Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Hobby Talk! > Misc. NON-MOVIE TALK forum
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 07-23-2011, 10:28 AM
I am going to say things in my usual Erroneous way.

Quote:
1 He has ever sexually engaged with any woman while she was underage, drunk, high, physically restrained, unconscious, or subjected to psychological, physical, economic, or emotional coercion.
* 2 He defends the current legal definition of rape and/or opposes making consent a defense.
*3 He has accused a rape victim of having “buyer’s remorse” or wanting to get money from the man.
*4 He has blamed a woman for “putting herself in a situation” where she “could be” attacked.
*5 He has procured a prostitute.
*6 He characterizes prostitution as a “legitimate” “job” “choice” or defends men who purchase prostitutes.
*7 He has ever revealed he conceives of sex as fundamentally transactional.
* 8 He has gone to a strip club.
* 9 He is anti-abortion.
* 10 He is pro-”choice” because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available.
* 11 He frames discussions of pornography in terms of “freedom of speech.”
* 12 He watches pornography in which women are depicted.
* 13 He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present.
* 14 He characterizes the self-sexualizing behavior of some women, such as wearing make-up or high heels, as evidence of women’s desire to “get” a man.
*15 He tells or laughs at jokes involving women being attacked, sexually “hoodwinked,” or sexually harassed.
* 16 He expresses enjoyment of movies/musicals/TV shows/plays in which women are sexually demeaned or presented as sexual objects
* 17 He mocks women who complain about sexual attacks, sexual harassment, street cat-calls, media depictions of women, or other forms of sexual objectification.
* 18 He supports sexual “liberation” and claims women would have more sex with (more) men if society did not “inhibit” them.
* 19 He states or implies that women who do not want to have sex with men are “inhibited,” “prudes,” “stuck-up,” “man-haters,” or psychologically ill.
* 20 He argues that certain male behaviors towards women are “cultural” and therefore not legitimate subjects of feminist attention.
* 21 He ever subordinates the interests of women in a given population to the interests of the men in that population, or proceeds in discussions as if the interests of the women are the same as the interests of the men.
* 22 He promotes religious or philosophical views in which a woman’s physical/psychological/emotional/sexual well-being is subordinated to a man’s.
* 23 He describes female anatomy in terms of penetration, or uses terms referencing the supposed “emptiness” of female anatomy when describing women.
* 24 He defends the physical abuse of women on the grounds of “consent.”
*25 He defends the sexualization or sexual abuse of minor females on the grounds of “consent” or “willingness.”
* 26 He promotes the idea that women as a class are happier or more fulfilled if they have children, or that they “should” have children.
*27 He argues that people (or just “men”) have sexual “needs.”
* 28 He discusses the “types” of women he finds sexually appealing and/or attempts to demean women by telling them he does not find them sexually appealing.
* 29 He sexually objectifies lesbians or lesbian sexual activity.
* 30 He defends these actions by saying that some women also engage in them.
This is the biggest bunch of bullshit I have ever read. I will touch upon a few as to why. This writer is nothing, but a man hater and probably been raped.

1. SO underage sex and or while she is drunk means I support rape? What is the boy is also underage and or she got drunk with the intend of getting drunk or high and then will have sex? Fucking stupid.

2.WHat? Yes means yes and no means no. There are lots of rape cases where she said yes at the time, but later says that she really did not mean to say yes and felt bad about it later. Too bad, you said yes and never said no during sex. As soon as a no comes out one must stop. NO, no, no rape.

3. It happens. Just to blankly say it does not it just plain stupid.

4. It happens. No still means no, but women should know not to be in a situation where it is one woman and like 4 or more men. Play it safe ladies.

5. Prostitutes do not in any way, shape or form equal a rape supporter. The writer hates men. Plain and simple.

6. LOL Oldest profession around for a reason.

7. Same as #5 or #6.

8. So basically if a man view sex as anything but love between a man and woman and in no way as entertainment or enjoyment, he supports rape? Written by a Jewish Orthodox woman perhaps? There is nothing wrong with some good clean fun. Women who use their bodies as a sexual object is the same thing as a man who uses his body for sports. But we deem sex as dirty, so it is wrong if it is sex. Bullshit.

