Consent: Sex is Rape???

even a child can see the practical (i didn't say theoretical) difference between an act of consensual sex and rape

consensual sex is supposed to happen only between two adult persons, or two persons mature enough to know what they are doing...

rape is an act of violence and violation, an act that a woman doesn't want and doesn't ask for, and that will probably be a traumatizing experience for her

ok, i know this is common sense, and not necessarily 'philosophically' true, but in this particular case, as in many others, common sense does make some sense to me

Drone guys are getting raped more and more.... Those date rape drugs are not just used on girls.

kriswest wrote:

Drone guys are getting raped more and more.... Those date rape drugs are not just used on girls.

what the fuck..)

Satyr wrote:

Unreasonable wrote:

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

Did you just say that?
Huh?

If I objectify a woman, is she not living?
If I make a person the object of my art, (s)he is dead?

Techinically-no, if you objectify a woman, then she is not 'living' in its common-sense of meaning. -- neither is the art form living.

You would be viewing her as a robot, a programmed machine, and this is how you legitimize your abuse of her: non-empathy.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

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?

How a passive object do anything, let alone bow?

It is the same thing as a computer program. How does a robot do anything? Is it living? -- No.

A robot is completely-passive, because it has no inherent-animation. It is programmed by Man.

Is that simple enough for you??? Shall I break it down further so you get it???

Satyr wrote:

when a will surrenders to another, it is after a conflict.

Wrong.

When I meet a person on the street, say a small, fat, ugly, and broken woman, then chances are she has already-surrendered to me even though I have never met or seen her before. Some people surrender to Life-in-general. They "go with the flow" to put it mildly.

Satyr wrote:

A dead thing has no Will...Will is the focus...the FOCUS of energies...therefore it must be the product of a living organism with senses and a mind.

Rhetorical metaphysical babble.

You have no idea of what you are talking about, unfortunately...

Does a rock have a Will? Does a robot have a Will? Does an ant have a Will?

"DEGREE MAN!!! DEGREE, YOU RETARD!!!" -Satyr

Satyr wrote:

By definition all that exists is active...it changes and is perceived because it displays a differentiation, a divergence - subject/object relationship.

No kidding ... I have already-said as much several times now Satyr. How often must I bounce words off your skull?

If all that exists is active, then the only way a subject/object could be passive, is by degree and qualification, not quantification.

If I weigh as much as a rock does, then my difference from it is a degree of Passive v Active Will, Quality not Quantity (of mass).

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

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.

can you subjectify something?

Yes, you *CAN* subjectify something...

Satyr wrote:

Everything you perceive is object, living or otherwise.

The same could be said this way:

"Everything you perceive is subject, living or otherwise."

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

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.

Are you insane?

Enough with this rhetorical question garbage Satyr; it makes you look like an impudent child. I can do it too:

Are you stupid?

Satyr wrote:

"By definition"? Whose? Yours? How convenient.

The things I say are true by *YOUR* definition, and by others. Actually, it is not convenient for me at all.

If you were capable of realizing some simple truths, then you would know that Language is a common means of communication.

Without commonality, common people, common man, etc. there would be no words to speak of.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

She was made for a different use than Man. She was not made to "think"; she was made to only-"feel".

We all are made to do both...you to varying degrees. Degree, degree.

Incorrect.

Not all people were "made to think". If they were, then people would be able to see the Reasons behind things. They often do not.

It is called the "Thinkers Curse". It seems as though you do not have it ... so you can not relate to me. This is understandable.

Satyr wrote:

All creatures think and you are evidence that some think with feeble minds.

Feeble is a relative term; who am I "feeble" against ... you?

You think like a child Satyr. Your compulsive insults and personal attacks signify that you cannot reasonably-attack my argument.

You are not as intelligent as you originally-thought. And now your world should come crashing down. I hope you do not cry.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

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???

What?
What the hell are you babbling on about?

You are lost again? Is this forest too think for you?

Perhaps you should return to sparser foliage, old goat. Can a Satired get lost amongst his own trees?

Satyr wrote:

What happened to you?

Rhetoric.

If you must know what happened to me, then know that I surpassed you.

Satyr wrote:

You sit there and say that women are no more than a rock?

Did I say that? No ... you implied it, just now.

Satyr wrote:

Even a dog thinks and reasons...how can it hunt if it cannot figure out strategies, adapt, know cause and effect?

So assume that it can think and reason; that does not mean it is an Active Will compared to a human being.

The dog appears as 'stupid' to the common man. The dog appears as simplistic. You appear as simplistic.

Satyr wrote:

Are you serious?
What is wrong with you?

Rhetoric.

Are you through Satyr?
What is your problem Satyr?

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

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.

Another declaration?

It is apparently-not a declaration, considering your responses to my posts.

You should think before you type from now on; you have gotten lazy underestimating others. Now you are losing steam.

