i coulda killed this bastard

[scottbre 0]

Quote

Most men have a sex drive that, if unchecked, would lead them to rape women.

You're a smart guy, bill, but that is just ludicrous.
200 feet of Saran Wrap and noone to play with. . .

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

Most men have a sex drive that, if unchecked, would lead them to rape women.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're a smart guy, bill, but that is just ludicrous.

I now have to agree with Scottbre on this one. There is no evidence that Rape is rooted in sexual desire, but rather, the desire to dominate or control. It is an anger issue.
According to most studies, most men who have sex drives that go unchecked tend to become addicted to pornography, masturbation, being with prostitutes, etc. In other words, they become sexaholics. This has nothing to do with those prone to sex crimes. People who become sexaholics generally never learned how to use the act of sex in its proper and mature context, meaning selflessly giving satisfaction to their partner. Instead, they see sex in and of itself as a means to an end. Their act is selfish and they have no regard for the pleasure of their partner.
If you're not confused, you're not paying attention.
Chris

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

I worry about statements like the one above because they can indirectly feed the victim mentality - "I'm not a criminal, I'm a victim of my uncontrollable sex-drive illness. It is society's fault that there is no treatment for my illness."

Damn Bill.......................I actually agree with you on this! You feeling alright? j/k
I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters.

[billvon 3,176]

>>Most men have a sex drive that, if unchecked, would lead them to rape women.
>You're a smart guy, bill, but that is just ludicrous.
Not at all. We are born with several basic desires - a desire to eat, to not fall off tall things, to avoid being eaten or killed ourselves, to procreate, etc. Why don't we then all avoid tall things, have sex with any women we are attracted to, and why do some of us put ourselves in harm's way? Because we have higher functions in our brains. Through socialization we come to realize that we must respect a woman's right to say no, or that flying in a plane is actually safe. We can decide to do something scary (like skydiving) because we can rationalize that it's not all that dangerous. We can deny ourselves certain basic drives (like eating) because we can rationalize that that leads to being fat, and that is undesireable. Sex is similar - every male who has successfully made it through puberty understands the struggle between that drive and the requirement to express it in a socially acceptable manner.
This is borne out in studies of people with frontal lobe damage. Since damage to the frontal lobes impairs the "higher functions" (i.e. normal cognition, ability to understand socially appropriate behavior) while not affecting basic drives, you'd expect to see more evidence of rape - and, in fact, this has been found in several studies of brain-damaged patients.
"Sexually-inappropriate behaviour (purposeful use of lewd language, frotteurism, exhibitionism, sadism and rape) occuring for the first time following the head-injury, was consistently associated with other evidence of frontal lobe damage".(http://www.medlit.net/guests/Abstracts/Head-inj.htm)
Keep in mind that our definition of rape is pretty recent. In the 1700's Sir Matthew Hale, a chief justice in England, wrote, "The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract, the wife hath given herself in kind unto the husband which she cannot retract" As recently as 100 years ago, it was considered not possible for a man to rape his wife in the US. It was only made an explicit crime in 1993!
-bill von

[scottbre 0]

Bill,
Well you did say most men so I guess that leaves room for exceptions but I still disagree. What separates "men" from the rest of the animal kingdom is exactly that "higher brain function" that let's a man think through the possible consequences of his actions as opposed to acting on "primal" urges.
You can damage parts of any animal's brain to induce a permanent behavior trait. Agression comes to mind. But that doesn't mean that those animals just naturally have this tendency to attack other animals. It is a result of injury to a certain part of the brain.
Can't believe I'm arguing with the great billvon, but stranger things have happened. 200 feet of Saran Wrap and noone to play with. . .

