Do Feminists Ever Consider That They Might Be Wrong?

More of a compulsion and dominating ideology behind it rather then an innate biological procreation notion. Usually people who engage in non-consensual sex do so to feel empowered or feel control.

Other issue with this is with those who do not feel any sexual arousal with their partners when raping (there are those who just hurt to hurt and think nothing of it) and if said person rapes a child under the prepubescent age, elderly, bestiality, or in same sex intercourse.

I've read some theorists spinning rape this way, but there are too many complex variables and this theory doesn't hold up to the majority of rapists.

In all cases, it's just different people with different thinking or motives, it's just that rape was labeled as unacceptable by society. Therefore, it's impossible to just say "Well people shouldn't rape" and have it all stop. That's just how things are, it's the same for thieves, murderers etc.

There is a very good reason for rape being labeled as unacceptable by most of the worlds societies today, the same way robbery and murder has very good reason for being unacceptable.

I hate femnazis with a passion. Just because your sleezy ass gets drunk and you end up having sex with someone who you later regret doesn't give you the right to babble about getting raped. Just because you're embarrassed to admit to your friends you have low standards doesn't give you the right to ruin someones life... Whores in denial, smh..

And these reasons has been socially constructed like everything else I mentionned. The point here is that you can't stop people from commiting rape, robberies and murders, the only thing you can do about it is prevent it through defense from it.

I don't consider a person smart unless their mind is capable of being changed when given new information. No, they don't.

How often does anyone ever consider they may be wrong? It seems the phrase, "I don't know" is one of the most difficult to say, in any language. I've seen more than a few fist fights go down just because neither party would admit they might be wrong. Do any of you people ever consider that you might just be a bunch of silly monkeys running in circles, accomplishing nothing? Well guess what, you are.


I don't care about any of your opinions on feminism. The title question just rubbed me the wrong way.

Even harder thing than saying "I don't know" is admitting that you are wrong like you pointed out. Specially when you are arguing or debating. Nobody wants to admit that their position might be wrong, silly or just plain stupid. I would say most of the people who actually do change their mind about something, they do it in the privacy of their own head and in their own time, even if they realize during the debate that they are wrong, but they never admit to it during the debate, because the would make them look foolish.

Even though it is more foolish to hold on to a 'wrong' or 'stupid' belief or idea.

Touchy topic, but okay.

Basically, I just think that there are assholes and idiots that use a good ideology or a noble cause and misinterpret things.

I do believe in equality in such terms as Women having the right to be what they want to be without prejudice or discrimination and not merely being objectified.
That said, I still believe in Chivalry, call me old school, but I think a man should still be a Gent even with Equality enacted, and that doesn't imply that women can go ahead and abuse that formality, they should still be seen equal to their behaviors and through the eyes of the law.

Beware of quoting people who left no extant works :D What you're quoting may turn out to be as stupid as it sounds, and less realistic.





This is an ignorant approach to law in general. Social constructs aren't magically exempt from organic underpinnings. In the case of rape basic, instinctive humanity has bonding hormones and possessive streaks and social drives that are not culture specific or dependant. Those factors combine to create a concept of 'rape'.

The precise way rape is handled and defined and codified by a culture is merely a social construct and can vary widely, but rape having negative consequences is a human universal and a natural law.



It is not 'labelled unacceptable' it's recognized as a violent act and treated as such. It's a natural law of humanity like property and territory law. Even tribes with no concept of personal property have concepts of territoriality and tribal property that they will defend.

The point that a lot of the basics of law are derived from how people naturally react and think, they would still mater even if you where in a different culture or if you where with ten random people on an isolated island.

Humans are naturally social creatures, concepts of consent may be defined differently in different cultures, but they are based on more or less universal human social nature.

An ignorant approach to law in general? How is it ignorant? Laws are forced views and boundaries, nothing else and nothing more. Every individual thinks differently but laws are there to limit people's actions and thinking to make it as similar as possible to create a safety barrier for the weak, and make it easier to control the masses to have as many people behaving the way the leaders want as possible. That's all laws are for.

"It's not labelled unacceptable it's recognized as a violent act"

Consideration of violent acts being bad is again just another social construct.
Do we see it as bad when we go fishing? Putting a hook through a fish's mouth, cutting it in pieces? What about all the meat we eat? Those aren't labelled as unacceptable because everyone's too lazy to get their own food but when it comes to violence that can be treated just by complaining, now it's a bad thing, because all people don't need said thing. Also, your territory and property stuff has nothing to do with rape at all, a male exists to impregnate a female, that's all it is. Some males will have stronger desires towards a certain type of females; normally the male could just go ahead and have it the way he wants without any repercussions, but since there are laws and ethics instated by society it's considered rape, and bad.

Theres no such thing as "consentual" sex thinking when it comes to a race with no laws and ethics. There wasn't anything like that back when we were still a race in evolution with no instated laws or anything of that matter. The male would take on any female and whatever happened happened. If another male saw the female as his property, they'd fight over it, that's all.

"The point that a lot of the basics of law are derived from how people naturally react and think"

Lol, not at all. Humans often react and think with violence, yet law prohibits them from it. Humans often desire things without paying or working for it, they steal, yet laws demand them to pay and work for them.

Laws are not a continuation of a human's way of thinking, it's a barrier, a defense from the human's way of thinking. You grew up under those so you learned to be safe and out of any danger's reach, so you know jackshit about that subject, obviously. I'm not arguing any further, I know that kind of people who are so far up in their head that they write paragraphs and paragraphs of biased statements because they actually think they're right and won't ever consider anything else.

[quote="KurosawaAnon"]

It's ignorant of natural law, and natrual human social inclinations. This is what my last post was about. You seem to have missed it.



Hammurabi's code on are in part to protect the weak from oppression, but even that is a fairly natural human endeavour, especially when they are YOUR weak you're trying to protect.



No, that statement is sociopathic, and FAR more artificial than the idea that violence against other people, at least in your own group or tribe, is at very least undesirable.

The abstract branches of philosophy that allow you to view law as 'merely a social construct' are themselves entirely artificial ways of viewing the world.



This is idiotic, many people groups don't even consider animals as having the same kind of will and volition as a human, even when they do they don't consider actions against non-humans to be the same as actions against humans, and no modern PETA people don't really count as a people group in the sense that I'm talking about.



A few times in history there have been people so sheltered that they can't see the difference between attacking animals and attacking humans.

You sir have entered the ranks of the horribly super-sheltered.


Males are territorial of females... That is the most blatantly obvious reason territorial law is related to rape. But if you'd understood my post you would have seen that I was talking about 'natrual law', not rape specifically.



Yes, you have bought into a inane sociopathic philosophy of law that ignores natural human behaviour and tenancies. Fortunately it's probably just because you're really sheltered and can afford the luxuries of buying in to nonsense and not really thinking about it, and it's unlikely you're actually sociopathic yourself.



There is no such thing as a human race without laws or ethics. Law's and ethics are not merely a social construct but an extension of human drives and nature. You're leaning very hard on a hypothetical that does not exist in all the worlds civilizations and all the worlds primitive tribes.



Basically no higher mammals work like this. They all have timings and courtship rituals and often have competitions and females won't just accept any male that tries to get on them. Weather we're talking about wolves or moose higher mamals don't just couple arbitrarily. Again, it's idiotic to think otherwise.



And if a female did not want to couple with a particular male, she'd fight him off and probably rally whatever support she could to protect her.

And with just that we have 'rape law'.



Humans are not monodimentional, and while they do have baser aspects they have nobler ones too.These aspects are not even necessarily very different. The drive that makes one want to steal is the other side of the coin that makes one want to protect ones own property. Think about it. People don't want to be attacked even more than they want to attack others. They want to protect what they have more than they want the ability to steal from others.

The actual thieves are the ones that want to both keep what they have AND take from others, and the natural response of the masses are to suppress such people. Hence natural law.



The philosophy of law you're adhering too is idiotic. Laws are made by people because of how people behave. They're actually pretty organic. Unless you completely ignore humanities social nature you see that very clearly. You're entire premise is that humanities social nature is somehow arbitrary and meaningless. It's pretty dumb.



You don't have the introspective to see the irony or that statement eh? You're running away from a conversation with someone you disagree with because you're incapable of tolerating ideas outside the philosophy you wed yourself too on the premise that other people are too narrow minded TO AUTOMATICALLY ACCEPT YOUR ONE AND UNDENIABLY TRUE PRESPECTIVE! :D

It's funny cause it's so human.

Not even going to read through that, again someone who knows jackshit, this is like arguing with a feminist extremist that knows and understands fuckall.

