Process, Ethics, and Justice: An Inauspicious Note Regarding the Politics of Rape Culture

They don't, it is just a secondary sexual cue, most likely evolved from the swelled butt of our chimp like ancestor, but since we started walking upright we had to look at something higher up.

aaah, no
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4050298/

Waist to hip signifies ability to squeeze out babies and general health.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lots of people, like you, underestimate the role and influence of the threat of rape in the US.

That's part of what makes them gullible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For the love of god if "role and influence of the threat of rape" was so great why did trump win the election? Clearly it lacks the influence to prevent that disgusting pig boar from being elected!

 

Because 63 million voters were ok with it.
Gullible.
Probably a lot of them didn't think it was very important, same as you - or they blamed the "liberals" for it, or "human nature" - that always works for some.

 

So we agree then: this is not an issue that wins elections.

Also human nature is not immutable, our whole civilization is about altering human nature.

 

Imagine someone on the right saying their version of this: "Because addressing homosexual sodomy culture cannot happen while tackling healthcare, basic services and education?" You might ask how homosexual sodomy is a problem, trust me they think gays are fucking their little boys while tickeling satan, truly the problem of our age that needs to be tack on to healthcare and basic services and education?

Back to my point: like how sodomy is not an election wining issues for the right, rapeculture is not a wining issue for the left. Because most people are disgusted and put off your even wasting breath putting that "issue" in with the ones they actually care about.

Women have rights here, nothing about rape is legal here, what fucking more rights do you want??? the right to punish a man on mere accusation, without due process? That is not equality, that is not even civilized!

Bullshit: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-1

and if you call that an epidemic then murder and theft is an epidemic, shit robbery and violent assault, far more common then rape, oh god look at that we are a grand-theft-auto-culture, seriously!

Look I had my ass pinched by girls, I have had women cop a feel of my balls without asking for my consent, i've been "sexual assaulted" I don't sit around thinking of my self as a "survivor" and using those events as a crutch for all my problems in life. If I had to choose between somehow eradicating all sexual assault and getting universal healthcare, I will take universal healthcare, heck I would even give up gun control for universal healthcare. To win elections we need to focus on issues that people care about and that we can actually do something about.

Imagine 1 out of 5 men are sodomites, pissing god off, wanting to violate little boys, god help us, let us vote republican to protected us from the sodomites homosexual pedophiles!

Look Bells your not the only side hyper-exaggerating a problem and outright making shit up.

Imagine being a man and no one, NO ONE GIVES A FUCK about how many times you been punched in the face, dropped kicked, mugged or sexual assaulted or harassed, no one cares, not even yourself because you are taught and bred not to care.

I have already show you statistics that 85% of men know that world wide, the rest are simply unteachable scum.

Imagine you had a son and his chances of getting beaten up was greater then 1 out of 6, and then you tell him to "walk it off" because penis, you have bigger problems like making sure he can makes it to college and that it is affordable.

... that is some clever sophistry there. Ok so how to explain this, right, do you remember how you got triggered by the world "hysteria" how you felt that was an attack on all women, now imagine you were a man and told that men are being trained to rape and treat women as inhuman flesh lights, you don't think you might get triggered? Now imagine I tell you the only reason the word "hysteria" triggers you is because your hysterical, stereotypical high estrogen fainting couch hysterical:

Addressing it, how? how are you addressing it??? your just bitching about it, presenting no solutions, while letting other BIGGER problems slide. The republicans are about to pass a tax bill that will cause more harm then all the ass pinching in america ever will!

It is to the electorate, yes. No one can campaign on every possible issues, be it homosexual sodomite pedophiles to rape-culture, one needs to focus on real issues first and foremost, issues that garner the largest share of the electorate, like jobs, and wages and healthcare and education.

There that dishonest strawmaning iceaura is talking about. Women have every right to bodily autonomy, and I would like those rights protected by not have republicans control the government.

Yes this mythical moral perfection, does not matter who controls government, as long as you die being virtues.

That like asking which gene makes men taller then women on average. Men on average don't cry, because we are bred not to, you confuse cause and effect: society is not telling boys not to cry, it telling boys to normalize, any boy that does cry excessively is less likely to breed, so be like the norm or else.

