Originally posted by Oliver North wait, what? thats actually the topic we were debating. You tried to provide evidence against this...wtf? so, you change the topic when you are wrong? thats not very intellectually honest, is it?
Originally posted by Oliver North
What is really funny about this, is in terms of personal taste, I'm with you about women who dress in overly revealing ways and personal modesty in public.
Originally posted by Oliver North
But to say that women are more oppressed now because porn exists? you are basically admitting you have no appreciation for historical context. 30 years ago, it was acceptable for a man to rape his wife. It was legal. Now, even though things are by no means equal, we have entire movements and lobbying groups set up to ensure equal payment and so forth. Your argument is making you look silly here.
Their are also interesting revelations from strippers.
Yes, their are lobbying groups but they are not very effective. Unless porn industry is closed, which I doubt, exploitation will continue or possibly increase as more and more people are joining this industry in the hopes of achieving stardom which seldom comes.
Raping wife is also an issue but it is unreasonable to assume that every man had raped his wife prior to the passing of law on marital rape. Women have been treated with respect by good men in the past and same is true today. But porn industry and stripper clubs are relatively newer forms of evils that have gained foothold under the shadow of feminism and have opened new avenues of exploitation.
Originally posted by Oliver North
and 20 years ago that number would be about 50% higher.
Originally posted by Oliver North
I've never made the points you seem to be arguing here.I don't think rules make most people behave well, no, but certainly I believe a police force with the monopoly on violence prevents a small percentage of psychopaths from dominating regular, peaceful people.
Originally posted by Oliver North
not actually an insult in this context...well, help me with something I don't really understand then. Your forum experience may be totally relevant here.
If the Globus Pallidus Interna is sending it's signals through the ventral anterior and ventral medial parts of the thalamus, based on inhibition from the putamin, is it the substantia nigra or the subthalamic nucleus that regulates inputs to the thalamus from the cerebellum, or am I confusing something about the direct circuit? or is it the indirect or super direct circuit?
Hopefully your forum experience can untangle my misunderstanding here....
I doubt that WEST has perfected itself in terms of civility. Far from it. First hand accounts of people will give you better glimpse about exploitation which has become so rampant in current age.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Or morality?Also, do you think that a decent person cannot change?
Increase in immorality will pave way for further exploitation or spoil more minds.
Mind your language. Not every individual will assault her. But she is MORE LIKELY to be sexually assaulted. This is my point.
Responsibility goes both ways.
Difference of opinion.
Thanks for conceding. Now try to understand that why objectification can have negative consequences.
Their is difference between 'thinking sexually about her' and 'appreciating her beauty'; it is possible to perceive her like a sex object or a respectable woman. The former perception can be associated with [B]perverted thoughts.
Who is being immature in the discussions? You are.
Oh wow! Defending a woman's modesty is oppression. Nice. No wonder morality is on the decline in your country.
What is moral in your opinion?
People like you encourage objectification and immorality.
I never realized that I have controlled women. Thanks for reminding me. 🙄
On a serious note, any individual is free to do whatever he or she wants to do. I don't give a damn. But I am entitled to my opinions and do reserve the right to express them. This is what I am doing in this thread and you have blown the whole thing out of context. [/B]
You seem to think that "morality" can exist without higher brain functions, which you previously dismissed as being irrelevant.
Not really. Dressing "slutty" may or may not increase her chance of an assault. As rape is more than just about sex. Why you can't grasp this is amazing. Regardless, her dressing "slutty" in no way makes her responsible for being raped; you thinking she is, makes you a demented woman hater.
More victim blaming.
LoL, no. Oliver N. is slapping you around with your own google searches; it's hilarious.
Arbitrarily claim I conceded. Good tactic. You're asking me to explain something that is common knowledge; I did; now you're crying. Idiot.
You have the mindset of a child. Again with your "pervertness" nonsense. I'll just chalk that up to your sexual repression, which you've clearly shown from the start of our conversation.
The guy consistently whining cos his fail tactics of debate keep getting slapped down doesn't get to call someone else immature.
Again, you're not "defending a woman's modesty", you're dictating how women should dress and act. You're not some shining knight, get over it. Also, a dodge, I asked you how exactly should women dress.