[billvon 3,176]

>Well you did say most men so I guess that leaves room for exceptions but I still
> disagree. What separates "men" from the rest of the animal kingdom is exactly
> that "higher brain function" that let's a man think through the possible
> consequences of his actions as opposed to acting on "primal" urges.
That is exactly correct. We all have primal urges to do things like have sex regardless of the appropriateness of the situation. Our higher functions restrain that urge, and channel it into more appropriate behavior (like dating, marriage, hitting on women in bars, etc.) Some cannot control their behavior, and these people become rapists and sociopaths. Their crime is not having the urge - most men have a sex drive. Their crime is acting on it.
>You can damage parts of any animal's brain to induce a permanent behavior trait.
> Agression comes to mind. But that doesn't mean that those animals just
>naturally have this tendency to attack other animals.
Correct, but it does mean that they have the basic drive to attack other animals. You cannot "damage" someone's mind to create a brilliant physicist, because we are not all born with brilliant-physicist sections of our brain that are inhibited by other parts. Many animals are, however, born with an instinct to defend themselves, and this instinct is normally held in check by another part of their brain that reserves such activity for a time that their lives are threatened. Damage the part of their brain that inhibits the activity, and they may express it. The medical term for this is "disinhibition," and it is often seen in patients with brain damage.
It does not mean that an animal has a natural tendency to attack other animals. It does mean that an animal has the basic drive to do so under the right conditions, and damage to their brains can cause that drive to be expressed under the wrong conditions.
-bill von

[skyhawk 2]

id have to agree there is a couple of times , well ok a ton of times where ive just wanted to grab a hot chick and do here there and then, but i didnt cause thats wrong Opinions are like a-holes everyone has one, the only one that does you any good is yours and all that comes out is shit

[gale 0]

I can't beleive I would disagree with Bilvon either, and yet, here it is:
I fundamentally don't believe that we all have the urge "to have sex regardless of the situation". I have no need to be restrained against the urge to have sex on the sidewalk with a passerby, because I have no such urge.
Rapists don't rape because they want sex, they rape because they want to have power over the victim. This is well documented. If it were just about sex, men who had many willing sex partners wouldn't commit rape, and this is just not the case. This can be seen even more in pediphiles (some, not all) as they can be having lots of sex and still prey on children. The reason it's considered to be a mental illness is because there is something different about their brain and they need treatment. The may have "higher-order brain functions" and yet still have the desire to rape/molest.
Now I agree, the victim stance of an abuser is not to be stood for, but it doesn't mean they aren't sick. While the studies on the frontal lobe may be interesting and a jumping off point, I know that they in no way lead to conclusive proof regarding brain function. We just aren't knowledgable enough to make these kind of determinations.
I personally would like to see rapists and child molesters shot, but that's another matter.
Gale
Life's not worth living if you can't feel alive

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I personally would like to see rapists and child molesters shot, but that's another matter

Just put them in the general population of a max-security prison and see what happens...
A human cannonball, I rise above it all
Up higher then a trapeze, I can fly

[AndyMan 7]

I understand that once you get away from the physical act itself, the motivation for rape is not sexual - it is a desire to control, degrade, even humiliate women. I think this is pretty well documented, but I'm a pinko liberal artsie type.
I also don't walk down the street wishing to have sex with woman in front of me. I actually find the idea that we're controlled by our libido's a touch insulting. I don't like the idea that we all have these internal battles to control ourselves.
I'm will agree with Bill to a point, yes - clearly we have a biological need and desire to reproduce. There's a huge difference between this and fighting internal battles not to rape.
I'm not sure how children fit into this. I don't think pedophiles have an urge to degrade or humiliate the way that "normal" rapists do. I don't think abusing children is an act of degredation. I wonder if its roots lie closer to the idea of innocence lost.
I reject the idea that allowing priests to have sex would have prevented the recent tragedies. These priests did this because they were pedophiles, not because they weren't having sex. Like I said, rape is not based upon sexual desire, it's based upon a desire for degredation and humiliation.
About 10 years ago Canada went through a similar tragedy involved protestant priests and the boys of Mount Cashel Orphanage. I believe that protesdant priests are allowed to marry.
I also reject the idea that homosexuality has anything to do with it, but that's a different debate.
_Am
ICQ: 5578907
MSN Messenger: andrewdmetcalfe at hotmail dot com
AIM: andrewdmetcalfe
Yahoo IM: ametcalf_1999

[gale 0]

"I also don't walk down the street wishing to have sex with woman in front of me. I actually find the idea that we're controlled by our libido's a touch insulting. I don't like the idea that we all have these internal battles to control ourselves."
And that's my point. Some people have said that all men are potential rapists and I just don't buy it.
"I'm not sure how children fit into this. I don't think pedophiles have an urge to degrade or humiliate the way that "normal" rapists do. I don't think abusing children is an act of degredation. I wonder if its roots lie closer to the idea of innocence lost."
I agree that the reasons for abusing children are varried and often different from adult rape.
"About 10 years ago Canada went through a similar tragedy involved protestant priests and the boys of Mount Cashel Orphanage. I believe that protesdant priests are allowed to marry."
And I think you're right about that. Also, the vast majority of molesters are not homosexual.
Gale
Life's not worth living if you can't feel alive

[Vallerina 2]

I agree with Gale in that rapists don't commit crimes because they want to have sex. Rape is an act of aggression, power and control. Sex is used as the medium to express anger. Rape is not for sexual gratification, it is an act of violence (shown by the studies done on serial rapists who do not ejaculate.) The myth that a woman brings it upon herself by dressing in a certain way loosely stems from the ideas that rape is soley for the sex.
Unfortunately, pedophiles usually are more sexually motivated by an attraction to children than other forms of rape. There also seems to be a strong correlation between men who were sexually abused as a child and pedophiles (something like 75% of pedophiles were abused.) Detection of pedophiles is unlikely, since it could be any male at an office. Prevention could work if sexually abused children receive therapy, but that requires them to tell someone about it, which they're often too embarassed or too scared to.
All I know is that punishment for rapists is not enforced enough. I'm all for locking them up for life.
-Valerie

[Iflyme 0]

Quote

All I know is that punishment for rapists is not enforced enough. I'm all for locking them up for life.

Same with paedophiles ... can't "cure" paedophilia ...
"There's nothing new under the sun"

[billvon 3,176]

>I fundamentally don't believe that we all have the urge "to have sex regardless
> of the situation".
I didn't claim that we did. I claimed we have an urge to have it that is not connected to the appropriateness of the situation i.e. the male sex drive is not turned on or off by a woman's acceptance of a sexual advance. It is turned on in men by many different things - physical appearance, smells, response to hormonal levels. Because we are civilized, we have the ability to override it and decide _not_ to act on it, or to act on it appropriately (i.e. buying her a drink.)
> I have no need to be restrained against the urge to have sex on the sidewalk
> with a passerby, because I have no such urge.
I was specifically talking about men. Because of our biology, for human copulation to be successful, the male has to be the aggressor; the woman has to submit. This is not a commentary on how thing should be or how they are in any civilized society, just a basic physiological design issue.
>Rapists don't rape because they want sex, they rape because they want to have
> power over the victim.
Rape is forced sex. I don't believe that it is independent of sex drive. It has a tremendous amount to do with power, because power over the victim is _necessary_ to rape someone.
>This is well documented. If it were just about sex, men who had many
>willing sex partners wouldn't commit rape . . . .
Why do you assume this? Do you think that frequent sex decreases male sex drive? Most studies find just the opposite.
>The reason it's considered to be a mental illness is because there is
>something different about their brain and they need treatment.
I disagree completely. There is nothing that needs "curing" about a homosexual male; if he rapes another man, though, he should go to jail like any other rapist. There is nothing that needs curing about a man who is attracted to 12 year old girls; if he tries to have sex with them he should go to jail like any other pedophile. It is not an illness; it is a crime, and should be treated as such.
-bill von

[billvon 3,176]

>I also don't walk down the street wishing to have sex with woman in front of me. I
> actually find the idea that we're controlled by our libido's a touch insulting. I don't
> like the idea that we all have these internal battles to control ourselves.
Battle? I don't know if that's the right word. For a 2 year old it might be a battle not to pee in his pants, to overcome that instinct to void his bladder when it's full. Most adults can't even do it if they try; they've had decades of practice not doing it.
There is no doubt that dealing with sex issues when I was 15, trying to deal with sudden drives that I did not understand, was a battle. I think this is true for most men. Nowadays I'm so used to supressing it that it's automatic. I do not walk down a street wishing to have sex with every attractive woman I see, but that's because my base drives are a very small part of who I am as a person - not because they are gone. When I'm hungry, I don't fight an epic battle against eating every piece of food I see either - but it would be untrue to say that, in either case, the desire didn't exist, or that I didn't successfully control it.
Every single one of us is a collection of impulses, learned behaviors, beliefs, morals, codes of behavior, ideals, fears and aspirations. We change as we grow and experience new things, learn new ways of looking at things. For most people, basic drives are something you learn to deal with, but I don't think you can rationalize them away even when we can consciously control their expression.
-bill von

