Consent: Sex is Rape???

Obviously, this thread is addressed to Satyr, since he cannot accept the facts as stated...

1) What is sex?

The common notion of sex is a strictly-human endeavor. Human animals are Mammalian creatures; we are beasts of nature. As such, we have evolved as humanoid creatures that fall under a classification of specie-ism known as Humanism. This ideology teaches that all of Mankind is Human. Its overarching ideology consists of a fundamental ideal regarding Equality. I believe that Humanism predates Feminism for obvious reasons: a) Mankind did not look upon Womankind as equals throughout a majority of Human History, and b) not until recently did the ideal that "All men are created Equal" affect the masses so queerly. Regardless of these social phenomenons, Human Sexuality remains largely-unchanged from the Fundamentalist point-of-view. As a specie of Human split into two predominant genders, male & female, human animals have evolved out of or away from uni-sexuality. Now: a-sexuality ≠ uni-sexuality. Linguistically-speaking, uni-sexuality is hermaphroditism, which still exists today when children are born with both sexual anatomies, a penis & vagina. The concept of 'asexuality' denotes a "moving away from" uni-sexuality to di-sexuality. From one gender fragments two: male & female. Sex is the enjoining of these two separate genders for the sake and purpose of sexual procreation. The penis impregnates the vagina with its sperm to the egg.


2) What is rape?

Does any animal other than Human 'rape'? The definitive answer to this question is: NO!!! No other animal in the animal kingdom rapes one another besides the human specie. "Why is this?" you may ask yourself. Well, the reasoning is simple: Non-human animals have no conception of 'rape'. Rape-itself is a concept derived from Moral Institutionalism. If you have no Morals, then you have no degree by-and-which you can successfully-measure the difference of what is 'rape' and what is not, other than the notion of Consent-itself. But as I will show, Consent is no marker for rape. In fact, it has little to do with it. While all (?) Mammalian species are essentially-social ones, 'rape' is an anti-social concept. When a man is accused of rape (in the West), what crime did he truly-commit? And this is question that nobody can answer toward me as I have put it toward many people. Who did he hurt or do harm toward? Obviously, the act of rape is predominantly: male-to-female. To say that a man is raped is a humiliation. It exposes to others that he is weak and/or emasculated; and this can be metaphorical. When young boys & girls abuse the term and utilize the common phrase "I raped you! I raped you!" what the children mean to say is "I dominated you!" And this is what sex is anyway: domination.


3) Where does sex & rape meet?

Western culture is brought up, raised/nurtured by Romanticism under the classical Moral system of Roman Catholicism. There is no way to avoid this fact; look around you if you are a Westerner. Christianity has raised your culture: English, French, German, Spanish, Eastern Orthodox, etc. (P.S. Spaniards can go fuck themselves by the way, lol) Therefore, the social interactions, especially-concerning the Sex Act-itself, is derived from how Transhumanity is now rooted in Christianity, which is rooted in Judaism & Hellenism mixed together. By having sex in Western Society, no matter which country/culture/society you live in, you are only having sex as made possible by the religious institutions from which you sprang. Thus, the matter of Consent is a strictly-spiritual one. It reflects a necessary ideology of which must be bought into by a male, otherwise he violates the institution to which a particular female has bought into. For example, if a Christian guy fucks a Jew girl, then this can be a rape insofar as the Jew girl accuses him of the crime. And that is all it takes; accusation. It does not really-matter if the male is guilty; in our day & age he will most likely-be convicted and sentenced regardless. Most cases in which Rapists are set free is where they are valued by the predominant system. Thus, in a Christian Culture, the Jew girl gets fucked ... literally. She cannot do anything; the Christian judge will take sides with the Christian guy.


4) What is Consent?

The notion of Consent is where two adults *OF MUTUAL RESPECT* make a decision together regarding an action. But, what does "of mutual respect" mean? Well, funny that you should ask, there is really no such thing as "of mutual respect". Within any social interaction, there is a predominance of one party over another. Mutual-beneficiality is an illusion. The only reason that social interactions take place is because one is dominating all others. This is how Economies work and thrive. The rich prosper. The poor work. As such, this dynamic also applies to Human Sexuality: The man orgasms. The woman does not. By definition, she is the one dominated in the terms of male-thought. His penis is the Will. Her (lack of) Will is passive, which defines her as a passive-entity. Some may argue that the woman Acts by setting up this situation & scene, but this is illogical from the male point-of-view. He is the instigator of action as excited by his erection. Utilizing Reason (which women do not have, by the way), he may use or refuse his erect penis. He may realize that the result from knocking a girl down on the street in broad-daylight, and ravaging her, will cause severe consequences toward him. Therefore, he must play to the System/Institution/Sociality by seducing said-girl to Consent...