And another dodge by answering a question with a question yet again. You claimed I was 'immoral/didn't know morals', fine, tell me how I am.
"People like me", you say? Who exactly are people like me? How do I "encourage objectification and immorality"? By not dictating how other people should dress? LoL, you clown.
Strawman. I said you "try" to control women by dictating how they should dress and act under your own views of whatever you see "morality" as. Hopefully you have ZERO control over women.
Correct, you are entitled to your opinion an I'm entitled to point out how silly and oppressive your opinions and judgments are. You're blaming a women [in part] for getting raped if she happened to be wearing something you didn't approve of. That makes you an *******.
BTW, our conversation started by me saying that people have different views of nudity and that higher brain functions count; you replied by saying higher brain functions don't count and tried to insult me(page 5). So don't cry now that you've been slapped down into place.
Originally posted by Robtard
You seem to think that "morality" can exist without higher brain functions, which you previously dismissed as being irrelevant.
Originally posted by Robtard
Not really. Dressing "slutty" may or may not increase her chance of an assault. As rape is more than just about sex. Why you can't grasp this is amazing. Regardless, her dressing "slutty" in no way makes her responsible for being raped; you thinking she is, makes you a demented woman hater.
Source: http://www.rainn.org/statistics
Sorry! Not convinced by your argument. Of course, victimization motives can vary but dressing "slutty" gives an impression of loose character to even criminal minds. This does not means that people with high morals or grasp of responsibility cannot be victimized. However, these people can minimize risks through their actions in everyday situations. And objectification can invite unwanted attention.
Originally posted by Robtard
More victim blaming.
Originally posted by Mindship
IMO, the final responsibility for a person's thoughts, feelings and actions rest with that person. No one else. If a woman chooses to dance provocatively in a bar full of drunken men, that is her right, and she is responsible for her actions, just as I am responsible for my actions should I choose to walk through a "bad" neighborhood at night. However: neither the woman nor I am responsible for the choices and actions of anyone who attacks us. We may be guilty of poor judgment, thus opening the door to trouble. But trouble still has to choose to step through.
A person with high grasp of responsibility can minimize risks by being careful in his or her decisions. If you cannot comprehend common sense; do not blame me.
Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, no. Oliver N. is slapping you around with your own google searches; it's hilarious.
Originally posted by Robtard
Arbitrarily claim I conceded. Good tactic. You're asking me to explain something that is common knowledge; I did; now you're crying. Idiot.
Originally posted by Robtard
You have the mindset of a child. Again with your "pervertness" nonsense. I'll just chalk that up to your sexual repression, which you've clearly shown from the start of our conversation.
And why constant term-lashing towards me? You really are an immature person who cannot stand criticism.
Originally posted by Robtard
The guy consistently whining cos his fail tactics of debate keep getting slapped down doesn't get to call someone else immature.
Originally posted by Robtard
Again, you're not "defending a woman's modesty", you're dictating how women should dress and act. You're not some shining knight, get over it. Also, a dodge, I asked you how exactly should women dress.
Originally posted by Robtard
And another dodge by answering a question with a question yet again. You claimed I was 'immoral/didn't know morals', fine, tell me how I am.
Originally posted by Robtard
"People like me", you say? Who exactly are people like me? How do I "encourage objectification and immorality"? By not dictating how other people should dress? LoL, you clown.
Tell me; should nudity be promoted in everyday lives?
Originally posted by Robtard
Strawman. I said you "try" to control women by dictating how they should dress and act under your own views of whatever you see "morality" as. Hopefully you have ZERO control over women.
Originally posted by Robtard
Correct, you are entitled to your opinion an I'm entitled to point out how silly and oppressive your opinions and judgments are. You're blaming a women [in part] for getting raped if she happened to be wearing something you didn't approve of. That makes you an *******.
Originally posted by Robtard
BTW, our conversation started by me saying that people have different views of nudity and that higher brain functions count; you replied by saying higher brain functions don't count and tried to insult me(page 5). So don't cry now that you've been slapped down into place.
Educated and intelligent people who exploit or take advantage of others for their own benefit (common at workplaces) do not have "higher brain functions"? Notice the ambiguity?
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
A person doesn't have to be highly educated and intelligent to have morals or be decent. Religious education can be sufficient."Every 2 minutes, someone in US is sexually assaulted."
Source: http://www.rainn.org/statistics
Sorry! Not convinced by your argument. Of course, victimization motives can vary but dressing "slutty" gives an impression of loose character to even criminal minds. This does not means that people with high morals or grasp of responsibility cannot be victimized. However, these people can minimize risks through their actions in everyday situations. And objectification can invite unwanted attention.
Your intellect is the issue here. I am not saying that all victims are at fault for being victimized. Never. Sometimes, things are not in your hands. My point is about responsibility. Our decisions can have consequences or we are responsible for our actions; as nicely put by this member:
Your point of view. Check my most recent responses to him.
Are you desperate? 😉
[B]Repeat:
Their is difference between 'thinking sexually about her' and 'appreciating her beauty'; it is possible to perceive her like a sex object or a respectable woman. The former perception can be associated with perverted thoughts.And why constant term-lashing towards me? You really are an immature person who cannot stand criticism.
I am not whining. I think differently then you do. Your personal attacks on me is the issue. You are immature in true sense.
I am talking about being responsible. Of-course, a woman can choose to dress according to her wishes. I never "dictate" any individual on his or her choices. He of she is responsible for her actions. However, I do have my perceptions about things. I appreciate people with high morals. You have personality issues, seriously.
Being responsible is moral, right?
Your attitude towards me have led me to perceive you in this manner. In addition, you defend actions which seem immoral to me.
Tell me; should nudity be promoted in everyday lives?
Covered above.
You see; my perceptions are silly and oppressive while yours are perfectly fine in your opinion. So tell me once again! What is moral in your opinion?
What about drunken situations? What about coercion situations? What about exploitative intentions?
Educated and intelligent people who exploit or take advantage of others for their own benefit (common at workplaces) do not have "higher brain functions"? Notice the ambiguity? [/B]
Yeah, you don't understand what "higher brain functions" means then. It's not about having a college education or the like.
Your link once again doesn't help you. It's a known fact that rape is often more than just about sex, ergo "dressing slutty" has nothing to do with it. People in their 80's have been sexually assaulted, it's not all about sexual appeal.
LoL, another strawman tactic. Listen, I guy who can't grasp the basics and has said "higher brain means don't count for jack" doesn't get to question anyone's intelligence. Correct, not all victims, just the women who dress in a way you don't approve of, which is what I've been saying over and over, you sexually repressed woman hating muppet.
Not my point of view, Oliver N. has been consistently proving you wrong with your own desperate (as above) google searches; it continues to be hilarious.
Clown tactics continue. Ask someone to explain common knowledge. I do. You claim some imagined win. I point that out. You claim desperation. Will you honk a horn next?
Repeat: You have the mindset of a child. Again with your "pervertness" nonsense. I'll just chalk that up to your sexual repression, which you've clearly shown from the start of our conversation.
You've been whining since the start and continue to.
Great, yet you'd blame them for getting raped if their dress-code didn't meet your "high morals".
Repeat: And another dodge by answering a question with a question yet again. You claimed I was 'immoral/didn't know morals', fine, tell me how I am.
Which actions do I defend that are immoral to you?
In the right circumstances, I don't see why not. I see nothing inherently wrong with a naked body, I'd much rather see nudity than say violence, which is casually shown to us. Your problem and where this all started from(page 5), you can't separate nudity with sex. Maybe you have this "pervertness" issue you accuse me of?
Covered about, you're a victim blamer, if said victim doesn't meet your "high morals".
Not blaming any victim of a rape would be something that is "moral", if you need an example.
What now? Cos that was a bunch of non sequitur nonsense.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
My focus is not solely on the subject of rape. My point is that exploitation will increase with spread of immorality. As one source have revealed that every 2 minutes, a person is sexually assaulted in USA.
this is entirely problematic... All you have done is changed the topic of conversation to some new issue you want to moan about.
Your focus was on rape, as you attempted to provide evidence to support your point, about rape.
If you now want to have a new conversation, sure, but lets not pretend you weren't making the argument you were.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Check some interviews of women who have left porn industry and their revelations are scary. According to these women, massive exploitation exists in this industry behind-the-scenes and women are specially mistreated.Their are also interesting revelations from strippers.
