Is the raped also responsible for the act of rape?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

This view of yours is primitive and nauseating. Luckily the judicial system in my country doesn't agree. Putting yourself in a dangerous situation is stupid, but we punished everybody who was ever stupid by raping them then everyone would be a rape victim (no exceptions). There's no crime more disgusting, I'd rather be murdered. People who try to make excuses for rapists are tempting me to punch them in the face, and according to your argument if I did so, I couldn't be held accountable. Yeah, that's a great way to run a society.



Or, she could carry a gun.

---

I agree on BOTH accounts. And if I were on the jury that was trying you for punching any such individual in the face for making excuses for a rapist, you most certainly would not be found guilty of any wrong doing (except for stopping at just punching them in the face...knee them in the groin as well).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Rape is not just sex. Sometimes it's not sex at all. Rape is physical and emotional abuse. It is NEVER a beautiful thing. Rough sexual intercourse between consenting adults (or any kind of behavior between consenting adults) is not rape. Neither is there a happy ending for rape victims.

---

I was talking about rape as a literary theme/subject not as a real occurrence.
Rape as love has been a literary genre under Romance for awhile now. Manga still uses it to intensify love made stronger by regret, atonement and forgiveness.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...ain.RapeIsLove

No real life rape please. Fear does not make anyone feel sensual and sexual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Or, she could carry a gun.

---

True enough! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

People who try to make excuses for rapists are tempting me to punch them in the face, and according to your argument if I did so, I couldn't be held accountable. Yeah, that's a great way to run a society.

---

Rightly said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

Or, she could carry a gun.

---

Depends on the country where you live. It is not easy to keep a gun where I live. Lots of legal obstacles. But wherever it is possible women should do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by papayahed

Would you ever justify the robbing of someone because you were overcome with jealousy and want for their belonging had to have it?

---

I think you have hit the nail on the head, the victim cannot be blamed. It is the rapist who is abnormal, not the victim, by begining to think of the victim as abnormal (because she dresses in a certain manner) the natural conclusion is that the behavior of the rapist is less abnormal and becomes dependant on the other.

Once again to turn to male rape, if a man gets raped in jail, is it his fault in part because he has a slim and feminine body and he should have gone to gym more and become bigger?

Why should we hold a double standard for women and men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander III

I think you have hit the nail on the head, the victim cannot be blamed. It is the rapist who is abnormal, not the victim, by begining to think of the victim as abnormal (because she dresses in a certain manner) the natural conclusion is that the behavior of the rapist is less abnormal and becomes dependant on the other.

Once again to turn to male rape, if a man gets raped in jail, is it his fault in part because he has a slim and feminine body and he should have gone to gym more and become bigger?

Why should we hold a double standard for women and men.

---

There should be no double standard and it is just as vile. Unfortunately, prison justice is an oxymoron.

Your basing your argument on the provocativness of women and the strength of male desire alone.

In court the defence will bring a woman's character into question in a bid to suggest that some, if not all of the responsibility lies with her. As said before, A burglar would not be blamed less if the doors and windows to a house were left unlocked. The judge would not consider that the homeowner was 'asking for it' The burglar would still be solely responsible for his actions alone and be sentenced just as if he had to break in to the property to steal what was not his. I hate the double standard here.

It lies in the owner also to secure her or his assets. If the asset is unguarded it can be thieved. We must believe that no society or system impeccable. There are fissures in every social structure and system. Nobody unimpeachably follows a system and we all are kind of breaking some forms or types of laws. Rapists cross the line. They are liable to be punished by the law of the land but the state must forge certain order.

Recently a pair got detained by a patrol of police officials on the bank of a river having sex. The woman complained that she was drunk and half-conscious and the man coerced her to have sex with him against her will.

Police raided a bar and teenagers stripped of their clothes were detained red-handedly. Later on some girls' parents lodged complaints that their daughters were too small and the men persuading and blackmailing them into such acts must be punished.