Satyr wrote:

What is wrong with you?
Seriously, what happened to you?

Rhetoric, more insinuations!

Dance "feminine mind", dance!

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

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...

That's a McMiserable tactic...

Incorrect, I am fairly-confident that you are autistic.

It is not a surprise to me at all the way you ignore what everybody says against you and return their words with insults and degradation. You have nothing more than this persona you have created for yourself, and now you are heavily-entrenched by it. You cannot escape nor climb your muddy & slippery walls. You are stuck in a ditch, within your own mind. You fail to see where you compartmentalize the things you and I have conversed about before. I have been watching you though, and your arguments have grown repetitive/tiresome. You need some new material. And if you take your thoughts from me, then be prepared for when I surpass yours. You cannot take from me without paying the price. And now you are paying the price.

You are exposed.

Satyr wrote:

are you two one and the same?
Admit it!

This is just your broken psychology attempting to come to terms with my philosophies that you cannot grasp nor understand.

The fact escapes you that I could be, or just am, more intelligent than you. So, now, you frantically-look for an exit to your predicament. If I am in fact "sane", then you are even more compelled to accept that what I say is definitively-true. If I am in fact *NOT* Aidan, then you have no way to qualify me, because you do not nor cannot expect what I will say next. You are desperate to contain my thoughts so that they are measurable to you. Rather than submit to the fact that I am the wiser between us, you now must resort to personal attack, declaration, assumption, and pure rhetoric more than ever before.

Too bad none of that will help you. Maybe you should focus on these arguments themselves? -- yeah, I think so...

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

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...

Is this you backtracking AGAIN?!!

I am not backtracking; you are lost within your own mind, attempting to bridge yourself to mine.

It seems as though *YOU* are the one backtracking, treading a new path away from your poisoned forest.

Satyr wrote:

How many times will you make a fool of yourself, how many aliases will you burn, and discard as unwanted reputations, before you realize that there is something wrong with you?

Everybody is aware of my 1-2 other aliases on the internet, if you have been paying attention Satyr, or should I say 6666?

You are making a fool of yourself here. Scream louder; your drones may so happen to come to your aid.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

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.

What?!

Do you even understand your own words?

Tell us about consent again.
Tell us how nobody knows what it means, except you.
Tell us how rape is based on mortality.
Tell us how women, being from a different planet or as inanimate objects, do not reason AT ALL.

My argument is already-there, in black & white. Go figure it out. I do not need to repeat myself.

Satyr wrote:

Can you think in anything other than absolutes?

Yes, actually I can. That you do not realize this is your problem.

Satyr wrote:

dude, there is something definitely wrong with you.

This will be my last response to you.
Frankly I'm a little dismayed. I've never come across such a frightfully ill mind before...not to this extent.

Meager excuses.

Run away Satyr, run! -- quick, quick, back to your own rotting mind! You are lost. Retreat and try again!

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

So, so true...

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

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

So, you DO have autism?

I figured as much. The way you described yourself, your inability to joke, your inability to percive nuances, your out of control anger.

I feel sorry for you.

It's too bad, really.

I will not be bothering you again.

Even I know when to stop kicking a dead horse.

Take care.

No, you are indeed very dense! Open up that thick skull of yours and look around.

*YOU* are autistic. I am serious about this. I was referring to you and your boy!

My mind is no more "diseased" or "ill" than yours, old man, in fact, quite the contrary!


Does the truth hurt yet???

kriswest wrote:

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

Kriswest, thank you for proving my point!!!

Rape is crime committed by a mere-feeling! It does matter if the harm was actual or not, only that it was a "feeling" of harm!

A 'rape' is only perpetrated when a woman feels like she was taken advantage, not because she actually-was! She does not know the difference, which is why women are often seen as stupid, foolish, tools to be used by Man. This is why men view that women are sex objects, toys to be played around with. Since you obviously do not *KNOW* the difference between what constitutes sex, rape, and consent, then you have no grounds for accusations in the end!

If a woman *FEELS* like 1+1=2, then does it make it true???

If a woman *FEELS* like Hitler is evil, then does it make it true???

If a woman *FEELS* like String Theory is plausible, then does it make it true???


The definitive answer to these questions is: NO!!!

And this is the fundamental difference between Man & Woman.

As apparent now, Woman, Kriswest, cannot utilize Reason of her own volition. She needs a Man to do it for her.

kriswest wrote:

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.

So a father fucking his 7-year-old daughter is okay then?

By your "reasoning" it is...

kriswest wrote:

Law and justice are pretty clear about what lines are drawn.

Incorrect, you know neither what Law & Justice is or is not. You have no Authority as a Woman. You only "feel" it.

kriswest wrote:

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.

No, the law must protect stupid people from their own stupidity.

That is the only true Law of the Land. Age makes no difference while concerning itself with consent.

Only a responsible person can say what Consent is or is not: an adult, individual, male.

