Retroactive Rape

[Wikkiwallana]

Sex isn't necessary for social cohesion. If it were, we would live in a much more promiscuous society than we do currently.

What society do YOU live in?

Even back in my deeply social conservative, "all sex outside of marriage is wrong, all sex in marriage should be about making babies" days, I don't think I would have ever agreed with that.

[Raeyh]

Sex isn't necessary for social cohesion. If it were, we would live in a much more promiscuous society than we do currently.

What society do YOU live in?

One where people don't have sex with everyone they meet.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Still, homosexuals have no NEED for sex and there is nothing purely logical about it. With heterosexuals at least the logic is there with propagating the species.

Sex did not evolve to propagate the species.

[Four-sided Triangles]

I'm also not convinced that ignoring emotions is "logical," whatever "logical" is supposed to mean here. Emotions exist. Pretending they don't, or enacting policies which don't take them into account is actually not rational in the least.

[Sociobiology]

You can't, not legally or ethically if they are above the age of majority. You could educate them about the dangers of having sex, but that's about as far as you can go.

Still, homosexuals have no NEED for sex and there is nothing purely logical about it. With heterosexuals at least the logic is there with propagating the species.

no one has a need for sex you do not die without sex, however homosexuals do have more offspring in the long run.

[Foguk]

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2007/05/16/the-new-page-of-consent/

Proponents of the system say that it would definitely cut down of the amount of rapes out there. They also allege that it would not be abused, or if it were abused, the abuse would be so absolutely minor as to be negligible. They also state that it doesn't hurt men at all, since a man is perfectly free to refrain from ever having sex at all if he wants to avoid any risk of being accused of rape.

Yeah, just the same as people are free to drink, eat meat, and have hobbies. Yes, you don't need to have sex. But then again, The only things you need to do to survive is just eat a high calorie paste, run on a wheel, and sleep. Why bother with any of that "just for fun" stuff?

I cannot see how anyone would support this. Even "Feminists".

[Northern Dominus]

Yeah, just the same as people are free to drink, eat meat, and have hobbies. Yes, you don't need to have sex. But then again, The only things you need to do to survive is just eat a high calorie paste, run on a wheel, and sleep. Why bother with any of that "just for fun" stuff?

I cannot see how anyone would support this. Even "Feminists".

You know the author from which that proposition spawned along with other insane ranting keyeboard punchers like Eve Bit First just might be in favor of that. Reading even one or two more of their articles reveals just what a sad sad little existence they lead. They take no risk, instead they choose to use a digital bully pulpit to try and get the message across. Never getting out, never experiencing the real world and taking in new ideas that way.

Indeed, it is a sterile existence like the one you mentioned.

[Galloism]

What society do YOU live in?

One where people don't have sex with everyone they meet.

You should have met me when I was learning how to fly.

[Foguk]

Yeah, just the same as people are free to drink, eat meat, and have hobbies. Yes, you don't need to have sex. But then again, The only things you need to do to survive is just eat a high calorie paste, run on a wheel, and sleep. Why bother with any of that "just for fun" stuff?

I cannot see how anyone would support this. Even "Feminists".

You know the author from which that proposition spawned along with other insane ranting keyeboard punchers like Eve Bit First just might be in favor of that. Reading even one or two more of their articles reveals just what a sad sad little existence they lead. They take no risk, instead they choose to use a digital bully pulpit to try and get the message across. Never getting out, never experiencing the real world and taking in new ideas that way.

Indeed, it is a sterile existence like the one you mentioned.

I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time understanding you. Are you saying that people who write blogs like this have no fun in life and instead live a bitter, cold existence?

[The Wanderers]

Four-sided triangles just about sums up his intelligence level.

[Wikkiwallana]

Still, homosexuals have no NEED for sex and there is nothing purely logical about it. With heterosexuals at least the logic is there with propagating the species.

Sex did not evolve to propagate the species.

Well, not the human species. It evolved to propagate a species, millions and millions of years ago.

[Northern Dominus]

You know the author from which that proposition spawned along with other insane ranting keyeboard punchers like Eve Bit First just might be in favor of that. Reading even one or two more of their articles reveals just what a sad sad little existence they lead. They take no risk, instead they choose to use a digital bully pulpit to try and get the message across. Never getting out, never experiencing the real world and taking in new ideas that way.

Indeed, it is a sterile existence like the one you mentioned.

I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time understanding you. Are you saying that people who write blogs like this have no fun in life and instead live a bitter, cold existence?

Pretty much. IN more words but yes. Again if you read what these blog posts entail it quickly becomes apparnet that these "writers" don't have much contact with anybody outside of a select sterile group of contacts, if they can be called friends at all. No risk, no taking chances, nothing.

[Jormengand]

Four-sided triangles just about sums up his intelligence level.

But I bet that he could hold up an argument that triangles really did have 4 sides for at least 10 pages. And anyway, he's currently correct...

[Four-sided Triangles]

Well, not the human species. It evolved to propagate a species, millions and millions of years ago.

