Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Seriously, why?

Religious values.


/thread

It was ok for Adam and Eve...

... until it wasn't.

and who's fault is that?

Lady Gaga?

Sure shes not part man?

Originally posted by JediRobin23
and who's fault is that? Religion. *closes eyes and pushes up glasses* Religion is the root of all evil.


/thread

It beats going to a strip club & paying the lady $20 to put her g-string ON.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Seriously, why?

Walk out in the street butt naked, and find out.

Human smuggery: we like to think of ourselves as superior to animals. Being naked reminds us that we aren't, especially once the mojo starts to rise.

Because its almost winter and the naked people are about to be evolutionarily selected against.

It's not in nudist colonies.

Seriously though. Nudity is taboo because it's linked to sex, which can be discomforting to the individual during certain circumstances. Don't get me wrong, t*ts and ass are great, but it has its place.

Common now, you should all be old enough to more more than one interest at this point.

Made up societal values, simple as that.

Why in some societies women can walk around bare-chested and it's not an issue. Why at the turn of the 20th century in the US it was lewd for a woman to show more than her ankle while at the beach. Etc. etc. etc.

Originally posted by Robtard
Made up societal values, simple as that.
Are you insinuating that there are societal values that aren't made up?

Originally posted by Astner
Are you insinuating that there are societal values that aren't made up?

No, I'm saying all societal values are made up.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, I'm saying all societal values are made up.
So societal values are necessarily contraproductive? Or was there no point to bringing it up?

Societal views change every decade for example, in the 60'2, 70's and 80's nudity was allowed in movies; even as hilarious comedy in shows like benny hill! You try to do that now and you will probably get angry letters from concerned mothers.

Originally posted by Astner
So societal values are necessarily contraproductive? Or was there no point to bringing it up?

What?

Originally posted by rudester
Societal views change every decade for example, in the 60'2, 70's and 80's nudity was allowed in movies; even as hilarious comedy in shows like benny hill! You try to do that now and you will probably get angry letters from concerned mothers. Nudity is still allowed in movies.

can someone explain nudity to me..

Originally posted by rudester
Societal views change every decade for example, in the 60'2, 70's and 80's nudity was allowed in movies; even as hilarious comedy in shows like benny hill! You try to do that now and you will probably get angry letters from concerned mothers.
Nudity in movie making is still present to this day, and featured in most adult rated films. However, now most movies today strive for low ratings age ratings to increase the demographic.

Originally posted by rudester
Societal views change every decade for example, in the 60'2, 70's and 80's nudity was allowed in movies; even as hilarious comedy in shows like benny hill! You try to do that now and you will probably get angry letters from concerned mothers.


sex sells so nudity will always be in movies

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Because its almost winter and the naked people are about to be evolutionarily selected against.

yeah, on the non religious perspective, man would need to be clothed for survival in colder climates. In warmer tropical climates in primitive societies, I believe they are still to this day half or perhaps fully naked.

Originally posted by Robtard
Made up societal values, simple as that.

Why in some societies women can walk around bare-chested and it's not an issue. Why at the turn of the 20th century in the US it was lewd for a woman to show more than her ankle while at the beach. Etc. etc. etc.

Interesting point that if women walked around topless, men would be less interested in breasts.

Other than countries still governed in fact if not in law by "strict" ideals on decency, are there places in the world where nudity is frowned upon in "acceptable" settings, i.e., those in which everyone there has consented to the possibility of its presence? Being topless or nude in some way at the beach or whatnot seems it should have no ill effect, but feel free to correct me.

Nude persons can be unsanitary. And, when they share the seat on a public bus -ZAP!- you catch cooties when you sit there. So, there is more to restricting nudity than simply religious modesty and backward ideas, there is the public health aspect.

Originally posted by JediRobin23



Interesting point that if women walked around topless, men would be less interested in breasts.

But breasts are simply mammary glands to feed offspring...why is there a sexual aspect towards them?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
But breasts are simply mammary glands to feed offspring...why is there a sexual aspect towards them?
Because women with big breasts were capable of feeding more babies? Add natural selection to the mix and you'll end up with big breasted women.

The size of the breast has nothing to do with the amount of milk it produces...nor have you explained why there is a sexual aspect to them.

I mean you see a gorgeous topless woman on screen or on the beach, your first thought isn't, "God, she can really feed my kids with those!"

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
The size of the breast has nothing to do with the amount of milk it produces...nor have you explained why there is a sexual aspect to them.
Then why do their breasts grow after they've given birth?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I mean you see a gorgeous topless woman on screen or on the beach, your first thought isn't, "God, she can really feed my kids with those!"
Then I don't know, maybe it's a attribute associated with femininity?

Originally posted by Astner
Then why do their breasts grow after they've given birth?



Yes, after birth they do swell with milk but I was referring to a normal woman's attributes...before pregnancy.

its funny how womens boobies get drawn into this and esp after birth..lol

(men) uughh (pigs)

I think it had to do with people dying from colds and bringing shame into the mix? I know now there are nude beaches but who would go too those? Only free spirited perverts and old people wanting to get laid. Gross nobody wants to see grandma's **** in full bloom!

p.s not to mention people fart through their cloths, in this case they would fart in midair.

Here I found too pictures but instead of posting them here go to this link..lol (notice the guy on the right laughing)

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/wBvu9Y3H7gJ/Underground+Catwalk+SS+2010/H1a2EhNxLon

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/25/article-1369962-0B55ABE300000578-355_634x347.jpg

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Yes, after birth they do swell with milk but I was referring to a normal woman's attributes...before pregnancy.

It happens before, actually.

Originally posted by rudester
Here I found too pictures but instead of posting them here go to this link..lol (notice the guy on the right laughing)

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/wBvu9Y3H7gJ/Underground+Catwalk+SS+2010/H1a2EhNxLon

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/03/25/article-1369962-0B55ABE300000578-355_634x347.jpg

You'll probably get into trouble for this post. You can't post nudity, no matter the context...at least, that's how I understood it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You'll probably get into trouble for this post. You can't post nudity, no matter the context...at least, that's how I understood it.

Its posted else where not here, if the viewer wants to click on it they can, if not then not. Its their choice, either or its what the topic is based on? So in keeping in mind and true to the topic..lol

Besides if they delete my subroutine then they will either way... ill leave it in gods hands.

Originally posted by rudester
Its posted else where not here, if the viewer wants to click on it they can, if not then not. Its their choice, either or its what the topic is based on? So in keeping in mind and true to the topic..lol

Besides if they delete my subroutine then they will either way... ill leave it in gods hands.

And you posted that "elsewhere", here. Linking porn is literally the same exact think as posting porn. Just because you don't use image tags does not mean you are not posting porn.

Trust me: others have been banned for posting porn, before.


And WTF is that shit at the end of your post? Are you high?

no just finished watching star trek

Im sure the monitors have seen boobies before, im sure their married or atleast not virgins? Either or its not a close up picture.. its just boobs on the subway.. I can easily say why do people care when the topic is about nudity? So ur the perfect person to answer the question because clearly you are reacting to something that shouldnl't come as a shock to you? But yet some how it does? And like many post above, nudity has been in movies and is still in movies how is this any different?

There is also the thread, whos your fav porn star... shouldnt the creator of that thread be banned then? U make no sense.

Ur illogical, temperamental and clearly u hate boobs.

you will be assimilated!

Originally posted by rudester
no just finished watching star trek


All of it?

Good job.

Originally posted by rudester
Im sure the monitors have seen boobies before,

Monitors don't have eyes: the cannot see boobs.

You probably meant, "I'm sure their monitors have shown boobies, before."

Originally posted by rudester
im sure their married or atleast not virgins?

A website started around Star Wars fandom and is a comic book and movie "fan" site, now...

Your logic seems flawed.

Originally posted by rudester
Either or its not a close up picture.. its just boobs on the subway.. I can easily say why do people care when the topic is about nudity? So ur the perfect person to answer the question because clearly you are reacting to something that shouldnl't come as a shock to you?

*sighs*

I am not reacting to it at all. I am warning you that you are probably going to get into trouble for posting that. On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being no trouble at all, 10 being definitive trouble, you are at a 9.9 for posting that. Others have gotten in trouble for posting nudity in the past, so why would magically get a free pass?

Originally posted by rudester
But yet some how it does? And like many post above, nudity has been in movies and is still in movies how is this any different?

You think boobs are shocking to me? How utterly ridiculous. Well, the mutilated breasts in that first link are gross, but that's not shocking.

And breasts being in movies has nothing at all to do with you breaking the rules of KMC. You rule breaker.

Originally posted by rudester
There is also the thread, whos your fav porn star... shouldnt the creator of that thread be banned then? U make no sense.

No. Because people haven't linked to porn and haven't embedded images of porn in the thread.

Originally posted by rudester
Ur illogical, temperamental and clearly u hate boobs.


