Educational

Author Topic: In Interviews With 122 Rapists, Student Pursues Not-So-Simple Question: Why?  (Read 1157 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lestat

  • Pharmaceutical dustbin of the autie elite
  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 6698
  • Karma: 352
  • Gender: Male
  • Homo stercore veteris, heterodiem
Walkie, much as I appreciate you, I have to call you on the 'pussy-stealer' type, being less of a crime because the victim gets to keep what is stolen. Is it fucking shit less. If anything it is worse. Because as well as being a rapist piece of shite, they go beyond that and try to blow it off, not even trying to excuse themelves, as if what they took, was of about the same moral level of encountering a woman (or man, if the rapist is a faggot of course. Ew.), and, without engaging in rape, in their view 'muff-burgling' being no different, from if they instead didn't rape, but dipped their hand into the lass's purse, bag, coat or whatever else of the kind and helped themselves to a pack of fucking smokes?

Anyone that damn callous as to actually see the two as equal, IMO almost certainly has strong sociopathic tendencies, and, afaik (I am right on this, as being the consensus, Elle, am I not, with regards to the psychology and psychopathological traits, as a headshrinker, you're probably more well up on the most current of the literature than I am) that those with a personality disorder are essentially untreatable, its inborn, with things such as sociopathy, and true psychopathy (ed bundy types I mean, by the latter), just waiting to surface, when its practical, or perhaps when it suits the nutball best to let it off any leash they may have it on. And if it is manifest in a given subject, they are hard-wired that way, and that even if one were to lock such up permanently, the only way that they could be made to stop THINKING of the evils they desire to do, and desiring them still, would be to remove the bit of them that does the thinking from the rest of their body, no?

'Raxy, of COURSE, I never meant to imply that there was a practical association qualitatively with regards to guilt or innocence, in referencing the uncanny valley and witchcraft. Not in the least. Of course somebody can't be guilty in truth, of witchcraft, regardless of the law of the land, because it is impossible to in actuality, employ witchcraft, white, black or any shade inbetween, in any manner beyond ceremony, and/or use of plant or/and animal derivatives to cause effects, ranging from frank and outright subtly poisoning somebody, sticking some wolfbane in their cup of coffee, etc. to culturally-recognized practices like those of the african sangomas with their Ubulawu herbs *not that I deny that these may indeed have therapeutic or psychotropic properties. Or/and toxic effects in some cases. That this is the case is indisputable, but also indisputable, is that it is science, not magic, although the practitioner may  have a nonscientific view, and lack the knowledge that after say, partaking of something like DMT in ayahuasca, that it is dimethyltryptamine, allowed to become orally active via the action of coadmixed and coadministered monoamine oxidase inhibitor alkaloids acting on type  5HT2a, 5HT1a, 5HT2c serotonin receptor and TAARs (trace amine associated receptors) which produce psychedelic manifestations through altering biochemistry. (although, truth told, there IS something pretty well ineffable about some such qualities of some of these things, DMT in particular that is most persuasive)

Although there do also exist intriguing cultural parallels between a mixture of sorcery and science. In north african Ubulawu practices, a heavy dose of sorcery is in with a lot of bioactive plants, but at the same time, once it became available, because they knew some of these precious living resources were in massive danger, due to overexploitation, slow growth, combined, pushing the populations of the living plants into danger of dying out, or becoming almost unavailable, many of these african medicine-men using Ubulawu herbs, decided to adopt a western psychedelic drug, knowing what it was, because they realized that with the synthetic, they could use it in what quantities they required, so as to allow their rich bioactive botanical heritage to procreate, and regenerate, the drug in question being the fairly well-known 2C-B (2,5-dimethoxy-4-bromophenethylamine) being nonnaturally occurring at least in any organism thus far analyzed chemically, but recognizing the common properties of this product of man's artifice and hallucinogen and some of their Ubulawu, 2C-B became highly valued, apparently, among many of these african shamen.


With regards to the hostile, hysterical witchcraft panics in european medieval culture, it was highly misogynistic, and influenced by christianity. But it is thought quite probable that, albeit not deliberately, a hallucinogenic toxic group of fungi, plant pathogens which are in nature, obligate parasites upon grasses and cereal grains being favourite or obligate hosts of some species. These fungi, are  the Ergots, genus Claviceps, particularly the commonest probably, in england, and widespread wherever we europeans took our cereals. Most Claviceps species are highly host-specific, restricted either to a single grass (usually, although Clavicipitalean species growing on sedges and reeds have been confirmed to exist) species within a genus, or are restricted in their host range with specificity at genus level with regards to the grass hosts. Claviceps purpurea, the most well-known, and doubtless the most infamous, or rye ergot is unique in the genus Claviceps, in that it is extremely adaptable, even so far as to parasitize arundinoid, pooid, panicoids, even some chloridoid grasses, not just rye, wheat, but not only different, and extremely wide ranging genera of host grasses but entirely different lineages and orders of grass supertypes.

