The Fastest Growing Violent Crime In The United States

Post by Tiassa 10:09 Yesterday

"Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon

Studies have shown that rape is not the exclusive domain of modern man, nor even of humanity as a whole! Rather, it is common amongst animals of all sorts, and as Neanderthal was likely close enough to do many things similar to ourself, and whom likely displayed similarities to our primitive cultures (where rape is certainly present) it is reasonable to conclude there was rape in that culture, too. ” KadiuOrkhon did not make the preceding post.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It started under the title:
"The Fastest Growing Violent Crime in the U.S."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tiassa:

"(1) Because no man on this planet has a 36-inch penis that is bigger around than a 12-pound bowling ball."

Meaning: To drop it on their balls? In which case you prove my point: Fight back.

"(2) Because, as with all violence, the solution is generally not to sink deeper into the mire; sure it might make a perpetrator feel better, what's the next escalation?"

When met with deadly force, does not one have to respond in kind? Similarly. is it not held that a sense of invulnerability being shattered (in the case of bullies, for instance) can change behaviour by showing that they are not Gods and can be taken down as low, or even lower, than their supposed victims? Revenge is also a nice deterrent of certain behaviours.

Perplexity:

"With his hyperbolic "rape back" I had rather understood that James' very meaning was that there should not indeed be so much to be afraid of; a competent female ought to be able and willing to defend herself."

Yes, precisely.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Above all else what is so worrying about rape, what so often makes a rape cape so difficult to prove in a Court of Law, is the way that a woman assertively declares that she was raped, but only after the event, while the offence was by no means so clear before the event.

--- Ron.

 

On virtually every advertisement from coca cola to car radiator spare parts there seems to be the subliminal long lobbed shafts of suggestion that sex is the perfection of life and the panacea for all ills, dividing the distance between our eyes - In other words there is the message that lust is good... but wrath, the natural consequence of lust, is bad - its kind of like the idea that it is okay to pass stool but it is not okay to pass water.

For a society that insists on the cultivation of lust there is no avoiding the concomitant incidents of wrath

 

Billboards tend to reflect the dominant paradigms of consciousness slightly more than they shape them - On the whole though, value systems tend to be reinforced by numerous phenomena, not just billboards

 

Everyone feels lust at some point. Only a small minority rape, which suggests that there are other factors at play, eg viewing women as sexual objects; a desire to dominate, humiliate, possess and control them.

And why do you say that wrath is the natural consequence of lust?

 

To:Kaiduorkhon

In personal experiance, it's the lack of police. A 16 year old child could get beat by 3 grown men with a chair. File the crime with the police the same night in the exact same plce it happened, id the suspects. Then have to go down to the police station again. To fill out another series of paper work. Whilst the criminal is in his house drinking a beer and watching television. After all the paper work is filled out maybe two days later a warrent might go up for their arrests. Then maybe they might get pulled over and arrested for it. Assuming the police officers do their job correctly.


Now on a different note. When some one is raped it is indeed an incredibly hard crime to prove. alot of things must be done as soon as possible, or nothing can happen. Even then they must go through trial and be proven guilty. It's not all that easy. Arresting one rapist could take years in the justice system. When it only takes hours for hundreds of women to get raped.

So from how i see it, the only problem is our justice system. Which fails to do much better then what they want to do.

 

Well in domestic violence, everyone tends to lose grip of themselves. Then gain it back after a short period, for both parties. So when everyone is calmed down and the ordeal is over, why do the police need to be involved in such a vast majority of domestic violence anyways. Dysfunctional families are a new past time. I think anyone from one, being most people from the us, or the uk tend to look past this crime anyways.

 

If its not an issue of sex why is rape primarily performed by men against women?

 

Well what else is the result of lust? Satisfaction? (Billboard personalities aside ...)



Maybe we should backtrack to a definition of lust just so we can get clear on terminology - How do you define lust?

 

According to Stop Prisoner Rape more men are raped in prison in the US than female victims on the outside. Most of the rapists identify themselves as heterosexual. The victims are often homosexual but anyone who isn't protected as part of a gang is susceptible. This supports the view of rape as a power game rather than a solely sexual act.

Let's take dictionary.com's definition of lust: "Intense or unrestrained sexual craving". All of the definitions I've looked at mention a sexual craving or desire. This is the only one which mentions the intensity of the emotion and that seems to me to be a necessary part of the definition, in order to distinguish it from the mere hope of or wish for sexual contact.