I'm logical, not temperamental, and clearly I love boobs.

Twas I that started the "bewbz" meme on KMC several years back.


But, clearly, you're ragey, high, and bored.

Originally posted by rudester
you will be assimilated!


Yup. You're high. Bean burritos and doritos sound delicious right now, don't they?

why does everyone naturally assume drugs first why not a chemical imbalance from not eating right? It's great you know what boob's are, awsome but like I said before it's not an exposed picture, it's a link to a news article and not a porn site. The topic embraces the nudity taboo, right? I'm asking you! Well the picture you see embraces that, nudity at it's best and in the public subway. I am a grown man not a boy (birthday soon ooh boy) if my account gets blocked well then I don't really lose anything do I. I clearly know what I am doing. I am not seeking to be misleading in any way, you're making a big wave outta a small puddle.

Is anyone else offended by the sight of boobies or is it just dadudeomons fear of seeing boobies for the first time?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
But breasts are simply mammary glands to feed offspring...why is there a sexual aspect towards them? My anthropology professor once offered an interesting theory: basically it has to do with pair bonding.

The human infant requires very long-term care. This care is better assured with two parents. The way to better assure the two parents stay together, to establish more of an emotional bond, is for them to mate face to face, making eye-contact, as opposed to typical animal "doggie" style, where the male approaches the female's butt. How do you encourage face2face mating? Enlarge the female breasts so that cleavage resembles the female butt (eventually, millennia later, have the female wear red lipstick, and you further enhance "the front" mimicking "the back".

No doubt this all evolved on a very subtle, unconscious level. But considering how "sophisticated" modern humans are, even today's female porn stars know why cleavage attracts (as Gianna Michaels once put it, it's like having an ass on your chest).

I strongly believe the human body is beautiful. It's the only element that connects us to everyone else, that we are made up of all the same features. Human evolution shows us that most cultures imbraced nudity yet modern today teaches us that nudity is shameful, lustful and linked to copulation like act.

We invented cloths to warm the body and chose to cover ourselves, why should we feel exposed for being natural or feel any such guilt for that matter?

I just thought of something thanks to dudemon. If men show their chest in public why is it not seen as nudity, yet when women do it; its seen as unnatural behaviour and sinful?

Based on the scientific evidence presented so far this lady must attract many males.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4j3NoLeJiRU

Originally posted by rudester
why does everyone naturally assume drugs first why not a chemical imbalance from not eating right? It's great you know what boob's are, awsome but like I said before it's not an exposed picture, it's a link to a news article and not a porn site. The topic embraces the nudity taboo, right? I'm asking you! Well the picture you see embraces that, nudity at it's best and in the public subway. I am a grown man not a boy (birthday soon ooh boy) if my account gets blocked well then I don't really lose anything do I. I clearly know what I am doing. I am not seeking to be misleading in any way, you're making a big wave outta a small puddle.

Pride...is ...too...huge...he can't...admit...breaking......rules....

Originally posted by rudester
Is anyone else offended by the sight of boobies or is it just dadudeomons fear of seeing boobies for the first time?

You got me: I have not seen nary a boobie in my entire life. How did you know?



Originally posted by Esau Cairn
But breasts are simply mammary glands to feed offspring...why is there a sexual aspect towards them?

They are also a prevalent erogenous zone for women. They definitely can be seen as part of ones "sexuality".

What do you think about that? Is that a sufficient reason? If the boobs can be bared, so should the privates.

There are some women that even protest that men can go topless but they cannot.

Some men's "breasts" act as erogenous zones, as well. I think those feminists make a decent argument.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Pride...is ...too...huge...he can't...admit...breaking......rules....

lol what can I say? lol



You got me: I have not seen nary a boobie in my entire life. How did you know?

I, I juss knew.

Some men's "breasts" act as erogenous zones, as well. I think those feminists make a decent argument.

no argument there.

Originally posted by Astner
Then why do their breasts grow after they've given birth?

Because the milk glands are changing size as milk production begins, this actually happens during pregnancy before birth. Breast size is mostly a matter of having lots of fatty tissues there that don't contribute to milk production.

Because of people's insecurities.

And races want to perceive themselves as perfect breeding material over others.

Can't we all just get along?

Originally posted by rudester



Yo, the first part was sarcasm.

I've seen more boobs than you've sen dick.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yo, the first part was sarcasm.

I've seen more boobs than you've sen dick.

Well that's a given considering how for every dick you have 2 boobs.

Kind of an unfair advantage you have there.

Plus chicks flash dem titties like no tomorrow.

Nudity is taboo becuase nobody wants to see your pale flabby pock marked body

Its a universal agreement

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yo, the first part was sarcasm.

I've seen more boobs than you've sen dick.

really is that what you think. I know you were being sarcastic so was I..lol

I'm not going to brag about how much dicks I've seen. It really is pointless over the internet, I could be making it up so could you? (You could be a 12 year old over the internet, we would never really know)

Anyways kudos to you.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Well that's a given considering how for every dick you have 2 boobs.

Kind of an unfair advantage you have there.

Plus chicks flash dem titties like no tomorrow.

He's also married so a lot of those boobs are probably from the same woman. What we need is a boob/dick diversity index.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Well that's a given considering how for every dick you have 2 boobs.

I assumed 'sets' would be understood.

Originally posted by the ninjak
Plus chicks flash dem titties like no tomorrow.

Not really.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He's also married so a lot of those boobs are probably from the same woman. What we need is a boob/dick diversity index.

Those only count as 1, though.

This thread has gotten bizarre. Not "Backfire said a really rapey and inappropriate comment haha" bizarre, that I am used to, but bizarre in a way that frightens me.

Originally posted by NemeBro
This thread has gotten bizarre.

No it has not and you're not frightened.

rudester scares me.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I've seen more boobs than you've sen dick.

Internet/TV doesn't count.

Well it is relatively easy to see boobs compared to dick.

I've been flashed by many women (Mostly in concerts), but I can't actually recall someone whipping their dick out in front of me.

I can't speak for dadudemon's boob experience though.

Rudester's the type of gay to be at 100+ man orgies where dicks are flying left and right. A virtual dickapalooza. He's that guy.

I feel that your joke perpetuates a very negative stereotype; that gay men are inherently very promiscuous and lolsluts.

You must apologise.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I feel that your joke perpetuates a very negative stereotype; that gay men are inherently very promiscuous and lolsluts.

You must apologise.

That stereotype has a foundation though.

Apologize to you? You're not a gay, you're a bi.

Originally posted by NemeBro
rudester scares me.

No.

Originally posted by Robtard
Rudester's the type of gay to be at 100+ man orgies where dicks are flying left and right. A virtual dickapalooza. He's that guy.

noh...nohh.. nohhhhhhhh. def not!

STFU manwhore!!11!!

reported reported reported.

for usage of the number 11!

Reported for smelling like farts.

Originally posted by Robtard
Reported for smelling like farts.
Reported for standing next to him with a boner.

Originally posted by Robtard
That stereotype has a foundation though.

Apologize to you? You're not a gay, you're a bi. Your ass has a foundation (It's called my penis).

No. Apologise to yourself.

Originally posted by Astner
Reported for standing next to him with a boner.

reported for sounding so sexy.

nudity is a taboo because I say it so it must be true..lol ahahhahaha

but seriously, nudity is a taboo because is has a boo boo at the end of it.
No, nudity i..im going to be serious for one sec. Nudity is a taboo because we are all naken on the inside, and humans invented cloths but nudity is natural and for that fact nudity is a taboo. lol

You must do some really good pot. dadudemon was right.

Watch it Rudester, he's trying to lure you into power-bottoming for him.

I doo dabble from time to time. But I use this really good drug that makes you high really fast.. makes u feel so good*

And it only cost 6 dollars.

Originally posted by Robtard
Watch it Rudester, he's trying to lure you into power-bottoming for him. I dislike how that term has really caught on since dadudemon first said he thinks I'd be a power bottom.

how come when king castle was here he gets to post up anything and be gay and merry all the time but when rudester is here, rudester has to ask everyone if its ok? And everyone loved the shit he did.

And I read some of his work, he puts gay in every sentence he makes? WTF?

What the **** are you talking about?

im talking about how all of you loved him for being gay yet you dont treat me the same way? Admite it he was your fav homo?

I don't love anyone for their sexual orientation.

ok goodnite...now back to google earth.

So rudester is King Castle, eh? Now we know. He went from a overly compensating (but fun to talk to poster) machismo to a gay and insane poster.

no im not king castle but I have read all his posters before he got his account deleted, which if funny because banned members only get their accounts restricted but king castle got his account deleted, I checked recently. But it doesnt matter because I have a good memory and I remember his posters, also you can't delete quotes if people quote you.
So guess what if king castle is here I can compare grammer styles..hehe

Originally posted by NemeBro
I dislike how that term has really caught on since dadudemon first said he thinks I'd be a power bottom.