They infect by both distribution of nonsexually produced conidiospores, and ascospores during a sexual cycle, mimicking the pollen grain's germ tube formation and travelling down the internals of the florets of host grasses, with conidia being divided into primarily insect-vectored primary, asexual macroconidia and airborne microconidia, along with short-distance maintainance of infection via the sexual reproductive cycle-produced  ascospores, and once these infectious propagules come into contact with a suitable host species and locus of infection, they replace the ovary of the plant, with their own tissue, subsisting as a parasite, and in order to survive, producing resting structures called sclerotiae, which look like purplish-black, elongated (usually, although since rye ergot is uniquely adaptable the physical morphology of the sclerotium varies according to the morphology and size of the ovary of  the plants)

These fall to the ground, and after suitable climactic conditions for their germination and ascospore formation, start sprouting little mushroom-shaped bodies which sporulate away to perpetuate infections.

However, they have a connection, twofold, perhaps, with witchcraft. In one sense, midwives of the ages were also often targeted by the orthodoxy, for their use of herbal remedies and potions, as 'witches', and ergot was, although if misused, extremely poisonous, and in an extremely unpleasant way, it (and today, chemical isolates of purified compounds) are used in obstetric medicine to staunch post-partum haemorrhage, and to quicken difficult labors, as it contains compounds, ergot alkaloids with a peptidic, cyclic sidechain of a small number of amino-acids, the specific aminoacids being variable.

Chemically, they share one thing in common. They are based upon lysergic acid, and have a certain structural commonality with LSD, the peptidic bond, is an amide linkage between two or more aminoacids..LSD, is a lysergic  acid amide, and there are numerous analogs, although not so close to the natural ergot alkaloids as to be toxic. The natural ones however, are. They are both oxytocic in effect, to varying degrees of efficacy, some more than others. But they are also extremely fucking potent vasoconstrictors, and unfortunately being parasites of grain ears, replacing the seed used in making bread with their toxin-laden sclerotiae, which cause a distinct pair of toxic syndromes depending on the alkaloidal chemotype of the infecting strain afflicting a given harvest. One chiefly due to vasoconstriction, due to their powerful agonistic effect on adrenergic receptors located within vascular tissue epithelial walls (quite powerful enough, for example, for my merely harvesting such infected host-plants for their sclerotiae without gloves, picking them and putting them into a bag for transport was sufficient to induce a coldness of my fingers and hands, and tingling in the fingertips, which were the bodypart having most contact physically with the ergot sclerotiae due to the diminished blood-flow to the extremities)

One of the two toxic syndromes from ergot-infested bread, in sublethal quantities was the development of a dry gangrene, with affected people suffering what they thought to be the wrath of god, or else the work of witches and demons, causing the affliction they termed 'St. Anthony's fire', and due to the cutting off of blood supply, the extremities, such as fingers, toes, ears, nose, lips, hands, feet, arms, legs suffered most in this kind of ergot poisoning. The second, which occurs in distinctly different strains, expressing a different profile of ergot alkaloids, less on the vasoconstrictor side, took a convulsive profile, with people being seized by powerful muscle contractions possssed of almost bone-breaking force potential, such that a sufferer would often beg for the assistance of others in forcing their painfully clenched hands open, and preventing them reclenching, and epileptiform seizures. At the time this was not understood, and such as epilepsy was potentially viewed as demoniacal possession, perhaps via the agency of witches, doing the bidding of Satan, and to complicate things, due to the lysergic acid amide structure, some of these alkaloids could also induce hallucinatory states. They are related also to the hallucinogenic principle within the seeds of many morning glory species, ergine, a simple lysergic acid amide, and whilst it has some vasoconstrictor effects when the seed is consumed as an LSD substitute, it is not nearly so powerful as to cause gangrene, tissue dessication and death, etc. and can be, and is, often used, along with relatives in the Convolvulaceous tribe of plants, although these do not produce the hallucinogenic compounds within the seeds directly, rather, an obligate endosymbiont fungus, not of  the genus Claviceps itself, but related, of a Clavicipitalean lineage, does so.

Such effects combined, especially in a superstitious, hyperreligiose, mysogynistic cultural setting sets a very strongly provocative scenario for excuses for discrimination against (chiefly) women, as 'witches',  often people would be denounced as witches on such 'evidence' as a physical deformity, unattractiveness, on the say so of children on the content of their dreams, or ergotized bread (and it was often heavily, even to the point of acutely lethally so, ergotized, the toxic and psychotropic sclerotiae having been processed along with the uninfected ears and seeds. And the rich, acting the way the rich and powerful so often do, bought up the best flour for themselves, leaving only the dross for the peasants, who were sometimes left, even when toxicity became known of ergot fungi, with a choice between consuming bread which was 30% ergot, to half, or even almost all of it being ergot, rather than grain flour) and facing death by sheer starvation. In addition, the ergot caused frequently, cumulative neurological lesions of enduring duration.