How is it homosexual are gay when society says everyone should be heterosexual? Because homosexuals are born that way!

Grossly simplistic, yes women instinctively want caring fathers, they also want a man that will die for them and the children, not cower in a corner crying.

Yeah fertility, yeah, just like women prefer men with resources, strength, power, charisma: instinct. It was not the fucking romance novel industry that programmed women to like that.

Oh so which is it now, are they born of their own preferences or is society teaching them. Lets look at girls born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, will they play with girl toys that society tells them to, or boy toys because of elevated testosterone in utero development: the boy toys. You can raise the child any way you want, you don't need to worry about society forcing a gender on the child and thus try to raise the child gender neutral, a parenting style trying to protect a child for social cues is destine to backlash when the child enters society. It is like when Tupac was raise to respect women, then he discovered that not want women really want:

Yeah david reimer was forced by society to be a women, didn't work, so why so much care about societies constraints? Giving a girl a barbie is not going to fuck her up: if she likes barbies, then she likes barbies, high estrogen, if she does not like barbies, then she does not like barbies, high testosterone.

 

I believe I brought up Animal Farm before... but yeah, that's what this reminds me of; a desire to be "equal" with some "more equal" than others... that's the perception being brought forth by the extremely vocal minority.

Most folks I know, on multiple sides of the gender line, simply want the rules to be applied fairly and equitably. The laws are already there to prevent this behavior, but they are meaningless without useful enforcement; when being rich means you can get away with murder, then why bother having murder laws except to punish the impoverished?

 

#ouroboros | #spaghettiwet​

Right, but you need some people to be able to rape and abuse women because stopping or punishing those people might disrupt your political aesthetics.

So when it comes to the desire to be "equal" or "more equal", why do you advocate for the benefit of sex predators?

Meanwhile, did you ever answer the question↗ about what are the reasonable boundaries of acceptable sexual violence? We eventually moved on to questions of process and justice, which are apparently difficult for such a passionate advocate as you to comprehend, but if you ever answered about how much sexual abuse you're willing to preserve and protect for the sake of politics, it wasn't particularly apparent, so, yeah, sorry to have missed it.

There is, however, a functional problem that goes beyond questions of sexual abuse: I could easily say the same thing you said about "most folks", but you and I appear to mean two different things about applying rules fairly and equitably. For instance, a point about bias↗ from September, in a thread we could call related according to subject matter:

The idea that empowerment majorities are biased toward themselves is unsurprising in history, yet we might wish to remind explicitly that the fact of such bias does not redefine equality according to the prospect of equal protection and equal rights.

↳ Let's start, say, 1962. End of the Long Decade, beginning of the Sexual Revolution: Okay, so ... women are equal. Wait, what? Why does she get to take that pill? Why does she need that special right? Oh, wait, because she wants to have a say in when she gets pregnant? Why does she need that special right? Look, I already said she's equal, why does she keep needing all this special stuff?

By the time it got around to my developing awareness, men were pitching fits about the idea of "women's lib", the prospect of married women having real jobs, and a nasty dispute over whether or not one can force a woman to have sex just because she is his wife. Apparently not being raped is one of those special rights that feminists claim, and these are the sorts of identity politics yadda blah mahoozit.​

​

There is a reason it does not take long for these subjects to circle 'round on themselves; that's what happens when you circle the wagons around rape culture or any other traditional injustice; the whole thing is a circle, and this one gets smaller as time passes.

Still, what you're on about is precisely the "politics of rape culture", as the title has it.

Bells↑ recently pointed back to one of my posts in another thread↗, and she discussed the question of "how to flick that switch"; you know, per your trolley disqualification of women. But one of the things that makes the post from the other thread relevant there, and also in our moment here, is that it reminds what passes for due process.

What happens when you report a rape? If you're a woman, you're told to think again. Or a public institution will conspire with the accused rapist to evade a no-contact order, and use the institution to harass you. Or the police will decide that your failure to bring a lawyer with you when reporting a rape means the suspect has waived her right to counsel, but nobody can explain why you is a suspect or for what. Or maybe the government will actually prosecute you for how you reacted to being raped, but the guy who confessed to raping you won't face charges because his daddy is really rich and calls the police chief a good friend.