[Lindsey 0]

Bill is definately right about our sexual urges, if unchecked by our higher brain functions, would leave men to rape.....but of course would also lead women to consent.....It's the internal brain structures.....the "old" brain that controls these functions. The human cortex has evolved pathways that inhibit those primal drives. That definately IS what keeps our aggressive sexual urges in check.
As far as pedofilia being a mental illness/crime. It is both. The fact that it's a mental illness is based on an adult's sexual attraction to a child....whether it is acted upon or not....if it "causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." In those terms, it's based on the effect it has on the pedofile. The fact that it's a mental illness, however, makes it no less a crime.
some days it's just not worth gnawing through the straps
http://home.earthlink.net/~linzwalley

[SBS 0]

I now have to agree with Scottbre on this one. There is no evidence that Rape is rooted in sexual
desire, but rather, the desire to dominate or control. It is an anger issue.
-------------------------
These are two different issues that share the common theme of a man inserting himself into a woman against her will...
One motivation, which you are referring to, is not related to sex, but happens to involve it in the end.
The other, which I believe Bill is referring to, is motivated by sexual desire.
They are both rape, which you have pointed out...they are not the same situation, though, and that needs to be understood in order to see this point.
-------------------------
According to most studies, most men who have sex drives that go unchecked tend to become addicted
to pornography, masturbation, being with prostitutes, etc. In other words, they become sexaholics. This
has nothing to do with those prone to sex crimes. People who become sexaholics generally never learned
how to use the act of sex in its proper and mature context, meaning selflessly giving satisfaction to their
partner. Instead, they see sex in and of itself as a means to an end. Their act is selfish and they have
no regard for the pleasure of their partner.
---------------------------------------
I think we need to look back at the statement about different forms of rape. I have to agree with you here, that rape as defined today, is mostly driven by the desire to control, etc., and not by sexual desire. BUT, forget that, and when you read Bill's statements, think about the act of having sex with a woman against her wishes. THAT is what rape is...the end result is the same...the motivation is what differs.
I can't see how anyone can possibly disagree with the idea that men (and many women, for that matter), have desires that are held in check by "acceptable social behavior", which has formed who we are. This isn't limited to sex, but can apply to most anything we do in life. If it was socially acceptable to kill, we would be killers...if it were socially acceptable to take things without paying for them, we would be theives (although in this example, the social acceptability of stealing would mean that we were, in fact, not stealing at all, mearly taking something with implied permission as defined by society).
Make up your own...
"If one were raised to believe that ---------- was socially acceptible, then he/she would ----------."
Regarding people being led to masturbate, etc...this is a perfect example of the drive being kept at bay by other means...do you really think that this person would prefer his hand to the alternative (even IF he had sat on it for an hour til it was numb so it felt like someone else)? These people, though having a different drive than others, still adhere to social standards regarding sexuality.
Anyone ever read Stranger in a Strange Land? This goes farther than that book did, but it is still a good illustration of people being molded by society.
Steve

[SBS 0]

Just as it is not politically correct to make racial jokes, sexual orientation jokes, etc., I would assume it
should not be politically correct to make anti-catholic jokes.
-------------------------------
So what kind of jokes is one allowed to make, in this day and age of everything being examined under the microscope of political correctness?
Can you honestly say that you have never told or laughed at a joke that would have been offensive to someone in the world?
Seems to me that unless one can honestly say that, then he/she should be relatively light hearted when the spotlight is pointed at them or something that they care about.
Steve

[scottbre 0]

Quote

"If one were raised to believe that ---------- was socially acceptible, then he/she would ----------."

Not true. At least I don't believe it is. Maybe that's why I got a C in my college Sociology class.
200 feet of Saran Wrap and noone to play with. . .

[SBS 0]

Not true. At least I don't believe it is.
--------------------
Can you think of an example where this would not be true?
--------------------------
Maybe that's why I got a C in my college Sociology class.
--------------------------
It's kind of a philosophy/sociology thing that not everyone is always going to agree with. I have yet, though, to hear an arguement that I would consider completely valid as to why it isn't true.
People have a funny tennancy of not looking at culture and upbringing as the source of their beliefs and behavior. They believe so deeply that what they do is so right, they believe that THAT is why they believe as they do, because it's the right way, not because that is how they have been raised. I guess it's kind of a scary thing to buy into, because it would mean that if brought up differently, any one of us would have had the potential to be Hitler, Mousellini (sp?), Stalin, Bin Laden, Dr. Evil, or even Bill Gates.
:-)
Steve
PS - one more thought...someone may just not want to do something. So, even though this person was raised in a society where raping women is ok, he may just not want to, because he's doesn't feel good, or he has a small penis that he doesn't want anyone to see. So, I must make an amendment, and add to the beginning of that statement, "All other things being equal, if one was raised in a society where ----------- was socially acceptible, then he/she would ------------."

[scottbre 0]

First off, I don't believe that anyone is "raised to believe" anything. When you are raised, your parents try to instill certain values in you, but it still comes down to being a value judgement on your part as to whether you decide to view things that particular way or not.

Quote

Can you think of an example where this would not be true?

Can you think of an example where this is always true? If it's not always true, then that fits into the "not true" area.
IMO, sociology is someone's attempt to lump a bunch of individuals into one nice neat group for the purpose of finding some statistics that fit with whatever they are trying to prove. Human's are too strongly individualistic for this to be more than just a very rough approximation of the population.

Quote

So, I must make an amendment, and add to the beginning of that statement, "All other things being equal, if one was raised in a society where ----------- was socially acceptible, then he/she would ------------."

This statement is flawed from the get-go. It is impossible for "All other things to be equal." So that only emphasizes the ludicrousness of the rest of the statment.
200 feet of Saran Wrap and noone to play with. . .

[SBS 0]

First off, I don't believe that anyone is "raised to believe" anything. When you are raised, your parents
try to instill certain values in you, but it still comes down to being a value judgement on your part as to
whether you decide to view things that particular way or not.
----------------------------
You are correct, that there are choices that you make that will form your beliefs. If you are raised in Taiwan, your actions and beliefs will more closely resemble that of your Taiwanese neighbor than that of somoene that comes from California. If you were raised by someone like BinLaden, the chances that you would believe that America is evil and Americans should die would be much greater.
-----------------------------------
Can you think of an example where this is always true? If it's not always true, then that fits into the
"not true" area.
-----------------------------------
In order to show it as not true, as you pointed out, examples are needed to show that it is not true. That is why I am asking you to come up with examples of where it would not be true. Why the hell would I argue against my own statement? You are the one that is saying that it's not true, so I'm asking that you please go further in your thinking and actually try to disprove it, as opposed to making the blanket statement "it's not true".
--------------------------
This statement is flawed from the get-go. It is impossible for "All other things to be equal." So that only
emphasizes the ludicrousness of the rest of the statment.
-----------------------------
I still have yet to see you make a reasonable arguement against it.
Have you ever heard of someone looking at a movie star that snubs a fan and saying "if I were famous, I would never do that"? Guess what, that person isn't famous. If they were famous, they would not be who they are today. Therefore, they could not make the statement that they would not be like that if they were famous, because in simply being famous, their entire person would be different. So, what they are saying is, "being who I am today, I would not be like that if I happened to be famous". That is a statement that they can make, even though it wouldn't happen. The previous statement is not one that they could make, because they don't know who they would be if they were, in fact, a celebrity.
This isn't a flaw, it's a hypothetical that is necessary in order to isolate a certain aspect of a situation and identify the influence it has on a variable. We are variables. Who we are depends on everything that has come before. That does not mean that if you are raised by Christian parents that you will be a Christian, but means that your experience of the past will lead you to the religion that you choose. That would be experience with family, friends, the books that you have been exposed to, the movies, the tv, your experience in the hospital when you were 5, etc. EVERYTHING. When you are raised in a culture where something is the norm, something is socially acceptible, everything is going to point you towards that end, and barring anything else that may lead you to not doing that thing, you have no reason not to.
So, "all other things being equal" means this. It is altogether possible that someone who was born in a time and place where rape was ok, that they would have a small penis and for fear of people finding out, he would never rape a woman. Or, he may be gay, and not attracted to women, or he may never see a woman to whom he is attracted. These are all factors that need to be removed, and can be for the sake of this demonstration. Another example...it's ok to take something without paying for it. What if I never saw anything that I wanted? These are factors that apply to the whole situation, but are introduced after the belief is formed.
So
a)belief
b)other factors
c)end result
so -
a)I believe that raping women is ok
b)I have a small penis that I don't want anyone to see
c)I won't rape women
a)I think taking things without paying for them is ok
b)I never see anything that I like
c)I never take anything without paying for it
All other things being equal, to me, means that part b becomes no factor, as follows:
a)I think taking things without paying for them is ok
b)I see something I like
c)I take it without paying for it
a)I think raping women is ok
b)I am not ashamed of my body and I see a woman to whom I am attracted but denies me sex
c)I rape that woman
If you have one person who thinks it's ok, but has a small pecker, he may not follow through on his desires because of that fact. On the other hand, you have someone who is happy with his, but believes that raping is wrong, and the result is the same...he doesn't rape. Nothing has been said here...you have to remove the part B, in order to get comparable diagrams.
You may not agree, but could you elaborate a little more than just calling this reasoning ludicrous?
Steve

