Rape: What is it?

I believe in my position because it is in line with the facts as best as I know them, and because no one has been able to bring to light facts that are opposed to my position, or to show how the facts support another version of the truth better. Nobody here has tried either, but that is another matter.

I said legalism and moralism, legal as in criminalizing sex, moralism as evidence by this thread and any other place one tries to talk about this subject. Look at my words, and then the emotional disdain that they generate..this is text book moralism. Legality and morals are products of the ego, rules to keep the heart in line. However the erotic is primarily an activity of the soul, of the heart. We moderns have somehow gotten the idea that we can will what ever we want into existence and out of existence (Pres Bush is a perfect example of this type of warped human). No we can't. Sometimes the heart must be allowed dominion, even though things can get messy when the heart is in charge.

soul/heart. Soul based=feeding the heart. What does the heart want? Sometimes it wants tenderness and cooperation, sometimes it wants a fight or at least a tussle. Feeding the heart is allowing a person what makes them healthy and happy. Only they get to decide what makes them healthy and happy, not the do-gooders. If a relationship where there is never any fighting and where only tenderness is shown makes a person happy then that is what the should have. If rough sex and lots of arguing makes a person happy then that is what they should have. I don't give a **** what people outside the relationship of the individual body think is right, I care what the people in the relationship and the individuals want.

Move off of criminalizing sex, move off of the moralizing about what is "good" sex and "bad" sex, allow people to do what they want, what they think is best for them unless we as a society have a very good reason to mess with their lives.

l, that doesn't clarify things very much. It's all very nice to talk about how "sometimes the heart must be allowed dominion," but that doesn't really mean anything

Let's talk specifics. If a man, for instance, were to beat the crap out of you and anally penetrate you, would that be an instance where you'd allow the "heart to have its dominion?" Were the people who sexually abused your wife and daughters just letting their "hearts have their dominions?" Exactly how extensive is the heart's "dominion?" Is it broader than a woman's right to be left alone? Are there any limits?

That all presumes that there is a relationship in the first place. What about those instances where a man forces himself sexually upon a woman with whom he is not in a relationship? Is that still justified in your eyes because it "feeds the man's heart?"

That presumes that "rape = sex." Just because the act of rape involves sexual penetration doesn't mean the participants are having "sex," any more than the act of casting multiple ballots in an election means that the voter is behaving democratically

Wow, I wake up this morning to three PM's asking me about my super long post.

So instead of writing back, Im going to post it here.

1) No. I dont believe that men are 'lower' im simply mirroring hawkasses behaviors and speaking patterns.

2) No. Men dont have a 'place' .. but this one does.

3) I love you all.

Quote:

You like to try and control how people argue with and respond to you, don't you?

I like to participate in discussions that have as a goal the arrival at truth, as apposed to supporting each others cherished notions and myths. When facts don't matter, when supporting documents don't matter, I know that I am not dealing with that class of people. I am not putting down all a2k'ers, only the ones who in multiple threads have shown themselves to be uninterested in truth. This is a fatal flaw for humans.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:

You like to try and control how people argue with and respond to you, don't you?

I like to participate in discussions that have as a goal the arrival at truth, as apposed to supporting each others cherished notions and myths. When facts don't matter, when supporting documents don't matter, I know that I am not dealing with that class of people. I am not putting down all a2k'ers, only the ones who in multiple threads have shown themselves to be uninterested in truth. This is a fatal flaw for humans.

The truth according to Hawkeye. Why put anyone down because they don't agree with you?

Intrepid wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:

You like to try and control how people argue with and respond to you, don't you?

I like to participate in discussions that have as a goal the arrival at truth, as apposed to supporting each others cherished notions and myths. When facts don't matter, when supporting documents don't matter, I know that I am not dealing with that class of people. I am not putting down all a2k'ers, only the ones who in multiple threads have shown themselves to be uninterested in truth. This is a fatal flaw for humans.

The truth according to Hawkeye. Why put anyone down because they don't agree with you?

I don't, I put down people who claim to be making arguments based upon reality who in fact are exercising their aversion and protection of their personal myths. Honesty is important, those who can't bring themselves to be honest about what they are doing deserve scorn.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:

You like to try and control how people argue with and respond to you, don't you?

I like to participate in discussions that have as a goal the arrival at truth, as apposed to supporting each others cherished notions and myths. When facts don't matter, when supporting documents don't matter, I know that I am not dealing with that class of people. I am not putting down all a2k'ers, only the ones who in multiple threads have shown themselves to be uninterested in truth. This is a fatal flaw for humans.

The truth according to Hawkeye. Why put anyone down because they don't agree with you?

I don't, I put down people who claim to be making arguments based upon reality who in fact are exercising their aversion and protection of their personal myths. Honesty is important, those who can't bring themselves to be honest about what they are doing deserve scorn.

What is the difference between what you said and what I said?

According to your logic, scorn should be heaped upon you.

And, what do you know about reality? You appear to be far removed from it based on your "truths".

You talk a big game, but what can you actually do on the floor??

Quote:

l, that doesn't clarify things very much. It's all very nice to talk about how "sometimes the heart must be allowed dominion," but that doesn't really mean anything

It only means something to those who already have some notion of what the difference is between operating from the head and operating from the heart.

I am not suggesting that physical assault laws change. I have always maintained that rape as defined a the taking of another sexually by physical force should be criminal...and there are always limits to everything in life

hawkeye10 wrote:

I am not suggesting that physical assault laws change. I have always maintained that rape as defined a the taking of another sexually by physical force should be criminal...and there are always limits to everything in life

OK, so is it safe to say, then, that your only problem with rape laws are those that define non-consensual sex, without any attendant force, as rape or sexual assault?

Haweye wrote:

Quote:

You talk a big game, but what can you actually do on the floor??

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Are you trying to get all macho on us again?

joefromchicago wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

I am not suggesting that physical assault laws change. I have always maintained that rape as defined a the taking of another sexually by physical force should be criminal...and there are always limits to everything in life

OK, so is it safe to say, then, that your only problem with rape laws are those that define non-consensual sex, without any attendant force, as rape or sexual assault?

So i guess it would be OK if someone else took the victim down, and was holding him or her down, with genitals or posterior exposed, and you just happened along, whipped out your little weenie and dipped your wick, huh, Hawkee? Sort of like Agrote only wishing to view images of child sexual assault that he doesn't have to pay for?

This tripe makes about as much sense . . .

hawkeye10 wrote:

I am not suggesting that physical assault laws change. I have always maintained that rape as defined a the taking of another sexually by physical force should be criminal...and there are always limits to everything in life

OK, so is it safe to say, then, that your only problem with rape laws are those that define non-consensual sex, without any attendant force, as rape or sexual assault?

But if the victim were, say, passed out at a party . . . that would be OK with you, huh?

You're pathetic.

Well, ain't that ****' brilliant. In that case, describe for me a circumstance in which rape can take place in which is can be justified.