Yes, their are lobbying groups but they are not very effective. Unless porn industry is closed, which I doubt, exploitation will continue or possibly increase as more and more people are joining this industry in the hopes of achieving stardom which seldom comes.
Raping wife is also an issue but it is unreasonable to assume that every man had raped his wife prior to the passing of law on marital rape. Women have been treated with respect by good men in the past and same is true today. But porn industry and stripper clubs are relatively newer forms of evils that have gained foothold under the shadow of feminism and have opened new avenues of exploitation.
look man, within living memory, ie, in my incredibly brief life, there was a time when a man could rape his wife, and it wasn't considered rape, because marriage made her his property. Go back 20 years from that, and physical and emotional abuse are not just common practice, but acceptable and promoted as a way for a man to display their dominance in the home. The socially proscribed role for women, and mind you, this is only 50-60 years ago, was as subservient, was to have no opinions of their own, was essentially that as a servant to what society thought was the appropriate patriarchy. Women were not just paid less because of issues like child care or closet misogyny, it was the accepted truth that women were just too weak and insignificant as individuals to hold real employment.
Has society seen a breakdown in the traditional morals that produced that patriarchy? of course it has. Has the removal of violently enforced social roles and codes of behaviour allowed women to make decisions for themselves that I wouldn't make for them or that I vehemently don't support? without question. But that is their right.
What you are suggesting is that women need to be controlled, by men, because they aren't smart enough to think for themselves. Which is moronic. You can point to strippers or porn (things that have existed even at the height of puritanical values btw), but those are choices women are making. Are they bad choices? I would say so, but they are the choices all free people have. And frankly, the idea that someone can do something that speaks poorly of themselves is an equivalent form of oppression to what women faced even within the past 100 years makes you look foolish. You might as well say something like "I don't know what happened in the past".
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Can you validate your point?
the data you posted shows it.
the rate, per 1000 people, of rape, according to your stats was 1.5 in 1998 and 1.0 in 2008. 1.5 is 50% larger than 1.0.
[errr, I guess that is from the NCVS data I looked up. The stuff you posted here:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
calculates things differently, it uses only FBI reported cases of criminal rape, which has, per 100000 people, 34.4 in 1998 and 29.7 in 2008; not as much of a difference, but still would indicate the incidence of rape were much higher previously, which was my initial comment.]
also, validity is not the concept you want here. The validity of a measure would be whether or not "rape" as recorded by the stats you provided are actually "rapes". You were looking for evidence, not a measure of validity.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
From what I have been reading and witnessing;
oh, so you can't help me with my questions about how higher cognition works to restrict behaviour?
jeez, its like your forum experience is meaningless when faced with real science... who would have ever thought that...
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
exploitation has increased a lot in recent times and it now exists in many forms. What is even more sad is that people often take long time to realize that they are being exploited for the benefit of others. Now even lot of men are becoming victims of exploitation.I doubt that WEST has perfected itself in terms of civility. Far from it. First hand accounts of people will give you better glimpse about exploitation which has become so rampant in current age.
with the exception that I don't feel women are as oppressed today as they were even 30 years ago, none of this is relevant to what I was saying.
so, keep moving those goalposts; again, you just look silly.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Your point of view. Check my most recent responses to him.
you mean the ones where you dramatically change to topic so you no longer have to debate me on issues you are painfully uninformed about?
Originally posted by Oliver North
[errr, I guess that is from the NCVS data I looked up. The stuff you posted here:http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
calculates things differently, it uses only FBI reported cases of criminal rape, which has, per 100000 people, 34.4 in 1998 and 29.7 in 2008; not as much of a difference, but still would indicate the incidence of rape were much higher previously, which was my initial comment.]
Missed the chance to edit, but wanted to add something here.
In terms of FBI criminal cases reported in that data, the drop from 1998 to 2008 would result in more than 15000 less cases of rape, per year.
34.4 to 29.7 might not seem like a huge dip, but when you look at the absolute numbers, that is a hugely significant drop, especially for the 15000 women who are not sexually abused.
Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, you don't understand what "higher brain functions" means then. It's not about having a college education or the like.
Originally posted by Robtard
Your link once again doesn't help you. It's a known fact that rape is often more than just about sex, ergo "dressing slutty" has nothing to do with it. People in their 80's have been sexually assaulted, it's not all about sexual appeal.