9 Anti abortion??? I support the right to choose, but some people do not believe in killing babies and it is their right to feel that way. Who the fuck does this person this she is saying this????

10. This lady is bat shit crazy. What she is saying here is no matter how you feel about abortion, you support rape.

11 -13 Porn is good and there is nothing wrong with porn or means you support rape.

14 Or to look sexy and stylish. Still does not mean no means no.

15 -17 Yeah, I have to agree with these.

18 - 21 Men just want to get laid. We say what we have to in order to get laid. NOne of these mean that we support rape.

22 - 23 Man hater.

24 -25 Shakes my head. Lost woman!

26 A man hater with no kids.

27 I am sorry she does not understand how people really are wired. A sexual need is for all creatures. It is this need that makes us all continue to be alive. Sex is not just for babies. It can be enjoyed too.

28. So if I say I do not find fat women sexuall appealing, I support rape. Did I get that one right? Fucking stupid bitch! Now we know she is fat and ugly.

29 So liking lesbians means I support rape. No sorry.

30. I don't know what she means here, but I can say and you can google it, that some women as sick as it may be get off on the idea of being raped. Not usually in a park or at work, but just giving up their body to be a sexual toy to another person that they do not know, forceably. I don't get it, but some are into it.


I think I know who this person is

Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-23-2011, 11:25 AM
^If you want to know what she means read through the comments section of the webpage where she responds in depth. If it won't make you agree with her, it will better explain her arguments. She responds so consistently to so many posters that eventually the sensationalism is stripped away and her radical views are at least plainer, more reasoned.


Quote:
1. SO underage sex and or while she is drunk means I support rape? What is the boy is also underage and or she got drunk with the intend of getting drunk or high and then will have sex? Fucking stupid.
There's a poster on her webpage who criticized this too. I think the writer's response of that criticism is response enough to your criticism.

Poster:
Quote:
I’d like to preface this by saying that I completely agree with almost all of the qualifiers on this list. It’s shocking how some people can’t see the real repercussions of their actions. This being said, I am a straight feminist girl with a boyfriend with whom I’m completely in love. He doesn’t meet any of the parts of the list in any way, except for the first one. Looking at the wording of that you’d probably think my boyfriend was a serial rapist or something. But he’s not. We’ve just gotten drunk or high and had (completely consensual and amazing) sex together. My question is: Can it be agreed that the wording of this first qualifier is a bit too broad? I really just don’t understand how someone like my boyfriend could be labelled as a rape supporter just because he and I fooled around after a little partying together.
Here is the writer's response:
Quote:
My focus here is on the initiator, or on a man who defends sex with a person who is drunk/high/etc on the grounds that there was “consent.” Most adults know people have wide limits of tolerance for alcohol and other drugs; it’s difficult to pin-down for oneself when the capacity for meaningful consent is fading, and it’s impossible to tell for someone else unless they are literally unconscious. So if someone is defending the action for engaging sexually with someone who may not be in full possession of their faculties, what’s the rationale for defending the sex? Some people have discussed agreeing to sex before the drinking began – ie, “Let’s get drunk and screw” – but that thinks of consent as a single blanket permission rather than an ongoing matter, which may be modified or be highly situational.

You alone can say whether everything that happened was consensual on your part. He can’t. He has to rely on your after-the-fact reassurance.

Several other people have said something along the lines of, “So I asked my boyfriend/girlfriend to tie me up and we were drunk and we had sex, so did we rape each other?” Whether a particular situation qualifies as “rape” or not isn’t relevant to my point, and the definition is inherently subjective anyway – I’m asking, what does it say about our social mentality towards sex and other people which makes that unproblematic? If we are saying that sex is perfectly okay unless somebody complains afterwards – which is essentially what people are saying in these comments, “no harm no foul” – then yes, that supports a culture of rape and rape apologism.
If that doesn't make you agree with her, it at least explains her less sensationally.

For myself, I'm reading her comments and realizing she has a sensitive psychology not necessarily to men, but sex. Her opinions are the opinions I would expect of someone with a less-than-healthy mentality about sex. She might not outright call for isolating the genders, but she is constantly arguing to distance the importance of sex from our daily lives. She asks us to imagine a world in which the gender of someone is less important than various other qualities. She splits hairs about fortifying the sexual act with a courtoom's worth of consensual technicalities. I think she dislikes our sexual behaviors and wants them gone, or drastically minimized, and that's not feminism. It's an oppressive-minded neurosis.