The reason we force views and boundaries, limit peoples actions is to protect the well being of maximum number of people in society. Different societies have different laws, there for we can study the well being of those different societies. You can make a very good argument that the overall well being of the people is better in western societies than it is for example in Somalia and Middle-East.

It is not that leaders control the masses on their own accord, because the leaders don't have any power unless the masses entrust them with the power.




Yes, what ever we consider being bad, is bad because our species has argued that. What ever we consider being good, is good because our species has argued that. Most of the time what ever is bad and good depends on the masses.

But that is why we have laws, boundaries and limits that are enforced, because again, our species well being depends on the well being of the masses, not on the well being of single individuals.




Yes, in primitive times and in primitive species, who ever was the strongest was able to force his/her will on others.

But to think that even in primitive times or in primitive species they didn't/don't have social constructs or natural instincts is a lie. As far as i know there are many meat eating predators who would never eat their own kind even in the light of death, why? Because even those primitive species either have a social constructs not to eat their own kind or some kind of natural instinct that tells them not to eat their own kind, they rather die than do that. Same thing for us.

Most of us don't do any 'bad things' like rape, because we instinctively know it is wrong and we know the suffering that the other party would suffer from it. We understand the pain and we understand the emotional stress. We have empathy for our own kind and even for other species as well. This empathy doesn't come from the law that our society enforces. The law comes from our empathy.






Yes, they actually are. Maybe not always how people 'naturally' think, but the basics of law are there to protect the well being of maximum number of people in the certain society.




Yes, we often make decisions based on emotion and self interest. Depending on the context of the situation, those decisions are not based on rational thinking or logic though. That is why we have laws to punish those who break the rules that benefit the masses and we have police to enforce those laws.




Wrong, laws are specifically derived from the way our species thinks. We understand that the best way to survive is in numbers. That level of thinking didn't start yesterday, it started thousands of years ago, and that is precisely what led us to this day. We needed those barriers, those limits and those laws to survive as a group, as a society, because we couldn't survive alone.

Once we survived to the point that our biggest enemy in the world was our own species, different tribes, different societies, and ultimately our own people in our own tribe, we understood even back then that we needed limits, we needed boundaries, we needed barriers in order for the group to survive as whole. Because the best way to survive as a society, is the well being on maximum number of people.





This is not a merit for victory.

This is admitting defeat, because you are unable to defend your biased belief.

When he's just repeating the same old biased shit over and over, it's not worth wasting my time trying to put some reasoning through his thick skull. I do not give two shits if you want to call it victory and defeat, it's a fucking retarded way to give definition to someone who just don't want to put up with some dumbass who can't see farther than his own nose.

You're not born with fucking laws, your not born with the notion of rape, theft or anything of that matter, get that through your skull.

You are unable to 'put' reasoning into your own skull, let alone to somebody elses. If mine or JGPS arguments against you are 'biased', please, point them out. You are in the same category as the feminist who claim that the people who don't agree with their point of view are supporting rape culture.

You are unable to argue against us and you are showing it.




You just described your self there, and you are either too stupid, too young or too ignorant to see it.

You wanna come here to say your thing and when somebody argued against your position with well reasoned arguments and all you can say is
just shows how biased and poor your arguments are and how poor your reasoning is.




Ok, i understand that. What is your point? Are you saying the only reason you yourself don't break any laws that we have currently is because you would go to jail for it? You don't agree with any social construct that our species has established?

Because if that is the case, everything JGPS pointed out about you is true.

Yes, probably every law that is in place is being broken by somebody, different nations have different laws. That does not make them irrelevant, that doesn't mean they are obsolete or meaningless. Just because we were born without rules, doesn't mean the rules we make for ourselves don't have any meaning or aren't relevant.

Objectively, life doesn't have any meaning (of coarse you can argue against that), but subjectively the meaning we give to our own lives is very important.

Objectively, our laws mean nothing, because it is the single individual who either follows them or not, but they are still very important and if you could understand why they are in place and enforced on you, you would understand what i and JGPS are talking about.

Nope. Femenists are the only group of people in this world where everyone is absolutely stone set in their ideas, no one differs from any other in the group and they all share a collective hivemind that doesn't allow for independent thought.

Trufax.

Oh the horror!!. . . Reading?!! . . . For 5 minutes?!! . . . Who could do that?!! . . . That's way to long!!

