Slashdot Mirror
The Mathematics of 'Legitimate Rape' and Pregnancy
Hugh Pickens writes "James Hamblin, MD writes in the Atlantic that it's unclear how common the misconception that women rarely become pregnant after rape may be, but remarks by Missouri Senatorial nominee Todd Akin that 'if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down' (video) may provide some benefit as a learning opportunity. 'From a holistic perspective, one might hypothesize that a woman's body could respond to the extreme stress and trauma of enduring rape in such a way that she would be physiologically more likely to miscarry (or not to conceive at all),' writes Hamblin. After all there is a multi-million dollar alternative reproductive health market aimed at optimizing an environment for conception so there could be something to a theory that the other, much darker end of that spectrum functions analogously. But that hypothesis doesn't hold, to any relevant degree. A widely-cited 1996 study from the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology sampled over 4,000 women and found that the rape-related pregnancy rate was 5.0 percent and studies from other countries have reported the percentage to be even greater."
Statistics?
The whole reason that this comes up is because you get guys, who ignore facts and place their bias out there are the truth. This is why you get Kentucky trying to get rid of evolution, stupid senators making dumb comments about rape. Throw in the good ole-boy network of reenforcing stupidity (on basically anything) we get these stupid statements and stupid laws.
If the mother is under the age of consent when giving birth, you can be sure she was under the age of consent at the time of conception. So we can be sure that in 100% of those cases, it was statutory rape.
[citation needed]
"But that hypothesis doesn't hold, to any relevant degree. A widely-cited 1996 study from the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology sampled over 4,000 women and found that the rape-related pregnancy rate was 5.0 percent and studies from other countries have reported the percentage to be even greater."
A more likely explanation is that the women were already using some form of birth control or that they simply were not in the fertile period of their cycle.
Presumably James Hamblin is an older white male. He seems to be missing the point here. The problem with the statement isn't that it's factually / scientifically inaccurate. The problem is the term "legitimate rape." The senator's statements (if taken with any bit of truth) imply that if a women were to get pregnant in the case of rape it was not a "legitimate" or "real" rape.
This is just more from the "war on women" department. And while I don't agree with the stupid soundbite slogan "war on women" -- the disturbing trend which gives rise to it is a serious problem politically, but more important, socially.
There must also be 'illegitimate rape,' right? Send that clown packing back to the anti-woman nut house he escaped from.
This is news for nerds, not tech news. Science is for nerds. Math is for nerds. I assume that's why it was added here, since we all know that sex is definitely not for nerds.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
The hypothesis is that women do not get pregnant through sex unless the sex was consensual, and the evidence is that in fact they do. I suppose some statistics would be involved if you wanted to do a hypothesis test. But it's not some complex mathematical model, nor hugely contested.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
One of the many books I've read on the subject - I believe it was O -The Intimate History of the Orgasm actually stated that in studies rape lead to a higher fertilization rate than consensual relations. I won't get into the theory of why, because it will potentially piss off feminists. I'll just say it is documented and statistically significant.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Take your science and your math somewhere else. If we were interested in facts and evidence we wouldn't have joined the GOP.
Well, actually understanding the science of and mathematics of things in the news falls into the general purview of "News for nerds". It's tenuous, but I found the articles informative and directly related to current events (i.e. "news"). I feel like the article is more on topic than your complaint about it.
Yeah, the dude is a douche, no question. But even as someone totally opposite of probably everything he believes, I knew what he was saying was women forced to have sex vs those who lie about it afterwords. And what he thought might happen, as pointed out be earlier poster, isn't entirely unbelievable. If there is a market to help you get pregnant, there could be a 'mechanism' that prevents pregnancy. Possible, studied, and rejected. So he is an uninformed idiot. Beyond that there isn't much news to it, BUT in the world we live, were a company with less than 10% market share can be the most valuable company in history, there has to be something to make the news sell.
This my friends is a result of showing how easily you (the proverbial you, as a population) can be fooled into thinking something is important, when it is not. Everything you have seen on TV on this issue, is about selling commercials, nothing more. And from what I can tell, is working exactly as planned.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
What Akin said is the way he believes it works, as advised by someone who shares his beliefs in pro-life.
What Akin truly missed out on was a golden opportunity to keep his ignorant trap shut, other than to refer to medical journals. Elections are dangerous times to be spewing things you know little to nothing about, giving air to your personal views. He now has a snowball's chance in Hell of being elected, but doesn't seem interested in aborting his campaign.
There is Science & Medicine and there are the political ways people try to interpret, shape and steer what studies say, then there are idiologues, who even the mainstream can identify as nuts, particularly the gender who are saddled with an unwanted pregnancy and are forbidden to do anything about it.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
This is also stuff that matters.
Doing a scientific analysis of elements in the news is always good for nerds. It's good for everyone, we need more of it.
Also, consider shit like this and this.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
if she really wanted it, she'd keep it, otherwise she'd abort it... thats a nice backwoods theory. its nice that we have the people making the laws in this country coming up with this half-baked theories. Maybe they will use these half-baked theories to further take away women's rights? Lets take one step forward, and five steps back. :(
When you get pregnant after rape, you either secretly liked it, or it was consentual.
The bastards the US calls politicians never seize to amaze me with their vile.
Had consensual sex with an ex girlfriend and she stayed in bed with me for about 5 hours. The next day I was accused of rape. Ruined my life.
Charges were dropped after a year and she apologized 6 years later.
Women lie about rape. Most rape accusations are lies from a slutty woman who regrets her decision after the fact.
Women are like so many other things: you just can't skimp on quality and then complain when you get burned.
I hope you have learned to stop feeling attracted to sluts. Yes the easy gratification can seem appealing when you're weak, but I'm telling you, it's not worth it. You'd know that if you have ever known a quality lady who respects herself. A lady who respects herself would never have done this to you. No, you went for the troubled one who looked so vulnerable and accessible. As I have heard it said: beware the wounded dove - she'll wound you.
That's true even when they don't exploit our female-centric legal system (the one assuming all men are evil, nasty, brutish, predatory abusers unless proven otherwise, and it sure is hard to prove a negative, to prove you didn't do something, course they know that...). Women are magical beings. They are highly skilled in the art of mindfuck. They don't actually need the legal system to fuck up your entire world, if you get a rotten woman that is. The one you describe, she was just lazy.
Guys, stop thinking with your dicks and dating these sluts and whores who don't give a fuck about you. They're using you, usually for attention, sometimes to fuck you over real good like the guy above describes. Just like you're using them to get your rocks off. Stop this shit. For everyone's sake. No it doesn't make you a man to think with the wrong head. It makes you an impulsive undisciplined boy who can't say no to the slightest temptation. If you actually ARE a pig, don't expect any real lady to ever respect you.
and fully believes all kinds of impossible, stupid, and just plain unrealistic things. it's in his blood.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
The number is so insignificant it shouldn't even be brought up as any kind of argument for anything that could affect the population as a whole.
Which real name?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Subject says all. How the hell can rape be legitimate? This is not some abstract thing. It is a horrible.
People lie about lots of things, little and small. For example, you lied when you said "Most rape accusations are lies from a slutty woman who regrets her decision after the fact."
Attempting to reduce the seriousness of rape accusations doesn't help your cause, however. Indeed, it is only by maintaining seriousness about such accusations that we can protect both men and women equally; Women, from rape; Men, from false accusation.
There are always going to be crazy men who rape women, and there will always be crazy women who falsely accuse men. We don't make that situation better by apologizing for either side.
how do they study this?
Based on no empirical evidence, I am guessing that rapes are actually more likely to lead to pregnancy than consensual sex because of modern family planning. A woman who is expecting sex is more likely to be using birth control than a woman who is raped.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Hmm...as a man, I've yet to be harmed by this "sex weapon". Do you need a license for it?
If the odds of becoming pregnant through rape are 5%, that actually puts them at somewhat higher than through ordinary means (which are thought to be about 1 in 30). How does one account for that?
Honest question; I don't know how that would work.
Raise you hand if you, too, are tired of politicians - mostly old white men - spouting forth pretending to be obstetricians! Why bother advocating for certain policies from an informed and intelligent position, when ideology and wishful thinking will suffice!
What we need are politicians who aren't afraid to confront the real threat to society: that dastardly man in the red jacket that makes a career or breaking into people's homes, that twisted anti-thief terrorist, Santa Claus!
And that isn't statutory rape???
It could well be a math issue - you don't believe statistics is a good way to find out the relative probability of something?
Anything to weed rapists out of the gene pool would be a good thing. Maybe genetic engineering can someday fix things so men and women have complete control over their fertility.
Also, political threads = potential flamewar and lotsa page views. Even free software nerds need money.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
A lot of people in the press have been playing fast and loose with Paul Ryan's connection to all this (largely for the flimsy reason that they were both cosponsors of the person-hood amendment), so I don't know what GP had in mind. But this much is worth reflecting on: Paul Ryan and Todd Akin also cosponsored a bill that would allow medicaid only to spend money for abortion services for women who were victims of "forcible rape" (instead of just "rape," which is how the law reads now). We might well have wondered why in the world Ryan and Akin thought that distinction was important. We still don't know about Ryan, but the evidence now seems to indicate that, for Akin, the answer may be that only "forcible" rapes are "legitimate." This, IMHO, is a repugnant view and we should be probably inquire to make sure that the GOPs VP nominee doesn't believe it too.
caritj.org
What's next? Discussing the validity of Hitler's final solution?
Some dip shit politician makes an ignorant offensive comment which is fine to report in the news but by discussing it's validity Slashdot adds credence to it.
Here's the facts. Some people have reproductive issues so there's an industry to help them. Evolution happens to favor procreation so for most of us if you combine 3 healthy specimens consisting of an egg, woman, & sperm guess what happens?
It's an insult to every rape victim that ever got pregnant to imply that it was anything less than rape and shame on this whole damn site for providing the opportunity to debate that maybe the victim wasn't "truly" raped.
Something that *never* gets brought up (and ignored in discussions when I bring it up) is this fact: my genetics prof. when I was a freshman in college pointed out that if you believe that conception starts at fertilization then about 3/4 of the people conceived never are even born. This is because of the body's spontaneous abort mechanism that ceases pregnancies that have genetic problems.
I wonder if Akin confused this with his idea that rape victims spontaneously abort. (Given Akin's lack of intelligence this is probably given him too much credit).
Of course this idea sets a lot of the anti-abortion arguments on it's ear, since if you believe it then hell is filled with unbabtised babies.
The summary cites a study showing 5% pregnancy rate from rape. But were those rapes "legitimate"?
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
That depends on your views regarding premarital sex.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
If it had been anyone else who made this remark, even Obama, no one would care! The media is on the attack and will use any lame stupid excuse to attack someone they don't like. I'm sick of hearing it, I don't care, it doesn't concern me, just shut up already!
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Actually it's more of an emotional troll post. It's practically an invite for slashbots to sound like rapey nerd creeps and complain about how only the fratty jocks get laid.
Anonymous Coward, of course.
I'm confused about the numbers in the paper's abstract. They say the pregnancy rate is 5%, and the number of resulting pregnancies annually in the U.S. is 32,000. That means the number of incidents of rape is 640,000.
Other sources claim the number of reported rapes in the U.S. is around 90,000. How do we reconcile these numbers? Surely the authors don't claim that 86% of rapes in the U.S. go unreported?
Since when is this a site for *tech* news? There are other sites that do that. This is a "news for nerds" site, and tech news is just part of that.
This "women can't get pregnant from forcible rape" meme has been around for a long time, though, and the right to life movement has been promoting this myth for years now. It has been used as an argument against emergency contraception.
This particular story is about public ignorance of science, so it may not be news *to* nerds, but it qualifies as news *for* nerds. It's not news that ignorant people believe in creationism, it *is* news when creationists use their clout to restrict the teaching of evolution or to give equal billing to creation "science". It isn't news that some people (largely the same people who push creationism) believe a woman can't get pregnant from rape. It *is* news when somebody runs for office proposing to make laws based on that superstition. It's news for *everybody*, but the nerd's special bailiwick is the science and math part.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
And here I thought all rape was forced.. Stupid me!..
Well, there's the little matter of that bill to restrict Federal funding for abortions, based in no small part of kinds of rape (ie. violent vs. statutory) that Akin and Ryan co-sponsored. While Ryan can't really be held to account for Akin's apparently first grade understanding of female reproduction, the fact is that both men are close allies when it comes to how the Federal government should define rape. Ryan isn't in the center of the target, but he's certainly somewhere on it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Why would my view matter? If the law doesn't say you need a license, then you don't.
Yeah. It's called a marriage license.
:(){
So, no true rapist gets their victim pregnant?
Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
this one time... at band camp
also +1 funny
"largely for the flimsy reason that they were both cosponsors of the person-hood amendment"
that;s not flimsy.
From Ryan's historical actions, it only seems he thinks women can not be raped unless they are somehow harmed outside of the sexual intercourse part of the rape. Hitting, slapping, etc...
This is part of the rising war on women form that party; which stems from the religion rights belief that women are second class citizens.
AS an FYI: Mormons also believe women are 2nd class citizens.
*For brevity.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Why does it depend on that?
This topic is another right wing crapoid debate. One of their morons spoke poorly and now others jump in to try and lend legitamcy to the idocy by turning a screwup and criticism into some legitmate debate...
given the number of available "weapons" could this be considered a WMD!!
Obviously, the 5% knocked up were impure and secretly 'wanted it'.
Twenty-first century and straight-up hatred of women is still a common bedrock of most belief systems. The fact that is seems to be on the increase in the supposedly enlightened Western world sickens me and fills me with despair.
Nice to no biology has no place for nerds.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
But it is a math issue. Akin has made the claim that somehow women who are raped can fend off pregnancy. So, there is a solid claim here that can be investigated, and before one starts pondering the means by which women can prevent rapists' sperm from fertilizing their ova, it seems useful to investigate the rates of pregnancy from rape.
Actually, what I find interesting is that I've read in various places that the odds of pregnancy from a single act of coitus is somewhere around 5%, so if 5% for rape is the statistic, then, from a purely biological point of view there is little difference in fertilization rates between consensual unprotected coitus and forced coitus.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This has nothing to do with nerds and should not have been posted on this site. We all know Republicans are the idiots that got thrown out with the bath water.
It should matter to nerds and anyone else that a man who displays such little care of concern for the nature of reality is a member of the House and seeking office in the Senate of the United States. He represents a constituency the neither understands basic science nor believes that it is necessary to do so in order to make decisions that will govern your personal and professional lives.
Listen to what he is saying, and imagine the implications. A woman is raped... she is forcibly inseminated & the embryo is viable. In this twit's world (and that of others who want to force their 'values' on you) she would have no right to seek an abortion of this undesirable pregnancy. Period.
Furthermore, he's implying that he's been informed by doctors that, "there are ways the female body has of shutting this thing down." First of all, he doesn't understand basic biology. Secondly, he's sadly misinformed about the nature of the rights of the individual. Third, if this is the kind of leadership you want to see in Congress and you're a geek, how do you think it's going to effect your ability to seek federal funding for any research that runs afoul of the whims of a such a zealot?
If you still think it doesn't matter, then move to Missouri and see if can help Akin in his quest, but don't expect to be able to discuss science openly for fear that you'll be expelled from his inner sanctum of trusted keepers of the supreme knowledge.
From the NIH
CONCLUSIONS: Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence.
Offer up your own daughter for sacrifice, Mr. Akin, but keep your simplistic, religious immorality out of my life!
Beyond being repugnant, Akin's comment is a window into how these politicians think. Akin is ready to believe, and say in public, a blanket statement about people-not-him (i.e., women) that is hurtful, divisive, and easily proven false with even the smallest effort.
But it advances his agenda. In fact, it covers up a gaping hole in the pro-life position that he thinks he needs to get re-elected.
Does he really believe the thing that came out of his mouth? I don't think he cares. To him, it's just sucking up to a loud (and sometimes scary) special-interest group. Talk's cheap, and it's easy to say what the pollsters tell you likely voters want to hear.
Proof will be in whether he quits. More proof if he gets re-elected. If he sticks around, then he truly believes that what he said, true or not, was proper in view of election politics. If he wins, then his belief will be justified.
The trouble will come when he carries that complete disregard for the facts into creating laws we have to live with.
People complain about government. But we elect idiots like this to run the government. Hmmm.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
Statutory rape is often unforced.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
There's a whole range of rape. One the "legitimate" end is physical violence, somewhere closer to the middle is coercion or emotional manipulation, a little to the other side of the middle is taking advantage of drunk chicks in a bar, further this way still is fully consensual sex, but one person happens to be 16 and the other 22, and finally all the way on the opposite end is "it was a bad idea or I changed my mind, so I'm going to call it rape"
if only there was a forum on the internets for just that!!!
Weak argument. EVERYTHING is stuff the matters to someone. Buy putting nerds in the phrase, it implies a specific class of people and categories for topics.
News for Football; stuff that matters.
You really wouldn't expect an OEM discussion to appear.
That said, this part of the discussion, statistics and the physiological discussion certainly is news for nerds.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'm reluctant to feed the troll, but it needs doing:
Seconded. While nobody should doubt that women can use sex as a women from time to time, EVERYBODY should doubt, for lack of evidence, that this phenomenon is discursively significant when set beside the shockingly common, underprosecuted, and yet extremely serious crime of rape.
Meanwhile, there is an embarrassment of evidence about the prevalence of rape and the ways in which our criminal justice system and society at large do not take the problem seriously enough. This social problem is caused, in very large part, by efforts to discredit and embarrass victims with much the same rhetoric as the GP's. So if, when confronted about a story about someone not taking rape seriously enough, your response is something like the GP's, you are either ignorant of the very well known facts, a cretin, or have your head way up your ass. Probably all three.
caritj.org
Akin's comments were tasteless and ignorant of current knowledge/data, but since no one else is coming to his defense, I will.
There are two aspects of his comments to which people take offense. To get the first out of the way quickly, "legitimate rape", the 2004 Maryland case of "delayed withdrawal of consent" is an example of "rape" that is not "legitimate".
Now, onto the pregnancy statistics. The theory that rape resulted in few pregnancies was common among conservatives, as TFA states. It came from the amlgamation of two scientific reports. First, studies have shown that female orgasm increases fertility because the vagina draws the sperm up like a conveyer belt as well as opens up the cervix. Second, until just a couple of years ago, rape victims reported orgasms in only 5-20% of cases. A recent study, however, showed that up to 90% of rape victims orgasm -- including those who could not otherwise normally orgasm. Women in previous studies were too ashamed to admit it (and in fact it's the greater psychological trauma than from having been penetrated).
This is an explanation for what was reported only in 2003, which is that the chance of pregnancy is greater with rape than with consensual.
Akin's information was out of date, was widely accepted by anti-abortion advocates (esp in the past), and had some scientific basis that was skewed due to rape victims' misreporting.
Rufie Gunnagetcha
It's a Rapelize name.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Well, at least some conservative d- who typically deny evolution are in the best position to deny rape as a presumed evolutionary adaptation.
However, from an evolutionary standpoint, there is no basis to deny the efficacy of rape regarding impregnation. This type of trait (ie. rape/aggression) quintessentially typifies normal natural "fitness".
I think what he was getting at is this:
I think what he meant was that "legitimate rape" is rape performed legitimately...within the sanctity of a marriage, and good old-fashioned family values. You know, not just rape, but the wholesome kind. And he was speaking from experience on the rarity of pregnancy happening from this kind of rape...after all, he only has six kids.
Now, as for all those sluts who get raped without marrying the guy first...well, extra double dumb-ass on them, I guess...
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
It could be a certain other religion that doesn't consider them citizens at all.
It can be such a disturbing subject. To clear my nerd mind I must go read a page from wiki on Traumatic insemination. Humans have it good.
I agree for the most part, but the world is not black and white. Here's a little hypothetical thought experiment:
A teenage man (say, 19, so above majority age) goes to a party, which involves alcohol. He gets drunk enough to become sufficiently intoxicated to black out the evening. He wakes up in his bed at home, after being dropped off by friends. 3 months later, a girl who was at the party claims a paternity suit against him for her now 3rd month pregnancy, the test shows positive. he does not remember giving consent, and does not remember the woman at all.
Now, Flipside.
A teenage woman, (Say, 19, so above the age of majority), goes to a party which involves alcohol. She gets drunk enough to be sufficiently intoxicated to black out the evening. She wakes up at home in her bed after being dropped off by friends. She has semen stains in her panties. She does not remember giving consent, and promptly makes use of a female hotline to report her "rape."
These situations are essentially identical, however the female's view holds more gravity than does the male's. Contrary to what many feminists might claim, a non-consentual pregnancy and subsequent child support mandate can ruin a man's life, just as much as the unconsentual pregnancy itself can ruin a woman's. In both cases, informed consent could not be considered a given, because both were heavily intoxicated. This makes both instances fall de-facto under the umbrella of rape.
Both cases have identical themes: A person is encouraged by the party to become intoxicated, and is then taken sexual advantage of while judgment is impaired. That is straight up rape.
Why is it then, that men in this circumstance are more frequently saddled with being the SOURCE of the rape, and denied protections as a victim of rape, while women are more frequently granted the protections of being the victims of rape, while men are saddled with the blame for such rape?
I would say it is because of cultural bias, and double standards; women are percieved as more vulnerable, (when both are equally vulnerable to alcohol and other drugs), and thus requiring the stronger protections. Men are conversely considered to be "stronger", and being raped in this way is even culturally approved of in a disturbingly sick fashion.
I really do believe that it is possible to have a no-fault rape case. Both participants get smashed and fuck like rabbits while out of their minds, and assert they would never have consented to the sex while sober. How does the law react to such a circumstance? Does it punish both victims for their over-indulgences? Who pays child support?
See the problem?
of course she stayed in bed that long. it takes a while for the roofies to wear off. And then there is the issue of getting free from the duct tape.
Don't forget the Assange "rape"
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
From the mentioned study: "The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45);" If you sample 1000 randomly chosen women of reproductive age, you would expect some proportion of them to be using some form of contraception such as an iud, oral contraceptive, slow release implant or similar which would block contraception. Some of them will probably be pregnant already. None of those women is likely to conceive as a result of being raped, and of the remainder, it is unlikely that on any given day more than 25% would be at a point in their menstrual cycle to be fertile. I don't have all the numbers to hand, but I suspect that if you remove all the "can't get pregnants" from the pool of potential rape victims, you may find that the 5% of who fall pregnant is a much higher % of those who could potentially get pregnant from being raped. How many couples do we hear about who try for 6 or more months before they succesfully conceive? That's less than a 17% chance of contraception, assuming all other possible negative factors are deliberately eliminated. If only 1 in 4 rape victims is in a fertile window in her monthly cycle, then 5% of all rape victims of reproductive age suggests 20% of those who could potentially conceive are ending up pregnant as a result of the rape, and if other negative factors are taken into account, I suspect that the actual rate of conception amongst rape victims who could potentially conceive is even higher.
Every law about abortion will not realy change the number of abortion, but will fix if abortion will be do by doctor or butcher (or other person).
... is that the Republicans are hosed this November if they continue to double down on all of this.
And this is one of their central tenets on rape, that there is "legitimate rape" and "well, it's not rape-rape, because she had an orgasm" or "she deserved it because she dressed like a slut and forced the weak spined guy to rape her." It is so central to the "pregnancy as punishment for moral failing" in fundie circles that they will not relinquish this point. Because to relinquish it means they could be wrong on other things about pregnancy and abortion too. It's a point of faith held very deeply.
Which is why the GOP platform calls for a constitutional ban on abortion with no exceptions for rape.
But don't you dare call it a war on women. Right? *spit*
So get the popcorn, and find your favorite chair, because this is going to be an epic amount of derp.
--
BMO
The guy serves on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. Citation: http://gop.science.house.gov/Members/Default.aspx
So this guy has a say in the nation's direction on those things.
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
And there will always be crazy women who rape men. Get him drunk, get them to sleep with her. Even if he's homosexual. Even if he's married, in love with his wife and unwilling to cheat. An erection is purely mechanical, you don't need to want to do it (or even know you're doing it). Likewise, there will always be men raping other men. Or women raping women. Or people raping horses. Whatever. And all the possible false accusations involved. Except that horses won't accuse anyone. I guess.
What is needed is *real* sexual education. Teaching both men and women to be mindful of their own bodies, and respectful of other peoples'. We need to teach boys *and* girls that "no" means "no", not "My mouth says no but my body says yes". And that "yes" means "yes", not "I say yes now but when daddy asks I'll say I didn't want it but you forced me". We need to teach them that they can also be on the other side. We need to teach parents to accept that their kids will grow, they will think about sex, and this subject should not be avoided by the family (if you do so, it becomes taboo, and all hell may break loose).
Unfortunately, having people ignorant makes for more rapes and false rapes. This leads to more trials, which lead to richer lawyers, who are friends with politicians (or they are actual politicians), so politicians don't have any incentive to really solve it. Just make people believe you are "thinking of the children", it's enough.
Which is all fair. When a moronic claim is made science is a good way to determine exactly how moronic it is.
Whether or not Akin's claim is true also has no bearing on whether women should have access to reproductive health services. It also has no bearing on whether or not Akin himself is a bumbling fucknut waste of human flesh who should be processed into a cheap meat-substitute.
Indeed. Stupid you. "Involuntary" is not the same as "forcible." But the former is a necessary condition for a rape. The second is not. (Some examples for the especially dense: sex under threat of violence, sex under threat of emotional/financial/social harm, sex with a minor, sex with an unconscious or severely impaired person, etc.)
Or think of it this way: if "rape" == "forcible rape", then why change the law?
caritj.org
Akin was not all with it, it seems, his remarks seemed confused. The fact of the matter is in many cases anti-abortion laws are written to allow for abortion in the case that is a rape, as well where the pregnancy will not be successful due to medical abnormaliities.
I am particularly opposed to abortion since it is indeed the killing of human life, there is no magic moment when the baby materializes from thin air and becomes a conscious being the instant they move through the birth canal. This is just basic biology that its a human being in the womb. As well the idea that it is defenceless gives even more reason to give him legal protection, the fact is a baby already born is just as fragile and defenceless, needing constant care including feeding or they will die, and the slightest mishandling can cause severe injury, babies are very delicate. being dependant does not mean that a person is not a human being with rights, in fact it means they need even more protection since they are less capable to defend themselves.
Then we have the social aspects of abortion. The fact is birth rates in the USA and Europe are far TOO LOW And that this is due to abortion partially. In fact, we have far too few babies and people need to have more babies in the US, not less.
We need to encourage Americans and Europeans to have more children, not provide ways for them to not have them, to boost the too low birth rates.
... since we all know that sex is definitely not for nerds.
My right hand disagrees.
You chose to ignore the fact that most underage pregnancies result from both parties being underage. This is an easily verifiable fact.
And guys rape women and say they didn't. News flash, people lie.
Call me back when you've reached tentacle rape...
This is fucking stupid.
Article mentioned "found that the rape-related pregnancy rate was 5.0 percent and studies from other countries have reported the percentage to be even greater."
This maybe due to the fact that more females in US are on contraception (pills) to begin with. Other nation where sex is considered taboo or hormonal contraception is illegal, may have higher rate of rape-related pregnancy.
There is a famous argument by Judith Jarvis Thomson that suggests that even GRANTING that a fetus is a full-fledged person with the same rights as everyone else, that STILL they do not have the right to infringe on the rights of the mother:
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. [If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but] in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
Do you have a moral obligation to spend nine months hooked up to this person to keep them alive because you were selected to loan out your kidneys by a third party?
I always understood this issue as trying to determine which of the following two alternatives is true:
1) A zygote/fetus/whatever is a hunk of flesh in a woman's body
2) A zygote/fetus/whatever is a living being/person that deserves rights and protections
If 1 is true then women should be able to get abortions anytime they want for any reason they want, after all it is just a hunk of flesh in their body.
If 2 is true then women should not be able to get abortions no matter the reason because killing is killing. Whether the fetus was a result of a loving relationship, a one night stand, rape, or incest does not change that it is/is not a valuable being deserving rights and protections. (one possible exception is if the mother's life is in danger...then it is valuable life vs. valuable life).
So, why are we discussing % of rape victims that get pregnant with regards to abortion? I'm not dismissing the general impact/importance of discussing rape and it's terrible effects, I just don't see why allowing or not allowing abortion should be part of the discussion.
I still call that flimsy just because one can vote for a person-hood amendment just because you think a fetus is a person and it is always morally wrong to kill a person. This may be dumb for its own reasons, but I think it's the major reason why anyone votes for a person-hood amendment, and it has nothing necessarily to do with one's views about rape.
I worry that what you say about Ryan may be true. But I think that his voting for the person-hood amendment is pretty weak evidence for that conclusion.
caritj.org
IMHO statutory rape shouldn't exist at an age 18 threshold.
If we're going to argue immaturity while the persons body is well capable of the act then the brain doesn't finish maturing until 25.
Additionally it might slow down this rash of two under 18 parents with a kid all of a sudden.
The age should be lowered to 16 at the very least, and Canadas law of 14 made the most sense.
The instances of an under-14 year old girl going after sex in a bar somewhere and actually getting away with people thinking she's 18-19+ are extremely rare. The instances of a 14+ girl doing the same are extremely common. This is what the original law was based on. The 14+ year old is probably physically matured(they almost definitely are by 16), and is likely very curious about sex. There are a fair number of these girls that then go out and look for an older and (They presume) more experienced guy to introduce them to it, often lying about how old they are in the process. The guy doesn't even always find out how old she was.
Most guys in Canada follow the under 18 guidelines anyways as a general rule, however I know more than one that's been hit with a 15 or 16 year old that looked way fucking older. Now you have to I.D. them before you can let them on for a ride.
From the other side I know at least two girls I went to high school with that did exactly what I described. This was out of a class of 32, so percentages of girls doing this are actually significant, though this is somewhat anecdotal as it is a small sample size, I wouldn't be surprised to find similar throughout north america.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be some form of punishment, but 14-18 non-forcible sex should be a much more minor offense of some sort, with under-14 being the auto-rape.
The statistics does tell us that pregnancy after rape isn't rare, but it doesn't fully answer the question raised at the beginning of the article. Ceteris paribus (that is, controlling for condom use, contraceptive use, day of the cycle, age, race, etc) is a woman less likely to get pregnant through rape. I don't think it *relevant* as far as the abortion debate goes, but I'm genuinely *curious*. One would expect an evolutionary arm race to have equipped women with some mechanism to avoid rape pregnancies and men with some counter measures to said mechanisms. I wonder who has the edge.
\u262D = \u5350
Why stick to religion on that one. For over 100 years, the United States didn't consider women citizens either. It wasn't until the 20th century that they were even allowed to vote. Seems like all these kinds of folks are trying to do is return us to the 'less complicated' days when women were more like property and less like human beings.
To be fair, that's not true. I find his remarks more abhorrent because of the underlying thesis:
Akin's argument is essentially that when a woman is "legitimately raped" i.e. doesn't want to have sex with the man forcing himself on her, there can be no pregnancy. Therefore, whenever a rape victim gets pregnant, she actually wanted to have sex with that man, so it wasn't "really" rape, because secretly deep down she wanted it. Therefore, since she wanted to have sex, she should be responsible for the product of that act -- the baby. And thus, its okay to put her in jail if she aborts the rapists baby.
That's why the Republicans have been out there trying to split hairs between "rape rape" "forcible rape" "legitimate rape" and the term us commie hippie pinkos use (i.e. RAPE). Because, as any republican pastor could tell you, deep down that every feminist secretly wants a good round of "illegitimate raping" at least once a year.
The Republicans don't want you to clarify the issue, nor are they listening to your attempts to do so. Akin said it as a calculated risk in order to let the extremist bigots know that there's a candidate out there who shares their views. The next natural step is to claim that he was quoted out of context or "misspoke" and then return back to courting the moderates, when he really didn't misspeak at all. This tactic, which seems to be used widely in both the US and Canada by right wingers, particularly in marginal constituencies allows them to appeal to a much broader segment than they would if they had only one campaign platform. They're banking on the moderate right wing "not hearing" the more extreme message, which is quite likely if you're familiar with the RWA psychological scale - self deception is right up there with confirmation bias in the family values crowd.
