Total Posts:122|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Capitalist Culture and Rape-Rationalization

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 4:50:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hey guys, it's actually pretty darn simple, risky behavior =/= a woman forfeiting her inalienable right to say no, it =/= giving a man a free pass to assault her. Even if a Sofia Vergara or Jessica Alba look-alike in Victoria's Secret underwear waving a sign that says "I like rough sex" walks into a biker bar its male patrons are still not entitled to lose control and forcibly have sex with her. Nope, they still must obtain her consent, and if she refuses to give it, if she says no, well, they must accept no for an answer and go off to take a cold shower if necessary.

No, dear teenage boys and men of the masculinist and/or rightist persuasion, you can rationalize otherwise until kingdom come, but a woman is a priori never fair game to be raped. But then why is it so difficult for some men, even men who don't identify as masculinsts or conservatives, to get such a simple a priori truth?

Ask an obvious question, get an obvious answer. Alas it's the case that a great many of my fellow males are given to the objectification of women. To their objectification into mere sex objects and sex symbols, who represent nothing more than outlets for the male libido. Yes, it's not just a feminist myth, women are indeed objectified into mere warm-blooded sex toys, pieces of meat who exist to satisfy the venereal hunger of men. And if this is thought to be a woman's main function, well, then it can all too easily become lost on men that she in fact is a full-fledged human being with the absolute right to decide whether or not to take part in sex.

And moreover, yes, this objectification of women is indeed tied in with, reinforced by, and promoted by the prevalence of objectification and commodification under capitalism. The inveterate commodification of everything under the sun (including people), the reduction of everything under the sun into mere objects to be consumed for our pleasure, most certainly factors into and exacerbates sexual objectification.

Also, that sector of our late capitalist economy headquartered on Madison Avenue bears a large portion of responsibility. Driven by its corporate clients' imperative of profit maximization, the advertising industry shamelessly reduces women into mere quantities of titillation, objectifies their bodies and sex appeal into mere advertising tools, into things that can be used to effectively sell other things. The female form and sexuality has in fact been quite blatantly and thoroughly commercialized and commodified, sexually attractive women are constantly and ubiquitously portrayed as one-dimensional sexual creatures, which has turned us into an oversexed culture, and yes, has helped to give modern men the idea that women are just objects of erotic desire, sexual playthings put on earth for the gratification of the male organ.

Well, capitalism certainly does promote such crass materialism. I.e., the kind of crass materialism that has us thinking of ourselves and each other as mere bodies; that has men thinking of women mere T & A, hunks of meat whose primary purpose in life is to pleasure the hunk of meat between a man's legs. This kind of carnality and objectification is naturally quite inseparable from the materialism and commodity fetishism fostered by capitalism, from capitalism's tendency to cause us to lose sight of the human element; to reduce production and consumption, work and pleasure to entirely material matters, with little or no recognition of the social and human factor. That is, while capitalism certainly didn't invent sexism and the male tendency to treat women like sex objects rather than fellow human persons, its materialism and commodity fetishism, its penchant for a commodifying reductionism that doesn't stop short of degrading thous into its, has certainly sanctioned, abetted, and escalated the sexual objectification of our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters.

Combine this inherent promotion of objectification with capitalism's natural promotion of dominance-oriented drives and thinking, and, well, it's hardly any wonder that despite the strides of the women's movement members of the female sex are more than ever treated as mere sexual beings, whose human dignity and human rights to not be sexually exploited or forced to have sexual relations against their will some men think can sometimes be disregarded. Yes, such is the fate of respect for women under capitalism. Of course capitalism didn't start the fire of sexism but it's certainly stoked it up into a horrendous blaze that even blinds some men to a woman's prerogative to not be raped.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 5:04:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Btw, masculinists & rightists, hiding behind being offended and indignant is rather lame and cowardly. If you have something to say for yourselves, well, then by all means share your arguments, but if you merely and reactionarily go on the offense then you reveal that you're without a genuinely logical rationale for your position. Well then, for your own credibility, do try to muster up some actual and solid arguments. Well, if that's possible, given the lameness of your position.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 5:11:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 4:50:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hey guys, it's actually pretty darn simple, risky behavior =/= a woman forfeiting her inalienable right to say no, it =/= giving a man a free pass to assault her. Even if a Sofia Vergara or Jessica Alba look-alike in Victoria's Secret underwear waving a sign that says "I like rough sex" walks into a biker bar its male patrons are still not entitled to lose control and forcibly have sex with her. Nope, they still must obtain her consent, and if she refuses to give it, if she says no, well, they must accept no for an answer and go off to take a cold shower if necessary.

If I'm one of the people this is aimed at, you are batting at a strawman. I never said that a woman's behavior entitles a man to rape.


No, dear teenage boys and men of the masculinist and/or rightist persuasion, you can rationalize otherwise until kingdom come, but a woman is a priori never fair game to be raped. But then why is it so difficult for some men, even men who don't identify as masculinsts or conservatives, to get such a simple a priori truth?

I think you are confusing pointing out objective facts about who is most at risk for being raped with thinking rape is ok. They are not anywhere near the same thing. You should know the difference.


Ask an obvious question, get an obvious answer. Alas it's the case that a great many of my fellow males are given to the objectification of women. To their objectification into mere sex objects and sex symbols, who represent nothing more than outlets for the male libido. Yes, it's not just a feminist myth, women are indeed objectified into mere warm-blooded sex toys, pieces of meat who exist to satisfy the venereal hunger of men. And if this is thought to be a woman's main function, well, then it can all too easily become lost on men that she in fact is a full-fledged human being with the absolute right to decide whether or not to take part in sex.

Seriously. I don't know anybody who disputes this. I'm sure you can find somebody. But it certainly isn't me or any libertarian or rightist I know.


And moreover, yes, this objectification of women is indeed tied in with, reinforced by, and promoted by the prevalence of objectification and commodification under capitalism. The inveterate commodification of everything under the sun (including people), the reduction of everything under the sun into mere objects to be consumed for our pleasure, most certainly factors into and exacerbates sexual objectification.

Here's a simple reality: some things ARE objects. Some human things are objects. And, yes, in some ways humans, both male and female, are objects. We use men as objects when we throw them out in war to die to protect everyone else, for example.

Capitalism isn't what commodifies things. Reality is. This is just a huge non sequitar.


Also, that sector of our late capitalist economy headquartered on Madison Avenue bears a large portion of responsibility. Driven by its corporate clients' imperative of profit maximization, the advertising industry shamelessly reduces women into mere quantities of titillation, objectifies their bodies and sex appeal into mere advertising tools, into things that can be used to effectively sell other things. The female form and sexuality has in fact been quite blatantly and thoroughly commercialized and commodified, sexually attractive women are constantly and ubiquitously portrayed as one-dimensional sexual creatures, which has turned us into an oversexed culture, and yes, has helped to give modern men the idea that women are just objects of erotic desire, sexual playthings put on earth for the gratification of the male organ.

I'll let you in on a secret: humans like sex. I agree that we, as a society, should encourage more restraint sexually especially among women. Women have less strong sexual urges and are thus more able to repress, which is probably a good thing.

Anyways, I always here you go on and on about how the way a woman dresses isn't necessarily "sexual". But, if that woman is on a magazine cover, all of the sudden you can tell she is sexual because... patriarchy!

I'm sure we can find a way to blame white men for this.


Well, capitalism certainly does promote such crass materialism. I.e., the kind of crass materialism that has us thinking of ourselves and each other as mere bodies; that has men thinking of women mere T & A, hunks of meat whose primary purpose in life is to pleasure the hunk of meat between a man's legs. This kind of carnality and objectification is naturally quite inseparable from the materialism and commodity fetishism fostered by capitalism, from capitalism's tendency to cause us to lose sight of the human element; to reduce production and consumption, work and pleasure to entirely material matters, with little or no recognition of the social and human factor. That is, while capitalism certainly didn't invent sexism and the male tendency to treat women like sex objects rather than fellow human persons, its materialism and commodity fetishism, its penchant for a commodifying reductionism that doesn't stop short of degrading thous into its, has certainly sanctioned, abetted, and escalated the sexual objectification of our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters.