How many people here have had sex with someone when you didn't feel totally in control of the situation? She's sensitive to most sexual relations, but she's sensitive to relations expressed by both men and women. How many people here have felt compelled by a charisma or drink or situation into having sex that wasn't optimal, or that was later regretted? I have. When I was younger I had someone come on to me who was more experienced and intimidated me, and I regretted submitting to have sex with her because it wasn't pleasant. I wasn't raped. I was stronger than her. I didn't say 'no'. The intimidation was psychological, but it's technically submission. Except if I'm a healthy-minded person, my experience isn't traumatizing. A healthy psychology is able to withstand submission and able to withstand pressures from people who are more charismatic, are authorities, or are otherwise in control of the situation in some way. The reason rape is called its own word with its own horrible connotations is because the degree of force and submission in rape is violent, damaging, and extreme enough that even a healthy psychology is going to be traumatized. That's why it's horrible.

She's qualifying circumstances that healthy people can withstand and brush off as steps away from trauma, unhealthy submission, oppression, and ultimately an extreme buzzword like rape.


Unrelated to Erroneous' post, I came across an interesting point in the comments section. Pasted-

Poster:
Quote:
If my understanding is correct, you consider many forms of female sexual expression (e.g. masochism, submission, exhibitionism) to be representations of patriarchal oppression rather than legitimate preference. I struggle to relate such a perspective to my own sexuality.

I am a gay man and highly sexually submissive. Although I still take great pleasure in playing an active role sexually, my preference is very much to play a passive role. My daily life requires me to manage people at a high level and make very serious decisions. I find great release in being sexually pleasured by a dominant partner and feel uniquely safe and comfortable in such a situation. A great deal of pressure lies on my shoulders and many people rely on me to make life-or-death decisions, but when having sex I can simply relax and enjoy the sensations I experience, safe in the knowledge that my partner is taking care of me. Neither I nor my partner take a dominant role in our relationship in general, nor do we conform to any sort of heterodox model.

Are my own sexual preferences a product of patriarchy? Is my sex life tantamount to rape? If so, does it not disempower me to say that my preferences are not my own, but an internalised form of oppression? If not, what justifies my sexual preferences being viewed differently based solely on my gender?
Writer's reply
Quote:
First, I’m not saying that submissive/masochistic/sadistic sex is automatically rape – I’m saying that when men engage in it with women or defend it wholly on the grounds of “consent” then it supports rape.

As to the relationship between some women and sexual submissiveness/masochism, I wrote about that last October. It is a complicated issue, but I do not agree with the philosophy that “just because it feels good, it is good.” I think people should examine why they have the sexual preferences they do, and to what extent our sexual preferences – which we treat as if they are inherent parts of some “true” identity – reflect and reinforce ideas about gender, sex, domination, and violence. Some of the points I raised in the October 2010 post probably don’t directly translate to your situation, but how about you read it through and tell me what you think?

Does this perspective “disempower” you? Ah, the language of third wave feminism can reveal so much. What’s power got to do with it?
She told someone who has a healthy outlook that his outlook might not be so healthy, which is off base.


Last edited by Shinigami; 07-23-2011 at 11:29 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-23-2011, 11:30 AM
Fuck me dead. I need a packed lunch and esky when I read through you two's posts.

What about bald women? Where do they fit in?



Now, that's the fuckin' look, no?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-23-2011, 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by God of War View Post
Fuck me dead. I need a packed lunch and esky when I read through you two's posts.

What about bald women? Where do they fit in?



Now, that's the fuckin' look, no?
LOL That is the best and funniest line today! Clearly you support rape if you are turned on by bald women or if they shaved their tutu to be bald, because it goes back to being a baby or a child.

There is one porn video that I have seen and of course the guy cums on her bald head. I don't know if I am turned on by that, but if I dated a bald woman, I would for sure ask to do it too! I would not ask her to rub it in though.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-23-2011, 10:24 PM
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-24-2011, 10:41 AM
Hey God of War, could you make me a gif of a plane crashing nose first and then post it back here.

thx bro!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-25-2011, 04:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SS-Block View Post

Wow. WOW.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump