Delayed response...
hawkeye10 wrote:You can't change normal human behaviour by making a law against it.
What about abnormal behaviour?
Quote:The feminists want to outlaw aggressive sexuality however this is a normal part of human sexuality.
What matters is whether it is ethically defensible. I haven't seen you provide a decent argument that it is. It may occur in the natural world, but then so does violent child abuse.
Quote:As I showed earlier the feminists mean to reorder normal gender interaction by creating a social structure where women no longer follow the lead of men,
Why should they follow the lead of men? It may be traditional for them to do so, but general well-being is better than the upholding of tradition for its own sake. Women are better off with the freedom to follow their own lead. Or the lead of other women
that's an interesting tangential question, actually. Where does homosexuality fit into your worldview?
Quote:
want to punish men who try to lead women even if the women desire to follow the men.
The general well-being of a woman is more important than the fulfilment of her immediate desires. Abused wives often desire to stay with their abusive husbands, but they are often, on the whole, better off not doing this. So it doesn't matter whether the woman
does desire to follow the man. What matters is whether she
ought to desire this.
I don't believe in punishment (for the same reason that I don't believe in revenge), but if a man knowingly tries to lead a woman, when she would be better off not being led by him, the man should be stopped because he is doing more harm than good.
Quote:In their mind women do not have the right to consent to being submissive or even to follow the historic feminine behaviour patterns, they look at these women not as whole humans but as damaged humans locked in a cycle of abuse.
Quote:The trouble is that this view is wrong, women follow men sexually because that is the natural play between the masculine and feminine....it is the nature of the dance. Feminists can't change the dance with laws and punishment, the drive to follow our soul and our nature is far too strong.
Quote:Feminists can encourage women to be more masculine, and they do, but unless they can find feminine men they will not find suitable mates.
Let them find feminine men, then. What's the problem?
Quote:Pushing women to be masculine does not serve the well being of the overall society, so I object on those grounds, and because I personally object to being pushed to become a feminine man, as men are pushed because as always relationships must be balanced in order to work.
Why must they be balanced? What's the evidence? What about gays and lesbians?
Quote:In a relationship if one person changes the other must change so that the two are complimentary, so that they will work together. Likewise, if women generally change the men will need to generally change as well, if men and women are to be together. And contrary to the feminine clap trap about the glory of the freedom to no longer need/want a mate, the family structure is too important to the health of the society to be thrown away for the sake of the feminists' utopia fantasy.
Sounds like conservative dogma to me. What is so important about the family structure? What is wrong with independence?
Quote:More generally, attempts to legislate passions and morality always fail, and always will fail.
Then what are you worried about?
Quote:Continued attempts at trying betray a deep rooted ignorance of human nature.
Nature is not normative. Just because our ancestors behaved in certain ways, this does not mean that we ought to behave in the same way. We are not obliged to hunt naked in the woods, and we are not obliged to permit rape.
Quote:Everybody knows the punishment for killing someone, yet we still kill each other.
Do you? I don't. Just because the law doesn't prevent
all killings, that doesn't mean that it doesn't prevent
many killings. The number of killings would obviously increase if there were no threat of incarceration.
Quote:Even when states like Texas make the punishment the state killing of the offender the crimes still happen. Making a law, hurting the perps, does not keep the unwanted action from taking place.
You are right in the sense that it doesn't prevent all instances of the unwanted action taking place. But it clearly prevents a number of instances from taking place.
Quote:The purpose of the law is to exact retribution, it is not to promote societal health except in the sense of removing known perps from the society
Quote:However, a woman feeling raped
What a strange use of language.
Quote:
might say more about the dynamics in that relationship than it does about the man being dangerous. We don't know, and only an expert who is allowed into the relationship in a counseling setting can know. To assume that the man is wrong when the woman feels wronged is to assume guilt. A skilled impartial third party must try to figure out where the truth lies.
Yes, of course nobody should be convicted of rape if they haven't committed rape.
Quote:If the man was wrong, as he likely was at least in part, then putting the redress into the health setting does not let him skate free to go about hurting other women. Counseling can be mandated, a record to be used in future events can be created, monitoring can take place. Also, I am not completely apposed to promoting public safety by making a man who gets into situations where women feel raped ineligible for certain occupations.
Okay, that's not a ridiculous proposition. But I'm still not clear on why this is preferable to the current set-up.
