Power, Purity, Meekness and God. The Ugly Reality of Rape Culture.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Libel requires the victim to have some damage to their reputation. From what I've seen, it's virtually impossible for your detractors to damage your reputation, given that they have no credibility whatsoever. After all, they have been caught making bald faced lies, being trapped in internal contradictions, and repeatedly demonstrated an inability to address arguments in good faith. No-one cares what the village idiot says. I know that it sounds like they have popular support, but that's just an illusion that they have created by controlling the narrative. Outside of their little echo chamber, no-one takes them seriously.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The thing that gets me, Bells, is that it's hard to figure out what the actual, to borrow a word, "real" issue it is he would be getting after. To wit, I don't think social sciences work the way he thinks they do, though I can't be certain, because it's hard to figure what he's thinking other than, well, the apparent.

To put it as bluntly as possible, I just don't know what journal we're ever going to find a paper in called, "Comparative disruptions of intercohort genital sexual abuse and intracohort violence resulting from normalized socialization". You don't just Ask Jeeves, "How much worse is it to sexually molest your sister thank kick her in the shins?"

So where does one start? Basic differentiation between and within cohorts? Brain development and habit forming? How about trying to figure the relationship between brain development, formed habits, demands of socialization, and the shame of basic deviance from norm?

How to explain what goes on in any one mind under any one circumstance; as most of us are aware, that is not the easiest survey to achieve. The "downstream" effects? The eddies of conscientious disruption? The long dark nights of the soul? You know, they say abusive behavior is passed on between the generations; to witness the heritability of everything else?

I mean, consider the abstract idea of a friend, someone you've known quite literally most of your life. And, you know, I have every confidence that she doesn't treat her daughters such as she has been treated. And, well, you know, the thing is that it's not my right to speculate; technically I have exactly no idea. But can I see patterns that resemble results similar to projections for things I already know about her life? Yes. The only thing I can say of her parenthood is that no, I probably wouldn't do it that way, but who knows, since circumstances within which our parenting takes place are completely different. But I also see a young person growing into an adventure that will either fly or crash like nothing I've ever seen, with the middle-ground pathways toward more conventional normalcy rapidly closing, and yes, I know there is a connection. I will even go so far as to speculate this part, because I really do think it's apparent: One aspect is simply sublimated reaction formation whereby whatever the hell else happens, this parent will never create or allow within the family framework the ideas and perspectives that would have this young person indict herself the same way her mother remembers doing unto her own self years ago.

And while you, I, or anyone else are welcome to hedge over that phrase, "whatever else happens"―it is generally problematic, with increased exposure for harm, for an American female to be running squarely through her "danger years" five years early. But a whole bunch of shit that nobody approves of is happening and going to happen, and at some point there we might propose the difference between the Walk of Shame and a Walk of Reflection in Disgust.

That part, at least, I get. I can't tell this mother what to do or how to do it; I can't say definitively that the connections I see exist anywhere else in the Universe beyond my own mind.

While I am hard-pressed to detail the trade between increased individual empowerment and the concomitant fact that this young person is going to take some sort of thrashing, either literal or figurative, at the hands of society, it is also clear that long dark nights of self-indictment will cover a different sky.

Most adults in my society have difficulty comprehending even Brown's summary of the distillation of pleasure to genital focus. There are, of course, sixty-three-infinity facets to the proposition each demanding their own answers. But ... I mean, shit, do I really have to say it? Nothin' like jump-startin' the process!

Train up a child in the way she should go? That's the fucking point.

But here's one, that bit I posted↑ a month ago about reducing the impact and number of these offenses. I can't speak to how my friend's outlook addresses exposure to danger. There is definitely a trade-off between individual empowerment and danger exposure in this formulation, but I couldn't detail it. But I would propose that part of what my friend is doing by her parenting methods is impact and harm reduction. I can't tell you if there is a projection of inevitability in all of that, or if it's already too late for that question because empowerment against shame is one of the most important things anyone can give survivors. But it as clearly obvious as the sun in the sky if we try a certain straightforward formulation: The world is a cruel place; it will get to her somehow, and the first thing she needs to know is to not apologize when it does.

It sounds simplistic, I know, but I might as well have the flaming letters inscribed on the mountain: "We apologize for the inconvenience."

It's true, I couldn't definitively tell you anything else about how this survivor, now a parent, sees the world through the lens of her experiences, but this I know is in play, and very highly prioritized.

