voluntary rape

hawkeye10 wrote:

There is a method to my madness.

I've seen that...

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

This discussion is idiotic as the two words 'voluntary' and 'rape' are immiscible. The word 'rape' implies forced sex i.e. involuntary.

So you, the acerbic Setanta, and perhaps others might claim, however some social science advocates:

1) Aleksandar tulhofer, Ph.D. Professor of Sociology. Dept. of Sociology. Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. University of Zagreb.

2) Theo Sandfort, Ph.D., Research Scientist at the HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies, Associate Professor of Clinical Sociomedical Sciences (in Psychiatry) Columbia University. Master's degree in Social Psychology from the Catholic University Nijmegen, the Netherlands, Ph.D. in Social Sciences from Utrecht University, the Netherlands.

would assert otherwise as per:

Quote:

During war times, 'women favored voluntary rape in order to avoid ongoing ... The term 'voluntary rape' suggests the extreme ways that women could have an ...

http://books.google.ca/books?id=jpXliFG0XP0C&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=%22voluntary+rape%22&source=web&ots=1hJGnZjUkV&sig=6PUKos-fpX7OkkUqi4atSgUlaaI&hl=en

Quote:

... all "mercenary sexual activities" (ie, prostitution and, possibly, marriages of convenience?) as "voluntary rape." There is no corresponding legal term, ...

http://books.google.ca/books?id=NyrLMLurIPgC&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=%22voluntary+rape%22&source=web&ots=5-hI7Se5VB&sig=vgrk17XhYJgHhd_Fbael4knxazQ&hl=en

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

1) Aleksandar tulhofer, Ph.D. Professor of Sociology. Dept. of Sociology. Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. University of Zagreb.

Knowing how rape was used in the Balkans as a means of ethnic cleansing, let me think of this reference as higly suspicious, to say the least...

0 Replies

There is no such thing as voluntary rape, no matter what sorry excuse
or "scientific" explanation is brought in by the most dubious sources.

Case closed!!

0 Replies

Francis wrote:

Chumly wrote:
1) Aleksandar tulhofer, Ph.D. Professor of Sociology. Dept. of Sociology. Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. University of Zagreb.

Knowing how rape was used in the Balkans as a means of ethnic cleansing, let me think of this reference as higly suspicious, to say the least...

Nope, Francis.

Quote:

During war times, 'women favored voluntary rape in order to avoid ongoing ...

That is not a reference to ethnic cleansing per se; it's a reference to women making a specified choice.

In any case, and directly to the point, your counter does not address the underlying claim that (presumably) there can be no such thing as voluntary rape.

0 Replies

I didn't say it was about ethnic cleansing, nor I spoke about the the hypothetic voluntariness of rape.

I suggested that given the origins of this "professor", I do think he is not a reliable and impartial source for discussing about rape.

0 Replies

Chumly, I didn't think that you're that ignorant.

Perhaps you should educate yourself on the topic of ethnic cleansing
in Serbia/Bosnia - it's not that far back in history. You should find
plenty of documentary there.

Women did not make a choice to be raped - they were raped over and
over again by soldiers, multiple times and in the most brutal way.

Don't you diminish the utter violence of rape, while sitting on your comfy sofa in far away Canada. The audacity to make light of such horrendous crimes is more than outrageous.

0 Replies

Francis wrote:

I didn't say it was about ethnic cleansing

Your claim would appear to be false as per

Francis wrote:

Knowing how rape was used in the Balkans as a means of ethnic cleansing........

Francis wrote:

nor I spoke about the the hypothetic voluntariness of rape.

Be that as it may, there is an underlying current of those who would claim otherwise. I took the opportunity, perhaps somewhat in hindsight at your expense, to focus on a widely expressed viewpoint.

Francis wrote:

I suggested that given the origins of this "professor", I do think he is not a reliable and impartial source for discussing about rape.

If you wish to discount both professors:

1) Aleksandar tulhofer, Ph.D. Professor of Sociology. Dept. of Sociology. Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences. University of Zagreb.