To answer your other question: yes, satisfaction can be one of the outcomes, as can disappointment, dissatisfaction, a natural abating of the emotion if it isn't satisfied... this list isn't exhaustive. Why do you say wrath is "the natural consequence", as if there can be only one?

 

Nobody said that it is not an issue of sex.
Issue is what comes, the result.
Motivation is about the cause.

--- Ron.

 

An eye for a what?!

Actually, I was referring to the old process of “Insert Object A into Hole B”. Have you ever seen the “decorative” (I can’t imagine who would use the things) toys in sex shops?

Nope. Force sufficient to escape the initial and offensive deadly force is sufficient. Furthermore, your question presumes a certain immediacy that does not necessarily equal the notion of “rape back”.

The “nice” aspect of revenge is a subjective and personal value. What does the bully learn, for instance, if that “shattering” takes place at the moment of their death? All you’ve got is a dead bully and a further justification for the “niceness” of violence. Think of any one of us as individuals; had we met with what we consider equal force those issues and people that offended us, the only good result would be asserted quantitatively in terms of population control.

Piles and heaps o’death are wonderful as long as individuals treat the world as if everything exists for the individual. It does not. My individual benefit depends on the outcome of group functions. That’s a truth of living in an organized society. As anarchistic as I get from time to time, I have no wish to going back to the days of running and hiding from wild animals on the savannah.

Transcending the violence will do more, in the long run, for both the species and the individual. Impatience is a challenge to overcome, not a feeble excuse or anemic justification.

Besides, think of all the Catholics, for instance. Were those young boys to “rape back”, not only would the offenders (e.g. priests) have enjoyed it, but they would still stand before their god with blood or other bodily fluids on their hands. An eye for an eye, maybe, but Christ died for them so that they would not have to become sodomites in order to fulfill “The Law”.

Speaking of "an eye for an eye", do not current events concerning Israel testify against the utility of such a philosophy?

 

Does that nean to equate violence with impatience?

I think it is more often the case that the violence comes because of the deliberate suppression of anger, when too much is put up with for too long and then the dam eventually bursts.

--- Ron.

 

Hopeful Resumation of Specific Thread Topic

With exceptions granted where they exist, women do not carry as much brute force as men. Two equal sized people, a man and a woman, of the same age, weight, diet and excersize, results - as a rule to which there are acknowledged exceptions - in the male being approximately twice as physically strong as the woman. Not in terms of endurance or courage, but, in terms of brute force.

Of course this is due to the physiochemical differences in proportions of female estrogen and male testosterone.

Although special skillls can enable a woman to physicaly defend herself and even defeat a man, this is the exception and not the rule. The rule is that women and children are easier to physically overwhelm then other men, so the (anomalous) predatory male mentality prefers to select women and children upon which to prey. Maximizing his chances of success. His objective may be robbery, the gratification of wielding power over someone and the enjoyment of witnessing their suffering, or all of the above.

For about ten years, throughout the U.S. military, approximately between about 1985 and 1995, a new policy was engaged, wherein, enlisted males were required to address commissioned female officers as 'Sir', rather than 'Ma'am'.
The convuluted thinking here was that the role reversal in the calling of a woman a man, would evoke respect from men who disrespect women, and that, in some cases, the woman might also feel conversely empowered.

Needless to say this was a wrong step in the opposite direction it was so hysterically intended, only underscoring, highlighting and strengthening the problem it was intended to alleviate. The policy was discontinued when on innumerable occasions we may only begin to imagine how it proved itself to be the insane practice that had suddenly been madly imposed.

The Reader has probably heard of those who think with their penis. Then there is the less recognized category of those who think with someone else's penis. Whereas, in the above example of extreme penile madness, we have a triplicated example of the first and second category, joined by what is nothing less than the clinically insane preoccupation of thinking with someone else's penis, when that someone else who's penis is being telepathically communicated with, doesn't exist, but is delusonally imagined to exist, in order to evoke respect from a man who doesn't respect other people unless they've got one.

It gets worse. This rule of the enlisted military man calling a commissioned military woman, 'Sir', was not conjured by hysteria afflicted enlisted men or even your average commissioned officer staff. No indeed. This came all the way from the top. This is the way the Pentagonal Corridors of power were intending - for a decade - to solve the problem of male aggression against females...