And how do I explain to anyone else how this has shaped my friend's life? One would not defy the bounds of reason to suggest it even shaped the course of her adult education, though in truth I cannnot actually justify that proposition as respectable working fact.

But how to explain any of this, with all its implications, gaps, and resulting potentials? How to detail something so vast? Some people spend their lives on the couch trying to vomit it out for the professionals. And neither do I have the full list accounting for what happened nor the right to begin judging what the impact of any abusive event equaled in the mind of my friend, this victim, this survivor. I can't tell anyone what it equals to her today.

But I goddamn good and well know what I'm seeing. At least this one part. And I have faith. She might be one of the smartest people I know, but that makes no promise that she has any better clue how to raise her children than the rest of us. And, sure, there are times when the first thought to mind is, "Jebus, you, what the fuck?" But that's also where community comes in.

But you know how it works in these newer, proactive circles; if disaster strikes, the cavalry rides in and forms up. Establish the line and push outward, give the survivor as much room and help as possible in recovery, slay shame where it shows itself, never ask why, and simply do. And should circumstance require service, we stow our sadness and stand with vigilant pride―it is our honor to be so entrusted in these darkest of hours.

And even now, with nothing on the record, the difference is starkly observable.

Ironically, the impact reduction tends toward what our neighbor seems to want, that molesting children doesn't fuck up the kids so badly.

But, you know, really, just how does one explain it all in concrete terms? Even within the overlapping perspectives you and I share, I'm way out on a limb trying to explain something. What happens to this rambling assessment if we cynically strip away what is observable?

Well, how cynically should we answer that rhetorical question? Because the irony only gets more sickeningly cynical from there. I mean, as far as we can tell, your or my efforts at impact reduction in our own circles only help affirm his self-serving prioritization of other people's trauma that also sounds a hell of a lot like a key facet of grooming.

The millions of survivors who stand in, push forward, and reclaim their lives? All that labor and anguish, and the resulting stability would only seem to affirm his desire that the abuse wasn't that big a deal to begin with? I mean, you know, depending on how cynically we wish to regard what is observable and known.

A conundrum that fits in there somewhere: We don't want the kids thinking about sex, so let's get them thinking about their genitals in a sexual context as early as possible.

That is to say―and here's a creepy detail, in a way ... but, okay: How old was your child the first time you caught him specifically entertaining himself? Right; don't actually answer that. My point being is that it sounds like a creepy question, but if we're all honest, it was probably younger than we feel comfortable discussing with others just in general, even before accounting for the fact that no responsible parent would discuss the real answer to that question in a forum such as this. But, you know, I look again to Brown's summary of Freudianism, which doesn't actually tell us anything new, but, rather, makes for a reasonably concise overview. There is a differentiation and subsequent reservation of pleasures leading toward adult genital focus. This is the most basic difference between presexual masturbation and, well, sexually-focused masturbation.

And all that just to make the point: I'm pretty sure you and I understand the difference between those behaviors; I would hope our neighbor does, too.

In order to wonder: What, really? He really can't tell the difference?

And who knows, maybe that's why he doesn't comprehend our disgust, but come on, at that point I would hope to be out on a limb.

Still, though, how to explain all this to someone who wishes to challenge established norms with extraordinary presuppositions flying in the face of what is observable?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

in saying that your only proving your as out of touch as there saying. to a neutral observer the only one whose statements come close to libel is your whiny attacks against them for daring to essential ask what the fuck is wrong with defending child molestation. you can lie as you have in this thread but it doesn't change what you did.

 

wrong as ussual. they have credibility. now you would be accurate as to say it couldn't be libel as capacus reputation after defending child molestation is so thoroughly crap as immpossible to damage. they have made good faith arguments. your child hating friend hasn't.

 

And it certainly isn’t true because you irrationally present it as such. Like I mentioned earlier, it was your characterization of rape that was being mocked, not serious acts of rape. The video contained all the elements for an ill perceived example of potential rape; non consensual touching, application of a potential harmful substance on the victim, and risk of penetrating a bodily orifice with a foreign object. Because all degrees of penetration and force are equal, a fingertip may as well be an arm and a fist.

It was you and Tiassa that admitted that child abuse is normal outside the bounds of sexual abuse. When such acts of child abuse are equal to or greater than a given act of sexual abuse in terms of offense, and you do not advocate like resolution, then you are by default minimizing such acts of child abuse. That you and much of society perpetuate this notion is not my prescription, but it is my valid observation. My recommendation is like treatment for like manifestation of harm. Explain how that equates to minimizing the infliction of such harm?