There are variants of rape, self – induced rapes or forced or situational. I agree this is a criminal act and there is force in most cases if not all. But we must reform our society too and teach people to guard their assets too.

osho raises hot topics to create a havoc. Yet he is interesting to speak up what he really thinks candidly unlike those who choose to be pretentious. Our culture has taught us to be stuck-up. It is a challenge to be a social-analyst and to examine why things happen as they happen. When rape happens we stick with what our systems, laws have taught us or our conventional thinking patterns have trained us to look at things through a particular lens. I often like to challenge such indoctrinations and want to have a fresh and un-quirked look at all that happens. It is easy to blame somebody and it is easy to reproach osho but to comprehend between the lines of what he said demands of us a little bit of thinking or being outside the box. There is comfort sitting on a heap of old thoughts and that is why one in billions turn up as a genus and shape the course of history. Sigmund Freud was vilified when he brought out his treatises of psychoanalysis but today his ideas have been taken as a wealth of knowledge in analyzing human nature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

osho raises hot topics to create a havoc. Yet he is interesting to speak up what he really thinks candidly unlike those who choose to be pretentious. Our culture has taught us to be stuck-up. It is a challenge to be a social-analyst and to examine why things happen as they happen. When rape happens we stick with what our systems, laws have taught us or our conventional thinking patterns have trained us to look at things through a particular lens. I often like to challenge such indoctrinations and want to have a fresh and un-quirked look at all that happens. It is easy to blame somebody and it is easy to reproach osho but to comprehend between the lines of what he said demands of us a little bit of thinking or being outside the box. There is comfort sitting on a heap of old thoughts and that is why one in billions turn up as a genus and shape the course of history. Sigmund Freud was vilified when he brought out his treatises of psychoanalysis but today his ideas have been taken as a wealth of knowledge in analyzing human nature.

---

I don't know what or where your system is, but the concensus on the forum does not see any shades of grey in the argument. They are actually completely revised from 20-30 years ago, and are developing still. These reflect the independance and status of women which has grown over that period, so that the crime is judged in a fairer way - though there are things to tighten up. Far from creating havoc, your post indicates you are out of touch with wider opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

Sigmund Freud was vilified when he brought out his treatises of psychoanalysis but today his ideas have been taken as a wealth of knowledge in analyzing human nature.

---

You really are behind the times, aren't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

Recently a pair got detained by a patrol of police officials on the bank of a river having sex. The woman complained that she was drunk and half-conscious and the man coerced her to have sex with him against her will.

---

That situation sounds like the main issue is false accusation of rape rather than admitted rape.

People blame their victims to protect themselves from the consequences of their own actions. The best thing to do is to not create victims in the first place.

Nah, it's the rapist's fault.

Because there are some instances where someone who is dressed modestly but still gets victimized.

I think the issue with rape is really control of the individual's power. Rapists cease their moments. When you look at realistic scenarios such as walking along a dark alley in the middle of the night alone, being drunk in a party, or getting molested by the superior (whether it be a boss, priest or an elderly lady); they all point to the opportunity of the moment and the position of the rapist to prey on victims. They are conscious of the situation and they know that they are in a level of power: ex. Sober vs drunk, boss vs. employee, priest vs. altar boy, teacher vs. student, Elderly person vs. young person, (and for the dark alley scenario, which the factors in the surroundings) aware vs unaware.

.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf

You really are behind the times, aren't you?

---

Indeed!

If I may pile on, I feel this quote my Stephen Jay Gould is relevant:

"A man does not attain the status of Galileo merely because he is persecuted; he must also be right."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

osho raises hot topics to create a havoc...

---

I can't help but wonder if osho forgot to log out and log back in again here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osho

osho raises hot topics to create a havoc. Yet he is interesting to speak up what he really thinks candidly unlike those who choose to be pretentious. Our culture has taught us to be stuck-up. It is a challenge to be a social-analyst and to examine why things happen as they happen. When rape happens we stick with what our systems, laws have taught us or our conventional thinking patterns have trained us to look at things through a particular lens. I often like to challenge such indoctrinations and want to have a fresh and un-quirked look at all that happens. It is easy to blame somebody and it is easy to reproach osho but to comprehend between the lines of what he said demands of us a little bit of thinking or being outside the box. There is comfort sitting on a heap of old thoughts and that is why one in billions turn up as a genus and shape the course of history. Sigmund Freud was vilified when he brought out his treatises of psychoanalysis but today his ideas have been taken as a wealth of knowledge in analyzing human nature.

