boomerang wrote:My day went a little sideways, I couldn't really deal with the quote box business but to call the original post "silliness" is just beyond offensive.
That woman's thoughts were insulting and demeaning and stupid--not "silliness".
I was serious when I asked if that if someone put their nose within reach of my fist and I hit them and they hadn't told me "NO" whether they did or did not consent to being hit.
Rape is a serious and horrendous crime.
It doesn't have anything to do with "you be my cabana boy" sex play.
When someone is f*** you and your only thought is "how do I get out of this alive" to debate whether a crime is being committed is insane.
I am not sure who is debating the needed criminalization in the circumstances you refer to in your last sentence. Would you let me know?
As to Cecile's views (as quoted by yours truly) and whether she means rape as you lastly describe it, I will (naturally enough) let you draw your own conclusions.
point - Never mind all the quote stuff, I meant that I follow, get, chumly,
Whether I just go along, who knows - I'm saying he isn't berserk to me, though I apprehend we're different.
I also get it that some will see me as berserk.
ossobuco wrote:Chumly wrote:Of course there is a certain silliness in the first post, and naturally those with rape direct experience could react with emotionalism to the exemption of the big picture. Those can be considered givens.
Nice post overall!
I don't think I'm not getting you, Chumly. I'm sure we differ, but I'm not not understanding. I don't mean that snottily.
I summarized a portion of your post (at least that was my hope) and mentioned your post in general was nicely done. My view on rape as a definitive action of one party forcing another through a sexual act is that criminalization is apropos.
As to the real world "W5" (Who, What, Where, When & Why)l I suggest it can become murky.
boomerang wrote:My day went a little sideways, I couldn't really deal with the quote box business but to call the original post "silliness" is just beyond offensive.
That woman's thoughts were insulting and demeaning and stupid--not "silliness".
I was serious when I asked if that if someone put their nose within reach of my fist and I hit them and they hadn't told me "NO" whether they did or did not consent to being hit.
Rape is a serious and horrendous crime.
It doesn't have anything to do with "you be my cabana boy" sex play.
When someone is f*** you and your only thought is "how do I get out of this alive" to debate whether a crime is being committed is
insane.
I am one who called the first post silly and I know about rape. Please don't call my comment about those given examples offensive.
Or, do, but tell me all about it.
Silly examples do no good.
Let me guess that all of us arguing figure we have rights not to be physically invaded.
I'll just rest here and await arguments.
Some of us might not really understand power and its sexual beats, according to those who thrive on it.
Some of us do, and are getting real tired of watching it....
Thanks for the clarification, Hawk.
I might not disagree with you, point to point.
I don't like what I think of as the coldness, but that is not apt to the thread.
In real life, I disagree in so many ways that my sentences jumble. But re the thread, I get your last pov..
hawkeye10 wrote:What I know is that some women want it for real so badly that they have to have it. They will either negotiate for it or manipulate for it. Some want it less so, they are open to playing rape in the bedroom, but are fine if they don't.
For the men too number are unknown due to repression. I think that the disconnect for the men is worse then for the women, it is quite something to have your woman ask you to take them by force sexually but to need to tell her no because you can't or wont go there.
...
Consensual non-consent, it is wanted by both, usually verbally confirmed, and yet if anything goes wrong it will be the guy who is hauled in front of a judge. The woman will be referred to a treatment program as a sexual abuse victim. Such is the state of the law.
Non consensual rape that is not wanted is a abuse of power, it should be criminal.
I read this last night and decided to sleep on it before answering. I'm not convinced that the state of the law isn't appropriate. It's easy to say that whatever happens between two consenting adults is no one's business. In the situation you've outlined I'm not so sure I agree. To say the continued rape is acceptable because it's what the person wants and needs is saying as a society that whatever personal history brought someone to that place (I don't think one gets there without a history of abuse) is their own baggage to carry and the rest of us should butt out so long as this person has been 'lucky' enough to find someone to fulfill their needs.
The person who is willing to 'play the true rapist' is only justifying to himself what should still be, imo, a criminal act.
By that token then, you are asserting that a beyond a given level of self-destructiveness the laws of the land must be interventionist, regardless of the individual's consent.
As such, given that cigarette smoking is far more hazardous to far more people than (what might be termed by some as) rape between consenting adults, you would criminalize the actions of the cigarette need fulfillers?
As such, given that overeating is far more hazardous to far more people than (what might be termed by some as) rape between consenting adults, you would criminalize the actions of the encourager's of overeating?
As such, given that lack of exercise is far more hazardous to far more people than (what might be termed by some as) rape between consenting adults, you would criminalize the actions of the encourager's of a lack of exercise?
chumly, you're talking to one of the most libertarian posters on this site so don't go there. No, I don't equate justifying on-going sexual abuse with other aspects of live and let live, which is my general outlook on most things.
Let's back up for a moment:
You have already stated for the record that rape must be criminalized even if it is what the person "wants and needs".
By that token then, you are making an implicit assertion that beyond a given level of self-destructiveness the laws of the land must be interventionist, regardless of the individual's consent.
you use the word must much too easily, chumly
I must get breakfast!
In any case, you're welcome to substitute a word of your choosing if you feel "must" is too polarized, and we'll see how it stands up to scrutiny in reference to your initial claim.
BTW: the slippery slope can be valid or fallacious.
<snort>
chumly, I realize this is a 'debate' forum but we are no longer discussing the scenarios you posted for debate. The rules of your game are hereby suspended so long as we are speaking in terms of opinion on hackeye's desire for justification of intentional abuse. So says me.
Enjoy your breakfast.
If you want some Comedy / Drama / Romance / Humor that illuminates some of the views I bring forward in this thread, then I recommend you all watch this film! "Secretary" (2002)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_(film)
Lee Holloway kind'a reminds me of my second wife (who was a court reporter) and a bit dark and quirky.
I think the quote function got messed up.
but there was a conversation there.
After I said something about apprehending, it was all Hawkeye.
I do see what he argues about. I still think he's mechanistic, but I am watching the logic. Me, I see women agreeing to all this as burned to start with - therefore not of right mind for a contract - and the people who play with them either users or equally burnt or both. I'm sure there are women who are just amused, and others in it for money. I'm still stupid on it all but interested in the arguments.
Was glad to see he says non consensual is not ok.
This discussion is idiotic as the two words 'voluntary' and 'rape' are immiscible. The word 'rape' implies forced sex i.e. involuntary.
ossobuco wrote:
I do see what he argues about. I still think he's mechanistic, but I am watching the logic. Me, I see women agreeing to all this as burned to start with - therefore not of right mind for a contract - and the people who play with them either users or equally burnt or both. I'm sure there are women who are just amused, and others in it for money. I'm still stupid on it all but interested in the arguments.
Was glad to see he says non consensual is not ok.
The logic is that individuals are free to do what they want so long as they don't get into other peoples way. The state has no right to play babysitter to individuals who don't want to be babysat. I refuse to wear a seat belt in the car for the same reason. I don't feel bad about the years that I used illegal drugs for the same reason. I smoke a cigar now and then not because I particularly like them but because it is my f*ck you statement to those who want to criminalize tobacco.
There is a method to my madness.