With much effort, these little buggers can be cultured artificially in  fermenters, and the ergopeptide alkaloids hydrolyzed to give free lysergic acid, which even in gram quantities, is an extremely valuable commodity, and one that the hobbyist chemist community would otherwise have intense, the very greatest of difficulty in obtaining such a normally 'watched' chemical. Such strains as are stable producers, or both productive of alkaloids AND conidia-forming (rare), and most difficult in terms of the microbiology work  required, would be of immense value to the non-uni affiliated scientist community.  And of course, not without reward for a job well done either, assuming I could manage it. To whip some cultures into shape appropriate for servitude, although given the toxicity, culture medium handling, and any processing and purification must be conducted with the utmost care.


So, 'Raxy, with such background knowledge thus proffered for your digestion, perhaps the connection is not unobvious? Especially to a shining intellect such as your own :)
Beyond the pale. Way, way beyond the pale.

Requiescat in pacem, Wolfish, beloved of Pyraxis.

Offline Calandale

  • Official sheep shagger of the aspie underclass
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 39497
  • Karma: -169
  • Gender: Male
  • peep
    • The Game Box: Live!


There are a lot of differences between rape and other forms of assault.

Generally with assault the severity of assault is determined by the extent of physical injury. A woman who has been raped may not be physically injured.

Sexual intercourse is an act that takes place between consenting adults on a fairly regular basis (unless you're me). What makes it rape is lack of consent. This is very different from assault, where if someone is beaten and physically injured the issue of consent is effectively irrelevant except in edge cases.

How would treating rape like any other form of assault reduce the incidence of rape? I can see how it might reduce the incidence of provable rape. Can you expand? I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm actually very interested in your point of view.

You're missing my point. Rape would be treated like another form of assault only as a result of treating sex without all
of the excess baggage that it carries around in society. It is that, more general change, which could lead to less rapes,
as it becomes less damaging to the victim and less of a sign of dominance.

The question is whether the increased importance of sexually associated behavior, and especially the dominance aspect
is hard wired, or if it is completely malleable. It is certainly subject to some degree of change, as shown by societal differences
over time.

Quote
The motivations and effects of rape are very different from other forms of assault.


Yes. But mainly because of that baggage.

Quote
If you meet a woman and put your hand around her arm without consent, it's usually not a big deal. If you put your hand on her shoulder without consent, similar. If you put your hand on her butt or her breast or her upper thigh without consent, she would have every right to feel violated, and you're at serious risk of being charged with sexual assault, even though no injury has occurred. There is an element of very personal violation involved with sexual assault.


It's interesting because usually the law doesn't take into account the emotional and subjective damage in this manner.
For example, a person is not more likely to be prosecuted seriously for stealing all that a poorer person has (indeed,
I suspect the opposite, but for different reasons) as opposed to from a wealthier one. But again, this is broader than
what the victim experiences: it's a general increased valuation of things associated with sex.


Examining that increased valuation itself is interesting. The roots of such seem to be founded in the patriarcal
control of women's sexuality. It's an attack not just on the women, but more importantly (for the societies which developed
this view) on the men who 'owned' those women. Part of why wartime rape is used is to undermine the function of the
opposing male warriors (there are also morale effects such as bonding for the perpetrators).


What I find ironic is that we see a collision of these early patriarcal control taboos with our society throwing off
an equally patriarcal assertion of dominance through over-familiar actions (harassment), but relying upon that
heightened valuation of perceived sexual matters which spawns from the same mores.




Offline Al Swearengen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16853
  • Karma: 2104
  • Friendly bastard
OKay Walkie. This is 2015 statistics, hope they will do.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-1
Next I want you to calculate the number of offences/number of males in US to find ratio of males/rape.
Next I want you to adjust what you think is a reasonable amount for rapists who rape many times in that year and t whose crimes are tallied as more than one incident.
Next I want you to double this to give account of women not reporting it (200% of figure)...If you do not like that figure then increase it by what percentage you feel would "reasonably be right".

Next I want you to consider if sex has any value and what men are prepared to do or forgo for the promise of sex.

Have men....I dunno......paid money, killed themselves, others, lost friends, fought.....ever? Has it happened more than once? Have women ever been able to manipulate men's interest in sex to manipulate or control men? Ever?

But it is like a sneeze and no more consequence right?

So there you have both the actuality of rape and whether it is something closely tied to the male psyche and not that far removed from men generally OR something that goes against general men and is really the monsters that deviate from normal male psyche in the same way theives and murderers and teh psychopaths and sociopaths do.

AND

You have the sex of no more value than a sneeze vs what do men NOT do for sex and what value do they not price on it?

I did not call you a liar I said I thought you were wrong. I still do. I think your books were wrong too and the fact they are from Psychologists does not impress me in the least.
I don't want to hear it. Save your complaints to Odeon. Yes, we had decided to drop hostilities. No, I didnt expect that Odeon would do other than start shit again like he always does
You're not going to stick to "a handful people", are you? That would be stupid.
Damned if I won't respond.
So it's on again & you can lay the blame squarely at his feet. Little passive-aggressive bitch

Offline Walkie

  • Wooden sword crusader of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
  • Karma: 191
Walkie, much as I appreciate you, I have to call you on the 'pussy-stealer' type, being less of a crime because the victim gets to keep what is stolen. Is it fucking shit less. 