Solution: don't educate men to respect women. No. Instead. Figuratively render the female exinct.
(Re: Reduce the crime rate. Fight Violence. STAMP OUT VICTIMS! <If women were men, and children were adults, obviously the problem would be minimised. A predatory man has all those irresistable opportunities to empower and gratify himself, offered to him by all those women and children who do not realize <Reality be damned?> 'its a man's world.').
- Kai

 

I submit that this problem will neither correct nor eradicate itself. Primarily because the problem is deliberately generated and maintained by and within a woman hating society.

This is not a guesstimate or an overstatement. It's been dealt with for a long time by distinguished persons who've done their homework (all of which has been kept in the margins and displaced with violence against women and children as standard TV programming recreational entertainment - eclipsing unknown, desperately exluded works such as)...

Susan Brownmiller's AGAINST OUR WILL: Men, Women & Rape. Eric Fromm's ANATOMY OF HUMAN DESTRUCTIVENESS, Susan Faludi's THE UNDECLARED WAR AGAINST WOMEN, Simone De Beuvoir's THE SECOND SEX, Emelie Buchwald, Pamela Fletcher & Martha Roth's TRANSFORMING A RAPE CULTURE. Marilyn French's THE WAR AGAINST WOMEN, Peggy Reeves Sandy's FRATERNITY GANG RAPE,

THE RAPE MENTALITY
Recreational Woman Hating In The U.S.
WHERE TO START-STOPPING THE INFRASTRUCTURAL SOCIAL VIOLENCE: Misogyny (Woman Hating) Revisited:

Q.) What is the most employed serious verbal insult in the United States?

A.) Fork you! (Paraphrased)

This is the undeniable infrastructure of woman hating - misogyny (for which there is no male-hating counterpart word in the English language) - in the United States.

Women may hurl the aspersion, but it's still projecting the (Fork!) role of a male on what is instantly transformed into the receiving role of a female (You!). Rarely is the insult intended in a caring manner, but rather as a categorical and angry insult, assigning the role of the male to the projector and the role of the (unwilling) female to the 'recipient' (target). Repeat. This expression and what it really means has become so much a part of the American culture that it is not recognized for what it is: the infrastructure of the rape mentality. Hear. Think. Say. Do.... (Act out.)

Review: The most commonly used male vs male verbal insult (Fork U!).

This is the direct counterpart for randomly calling a man 'queer', or 'gay', or 'corksocker', or 'bortfork' (paraphrased - in each case, projecting the role of a woman on a man. Although women do use these terms, they are simply aping what is fundamentally and by far the dominant male paradigm in issues of male insults and put downs projected on other males. It matters not what the sexuality of the target really is, he's being involuntarily cast - ready or not - into a woman's role: the role of a raped woman.. Or a woman who may be raped at any time...

This author has yet to see this phenomenological fact with which everyone is all too familiar, openly counterstated: published or controversied anywhere in the mainstream - whether you practice or agree with it or not. (People who don't practice it cannot escape hearing and otherwise being exposed to it, certainly women and children included; whereas: Nobody Wants To Talk About It. The publicly practitioning monsters reign supreme: unrestrained.)

It inevitably translates to being 'the worst thing a man can be' - a woman... Specifically, an overwhelmed, overpowered, humiliated, defeated, raped woman...

Womanization of men is - by far - the (altogether undeniably) most common angry or wry insult in the U.S. Moreover, this fact is rarely recognized as being what it is. The infrastructure of the dominant paradigm - the male rape mentality. Directly related to 'AGAINST OUR WILL', and 'WE MUST (Fork You!) STOP THE VIOLENCE. Of course it has nothing to do with currencied sex - it is categorically an assault on sex and all of the contingencies of lovemaking, intimacy, sharing and caring...


"A woman in a three piece suit is shiek.
But, a man in an evening gown is fired."
- Kent Benjamin Robertson (Book title)

Moral: Women who dress like men are acceptably manlike; whereas, men who dress like women are unacceptably woman like.


QUESTION:
What is 'gay bashing', when there is no gay to bash?
Randomly & punitively Projecting the role of a woman, on a man.

What Is (alleged) 'Homophobia' - When There Is No Queer To Fear?

ANSWER: Racist, sexist hate-crime:

(Behold: the difference between men and women in one sentence: Rape is the most common serious crime in men's prisons, whereas it is relatively unusual in women's prisons, refer: AGAINST OUR WILL: Men, Women & Rape, by Susan Brownmiller ).