---

Osho, you are in full agreement with Osho. :goof: Remember to log on with your other name.

Freud is not the modern thinker of the day

Whereas I completely agree with the majority here certainly, I do think that there are some complex situations that can arise. For example take a look at the following story which is big news here today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17781842

OK, so taking advantage of a girl because she is too intoxicated is no excuse. However, does it not throw open questions of what constitutes too much intoxication to some degree? I mean if a man has sex with a women who has been drinking can she not then turn around and prosecute for rape? What constitutes too much alcohol? One glass of wine, two, one on a light stomach etc, etc? I think that this can be potentially difficult.

Also, can anybody please explain to me how one man has been found guilty and the other not guilty in this case. Surely it is both or none? I have watched and read several articles on this case and so far nobody has mentioned this obvious disparity and I can't work out why. If anything the other one was more guilty having picked her up and taken her back to the room. It doesn't make sense to me.

It's up to a court to determine what constitutes consent in difficult cases. It's not possible to legislate for every possible accusation and situation, it would be up to the discretion of a jury and judge to consider things on a case by case basis. Of course, it's potentially difficult but the court system is built to handle ambiguities as best as possible.

Hard to say if such a split conviction is fair without being privy to the same evidence and testimonies as the jury was.

Just the fact that a few people who posted on this thread feel they have to say that the rapist is to blame makes me queasy. Really, no kidding. Men who rape women are extremely angry at them, and want to hurt. There is something WRONG with them. They are sexually satisfied by hurting others, and view women as inferior.
And yes, if I was in a situation where I was in continuous danger, or someone was stalking me I would not become helpless, I would carry a gun and learn how to use it. The only reason I don't is because I am fortunate enough to live in a beautiful, safe place in the country with my husband, and we are pretty street wise. But I wish I had, as a younger person, learned how to physically defend myself-it would have made me feel quite independent.

Adults are here. No need for you to lie. Rape has ALWAYS been a human means of reproduction. Women EVOLVED to be raped. That is how their biology works. Women require zero willing participation. In the last million years, I suspect you, you personally, you reading this, have MANY ancestors who raped your other ancestor. You have lots of ancestors. Some were kings and some were rapists. Rape is mean? Duh! Men don't like being raped either. People rape for an orgasm. People always have to doll reality up into this hyper drama for the kids. I have noticed especially atheists. How is it atheists are unaware we are animals? Humans do LOTS of nasty animal things.

Where the topic has merit, is in how people define rape. In this utterly collapsed human age, an age where men 'stop to wonder because they don't know' if they should tell their 4yr old daughter that a man in a dress is a female, that surely many people couldn't even define rape. Plenty of women deserve to be slapped. Crack Hookers are women and they steal everything in sight. If you see one, feel free to slap her; she needs it. FORCED MARRIAGE? Arranged Marriage? Both super ancient standard practice for the human animal. Are those rape? From many points of view. Everyone knew this was too much topic for here. Real life and pretend world where all humans male and female evolved to be equal in ability and temper - don't really fit together. Not that it matters. There are two kinds of people. There are those who conform to the mass of people around them and become 'regular', and those who run away from ape humans and their monkey civilizations. Get used to rape. It is not going anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamCrackers

Adults are here. No need for you to lie. Rape has ALWAYS been a human means of reproduction. Women EVOLVED to be raped. That is how their biology works. Women require zero willing participation. In the last million years, I suspect you, you personally, you reading this, have MANY ancestors who raped your other ancestor. You have lots of ancestors. Some were kings and some were rapists. Rape is mean? Duh! Men don't like being raped either. People rape for an orgasm. People always have to doll reality up into this hyper drama for the kids. I have noticed especially atheists. How is it atheists are unaware we are animals? Humans do LOTS of nasty animal things.

---

I'm getting tired with having to correct your misunderstandings of biology and your continuous use of platitudes mixed with naturalistic fallacies.