If there is no mutual respect between Man & Woman, then how can one "responsibly"-consent to the demands of the other? They cannot unless mutual respect is implied: Equalism. However, this is merely a façade produced by the male, an illusion. He plays "The Game" to get laid, nothing-more and nothing-less. Thus, what he must do to get laid is Act & Lie, like a feminized-pussy, to get what he wants. He cannot challenge other males by approaching them, kick the stool out from under their ass, and repeatedly-slam his fist into their face in the middle of a bar until the victim is dead. This is Society! There are "Rules" here! And the Rule is this: Lower yourself as a Man in order to get some pussy. <> Lie. And, lie well indeed! Tell a girl you 'love' her until she thinks you care. Then laugh at her in your thoughts when you fuck her. This is what guys do all the time. And why should they do otherwise when women cannot be respected in Western Non-culture. I do not see how it is possible, because Respect for a woman implies morality, civility, and a severely-*CHRISTIAN* piety. Did the Hellenes respect women??? Yes ... but Christianity passed this legacy on under the form of Romanticism. And regarding any particular sex act in this day & age signifies the words that I am speaking: Moral Institutionalism.

The fact of the matter is that there is no Consent without Morality. The a-moralist, the Heathen, would leave you to believe that lying is a suitable method for fucking some dumb-bimbo. I disagree. By "consenting" to sex, what you are really doing is paying respect to your ancestors. They are the ones who brought you here, for you to knock your rocks-off inside some dumb cunt, so that you can pass your (usually-impotent) sperm onto another dull & classless generation of mindless-drones. So, by doing so, a respect is implied, and this is the only *REAL NOTION* of Consent: Respect. But, like I said, this excludes the male-female dynamic. The only way a person can truly-not rape another person is by respecting themself first-and-foremost. And since Western Non-culture has built itself on this amoral, cock-sucking, contrary-to-the-effect, people are not necessitated to respect themselves at all.

Thus, there can be no Consent.

Thus, there can be no Sex Act.

It can only be Rape. Or, more appropriately-speaking, there can only be a rape of yourself. Even the crime of 'rape' is broadly-defined. It has not been until the last few centuries, with the advent of Feminism (not irionically-speaking), that 'rape' has even existed. When women were (accurately) viewed as Objects in previous eras, 'rape' could not exist, because the notion of Respect implies that there is a subject-to-subject interaction. Can a Human rape a goat? Can a Human rape a crack in a boulder? No, he cannot. This is a senseless notion. Rape implies that there is a taking away of intrinsic value; it is an actual-objectification of Woman rather than seeing her for what she is ... just a woman. There is no grand mystery to it. However, when Human Sexuality appears like it does in this day & age, then the old rules cannot be applied to the same system. Yet, there are no other rules to speak of. This is why all Sex Acts become Rape, because Marriage is no longer sanctified by God. And this is why Divorce is acceptable and "okay". But is it truly-"okay"? I do not think so. In fact, I know it is not. If there is no sanctity in Marriage, implying the Human Sex Act, then all sexual activities are rape-by-definition, because there is nothing greater that a Man must concern himself with. Say you "love" her; you do not have to mean it. Just say it. Just pretend. Just bow & bend. Rape yourself first. Rape your bitch second.

That is. -- How it is.


If anybody wants to debate me on this, then I will be waiting here. Do not be a little cock-sucker, like some children, and attack me from afar with widely-cast slings and arrows. They will not hit me. If you are interested in what I have to say, then come address me from the front, rather from the back.

Coward!

Funny how the once censored, presumably for being dangerous, now becomes Da Man, the censor.

Isn't power addictive....little brain?

Satyr wrote:

Coward!

Hypocrite!

Let us see how much you have to say without personal attacks, LOL!

Unreasonable wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Coward!

Hypocrite!

Let us see how much you have to say without personal attacks, LOL!

I'm up for the challenge, but when facing such absurdities, it is difficult to not speak my mind.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Let us see how much you have to say without personal attacks, LOL!

I'm up for the challenge, but when facing such absurdities, it is difficult to not speak my mind.

Quote :

Fuck you! -- You are pathetic!!!

EAT SHIT FAGGOT!

You are ill, insane, fucked in the head...

I HATE YOOOOOOOOOOU!!!

Do these statements add to your argument or take away from it???

Do you even know me on a personal level Satyr? No, you do not. You do not know what I am or am not.

So know this now; everybody shall see how Reasonable of a Man you truly-are...

Satyr wrote:

Rape in animals

Rape

Morality is a direct product of the simple distinction between good/bad.

It begins as a recognition of good for me - bad for me.

I already know of Morality; but I doubt you know how far the Good/Bad distinction really-goes.

It depends on how you define the Individual and his Sociality.

Satyr wrote:

Like gender is the adaptation of sexual roles within social settings, so are morals the adaptation of basic self interests, and identity within group dynamics.

So, there need not be institutionalized morality for there to be rape. There need only be forced, against one's will, penetration.

Against whose will do you speak?

What will does a female have? What will does a rock have?

Satyr wrote:

it has to do with the Will. Morality simply supports and defends a systemic Will.

Against one`s will, with one`s will, by one`s will.

The first is violence of you towards another. The last is violence of another towards you.
An imposition of one will over another.

The second one is the relevant one.

Consent.

Consent is submission to Man, the Individual, the 'masculine' archetype. He can still rape in this context, *WITH* consent.