As an example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2196076/Krista-Ford-sparks-outrage-telling-women-avoid-rape-dressing-like-whore.html (This women has raised a legitimate point but she has been bashed for her honest opinion. Very convenient. Now, as per your approach to this subject, this women is sexually repressed too, correct?)
People who justify liberalism tend to dismiss risks associated with it. You fall in this category. Also, see the link below for further insight.
Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, another strawman tactic. Listen, I guy who can't grasp the basics and has said "higher brain means don't count for jack" doesn't get to question anyone's intelligence. Correct, not all victims, just the women who dress in a way you don't approve of, which is what I've been saying over and over, you sexually repressed woman hating muppet.
I admit that I failed to convey my original assertion correctly but do you think that you can use the argument of "higher brain functions" to dismiss risks associated with provocative human behavior? Extend this argument to entire society and it fails because not every person will rate high on morals and self-control (or "higher brain functions" as you put).
Originally posted by Robtard
Not my point of view, Oliver N. has been consistently proving you wrong with your own desperate (as above) google searches; it continues to be hilarious.
Originally posted by Robtard
Clown tactics continue. Ask someone to explain common knowledge. I do. You claim some imagined win. I point that out. You claim desperation. Will you honk a horn next?
Originally posted by Robtard
Repeat: You have the mindset of a child. Again with your "pervertness" nonsense. I'll just chalk that up to your sexual repression, which you've clearly shown from the start of our conversation.
Originally posted by Robtard
You've been whining since the start and continue to.
Originally posted by Robtard
Great, yet you'd blame them for getting raped if their dress-code didn't meet your "high morals".
If you will narrow down your argument to just "rape" then you will be misled. Sexual assault and exploitation is a much bigger subject.
Originally posted by Robtard
Repeat: And another dodge by answering a question with a question yet again. You claimed I was 'immoral/didn't know morals', fine, tell me how I am.
Originally posted by Robtard
Which actions do I defend that are immoral to you?
Originally posted by Robtard
In the right circumstances, I don't see why not. I see nothing inherently wrong with a naked body, I'd much rather see nudity than say violence, which is casually shown to us. Your problem and where this all started from(page 5), you can't separate nudity with sex. Maybe you have this "pervertness" issue you accuse me of?
IMO, objectification and nudity is acceptable under certain cirumstances and this has been my point since the begining.
Originally posted by Robtard
Covered about, you're a victim blamer, if said victim doesn't meet your "high morals".
My point is that we are reponsible for our actions. We can increase or reduce risks with our actions. This being said, their is no justification of crime. However, this does not means that we should encourage people to be irresponsible.
Originally posted by Robtard
Not blaming any victim of a rape would be something that is "moral", if you need an example.
Originally posted by Robtard
What now? Cos that was a bunch of non sequitur nonsense.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
This debate is about objectification and nudity. Both of these actions are acceptable under certain circumstances but should not be norm. Now go back to page 5 and you will notice that you started insulting me on this point of view.
This debate is about sexual liberalism. For nudity, it is acceptable under certain circumstances but should not be norm. Now go back to page 5 and you will notice that you started insulting me on this point of view.
Similarly;
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
IMO, objectification and nudity is acceptable under certain cirumstances and this has been my point since the begining.
IMO, nudity is acceptable under certain cirumstances and this has been my point since the begining.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
So you are implying that "higher brain functions" come natural to people? What about the process of LEARNING and EXPERIENCE?
this might be the heart of the matter then... what do you think "higher cognitive functions" are?
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Rape is just one aspect of sexual assault. The term is much broader in its meaning. I am not saying that every case of sexual assault can be linked to actions of the victim. A person's vulnerability also matters. However, it is unwise to dismiss risks associated with liberalism. Unfortunately, some people are too blind to this issue and have fallen to feminist fallacies. Of course, a decent person will not sexually assault any other person in any situation. However, when you extend this argument to the entire society, then we have to consider risks. Liberalism may be safe to practice in some places but not all.As an example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2196076/Krista-Ford-sparks-outrage-telling-women-avoid-rape-dressing-like-whore.html (This women has raised a legitimate point but she has been bashed for her honest opinion. Very convenient. Now, as per your approach to this subject, this women is sexually repressed too, correct?)
People who justify liberalism tend to dismiss risks associated with it. You fall in this category. Also, see the link below for further insight.
y-you realize numbers of both rape and sexual assault are going down, yes?
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
[B]This debate is about sexual liberalism. For nudity, it is acceptable under certain circumstances but should not be norm. Now go back to page 5 and you will notice that you started insulting me on this point of view. [/B]
your point actually has nothing to do with nudity, as you are talking about women who dress provocatively.
you aren't, for instance, talking about rape in nudist colonies....
maybe think over your arguments a bit more...
S_W:
I've got a lot of questions about this victim blame stuff you are doing, but let me just ask this one:
If a woman is responsible for her own rape because she dresses in a provocative way, would you extend this same logic to a pedophile? He just can't help himself in the exact same way. We can define "child like" as provocative, because sexiness is a subjective thing. Can a child be said to be acting too much like a child that the pedophile isn't responsible for his actions? and if not, why?
Originally posted by Oliver North
this is entirely problematic... All you have done is changed the topic of conversation to some new issue you want to moan about.Your focus was on rape, as you attempted to provide evidence to support your point, about rape.
If you now want to have a new conversation, sure, but lets not pretend you weren't making the argument you were.
Originally posted by Oliver North
look man, within living memory, ie, in my incredibly brief life, there was a time when a man could rape his wife, and it wasn't considered rape, because marriage made her his property. Go back 20 years from that, and physical and emotional abuse are not just common practice, but acceptable and promoted as a way for a man to display their dominance in the home. The socially proscribed role for women, and mind you, this is only 50-60 years ago, was as subservient, was to have no opinions of their own, was essentially that as a servant to what society thought was the appropriate patriarchy. Women were not just paid less because of issues like child care or closet misogyny, it was the accepted truth that women were just too weak and insignificant as individuals to hold real employment.
Due to lack of statistics about marital rape prior to its recognition; it is unwise to rely on this subject to advance the assumption that sexual exploitation has not increased in recent times. I find this disclosure - "Every 2 minutes, someone in US is sexually assaulted" - very alarming.
Originally posted by Oliver North
Has society seen a breakdown in the traditional morals that produced that patriarchy? of course it has. Has the removal of violently enforced social roles and codes of behaviour allowed women to make decisions for themselves that I wouldn't make for them or that I vehemently don't support? without question. But that is their right.
Rights or not, I am in favor of checks and balances.
Originally posted by Oliver North
What you are suggesting is that women need to be controlled, by men, because they aren't smart enough to think for themselves. Which is moronic.
Originally posted by Oliver North
You can point to strippers or porn (things that have existed even at the height of puritanical values btw)
Originally posted by Oliver North
but those are choices women are making. Are they bad choices? I would say so, but they are the choices all free people have.
And the terminology of "free people" sounds amusing. Unless a person is free to do anything - he or she isn't free in true sense.
Originally posted by Oliver North
And frankly, the idea that someone can do something that speaks poorly of themselves is an equivalent form of oppression to what women faced even within the past 100 years makes you look foolish. You might as well say something like "I don't know what happened in the past".
Originally posted by Oliver North
the data you posted shows it.the rate, per 1000 people, of rape, according to your stats was 1.5 in 1998 and 1.0 in 2008. 1.5 is 50% larger than 1.0.
[errr, I guess that is from the NCVS data I looked up. The stuff you posted here:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
calculates things differently, it uses only FBI reported cases of criminal rape, which has, per 100000 people, 34.4 in 1998 and 29.7 in 2008; not as much of a difference, but still would indicate the incidence of rape were much higher previously, which was my initial comment.]
also, validity is not the concept you want here. The validity of a measure would be whether or not "rape" as recorded by the stats you provided are actually "rapes". You were looking for evidence, not a measure of validity.
Originally posted by Oliver North
oh, so you can't help me with my questions about how higher cognition works to restrict behaviour?
Originally posted by Oliver North
jeez, its like your forum experience is meaningless when faced with real science... who would have ever thought that...
Originally posted by Oliver North
with the exception that I don't feel women are as oppressed today as they were even 30 years ago, none of this is relevant to what I was saying.so, keep moving those goalposts; again, you just look silly.