You can’t possibly be that dense. When intracohort violence that would otherwise be considered normal socialization is practiced chronically it becomes abuse. The problem is that even though such abuse is potentially more harmful than a given act of sexual abuse, it is often unjustifiably more tolerated. This fact is broadly recognized by sociologists, and the fact that you haven't encountered such assessments is a demonstration of your willful ignorance on the subject.

Or how to explain the realities of child abuse to those like you who go out of their way to ignore the full scope of established norms in order to perpetuate an ideological agenda.

 

Okay, so, what the hell are you on about this time?

And what established norms are you talking about? Something you made up last week? This morning? Have yet to make up in order to pretend you had something useful in mind?

 

I wasn’t impressed with your lame attempt to whitewash sibling violence as normal socialization.

How about the norms regarding what constitutes sibling abuse, the statistical significance of the various types, and how they’re commonly addressed. Care to share your knowledge on the subject?

Why don’t we just ask you instead? If you had to choose between having your sibling touch your genitals or kick you in the shin, which would it be, and why?

 

Part the First

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Well, nobody's impressed with your general lack of decency.

Your lack of comprehension, though, is quite impressive. No, really, what's the deal there, is that something you have to practice, or is it a God-given talent?

I'm really not certain that's something you can ask Jeeves for.

And, you know, that's another thing. Your attitude problem is the stuff of mocking legend. But I will go ahead and acknowledge a point from your first post in this thread↑: Just how is it that the family or the community ignored the victims?

To the one, you're right. They didn't ignore the victims. They antagonized and bullied them. They don't have to make any special effort at this point. Bullying women is the whole point of the Duggar sexplay fantasy.

Still, though, the striking ... well, either cynicism or stupidity of the question stands out. All these posts later you still can't justify that moronic inquiry, and neither are you trying. Everything else has been you adapting on the fly. In your second post↑ you suggested, "My understanding of the various media reports is that Josh’s molestation was reported to the parents by a younger sibling in 2002 and that apparently the parents felt the incident was not serious enough to warrant public intervention." Well, here's the thing about people using the phrase, "My understanding"; it's not so effective a phrase when one's understanding is so far behind the curve. At the time you said that, the difference was already clear.

Try actually offering an arguable thesis, not some nonsense about child molestation being ... well ...

"Family member often engage in various forms of physical contact. Parents and older children bathe and perform hygienic wiping of the genitals of young children. They also wrestle, kick, slap, push, spank, cuddle and kiss out of play, affection and anger. So with all of this touching going on between family members, don’t you think how it’s perceived has a significant impact on its potential for trauma? From the interviews in the police report, the three girls who were aware of the touching didn’t understand the nature of it at the time, and two of the girls were only aware of the touching because Josh admitted to it. Are you suggesting we create trauma in the minds of these girls after the fact by convincing them that such an encounter demands trauma?"​

... that↑?

Do you understand that you just postulated that things would be much better if only we groomed little girls for sexual activity?

See, the thing is that you're only delineating your argument at all in the context of enraged accusation.

And it's a well-known routine of the intellectually dishonest: Refuse to postulate any clear theory, offer no evidence, make extraordinary demands, require a general survey and restatement of all the literature in the world on the subject. Nobody's quite certain where to begin because what you seem to want is a chart or table indexing comparative disruptions per abusive behaviors (touching breast, touching genitals, asleep or not, and so on).

You also pretend to ignore what other people are saying, and only address certain points through oblique, bogus demands. Everything about your argument, from normalization of child sexual molestation, to your protection and promotion of the Duggars' deliberate empowerment of a child molester is problematic. When people read your question about creating trauma in the minds of survivors, it is easy for them to see what you're on about.

This thread has multiple aspects, and just like your stupid Turducken inquiry, you've managed over the course of posts to calibrate your response to a degree of refined absolute uselessness. This particular episode of child molestation stands out as somehow more important than others because of its specific prominence. The Duggars are an icon representing a certain ideology; that iconic status comes largely because of the adherents and sympathizers. To this end, the point about hypocrisy is important not simply because it is such obvious hypocrisy, but also because this episode highlights the dangers of this ideology.