Ugg's Observations On The Act Of Boom Boom And It's Prevalence In Attempted Matriarchal Dominance Systems
(translated from crude stone circles [footnoted with wall paintings] found in the Rift Valley)
Haha, I didn't see anyone else mention it, but what about Assange? Isn't he accused of raping women whom he had consensual sex with? Was that a legitimate rape? It will probably eventually lead indirectly to his execution for treason, against a country he isn't even a resident in. Hopefully that will set a president for the rest of the world as well, and US citizens will start being executed by Iran, and north Korea (please, republicans first).
You see, here in the US, we don't take things so literary. No matter what we say about something, we can always use it to mean something else when we want to.
I have heard that sudden stressful events can delay or prevent ovulation. Pregnancy can occur either from sex when a woman has recently ovulated (and still carries a viable egg) or from sex a few days prior to ovulation (sperm can live inside the vagina for several days). It seems logical (though I am not aware of a study about it) that the stress of rape could prevent a woman from ovulating (if she would normally have ovulated within the next few days) and therefore make pregnancy (that otherwise would have occurred a few days after sex) less likely. Pregnancy from rape is certainly possible, but may be statistically less likely than pregnancy from consensual sex.
One of many reasons why I am a devout evangelical atheist is because of all the Ten Commandments int he Bible, God chose not to outlaw rape. The Christian God apparently chose " Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." as a more important rule to lay down than "Thou shalt not rape." Rape has been used as a form of violence and control since the beginning of recorded human history, and in fact it has only been within the past hundred years that it has been seen as the true horror that it is in modern society, and this is IN SPITE OF religious dogma, not because of it.
God could have chosen to make it perfectly clear that this was one of the most evil sins that could be committed and should be outlawed under all circumstances. But the God presented in the Bible, and in the Koran, chose not to.
This is one of the reasons why I'm an atheist.
nor grammar, apparently
I am so sorry.
I read the whole thing and I did not violently disagree with any of it.
But when I got to the end I could not help but laugh out loud at work.
Just had never had the term "auto-rape" inserted into my head before.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
you are the scum of society.
Since "Football" is not a sentient being, I have no idea what news would be pertinent to "Football."
"Football News" would be more appropriate, or"News for People Who Like Football" or "News for Sports Geeks" would be better.
This comment brought to you by "News For Pedants."
Oops. Run on sentence ran on. Pretend I wrote this, please:
I still call that flimsy. I think most people vote for a person-hood amendment because they think a fetus is a person and it is always morally wrong to kill a person. This may be dumb for its own reasons but it has nothing necessarily to do with one's views about rape.
I worry that what you say about Ryan may be true. But I think that his voting for the person-hood amendment is pretty weak evidence for that conclusion.
caritj.org
The Guardian article on this was interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-h-word/2012/aug/20/legitimate-rape-medieval-medical-concept
In short, back in the 13th century, European medicine held that the female reproductive system was the same as the male reproductive system, only inverted. Testes became ovaries, penis became vagina, and so on. In order for a man to get a woman pregnant, he has to have an orgasm, so, in order for a woman to get pregnant, she has to have an orgasm. Thus the notion of "legitimate rape" - if a woman got pregnant while being raped, she must have had an orgasm, or in other words she enjoyed it, which in turn meant it wasn't rape.
The notion persisted in some form till the 19th century, and, apparently, still persists in some form to this day.
I like to point out the degradation of society since they let women vote.
It helps me figure out those who don't understand the difference between correlation and causation. It also helps me figure out which one it was that brought the shitty beer though that is another topic for another day.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
SCIENCE!
Did you realize that Rep. Todd Aken is on the Committee for Science, Space and Technology (according to his Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_akin)
Isn't it amazing that someone this clueless about technology/how the world actually works would be on this committee?
Now do you think that this belongs on Slashdot?
Do you think Aken should resign?
So... rape in a car back seat? o.O
So what *have* you had inserted in your head before this. :-D
(rimshot)
Thank you!
Your "couples wanting to conceive" group will disproportionately sample less-fertile couples, as the most fertile couples will already have kids.
paintball
Naughtius Maximus, of course.
English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
Just because it can be discussed does not make it relevant. What changes based on the answer you find? It doesn't make rape OK. It doesn't make abortion wrong. When you're arguing about rape statistics, you are fighting on the wrong ground.
[FUCK BETA]
I'm a little surprised I have to spell this out, but, okay. Stereotypically, physical intimacy in a heterosexual relationship only transpires when both members feel comfortable participating in it. The idea of a 'sex weapon' arises when one member of the relationship feels that the other's reason for avoiding physical intimacy is undue; i.e. the sex becomes an object of desire in and of itself, which is very understandable as physical intimacy is a psychological need for people who are adjusted to it. Alternatively (and frequently in popular culture) one member may withhold sex from the other in order to manipulate them unfairly. This kind of disagreement, usually represented in heterosexual situations as the woman withholding from the man, is exacerbated by poor matches.
The idea of a 'licence,' therefore, is a simple by-product: without premarital sex, then one indeed needs a marriage licence before intercourse is a consideration—although lesser forms of physical intimacy may still get the same treatment.
This phenomenon is very widely represented, and I'm perplexed that you aren't already familiar with at least its popular portrayal.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Shouldn't an atheist say "those ancient dudes who made up the Bible chose not to..."?
Just sayin'
Why, oh why do we keep irradiating it, cutting it out, treating it with harsh chemicals? Won't someone think of the cancer?
If you saw how many partial birth cancers are thrown out every day, you would be horrified. But because men can get cancer too, it's LEGAL to kill it.
If only men could get pregnant, then abortion would be as easy as changing your oil, or doing laundry.
I propose a constitutional amendment to save cancer from these horrific doctors. We need to start a movement.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Which is all fair. When a moronic claim is made science is a good way to determine exactly how moronic it is.
Best quote.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
It is a little unclear from the abstract but it looks like of the 4000 women only 34 rape based pregnancies were the basis for this study.
Does anyone have access to the full article to see whether this is correct or not?
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Of course not. Statistics is maths is science and science only gives you facts when in reality you need TEH TRUTH!!!!!!111111oneoneoneoneoneone
Err, time to get back to the Senate.
Obviously we blame the alcohol company
I have a few different answers to this:
a) it was a joke about relationships that are so entrenched that their group decisions effectively constitute a layer of obligation similar to laws; in which case, 'woosh'
b) cultural norms regarding premarital sex in your community could effectively pressure you into behaving as though you needed to get married before sex could be used in this manner, even if you didn't personally believe it was right
c) the idea of using sex as a bargaining chip to force people to marry is, itself, a weaponization of sex ('woosh' again)
d) laws are, at some level, the aggregate results of political beliefs of the people (politicans, ancestors, whatever—don't debate politics in response to this post, please) they affect, and are hence dependent on your views and the views of others near you when considered at a national or global scale
Take your pick!
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
It is also part of their ego; I know some brown shirts and their whole faith is based upon righteous infallibility -- I mean the faith in the GOP stuff they ditto. These are people who are just as bad on religion but never learned to make the distinction between the two. The GOP purposely has latched onto this confused demographic and purposely conflated matters. Take global warming in Australia, they lost huge progress because marketers succeeded in their (openly professed) strategy to tie anti-global warming conspiracy into the identity of being a conservative. So now you have conservatives who like, want, idealize being conservative feeling compelled to deny reality in order to be themselves!
Maybe you've seen organic versions of the same psychology? Such as Christians who don't think you are christian if you don't believe something they do? (wars have been fought...)
They can't be wrong on anything; the amount of effort they go to avoid it is amazing and imaginative rarely involving logic not because it doesn't exist but because the whole behavior is EMOTIONAL so their reasoning is already shutting down when the topic comes up. Those who can calm down a bit can get some thinking in to recall later-- but try to get somebody who is worked up to reason clearly and see for yourself.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Just my quick $0.02 because I keep reading the word "feminist" used as a pejorative.
Unless you think women should not be able to vote, get an education, drive, or hold the same jobs men do, you are a feminist.
Feminism is often associated with the left-wing equivalent of right-wing nutjobs. While yes, there are a small %age women out there who fit an unflattering image of what most conservatives visualize when they hear the word feminist, in reality, most civilized mature people are feminists, regardless of political party, religion, or other demographic.
Of course, those of you who think women actually do belong uneducated, imprisoned (nonconsensually), barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, are truly not feminists.
Carry on.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
They did such a great job with this, but, for one dot they failed to connect. Yes they show that rape can result in pregnancy, and 5% is definitely high for the type of claims being made as casting doubt on the need for abortion.
However, they don't actually address (in the summary I read) the issue of whether their appears to be such a mechanism at work. I say this because they ignored any investigation of non-rape sexual contact.
Lets say the average for non-rape contact was 10%, or nearly double (I know its not that high). Then we could say there is some credibility to the claim, and the problem is a matter of degree. (the numbers are still too high for what the anti-choicers want to justify).
On the other hand, if the non-rape encounters were in the 4-6% range, then hey.... no effect.... if they are more like 1% then...we may have a totally opposite effect going on!
Of course...this gets hard because we then need to take into account the fact that people having sex by choice may (or may not!) be more likely to use birth control of some form.... so that needs to be addressed to really start comparing apples to apples. (I imagine you do that by throwing out all rape cases where any form of birth control was being used, or treat them as a second category for evaluation)
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
The solution is more violence.
I can't imagine why you haven't garnered more support for your 'solution.'
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
I'm curious as to what link you think there is between sex and marriage. To my knowledge, there is none. You need not have sex after marriage and marriage is not a pre requisite for sex. They're two entirely different things. For you to talk about marriage when we're talking about sex is...utterly illogical.
Marriage is nothing but a contract on piece of paper. And that contract says nothing about sex.
The alcohol is only an accessory to the crime(s) committed.
Alcohol removes inhibition, by temporarily suppressing the prefrontal cortex. This loss of inhibition is then what causes the sex. Consent cannot be given, because rational thought cannot happen, due to chemical influence. The use of alcohol is legal, and both parties consumed the alcohol willingly.
What they did not consent to, was the sex.
I believe they're trying to make a distinction between a rape that included a separate physical assault (e.g. the victim was punched and kicked, then raped) versus a rape that used the threat of violence to ensure the victim's compliance but is difficult to prove later (e.g. the attacker told the victim that if she did not comply he would kill her children, or the attacker held a knife to the victim's throat but did not actually cut her with it).
There are, of course, cases when women fabricate accusations of rape for the purposes of blackmail or revenge. However, I doubt Akin and Ryan have enough evidence to assert that most or even a notable minority of "non forcible rapes" fit into that category.
Akins rant was a success. Recognition and discussion has reached a national level for this candidate, but do we even know who hes running against? people are rightly polarized and outaged now but this strategy seems to be an old one for the GOP that harkens back to their sterling allies on AM radio. Say something incendiary, let the audience simmer for a while and see what they think, then direct the conversation where you think it needs to go.
The GOP is elected on the coattails of the culture war, nothing less. Once in office they act solely in the interest of the upper class but they need a vehicle to get them there. Points to Akin for avoiding complicated issues like the economy, for which the GOP have no coherent or reasonable answer but to continue shoveling money into the cauffers of the rich.
Good people go to bed earlier.
People of the United States should remember that Paul Ryan(R) (forcible rape) along with Todd Akin(R) (legitimate rape) co-sponsored the "Sanctity of Human Life Act:H.R. 212" which says that life starts at fertilization and guarantees that life full protection under the law which of course has the effect of making women who miscarry guilty of murder.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
The problem is you drank too much alcohol. This is why I don't drink that much alcohol and why I go pining at women before they've had more than maybe one drink, and that's edgy for me. I VOMIT before I lose my sense of reasoning (alcohol mainly affects me physically, but also even small amounts of alcohol basically stabilize my emotions and prevent clinical depression), and that takes ...what ... 3 or 4 beers, plus 4 ounces of whiskey, and an ounce or two of rum in an hour on an empty stomach? I did it once for an experiment.
That's great, but I don't trust women to be rational if the LIGHTING is different, much less if they've had ANY alcohol. Women are emotionally unstable, you can get them to do ANYTHING with the right shift in just about any social factor--lighting, temperature, whether or not they're hungry, boredom and recent excitement, the tone of your voice, facial expression, the presence or lack of presence of people, presence of cameras, etc. Alcohol is a quick motivator, it changes their perception on a subconscious level (alcohol = fun = be fun) and on a physical level (it's alcohol). At the end of the night after a dozen Jaeger bombs I don't think a girl has her head screwed on straight AT ALL.
If she doesn't say outright "hey whatever happens" or "yeah fuck me at the end of the night" when she's sober, not doing that. As for me, I'll have a couple good beers or throw an ounce of whiskey or brandy (Christian Brothers VS) in a sniffer and carry that for 4-6 hours. I don't need to pound shots that taste like piss, what the hell is the point of that? (Though jaeger bombs are oddly tasty... must be all the spices in jaeger, I should look into that).
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I know this sets the requirements pretty high, but I think it's reasonable to expect our lawmakers to investigate what the legal distinction between "rape" and "forcible rape" is, and vote accordingly. Ryan was either not educated enough to do so, which is a character flaw - or he understood the distinction and chose to support "only forcible rape" provisions intentionally, which is damning.
You seem to forget the implications of the 7th. and 10th. commandments, in the authors day any unwedded woman would be the responsibility of her father or (oldest) brother, 'desiring' her is therefore forbidden.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Elsewhere in the Old Testament, there are very specific rules about what should happen if somebody is raped:
1. If the woman is not married or engaged, the rapist pays her father 50 shekels of silver, and marries her.
2. If the woman is engaged, the town is supposed to stone both her rapist and her to death. (both of these are from Deuteronomy 22) Apparently the justification for this one is that it's her fault she didn't scream loudly enough.
3. If the woman is married, that's adultery, so both of them should be killed. (Leviticus 20:10)
Which goes to show exactly how much the people that wrote those books cared about women.
I am officially gone from
If the penalty for any sex outside marriage is death, how does one additionally punish rape?
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
I'm not here to discuss my own perspective—I'm simply relating to the cultural norms in the United States which have been put forth by the Judeo-Christian belief system. I do not purport to necessarily hold any of the opinions advanced.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
The opinion of Rep. D-bag Akin does not, repeat, does not reflect the opinion of Missourians in general. Believe me, we're far more appalled by his statements than you can possibly imagine.
On the bright side, Akin's commission of political seppuku has pretty much guaranteed that he will lose to incumbent McCaskill in the election, so there's little chance of him getting elected.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Except that horses won't accuse anyone. I guess.
I'm rather certain that horses don't give a shit or if they do you'll know. Damn things weigh like 2000 pounds and will kick you like a fucking cannon. Besides that a horse can just flop over on you or reduce your bones to pulp, if a horse busts a nut I really don't think it CARES how it unloaded; it's a damn animal.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Football certainly doesn't matter.
Yeah, we let women vote, and what did we get? Alcohol prohibition! Thanks, chickie!
But it is a math issue. Akin has made the claim that somehow women who are raped can fend off pregnancy. So, there is a solid claim here that can be investigated, and before one starts pondering the means by which women can prevent rapists' sperm from fertilizing their ova, it seems useful to investigate the rates of pregnancy from rape.
This is exactly it. The "big deal" isn't that a conservative thinks there is some sort of magic that God put in women to prevent unwelcome pregnancy (conservatives believe all kinds of ridiculous things so this is not a shocker at all). The big deal is that Rep Akin was appointed to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology in the U.S. House. This obviously puts him in a position to influence the nation's policy toward science, and since he is clearly a firm disbeliever in science as a whole it is really important that as many people know about this tragic mismatch as possible.
or grammar
I think there's a fundamental difference between being beat up and having an orifice or two violated for the sexual gratification of someone else. If you have personally experienced the latter, you might have justification for speaking the way you do.
I haven't, so I'm not going to assume I can downplay the significance of the event by classifying it like any other "run of the mill" beating. Everyone I've met that has undergone both - and I've met more than a few - has clearly indicated that they are not the same thing.
Funny how the English language works too.
Because back then, the word for rape was "ravished". Today we say things like "Darling, you look ravishing", and it's accepted as a compliment.
So 500 years from now, will we say 'Darling, you look rape-able', and the lady will smile and kiss you?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Everyone knows, cavemen just knocked their women out with clubs to mate.
coitus!
Sheldon, is that you?
That's the thing, no one really thinks about it until they're the ones on the block for it or someone they know is.
If you have sex with a girl thats 16, at a bar, and looks 22, you've automatically just committed rape. No matter what else happens.
I shortened it to auto-rape, which can be taken multiple ways, some of which are hilarious.
So....using Congressman Akin's logic: It wasn't 'legitimate' consensual sex or she would never have been able to accuse you of rape. You must have doing something seriously wrong in bed for 5 hours.
Most rape accusations are lies from a slutty woman who regrets her decision after the fact
You're doing something Seriously Wrong.
Yes, it is an EXTREMELY unfortunate term because it seems clearly to suggest that large categories of rapes (in fact, the large majority of rapes -- most are not the stereotypical "violent encounters") are, in fact, not rape.
And, yes, the scientific inquiry you suggest may be a legitimate one. But what Akin was suggesting was not a scientific inquiry it was a scientific conclusion backed up by no scientific evidence whatsoever motivated only by political expediency. The actual evidence (so much as there is) tends to show just the opposite.
As for what you say about statutory rape, maybe maybe not depending on the case. Part of the point of the law, of course, is that some minors cannot actually meaningfully consent to sexual activity urged by an adult. But then again, plenty can. But we don't need to get bogged down in this. As you acknowledge yourself, there are other categories of rape that are non-forcible such as date rapes, etc.
caritj.org
When you talk about "weapons", you can't refer to cultural norms. Nuclear weapons or guns affect everyone equally - there's no escaping them which is why they're called "weapons" - something that you can't escape. To call sex a weapon is just illogical.
Citations needed.
I'm not sure that the "studies" reported here exist at all, but if they do, and are not completely misinterpreted here, they smell like bullshit.
You are then beaten after being put to death.
"But this one goes to 11!"
Perhaps it was in the 15 Commandments, but Moses dropped the 3rd slab.
A belief in statistics is foundationless when applied to helplessness.
If the sex weapon is used on you long enough over a relatively short period severe chaffing can occur!
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Ryan isn't in the center of the target, but he's certainly somewhere on it.
This is why I recommend target practice with nuclear weapons.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
While nobody should doubt that women can use sex as a women from time to time, EVERYBODY should doubt, for lack of evidence, that this phenomenon is discursively significant when set beside the shockingly common, underprosecuted, and yet extremely serious crime of rape.
Wat
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wish I had mod points. You, my good Sir, hit the proverbial nail straight on the head.
The "Over" in "Overindulgence" pretty much spells that part out.
While you personally have a stronger resistance to alcohol than say, some other person, it does not mean that alcohol effects you any differently chemically. As such, the thought experiment is not invalidated by your anecdote.
Your proposal on how to behave at parties is directly corollary with the institutionalized double-standard I was referring to. Women can be more carefree in their behaviors, while men must be more proactively guarded, in order to avoid the problem. The addressing of the double standard is the problem; Men dont want to admit that they might not be in complete control (that is culturally unacceptable), and women dont want to admit that they could have been aggressors while drunk. (Dont you know, women are the FAIRER sex! they are delicate little flowers!)
Being straight-up asexual, I see this problem differently, with much less sexual politicizing. I see one type of person being forced to be more guarded and careful, to counter a predatory and/or shamelessly callous but socially protected behavior in another.
Really, BOTH should be guarded, as BOTH are vulnerable to the effects of over-consumption of alcoholic beverages.
The only time I've ever seen a modern Republican rely on science was when the science supported his or her ideology. If science conflicts with the right's ideology, then either the Bible or that ideology rules. Likewise, anytime the Bible conflicts with the right's ideology, then ideology takes precedence.
That's just how they are.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
where do little nerds come from?
Klach D'Kel Brakt, obviously
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Hmm...as a man, I've yet to be harmed by this "sex weapon". Do you need a license for it?
Most slashdotters have this problem. It can be cured by luck equivalent to that required to win the lottery, or a few hundred bucks and a trip to Nevada.
An excellent observation. It's absolutely fascinating to me that the GOP's social conservative line isn't all that far from the hard-line Islamist line that a female victim of rape somehow actually was responsible for that rape and really it's more a situation of fornication, rather than violence.
There are some truly disturbing people filling up the hard-right ranks of the Republican party, and considering that Paul Ryan is a co-sponsor of amendments that seem to stem from this very kind of thinking, it certainly shines a new light on Ryan as well.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
As it turns out, only 25.3% of all helplessness is foundationless.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
The statistic demonstrates that there is no difference in rates of pregnancy for a single act of unprotected sexual intercourse... period. So, from a statistical point of view, Akin's claim is rubbish. Then there are the obvious issues with Akin's knowledge of human reproduction, as in the guy is a fucking idiot who appears to have a knowledge of reproductive processes on par with a child in the single digit age range.
And then there's the very troubling reality of how Akin (and presumably Paul Ryan, who has been his close ally in trying to limit Federal money in abortions) views women in general.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If you use the words "legitimate rape" in any serious context, I'm already branding you an asshole and ignoring anything you subsequently say.
Why don't we just ignore the asshole politicians and don't give their extremist political arguments the benefit of scientific analysis?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
I'm the AC from above and you got awful close...
Ryan cosponsored the bill, either he agrees with Akin or sponsors bills he does not understand. Logic + availiable evidence = conclusion.
Interestingly enough, there was recently a case that sorta dealt with the first situation: A 20-year-old woman slept with a 16-year-old Justin Bieber, committing statutory rape. A pregnancy ensued. She claimed paternity against Justin Bieber, but changed her mind and dropped the claim once she realized that to claim paternity would be to admit to her crime of rape.
As far as I know, this kind of situation hasn't actually been tested in court - the tough part is that it's probably in the best interests of the child to have dad's financial support, but at the same time it seems unfair to punish dad for being raped.
I am officially gone from
Like I said. I understand and mostly agree.
I do not care how wrong it is. The term "auto-rape" is fucking hilarious to me.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Ted Stevens was chair of the committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation when he made his little "series of tubes" speech, and that didn't get rid of him. He only resigned when he was convicted for corruption (he might not have been chair anymore at that point, I'm not sure), and he was only just barely removed from the senate despite his conviction.
Being competent isn't what matters as long as you can convince your base that your opponent is a socialist who wants to take their jorbs.
Or spelling/grammar.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
I knew this story would be on here, knew it'd have more comments than any other story and that a ton of them would say "This isn't news for nerds." Because the supposed non-/. stories always get a crapload of comments. That's probably why they go up; it's well-known that topics like these will garner the most attention, and we prove it time-after-time.
I don't have a problem with it being up myself (it's important, even if it's not tech-y), but if anyone else does, just don't comment and give it attention/hits. I dunno, seems logical to me.
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
"Voting for" an amendment is a bit different from "Co-Sponsoring" an amendment. The latter implies that he had some editorial control over the content.
That just means that incest is outlawed. A good thing, but never the less not rape.
I have always been of the opinion that while Christian conservatives decry Islam as evil, they are secretly jealous of it. Afterall, Islam has permeated many governments in the Middle East to a degree which most Christian conservatives could only hope to achieve.
"I'm a humble person really,
I'm actually much greater than I think I am"
Because it is difficult to rape someone while having blacked-out. Now, you might argue that the guy drank so much alcohol that he doesn't remember the evening, but you were still awake. To that, I can just say: tough luck. Abusing drugs is no excuse for what you do while on said drugs. If you're arguing that the woman has a better time with calling rape, that's because it is very possible for someone to have intercourse with her while she is blacked out, which is by definition rape. The fact that she might just not remember is something that men should consider: if she is so drunk that she might not remember in the morning, it might be better to keep your dick in your pants.
The final part of your argument is a bit trickier, because you are setting it up that both consent, except that the woman then later decides she didn't actually want to have sex. Personally, I say tough shit. You consented initially, you don't get to call do-over. If alcohol makes you do things you regret later - don't drink alcohol.
But that's just me, and I agree that the current law is a little less than even on this.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
"... found that the rape-related pregnancy rate was 5.0 percent ..."
Fine. What is the pregnancy rate for non-rape sex?
Maggie Gyllenhaal did an HBO documentary recently that stated the female orgasm assists pregnancy by hustling sperm along with spasms. I'll boldly postulate (I'm male) that a woman being raped seldom orgasms. Given this, wouldn't the pregnancy rate for rape be at least slightly lower than that for normal sex?
Notwithstanding the math (above) that needs to be done, I'll go on record to say I also find Todd Akin's comments ignorant and offensive.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
True; I was a little sloppy and wrote "vote for" when I meant "cosponsor." Though I think the motivations tend to be the same for people who do either. Do you have any reason to believe that, in this case, the difference makes a difference?
caritj.org
You're describing a problem with political economy and our broken family structure, not the definition of rape
* "...women can use sex as a WEAPON..." of course. Oops.
caritj.org
Of course it's a weapon, you ever been hit in the face with a breast?
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Using the word 'weapon' to describe something that may give someone leverage in a conversation or argument is not a new usage in English; it's a very common piece of figurative language.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
So are you implying that rape cannot occur inside of marriage?
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
How about this:
Pull a week of working late and otherwise getting poor sleep.
Crash on the couch, and fall into a dead sleep.
Wake up with the ex riding me like a wild stallion, and (thankfully) manage to push her off before I ended up with the psycho bearing my baby.
No alcohol involved.
Yes, shit happens to guys too. We're also less likely to report it.
I suppose you might want to blame me for not changing the locks, though?
That raped woman had her physical integrity broken which even without the social pressures and drama you describe is sufficient reason for her to be seriously hurt, not only physically but also mentally.
She experienced how she was forced to give up any control what so ever over her own body and dignity, that she was at the mercy of an uninvited person.
Surely that in itself is good reason to not be surprised her suffering goes well beyond the time the physical act took.
Of course we should help her build herself up again instead of giving her further guild and grieve.
But who in his right mind can suggest a woman is not at least to some degree a product of her social environment.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Must be a teenage thing. If I got so drunk I didn't know what I was doing I'm damn sure I wouldn't be "functional" enough to be have sex - the mechanism simply wouldn't work. Hell, it's hard enough (pun intended) getting it to work as it is.
Sigs are so 1990s. No way would I be seen dead with one.
what I find interesting is .... there is little difference in fertilization rates between consensual unprotected coitus and forced coitus.
Well there's a fucking miracle. What, you thought there'd be a massive difference? Could you share your insightful hypothesis as to why that might be?
Sure, Akin made the stupid claim. I still fail miserably to see how it could be interesting that the numbers back up the common sense outcome.
I'm sad that we need to even talk about the definition of a weapon.
A weapon is used to hurt another in some way to achieve a goal.
Nuclear weaponry is designed to manipulate a large amount of space to instill fear in the remaining populace, or simply erase the enemy.
A gun is the same, except it effects a much smaller populace.
Sex does this psychologically.
Replace "sex" in this conversation with not paying you if you dress a certain way, or in your case turning off the basement power if you haven't showered this week.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
I'm pretty certain most of Ugg's claims were countered by Og's On The Denial of Privilege. It was on the cave wall next door.
Well, guess you've got one less reason then.
Deuteronomy 22:25
Not exactly modern jurisprudence, but they wouldn't have gone for that, being Bronze Age hicks.
Akin said prior to the quoted comment something to the effect of "from doctors I have talked too-- 'if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down" Akin and Ryan both are both (heavily) anti-abortion, they both co sponsored a bill that failed to pass the bill would have not including abortions for rape either forcible/non-forcible. How many of the Rapes involved in these studies or the one included in this article included attackers, that withdraw before ejaculation, wear a condom, or just the men simply do not have high enough sperm count, or defunct sperm (for various and maybe obvious reasons) to get a women pregnant. And take into account how many women may be using birth control, or were they at a point in there fertile cycle that prevented them from getting pregnant, I would also add they are claiming Two, types of rape forcible and non-forcible that too would need to be looked at closely. I would not discount the comment and I am interested to find out myself more about if this silly idea has any merit to it. The study mentioned in this article is where the people or person based his/hers dumb mathematics equations. Dumb because of the factors mentioned above that can explain why women that are raped do not get pregnant. But I bet Akin will refuse to name the Doctor (s) involved and I would love to see the Doctor (s) come forward who made this claim.
To be fair, that's not true. I find his remarks more abhorrent because of the underlying thesis:
Akin's argument is essentially that when a woman is "legitimately raped" i.e. doesn't want to have sex with the man forcing himself on her, there can be no pregnancy. Therefore, whenever a rape victim gets pregnant, she actually wanted to have sex with that man, so it wasn't "really" rape, because secretly deep down she wanted it. Therefore, since she wanted to have sex, she should be responsible for the product of that act -- the baby. And thus, its okay to put her in jail if she aborts the rapists baby.
That's why the Republicans have been out there trying to split hairs between "rape rape" "forcible rape" "legitimate rape" and the term us commie hippie pinkos use (i.e. RAPE). Because, as any republican pastor could tell you, deep down that every feminist secretly wants a good round of "illegitimate raping" at least once a year.
This might actually explain a lot. In the olden days that these people yearn for, if a man rapes a woman and gets caught, he would have to marry her, thus it is no longer rape or some bullshit line of thinking. Perhaps because fundamentalists believe women are property or figure that things were better in the old days and that is how thing were done.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
I was referring to the "technically awake, but not able to remember" type black out. As in, you wake up, and have no memory of the evening, when everyone else at the party says you were a ruacus party animal that would make Bacchus blush.
We are talking lampshades here.
As for the "You consented" line you give, it is impossible for such an intoxicated person to give such consent, because they are not in their right mind, and as such, cannot be aware of the repercussions of their choice.
This is frequently the foundation of "I got drunk at a party and got raped!" concerning teenage girls. they get drunk, they REALLY DO actively incite male party goers to have sex with them (I think taking your top off, jiggling your boobies, removing your panties by yourself, and laying spread eagled on the couch demanding fucky time counts as soliciting sexual intercourse. Seen it happen as a designated driver. Women do crazy shit when drunk at parties), and then the next day file rape charges, because they would never have consented to those activities without being chemically altered in their thought processes. The courts eat it up like candy. "Poor, vulnerable girl, taken advantage of by dirty dirty men at that party."
As for "Men cant have sex while unconscious", that is BS. Men get erections while asleep all the time. Its called morning wood. Woman on top position does not require male thrusting. Granted, alcohol tends to cause male impotence. There are other substances frequently used at parties that can render people unconscious as well, that dont do that. Men can and do get rufie'd.
I will admit, I hadn't come across "legitimate rape" as a term before.
Rape is. Consensual sex is. There are blurred edges, but those don't legitimise or negate rape.
(Blurred edge example: No, no, no, no.. noooooo, nooooooo, nooooooooo. NO DONT STOP! nooooo, noooo....)
No, GP is saying that the 7th and 10th commandments forbid you from coveting your neighbor's possessions, and unmarried women were considered one of those possessions. So if you covet your neighbor's 18 yr old unmarried daughter, you are breaking these commandments. GP makes a the jump that raping someone is an extreme form of coveting them, and so is covered under these commandments.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
> and marries her.
Or not. Her father is supposed to determine the right thing to do here. For a little incite, read the horrifying story of Tamar.
> Apparently the justification for this one is that it's her fault she didn't scream loudly enough.
Supported by not much lower down "she screamed, but there was no one to come to her aid". These days the law would have to be altered because the woman would probably not receive aid in time.
> If the woman is married, that's adultery, so both of them should be killed. (Leviticus 20:10)
No, duplicate of second case. Try reading with fewer preconceived notions.
But it is a math issue. Akin has made the claim that somehow women who are raped can fend off pregnancy. So, there is a solid claim here that can be investigated, and before one starts pondering the means by which women can prevent rapists' sperm from fertilizing their ova, it seems useful to investigate the rates of pregnancy from rape.
This is exactly it. The "big deal" isn't that a conservative thinks there is some sort of magic that God put in women to prevent unwelcome pregnancy (conservatives believe all kinds of ridiculous things so this is not a shocker at all). The big deal is that Rep Akin was appointed to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology in the U.S. House. This obviously puts him in a position to influence the nation's policy toward science, and since he is clearly a firm disbeliever in science as a whole it is really important that as many people know about this tragic mismatch as possible.
wow, how is his claim "anti-science"?
Medical research actually does suggest a link between very early miscarriages and cortisol levels which seems to be very much along the lines of what Akins suggests (there are multiple studies along these lines, including some interesting research on the use of progesterone to counter-act stress and "protect" pregnancies in mice)
A lot of the problem is that it's hard to determine the truth in a lot of rape cases, and our system is supposed to err on the side of the accused. The US criminal justice system sets "beyond reasonable doubt" as its standard. In a lot of alleged rape cases, it's the victim's word against the accused's, which is pretty much impossible to prosecute.
As for which is more common, rape or false rape accusations, I have absolutely no idea and don't want to touch that issue with a ten foot pole. I think they're both serious crimes, at the very least.
TFA also has statistics in it which nerds like to argue about.
love is just extroverted narcissism
To be fair, that's not true. I find his remarks more abhorrent because of the underlying thesis:
Akin's argument is essentially that when a woman is "legitimately raped" i.e. doesn't want to have sex with the man forcing himself on her, there can be no pregnancy. Therefore, whenever a rape victim gets pregnant, she actually wanted to have sex with that man, so it wasn't "really" rape, because secretly deep down she wanted it. Therefore, since she wanted to have sex, she should be responsible for the product of that act -- the baby. And thus, its okay to put her in jail if she aborts the rapists baby.
That's why the Republicans have been out there trying to split hairs between "rape rape" "forcible rape" "legitimate rape" and the term us commie hippie pinkos use (i.e. RAPE). Because, as any republican pastor could tell you, deep down that every feminist secretly wants a good round of "illegitimate raping" at least once a year.
That's not how I read it, your interpretation may be right, but I heard something else. His point before he bungled it, from what I can tell, is that the argument that abortion should be legal because people get pregnant from rape is essentially demagogic because it's so rare. What counts as "really rare" is subjective of course, but yeah, supplanting a demagogic argument for an apparently bunk medical one is not a strategy people will tolerate, obviously. The first thing that came to my mind when he said legitimate rape, is also different. Granted I can't read his mind so I don't know what he is referring to, but statutory rape is a whole category of "rapes" that I would call illegitimate. Regardless of whether or not his theory about the body fighting off pregnancy is bunk, I'd prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt that they just said something unsubstantiated than connecting them to the mythical "radical Islamists."
Democrats spent $1.5 mil to help Akin win GOP primary?
http://washingtonexaminer.com/democrats-spent-1.5-mil-to-help-akin-win-gop-primary/article/2505373#.UDPa1qmPVBl
Actually, technically, you are incorrect.
The contract has nullification options, with the most common being "failure to consumate the marriage".
Additionally, where divorce isn't no-fault, lack of sex (alienation of affections) is also considered grounds for divorce.
So while the "contract" may not specifically mention sex, the "rules" for breaking said contract generally do.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
And today, we'll observe as Ms.(?) Samantha Wright learns a valuable lesson about being snarky on the internet. ;)
Actually Akin is sort of kind of right. You see, when a woman is raped, the neurons in her brain can fire, causing her legs to take her to the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic. Then those same neurons can trigger her mouth to say "give me an abortion." But that's the only way her body can 'shut that whole thing down' You can read the rest of the blog here.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
"This is exactly it. The "big deal" isn't that a conservative thinks there is some sort of magic that God put in women to prevent unwelcome pregnancy (conservatives believe all kinds of ridiculous things so this is not a shocker at all)."
i tried to argue with a republican once. they were mad that a 2009 video of lies didn't have a single correct fact (still circulated as gospel truth by republicans) so because they couldn't win the argument they shifted to the right to bear arms, and how the current president thinks gun enforcment should be local, and assumed that that meant he wasn't a 'constitutionalist' and therefor not worth voting for. also later the same day a pack of lies about the gov buying hollow point ammo in record supplies, without one single shred of proof, circulating on a pair of pagerank abuse crosslinkers... and expected me to prove that the site was lying when they didn't offer one single page of any proof. not even a source outside the closed ecosystem of their crosslinked sites.
i was naieve as a child and thought the republicans were good. what did the republicans give me? 7 years of entry level jobs, and plenty of credit cards... the democrats gave me the medicine and treatment as well as money to cope with my (mental)disability. fwiw i make 200% more income on diability than i made working entrylevel jobs. so i wonder why anyone would vote republican. they only care about children who haven't been born yet.
1) any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon.
2) anything used against an opponent, adversary, or victim
3) any part or organ serving for attack or defense, as claws, horns, teeth, or stings.
There is no limitation in this definition that precludes the use of cultural norms, and there's no requirement that any type of weapon should necessarily affect everyone equally. Your use of an entirely private and made up definition for the word "weapon" in a public forum is what is illogical here.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
ED is usually age related and considered most prevalent in persons over the age of 25,
Hypothetical 19yr old boy is too young to have a statistically high chance of having ED.
Older than that. A bit of research shows that it goes back millenia, and a bit of thought behind "what would move a person to such a hypothesis?" suggests that it is as old as men trying to justify rape.
Forget diamonds, copyright is forever.
It definitely is rape if you're using a ten foot pole.
The other group says if an individual hasn't been seen yet, it doesn't exist, and thus executing said individual is fine and not murder.
This is something that a lot of pro-choicers have to tell themselves so they feel better about themselves. By any reasonable definition a fetus is a human being, all of the arguments to the contrary to hold water, IMHO. "It's just a collection of cells!", yeah, well, so are you. "It doesn't even have a brain yet!", well, neither does someone in a persistent vegetative state, but it's still considered murder to put a bullet in their head.
Now I happen to be pro-choice, I believe that the issue is one of balancing the rights of the Mother vs. the rights of the unborn child. I don't believe that soceity has a right to tell one person that they MUST do something to keep another person alive. The analogy that I like to make is organ donation -- can I be compelled to give you a kidney, blood, or bone marrow if I'm the only compatible donor and the alternative is your death? Of course not, my right to control my body is paramount. Likewise, I don't believe we have the right to tell a woman that she MUST carry a baby to term.
One can be pro-choice without rationizing their position with moral hair-splitting about the fetus not being a person.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
a conservative thinks there is some sort of magic
Exactly. One dumbass made the statement, and he was immediately excoriated by the rest of the party. This is a non-story unless you want to start flame wars the week before the GOP convention.
I've found it's a little like delivering a stand-up routine at an impound lot.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Luckily you live in a geographic area where such conclusions are acceptable. Imagine if you lived if you lived somewhere completely differently, in a red state perhaps and the man in the hypothetical situation was congratulated for his behavior. The female in this situation would be shamed and blamed for thinking something was out of the ordinary, and if she did decide to press charges everything from her choice of clothing to her partying preferences would be attacked and questioned.
Be glad you live where you do.
I don't know what you're talking about, but I'd wager a guess there are more men in prison for rapes they did not commit than there are actual rapes which are "under-prosecuted".
Look up the statistics for yourself, as I did recently. Study after study shows that from 10-50%, which a shocking number at the higher end, of rape claims are intentionally fraudulent. That's not even counting "Assange rape" type accusations, but where the "victim" knowingly lied to fuck someone over. I've known people who have been accused of rape where I know they did nothing due to available timeframe and their claims - and they were later exonerated - while out on dates because the woman felt 'uncomfortable' or 'led' by the male. It happens all the fucking time; whether it's a symptom of a high rape rate and the women being predisposed to feeling sexually threatened by anyone male or they're socially conditioned to think all advances from men are rape, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if both are a factor.
Do you really think that male contempt for women is so high in the West that they'd dismiss rape claims out of hand? I'm sorry, but in almost every scenario I'm aware of, the instant male response to rape of an acquaintance is "let's get the torches and pitchforks". I am fairly certain predispositional response is fairly socially broad within the US, and it's universal amongst the police officers I know.
The big issue with rape reporting is that not enough is done. Victims don't report the legitimate rapes; that's how it works, psychologically, as I understand it. Fix that problem and the dismissal of rape reports 'out of hand' is likely to diminish due to the fact that the proportion of reported rapes isn't so heavily skewed in favor of false reports.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Football certainly doesn't matter.
You misspelled soccer.
I'm the AC from above and you got awful close...
Ryan cosponsored the bill, either he agrees with Akin or sponsors bills he does not understand. Logic + availiable evidence = conclusion.
Or he's a politician that made a compromise in order to get a co-sponsor for his person hood bill. Or lot's of other reasons that none of us really know the circumstances of . .
I'm not a Ryan or Akin supporter, but I think your is a gross oversimplification of the possibilities.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
The conservative movement:
- elected todd aiken to congress 6 times
- think evolution is bunk even when waiting in the emergency room of Darwin's hospital...
- have never heard of the 1st law of thermodynamics but are certain climate change is not happening...
- thought invading iraq was a bright idea...
- still think being in afghanistan is a bright idea...
- think ann coulter was born female...
- think sarah palin is a genius...
- think shawn hannity is a genius...
- think newt gingrich is a genius...
- think rush limbaugh is a genius even though rush thinks the plural of source code is source "codes"...
- think obama is muslim...
- want to duct tape women to a table for nine months and then cut welfare after they give birth to the kids they can't afford...
- and despite attacks on the gulf coast, Haiti, China, and Japan think that their god cares...
At some point we need to declare these morons a threat to national security. Yes I know ann was in fact born female...
You parsed the slogan incorrectly. It's "News for nerds which is the stuff that matters".
So, 5% of all femals that get raped become pregnant. The article considers that a "significant frequency".
I would say this study is another example of the decline of sciense in the USA.
Lets look at this:
The female cycle is on average 28 days long.
As sperms live up to 5 days, and reliable ar least 2 days, a female can conceive 2 to 5 days before ovulation. As the egg is ready to be fertilzed about 4 days while it is traveling to the womb and trying to nist there, the total span of fertile days is 6 to 9 from 28 in total. So the mathematical probability to become pregnant from rape is somewhere between 20% to 24%.
In contrary to the article I would consider the observed 5% surprising low!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
No, he had it right.
'nor' is used as an 'or' of a negation.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/conjunctions.htm
Look up the line ">It can be used with other negative expressions:"
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Since the vast majority of rapes go unreported, I'd say false rape accusations (at least in a legal sense) are much less common.
Citation needed, big time.
Also, Idiotocracy is now a documentary film.
I like to point out the degradation of society since they let women vote.
[citation needed]
Nor.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Could you explain for me what the difference is between 'forcible rape' and 'rape'? I'm not sure how someone could rape someone without force; it's consensual otherwise, and requiring the "victim" to be involved.
I suspect the distinction was necessary because "rape" seems to apply to anything up to and including consensual intercourse, and she decides she's had her O and wants to be done.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
You're an animal, also. You just have different views.
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
So where is the petition to remove him from a committee on science given that he has so little understanding of science and would therefore be so unqualified?
(instead of just "rape," which is how the law reads now). We might well have wondered why in the world Ryan and Akin thought that distinction was important.
This was clarified on NPR last night. By using the term forcible rape, the Republicans were trying to short circuit a supposed attempt by Planned Parenthood to mount an attack against the bill. In Ryan, and other people's minds (such as Akin), there is a supposed distinction between rape and forcible rape.
By using the term forcible rape, this would narrow the exceptions for women to have abortions in cases of rape.
This was just another attempt by the GOP to insinuate government into people's personal lives, specifically women;s. It's what happens when you let mythological beliefs override common sense.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
devout evangelical atheist
Basically, an heretic :D
The Ten Commandments are not the end-all, be-all of Christianity. The Seven Deadly Sins (cf. Cathecism of the Catholic Church) have rape has a mortal sin. Then again, sodomy as well, not entirely sure if when envolving a women it's also mortal - I think it shouldn't, it should be at the same level as masturbation (only, er, tasting better).
With that in mind it is not proper to say that "God said this and didn't said that". Contrary with what the sola scriptura sects have been saying there is no Christianity without Tradition, and the Bible is a product of Christinaity - not the other way around.
Signed: a devout Catholic atheist.
The way I see it, either way this guy shouldn't be leading anything.
1. He said what he meant, then said that he used the wrong words. This makes him a poor communicator, and thus a poor leader.
2. He said what he meant, then lied about using the wrong words because of the backlash. Then he's a liar, and thus a poor leader.
(A distant third is that he didn't believe what he said in the first place, in which case he's both an idiot and a liar.)
As for the "You consented" line you give, it is impossible for such an intoxicated person to give such consent, because they are not in their right mind, and as such, cannot be aware of the repercussions of their choice.
I think this is what I covered with the argument: if you drink enough on your own that you become that intoxicated, it's your own damn fault. Drunk drivers don't get off from manslaughter charges because they drank too much before t-boning someone. I understand that the law disagrees with me on this, and I find that a deplorable double-standard.... but again, that's my opinion.
As for "Men cant have sex while unconscious", that is BS. Men get erections while asleep all the time. Its called morning wood. Woman on top position does not require male thrusting. Granted, alcohol tends to cause male impotence. There are other substances frequently used at parties that can render people unconscious as well, that dont do that. Men can and do get rufie'd.
Good point. I should have said that men being raped after blacking out from alcohol abuse is so rare that it should require some independent confirmation, along with a solid trail of evidence (other drugs in the blood stream, etc.). The odds that someone blacks out from drinking too much, gets dragged into a dark corner by a woman and manages to still sport a boner is exceedingly low.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
He corrected it to state that he meant "forcible rape." Local Fox affiliate.
I think there's a fundamental difference between being beat up and having an orifice or two violated for the sexual gratification of someone else. If you have personally experienced the latter, you might have justification for speaking the way you do.
How so? When I was a child, people used to beat me for their personal gratification. It stopped being a problem for me in middle school, when I realized I was actually pretty fucking resillient. At 80 pounds, some 280 pound monster in my class decided for his own amusement he'd slam me into a couple walls and the corner of a door... no bruises, broken bones, after the beating I got up and laughed at him and wandered away. He looked ... terrified. Never fucked with me again. Guess it killed his hard-on.
I can tell you that repeated beatings teaches you not to ride your bike down a certain street; and that constant taunting until around 10th grade teaches you to not do ANYTHING to draw attention to yourself, EVER. Eventually my anti-social isolationist personality gave me the edge to observe and notice that the most socially successful people are outgoing and do a lot of stupid shit, but just shrug it off when they call it wrong and everyone thinks they're retarded. Make a joke, strike a pose, make a pass at a girl and get rejected ... and just shrug, smile, and say something dumb and self-deprecating, then continue on (maybe a little more conservative) and in two minutes nobody will care.
People didn't taunt me because I did stupid shit. They taunted me because it entertained them. They had a target, they had a way to show off to their friends, to attack somebody else and draw everyone else into it. It created a crowd, a kinship: everyone hate on the quiet kid, he's harmless and it's fun to be a dick to him. This was never my fault.
How is getting raped any different? People stealing my shit, beating me, turning everyone against me... why not stick a few things in a few places too? In the end it comes down to the same shit: I should have punched every one of these fuckers in their mouths, repeatedly, until they learned to not be dicks. The moral high ground didn't work; laughing at stupid bullies works because I'm just that fucking strong, they can't hurt me, and it embarrasses them in front of their friends standing around. It's an attack, and it's injurious, and they back down. Sitting around quiet and walking off.. I've done that when punched, beaten, taunted, and people just laugh to themselves and call me names. Quip at them, maybe it'll hurt, maybe they'll try to shut you up with their fists... that works too, if they're going to bring their fists I'll bring MY fists and we can see who limps away.
The ones that did get punched were done in one. Nobody came back from that. Too dangerous, they left me the fuck alone. Corey was spooked after I laughed off his assault but he tried again a whole damn YEAR later and I put him on the ground and kept him there until I was damn well done showing that I had irrefutable power over his giant ass. Could have smashed that boy's skull to a pulp at any time and he was still 3 times bigger than me, and he kept trying to throw me off for 2 minutes. Never touched me again... guess he hated being that helpless in front of 40 people and 2 gym teachers (gym teachers don't do shit, they just shout at you while smiling inside).
Support my political activism on Patreon.
He only resigned when he was convicted for corruption
Actually, he was defeated at the polls, he never resigned. His "trial" was a sham, the prosecution withheld evidence from the defense that may well have resulted in an acquittal or outright dismissal of the indictments against him. The conviction was ultimately thrown out on this basis, and the process that lead to it was corrupt enough to convince Eric Holder (a Democrat) not to pursue a retrial.
Now, I don't happen to have liked the guy very much, nor did I care for his political positions, but if you're going to badmouth him about a "conviction" for corruption it's only fair to tell the whole story.
Incidentally, if Sen. Stevens had been given a fair shake from the get-go, it's probable that he would have been acquitted, after which he almost certainly would have been re-elected. Had that happened the ACA (e.g., Obamacare) would never have passed the US Senate and we'd be looking at an entirely different political landscape. One might even argue a better landscape for President Obama, given the divisiveness of the ACA, and the lost political capital that could have been spent on more pressing matters.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I find this question puzzling. You seem to be asking, how can something be involuntary if it is not accomplished by force. But there are plenty (obvious, I think) situations where a person might do something involuntarily without being physical forced to do it. What about cases where a woman is threatened? Or drugged? Or unconscious? Or mentally impaired?
Also, this:
..."rape" seems to apply to anything up to and including consensual intercourse, and she decides she's had her O and wants to be done.
is despicably false.
caritj.org
Cite your study so the rest of us can read it. I call bullshit.
caritj.org
The social environment is designed to convince women that the social ordeal is maximally terrible. A rapist that doesn't inflict any severe psychological trauma can go to jail for 2-3 years at most. Show psychological trauma and you can TRIPLE the sentence. Every prosecutor wants to be a hero, to get a conviction for 3 counts of rape and throw people in jail for 30 years and get those "monsters" off the streets. That means every prosecutor WANTS to see women hurt, want them to show trauma; when they don't, they get counseling that pokes and prods and asks questions for hours "to help them talk about it" because obviously if a woman is okay after being raped she must feel so horrible that she feels she needs to cover it up.
Often times that exact coaxing helps change their perception and make them feel horrible. I mean how is a woman not supposed to feel terrible after a rape? I bet she liked it.
That whore.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I like your approach. Stripped of the details that would determine Us and Other, you are forced to judge the situation on its own merits, in a vacuum sans tribalism and defensiveness.
At the same time, that very sterility will have you catch flak in conversation. Without those details, a sense of Us and Other cannot be determined, and would feel like an incomplete argument for those inclined. But again, this accusation is from an asexual POV. Far more likely, it will be pointed at you under the guise of "You can't apply logic to emotion."
I disagree with that. While there are crude ways to apply logic and emotion, totally refusing to apply logic to emotion will cause all sorts of heartache.
In this case? No its not because the stigma of rape means for every one reported there are probably 7 that aren't so the stats are crap. in the end none of that matters though because tarded is tarded and common sense alone should have been enough for the vast majority to go "WTF, is he high?" and that should be the end of that.
After all we have people that think the earth is 6k years old and Adam rode on dinos but I don't think trying to show them the math don't work would help, do you?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
wow, how is his claim "anti-science"?
Medical research actually does suggest a link between very early miscarriages and cortisol levels which seems to be very much along the lines of what Akins suggests (there are multiple studies along these lines, including some interesting research on the use of progesterone to counter-act stress and "protect" pregnancies in mice)
So you are suggesting that this study (cortisol levels over three weeks) is relevant? Women who are raped consecutively for three weeks will be *so* relieved.
I am in no way condoning what that idiot thinks or speaks.
It could be that a rape would be beneficial to population growth in a more disperse environment. As one society invades another society, to repopulate or to just populate, the stronger males raping females would make sense that, over time, rape is actually condusive to growing a population.
Again, I am in no way espousing or condoning or giving credence to the act of rape. Rape is rape and we're supposedly civilized.
Sure...they should all have access to the services.
They don't, however, have a right to have me and everyone else pay for it....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Part of the problem why that is less believable for men is that alcohol consumption tends to cause temporary erectile dysfunction at a lower BAC than what causes blackouts. So if you black out as a guy, a woman is unlikely to be able to rape you and impregnate herself because she won't be able to get you to ejaculate, whereas the reverse is obviously not true. Now admittedly, you probably lose your ability to provide rational consent before you lose your ability to have an erection, so if you tried to argue that you were too drunk to make a rational decision (and she somehow was not in a similar state despite a lower body mass) then you might be able to make a case. However when it comes to you impregnating a woman after you black out? Tough sell. Conversely, for a woman, it's certainly possible for her to be impregnated after unconsciousness.
so when god raped mary, to concieve jesus, the concerned should have stoned god to death? based on number 2 since she was engaged...
"Muslims believe that she conceived by the command of God. This took place when she was already betrothed to Saint Joseph and was awaiting the concluding rite of marriage, the formal home-taking ceremony." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_(mother_of_Jesus)
wow.
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Contrary to what many feminists might claim, a non-consentual pregnancy and subsequent child support mandate can ruin a man's life, just as much as the consensual pregnancy itself can ruin a woman's.
You obviously don't have kids. The effect on the woman is substantially worse than something as trivial as money - especially in a country with as fucked up health"care" system as America where the majority of pregnancy related care is not covered by insurance.
See, I'm an engineer. A scientist. What's in a name? "Legitimate" in that context is just as good as anything else. Of course, it is an unfortunate term politically. And, I am well aware of political agendas fueled by pesudo-science.
The term may be inflamatory, but such things sometimes are useful to draw attention to the rest of one's argument, whereupon it can be considered in the whole on its merits.
I do think the term "rape" has been diluted to the point of being rediculous. There is a difference between consensual sex between minors, women who lacked dimished capacity through their own voluntary consumption of alcohol, those who changed their mind right in the middle of the "main event", and those that are grabbed, manhandled, stripped, penetrated, and quite possibly beaten within inches of their lives. I grew up with the last of these as the mental image of rape. All the others might very well be exploitation, assault, even sexual assault, sleazy and wrong, but they do not rise to the same level of violence, depravity and the body's possible reaction. I might even be so bold as to suggest that if the evidence does not support the hypothesis, perhaps the rapes studied were not "legitimate enough" to use the author's own vocabulary.
I would further suggest this: the ever-increasing set of actions which get included under the legal umbrella of "rape" are likely part of a misandrist agenda to create in the mind the image of the most violent act above so as to encourage a "guilty if accused because the crime is so horrible" societal bias. "No" is no, and wrong is wrong, but to vigorously prosecute those who's actions barely meet the legal definition, in circumstances often lacking mens rea, because they are easy pickings, while avoiding the harder prosecutions, in order to pack prisons-for-profit, is a greater injustice to women (and people in general), than an inappropriately chosen adjective.
In Liberty, Rene
The August 28, 2011 Science Daily had an article about females being able to reject sperm from undesireable cocks: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110828210552.htm
Actually, men and women are not equally vulnerable to alcohol. On average, women are more vulnerable to alcohol than men because of their smaller body size. When I was in my 20's I weighed 115 lbs. A single beer would have a much greater effect on me than a man who weighed, say 180 to 200 lbs.
Do you really think that male contempt for women is so high in the West that they'd dismiss rape claims out of hand?
Also, yes. You just did, in very elaborate fashion.
caritj.org
Hey, dumbass. You can pay a little now to help society abort unwanted children, or a lot more later, if you don't. What's it going to be?
Maybe it just has something to do with the fact that sometimes consensual unprotected coitus is an actual attempt to get pregnant by the couple. Then they're more likely to try and time it to increase the odds.
The double-standard is fair. Men and women are both different. They both posture in different ways. Men posture by being brutal and uncaring; women posture by being socially cohesive. That's an extreme oversimplification, but it's close enough for a non-scholarly discussion. Really, when men get talking it's all, "Oh I fucked X and Y and Z and this fucker was messin' with my girl I punched him in the mouth" back and forth. Women get together and they're all like... group therapy time, let's listen to each other's problems, or gossip and nod all the fucking time because agree agree agree we're friends!
Even tomboys aren't very butch and don't act very manly. They're clearly women in behavior, even if they have "masculine" hobbies instead of dolls. The girlish behavior enables social cohesion with other girls and attraction with guys, although men are generally attracted to vulnerability and pain for varying reasons (control mostly--though in some cases it's because they want to protect and help, in other cases it's because they need to possess and control) and women are attracted to strength and control (in some cases because they like being controlled, more generally though because a man with strength and control is able to keep others' aggression at bay by means of social control or by main force--this is extremely desirable when you're both a woman and not a tomboy trained in 27 forms of martial arts, and besides women in general like having a man that can protect their offspring).
Again, oversimplification, but close enough to make a point.
The impacts of alcohol are going to be quite different for both. The impacts of various social situations are going to be quite different for both. That isn't to say that men can't be raped by women; it is, however, much more likely for a man to be sexually predatory--this isn't a bad thing, men are always looking for sex partners, if you're searching for WILLING sex partners that's still predatory but PERFECTLY acceptable. As such, it's also more likely that a man is going to be like, "Sweet, got laid!" whereas a woman would be indifferent. Men like to brag about how many times they got laid; women are more prone to wake up with a hot guy and be like, "Oh ... well, he's hot, holy shit is THAT his penis WOW!!!!" or be like "... oh. Whatever." Every lay is a win for an average (mode) guy, for a girl it's a factor of if she was horny and wanted it and is satisfied OR if the next day she decides "he was pretty cool" or whatever.
Which of course means, face it, girls are less likely to go home with you sober than drunk, by a large degree. Guys are more likely to bang any cute girl that propositions them.
Still. Don't drink that much alcohol. Don't bone drunk girls unless you have strong reason to believe they're up for it anyway. If you know her and you fuck like all the time and the next day she complains it's like ... well fuck, sorry. Not great, but it's understandable. If you know her or just met her or otherwise you do NOT fuck and she's smashed and you fuck her and she's pissed the next day ... see, that's a problem, you shouldn't have gone and done that.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
And here I thought all rape was forced.. Stupid me!..
So statutory rape (which is usually consensual) isn't rape in your lexicon? You may find that you are closer to agreeing with Paul Ryan than you think.
What about the father's right in the decision? He gets no say at all?
If that's the case..then to make things legally fair...if HE doesn't want to keep the pregnancy, and she does...then he should be free of fiscal responsibility of the child. That would be fair..no?
If everything is her decision...then let her support it if the father doesn't want any part of it...eh?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
See, I'm an engineer. A scientist. What's in a name? "Legitimate" in that context is just as good as anything else. Of course, it is an unfortunate term politically.
The problem with the word choice is not just political. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but words mean things. One is not just as good as any other and one's choice among the available words tells the listener something about the thoughts happening inside your head. That is what communication is for. An honest slip of the tongue I'm willing to overlook, but I don't think that's what happened here. I think Akin accidentally told us the truth of what he believes.
I grew up with the last of these as the mental image of rape. All the others might very well be exploitation, assault, even sexual assault, sleazy and wrong, but they do not rise to the same level of violence, depravity and the body's possible reaction.
Why do we have to use your preconceptions as the baseline for the development of our criminal law? I think that your "mental image" is precisely the problem exactly because it defines out of existence all but the most heinous (and, I might add, rare) offenses. Why do that if what we're actually trying to punish is making a woman have sex with you without your consent, and not just battery?
caritj.org
A lot of this is a matter of what you read into the bible and how you deal with the cultural differences. The verses in Deuteronomy are principally about punishments for adultery and premarital sex. As evidenced by verse 27: "because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her." and in verse 24 "she did not cry for help though she was in the city" the woman is never considered to be wrong in the case that she was raped.
Here are the verses in question:
It's important to understand that at the time men were expected to look after women, so your daughter would live at home until she was married and if she was attacked it was assumed that there was someone who could come and fight off her attacker. In the case of a wife, it was assumed that the husband or his slaves or servants would be there to keep her from getting raped. So the assumption is that if she's having sex, she is doing it willingly and concealing it from her husband/father.
Applying these verses to modern life would be difficult as many women live independently for much of their lives. But they clearly can say a woman who was raped has not sinned. These laws don't consider the case of a woman who isn't living at home and isn't married, so it would probably be wrong to try to apply it in that case. Also, it is no longer culturally acceptable to betroth you daughter to someone, so that further complicates any contemporary application.
I bet you can squeal like a pig!
Why must society pay for someone elses decisions? If that's the case...why does society not get a choice in the matter of if we let her have it or not? If we're gonna pay...we should get more decision making throughout the process. She gets knocked up and can't afford it....society pays for her to abort it.
What's the difference?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I don't mind paying my share of it.
I don't mind paying my share of well-baby services, national parks, promotion of the Arts, space exploration, pregnancy care, taking care of people who have fallen upon hard times, etc, etc, etc.
I object far more to paying for weapons systems that are black holes of funding and deliver barely-functional weapons. I object to paying for wars that never should have been waged. I object to paying for subsidies that wind up going to already-highly-profitable corporations.
Oh, and I don't like welfare fraud, either.
But some 20 years ago, while hearing a far-right-wing co-worker rail about welfare while the Savings and Loan Scandal was ramping up, I realized something. In the Savings and Loan Scandle, rich people bilked ordinary people of billions, then managed to skate away scott-free. My tax dollars helped "fix the mess". Essentially I indirectly gave a bunch of my money to Neil Bush. (to name one, but there were others)
Since then I have come to believe that far more of my tax dollars go to people making more than me than go to people making less. I don't begrudge the downtrodden. Even if he's a lazy bum, and I don't believe most are, it's a small price to pay, to make sure that the truly deserving are covered.
By the way, you may never need pregnancy services. Do you have a wife or sister? What about your mother?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
As a conservative from a red state, I can assure you that almost all of the women I know do not consider this a war on women.
In fact, I, and several of my male friends, would say we were let to the anti-contraceptive/pro-life point of view by women we know, my personal friends by a few specific women we knew in college. And if you look at the statistics of the pro-life v. pro-choice based on the gender of the individuals being polled, more women are about 3% more pro-life than men, and the entire country is moving very gradually towards pro-life. That indicates that men are following women away from the pro-choice position to the pro-life position.
Coat hangers exist.
Actually the change of the level of care for women is nothing short of revolutionary.
1. 50 shekels was a ton of money. Shouldn't the crime fit the punishment? The woman was not killed, no bones broken (small bruises, maybe, but those damages are discussed elsewhere and do not make distinction between MAN or a WOMAN). There was a serious psychological trauma. Do you want to kill people for causing psychological trauma? Then I hope you do not work at FCC prosecuting "wardrobe malfunction" incidents. But getting back to the Bible. The women did not have a place for work in public. A single woman would be starving, relying on her family to support her, or become a prostitute and still starve. There is a good indication that divorce was not allowed earlier in history. A rape victim got herself a nice "retirement" out of the deal. Why do you think that the man was supposed to marry her? It would be unlikely a happy marriage, but the payoff was great.
2. Ancient Near East. The people lived in clay houses the size of one room. Elsewhere we find that 15ft by 15ft is considered a banquet hall. The "city" is surrounded by walls, the space is at a premium. The activity is limited to daylight hours. There were always people on the street. As is mentioned several times in this thread, rape is extremely difficult to prosecute, and to prevent Assanage type situations, the decree was made so: If you did not scream, do not come to complain later.
3. That is, to put it nicely is misstatement, or to be blunt is a lie, Lev. 20:10 is about adultery, not rape. Both get killed, the woman and the man.
I don't weigh 2000 pounds and I can't kick like a tank shell.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Your logic exposes the unappreciated danger in the movement to legislate that "life begins at fertilization". This legislation proposes to give legal rights to the fetus that equals that of the already born. Consequently, it runs smack into the biological reality of human reproduction.
For women who are actively engaging in sexual intercourse with their partner (or rapist), on average only 30-70% of fertilized eggs implant on the endometrium and consequently most are incapable of resulting in live birth. However, republican Ryan/Atkin legislation would make all such women serial murderers simply for having a normal menstrual cycle. Lactating women would be at even greater threat of persecution since their bodies produce hormones that make it even more likely the fertilized embryo will fail to implant. This legislation will necessarily require a network of police gathering up sanitary napkins to determine the presence of fertilized egcs to establish if these women have actually committed murder during their menstrural cycle. Otherwise the law would be unenforceable and allow "murderers to go free".
The legislation would also make an ectopic pregnancy in which the fertilized egg implants outside of the uterine wall a virtual death sentence. This is the most common form of complication during pregnancy. An ectopically pregnant woman would be unable to receive the medical procedure (abortion) required to save her life and if she did manage to obtain such medical care, she would be guilty of murder. With 4,131,019 births in the US in 2009 and a rate of about 1% of all pregnancies being etopic, this would mean the incarceration or execution of about 41,000 women per year in the US. It also creates a tenuous legal situation for the men who fertilized the eggs since they could be subject to prosecution for conspiracy to commit murder.
This ignores the irony of potentially requiring the victims of rape to be executed, while simultaneously providing the rapist with the legal defense that it would be a violation of his constitutional right to religion to be prosecuted for rape, since the pregnancy was "gods will".
It is for good reason that church and state must remain separate and that the boundary needs to be made brighter. I would propose taxing churches like we do other businesses to insure that the line is not blurred by legal loopholes, such as taken by Romney to deduct his gifts to his church as a tax exemption.
I think this is what I covered with the argument: if you drink enough on your own that you become that intoxicated, it's your own damn fault. Drunk drivers don't get off from manslaughter charges because they drank too much before t-boning someone.
The problem is that it's difficult to tell what happened in cases where sex unquestionably occurred, but there were no outside witnesses and intoxication was a factor. It's easy to say, "You're responsible for whatever happens," but that doesn't even cover the case where a woman is completely unconscious and a mostly sober man has unconsensual sex with her. This would be pretty widely accepted as a clear case of rape. Cases where the same happens and genders are reversed might be much rarer, as you assert, but I don't think any of us has actual evidence behind that gut feeling. Certainly I don't think your belief that this is extremely rare is a rational basis for a law.
So I don't think, "You were intoxicated, so it's not rape," is a useful idea. It's too open to abuse, and doesn't cover even "obvious" cases that should be considered rape.
Good point. I should have said that men being raped after blacking out from alcohol abuse is so rare that it should require some independent confirmation, along with a solid trail of evidence (other drugs in the blood stream, etc.).
Do you mean to say that such evidence and independent confirmation should not be required when a woman reports rape?
Really, the problem is that there are many cases where it can be proven that sex occurred, but there is no further evidence about who consented to what, who was conscious, who was sober, etc. Crimes like this simply can't be fairly prosecuted. Trying to make prosecutions easier or more difficult based on average rates of crime in various permutations of gender of the participants is fundamentally unjust.
One of many reasons why I am a devout evangelical atheist is because... God chose not to outlaw rape.
The one trait that binds atheist fundamentalism and religious fundamentalism together is a strict, literalist, and absolutist interpretation of scripture.
If instead you consider that the message of the Pentateuch was tailored for its audience (which, for Christians, Jesus flat-out said in the Gospels), and consider that a bunch of Bronze Age pastoral nomads aren't going to have much of an enlightened view on the rights of women, you'll note that the concept of a woman's consent, be it given or withheld, is never mentioned explicitly. Prohibition of rape can be seen in context, however, if you note that an "adulterous" woman is pardoned in cases where there is evidence of non-consent (i. e. she cried out), and is also given the benefit of the doubt in instances where there is no evidence either way (i. e. too far away from town for anyone to hear her cries either way).
But searching for context would require abandoning a strict, black-and-white worldview, and then what would you and the Talibangelicals have to exchange vitriol about?
That's an interesting question. In the Bible, marriage is not the legal fiction it is today. The woman was considered to be the property of the man. But bear in mind that they didn't live in the "use it and throw it away" culture we live in today. Owning something meant taking care of it. It was much more like the caring relationship marriage aspires to be than what ownership means today. If a woman was unwilling to have sex, forcing her would be a prevision of the idea of marriage, as would refusing sex in the first place (since marriage was meant to produce offspring). If the woman no longer found favor in the man's eye (they stopped having sex) he'd give her a certificate of divorce and she'd move on with her life.
So yes, rape inside of marriage it not really considered in the Bible, since it isn't sensible.
If someone in my family needs something...I'll be there to help take care of it.....that's what families are for.
I can better use my money to take care of my relatives...I'd rather do that than give it to 'the state' to figure who to give my money to.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Sure you get wet and lose a car but it doesn't keep you from getting elected.
*shrug*, I base my viewpoint on the prerogative of one to control what happens with their body, I make no comment on the wisdom or lack thereof of our child support system.
Of course, there are two bulletproof methods of ensuring that one doesn't father unwanted children. Failing that, there is a nearly perfect method of accomplishing the same. I guess it comes down to risk vs. reward; one should to weigh the value of an intravaginal ejaculation against the possibility of an 18 year commitment to rear a child.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Bit of an overstatement, there. Don't confuse active attempts at conception to simple consensual sex for non-procreative purposes, but without bothering with contraception. In the latter, there's no meaningful attempt to "increase the odds", and no attempt to decrease them either. If conception occurs, it occurs.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
odds of pregnancy from a single act of coitus is somewhere around 5%
Unless you are Julian Assange, then it's not a statistical matter, it's an international ordeal. (ducks)
I am confident in the assertion that many of the people I know who were stupid enough to fuck around and get women pregnant, and now owe child support for 18 years would rather have had the fetus surgically implanted into their abdomens for 9 months, and raise the kids themselves than deal with the child support system clusterfuck, and the entitlement issues of the woman raising their kid.
So, fail.
Of course, there are two bulletproof [wikipedia.org]methods [wikipedia.org] of ensuring that one doesn't father unwanted children. Failing that, there is a nearly perfect method [wikipedia.org] of accomplishing the same
Would these all come down to... sitting in mom's basement all day reading Wikipedia articles?
I am male.
I weigh 200lbs.
1 american wine cooler will get me buzzed.
Bodymass is only ONE of the factors that determine vulnerability to alcohol. I get drunk very, very easily. As a consequence, I refuse alcohol at parties. Always.
FWIW, the jewish count is 613 commandments not 10 (you have to read all 5 books carefully). Rape is a subset of "armed robbery"
which is one of the commandments which are traditionally interpreted to apply to everyone (not just jews).
Indeed, the penalty for the rape of Dinah turned out to be the extermination of the entire village of the miscreant (although Abraham did ask his son's if that was really appropriate).
Not suggesting that Atheists should become jews; just that one should read the totality of the text (preferably in the original languages) if one wants to complain about fine points of law.
Read Leviticus. You won't be too surprised at the connection between hard-line Christian fundamentalists and Wahabbists after that.
Depending on the marital/betrothal status of the woman, rape violates either the proscription of adultery or theft in the Ten Commandments. Not revisionism. The Bible says raping a married woman carries the death penalty, and raping an unmarried, unbetrothed woman carries a substantial fine.
A couple caveats:
1. Rape was considered an offense against the owner of the woman (rape a married woman, you've offended the husband, and you die; rape an unmarried woman, you've offended the father, pay him a fine).
2. There is nothing in the Bible against raping your own wife.
The lack of understanding about the Bible is something I would expect from an atheist, so no harm no foul. Just amend your complaint next time. :)
Similarly, if a girl has been giving you sex, and decides to stop, that doesn't give you the right to force her to continue the practice.
Just like I have the right to keep my wallet closed, she has the right to keep her knees closed. Past activity (in either case, and including teasing) does not set an enforceable precedent.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Semicolons replace conjunctions, not prepositions.
I'm an atheist and I don't give a fuck about how scripture is interpreted because it's fiction, so naw that's not true at all.
Don't be silly. Everyone knows that men are always the responsible party because they're less influenced by alcohol and the predator was in his right mind. And because they're men, they're always the perpetrator of a crime. It's obvious the man was just using the alcohol to ply his victim.
^ something you're more likely to hear in court in 'defense' of a 'rape victim'.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Being drunk doesn't absolve you from consequences of your actions. If you were drunk and beat the hell out of some guy, you can get charged with assault and battery. And being drunk may be considered during the case, but it is not an affirmative defense.
You are making an argument that there is a difference here. Legally, there isn't one. Both cases would be considered as rape under the law. Simple as that. Here's the difference. The first case, in which a woman assaults a man is actually much more rare, and I haven't heard of a case in which she then later sue for paternity, thereby entering evidence of a crime in a civil case. Proving assault is now much more possible, given advances in DNA foresnics. Yes, men would be less likely to report such an incident, but if it occured, they should do so.
The second case you mention happens far too often. Too few women report this as a potential crime, believing that it was their fault. Such reports are too often not considered or investigated well enough. But even in this case, the investigation could indeed conclude that there was no legal case to be made based on lack of evidence. The "no fault" case you describe could be an example.
You asked the question why men are more frequently saddled with the being the source of rape. There is a simple and sad answer. Because they are.
I'm from St. Louis which is a hotbed for this conversation right now. Our largest talk radio station had a professor of gynecology from WashU (top 5 med school) and he said effectively this:
Phsycial trauma and stress can make it less likely for a woman to be able to concieve but it takes a longer period of time for this change to occur. It is not some biological response to rape; infact, the wheels of conception are already in motion. "Those cards have already been dealt" by what he said.
When asked about a medical opinion that a woman's body adjusts the pH level to reduce chances of becoming pregnant, he said that's nonsense. Virtually every supporting argument for what this senate hopeful said was dismissed as absent from any medical text he's read.
Part of of that strict, literalist and absolutist interpretation is the insistence that "fact" and "truth" mean the same thing.
Wow. I'd be curious if your opinions would shift if you were brutally ass raped by a gang of people. As for equating being raped to being punched, being punched doesn't get you pregnant, nor does it generally give you STD's. Also, one of the reasons rapes have low rates of prosecution is because the victims don't report it. And, they don't report it precisely because they don't want to be doted after as a victim.
Also, many women have a "dear in headlights" mode, like many mammals in general, where they freeze up once the male is penetrating them. A combination of fear, and so on. Actually, it's similar to being punched in that sense. If you've seen many people get punched, you'll notice a lot don't jump back but often are dazed and confused. This ties in to rape, particularly if the person punches or otherwise inflicts violence against the victim prior/during in addition to the raping.
Lastly, everyone experiences trauma differently. For some, an attempted rape would trigger a fight mode, for others they could be totally overwhelmed. In either case, it's irrelevant how you think they should feel about being raped.
Are you sure you didn't copy these rules from the stack of cards labeled, "Atonement" in board game named, "Theopoly"?
I've always wondered who was paid to develop the storyline for MMORPG version...
His choice to have God impregnate a married woman always struck me as somewhat problematic.
or whatever the hell "which is" is. It's not a valid use of the semicolon, in any case
On the contrary, they cared about women. After all, they paid for them. Women were difficult to replace -- not as difficult as a well-trained donkey and certainly not as difficult as a horse or a herding dog, but difficult none the less. A man could wait a long time for the correct mixture of attributes; beauty, skill in the kitchen, skill running the household (slaves, servants) a willingness to go to bed with him.
Oh, I am sorry. You meant the current meaning of the word 'care'. My bad.
>>Back in the day, circa pre-Jesus, rape was ALWAYS the woman's fault. Woman gets brutally beaten and raped, the town ties her up and stones her for adultery. You're a whore, bitch.
No, the rapist was hauled out to the town gate and stoned to death. (Deut 22)
But, hey, thanks for contributing to the ongoing stigmatization of things you know nothing about.
Please identify one feminist, anywhere on the Internet or in books, who claims that non-consensual pregnancy and subsequent child support cannot ruin a man's life.
Hell, identify one feminist who thinks that man in your hypothetical wasn't raped.
This ain't feminists disadvantaging men. It's the patriarchy harming everyone. Being "weaker"/female means you get raped more often. Being "stronger"/male means that when something painful and traumatic happens to you, nobody cares. See how everybody loses, and then you and I have to dispute whether this is a zero-sum game to begin with?
Anyway, your last question--most crimes, including rape, in most states, have an intent element. Most states also don't let you get wasted and say, "Hey, I was blind drunk, I didn't intend to rape zir!" They say, "You intended to get drunk. We charge you with the consequences." It's crude but effective, for example, in cases where a drunk driver kills a car full of teenagers.
I'm a lawyer but not your lawyer. Your state probably has weird rules and exceptions to this, just like every other state.
Everything is stuff that matters to someone. Some things are things that matter to most people. On a football news site, I wouldn't expect to see a story about OEM. I wouldn't expect to see a football story here. I would expect to see in both places stories about important issues which may be only tangentially related to the main theme of the website. Some nerds care about things besides computers and Battlestar Galactica.
But that's my point. They don't have that choice. The long term detrimental biological effects of child birth are immense. Why shouldn't the men be required to pay financial support?
The problem with the word choice is not just political. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but words mean things. One is not just as good as any other and one's choice among the available words tells the listener something about the thoughts happening inside your head. That is what communication is for. An honest slip of the tongue I'm willing to overlook, but I don't think that's what happened here. I think Akin accidentally told us the truth of what he believes.
He may have engaged in a Freudian slip, and have been trying to advance some kind of anti-abortion agenda, with flawed logic and bad science.
But when someone uses an adjective like "legitimate" before a word like "rape", it makes me wonder what the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate rapes is, and the context in which it matters. I can see some getting upset because of the presumption of a context suggesting decriminalization of some currently criminal activity, but I would not jump to that conclusion absent further reseach into the author's motives.
By not letting inflamatory language affect my gut response, I can concentrate on the supposed science at hand, which currently appears to be bogus. There may be contexts in which it is valid (women killed after being raped surely would not carry a fetus to term, and one can work backwards from that), and it might be interesting to see if there is a narrow set of circumstances in which the hypothesis is correct, but I would expect it to be for such extreme cases, that it would be irrelevant as pertaining to large populations.
Why do we have to use your preconceptions as the baseline for the development of our criminal law? I think that your "mental image" is precisely the problem exactly because it defines out of existence all but the most heinous (and, I might add, rare) offenses. Why do that if what we're actually trying to punish is making a woman have sex with you without your consent, and not just battery?
No, it doesn't. You only think it does. It's exactly the reverse of the present argument. Just because something is less depraved does not make it less unacceptable. But by making the definition of a word so all-encompassing, it dilutes its impact in referring to the most vile circumstances. Case in point: so-called "sex-offender" registries are practically meaningless because they lump in the pedo who raped eight year old Sally with the drunk college kid who mooned people out a bus window.
See, I was raised to think that forcing or tricking someone do do my bidding is wrong. And, that encompasses all the "lesser evil" forms of rape that you think I seek to undefine.
I'd really prefer the notion of the crime of "sexual assault" with varying degrees thereof, with "rape" being the most serious.
The present situation leads to absurdities where a husband can find himself lumped in with the most violent criminals because his wife got pissy at him for not mowing the lawn the day after they had consensual sex after coming home from dinner at a restaurant where she had two or three glasses of wine. And yes, there is a misandrist political agenda to go after such "low-hanging fruit" under the label of "rape" (implying violence and helplessness), because it fuels the meme that men are inherently violent as evidenced by inflated numbers of "violent crime" arrests.
In WA, a man is guilty of "domestic violence", if among other things, he acts in a way that makes his wife afraid of him. Guess what? Disclosing that he discovered her adultery qualifies as "acting in such a way", because a "reasonable" woman would fear his reaction.
His choice is to stay in the home, and put up with the betrayal; stay in the home and disclose the discovery (which can lead to his immediate arrest and likely conviction even as he may be more hurt than threating); or leave, disclose the discovery, and likely file for divorce. If he does the last of the three, it will be presumed that he has abandoned his childre
In Liberty, Rene
As someone who was falsely accused, I know for a fact that not all claims of rape are 'legitimate'. The furor over the term 'legitamate rape' is nothing but contrived liberal feminist crap.
Hmm...as a man, I've yet to be harmed by this "sex weapon". Do you need a license for it?
Only if you want to carry it unconcealed.
I'm like you in that I don't black out. I've gotten sick a couple times when I was younger, but never have I blacked out, even with > a 5th of whiskey.
I can also drive a race track (and have done so) with that much alcohol in my blood. The only thing that happens to me is nausea and visual distortion at that point, so I don't really understand the "blackout and not remember the night before". I suppose it could happen, but...
That's all fine and great, but some people 'black out' and show no physical signs of being inebriated.
So what happens if she says beforehand that she wants to fuck like bunnies (being as she's naturally uninhibited), you get it on, and then she later (because she's a prude at heart) she decides you raped her. Well, you did stick a dick in, but it wasn't rape. There's no physical harm. It's not uncommon for this kind of thing to result in a rape charge (which is, thankfully, later dismissed because there's no actual evidence of rape other than her word).
I think people are blowing this whole thing out of the water. Maybe a guy does act ungentlemanly towards a woman while having consensual sex and she feels used (after a single night stand). But that doesn't mean rape was committed. In today's system, the burden (and cost) of proving innocence is on the man to prove his innocence in all cases, usually on the basis of just her word. How 'fair' is that? Yes, sex is used as a weapon in this kind of scenario.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
In some places (for example, England), the key feature is the lack of consent (and the lack of a reasonable belief in consent) rather than "force". So the threat of force (express or implied) would count, but also a lack of capacity to consent (such as being intoxicated or asleep), or some sort of deception. [If you want to see a really weird, disturbing, but unforced case of rape, look up R v Jheeta.]
Of course, this still has problems; for example, you could have a situation where two people raped each other, if they were both deceiving each other as to some material point. As far as I know, that's never come up in court, though.
I have... hurt my back a little.
So, even using the feminist's numbers, about 32,000 women per year get pregnant from rape (which is highly suspect). This is used to justify the murder of over a million in-utero babies per year.
Fine morality your goat-herders had there. Well within what every other culture of the time did. I don't blame them for that. Whoever thinks to look at that as any moral guideline these days, however, is scum. The problem is, that fucktards gibbering about "legitimate rape" today, take exactly the position you exposed as biblical in the last sentence. And that makes anyone taking that position less than scum. Less than nothing, to be precise.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Ok, I understood your message, which is basically: stop being a victim !
However, you don't understand the human nature at all.
Firstly, when you are a victim of any violence, you sense guilt, the guilt about something that you may have avoided. How could I have escaped the situation ?
This first question arises instantly, and there is no simple answer to that. You cannot say: "hey, just forget about these destructive ideas, look at the bright part of the situation; you are alive".
Violence is very different when you are a witness (and TV tends to make it so common) or when you are a victim.
Secondly, there is a more insidious question: Why did it happen to me ? Is it my fault that I have been raped ?
Is it my attitude or my way of dressing that encouraged the rapist ?
This question appears once you didn't get the answer to the first question.
In my case, I believe that any situation that we survived is a lesson to learn, and some of the lessons are not obvious at all !
How can I become a better person from a violent situation ?
I also believe that people change, so violence towards the rapist is not a solution, because he may change and become someone who will help raped women in the future (it's unlikely, but it's possible), so the rapist has a lesson to learn too. Does prison help people to understand these lessons ?
The distinction is often being made by the same sort of person who counts using a date rape drug as not using force, making threats of force as different from actually carrying out those threats, and so on. If these people are consistent in their views as politicians, they will be reluctant to presecute fraud or extortion, and seek to make the laws in those cases apply only to actual armed robbery. They will regard all consumer protection functions of the government as liberal paternalism, not as legitimate law enforcement related actions, and so on. If these same people are not consistent, then you may at least hope your own grievances will fall on the beneficial side of their mental line. Better an inconsistent politician than one who is consistently 100% wrong.
Who is John Cabal?
It doesn't miss the point at all. Plenty of people are parsing the meaning of the phrase "legitimate rape", but Hamblin is trying to answer the question, "When a woman is has non-consensual sex, is she less likely to get pregnant?".
Turns out the answer is "No". But I didn't know the answer to that question one way or the other before reading this article, but I was curious about it. It seemed implausible to me because there isn't really any obvious evolutionary reason for a woman's body to defend against impregnation via consensual vs. non-consensual sex. But it's better to know the answer than to guess the answer.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
One of many reasons why I am a devout evangelical atheist is because of all the Ten Commandments int he Bible, God chose not to outlaw rape. The Christian God apparently chose " Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." as a more important rule to lay down than "Thou shalt not rape." Rape has been used as a form of violence and control since the beginning of recorded human history, and in fact it has only been within the past hundred years that it has been seen as the true horror that it is in modern society, and this is IN SPITE OF religious dogma, not because of it.
God could have chosen to make it perfectly clear that this was one of the most evil sins that could be committed and should be outlawed under all circumstances. But the God presented in the Bible, and in the Koran, chose not to.
This is one of the reasons why I'm an atheist.
Maybe God figured that by outlawing fornication and adultery, the basis were already covered. Then again, if one would ignore God's commands regarding fornication and adultery, they probably would ignore any of them about rape, too.
But then, I'm not sure why a devout evangelical atheist would really care what God did or didn't do.
And as a 140lb male, I only get buzzed after about 3 glasses of wine (excepting times when my stomach is almost empty, or when the alcohol consumption is very rapid).
Sorry you couldn't use semantics to argue your incorrect beliefs.
Then we will see real laws that make total sense.
I have always been of the opinion that while Christian conservatives decry Islam as evil, they are secretly jealous of it. Afterall, Islam has permeated many governments in the Middle East to a degree which most Christian conservatives could only hope to achieve.
US right-wing conservatives are very similar to fundamentalist muslims - that's probably the reason they hate each other: it takes one to know one.
They are really the two sides of the same coin. Each of them thrives on the existence of the other.
Just imagine for a minute there was universal peace around the world (or just peace between Israel and the rest of the Arab world, all issues cleared etc - the need to Hamaz and all those other nut-cases would vanish instantly - as well as for their Israeli counterparts.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
Which goes to show exactly how much the people that wrote those books cared about women.
As for Deuteronomy 22:24 (your point 2), the stoning of the woman is because it was consensual. If she had screamed out or fought off her attacker, then she would not be stoned. It has nothing to do with how loudly she screamed out, just with whether it was consensual or not.
Deuteronomy 22 is not about rape, but consensual relations outside of marriage. But then I bet you really already knew that.
Actually, your anecdote only proves that one woman lied about rape.
For more general facts; according to the English CPS (not a wholly unbiased source either), about "2% of all reported rapes are false, which is slightly less than false reporting in all other crimes."
While you're there, you might want to read #10 as well, just for future reference (not that I with to suggest you did commit rape; but that the "staying in bed for about 5 hours" may not be as relevant as it sounds). But yes, you were that 1 in 50 rape accusations that was false. But 1 in 50 isn't "most".
Child support is an obligation to the child which is enforced by the courts; it not a punishment.
So are you implying that rape cannot occur inside of marriage?
The bible does not consider rape inside of marriage. Then again, until July 5, 1993, neither did the United States.
I can see some getting upset because of the presumption of a context suggesting decriminalization of some currently criminal activity, but I would not jump to that conclusion absent further reserach into the author's motives.
I think where we disagree is in the size of the leap required. In my experience with people who seem to agree with Akin, "legitimate" means exactly what it sounds like it means. A legitimate rape is a real rape. Any other "rape" is not really a rape at all.
Just because something is less depraved does not make it less unacceptable. But by making the definition of a word so all-encompassing, it dilutes its impact in referring to the most vile circumstances. ... I'd really prefer the notion of the crime of "sexual assault" with varying degrees thereof, with "rape" being the most serious.
I think the real problem we face is not diluting the impact of the word in extremely violent cases, but in failing to communicate the seriousness of other (most) rapes.
Disclosing that he discovered her adultery qualifies as "acting in such a way", because a "reasonable" woman would fear his reaction.
It sounds like you've gone through some really awful things, and I'm sorry to hear it. But, I very much doubt this is true. There appear to be no reported Washington State case where this has happened. (I checked.) (IAAL, but don't rely on anything I say as legal advice. I'm not licensed to practice in the state of Washington.)
caritj.org
News for Jocks; Stuff That Spatters
Based on current trends the age of consent will be raised. As you note it's really only guys caught up by these laws, and politicians blatantly pander to female voters who don't want to compete with younger women. When women get ready to settle down in their 30s, they'd love it if an eligible bachelor of 35 could be severely punished for exploiting the inexperience and suggestibility of a 25-year-old. Yeah, an age of consent at 35 seems crazy, but these are crazy times.
Also, surely the very existence of a child support system demonstrates you are wrong - that these men have no desire or interest in raising the children.
From the perspective of civil law, abortion should be legal for a host of pragmatic and moral reasons. To put it dangerously concisely, there are many situations where choosing to abort is a morally defensible option, and, more pragmatically important, attempting to monitor pregnancies, prevent women from terminating pregnancy, and punish those who who do attempt/succeed is a daunting logistical task due to the biological realities of the gestation process. Moreover, such action is an overreach of power by any social body.
That being said, we must also face the fact that in many cases, perhaps even most cases, abortion is tantamount to murder. Again, this does not mean abortion should be illegal; abortion is simply a case where there are no easy, clean solutions. The fact that abortion should be legal does not minimize the fact that abortions often terminate a healthy life trajectory, and speaking about abortion as an act of privacy or simply a medical procedure is morally disingenuous. To put it bluntly, sometimes life sucks, and sometimes we are given horrible choices between undesirable alternatives. I am certainly not saying that abortion is always wrong, or that it is easy to know when it is or isn’t. I am arguing that in the effort to defend the right to abortion, we tend to minimize and mask the fact that abortion is the termination of a life trajectory that will, with luck and nurturing, lead to a first smile, a first word, a first kiss, and all the wonders we hold dear and hope for in human life. Terminating life is not always wrong (in abortion as well as other situations), but it should never be easy. I know that sounds like some tough love non-sense or an attempt to shame people, but it is real...taking life should never be easy. The fact is that some choices have more gravity than others, and the choice to abort or not is one of the most weighty, unfair, and cruel burdens to place on a human being. I bear no ill will to anyone who is forced to make it, due to their own actions or the actions of others.
The argument for why abortion is tantamount to murder is too large to give in full, even if I were capable, but here are some points to consider.
Once the paternal and maternal gametes genetically combine in/into a zygote, a distinct and novel genetic organism has gained a purchase on life. That distinct organism is on a trajectory that will end in its biological death, and the trajectory itself, however long or short, is the life of that organism. Many things can end this trajectory, but intentionally and actively ending this trajectory, in the case of humans, is often murder (but certainly not always murder). Trying to impose some arbitrary bifurcation point that divides the trajectory of life into a person that can be murdered and a sack of cells that cannot be murdered is disingenuous because life is a process not a specific form (e.g. zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, teenager, or what have you). With nurture and luck, a zygote will move along all the stages of human development remaining to him or her in a trajectory no less real than that of an infant. Put simply, terminating that trajectory at any point is terminating a distinct life, and you would have a hard time convincing me that such an interpretation is a matter of opinion.
While we are on the subject, I find the argument that goes something like “I can do whatever I want with my own body,” particularly misinformed and alarmingly overused. Arguments that a zygote, or developmental stage thereafter, is part of the mother’s body are factually incorrect. The zygote and onward has a distinct genetic footprint, and the mother’s immune system would identify the child’s genetic code as an external threat and kill it were it not for the placenta. I won’t tarry on this point, but I do hear the “It’s my body” argument all the time. The fact that a fetus is in your body, doesn’t make it part of your body.
This subject is comp
Since the vast majority of rapes go unreported
I'm curious as to how one measures an unreported event. What metrics are we using for that, and how do we show that they are accurate?
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Oh, I missed this:
By not letting inflamatory language affect my gut response, I can concentrate on the supposed science at hand, which currently appears to be bogus.
No, by overlooking the significance of the word "legitimate" and instead congratulating yourself on your own "scientific" worldview, you are totally missing the point. We all know that the science is "bogus." That much is obvious. What is actually interesting (alarming, shocking) is there there is a sitting member of congress who seems to think that there is a large group of "rapes" out there that are not legitimately called rapes. We are left to wonder exactly what category he had in mind, but in light of my view (and the views of many others) that under-recognition of rape is the problem, not over-recognition, the conclusion suggests itself that this man might be deplorable and not fit to serve as a U.S. congressman.
caritj.org
There is something you are missing, which is that the majority of Christians are not like the person in question. Remember that "Christian" is a very generic term, and there are some very large separations in beliefs. The Lutheran Reformation, the Protestant Reformation, etc.. should make it clear that there are some very fundamental differences between "Christians", these were bloody wars. That list does not even include peaceful separations like Baptists. That 2.2 billion number starts to change pretty drastically when you count how many of that 2.2 billion are zealots wanting to force their beliefs on someone else.
The majority of "Christians" don't care what you do, as long as you don't stop them from doing what they believe they should. Most Christians don't care if a person outside of their family or Church is gay, gets an abortion, they simply want to be allowed to believe in their Religion and practice their faith.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
I'm pretty much with you right up until the final paragraph; the idea that men cannot be raped (legally true until recently in England - and it's still the case here that a woman (probably) cannot commit rape due to a technicality) is one of those myths that really needs dispelling. However...
I really do believe that it is possible to have a no-fault rape case. Both participants get smashed and fuck like rabbits while out of their minds, and assert they would never have consented to the sex while sober. How does the law react to such a circumstance? Does it punish both victims for their over-indulgences? Who pays child support?
The idea of a "no-fault rape" case seems... a rather terrible idea. It suggests that someone can intentionally have sex with another (or however you define "rape" legally), without a reasonable belief that they are consenting to that sex, but without them being at fault. I fail to see how that can work. If you are intoxicated enough that you don't "intend" to do it, then it isn't legally rape (although I'm not sure English law would be willing to accept that defence, and then you have issues of voluntary intoxication, diminished capacity and so on). If not, you're still committing rape - that is, doing something that is "wrong".
Crimes are generally crimes (rather than torts etc.) because they are viewed as "public wrongs" - things that are so bad, that the state should step in and punish those who do it, no matter who the victim is.
The fact that the other person may also be raping you isn't that important - it would kind of be like arguing that if two people stole from each other (or killed each other), neither committed a crime. The crime is the act done by the accused, not the loss suffered by the "victim".
That said, I don't imagine there are many cases where a mutual rape would occur and be reported, and then there's the issue of whether or not it would be prosecuted. In practice, as noted in your earlier points, I imagine the man (assuming a man and a woman) would find himself accused of rape and trying to find a suitable defence (possibly forced/shamed into pleading guilty).
According to the Torah, adultery was forbidden, so any act of sex outside of marriage was effectively an act of statuatory rape, punishable by death. As it was culturally held to be a woman's duty to accept all sex with her husband, a man could initiate non-mutual sex with his wife without punishment by the Supreme Torah Court. This doesn't mean that there were no ramifications for his actions, as husbands who injured their wives could still be punished, both socially and legally.
That's why I wrote "...the God presented in the Bible." While I don't believe in God, this fictional character is presented in the Bible outlawing all sorts of things...just not rape.
Indeed.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
You have all your work still in front of you, if you plan on showing that coveting is the same as possessing. Meanwhile, instead of doing the required mental gymnastics to make the words fit your desired meaning, let's just all admit that the 10 commandments are pretty shitty. They don't even cover being nice to children.
Implications...IMPLICATIONS? It's not implied that Thou Shalt Not Steal...It's COMMANDED.
Why couldn't the God of the Bible COMMAND men to NOT RAPE.
It's pretty straightforward.
It's this use of ambiguous weasel words throughout history in almost all religious texts. If God wanted people to not do something, really really not do them, he would have made it unambiguous.
Commandment 11: Thou Shalt Not Rape. Ever. For real.
There, see, that wasn't so hard.
But the Christian God presented in the Bible chose not to do that.
Of course the "interests of the child" only matter when talking about the responsibility of the father; the mother is free to get rid of the kid before or after birth.
I'm pretty sure she also dropped the case because he openly said he would take a paternity test, and we all knew she was full of shit. He didn't have sex with her. At least, THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO BELIEVE.
If you get falsely accused and falsely prosecuted, then you go to prison, and you are more likely to be raped. Men get raped more, and it happens mostly in prisons. That is, if I recall correctly.
So, I say false accusations are worse.
testing out my trending skills
Correction: it has been pointed out to me that a woman *can* commit rape in England, but only as part of a joint enterprise; i.e. when the man does the raping and the woman is associated somehow.
And so was born the "honor killing" where your basic knuckle-dragging religious pinhead somehow believes what his daughter or sister does reflect upon his manhood. A pox on multi-culti beliefs that somehow moral and ethical outlooks on "ancient" practices are somehow misplaced. They aren't, and many ancient cultural practices should be damned.
What does every Sunday School class in the U.S. have on the wall? The Ten Commandments. They are an icon. They are placed all over the country in churches, and occasionally courtroomas and schools before the ACLU threatens lawsuits.
The Ten Commandments are notable for their SIMPLICITY. In other words, God wanted there to be no ambiguity.
Modern Christianity today is based partly on the assumption that the rules God set down are IMMUTABLE, valid for all time, and the Ten Commandments are part and parcel of that. Christians can debate the finer points of how far from a village menstruating women must stay that are presented in Leviticus but virtually no Christian would argue or debate the Ten Commandments. It's the one thing from the Old testament that Christians today believe still hold sway.
And yet God, if he existed, in His Infinite Wisdom, chose to not include a prohibition against rape as one of the commandments.
This irks me.
When 2 people have consentual sex, under the pretexts that the sexual encounter is entirely just for the sex, just for that night, it is kinda implied that the man wants nothing whatsoever to do with the woman afterward, and vise-versa.
When these same 2 people have sex, and a pregnancy results, the man typically would prefer the woman use something like plan B. If that is not a option for religious reasons (why is she engaging in premarital sex again?), then the man would rather that the child becom a ward of the state; he has no desire to deal with the woman he impregnated: They came together under the auspices that there would be no entanglements.
Should entanglements happen, men tend to presume that women are *not* stupid, and know full well that fucking is how babies happen.
The usual course of events in these cases is thus:
1) people that find each other physically attractive, but not emotionally or mentally attractive agree to have casual sex, under the presumption that the sex has no emotional or spirtual ties, and means nothing except to get each other off.
2) they have sex under those conditions.
3) the woman gets pregnant
4) the woman discovers pregnancy to be costly and debilitating, and sees financial releif. She turns to the legal system to compel the man she had casual sex with to support her.
5) the man is angry that the woman has violated the terms of their sexual conjugation, and is enraged that she is using the court to compel him to pay for her mistakes. He feels that her agreement to the casual sex straight up means she knew this could happen, and that she would accept such a consequence if it happened. That's what consenting to meaningless sex means. It means that he does not want to start a family, and just wants to get his rocks off. If you are a woman, and consent to that kind of agreement, you should accept the consequences.
6) the woman disagrees, and the court sides with her out of deference to the good of the child.
7) woman endures 9 months of pregnancy and physical disfigurement from the ordeal. (Stretch marks, vericose veins, etc.)
8) man endures 18 YEARS of financial uncertainty, and with it, disability to start a family he actually wants to have. Has to deal with a woman he does not love, feels betrayed and victimized by, and ends up developing resentment rather than love for the child.
The real lesson here is DON'T FUCK AROUND. Its that simple. Don't fuck, no babies, no child support, no deadbeats/bitchy women, and no officiousness from the courts.
But, for the people who's gonads could not be sated with a length of rubber or a handy tissue and a copy of hustler, I am confident that the men involved would rather spend 9 months with a surgically transplanted ectopic pregnancy, and then state adoption of the child, than 18 years dealing with betrayal and angst with a woman and child they do not love.
The day they invent a truly useful artificial uterus, is the day feminists everywhere have a conniption fit, and try to ban their use. Because men will cut the women off.
For real.
I'm curious...how is it a subset? Is it explicitly outlawed, or is there ambiguity in the law?
What could be less ambiguous than "Thou shalt not rape"?
Except that that was only half of the issue. Because this comes out of a discussion about rape and abortion, and since both Akin and Ryan are cosponsors of amendments that would withdraw Federal funding for abortions based on the "kind" of rape, I don't think you can just pretend that Akin is a lone nutball. I don't think you have to be Sherlock Holmes to draw a line between Akin's ludicrous statements and the amendments that he and Ryan had cosponsored. This is giving us a window on the kind of bizarre logic and myths being invoked by the social conservative wing of the GOP, and since some other prominent Republicans are on record repeating almost the same claim as Akin, I'd say the GOP has some fucking morons trying to concoct policies around abortion and women's rights based on shamefully idiotic bullshit.
Akin will ultimate take the bullet for this stupidity, but you can't tell me he is the only anti-abortion Republican who doesn't believe in magic powers of rape victims to fend off rapists' sperm.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The first comment on that amazon link comes from another author (or so it's claimed) of another sex book, and he goes on about how many facts in the book you referenced are wrong, such as:
Elsewhere, he claims bonobos are monogamous (absurd: the first thing anyone learns about bonobos is precisely that they are NOT monogamous), women are the only females who have orgasm (no serious biologist has argued that for decades), that the Ferrari Testarossa refers to [...] (it actually means "red head" in Italian, referring to the engine head that was red).... All these examples are just from the first chapter!
So it seems that perhaps that correlation you read is also very incorrect.
And yet the statistics still show conception from rape and conception under consensual circumstances are sufficiently close as to be statistically indistinguishable.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Facts: You present yourself as an atheist. You make atheist statements. You behave in a way that is consistent with atheism.
Truth: You are an atheist.
Note that you cannot conclusively arrive at the above truth using these (or any) facts. After all, Laurence Olivier behaved in a way consistent with a prince of Denmark, but does that make him Hamlet? You cannot factually demonstrate that Laurence Olivier was simply pretending to be Hamlet any more than I can factually demonstrate that he believed himself to be Hamlet and played the role of an imagined Laurence Olivier the rest of the time.
You claim I cannot "use semantics to argue my incorrect beliefs." Can you factually demonstrate that I believe anything, let alone what those beliefs are? Can you factually demonstrate that you believe anything, even to yourself?
Meanwhile, would you have even heard of Hamlet, a work of fiction written centuries ago, if it did not contain any truth about the human condition?
A decade ago we privately polled our senior class for a statistics project to find out if abstinence education was effective. We found that by age 17, only about 40% of students at our private Catholic high school were virgins. The same day we turned it in, we were called to the office where whe upper school head threatened to expel us if we published our results.
The results of our poll about the number of girls on birth control and for how long garnered a similar response.
I also got bamboozled when I was 20, and I met who turned out to be a high school senior at the local college taking her first semester of dual-enrollment classes. Under the local laws, I raped her, but I think if she can drive herself to your place, she's mature enough to choose who she wants to be sexually active with. I also don't support the idea of state-authorized relationships, which is what happens when poor laws stand between consenting parties' abilities to decide for themselves how they want to interact.
under-14 being the auto-rape.
That's a bad Idea. For under-14, there should be a simple +-2 year window rule. If a 13 and 15 year old do it, why should that be considered rape? There also should not be any mandatory sentencing as long as both are < 18.
And yet nothing in your exampled about how the rape offends the woman. It's about how it offends the men in her life. Again, a mysogynistic culture, that has carried down through the ages. It has only been recently in modern history that rape has been viewed for what is primarily is: a crime against WOMEN. Not men. WOMEN.
And the reason it has taken so long is because people have espoused views just like the ones you have mentioned.
technically, one can fornicate or commit adultery without committing the act of rape, so no, I don't think it's covered.
So you're making an assumption there was someone to hear the screams. That seems to be the crux of the issue for most people and why it gets interpreted in a way you disagree with.
How do you prove that it was consenual or not? If there are bruises and cuts and obvious signs of struggle then it becomes simple, but that's not always the case.
It's a tough issue to handle, I'm not sure we should be worrying about bible stories when dealing with the ignorance of the statements for Todd Akin who clearly was talking out of his ass. A law should not be created if there are obvious examples of people that the law would hurt as collatoral damage, you would choose to make exceptions for those people, the fact the these exceptions are not made just shows how bad the law is. It would be another question entirely if the consequences weren't known ahead of time, like the problems with the DMCA, its another entirely when consequences are obvious with statistics to back it up going back 20 years.Why ignore the numbers and not make exceptions for those extreme circumstances? If they had then they might have made headway towards their anti-abortion agenda, the fact that they didn't suggests to me they don't actually believe it's the right thing to do but they need to show that they are doing something to their base.
I agree for the most part, but the world is not black and white. Here's a little hypothetical thought experiment:
A teenage man (say, 19, so above majority age) goes to a party, which involves alcohol. He gets drunk enough to become sufficiently intoxicated to black out the evening. He wakes up in his bed at home, after being dropped off by friends. 3 months later, a girl who was at the party claims a paternity suit against him for her now 3rd month pregnancy, the test shows positive. he does not remember giving consent, and does not remember the woman at all.
Now, Flipside.
A teenage woman, (Say, 19, so above the age of majority), goes to a party which involves alcohol. She gets drunk enough to be sufficiently intoxicated to black out the evening. She wakes up at home in her bed after being dropped off by friends. She has semen stains in her panties. She does not remember giving consent, and promptly makes use of a female hotline to report her "rape."
These situations are essentially identical, however the female's view holds more gravity than does the male's.
Yes, because of one distinction in the situations - she reported a crime and he didn't. I'm not sure why you're suggesting that men shouldn't be able to report being victims of rape, but it may be that you're falling into the cultural bias you mention later. The law has no such bias.
I would say it is because of cultural bias, and double standards; women are percieved as more vulnerable, (when both are equally vulnerable to alcohol and other drugs), and thus requiring the stronger protections. Men are conversely considered to be "stronger", and being raped in this way is even culturally approved of in a disturbingly sick fashion.
It probably has more to do with the 9 months of pregnancy and labor that a female victim may have to go through that a male victim doesn't.
I really do believe that it is possible to have a no-fault rape case. Both participants get smashed and fuck like rabbits while out of their minds, and assert they would never have consented to the sex while sober. How does the law react to such a circumstance? Does it punish both victims for their over-indulgences? Who pays child support?
See the problem?
Yes, I do - you're thinking that "child support" is "a punishment for over-indulgences". That's a huge problem. Child support is the right of a child to support by its parents or a willing assignee (i.e. foster parents, adoptive parents, the state, etc.). The parents may have done nothing wrong - or may have done everything wrong - and it's irrelevant, because the sole question is "is there a child" and if so, it's entitled to support. Absent such an assignment, the parents don't have any ability to waive that obligation. Fair? No, but as a society, we've decided that it's better that parents should take care of their children than that children should be left to starve. It's not "punishment" for the parents, but a fiduciary obligation.
Most atheists would consider themselves to be experts in what they say. Are you saying that every single bit of the Bible dates to after the earliest mentionings of Christianity?
testing out my trending skills
They aren't reported to law enforcement. These statistics are gathered from surveys and interviews. Surveys consistently show that between 1/4 and 1/3 of women in the US have been raped at some point in their lives.
I've known people who have been accused of rape where I know they did nothing due to available timeframe and their claims - and they were later exonerated - while out on dates because the woman felt 'uncomfortable' or 'led' by the male. It happens all the fucking time; whether it's a symptom of a high rape rate and the women being predisposed to feeling sexually threatened by anyone male or they're socially conditioned to think all advances from men are rape, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if both are a factor.
So... I hate to be Captain Obvious here, and all, but... why are these people you know sleeping with women they know for sure won't "play the rape card", so to speak? Slapping naughties seems like a situation where some discretion is wise.
Rape is one of those situations where the victim is already blamed; now you're having us believe that the victim should be distrusted until proven sore in the nethers, too? I'm not all about screwing some poor chap's life up for the false accusation of rape, but on the rape spectrum, you everything from violent forcible sexual abuse, date rape, taking advantage while drunk, to heavy peer pressure. There are appropriate sanctions for each.
Yes, some women* are out there to simply fuck your life over, or were willing partners at night, but come next morning it's all different. What this means is you should be more discriminating over who's hangy bits you go exploring in the wee hours of the morning. After all, would you rather be accused of rape, or told you have HIV the next morning? The same behavior leads to both. Besides, every study I've ever read says this is a pretty low percentage of reported sexual assaults - it's very rare to have a rape claim where there was just no evidence of some type of unlawful coercion.
I'd even go so far as to say this just doesn't happen unless there's something for the accuser to gain, making it a fraud case, not a rape case. Maybe if all your friends are Kobe Bryant or Clarence Thomas or Julian Assange, there's some merit, but if your friends are Billy from high school who still drives his Pinto, it seems unlikely that a predatory woman would be wasting her time on him. Sorry Billy; "no" does NOT mean "just the tip", even when you DO offer 4 wine coolers.
*and men, too; in fact, you'd be surprised how often a straight man cries wolf after an experimental evening of sleeping with a gay man.
Oh, I missed this:
By not letting inflamatory language affect my gut response, I can concentrate on the supposed science at hand, which currently appears to be bogus.
No, by overlooking the significance of the word "legitimate" and instead congratulating yourself on your own "scientific" worldview, you are totally missing the point. We all know that the science is "bogus." That much is obvious. What is actually interesting (alarming, shocking) is there there is a sitting member of congress who seems to think that there is a large group of "rapes" out there that are not legitimately called rapes. We are left to wonder exactly what category he had in mind, but in light of my view (and the views of many others) that under-recognition of rape is the problem, not over-recognition, the conclusion suggests itself that this man might be deplorable and not fit to serve as a U.S. congressman.
There will always be "underrecognition", or rather "under-prosecution" of some crimes. It is the nature of an "innocent until proven guilty" society with due process of law.
The solution is not to make prosecution of corner-cases easier by implicity moving toward a "guilty until proven innocent" model which is effectively what the gender feminist agenda is.
In Liberty, Rene
I'm no believer, but rape is definitely outlawed in Deuteronomy 22:22-27.
Good catch. GP post was a very cleverly disguised "That can't be true, for if it was true, I'd believe it was true." argument.
Given a lot of literature out there exposing the hardship of women throughout history I have to wonder what makes you think things were so rosy in marriages in those days? The use it and throw it away culture has nothing to do with how you treat people, horrible violence was common place. Medieval torture is well documented and far worse than the water boarding of today. I keep seeing this issue crop up, people aspousing about the golden years past forgetting about all the bad that permiated every facet of society.
Keep in mind, people today are far more educated than people in years past. 1000 years ago the percentage of the population that could read was indeed quite small and the ignorant out there were not afraid of any level violence, indeed it was commonplace in their lives. Read about the atrocities on both sides of the crusades.
Rape inside of marriage was probably a lot more common in history than today since today domestic violence has a whole support network designed to help women in that situation. Of course one can't really be certain on the rates in the past since it wasn't something a lot of people talked about so you're left with a few stories that were written down and survived the test of time.
Then explain why men are very rarely awarded custody, except in cases where the woman is clearly unfit.
The presumption that females are more loving parents has been beaten bloody by recent psychologists and psychological studies. It does not withstand evidence.
Muslims also believe Allah is so other that He does not interact with the world....errr....unless he sends Gabriel to pass the message along. It's yer basic weaselly escape hatch you find in most religions when a contradiction is embarrassing.
And G-d didn't rape Mary if by that you mean he fucked her. Given yer basic godly powers, he could simple cause one of her eggs to become fertlizered in a fatherly sort of way and the rest is history.
Actually, what probably happened was at the Council of Nicea in the 300's, the church Elders considered Jesus saying he was the Son of G-d and figured it was literally true. In point of fact, it was common saying in Jesus time to say you were a Son of G-d. However, that meant that you were more or less religious and close to G-d in a spiritual sense. 300 years later, that nuance was lost and given the lore of virgin births of gods from the Greeks and India, they more or less bundled it all into a gnarly gumball and screwed up Christianity from thence forward
Are you guys still seriously debating this issue?
What the mother fucking hell is wrong with you people? Stop taking these religious assfaces seriously!!
I'm aware that this greatly increases the chance of hereditary defects in resulting offspring, but explain to me why it's a good thing to outlaw incest, without invoking eugenics.
I do not believe the double standard is fair.
I am an asexual man. I take great offense at the very notion that I am presumed to be a predatory stalker of pussy. I have to go through GREAT lengths to dispell this belief in people of both genders. Its quite simple, I DO NOT FIND OTHER PEOPLE ATTRACTIVE. I do not want your pussy. I don't care if you are jessica alba, a playboy bunny, a crazed crackwhore vaccuming up lines, or a fucking nun. I do not want your pussy. I do not want some other man's dick either. I have one of my own already, than you.
I DO NOT want your double standard enforced on me because of YOUR convenience.
Double standards NEVER WORK.
The other group says if an individual hasn't been seen yet, it doesn't exist, and thus executing said individual is fine and not murder.
I am pro-choice, and that is definitely not what I believe.
Both groups are really kind of strange.
I see, you are painting yourself as a moderate. The truth is /always/ in between when it comes to controversy, right? I mean, the world might be 5 billion years old, or 6000. Obviously that means a moderate "rational" person would think that the world is 2.5 billion years old.
he second group generally doesn't function as stated verbatim, but rather believes that at some arbitrary time the unseen individual is suddenly real (like, second, third trimester, a specific number of days into pregnancy), just a magic but arbitrary switch that has nothing to do with physical development
*Now* we see your true colours. What a joke. Once did an ethics essay on treating the terminally ill, and found that there is no actual solid definable point where someone is dead or alive. Some goes when an zygote turns into a human being. That may be a little difficult to understand for the black-and-white thinker, and hence, we have the truly magical *assertion* that the soul enters the zygote at the time of fertilisation, and therefore, a zygote is a human being, and should be protected by the constitution.
A fetus does not have a functioning neocortex until the third trimester. How a fetus is an individual when it doesn't have a brain requires an encyclopedic ignorance of science. It is highly unlikely that an aborted fetus (in the 1st trimester) experiences anything, since pain is experienced in (and because of) the neocortex.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
I do not know how all of these new stories keep forgetting the most important statistic.
The average chance of getting pregnancy from one unprotected consensual sex act is only around 2.5%.
Rape seems to increase the chance of getting pregnant by around 100%.
Other studies have shown that acute stress can cause ovulation. So the current best theory seems to be the exact opposite of this common misconception, that indeed rape causes women to become more "receptive".
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Why would a woman want to raise a child who carries the genes of a rapist? That is her choice, and if you try and take that freedom away from her, then she may choose the shady back-alley in Mexico.
I feel disgust for the morally "superior" anti-abortionist.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Somebody's read Ethan of Athos. Or Glory Season.
But hey, why do you give men a free pass for being stupid? You have sex with somebody, pregnancy can happen. Why is that only a problem for women, while you excuse men based on their expectations?
Maybe the man could just not have sex, or you know, get a vasectomy, or even that option in India that inserts a charged tube that basically kills sperm.
No wait, I remember when that was brought up once, a bunch of men got all fucking crybaby about a needle near their balls. Morons, apparently they've never heard of sedation.
I would agree, however, that there is no scientific evidence to back this congressman's claims.
That said, I find that the last 30 years of the Marxist-inspired gender-feminist agenda no less reprehensible.
In Liberty, Rene
So, you're telling us that you've mostly blocked those memories?
There is nothing wrong with using the morning after pill in the event of a rape - after all, every woman who has been raped KNOWS she has been raped, so could take the morning after pill to prevent any possible pregnancy.
So why all the bullshit about "I didn't know I was pregnant until the second trimester, yada yada yada"?
There is no evidence that the figures in that report are actually reliable, in any way whatsoever. We have no way of telling whether woman X actually WAS raped and got pregnant, or "got pregnant by accident" - you know, "I forgot to take the pill (sure, I believe you)", or "The condom broke (ditto)", or "I wanted to TRAP MY BOYFRIEND" (Now I believe you!). We have no RELIABLE evidence to base those 'rapes which lead to pregnancy figures' on, and everybody knows it.
"The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator."
Okay, from this website:
http://www.huggies.com.au/conception/getting-pregnant/pregnancy-how-to/chances
"For a healthy, fertile couple where both partners are under the age of 35, the chance of getting pregnant straight away is actually pretty low – it’s estimated at around 25 percent per month, if you have regular unprotected sex around the time of ovulation."
(If anybody has any more scientific studies, I'd be very interested in reading them, this was the best I could find, as I wasn't sure how to word it).
So if a fertile couple who are having sex on a REGULAR basis for a MONTH have only a 25% chance of getting pregnant, how can a woman who is raped have a 5% chance? That's a whole FIFTH of the chance of a regular couple who are having sex almost every day, if not every day, and who both want to have sex. (I find it VERY hard to believe that we would have evolved so that women who are raped are just as likely to become pregnant, compared to women who are having sex with a man they really love, are turned on and fancy a lot, etc.) Either way, the 5% figure sounds ludicrously high to me. And even more ludicrous is the "among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year." part - as we would see about 20,000 white women with BLACK babies (seeing as black men rape white women at a terrifyingly high rate:
37,460 white women raped by BLACK MEN,
21,852 white women raped by other NON-WHITE MEN.
According to the Department of Justice figures on rape, 2005.
Guess how many BLACK women were raped by WHITE women in 2005? ZERO. Look it up yourself.)
I call bullshit. And more bullshit from the pro abortion sociopaths who can't even begin to understand the suffering that an unborn baby goes through when they are KILLED. Whoops - sorry - we're not supposed to mention that part when discussing abortion, are we, just blather on about 'women's rights', 'you hate women', etc.etc. ANYTHING but actually look at what abortion actually IS, which is what anti-abortionists object to.
I would gladly concede this, if the fallacy that women make superior parents was not routinely applied in such paternity and custody proceedings.
Supporting a child yourself is easier, when *YOU* decide what is being purchased, and *NOT* a vindictive 3rd party with entitlement issues.
I believe that child support is being improperly utilied to cause financial and emotional harm. I believe that if the man desires the child, he should have equal opportunity to be awarded custody. This is not conserved in practice, thus in practice, child support is usually punitive.
1% of the federal budget type stuff and ignore the pentagon programs
They also ignore the social security problems, because, in the end, a lot of their voters are old people on entitlement programs.
The GOP has strayed squarely into reactionary politics. Aside from social conservatism, their only platform is that they are against whatever democrats stand for. That is why they consistently vote against their own policies when they come from across the aisle.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
It can always serve as a bad example.
Too add to your point, it is a common belief that men cannot be raped. Period. If you are a man any kind of sexual contact you have is contact you desired, even with a gun to your head. In general I think women encounter more sexual bias then men, but I think there are some places where the bias against men should be corrected.
What does every Sunday School class in the U.S. have on the wall? The Ten Commandments.
Theologians can't agree on their demarcation and enumeration. Exodus and Deuteronomy don't even agree on the exact wording.
Even the idea that there are exactly Ten Commandments and that they have a primacy over all the other obligations and proscriptions is an exploration and interpretation of context. Jehovah/Moses/the authors/whatever never actually say "These are the Ten Commandments."
They are an icon.
Exactly; they represent something larger than themselves. Even those Sunday schools you mention don't intend them to be the "alpha and omega," as it were, or the students wouldn't be expected to keep attending week after week.
God wanted there to be no ambiguity.
If there was to be "no ambiguity," why is "Thou shalt not kill" (at least in English) written alongside so many laws that carry the death penalty?
I also note that you continue to push an absolutist, fundamentalist interpretation.
Christians can debate the finer points of how far from a village menstruating women must stay that are presented in Leviticus
Actually, mainline Christian denominations tend to agree that that's one of the parts thrown out of the faith by Jesus/Paul/whoever.
but virtually no Christian would argue or debate the Ten Commandments.
Moses said to honor your father and mother, while Jesus said to hate your father and mother in order to follow him. Seems like a wide berth for debate there.
And yet God, if he existed, in His Infinite Wisdom, chose to not include a prohibition against rape as one of the commandments.
Again with the absolutism. Even mainline Judaism accepts that Mosaic law (Ten Commandments and otherwise) is intended as a minimum of acceptable behavior, not as an absolute standard. I don't recall seeing anything else in Mosaic law saying "anything else is fair game, forever and ever."
(And that's without getting into the Islamic interpretation of that whole episode.)
The "big deal" isn't that a conservative thinks there is some sort of magic that God put in women to prevent unwelcome pregnancy
This is actually true. (Well, perhaps not the God bit.) The female body recognises most misdeveloping fetuses, and either reabsorbs or miscarries them. On that basis, and assuming that being impregnated by a rapist is an evolutionary disadvantage, I would expect that women would be less likely to become pregnant from rape.
Of course, it turns out that I'm wrong: the rate of pregnancy from rape is slightly higher than that from consensual sex. And so this guy's wrong, too. But he doesn't deserve to be ridiculed for having beliefs that actually look quite logical on the basis of limited information.
No. Dont. Stop.
No ALWAYS means no.
Book targeting a patriarchal society written by men in a patriarchal society is written from a patriarchal point of view, news at eleven!
They always backpedal when their mouth gets away from them.
Actually, I live in about the most backward state you can live in, where you can be charged with statutory rape for letting a woman sleep in your house, in a different room, behind a locked door. If she stays more than 3 days, it can be legally presumed that you fucked her. For real.
It is also the land ID in textbooks, and crazy abortionist killers.
AKA, the state of Kansas.
Are you an atheist?
testing out my trending skills
But not in v.28, a verse people often conveniently overlook. In that verse, if the attacker rapes an unengaged virgin, he is commanded to marry her and pay her father.
This "holy book", the "Word of God" essentially commands that a woman who is raped is must be further victimized by being forced to wed her raper. In essence, this condemns an innocent woman to the horror of a relationship where she will likely be violated, at whim, for the rest of her life.
And you wonder why women in Afghanistan set themselves on fire in some of these situations...it's to get out of hellholes that books like this put forward as laws.
And protest in favor of Pussy Riot, the way this lady logger did
http://femen.livejournal.com/220299.html
The problem isn't that he voted for it, it's that he cosponsored it. That means he wrote it so his point of view very much matters. He purposely provided for no exceptions in his bill which is what caused the whole controversy to begin with.
Rape is one of those situations where the victim is already blamed; now you're having us believe that the victim should be distrusted until proven sore in the nethers, too?
If someone steals my TV, I (and/or the law) has to provide proof that the TV was mine and that it was stolen before a theft charge can be pressed, yes? Same basic burden of proof here - or at least, there should be. But that's usually not how it works; it's almost always on the basis of she-said-she-said, with the victim presumed to be telling the truth regardless.
And I don't know what you mean by the victim already being blamed in situations of rape. Who would be blaming them, and for what? They're reputedly a victim of a crime. Either there's evidence to that effect (sexual assault including penile etc. penetration of the vagina = rape, usually involving severe abrasions or injuries at the minimum) or there is not.
Interesting you should disparage my supposed fictional friends, because I do have friends who were raped in high school, and some who were raped afterwards. One, a man, was raped by an (older) woman. He has sleep narcolepsy and woke up with him sitting in his 'lap' after he'd left the front door unlocked. I've had other friends who were accused of rape after they were caught cheating on their girlfriends, by their girlfriends. This later event is a life-destroying affair, in that it essentially rapes your entire existence: everyone you know is involved, it impacts your current work and future job prospects.
You can't tell me that such a thing is innately less destructive than rape, because it isn't: a rape can be recovered from and it is entirely up to the individual on how to handle it. Even the whiff of suggestion that a man might be a rapist is enough to ruin his life. Hell, even fraudulent (politically motivated) accusations of sexual harassment are often enough to get a man fired, as I have personally experienced. There is no compassion or understanding for that situation, even when the man (aka 'just another sexual predator') has child and a pregnant wife at home to take care of - and my situation pales to what I've seen happen to others.
it's very rare to have a rape claim where there was just no evidence of some type of unlawful coercion.
Not really, as I just indicated in the post you commented on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape
A little googling never hurt anyone.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Of course. You are a tribal man. The tribe can take care of the tribe. Who needs civilization anyway? If everybody would take care of their 20 dearest, we can achieve everything. The tribe can invent physics. The tribe can create great literature. The tribe can fly to the moon!
Why do we have to use your preconceptions as the baseline for the development of our criminal law? I think that your "mental image" is precisely the problem exactly because it defines out of existence all but the most heinous (and, I might add, rare) offenses
Uh, no, it categorizes them. In fact, the GP suggested some categories: "exploitation, assault, even sexual assault". As to why it's important to do that, it's so that all degrees aren't conflated with, in your words, "the most heinous (and, I might add, rare) offenses".
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
"No, stop" always means no. "No" as a word is contextual.
Of course, make sure you aren't misinterpreting. Her grabbing your hand to stop you removing it tends to be hard to misinterpret.
Typically, when these 2 people have such casual sex, they make heavy use of contraception. Until the male version of the pill gets approved and on the market, either having their vas defrans ligated and or cauterized, or putting a condom on is about all the man can do concerning contraception.
Women have *way* more options, including drugs to prevent implantation (morning after pill) and drugs to abort at home (plan B) if caught early enough.
Given all the options available, short of catching a woman unprepaired for sex (such as by rape) there is very little compelling statistics to show that a pregnancy resulting from casual sex is unwanted.
(A condom is about 70% effective, at the worst. The pill is about 90% effective after that. Using a contraceptive lubricant cuts that down even further. At the bottom of the stack, the chances of unwanted conception approaches 0. Then, in the unlikely event that it DOES happen, there are still options.)
When the male contraceptive pill hits the market, No contest, Men should use it. Period.
All of the bullshit in your comment is why the gas and oil party needs to be dissolved by the government immediately. If we go back to the ways of the GOP we will be back to women being barefoot and pregnant and minorities back to being slaves.
Your citation does not match your assertion. 24% of women and 20% of men believe abortion should be banned. That's a pretty small percentage of the population and that's of course from 2003 which is almost a decade ago. If you look at more recent numbers you see the same percentage of the population thinks that abortion should be banned. Pro-life vs Pro-Choice is a very different argument as it is a personal question which follows your assertion in that more Americans are pro-life now than pro-choice.
It would seem that while more people think that abortion is not the choice for them, they still think it should be available to those that think differently. It's about forcing your beliefs on others in terms of banning abortion.
When ever its used it allway's hits your wallet
So out of every 3 women you know, you know that 1 of them has been raped?
That statistic doesn't make any sense and that should ring alarm bells immediately.
The method of collection is clearly bunk.
Men get raped more than what? Sheep? By who? Other men of course. Since 90% or more of those men are straight, and rape is not a problem for them as they are clearly demonstrating while incarcerated, why would you think for a moment those very same men wouldn't also take the sex they want on WOMEN who they prefer to men when they are out of prison? One in three women will be raped in their lifetime. Even Catholic alter boys don't have to endure those kind of odds. Guys, please get a clue, even a small one, sex is not a right (unless its with yourself in a private place), and taking sex with a nonconsensual partner is by definition rape. That includes date rape, raping a spouse, if she says no, no means no.
Sadly there are women that use sex as a weapon, and that is dastardly, because the male sex drive is a big handle on the male psyche (and excuse the unintended pun), but attacking a man there is simply a low blow. Unsportsman life conduct. Someone caught doing this should receive serious punitive damages to show others, this is no way to get ahead (again no pun intended.) However, when you can show me that there is an epidemic of this behavior resulting in one in three men being abuse this way in their lifetimes, we'll talk about tit for tat (again sorry.)
I know its easy to make this a humorous subject, and that's sad, because its deadly serious. A lot of rapist kill their victims hoping to avoid prosecution. A man was just recently found on a 1987 rape, murder in northern California because of the state's expanding DNA library. We need to be teaching our young men that this is a zero tolerance behavior, and that anyone who thinks that women are meat to be used, is an idiot and a dangerous sociopath.
Isn't that why we are having a discussion in the first place? The language raises real concerns that need to be addressed. Things are usually less nefarious than they look so you are probably right in that he maybe compromised on language to get a cosponsor but that action would still call into question his integrity.
If you don't have a uterus, SHUT THE FUCK UP you aren't qualified to have an opinion.
So nerds don't care about biology or statistics? This type of discussion hasn't always been common on Slashdot, notsure what you're trying to argue here.
No, that statistic is in line with my personal experience. But you have to know a woman pretty well before she'd tell you if she'd been raped, so it's likely that you just don't know how many of the women you know have been raped. The statistic is not bunk at all, and I'd strongly encourage you to learn more about this subject.
I would gladly concede this, if the fallacy that women make superior parents was not routinely applied in such paternity and custody proceedings.
Though true, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Additionally, the laws are being fixed, state by state, to remedy that fallacy. And you know who's behind those fixes? Feminists. Because the fallacy rests upon the presumption that women don't have careers and that men can't be stay at home parents. Things like the Fair Pay Act and mandatory paternal leave are things that will significantly undermine those presumptions and fix that fallacy.
That said:
I believe that if the man desires the child, he should have equal opportunity to be awarded custody. This is not conserved in practice, thus in practice, child support is usually punitive.
Those are different things. Support is not punitive, because support is an obligation that arises solely due to the child's existence, and is required of both parents. If custody went the other way and the man was the custodial parent, don't you think he'd still have to pay rent, buy food, take care of the kid, etc.? It's not like the custodial parent doesn't have to lift a finger, and the non-custodial parent has to pay for both of them.
With regard to your other legitimate-but-unrelated complaint about how support is being utilized, that has nothing to do with whether support is required or whether it's punitive. That said, it's the right of every custodial parent to get an accounting of what the support is spent on, and you can go to the court with that accounting and use it to modify the amount of support or to gain custody. For example, if you pay support each month and the custodial parent uses it to buy alcohol, or shoes, or golf clubs, or whatnot, and is not taking care of the kid, then that's just about the strongest argument you can make for obtaining custody, short of the other parent being in jail.
I'm sorry, but you seem to be full of sh*t. Age of consent in Canada is 16, with close-in age exemptions. 14-15 can be with someone up to five years older than themselves. 12-13, two years older. So a 15 year old could have sex with a 20 year old without any risk of prosecution to either party, while a 13 year old could have sex with a 15 year old without any risk of prosecution to either party.
At least that's my understanding from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent (control/command f Canada to find it quicker). And I have to agree with Dishevel, auto-rape is just too funny a concept to not laugh at.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
Show me yours, cuz I'm showing you mine... Here's a 2007 study on just rape by the National Department of Justice, and in particular the rapes that involve the use of incapacitation and rape drugs. You can't tell me that slipping a ruffy into a girls drink qualifies as foreplay or that what follows is consensual. Fact is, there is an epidemic of rape, and a lot of it is violent, involves incapacitation, and is undereported because clowns like you minimize the importance of dealing with this problem with the gravity it deserves and stigmatize the victims. Your position is irresponsible, and I'm sorry you know someone who was unfairly treated. That doesn't excuse the behavior or make it any less of a problem in our culture. You show me your numbers. mine say its one of the most common bad things that happens to women in this society. Please, change my mind, show me that its all just a mistake, and women are conniving bitches out to lead poor men to the slaughter. Yeah, I didn't think so.
You my friend have a very jaded view of women.
You're also missing the basic fact that humans are social creatures, and unless men are going to get very lonely (something I suggest for you, in case you pass on your world view to any unfortunate off spring you end up with), they will always have relationships with women.
Also 7) you realize that pregnancy extends beyond just physical disfigurement. Having a baby *can* be a life threatening "condition" - pre-eclampsia being the most obvious problem. Then there's the other long term damage - teeth tend to degenerate, bones lose density making them more prone to breaking, etc etc. And in the excuse for a health"care" system America has, most pregnancies aren't covered by insurance meaning she's expected to pay for something that is often beyond the means of a couple - let alone a single mother. Hell many states the considerably cheaper option of a midwife is illegal, even if it is statistically the safest option!
Sure the real answer is to either get the Big V, or not have sex.
Why should the state be burdened by yet another ward?
Sooooo.... you took the following data:
1.5-10%, 2-8%, 2%, 2%, 3%, 3-31%, 3.8%, 5.9%, 8%, 10.3%, 10.9%, 11%, 11.8%, 18.2%, 20%, 22.4%, 24%, 41%, 41%, 45%, 47%, 90%
and reached the conclusion that it's 10-50%? Looks to me like the median is 11%. If you want to discount older studies and you look at only more recent studies, say 2000 and later:
3%, 5.9%, 11%, 11.8%, 41%
Median is also 11%. In short, approximately only one in nine rape accusations is false. But you better believe that rape victims get smeared almost every time based on the assumption that they're lying, and fear of this is one of the main reasons that keeps people from coming forward most of the time.
Freeze Ray. Tell your friends.
You're mistaken. You're not a part of a double standard; you're a part of neither. If we treated men and women the same--if they WERE the same--you'd still be an anomaly.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
f a woman was unwilling to have sex, forcing her would be a prevision of the idea of marriage, as would refusing sex in the first place (since marriage was meant to produce offspring). If the woman no longer found favor in the man's eye (they stopped having sex) he'd give her a certificate of divorce and she'd move on with her life.
I think I can figure out what you mean here, but I'm pretty sure "prevision" is not the word you meant to use.
Where in the bible does it provide for or even condone divorce?
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
It's like Seth MacFarlane said on an appearance on the BBC quiz show "QI". To paraphrase:
QI: How many sheep were taken on the ark?
Seth: You mean, Noah's ark, in the bible?
QI: Yes.
Seth: None. It never happened.
Freeze Ray. Tell your friends.
Then I suppose posting in a thread started by one person extolling their interpretations of the bible is the wrong place for you to be commenting.
How about I don't believe anything that is a big hot steaming pile of opinion... give me a basis to believe something, a fact or two, perhaps a report, or an expert in the field and that doesn't mean farmer John. I don't say the guy doesn't have friends who were treated unfairly. Not exactly a meaningful sample population. If there is an evil conniving bitch in town falsely accusing innocent boys of dirty deeds, by all means, slap her hard in a court of justice. Make her pay for her wanton criminal behavior. The whole reason such a bad lady exists, is because the crime she's crying about, is common place, and it generates strong emotions in a lot of people who have themselves been assaulted.
But please lets not compare the huckster to the rapist, having your body penetrated forcefully against your will is one of the worst things a person can experience, think of it as on a par with being stabbed. Only worse, because one of the most wonderful things in life has now been turned into the most horrible thing another person will ever do to you. Let put it in context for you so you can empathize. Some big bad person hog ties you and proceeds to place your manly bits on a large stump, then takes a rather large tenderizing mallet to your package. When he's done, every time you go to the bathroom, you'll relive the experience, and forget about sex, that's just out of the question. You don't know which is worse, the physical, emotional or psychological injury, but you're clear they're all competing for top spot. How do you cope, who do you talk to, where do you go for help? Welcome to the world of rape.
The earth is definitely closer to 5 billion years old. Now, it may be 4.7 billion or 4.1 billion or 6.2 billion. Our measures point it closer to one number or another, though they could be wrong, and they're not very precise. Though the people that believe the earth is 6000 years old are probably right about this Jesus fellow; they may be wrong about him being able to heal people at a touch, but there probably was such a person. There was definitely a Roman empire.
On what day in the third trimester does a fetus develop a functioning neocortex, and at what point does that function evolve from having the ability to signal process into being a person? Also you seem to be basing your ideals of what is a person on when they are able to experience pain; I'm more of the sort that a person is a person when they've developed personality (i.e. when experiences start to form a sense of 'self'), and besides there is a hell of a lot of neural activity throughout the body (in the intestine, in the spine, etc) that makes a lot of decisions and reactions on pain and food and the like. Mind you not the experience of pain or hunger, but the reflexes and reactions and even shifting of hormones in the body is decided in various places rather than just the brain.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Which real name?
cayenne8
It's right there.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
/golfclap
good job, sir, at pointing out some problems with how rape is viewed in our society without falling into name calling and other tactics.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
No, GP is saying that the 7th and 10th commandments forbid you from coveting your neighbor's possessions, and unmarried women were considered one of those possessions. So if you covet your neighbor's 18 yr old unmarried daughter, you are breaking these commandments. GP makes a the jump that raping someone is an extreme form of coveting them, and so is covered under these commandments.
But since it only counts for your neighbor's goods, a woman from a non-allied tribe might be fair game for divinely-sanctioned raping (as long as the rapist himself belong to a tribe who worshipped the correct deity). Old Testament laws are full of loopholes.
Several people have sued gun manufacturers for crimes that are clearly the fault of the person in possession of a gun.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
You should try it. Unless you have as few brain cells as a fetus does during the first few months of existence. In that case, your opinions don't really matter then, do they?
I'm pretty sure she also dropped the case because he openly said he would take a paternity test, and we all knew she was full of shit. He didn't have sex with her. At least, THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO BELIEVE.
You are correct sir. And that brings to mind the worst aspect of this entire thing: I know enough about Justin Bieber to know this.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
uh, yeah, as I last recall western religions, i.e. religions coming from Asia major or minor all sport a fair to middling amount of misogyny at their core, and in fact reduce women pretty much to live stock. So while Ugg may have had to tap dance mightily not to have Una toss his fuzzy butt into the volcano as a hors d'oeuvre to the fire god, men have been faring a wee bit better over all in last say what, 3,000 years? Patriarchal societies are pretty much the norm now, so if you want to morn for poor ol Ugg, be my guest, but let's keep our heads out of the fossil record where sexual abuse is being discussed.
If someone steals my TV, I (and/or the law) has to provide proof that the TV was mine and that it was stolen before a theft charge can be pressed, yes? Same basic burden of proof here - or at least, there should be. But that's usually not how it works; it's almost always on the basis of she-said-she-said, with the victim presumed to be telling the truth regardless.
That's EXACTLY how it works. Someone comes in and takes your TV from your house. The TV-taker says that YOU said it's ok that he took it. You say it's NOT ok that he took it. Since it was originally your TV, you are (for lack of a better term) the "gatekeeper" of said TV, and the new possessor of the TV should be investigated for theft. There's a reasonable suspicion that it was taken.
Sure, there are people out there who will say "Sure! Take my TV, and have fun rooting around inside it!!!" only to call the police and blame you for theft. These people are few and far between. As for the Wikipedia page; read it very closely. The Victoria study comes up with about 2.1% false claims to rape. Kanin's report has been totally discredited as a random sample study, and while it would be pretty damning, if it was a solid "what percent of rapes were false accusations", read the experiment. They found 45 *known* false cases to study, of 109 total rapes, in a specific urban area, specifically to determine what makes a person commit a false accusation; nothing about that selection is a "random sample". After you read the experiment, it was pretty clear the study was to determine why false rape accusations occur (and it did an admirable job at that). The other studies, of which only the numbers are provided, all added up, amount to just under 13% of all rape accusations as being false. Even if 20% of rape charges are false, they all need to be investigated, just like any other accusatory violent crime should be.
A wiki for a wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusations Rape fits in pretty closely to child abuse and stalking, regarding false accusations, and ALL possible accusations should be investigated. I'm sorry, fellas, but beware the ink you dip your pen in. If it's crazy ink, you may get nicked, especially since it's a he said/she said situation. If you're gonna bang a chick, make sure she's not part of the ~10% who'll use it against you, and by the same token, no really does mean no. Follow those tidbits, and don't bang things younger than 18, and you'll never have to deal with this. That's just the way this cookie crumbles; very much like taking a "free" TV from the crazy cat lady when offered.
Why should he? He knows so many people!! He knows a statistically significant number of guys who were falsely accused of rape and were exonerated ... given how low a proportion of the pop are so accused that means he must know millions and millions of people - or hangs out with a relly weird crowd. Or he's a bullshitter. Hmm.
apparently the right to lifers only care about forcing others to suffer for their beliefs and have no intention of actually dealing with the consequences of their actions.
A) I've been molested. So there's that. B) I was stating that CAIMLAS comment was tautologically incorrect. He asked "Is male contempt for women so high in the West that they'd dismiss rape claims?" He then went on to dismiss rape claims. pdabbadabba then pointed this error out, and I agreed.
Now, WTF are you ranting about again?
Like you say, any time, whether it be conception, second or third trimester, or birth, is arbitrary. However, both conception and birth have the benefit of being entirely obvious, whereas other time points are difficult to measure. So the debate focuses around those two points in time.
Personally, I'd just like to see some damned consistency. If women are going to be free to have an abortion any time until their child is born, then people shouldn't be prosecuted for homicide if they do something to cause a miscarriage.
Who, these Mormons?
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
http://www.lowbird.com/all/view/2012/03/ibelieveinadv-lovestore-gun-ibelieveinadv
If only 1% of rapes result in pregnancy (rather than 5%), does that make it more ok to force the pregnancy on the victim? What about 0.1%? At what point do the rights of the women not matter any more?
If I have a jaded view of women, it is because I am not infatuated with them, and find their antics disgusting from the beginning.
I am asexual. I find sex to be a disgusting concept. I do not desire nor require it. I do not desire nor require female companionship. I do not require, nor desire male companionship.
Due to this complete divorce from the hormonal charade, I am often treated quite rudely by women, since I *DO NOT* fall victim to the sexual games they try to play on my gender. I tell them bluntly that I find their behavior disgusting. If they want something from me, they can ASK. I am completly immune to sexual manipulation. I register attempts at such manipulation negatively. Women in western cultures employ sexual manipulation to get ahead in life, and I do not play that game. The resulting MUTUAL resentment has left me bitter and jaded toward the female gender. Women that do not try to bait and tease with their sexuality I have absolutely no problems with.
I have absolutely no sympathy for people of either gender who fuck up their lives by being ruled by their hormones. If you are a woman, and make a bullshit dumb-assedly stupid thing like agree to consensual sex, and you get pregnant, enjoy your fucking stretchmarks.
Likewise, if you are a man, and do this, and she gets preggers-- Congratulations. You're a fucking dad. Deal with it.
What I absolutely hate, though, is when this happens, the man *DOES* want the child, is denied custody because the baby is "adjusted to life with mommy", and gets shafted by a woman with entitlement issues.
Yes. It happens. It happens a lot. I call your gender out on it. No amount of "pregnancy is bad for my pussy!" Justifies being a cunt. You know what else has real health effects that "shitty american healthcare" doesn't cover? DEPRESSION.
THE KIND CAUSED BY HOPELESSNESS AND STRESS.
Because that is what men with child support payments endure. Stress. Endless, unrelenting, uncaring, unescapable stress.
Stress kills people. So does complication from pregnancy. But you know what? Pregnancy lasts 9 months. Dealing with baby-momma lasts for life. A lot of people I know would have EAGERLY accepted that fetus WITHOUT A UTERUS, and risked serious health problems as a result, rather than deal with the stress for 18 years.
Your callousness about the stress issue is one of the reasons I am jaded against your gender.
I am jaded against people in general.
Sont worry your pretty little head off. I have no desire whatsoever for children.
There are some atheists who don't care whether bible-style gods exist or not, because they consider such gods contemptible and unworthy of worship or even consideration.
The American government really are going to extreme lengths to create this debate to win public support against Assange. :P
In fact the ancient Jews were once a Matriarchal society, and that is up until the founding of the Judaism we all now know and love, that fixed than whole "Women are people" problem" right up. Here's a laugh. The work by Dr. Robert Sapolsky, a Stanford Anthropologist, on stress and societies dominated by alpha males is absolutely fascinating. In fact what he discovered using baboons (who by the way made superb surrogates for human male dominated societies) was that patriarchal societies are marked by naked aggression, bullying, posturing, violence, coercion, politics and high levels of stress for all but the alpha males. Whereas matriarchal societies tend to be happy, collaborative, consensus based, and in general lovely places for all the members of the troop. Go figure. Matriarchal societies don't fare well, because they don't tend to war. They prefer to negotiate and come to mutually beneficial agreements, and what fun is that, you need to justify that military industrial complex... stupid women. Anyway, just an really interesting look into the monkey in man.
Look around. What do you see? Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, Buddhism, and a wild mix of African religions that are strongly influenced by the other middle east religions. The vast majority of people on the planet live in violent patriarchal societies, because those are the ones fighting to rule the world. You can't poke a stick in a bunch of pissed off brown people without seeing the religion at the core. If you think the history of Europe or America is any better, think again. So. Patriarchy like Fascism is great for getting things done, but the quality of life it leaves behind is sort of sucky. Maybe we can learn something from the Baboons.
In case you are wondering just how far the rabbit hole goes, he belongs to the same idiot class that is bringing the world to the verge of WW III.
http://tdarkcabal.blogspot.com/
That's so cool, I had the same conversation with a democrat except they insisted Obama was going to give them a car and pay their rent too.
Do you think we both found a couple of idiots? Or is it wise to base our entire geo political views from these encounters?
On what day in the third trimester does a fetus develop a functioning neocortex, and at what point does that function evolve from having the ability to signal process into being a person?
The point is that there is no such point. Yet, at one point of time, you can say that there is no consciousness, and at another point of time you can say that there is.
The confusion over such things comes about because of the difference between mental models and what is being modeled. What Kant called "Das Ding an sich".
The rest of your comment is not even worth responding to. Read a book on bioethics.
You don't have to outlaw incest (though it is taboo in most cultures), there are strong behavioral traits in humans that for the most part prevent us from mating with our siblings unless you happen to live in the deep south and have fewer than 2.5 teeth per living family member.
* "...women can use sex as a WEAPON..." of course. Oops.
Oh, that makes so much more sense now. Glad you cleared that up.
"Sex as a WEAPON" like "I stab you with my sex?" "I blow you up with my sex?" "I shoot you with my sex?" Oh, wait, I see, a man assaults a woman and she was using sex as the weapon, he was just the innocent victim of the attack. Got it.
I totally understand this. It's like me (a rich person) using money as a weapon. I have something other people want, so they beat me up and take it. All my fault, I was using it as a weapon, and they were the victim of the weapon.
Sheesh, unless you are missing an eye due to a vicious hard nipple attack, seek professional help if you think sex is ever a weapon.
If we're going to argue immaturity while the persons body is well capable of the act then the brain doesn't finish maturing until 25.
Additionally it might slow down this rash of two under 18 parents with a kid all of a sudden.
I would support this. I'm not sure how you would stop all of the under 25 year old people from having sex, but if there was like some brain switch that would make people not want sex at all until 25 years of age, I think that would be a very good thing. You grow up, you go to college (if desired) and when you're reasonably settled in you start exploring relations with the opposite sex. On the whole we as a society would be way more productive. Ah well, I can dream.
I was just commenting on Deuteronomy and nothing else.
As for Akin, he's crazy and probably the best thing that could happen for his democratic opponent.
As for creating laws, almost always there are obvious examples that the law would hurt as collatoral damage -- that has to be weighed against the common good.
As for making headway towards their anti-abortion agenda, I doubt it. The courts legalized abortion over a privacy right between a woman and her doctor. The rebuplican attempts to ban it don't address this very basic reason and until they do, they will continue to fail.
However, none of the above excuses the comment made by Akin and even if there were science to support his statement, it still would have been insensitive beyond belief. The legitimate science shows the pregnancy rate among rape victimes is 5% -- the same as for woman engaging in consensual sex without protection.
Sadly there are women that use sex as a weapon
Think objectively about the meaning of the word "weapon." Then think about what you wrote. Does it make sense?
technically, one can fornicate or commit adultery without committing the act of rape, so no, I don't think it's covered.
That may be true, but one cannot rape without fornicating or committing adultry (as marital rape is not an option in biblical times).
Just remember that if a then b is not the same as b therefore a.
This is actually a fascinating area of discussion. Christians, particularly Fundies, have no safe place to even talk about their own religion, like Gawd mysteriously farted the thing out whole one day and from that day forward, the Bible we all know was the one and only true word of Gawd.
The making of the Bible, Constantine, the Judaification of the New Testament through the works of Saul/Paul, the influences of Greeks, Romans, and later German's, North Men, and Europe as a whole, is simply amazing. The Gnostic Christian writings are particularly fascinating, and perhaps give an insight into the real intent of Christ, that was lost when Christianity bowed to Political and Social Pressures. Of course, you look at America today and if the founding fathers could be brought to the present for a day and see what's happened, I'm not at all certain if they would cheer or just give it back to the Natives. Aren't we a funny species?
Akin is a cretin and an asshole.
His political career is OVER.
End of story.
My being anomalous does not justify your continued and shameless purpetuation of a system that presums my guilt until I prove my innocense; a system which makes that all but impossible.
Thank you EVER so much.
Exactly, You have your mouth covered and a knife at your throat, and your attacker says "Make a sound and I cut your pretty head off..." She makes no sound and she's guilty in the eyes of God. Makes perfect sense.
Face it friend, women in these societies aren't people, they're property. They are breeding machines designed by God to give men sons. Fail to accomplish this and the breeding machine is a failure in the eyes of man and God. Women are unclean. Unfit to enter a mans place of prayer. In the Muslim world, there are places where women are frequently killed, because their last male family member is killed fighting, and when the starving woman leaves the house, the men of the town properly slaughter her. These are the children of Abraham. Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Women are not people. They are things, chattel. A man may beat his wife, take her as he pleases, punish her as he see's fit and woman's only recourse is to pray. These are not societies that values the humanity of women. However, I can see how men love them. And with twice the physical mass and a predilection to violence, its clear how men enforce their wishes on women.
Just don't call it God's plan, men interpret God, and clearly they've interpreted God in a way that suited them. Forgive me if I find the interpretation a wee bit self serving. Seeing as they even envisioned the deity as what... but of course, a big Man in the sky. Of course he is.
I was referring more toward the phenomenon where the mother uses the support money in less than frugal manners.
For instance, buying Jr. Addidas, instead of more sensibly priced shoes. She lists it on the accounting as "shoes."
She does this, because SHE wants to punish. The courts side with her by default. Without receipts showing the inappropriate use of the support money, the man has no case.
Whereas the man, with custody of the child, would indeed buy the child shoes when the child needs them, but would not buy him addidas, because *gasp*, he can't afford them.
As such, having custody of the child, and assuming support that way, is the far superior option in pretty much all cases. It is often FAR cheaper for the man to support the child cia custody, than through court mandated payments, and with significantly less stress.
Well, if you waste five on meta-rules about God being really important, graven image of God is not God, other Gods are not God, etc, you may not have the space left for stuff like "please don't fuck little boys in the ass."
Fear not, though. The Catholic Church is reevaluating this one, and should have some good guidelines within a few years. The progressive Jewish community is ahead of the curve on this, too.
I mention it in the past tense. Until about 3 years ago when Harper rammed through the law changing it to 16 it was 14.
If its sticking out of your back my love, you need to see a doctor about having it moved, playing with yourself must be a terrible chore.
I was bullied badly enough myself, though not nearly as badly as you were. But I'm telling you, I am friends with a few women that were raped and had also been bullied and beaten at other times in their lives, and they swear up, down, and sideways that the two types of events are not comparable.
A sufficiently bad experience will cause some people to develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). It doesn't affect everyone - some veterans can come home from seeing carnage and losing friends in war and live relatively normal lives, and other veterans flat out cannot. Telling PTSD sufferers some form of "you went though something terrible but you honestly can tough it out, get over it", even if you phrase it diplomatically, does not work. The US military clearly doesn't have a handle on this - if they did, the suicide rate among veterans would be much lower. Many people who experience these kinds of events, whether it's getting raped or watching people die horribly - survive and recover rather quickly. But many do not, and no form of "stop whining" will fix it.
And I have to agree with Dishevel, auto-rape is just too funny a concept to not laugh at.
Just cries out for an auto analogy, doesn't it?
Because I had assumed that with a 2 day window of fertility in a 30 day cycle, the rate of pregnancy in rape was about 1/15. It turns out that the studies to which you linked present it as a 1/1000 chance.
As someone who has a daughter, this is somewhat reassuring, because I don't wish a pregnancy from rape on anyone. But I wish for infanticide even less.
If a woman can kill an unborn child because the child reminds her of a bad experience, why can't a man beat his wife after a bad day at the office?
Because both the unborn infant and the man's wife are human beings. Men figured this out a long time ago, but it seems that (American) women are still in the chauvinist stage of cultural development where they feel it's somehow acceptable to kill their innocent child, but let the man who raped them get away with it by not reporting the rape to authorities.
The problem isn't so much that women get pregnant from rape, but that rape occurs in the first place and women treat it not as the heinous crime it is, but as a merely unpleasant experience that can be brushed under the rug and forgotten as long as there's an abortion clinic nearby.
No man would put up with being victimized like that, and no women should either.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Apologies. Missed the tense from "made". I still think the current exemptions in Canada are better than anything the US has.
"Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
Have you not watched "To Catch a Predator - Dateline" on ABC. There are pedophiles by the frigging boatload looking for pretty young things both male and female, haunting internet chat rooms and willing to travel hundreds of miles to go after someone knowingly below the age of consent. Sorry, I can totally get the poor schlub, who get's snookered by a girl who look older than her actual age, and for that we show some compassion, though unless she has fake ID, he still needs to just be careful. The creepy scumbags hunting to make it with kids just need to be put someplace in Gen-Pop for about 50 years, with pedophile tattooed on their foreheads. Actually you can make the sentences shorter, they won't last a month in Gen-Pop anyway.
Religion truly is the root of all evil.
Look at it from the evolutionary point of view..
I theorize that evolution would prefer the rapist's dna.
Therefore, wouldn't it be plausible that a woman's body ( we're all animals after all ) would be more accepting of this type of impregnation?
AUTORAPE... Hey, You, what are you doing to my car? Oh, my Gawd!!! Call the Police! RAPE A CAR GO TO JAIL
What-a-ya in for bub?
Autorape... she was a sexy little sports coupe, I just couldn't help myself.
Yeah, I saw the header burns on your thigh in the shower.
Yeah, I started humping motorcycles, before I knew I was doing neighbor's Mini Cooper, I guess I just lost control of myself...
Sure, but did you ever take part in an activity that permitted the Society of Music Lovers to hook you up to the violinist? Even if both partners take the proper contraceptive precautions, there's always a chance there will be conception. It's a risk one takes. That's not the point of the argument tries to prove, but it's relevant nonetheless.
I think I laughed even harder at the fact that you had to explain it three times than I did at the original joke.
I would feel a lot more sorry for men in general if;
A) They didn't wield the vast majority of the social power
B) Weren't physically stronger and more sexually aggressive then most women
C) Weren't frequently in positions of power and authority
D) Didn't use force, harassment, illicit drugs, alcohol or weapons to perpetrate attacks on women
Perhaps there should be "Grades of Rape" where all rape is sticking you genitals where they don't belong, but you start at "Grade 0" consentual sex between minors, and the punishment is 50 hours of public service, for BOTH participants, to "Grade 7" Slipping a stranger a Ruffy in a bar, 6 years of hard labor, to "Grade 10" Full on physical attack, serial rape, rape with violence, weapons, torture and/or age enhancements, feed the bugger into a wood chipper up to the waist. Rape this why don'tcha! We can call it getting a "Fargo".
No.
Which men?
Men who have sex with men are bisexual or homosexual, not straight.
testing out my trending skills
Like I said, I remember a discussion of a male infertility treatment that was being implemented in India.
A large number of males reacted with terror at somebody doing something to their testicles, they frenetically said they'd never do it. Never mind that it'd be inserted elsewhere in their groin or that they'd be sedated. They were adamantly opposed to the idea.
You can dismiss the stupidity of men, and say that women should be the responsible ones, but I'm sorry, I've seen men's reactions to the thought of an option for themselves. I've heard enough men doing their best to get a woman to let them not use a condom.
And I didn't even mention the woman I know whose husband let her go through expensive and stressful fertility treatments while he had had a vasectomy the whole time.
Sorry, but you're way too cavalier about the responsibility of men when it comes to having sex.
I was referring more toward the phenomenon where the mother uses the support money in less than frugal manners.
Yes, and I addressed that:
With regard to your other legitimate-but-unrelated complaint about how support is being utilized, that has nothing to do with whether support is required or whether it's punitive. That said, it's the right of every custodial parent to get an accounting of what the support is spent on, and you can go to the court with that accounting and use it to modify the amount of support or to gain custody. For example, if you pay support each month and the custodial parent uses it to buy alcohol, or shoes, or golf clubs, or whatnot, and is not taking care of the kid, then that's just about the strongest argument you can make for obtaining custody, short of the other parent being in jail.
Please at least pretend to read my well thought-out responses.
It is a shame for any legislator to differentiate between 'legitimate' and not 'legitimate' rape. The fact is, rape is rape. The signal that is sent is that there is rape that is good and not bad at all. And that some women just lying about it. That scores some point with a certain electorate but it ignores the fact that women and also other groups are victims of rape. Who elects these representatives in this country.
There's a lot of cases that never come to trial in the US despite compelling forensic evidence so I'd say you'd lose that wager. If the victim does not want to testify the case normally does not go to trial. I suggest that if you are interested in this subject that you find out something about it instead of just letting us know what your uninformed gut feeling is.
Yeah. That asshole was pro slavery, too.
But surely two Republicans wouldn't want the Government in our lives. You mean to tell me that both parties want to define and regulate our lives and they just differ on what they want the Government to do. Go figure.
If the men are not using protection, they deserve what they get, just like the women.
In deference to getting a vasectomy, there *can* be lasting side effects, even though it is a simple and often reversible proceedure.
(Autoimmune reactions and permanent sterility being noteworthy.)
The aversion to surgically induced impotence is mostly cultural. If they can't get over their egos enough to do their part in the use of contraception, they deserve the trouble it causes. I won't defend it.
However, given the current lack of male options, placing the majority of the responsibility to use contraception on the woman is only sensible. A man can't force a woman to get an IUD, for instance. That is her responsibility.
I realize that it's much lower than what the OP was claiming, but a statistic that "only" one in nine rape accusations are shams is still shockingly high.
Happy people make bad consumers.
Yes. And read mine.
I did not say that the woman was getting manicures. I said that the woman was abusing the money, but doing everything possible to be aboveboard.
Eg, buying adidas, instead of ozark trail, or some similarly generic store brand. Or, buying tommy hilfiger jeans instead of rustler, and putting those purchases down as "shoes and jeans."
Addidas cost over 70$. Ozark trail rarely costs over 40. Tommy hilfiger jeans can easily cost over 100$. Each. Rustler rarely costs more than 30$.
I was addressing the situation presented whe the man has custody, and buys the more fiscally responsible option, vs the situation where the woman uses the money unwisely on purpose, distorts her purchases on the accounting, and does this to "stick it" to the man.
Other things I have heard of, include the woman claiming self employment and paying herself less than minimum wage on her tax reports, to get a larger share of child support money, and other crookd dealings.
Do men do this as well, of course. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. However, the institutional convention of "woman wins by default" leads to a considerable amount of disharmony, and stress that could be mitigated with more sensible awards of custody.
I said science. That's inclusive of biology. I wasn't providing an exhaustive list of all the valid reasons why this could be posted here legitimately. I merely provided a few examples. If I happened to leave out your field of interest in something that is nerd-related, I do apologize.
I have no opinion on the subject, other than that people such as yourself who make a point of injecting politics into topics where they have no business deserve to be modded Off-Topic.
The Christian God apparently chose " Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." as a more important rule to lay down than "Thou shalt not rape."
One of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shall not covet".
Isn't rape, a terrible physical act, a 'symptom' of covetousness the attacker has toward the victim?
I won't say there aren't petty, self obsessed, idiotic men and women out there, the fact is our society seems to breed people who's compassion would barely fill a gnats navel. That said, I would dare wager that there are far more college Jocks running around today pursuing sports careers having committed nothing less than serial date rape, than there are husbands rotting in prison as victims of a pissy wife. I think the law in WA, is probably speaking about fear as threat of physical violence, and one needs do more than simply say he scared me. That said, I've seen police err on the side of women, in domestic disputes and sometimes the woman is both the instigator and the violent party (a number of men are trained from an early age to never engage in physical violence with a woman, and some women are not above using this in there favor.)
All this points to a swinging pendulum, and a serious of situations that vary from place to place. Here in the silicon valley, we had a judge who was committed that Fathers be with their children. He was so committed to the making certain that Fathers got their visitation rights that he was forcing children to spend time with Fathers who were abusive, inattentive and whose children begged not to be left alone with them. This didn't stop him from forcing these Fathers to take their unwanted children to the detriment of the children, the Mothers, and even the Fathers who really just wanted to be left alone. The Laws and the People who wield them can sometime be capricious and foolish. That doesn't alter the fact that over all, men have a leg up in this society, and that women have not caught up to men in wages, security, advancement or recognition. However, I also acknowledge things are moving in a good direction and if along the way, men are short shrift, I hope society has the wisdom to protect their rights and dignity with equal vigor.
I did not say that the woman was getting manicures. I said that the woman was abusing the money, but doing everything possible to be aboveboard.
Eg, buying adidas, instead of ozark trail, or some similarly generic store brand. Or, buying tommy hilfiger jeans instead of rustler, and putting those purchases down as "shoes and jeans."
Addidas cost over 70$. Ozark trail rarely costs over 40. Tommy hilfiger jeans can easily cost over 100$. Each. Rustler rarely costs more than 30$.
I was addressing the situation presented whe the man has custody, and buys the more fiscally responsible option, vs the situation where the woman uses the money unwisely on purpose, distorts her purchases on the accounting, and does this to "stick it" to the man.
Ah, gotcha. If you're complaining that your child is wearing designer clothes rather than store brand, then you may have a legitimate complaint, or you may be full of shiat. The court is going to consider whether, if you were still together and/or had custody of the kid, whether the kid would be in the designer clothes or store-bought ones. If the latter, then it's you being unreasonable, not the custodial parent. You don't get to force your kid into a poverty-level existence merely by not being the custodian. The kid is still entitled to the same level of care and support they would get if you were together.
That said, if it's true that you would have been buying the kid store-brand stuff - i.e. if you make $30k per year, or if you're the custodial parent of another kid who is only wearing store-brand stuff - then you can certainly go back to the court with the receipts to argue that spending $20k per year on the kid is unreasonable. Failure to do so doesn't mean the courts are biased against you, though.
But if you're just trying to make the argument that even though you earn $100k per year, you would only spend $10k on your kid, a court isn't going to look kindly on that.
However, the institutional convention of "woman wins by default" leads to a considerable amount of disharmony, and stress that could be mitigated with more sensible awards of custody.
Again, if you're serious about this, then work more with NOW and other feminist organizations. Courts award custody the way they do because of such societal presumptions, because of unequal pay, and because of (frequently unpaid) maternity leave and the lack of paternity leave. Fix those problems such that both parents are economically equal, and the custody decisions will follow. The law is already neutral, so you just need to change the factual factors underlying the judicial decisions.
Here I was just trying to be funny playing off the "ten foot pole" comment of twocows and you go all serious on me. For the record both rape and false accusations of rape are serious crimes, is suspect the former is more serious for women and the later is more serious for men.
Really Slashdot, there was really no need to try to work 'mathematics' into the title. Just say "Why doesn't everyone have a debate on abortion?"
On topic, I imagine the belief that "you can't get pregnant if you're raped" is even less common than "you can't get pregnant if you're on top".
To be as fair to Akin as possible he seems to be saying;
"The abortion-for-rape argument is a red herring as it's very difficult to become pregnant from rape. Therefore most women claiming rape to obtain an abortion are fraudulent. In cases of actual rape, overall I still believe the life of the baby takes precedence.
Sure, his premise is clearly wrong, but man the people mindlessly reacting over this really piss me off.
I don't see how you can become a US Senator if you are good with math. How else do you explain the fact that they won't pass a budget and still believe that magically we'll start paying down the debt before we consume all the world's capital. Akin might fit in with that crowd of free thinkers.
Furthermore, he's implying that he's been informed by doctors that, "there are ways the female body has of shutting this thing down." First of all, he doesn't understand basic biology.
One possibility is that Akin obtained his info from a 1999 article in an anti-abortion group newsletter, in which a physician (and anti-abortion activist) Dr. Jack Willke claimed that the pregnancy rate from "assault rape" was as few as 1:1000 (this figure is grossly lower than other estimates published by more rigorous studies, ones that used things like actual supporting data).
Another possibility is that Akin is mis-interpreting a well-known piece of research, which claims that orgasm increases the probability of conception (due to contractions helping to propel sperm upward); this arguement only makes sense if Akins is working with the mistaken belief that a rape victim couldn't possibly orgasm from the experience (unless she secretly enjoyed it). However, while the effect on sperm motility may very well exist, it is apparently not that large (otherwise, women with Primary Anorgasmia would have serious problems conceiving, but their conception rates are pretty much normal).
Yes. Really.
Actually, it does since it is factual and true. Perhaps you should try meeting some women.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
It'd be nice if we could get people to only have sex in committed, monogamous relationships, where both partners were sure they were safe, mentally prepared, and willing and able to face the repercussions that can come from even safe-sex.
Though, as you point out, that's a dream. Teens are horny. They have sex. Telling them not to have sex has worked exactly never in history. So the age-limits and teaching teens about safe-sex is about the best we can do.
When used correctly, it would appear that trauma-induced miscarriage (95%) is just as reliable than the pull out method (96%) but far more reliable than the rhythm method (87%) at preventing pregnancy.
That makes one of us!
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
than one innocent be wrongly punished.
That is the true progressive position.
Therefore, we must in all cases disbelieve the accusation without additional strong and compelling evidence.
5% of rapes result in pregnancy.
It does not state what percentage of pregnancies are due to rape.
If there were 100 rapes per year in the USA and 5 of them resulted in the woman becoming pregnant then the numbers would be true.
http://www.mediaradar.org/research_on_false_rape_allegations.php
False allegations of rape are believed to be more common than many persons realize. These are the findings of four research studies:
A review of 556 rape accusations filed against Air Force personnel found that 27% of women later recanted. Then 25 criteria were developed based on the profile of those women, and then submitted to three independent reviewers to review the remaining cases. If all three reviewers deemed the allegation was false, it was categorized as false. As a result, 60% of all allegations were found to be false.1 Of those women who later recanted, many didn't admit the allegation was false until just before taking a polygraph test. Others admitted it was false only after having failed a polygraph test.2 ... the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing.6 It should be noted that rape involves a forcible and non-consensual act, and a DNA match alone does not prove that rape occurred. So the 25% figure substantially underestimates the true extent of false allegations.
In a nine-year study of 109 rapes reported to the police in a Midwestern city, Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin reported that in 41% of the cases the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred.3
In a follow-up study of rape claims filed over a three-year period at two large Midwestern universities, Kanin found that of 64 rape cases, 50% turned out to be false.4 Among the false charges, 53% of the women admitted they filed the false claim as an alibi.5
According to a 1996 Department of Justice report, âoein about 25% of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI,
And according to former Colorado prosecutor Craig Silverman, âoeFor 16 years, I was a kick-ass prosecutor who made most of my reputation vigorously prosecuting rapists. ... I was amazed to see all the false rape allegations that were made to the Denver Police Department. ... A command officer in the Denver Police sex assaults unit recently told me he placed the false rape numbers at approximately 45%.â7
According to the FBI, about 95,000 forcible rapes were reported in 2004.8 Based on the statements and studies cited above, some 47,000 American men are falsely accused of rape each year. These men are disproportionately African-American.9
Some of these men are wrongly convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned. Even if there is no conviction, a false allegation of rape can âoeemotionally, socially, and economically destroy a person.â10
----
Dash Cams, Polygraph Machines, and other Recording devices. Because humans lie.
Eyewitnesses misremember.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
This is a repeat but it's a cite and you asked for it.
Especially note where the women formally recanted.
http://www.mediaradar.org/research_on_false_rape_allegations.php
False allegations of rape are believed to be more common than many persons realize. These are the findings of four research studies:
A review of 556 rape accusations filed against Air Force personnel found that 27% of women later recanted. Then 25 criteria were developed based on the profile of those women, and then submitted to three independent reviewers to review the remaining cases. If all three reviewers deemed the allegation was false, it was categorized as false. As a result, 60% of all allegations were found to be false.1 Of those women who later recanted, many didn't admit the allegation was false until just before taking a polygraph test. Others admitted it was false only after having failed a polygraph test.2 ... the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing.6 It should be noted that rape involves a forcible and non-consensual act, and a DNA match alone does not prove that rape occurred. So the 25% figure substantially underestimates the true extent of false allegations.
In a nine-year study of 109 rapes reported to the police in a Midwestern city, Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin reported that in 41% of the cases the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred.3
In a follow-up study of rape claims filed over a three-year period at two large Midwestern universities, Kanin found that of 64 rape cases, 50% turned out to be false.4 Among the false charges, 53% of the women admitted they filed the false claim as an alibi.5
According to a 1996 Department of Justice report, âoein about 25% of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI,
And according to former Colorado prosecutor Craig Silverman, âoeFor 16 years, I was a kick-ass prosecutor who made most of my reputation vigorously prosecuting rapists. ... I was amazed to see all the false rape allegations that were made to the Denver Police Department. ... A command officer in the Denver Police sex assaults unit recently told me he placed the false rape numbers at approximately 45%.â7
According to the FBI, about 95,000 forcible rapes were reported in 2004.8 Based on the statements and studies cited above, some 47,000 American men are falsely accused of rape each year. These men are disproportionately African-American.9
Some of these men are wrongly convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned. Even if there is no conviction, a false allegation of rape can âoeemotionally, socially, and economically destroy a person.â10
---
Is rape so common that it's 1/3? Before that 1/4 (the figure that was thrown around when I was growing up) seemed pretty high. No idea-- seems high to me unless you have a very expansive definition of rape- i.e. including where they get drunk or high and then decide afterwards they hadn't really given consent.
I know my female relatives pretty well and the number is more like 1 in 15 and they were all pretty wild and took risks. The one who was raped was doing nothing risky when it happened- she was just alone in an office and it was violent and ugly.
There was a period where there was a very high presumption that if the female made the accusation, then the male did it. I was a bit jaded and disillusioned when I started seeing the false report and recant rates listed up above.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I wonder how many rape victims only report the crime after discovering they were impregnated? Its awfully sad that a crime such as rape often goes unreported and inflammatory comments such as those of Senator Akin only serve to increase the social stigma associated with it.
I'd say about 1 in 5. But the statistics vary *wildly* by geography. The -majority- of south-african women I know have experienced rape, or atleast sexual abuse, while perhaps only 1 in 10 among Scandinavians, Americans are somewhere in between, I'd say.
Here's a hint: if 1:3 sounds *wildly* out of proportion to you, perhaps you don't know many women, or don't know them all that well. Or your social group and local environment is among the safer ones.
While acknowledging that the plural of anecdote isn't data - I know plenty of women who suffered some form of sexual assault during their lives.
My personal experience was that I was sexually assaulted on 3 independent occasions by three totally different men (one of whom was a family member, one was a family friend and church elder) before the age of 16.
If you want to talk about forcible sex within a relationship, I've experienced that too.
Just because many women don't talk about it doesn't mean they haven't experienced it in some manner.
Where can one get help if _that_ happens?
Please advise !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
...how many funerals and/or wakes their church has had for first trimester miscarriages. Then see if they don't say "well that's different!" before it dawns on them....
On Men:
You would not believe the sheer number of assh.ts ... and yes, we are talking about guys ... who make up countless BS reasons why they should not have to 1. wear a condom, or 2. get a vasectomy, or 3. pull out, and it is up to the women to "play defense". It is precisely this level of "I got mine, who cares about you" that cause men to behave in the way they do. Akin's and Friess's attitude is not that out of the ordinary; it is what men tend to think given that we are not really held to any higher standard than that ... by our parents ... by our friends ... by society ...
It begins with "boys will be boys" and "that's my boy! Go git 'em" ...
- - - - -
On Women:
If you women are so attracted to these "real men", you get what you get ... and sometimes ... it is a life time of misery raising a child you thought might be just the thing that keeps him with you. I don't know what made you think that THAT CHOICE was in any way logical, but there are plenty of stupid decisions women make leading up to their agreeing to engage in activities that might end up getting themselves pregnant.
It begins with you allowing the assh.t to be successful in getting his rocks off at your expense. If you think that that is the smart decision, you need to extrapolate that line to see what kind of behavior you are encouraging.
- - - - -
And what does this have to do with abortion and Akin?
Everything.
It all begins with attitude and perception of the sexes (of each other). If a guy treats a girl as this conquest to tally up and compare against another guy's conquests, it is not surprising that in the more extreme cases, the guy will simply get what he wants, whether the girl agrees or not.
Akin is a moron, but he is not much more of a moron than many other men.
a non-consentual pregnancy and subsequent child support mandate can ruin a man's life, [...] Why is it then, that men in this circumstance are more frequently saddled with being the SOURCE of the rape, and denied protections as a victim of rape, while women are more frequently granted the protections of being the victims of rape, while men are saddled with the blame for such rape?
Because you are mixing up two different things here.
One is the event of a rape, and the other is the unwanted consequences of having had sex (consensual or not).
For the second, I completely agree that man need better protection than the law efforts, especially given that as a man you have no option of birth control that you can apply pro-actively. There's condoms and if you are too drunk or forced (it happens), you're fucked. A woman can take the pill and know she's good for the night, even if she gets totally wasted.
However, for the first I am with the feminists, even as a man. Yes, men do get raped, and not purely homosexually. However, the incident rate is much, much lower than for women. In addition, my discussions with women tell me that it's a different thing. As a woman, you get penetrated. Someone enters your body against your will. Read something about the psychology of "border violations" and you'll realize that can be a lot more traumatic than being in the other position, even involuntarily.
So seperate out these two different things, and it all becomes clearer.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
There are plenty of logic flaws on both sides.
The pro-life side is so riddled with logic flaws, it is like shooting fish in a barrel, so I will let the others point them out.
The pro-choice side, on the other hand, should also be held to a higher standard of logic than they are accustomed to.
Here is one that I have yet to hear from any pro-choice person:
We are getting pretty close ... and when I say "pretty close", I mean pretty close for legal time frames, which tends to be a minimum of decades because laws take that long to evolve and refine ... we are getting pretty close to when we can raise that embryo in a separate test tube. And, yes, this puts a whole different meaning into "test tube baby".
The entire argument from the pro-choice side has been that the woman should not have to be forced to use her body to raise that embryo into a full grown fetus awaiting birth*. Now if any pregnant woman can choose to remove the embryo, but instead of killing the embryo as a side effect of the removal, place it into an artificial womb that will allow it to grow to full term, things get really really messy, legally speaking.
What legal status does this thing now have?
Now you pro-lifer's shouldn't rejoice so quickly because this brings up all sorts of questions that YOUR SIDE has been conveniently ignoring, too. Who is responsible for this thing? Whose money should pay for this child? Whose time should be required to support and raise this child?
I would say that both sides have been lucky that the problem has been fairly simple, comparatively speaking. Once this technology catches up, Roe v Wade does not even BEGIN to address the problems at hand.
(Disclaimer: I'm absolutely 100% pro-choice because I don't see another avenue that is reasonable, and I have several friends whose lives would guaranteed to have been ruined if they had kept their pregnancies. None of them had any business having a child at the time of their pregnancies for a whole host of reasons.)
- - - - - ... sometimes a VERY long process), 2) it can be early or late for all sorts of reasons (including being induced). So there is absolutely nothing magical that makes a fetus worthy of more or less protection just before or just after birth.
*And let's face it, "birth", as a time point, is no longer relevant for legal reasons because 1) a baby does not instantly pop out (it is a long
Hey big body builder, that pimply weak ass nerd over there raped me last week. Please pound him for me, then we can get it on after! (of course, a woman would not be more subtle ....). Anything is a weapon you moron. Or did steroids make yah stupid.
Implications...IMPLICATIONS? It's not implied that Thou Shalt Not Steal...It's COMMANDED.
Why couldn't the God of the Bible COMMAND men to NOT RAPE.Implications...
I wouldn't put too much importance into the actual wording, because the wording of the King James Bible is just that - it's the wording the translators working under the request of King James used. In the original hebrew bible, it's not commanded. Instead of the equivalent of "shall", the word hebrew word for "will" is used.
You will not steal.
So in the original bible, the ten commandments are not considered commandments, but descriptions of the behaviour of a true believer. A true believer will not steal. No, never. It won't even get to his mind that stealing is worthwile. He just won't lure for his neighbor's wife. No mention of women outside of the neighborhood. Or women who "don't belong to someone" (except to herself). The only protection against rape a biblical woman has is being owned by a man and then only against the neighoring true believers. Serfmaids? No protection. The own brother, father, husband? No protection. Living in a shabby neighborhood? No protection. Living for yourself? No protection either.
Didn't we just get some fairly prominent examples in the news recently of girls being abducted and repeatedly raped by their crazy abductors. Aren't there also (in the news) some nut job fathers who kept their daughters locked up in the basement as sex slave and these girls ended up giving birth?
Did Akin forget to read the news? Even Fox News must have covered these cases.
Pregnancy resulting from rape is very common. By the end of the WW2, the soviets suffered so much losses in foot soldiers their regiments were not stuffed by ethnic russians any more, but by guys conscripted from the USSR's central asian republics. Essentially the same posse who invaded Europe with Dzinghis Khan some 700 years before and they were not any different in 1944-45. They raped every female, 9-99 yrs old as they marched towards west, crushing the third reich. Most catholic nun's convents were closed since no virgins remained to serve.
Abortion had never been legal in Hungary before 1945, but that year the local communist party and they local branch of the catholic church jointly filed a new law proposal to allow professional abortions in hospitals, because there were so many pregnancies resulting from rape. The worst thing: most of the soviet army manpower were infected with syphillis and the foetuses carried the disease, so the babies would have been born with mental handicap. Many hundreds of thousands of abortions were performed eventually, in a very short time-frame of just a few months, in still semi-demolished hospitals and so many women became infertile as a result, which caused a hungarian demographic deficit problem to surface in the early 1950s.
Otherwise, the pain and shock of rape probably makes pregnancy more likely. In cats, the penis of the tomcat has tiny hooks on the skin, much like velcro. When the tomcat is done spending and wants to retract, the hooks grab onto the vagina of the kitty and cause tremendous pain, which signal then starts the hormonal changes required for instant ovulation. That is why tomcats never fail to impregnate kitties. In old centuries people used to think tomcat seed must be boiling hot, since the kitty is visible in pain after sex has reached climax.
The long term detrimental biological effects of child birth
Could you name some? The only thing I can think of is the kid that keeps eating your food. And don't quote statistically insignificant complications that only affect one in 10,000 mothers.
Actually I believe they set their sex on fire, then engulf you.
This is something that a lot of pro-choicers have to tell themselves so they feel better about themselves. By any reasonable definition a fetus is a human being, all of the arguments to the contrary to hold water, IMHO. "It's just a collection of cells!", yeah, well, so are you. "It doesn't even have a brain yet!", well, neither does someone in a persistent vegetative state, but it's still considered murder to put a bullet in their head.
I could never understand how someone can consider a zygote a "baby" and call it murder to take a pill to prevent it from turning into a baby or feel moral outrage about removing the feeding tube of a brain-dead women and then turn around and eat meat. "Oh look at me, I'm so pro-life that I think a ball of goo with some myocardial cells in the middle is a precious life. Now pass me that pork-stuffed chicken wrapped in a steak." Because clearly animals locked into high-density feed lots and pumped full of hormones and antibiotics before being killed in the prime of their lives, or chicks being ground into a chunky paste moments after being hatched for the crime of having a Y chromosome don't have real feelings, like clumps of human cells that haven't even developed a central nervous system. Though, I suppose we can't ask for intellectual honesty from people who characterize abortions after rape as "punishing the child for the rape."
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
Note that that number doesn't mean "malicious charges". It just means "not rape". There's a difference between the two.
Freeze Ray. Tell your friends.
I don't know what you're talking about, but I'd wager a guess there are more men in prison for rapes they did not commit than there are actual rapes which are "under-prosecuted".
Look up the statistics for yourself, as I did recently. Study after study shows that from 10-50%, which a shocking number at the higher end, of rape claims are intentionally fraudulent. That's not even counting "Assange rape" type accusations, but where the "victim" knowingly lied to fuck someone over. I've known people who have been accused of rape where I know they did nothing due to available timeframe and their claims - and they were later exonerated - while out on dates because the woman felt 'uncomfortable' or 'led' by the male. It happens all the fucking time; whether it's a symptom of a high rape rate and the women being predisposed to feeling sexually threatened by anyone male or they're socially conditioned to think all advances from men are rape, I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if both are a factor.
Do you really think that male contempt for women is so high in the West that they'd dismiss rape claims out of hand? I'm sorry, but in almost every scenario I'm aware of, the instant male response to rape of an acquaintance is "let's get the torches and pitchforks". I am fairly certain predispositional response is fairly socially broad within the US, and it's universal amongst the police officers I know.
The big issue with rape reporting is that not enough is done. Victims don't report the legitimate rapes; that's how it works, psychologically, as I understand it. Fix that problem and the dismissal of rape reports 'out of hand' is likely to diminish due to the fact that the proportion of reported rapes isn't so heavily skewed in favor of false reports.
It's not like there is a huge number of innocent men serving 40 year sentences for beating the shit out of a women and raping her. The line between consensual and non-consensual sex is fuzzy at best and men bear some responsibility for putting themselves in situations where they tread dangerously close to that line.
I too had a friend accused of rape. Her dad found out that his prefect little angel banged five guys at once (well, in a short period of time), so she claimed rape--months after the fact--to exonerate herself. Her dad also happened to be the sheriff of our small town and my friend was screwed over by the good-ol-boy legal system and the local media. Maybe she was drunk, maybe they talked her in to it, or maybe she just wanted to bang five dudes at once. But at the end of the day, he and four guys invited a women they barely knew over to one of their houses, drank plenty of hard alcohol, and had some spur of the moment fun. A responsible person would have weighed the potential downside and waited until they were all sober to discuss and plan the whole thing before hand, which is the right thing to do when exploring kinks with strangers.
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
I guess you don't know enough women well enough for them to trust you with that information.
I can well believe 1 in 3.
There was no oversimplification or false dichotomy, either he understood the language or he sponsored a bill he did not understand.
Before birth: Yes, mom is free to choose whether to have an abortion, on the principle that dad shouldn't be able to force her to go through pregnancy or have a medical procedure.
After birth: Whoever has custody of the child is the one who makes that call. Typically, she does, so she gets to make that choice, but if he wants to raise the child and she doesn't, it is legal for the father to ask for custody.
I am officially gone from
I was sexually abused as a 11 year old, (I am male)
she got pregnant and had a abortion, she was 14 years old and she accused me of rape
she had accused several boys of rape of many years
to the point she was simply declared insane.
I know its easy to make this a humorous subject, and that's sad, because its deadly serious. A lot of rapist kill their victims hoping to avoid prosecution. A man was just recently found on a 1987 rape, murder in northern California because of the state's expanding DNA library. We need to be teaching our young men that this is a zero tolerance behavior, and that anyone who thinks that women are meat to be used, is an idiot and a dangerous sociopath.
The way to solve that problem is for guys to step up to the plate and be real men and fathers to their sons. Sadly, there are a bunch of guys (aka "not men") who are mere sperm donors (to put it very charitably) with one night stands and basically not caring about what they do with their reproductive abilities.
There are also a whole bunch of stupid women who sleep around with a bunch of guys that don't even deserve the time of day, but that doesn't excuse the guys who are also being pricks in this case. If a guy performs an act that creates a child, he damn should take care of that child which is produced.
There is even less of an excuse if you have made some sort of even remote "marriage" commitment (speaking very loosely by even including "common law" marriages or even simply becoming married by registering in a hotel together), where by making children you also commit to raising that child until they become an adult. That includes simply being a father and taking responsibility for those children.
If you have a son, sit down and explain the facts of life to your son about sex and that women are people and not something to be used. Then again I do think that a great part of the problem is that a bunch of these guys simply don't have a father who is willing to even talk to them at all, or even a significant male role model of any kind to do the same thing. Football coaches used to do this until too many lawsuits made it impossible to talk to kids frankly in that manner.
It's funny that you quote that; so apparently all you have to do to divorce somebody is write them a certificate because you think they're indecent and kick them out of the door? That seems like it lines up perfectly with the "use it and throw it away" mentality that you say is a recent thing.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
You need to think things through a little more carefully. A false accusation of rape does not require that actual sex have occurred.
I know of a case where a young man was accused of rape by a underage girl and her mother, as it turned out this girl had had shockingly bad luck, of the last dozen houses they pair had rented, all of them had been next door to rapists, however, the mother and her daughter always graciously dropped the charges once a rather larger cash transfer was made to their bank accounts.
Granted, this is hardly typical of rape allegations, but it's important to remember that a rape charge can be prosecuted even if there is no actual evidence to indicate that sex ever took place. Both rape and false rape allegations are serious crimes that can ruin the lives of entirely innocent people.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I'm not sure why this is still a debate at all. Nothing is alive until it's born and breathing. In Canada you can have an abortion up until something like 20 weeks. After that the health risks are too high for the mother. Simple. Done. If you want to start getting all philisophical over the semantics you might as well call jerking off into a kleenex 1 million first degree murders, or charge a woman with murder every month she ovulates without conception.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
For large things that family can't do, like infrastructure, defense...that's what the govt and tax dollars are for...in fact, that's actually something laid out in the US Constitution as the power and responsibility of the US Federal govt...go figure...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
And what about spending years telling people, before entering a traumatic situation, that those situations are nightmarish and life-destroying and horrible and cause endless trauma, to the point that the mind rationalizes it away as something that just happens to other people and not them; then one day dumping that situation on them? How does that affect the development of PTSD, once you've drilled in an underlying, subconscious fear and a horrible expectation through years of conditioning, while leaving the expectation that such situations simply don't happen to normal people and probably won't happen to them?
Most of the girls I've known have been raped at one point or another. There was the cute 18 year old that got raped--twice--by a security guard at work (and her manager tried to save face by just suspending him for 2 weeks with pay and telling her it'd been dealt with and to quiet down); the first girl I got head from told me a story about her boyfriend she had when she was 15, she broke up with him and he decided a baby would fix all their problems ... rape and a miscarriage a few months in; another girl I met that was real nice, had her own martial arts dojo (I forget which art) and like 7dan black belt she got in 4 years after some guy raped her... the list goes on. All these people stuck it out and all of them got stronger for it; they all said it was bad and they cried at the time and it was scary and terrible but they lived. One of them became a counselor so she can tell other people that their life problems aren't terrible and life is better now than it was then.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
No, but it does make you completely ignorant of what a 'double standard' implies. The fact that women and men are viewed differently has no bearing on how you're viewed; that's more a function of a stereotype--and an accurate one from general behavioral patterns. Your being anomalous by definition means that a significant majority of people fall within a certain level of intensity of the assumed behavior (sure, some men cheat constantly and don't care about anything but getting laid; others are all over getting some sex but treat women like people and are generally nice, if still sexual), and you fall outside of that distribution. You're actually outside the 4th standard deviation if you're completely asexual, which is pretty fucking rare--a handful of people on the planet at any given time.
That makes most typical assumptions quite justified, unlike Virgin and British Airways assuming every man is probably a vicious pedophile whereas that's actually a minority population.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Shrug. You're obviously biased. This whole sanctity of life thing is silly. Who believes in that crap? -People- -who- -are- -alive-. Only living beings actually give a shit! Anyone who isn't alive doesn't really care. It's completely self-serving and totally biased.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
By any reasonable definition a fetus is a human being,
How dismissive! The foetus is of course human, but so is my semen or your toenail. What makes something a "being"?
The argument is that a being is independently viable. You may disagree, but you cannot intelligently call it unreasonable.
What about the seventh and the tenth commandments? For refresher: 7th = "You must not commit adultery." 10th = "You must not desire your fellowman’s house. You must not desire your fellowman’s wife, nor his slave man nor his slave girl nor his bull nor his ass nor anything that belongs to your fellowman."
I think that should cover rape and even more points.
"The hallmark of humanity is the ability to move beyond sensory inputs" - Mary Helen Immordino-Yang
Oh, I agree completely, and this is not limited to rape. Child abuse, sexual assault, violent assault, theft, vandalism, and just about any other crime can be accused. I suppose one of the differences with rape and child abuse are the emotional charge being the crime, making even a wild allegation, with no evidence whatsoever, a very damaging event.
Rape and child abuse (for I see the two as similarly egregious acts) often go unreported due to the stigma of being a victim of these crimes, so it works both ways. These victims should not be viewed with skepticism out of the gate, any more than a suspect should be viewed guilty without evidence. Dispassionate investigation of a report is the only real way to treat these cases.
Maybe what needs to happen is making a rape investigation more circumspect on both sides.
All that said; just because some "victims" are practiced extortionists doesn't mean rape charges aren't a very serious situation that needs to be investigated sincerely. As someone else on the forum has already said, the reason this type of extortion works in the first place is that rape is so prevalent crime in our society. If you are accused of rape by someone you've never even met, you're the victim of a scam, and need to defend yourself accordingly. This situation is by far not the norm in rape cases, though.
A sack of cells is an embryo. It has no organs or determinable shape/organs and is not remotely human. It's as human as sperm is. that lasts until 2 months, then it becomes a fetus. I'd be pretty careful if i were you in saying that people who are pro choice are ok with late term abortions. After the first trimester it becomes kind of a shady grey area that frankly no one is fully qualified to determine whether it's ok or not except for the person who's property it is.
My own view is that a fetus is parasitic. If it's able to live on it's own without the host then it's "alive" and should be afforded protection. If not and the host wants it gone then that's up to them.
Properly conducted studies show that false rape reports make up between 10-90% of all reported rapes. Meta-analysis of these studies suggests a rate of 40% is supported by the available evidence. Rape is an all too common crime - but so is falsely reporting rape.
There's a fair amount of evidence around false accusations of rape; rates are estimated from 1.5% to 90%, with the academic consensus supposedly being at 2% to 8%; it's an odd consensus, since almost all researchers seems to come with a higher number, even the ones that only include rapes that have been thoroughly investigated and concluded that nothing happened.
Since you don't mention this at all, it seems that the absence of evidence is the absence of you looking for evidence at all, and this evidence being less pushed in your face than the evidence of rape happening. The unfortunate situation is that while most rapes are not reported to the police, many of the alleged rapes that are reported to the police never happened - in fact, from the way I superficially read the articles I've looked at, it may be that the situation many places is that while most rapes are not reported to the police, most rapes that are reported to the police never happened. This, of course, means that the police has to be diligent in investigating whether an allegation is true or not - and again, that makes it harder for real victims to report :-(
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
Bzzzt! Wrong.
No, it didn't happen, but there is a story/fable/legend where the correct answer is two.
If the next question was "Which of Luke Skywalker's hands did Darth Vader cut off" would he say "Neither, it never happened"?
Ah, I was just teasin.
Median is also 11%. In short, approximately only one in nine rape accusations is false.
And you do the same thing you accuse him of: grabbing a number and assuming it was true. You think the median of all those percentages is the One True Percentage? Meh.
Your eagerness to grab a "lower" number (based on absurd methods lol) indicates to me that you have a horse in this race.
Honestly, this is all a really nasty business. People should not be forcing others to do their will, in this case, sexual contact. People should not be lying about being forced either. Both things, rape and lying, occur. The question of percentages have no bearing on any particular instance. Only facts will do when deciding guilt or innocence.
Honestly, if people would just act like adults and respect each other, this would never be a problem. As if that would ever happen. I feel so alone. :/ (BTW, I unfriended you on Slashdot several years ago because of some strong biases I saw that did not appear rational to me. I do not hate you, I just do not want to associate with you; otherwise, I am totally neutral.)
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Okay, you are a fucking moron. Why does the subject of rape turn so many people into a drooling, angry, reactionary jackass?
Seriously guy (assumption), sex and money can both be used as weapons and I am not talking about papercuts from cash or eyes popped out by nipples. Your view is so narrow or boxed that you are not seeing reality. Good luck with the rest of your life.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
If you were just joking, then I probably misunderstood. I hope that I didn't come across as rude.
I'm glad that we don't have to choose between more rape or more false accusations. Unfortunately, feminists seem to use the false accusations as part of a strategy, from what I gather.
testing out my trending skills
In the Savings and Loan Scandle, rich people bilked ordinary people of billions...
Trillions actually. Three iirc.
Essentially I indirectly gave a bunch of my money to Neil Bush.
Odd. If you look at most of the information about that era now, Neil Bush's part in it has been almost completely erased. You are obviously speaking from memory. In all actuality, that theft paid for Bush II to reign over use for 8 years.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Good.
Now, does the Democratic Party fight bank fraud? No, of course not. Obama's AG even ended Mukasey's few fraud investigations. Obama had the whole country behind him, and supermajorities in Congress, and he didn't lift a finger to investigate fraud.
What do they do about welfare fraud? Well, Obama's Aunt Zeituni was on Section 8 as an illegal alien while she was writing her ironically titled memoir "Tears of Abuse".
How about those illegal aliens?
Obama's Uncle Omar is still in the country after getting his first deportation order in 1989 and having been arrested for drunk driving in 2011.
At a time when millions of Americans are out of work, Obama's "prosecutorial discretion" releases an illegal alien who assaulted an ICE agent without charges so he wouldn't be a "criminal alien" and ineligible for the executive order DREAM act.
Millions of illegal aliens are here, many of them on welfare.
Are the Republicans going to do anything about the illegal aliens? No, their business backers like having cheap, abuseable workers.
You realize that even if it were an average of 10% being false, that's an incredibly large number, right?
Assume for a second that even half of those result in a public trial. That's unlikely - these things always get public attention. Generalizing a bit here, but for one out of 10 women who are supposedly raped, there is one man (and possibly his family) who has his life completely destroyed by a false rape accusation. That almost seems to "balance" the cosmic scales a bit (if such a thing could be balanced).
The false accuser should be prosecuted for the life-rape s/he performed. But that doesn't happen, it's just written off.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
I do not believe those statistics mean what you believe they do.
I don't trust recantations in rape cases. There are strong social pressures to not have been raped, and this is likely particularly the case in the USAF, where a rape accusation, however accurate, might end the victim's career. Moreover, people's memories are unreliable, and victims of traumatic events might well start remembering a situation where they were in more control, so that they can tell themselves that they aren't arbitrarily vulnerable to rape. Remember that people often lie about things that concern them.
Polygraphs, in addition, make really poor lie detectors. Their only use is in suggesting to a questioner that something that came up is likely emotionally significant.
In the USAF study, I don't know what the reviewers were looking for. Were they supposed to judge whether a rape had likely occurred, or whether it was prosecutable? What were their criteria? How did Kanin find out which rape charges were false?
There's a continuum between fully consensual sex and non-consensual, and there's often no physical evidence to distinguish. Cases of a rapist threatening a woman's baby (I got that second-hand, and I trust the person who told me about it), or credibly threatening a victim's life, are likely to be physically indistinguishable from rough sex with no foreplay (and that can easily be consensual). Assuming some sort of Bayesian analysis, whether an observer thinks a rape happened is going to depend heavily on whether that observer thinks false claims are likely or not.
The FBI forensic report says nothing about the number of rape claims that are false; it says that victims are often wrong about whose semen got into them. It's not relevant to whether X was raped or not, it's relevant to whether Y did it or not.
I might be able to check up on some of your studies if you'd provided the footnotes you obviously were thinking of, but right now I'm completely unconvinced by your claims.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
A widely-held valid point, but a separate issue.
There is a great song that sums up this whole fracas.
"No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
Well, what is your solution, then? Are you really suggesting that a rape accusation shouldn't be taken at face value unless there is some sort of physical evidence (maybe bruises and semen) present at the time of reporting? Or would you claim that 10% of these reporters bruised themselves and borrowed some semen to get the job done?
The solution to the problem you pose is to impose SEVERE sanctions on those who engage in false accusations for profit or personal gain (right now the penalty similar to that of a DUI, at least in Utah; it could definitely be more severe). It is a poor and ineffective solution to discount reports of rape as false, or "has X% chance of being false". Even if false reports were 99.9% of the total, that 0.1% of suspects need to be brought to justice so it doesn't happen again.
If we were talking about murder, would you have the same stance? Sure, there are people who fake their own deaths, but those who were really murdered should get justice, and the outlying data points shouldn't disrupt that. As for the guys that have been falsely accused (actually, I was accused of statutory when I was 18 and my girlfriend was 17; not quite the same, but still) it sucks ass. I have a friend who had 3 years probation and a sex crime record for a statutory case that he was actually convicted of (he was 19 and his girlfriend had just turned 17). The stigma really does suck, bad, and even sanctions on the accuser doesn't relieve the feeling of being accused of attacking someone when you didn't.
But also, as a guy who's cousin was raped repeatedly and violently on her way home from night classes, I get that side of it, too, and the one is FAR more devastating on a life than the other (your comparison to "life-rape" is pretty ridiculous; they're not even close).
On that note, if we still disagree, so be it.
My suggestion actually still punishes them severely, and actually makes more severe penalties for statutory rape possible because it limits the age for which statutory rape can be charged.
I agree that there should also be a +/- 2 years rule as someone else mentioned, and there is a +/- 2 years rule here in canada at the moment. The trouble with that one is that the Canadian consent law is 16, when it was 14 kids in high school could just date each other and all was well, now with that law if a just turned 17 year old in grade 12 dates a nearly 15 but still 14 year old in grade 10 its a crime, even though they may have started over 6 months ago while it was still legal.
Who is some what bothered by the way 5% is written?
We both do... and we're both on /.
What the hell is going on? I hope you're also Canadian, at the least. It would be slightly forgiving.
Actually, violence against women in Norway is a major health concern according to an important study done there.
From the study: Results: "In total, 26.8% of 2,143 ever-partnered women had experienced any violence by their partner during their lifetime, and 5.5% in the year before the study."
These rates are on par with most of the developed world. Given these stats (One in four ever-partnered women battered within their relationship) I don't think the Scandinavians are going to get a pass on rates of rape -- insofar as it is defined to include spousal rape, date rape and other forms of coerced sex. If anyone has stats on Scandinavian rape rates (could not easily find any) it would be instructive to post them. I doubt they are much different from those in the developed world. Certainly not one in ten. Where did that figure come from?
As much as many Scandinavians would like to believe that their feet don't stink, it should come as no surprise that their feet do, indeed, stink. Almost as much as mine do.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
This reminds me of a Demetri Martin joke. I believe it was on the Large Pad sequence.
There's a saying that goes "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." Okay. How about "Nobody should throw stones"? That's crappy behavior. My policy is: "No stone throwing regardless of housing situation."
Seriously, if you don't know anything, just shut up and refuse to comment further. How hard can it be? And how much are these blokes making to say things like this?
The more you know, the more you have to say and the more you should listen.
There was a very famous study of the sexualities and attitudes towards sex of undergraduates (and it was a huge, huge study that went on for a decade) that found something very surprising: there was a small number (6%, mostly male) of respondents who readily admitted to committing rape and indicated a preference for it as long as the actual word "rape" wasn't used. (non-consensual sex, sex with someone against their will, etc etc were all fine). Of even more interest? They were serial predators: they deliberately sought it out, cultivated victims, and arranged circumstances to suit them over and over again. By the study's estimates, they were responsible for nearly 90% of rapes. But by far they weren't the classic view of the rapist, people lurking in dark alleys. No, their weapon of choice was intoxication, either taking advantage of intoxication or attempting to arrange it. This was *deliberate*- and they also indicated that they were aware that no one would believe their victims.
In that light? Any more, I'm highly skeptical when people start claiming that a potential rape was just a misfortune for both parties. Because while it's certainly easy to imagine two people being so intoxicated that they kind of rape each other- e.g. neither are capable of consent- it makes me wonder how often someone who claims that it was all just a big misunderstanding might be one of those predators.
Jesus christ. Did you seriously just argue that women are sub-humans incapable of rational thought who are more easily manipulated than lab rats?
I thought misogynists were a lot more subtle these days. But you! You take the cake! You're making the fucking taliban look enlightened.
What about the father's right in the decision? He gets no say at all?
Of course not, we're second hand citizens, and it's even worse than that. Dad want to keep the child and mom doesn't? Fetus aborted. Mom wants the child and dad doesn't? Baby born, father forced to pay for raising it.
I would love to see things as you logically pointed out, but men have become second class citizens in the US.
Free Martian Whores!
Well I am Australian. Perhaps us bunch of ex-convicts just have higher standards of behaviour than the US.
Rape over here is rare enough that it will actually hit the evening news every time there is a reported case.
that 86% or some comparable fraction of rapes in fact do go unreported.
The thing about how communities work is that they group together to share responsibility for various tasks and resource requirements because the larger society as a whole benefits more than everyone being individually responsible for every aspect of their lives.
It allows for specialisation, e.g. not everyone needs to be a doctor AND an engineer AND a chef AND an farmer.
It allows us to care for people who are vulnerable as certain points in their lives, such as children and the elderly.
The 'cost' of this is that sometimes we will 'pay' for goods and services that we don't directly benefit from. The 'value' is that someone we care about (including ourselves) may benefit from something out of the ordinary at some point.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
This is something that a lot of pro-choicers have to tell themselves so they feel better about themselves
One can be pro-choice without rationizing their position with moral hair-splitting about the fetus not being a person.
Oh get off your moral high horse. By any reasonable measure, for the first several months after conception, the clump of cells is *not* a human. It sounds more like you're rationalizing the one reason that you agree with the lib'ruls on this case.
You don't call fertilized chicken eggs chickens. You don't call fertilized salmon eggs salmon. But for some reason, even though for much of their development a human embryo isn't all that distinguishable from an elephant embryo, we've got idiots calling them 'people' -- and you're enabling and perpetuating that redefinition. Not to mention that taken to the logical conclusion, you're implying that the women who choose to have an abortion and the doctors who perform them are murderers.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
I suppose the language being used may not match the message, but is the message itself intended to be a troll?
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
No problem, that happens in discussions like this. It's a part of the Poe's Law spectrum, it's hard to tell how serious a person in on the internet unless they make it blatantly obvious.
Sadly, I have to concur. After developing good friendships with a number of females, I'm always quite shocked just as to how many have been raped or subjected to abuse.
While your thought experiment is interesting, I think it is also worthwhile to remember that men *are* responsible for instigating the overwhelming majority of rapes. 99% of rapes are instigated by men. Most rapes are predatory, and are quite often violent.
So while it *is* a case of cultural bias and double standards, that bias and double standard isn't based on stereotypes and misinformation. It's based in fact.
What people *think* when someone says "rape", i.e. being assaulted outdoors by a stranger, for example on the way home from a party, is indeed rare in many countries.
But most rapes don't fit in that category, and aren't mentioned in the news. Most rapes, for example, happen between people who know eachother, and are not reported to the police.
Hardly rape if it is unwanted sex but the police are just too much of a hassle to bother with.
But South Africa, even as the most developed country in Africa, is arguably not a full-fledged member of the developed world. It is a highly divided society still (as we have seen in recent weeks with the miners' strike.) And it has a very high crime rate generally. One can take little comfort in having better statistics than they do -- cultural differences aside.
Culture of course is no excuse for violations of human rights, which include violence against women. There was a time when a broad swath of the US accepted slavery as a cultural norm. Just because a society itself believes something is right does not make it right. Violence in the home is as wrong in Jo-berg and Riyadh and Moscow as it is in New York or Oslo. The same, of course, goes for rape. Everyone has to do better.
These principles are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No society is permitted to hide behind its culture in order to protect institutionalized savagery and oppression against any group -- women included.
"No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
Believe what you want.
It's just facts to me.
Of all the women I know well, one was raped and none have falsely accused anyone of rape. No woman I know well has been raped in my lifetime.
And i think you are ignoring a key point above so I'll repeat it.
Of those women who later recanted, many didn't admit the allegation was false until just before taking a polygraph test. Others admitted it was false only after having failed a polygraph test.2
---
I.e. FACED with a polygraph test, they suddenly said "I made a false accusation" or AFTER failing a polygraph test, they admitted they had made a false accusation.
So it doesn't really match your scenario above.
I think just like false paternity, that rape is not spread evenly across social groups.
I do not seriously believe that 1/3 of the females who went to Harvard were raped.
Rape happens- it has happened in my family-- 40 years ago. A violent one.
It's a terrible crime.
False accusations happen. Women have been caught making false accusations for a long time. That is an equally terrible crime. The man is violated and their life is destroyed, they lose their friends, possibly access to their children. The cost to a man falsely accused of rape is extremely high.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Interesting. I have never heard of Poe's Law, but it's true. I feel that it justifies my attempts at using emoticons to clarify my dry humour. If I ever start a new paragraph with the attempt at humour, then I'll start it off with a ;^P and then end it with a ;^D . In a sense, they are parentheses or quotes.
testing out my trending skills
One area where there is a more likely problem is with data selection.
It's possible that college girls are more likely to make false accusations than the general population. So you can't extend the results of that one study to the general population.
However, the later comment of the prosecutor is in line with the study and would represent the general population.
However however, as I said, I've never personally known a female to falsely accuse a male of rape (tho I know of three who stopped taking birth control without telling their husbands or boyfriends and getting their agreement).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
"I don't believe that soceity has a right to tell one person that they MUST do something to keep another person alive."
Come on...
I don't believe that soceity has a right to tell one person that they MUST do something to keep another person alive. The analogy that I like to make is organ donation -- can I be compelled to give you a kidney, blood, or bone marrow if I'm the only compatible donor and the alternative is your death? Of course not, my right to control my body is paramount. Likewise, I don't believe we have the right to tell a woman that she MUST carry a baby to term.
I thought you were doing really well right up until this. No one is saying a woman must provide organs, blood, etc to the fetus. No human argument and no law that I've seen proposes this. However, this is, of course, how nature sets up the arrangement. I think you need to seek more information about abortion procedures in order to complete your line of thinking. Where you have it right now, an infant latching on to its mother's breast should legally entitle her to sever its spinal cord or puncture its skull and vacuum out the contents (and there are about a half dozen other equally gruesome procedures). Regardless of where one sits in terms of the abortion debate, it's flat impossible to argue with a straight face that such actions are not an attack against the baby/fetus/collection-of-cells-thing/parasite/etc. If it isn't a human being and it isn't something we'd care to assign any legal or moral protection to, then so what. But don't make the ridiculous argument that stabbing something isn't attacking it, regardless of what it is.
I'm one of those rare fence-sitters in this whole debate, but there are only two arguments that really make much sense to me. It's obvious, and everyone agrees, that at some point between conception and birth, we have a new human being with all the rights, privileges, and protections of being human afforded thereto. There are two distinct events which make for obvious transition points: one is conception (the pro-life argument) and one is birth (the ultra-ultra-pro-choice argument). Anything in between is arbitrary and arbitrary distinctions typically make for nonsensical arguments and injustice. In this case, we need to define a few things to really come to a reasonable end of this argument. First, what distinct, scientifically measurable event causes a human being to have been formed? What is it that we have prior to that event? What rights (if any) does that something have under the law? If we answer those questions with strong, logical arguments, we won't make everyone happy, but we'll at least have just law in place.
Maybe we can learn something from the Baboons.
Yep. Baboons don't let their women drive!!
There's a pretty major difference between persistent vegetative state and doesn't yet have a brain. A person in a PVS has a large, complicated brain that is in fact operating at a fairly highly level, it's just not properly interfacing with the surrounding world. Typically it's operating on a level somewhere between deep sleep(idling, but far from off) and REM-sleep (essentially conscious but disconnected from external I/O peripherals) and varies on a case-by-case basis.
On the other hand a fetus that hasn't yet grown a brain... does not in fact have a brain. At all. Your average spider, earthworm, or even flatworm with it's mere twist of neurons has a far more sophisticated brain operating at a much higher level by virtue of the fact that they do in fact have a brain while, as I may have mentioned, a sufficiently young fetus doesn't. Young enough it doesn't even have differentiated cells of any kind, though I think technically the term "fetus" doesn't yet apply at that point.
Not that I'm trying to say abortion isn't a question rife with moral dilemma (as is removing life support from people in a PVS, actually) - but comparing a young fetus with a person in a PVS is hyperbola, at best. In fact if I remember correctly (can't be bothered to look it up, feel free to correct me with reliable info) young fetuses don't have a great survival rate to begin with - estimates are something like 40-60% of pregnancies end with spontaneous abortion without the woman ever realizing she was pregnant, and really I'd hate to open the door on what implied moral responsibility to *their* survival would mean.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
That's great, but I don't trust women to be rational if the LIGHTING is different, much less if they've had ANY alcohol. Women are emotionally unstable, you can get them to do ANYTHING with the right shift in just about any social factor--lighting, temperature, whether or not they're hungry, boredom and recent excitement, the tone of your voice, facial expression, the presence or lack of presence of people, presence of cameras, etc. Alcohol is a quick motivator, it changes their perception on a subconscious level (alcohol = fun = be fun) and on a physical level (it's alcohol). At the end of the night after a dozen Jaeger bombs I don't think a girl has her head screwed on straight AT ALL.
The last sentence in this paragraph would be reasonable if it read "...a PERSON has their head screwed on straight..." As it is, every sentence is a horror. I'm sure you don't think of yourself as an ignorant, stupid misogynist, BUT YOU ARE. Most of what you wrote about manipulating women would be appropriate for describing dogs. You are hateful.
You know nothing about people. You have emotional problems. If I met you in real life, I'd keep you the hell away from everyone I care about, male or female.
Seek help.
God chose not to outlaw rape
You're accusing God of being soft on rape so I've got to point you to that pesky 6th commandment: 'Thou shall not commit adultery.' For Christians, adultery is any voluntary sexual relation outside of marriage. If a man rapes a woman, the man is guilty of adultery but not the woman.
What are you so angry about; therapy wasn't all you expected? Maybe girls who never heard the phrase "cock tease" should seek professional help. Maybe a little hypnosis will take away the unpleasant memories. Maybe you just got in over your head.
That seems about right to me, a very large number of women have religious beliefs or social circumstances that make them reluctant to report rape to start with and the taking of a rape kit and the interrogation of a victim that is standard procedure for investigating a rape report from a self-declared victim is really quite... unpleasant by most accounts. Then there's the fact that many people tend to react... ineffectively... when something they find horrible and shocking happens and then engage in denial and/or rationalization about the event.
Men who rape little/young girls keep them: deut 22 28-29 in the original language.
Anyone who disagrees with this needs to be killed. I hate women like you (and men like you)
Check out the word translated as girl in the hebrew. Girl from infancy to adolecence. Pedophillia and rape. :) Good for men. Young girls are good for men. Women and feminist men are bad for men often.
[quote]
#5291 \u05e0\u05b7\u05e2\u05b2\u05e8\u05b8\u05d4 na`arah {nah-ar-aw'}
Feminine of H5288; a girl (from infancy to adolescence):\u2014damsel, maid (-en), young (woman).
1) girl, damsel, female servant
1a) girl, damsel, little girl
1a1) of young woman, marriageable young woman, concubine,
prostitute
1b) maid, female attendant, female servant
[/quote]
[quote]
One of the most common attempts at rejecting this interpretation is to cast doubt on the meaning of the Hebrew word "taphas", which is translated as "lay hold on" in the King James version of this passage. Strong's dictionary defines it as follows.
8610. taphas (taw-fas')
A primitive root; to manipulate, i.e. Seize; chiefly to capture, wield, specifically, to overlay; figuratively, to use unwarrantably
catch, handle, (lay, take) hold (on, over), stop, X surely, surprise, take.
It is claimed by the opposition that this word should not be interpreted with a forceful interpretation of "seize" or "capture", but is instead better interpreted as consistent with consensual relations. To adopt such a position, however, one would have to ignore a large amount of scriptural evidence to the contrary.
Jeremiah 52:8,9
But the army of the Chaldeans pursued after the king, and overtook Zedekiah in the plains of Jericho; and all his army was scattered from him. Then they took [taphas] the king, and carried him up unto the king of Babylon to Riblah in the land of Hamath; where he gave judgment upon him.
Jeremiah 37:13,14
And when he was in the gate of Benjamin, a captain of the ward was there, whose name was Irijah, the son of Shelemiah, the son of Hananiah; and he took[taphas] Jeremiah the prophet, saying, Thou fallest away to the Chaldeans. Then said4 Jeremiah, It is false; I fall not away to the Chaldeans. But he hearkened not to him: so Irijah took[taphas] Jeremiah, and brought him to the princes.
Jeremiah 26:8
Now it came to pass, when Jeremiah had made an end of speaking all that the LORD had commanded him to speak unto all the people, that the priests and the prophets and all the people took[taphas] him, saying, Thou shalt surely die.
Isaiah 36:1
Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, that Sennacherib king of Assyria came up against all the defenced cities of Judah, and took[taphas] them.
2 Chronicles 25:23
And Joash the king of Israel took[taphas] Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Joash, the son of Jehoahaz, at Bethshemesh, and brought him to Jerusalem, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim to the corner gate, four hundred cubits.
2 Kings 25:6
So they took[taphas] the king, and brought him up to the king of Babylon to Riblah; and they gave judgment upon him.
2 Kings 18:13
Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took[taphas] them.
2 Kings 16:9
And the king of Assyria hearkened unto him: for the king of Assyria went up against Damascus, and took[taphas] it, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and slew Rezin.
2 Kings 14:13
And Jehoash king of Israel took[taphas] Amaziah king of Judah, the son of Jehoash the son of Ahaziah, at Bethshemesh, and came to Jerusalem, and brake down the wall of Jerusalem from the gate of Ephraim unto the corner gate, four hundred cubits.
2 Kings 14:7
He slew of Edom in the valley of salt ten thousand, and took[taphas] Selah by war, and called the name of it Joktheel unto this day.
2 Kings 10:14
A
"Indeed, the penalty for the rape of Dinah turned out to be the extermination of the entire village of the miscreant (although Abraham did ask his son's if that was really appropriate)."
Abraham cursed them for these killings and then disinherited them and their offspring completely from any bounty in israel.
You fucking piece of shit feminist religious person.
The law is Dt 22 28-29, just as Abraham said before his sons disobeyed him: the man keeps the girl he raped (yes girl, read the hebrew in Dt)
Fuck you you fucking cunt. You people need to be killed.
You are correct in a sense. Women do use their bodies as a tool to get things that they want(what I assume you are referring to as a weapon). Men rape women and this isn't all to unnatural. This was common long past the times of cavemen, men raped women long after that and no consequence was given to the rapist. That doesn't make the action right. I believe we are still animals with instincts that drive our most basic urges and feelings. These instincts make us no different than a dog, bird, cattle, sheep or most any other animal. What does define us as being human and different from these other animals is our intelligence. It gives us the ability to think reasonably about how these actions make others feel. If it didn't hurt someone would we call it rape? or at the very least would we have a problem with it? Probably not. But there is a feeling of being violated and the physical feeling of being penetrated and hurt, used and abused. Our ability to see that making someone else feel this way makes us realize that these urges and instincts are wrong. Our ability to use our intelligence to make it less pleasant to do that sort of thing than to feed the urge is what drives us to be better not just at empathy but other things as well.
Are we forcing our cultural views on the situation YES but those cultural views came from decades of listening to the other side of the situation and having the compassion to stop. It's not just cultural it's an evolution of thought and feelings that make this act disgusting to most. No one should be put in that situation because no one who enjoys it calls it rape, man or women.
I always thought prohibition went back to moral puritans that felt that alcohol was somehow the Devil's work and needed to be legislated away. I don't recall it was something women as a gender had any vested interest in enacting. Either way, that moral experiment failed horribly, unless you love Nascar, and we're back to enjoying whatever mind-altering liquid refreshment we like (almost).
If taphas refers to rape in this verse, then it is the only instance in the bible where it is used in that context. Here, in Numbers 5:13, it is clearly used to refer to consensual sex:
All of the passages your source has cited refer to people who have been captured, or cities which have been overthrown (implying the use of force). But there are also the passages I cited where a person plays a harp, or where the men took war upon themselves, or where a women cheated on her husband and ran away with the man she cheated with, which do not imply the use of coercive force. This means taphas applies to things or people who have been taken by any means, not simply forcefully. The verse I cited above should be sufficient to prove that.
As the author noted, cases that definitely describe rape use the word 'anah. So there is no reason to believe that rape is implied in this verse. Indeed, given the verses preceding it, and the Bible's general prescription for the treatment of rapists, it would be bizarre if it were condoning rape in this instance. And there is no reason to believe that it is.
As for why this verse is different from Exodus 22:16, the Bible repeats many things in slightly different terms. This repetition was useful for memorization. There is no reason to believe that each thing written in the Bible has to be new and different.
As for your claim that the world means child, your definition includes "marriageable young woman." As with all words, meaning is often contextual. By taking it to mean "girl" here, you are reading something into the passage that it doesn't mean.
Just curious, but what are your thoughts if a mother puts her 1 year old out in a snow storm for the night because she doesn't want to take care of it any more?
from the NYT
"...At a 2009 hearing, Shimkus said not to worry about a fatally dyspeptic planet: the biblical signs have yet to properly align. “The earth will end only when God declares it to be over,” he said, and then he went on to quote Genesis at some length. It’s worth repeating: This guy is the chairman...."
"...Barton cited the Almighty in questioning energy from wind turbines. Careful, he warned, “wind is God’s way of balancing heat.” Clean energy, he said, “would slow the winds down” and thus could make it hotter. You never know..." and more "...“You can’t regulate God!” Barton barked at the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, in the midst of discussion on measures to curb global warming.
What did he call it "a legitimate rape"?
Is that the same class of rape that JA is being
persecuted/prosecuted for by a Swedish proxy
for someone that believes the leaks on Wiki Leaks
are illegitimate.
And I wonder.... ...
Miles above this someone noted that the pregers rate
from rape was 5%... that statement was not balanced
by the rate from couples trying without a clendar and
without a thermometer. i.e. random
The natural odds seem to be less than 5% with consenting
adults willing and trying to conceive.
You mean one where there aren't many niggers?
In islam it's the other way round.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
That's where everything is totally screwed up!
Someone in a persistent vegetative state cannot be humanely euthanased but you may remove the feeling tubes so they experience a slow a painful death as that slowly starve. This may take weeks. If you help them die you will be charged with murder.
Abortion is a terribly sad thing and most people would admit it is used far too often, but to exclude women from having the choice simply means the procedure would not stop abortions. It simply goes underground where the doctors are probably not decent, the procedures would not be well controlled and what happens if there are complications? Would a woman be afraid of being charged with murder if they had to go to a hospital?
I could go on to say that the world is overpopulated and will only get worse. IMO 1 child per person should be the absolute limit. But I have no right to demand and enforce a 1 child per person policy, no more that I would want to be told that I MUST have a child.
The analogy that I like to make is organ donation -- can I be compelled to give you a kidney, blood, or bone marrow if I'm the only compatible donor and the alternative is your death?
Yes, you can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aclS1pGHp8o
In Numbers 5:13 it's not a reference to consensual sex, it is talking about her being caught in the act.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
AS an FYI: Mormons also believe women are 2nd class citizens.
As a member of the LDS faith, who are frequently called "Mormons", I can tell you that we certainly do not consider women to be 2nd class citizens. We consider women to be equal to men, not more, not less. We believe that the man of the house is in charge of making the final decision if there is a dispute, but we are also taught that trying to force anyone to believe our way or do what we want is wrong. I'm sad that you are willing to make such accusations without evidence. The Family: A Proclamation to the World
so you support throwing a sex offender label and a rape charge on the 18 year old girlfriend who has sex with her 16 year old boyfriend? that is legally "rape" today, I dont think it is "rape" in the slightest sense of the word. I do not know ryans reasoning, but some "rape" is not "rape"
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
If I were scale up the tools used in abortion, and use them to terminate your life, would you still consider it a mere "medical procedure"?
I feel that a woman should have complete control over her body. However, it's not the woman's body that gets dismembered in the violent act of abortion. It's someone else's body; namely, that of her son or daughter. And her son or daughter is wholly unable to consent to the procedure.
a black and white, right or wrong society start splitting hairs as to whether a rape was "legitimate" or not. Talk about situational ethics. Rape is rape.
Look up "women's temperance movement"
I'm male
Exactly. Not that rational thought counts for much in this argument.
You know what the the problem is? It is that sex outside of marriage is legal. So to prove rape you need to prove that the sex is not consentual, which sometimes is very hard. The solution is obvious. Make sex outside of marriage illegal. Then the issue of consent doesn't arise. You fucked a woman who's not your wife? Go straight to jail.
Dropbox drops it like it's hot.
FYI: Mormons also believe women are 2nd class citizens.
Wow... That is a blatant, hateful, ignorant, and bigotted lie. As a Mormon, I can tell you that women are never considered 2nd-class citizens. The first, largest, and most-powerful women's association in the world is The Relief Society, a Mormon association with roots going back to the mid 1800's. Women have had a say in Church matters a hundred years before they had a say in US political matters.
But I'm sure anything positive I say about women can and will be twisted by you through the magic of rhetoric to show how I treat the most important people in the world to me as cattle or possessions -- or you can just cite any number of hateful, resentful people with an issue against my Church, because I assure you that there are people who are hateful and resentful toward my church. They're much more likely going to give you the TRUE story on how I treat my wife and daughters, rather than I would, after all!
You most-likely know a Mormon or two. Go talk to one of them and see how they treat their spouse before you spout such hateful falsehoods. You're acting like a weatherman that tells us it's raining and he hasn't bothered to look outside to see that the sun is shining and there's not a cloud in the sky.
Men with guns, Judges.. violence is how religions are made, how they grew in the first place.
There must be some way to do this. If they can't find the rapist, then one of the anti-choice people could/should/must be chosen by lot.
surgeon/nurse transplant team's ears. I nominate Todd Akin as the first transplant recipient under this plan.
It explains which is a bunch of lying hypocrites.
I don't believe that soceity has a right to tell one person that they MUST do something to keep another person alive
Thanks, I like this. I have always said the same thing but never thought to apply it to the question of abortion. I will have to rethink the issue for a while.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Honestly, if the woman I was screwing started screaming no, I'd stop. If then she says basically"lol j/k" I'd just roll over and go to sleep until she gets her head on straight.
If anything, most studies seem to find that there is a higher chance ( 5-7.5%) that a rape victim gets pregnant than the average chance to get pregnant (3.5%). The explanations I've seen is that rapists will usually target the most fertile women in the 15-25 age bracket.
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
Why don't we just arrange for all the aborted fetuses be provided to the right-to-lifers to do with what they will. How is this different than giving a baby up for adoption?
52.8% of those percentages are 6%-12% wrong 43% of the time. The others are just made up.
I don't believe that soceity has a right to tell one person that they MUST do something to keep another person alive. The analogy that I like to make is organ donation
You don't need an analogy - parents can be prosecuted for neglect of their children, and rightly so. So there is a law that tells people they MUST do something to keep another person, not only alive, but at an acceptable level of welfare.
Semicolons replace conjunctions, not prepositions.
No: they replace full stops or commas, not words of any type.
If you haven't yet run into a woman that believes all men are rapists, you haven't been around much.
Many women believe there are four kinds of men in the world:
- Children
- Convicted rapists
- Rapists that haven't been convicted yet
- Men that haven't yet raped a women, but will certainly do so.
This is a far more common belief than you would think and it is a pretty depressing one.
I must say thank you to (nearly?) everyone in on this discussion. When abortion gets discussed, it generally falls down into a great deal of screaming, emotional, accusatory, tribal nonsense and hurling or insults and shibboleths. the arguments here have been clearly and calmly articulated, and the reasoning on both sides quite good (though you'll not be surprised to learn that I think one side's reasoning is better). If only all of our politics and other matters could be handled by such civilized and intelligent interlocutors ...
Men get raped more than what? Sheep? By who? Other men of course.
Which actually makes 'homophobia' a completely rational thing. I mean, if a man is going to be raped its almost certainly going to be by another man so men who are prepared to have sex with other men are, rationally, seen as potential rapists of other men.
I really fail to see why 'homophobia' is regarded as irrational or unreasonable.
Not saying that all homosexuals are rapists, but its very clear why such negative feelings exist.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
No.
Which men?
Men who have sex with men are bisexual or homosexual, not straight.
All sports are gay, especially contact sports. Unless you are the only guy on both teams.
Watching porno with only women is straight, even if its gay porn.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
as he's a nice guy - honest
Well, that's really a proposition whose implications can be researched.
How many abortions are there per year? A quick internet search yields 1.2 million. Let's go with that.
How many people are waiting for a child to adopt? That information is harder to come by- there's one site there are dozens waiting for every child that gets adopted; other sites say 1-2 million couples per year.
So it's not unfathomable that most every fetus that's aborted could be adopted.
As for your comment about hard to place children, New York city has maybe 1,000 hard to place children, and 200,000 abortions take place there every year.
How many of those abortions would become hard adoption cases? Hard to be sure.
So, I know you're trying to be clever, but the statistics might actually come out on the pro-lifer's side of things. It would take a serious study (beyond the scope of this comment) to come up with a good answer, but it could be done.
(I'm ambivalent about abortion, and consequently do not take the matter into consideration when voting.)
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Men playing sports is not gay and does not support either view in discussion.
testing out my trending skills
It's interesting that you imply that men who get raped are rapers. As long as we can make those conclusions, then can we associate guilt with *all* rape victims?
testing out my trending skills
The analogy that I like to make is organ donation -- can I be compelled to give you a kidney, blood, or bone marrow if I'm the only compatible donor and the alternative is your death? Of course not, my right to control my body is paramount. Likewise, I don't believe we have the right to tell a woman that she MUST carry a baby to term.
That is a fantastic analogy. Thank you.
(I'm pro-life, but strongly oppose any anti-abortion law that doesn't make exceptions for the health of the mother. In principle I don't support exceptions for rape and incest, but it irritates me when other pro-lifers refuse to compromise on this.)
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Sorry, you missed the reference.
King Missile, 'Gay not gay'
One of the funniest songs ever, maybe better than 'Jesus was way cool'.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
How about I contaminate you with HIV/STD's? I think we can argue a biological weapon point. And then there's always the psychological point.
No, it didn't happen, but there is a story/fable/legend where the correct answer is two.
According to the bible, the correct answer is not 2. I think the correct answer is 7 for sheep, but I may be mistaken. That's why it was on QI.