Let's take the claim that "women evolved to be raped." First this is one of many reproductive strategies that could and can exist in humans, so it doesn't make sense to say women evolved for one form over any other just by stating that one form exists. This is one of the common misunderstandings of evolution, that it is progressive and directional, which it simply isn't, it is reactive to circumstances. Moreover, it is very simplistic to reduce complex behavioural aspects of a species to simple models of selection, which you haven't even done you've just drawn an anthropic purpose from a misunderstanding of female anatomy and then used that to draw broad-reaching societal conclusions. Your basic hypothesis is that women "evolved to be," which should rather be termed as traits favouring female rape in women were selected by being more adaptive than other strategies. However, this has problems satisfying the conditions of natural selection as we understand it, given what we know of human biology.

First of all, you would have to address the problem of intraspecies inter-sex competition. Such a rape trait would seemingly be highly maladaptive for women, who have a higher energy input into reproduction, and thus a much stronger interest in mate selection. It would also be maladaptive for most men, who have an interest in making sure the children the invest in are actually theirs.

Secondly, female reproductive physiology is actually built to accommodate object choice. One, they have reproductive cycles which limit their vulnerability to pregnancy from non-maintained sexual relationships. Two, they are relatively infertile for mammals, in general it requires more than one sexual experience to get pregnant (although it can happen incidentally as well without too much rarity) (compare to many insects that have nearly 100% conception rates from sexual encounters). Third, sexual reproduction is favoured by arousal and orgasm. Fourth, their reproductive strategy relies on partnership for raising the child.

The above evidence would suggest that rape has been strongly selected against in female biology. There is a reason why it is also taboo in most societies, since it runs counter to male mate exclusion as well. So, we have a dominant female and male reproductive strategy in humans that would run counter to rape as a primary reproductive strategy in humans.

Nor does it follow that all aspects of human behavior derive from a direct relationship to an adaptive trait. Traits can be side-effects of other traits. Male tendency for rape can certainly be explained within an evolutionary framework (although not in the idiotic way you have done it), but that doesn't mean men evolved to rape, nor does it mean women evolved to be raped.

I really wish you would stop talking about evolution because you don't understand it at all. I have seen no evidence in any of your post that you understand even the basics of natural selection, or the complexities of genetics and environment that make your conclusions laughably childish.

Yes, as explained, you not understanding is of zero importance. I think you are better off. Regular people can't handle the world through adult eyes. The protection you get from your religion of pretty fantasy is shielding you from a mountain of dark reality. Evolution? Evolution HATES YOU. It's not Jesus, it's not that new Judaism for gentiles, what do you call it, atheism? It is kill or be killed. Evolution is RACIST. That's where they came from. Evolution likes rape. Evolution likes cannibalism. Evolution likes mothers eating their own young. Evolution like the new male killing the children of the old male. Evolution makes NOTHING equal. Nothing. Nothing. Go look up the word nothing. Not two people, not sexes, not races, not anything. The real world and real science, is FULL of pain and unhappy facts. It couldn't matter less. Both our social classes already exist. You and your tv-watching associates are all in safe sheltered happy agreement. Imagine how unhappy you would be when you found out you are a mere tool. People who read but never post have a chance to learn something. You couldn't even write a paragraph worth reading. A stopped bothering at the cheap insults across the top. You sank your own boat with that amateurish blunder. Life is what it is. While for an 'atheist' life is what you need to pretend it is. JUST ANOTHER RELIGION, a made up fantasy set of rules you live by. Oh wait, you made up the lie all religions require Gods? I wiped with that too. No God is required for you to live in your made up fantasy morality world, based on nothing but your hopes, dreams, and pretend science you make up in the moment.

What is the going rate for paternity tests? 30%? Many of you are not the son of your father. Your mother is a woman and women sleep around then pin the baby on the man they have. And yeah, we ALREADY DO test DNA to see who real fathers are. If you have doubts, go get a test. 1 in 3 chance you are not what you think. Men rule Earth. Men always ruled Earth. Men kept women as slave/pets. Men captured women and had kids with them. All 'too dark' for the children. It takes a true intellectual to see this animal planet for what it is. Have you started breaking down your moral made up fantasy worlds? When you get to internet atheism, trashcan that idiot babbling too.