RIGHT. And women totally always treat men as people. And, capitalism is too blame because... MATERIALISM!


Combine this inherent promotion of objectification with capitalism's natural promotion of dominance-oriented drives and thinking, and, well, it's hardly any wonder that despite the strides of the women's movement members of the female sex are more than ever treated as mere sexual beings, whose human dignity and human rights to not be sexually exploited or forced to have sexual relations against their will some men think can sometimes be disregarded. Yes, such is the fate of respect for women under capitalism. Of course capitalism didn't start the fire of sexism but it's certainly stoked it up into a horrendous blaze that even blinds some men to a woman's prerogative to not be raped.

Not one valid point was made in your entire rant. Congrats.
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 5:24:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yeah, overall I think the rape-rationalization is so stupid. Next movement of these people will be banning the the shopwindow of the bakeries, because... How can we not break them when behind them is such a tasty temptation!!

"Charge me with a small fine, good cop! Because I stole the one with chocolate and macadamia nuts! And no one can resist that!"
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 5:31:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 5:11:59 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/13/2014 4:50:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hey guys, it's actually pretty darn simple, risky behavior =/= a woman forfeiting her inalienable right to say no, it =/= giving a man a free pass to assault her. Even if a Sofia Vergara or Jessica Alba look-alike in Victoria's Secret underwear waving a sign that says "I like rough sex" walks into a biker bar its male patrons are still not entitled to lose control and forcibly have sex with her. Nope, they still must obtain her consent, and if she refuses to give it, if she says no, well, they must accept no for an answer and go off to take a cold shower if necessary.



If I'm one of the people this is aimed at, you are batting at a strawman...

Hardly.

No, dear teenage boys and men of the masculinist and/or rightist persuasion, you can rationalize otherwise until kingdom come, but a woman is a priori never fair game to be raped. But then why is it so difficult for some men, even men who don't identify as masculinsts or conservatives, to get such a simple a priori truth?


I think you are confusing pointing out objective facts about who is most at risk for being raped with thinking rape is ok. They are not anywhere near the same thing. You should know the difference.

I think that you're in a bit of denial about the heinousness of a good bit of your "reasoning" about rape.


Ask an obvious question, get an obvious answer. Alas it's the case that a great many of my fellow males are given to the objectification of women. To their objectification into mere sex objects and sex symbols, who represent nothing more than outlets for the male libido. Yes, it's not just a feminist myth, women are indeed objectified into mere warm-blooded sex toys, pieces of meat who exist to satisfy the venereal hunger of men. And if this is thought to be a woman's main function, well, then it can all too easily become lost on men that she in fact is a full-fledged human being with the absolute right to decide whether or not to take part in sex.





Seriously. I don't know anybody who disputes this. I'm sure you can find somebody. But it certainly isn't me or any libertarian or rightist I know.

Oh yeah? Lol!

And moreover, yes, this objectification of women is indeed tied in with, reinforced by, and promoted by the prevalence of objectification and commodification under capitalism. The inveterate commodification of everything under the sun (including people), the reduction of everything under the sun into mere objects to be consumed for our pleasure, most certainly factors into and exacerbates sexual objectification.

Here's a simple reality: some things ARE objects. Some human things are objects. And, yes, in some ways humans, both male and female, are objects. We use men as objects when we throw them out in war to die to protect everyone else, for example.

Capitalism isn't what commodifies things. Reality is. This is just a huge non sequitar.

Well, capitalism acculturates and conditions us to think like this, to think that objectification and commodification is normal and inevitable.

Also, that sector of our late capitalist economy headquartered on Madison Avenue bears a large portion of responsibility. Driven by its corporate clients' imperative of profit maximization, the advertising industry shamelessly reduces women into mere quantities of titillation, objectifies their bodies and sex appeal into mere advertising tools, into things that can be used to effectively sell other things. The female form and sexuality has in fact been quite blatantly and thoroughly commercialized and commodified, sexually attractive women are constantly and ubiquitously portrayed as one-dimensional sexual creatures, which has turned us into an oversexed culture, and yes, has helped to give modern men the idea that women are just objects of erotic desire, sexual playthings put on earth for the gratification of the male organ.



I'll let you in on a secret: humans like sex. I agree that we, as a society, should encourage more restraint sexually especially among women. Women have less strong sexual urges and are thus more able to repress, which is probably a good thing.

Sexist rubbish.

Anyways, I always here you go on and on about how the way a woman dresses isn't necessarily "sexual". But, if that woman is on a magazine cover, all of the sudden you can tell she is sexual because... patriarchy!

Rather than rehash I'll simply refer you back to the OP.

I'm sure we can find a way to blame white men for this.

Oh yes, you're the fellow with race on the brain, aren't you.

Well, capitalism certainly does promote such crass materialism. I.e., the kind of crass materialism that has us thinking of ourselves and each other as mere bodies; that has men thinking of women mere T & A, hunks of meat whose primary purpose in life is to pleasure the hunk of meat between a man's legs. This kind of carnality and objectification is naturally quite inseparable from the materialism and commodity fetishism fostered by capitalism, from capitalism's tendency to cause us to lose sight of the human element; to reduce production and consumption, work and pleasure to entirely material matters, with little or no recognition of the social and human factor. That is, while capitalism certainly didn't invent sexism and the male tendency to treat women like sex objects rather than fellow human persons, its materialism and commodity fetishism, its penchant for a commodifying reductionism that doesn't stop short of degrading thous into its, has certainly sanctioned, abetted, and escalated the sexual objectification of our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters.


RIGHT. And women totally always treat men as people. And, capitalism is too blame because... MATERIALISM!

Well, capitalist culture does in fact also indoctrinate women with materialism, which does in fact affect how some of them view and relate to men. Certainly they're not immune, but two wrongs ...

Combine this inherent promotion of objectification with capitalism's natural promotion of dominance-oriented drives and thinking, and, well, it's hardly any wonder that despite the strides of the women's movement members of the female sex are more than ever treated as mere sexual beings, whose human dignity and human rights to not be sexually exploited or forced to have sexual relations against their will some men think can sometimes be disregarded. Yes, such is the fate of respect for women under capitalism. Of course capitalism didn't start the fire of sexism but it's certainly stoked it up into a horrendous blaze that even blinds some men to a woman's prerogative to not be raped.


Not one valid point was made in your entire rant. Congrats.

Hmm.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 5:34:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 5:24:29 PM, Otokage wrote:
Yeah, overall I think the rape-rationalization is so stupid. Next movement of these people will be banning the the shopwindow of the bakeries, because... How can we not break them when behind them is such a tasty temptation!!

"Charge me with a small fine, good cop! Because I stole the one with chocolate and macadamia nuts! And no one can resist that!"

Yep, their "reasoning" is pretty much that ridiculous.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 5:38:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 5:11:59 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/13/2014 4:50:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hey guys, it's actually pretty darn simple, risky behavior =/= a woman forfeiting her inalienable right to say no, it =/= giving a man a free pass to assault her. Even if a Sofia Vergara or Jessica Alba look-alike in Victoria's Secret underwear waving a sign that says "I like rough sex" walks into a biker bar its male patrons are still not entitled to lose control and forcibly have sex with her. Nope, they still must obtain her consent, and if she refuses to give it, if she says no, well, they must accept no for an answer and go off to take a cold shower if necessary.

If I'm one of the people this is aimed at, you are batting at a strawman. I never said that a woman's behavior entitles a man to rape.

Well, as far as I read recently from you, you said a thief that roobs a posh person, is somehow not to blame as much as a thief that robs an apparently poor person, because the posh person is somehow more tempting to thiefs. Then you compared that same analogy to rape, which means you said it is somehow less reprehensible to rape an atractive woman than to rape an ungly one.

But hey, if you didn't, maybe you can take your opportunity right now to explain us what you really meant.


