males have to compete for access to females, how can they overcome female resistance and preference?

The art of persuasion; love it, but the art of seduction; not so much. Nobody likes to be manipulated, male or female. Unlike persuasion, it conceals its intentions. Coercion… well, that isn't even an art, it’s a crime.

Do women like to be coaxed into submission? Yes, absolutely.

Do women like to be coerced into submission? No, absolutely not.

All is NOT fair in love and war. Nobody wants to be threatened or bullied into submission.

It’s the information age. It is adaptation, brains over brawn, not the survival of the fittest. Not all men are created equal. They are not entitled to women. The underdeveloped males shouldn't be allowed to force "equality" by raping us.

Tell me, Marquis, what is this so-called uncontrollable sexual frenzy that men speak of? Do their brains swell, too? Is that what happens? We are not the gatekeepers of the male's sexual impulse. Men do have self-control, do they not? Their ability to resist temptation is no stronger or weaker than ours.

Females don’t always have to do the choosing, either. Most men are too wrapped up in the competition itself; so much so that they forgo their own personal preferences. Most men will have sex with anyone who strikes their fancy. Do we really have that much power? Are men really that weak?

All is well, why?

​

 

Eliot lacked serious knowledge. The girls will just love you if you let them. Don't shoot them. Sam & Peter

 

If you need to coax someone into submission... then there is a problem already, and more than likely you should stop because they are uncomfortable.

Then again, I'm nto one of those guys who believes in sticking my penis into every girl he meets on the first date so... meh...

 

Secular Sanity Excrement

And the Secular Sanity Trooper proves herself a liar. Bells discussed the question of fighting or submitting and trying to ride through an atrocity:

"A rapist just wants to over power and dominate someone. Sometimes fight works, other times it can make things worse for you. We are all our bodies, but sometimes, it's best to lay still and wait for an opportunity to fight and escape than to fight and have him kill you for the hell of it or because he doesn't want to have to put up with you struggling. The issue with the belief that self defense is a be all and end all or selling it like that to men and women is that it only applies to a particular type of rapist or it tells women that they should always react in a certain way. Sometimes that way can get these women killed. They aren't all the same and being able to tell the difference can be the result between life and death. In such cases, rape becomes secondary to survival.""​

This is a question of "fight or flight, not freeze".

You responded by attacking rape victims: "Surviving is more important than avoiding rape, and fighting back isn't fool proof, but if you fail to prepare, you fail."

I challenged you on the point of blaming victims: So much for not blaming victims.

And you constricted the discussion to death: "Yes, Tiassa, people can fail to survive. They can die, they do die, but we don’t have to devalue their effort, or feel superior because we live."

Part of logic, Trooper, depends on remembering what you said, and maintaining consistency throughout your argument.

Look, I can tell you that we're talking about a larger issue; you seem to be trying to parse it into tiny packages that your political argument can handle. And if that's the case, well, it's pretty undignified.

Tell us, are you still on this trip because you have a personal issue with one of the advocates?

 

Uh, that would be very much the opposite of my reasoning. Hint: outside vs inside, people having bodies of their own, that kind of thing,

Lessee: you appear to be arguing that if you have custody of something, other people can put it inside your body - jam it up your ass, say - and demand you leave it there for months.

That would be an interesting burden on men, and one I think they would find unfamiliar - enforced internal safekeeping of other people's bodies or parts thereof. Somehow I think your fellow men - even the very conservative anti-abortion folks - would object.

 

Flog the Dolphin

That's easy enough to solve if women aren't people under law. You know, kind of like how things are now, if you follow the Constitution in a very strict manner.

(Hint: The Nineteenth Amendment was necessary because the Fourteenth, which covers all persons in a state's jurisdiciton, was insufficient; the federal government argued that the Equal Protection clause, which covers all persons in a state's jurisdiction, did not apply to women. We've never "officially" corrected this issue.)

But that's just the thing; women aren't people in our neighbor's argument; they're things. This is inherent in his slave argument that overlooks basic ontology, or, as you have noted, "outside vs inside".

