If you repeat a falsehood enough times, does it become true? (//http://www.mercurynews.com/california-budget/ci_22701070/california-gop-leader-steps-into-rape-pregnancy-controversy)
QuoteSACRAMENTO -- A leader of a California Republican group may have inadvertently revived the controversial subject of rape and pregnancy.
Before arriving at the state GOP's spring convention here, Celeste Greig told this newspaper that pregnancies by rape are rare "because it's an act of violence, because the body is traumatized."
Greig is the president of the conservative California Republican Assembly, the state's oldest and largest GOP volunteer organization. Ronald Reagan once called it "the conscience of the Republican Party."
Ironically, Greig was in the midst of criticizing former Missouri U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin for saying that victims of "legitimate rape" rarely get pregnant because "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." It was a remark that many believe led not only to his defeat in November but also helped tarnish the Republican brand around the country.
"That was an insensitive remark," Greig said. "I'm sure he regretted it. He should have come back and apologized."
Greig, however, went on to say: "Granted, the percentage of pregnancies due to rape is small because it's an act of violence, because the body is traumatized. I don't know what percentage of pregnancies are due to the violence of rape. Because of the trauma the body goes through, I don't know what percentage of pregnancy results from the act."
The issue drew a quick rebuke from Democrats, who said Greig's comments were no different than Akin's.
"If a woman is near-ovulating or ovulating, and sperm comes in direct contact, she gets pregnant -- it doesn't matter what the nature of the act was," said Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley. "It's just outrageous, beyond absurd. It's insulting. It's the same line of thinking of 'If we just dress differently, or behave differently, we won't be raped.' They're basically saying 'while we're being raped, if we hate it enough we won't get pregnant.'"
Most research on rape and pregnancy has shown roughly the same rates of pregnancy as pregnancies resulting from consensual sex. But one 2003 study from St. Lawrence University showed the rate at which women get pregnant after rape to be more than double that of a single act of consensual sex. The study used data from the United States National Violence Against Women survey.
With consensual sex, the authors theorized, women have the option of declining sex or using contraception when there is a high likelihood of getting pregnant because of their ovulation cycle.
The per-incident rape-pregnancy rate was 6.42 percent, according to the report, which was published in the journal Human Nature. Of women having consensual sex, the per-incident pregnancy rate was 3.1 percent.
Tom Del Beccaro, outgoing chairman of the California Republican Party, declined to discuss the issue Friday.
"It is not what we're going to discuss this weekend," he said.
(//http://oi47.tinypic.com/353b1hy.jpg)
How many of these statements are needed before this stops being individual republicans making miss-statements or poor word choices and is instead seen as a scientifically illiterate, anti-woman viewpoint which is systemic in the Republican party?
Quote from: "Poison Tree"How many of these statements are needed before this stops being individual republicans making miss-statements or poor word choices and is instead seen as a scientifically illiterate, anti-woman viewpoint which is systemic in the Republican party?
Probably as many statements as it takes for Democrats pleading for outlawing all guns before people see all Democrats that way.
When you pick up the broad brush, you lose the credibility to complain when it is applied to you.
I wonder if the number of per incident pregnancies in rape is higher. I mean stress can cause a woman to abort the process, you'd think that would be likely in incidents of rape.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Poison Tree"How many of these statements are needed before this stops being individual republicans making miss-statements or poor word choices and is instead seen as a scientifically illiterate, anti-woman viewpoint which is systemic in the Republican party?
Probably as many statements as it takes for Democrats pleading for outlawing all guns before people see all Democrats that way.
When you pick up the broad brush, you lose the credibility to complain when it is applied to you.
I admit I don't which much news, so I may have missed some, but can you give me a single example of a democratic leader saying they would like to outlaw ALL guns? Because I've never heard a single one say any such thing. Whereas this Republican/legitimate rape thing keeps coming up. Apples and tomatoes there.
I get the broad brush point, but it seems like there could be better examples. Like all democrats want to legalize marijuana, or no democrats support the Defense Against Marriage Act (both false but often treated as true0, or something along those lines.
Quote from: "Aroura33"Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Poison Tree"How many of these statements are needed before this stops being individual republicans making miss-statements or poor word choices and is instead seen as a scientifically illiterate, anti-woman viewpoint which is systemic in the Republican party?
Probably as many statements as it takes for Democrats pleading for outlawing all guns before people see all Democrats that way.
When you pick up the broad brush, you lose the credibility to complain when it is applied to you.
I admit I don't which much news, so I may have missed some, but can you give me a single example of a democratic leader saying they would like to outlaw ALL guns? Because I've never heard a single one say any such thing. Whereas this Republican/legitimate rape thing keeps coming up. Apples and tomatoes there.
I get the broad brush point, but it seems like there could be better examples. Like all democrats want to legalize marijuana, or no democrats support the Defense Against Marriage Act (both false but often treated as true0, or something along those lines.
Dianne Feinstein did back when the initial gun ban was implemented. She said "If I could have gotten the support I would have banned them all. Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in."
I think the reason she can't get the support is that to repeal the 2nd amendment it needs a 2/3 vote of the federal congress and the 3/4 of the states to ratify the amendment that will repeal it. No chance in hell she gets it.
Quote from: "Greig"pregnancies by rape are rare "because it's an act of violence, because the body is traumatized."
I don't care if that only happens one in four quintillion times. It's not a reason not to provide medical care.
My second biggest problem with this is that these douchebags, who are ELECTED OFFICIALS are spouting this crap without any clue if it's actually true or not, it's just them gassing and guessing. Fuck the facts.
What else are they saying that's just coming out of their asses?
Why do I even read this forum? The things I read here bum me out daily. :lol:
Quote from: "Aroura33"I admit I don't which much news, so I may have missed some, but can you give me a single example of a democratic leader saying they would like to outlaw ALL guns? Because I've never heard a single one say any such thing.
Sure, Dianne Feinstein said that she'd ban 'em all if she could.
QuoteWhereas this Republican/legitimate rape thing keeps coming up. Apples and tomatoes there.
Firstly, you're misstating the position they're arguing, which gives evidence to your own bias, because they're not arguing that rape is "legitimate". Secondly, the actual position, that "conception is less likely to arise from rape" has only to my knowledge been asserted by a couple of Republicans. What do
you mean by "keeps coming up"? How are you not spinning your argument, or loading your rhetoric?
QuoteI get the broad brush point, but it seems like there could be better examples. Like all democrats want to legalize marijuana, or no democrats support the Defense Against Marriage Act (both false but often treated as true0, or something along those lines.
You might wish to look up the Democratic attitude towards gun control. I think you're in for a little surprise.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Firstly, you're misstating the position they're arguing, which gives evidence to your own bias, because they're not arguing that rape is "legitimate". Secondly, the actual position, that "conception is less likely to arise from rape" has only to my knowledge been asserted by a couple of Republicans. What do you mean by "keeps coming up"? How are you not spinning your argument, or loading your rhetoric?
What keeps coming up is the Republican war on women. This is just the latest attack, in which anyone who cares to read between the lines can see the real message: If a woman is pregnant it wasn't because of rape since rape victims don't get pregnant; therefore if she claims it was she is likely a liar and there is no need to take her rape claim seriously.
This heart warming social conservative message is brought to you by the same party that passes laws to allow doctors to legally lie to women regarding abortion, subject women to lecturing and a mandatory ultrasound performed with a medically unnecessary "rape wand", and many other wonderful pieces of legislation.
Greig and Aikin's statements may have differed but they both had the same message: that rape isn't a big deal because women can't get pregnant from it.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Firstly, you're misstating the position they're arguing, which gives evidence to your own bias, because they're not arguing that rape is "legitimate". Secondly, the actual position, that "conception is less likely to arise from rape" has only to my knowledge been asserted by a couple of Republicans. What do you mean by "keeps coming up"? How are you not spinning your argument, or loading your rhetoric?
What keeps coming up is the Republican war on women. This is just the latest attack, in which anyone who cares to read between the lines can see the real message: If a woman is pregnant it wasn't because of rape since rape victims don't get pregnant; therefore if she claims it was she is likely a liar and there is no need to take her rape claim seriously.
This heart warming social conservative message is brought to you by the same party that passes laws to allow doctors to legally lie to women regarding abortion, subject women to lecturing and a mandatory ultrasound performed with a medically unnecessary "rape wand", and many other wonderful pieces of legislation.
Greig and Aikin's statements may have differed but they both had the same message: that rape isn't a big deal because women can't get pregnant from it.
I disagree. I think this is more a matter of desiring to eliminate abortion, rather than minimize the evil of rape. It is still, to be sure, an attempt to impose control over women (by dint of dictating what they may do with their own bodies).
Granted that I feel that restricting abortion is shitty, there is a clear moral difference between wanting to restrict women's rights, and justifying rape. Mistaking one for the other is not the mark of the percipient mind.
I'm not arguing that the Republicans are gender-friendly, just so we are clear on that. One of the major reasons I've never cottoned to Republicans is their willingness to use government to enforce their traditional views of gender relations.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Firstly, you're misstating the position they're arguing, which gives evidence to your own bias, because they're not arguing that rape is "legitimate". Secondly, the actual position, that "conception is less likely to arise from rape" has only to my knowledge been asserted by a couple of Republicans. What do you mean by "keeps coming up"? How are you not spinning your argument, or loading your rhetoric?