No, dear teenage boys and men of the masculinist and/or rightist persuasion, you can rationalize otherwise until kingdom come, but a woman is a priori never fair game to be raped. But then why is it so difficult for some men, even men who don't identify as masculinsts or conservatives, to get such a simple a priori truth?

I think you are confusing pointing out objective facts about who is most at risk for being raped with thinking rape is ok. They are not anywhere near the same thing. You should know the difference.

Well, you didn't say "it's ok to rape", but certainly you implied that "it is more ok" to rape some kind of women over other kind of women, even if you admit rape is reprehensible overall.


And moreover, yes, this objectification of women is indeed tied in with, reinforced by, and promoted by the prevalence of objectification and commodification under capitalism. The inveterate commodification of everything under the sun (including people), the reduction of everything under the sun into mere objects to be consumed for our pleasure, most certainly factors into and exacerbates sexual objectification.

Here's a simple reality: some things ARE objects. Some human things are objects. And, yes, in some ways humans, both male and female, are objects. We use men as objects when we throw them out in war to die to protect everyone else, for example.

Capitalism isn't what commodifies things. Reality is. This is just a huge non sequitar.

Does that mean that you are OK with objectifying women or not?


Also, that sector of our late capitalist economy headquartered on Madison Avenue bears a large portion of responsibility. Driven by its corporate clients' imperative of profit maximization, the advertising industry shamelessly reduces women into mere quantities of titillation, objectifies their bodies and sex appeal into mere advertising tools, into things that can be used to effectively sell other things. The female form and sexuality has in fact been quite blatantly and thoroughly commercialized and commodified, sexually attractive women are constantly and ubiquitously portrayed as one-dimensional sexual creatures, which has turned us into an oversexed culture, and yes, has helped to give modern men the idea that women are just objects of erotic desire, sexual playthings put on earth for the gratification of the male organ.

I'll let you in on a secret: humans like sex. I agree that we, as a society, should encourage more restraint sexually especially among women.

I don't. Why should anyone sexually restrain? That simply sounds unhealthy AND boring. What people should restrain is from their sick rape-fantasies and their stupidity. And they should also resfrain from telling other people how to dress/look/act.

Women have less strong sexual urges and are thus more able to repress, which is probably a good thing.

"Women have less strong sexual urges"? Wow, and then you don't want people to call you a machist?
neptune1bond
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 5:38:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 4:50:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hey guys, it's actually pretty darn simple, risky behavior =/= a woman forfeiting her inalienable right to say no, it =/= giving a man a free pass to assault her. (etc.) Of course capitalism didn't start the fire of sexism but it's certainly stoked it up into a horrendous blaze that even blinds some men to a woman's prerogative to not be raped.
I assume by "masculnist" you are talking about MRAs. Well, since there isn't one thing in your post that actually represents any point of view that I actually hold and doesn't really represent any commonly held MRA position that I know of, all I can really say is that I hate rape and never want it to happen EVER. I do not believe that it is o.k. under any circumstances or when it happens to EITHER gender and neither does the MHRM as a whole (although there are idiots in every group, obviously). So, in reference to the MHRM, your post is just one big 'ol ridiculous strawman argument that has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Oh, and btw, in case your second post was aimed at me as well, asking you to actually relate any of your claims to actual MRA stances and positions isn't about "being indignant and offended", but rather is pointing out how ridiculous, unfounded, and what bullsh*t your position is since it has no basis whatsoever in anything that actually comes from the MHRM other than maybe a couple of people who aren't actually representative of the MHRM and are actually being contrary to the majority of the movement.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 6:04:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 4:50:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hey guys, it's actually pretty darn simple, risky behavior =/= a woman forfeiting her inalienable right to say no,

Unless they have a standing agreement, right?
#getoffyourfuckinghighhorseyouprorapist
My work here is, finally, done.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 6:05:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 5:38:00 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/13/2014 5:11:59 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/13/2014 4:50:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hey guys, it's actually pretty darn simple, risky behavior =/= a woman forfeiting her inalienable right to say no, it =/= giving a man a free pass to assault her. Even if a Sofia Vergara or Jessica Alba look-alike in Victoria's Secret underwear waving a sign that says "I like rough sex" walks into a biker bar its male patrons are still not entitled to lose control and forcibly have sex with her. Nope, they still must obtain her consent, and if she refuses to give it, if she says no, well, they must accept no for an answer and go off to take a cold shower if necessary.

If I'm one of the people this is aimed at, you are batting at a strawman. I never said that a woman's behavior entitles a man to rape.

Well, as far as I read recently from you, you said a thief that roobs a posh person, is somehow not to blame as much as a thief that robs an apparently poor person, because the posh person is somehow more tempting to thiefs. Then you compared that same analogy to rape, which means you said it is somehow less reprehensible to rape an atractive woman than to rape an ungly one.

But hey, if you didn't, maybe you can take your opportunity right now to explain us what you really meant.

Let me put it this way:

When it comes to murder, we rightly punish both murderers who committed the crime in the passion of a moment and those who planned ahead.

But, we punish those who planned ahead more harshly because we see it as more reprehensible.

The same logic applies to rape.



No, dear teenage boys and men of the masculinist and/or rightist persuasion, you can rationalize otherwise until kingdom come, but a woman is a priori never fair game to be raped. But then why is it so difficult for some men, even men who don't identify as masculinsts or conservatives, to get such a simple a priori truth?

I think you are confusing pointing out objective facts about who is most at risk for being raped with thinking rape is ok. They are not anywhere near the same thing. You should know the difference.

Well, you didn't say "it's ok to rape", but certainly you implied that "it is more ok" to rape some kind of women over other kind of women, even if you admit rape is reprehensible overall.

It's not "more okay". That implies that it is OK, which it is not.

Instead, it is "less horrible". That's an important distinction.



And moreover, yes, this objectification of women is indeed tied in with, reinforced by, and promoted by the prevalence of objectification and commodification under capitalism. The inveterate commodification of everything under the sun (including people), the reduction of everything under the sun into mere objects to be consumed for our pleasure, most certainly factors into and exacerbates sexual objectification.

Here's a simple reality: some things ARE objects. Some human things are objects. And, yes, in some ways humans, both male and female, are objects. We use men as objects when we throw them out in war to die to protect everyone else, for example.

Capitalism isn't what commodifies things. Reality is. This is just a huge non sequitar.

Does that mean that you are OK with objectifying women or not?

Men are objectified to in different ways. Women are seen as more objects than men. But, men are seen as more disposable than women.

People care more when a woman gets murdered than when a man does. That's part of the reason we drafted men and not women.

Men are about 75% of homicides and 80% of suicides. We don't hear about those gaps as much because people don't really care about the men who murdered or die.

If those statistics were flipped, feminists would make sure everyone knew them. And, people would care more. You should know that.



Also, that sector of our late capitalist economy headquartered on Madison Avenue bears a large portion of responsibility. Driven by its corporate clients' imperative of profit maximization, the advertising industry shamelessly reduces women into mere quantities of titillation, objectifies their bodies and sex appeal into mere advertising tools, into things that can be used to effectively sell other things. The female form and sexuality has in fact been quite blatantly and thoroughly commercialized and commodified, sexually attractive women are constantly and ubiquitously portrayed as one-dimensional sexual creatures, which has turned us into an oversexed culture, and yes, has helped to give modern men the idea that women are just objects of erotic desire, sexual playthings put on earth for the gratification of the male organ.

I'll let you in on a secret: humans like sex. I agree that we, as a society, should encourage more restraint sexually especially among women.

I don't. Why should anyone sexually restrain? That simply sounds unhealthy AND boring. What people should restrain is from their sick rape-fantasies and their stupidity. And they should also resfrain from telling other people how to dress/look/act.

Here's a tough reality. Contrary to what many believe, the more sexually open a society is, the more common rape will be.

Rape is typically caused by horny men. Now, in a society where sexual restraint is taught to both genders, the men predisposed to rape are less likely to succumb to their urges.