Power-bottoming jokes existed in here before DDM.

P.S., was DDM right?

Originally posted by dadudemon
So rudester is King Castle, eh? Now we know. He went from a overly compensating (but fun to talk to poster) machismo to a gay and insane poster.

Yup; it's a good thing he's out, repression can't be good.

But like I said before... I know who King Castle is. The irony.

Nah, you wouldn't. But I'm glad to have you back and glad you're finally out of the closet. That whole gay-sexually-repressed-aggressive-ex-marine wasn't working out for you.

Discovery Channel's shows on sex and sexuality are always interesting. That was where I first saw what was mentioned earlier about cleavage on the chest reflecting the rear and lipstick helping to hint at engorged labia. Once again though, nudity seems to be a large problem only in societies that base their feelings on it on spiritual beliefs of some sort, vs those that simply go by the culture at large.

I'm being overly general here, but it seems pointless to delineate every little nuance of the argument.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nah, you wouldn't. But I'm glad to have you back and glad you're finally out of the closet. That whole gay-sexually-repressed-aggressive-ex-marine wasn't working out for you.

In a time of woe I told my parents. (baby steps). They however did not take it so well, but I had decided earliar that with or without their support I would be myself. I guess life is funny that way, no one can tell you how to live your life or can live it for you, you have to build it up from nothing. (baby steps)

I support your gayness. Semper fidelis tyrannosaurus!

"I eat vegetables in case I'd feel worse otherwise. wtf? Whats up with the harry potter shit?

Originally posted by rudester
I strongly believe the human body is beautiful. It's the only element that connects us to everyone else, that we are made up of all the same features. Human evolution shows us that most cultures imbraced nudity yet modern today teaches us that nudity is shameful, lustful and linked to copulation like act.

We invented cloths to warm the body and chose to cover ourselves, why should we feel exposed for being natural or feel any such guilt for that matter?
Why don't we just go back to Stone Age? Why make all the progress only to revert back to prehistoric practices?

Originally posted by rudester
I just thought of something thanks to dudemon. If men show their chest in public why is it not seen as nudity, yet when women do it; its seen as unnatural behaviour and sinful?
Common sense: Women are physically different from Men.

Women breasts are associated with their sexuality. This is not the case with Men and they can afford to show their chest without much hesitancy.

Also, don't stereotype among women. Do you think that every women would love to show her breasts in public?

Seriously! What is your IQ level?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Why don't we just go back to Stone Age? Why make all the progress only to revert back to prehistoric practices?Nudity is defined as "prehistoric" to you?


Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Common sense: Women are physically different from Men.

Women breasts are associated with their sexuality. This is not the case with Men and they can afford to show their chest without much hesitancy.

Also, don't stereotype among women. Do you think that every women would love to show her breasts in public?

Seriously! What is your IQ level? The problem is why any of that matters.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Nudity is defined as "prehistoric" to you?
So humans should shed cloths and adopt nudity as a norm?

Nudity makes sense in certain circumstances only.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The problem is why any of that matters.
Common sense matters.

I'm not saying nudity should be a way of life idiot and we should go back to being nude. (ahahha) Did I say that??? No! And we already practice nudity; in special swing clubs, on nude beaches, for celebrations as a form of pride and liberation.

Women breasts are associated with sexuality, yet mens breast aren't? Men can afford it because Men were always the dominating species and men deminstrated this to a women by deminstrating their power on display. (this is a form of repression that men were always the dominators over women) Women have been taught that their breast are shameful over centuries, men haven't. Men can afford to show their chest without much hesitancy because generations ago, man told women what was what and women believed it!

What does my IQ level have anything to do with logic and history? Its only up until now that nudity has been seen as shameful, are you saying that nudity was wrong in the time of christ? I'm not saying that everyone should walk around naked no, that's stupid. I'm saying that the representation of nudity is seen as a shameful act but shouldn't be seen as anything... that religious groups and fanatics have made it seem shameful! And have made culture be ashamed of are bodies.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
So humans should shed cloths and adopt nudity as a norm?

Nudity makes sense in certain circumstances only.


Nudist colonies do it all the time.

Such as?

Originally posted by rudester
I'm not saying nudity should be a way of life idiot and we should go back to being nude. (ahahha) Did I say that??? No! And we already practice nudity; in special swing clubs, on nude beaches, for celebrations as a form of pride and liberation.
You need to revisit your statements.

"It's the only element that connects us to everyone else, that we are made up of all the same features."

Bonding can be both physical and emotional. And women and men have same features? Seriously?

"Human evolution shows us that most cultures imbraced nudity yet modern today teaches us that nudity is shameful, lustful and linked to copulation like act."

This is called progress. Many people abandoned paganish lifestyle with passage of time.

"We invented cloths to warm the body and chose to cover ourselves, why should we feel exposed for being natural or feel any such guilt for that matter?"

When people used to wear revealing cloths during ancient times, they didn't felt much shame back then. As human ethics evolved or progressed with passage of time, so did the mindset accordingly.

Originally posted by rudester
Women breasts are associated with sexuality, yet mens breast aren't?
Yes. Men's breats aren't because they cannot arouse like women's and neither have same pleasuring properties. Use common sense please.

Originally posted by rudester
Men can afford it because Men were always the dominating species and men deminstrated this to a women by deminstrating their power on display. (this is a form of repression that men were always the dominators over women) Women have been taught that their breast are shameful over centuries, men haven't. Men can afford to show their chest without much hesitancy because generations ago, man told women what was what and women believed it!
Sometimes I really despise feminism and the idiots who easily fall for feminist propaganda.

Their used to be an age in which both genders were scantily clothed. But as human ethics evolved, so did perceptions.

Many women themselves willingly accepted the notion that they are not sex commodities or objects and neither they should be treated as such, and embraced modesty.

Their is always a limit to influence of one gender over another. Females can be daughters, sisters, wives and mothers. In all of these roles, females can HEAVILY influence their own men at minimum.

Don't be naive.

Originally posted by rudester
What does my IQ level have anything to do with logic and history? Its only up until now that nudity has been seen as shameful, are you saying that nudity was wrong in the time of christ? I'm not saying that everyone should walk around naked no, that's stupid. I'm saying that the representation of nudity is seen as a shameful act but shouldn't be seen as anything... that religious groups and fanatics have made it seem shameful! And have made culture be ashamed of are bodies.
Unfortunately, your logic is flawed and you believe more in propaganda then in actual history.

Nudity is acceptable under certain conditions. This has been the norm since advanced human civilizations began to form and NOT RECENTLY as you are implying.

And religions (Abrahamic in particular) do not make people ashamed of their bodies. They simply discourage immorality at societal level. But of course, in private, people can do as they please. Also, it is these religions that have taught women to not present themselves like sex commodities or objects in the first place.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nudist colonies do it all the time.
So?

Nudity is acceptable under certain circumstances but should not be norm; hence the notion of it being regarded as taboo.

Originally posted by Robtard
Such as?
Private moments.

But of course, some societies have gone too far under the garb of liberalism. These so-called progressive societies are once again reshaping women in to sex commodities and objects.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
So?

Nudity is acceptable under certain circumstances but should not be norm; hence the notion of it being regarded as taboo.

Private moments.

But of course, some societies have gone too far under the garb of liberalism. These so-called progressive societies are once again reshaping women in to sex commodities and objects.

So? The point is that not everyone goes by 'naked body = sex'. We're humans, we have higher brain functions and control.

Wow.

Double wow.

Triple wow. You seem extremely sexually repressed. Did you grow up in a very religious household?

Originally posted by Robtard
So? The point is that not everyone goes by 'naked body = sex'. We're humans, we have higher brain functions and control.

Wow.

Double wow.
Higher brain functions and control means jack, genius. (People are always susceptible to wrongdoings)

Tell me; Which woman will arouse you sexually - scantily clothed or fully covered?

Originally posted by Robtard
Triple wow. You seem extremely sexually repressed. Did you grow up in a very religious household?
I am not sexually repressed, you idiot. But I do not have SICK mentality like yours.

I did grew-up in a religious household and I am contended with my upbringing.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Higher brain functions and control means jack, genius.

which other species of apex predator could you fit 60-70 of in a crowded auditorium with the expectation that there will be no violence?

EDIT: now extrapolate that to the tens of thousands who attend sporting events, where there are charged emotions and direct competition involved.

/psychfail

EDIT2: you can replace violence with rape if this needs to be made explicitly relevant to the topic at hand.

Originally posted by Oliver North
which other species of apex predator could you fit 60-70 of in a crowded auditorium with the expectation that there will be no violence?

EDIT: now extrapolate that to the tens of thousands who attend sporting events, where there are charged emotions and direct competition involved.

/psychfail
People usually restrain themselves due to repercussions of wrongdoings. But incidents can and do happen anywhere and in any kind of social gathering.