@Lestat, I wasn't agreeing with that concusion on the least, just saying that if you  look at thing in  "pussy-stealing "terms,  then it 's a totally  logical conclusion that no real harm is done if you rape a prostitute. And it's therefore probable that some rapists really do think that.

I thought it was pretty damned obvious that I neither share in nor approve of that mindset.  Hey!  Didn't I call the phrase "pussy-stealing" obnoxious?  And that's precisely why it's obnoxious. It can too easily result in   a totally callous attitude  towards the victims.

I grew up in a culture where the victims of rape were routinely cross-examined in Court about their sexual morals  and behaviour.  Basically, the more men the victim had willingly fucked in her lifetime, the less the  chance that  the Court would  sympathise with the victim, or believe that she hadn't "brought it on hereslf".  So all that shit was supposed to be relevant, and the victim was on trial as much as the rapist was. And almost nobody seemed to realise that she's gonna feel just as if she's being raped all over again.  That's a very modern insight that very few people were able to grasp all by themselves.  They actually needed to be told.

  Heck, a man had to go so far as murdering a "woman of ill-repute" before people started thinking he'd really commited a crime.   And what exactly was this primitive culture I grew up in? Britain in the latter half of the 20th Century.  And we all thought we were really enlightened back then, too.

So excuse me for wondering what kinds of seemginly-reasonable attitude could possibl result in that degree  of callousness?  My background leads me to believe that this is  a bloody huge issue that is all-to llikely to come back into fashion sometime.   And the daily News leads me to believe  that it never went out of fashion in great big swathes of the globe.  Our current state of "enlightenment" might just be a tiny little blip in history. We have surely not evolved in that little bit of time. We can go backwards again,   just as easily as forwards.

So, IMO, you gotta take that phrase seriously. Not to agree with it, nor excuse it, but to find out ways of subverting it. 

The heck I meant you toagree with me, or to  think I was giving my own opinion. That was more like an exercise in  ruductio ad adsurdam .  That is, I proved that it's a crap premise  by going on to logically deduce something that we all know  damned well  is bullshit.  Wouldn't be so easy to prove that to  people who really do think in "pussy-stealing " terms  though :(
« Last Edit: December 21, 2017, 04:18:11 PM by Walkie »

Offline Calandale

  • Official sheep shagger of the aspie underclass
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 39497
  • Karma: -169
  • Gender: Male
  • peep
    • The Game Box: Live!
Y'all shouldn't get upset about a jailhouse colloquialism like 'stealing some pussy' (NOT pussy stealing - that lacks the grace).


It's like 'throwing fists' - it doesn't mean anyone is taking it literally in that sense. Too lightly? Sure. But amusing.

Offline Walkie

  • Wooden sword crusader of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
  • Karma: 191
OKay Walkie. This is 2015 statistics, hope they will do.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-1

Have men....I dunno......paid money, killed themselves, others, lost friends, fought.....ever? Has it happened more than once? Have women ever been able to manipulate men's interest in sex to manipulate or control men? Ever?

But it is like a sneeze and no more consequence right?

Umm. That's not the kind of research I was looking for. I was thinking of research into men's subjective evaluation of what sex means to them.  That's the real issue here. IMO (as I hope to explain)

The phrase "sex is meaningless" was direct out of the horse's mouth. Perhaps I should have inserted the word "emotionally" before the term "meaningless" because that was clearly what was meant.   And that's surely not to say that it isn't a powerful urge.  Heck , even sneezing is a poweful urge, come to think.

To make it even more clear: one of those  men who told me that sex was meaningless to him had a powerful sex drive nonetheless ...and a deep resentmemnt towards  women , in general, for exploiting their sexual power over him.  That's something quite common, it seems.  It was also discussed in that book that you have no respect for.

That man was not a rapist, but it's not hard  to see how such resentment could boil over into rape. So it's worth noting.

Perhaps , like me, you think that men who believe that sex has no emotional dimension for them are fooling themselves? They forget, perhaps,  that negative felings like rage are also emotions?   And/or they are too out-of-touch with their emotions to know what they're really feeling?  In any case, men are still expected  by society (even Western society) to be less emotional than women  and that has an effect.  Whether men would be naturally less emotional than women. all else being equal,  is bloody hard to tell,  But that would also be a reason why men can be so callous  towards women. If a man  can't empathise with his own feelings  (he's been trained to push them aside, and to call himself all kinds of nasty names when they show through ) he's not going to be able to empathise with somebody else's feelings is he?

From that point-of-view , genuine gender equality, without pressure to conform to sexual sterotypes ought to reduce the incidence of rape. And not just on account of greater respect for women, but also because men would be not be emotionally staightjacketed by such a society.. .if only it existed! The fact is, even in our enlightened  Western world, parents still pressure their childten to conform to sexual stereotypes, and the schoolchildren still pressure each other.

