LustfulAngel Posts
gizgal wrote...
Naleem wrote...
What I'm trying to say (I hope I succeeded..) is that, to me, saying 'I'm a feminist' in a country where women don't even have basic human rights is a pretty courageous statement that reveals a lot about the person, but in a 'civilised' country with proper laws in place a statement like that just doesn't seem to hold much meaning. Well, so I made this thread so I could get a better grip on what 'feminist' means.
Thanks for the answers folks, keep it up~
I hate to bring this out, as it pisses people off, but that's a classic check on the demeaning of feminism's need chart.... put lightly here as bingo.
Spoiler:
While I agree that yes, first world women have MANY rights and privileges afforded them that those in countless other countries do not, there is still a dire need for feminism.
Right now, for example, in the USA, basic women's rights of access to healthcare are being considered "privileges" that somehow citizen females do not have any say in preserving. Remember how, recently, the woman who spoke the biological term "vagina" was forced to leave a major hearing on women's healthcare? Sen. Akin's remarks this week about qualifying rape? The list goes on...
Women's wages (and thus, overall life earnings and retirement abilities) are still 70 cents to every dollar a male in the same position/years-on-the-job/experience earns. Women are profiled and blamed for acts of violence and sexual assault committed against them by courts and officers of the law, though law supposedly forbids this.
In other first world countries such France, religious women are not allowed to wear head-coverings that they consider part of their everyday dress and religious duty, to some. More countries, too, have female healthcare standards that are based on the decisions of "morally focused" male courts.
Yes, feminism has solved many societal problems and conquered a lot of obstacles for women. However, new problems continue to rear their ugly heads.
To compare struggles of one population of women to another is faulty: yes, those in underdeveloped places may suffer, but world over there is STILL suffering, even with some issues resolved. Feminism changes and evolves to try to meet a population's dilemmas that pertain to women. It is still very much needed, everywhere.
First, the feminists proclaim that men do not treat them equally, so now I will treat Lisa Brown equally in the context of politics:
This is the video in question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SghMijpkrbs&feature=youtu.be
1)Lisa, your first mistake was invoking your religion in a political forum. I thought this country was founded on the separation of church and state, this includes policy debate(foreign and national policy debate) and while you tried to place the qualifer: "I'm not asking you to adopt my religious beliefs", in stating such beliefs as the reason for your denying the bill in a public forum, you pretty much are asking them to adopt your beliefs.
2)Yes, your use of the term "vagina" is inappropriate, again, it is a political forum. Especially in the context of the very defamatory way you stated it "I'm glad you're all so interested in my vagina." No, Ms. Lisa, I doubt the men of Michigan are interested in your vagina, or the men in this country for that matter.
But rather, the debate about abortion is a debate regarding the fact that as "Jewish law" supposedly states, the life of a female is superior to that of the life of the fetus. As an American, I believe the life of both mother and child, nay, the life of all beings are equal and wherever possible, we should work to preserve both lives. If a medical abortion cannot be avoided, I've already voiced my support for that. But let us define a medical abortion, since these women touched on it.
A medical abortion can only be clearly defined, as a situation where the life of the mother is in grave, mortal danger, and I'll put this disclaimer as well: And where the cons of bringing the baby into the world, outweigh the pros(IE:Life). Like say, if a baby is born with Downs Syndrome and only has like 5 years to live, I can see sparing the baby from being a statistic(infant mortality).
However, when you speak of "health of the baby", if you mean that there's a chance of developing a mental disorder, or some other kind of challenge and in your demi-god status you want the "perfect child", uh, no, thanks. I'm not allowing that politically. While, in the thirties prior to the war America was a supporter of eugenics, we are a much different, more civilized nation now.
I do not support eugenics, I believe if we want a healthy baby, we should take care of ourselves as adults. Of course, you can do all of those things and still end up with "flaws", but so what?
I was born with Cerebral Palsy, and supposedly(though I deny it), Autism, etc. I overcame those challenges to become the college intellectual you see today. Am I still flawed? Life is not perfect, at any stage including birth.
Neither the male, nor the female has the right to control it. We've no right over the sanctity of life. Period.
Secondly, Gizgal is clearly referring to the Toronto issue when he says "Women are profiled and blamed", women were not being profiled or blamed for anything. But rather, that if you carry yourself in a proper manner(IE:Wear clothing appropriate for the situation you may be in), stay with the correct crowds, etc. There's less of a chance(of being forcibly raped)
Is it perfect? No. Of course, there are scumbags who will abuse women simply for the power it gives them. And it's up to decent minded males to outnumber these scumbags and treat women with respect.
Should the police officer have said what he said? To his daughter or wife, perhaps, but in a public forum he's expected to make politically correct statements such as "Hear the victim out, leave nothing to chance, etc." The Police force has been politicized sadly by public pressure and this same politicization actually makes the police force ineffective at it's job.
If we treated the police in the same manner that we treated the CIA or FBI, I wonder if that rape sentencing statistic would improve?
Like all other fellow ('90-95) kids I grew up watching Pokemon, DBZ, Gundam Wing. In hindsight, GW>>Both of those. The anime that got me into anime? Outlaw Star. Specifically, Melfina's theme is godly.
I don't think anyone here really cares if a person drives a ferrari or not, or if they're rich or not. America was meant to be a capitalistic country, so if you play within the rules and make a ton of money that's something I appreciate and in fact I am trying to put myself in that position(who wouldn't?). You're right, a part of this is government de-regulation, but that goes to the lobbyists that the likes of Wall Street implant in Washington to begin with. People would want their resources to 'double' or 'triple' but at least, with miniumn risk to them or at least having some kind of control over the risk. Putting your money in a safe, that you don't have access to and really, not even getting equal to the money you put in the system.
It's theft, there's no two ways about it. As for the home owners knowing what they got themselves into: False, what these brokers did, was they purposed a good deal at the time, with no money down and a low percentage. Of course, you'd be fooled into thinking you could afford that. But what most people didn't realize was the fine print, saying that original low percentage would increase.
A similar scenario occurs as it regards to Credit Cards, you think you have a low pay rate on your Credit Card but with each purchase you make, it becomes that much more expensive to pay the credit card bill.
In reality, millions of Americans have been robbed of their jobs, livelihood and economic future by the very scum you're trying to defend. Could they have made better decisions? Of course, but that's not easy to do when your promised the sky and when the fine print is hidden intentionally from you on purpose.
It's theft, there's no two ways about it. As for the home owners knowing what they got themselves into: False, what these brokers did, was they purposed a good deal at the time, with no money down and a low percentage. Of course, you'd be fooled into thinking you could afford that. But what most people didn't realize was the fine print, saying that original low percentage would increase.
A similar scenario occurs as it regards to Credit Cards, you think you have a low pay rate on your Credit Card but with each purchase you make, it becomes that much more expensive to pay the credit card bill.
In reality, millions of Americans have been robbed of their jobs, livelihood and economic future by the very scum you're trying to defend. Could they have made better decisions? Of course, but that's not easy to do when your promised the sky and when the fine print is hidden intentionally from you on purpose.
Let's get one thing straight about Wall Street, Freddie Mae, Mac, etc. Several of these companies don't actually help the general public. What percentage of America benefits from the gambles, speculation, etc that goes on daily on Wall Street? I'll give you 5% generously. They have you buy into the 401K's, the stocks, the retirement funds. Then they gamble it away, putting your entire livelihood at risk.
They make money...doing positively nothing for the economy, their black holes on the economic value of the dollar. When the majority of the wealth goes to these scum bags, does it surprise you about the ghettos we have? The problems we have? None of this is new, English men generally despised these type of 'businessmen', and Glass-Stegall among other laws were meant to restrict them. Now, their restrictions are bar none.
We didn't need to bail out the criminals, we needed to restore the power of the purse, the power of main street.
They make money...doing positively nothing for the economy, their black holes on the economic value of the dollar. When the majority of the wealth goes to these scum bags, does it surprise you about the ghettos we have? The problems we have? None of this is new, English men generally despised these type of 'businessmen', and Glass-Stegall among other laws were meant to restrict them. Now, their restrictions are bar none.