[billvon 3,176]

>First off, I don't believe that anyone is "raised to believe" anything. When you are
> raised, your parents try to instill certain values in you, but it still comes down to
> being a value judgement on your part as to whether you decide to view things
> that particular way or not.
Of course. But you make that decision based on what you have been exposed to. You don't just learn from your parents - you learn from your friends, your enemies, your teachers, the media etc.
As an example, if a catholic family has a child, and raise him catholic, but he goes to a predominantly jewish school and is never exposed to any other religions, he might choose catholicism or he might choose judaism. It is very unlikely that he will become wiccan. Why is that? Does he make a value judgement that wiccan is a bad belief system? No, he simply does not have the basis to make such a decision.
>Can you think of an example where this is always true? If it's not always true,
> then that fits into the "not true" area.
I could use such logic to claim that the statement "you should open your parachute before impact" is not true. After all, many people have not done that and have survived.
>IMO, sociology is someone's attempt to lump a bunch of individuals into one nice
> neat group for the purpose of finding some statistics that fit with whatever they
> are trying to prove. Human's are too strongly individualistic for this to be more
> than just a very rough approximation of the population.
Well, no. You can prove, statistically, that people who are never educated aren't as intelligent as people who are educated. "Human individuality" influences how intelligent each person within each group is, but it cannot be used as an argument that we should abolish schools since they have no impact on how smart people become.
>This statement is flawed from the get-go. It is impossible for "All other things to
> be equal." So that only emphasizes the ludicrousness of the rest of the
> statment.
Generalization is a tool we must use to make sense of anything. If we did not, there could be no science, because you could never eliminate outside effects and therefore could not determine basic cause. There could be no laws, because every case would be unique. Laws apply to general situations, and we then interpret them based on the situation. Seems to work 99% of the time.
-bill von

[scottbre 0]

Quote

In order to show it as not true, as you pointed out, examples are needed to show that it is not true. That is why I am asking you to come up with examples of where it would not be true. Why the hell would I argue against my own statement? You are the one that is saying that it's not true, so I'm asking that you please go further in your thinking and actually try to disprove it, as opposed to making the blanket statement "it's not true".

My point is that for the statement in red to work, then that would play out in every instance. By making a blanket statement like that, all that is necessary for it to be wrong is one exception. What I was saying is that in any situation were you might try to apply this, that exception will be there. Which is why I was asking about a situation where there is no exception.
"If one were raised to believe that ---------- was socially acceptible, then he/she would ----------."

Quote

I still have yet to see you make a reasonable arguement against it.