According to that book (and after thinking about it, I do concur)  we haven't come far enough to take the conformity  pressure offfyour modern man, just far enough to rob him of a sense of identity and  a sense of self-worth; and far enough to confuse him, as to what's the right thing to do? Though I don't suppose that's especially relevant to the present discussion.

I just hope you can se there;'s no real contradiction between those different statements after all.  Men often value gold enough to kill for it, don't they? but I don't suppose they're emotionally involved with the stuff, at least not in any deep and meaningful way *chuckle*


Quote
I did not call you a liar I said I thought you were wrong. I still do. I think your books were wrong too and the fact they are from Psychologists does not impress me in the least.

You actually said I was "dishonest" (for the umpteenth fucking time) . So perhaps you might explain the difference between "dishonest" and "lying" becuase I honestly don't grasp it,
« Last Edit: December 21, 2017, 05:24:49 PM by Walkie »

Offline Lestat

  • Pharmaceutical dustbin of the autie elite
  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 6698
  • Karma: 352
  • Gender: Male
  • Homo stercore veteris, heterodiem
Separately, walkie, I must address part of your logic, which is in error.

The statement 'In this instance, if you put a rapist down as a Monster , and won;'t admit to any kind of point  of commonulity , that proves to the world and -more importantly- to yourself that you're not a monster, doesn't it?'

Is not logically correct. It Presume the truth of the logical fallacy known as the false dilemma.

Let be considered Socrates. Socrates and Gods exist. Socrates is capable of independent thought. Gods are capable of independent thought. Let the proposition then be made Socrates is either mortal, or immortal. Gods are immortal, and are not mortal, whilst men, are mortal. And not gods. Ergo (truth( Neither man nor god may be both immortal and subject to death, thefore as consequence, Socrates must be either a man, or he must be a god..thefore (false) he must  be mortal)

The False Dilemma exists in the statement 'Socrates must be either a man, or he must be a god', since at no time, for example, was it defined in the postulate that Socrates, the Socrates discussed within the logical subject-object relation clause that the Socrates instance referred to is the famed philosopher of Athens, Greece. A man could name his pet cat Socrates in modern times (initial possibility, left undefined within subject-object tense clauses being set to an indefinite frame of reference), and the cat is neither man, nor god. But the cat,  either immortal or mortal. It does force a choice, but if an option is left as a hidden variable. (and neither does it reference the possibility that member of the category 'cat' be capable of both mortal and immortality (if for the sake of questioning, this, being quite obviously false in OUR reality, that in the reference frame of the logical proposition, that members of the category '+=cat, =cat!=god =cat!=man Ergo, since cat is in this instance, allotted the trait 'immortality' it does not thus present the dilemma that this specific instance of +=cat+=immortal-therefore-all instances of class +=cat whilst an individual cat, may be mortal and immortal, therefore (falsehood) an individual +=cat+=god+=man simultaneously. And the question as to whether THIS cat, named Socrates, being both immortal (paradox of course) and mortal simultaneously as a superposition of the two states, is not demanded to be made by the statements =cat!= man,!=member of group+=gods, is or is not, a man or a god.)

There exist shades of black, and white intermediate between the two, producing a greyscale and a color spectrum perceptible to the healthy human eye. There also usually, in actual practical logical systems exit undefined variables. And if one man +=monster, assigned so for having acted in the monstrous manner, and a second, separate man up until the point and preceeding sufficiently in duration within the dimension of time, within the reference frame of the question for the question to be asked and that when answered

(considered axiomatically true question in reference frame to be proceeded by answer, regardless of the nature of the question, if posed, it will be anwered)

 the answer given persists in such a state as to remain true from the beginning of the question being posed through the time taken to do so, and remain true once answered, for sufficient progress forwards along the time dimension axis to not take place such that excessive time elapses between answering of a question elapses for a change to invalidate the answer.


If the second man has not committed acts which would define him as a monstrous man but which is not deprived of the capability to commit, or to mentally consider, and weigh up the cost-vs-benefit analysis of committing such act or acts, then he is a possible monstrous man at a future point, but not at such a point in time wherein he has weighed up the cost vs benefit (to him) of acting in various ways, and decided that as a result of that analysis, he will refrain, for the time being, until cost v benefit requires further cognitive analysis, then this man has the POTENTIAL to become, a monstrous man, but is not, necessarily a LATENT monstrous man, not having committed a monstrous act at the point of time of a given reference temporal reference frame but which WILL at an indeterminate specific temporal reference frame, such an act, definitively and certainly.

But he could be. The answer is within the mental space of the second man, and no other being has unfettered access to such spaces, without the absolute and total consent of the man to provide it to that other being, then it logically follows, we cannot know, unless we are told before the fact (honestly)  or we witness either the act, or proof of its consequences sufficient to infer with certainty, that the act has taken place which renders the man monstrous, or that it has not, but will.