Satyr wrote:

We both, in unison, will this. Our wills are synchronized, and whether one will dominates the other is another matter.

The female wants to be dominated. She is sexually aroused when she is.
She has evolved to do so because fit genes attract her and are worthy of her acquiescence....her willful consent, her choice.
She does not want to be raped.

Being raped is this choice being ignored.

What "choice" does she have to begin with???

You have said this before, paraphrased: woman are sexual skeptics. That is true!

If they passively-flow from one dominating source to another, then what real "choice" do they have? They do not have one!

Satyr wrote:

She can get raped by a one-legged, half-wit that is not fit at all.
She does not want this because in the past she risked getting pregnant and having a sick fuck as a son.
She wants to choose the attributes her children will have. The man tries to convince her that he possess these desirable attributes...he seduces her.
He may be lying/pretending or he may not.

That is correct: he may be lying!

That is my point...

Satyr wrote:

morality didn't come to Earth out of thin air...God didn't implant it in man and only man.
All social animals exhibit the seeds of the moral feeling.

It is the good/bad discrimination given a communal standard.
It is the one identifying with the many...as one.

wolves have a morality, when they feed their injured and go to aid one of their brethren in peril.
It is reciprocity.

In human societies, morality is institutionalized and so it is forced upon all.

Do plants, trees, and rocks have Morality then? Do insects and waterfalls have Morality???

Satyr wrote:

Consent has to do with will, not morality.

When it comes to Sex/Rape; you are wrong.

The fundamental lessons of all Moral Institutions pivot themselves around the Sex Act as the definition of their Ideologies.

Without Morality, there is no differentiation between rape and sex. This is why non-human animals *NEVER* rape one another.

Satyr wrote:

Morality, common law, is how this consent is guaranteed or protected by the institution - whether it be the State or the Church.

Rape is the usage of force, violence, to avoid consent...

A half-wit with a gun or a whip, can rape a woman, a man, a horse, but he may not be able to make any of them willfully accept sex with you without it.

Why does it matter for the man which way he successfully-has sex???

If he "rapes", then is he being more or less honest than as if he paid time & money to court his same victim???

Answer these questions ... if you can.

Satyr wrote:

In sex there has to be mutual attraction or else one is making a concession with greater gains in mind.

There's a negotiation during flirting. The boundaries are estalbished and each party evaluates the fitness of the other.
Decides if the other is worthy of his/her efforts. The female's decision is more complicated. The man's simpler.

when I trade a calf-skin for a bottle of wine, I am not robbing the other....I am exchanging....an economic arrangement.
If I go there and force him to give me the wine I am ignoring his will, I am enacting violence upon it...
I am raping him....
I am robbing him.

Yes.

Now, you have to determine the positive & negative values of such potential traits, specifically-speaking, in the abstract.

Satyr wrote:

If he agrees to trade with me, even if I am tricking him and taking more than I am giving, I am not using violence.
I am seducing him....making his will believe, rightly or wrongly, that this is a good trade for him.

Respect is certainly a form of intimidation, but it is not violence.
I can dominate another, and not use force. I can make him want to give in to me.
I seduce him, convince him.

How is seduction different than violence except by Quality?

Both of these methods can be 'rape'. You are taking for yourself-first. You have no care for the Other.

Satyr wrote:

If you do not learn to think with more subtlety and you make these grand sweeping absolute statements, you will lose the nuances implied in words that make all the difference.
You will remain a simpleton.

I do not see a problem with any of my statements until they are not logically-consistent.

I know the specifics; you do not.

Satyr wrote:

Taking another's property and buying it or changing yours for his, is not the same.

Why?



P.S. It is telling for me to see you dodge away from my points in the OP.

It seems as though I am correct if you cannot contend with my basic points...

you'll call me an ass now, UR, but there's just one thing I'd really like to know: why is it so important for you to prove that you are 'right' about this issue? What's the importance of defining sex as 'rape', as 'love', as 'reproduction', or whatever? Why do you atribute so much relevance to these things?

what makes you think that being 'right' about anything has any practical significance at all?

Drone wrote:

you'll call me an ass now, UR, but there's just one thing I'd really like to know: why is it so important for you to prove that you are 'right' about this issue?

Why is it so important for anybody to prove anything at all???

If I obtain the best definition of 'sex' or 'rape', then I obviously-know what it means. I could go to the dictionary or etymology, but those are not necessarily-going to help me explain and/or describe the phenomenon as rape. Besides, 'rape' is a concern that affects many peoples' lives. Some men rape some women. Some fathers rape some daughters. Some teachers rape some students. Are you not curious to know why? I am. And so I investigate and reason the causes out. Rape is based on Human Sexuality. Rape is linguistically-rooted in Dominance Theory: what-dominates-what? Who is in control? As I have stated numerous times, the 'male' gender is the Active Will while the 'female' gender portrays a Passive Will. I do not think passive-action is even action-at-all, from my point of view. From the Solipsist standpoint, the woman is not acting of her own free will and volition. This creates a major, major metaphysical problem.