My two favorite atheist quotes: (After hearing the fable of Sour Grapes) the atheist said sincerely, "But.. but I'm not a grape."

The other great one was, 'Atheists despise all three of the great religions, Christians AND Muslims.' (atheists are too busy DEFENDING the bloody woman-hating war God of Israel to complain about it. Funny how that works.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

Whereas I completely agree with the majority here certainly, I do think that there are some complex situations that can arise. For example take a look at the following story which is big news here today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17781842

OK, so taking advantage of a girl because she is too intoxicated is no excuse. However, does it not throw open questions of what constitutes too much intoxication to some degree? I mean if a man has sex with a women who has been drinking can she not then turn around and prosecute for rape? What constitutes too much alcohol? One glass of wine, two, one on a light stomach etc, etc? I think that this can be potentially difficult.

Also, can anybody please explain to me how one man has been found guilty and the other not guilty in this case. Surely it is both or none? I have watched and read several articles on this case and so far nobody has mentioned this obvious disparity and I can't work out why. If anything the other one was more guilty having picked her up and taken her back to the room. It doesn't make sense to me.

---

May I point out that OP was implying that a woman needs to take responsibility for the act of rape - that is when a man forcibly takes that which does not belong to him. You can go into grey areas and ask whether a situation constituted rape but that isn't the question being discussed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamCrackers

Yes, as explained, you not understanding is of zero importance. I think you are better off.

---

:rolleyes5: I AM better off not understanding you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delta40

May I point out that OP was implying that a woman needs to take responsibility for the act of rape - that is when a man forcibly takes that which does not belong to him. You can go into grey areas and ask whether a situation constituted rape but that isn't the question being discussed.

---

Yes I know what the OP said, I already said that I don't agree with that by saying that I agree with the majority, I just wanted to share that particular case and also to suggest other grey areas into the discussion. Must I open another rape thread because it veers slightly from the OP. How many rape threads do we need?

Jam Crackers, I like the 'You' statements throughout. This implies that you preclude yourself from such accusations and because of this, nobody is willing to give your statements much credit. Now if you want to change the 'you' to 'we' and admit your so called evolution - say for example that you rape women then maybe someone will listen...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamCrackers

Yes, as explained, you not understanding is of zero importance. I think you are better off. Regular people can't handle the world through adult eyes. The protection you get from your religion of pretty fantasy is shielding you from a mountain of dark reality. Evolution? Evolution HATES YOU. It's not Jesus, it's not that new Judaism for gentiles, what do you call it, atheism? It is kill or be killed. Evolution is RACIST. That's where they came from. Evolution likes rape. Evolution likes cannibalism. Evolution likes mothers eating their own young. Evolution like the new male killing the children of the old male. Evolution makes NOTHING equal. Nothing. Nothing. Go look up the word nothing. Not two people, not sexes, not races, not anything. The real world and real science, is FULL of pain and unhappy facts. It couldn't matter less. Both our social classes already exist. You and your tv-watching associates are all in safe sheltered happy agreement. Imagine how unhappy you would be when you found out you are a mere tool. People who read but never post have a chance to learn something. You couldn't even write a paragraph worth reading. A stopped bothering at the cheap insults across the top. You sank your own boat with that amateurish blunder. Life is what it is. While for an 'atheist' life is what you need to pretend it is. JUST ANOTHER RELIGION, a made up fantasy set of rules you live by. Oh wait, you made up the lie all religions require Gods? I wiped with that too. No God is required for you to live in your made up fantasy morality world, based on nothing but your hopes, dreams, and pretend science you make up in the moment.

What is the going rate for paternity tests? 30%? Many of you are not the son of your father. Your mother is a woman and women sleep around then pin the baby on the man they have. And yeah, we ALREADY DO test DNA to see who real fathers are. If you have doubts, go get a test. 1 in 3 chance you are not what you think. Men rule Earth. Men always ruled Earth. Men kept women as slave/pets. Men captured women and had kids with them. All 'too dark' for the children. It takes a true intellectual to see this animal planet for what it is. Have you started breaking down your moral made up fantasy worlds? When you get to internet atheism, trashcan that idiot babbling too.

My two favorite atheist quotes: (After hearing the fable of Sour Grapes) the atheist said sincerely, "But.. but I'm not a grape."

The other great one was, 'Atheists despise all three of the great religions, Christians AND Muslims.' (atheists are too busy DEFENDING the bloody woman-hating war God of Israel to complain about it. Funny how that works.)

---

Fortunately we have the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamCrackers

Yes, as explained, you not understanding is of zero importance. I think you are better off. Regular people can't handle the world through adult eyes. The protection you get from your religion of pretty fantasy is shielding you from a mountain of dark reality. Evolution? Evolution HATES YOU. It's not Jesus, it's not that new Judaism for gentiles, what do you call it, atheism? It is kill or be killed. Evolution is RACIST. That's where they came from. Evolution likes rape. Evolution likes cannibalism. Evolution likes mothers eating their own young. Evolution like the new male killing the children of the old male. Evolution makes NOTHING equal. Nothing. Nothing. Go look up the word nothing. Not two people, not sexes, not races, not anything. The real world and real science, is FULL of pain and unhappy facts. It couldn't matter less. Both our social classes already exist. You and your tv-watching associates are all in safe sheltered happy agreement. Imagine how unhappy you would be when you found out you are a mere tool. People who read but never post have a chance to learn something. You couldn't even write a paragraph worth reading. A stopped bothering at the cheap insults across the top. You sank your own boat with that amateurish blunder. Life is what it is. While for an 'atheist' life is what you need to pretend it is. JUST ANOTHER RELIGION, a made up fantasy set of rules you live by. Oh wait, you made up the lie all religions require Gods? I wiped with that too. No God is required for you to live in your made up fantasy morality world, based on nothing but your hopes, dreams, and pretend science you make up in the moment.

---

Evolution doesn't like anything because evolution is simply a process of genetic change over time. Maybe you should stop anthropomorphising natural processes. Does gravity want us to scrape our knees, break our necks when we fall from high places, prevent us from floating off in a million different directions?

I'm waiting for you to demonstrate that you actually understand evolutionary theory, and how evolution works. Evolution doesn't want anything, evolution is merely change over time. Evolutionary theory explains how this occurs in terms of genetics and natural selection.

All you are repeating is a trite platitude, nature is red in tooth and claw. The fact that you think this observation somehow ground breaking is absurd. And your attempts to usher a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory to support gross generalizations which have no bearing in reality or any relevance to the discussion just betrays how asinine your observations are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamCrackers

What is the going rate for paternity tests? 30%? Many of you are not the son of your father. Your mother is a woman and women sleep around then pin the baby on the man they have. And yeah, we ALREADY DO test DNA to see who real fathers are. If you have doubts, go get a test. 1 in 3 chance you are not what you think. Men rule Earth. Men always ruled Earth. Men kept women as slave/pets. Men captured women and had kids with them. All 'too dark' for the children. It takes a true intellectual to see this animal planet for what it is. Have you started breaking down your moral made up fantasy worlds? When you get to internet atheism, trashcan that idiot babbling too.

---

What does infidelity have to do with your entirely baseless assertion that women evolved to be raped? Why can't you write a single post without blathering off onto tangential rants. I didn't even say rape doesn't have a place being accommodated within evolutionary psychology, if one wanted to be a reductionist about complex behavior it would be easy to explain as part of many related behaviours. However, your assertions were baseless, not supported by evidence, and display a sincere lack of understanding of basic evolutionary science.

I feel like I'm talking to a wall, a wall with some sort of severe personality disorder.

Crackers, please don't rape women. That is all.

How does atheism have any relevance whatsoever in this conversation?

For all the Christians complaining about being bullied by atheists in religious arguments, it sure seems said Christians just love to get the argument started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamCrackers

Yes, as explained, you not understanding is of zero importance. I think you are better off. Regular people can't handle the world through adult eyes.

---

I think presenting yourself as pro-rape just makes you feel special and edgy, and you're trying to use a science that you don't understand to justify your own misogyny and racism (derp, like that's never been tried before and completely failed to hold up to scientific rigour). You're right about one thing, the very idea of rape nauseates most people - which indicates that it isn't in our nature and that we EVOLVED to feel revulsion. Morality has a basis in WHAT'S GOOD FOR SOCIETY because humans NEED SOCIETY TO SURVIVE, it's our greatest asset. Our species can't survive if all the females are raped and then bleed to death or die from infection in a pre-steralization world.

Females, with how rarely they reproduced and how easily they died in pregnancy and child birth, were a valued comodity in all early societies. One nice fertile male could knock up fifty females in one month so it's not so detrimental to the society if a high number of males die (in war or hunting for example, which is why in pre-history males were the best people for those tasks). Any act that risks KILLING females in your own society (such as violent, vagina-tearing rape, for example) would be extremely detrimental, and the male who has the genetic propensity for rape would have been selected against. His genetics won't be passed on if the women he breeds with all die, and his society would have killed him for raping female members.

...You don't even know what natural selection is, do you? Go on, explain it and use it to justify the following claims:

Quote:

---

Evolution is RACIST. That's where they came from. Evolution likes rape. Evolution likes cannibalism. Evolution likes mothers eating their own young. Evolution like the new male killing the children of the old male. Evolution makes NOTHING equal. Nothing. Nothing.

---

They're sophistry and it's easy to counter each one. We're humans, not hamsters. We have rational minds and live in complex societies. Socially mal-adjusted people (like rapists, and you) are shunned and excluded for a reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

Must I open another rape thread because it veers slightly from the OP. How many rape threads do we need?

---

:frown2: Oh please no.

Rape is already being discussed in the Feminism thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin

Crackers, please don't rape women. That is all.

---

When you are wooing or courting a women that interests you it may be good idea not to mention the whole "women are designed for rape''. I am sure you are as roguishly charming as you sound, and would never blow up your chances by expressing those views.

Quote:

---

Crack Hookers are women and they steal everything in sight. If you see one, feel free to slap her

---

Also, and again only a suggestion, don't go around slapping crack hookers. Although I have limited experience with that particular genre, I do know they often have very angry pimps who would likely give you a first hand experience in darwinian behaviour.

...don't go around slapping crack hookers. Although I have limited experience with that particular genre, I do know they often have very angry pimps who would likely give you a first hand experience in darwinian behaviour.

:iagree::nod:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JamCrackers

Yes, as explained, you not understanding is of zero importance. I think you are better off. Regular people can't handle the world through adult eyes. The protection you get from your religion of pretty fantasy is shielding you from a mountain of dark reality. Evolution? Evolution HATES YOU. It's not Jesus, it's not that new Judaism for gentiles, what do you call it, atheism? It is kill or be killed. Evolution is RACIST. That's where they came from. Evolution likes rape. Evolution likes cannibalism. Evolution likes mothers eating their own young. Evolution like the new male killing the children of the old male. Evolution makes NOTHING equal. Nothing. Nothing. Go look up the word nothing. Not two people, not sexes, not races, not anything. The real world and real science, is FULL of pain and unhappy facts. It couldn't matter less. Both our social classes already exist. You and your tv-watching associates are all in safe sheltered happy agreement. Imagine how unhappy you would be when you found out you are a mere tool. People who read but never post have a chance to learn something. You couldn't even write a paragraph worth reading. A stopped bothering at the cheap insults across the top. You sank your own boat with that amateurish blunder. Life is what it is. While for an 'atheist' life is what you need to pretend it is. JUST ANOTHER RELIGION, a made up fantasy set of rules you live by. Oh wait, you made up the lie all religions require Gods? I wiped with that too. No God is required for you to live in your made up fantasy morality world, based on nothing but your hopes, dreams, and pretend science you make up in the moment.

What is the going rate for paternity tests? 30%? Many of you are not the son of your father. Your mother is a woman and women sleep around then pin the baby on the man they have. And yeah, we ALREADY DO test DNA to see who real fathers are. If you have doubts, go get a test. 1 in 3 chance you are not what you think. Men rule Earth. Men always ruled Earth. Men kept women as slave/pets. Men captured women and had kids with them. All 'too dark' for the children. It takes a true intellectual to see this animal planet for what it is. Have you started breaking down your moral made up fantasy worlds? When you get to internet atheism, trashcan that idiot babbling too.