/psychfail certainly for you.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
People usually restrain themselves due to repercussions of wrongdoings.

is not congruent with:

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Higher brain functions and control means jack, genius.

kthx

EDIT:

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
But incidents can and do happen anywhere and in any kind of social gathering.

at rates far lower than would be expected if higher cognitive function "meant jack"

Originally posted by Oliver North
is not congruent with:



kthx
Don't try to twist my points and quote them out of context to favor your mindset.

I wrote this as well:

But incidents can and do happen anywhere and in any kind of social gathering.

Also, incidents will increase with decrease in morality.

Originally posted by Oliver North
EDIT:



at rates far lower than would be expected if higher cognitive function "meant jack"
Genius, ever wondered that what RULES and REGULATIONS are for? People do not restrain themselves due to their own intelligence but due to fear of penalization.

Also, why nudity is not acceptable as norm in most societies? Ever wondered?

And read this: http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/12/18/us-soaring-rates-rape-and-violence-against-women

The report is congruent with my assertion:

Also, incidents will increase with decrease in morality.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Don't try to twist my points and quote them out of context to favor your mindset.

I must be dense, because it seems like you were saying our higher cognition doesn't mean anything in controlling our behaviour, and then you said that, because we have laws, people control their behaviour.

The existence of laws and moral codes necessitates some degree of higher cognitive function. A law can't restrain the behaviour of an organism without the cognitive function to interpret it.

Please highlight what I misinterpreted.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Also, incidents will increase with decrease in morality.



given, you know, the rise of liberal values in North America is accompanied by the largest drop in crime in human history


Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Genius, ever wondered that what RULES and REGULATIONS are for? People do not restrain themselves due to their own intelligence but due to fear of penalization.

thats a different point entirely though.

you are wrong, and in fact people have very well developed natural forms of morality that are not instructed by law. But even if it were the case that law is required for moral behaviour, higher cognitive function is required for laws to even exist, essentially making this above point in support of what I was saying.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Also, why nudity is not acceptable as norm in most societies? Ever wondered?

are you asking why it isn't a norm or why there are taboos against it?

I'd imagine clothing is the norm for pragmatic reasons that have nothing to do with sexual modesty. That would come much later as people tried to limit sexual expression because of issues involving hereditary political structures.

EDIT:

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
And read this: http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/12/18/us-soaring-rates-rape-and-violence-against-women

this involves a study of rape in 2008.

Rape is a tough one, because the way rape is defined gives strange impressions to the data. For instance, it was still legal to rape one's wife into the 1980s. On paper, it appears there is a large increase once the laws were changed, in actuality, the rates stayed the same or were dropping.

To emphasize this point, while Human Rights Watch reports a raise in instances over that period, the UN reports that instances of rape were decreasing in both absolute terms, and in terms of proportion of the population, in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#UN_Rape_Statistics

Additionally, raises over the span of a couple of years are entirely expected given the current crime rate. The rate of crimes has fallen so greatly in the past few decades, that we have likely reached a floor of how much crime a particular society can actually eliminate. You see these all the time, Toronto is currently seeing it in regard to gun violence. There are small blips in data where it appears things are changing, but it is only an "increase" relative to a very, very low mean, and these blips almost always disappear in a long term trend. Its an easy way to get a headline, but statistically, it is meaningless.

You would need data that goes beyond a 2 year period. Additionally, the study they link in the article you posted isn't available any longer, can you find another version of it? I'd like to read more about the methodology.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I must be dense, because it seems like you were saying our higher cognition doesn't mean anything in controlling our behaviour, and then you said that, because we have laws, people control their behaviour.

The existence of laws and moral codes necessitates some degree of higher cognitive function. A law can't restrain the behaviour of an organism without the cognitive function to interpret it.


Please highlight what I misinterpreted.
This makes sense.

Rules and regulations have been introduced for solid reasons but they are not foolproof or guarantee safety. This is why crimes always occur.

Check US history:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Originally posted by Oliver North


given, you know, the rise of liberal values in North America is accompanied by the largest drop in crime in human history
Here; http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/12/18/us-soaring-rates-rape-and-violence-against-women

The more women will present themselves sexually; the more likely they will be targeted violently.

Originally posted by Oliver North
thats a different point entirely though.

you are wrong, and in fact people have very well developed natural forms of morality that are not instructed by law. But even if it were the case that law is required for moral behaviour, higher cognitive function is required for laws to even exist, essentially making this above point in support of what I was saying.
I am not wrong. Your experience and exposure is limited.

Originally posted by Oliver North
are you asking why it isn't a norm or why there are taboos against it?

I'd imagine clothing is the norm for pragmatic reasons that have nothing to do with sexual modesty. That would come much later as people tried to limit sexual expression because of issues involving hereditary political structures.
Sexual modesty has linkage with clothing. Women who are concerned about their modesty will not wear revealing cloths; not in public at minimum.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Rape is a tough one, because the way rape is defined gives strange impressions to the data. For instance, it was still legal to rape one's wife into the 1980s. On paper, it appears there is a large increase once the laws were changed, in actuality, the rates stayed the same or were dropping.

To emphasize this point, while Human Rights Watch reports a raise in instances over that period, the UN reports that instances of rape were decreasing in both absolute terms, and in terms of proportion of the population, in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#UN_Rape_Statistics

Additionally, raises over the span of a couple of years are entirely expected given the current crime rate. The rate of crimes has fallen so greatly in the past few decades, that we have likely reached a floor of how much crime a particular society can actually eliminate. You see these all the time, Toronto is currently seeing it in regard to gun violence. There are small blips in data where it appears things are changing, but it is only an "increase" relative to a very, very low mean, and these blips almost always disappear in a long term trend. Its an easy way to get a headline, but statistically, it is meaningless.

You would need data that goes beyond a 2 year period. Additionally, the study they link in the article you posted isn't available any longer, can you find another version of it? I'd like to read more about the methodology.
I disagree.

Check the rape statistics in this link:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Notice the enormous increase? This is in connection to greater acceptance of sexual liberalism in the society with passage of time.

Tough laws are making some impact but still incidents continue to remain enormous.

Also, check this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/04/09/a-needed-revolution-rape-and-u-s-justice.html

you... you do realize the crime statistics you are reporting follow the exact pattern I described?

Originally posted by Oliver North
you... you do realize the crime statistics you are reporting follow the exact pattern I described?
This: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/04/09/a-needed-revolution-rape-and-u-s-justice.html

Also this: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/0119/Pentagon-report-Sexual-assault-in-the-military-up-dramatically

Things are not so black and white.

As I have already stated; their is a limit to what can be achieved with rules and regulations.

Best course of action is to spread morality.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Higher brain functions and control means jack, genius. (People are always susceptible to wrongdoings)

Tell me; Which woman will arouse you sexually - scantily clothed or fully covered?


I am not sexually repressed, you idiot. But I do not have SICK mentality like yours.

I did grew-up in a religious household and I am contended with my upbringing.

WTF!? Higher brain functions and control means a lot. You don't get to call anyone an idiot after that statement, ever. People are susceptible, but what does that have to do with anything here? Some lunatic could kill you at the grocery store, does that mean it's up to you to not go to a grocery store?

Depends, I've seen scantily clothed (and naked) women that do nothing for me and I've seen fully clothed women that get me aroused. So there goes your little fail premise. Seems like you're that type of person who would blame a woman for being raped because she wore clothing or acted in a manner you deemed inappropriate. ie blame the victim and not the person who couldn't control themselves syndrome.

You are indeed sexually repressed, extremely so. I wasn't sure before, but now I am. You also seem to have a deep fear of nudity and sexuality. Also telling is your apparent inability to separate sex with nudity.

How is my mentality sick? What "sickness" have I stated?

It's telling, with your sexual repression, fear of a naked body and inability to separate sex from nudity.

Originally posted by Robtard
WTF!? Higher brain functions and control means a lot. You don't get to call anyone an idiot after that statement, ever. People are susceptible, but what does that have to do with anything here? Some lunatic could kill you at the grocery store, does that mean it's up to you to not go to a grocery store?
Immoral activities are more likely to invite troubles or cause harm to others.

Originally posted by Robtard
Depends, I've seen scantily clothed (and naked) women that do nothing for me
Point is not that whether these women give you attention or do something for you. But these women are more likely to sexually arouse men then properly clothed ones. The stimulation is natural in this scenario.

Originally posted by Robtard
and I've seen fully clothed women that get me aroused.
Depends upon your interpretation of fully clothed women. What you may regard as fully clothed may not be properly clothed to me. In addition, woman behavior can also facilitate sexual arousal.

Originally posted by Robtard
So there goes your little fail premise.
Sorry. You can keep your manipulation and lies to yourself. You are trying really hard now.

Originally posted by Robtard
Seems like you're that type of person who would blame a woman for being raped because she wore clothing or acted in a manner you deemed inappropriate. ie blame the victim and not the person who couldn't control themselves syndrome.
Typical stereotyping from guys like you who assume that they are the wisest.