If I am correct, then it means that women are essentially-objects and should be treated like objects.

This is where my reasoning is pointing ... so I welcome being "wrong". I do not mind either way; I win in both directions.

Drone wrote:

What's the importance of defining sex as 'rape', as 'love', as 'reproduction', or whatever?

...because people use these definitions everyday.

And not only that, the Common Man, Woman, and Child utilize these terms to form dream-worlds out of them.

If I tell a girl/woman/female "I love you", then does it really-matter if I know the meaning of the statement and she does not?

Are women/children truly-responsible for anything-at-all???

Drone wrote:

Why do you atribute so much relevance to these things?

The reasoning should be obvious...

Why does everybody attribute value to everything?

Drone wrote:

what makes you think that being 'right' about anything has any practical significance at all?

If I am right, then I am right.

I become the authority on the subject-matter, to say the least, by definition...

i see the way you talk about it and the way you adress Satyr when he contradicts your points: there is a level of emotion here that is difficult to find in a philosopher.

if philosophy is the search for truth, and if there is really an object in this search (i.e., if veritas does exist), why should we bother because some people refuse to recognize it? isn't truth above questioning, isn't it valid per se?

or maybe you're just afraid that this truths you expose here are no more than a set of beliefs, just like Kriswest said to you in that Gender Debate? Yes, because I see that nobody gets really hurt when someone 'denies' or 'rejects' something that is obvious, for instance, the fact that the earth goes round the sun, or that men are animals. If someone insists that these facts aren't true at all, you will simply turn your back and ignore the fool. It's only when someone denies or rejects or ridicules our beliefs that we really get angry. It's only when someone reveals to us the limitations of our knowledge and our inability to accept that it consists basically of beliefs anc conjectures (with the exception of some basic facts totally accepted as true by the common sense) that we really get upset. Then what we try to prove is that we are 'right', but what the other people really think is that we need to believe that we are right. In other words, you think you're revealing to the world here a completely original and groundbreaking perspective, while all the others see and do believe you're just disguising some of your beliefs and prejudices as irrefutable facts...

this while some of them don't imply that you're simply exposing your inability to deal with women in the real world by insisting in their 'lack of reason', their 'inability to think', their 'emotional nature', etc: a psychological trauma may be behind all this stuff from the beginning...

what I'm trying to say is that you may really have a point here, but your emotion exposes a weakness that a philosopher should fight against. You want people to recognize that you're right. For a philosopher, being right should be enough: recognition is a prize only the mindless masses strive for.

and real philosophers despise the masses and their mentality.

here's a valuable advice to you, my friend: relax. Take it easy. Remember that life isn't reduced to internet message boards or to philosophy. Remember that when you find a girl you love, and whom you really want close to you, you won't give a damn to the fact that you 'dominate' her, that she's an 'object' to you, or that the opposite is also true.

you'll just want her next to you all the time.

Drone wrote:

In other words, you think you're revealing to the world here a completely original and groundbreaking perspective,

The next time you project your erroneous & deeply-flawed thoughts onto my philosophies, in one of my threads, I am going to erase your insignificant words out of existence. You are so vastly-incorrect about your delusions that I cannot even begin to fix your destroyed mindset. I want to build a castle out of a brain. Some brains are made of stone. Some brains are made of dirt. And I do not need dirt for this project of mine.

You probably-will not understand ... oh well. Your projections are so pathetic; there is really-nothing more for me to say here.


Watch this:

Your life is empty. You come online, because you cannot think for yourself. You need other people to think for you.

See ... projection. Now do not expose your flawed/repressed dreams towards me again. You want a simple solution for your simple mind.

why does it make you so angry?

why?

what's up, after all? Ban me if you will. Aren't you the 'ban-God' here?

Drone wrote:

why does it make you so angry?

why?

Why would I be angry over the sake of a drone? You are a mere-disappointment to me, nothing more, nothing less.

Drone wrote:

what's up, after all? Ban me if you will. Aren't you the 'ban-God' here?

You are not worth banning.


Now, you must remain on-topic as far as this thread goes, from here on out, or I will erase your responses as they are trolling this thread.

Satyr wrote:

Censorship is back!!!

I am cutting your fat from my arguments.

Much of what you say is ... unnecessary.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Against whose will do you speak?

What will does a female have? What will does a rock have?

Every living organism has a will. Will is the focus of energies upon an object or objective.

It is directed flow...back to metaphysics class for you.

You do not even know the difference between living/non-living......

It was a mistake of mine to presume that you would be intelligent enough to realize that the "wills" you speak of are "by degree". Does a rock have a Will compared to me? No, it does not, because it is so passive that I do not quantitatively-judge that it is an active force. The same could be said of an ant. It has a will. But under the context of it being an ant, its will appears passive to me. I can determine its whole life, end it or let it live, as if I have godlike powers. This is a difference of force/power between my will and its. Now, let us go to a cat. A cat has a will. Again, since I have an adept knowledge about how the brain of a cat operates, it will not come as a surprise to me how to manipulate this will so that it is completely-predictable. So, its will also appear passive after I determine the course of actions set before myself & it. This can apply to human animals too. Some people are so simple, and you are no exception to this rule, that you can see what they will say before they say it. Thus, the matter of Will is not only by degree, but a qualification can be made when certain thresholds are passed. When I overcome the Will of another, they become passive whereas I am active. This occurs, because their actions are made predictable and predetermined by my control. If say X, then A will occur. If I say Y, then B will occur. If A is good for me and B is bad for me, then I will say X.