In a society where pre marital sex is not discouraged and women are more "slutty", these men are less apt to restrain their urges. It is also more likely that the men who can't get any sex will become jealous because they live in a society where they feel more left out of sex that everybody else is having.

Thus, rapists feel MORE entitled to sex in a sexually open society than a sexually restrained one. Want proof?

Rape incidence rose about the same time sexual liberation came about and then flattened when the movement died out.


Women have less strong sexual urges and are thus more able to repress, which is probably a good thing.

"Women have less strong sexual urges"? Wow, and then you don't want people to call you a machist?

It's just an objective fact. Men have stronger sexual urges than women.
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 6:31:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 6:05:18 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/13/2014 5:38:00 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/13/2014 5:11:59 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
At 11/13/2014 4:50:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hey guys, it's actually pretty darn simple, risky behavior =/= a woman forfeiting her inalienable right to say no, it =/= giving a man a free pass to assault her. Even if a Sofia Vergara or Jessica Alba look-alike in Victoria's Secret underwear waving a sign that says "I like rough sex" walks into a biker bar its male patrons are still not entitled to lose control and forcibly have sex with her. Nope, they still must obtain her consent, and if she refuses to give it, if she says no, well, they must accept no for an answer and go off to take a cold shower if necessary.

If I'm one of the people this is aimed at, you are batting at a strawman. I never said that a woman's behavior entitles a man to rape.

Well, as far as I read recently from you, you said a thief that roobs a posh person, is somehow not to blame as much as a thief that robs an apparently poor person, because the posh person is somehow more tempting to thiefs. Then you compared that same analogy to rape, which means you said it is somehow less reprehensible to rape an atractive woman than to rape an ungly one.

But hey, if you didn't, maybe you can take your opportunity right now to explain us what you really meant.


Let me put it this way:

When it comes to murder, we rightly punish both murderers who committed the crime in the passion of a moment and those who planned ahead.

But, we punish those who planned ahead more harshly because we see it as more reprehensible.

The same logic applies to rape.

Yes, the EXACT same logic applies to rape, meaning that if you plan the rape ahead, you get a bigger punishment.

Now, do you get a bigger punishment for stealing from a posh person over a poor person? And for killing a sexy woman rather than an ugly one? No? Ok, the same logic applies to rape.

No, dear teenage boys and men of the masculinist and/or rightist persuasion, you can rationalize otherwise until kingdom come, but a woman is a priori never fair game to be raped. But then why is it so difficult for some men, even men who don't identify as masculinsts or conservatives, to get such a simple a priori truth?

I think you are confusing pointing out objective facts about who is most at risk for being raped with thinking rape is ok. They are not anywhere near the same thing. You should know the difference.

Well, you didn't say "it's ok to rape", but certainly you implied that "it is more ok" to rape some kind of women over other kind of women, even if you admit rape is reprehensible overall.

It's not "more okay". That implies that it is OK, which it is not.

Instead, it is "less horrible". That's an important distinction.

I think that's just semantics, but ok, I take it and I still think it's not a valid reasoning to believe "it is less reprehensible to rape a sexy woman than an ugly one".



And moreover, yes, this objectification of women is indeed tied in with, reinforced by, and promoted by the prevalence of objectification and commodification under capitalism. The inveterate commodification of everything under the sun (including people), the reduction of everything under the sun into mere objects to be consumed for our pleasure, most certainly factors into and exacerbates sexual objectification.

Here's a simple reality: some things ARE objects. Some human things are objects. And, yes, in some ways humans, both male and female, are objects. We use men as objects when we throw them out in war to die to protect everyone else, for example.

Capitalism isn't what commodifies things. Reality is. This is just a huge non sequitar.

Does that mean that you are OK with objectifying women or not?

Men are objectified to in different ways. Women are seen as more objects than men. But, men are seen as more disposable than women.

Sorry but I still don't get your point. Do you think it is OK to objectify women?

People care more when a woman gets murdered than when a man does.

Source?

That's part of the reason we drafted men and not women.

No, the reason we draft men and not women is because machists do not trust women can be good warriors, and do not trust themselves (or simply don't want) to take care of their own families, so they need women.

Men are about 75% of homicides and 80% of suicides. We don't hear about those gaps as much because people don't really care about the men who murdered or die.

I don't know what you are talking about lol. Do you have a source?

If those statistics were flipped, feminists would make sure everyone knew them. And, people would care more. You should know that.

So now feminists are to blame for achieving a presence in the media?


I'll let you in on a secret: humans like sex. I agree that we, as a society, should encourage more restraint sexually especially among women.

I don't. Why should anyone sexually restrain? That simply sounds unhealthy AND boring. What people should restrain is from their sick rape-fantasies and their stupidity. And they should also resfrain from telling other people how to dress/look/act.

Here's a tough reality. Contrary to what many believe, the more sexually open a society is, the more common rape will be.

Oh, sure! Contrary to what many believe, in fact, no statistical institute of absolutely no country agrees with that. It must be another agenda movement of the all-powerful feminists.

But now let's be serious. Rape is more common in societies in which security is crapy, like any middle-east country, Africa, most south America, which are not only leaders on rape, but also in crime in general. Sexual openess is typical of advanced countries, and advanced countries are often leaders on citizen's security, which means low rape rates.

Rape is typically caused by horny men.

I'm a horny man. Rape is caused by criminals, not horny people.

Now, in a society where sexual restraint is taught to both genders, the men predisposed to rape are less likely to succumb to their urges.

Source? Because again, I find liberal societies to be much safer for women than sexualy restrained middle-east societies.

In a society where pre marital sex is not discouraged and women are more "slutty", these men are less apt to restrain their urges.

Stop embarassing yourself. Are at least put some sources so I can blame them and not you lol

It is also more likely that the men who can't get any sex will become jealous because they live in a society where they feel more left out of sex that everybody else is having.

Thus, rapists feel MORE entitled to sex in a sexually open society than a sexually restrained one. Want proof?

By logic alone, you should expect more rape on societies that are sexually restrained, as people shouldn't be able to take the restrain any longer and rape someone, like it happens in, ie, jail.

Rape incidence rose about the same time sexual liberation came about and then flattened when the movement died out.

Source?


Women have less strong sexual urges and are thus more able to repress, which is probably a good thing.

"Women have less strong sexual urges"? Wow, and then you don't want people to call you a machist?

It's just an objective fact. Men have stronger sexual urges than women.

If it is so objective, then probably you won't have many problems to find a source.
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 6:54:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 6:31:14 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/13/2014 6:05:18 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:

But hey, if you didn't, maybe you can take your opportunity right now to explain us what you really meant.


Let me put it this way:

When it comes to murder, we rightly punish both murderers who committed the crime in the passion of a moment and those who planned ahead.

But, we punish those who planned ahead more harshly because we see it as more reprehensible.

The same logic applies to rape.

Yes, the EXACT same logic applies to rape, meaning that if you plan the rape ahead, you get a bigger punishment.

Now, do you get a bigger punishment for stealing from a posh person over a poor person? And for killing a sexy woman rather than an ugly one? No? Ok, the same logic applies to rape.

I never said that raping a sexy woman should result in a different punishment. Your arguing with a straw man.

I'm just saying that not all rapes are equally bad.



I think you are confusing pointing out objective facts about who is most at risk for being raped with thinking rape is ok. They are not anywhere near the same thing. You should know the difference.

Well, you didn't say "it's ok to rape", but certainly you implied that "it is more ok" to rape some kind of women over other kind of women, even if you admit rape is reprehensible overall.

It's not "more okay". That implies that it is OK, which it is not.

Instead, it is "less horrible". That's an important distinction.

I think that's just semantics, but ok, I take it and I still think it's not a valid reasoning to believe "it is less reprehensible to rape a sexy woman than an ugly one".

I certainly don't believe that. So, who are you arguing against?




Here's a simple reality: some things ARE objects. Some human things are objects. And, yes, in some ways humans, both male and female, are objects. We use men as objects when we throw them out in war to die to protect everyone else, for example.