We didn't need to bail out the criminals, we needed to restore the power of the purse, the power of main street.
gizgal wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
gizgal wrote...
Luckily, the people who at one time may have been taught such things (like what Akin said) were true will now be forced to face the truth.
That's the one good thing coming out of all this: clarification of the facts.
'Facts' are nothing more than accepted opinions, there's no scientific research one way or another, however in no world other than the world of the pro-abortionist is 5% a "large number".
5% of a cesspool is a really, really small percentage point lol.
So as to make it clear: 1% is one percent too much, but for the purpose of identifying it as a legitimate excuse for an open-ranged abortion policy, it is a poor excuse. One of the poorer ones actually.
...there is only a single species on earth than can "prevent" its own pregnancy, so far as I know. And is a type of BIRD. Not a human woman.
The problem is faulty facts: a) he believed that some magical rape-type qualifying portion of the uterus exists to somehow prevent pregnancy in all rape cases, and b) he thinks, through his use of the qualifier "legitimate", that some rapes are somehow not rape.
This is pretty fucked up, for someone who'd be making decisions for a large body of citizens if elected.
The dude mispoke(Not that I'm defending him, but this is political grandstanding of it's worst kind.) There is, no "Magical defense mechanism" for a female, specifically relating to rape cases of course.
However, there is a defense mechanism that's scientifically known and proven: The antibodies. Do you know why it takes at most, several months of intercourse before pregnancy? Because the antibodies inside the vagina cannot tell the difference from sperm or any other foreign germ or 'body'.
That is to say, I could have intercourse with a woman I loved, and release, say I don't know within that stream of cum some 100 sperm eggs. By the time the anti-bodies are done with it, maybe 5 sperm eggs hit the womb, if I'm lucky.
Getting a woman pregnant is like playing the lottery, you might get lucky and land a bunch of sperm eggs in her womb. You might be somewhere in the middle and get a few in, so you'll have to try again.
Of course, this isn't an 'excuse' for rapists and obviously not for Akin's comments, the defense mechanism far from perfect, doesn't protect a woman's womb completely from rape. But it is a scientifically proven fact that the antibodies interfere with impregnation.
Here's one link about the subject of the antibodies:
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/8194608/reload=0;jsessionid=LRjpcMDgw1FVrUbZL2Z2.0
I want to re-empathize(since you like taking my words out of context so much.) I'm not defending Akin here, nor am I defending who I believe to be the worst of criminals, right up there with murderers.
But I do want to point out, that there might be some scientific research into explanations as to why pregnancy via rape is not some big statistic.
One excuse has always been: "The victims don't want to retell the tale of their horror", and no they probably don't, but they neither want to lie. At least, I'll honor the victims that much by believing that a victim will tell us the gist of what happened while respecting her own fragile mind at the time of a vicious attack.
gizgal wrote...
vashtrgn6 wrote...
Let me just throw in my 2 cents before you guys keep talking abortion...Senator Akin is not re-defining rape. He has almost no support on this issue, not even from his own party. Indeed, his party is actually calling for him to withdraw from the Senate race, which is rather indicative of how far this topic is really going to get. Best case scenario, nobody remembers the name Akin or re-defining rape by the end of this week.
This is just another case of mainstream media zoning in on radicals to make flashy headlines, spark controversy, and sell articles. They especially want people to get pissed off so that they make angry posts on hentai forums all over the internet (looking at you OP). Anyone remember or even care about Obama's "crazy" pastor? Yeah, neither do I.
The more people that talk about it, the more that are going to search it up on Google, go to their webpage, and earn them ad revenue. Reporting the news is about making money, not journalism. (exaggerating but you get the point) Lets get our panties unbunched, because rape is not going to be re-defined anytime soon.
Alright, continue with your abortion debate.
Luckily, the people who at one time may have been taught such things (like what Akin said) were true will now be forced to face the truth.
That's the one good thing coming out of all this: clarification of the facts.
'Facts' are nothing more than accepted opinions, there's no scientific research one way or another, however in no world other than the world of the pro-abortionist is 5% a "large number".
5% of a cesspool is a really, really small percentage point lol.
So as to make it clear: 1% is one percent too much, but for the purpose of identifying it as a legitimate excuse for an open-ranged abortion policy, it is a poor excuse. One of the poorer ones actually.
meltme wrote...
8bitking1 wrote...
If tobacco was illegal it would be handled by drug dealers, meaning it would be mixed with even more dangerous ingredients and drug dealers would take advantage of addicts. The cigarette addicts may be lured by dealers into trying harder, more dangerous drugs like heroin. Holland has a nearly nonexistant heroin use statistic because drug dealers often lead cannibis users into hard drugs, in Holland weed is distributed legally which stops this problem alltogether.Exactly. Cigarettes need to be legal so they can be regulated. People who want to smoke will find a way to smoke by whatever means they can. Better for the product to be made correctly than for dealers to add some sleazy stuff to it.
And since money controls everything, the government would be out of a huge source of revenue if they make it illegal. I'm not a smoker, but I've seen prices for some cigarette packs. 10 or 11 bucks, and many people smoke multiple packs a week.
Soda and fast food may also lead to a shorter unhealthy life (Diabetes, Obesity, High Blood Pressure, etc). Moral of the story is to educate people on the health risks of smoking, and let them decide what to do with their money and their bodies.
The difference between soda and fast food and a cigarette is that, the latter are beverages and solids(and therefore, can be consumed by the human body), whereas the cigarette is a foreign object with no real place for the human system. It destroys the lungs, injects drugs(Nicotine) into your body and may or may not cause problems.
Hasn't caused problems for my grandmother, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be stupid enough to smoke one.
That said, someone said that tobacco has a "rich and deep history in our culture", and this in my mind is the big problem(same with the alchol, prohibition failure) is that these things have "become a part of our culture." and as a result we can't part with them.
Sometimes, I don't think this country has much in the way of morality, pride or a sense of ethics. In fact, we're so far removed from those things that I think this country tends to be shallow at times.
Black Jesus JC wrote...
For all those talking about women having abortions for meaningless reasons. Has anyone here been in such a dire situation they felt they cannot take care of a baby?If not, then i don't think we should go around making statements like this
LustfulAngel wrote...
for the most selfish of reasons: "I'm not in an economic position to raise the childIts easy to throw stones when you have never faced a situation like that.
tendallacandybar wrote...
You should have used a condomYou do know that if most pro-lifers had there way, condoms and any other form of birth control would be illegal since to them a embryo has the sanctity of life like Lustful said(his words,not mine). They don't want women getting abortions or using birth control to prevent themselves from getting into situations where they might feel a abortion is needed.
Don't give me a position, that I don't have. It's true, that I believe that all life, whether it be a zygote or a 60 year old man has the sanctity of life. But the responsibilities of motherhood(and fatherhood), should be reserved only for when your ready for that stage. Proper birth control that doesn't endanger the life of the mother, condoms, etc. I support all of these.
Of course, sadly, these items have been used to more openly engage in sex and defile the very meaning of romance but that's their choice. We can't regulate or govern everything, or we'll live in a hell hole.
With the advent of these tools though, the case of ill-affording a child should be less, not more. Taking responsibility for our ability to bring lives into the world, and holding some kind of meaning in our lives and the lives of others is our
responsibility to society, our responsibility to future generations.
If we fail to take this responsibility, we will continue to accept a society that murders it's defenseless and parades countless excuses to allow the genocide to continue.
America is a morally bankrupt, third world country. With first world materialism to disguise that fact.
Black Jesus JC wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
Edit: And just like that, I already got neg repped for posting the picture :D.
Fixed that for you. Even though i may vehemently disagree with almost everything you say, that is kind of ridiculous.
Anyways, i also went to my High school prom also. Glad i went
Also, i know this is slightly off topic but i must ask how did you come up with your username?You strike me as probably the most unlustful person on this site
You'd be surprised, I find that I have quite the sex drive and I long to be lustful with a woman. However, lust alone, I've found recently isn't enough. It's not as pleasurable as it used to be. To simply look at a woman sexually, I find is the worst offense I could do. If I want to truly love a woman, and lust after her in the correct way, I would love everything about her. And there'd be a sense of connection.