The metaphysical descriptions you offer pale in-comparison to mine. I would to have to expose you as a fool in front of your audience here.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Consent is submission to Man, the Individual, the 'masculine' archetype. He can still rape in this context, *WITH* consent.

I`m not sure you even understand what you are saying.

You do not understand what I am saying, because you are incapable of comprehending my thoughts.

You have been surpassed by me and this greatly-angers you. This is why you attempt to slander me; it is your only weapon.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

What "choice" does she have to begin with???

Same choices as she is aware of.

YES!!! -- Her Will is based on awareness; this is my point! She is not aware of the rape unless it is physically-violent!!!

And if her awareness is based on her intelligence, and a female cannot reason, then her mind can easily-become surpassed by a male.

Satyr wrote:

A choice is firstly a product of perception. I cannot choose what I do not see or I do not understand.
Secondly the choice is probable, or not so probable, in accordance with the energies accessible to the organism...the will.

Degree

This is repeated rhetoric. I have heard it a dozen times now.

I already-agreed with it, so say something new, if you can.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

If they passively-flow from one dominating source to another, then what real "choice" do they have? They do not have one!

choices can change as awareness grows.

For instance my choice to participate in discussions with you is changing to a choice not to participate

Oh, no! -- whatever will I do!?

You expose yourself here ... as if I care about participating in a discussion with you. Although I do enjoy out-reasoning most people, it has become more & more tiresome to outshine your arguments. If you have something important to say, a Reason for example, then plainly-say it. I do not give a shit if you "choose not to participate". Go somewhere else. <> simple. If you want to stay, then act like a Philosopher, if you even can. Continue attacking me with insults if you feel it strengthens your case. It does not; only the reasons are important. If you play the part of a child, then you will become one. Your arguments are failing you. You can hardly-stay on course with my topic, within my thread, because you cannot definitively-answer the questions I pose here. First, you would have to be capable of the intelligence necessary.

Satyr wrote:

Everyone reevaluates everything...constantly.
Synaptic speed...consciousness. Consciuosness keeping pace with the flow of change- time.

She may be lying, as well.
Didn't even enter your mind, did it?

When a woman wears makeup or a push-up bra is she not lying about how she looks?

She cannot lie if I setup the situation and it is controlled by me; think about it!!!

Of course women lie; they are incapable of Truth-claims anyway. They cannot Reason! They do not understand a simple truth: 1+1=2.

Mathematics does not compute in a woman's mind. Do you even know why!?!? You seem to be clueless about this...

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Do plants, trees, and rocks have Morality then? Do insects and waterfalls have Morality???

A rudimentary form of discriminating between good and bad.

Morality is the estalbished good and bad by an external will or a communal will.
It is the institutionalization of good/bad and the enforcement of it.

It is now apparent to me that you do not have the first clue about what constitutes Morality or Authority.

You fail at these points.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

The fundamental lessons of all Moral Institutions pivot themselves around the Sex Act as the definition of their Ideologies.

Without Morality, there is no differentiation between rape and sex. This is why non-human animals *NEVER* rape one another.

They do, if they force the other to copulate against his/her will.

But nature has found that it is more efficient and productive in the long term to convince the other one, rather than force them ...at least within groups.
A more advantageous cost/benefit ratio.

It`s about efficiency...cost versus benefit...no morality...economics.

I do not kill someone that bothers me because it is immoral, but because the costs far outweigh the potential benefits within this particular environment.

Others, being too stupid to calculate such things, require morality to tell them what to do.

Morality is a strictly-human system of classification regarding all social actions of any particular Social Group. The context of morality changes from culture-to-culture, and society-to-society. However, just because the context changes does not mean that the underlying rules change. And the rules of *ALL* moral systems are to monopolize social interactions, namely, Human Sexuality. Even this forum on the internet represents a Western Morality, because of the English language we use combined by the methods of our communicating across the internet, on a Philosophy Forum, and everything else we can possibly-say. That moral systems are becoming so absolute is due to the monopolizing affect of Global Ideologies. Whereas two millenniums ago, a person could be born to a myriad selection of moral systems, the same is not true today. Morality has grown to devour World Systems. Global ideologies affect billions of minds.

To discount Morality and Moral Authority, as you clearly-do, speaks volume of your personal character. Not only are you amoral, but you are immoral as well. Throughout your arguments, you presume that rape is a 'bad' thing and that I am an 'idiot' for not understanding it (as you do). But you are fundamentally-incorrect in your reasoning, because rape can neither be 'bad' or 'good' from your presuppositions. Therefore, your attempts to deride my arguments with slander backfire right in your face. Why would you form an attitude around 'rape', 'pedophilia', or 'crime' unless you were emotionally-attached to such judgments, as you apparently-are? The reason for this is your underlying Morality creeps out. What your insults expose is that you have a Moral character, notably-Western, and you attempt to dominate me with this mindset. Your mistake is not realizing that I have never promoted rape, or incest, or pedophilia, or crime, or anything in particular. I do not really-care so much about how other people live their lives until it personally-affects me.