Capitalism isn't what commodifies things. Reality is. This is just a huge non sequitar.

Does that mean that you are OK with objectifying women or not?

Men are objectified to in different ways. Women are seen as more objects than men. But, men are seen as more disposable than women.

Sorry but I still don't get your point. Do you think it is OK to objectify women?

Define "OK". I'm not okay with a lot of things. In an ideal world, I guess not.

But male disposability is at least as big of a thing as female objectification yet nobody seems to care about that.

Both of them are facts of life and NOT social constructs.


People care more when a woman gets murdered than when a man does.

Source?

If you need a source to know this, you've probably spent your entire life in a bubble.


That's part of the reason we drafted men and not women.

No, the reason we draft men and not women is because machists do not trust women can be good warriors, and do not trust themselves (or simply don't want) to take care of their own families, so they need women.

This is just plain inaccurate. We draft men because we see them as disposable. At least, that is part of the reason why. And, if you're so sure I'm wrong, please provide some evidence.

Mine is simple: it makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. One man and 50 women could keep a population growing. The reverse is not true. That means a few men in charge and a lot of women treated as, yes, objects.

But, the rest of the men that aren't in charge are treated as less than objects. That's why people are ok with men dying in war or in dangerous jobs.


Men are about 75% of homicides and 80% of suicides. We don't hear about those gaps as much because people don't really care about the men who murdered or die.

I don't know what you are talking about lol. Do you have a source?

These are objective facts. When you look at all homicides, men are about 75% of victims:

http://www.bjs.gov...

And suicide:

http://en.wikipedia.org...


If those statistics were flipped, feminists would make sure everyone knew them. And, people would care more. You should know that.

So now feminists are to blame for achieving a presence in the media?

They're too blame because they use phony stats to divert attention away from real problems.




Here's a tough reality. Contrary to what many believe, the more sexually open a society is, the more common rape will be.

Oh, sure! Contrary to what many believe, in fact, no statistical institute of absolutely no country agrees with that. It must be another agenda movement of the all-powerful feminists.

Except, ya know, that's actually is the trend found in the data. But, please ignore that in favor of your dogma,


But now let's be serious. Rape is more common in societies in which security is crapy, like any middle-east country, Africa, most south America, which are not only leaders on rape, but also in crime in general. Sexual openess is typical of advanced countries, and advanced countries are often leaders on citizen's security, which means low rape rates.

Yes. And, developed countries had the sexual revolution. Prevalence of rape rose during that. How do you explain that?


Rape is typically caused by horny men.

I'm a horny man. Rape is caused by criminals, not horny people.

This is semantics. Rapists, by definition, are criminals. They are also horny men.


Now, in a society where sexual restraint is taught to both genders, the men predisposed to rape are less likely to succumb to their urges.

Source? Because again, I find liberal societies to be much safer for women than sexualy restrained middle-east societies.

Correlation doesn't equal causation. There are tons of differences between the third world and the first world.

The real test would be if there was a change in sexual norms within a country. There was, for example, in the USA in the 1960s. Rape rose then.


In a society where pre marital sex is not discouraged and women are more "slutty", these men are less apt to restrain their urges.

Stop embarassing yourself. Are at least put some sources so I can blame them and not you lol

Again. It's pretty damning. Here is a graph of different violent crime rates over time:

http://catholicexchange.com...

As you can see, all rose in the 1960s, with rape having the sharpest rise.

If sexual liberation reduced rape, the opposite should be true.




By logic alone, you should expect more rape on societies that are sexually restrained, as people shouldn't be able to take the restrain any longer and rape someone, like it happens in, ie, jail.

This pretty much confirms that you don't understand my argument.

What I'm saying is that rape is less common in places where SOCIAL NORMS are more restrictive?

Prison is full of horny men who have no access to women. Social norms aren't actually conservative there.


Rape incidence rose about the same time sexual liberation came about and then flattened when the movement died out.

Source?

Showed it above.



Women have less strong sexual urges and are thus more able to repress, which is probably a good thing.

"Women have less strong sexual urges"? Wow, and then you don't want people to call you a machist?

It's just an objective fact. Men have stronger sexual urges than women.

If it is so objective, then probably you won't have many pr
jimtimmy4
Posts: 321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2014 6:56:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 6:31:14 PM, Otokage wrote:

If it is so objective, then probably you won't have many problems to find a source.

Here's the source for the sex urge thing:

http://www.webmd.com...

Couldn't fit on my last comment.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 12:37:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 6:04:56 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/13/2014 4:50:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hey guys, it's actually pretty darn simple, risky behavior =/= a woman forfeiting her inalienable right to say no,

Unless they have a standing agreement, right?
#getoffyourfuckinghighhorseyouprorapist

Now you're merely playing dumb, or more accurately, moronic. I never endorsed the archaic concept of an implied standing consent within marriage that's irrevocable, that robs a woman of the right to say no and that empowers boorish husbands to demand and take sex from unwilling wives. Rather, you described the scenario of your mother sexing your dipsomaniacal dad while he's intoxicated to help him fall asleep. I simply pointed out that under such circumstances it's not necessarily reasonable to call your presumably dear mom a rapist; that your father is not being sexually assaulted by her if there's no ambiguity in their relationship about the acceptability of, if your plastered papa has expressly pre-okayed her response to, his state of sleepless inebriation, and hasn't revoked his authorization. Nope, this simply can in no reasonable way be interpreted as contrary to the concept of affirmative consent, and as regressively hearkening back to the idea of an implied and irrevocable consent within marriage that supposedly made spousal rape an impossibility. If you think that it can, well, then you're merely projecting your own backward mentality.

(Also, these are the basic elements of marital rape:
"1) The victim and the accused are married
2) The accused threatened harm on the victim if he/she did not consent to sexual acts
3) The accused forced the victim to engage in sexual acts against his/her will
4) The victim was unconscious during a sexual act or could not consent because he/she is mentally handicapped or incapacitated"
You didn't describe any of these elements in your scenario, therefore even legal minds would probably not view you mommy as a villainous sex offender.)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 1:12:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 5:38:18 PM, neptune1bond wrote:
At 11/13/2014 4:50:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hey guys, it's actually pretty darn simple, risky behavior =/= a woman forfeiting her inalienable right to say no, it =/= giving a man a free pass to assault her. (etc.) Of course capitalism didn't start the fire of sexism but it's certainly stoked it up into a horrendous blaze that even blinds some men to a woman's prerogative to not be raped.
I assume by "masculnist" you are talking about MRAs. Well, since there isn't one thing in your post that actually represents any point of view that I actually hold and doesn't really represent any commonly held MRA position that I know of, all I can really say is that I hate rape and never want it to happen EVER. I do not believe that it is o.k. under any circumstances or when it happens to EITHER gender and neither does the MHRM as a whole (although there are idiots in every group, obviously). So, in reference to the MHRM, your post is just one big 'ol ridiculous strawman argument that has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Oh, and btw, in case your second post was aimed at me as well, asking you to actually relate any of your claims to actual MRA stances and positions isn't about "being indignant and offended", but rather is pointing out how ridiculous, unfounded, and what bullsh*t your position is since it has no basis whatsoever in anything that actually comes from the MHRM other than maybe a couple of people who aren't actually representative of the MHRM and are actually being contrary to the majority of the movement.