When thinking about my feelings, it made me that much more of a Yandere fan. With a Yandere, that sense of connection and feeling would be possible, along with the intense sex she would demand.
tendallacandybar wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
Giving women the right to play demi-god, to condemn stupid is the definition of a third world country.Were at an impass. I think it's wrong to have the government take the right of abortion away from woman, You think it's wrong for the woman to have the right end a defenseless being.
But let me make sothing clear, I DO think abortion is wrong. I don't agree with it. But I ALSO think it's the right of the woman to decide what to do with her own body.
I also think abortion is situational. In the situation you stated, "I'm not in a good econoimcal state to have a baby" I think that's a stupid reason to get an abortion. You should have used a condom. But in the case of incest or rape belive that to be a decent reason for getting an abortion.
I also want to make clear that I fully understand you position. Do you disaprove of abortion for all situations or do you only disaprove wit the "I'm not in a good econoimcal state to have a baby" reason?
I 'fully' support Medical Abortion(IE: Rape, incest, the victims), but even to this extent, I believe it's right to have the hope that one day, in the science field we develop the technology to safely deliver from complicated preganancies.
In all realism, we probably won't be able to ban abortion in the same way we won't be able to ban guns. As dangerous, ill-concieved and anti-life as these items are, they're staunchly in our society and as such will probably never be removed.
Then, can we uphold our morality? We can, by avoiding as many "Pro-choice abortions"(IE:Murder) as we can. There's no reason to 'get' an abortion, just because you don't want to be a mother. I believe, we as humans should have the ability to decently converse about our intentions in a relationship, how serious we think we can go and if we can support a child, etc.
In my ideal world, we'd only support medical abortion and I'd be satisfied: We would've cut the abortion rate in nearly half. Because there are few medical cases, as opposed to the thousand of "pro-choice" cases.
tendallacandybar wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
Black Jesus JC wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
Starting by giving our fetuses the same rights as at least freaking animals. I mean, that's disgusting that they don't have that right.
Question, would you give a embryo's those rights too?
Yes. The Sanctity of Life is the highest law of nature, the moment we lose this moral standing, is the moment we become, yes, we are indeed a third world country with first world material.
America has fallen, far from a threat to abortion, abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood enjoy massive funding, target low-key impoverished areas and they literally 'push' the patient towards abortion(Because the more abortions they perform, the higher the funding.)
Disgusting? Yes, of the umpteenth degree. Some 'rights', we're better off without. Murder for profit is one of them.
Life is not the highest law of nature. As far as I know, Survival of the Fittest is the only law of nature. Life is something we should all hold dear, but to force a woman who doesn't want the baby to have the baby isn't right. For rape victims, it's a constant reminder of the rape and some can't bear with that pain.
As for the abortion clinics, the thought of them making a profit on this doesn't sit right with me either. But even with all our disaproval, it's still a buissnes and nothing in this world is free. Though pushing patient's to an abortion is crossing the line. That's the decision of the victim and no one elses.
On the subject of rights we can live without, murder for porfit isn't a right. It's a crime. Right's a legal.
The idea of taking away a life as a business, is well...Let's call a spade, a spade: Wall Street cronyism doesn't even come close to that. But, in a country where there's millions of people, the opinions of a few, or even a thousand pales in comparison. So, no matter how I feel about the sanctity of life, we've long past that stage and any hope of recovery is sadly a dream.
I feel sad for victims of rape, I believe we should prosecute rapists the same as murderers. The failure of prosecution is at the state and federal level, and the best way to change things? A good ole threat: Failure to prosecute will risk the loss of the job of the Attorney General. As well as police who fail to follow through on the evidence.
Public servants, are SERVANTS of the state, city, country and the people in it. Crack the freaking whip.
But even with all of the rape, incest victims, and any other victim you want to add there: Their numbers pail in comparison to the tens of thousands of meaningless abortions a year, for the most selfish of reasons: "I'm not in an economic position to raise the child."
Question: Why'd you enter a serious relationship, knowing that fact? It goes back to what I said in another thread: Let's not condone the criminal, but let's also not condone stupid.