As people, the Duggars appear to have done everything pertaining to these incidents and this issue exactly wrongly. Your suggested narratives only make sense if we ignore facts:

"That’s not how most parents would react to an initial complaint of molestation involving that level of contact. They would first try to deal with it conservatively at home."​

Well, right. But that's the thing. They did in fact respond that way to the initial report. And they set up precautions to prevent further abuse, but did so in a manner that made evasion exceptionally easy: He just molested the girls in a different room.

When they took him to the cop, well, no wonder the cop played along, but that "scared straight" bit actually required lawbreaking. At the point the parents are participating in conspiracies to break the law in order to prevent law enforcement from dealing appropriately with an issue, they're well beyond the pale of propriety.

Even today, these years later, as they struggle to justify themselves, the only real point the Duggars communicate is that they just don't get it. And this is not a surprise, either. They are culturally conditioned against comprehending these mistakes.

End Part I​

 

Part the Second

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

But like I said, the Duggars are also iconic, and we have before met this weird ideology they have come to represent. Ownership culture is important here. To the one, these things happen, period. To the the other, they handled it poorly. To the beeblebrox, they also set themselves up for this disaster in general.

And that's the important thing.

I would ask you to think for a moment of the media censorship wars. The PMRC in the '80s, wardrobe malfunctions in the '90s, eternal petitions to strike this book or that from the libraries, resistance to sex ed despite knowing their abstinence curriculum is exactly and perfectly ineffective. These issues are all interrelated, connected by a certain driving ideology, and it sounds like a joke when we say it all started with The Pill. And it's true, this was all going on long, long before that. The Pill, however, is also iconic, because it ratched the dissonance within participants of traditional ownership and, therefore, rape cultures. The problem with The Pill was not that it meant women could be more sexually active; the problem, in this outlook, was that women could be more sexually active when they wanted and with a man of their choosing. As long as a wife submitted to her husband, the more sex she had the better.

And this is still going on. Hell, we've even come full circle to oral contraception. No, really, think about that. For the last several years, we've actually been arguing over The Pill again.

It's the same ideology we encountered last year↑ when a Christian school expelled an eight year old girl for not being girly enough; their explanation was that they weren't accusing her of anything, but she was too confusing within their paradigm―they taught their children to expect girls to look and act a certain way, and this girl didn't, and that confused their children, so this girl had to leave. And as I noted then, and even again in this thread, Let us simply call it by its name―grooming.

This is why it's important to this case: The Duggars not only managed to do everything following the incidents wrongly, they also set themselves up exactly wrongly.

Exactly wrongly, how? Well, exactly wrongly in the basic context of parenthood. Most parents are just like anyone else, and don't specifically calculate evil; rather, they just think what they're doing is right and don't notice certain glaring problems. As a basic, general proposition this is exactly human; where such errors take on importance is in their effects.

Not only are they grooming females to be subservient, they are also accelerating the children's genital focus, and this is a really important point, especially since it is a fundamental component to a broad spectrum of political issues.

Why force children to grow up? Why introduce them to sex and sexuality? It was an argument against awareness of women's liberation during the Sexual Revolution; has been a constant appeal in censorship movements against music, books, television, and cinema; rises predictably in disputes over sex ed in schools; we have heard it recently in consideration of a vaccine for Human Papilloma Virus; and, yes, we most certainly heard it as part of the Gay Fray.

And yet, look at this culture. Look at the focus they put on sex, sexuality, and sexual behavior in an ostensible effort to shield the children from such human realities. The cookie jar. You're old enough to remember the magazine's somewhere in Dad's stuff that you weren't supposed to look at. The Tree of Knowledge, for Heaven's sake.

They have code words to tell the children to look away from something (A) unsuitable and (B) right in front of them.

You're a parent, man. What kid isn't going to wonder?

And then the actual molesting?

Basic sexual behavioral development; the winnowing of focus from polymorphous equivalence to genital focus°. A basic Freudian outlook would suggest that exacerbated genital focus indeed results in behavioral deviance, and this holds true if we observe that this all takes place within the norms of any given relevant period.

And you ask why a little bit of touching and feeling and groping and rubbing in a sexual context, you know, just between siblings, is a big deal?

This would be the first part. And this is also where your behavior is puzzling. As I noted over a month ago, in response to you↑, as it happens: There are many things we can do to reduce the impact of these crimes, but our first duty is to reduce the number of these crimes.

I would reiterate that point in part because at this point you are advocating for behavior that increases both the number and impact of these crimes, events, occasions, call them whatever you want.