The subjected 'trivial' offense (Imposing the role of a woman on a man - the 'womanisation' of men by other men) is the verbal infrastructure of woman hating and the physical act of rape: the verbal Imposition of sex where not welcome/unbelonging. Hysterically calling (especially small physically statured) white males 'fags' Is practicing the same motivational bigotry as calling black people 'ni**ers', women 'holes', Jews 'sh*enies' & 'k*kes', Mexicans-’we*backs', 'gre*sers' etc: THINGIFICATION.

Have you been verbally and publicly threatened and /or assaulted for 'suspected gayness', yet? Do you 'look like one'? 'Why do you let it (nazi bigots) bother you?'

Men who Insist they 'don't have trouble like this', see more a trivial source of 'amusement' here than a serious, invasionary matter. 'Entertainingly', unimportantly, and directly related to the fastest growing physical violence in the nation. Ho hummie.

Is anyone you know - including your mother - not threatened by such an assailant? Imagines himself more masculine whenever he 'womanizes' any other man. This is his (hysterically shouted out) way of proclaiming that he isn't queer. 'There goes a fag!', equates with 'I'm not a fag!' Berserked, hysterical male sexist madness. Woman-hating (misogyny) by any other name or alleged ('socially acceptable' and/or 'politically correct') masculine disguise.

These are all, equally: the crazymaking languages and false dilemmas of Orwellean DEATH-SPEAK. The contrived misunderstanding of exploitive, disinformation-mongering, Friendly Fascism: The establishment & encouragement of 'acceptable, amusingly unimportant', publicly-excersized woman-hating platforms: 'not to be taken seriously'. Only whiners, complainers, woman-like fags and losers/victims take opposition to 'an obvious joke' like this.

The only question remains: Are You Working For, Or Against The('Fork-U-Fag!') woman-hating Insanity Factory That Has Taken Over Your Streets, Schools And Neighborhood, via television; as 'entertainment'?
THE COMMITTEE AGAINST INFRASTRUCTURAL *RAPE MENTALITY. - Kent Benjamin Robertson, Founder.

If you can't find a female to punish, become 'Godlike' and create one; just make sure he's white and small enough 4 U 2 'handle'- 'There's a fag!' - Instant, 'politically correct' gratification for the enterprising nazi connoisseur and the chuckling woo-man on H.I.S. arm (on her knees): especially small white males have no rights, dignity or grace and must be publicly punished where opportunity affords.

How can it be racism? When one or a group of white males project this on another white male? How can it be sexism when it's males projecting on other males? The New Age, Perfectly Flawless Friendly Fascism. PASS it ON. It is a laughing matter of no importance. Remember that and 'Get Real!'

You ask where rape most originates, and how it may be recognized and stopped. I submit that the above verbal American infrastructural tradition is among its most fundamental - most unrecognized; frequently laughed about - and at - sources of origin.

(Hear. Think. Say. Do. )

No. It isn't funny. But if a man hears this and takes offense, instead of shining it on, then, 'he must be a fag (woman-like, a man who plays a woman's role)', 'otherwise it wouldn't bother him' <Re: CATCH 22>)

Feeling insecure? 'Discover and publicly announce a ("There goes a") 'fag' - it'll establish that you are more manly than whoever you've just branded to be womanlike. :bugeye:
(Whether he is or not is irrelevant, of course <Frequently the designated - random - 'target' - is not even confronted, just passing by>... Refer, thingification of others in order to aggrandize and gratify yourself at the expense of others. Dehumanization of humans. Not infrequently laughed about and joined in with...).

No, I do not happen to be, nor have I ever been 'gay'; though if I were, it wouldn't make a wit of difference, as I'm sure any reasonable person would agree...

What can be done about it? Well. Popularizing the above dissertation and placing it in the mainstream consciousness (where it presently isn't) would be a swell place to start?

(No real problem can be resolved if and when it is surrounded by a policy of feigned ignorance, uncaring, denial or underestimation. Re: 'gridlock'.)
- Kai

 

Wow, you dragged up a three year old thread for that?

 

Update notes

Since this thread is back from the dead, I might as well offer two update notes:

• I have corrected an attribution error, three years late, in #116 above.

• Regarding the parenthetic note in the following statement—

Have you ever seen the "decorative" (I can’t imagine who would use the things) toys in sex shops?​

—I must now figure some sort of a retraction, as I have in the intervening period witnessed someone attempting to use one of those damn things. And I hope to never witness such a sight again.​