Giving women the right to play demi-god, to condemn stupid is the definition of a third world country.
Black Jesus JC wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
Black Jesus JC wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
Starting by giving our fetuses the same rights as at least freaking animals. I mean, that's disgusting that they don't have that right.
Question, would you give a embryo's those rights too?
Yes. The Sanctity of Life is the highest law of nature, the moment we lose this moral standing, is the moment we become, yes, we are indeed a third world country with first world material.
America has fallen, far from a threat to abortion, abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood enjoy massive funding, target low-key impoverished areas and they literally 'push' the patient towards abortion(Because the more abortions they perform, the higher the funding.)
Disgusting? Yes, of the umpteenth degree. Some 'rights', we're better off without. Murder for profit is one of them.
You do know planned parenthood does more than abortions right?
And i think i mentioned this in another topic, but making abortions illegal will not stop them from happening.And elevating a embryo to a person makes no sense to me.A fetus maybe, but a embryo?
Simply put: Is that embyro going to become something other than a human being? Pregnancy, when it's allowed to actually go through the process is a black and white thing. Either you give birth, or you have a miscarriage.
There is no such thing as a half child, half animal(At least, not that I've heard), or some other extraordinary phenemon occuring in birth.
It's not 'religious' at all, it's a scientific fact. Until we see a different phenmon occur, the only thing a pregnant woman can give birth to, is another human.
Black Jesus JC wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
Starting by giving our fetuses the same rights as at least freaking animals. I mean, that's disgusting that they don't have that right.
Question, would you give a embryo's those rights too?
Yes. The Sanctity of Life is the highest law of nature, the moment we lose this moral standing, is the moment we become, yes, we are indeed a third world country with first world material.
America has fallen, far from a threat to abortion, abortion groups such as Planned Parenthood enjoy massive funding, target low-key impoverished areas and they literally 'push' the patient towards abortion(Because the more abortions they perform, the higher the funding.)
Disgusting? Yes, of the umpteenth degree. Some 'rights', we're better off without. Murder for profit is one of them.
tendallacandybar wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
gizgal wrote...
I think President Obama responded aptly to his comment today, stating thus:"“Let me first say the views expressed were offensive,” Obama said. “Rape is rape, and the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we’re talking about doesn’t make sense to the American people and certainly doesn’t make sense to me.” "
“What I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn’t have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women,” Obama said. “So although these particular comments have led Gov. Romney and other Republicans to distance themselves, I think that the underlying notion that we should be making decisions on behalf of women … or qualifying forcible rape versus non-forcible rape are broader issues.”
via http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/president-obama-on-todd-akin-rape-is-rape.php
Great, so our president is a sexist. I'd like to ask him how many females are in parliament? Exactly. And I'll say it once again: We are not making decisions on behalf of women, we're taking women off the pedestal of making themselves Demi-Gods deciding whether their children will live or die or not.
Murder is murder, and legalizing a form of murder doesn't make it any less so. And the life of the fetus is no different than the life of a child, or an adult. Our newborns have less rights than freaking animals.
I wonder what America's position is on infanticide, it's pretty much the same thing.
I don't believe that's what he was trying to convey. I believ that he is a strong advocate for womans rights. This speach was meant to defend woman, and rape victims in general, by saying that there aren't multi-types of rape. Rape is rape. it's unforgivable.
Also in his speach I don't recal him saying anything about killing a fetus. As far as I know, President Obama is Pro-Choice on the matter, which I belive is best choice. It's not right for the government, which is mostly male ,to make decision's that take away right's belong only to woman.
But we have gotten off topic. This forum is here to dicuss the claim that there is more than one type of rape. Also wether or not woman have this "magical defense barrier" that can differ rape sperm from other sperm.
Well, it's pretty much universal. If we talk about women's rights, we have to address this issue. And I believe it's an issue we need to address, what right do we humans have to take away a life, any life?
The only exception I've ever thought of, was like Light Yagami: Only the worst and most serial of criminals, who disregard lives, including their own and would only be a danger to further life.
The death penalty, in the ideal world, should be the only source of death inflicted by anything other than disease or old age. Obviously, we're not in the ideal world but we can move closer.