My two favorite atheist quotes: (After hearing the fable of Sour Grapes) the atheist said sincerely, "But.. but I'm not a grape."

The other great one was, 'Atheists despise all three of the great religions, Christians AND Muslims.' (atheists are too busy DEFENDING the bloody woman-hating war God of Israel to complain about it. Funny how that works.)

---

Though I have reservation against what osho has said yet reading your comments / observation I did not find osho too uninteresting.

Your idea of evolution is insuperable, some emerging preconceived ideas notwithstanding. There seems a form of rape in nature too. Ma n too is kind of bullish on woman in most cultures or religions. If we take the side of religion, say Hinduism, there was polygamy and one man having multitudes of women and how can there could be justice, understanding. Of course male jingoism was predominant and women had to surrender before the muscle power of their counterparts.
Of course I abhor rape. This is totally an inhuman activity; even osho raising this topic has not supported it though some people sounded intolerant. Yet events whether we like them. And we dread truth to the extent that we fear to see it and of course Crackers sounded bolder and he is not the herd but the one who breaks the peripheries or peal the veneers to observe the core of the truth.

We must learn such analytic ideas though it sounds bitter or goes against our taste.

I would like to be frustrated with JamCrackers, but I must admit that observing quality trolling is a guilty pleasure of mine, and this is some Grade-A material.

That said, based on the post here and few posts in other threads, there does seem to be a common thread in his seemingly incoherent ranting: He seems to be making a Dostoevskian "Without God, everything is permitted" argument through use of some pretty extreme argumentum ad absurdum. Anyone attempting to argue with him should keep that in mind.

I believe juniper mentioned that rape is inherintley abhorent to most people. I agree, that most people living in cities or tows or what not troughout history have found rape abhorent. But if we look at not the context of the civilian but that of the soldier, rape from the begining of history up too present day war, is almost normal. In the olden times they would pillage and rape and that was just and normal and many soldier did it. Now it is frowned upon but in war they rape and pillage just the same, but the generals instead of cheering it on now, rather close a blind eye to that part of soldiery which cannot be fought against and won.

I have always wondered why soldiers rape, I mean it is common almost normal, my grandfather who was an Italian leftenant in the war once told me that when they captured a greek village, every woman in the town above the age of 12 was raped by the soldiers, and some officers also indulged, and the officers let it all happen because they knew that they could not prevent it. And that is why they were all fighting and scared because, they knew the allies would inevitably rape their woman.

He told me all the Americans who came were gentlemen, and it was rare for an american soldier to rape and harm a woman during the war, because they were all mostly volonteers and they came to fight the war because of ideals. But the German soldiers who were all conscripts forced into the war, most of them from the lower classes, raped a lot, and the english also raped but to a lesser extent.

He told me also that in the 1st world war, it was expected that when the austiarns took a village, there would be rape and looting.

Well, I think war in itself is a pretty messed up thing. It's a situation in which people do all kinds of things they don't want to do, mainly killing other people. The vast majority of people who fight a war and kill someone most likely would never have done so outside of war. I doubt it's far-fetched to say that killing another person is unpleasant and traumatic, and I would think it can mess someone's mind up, so maybe rape no longer seems such a big deal. I also think a lot of soldiers regret a lot of things they do in a war when they're out of it. War changes people. Of course, I have no scientific basis, or any basis other than my own thoughts, for these ideas.

I'm glad to hear that about American soldiers, though. At least that's one self-aggrandizing idea of ourselves that holds true. I wonder if we were as noble in Vietnam, when we were drafted? Hopefully we were too stoned to be too cruel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tonywalt

When you are wooing or courting a women that interests you it may be good idea not to mention the whole "women are designed for rape''. I am sure you are as roguishly charming as you sound, and would never blow up your chances by expressing those views.



Also, and again only a suggestion, don't go around slapping crack hookers. Although I have limited experience with that particular genre, I do know they often have very angry pimps who would likely give you a first hand experience in darwinian behaviour.

---

:lol: Oh man, well played Tony. Funniest post I've read in a while.