I don't see how I have any reason to make any argument against it, considering that I specifically stated that I was just presenting my opinion. I could write a very (very) lengthy reply that was well researched, but I don't feel that that is worth spending my time on, because anything I say won't make a difference to the people who actually disagree with me, because people get it in their heads that their way of looking at things is absolute truth and generally tend to not be open to new perspectives anyway. Simply put, what you said defies common sense to me, and the people who might benefit from my detailed explanation of my views, more than likely can already see the logic in what I am saying, thus making it unnecesary to write something out for them.

Quote

It is altogether possible that someone who was born in a time and place where rape was ok, that they would have a small penis and for fear of people finding out, he would never rape a woman.

I'm no rapist, so I don't know this for a fact, but I think that if someone wanted to rape someone else, penis size wouldn't be much of a factor in that decision.
Finally, you can say, "altogether possible" and talk about social trends and patterns like they are hewn in stone solid facts, until you are blue in the face. But it still comes down to the fact that that is just your opinion based on the way that you perceive the world. Doesn't make it true, regardless of how nicely worded what you say is.
200 feet of Saran Wrap and noone to play with. . .

[SBS 0]

all that is necessary for it to be wrong is one exception.
-----------------------
**and I am asking you for just one example.
-----------------------
that exception will be there.
-----------------------
**Which is why I detailed out the a/b/c arguements above. The exceptions come after the belief is formed, but before the result.
--------------------
I don't see how I have any reason to make any argument against it, considering that I specifically
stated that I was just presenting my opinion.
-------------------------
**In my world, when someone comes in and makes a statement contridicting that of another, it is reasonable to ask for an explaination, as opposed to simply saying "that's ludicrous". If you think it's ludicrous, you obviously have a reason, and I am truely interested in your reason. Intellectual development happens when speaking to people who agree with you, and many times more so, when you speak with those who do not.
-----------------------------
because anything I say won't make a difference to the people who actually disagree with me,
-----------------------------
**Of course it will, IF you present a reasonable arguement.
-----------------------------
I'm no rapist, so I don't know this for a fact, but I think that if someone wanted to rape someone else, penis size wouldn't be much of a factor in that decision.
-------------------------------
a) this is a random example of any one of a million reasons that may come into play as part b of the arguements detailed in my last post. Plug in anything you would like.
b) if one is a rapist in today's society, you are correct, size is not going to be a big factor. However, if you put yourself into the shoes of someone who, in order to commit rape, does not have to overcome the commonly held belief that rape is wrong, then penis size may be a factor. People avoid intimacy today because of things that are pettier than that. If we lived in this twisted society where rape was ok, some of the same reasons why people today may avoid intimacy could apply, and would likely apply, to sexual issues in this different place.
--------------------------
Doesn't make it true, regardless of how nicely worded what you say is.
--------------------------
a) thank you. I take that as a compliment that you consider what I wrote to be nicely worded.
b) I am not saying that because I believe it, it has to be true. I believe that it is true, but not because I believe it. I don't know for a fact that it is true, but the only way to build upon beliefs and possibly change them in discovering new ones, is to create an arguement for what you believe and wait for response.
c) Just like you say that my beliefs don't make something true, your disbeliefs don't make it false. That is why I keep asking for reason behind your statements. We can have an emotional arguement until the end of time, saying "you're wrong", "no, you're wrong", "NO! you're wrong!". That doesn't get anyone anywhere.
-------------------------------------
because people get it in their heads that their way of looking at things is absolute truth
-------------------------------------
**I hold firmly to the belief that we will never, as long as on this earth, know the absolute truth and know that we know it. If there is an afterlife, in which we live among that truth, maybe then we will come to know. I, personally, don't believe that anyone knows what happens after we die, so I have to go with what I do know, and what I believe...that we are here on this earth now, and at this time, we may know the absolute truth, but at the same time, we don't know if our reasoning if flawed...so, even if we know, we don't really know if we know. We would have to know that our reasoning is perfect in order to know that we had reached what was, in fact, the absolute truth, and we can't know that.
So, the best way that we have to grow and get closer to this truth is to start with open minds, and have discussions like this one. I really am truely interested in what you have to say, and if presented with an arguement that is reasonable that contradicts what I have said, will change my point of view.
So, I'm up to keep going if you are.
:-)
Steve