Misogyny, Guns, Rape and Culture..

Status
Not open for further replies.
cluelusshusbund said:
Thats a grate reply for you'r prevous puzzlement.!!!
Click to expand...
It is, in fact, the entire problem.
The age of consent is an attempt to quantify and codify human development, and also an attempt to legislate to morality.
As such, it is never going to work, and it is often going to lead to innocent prosecutions and ruined lives. You have those like Tiassa up there, moralising and thundering on about morality and the destruction of young lives through sex.
The Original Victorian Sin cloaked in modern "psychology".

And now, of course, its gone so far we have 14 year old boys standing up in court telling how their lives are ruined because some schoolteacher had sex with them outside class.
Really.
Really.
Who the fuck ever heard of a young boy being ruined by contact with an older woman when he was 14.

Well, we all have now, haven't we. And if we haven't, by god, there are those who are going to make damned sure we're all completely aware of the damage done to those young malleable minds.
The increased instance of prosecution of female teachers having sexual relations with young boys isn't an indicator that it is becoming more prevalent, nor is it an indicator that the young boys in question are more willing to prosecute - its an indication that there are those who are licking their lips in anticipation of prosecuting them.
I wonder if those like Tiassa see any difference in the manipulation of a young mind into having sex in the first place, and the manipulation of that same young mind into feeling violated.

Kids would have been fine 50 years ago. Might have told, might not have, but wouldn't have ever grown up feeling violated in any way.
Now, of course, the kid's scarred for life and needs therapy. Why? Because we're convincing him he does.
 
Bells said:
Fear not, Rush can!

“Seduction used to be an art,” Limbaugh said. “Now, of course, it’s prudish, it’s predatory, it’s bad.”

The host read from Ohio State’s new standards for sexual consent, which is described as “the act of knowingly, actively and voluntarily agreeing explicitly to engage in sexual activity.” The guidelines explicitly state that “the absence of ‘no’ does not mean ‘yes,’” and that “it cannot be implied or assumed even in the context of a relationship” — and that’s where Limbaugh started to cry for backup outrage from his male listeners.

“How many of you guys, in your own experience with women, have learned that no means yes if you know how to spot it?” Limbaugh asked. Seeming to realize immediately that his comments might not be well-received, he added, “Let me tell you something, in this modern world, that is simply not tolerated. People aren’t even going to try to understand that one.”

​

It is not tolerated because it is rape!
Click to expand...
Bells, don't be so bloody simple.

When, in your mind, did "Baby, it's Cold Outside" become rape?
 
The Marquis said:
Bells, don't be so bloody simple.

When, in your mind, did "Baby, it's Cold Outside" become rape?
Click to expand...

What does a cheezy pickup line have to do with continued sexual advances upon a woman who has made it clear she doesn't want them...?
 
So it's an off-forum joke or an inside joke, neither of which are contributing to this thread?
 
I guess I should have remembered to include "trolling" as an option in that... ah well, my bad; seems you really don't have anything of value to add.
 
Oh, here we are back at the good old troll "argument".
There's value, right there.

Seems to me that someone should write a new internet rule.
 
*shrug* if the shoe fits, wear it. You chose to use an off hand response to a simple statement of fact, and when questioned about it you use another off the wall remark and refused to explain it, citing instead that those you deemed "worthy" already knew what it meant - pray tell, are those same people ones already participating in this thread?

Funny, really, how quickly a discussion can be derailed by such incongruent attitudes
 
"A statement of fact".
I rather thought that was the problem.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "Trolling". An offhand response , in this case (and in most others of mine), is more the result of despair than any desire to evoke an emotional response.
Still, if the thought of me struggling to fit my size 11 feet into your size 9 boot is for you entertaining, then by all means continue to imagine it.
 
The Marquis said:
"A statement of fact".
I rather thought that was the problem.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of "Trolling". An offhand response , in this case (and in most others of mine), is more the result of despair than any desire to evoke an emotional response.
Still, if the thought of me struggling to fit my size 11 feet into your size 9 boot is for you entertaining, then by all means continue to imagine it.
Click to expand...

So you claim that the idea that continued harassment of a woman after she had indicated she wants for it to stop is not somehow rape? What, is it not rape because the penis didn't make it to the vagina?

Sure, by it's classical definition:

Merriam-Webster said:
rape verb
to force (someone) to have sex with you by using violence or the threat of violence
Click to expand...

Oxford Dictionary said:
Rape
NOUN
The crime, typically committed by a man, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will.

VERB
(Especially of a man) force (another person) to have sexual intercourse with the offender against their will
Click to expand...

Then you would be correct. However, unless I am mistaken, it also includes grievous sexual assault and is usually preceded by sexual harassment of some form.

I ask again; what is the problem here, and what is it, exactly, that you disagree with?
 
The Marquis said:
Kids would have been fine 50 years ago. Might have told, might not have, but wouldn't have ever grown up feeling violated in any way.
Now, of course, the kid's scarred for life and needs therapy. Why? Because we're convincing him he does.
Click to expand...

Back that far ago in my small hometown in KY kids was a bit less advanced sesually than now... an when i was "violated" at age 19 (for a year) by a woman who was 29 i was much closer to bein a 16 year old of today... an i turned out just fine... us (my curent an only wife who is 1 year younger than me) bein happly married for over 40 years now... but that sort of stuff dont suport the agenda of this thred so it is considered irrelevant... still a good pont you'r makin tho.!!!
 
I'm taking issue with you taking issue with me taking issue with Bells taking issue with Limbaugh.

Clear?
 
The Marquis said:
I'm taking issue with you taking issue with me taking issue with Bells taking issue with Limbaugh.

Clear?
Click to expand...

In other words, you believe Limbaugh was correct in his assessment? Because, to be honest, the fact that I think Limbaugh is dumber than a box of rocks not withstanding, I take issue with what he said - if "no" doesn't mean "no"... then what does?
 
cluelusshusbund said:
Back that far ago in my small hometown in KY kids was a bit less advanced sesually than now... an when i was "violated" at age 19 (for a year) by a woman who was 29 i was much closer to bein a 16 year old of today... an i turned out just fine... us (my curent an only wife who is 1 year younger than me) bein happly married for over 40 years now... but that sort of stuff dont suport the agenda of this thred so it is considered irrelevant... still a good pont you'r makin tho.!!!
Click to expand...
It's entirely relevant.
These days, you'd end up in court being coached to say you're scarred emotionally, and will have difficulty forming meaningful relationships for the rest of your life. Of course, the fact that you've ended up in court being coached to say (and believe) such a thing will probably scar you for life.

I'm moving the issue to the male in order to highlight the difference in attitudes, as well. In much the same way the courts are recently.
 
Kittamaru said:
In other words, you believe Limbaugh was correct in his assessment? Because, to be honest, the fact that I think Limbaugh is dumber than a box of rocks not withstanding, I take issue with what he said - if "no" doesn't mean "no"... then what does?
Click to expand...
Overly simplistic to say I believe Limbaugh was "correct in his assessment". Do I think he had something to say on the issue?
Yes, I do.

That is why the song existed to begin with. But you'd prefer to legislate absolutely to the art of seduction.

It's cold outside.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top