So, your entire response boils down to merely disidentifying with the type of masculinist or rightist who rationalizes viewing rape as an extenuated bit of misconduct under certain circumstances? Well, I'm sorry to inform you that you seem to be more of an exception than the rule, the mentality that I critique in this and my previous thread does alas seem to be disturbingly prevalent in the reactionary camps of anti-feminists, "men's rights activists", and right-wingers. You can choose to remain in denial about this, or you can begin to muster the integrity to address it in good faith. I sincerely hope that you will choose honesty, it really is the best policy.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 2:20:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here's one that some of you might perhaps find to be somewhat thought-provoking, http://www.debate.org...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 3:18:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'd just like to say kudos! to these Cornell students, kudos to them for recognizing and seeking to call attention to the fact that the poverty, economic inequality, and sociological conditions inflicted on the poor by capitalist society are a major contributing factor in sex crimes, and another way in which capitalism is a fundamental part of the problem of America's rape culture, and socialism a large part of the solution.

http://campusreform.org...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 4:02:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 12:37:59 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/13/2014 6:04:56 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 11/13/2014 4:50:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hey guys, it's actually pretty darn simple, risky behavior =/= a woman forfeiting her inalienable right to say no,

Unless they have a standing agreement, right?
#getoffyourfuckinghighhorseyouprorapist

Now you're merely playing dumb, or more accurately, moronic. I never endorsed the archaic concept of an implied standing consent within marriage that's irrevocable, that robs a woman of the right to say no and that empowers boorish husbands to demand and take sex from unwilling wives. Rather, you described the scenario of your mother sexing your dipsomaniacal dad while he's intoxicated to help him fall asleep. I simply pointed out that under such circumstances it's not necessarily reasonable to call your presumably dear mom a rapist; that your father is not being sexually assaulted by her if there's no ambiguity in their relationship about the acceptability of, if your plastered papa has expressly pre-okayed her response to, his state of sleepless inebriation, and hasn't revoked his authorization. Nope, this simply can in no reasonable way be interpreted as contrary to the concept of affirmative consent, and as regressively hearkening back to the idea of an implied and irrevocable consent within marriage that supposedly made spousal rape an impossibility. If you think that it can, well, then you're merely projecting your own backward mentality.

(Also, these are the basic elements of marital rape:
"1) The victim and the accused are married
2) The accused threatened harm on the victim if he/she did not consent to sexual acts
3) The accused forced the victim to engage in sexual acts against his/her will
4) The victim was unconscious during a sexual act or could not consent because he/she is mentally handicapped or incapacitated"
You didn't describe any of these elements in your scenario, therefore even legal minds would probably not view you mommy as a villainous sex offender.)

Blah blah blah.
You said if there is a standing agreement, that consent is not needed if they are drunk, as being drunk one is unable to consent, which is exactly what I said was the case.
That is the exact notion that you accuse me of being prorapist for - challenging consent status quo.
Therefore, if I am prorapist, so are you.
And, since you are prorapist, all of this huff and puff of capitalism is moot.

Good day, sir.
Get of your high horse.
My work here is, finally, done.
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 6:36:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 6:54:40 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
I never said that raping a sexy woman should result in a different punishment. Your arguing with a straw man.
I'm just saying that not all rapes are equally bad.

For example?

Define "OK". I'm not okay with a lot of things. In an ideal world, I guess not.
But male disposability is at least as big of a thing as female objectification yet nobody seems to care about that.

I do care about it.

Both of them are facts of life and NOT social constructs.

No, both are factual, and both are social constructs. Plus raped women are more numerous than raped men, therefore I could think objectification is bigger in women. Also diseases that affect the physical (anorexia) are also more common in women, evidence that objectification may be stronger in women.

People care more when a woman gets murdered than when a man does.
Source?
If you need a source to know this, you've probably spent your entire life in a bubble.

Yes, I do need a source. So I prefer to ignore unsupported claims of such characteristics.

That's part of the reason we drafted men and not women.
No, the reason we draft men and not women is because machists do not trust women can be good warriors, and do not trust themselves (or simply don't want) to take care of their own families, so they need women.
This is just plain inaccurate. We draft men because we see them as disposable. At least, that is part of the reason why. And, if you're so sure I'm wrong, please provide some evidence.

You are the OP of the other "rape-rationalization thread" and you were the one that was willing to tell us men are seem as disposable. So you are the one who should provide some evidence about it. If you don"t have any evidence, I will stay in the most logical standard position, which that we see both sexes as equally disposable.

Mine is simple: it makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. One man and 50 women could keep a population growing. The reverse is not true. That means a few men in charge and a lot of women treated as, yes, objects.

As a biologist, I can tell it doesn"t make sense as an evolutionary point of view, as if it were that way, we would see a trend through nature in which males are disposable and females are not. I don"t see that trend, so I can only advice you to distinguish between what sounds reasonable to you, and what empiricism shows as reality.

But, the rest of the men that aren't in charge are treated as less than objects. That's why people are ok with men dying in war or in dangerous jobs.

Women are overall given less value than men, that"s why they receive lower salaries and that"s precisely the thing feminists fight against. So if we were to label some gender as "disposable" it would certainly be women for the majority of society, as the majority is sadly not a feminist.

Men are about 75% of homicides and 80% of suicides. We don't hear about those gaps as much because people don't really care about the men who murdered or die.
I don't know what you are talking about lol. Do you have a source?
These are objective facts. When you look at all homicides, men are about 75% of victims:
http://www.bjs.gov...
And suicide:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Men are naturally more aggressive, impulsive, and are modeled by society to have repressed feelings, so some of them are more eager to commit crimes. So what?

If those statistics were flipped, feminists would make sure everyone knew them. And, people would care more. You should know that.
So now feminists are to blame for achieving a presence in the media?
They're too blame because they use phony stats to divert attention away from real problems.

Oh I get it, so men suiciding is a real problem, but women receiving less salaries, being more raped, suffering from more diet-related diseases, suffering more domestic violence, etc, etc etc, is a minor problem?

Here's a tough reality. Contrary to what many believe, the more sexually open a society is, the more common rape will be.
Oh, sure! Contrary to what many believe, in fact, no statistical institute of absolutely no country agrees with that. It must be another agenda movement of the all-powerful feminists.
Except, ya know, that's actually is the trend found in the data. But, please ignore that in favor of your dogma,

Please ignore the fact that you have given no data what so ever.

But now let's be serious. Rape is more common in societies in which security is crapy, like any middle-east country, Africa, most south America, which are not only leaders on rape, but also in crime in general. Sexual openess is typical of advanced countries, and advanced countries are often leaders on citizen's security, which means low rape rates.
Yes. And, developed countries had the sexual revolution. Prevalence of rape rose during that. How do you explain that?

So what about your supposed peak at rape rates on sexual revolution? First you say correlation is not causation, now you say sexual revolution is to blame for more rapes because there"s a correlation between them. Why don"t you get your sh*t together?
But still, I"m so sure that even if rape rised during sexual revolution, still it was lower than rape-frequency of sexualy repressed countries, ie middle east.

Rape is typically caused by horny men.
I'm a horny man. Rape is caused by criminals, not horny people.
This is semantics. Rapists, by definition, are criminals. They are also horny men.

Is there any actual reason you want to give for your criminalization of horny people?

Now, in a society where sexual restraint is taught to both genders, the men predisposed to rape are less likely to succumb to their urges.
Source? Because again, I find liberal societies to be much safer for women than sexualy restrained middle-east societies.
Correlation doesn't equal causation.

"Do as I say, not as I do"

There are tons of differences between the third world and the first world.

Indeed. Sexual repression is one of them.

The real test would be if there was a change in sexual norms within a country. There was, for example, in the USA in the 1960s. Rape rose then.

There was a change in every single country in the world from sexual represion to sexual freedom on the last century. Democracy, sexual freedom, and laicism, all coincide with a lowering of the crime rates, including rape rates.

In a society where pre marital sex is not discouraged and women are more "slutty", these men are less apt to restrain their urges.
Stop embarassing yourself. Are at least put some sources so I can blame them and not you lol
Again. It's pretty damning. Here is a graph of different violent crime rates over time:

http://catholicexchange.com...
As you can see, all rose in the 1960s, with rape having the sharpest rise.
If sexual liberation reduced rape, the opposite should be true.