>>end logical definition attempts>>

Fact:


I am not a rapist, this is the absolute truth, ignoring perhaps statutory definitions, where relationship was held, and mutually cherished by both parties, and initiated by the other party than myself, and at all times until she made the choice to act in a certain way which resulted in my choosing to end the relationship, that relationship was maintained by the combination of mutual, freely given assent (once she'd finished some...admittedly rather shockingly predatory..introduction..which could, had I spoken of it in a manner hostile to its reception to others, she could have gotten in a lot of legal trouble for. In that she did not give me the choice to say no, to being thrown into a tree and having a tongue stuck down my trachea. However those sparks of passion did fly between us in a bidirectional manner, irrespective of the degree of forcefulness she chose to employ, and they resulted, once she'd let me go long enough to breathe and actually ask who she was, in what I consider to have been the best relationship I have ever had, and have spent over ten years wishing I had not acted in the degree of haste with which I broke off the relationship. And  doing my best, to force into submission, the anguish that I have eversince, felt as a result of my making the wrong choice (to break off the relationship based on something she did. Or rather, that she said she did. Whether she did or did not, what I now realize is that I made the wrong choice, and in doing so turned from the girl I wish I had grown old besides, had a family with, and been buried beside.

However, I do not act towards women, in the way that girl did to me, and were I to do so, I would hate myself for it, and expect to be hated in return, with a high degree of certainty, which logic and the precedent set by many interpersonal relationships between two third parties utterly distinct from any sphere of interaction with me, where a man did use such force as that girl did. But I was certainly willing to say 'bugger the statute books, to follow them is not what either of us desired, as made abundantly clear by both her actions and her given word' Temporal length of existence of either of us, was irrelevant to each other. So long as we got to spend as much as possible of it with each other.

As you see, walkie, there are many grey areas there. Many people would call me a monster for saying 'bollocks to it' in response to a hypothetical question of age, which neither of us ever posed to the other. There are also those which would call HER a monster, for incapacitating a guy with her steel-toed boots  who got between her coming over to me during our first meeting, (I think what she did there was wrong, of course, the guy did nothing that I know of to deserve what she meted out to him, other than to speak, and in doing so, delay her. I was not, however party to the content of what was spoken between them, so it is not impossible he did something to deserve it. And there are certainly those would say she did wrong, in coming over to a man much older than she, and using quite violent exertion to procure, quite frankly, my being stunned somewhat, and then sticking her tongue down my throat. *I* would say, as a rule, the pattern of such action was wrongful as a very general rule, but I retroactively granted consent, although AFTER she took from me.

(lets just say, when she slammed me into a tree, she REALLY wasn't fucking about. Hit me hard enough to momentarily leave me seeing little birds and stars making tweeting noises flying in a circle round my head and no mistake about that. And she pretty much relied on my retroactive assent to everything she did during the first contact of our original meeting. She got it, yes. Because from the moment I set eyes on her, sparks flew and set my blood to boiling. She didn't know it at the time, however, until I could at least speak with her. Is that girl a bit of a monster, because of the way she came on....rather strongly....to some people, had it been to them, undoubtedly they would consider her actions so. In my case...I realized as I type this, that there are tears in my eyes, and I cannot hold them back from falling. Not because of what she did or how she did it, but because the girl, young as she was, that I love, hasn't been in my sight or hearing for over a decade.

If you'll excuse me here...I will perforce break off my participation in this discussion for a time, because the emotion is strong, extremely strong, and I cannot suppress it enough to be sure my responses to others will be rationally worded and grounded in logic.
Beyond the pale. Way, way beyond the pale.

Requiescat in pacem, Wolfish, beloved of Pyraxis.

Offline Lestat

  • Pharmaceutical dustbin of the autie elite
  • Elder
  • Obsessive Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 6698
  • Karma: 352
  • Gender: Male
  • Homo stercore veteris, heterodiem
Other than=I did not see your last post until just now, walkie. Acknowledged. Lestat over, and out. I need some time to quell my roused emotion.
Beyond the pale. Way, way beyond the pale.

Requiescat in pacem, Wolfish, beloved of Pyraxis.

Offline El

  • Unofficial Weird News Reporter of the Aspie Elite
  • News Box Slave
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 21008
  • Karma: 2520


There are a lot of differences between rape and other forms of assault.

Generally with assault the severity of assault is determined by the extent of physical injury. A woman who has been raped may not be physically injured.

Sexual intercourse is an act that takes place between consenting adults on a fairly regular basis (unless you're me). What makes it rape is lack of consent. This is very different from assault, where if someone is beaten and physically injured the issue of consent is effectively irrelevant except in edge cases.

How would treating rape like any other form of assault reduce the incidence of rape? I can see how it might reduce the incidence of provable rape. Can you expand? I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm actually very interested in your point of view.

You're missing my point. Rape would be treated like another form of assault only as a result of treating sex without all
of the excess baggage that it carries around in society. It is that, more general change, which could lead to less rapes,
as it becomes less damaging to the victim and less of a sign of dominance.