If only we could put a cotton-pickin' slave inside our neighbor's body and leave it there for forty weeks. After all, if it's only a difference of locations, Capracus wouldn't mind.

Right?

I wonder what he'd say the first time he pissed himself at a dinner party because the slave accidentally kicked him in the bladder.

Of course, he wouldn't be at the dinner party, would he? Rather, he would be staying home and not doing anything that might possibly endanger his slave.

You know, like whipping it.

While it's inside his body.

You know, an ergonomic challenge.

Capracus gives the phrase, "Flogging the dolphin", new meaning.

(And if you've ever seen that little purple-gray thing emerging from a C-section, yeah, well, I thought of dolphins. At least, I think. Though in truth, I mostly remember thinking, "What an odd color", before my attention returned to the ghastly gash in Tig's abdomen, gray and purple flesh above the deepest, blackest of voids. Kinda creepy, I admit, for flipping real estate. My kid's such a fucking ghoul, eh? How could she do that to her mother? Just to move to better quarters? I tells ya, man, the real estate market is vicious these days.)

 

I didn’t make the equivocation of bitch-slapping and a shot to the head. I think most victims would prefer the slap.

You stated my undefined belief would somehow not give comfort to the grieving community, so I contrasted this vague assertion with your insulting statement that men assaulting and shooting women in nightclubs is typical in their community.

I would say zero, but I’m sure you’ll try to construe it to mean all that ask for it.

But there is such a thing as accidental, unnoticed, or unintended intercourse?

They required sustenance from the master’s resources.

You need to remember that the whole point of the slavery analogy is that the denial of personhood is what qualified the slaves as property, just as you would have it for the late term fetus.

But real estate is the crux of your argument. The Tiassa Dry Foot Policy states that once a fetus leaves the real estate of the mother it becomes eligible for personhood. We could call it Tiassa’s Maternal Mason –Dixon Line.

As I stated above, defining personhood in relation to real estate is your invention, which I agree is disgusting.

And why do we stuff babies back into the womb? So we can magically take their personhood away in accordance with the Tiassa Dry Foot Policy. Get it back to the plantation where it can be treated like the rest of the expendable property.

But why is it unethical for a doctor to terminate a fetus just prior to delivery? It’s still on the master’s property, and dependent on the master for sustenance, which by your definition renders it a nonperson. What gives the doctor the right to tell the master how to run her plantation?

Please try to stay in character and remember, children don’t exist inside of women, only expendable fetuses do.

Why not ask such a women yourself.

Another comprehension idled ideolog. So a fetus in the womb that is dependent on its maternal custodian/slave, once born is no longer dependent on future custodians/slaves? I suppose after it’s delivered and magically infused with personhood by umbilical severance, it shakes hands with the obstetrician, walks out of the hospital and gets a job at McDonald’s flipping burgers. Society makes no demands on the custodial parents.

 

Nope.

The anti-rape and prevention movement had a huge impact on public opinion, and now you want to insist that rape prevention is victim blaming. Our parents worked their ass off to change public opinion. They wanted to help victims of sexual violence become survivors of violence instead of victims, and now you’re insisting that rape prevention is victim blaming. I’m not buying it.

And yes, Tiassa, it is fight or flight, not freeze. You should always consider a rape attack to be a life threatening situation. Don't assume that you’re going to lose, or if you cooperate that he won’t hurt or kill you, even if he tells you this. It’s kind of hard to fight, though, if you don’t know how. He’s fighting for sex. You’re fighting for your life. So, do whatever it takes.

Consequences shape behavior. If you want to change behaviors focus on the consequences.

In other words, instead of asking “Did he have reason to believe that is was consensual sex?” We need only to ask “Did he use force to have sex with her against her will?”

We should be able to disengage even during intercourse. We should be able to say “Yes” and then say “Get the fuck off me.”

Either, we stop glorifying casual sex for both males and females or we accept the fact that women are wired for casual sex, as well.

When we can say "Yes" our "No’s" will be louder.