I'm actually more concerned about Citizen X responding to a 4-month-old post than him referring to Citizen R. as a member of a different species...
This also starts getting into how rape is about power, not sex.This is one of those catchphrases that gets thrown around that doesn't seem to have much basis in reality.
Who gets assaulted more men or women? Women. Do they have more power? No. They're who men want to have sex with.
What age category of women gets assaulted more? The category with power? No. 80% of victims are under 30.
I don't think its entirely a coincidence that prevalence of rape corresponds with prime child bearing years. It really is about the sex.
No it's still about power, about domination. That's why it happens in prison when both victim and victimiser are heterosexual men in all other interactions. Because one of the way our society which is a rape culture defines manhood is power over women. How Frank is a lesser man because he doesn't bop as many women as Joe but how Mary is a whore for "letting" herself get bopped at all.
It's also about projection because men, being in a position where they continually have to prove their manhood also have to prove they are not Stuart who doesn't seem to be hanging out with women as much as Jerry is. (This can occur even though Stuart himself may be just as hetero as Joe, he's just not that interested in sex) So Frank wanting to make sure that he's perceived as a proper male may check Stuart's activity because Stuart is his college roommate and he does not want to be associated with a "queer". In fact he may even go as far as to threaten Stuart with bodily harm if the latter even "looks at him funny", even though Stuart himself has not exhibited any outwardly gay behavior.
(The names are changed, but the case of Frank and Stuart is one I have personal knowledge of. They were roommates at Demarest Hall at Rutgers College while I lived there and I knew them both well.)
This post doesn't make any sense to me at all.
While Poland was ahead in certain areas,
There was never any anti-homosexual law under a free Polish government (excluding homosexual prostitution 1932–1969). During the Partitions of Poland (1795–1918) laws prohibiting homosexuality were imposed by the occupying powers. Homosexuality was recognized by law in 1932 with the introduction of a new penal code. The age of consent was set to 15, equal to that of heterosexual partners.[4] Homosexual prostitution was legalized in 1969. Gay people are not banned from military service. Homosexuality was deleted from the list of diseases in 1991.
there are still strong voices of opposition, Poland is a very Catholic country and the church still trumpets the usual lines about any orientation other than straight hetero.
It's not only the Church. There is lots of not very religious people who are against it due to various, often ridiculous reasons, like equating male homosexuality with pedophilia and general poor sexual education. Not to mention desire to impose their narrow behavioral standards on others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This post doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Peoples' reaction to other peoples actions surprisingly often don't make sense.
Yet if you log into a World of Warcraft server, ANY server and hang out in trade chat in one of the capital cities, it won't take long until you hear people responding to other people with one or more of the following, whenever any type of disagreement comes up.
Talking or making light of it (while disgusting) is not doing it. There is a vast difference.
What you use for humor and speech speaks volumes (pun intended) on how you think, how you view women, and other men.
Only if you consider what people use for humor and speech as an indicator of how they think and view women, which is circular.
If you think there's no problem with using rape as light humor, then you've completely missed the point.
Its a molehill besides Everest compared to the act of doing it.
What you use for humor and speech speaks volumes (pun intended) on how you think, how you view women, and other men. If you think there's no problem with using rape as light humor, then you've completely missed the point.
No, it really doesn't. Whatsoever. At all.
If that was the case then you'd expect people who create dark comedy films, let alone their fans, be extreme sociopaths running around murdering. Dr. Stragelove is one of the funniest films ever made; it absolutely trivializes the idea of nuclear holocaust by finding humor in it. Yet, Kubrick never started a war, in fact he was pretty anti-war to his dying days.
It's part of a culture that reinforces the idea of sexual aggression as acceptable behavior, as defining yourself as a man, as per my earlier post in this thread.
So are fast food and pizza.
Actually, historically humor depicts distinctly taboo or unacceptable behavior. So humor about things like murder or rape reinforce its socially unacceptable nature.
Purpose and intent don't enter into reception and effect.
So what you're saying is that some people don't find some jokes funny.
In other news the sky is blue.
I like this one: "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno!"
Ba-da-bump!
This post doesn't make any sense to me at all.Peoples' reaction to other peoples actions surprisingly often don't make sense.
It's not so much about Stuart and Frank or whomever.
"No it's still about power, about domination. That's why it happens in prison when both victim and victimiser are heterosexual men in all other interactions. Because one of the way our society which is a rape culture defines manhood is power over women. How Frank is a lesser man because he doesn't bop as many women as Joe but how Mary is a whore for "letting" herself get bopped at all."
If I am reading this correctly, rape is about power, not sex, because, in rape culture, sex is about power, not sex.
Yeah. You can't say rape is only about power without saying all sex is only about power.
Yeah. You can't say rape is only about power without saying all sex is only about power.
Saying rape is about sex is like saying that automotive racing is about managing fuel consumption.
It's true, automotive racing does involve managing fuel consumption, but it's only one facet and usually isn't even close to the most important one.
Edit: I will put anyone who wants to nitpick the analogy on ignore. I'm seriously done with the page that follows of people nitpicking analogies.
Edit: except Doodlebug, he can do it as much as he likes.
I am too busy reacting to the news of the death of Clarence Burke, Jr.
[Weeps]
|
Edit: I will put anyone who wants to nitpick the analogy on ignore.
Promise????
Seriously, I thought there might have to be a bribe involved, but if you are just giving it away. . .
:)
I am too busy reacting to the news of the death of Clarence Burke, Jr.
[Weeps]
Fun Fact. He hates goblins, doing it in the street, Galt, and Goblins.
[Dries eyes and puts Beckett on ignore]
Oh, no, I can still stare.
Actually, I think ignoring people is mean and I refuse to do it.
I don't use it much and usually turn it off after a while, once I can't remember exactly why I did it in the first place.
So the kind of ignore where you still respond, but you can also stare? Interesting. . .
The grimly amusing thing about that link is how it also manages to make painfully apparent just how far we are from gender equality.
So the kind of ignore where you still respond, but you can also stare? Interesting. . .The grimly amusing thing about that link is how it also manages to make painfully apparent just how far we are from gender equality.
It doesn't help that folks are trying to get to gender sameness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I posted about this in the Bride of Government Folly thread but, with the sabbaticals that Comrades Knife and Thorn are appearing to take from the OTD, it didn't go anywhere. I am kind of surprised I haven't seen anything about it elsewhere on the boards, but maybe I missed it:
Kaitlyn Hunt Refuses Plea Deal: Gay Teen Charged Over Underage Relationship Will Appear In Court
Which may not have been the smartest move, legally speaking, but I approve. Defiance and obstinacy have long been admired traits among the Anklebiters.
Free Kate!
For women's (and teenager's) liberation through socialist revolution!
Vive le Galt!
It doesn't help that folks are trying to get to gender sameness.So the kind of ignore where you still respond, but you can also stare? Interesting. . .The grimly amusing thing about that link is how it also manages to make painfully apparent just how far we are from gender equality.
What's the difference between gender equality and gender sameness?
Kaitlyn Hunt Refuses Plea Deal: Gay Teen Charged Over Underage Relationship Will Appear In Court
Which may not have been the smartest move, legally speaking, but I approve.
That plea deal meant a "sex offender" registration, which would pretty much eliminate any chance for her to ever hold down a job, or be permitted to live anywhere except under an Interstate. In short, the "plea deal" means she signs away her entire life. Throwing the dice and going all-for-nothing in court is the only move left for her.
Say her chances of conviction in court are 99% -- that leaves her with a 1% chance of walking away from this thing.
She takes the plea deal, her life is pretty much over, 100%.
[Raises fist]
Right on, sister, right on!
---
Yeah, I agree. And who knows? Maybe there will be a groundswell of outrage and disgust and she'll walk.
[Picks up picket sign]
Free Kate, stop the hate! Free Kate, stop the hate! Free Kate, stop the hate! etc., until thirsty.
Well, nobody said sex laws were sensible. The flat out worst I heard of was from the UK, where a 17-year old girl was registered as a sex offender and sentenced for possession of child pornography... For pictures of herself, naked, on her mobile phone.
Yes, the whole prosecuting kids for sexting each other thing is pretty stupid, too.
May I sext you, Madame Sissyl?
Your pictures are safe with me, Madame Sissyl.
I won't share them with any of the other Anklebiters, I swear.
I know, I know, it's been a while, but:
...Jason Statham...although, he needs to pick better material...
Beck, but not Jack Black...
Well, nobody said sex laws were sensible. The flat out worst I heard of was from the UK, where a 17-year old girl was registered as a sex offender and sentenced for possession of child pornography... For pictures of herself, naked, on her mobile phone.
That's as bad as they guy put away for life for looking at dirty pictures of The Simpsons (the cartoon characters, mind you, not the celebrities).
If it weren't so sad, it would be funny. The charges were not copyright infringement, as you might think, but rather "child pornography." If I remember correctly, the guy first made the most obvious argument: that the Simpsons were fictitious characters, and hence not real "children"; this was apparently shot down under a provision that "simulations" of children count as "children" under whatever law it was. So then he argued that, if they counted as real people, their ages were germane; since The Simpsons had been on the air for like 30 years, it was therefore impossible for any of the original characters to be under the age of 21! This got shot down, too, somehow, and the guy lost.
Yeah, I used to be all up in arms about that one, too, but then there was an article from Reason.com that Comrade Thorn posted (it's over in the Bride of Government Folly thread) and, if it's the same case (and it's hard, but not impossible, to imagine two Simpsons incest child porn cases):
The guy was found guilty after he plea bargained down from charges of possessing actual child pornography and lesser jail time, etc.
Which alters the story considerably, I think.
The guy was found guilty after he plea bargained down from charges of possessing actual child pornography and lesser jail time, etc. Which alters the story considerably, I think.
To say the least! I'll have to look that one up when I get home.
EDIT: I was going to say that, logically, why would you let the guy plea to cartoons if you've already got him nailed for possession of evidence of a felony (i.e., the real thing)? Then it occurred to me that logic has no place in these cases.