Here is a case-study for you:
"I had a friend years ago who made the terrible mistake of having completely consensual sex with a girl he met one night. She told him she was 22. Well no, she was really 16 and her parents found out about it. They brought charges against him and he now he is forever branded a sex offender, his picture on OTIS for all to see as a "rapist".
I agree he made a terrible mistake, and he knew this as well. What should he have done? Not had a one-night stand, for one. Or at least checked her ID (but she had a fake ID, which got her into the bar where he met her).
Moral of the story...don't have one-night stands...checking IDs cannot always be fool-proof." (Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/relationships/899451-ladies-have-you-ever-dated-sex-3.html#ixzz28wS0rKHg)
Sexual liberalism FTW.
Originally posted by Oliver North
you mean the ones where you dramatically change to topic so you no longer have to debate me on issues you are painfully uninformed about?
Originally posted by Oliver North
this might be the heart of the matter then... what do you think "higher cognitive functions" are?
Why are you asking scientific questions? You have doubts about my intellect?
Originally posted by Oliver North
y-you realize numbers of both rape and sexual assault are going down, yes?
Important read: http://www.aauw.org/act/laf/library/assault_stats.cfm
In addition, US military provides for an important case-study in this subject: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/01/18/10184222-panetta-could-be-19000-military-sex-assaults-each-year?lite (The incidents of sexual assault are apparently increasing in US military each year.)
Official statistics do not represent the whole picture. Also, it is possible that sexual assaults may be declining in City A but increasing in City B. Get the picture?
Originally posted by Oliver North
your point actually has nothing to do with nudity, as you are talking about women who dress provocatively.you aren't. for instance, talking about rape in nudist colonies....
maybe think over your arguments a bit more...
Originally posted by Oliver North
S_W:I've got a lot of questions about this victim blame stuff you are doing, but let me just ask this one:
If a woman is responsible for her own rape because she dresses in a provocative way, would you extend this same logic to a pedophile? He just can't help himself in the exact same way. We can define "child like" as provocative, because sexiness is a subjective thing. Can a child be said to be acting too much like a child that the pedophile isn't responsible for his actions? and if not, why?
As far as pedophilia is concerned, it is generally associated with mental sickness or disorder. However, their is more to this subject.
IMO;
1. A person who has been abused during his childhood - can be susceptible to pedophilia through resultant mental or personality disorder. In this case, the pedophile is a victim and deserves treatment.
2. A mentally sane person can also be a pedophile. In this case, he or she is fully responsible for his or her actions.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
[B]"Every 2 minutes, someone in US is sexually assaulted."
Source: http://www.rainn.org/statistics
Sorry! Not convinced by your argument. Of course, victimization motives can vary but dressing "slutty" gives an impression of loose character to even criminal minds. This does not means that people with high morals or grasp of responsibility cannot be victimized. However, these people can minimize risks through their actions in everyday situations. And objectification can invite unwanted attention.
Just wanted to hit on this little nugget. "Loose character" has nothing to do with sexual assault. Rapists don't rape because they thing that the woman is morally lax anyway and thus it's okay for him to rape her. One, raping someone is not a morally right decision by any means in the terms you are using or any other moral standards that I've ever come across.
Secondly, the rapist sees the victim as an object, not a person of any kind. If you find a person who can actively assault another in that way while consciously viewing the other as a thinking, feeling person then you are dealing with an utter psychopath.
Regardless, it's clear that you want to argue this from a "moral high ground" in which logic plays little to no part. Don't think this is going to go anywhere whilst that is the case.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenDI think I worded it better (apparently why you quoted me): The woman is responsible only for "opening the door to trouble. But trouble still has to choose to step through." Your wording seems to imply that the "blame" is equal between victim and rapist. IMO, it isn't. She did something naive/desperate/stupid, and may deserve a lecture on common sense; he commited a crime, an act of aggression, and deserves to be locked up.
For the woman being responsible for her own rape; it is important to focus on the scenario/details. If a mentally sane woman deliberality and knowingly takes the risk of sexually exposing herself in an environment where exploitation is possible; then she is responsible along with the OP who took advantage.
As men, we must not project any insecurities we may have regarding female sexuality. 'Tis a great and mighty power the fair sex has, and "blaming the victim" is not the way to level the playing field.