No, it evolved so that genes could propagate themselves.

[Foguk]

I'm looking at the URL. It must sum up the views of feminists quite nicely.

"Blame men".

Feminists aren't about "Equal rights for both genders". They're only concerned with the problems of women, not the problems of men. Even the URL makes it obvious.

Its amazing how much anti-porn and anti-sex feminists have with evangelical Christians. Its kind of why they're not taken seriously by anyone.

^This

[The Anti-Cosmic Gods]

Its amazing how much anti-porn and anti-sex feminists have with evangelical Christians. Its kind of why they're not taken seriously by anyone.

[Wikkiwallana]

Well, not the human species. It evolved to propagate a species, millions and millions of years ago.

No, it evolved so that genes could propagate themselves.

You are of the "Selfish Gene" school of thought?

I personally favor "Red Queen's Race".

[Wikkiwallana]

I'm looking at the URL. It must sum up the views of feminists quite nicely.

"Blame men".

Feminists aren't about "Equal rights for both genders". They're only concerned with the problems of women, not the problems of men. Even the URL makes it obvious.

So I see that all the women and feminists on this very board calling it crazy don't count. Good to know.

[Four-sided Triangles]

You are of the "Selfish Gene" school of thought?

Yes.

[The Steel Magnolia]

I'm looking at the URL. It must sum up the views of feminists quite nicely.

"Blame men".

Feminists aren't about "Equal rights for both genders". They're only concerned with the problems of women, not the problems of men. Even the URL makes it obvious.

Its amazing how much anti-porn and anti-sex feminists have with evangelical Christians. Its kind of why they're not taken seriously by anyone.

^This

Factually incorrect and untrue. It's like comparing all Muslims to those promoting Sharia, or all Christians to Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

[Whakeheke]

I'm looking at the URL. It must sum up the views of feminists quite nicely.

"Blame men".

Feminists aren't about "Equal rights for both genders". They're only concerned with the problems of women, not the problems of men. Even the URL makes it obvious.

Its amazing how much anti-porn and anti-sex feminists have with evangelical Christians. Its kind of why they're not taken seriously by anyone.

^This

...You're correct that they're concerned with the problems of women and not of men, but that doesn't mean feminists aren't out for equality. Widespread sexism does in fact exist (it didn't go away with the 19th amendment), and feminists are concerned with the female side of that because it is a one-way street.

In the same way, racial agitation was for racial equality, but was not concerned with the problems of whites, only the problems of blacks. There's no point in considering everything equally when the playing field isn't level.

Of course there are "feminists" out there who DO believe in outright misandry, just as there are some blacks believe in outright black domination, but that doesn't matter. There are whites who believe in outright misogyny and segregation even now. The difference is that whites and males are judged by their betters and minorities are almost always judged by the worst of the bunch.

But of course, you aren't going to bother listening.

Also, on-topic: retroactive rape is kind of fucked up, guilty until innocent is just weird and basically means you'd have to have paper contracts everytime you wanted to have sex.

[Whakeheke]

No, it evolved so that genes could propagate themselves.

You are of the "Selfish Gene" school of thought?

I personally favor "Red Queen's Race".

They are not mutually exclusive.

[The Anti-Cosmic Gods]

The solution here, I think, would obviously be to just film all your sexual encounters. That way you have her giving consent on camera- both initially and screaming it throughout.

[Foguk]

I'm looking at the URL. It must sum up the views of feminists quite nicely.

"Blame men".

Feminists aren't about "Equal rights for both genders". They're only concerned with the problems of women, not the problems of men. Even the URL makes it obvious.



^This

...You're correct that they're concerned with the problems of women and not of men, but that doesn't mean feminists aren't out for equality. Widespread sexism does in fact exist (it didn't go away with the 19th amendment), and feminists are concerned with the female side of that because it is a one-way street.

In the same way, racial agitation was for racial equality, but was not concerned with the problems of whites, only the problems of blacks. There's no point in considering everything equally when the playing field isn't level.

Of course there are "feminists" out there who DO believe in outright misandry, just as there are some blacks believe in outright black domination, but that doesn't matter. There are whites who believe in outright misogyny and segregation even now. The difference is that whites and males are judged by their betters and minorities are almost always judged by the worst of the bunch.

But of course, you aren't going to bother listening.

Also, on-topic: retroactive rape is kind of fucked up, guilty until innocent is just weird and basically means you'd have to have paper contracts everytime you wanted to have sex.

I'll listen, It just doesn't mean I think you're right.

Also, I think I may have mis-phrased this. I often hear feminists say their out for gender equality, but they only try to fix the issues of women. Rarely have I heard a feminist whine about an issue affecting men.

I'm saying they are hypocrites. You can't be for Gender Equality and only focus on one of the sexes.

[Wikkiwallana]

The solution here, I think, would obviously be to just film all your sexual encounters. That way you have her giving consent on camera- both initially and screaming it throughout.

The problem with this idea is that the author suggested consent could be withdrawn after the fact.