Sunday School

[TheEncogitationer]

Unseen,

Once a female realizes she’s being or is about to be raped, the experts say she has a stark choice: go along with it or fight. In the first instance, she may not show much evidence it wasn’t consensual, in the second her chance of being murdered goes way up.

I’d have to see the citations of these “experts.”

Rapists are like any other plunderer of Life, Liberty, and Property:  They go for the easy target with the least cost in time and effort and they stand down when the cost is too great, painful, and/or deadly.

So far, there are no natural-born men with un-scratchable eyes, uncrushable throats, or steel-plated gonads.  And at sufficient velocity of the projectile, nothing and nobody is bullet-proof.  (Vests and armor are now called “projectile-resistant” in the interests of truth-in-advertising.)

[Davis]

Men viewing women as potential sex partners is normal

I cannot be sure but I believe he was referring to things like: someone hitting on someone and not taking five NOs in a row for an answer. Or telling someone to fuck off and the person still bugging you. Or politely putting someone down and that person insulting you or even screaming at you. Or being groped or called disgusting names. This behaviour is still seen as “rather normal” and it should not be. I have personally experienced this (especially while going out in some Anglo-Saxon bars like in New York or London) and it is abusive, even bordering on assault (having my groin grabbed which my New York friends saw as simply occasionally the cost of going out).

This wouldn’t be tolerated in virtually any other scenario…but in the case of the “free market of showing romantic interest” it is tolerated beyond any sense. Tolerated, excused, downplayed, amusing and so on. Luckily it is being called out more and more and in some environments you can be disciplined for doing it (especially in some education institutions and at work place events).

You can express your romantic interest without harassing, berating, incessantly insisting, demeaning, insulting, touching or badgering. Tolerating and normalising this shit (or buddies encouraging it) emboldens those who do much worse.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 12 months ago by Davis.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 12 months ago by Davis.

[TheEncogitationer]

Davis,

Enco…you have pretty sneakily shifted the focus from being believed to getting sympathy. Why did you do that?

I haven’t consciously, much less sneakily, shifted anything, but if you want to parse a distinction, we’ll parse.

Sympathy is just belief by someone else plus at least some kind of support i.e. emotional, moral, material, etc.  Victims with sympathy necessarily have the belief of someone else.

And victims seeking belief in their plight also seek the support that comes with sympathy, ideally not just emotional and moral, but protection from their aggressor, and maybe some measure of justice.

A distinction, sure, but eventually and with effort and hope, they all become one of a single piece.

[TheEncogitationer]

Davis,

This wouldn’t be tolerated in virtually any other scenario…but in the case of the “free market of showing romantic interest” it is tolerated beyond any sense.

Ooh, that was a bit predictable.

Well, a “free market” in anything is, by definition, between consenting rational beings and without initiated coercion or fraud, most especially initiated coercion or fraud by the State, which is only supposed to act as an agency of defense and an arbiter of disputes.

And the operative term here is “consenting rational beings,” so children and dumb, non-sapient animals are right out.

[TheEncogitationer]

Reg,

If Jesus stole your girlfriend, just visualize “Jesus taking the wheel” as the Country song says.  Then visualize Big Daddy, Junior, and The Spook all taking the wheel together and fighting over it.  Then visualize every graphic violent ending to every Driver’s Ed film ever made.

Put these visualizations together, and you have a very stong aversion therapy against hitch-hiking. 😁

 

[Davis]

A distinction, sure, but eventually and with effort and hope, they all become one of a single piece.

WTF?

[Davis]

Ooh, that was a bit predictable.

Well, a “free market” in anything is, by definition, between consenting rational beings and without initiated coercion or fraud, most especially initiated coercion or fraud by the State, which is only supposed to act as an agency of defense and an arbiter of disputes.

And the operative term here is “consenting rational beings,” so children and dumb, non-sapient animals are right out.

WTF?

[—]

Davis wrote:

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Ooh, that was a bit predictable. Well, a “free market” in anything is, by definition, between consenting rational beings and without initiated coercion or fraud, most especially initiated coercion or fraud by the State, which is only supposed to act as an agency of defense and an arbiter of disputes. And the operative term here is “consenting rational beings,” so children and dumb, non-sapient animals are right out.

WTF?

I believe it means when it comes to free market sex, dolphins are a bit of a grey area.

[TheEncogitationer]

Autumn,

I believe it means when it comes to free market sex, dolphins are a bit of a grey area.

They haven’t “right-swiped” with their noses or ordered lingerie and sex toys, so there are some milestones to reach…😁

It’s muscle-memory for me and other libertarian-types to add the “children and dumb, non-sapient animals” disclaimer.

It’s from the bad old days of a decade ago when the Religious Right was proclaiming the mere idea of same-sex marriage was the sign of the Apocalypse.  Of course, since the Libertarian Party has upheld LGBTQ+ rights from the very beginning in 1971, the disclaimer was old-hat even a decade ago.

Now we’re going to have to add another disclaimer that some rational beings and consent actually exist.

 

[TheEncogitationer]

Davis,

What I mean to get at is that I support justice for rape and assault victims, regardless of sex, gender, or sexual orientation, and I support justice for the falsely accused, regardless of sex, gender, or sexual orientation.

The only way we’ll get to either is to first go where the facts and reason leads us, then apply a justly-written law to the facts, then enforce it equally and ruthlessly.

The law has vastly improved from the past.  The clothing and sexual habits of rape victims are explicitly excluded from consideration, there are “rape-shield” laws for accusers, and marital rape is now acknowledged as a possibility.  And with legal same-sex marriage, all of these standards apply to LGBTQ+ people as well.

Where the law does need vast improvement is in repeal of remaining laws against consensual adult sex, to remove all possibility of police harassment or extortion, and legalization of sex work, so that sex workers have a recognized right to self-defence and legal recourse in the event of robbery, assault, and rape.

What is not needed is harping on a “rape culture” without firmly defining terms.

[TheEncogitationer]

Robert,

Further snooping around and I see she is also Jordan Peterson/MGTOW, anti-woke advocate.

If someone is blindly following Jordan Peterson or anyone else, they aren’t MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way;) they are MGSOEW (Men Going SomeOne Else’s Way.)

Not meaning to make a “No True Scotsman” Fallacy, just going by the acronym. 😁

 

[—]

That is a logical interpretation; however, I believe they are advocating for men collectively segregating. Basically:

[Simon Paynton]

lol

[_Robert_]

There is an interesting dynamic lately, but I really don’t know about the actual “scale” of what I have been seeing. Men having access to unlimited free porn, virtual sex video games, legions of ‘only fans’ type “online girlfriends”, sex robots and MGTOW encouragement channels after many witnessed their fathers get “divorced raped” as they put it. It appears to be more difficult to approach females than in the past.

At the same time women are getting access to better economic opportunities and the ability to be very selective in choosing a mate and they have been waiting longer to start families and there is less stigma in becoming an unwed mother.

Perhaps the 20’s will be a bad decade for wedding DJs. Or maybe all of this is just academic or limited to a small band of society and the urge to bond in a government sanctioned bond will prevail as in the past.

[Davis]

What is not needed is harping on a “rape culture” without firmly defining terms.

Harping on rape culture? Pointing out the scale and severity of rape culture is “harping on it”? Oh no. Poor rapists and sexual harassers. If only someone would clearly tell them that no means no, harassing people is vile and that confirming consent is the wise way to go for everyone. If only multiple organisations, education boards, advocacy campaigns, sex education courses, university policies and activists were doing this all the time!

• This reply was modified 4 years, 12 months ago by Davis.

[Author]

Posts