Starting by giving our fetuses the same rights as at least freaking animals. I mean, that's disgusting that they don't have that right.
gizgal wrote...
I think President Obama responded aptly to his comment today, stating thus:"“Let me first say the views expressed were offensive,” Obama said. “Rape is rape, and the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we’re talking about doesn’t make sense to the American people and certainly doesn’t make sense to me.” "
“What I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn’t have a bunch of politicians, a majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women,” Obama said. “So although these particular comments have led Gov. Romney and other Republicans to distance themselves, I think that the underlying notion that we should be making decisions on behalf of women … or qualifying forcible rape versus non-forcible rape are broader issues.”
via http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/president-obama-on-todd-akin-rape-is-rape.php
Great, so our president is a sexist. I'd like to ask him how many females are in parliament? Exactly. And I'll say it once again: We are not making decisions on behalf of women, we're taking women off the pedestal of making themselves Demi-Gods deciding whether their children will live or die or not.
Murder is murder, and legalizing a form of murder doesn't make it any less so. And the life of the fetus is no different than the life of a child, or an adult. Our newborns have less rights than freaking animals.
I wonder what America's position is on infanticide, it's pretty much the same thing.
I'm one of those guys that generally dislike body hair. Luckily, my body has complied and I don't have much hair to deal with.
kitten-in-heat wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
Secondly, in upholding that moral standard for myself and others I don't subject others to 'my opinion', or 'my will'. I uphold what I believe should be our standards for humanity.
Those two sentences seem to be contradicting one another.
LustfulAngel wrote...
A world without these moralities, again, is the lowest common denominator of western civilization, it's trash. Sexuality can only be truly open in one place,the bedroom. Anywhere else, it loses it's elegance. It's only in your opinion that sexuality should only be explored in the bedroom and that it has an elegant meaning to it, so you shouldn't state it as though it were fact, especially if it's not accepted as a universal truth.
Fine, it's my opinion. It's an opinion that I think should be more prevalent than it is. The fact that it isn't, is quite sad :(.
cruz737 wrote...
tendallacandybar wrote...
Not so much as Mr. Akin himself, but on what he said. I was also looking for your opinion's on this idea of there being multiple "types" of rape.
Does that make sense?
Not every single "rape" case is the same really. Every case should be examined thoroughly...That being said, I know our justice system(here in the USA) is far from perfect.
tendallacandybar wrote...
It's incomplete due to the number of rapes that haven't been reported.That isn't the biggest issue in rape statistics...Although it isn't fair to assume that it wouldn't change the statistics of people who do get pregnant from their rapist.
It's like saying it doesn't snow much in California, after reporting all of the incidents of snow in California, the percentage generally won't raise that much higher.
For proper statistical probability, there has to be a significant base percentage. Another example is the election process, if a candidate wins more states than another candidate, it doesn't matter if candidate b overwhelming wins in the states he won.(Of course, the delegate vote of keystone states changes this somewhat, but not really.)
nikinefarious wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
gizgal wrote...
LustfulAngel wrote...
Dumbing it down even further for you: When a woman dresses respectfully, and acts in a respectful manner. She treats herself with class and dignity, and in turn she makes a profound impression upon a male.
See, that's the thing: not all women dress to please dudes, nay anyone, but themselves.
Heterosexual males have somehow egocentrically thought for eons that this is the case, but many women can assure you, it is not.
Oh, I'm sorry, I neglected to mention that once upon a time, the feminine treated themselves with respect to please themselves, as opposed to men who once thought they were worthless.
And now, with things such as the "Slut movement", those who support the disgrace of the feminine have ironically become worthless. Only to have the male agree and also become worthless in himself.
In the end, you have modern day North America, and the lowest common denominators of Western civilization, which in my mind might as well be barbaric.
nikinefarious wrote...
A women (and men too of course) should be able to live their lives without fear of rape. Period. It isn't the women's behavior that caused her to be raped, its not the shortness of her skirt-- the only thing that causes rape is the presence of a rapist. The slut movement is about dismantling a culture that allows rape to continue through slut shaming, allowing the rapists to excuse their own behavior as being their victims fault because "she was asking for it". And also dismantling a culture that prevents women from enjoying the same sexual freedom as men by limiting them with social repercussion.