But think for a minute about all that fretting over sexual morality from conservative Christian quarters. And there are certain aspects we might pause to consider here: Fundamentally, this purity culture paradigm increases genital awareness, accelerating differentiation between polymorphous and genital pleasure, thus increasing focus on sex, sexuality, and sexual behavior.

In the first place, it points out the "Tree of Knowledge" much earlier. ("Cappy stole a cookie from the cookie jar. Who, me? Yes, you. Not me! Then who? Milkweed stole a cookie from the cookie jar. Who, me? Yes, you. Not me! Then who ...?")

Just sayin'.

To the second, though, look at this paradigm. What about it doesn't increase, or even create psychological trauma?

And yes, there is in fact a third for the ski-boxing. Because this is grooming. They weren't "lucky" the cop didn't properly report the issue; he was a longtime friend, and, well, as it turns out there were other factors we would like to think were unforeseen, but who knows, maybe that's why he played along. In that context, maybe you're right; how lucky to have a child pornographer cop for a friend. Like they say in teeveeland, it's all about who you know.

Look, family is, by default, one's refuge from the rest of the world. After everything else↱, it's enough sometimes to put up with one's spouse, but, really? Your brother? Who you were told to look up to and respect and obey? No, really, you don't need specific Duggar-style ownership culture for that part. A sibling ten years senior will, under any normal circumstances, at some point be put in charge of his juniors, even if it's just for a run to the market.

Just in general, incestuous contact undermines one of the bedrock principles of home and family. Add in the other aspects of the Duggar case, and it really is difficult to comprehend why you would remotely pretend their conduct is anything but abysmal.

Like I said, putting up with a spouse or trusted partner is one thing, and let's face it, I'm generally talking about wives putting up with their husbands constantly pawing at them, but if we take away the idea of that sort of refuge, so that people have no place they can inherently escape certain pressures of the world outside, yes, we have redefined the family.

And in terms of individuals, artificially accelerating genital focus is inherently exclusively undertaken for the purposes of shaping that genital focus.

As to quantifying the disruption, that's a much tougher question, especially with so little definition of the inquiry. But for one who worries about inflicting damage on abuse survivors by making a big deal out of it, the problem is that the solution you are orbiting is also known as grooming. The point isn't simply to make women feel okay about being molested. The point is to stop as much of the molesting as possible from ever taking place. Redefining intercohort sexual molestation as normal socialization also fundamentally redefines home and family. The anthropological function of our inherent regard for reproductive, feeding, and waste systems about our own bodies is pretty murky. One thing, though, that seems apparent, is the broad spectrum of effect.

Ever read "Rocket Man", by Ray Bradbury? Of all the things you might imagine that could make you afraid of sunlight, for how many is the solution that people should just stop being disrupted by such events?

True, sunlight is an amazingly spectacular example, and in truth it's generally not that sort of abiding fear. But, you know, what if the smell of evergreens had operant value in your decision making? Would you ever actually know that was taking place? And that sort of thing happens to survivors who were much older than five when it happened.

An indelible imprint, an affecting influence that will, by the nature of human brain and social development, persist throughout her life.

That's why it's bad.

Reshaping sexual behavior and expectation to accommodate harassment.

That's why it's bad.

Accelerating genital―sexual―focus in young children?

Oh, come on, really? These basics aren't enough?
____________________

Notes:

° See Norman O. Brown, Life Against Death: The Psychoanalytic Meaning of History, a 1959 reconstruction of Freudianism within a classicist context, for a reasonably concise overview.

Deutsch, Barry. "Street Harassment". Ampersand. 1 September 2010. LeftyCartoons.com. 2 July 2015. http://bit.ly/1H3WEkD

Fin​

 

I don't see anywhere in particular he is defending child molestation. I do see a number of knee-jerk responses and strawman arguments in regards to some of his matter-of-fact statements. For example:

- Capracus observes that certain acts of sexual assault don't cause as much trauma as certain acts of non-sexual assault. That's a no-brainer observation, not a defense of child molestation.

- He observes that Josh Duggar needed attention and help. My response to this is: No shit? The kid obviously had emotional and sexual issues, as well as a problem with self-control. It's the responsibility of parents to address and correct the source of errant behaviour in their children, not shit them out the door when they commit egregious offenses. After all, don't you whiny left wingers want Josh to get better? Shouldn't a parent take responsibility and try to fix their child's bad behaviour, both for their own good, and the good of society as a whole? Then again, I've found that the notion of responsibility is an alien concept to many liberals.

- The term 'rape culture' has been thrown around a lot this thread, even though the scenario with the Duggars didn't involve rape. Yet again, liberals are attempting to inject their own irrelevant social and political agendas into a discussion.

- The term 'ownership culture' has also been brought up. Huh? As Capracus pointed out, such a term doesn't even exist on Wikipedia, which is a pretty diverse online encyclopaedia from which anyone in the world can make entries. If the case against the Duggars was so clear cut, I don't think liberals would need to invent fictional terms.

- There has been a lot of speculation about the attitudes of the Duggars towards women, sexuality, rape, molestation, etc. All of this speculation reveals more about the hateful biases of certain participants in this thread, rather than the Duggars themselves.

 

not rape... wow... just... just wow. just because he didn't stick his dice in her doesn't mean it isn't rape

 

Now we can all climb aboard the victim train.

For purposes of this page, we use the term “rape” to mean all crimes of sexual violence, not just those crimes that would qualify as “rape” under the FBI definition or under state laws.

https://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/was-it-rape

Forget about restricting rape to intercourse; let’s expand it to any perceivable act of sexual intrusion, such as the public viewing of a streaker, breastfeeding mother, or scantily clad man or woman. Since penetration or even physical contact is no longer essential to the term, we can include simply thinking about the commission of an unwanted sexual act, like Jimmy Carter did:

"I've looked on a lot of women with lust. I've committed adultery in my heart many times."

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1859513_1859526_1859518,00.html

 

You are aware that former President Carter is a Christian?

When complaining about overly broad definitions of sexual misconduct while defending sexual misconduct committed by a Christian in a specifically asserted Christian context, it doesn't really do you any good to denigrate what Jesus said.

Between Mr. Carter and Josh Duggar, one of them actually sounds like a Christian.

And within that paradigm, presuming that Mr. Carter did not lie about looking upon women with lust, he is exactly correct.

And perhaps it seems strange to you, but that's one of the reasons why so many people respect him. It's also the reason why so many social conservatives who call themselves Christian will take special time out to loathe him.

But I do think your complaint is absolutely adorable. Because, you know, you're so caught up in your ego trip that you're just saying whatever dumbass thing comes to mind. You know, I think of those high school boys several years ago who crammed mop handles and other objects into one of their classmates. It's good to know they didn't rape anybody.

To the other, if it ever comes about that you suddenly find yourself willing to deal with reality, we might remind that not all rape culture is specifically invested in sticking penises in bodily orifices.

My advice for you, on the next occasion you feel like embarrassing yourself so spectacularly, is, quite simply, don't. You walked into this thread with a dumbassed chip on your shoulder, took up a personal dispute you carry with other people, and proceeded to bury yourself. No amount of petulance is going to dig you out.

Sadly, your vendetta is such that you overlook what common ground we might find. Put simply, "Question everything" is one of those ideas by which "a little bit of knowledge can be dangerous". Yes, our culture does much to exacerbate the damage of sexual violation, but unfortunately for whatever sick dreams you're harboring, we won't be erasing it altogether. Meanwhile, if you want people to believe you're sincere about your worry for the extra burdens our culture places on rape survivors, you might (A) try showing it, sometime, and (B) stop sticking your lip out in defense of rape culture.

 

There is a key difference here... one which your dishonest attempt at a red-herring is forgetting:

Sexual Touching involves this little thing called TOUCHING, you know, physical contact. I'm sure that's a foreign concept to you, for a multitude of reasons, but try to stick with me as I make my point.

Lustfully looking at someone... well, I don't know about you, but most human beings have these things called eyes that allow them to see what someone or something looks like without touching it/them...

Please tell me even you can see the difference here...

 

uh oh... you said
Train

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

I think we're supposed to pretend he made some kind of point.

Then again, I could be wrong.

 

The only point I'm seeing at this juncture is the one atop Capracus' head.

 

I used my favorite president’s quote as an extreme example of just how far the definition of sexual violence may be stretched.

They both sound like Christians, but I’ll take Jimmy’s brand over Josh’s any day of the week.

Well Jimmy being human, it’s not beyond the realm of possibilities that he may have done more than just look at other women, but I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Until otherwise informed by some hidden truth, to me Jimmy’s about as respectable as they come.

No, you’ve got this high school behavior all wrong, it all falls under your definition of normal socialization; it’s just traditional hazing, the boys all grow out of it eventually and become well adjusted adults.

So that was from 1988, and talking about a long standing tradition of cookies in buttocks. These incidents are disgusting, but better to hear about it and get it in the open than to have it happen to our kids behind closed doors. Hopefully, shining the light on this issues will make those that are subjected to it speak out, rather than perpetuate the cycle. It’s not part of football, or being part of a team.

http://thebiglead.com/2014/10/10/disturbing-high-school-hazing-trend-anal-penetration/

To bad you didn’t consult with the staff attorney before engaging in your own dumbassery.

The new Summary definition of Rape is: “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or

anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex

organ of another person, without

the consent of the victim.”

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/u...ew-rape-definition-frequently-asked-questions

A little closer to home:

Wash. Rev. Code § 9a.44.040

• “Sexual intercourse” has its ordinary meaning and occurs upon any penetration, however slight, and: Also means any penetration of the vagina or anus however slight, by an object, when committed on one person by another, whether such persons are of the same or opposite sex, except when such penetration is accomplished for medically recognized treatment or diagnostic purposes, and Also means any act of sexual contact between persons involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another whether such persons are of the same or opposite sex.

http://apps.rainn.org/policy-crime-definitions/index.cfm?state=Washington&group=3

You think a mop handle might qualify as an object?

As long as you insist on making sexual violence a class of violence more deserving of concern than violence in general, then dealing in reality is not your cup of tea.

Pot to kettle, pot to kettle, come in kettle.

Yes, my long standing vendetta against those who refuse to apply a reasonable standard of evaluation regarding matters of violence and their associated harm and remedy. If that makes me an enemy of the state in your twisted ideological view, then I gladly accept the title.

As I pointed out the other staff member, rape has a specific definition which requires more than just touching, it also requires penetration of some kind. Simply touching someone in a sexual manner without penetration is not rape.

Did you not read the conditional definition of rape proposed in the RAINN article?

For purposes of this page, we use the term “rape” to mean all crimes of sexual violence, not just those crimes that would qualify as “rape” under the FBI definition or under state laws.

https://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/was-it-rape

Do you understand just how broad the definition of sexual violence can be stated?

Sexual Violence: Definitions

Noncontact unwanted sexual experiences - does not include physical contact of a sexual nature between the perpetrator and the victim. This occurs against a person without his or her consent, or against a person who is unable to consent or refuse. Some acts of non-contact unwanted sexual experiences occur without the victim’s knowledge. This type of sexual violence can occur in many different settings, such as school, the workplace, in public, or through technology. Examples include unwanted exposure to pornography or verbal sexual harassment (e.g., making sexual comments).

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/definitions.html

So yes, just those things called eyes and ears are enough to facilitate an act of sexual violence. Even someone as well respected as Jimmy Carter, if his lustful intentions were somehow received unwantedly by sight or sound, could conceivably be construed as an act of sexual violence. So when people or organizations start equating any degree of sexual offense with rape, then it tends to minimize the serious nature of the real thing. Don't you think?

 

Yep. Because HPV and an increased risk of cervical cancer is no different from a bruise on the shin.

You're trying a really childish sleight here, and the only real mystery is how on earth you think you're fooling anyone:

― To the other, if it ever comes about that you suddenly find yourself willing to deal with reality, we might remind that not all rape culture is specifically invested in sticking penises in bodily orifices.

"As long as you insist on making sexual violence a class of violence more deserving of concern than violence in general, then dealing in reality is not your cup of tea."​

To the one, you don't understand rape culture, which isn't a surprise.

To the other, sure, I suppose we can believe you're not smart enough to tell the difference. I mean, if you really want.

In the end, the general ignorance and hatred you've shown is nothing new, though I admit that in terms of basic human decency, it really is disappointing that you would put such an effort into denigrating rape, rape culture, and rape victims and suvivors.

But I can tell you when your opinions on sex, sexuality, sexual behavior, and sex crimes will be respected by people other than your fellow rape advocates: When you have something respectable to say.

That little hissy-cow you pitched in #193↑ pretty much makes the point. Oh, poor you, so you throw in some more stupid political hyperbole.

Yeah. Well, at least we know what's important to you. Well, okay, at least we know what you say. Not that any of it is reliable. The only aspect of your argument that is remotely clear and consistent is your ferocious adocacy of rape culture.