The question is whether the increased importance of sexually associated behavior, and especially the dominance aspect
is hard wired, or if it is completely malleable. It is certainly subject to some degree of change, as shown by societal differences
over time.

Quote
The motivations and effects of rape are very different from other forms of assault.


Yes. But mainly because of that baggage.

Quote
If you meet a woman and put your hand around her arm without consent, it's usually not a big deal. If you put your hand on her shoulder without consent, similar. If you put your hand on her butt or her breast or her upper thigh without consent, she would have every right to feel violated, and you're at serious risk of being charged with sexual assault, even though no injury has occurred. There is an element of very personal violation involved with sexual assault.


It's interesting because usually the law doesn't take into account the emotional and subjective damage in this manner.
For example, a person is not more likely to be prosecuted seriously for stealing all that a poorer person has (indeed,
I suspect the opposite, but for different reasons) as opposed to from a wealthier one. But again, this is broader than
what the victim experiences: it's a general increased valuation of things associated with sex.


Examining that increased valuation itself is interesting. The roots of such seem to be founded in the patriarcal
control of women's sexuality. It's an attack not just on the women, but more importantly (for the societies which developed
this view) on the men who 'owned' those women. Part of why wartime rape is used is to undermine the function of the
opposing male warriors (there are also morale effects such as bonding for the perpetrators).


What I find ironic is that we see a collision of these early patriarcal control taboos with our society throwing off
an equally patriarcal assertion of dominance through over-familiar actions (harassment), but relying upon that
heightened valuation of perceived sexual matters which spawns from the same mores.
I think that's interesting as a thought experiment, but it's not a practical solution to get from where we're at societal to get to the ideal I think you're talking about.  I also think that wouldn't just involve a societal shift; I think it would run against at least some degree of how we're biologically wired to feel.

Also, it reminded me of this: 

« Last Edit: December 22, 2017, 06:34:18 AM by El »
it is well known that PMS Elle is evil.
I think you'd fit in a 12" or at least a 16" firework mortar
You win this thread because that's most unsettling to even think about.

Offline Walkie

  • Wooden sword crusader of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
  • Karma: 191
Ooh! Gotta plus Elle, for coming up with a simple reply that managed to encapsulate  my own response to Cal's  post in a nutshell.
Also for making me laugh with that cartoon  :LOL:    :2thumbsup: :plus:
« Last Edit: December 22, 2017, 08:41:22 AM by Walkie »

Offline Calandale

  • Official sheep shagger of the aspie underclass
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 39497
  • Karma: -169
  • Gender: Male
  • peep
    • The Game Box: Live!

I think that's interesting as a thought experiment, but it's not a practical solution to get from where we're at societal to get to the ideal I think you're talking about.  I also think that wouldn't just involve a societal shift; I think it would run against at least some degree of how we're biologically wired to feel.




Never suggested it was a solution - just a direction things may be moving in.


But yes, the big question is whether sex is hard wired as having special connotations beyond the social - or
even if the social mores are hard-wired. It would seem not though - there are societal examples where sex
doesn't seem to have the same enhanced importance; they are, as far as I know, all ones in which the move
to agriculture and the resulting patriarchal control was not made fully.


The next is whether society can maintain the complex structures which have allowed for advances in technology
without this special treatment of the reproductive act. Certainly, it ties in to inheritance concepts - but many
societies (including our own) have not followed the idea of direct descent being vital: with concepts of adoption,
as an example.


I'm not here advocating for something that is a personal stance. I'm terribly bounded by
the heightened valuation of sex to other forms of  interpersonal relations. Maybe exploring
such is a result of seeing what I perceive as personal shortcomings though: being irrational
in my treatment in my own life.

Offline Calandale

  • Official sheep shagger of the aspie underclass
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 39497
  • Karma: -169
  • Gender: Male
  • peep
    • The Game Box: Live!
Ooh! Gotta plus Elle, for coming up with a simple reply that managed to encapsulate  my own response to Cal's  post in a nutshell.
Also for making me laugh with that cartoon  :LOL:    :2thumbsup: :plus:


Yep. Concision is always the goal.

Offline Walkie

  • Wooden sword crusader of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 2010
  • Karma: 191
Ooh! Gotta plus Elle, for coming up with a simple reply that managed to encapsulate  my own response to Cal's  post in a nutshell.
Also for making me laugh with that cartoon  :LOL:    :2thumbsup: :plus:


Yep. Concision is always the goal.

Epic fail in your previous post then?  :LOL:
Actually, this has turned  into a pretty good discussion.
Almost civilised, dare I say?   :hide:

Offline Calandale

  • Official sheep shagger of the aspie underclass
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 39497
  • Karma: -169
  • Gender: Male
  • peep
    • The Game Box: Live!
I know. I try though.




Sometimes, I manage. Sometimes, I feel a need to use words.