2) Theo Sandfort, Ph.D., Research Scientist at the HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies, Associate Professor of Clinical Sociomedical Sciences (in Psychiatry) Columbia University. Master's degree in Social Psychology from the Catholic University Nijmegen, the Netherlands, Ph.D. in Social Sciences from Utrecht University, the Netherlands.

that is of course your prerogative, but such a viewpoint in and of itself does not lend your viewpoints credence.

0 Replies

I see that you can easily misunderstand my statements, given my lack of structural clarity.

But I see too that your comprehension of the words I use is less than perfect.

Your nitpicking, in the hope of proving the righteousness of your stance, is indubitably wasted on me.

The very concept of voluntary rape is nonsense, as is its semantic part.

0 Replies

I note a language barrier, and of that I am saddened; however you have yet to discount the fact that two Ph.D. holders have coined the phrase, in a recognized publication.

At the obvious risk of argumentum ad nauseam, and as per their book "Sexuality and Gender in Postcommunist Eastern Europe and Russia"

Quote:

During war times, 'women favored voluntary rape in order to avoid ongoing ...

That is not a reference to ethnic cleansing per se; it's a reference to women making a specified choice.

Further, that the phrase voluntary rape is recognized by, at the minimum, two Ph.D. holders in the appropriate fields of Sociology and Psychiatry, is also a matter of record.

Further, as previously noted, is it also used in the book "John and Postcolonialism: Travel, Space and Power By Musa W. Dube Shomanah, Musa W. Dube, Jeffrey L. Staley"

http://books.google.ca/books?id=jpXliFG0XP0C&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=%22voluntary+rape%22&source=web&ots=1hJGnZjUkV&sig=6PUKos-fpX7OkkUqi4atSgUlaaI&hl=en

Should you be inclined to make your case, I would ask you to do so in such a fashion as to argue against the quoted author's acceptance of the phrase.

Simply repeating, that to you, the term has no validity does nothing to substantiate your viewpoint.

I see the term as having meaning in the context of the lesser of two evils, which if I have assessed the author's meaning, they would concur.

My views on rape are a matter of record.

0 Replies

Ad nauseum it is.

You can cite and take those "professors" and "experts" as your moral authorities.

But it's your choice and you should not be surprised if many other people find your choice degradating.

Many other terms have been coined in other eras about similar subjects.

Eugenism comes to mind.

They finished in the dustbins of history.

0 Replies

Voluntary rape is a poor choice of words, but what it refers to is a voluntary surrender to sexual violation. This certainly is real, it does happen. There are lots of wive who say "I never tell my husband no, we have sex how he wants, when he wants, always" Consensual sex toy/voluntary rape victim........it is the same thing as seen through two very different perspectives.

0 Replies

For you to claim the author's are my so-called "moral authorities" is a straw man logical fallacy. I made no such claim.

I encourage you to understand the falseness of your assertion as such:

Quote:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

When you say other terms have been coined in other eras about similar subjects, that is simply a variation of the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum. A fallacious argument concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it.

When you made reference to eugenism, you did not specify your reference. However if you are referring to me, then I would cite the logical fallacy ad hominem, as you reply to an argument or factual claim by attacking the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

Again when you made reference to eugenism, you did not specify your reference, however if you are referring to the authors, then I would cite the logical fallacy ad hominem, as you reply to an argument or factual claim by attacking the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

When you make reference to the authors as "finished in the dustbins of history" your inference that remembered history is a merited arbiter in this context is wholly absurd. How else might we then apply remembered history in this context, one might well ask both absudly and rhetorically.

0 Replies

Stop patronizing me, Chumly, with your pitiful explanations, which are, notwithstanding your links, obvioulsly ill-learned.

Your hotchpotch is intended to divert our attention from the core subject:

The hateful wishful thinking from your part that women would have sex under duress - voluntarily.

Are you losing your mind?

0 Replies

Here is a review of one of the books I talked about prior, in which voluntary rape is mentioned. Alas not in the below review, but voluntary rape is mentioned in my quote of the book in my prior posting. I make no comment as to my views in terms of the specifics of the book John and Postcolonialism outside of the usage of the phrase in question.