First you give a biased source (catholic), second you deliberately ignore that it was more difficult to research rape frequency decades ago, and it was also less denounced precisely because women had crapy rights or no rights at all. And third you also ignore that we are more "free" now sexualy speaking than we were during the sexual revolution, yet we have, according to your own source, less rape frequency now.
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 6:38:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 6:54:40 PM, jimtimmy4 wrote:
By logic alone, you should expect more rape on societies that are sexually restrained, as people shouldn't be able to take the restrain any longer and rape someone, like it happens in, ie, jail.
This pretty much confirms that you don't understand my argument.
What I'm saying is that rape is less common in places where SOCIAL NORMS are more restrictive?
Prison is full of horny men who have no access to women. Social norms aren't actually conservative there.

Yet still sexualy represed societies have overall higher rape rates. Rape is not even a crime in sexualy represed societies lol.

Women have less strong sexual urges and are thus more able to repress, which is probably a good thing.
Here's the source for the sex urge thing:

http://www.webmd.com......

Couldn't fit on my last comment.

First they didn"t measure the sexual urges, but they simply made a survey. Second that can"t be used as a generalization, even if women had overall less sexual urges, doesn"t mean the women you know have less sexual urges than the men you know. About women being able to repress, I see that as a false cause falacy.
neptune1bond
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 7:36:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 1:12:22 AM, charleslb wrote:

So, your entire response boils down to merely disidentifying with the type of masculinist or rightist who rationalizes viewing rape as an extenuated bit of misconduct under certain circumstances? Well, I'm sorry to inform you that you seem to be more of an exception than the rule, the mentality that I critique in this and my previous thread does alas seem to be disturbingly prevalent in the reactionary camps of anti-feminists, "men's rights activists", and right-wingers. You can choose to remain in denial about this, or you can begin to muster the integrity to address it in good faith. I sincerely hope that you will choose honesty, it really is the best policy.
People who spout nothing but unfounded bullsh*t have no right to lecture anyone else about honesty. I've spent a fair amount of time learning about the MHRM and common MRA stances, so I'm not about to just accept your ridiculous insanity without something a little more substantial than simply because you say so. Until you can actually show some kind of link between any of your bullsh*t feminist ideological views and the actual MHRM or anti-feminism as a whole, I really cannot logically say anything else other than that I do not support rape and I am not aware of any commonly held MRA or anti-feminist position that does. And your desperate desire to equate "rightists" with all MRAs doesn't suddenly become not bullsh*t just because you keep repeating it. I've already shown you an actual survey that showed far more MRAs identifying as democrats rather than republicans. That constitutes as actual evidence. You know, that thing that you don't actually have any of? And then you continue to pretend that I'm being dishonest for not just accepting your bullsh*t just because you say so! Are you actually serious, Charles? How can you just say this crazy sh*t and then continue to pretend that there's something wrong with me when i don't just automatically buy into it? If I just started making random claims about socialists that I couldn't even link back to any actual socialist views or stances, would you just automatically believe everything I say and then argue accordingly, especially if you knew that you didn't even believe in them yourself? How is arguing a position that you do not hold and is not held by any group you support actually considered "good faith"? What a ridiculous concept.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 7:59:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 4:50:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hey guys, it's actually pretty darn simple, risky behavior =/= a woman forfeiting her inalienable right to say no, it =/= giving a man a free pass to assault her. Even if a Sofia Vergara or Jessica Alba look-alike in Victoria's Secret underwear waving a sign that says "I like rough sex" walks into a biker bar its male patrons are still not entitled to lose control and forcibly have sex with her. Nope, they still must obtain her consent, and if she refuses to give it, if she says no, well, they must accept no for an answer and go off to take a cold shower if necessary.

Who said otherwise?

In context quote please...

The person who comes closest to what you accuse would be JimmyTimmy, and even he avoids suggesting what you accuse.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 8:02:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 7:59:17 AM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/13/2014 4:50:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hey guys, it's actually pretty darn simple, risky behavior =/= a woman forfeiting her inalienable right to say no, it =/= giving a man a free pass to assault her. Even if a Sofia Vergara or Jessica Alba look-alike in Victoria's Secret underwear waving a sign that says "I like rough sex" walks into a biker bar its male patrons are still not entitled to lose control and forcibly have sex with her. Nope, they still must obtain her consent, and if she refuses to give it, if she says no, well, they must accept no for an answer and go off to take a cold shower if necessary.

Who said otherwise?

In context quote please...

The person who comes closest to what you accuse would be JimmyTimmy, and even he avoids suggesting what you accuse.

What?!?
charlesb makes outlandish and unfounded accusations?
Perish the thought.
My work here is, finally, done.
neptune1bond
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 8:06:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 8:02:51 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

What?!?
charlesb makes outlandish and unfounded accusations?
Perish the thought.
XD
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 8:58:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just One
Part 1

"Otokage : Yeah, overall I think the rape-rationalization is so stupid.

The Fool: Nobody is rationalizing that it's okay for the rapist to rape, or to reduce sentences for rapist.

Where have you read any examples on DDO whatsoever of people who think that?

Try and find just one example.

Otokage :Next movement of these people will be banning the the shopwindow of the bakeries, because...

The Fool: You see this is the problem? what movement Are you talking about?

Try and get one real-life example!

Otokage :How can we not break them when behind them is such a tasty temptation!!

The Fool: Who are these people you're mocking? Who is saying anything like this??

Even the most extremist, is saying something like Women should act responsibly as well as men, while they may differ in regards regards to what is considered acting responsibly on the woman's part.

Only feminists are saying something stupid like the woman has no responsibility whatsoever for actions, and all responsibility as on Males, even if they are equally drunk, and so equally cannot consent.

The key argument here is that even when they both cannot consent, only the male(The one with the penis) can be held responsible. And is he not only responsible for his own mind state, but responsible for the women's mind state as well.

In other words, he has to be responsible for himself and the woman, and only the Male can be considered a rapist, under such circumstances.

This is a direct violation of human rights, because they're not being held as equals before the law.

Otokage: "Charge me with a small fine, good cop! Because I stole the one with chocolate and macadamia nuts! And no one can resist that!"

The Fool: Where do you see, >in any of the conversations, anything to do with reducing sentences?

Against The Ideologist

Just one example. .
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Otokage
Posts: 2,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 11:54:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/14/2014 8:58:10 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
Just One
Part 1

"Otokage : Yeah, overall I think the rape-rationalization is so stupid.

The Fool: Nobody is rationalizing that it's okay for the rapist to rape, or to reduce sentences for rapist.

I didn't claim someone was saying "it is ok to rape", I claimed that it was being said "it is more OK (some would use semantics to turn that into "less reprehensible/horrible") to rape certain women".


Where have you read any examples on DDO whatsoever of people who think that?

In this very thread, you should simply take the time to read the conversation.

Try and find just one example.

No, you do.

Otokage :Next movement of these people will be banning the the shopwindow of the bakeries, because...

The Fool: You see this is the problem? what movement Are you talking about?

This is the problem, yes. People saying women shouldn't look pretty because they are making themselves irresistible. Which makes me wonder about the mental integrity of you guys. Are you sure you have progressed from the teenager stage?

Try and get one real-life example!

Otokage :How can we not break them when behind them is such a tasty temptation!!

The Fool: Who are these people you're mocking? Who is saying anything like this??

Wasn't jimmtimmy4 saying that with the thief analogy? What is he saying then? o.o

Even the most extremist, is saying something like Women should act responsibly as well as men, while they may differ in regards regards to what is considered acting responsibly on the woman's part.

The problem is that you see using miniskirts as an irresponsible act, lol, no one could ever act responsible by your ridiculously absurd standards.

Only feminists are saying something stupid like the woman has no responsibility whatsoever for actions, and all responsibility as on Males, even if they are equally drunk, and so equally cannot consent.

Which feminist?

The key argument here is that even when they both cannot consent, only the male(The one with the penis) can be held responsible. And is he not only responsible for his own mind state, but responsible for the women's mind state as well.

If the male forces himself on her, then it is pretty obvious he is responsible. This is basic logic.


In other words, he has to be responsible for himself and the woman, and only the Male can be considered a rapist, under such circumstances.

No, he has to be responsible for himself, because commiting a crime is HIS irresponsibility, not the womans, the woman is simply a victim of the irresponsible man. You are asking women to think about how they act because men are easily tempted into criminal actions, which is not only a machist statement, but also derogatory for real men that are horrified by the behavior of rapists.

This is a direct violation of human rights, because they're not being held as equals before the law.

Indeed, women are seeing as inferior to men. And you are asking women to try and solve the problem of women rape, when men, not women, are the cause of that problem.

Otokage: "Charge me with a small fine, good cop! Because I stole the one with chocolate and macadamia nuts! And no one can resist that!"

The Fool: Where do you see, >in any of the conversations, anything to do with reducing sentences?

Against The Ideologist

Just one example. .

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 12:01:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Planet Charles
Part 1

charleslb : Hey guys, it's actually pretty darn simple, risky behavior =/= a woman forfeiting her inalienable right to say no, it =/= giving a man a free pass to assault her. (etc.) Of course capitalism didn't start the fire of sexism but it's certainly stoked it up into a horrendous blaze that even blinds some men to a woman's prerogative to not be raped.

neptune1bond : I assume by "masculnist" you are talking about MRAs. Well, since there isn't one thing in your post that actually represents any point of view that I actually hold and doesn't really represent any commonly held MRA position that I know of, all I can really say is that I hate rape and never want it to happen EVER.

The Fool: Nobody is talking about what he is talking about. I have come to understand that Charles is on Planet "Charles", and there is no coming back to earth.

Just like every problem or disagreement with feminist, to them, obsessively leads to "the patriarchy", for Charles every problem or disagreement leads back to "capitalism" or "patriarchy"(implicitly for him heterosexuality)

It doesn't matter what the topic is? It doesn't matter how unrelated, he'll find some way to rationalize to himself, that it's either one of those. To him they are part of the same "Devil" behind all the evil deeds and problems on earth. Communism- feminism, is God, and communist-feminist, is Jesus.

And eternal sin, is the patriarchy takeover long long ago, in and place time unknown. I've been off and on for two years now, and two years ago, he was still preaching the same garbage. He doesn't argue rationally, he simply preaches like a minister. Information only goes one way! Outward from himself!

These kind of ideological views, can be just as "mind fixating" as any religious viewpoint, creating an out of touch with reality from which there is no return.

I believe it's literally branded on his brain.

neptune1bond : I do not believe that it is o.k. under any circumstances or when it happens to EITHER gender and neither does the MHRM as a whole (although there are idiots in every group, obviously). So, in reference to the MHRM, your post is just one big 'ol ridiculous strawman argument that has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Oh, and btw, in case your second post was aimed at me as well, asking you to actually relate any of your claims to actual MRA stances and positions isn't about "being indignant and offended", but rather is pointing out how ridiculous, unfounded, and what bullsh*t your position is since it has no basis whatsoever in anything that actually comes from the MHRM other than maybe a couple of people who aren't actually representative of the MHRM and are actually being contrary to the majority of the movement.

The Fool: We don't owe Charles any kind of apology. We have been patient, diplomatic, sincere and fair in explaining the general MRA stance. Obviously he is not willing to give us the same respect. He wants to be accepted but doesn't want to accept others.

We don't fit into his Scripture, so he has to force us in the storyline as being in conspiracy with "the devil".

He's a grown as-s man, who is fully conscious and aware, and we've been talking to him like a child who simply doesn't understand what we are saying- trying to explain to him the same thing in different ways. By now, he either understands and like socialpinko, is deliberately giving false information, or he has a few screws loose. I don't even mean that as an insult.

The only people here(in the forums), who actually take the MRA position or at least seem to have a decent grasp of the general positions are you, me, intellectuallyprimitive, and maybe Objectivity(maybe, he seems to have it right.)

Yet people keep talking about these DDO MRA's, especially by the politically Incorrect slander term "masculinist" are saying, but who they are seem to always be a complete mystery.

Against The Ideologist

Like Feminist Theory
<(XD)

Zinggggg".
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 3:54:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/13/2014 4:50:19 PM, charleslb wrote:
Hey guys, it's actually pretty darn simple, risky behavior =/= a woman forfeiting her inalienable right to say no, it =/= giving a man a free pass to assault her. Even if a Sofia Vergara or Jessica Alba look-alike in Victoria's Secret underwear waving a sign that says "I like rough sex" walks into a biker bar its male patrons are still not entitled to lose control and forcibly have sex with her. Nope, they still must obtain her consent, and if she refuses to give it, if she says no, well, they must accept no for an answer and go off to take a cold shower if necessary.

No, dear teenage boys and men of the masculinist and/or rightist persuasion, you can rationalize otherwise until kingdom come, but a woman is a priori never fair game to be raped. But then why is it so difficult for some men, even men who don't identify as masculinsts or conservatives, to get such a simple a priori truth?

Ask an obvious question, get an obvious answer. Alas it's the case that a great many of my fellow males are given to the objectification of women. To their objectification into mere sex objects and sex symbols, who represent nothing more than outlets for the male libido. Yes, it's not just a feminist myth, women are indeed objectified into mere warm-blooded sex toys, pieces of meat who exist to satisfy the venereal hunger of men. And if this is thought to be a woman's main function, well, then it can all too easily become lost on men that she in fact is a full-fledged human being with the absolute right to decide whether or not to take part in sex.

And moreover, yes, this objectification of women is indeed tied in with, reinforced by, and promoted by the prevalence of objectification and commodification under capitalism. The inveterate commodification of everything under the sun (including people), the reduction of everything under the sun into mere objects to be consumed for our pleasure, most certainly factors into and exacerbates sexual objectification.

Also, that sector of our late capitalist economy headquartered on Madison Avenue bears a large portion of responsibility. Driven by its corporate clients' imperative of profit maximization, the advertising industry shamelessly reduces women into mere quantities of titillation, objectifies their bodies and sex appeal into mere advertising tools, into things that can be used to effectively sell other things. The female form and sexuality has in fact been quite blatantly and thoroughly commercialized and commodified, sexually attractive women are constantly and ubiquitously portrayed as one-dimensional sexual creatures, which has turned us into an oversexed culture, and yes, has helped to give modern men the idea that women are just objects of erotic desire, sexual playthings put on earth for the gratification of the male organ.

Well, capitalism certainly does promote such crass materialism. I.e., the kind of crass materialism that has us thinking of ourselves and each other as mere bodies; that has men thinking of women mere T & A, hunks of meat whose primary purpose in life is to pleasure the hunk of meat between a man's legs. This kind of carnality and objectification is naturally quite inseparable from the materialism and commodity fetishism fostered by capitalism, from capitalism's tendency to cause us to lose sight of the human element; to reduce production and consumption, work and pleasure to entirely material matters, with little or no recognition of the social and human factor. That is, while capitalism certainly didn't invent sexism and the male tendency to treat women like sex objects rather than fellow human persons, its materialism and commodity fetishism, its penchant for a commodifying reductionism that doesn't stop short of degrading thous into its, has certainly sanctioned, abetted, and escalated the sexual objectification of our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters.

Combine this inherent promotion of objectification with capitalism's natural promotion of dominance-oriented drives and thinking, and, well, it's hardly any wonder that despite the strides of the women's movement members of the female sex are more than ever treated as mere sexual beings, whose human dignity and human rights to not be sexually exploited or forced to have sexual relations against their will some men think can sometimes be disregarded. Yes, such is the fate of respect for women under capitalism. Of course capitalism didn't start the fire of sexism but it's certainly stoked it up into a horrendous blaze that even blinds some men to a woman's prerogative to not be raped.

1) Who the hell is this aimed at? or what is the point of this OP?
2) Are you aware that women also objectify men?
3) Are men not allowed to have erotic desires?
4) Don't you think that tradition of sexual repression of two thousand years led to the obsession with sex in our society?
5) What kind of men do you associate with? or what gives you the warrant to make the spectacular generalizations that characterize your OP?
6) Are you ignorant of the fact that capitalism also objectifies males?
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.