Heaven forbid you read through something that is just as long as the post you made right before his. He obviously took the time to read through your post even though he doesn't agree with it. The least you could do is take the time to read through his even though you don't agree with it.

Just because we can't see each other is no reason to give up on common courtesy.

You wouldn't read a book that doesn't make sense, isn't interesting and keeps repeating the same thing over and over on every single page now would you.

I'm not going to keep reading the same old biased shit by a guy that is convinced that laws were put in place because of human's natural behaviour. Just another little brainwashed child that doesn't understand laws were made to protect the system. The more you protect and restrict the citizens, the easier it is for you to have control over them. Yes the leaders are elected by the citizens but have you seen the result? For example in the US every fucking time for many years you've elected the wrong president, same goes for a bunch of countries. It's sad that you fail to understand that, hell I wouldn't even be surprised if you were religious and believe in god and all of the bible bullshit. It's typical. You just can't accept the fact that people follow the laws because they can't afford to break the law, not because they don't want to. Why do you think, theres so many corrupt politicians and higher ups? Because they can break the law, it's easier for them, they have the money and the influence, theft, murder, they do all of that. They don't want you to be safe for your own sake, they need you to be safe to keep things clean and running. With chaos, the government can do fuck all. You are not born with the ideal of getting a job, going to school, not spitting on the ground, theft, murder or whatsoever. They didn't have that kind of shit thousands of years ago, they didn't have some asshat donut guy coming around to stop a fight and putting them in a wood cage. LAWS, have always been a way to control people, to limit their actions in a result of having minimal damage and divergence in people's way of acting, the roman empire, 1600's, 1700's and every damn single time periods have always been this way since laws, rules, ethic were implanted to control a large group of people. Wake up, you're not fucking free, you're not safe. Laws and ethics are socially constructed and yet you keep believing they're things people actually have naturally in them but in reality you're just too fucking scared and weak to face the fact that it's not true, you'd rather just live in your bullshit dreams thinking everything's perfect, everyone's nice, this and that, that humans naturally fucking have laws in their head, that's not the case. We're not the little angelic creatures you think we are, at all. There's a reason why theres so much murder and crime in third world countries and yet even here, with laws, there still is.

Say what you want, I honestly couldn't give two shits about a few biased opinions by some hentai-addicted random people on the internet. Also, I'm most likely older than you so you can keep your "Too young" bullshit to yourself. Once you've done years and years of study and practice in social engineering, understanding human behaviour, history, psychology and whatnot, we'll talk. Until then, keep your biased opinions to yourselves.

Apparently you're not literate enough for a conversation, so I'm going to mock you now.



[/quote]

When he's just repeating the same old biased shit over and over, it's not worth wasting my time trying to put some reasoning through his thick skull. I do not give two shits if you want to call it victory and defeat, it's a fucking retarded way to give definition to someone who just don't want to put up with some dumbass who can't see farther than his own nose.

You're not born with fucking laws, your not born with the notion of rape, theft or anything of that matter, get that through your skull.[/quote]


Your counter-point is along the lines of NEENER NEENER I'M NOT LISTENING I'M RIGHT AND EVERYONE ELSE IS STUPID...

It's really terrible, and funny that you accuse me of extremism.



OMG! THE SYSTEM!?! Y U GOT TO BE SO ReD PiLL M8? Everyone else b lke sheeples and don't know 'nothin CAUSE THEY BE IN THE SSYTEMMMM!?!!




OIC, laws where invented with computers and we should ignore the fact that EVERY SINGLE DAMN HUMAN CULTURE ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE SUMERIANS HAD THEM.



OH! The System is lurking under my bed. Better get dat tinfoil out so they can't read my mind :D.



Oh but your the bold revolutionary who's ideas on law will save the world. Hell, I doubt you'd be able to save yourself in a anarchy, even if you can handle yourself you don't have the understanding of social philosophy to get people behind you, and that matters way more in anarchy than it does in your 'unfree civilization'.



No one said anything like that, you're slipping further into your delusions and this isn't chaos;head where that's a good thing.

It's been said a few times, and you're too dumb to comprehend it, that people are naturally social and will establish rules of behaviour amongst themselves, that doesn't mean a thing regarding weather people are good or evil or corrupt or not. I'm talking about natrual behaviour. If you attack someone they will either fight you back or run, basics. These are the basic laws of behaviour, and they go way beyond humans.