So, y'know, watching a couple dudes circle around in a bromantic wagon dance in defense of rape culture might not be unexpected in a general context, the spectacle always involves people pretending they are clueless.

I live in a society, for instance, in which it is actually less wrong to rape some women than others, or men. That is to say we actually have rules about when rape is less wrong. I happened to mention that earlier in the thread↑, so, yeah, here we are coming 'round the circle again. Something about fairly and equitably?

But there is also another irony about this ignorance:

The answer is quite clearly no; that is established in history. To the other, however, we have specific precedent; empowerment monopoly is the American Way. See, the thing is that equality was never intended for women, so people have been really pissed off about Amendment XIV on that count, too, pretty much the whole time.

But, yes, women were told at the outset.

As to your extraordinary Code of Laws, I cannot but laugh. We have been told that our Struggle has loosened the bands of Government every where. That Children and Apprentices were disobedient―that schools and Colledges were grown turbulent―that Indians slighted their Guardians and Negroes grew insolent to their Masters.

But your Letter was the first Intimation that another Tribe more numerous and powerfull than all the rest were grown discontented.―This is rather too coarse a Compliment but you are so saucy, I wont blot it out.

Depend upon it, We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems. Altho they are in full Force, you know they are little more than Theory. We dare not exert our Power in its full Latitude. We are obliged to go fair, and softly, and in Practice you know We are the subjects. We have only the Name of Masters, and rather than give up this, which would compleatly subject Us to the Despotism of the Peticoat, I hope General Washington, and all our brave Heroes would fight. I am sure every good Politician would plot, as long as he would against Despotism, Empire, Monarchy, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, or Ochlocracy.―A fine Story indeed. I begin to think the Ministry as deep as they are wicked. After stirring up Tories, Landjobbers, Trimmers, Bigots, Canadians, Indians, Negroes, Hanoverians, Hessians, Russians, Irish Roman Catholicks, Scotch Renegadoes, at last they have stimulated the to demand new Priviledges and threaten to rebell.

(Adams↱)​

No, really. That is the actual response to, "Remember the Ladies!" It is interesting to think who he leaves unnamed—("… stimulated the to" is not a typo; there is a large blank space on the handwriten page after the word "the")—and note as well the phrase "demand new Priviledges".

Actually, what's funny is that I was springboarding from your post↗ the last time I quoted that bit. No, wait, it's not funny. Here we are, two hundred forty-one years later, and between John freaking Adams and you, have we ever really stopped running around this spaghetti-wet, flippy-floppy, narrowly-proscribed circle?
____________________

Notes:

Adams, John. "John Adams to Abigail Adams, 14 April 1776". Adams Family Correspondence, eds. L. H. Butterfield et al. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1963. HERB.ASHP.cuny.edu. 20 December 2017. http://bit.ly/2gN3rt4

 

Did we have a civilization for the past century, considering that men have been getting away with assault this whole time? Unless someone presses charges, and you get a trial, then no, you don't get any special due process.

 

Yeah, sure, what was your problem with "hysterical" awhile ago? See I'm sure I'm not the one going around raping women, or even touching them or interacting with them sexually in any ways, so your slander of me is useless.

Yeah and us jews are conniving, so? I don't let that stereotype hurt me. As for acting like a decent human being: don't care, winning elections is what matters. See I'm sure a bible thumping republicans thinks only being a god fearing married Christan heterosexual is being a "decent human being", likewise you and your ilk think that only absolute submission to every concern of women (of which you are the speaker of all women by the way) is a "decent human being". So yeah, fuck being a decent human in yous eyes then and just try for making sure society progresses in raw objective testable and falsifiable numbers. Is crime going down, yes, is rape going down, yes, is sexual harassment going down, yes, is poverty going down, no, that not good, is the median income going up, barely, not good very not good, etc.

Depends, what do these programs actually do, HOW do they curb violence or rape? Do they simply have the boys listen to lectures for hours being told "Your a "potential" rapist, don't rape!" well then there will be a back-lash, both culturally and politically, like we have already seen.

Oh, wait were they again?

No that is a slanderous dishonest strawman: everyone deserve a right to due process, that is you can't simply punish them on mere accusation, and yes thousands of people harassing someone, or their employeer, on accusations is a punishment, it s a punishment outside the law and grossly uncivilized: it is a return to witch hunts and lynch mobs, tar and feathering. You tell me how giving women the right to destroy a man at a whim, without evidence, on claims made years after they supposedly occurred, equals treating women as human beings? Do men have such a right, no, no one gives a fuck, so why the fuck should women?

No we can't, we need to win elections, nothing we want to get done is getting done down, in fact the opposite is happening.

Once again your strawman. Again what protection are you asking for? That rape be illegal, it is, that sexual harrasment be illegal, it is, what fucking more protections are you asking for? The far right are bitching about gays as if gays are a problem, with no solution or objective... just like SJW do about "patriachy" and "rapeculture".

How am I selling out women? Do women not need jobs, wages, healthcare and whatnot? What right am I asking be sold away? Women have a right to go to the police and report a crime on them, social media is not judicial justice.

Wow wait, what rights not protected are you talking about?

Losing my shit? Women already have those rights, rape and sexually assault and harassment are going down and are at very low levels: yeah healthcare is a more important issue now.

By doing nothing, by bitching on the internet, my truly a glorious virtuues decent human being you are.

It is not genes it is hormones activating genes. Most men don't cry as much as most women, most women are not attracted to that. Are you attracted to this:



Just give you a scenario: a mugger has you and your male partner at gun point, his response is to hid behind you, scream and wimpier while urinating on himself.... total turn on.

That it is a bullshit unfalsifiable ideology just as much as "homosexaul sodomy is ruining the nation" is.

How fucking dishonest can you be? I'm telling you what the far right do and you apply it to me.

Who, does not matter who, it is just a matter of fact that women generally don't fuck the guy that is crying all the time.

How well did it work for Tupac?

Yeah and the boys will grow up to generally not cry, either that or women generally will not be fucking them (unless paid), those men will learn quickly to regret not being taught what women really want, they will become gangsters and rant about bitches a lot and fuck lots of bitches, only becoming more and more cynical because they know each bitch does not really love them, but only loves them for what he can do for her, his money and his power, he can't find a "cool female" because he is only looking for a nice pair of boobs and tight bouncy ass, in the end dying on the side of a street after receiving a high speed injection of lead because some bitch got horny.

 

You are incorrect. There are cultural FACTORS that make rape more or less likely. A specific cultural factor does not CAUSE rape, just as violent video games or guns do not CAUSE violence.

You are also incorrect here. If you equate "maleness" to "rape" - then you are what's wrong with society. We have a president who was recently elected by people who believe as you do.

 

Once again there was a second Bells post up there I did not notice, fuck it.

Please elaborate. If someone commits a crime against you the civilized thing is to report it to police, if enough evidence is present then there is a trial, guilt is determined or not and you move on with your life. If you don't report that is on you? If you don't get your way, oh well, returning to a system of justice where any mere accusation demands punishment on the other hand would degrade our whole civilization. There was a time where if a white women said a black man even looked at her funny then a lynch mob hung him from a tree, is that the kind of justice you want to return to?

 

Sure and our culture does not have many factors that make rape more likely.

No I'm telling you what other people seem to be equating, like Bells you are dishonestly slandering me with arguments meant for another. It is not my fault SJWs equate "maleness" with "rape", creating a reactionary movement that elected a pig boar.

 

If there was a crime, there should ideally be legal action of the kind you equate with civilization itself. I'm talking about actions that can legally be taken against someone outside of that process, like determining if that person should keep their job. I think you are confusing the two.

 

Is the crime legally proven? Going to someone's employer or school with ACCUSATIONS can get them fired/expelled sure, but now you can be sued for slander later on, of course if it is thousands of you brigading someone that makes it near impossible they can pay to sue you all. It like lynching: can't arrest a whole town. Meanwhile the impunity of your righteousness degrades the whole society.

 

It's not slander if it's true.

 

Shouldn't it have to be proven true before punishment is met out?

If not, that's fine- but then we should drop the whole "innocent until proven guilty" pretense.