Rape and the "Civilized" World

Very cute... :bravo:

Just amazes me that (some) people seem to think that this is the answer....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Aw, look on the bright side. Capitalism is alive and well. :bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually, you struck a chord there. I love it.

If I could only figure out a better chastity belt than the next guy, I could get rich!

But wait! If you call now, not only will you receive the rape resistant panties, you will also get two complimentary non-removable bras! Absolutely...

(Just pay separate shipping and handling)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I will most definitely buy! Getting tired of putting rotting fish in my panties every time I go out walking!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

lol

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If it weren't so sad, it might be funny.

On a rather random note, I read an article not too long ago that chastity belts are often purchased now for um...fun/recreational use.

It's all fun and games, until someone misplaces the key.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The obvious comeback:

Errr... Why would you need to put fish there?

Ever hear about the blind man walking by the fish market?

He tips his hat and says... Good day Ladies!

So...

 

OOps double post. Once was enuf!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No accounting for taste, but if chastity is your sexual fetish, well...

Wait. I'm confused. If chastity is your sexual fetish (not your's specifically Wegs), and that means you get no sex, hmmm...

Whatever, I guess. More for the rest of us.

Seriously though, how exactly does one have fun with a chastity belt?

 

Well...the 'selling point' according to the article, is that some people ''enjoy'' being controlled by their partner, in a sexually demeaning kind of way.
Apparently, these belts are selling like hotcakes.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And men are wearing them, apparently, as well.

And that concludes this episode of...''too much information.''

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Prudish Pretense: It's the In Thing to Do (Sez HuffPo)

Yesterday I skipped a HuffPo article about the apparently shocking reality of male chastity devices existing on the market; now available in woodgrain and camouflage finish.

The thing is that there's nothing new here. Chastity cages have larger fan base than I would otherwise have thought, but the HuffPo article is representative of something they do that annoys me. That is to say, sure, it might warrant a couple column inches in the context of a website; I wouldn't waste newspaper space on it, but their attempt to cast the notion as something shocking or scandalous is just annoying. I know more about celebrity news because of the shit they cram into the sidebar for all the prudes who actually care about what Miley Cyrus said than I reasonably should. And that sort of crap relies on the same puritanistic pretense.

In truth, though, the (ahem!) "fun" part is trying to figure out the psychopathology of these quirks. Like I once sat through a moron trying to explain how femdom was empowering to women despite being presented in such a way that once again a woman is mere aesthetic dressing. That is to say, it's not really femdom if she has to meet all the aesthetic standards before she dominates. (It's part of the puritanistic bullshit whereby a guy thinks he knows what it's like to be raped because a college girlfriend once slipped him a finger.)

At it's basic level, the psychopathology of chastity devices is a mess; at first the Freudian superficiality of it all seems almost amusing, but the deeper we delve into the moving parts, the more strange the behavior seems.

I suppose if the public face of the behavior wasn't pornography for depraved men, it might look a bit differently.

Although, in truth, it's all fun and games until you've got a Dremel spinning next to your parts.

 

Can't type, laughing too hard ^^

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I clicked on that link, Tiassa.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Gah! One of those train wreck moments...you even warn the reader. I'm telling myself, look away, look away! But, I read the entire thing.

It's all fun and games, until you need to call 911 to...

(Forget the pub...that dude needs to move to another city.)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Better yet use those particular cock rings on rapists, I mean I like the idea of shredding when trying to remove it.

 

This woman deserves the Nobel PiecePrize. Now this is the kind of rape prevention that has teeth.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Woman's Role in Michigan

Two Words: "Rape Insurance"

It is the ultimate in Rape Prevention Theory: Women should simply plan on being raped.

No, really:

A controversial initiative requiring women to buy additional insurance if they want abortion coverage in their health insurance plans passed the Legislature Wednesday afternoon and will take effect 90 days after lawmakers adjourn for the year.

The issue was brought up at the same time in the House and Senate and Democrats immediately cried foul, decrying not only the bill, but that it should be an issue decided by all the state's voters and not just the 315,477 people — about 4% of the state's voters — who signed the Right to Life petition ....

.... The initiative would require most private and all public health insurance plans to offer a separate rider for an abortion. And a person would have to buy that rider before knowing if they needed an abortion. They would not be able to buy the rider after getting pregnant by any means, including rape or incest.

(Gray)​

State Sen. Gretchen Whitmer (D-23), explained the problem about as clearly as possible:

For those you who want to act aghast that I'd use a term like "rape insurance" to describe the proposal here in front of us, you should be even more offended that it's an absolutely accurate description of what this proposal requires. This tells women that were raped and became pregnant that they should have bought special insurance for it. By moving forward on this initiative, Senate Republicans want to essentially require Michigan women to plan ahead and financially invest in healthcare coverage for potentially having their bodies violated and assaulted. Even worse, it would force parents to have similar and unthinkably terrible discussions about planning the same for their daughters.

(qtd. in Conaway)​

There are, of course, many ways to dismantle this stupid law in the courts, and those will eventually prevail. To the other, however, given that notion, why bother? This is an incredible statement on the role of women in Michigan society: Women, you must plan ahead, and plan on being raped.

The only women who voted for this law, we should note, are Republicans. Of the few Democrats and one Independent who crossed party lines, all are men.

The message, of course, is clear: Women need to just stay the hell out of Michigan.

After all, they're just baby factories. It was within the faculties of the anti-abortion movement to deny this charge when the question was whether or not insurance would cover the so-called "elective" abortions. But that denial has just been washed away. Michigan needs its women as fertile and restricted as possible. Maybe they can repopulate Detroit by raping poor women.

Certes, we might find such notions sickening. But there is no point in denying Michigan's message to women: This is what you're worth; this is all you're good for.
____________________

Notes:

Gray, Kathleen. "Michigan Legislature OKs initiative to require insurance rider for abortion coverage". Detroit Free Press. November 12, 2013. Freep.com. December 15, 2013. http://www.freep.com/article/20131211/NEWS06/312110143/Michigan-abortion-rider-insurance

Conaway, Laura. "In Michigan, the meaning of 'rape insurance'". MSNBC. December 12, 2013. MSNBC.com. December 15, 2013. http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/michigan-the-meaning-rape-insurance

 

Metawhatsit? VA-10 Republican Choices Include (ahem!) 'Legitimate Rape' Plank

Virginia Congressional Race: Rape-Advocate Edition

Rep. Frank Wolf (R) is retiring after a long political career that culminated in a seventeen-term Congressional career representing Virginia's Tenth Congressional District, which shares borders with West Virginia, Maryland, and corners up against the District of Columbia.

Ordinarily the idea of a Republican primary to replace a Republican in Virginia holds about as much interest as the dregs in your coffee: best avoided, unpleasant if accidentally encountered, but hardly a crisis requiring professional assistance. To the other, though, this is also a year in which the Virginia Republicans lost a tight gubernatorial race that should have been theirs to enjoy, and in no small part because the Party took the unusual step of calling a convention in order to nominate an electoral slate of right-wing hardliners. There was the scandal-ridden attorney general obsessed with the sex lives of men who sleep with men, and of women in general. And his number two would have been the outspoken, hardline Christian preacher who can't even spell the word commandment correctly on his book cover. And the attorney general slot went to a hardliner who wanted women to report menstrual irregularity or other signs of potential miscarriage to the police within twenty-four hours or else face arrest.

Sure, the scandal surrounding governor McDonnell and gubernatorial candidate and outgoing attorney general Cuccinelli had tremendous impact; indeed, it probably put the seat in play. But Obenshain's narrow defeat in the AG race, and Jackson's loss in the LtG contest also make a strong case that the hardline social issues just aren't helping.

Enter Dick Black.

Yes, that's his name, for whatever it's worth in terms of the dumb-assed joke blazing through your head. Then again, the joke isn't so far off except that, in this context, Black is white, so it sort of depends on a racist sort of thing, so never mind—it's a metacommentary, I guess, on metacommentary.

Molly Redden explains, for Mother Jones:

Exhibit A: As a state legislator, Black opposed making spousal rape a crime, citing the impossibility of convicting a husband accused of raping his wife "when they're living together, sleeping in the same bed, she's in a nightie, and so forth."

Black has referred to emergency contraception, which does not cause abortions, as "baby pesticide." Black also fought to block a statue of Abraham Lincoln at a former Confederate site in Richmond. He wasn't sure, he explained at the time, that statues of Lincoln belonged in Virginia. He has argued that abortion is a worse evil than slavery. And once, to demonstrate why libraries should block pornography on their computers, Black invited a TV reporter to film him using a library terminal to watch violent rape porn.

In 1998, Black was elected a delegate to the Virginia House. He sparked multiple battles over social issues until he was voted out of office in 2005. But Black wasn't done. In 2011, after moving several times around Northern Virginia in search of a friendly district, Black was voted back into the Legislature, this time to the state Senate ....

.... Black entered politics in the late 1990s after retiring as a military prosecutor. He spoke frequently to media outlets about sexual assault in the military, and called military rape "as predictable as human nature." "Think of yourself at 25," Black told a newspaper in 1996. "Wouldn't you love to have a group of 19-year-old girls under your control, day in, day out?"

Black's first political position was with the Loudoun County Library Board in Northern Virginia, where he wrote a policy blocking pornography on library computers. The move drew national attention. First Amendment litigation against the Loudoun County Library Board struck down Black's restrictions and wound up costing the county $100,000. During that time period, Loudoun librarians say they only ever received one complaint about porn on their computers—against Black, when he pulled his rape pornography stunt.​

The crazy list is actually pretty impressive. For instance, his response to the Columbine massacre in 1999 was to propose legislation formalizing honorifics like "Ma'am", "Sir", "Mr.", "Mrs.", and "Ms." as a legal requirement for school students.

There's also the bit about how it's wrong to have a statue of Abraham Lincoln in Virginia: "Putting a statue to [Lincoln] there is sort of like putting the Confederate flag at the Lincoln Memorial." He even demanded the state Attorney General investigate the statue, erected on a National Park Service site, in order to see if any state laws would prohibit its placement.

In 2002, Redden explains—

As the Virginia general assembly repealed a ban on spousal rape prosecution, Black wondered if it was really possible for a husband to rape his wife. He said changing the law could cause a man "enormous fear of the damage to his reputation" if his wife ever filed a false rape claim. Last month, after the Weekly Standard highlighted Black's remarks on spousal rape, a member of Black's congressional campaign staff emailed the Loudoun Progress to say, "Black was not taking a position for or against marital rape."​

He introduced legislation later enacted by Ken Cuccinelli that allowed Virginia drivers to purchase anti-abortion license plates, with the funds then diverted to fraudulent crisis pregnancy centers that willfully promotes bad medical advice to their female patients.

Notarized permission slips from parents for minor females seeking medical care? Investigate adoptive parents as potential homosexuals?

The guy is clearly one of the hardliners, but that has played well enough for him to see two stints in electoral service, including his carpetbagging election to the state Senate in 2011.

So here is the thing to watch:

As a state legislator, Black opposed making spousal rape a crime, citing the impossibility of convicting a husband accused of raping his wife "when they're living together, sleeping in the same bed, she's in a nightie, and so forth" ....

.... Black entered politics in the late 1990s after retiring as a military prosecutor. He spoke frequently to media outlets about sexual assault in the military, and called military rape "as predictable as human nature." "Think of yourself at 25," Black told a newspaper in 1996. "Wouldn't you love to have a group of 19-year-old girls under your control, day in, day out?"​

See, rape is just as predictable as human nature, and before the pedants get their epididimi all knotted up over the fact that he was referring to military rapes and not marital, we ought to note the presupposition is inherent in his consideration of the husband's sexual needs. They're living together? So what? Sleeping in the same bed? So what? She's in a nightie? So what?