Quote:

John and Postcolonialism is an interesting collection of essays exploring and critiquing Johannine ideology in light of postcolonial theories, especially those of Benedict Anderson, Homi Bhabha, and Anthony Cohen on nation building. Unlike two earlier collections of a similar subject in the Semeia Series, Postcolonialism and Scriptural Reading edited by Laura Donaldson (vol. 75, 1996) and A Vanishing Mediator? The Presence/Absence of the Bible in Postcolonialism edited by Roland Boer (vol. 88, 2001), this volume in The Bible and Postcolonialism Series is authored by biblical scholars rather than literary critics and it focuses on one book, the gospel of John, rather than random texts tailored for varied theories. Thus, it provides a significant test case to show how biblical scholars, armed with the oppositional reading (according to R. S. Sugirtharajah) and decolonizing strategy (according to Fernando Segovia), might offer fresh interpretation of Johannine text and critical evaluation of Johannine theology........

http://www.logos.com/products/prepub/details/2876

0 Replies

Francis wrote:

Stop patronizing me, Chumly, with your pitiful explanations, which are, notwithstanding your links, obvioulsly ill-learned.

Here we have a good example of the ad hominem argument as you reply by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

Francis wrote:

Your hotchpotch is intended to divert our attention from the core subject:

The hateful wishful thinking from your part that women would have sex under duress - voluntarily.

Pure straw man on your part whereby you misrepresent my position.

Francis wrote:

Are you losing your mind?

Here we have a good example of the ad hominem argument as you reply by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

In sum you have done nothing whatsoever to substantiate your claim that the phrase is question is bereft of meaning.

0 Replies

It really is nauseating.

If you were so sure of your assertions would you need to slice my comments?

I do affirm indeed it's an ad hominem, Chumly.

Your position is despicable and I say so.

What else?

Bed time now...

0 Replies

Your ability to focus on the question at hand is rather weak to say the least.

As discussed, you have done nothing whatsoever to substantiate your claim that the phrase is question is bereft of meaning. In fact rather the opposite, as you supply this whirlwind of logical fallacies and unsubstantiated counters all for the sake of a phrase (I gather) you feel has no meaning.

Well that in and of itself is not unheard, of as I don't believe in elves, and I might well argue against them, but I would not try and do so with logical fallacies and unsubstantiated counters. All that does is lessen the likelihood of believably as it has so clearly done in your case.

Unless of course you have now changed your mind and consider, that in some instances, the phrase can have meaning.

0 Replies

Francis wrote:

It really is nauseating.

......

Your position is despicable and I say so.

What else?

Bed time now...

This view is given disturbingly often these days, by otherwise well meaning and thoughtful people. The concept that statements,truth and/or questions cannot be addressed because they offend us is outrageously nuts. When did "I choose to avoid the position/situation because i don't like it" become an acceptable response?? Just a couple of weeks ago the ombudsman at the Washington Post wrote

Quote:

Readers come to the newspaper looking for news, facts, analysis, opinion and a little fun. They do not come to The Post to be insulted, and the paper should not deliberately print anything offensive unless it is a matter of great news significance

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702915.html

Newspapers should try to be non offensive??? WTF, much of what is news is offensive, newspapers need to stick with figuring out what is news, not get into the weeds of self censorship on the grounds of trying to not offend the readers. This babysitting of individuals needs to stop, it promotes weakness of mind and character.

Likewise, those who are engaging in debate need to stick to trying to make cases that back their argument, not strike down the other side on the grounds that the position is "despicable". Moral outrage is not an argument nor a fact in support of an argument.

0 Replies

CalamityJane wrote:

Chumly, I didn't think that you're that ignorant.

Perhaps you should educate yourself on the topic of ethnic cleansing
in Serbia/Bosnia - it's not that far back in history. You should find
plenty of documentary there.

Women did not make a choice to be raped - they were raped over and
over again by soldiers, multiple times and in the most brutal way.

Don't you diminish the utter violence of rape, while sitting on your comfy sofa in far away Canada. The audacity to make light of such horrendous crimes is more than outrageous.

Sorry I have not had time to respond directly to your postings; my responses to Francis' posts may be of some interest, as it seems both of you are making similar appeals.

0 Replies

voluntary rape

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know