Women & children cannot think for themselves as displayed by this thread.

kriswest wrote:

Laws are in place to protect and defend the average person.

You mean:

Laws are in place to protect and defend the stupid person. (from being victimized by the more intelligent, etc.)

kriswest wrote:

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.

I understand what you are saying 100%.

You are arguing that it is valid and morally-acceptable for a father to rape his 7-year-old daughter.

Well, unfortunately for you Kriswest, I do not buy into your screwed up Morality. My standards are higher, sorry.

Wow,, You must work for a demolition crew,, You just blew my context all out of whack. Did you actually bother to read it altogether? Want to try to do that? Or is that too hard for a mere male? Should I write Dr. Suess style so you can understand it?
From your response and I say it with all the reasoning of one friend to another,,, You darling are the one that lacks understanding and thinking ability, not I .You are too focused on me being a female that it jades anything I say . What will it take to get you to stop focusing on your belief that all females are idiots? Because darlin, you are creating a road block for yourself in your desire to know truth and learn. Corral that combative spirit or you will be stuck forever in one level of knowing.

OK. Takes deep breath.

UN if it were possible for you ask; what do you suppose a 7 year old that had been raped by his father would think about it? What do you suppose a 7 year old that had been raped by her father would think about it?

UN if it were possible for you ask; what do you suppose a 7 year old that had been raped by his father would say about it? What do you suppose a 7 year old that had been raped by her father would say about it?

What do you suppose a 14 year old that had been raped by his father would think about it. What do you suppose a 14 year old that had been raped by her father would think about it?

What do you suppose a 14 year old that had been raped by his father would say about it. What do you suppose a 14 year old that had been raped by her father would say about it?



Now then how do you think YOU might think and FEEL had you been raped by your father?

Go on use your imagination and your logic.


NO. Simple word. What is the opposite of ambiguity? No ambiguity.

No NO NO DADDY NO DADDY NO DADDY NO NO NO DADDY NO NO DADDY NO.

Get it yet? Would you take my word for it?

NO?

UR wrote:

No, the law must protect stupid people from their own stupidity.

That is the only true Law of the Land. Age makes no difference while concerning itself with consent.

Only a responsible person can say what Consent is or is not: an adult, individual, male.

Women & children cannot think for themselves as displayed by this thread.

haha, pathetic

the women are Kriswest and mary, the child is probably moi

what means that, if only 'adult individual males' were heard and respected, and not 'everybody', we'd probably live in a perfect world...what a ridiculous delusion!

What is sex?

Sex, first and foremost, is ACTION. Action that will bring about the cessation of sexual desire. In the animal kingdom this is initialized by the female by her state of estrus. Estrus is determined by Nature. That is Nature was the master of the universe.

Today, that master has evolved into a mind-- the human mind... the FEMALE mind.

No wonder it's so difficult to get laid these days, right? In the animal kingdom the dominant male was defined by the physically strong. Today, it is defined by the financially strong OR by the imaginatively strong.


What is rape?

Rape is the violation of action over volition.

If you put two random male and female together what are the chances that the female will say "yes" to sex? Thus, did Adam rape Eve or did Eve rape Adam?

Rape is NOT the violation of seduction over volition. Thus a man who has no intention of having sex with a woman but does so because she seduces him temporarily cannot claim "rape". It is not even an option. HOWEVER, a woman can still put a man into jail if he successfully seduces her, has sex with her but then she regrets it.

What I am trying to say here is that females today are having their cake and eating it too.


What is consent?

Believing there was consent in a past sexual encounter until the statue of limitation has run out.

So males and females exist in vacuums without contexts?

A woman will say 'yes' to a man for sex if he repeats the correct sequence of lies, culturally-induced.

It is not difficult to do; the feminine mind is entirely-predictable.

Really ? our minds are predictable ???? Can you predict what I will say next????????

kriswest wrote:

Really ? our minds are predictable ???? Can you predict what I will say next????????

It depends on how accurate you desire your predictions to be, given a specific context.

If I set up a context, then I can almost absolutely-guarantee certain responses.

In response to the second prong that erroneously suggests that no animal other than humans rape, I would like to remind you that female ducks developed a secondary vagina to protect themselves from the overwhelming amount of raping that male ducks do. You may want to do some research on this topic and every other topic in this thread before you go off shooting your mouth.

I'd post a link to better inform you, but, unfortunately, new users can't post links for seven days so I have to wait seven days before I give you the information you are seriously lacking.

I'm sorry, I hate to sound so negative. On the bright side, I am seriously impressed with the overwhelming stupidity exhibited in this forum. I am so glad that you think that you are contributing something worthwhile to society. If it makes you feel any better, you are contributing to society -- that is, societal ignorance and stupidity, and, by extension, destruction. So congratulations, you are everything that is wrong with the human race. Good for you for being the perfect archetype.

You do you