Maybe it sounds nice, but what man here is willing to sign a prenuptial agreement outlining the terms of his future monogamous sex life?

Can we all wrap our heads around that?

Because the obvious question is what woman wants to draw that one up. To wit, if such an agreement is necessary, then the marriage is probably a bad idea. So much for the sacred bonds of love and trust, eh?

Are we into the absurd, yet? Good. Now, then: Are the implications absurd, or is the principle from which they are drawn the problem?

Far too many people, in the face of such implications, the answer is to declare innocence, that one does not believe those things. Yet they are still perfectly willing to support such outcomes.

Virginia once again finds itself in a situation unenviable; it is a laboratory in which a certain social science idea will be tested.

Is the idea that marital rape isn't real or legitimate rape something people are willing to put up with if they do not believe in such ideas? If it ever worked out that the trains were all running on time, and so forth, but in order to do so they elected a bunch of politicians like Dick Black, would they be okay with it? To what degree are they willing to take the risk? And does their willingness to undertake any such risk have any significance? That is, if voters exclude state Sen. Black's crazy planks as untenable and therefore beyond worry, are they ignoring history? Given the risk analysis, are they prepared to haul this issue front and center, as Black has done throughout his political career, to no useful effect, and just because they think Dick Black can do other things that nobody else can do? And what are these things that Dick Black can do that nobody else can? I mean, if you can get all the upside without getting beaten in the skull with a crazy plank, why not do so?

So the test, really, will be whether Dick Black is actually the candidate Republicans choose to replace Rep. Frank Wolf. Is a walking misogynistic sideshow the best the GOP can find? Or is this, despite the post-election analysis that divisive, exclusive, aggravating polcy assertions were alienating large, legitimate, essential blocs of voters, what Republicans really want?

And the thing is that this isn't quite so important in the usual context of a philosophical or practical difference between party labels; that this is the Republican Party is a coincidence of history.

The guy doesn't like marital rape. Not so much that he thinks it shouldn't happen, but, rather, that it isn't really rape.

Where does the acceptability of this, the prospect that voters find such views functionally disqualifying or not, occur on the general list of priorities for the electorate? It is easy enough to imagine and accept that it is not at the top of the list. But how far down? And what comes before it?

One of the most prominent evils of coverture is somewhere on high on the priority list for one of VA-10's Republican candidates for Congress. In a Congressional district ranging from Manassas and McLean in the west to Front Royal and West Virginia, the Republican-leaning Tenth will be one of the most interesting backbencher primaries of the 2014 season because it includes so prominently a candidate who has gone on the record opposing the idea that marital rape is actually real, legitimate rape.

One would think, even if merely for political cynicism, that the GOP would have gotten the hint after the 2012 election, and if not then maybe after their hardline right-wing ticket lost the statewide vote last year.

But here we go, and this time the rape talk is going to be front and center.

Last month, after the Weekly Standard highlighted Black's remarks on spousal rape, a member of Black's congressional campaign staff emailed the Loudoun Progress to say, "Black was not taking a position for or against marital rape."

(Boldface accent added)​

What we on a certain side of this discussion about rape and the civilized world would describe as a key component of rape culture is in play for Virginia's Tenth. Watch that race.
____________________

Notes:

Redden, Molly. "GOP Congressional Candidate: Spousal Rape Shouldn't Be a Crime". Mother Jones. January 15, 2014. MotherJones.com. January 15, 2014. http://www.motherjones.com/politics...e-richard-dick-black-spousal-rape-not-a-crime

 

The arrogance, ignorance, and sheer stupidity of elected officials is staggering and depressing. What is even more disturbing, though, is the fact that they are elected.

Apparently women are fair game at all times for their need to control and oppress those who are not like them (i.e. privileged and male). Why don’t they ever propose legislation that deals with men’s accountability concerning their semen? If all women are good for is to be (willing or not) baby machines, then men need to be held to account concerning their disposition of semen too. Let those crank politicians police them(selves) for a change.

 

Uh - you do know that such laws exist, right?