Offline Al Swearengen

  • Pussycat of the Aspie Elite
  • Elder
  • Almighty Postwhore
  • *****
  • Posts: 16853
  • Karma: 2104
  • Friendly bastard
OKay Walkie. This is 2015 statistics, hope they will do.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-1

Have men....I dunno......paid money, killed themselves, others, lost friends, fought.....ever? Has it happened more than once? Have women ever been able to manipulate men's interest in sex to manipulate or control men? Ever?

But it is like a sneeze and no more consequence right?

Umm. That's not the kind of research I was looking for. I was thinking of research into men's subjective evaluation of what sex means to them.  That's the real issue here. IMO (as I hope to explain)

The phrase "sex is meaningless" was direct out of the horse's mouth. Perhaps I should have inserted the word "emotionally" before the term "meaningless" because that was clearly what was meant.   And that's surely not to say that it isn't a powerful urge.  Heck , even sneezing is a poweful urge, come to think.

To make it even more clear: one of those  men who told me that sex was meaningless to him had a powerful sex drive nonetheless ...and a deep resentmemnt towards  women , in general, for exploiting their sexual power over him.  That's something quite common, it seems.  It was also discussed in that book that you have no respect for.

That man was not a rapist, but it's not hard  to see how such resentment could boil over into rape. So it's worth noting.

Perhaps , like me, you think that men who believe that sex has no emotional dimension for them are fooling themselves? They forget, perhaps,  that negative felings like rage are also emotions?   And/or they are too out-of-touch with their emotions to know what they're really feeling?  In any case, men are still expected  by society (even Western society) to be less emotional than women  and that has an effect.  Whether men would be naturally less emotional than women. all else being equal,  is bloody hard to tell,  But that would also be a reason why men can be so callous  towards women. If a man  can't empathise with his own feelings  (he's been trained to push them aside, and to call himself all kinds of nasty names when they show through ) he's not going to be able to empathise with somebody else's feelings is he?

From that point-of-view , genuine gender equality, without pressure to conform to sexual sterotypes ought to reduce the incidence of rape. And not just on account of greater respect for women, but also because men would be not be emotionally staightjacketed by such a society.. .if only it existed! The fact is, even in our enlightened  Western world, parents still pressure their childten to conform to sexual stereotypes, and the schoolchildren still pressure each other.

According to that book (and after thinking about it, I do concur)  we haven't come far enough to take the conformity  pressure offfyour modern man, just far enough to rob him of a sense of identity and  a sense of self-worth; and far enough to confuse him, as to what's the right thing to do? Though I don't suppose that's especially relevant to the present discussion.

I just hope you can se there;'s no real contradiction between those different statements after all.  Men often value gold enough to kill for it, don't they? but I don't suppose they're emotionally involved with the stuff, at least not in any deep and meaningful way *chuckle*


Quote
I did not call you a liar I said I thought you were wrong. I still do. I think your books were wrong too and the fact they are from Psychologists does not impress me in the least.

You actually said I was "dishonest" (for the umpteenth fucking time) . So perhaps you might explain the difference between "dishonest" and "lying" because I honestly don't grasp it,

I remember my ex one time telling me that many women did not orgasm during sex, which I found surprising at the time. She quickly pointed to her friend, Amanda. Amanda up until the year before had not and considered sex "just a bit of fun". Now let's remove all context from that and focus exclusively on what she said. She considered sex "just a bit of fun". Does that sound like much emotional attachment? I thought YOU said that there had to be an emotional attachment and if there was not then that sexually active person was on the road to rape? No, you did not actually say that but in referencing men you inferred that this is the case.

So why would someone have sex for reasons that have no real vested emotional attachment? Why would Amanda? How would this make Amanda a rapist or at risk of raping (and yes her sex life was and had been very healthy)?

The connnection you have not made. Not even close to made, is the connection between sating one's own sexual urges and dehumanising someone. It is to me like saying I get REALLY angry with people sometimes BUT I am not at risk of kidnapping their family, tying them up, dousing them with kerosene and setting them alight to get back at them.

Were I to do that, then the correct response surely would NOT be to examine that I was angry and I had focused on this anger, and somehow missed the memo that this act contravenes any act of humanity and decency, that this was a direct consequence of my anger.

You are doing exactly the same thing making these kind of connections to: men, lack of emotionality, rape and such. It is dishonest, a bit disgusting and unfair in the extreme.

I would say taking a run up and trying again may work better.

As to how you could be dishonest and not lying? I don't know perhaps you can examine that within yourself. Are you that far down the rabbit hole that you cannot see sunlight? Are you so confused about men or perhaps what rape is? Did you bother running statistics on rape? Can you not imagine that in today's permissive society that sex given freely does not mean that this equates to a lot of people just sating urges and not a lot of emotional attachment by either party and not a pathway to rape?

I don't want to hear it. Save your complaints to Odeon. Yes, we had decided to drop hostilities. No, I didnt expect that Odeon would do other than start shit again like he always does
You're not going to stick to "a handful people", are you? That would be stupid.
Damned if I won't respond.
So it's on again & you can lay the blame squarely at his feet. Little passive-aggressive bitch