Immoral people will always try to defend their immorality.

Originally posted by Robtard
You are indeed sexually repressed, extremely so. I wasn't sure before, but now I am. You also seem to have a deep fear of nudity and sexuality. Also telling is your apparent inability to separate sex with nudity.
Actually I am not shy about my sexuality but rather a responsible individual.

Originally posted by Robtard
How is my mentality sick? What "sickness" have I stated?
You are supporting immorality.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's telling, with your sexual repression, fear of a naked body and inability to separate sex from nudity.
Their is difference between being perceived as a sex object and actual sexual activity.

Read this: http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=women-as-sex-objects-09-02-17

A new study presented at the recent American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago shows that when men see photos of scantily clad women their brain registers the women as objects to be acted on.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Immoral activities are more likely to invite troubles or inflict harm on others.


Point is not that whether these women give you attention or do something for you. But these women are more likely to sexually arouse men then properly clothed ones.


Depends upon your interpretation of fully clothed women. What you may regard as fully clothed may not be properly clothed to me. In addition, woman behavior can also facilitate sexual arousal.


Sorry. You can keep your manipulation and lies to yourself. You are trying really hard now.


Typical stereotyping from guys like you who assume that they understand everything.

Immoral people will always try to defend their immorality.


Personal attacks will get your nowhere. I am not shy about my sexuality but rather responsible.






And nudity is immoral in some sweeping generalization?

Your first statement is not congruent with your second. Is the chance of arousing men the point of not? Regardless of that, why not blame the men who can't control themselves? So odd and anti-female.

Fully clothed = exposing little bare skin other than the face, and hands. Again, blaming the women instead of the man/men who lack control. So odd and anti-female.

Lies? You tried a fail statement. Accept it.

Except for you being a male, I have no "stereotype" to base you off, so what in the hell are you reaching for? Your anti-female comments is what leads me to believe you're the type to blame the woman first for a rape

How am I immoral now? Name something I said, stop throwing the word around in a baseless fashion.

I didn't say shy, now did I. You're sexually repressed and fearful of nudity and sexuality and confused. You also obviously have a low regard for women.

And how exactly am I sick? What sickness have I shown here

lol ohh joy more to read.

Originally posted by Robtard
And nudity is immoral in some sweeping generalization?
In public? Yes.

Originally posted by Robtard
Your first statement is not congruent with your second. Is there chance of arousing men the point of not? Regardless of that, why not blame the men who can't control themselves? So odd and anti-female.
By same token, why not blame the women who objectify themselves?

You have little clue about basic human psychology, it seems.

Originally posted by Robtard
Fully clothed = exposing little bare skin other than the face, and hands. Again, blaming the women instead of the man/men who lack control. So odd and anti-female.
Those women must be doing something to sexually arouse you.

Originally posted by Robtard
Lies? You tried a fail statement. Accept it.
Your arguments are fail. Accept it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Except for you being a male, I have no "stereotype" to base you off, so what in the hell are you reaching for? Your anti-female comments is what leads me to believe you're the type to blame the woman first for a rape
Oh wow! Supporting modesty makes me Anti-female.

Originally posted by Robtard
How am I immoral now?
Ask yourself.

Originally posted by Robtard
I didn't say shy, now did I. You're sexually repressed and fearful of nudity and sexuality and confused. You also obviously have a low regard for women.
First do some reading on the concept of sexually repressed and then taunt me. Sexual repression is a condition which leads to insecurity against the opposite gender. This is not true for me.

Originally posted by Robtard
And how exactly am I sick? What sickness have I shown here
And the parrot continues to repeat the lines.

To your edit my sexual repressed and female-hating friend, men getting aroused by women means what? I'll tell you.

That's where the higher brain functions that you seem to think don't matter come into play. A man may get aroused by a woman in various degrees of dress; it's up to him to act accordingly.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
So humans should shed cloths and adopt nudity as a norm? Aside from sheltering purposes, can you give me a reason why a human shouldn't? Do you believe that nudity is immoral?


Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Common sense matters. Toward what though?

Originally posted by Robtard
To your edit my sexual repressed and female-hating friend, men getting aroused by women means what? I'll tell you.

That's where the higher brain functions that you seem to think don't matter come into play. A man may get aroused by a woman in various degrees of dress; it's up to him to act accordingly.
Read this:

A new study presented at the recent American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago shows that when men see photos of scantily clad women their brain registers the women as objects to be acted on.

Basic human pyschology.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Aside from weather and climatological reasons, can you give me a reason why a human shouldn't?
To prevent objectification of himself/herself?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Do you believe that nudity is immoral?
It is acceptable under certain conditions.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Toward what though?
Physical differences between men and women and their psychological implications.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Read this:

A new study presented at the recent American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Chicago shows that when men see photos of scantily clad women their brain registers the women as objects to be acted on.

Basic human pyschology. And? You think that's reason enough to fear nudity? Do you have so little regard for human rationality and higher functioning that you feel clothing must be mandatory?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And? You think that's reason enough to fear nudity? Do you have so little regard for human rationality and higher functioning that you feel clothing must be mandatory?
Their is difference between fear and disliking. Human rationality is best served by morality.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
In public? Yes.


By same token, why not blame the women who objectify themselves?

You have little clue about basic human psychology, it seems.


Those women must be doing something to sexually arouse you.


Your arguments are fail. Accept it.


Oh wow! Supporting female modesty makes me Anti-female.


Ask yourself.


First do some reading on the concept of sexually repressed and then taunt me. Sexual repression is a condition which leads to insecurity against the opposite gender. This is not true for me.


And the parrot continues to repeat the lines.

Depends. There are public beaches where nudity is the norm. Once again you're making sweeping generalizations to support your own faults and shortcomings with nudity, sexuality and your inability to separate the two.

Because I'd rather blame the rapist and/or the person who simply can't control themselves. LoL, you do hate women.

You haven't a single clue about anything we're discussing it seems.

Non sequitur. You asked me what I thought "fully clothed" means; I answered. Yet once again you turn it into something about blaming women. Why do you hate women so.

Says the guy who consistently contradicts himself.

If you're going to take some moral high-ground based on "modesty", then define "modesty" in regards to how a woman should dress and act. No, your anti-female comments make you anti-female.

So yet another baseless claim. It's simple, if you're going to call me "immoral", be prepared to support it.

Maybe you should read up on sexual repression as "insecurity of the opposite sex" is only one facet, which you seem to also have. I know understand what sexual repression is and your extremely naive and negative attitude towards nudity and especially women supports it. Your fear of nudity supports it. Your inability to separate nudity from sex supports it. You're a sexually repressed woman hater. When it comes to sexuality, shame and guilt are your games.

So once again you made a baseless claim as you're unable to support it when questioned. It's simple, if I'm "sick", show how. You're sexual repressed, I clearly showed above how you are.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Their is difference between fear and disliking. Human rationality is best served by morality. Whose morality? I guarantee that many of the things you consider moral/immoral are different from what others consider. Like myself, for example.

Originally posted by Robtard
Depends. There are public beaches where nudity is the norm. Once again you're making sweeping generalizations to support your own faults and shortcomings with nudity and sexuality.
- There are studios where pornography is norm
- There are places where gambling in norm
- There are places where prostitution is norm

What are you trying to prove here?

Just because these activities are norm in some regions; doesn't make then morally acceptable. This is my point.

Originally posted by Robtard
Because I'd rather blame the rapist and/or the person who simple can't control themselves. Man, you do hate women.
I do not hate women. I believe that both genders should act responsibly.

Originally posted by Robtard
You haven't a single clue about a think it seems.
Studies are wrong then?

Originally posted by Robtard
Non sequitur. You asked me what I thought "fully clothed" means; I answered. Yet once again you turn it into something about blaming women. Why do you hate women?
You need to elaborate on how fully clothed women sexually arouse you. You are definitely hiding some details or you are lying. Why do you want women to objectify themselves?

Originally posted by Robtard
Says the guy who consistently contradicts himself.
BS

Originally posted by Robtard
If you're going to take some moral high-ground based on :modesty", then define "modesty" in regards to how a woman dresses and acts. No, your anti-female comments make you anti-female.
Modesty is about sense of responsibility in presentation and actions towards strangers.

Originally posted by Robtard
So yet another baseless claim. It's simple, if you're going to call me immoral, be prepared to support it.
You don't know the difference between morality and immorality.

Originally posted by Robtard
Maybe you should read up on sexual repression as "insecurity of the opposite sex" is only one facet, which you seem to also have. I know what sexual repression is and your extremely naive and negated attitude towards women supports it. Your fear of nudity supports it. Your inability to separate nudity from sex supports it. You're a sexually repressed woman hater.
You are highly judgemental and insensitive towards others who disprove of your mindset. This is a sign of MENTAL SICKNESS.

Originally posted by Robtard
So once again you made a baseless claim as you're unable to support it when questioned. It's simple, if I'm "sick", show how. You're sexual repressed, I clearly showed above how you are.
I dislike objectification of women. Objectification invites exploitation.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Whose morality? I guarantee that many of the things you consider moral/immoral are different from what others consider. Like myself, for example.
Your conceptualization of morality seems to be distorted.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Your conceptualization of morality seems to be distorted. Do you believe in moral facts?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Do you believe in moral facts?
Indecent acts are immoral.

As an example; adultery is indecent act. But it may be acceptable to you, if individuals involved consented to it. However, your acceptance does not makes this act decent or morally acceptable.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Indecent acts are immoral.

As an example; adultery is indecent act. But it may be acceptable to you with consent of both genders. However, your acceptance does not makes this act decent or morally acceptable. But why not?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But why not?
Morality is not about your personal acceptance.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
- There are studios where pornography is norm
- There are places where gambling in norm
- There are places where prostitution is norm

What are you trying to prove here?

Just because these activities are norm in some regions; doesn't make then morally acceptable. This is my point.


I do not hate women. I believe that both genders should act responsibly.


Studies are wrong then?


You need to elaborate on how fully clothed women sexually arouse you. You are definitely hiding some details or you are lying. Why do you want women to objectify themselves?


BS


Modesty is about sense of responsibility in presentation and actions towards strangers.


You don't know the difference between morality and immorality.


You are highly judgemental and insensitive towards others who disprove of your mindset. This is a sign of MENTAL SICKNESS.


I dislike objectification of women. Objectification invites exploitation.

LoL, you're copying me now and trying to spin. This started when I said: "The point is that not everyone goes by 'naked body = sex'. We're humans, we have higher brain functions and control.", then you proceed to claim higher brain functions don't matter. Yet now individual perceptions matter.

Both genders should. Why blame a woman for being raped though, even if she walked around naked or acted "slutty"?

Stop throwing around "studies" when you haven't a clue and did little more than on-the-spot google searches in a desperate attempt to seem educated on the matter. You tried it with inimalist and he slapped you 10 out of 10.

You want me to elaborate why a hetereosexual male can be aroused by a female he finds attractive, clothed or not? Really? Are you retarded? "Why do you want women to objectify themselves?" LoL, loaded question. Try harder.

Not BS, you've done it multiple times with me and inimilist. Just look at your insane comments on 'higher brain functions' from previous pages.

That's a dodge. You claimed to support "female modesty", so how EXACTLY should a female dress and act to be so?

LoL, Begging The Question? What morals don't I know exactly? You throw around "morality" like it's some universal exact, you debate like a child.

"My mindset"? LoL, okay, seems like a desperate grasp at air while you're drowning. I'll bite. What exactly is my mindset, or what exact aspects of my mindset are you referring to?

You dislike women. Don't make it about some failed notion of you protecting women so they should dress and act like you deem appropriate.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Morality is not about your personal acceptance. Not your morality, obviously. But why is that?

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, you're copying me now and trying to spin. This started when I said: "The point is that not everyone goes by 'naked body = sex'. We're humans, we have higher brain functions and control.", then you proceed to claim higher brain functions don't matter. Yet now individual perceptions matter.
And yet humans continue to exploit and harm? Why?

Originally posted by Robtard
Both genders should. Why blame a woman for being raped though, even if she walked around naked or acted "slutty"?
By the same token, why blame a criminal for the crime he or she committed? Coz the criminal might have been motivated by circumstances.

Their is a word called "responsibility". It matters.

Originally posted by Robtard
Stop throwing around "studies" when you haven't a clue and did little more than on-the-spot google searches in a desperate attempt to seem educated on the matter. You tried it with inimalist and he slapped you 10 out of 10.
I know what I am saying. I cited a study to only affirm my point. Intellectual people understand the importance of using evidence. But maybe I was expecting too much from an insecure person like you.

Originally posted by Robtard
You want me to elaborate why a hetereosexual male can be aroused by a female he finds attractive, clothed or not? Really? Are you retarded? "Why do you want women to objectify themselves?" LoL, loaded question. Try harder.
How a fully clothed women sexually arouses you? explain please.

If you find a woman attractive, you start thinking sexually about her? Isn't this a sign of perventness?

Originally posted by Robtard
Not BS, you've done it multiple times with me and inimilist. Just look at your insane comments on 'higher brain functions' from previous pages.
He explained his point lot better then you did. Stick to your argumentation. And go through my debate with inimilist; it supports my original point that higher brain functions and control do not guarantee decency. People most often restrain themselves due to repercussions for wrongdoings. But still wrongdoings occur and statistics are alarming.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's a dodge. You claimed to support "female modesty", so how EXACTLY should a female dress and act to be so?
In a manner that is not sexually provocative.

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, Begging The Question? What morals don't I know exactly? You throw around "morality" like it's some universal exact, you debate like a child.
What is moral in your opinion?

Originally posted by Robtard
"My mindset"? LoL, okay, seems like a desperate grasp at air while you're drowning. I'll bite. What exactly is my mindset, or what exact aspects of my mindset are you referring to?
Your mindset suggests pervertness.

Originally posted by Robtard
You dislike women. Don't make it about some failed notion of you protecting women so they should dress and act like you deem appropriate.
I do not dislike women. I am against their exploitation.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Not your morality, obviously. But why is that?
Morality is not a personal thing.

you both are still having at it..lol I think im going to sit this one out and make myself a drink.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Morality is not a personal thing. Explain.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I disagree.

Ok, so this is how I'm going to do this. You have cited 4 web pages, not studies, and I'm going to go through them first, then sort of hit on a couple of other things you mentioned throughout that are ridiculous. Hopefully I can keep this to one post.

so:

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/12/18/us-soaring-rates-rape-and-violence-against-women

I'm going to repost this also, as it is totally relevant:

Originally posted by Oliver North
Rape is a tough one, because the way rape is defined gives strange impressions to the data. For instance, it was still legal to rape one's wife into the 1980s. On paper, it appears there is a large increase once the laws were changed, in actuality, the rates stayed the same or were dropping.

To emphasize this point, while Human Rights Watch reports a raise in instances over that period, the UN reports that instances of rape were decreasing in both absolute terms, and in terms of proportion of the population, in the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#UN_Rape_Statistics

Additionally, raises over the span of a couple of years are entirely expected given the current crime rate. The rate of crimes has fallen so greatly in the past few decades, that we have likely reached a floor of how much crime a particular society can actually eliminate. You see these all the time, Toronto is currently seeing it in regard to gun violence. There are small blips in data where it appears things are changing, but it is only an "increase" relative to a very, very low mean, and these blips almost always disappear in a long term trend. Its an easy way to get a headline, but statistically, it is meaningless.

You would need data that goes beyond a 2 year period. Additionally, the study they link in the article you posted isn't available any longer, can you find another version of it? I'd like to read more about the methodology.

So, there are a bunch of reasons why the survey HRW talks about in their article may not be the best data to use to track long-term trends, but I'm going to skip that for purposes of space. We can go into it, nobody loves to debate sampling issues and methodology more than I do, its just not as relevant as this:

http://s11.postimage.org/8hggkpzfn/image.png

This is the available data about rape/sexual assault from the National Crime Victimization Survey, the one your article discusses. Really, I could leave it at that, as over 13 years there is a clear downward trend to that data.

However, according the the Bureau of Justice Statistics themselves, the people who run the study:



So, data from before 2006 uses one methodolgy, but after 2006 they changed it, and the numbers went up:

http://s9.postimage.org/hu5r0cotb/image.png

This confirms what I was saying entirely. The numbers are going down, using either methodology, and they are still going down in the long term using a mix of methodologies. In fact, the rate of rape/sexual assault per 1000 individuals was 1.5 in 1998 (using the old methodology) and 1.0 in 2008 (using the new one).

I know what you are thinking, "Gee, it seems weird that HRW didn't mention the change when they reported the findings." Well, thats only because I assume you didn't read the HRW article, as it describes at the end:



So, basically, the article you posted doesn't suggest the incidence of sexual assault or rape are increasing and the data they were writing about show that the incidences are decreasing.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Check the rape statistics in this link:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

Like I said above, each coloumn of that chart follows the pattern of results that I described.

Though, I'll be honest, I didn't realize crime spiked so hard between the 70s-90s.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Also, check this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/04/09/a-needed-revolution-rape-and-u-s-justice.html

This isn't about instances of rape increasing. This is about how many arrests are made.

So, the book the article is talking about suggests that the arrest rate for rape is the same now as it was decades ago. Meaning, if it is 24%, and 10000 rapes happened last year, and 100 happened this year, you can have less overall rapes, while the % of rapists arrested stays the same, at 2400 and 24 respectively.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Also this: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2012/0119/Pentagon-report-Sexual-assault-in-the-military-up-dramatically

that... I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. I never said there wouldn't be specific populations where rape may be increasing, but that, on a whole, rates are decreasing.

I'd also like to point out, this article is direct proof against something you have been saying. You claim people need rules to act properly. Well, the only people who live with more rules in their lives than soldiers, that I can think of, are prisoners.

If being in the army doesn't produce the lowest rates of rape, I'd suggest this "rules" theory of yours is erroneous.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Things are not so black and white.

As I have already stated; their is a limit to what can be achieved with rules and regulations.

Best course of action is to spread morality.

I just quoted this as a catch all for most of your last replies to me. Nothing you are saying is related to the arguments I'm presenting to you. I'm not talking about modesty, or spreading morality. I'm talking about the fact that a) higher cognition is crucial in guiding our behaviour, b) rules aren't what make people good, c) incidents of rape are decreasing.

90% of the of what you post to me is some new topic or tangent rather than addressing my points... should I take that to mean you have conceded those points? you now agree that higher cognition restricts base instinct?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
People most often restrain themselves due to repercussions for wrongdoings. But still wrongdoings occur and statistics are alarming.

Research going back at least 50 years shows clearly that punishment is one of the least effective motivators for people.

It is a poor motivator for rats and dogs, animals without higher cognition, for humans is does almost no good.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I am not wrong. Your experience and exposure is limited.

haha, I never really like doing this, but bragging can be fun sometimes.

I work, like my day job, is as a cognitive psychologist/neuroscientist. Over the past couple of years, I've taught classes to undergraduate students where I describe how "higher cognition" works. My specific area of research is in the control and regulation of actions. If you want, I can describe the neurological pathways involved in higher cognition restricting instinctual actions, in fact, the circuits of the basal nuclei are some of my favorite parts of the brain.

so, whip it out, pal. I think it is you who lack experience and exposure.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Ok, so this is how I'm going to do this. You have cited 4 web pages, not studies, and I'm going to go through them first, then sort of hit on a couple of other things you mentioned throughout that are ridiculous. Hopefully I can keep this to one post.

so:



I'm going to repost this also, as it is totally relevant:



So, there are a bunch of reasons why the survey HRW talks about in their article may not be the best data to use to track long-term trends, but I'm going to skip that for purposes of space. We can go into it, nobody loves to debate sampling issues and methodology more than I do, its just not as relevant as this:

http://s11.postimage.org/8hggkpzfn/image.png

This is the available data about rape/sexual assault from the National Crime Victimization Survey, the one your article discusses. Really, I could leave it at that, as over 13 years there is a clear downward trend to that data.

However, according the the Bureau of Justice Statistics themselves, the people who run the study:



So, data from before 2006 uses one methodolgy, but after 2006 they changed it, and the numbers went up:

http://s9.postimage.org/hu5r0cotb/image.png

This confirms what I was saying entirely. The numbers are going down, using either methodology, and they are still going down in the long term using a mix of methodologies. In fact, the rate of rape/sexual assault per 1000 individuals was 1.5 in 1998 (using the old methodology) and 1.0 in 2008 (using the new one).

I know what you are thinking, "Gee, it seems weird that HRW didn't mention the change when they reported the findings." Well, thats only because I assume you didn't read the HRW article, as it describes at the end:



So, basically, the article you posted doesn't suggest the incidence of sexual assault or rape are increasing and the data they were writing about show that the incidences are decreasing.



Like I said above, each coloumn of that chart follows the pattern of results that I described.

Though, I'll be honest, I didn't realize crime spiked so hard between the 70s-90s.



This isn't about instances of rape increasing. This is about how many arrests are made.

So, the book the article is talking about suggests that the arrest rate for rape is the same now as it was decades ago. Meaning, if it is 24%, and 10000 rapes happened last year, and 100 happened this year, you can have less overall rapes, while the % of rapists arrested stays the same, at 2400 and 24 respectively.



that... I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. I never said there wouldn't be specific populations where rape may be increasing, but that, on a whole, rates are decreasing.

I'd also like to point out, this article is direct proof against something you have been saying. You claim people need rules to act properly. Well, the only people who live with more rules in their lives than soldiers, that I can think of, are prisoners.

If being in the army doesn't produce the lowest rates of rape, I'd suggest this "rules" theory of yours is erroneous.
Big deal if rapes are declining? You are missing the point. Their can be many reasons behind decline in rapes and not just effectiveness of rules and regulations or higher cognition. One reason can be that American women themselves sleep around a lot. Of course, not all women are like this but still SEX is easy to get in USA in current times.

And even if rapes are declining, do you think that same is true about women exploitation in general?

What about massive boom in other forms of societal evils like pornography? This is a gift of so-called sexual liberalism. And if you think that women are happy in this industry - think again.

Similarly, what about strippers and women working in casinos? You think that all of them are happy and want this?

Many women in these industries are in due to financial reasons. And they are being exploited sexually for their livelihoods.

Another thing is considerable increase in CHEATING in committed relationships. Thanks to sexual liberalism, people can easily cheat on their partners as well.

So don't try to paint a rosy picture here on the basis of just one facet of women exploitation.

Also, as per this source: http://www.rainn.org/statistics - every 2 minutes, someone in the US is sexually assaulted. Shocking.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I just quoted this as a catch all for most of your last replies to me. Nothing you are saying is related to the arguments I'm presenting to you. I'm not talking about modesty, or spreading morality. I'm talking about the fact that a) higher cognition is crucial in guiding our behaviour, b) rules aren't what make people good, c) incidents of rape are decreasing.

90% of the of what you post to me is some new topic or tangent rather than addressing my points... should I take that to mean you have conceded those points? you now agree that higher cognition restricts base instinct?
You are focusing on EXPECTATIONS from higher cognition. My point IS and HAS BEEN since the start that people continue to exploit and harm regardless of their cognition capabilities. Even decent people can and do horrible things upon opportunities or favorable circumstances. Just because rape statistics are on the decline - doesn't means that people have finally matured or stopped exploiting.

Originally posted by Oliver North
Research going back at least 50 years shows clearly that punishment is one of the least effective motivators for people.

It is a poor motivator for rats and dogs, animals without higher cognition, for humans is does almost no good.
Terminate rules and regulations today and see how much higher cognition holds by itself.

Originally posted by Oliver North
haha, I never really like doing this, but bragging can be fun sometimes.

I work, like my day job, is as a cognitive psychologist/neuroscientist. Over the past couple of years, I've taught classes to undergraduate students where I describe how "higher cognition" works. My specific area of research is in the control and regulation of actions. If you want, I can describe the neurological pathways involved in higher cognition restricting instinctual actions, in fact, the circuits of the basal nuclei are some of my favorite parts of the brain.

so, whip it out, pal. I think it is you who lack experience and exposure.
Well professor, you need to do better research and not jusy stick to theories. I visit lot of forums and read lot about these subjects - and the knowledge that I gain from these communities is more then enough for me to form reasonable assessment. I suppose that you can do so too.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
And yet humans continue to exploit and harm? Why?


By the same token, why blame a criminal for the crime he or she committed? Coz the criminal might have been motivated by circumstances.

Their is a word called "responsibility". It matters.


I know what I am saying. I cited a study to only affirm my point. Intellectual people understand the importance of using evidence. But maybe I was expecting too much from an insecure person like you.


How a fully clothed women sexually arouses you? explain please.

If you find a woman attractive, you start thinking sexually about her? Isn't this a sign of perventness?


He explained his point lot better then you did. Stick to your argumentation. And go through my debate with inimilist; it supports my original point that higher brain functions and control do not guarantee decency. People most often restrain themselves due to repercussions for wrongdoings. But still wrongdoings occur and statistics are alarming.


In a manner that is not sexually provocative.


What is moral in your opinion?


Your mindset suggests pervertness.


I do not dislike women. I am against their exploitation.


Are you insane? Human nature is human nature, yet not everyone is going to rape and steal if they had a free pass. ie Higher brain functions.

Why blame a criminal for a crime they committed? Mmmm, I dunno. (That was sarcasm) So you do believe a woman dressing in a fashion that temps men(in a way you deem not moral) gets raped, it's her fault. You're a sick bastard.

There is a word called 'responsibility'; it's the responsibility of the rapist to not act on their impulses. You victim blamer.

No you don't, you're throwing around desperate google searches and inimalist is slapping them down.

LoL, retard angle. A woman's beauty can be arousing, it's really that basic.+

WTF, are you a child? A heterosexual male being sexually attracted to a female he finds attractive isn't a sign of "pervertness". Masturbating on her and or being lewd against her wishes would be perverted. You are severely sexually repressed.

Ahahahaa, "don't read my fail debate with someone else". Stop crying and stop failing.

Another dodge, "not sexually provocative" is a broad term. Hoe exactly? In a burka? In full dresses? etc. Also, stop oppressing women, it's 2012.

Another dodge, answering a question with a question. You claimed I was "didn't know morals", state what exactly.

Yet another desperate grasp. What "pervertness" (which isn't a word, btw) have I showed or done?

You clearly dislike women and as repeatedly seen, try to control them with your own personal sense of what you see as "moral" under the guise of protection.

Given that Legend's locations says "ASIA", I'm willing to bet he comes from a country that views women as property.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Given that Legend's locations says "ASIA", I'm willing to bet he comes from a country that views women as property.

I'd guess one of these:

Afghanistan
India
Bangladesh
Brunei
Indonesia
Pakistan

Should be noted that all those barring India have a very high Muslim population. Which his views towards women do seem to imply a possible Islamic angle.

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.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Big deal if rapes are declining? You are missing the point. Their can be many reasons behind decline in rapes and not just effectiveness of rules and regulations or higher cognition. One reason can be that American women themselves sleep around a lot.

haermm

- - - -

Between this thread and his turrible logic in the Muslim innocence thread, I think he's Muslim as well.

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. Tell that to the absolutists who want to punish anyone who even witnessed the incident.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
haermm

- - - -

Between this thread and his turrible logic in the Muslim innocence thread, I think he's Muslim as well.

Nah, it's a known fact that rapist commit rapes cos they normally couldn't get laid and rape is just about sex. So god bless those American sluts reducing rapes.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Big deal if rapes are declining?

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 S_W_LeGenD
You are missing the point. Their can be many reasons behind decline in rapes and not just effectiveness of rules and regulations or higher cognition. One reason can be that American women themselves sleep around a lot. Of course, not all women are like this but still SEX is easy to get in USA in current times.

And even if rapes are declining, do you think that same is true about women exploitation in general?

What about massive boom in other forms of societal evils like pornography? This is a gift of so-called sexual liberalism. And if you think that women are happy in this industry - think again.

Similarly, what about strippers and women working in casinos? You think that all of them are happy and want this?

Many women in these industries are in due to financial reasons. And they are being exploited sexually for their livelihoods.

Another thing is considerable increase in CHEATING in committed relationships. Thanks to sexual liberalism, people can easily cheat on their partners as well.

So don't try to paint a rosy picture here on the basis of just one facet of women exploitation.

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.

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.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Also, as per this source: http://www.rainn.org/statistics - every 2 minutes, someone in the US is sexually assaulted. Shocking.

and 20 years ago that number would be about 50% higher.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
You are focusing on EXPECTATIONS from higher cognition. My point IS and HAS BEEN since the start that people continue to exploit and harm regardless of their cognition capabilities. Even decent people can and do horrible things upon opportunities or favorable circumstances. Just because rape statistics are on the decline - doesn't means that people have finally matured or stopped exploiting.



Terminate rules and regulations today and see how much higher cognition holds by itself.

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 S_W_LeGenD
Well professor,

not actually an insult in this context...

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
you need to do better research and not jusy stick to theories. I visit lot of forums and read lot about these subjects - and the knowledge that I gain from these communities is more then enough for me to form reasonable assessment. I suppose that you can do so too.

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....

Originally posted by Robtard
Are you insane? Human nature is human nature, yet not everyone is going to rape and steal if they had a free pass. ie Higher brain functions.
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.

Originally posted by Robtard
Why blame a criminal for a crime they committed? Mmmm, I dunno. (That was sarcasm) So you do believe a woman dressing in a fashion that temps men(in a way you deem not moral) gets raped, it's her fault. You're a sick bastard.
Mind your language. Not every individual will assault her. But she is MORE LIKELY to be sexually assaulted. This is my point.

Originally posted by Robtard
There is a word called 'responsibility'; it's the responsibility of the rapist to not act on their impulses. You victim blamer.
Responsibility goes both ways.

Originally posted by Robtard
No you don't, you're throwing around desperate google searches and inimalist is slapping them down.
Difference of opinion.

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, retard angle. A woman's beauty can be arousing, it's really that basic.+
Thanks for conceding. Now try to understand that why objectification can have negative consequences.

Originally posted by Robtard
WTF, are you a child? A heterosexual male being sexually attracted to a female he finds attractive isn't a sign of "pervertness". Masturbating on her and or being lewd against her wishes would be perverted. You are severely sexually repressed.
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.

Originally posted by Robtard
Ahahahaa, "don't read my fail debate with someone else". Stop crying and stop failing.
Who is being immature in the discussions? You are.

Originally posted by Robtard
Another dodge, "not sexually provocative" is a broad term. Hoe exactly? In a burka? In full dresses? etc. Also, stop oppressing women, it's 2012.
Oh wow! Defending a woman's modesty is oppression. Nice. No wonder morality is on the decline in your country.

Originally posted by Robtard
Another dodge, answering a question with a question. You claimed I was "didn't know morals", state what exactly.
What is moral in your opinion?

Originally posted by Robtard
Yet another desperate grasp. What "pervertness" (which isn't a word, btw) have I showed or done?
People like you encourage objectification and immorality.

Originally posted by Robtard
You clearly dislike women and as repeatedly seen, try to control them with your own personal sense of what you see as "moral" under the guise of protection.
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.

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.
This is good assessment.

Since some members are using the terms "higher brain functions" or "higher cognition" for argumentation purposes in this thread; these members should realize that smart, educated and well-informed people act responsibly and fully understand the consequences of their actions. This does not means that such people cannot be moderate about sexuality or are sexually repressed but rather more responsible and careful.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Increase in immorality will pave way for further exploitation or spoil more minds. This... this line, man... it's just so...

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
This is good assessment.

Since some members are using the terms "higher brain functions" or "higher cognition" for argumentation purposes in this thread; these members should realize that educated and smart people act responsibly. Such people understand the consequences of their actions and behave appropriately. This does not means that such people cannot be moderate about sexuality or are sexually repressed but rather more responsible and careful. So long as you aren't calling for their behaviour, no matter how irresponsible, to be outlawed or legally restricted.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Given that Legend's locations says "ASIA", I'm willing to bet he comes from a country that views women as property.
No.

Are they currency then? You seem to want restriction on them that don't apply to men.

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?
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.

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.
Thanks for understanding.

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.
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.

Originally posted by Oliver North
and 20 years ago that number would be about 50% higher.
Can you validate your point?

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.
Ok.

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....
From what I have been reading and witnessing; 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.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Are they currency then?
No.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien You seem to want restriction on them that don't apply to men.
Did I said that men should not take responsibility?

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 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.

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 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.
A person doesn't have to be highly educated and intelligent to have morals or be decent. Religious education can be sufficient.

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.
"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.

Originally posted by Robtard
More victim blaming.
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:

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.
Your point of view. Check my most recent responses to him.

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.
Are you desperate?

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.
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.

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.
I am not whining. I think differently then you do. Your personal attacks on me is the issue. You are immature in true sense.

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.
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.

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.
Being responsible is moral, right?

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.
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?

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.
Covered above.

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 for getting raped if she happened to be wearing something you didn't approve of. That makes you an *******.
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?

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.
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?

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?


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?

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.

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
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.
So you are implying that "higher brain functions" come natural to people? What about the process of LEARNING and EXPERIENCE?

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.
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.

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.
And personal attacks continue. Please understand that their is a limit to my tolerance.

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.
I am not involved in some kind of debating contest. Victory and defeat is subjective. I am sharing my opinion and he is doing the same. He and I have reached understanding on a few points but the debate continues. If you are so excited about winning; participate in a contest. Otherwise, keep your immature attitude to yourself.

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?
Not worth responding.

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.
Straw man argumentation and dodging seems to be your cup of tea. Learn to listen to others and understand their point of view.

Originally posted by Robtard
You've been whining since the start and continue to.
You initiated argument with me in the first place. And you started insulting me since your second post, which is shocking. Go to page number 5 of this thread and see for yourself. Therefore, it is ironic that you accuse me of whining.

Originally posted by Robtard
Great, yet you'd blame them for getting raped if their dress-code didn't meet your "high morals".
Check this reasonable debate on this subject: http://www.darshanchande.com/2012/01/provocative-clothes-and-rape-are-men.html

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.
You are arguing in the favor of immoral activities. Simple. Please note that their is difference between immoral and crimimal.

Originally posted by Robtard
Which actions do I defend that are immoral to you?
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.

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?
Straw man argument. Of course, nudity is not always about sex and neither I have stated this anywhere. As an example: swimming. Do not put words in my mouth.

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".
No. I do not condone crime. Your accusations towards me are getting a little bit too much now. I suggest that you refrain from doing this. If you cannot have a meaningful debate then don't continue.

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.
A person with "higher brain functions" will act responsibly rather then make himself or herself vulnerable to exploitation or assault. Get the memo?

Originally posted by Robtard
What now? Cos that was a bunch of non sequitur nonsense.
No. It reveals the ambiquity in your argumentation.