This isn't to say that women should dress grossly inappropriately everywhere, there is a time and place. But never should how intoxicated a victim is, or how colorful her sexual history is, and most certainty how much skin she shows be used to place the responsibility of her own victimization on her shoulders.
Why shouldn't we be able to go out and party without having to constantly fear about being violated-- and worse the shaming that follows which is often more humiliating and painful.
In the end the rapist chose to rape their victim.
The victim did not choose to be raped.
Yet it is the victim that bears the shame and responsibility of the rapists choice.
"Culture" does not allow rape to continue, the rapist in most cases is caught, I'll give you that sadly our pathetic courts don't treat rape in the same manner as murder, and your sentences typically range from 5-to-20 years. Whereas I believe rape should be treated in the same manner as murder in the first and second degrees.
Rapists are not given an "excuse", no one has ever said that you're allowed to rape a woman because her skirt is too short. But rather, it should be acknowledged that there are social factors involved in an attack. Would you attack someone with a full length of clothes on, thereby being more of a struggle?(And hence, leaving more evidence.) Or a woman's short skirt, which will hardly be violated by the rapist's penetration?
So far from an excuse, it's perfectly valid that a rapist would find it more opportunistic and easier to actually commit the crime when you're wearing less clothes rather than more. Of course, it goes without saying that a woman fully dressed can be raped too.
Want to influence the way rape is viewed in 'society'? Child pedophiles are posted on the internet, heterosexual rapists should be treated the same, and very equally given the same punishment of not interacting with the female species again.
But, as I said, let's not condone stupidity. We have a responsibility to uphold morality, and our own decency. If not, let's not call it a "society" then, and let's live the days of the Wild West.
"Morality" is non specific and different depending on class, culture, or religion. You seem to want to impose your own "morality" onto women whom you have no control over. To me the real indecent person in the equation would be the rapist, he is the one being truly disrespectful to women. He to is some who wants to impose his desires onto another person by violating them. It is the same entitled attitude.
"Oh, I'm sorry, I neglected to mention that once upon a time, the feminine treated themselves with respect to please themselves"
Also women did not dress modest because they wanted to, when women's fashion became more revealing there was huge social backlash from religious, government institutions (traditionally controlled by men). Consider when shorter skirts (revealing the ankles) came into fashion for ballet it was followed by outrage, in fact the rite of spring was so unconventional and "sexual" in its movements that it literally caused a riot.
Bared ankles were not accepted until the popularity of bicycles increased among women (bicycles did so much for the women movement) when women began to wear pantaloons under a shorter skirt in order to ride. Still the they and bicycles were demonized.
In the twenties wee see it with the demonetization of loose flapper dresses and rouged knees.
And in the sixties we see it again when society turned away from the stagnant attitudes of the 40's and 50's and became more free the religious institutions were in shock at the idea of free love and bare midriffs.
Society has been consistent in attempting to brow beat the progression and evolution of "femininity". Your antiquated notion of what is feminine this is proof. And your idea of masculinity is probably defunct as well.
Also Culture is collective of those "social factors"
Also heterosexual and homosexual rapists ARE posted on sex offender registries for all range of sex crimes from indecent exposure to forcible rape.
Let me condense your post, you equated me to a rapist, in stating that I violate the female's rights by pushing my own idea of morality on them. Firstly, I disagree with the notion that there's "different" types of morality. We either have the morality to respect ourselves, our peers and our bodies or we don't.
Secondly, in upholding that moral standard for myself and others I don't subject others to 'my opinion', or 'my will.' I uphold what I believe should be our standards for humanity. I'd like to see what government institutions prevented women from dressing however they wanted, this will be amusing.
My idea of masculinity, the way I would like to present myself as a man is someone who respects females, someone who idolizes his lover and has her by his side. Someone who will cultivate a strong sense of family values.
A world without these moralities, again, is the lowest common denominator of western civilization, it's trash. Sexuality can only be truly open in one place,the bedroom. Anywhere else, it loses it's elegance.