Here are two examples that your mind should be able to comprehend:

1) I do not murder, because I will be thrown in jail.

2) I do not murder, because it is not 'Good'.

Your overwhelming preference of #1 over #2 is clear. You falsely-believe that #1 is the reason to which you do not murder. However, you are a hypocrite, because your emotional-responses/attacks surrounding the subject-matter of rape tell everybody a different story. You believe that rape is morally-reprehensible, otherwise you would not defend the Sex Act otherwise. And this is because sex-as-rape has a personal & direct-relation to you. You clearly-do not know the difference between rape and non-rape, so you attack me in order to prevent you having to admit that perhaps *YOU* are the rapist. Perhaps this applies to your life all-too-well, you taking advantage of women for your own personal gain, and you do not want to admit to it. If sex is rape, then you have to admit that you too are a rapist, merely-because you have lied to a woman, I can only imagine who, and used her for your own ends.

And that is quite pathetic. This says everything anybody needs to know about you, the man-behind-the-screen. You fear my argument, because you are personally-invested in it. If men dominate the minds of women to where they have no *REAL* choice except to have sex with you, then how is it any different than physically-dominating said-female. There is no difference. And if there was a difference, then it is one you and most others can neither place nor name. What exactly is domination or submission? You do not know. If you did know, then you would understand the difference about what makes rape "rape" and what makes sex "sex". You do not. The issue of 'rape' is a relatively-new one in Human History. If you study this, then you would know that 'rape' has not been around very long in lingual dictionaries. There are specific reasons for this, unbeknown to you.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Why does it matter for the man which way he successfully-has sex???

If you cannot figure than one out...I cannot help you.

But I've already provided the elements you need to figure that one out.

You cannot help me, because you do not know.

You are unable to differentiate moral claims, because you are ignorant of them. It is clear.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

If he "rapes", then is he being more or less honest than as if he paid time & money to court his same victim???

Answer these questions ... if you can.

The repercussions of doing this are far greater than just going to jail...

But this ins`t about honesty...this is you twisting and turning after you made a error

Yes, this is about honesty, because I say that it is. Leave this thread if you are too weak for honesty; you flee & cower!

The only person "twisting and turning" here is you, because you are incompetent to the reasons behind this argument.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

I do not see a problem with any of my statements until they are not logically-consistent.

I know the specifics; you do not.

I see how you act here...a smile offered to a mind with your childish judgment is bound to lead to wrong conclusions.

If you were intelligent, then you would have realized that not only did I initiated the sequence in my story, but I knew of its outcome in advance.

What makes you think when a girl smiles at me that I will do anything specific in return? Many girls smile at me; I ignore them. Figure it out.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Why?

P.S. It is telling for me to see you dodge away from my points in the OP.

It seems as though I am correct if you cannot contend with my basic points

Did I not?

Wow

That is correct; you did not.

Instead of addressing my points in the OP, you went off on a tangent definition of the terms I set forth. You gave me your skewed and personally-convoluted explanations of what rape is or is not, which are wrong by the way, and then you attempted to attack my person. I censored and deleted these responses, because they demean the argument at hand. You have nothing to say, and that is made abundantly-clear more-and-more in this thread. Not only are you ignorant of what Sex & Rape are, as concepts, you are also ignorant of how these concepts tie into Morality as a whole. You do not understand the classifications, connections, and underlying themes of any points I have brought up in this thread, because your personal pride overwhelms your shriveling ego. You are getting old & outdated in your general mindset, and so you reach for vast, inaccurate claims to help your case. Failing this, you resort to personal attack and slander, which have no affect on me here. You have no weapons, not because you have been disarmed, but because you never reasoned well to begin with, in comparison to me. And that deeply bothers you on a personal level, that I can read you so well.

Perhaps, if you start again, and address my contentions up-front and directly, then you will come to understand my basic meanings & definitions presented openly-here and everywhere else. My words are very simple, so simple people can use them. What is 'sex'? What is 'rape'? What is 'consent'? What do these things have to do with 'morality'? All evidence shows that you are ignorant of these answers while I have some sort of better clue as to their direction.

Satyr wrote:

I defined consent...I corrected you that rape has to do with Will, and that morality is but the imposition of an external, communal or other, will upon yours.

Its rules...

You defined consent through a substandard meaning. You failed. I already-knew that rape has to do with Will. A child knows this. You are regurgitating things that I already-know. You cannot anticipate where my arguments lead. You have not done your homework. If you had, then you would have seen by now the implications for both of our arguments and what they mean as a whole. You are apparently-clueless here.

Satyr wrote:

This still leaves the wills of you and the poor girl that made the mistake of smiling at you.

If you ignore her will...this is force....violence...in sexual terms...rape.

If you acknowledge her will...it is not.

If I exchange gifts with you I am not mugging you unless I force my gift upon you and forcefully take one from you.

This analogy is completely-off-base.

You are skewing the general definitions to stretch your case well-past its boundaries. You have no point.

Satyr wrote:

Now you have tired me out...

There is definitely something wrong with you.

Not sure exactly what it is....
Some form of autism.

The same applies to you; your reason is failing you.

Satyr wrote:

And this intervention is free-speech right?

I own this thread; I own everything in it.

If a rotten child comes into this thread, Smears for example, and derails it, then I will fix this mistake.


I am fixing your mistakes. Does the truth hurt yet Satyr?

Unreasonable wrote:

Satyr wrote:

And this intervention is free-speech right?

I own this thread; I own everything in it.

If a rotten child comes into this thread, Smears for example, and derails it, then I will fix this mistake.


I am fixing your mistakes. Does the truth hurt yet Satyr?

You mean the "truth" you repeatedly fail to rationally defend?
Not really.

Because it is only in YOUR head., and since it, like the wheel's center, only exists there, as an imagined ambiguous concept, it only affects you.

I deal in concepts that affect everyone...the real world...actual existence.

Ain't Britney great?
Stoned, cold, comic relief.

He's one of your kind...by the way.
Lost.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

I am fixing your mistakes. Does the truth hurt yet Satyr?

You mean the "truth" you repeatedly fail to rationally defend?
Not really.

I will defend my "truth" when you approach me from the front instead of stabbing me in the back. It is easy to dodge.

I understand the Art of War Satyr; do you? I am not going to let some belligerent fool manhandle my discussions...

Satyr wrote:

Because it is only in YOUR head.

What is only in my head?

Are you getting metaphysical on me now?

Do you know the difference between a subject and object?

Satyr wrote:

and since it, like the wheel's center, only exists there, as an imagined ambiguous concept, it only affects you.

You are a skeptical solipsist, a cynic at best. Do you have anything more to say?

You are apparently-blind as to how a wheel has a center ... sad.

Satyr wrote:

I deal in concepts that affect everyone...the real world...actual existence.

So do I. What is your point?

Satyr wrote:

Ain't Britney great?
Stoned, cold, comic relief.

He's one of your kind...by the way.
Lost.

That insinuation says a lot ... of nothing.

Your steam is running out. Your engine is closing down. You are running out of coal to burn.

Unreasonable wrote:

I will defend my "truth" when you approach me from the front instead of stabbing me in the back. It is easy to dodge.

I understand the Art of War Satyr; do you? I am not going to let some belligerent fool manhandle my discussions...

Is this bullshit part of your trap?

Quote :

What is only in my head?

Are you getting metaphysical on me now?

Do you know the difference between a subject and object?

No....tell me.

What is in your head is the evidence you used. No reference to the real world. It exists because you can think it.

And so does God and unicorns and sex being rape...

What is wrong with you?

Quote :

You are a skeptical solipsist, a cynic at best. Do you have anything more to say?

I am the solipsist?
You argued that the center of the wheel is real because you can think it, and I am the solipsist?

How often do you accuse others of what you feel you are most guilty of?

Quote :

You are apparently-blind as to how a wheel has a center ... sad.

Ha!!!
The infinite regression is incomprehensible to you...you need it to be static, stable, there.

Zero mental flexibility, no nuance...and you expect tog row out of this?
Genetics is so cruel...so....so...cruel.

Quote :

That insinuation says a lot ... of nothing.

Your steam is running out. Your engine is closing down. You are running out of coal to burn.

Whatever you say.

This brain rests in my head and is carried on my shoulders.

It continuously benefits me.
I built it up...I suffered for it....

You can go off creating stupidities like wheels with circles that denies basic existential awareness, and sex as rape, that denies basic understanding of human nature.

Did you think my theories were to give you power, a false sense of strength?
Boy...you've got to earn that...not buy it or repeat it.

You've got to cry for it...reach the edge and then pull back....

Satyr wrote:

Unreasonable wrote:

I will defend my "truth" when you approach me from the front instead of stabbing me in the back. It is easy to dodge.

I understand the Art of War Satyr; do you? I am not going to let some belligerent fool manhandle my discussions...

Is this bullshit part of your trap?

Is this bullshit part of your rhetoric?

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

What is only in my head?

Are you getting metaphysical on me now?

Do you know the difference between a subject and object?

No....tell me.

A subject is defined as a living-self. An object is defined as a non-living, non-self.

Objectifying anything is a comparison of Wills. It is a declaration that my will, my self, is Active and the Other (subject-object) is not. Or if it is, then it is only passively-so depending on the circumstances of the context. Do I bow to it? Does it bow to me? This distinction is crucial. Who has Power? Who does not?

Man and Woman can both be objectified, turned into animals, because they are. I am both subject & object, because I view myself as my consciousness, whilst I must relate to the contrary point-of-view where I am objectified by others and Nature-herself. I too am an animal. But, to objectify is to demean. Am I more than mere-man, your notion of "Manimal"? That depends on how well I qualify myself in relation to others. What sets me apart other than my intellect and reasonability? Now, apply this to Woman. Can she utilize Reason? No, she cannot, by definition. She was made for a different use than Man. She was not made to "think"; she was made to only-"feel". And if you apply this to 'rape', then she will not know the Truth of her rape. Is a man taking from her, or is he not? What does he give back in return? I DO NOT QUALIFY THIS ON YOUR BEHALF!!! Rape is a one-way domination, a Power Relationship. So what happens when a particular Man is always in charge. Is his rape not constant? Does the woman even care???

No, she does not. She only *ACCUSES* a man of rape if-and-when she comes to realize the Lie from the Truth. What does Man want from her ... only sex. When she understands this, then she can accuse a male of rape for no particular reasons, but only because she *FEELS* like it. What has been discovered is the Truth for what it is. She is a tool to Mankind; it can be no other way. This is why a vast majority of "rapes" occur between males & females that are already-acquainted...

Satyr wrote:

What is in your head is the evidence you used.

That is merely-your projection, your opinion, Solipsist.

You do not base your claims on Reality or Actuality, rather, your own delusions of what I possibly-am or am-not.

Satyr wrote:

No reference to the real world. It exists because you can think it.

And so does God and unicorns and sex being rape...

What is wrong with you?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU???

See how easy it is to reflect your feeble thrusts now that you have been disarmed of your venom. Spit some more!!!

If I am "autistic", then you are equally-so...

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

You are a skeptical solipsist, a cynic at best. Do you have anything more to say?

I am the solipsist?
You argued that the center of the wheel is real because you can think it, and I am the solipsist?

How often do you accuse others of what you feel you are most guilty of?

No, you are clearly-lost...

I did not argue that the center of the wheel was *ACTUAL* because I can think of it.

There is a difference between Reality & Actuality; figure it out already...

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

You are apparently-blind as to how a wheel has a center ... sad.

Ha!!!
The infinite regression is incomprehensible to you...you need it to be static, stable, there.

Ha!!! INCORRECT AGAIN!!!

I do not "need" for the wheel to have a center for it to have a center. It needs its own necessity.

Satyr wrote:

Zero mental flexibility, no nuance...and you expect tog row out of this?
Genetics is so cruel...so....so...cruel.

So, so true...

Genetics is so cruel to boys whose fathers have autism...

I expect nothing by the way; I take what I get.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

That insinuation says a lot ... of nothing.

Your steam is running out. Your engine is closing down. You are running out of coal to burn.

Whatever you say.

This brain rests in my head and is carried on my shoulders.

It continuously benefits me.
I built it up...I suffered for it....

You can go off creating stupidities like wheels with circles that denies basic existential awareness, and sex as rape, that denies basic understanding of human nature.

Did you think my theories were to give you power, a false sense of strength?
Boy...you've got to earn that...not buy it or repeat it.

You've got to cry for it...reach the edge and then pull back....

Okay...


And let us stay on topic from now on. Forget about wheels with centers that are beyond you.

Focus here, focus!

Dear Gods you all need to get laid. I think there are some serious cases of blue balls going on around here.

Fine technically consentual sex is rape, Whoopppeeee. But as long as both parties are content with it who cares? Go get some of that consenting tail ,consentually rape the heck out of it and be done with it.

kriswest wrote:

Dear Gods you all need to get laid. I think there are some serious cases of blue balls going on around here.

Fine technically consentual sex is rape, Whoopppeeee. But as long as both parties are content with it who cares? Go get some of that consenting tail ,consentually rape the heck out of it and be done with it.

i was trying to say the same thing to our hero, but I think you're the only one here allowed to say it, since you're a woman and cannot think...

kriswest wrote:

Dear Gods you all need to get laid. I think there are some serious cases of blue balls going on around here.

Fine technically consentual sex is rape, Whoopppeeee. But as long as both parties are content with it who cares? Go get some of that consenting tail ,consentually rape the heck out of it and be done with it.

Law & Justice cares.

On what grounds, then, can a person be charged with the crime of 'rape' if all sex acts are indeed rape???

Maybe we should convict idiotic girls/women for being fools in the first place? And then we let the "rapists" out of jail ... right?

And if a man kidnaps and rapes a teenage girl, then there is no grounds for him to be charged with a crime, correct?


......

Dude if a man or woman feel harmed or are harmed through brutal/nonbrutal sex then its criminal rape if they press charges or if the Gov't presses charges

If two people consent to S&M sex and become quite brutal with each other but, they both enjoy it,,, its not criminal rape its consenting sex.

Law and justice are pretty clear about what lines are drawn. An adult cannot have consenting sex with an underage minor. Any more than an adult can make a legal contract with an underage minor. It does not matter if that minor understands fully what is going on. The law must draw a line to protect the average minor.
Laws are in place to protect and defend the average person. Exceptions are made when no one presses charges or seeks legal,,,Oh Crap brain fart,,,, the word is on the tip of my tongue.. Damn!!! Oh well you should get what I am saying anyway.