What keeps coming up is the Republican war on women. This is just the latest attack, in which anyone who cares to read between the lines can see the real message: If a woman is pregnant it wasn't because of rape since rape victims don't get pregnant; therefore if she claims it was she is likely a liar and there is no need to take her rape claim seriously.
This heart warming social conservative message is brought to you by the same party that passes laws to allow doctors to legally lie to women regarding abortion, subject women to lecturing and a mandatory ultrasound performed with a medically unnecessary "rape wand", and many other wonderful pieces of legislation.
Greig and Aikin's statements may have differed but they both had the same message: that rape isn't a big deal because women can't get pregnant from it.
I disagree. I think this is more a matter of desiring to eliminate abortion, rather than minimize the evil of rape. It is still, to be sure, an attempt to impose control over women by dint of dictating what they may do with their own bodies.
Granted that I feel that restricting abortion is shitty, there is a clear moral difference between wanting to restrict women's rights, and justifying rape. Mistaking one for the other is not the mark of the percipient mind.
Don't forget that they are also implying that women who get pregnant from rape also kind of really wanted it.
Quote from: "Mermaid"Don't forget that they are also implying that women who get pregnant from rape also kind of really wanted it.
I think they want to convey that impression, but anyone with half-a-brain can see that the alleged biological refusal is not a reflection of conscious desire.
It's quite the leap to go from "her body rejects rape-seed" to "her mind welcomed violation".
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Mermaid"Don't forget that they are also implying that women who get pregnant from rape also kind of really wanted it.
I think they want to convey that impression, but anyone with half-a-brain can see that the alleged biological refusal is not a reflection of conscious desire.
It's quite the leap to go from "her body rejects rape-seed" to "her mind welcomed violation".
Not really. Notice the key word in the statement is trauma. The logic is as follows:
1) Rape is traumatic.
2) Trauma prevents pregnancy.
3) If she got pregnant there was no trauma.
4) If there was no trauma then she wanted it.
5) If she wanted it, it wasn't rape.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Mermaid"Don't forget that they are also implying that women who get pregnant from rape also kind of really wanted it.
I think they want to convey that impression, but anyone with half-a-brain can see that the alleged biological refusal is not a reflection of conscious desire.
It's quite the leap to go from "her body rejects rape-seed" to "her mind welcomed violation".
Not really. Notice the key word in the statement is trauma. The logic is as follows:
1) Rape is traumatic.
2) Trauma prevents pregnancy.
3) If she got pregnant there was no trauma.
4) If there was no trauma then she wanted it.
5) If she wanted it, it wasn't rape.
Step four is where you'll find your major problem.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Step four is where you'll find your major problem.
No, my problem is with step 2.
This isn't a course of logic for you and me. Its for people who accept step 4 as being obviously true.
I'd say 2, 3, 4 and 5 are all major problems.
Quote from: "Mermaid"I'd say 2, 3, 4 and 5 are all major problems.
5? really?
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Mermaid"I'd say 2, 3, 4 and 5 are all major problems.
5? really?
The context is a woman says she was raped. If you tell her she wanted it that doesn't make it true.
I am not making any other claims.
I think I have a solution... Republicans... Don't fucking talk about rape. Just stop. All you are doing is digging that hole deeper.
"Rape pregnancies are rare" when a man is the victim.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"This isn't a course of logic for you and me. Its for people who accept step 4 as being obviously true.
Something tells me there's no one here fitting that description, so I'll stay with my point, which is that assuming a woman's state of desire based upon no mental trauma being present is a
non sequitur. Most people aren't emotionally traumatized by the common cold, but it doesn't follow that they seek to come down with it.
There's no point to addressing the rest of the nonsense, on that basis alone.
Quote from: "Shiranu"I think I have a solution... Republicans... Don't fucking talk about rape. Just stop. All you are doing is digging that hole deeper.
Or, better yet, start thinking about it for what it is, an act of violence.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Aroura33"I admit I don't which much news, so I may have missed some, but can you give me a single example of a democratic leader saying they would like to outlaw ALL guns? Because I've never heard a single one say any such thing.
Sure, Dianne Feinstein said that she'd ban 'em all if she could.
So, one person. Good to know.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Firstly, you're misstating the position they're arguing, which gives evidence to your own bias, because they're not arguing that rape is "legitimate". Secondly, the actual position, that "conception is less likely to arise from rape" has only to my knowledge been asserted by a couple of Republicans. What do you mean by "keeps coming up"? How are you not spinning your argument, or loading your rhetoric?
I don't know who you mean by "they", but Tod Akin said:
QuoteIf it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down
So what I was talking about was how it has been said, if only by one republican, that legitimate rapes DO NOT cause pregnancies. So yeah, one of "them" did talk about legitimate rape, it IS a position that was argued, and you seemed to have misunderstood what I was referring to.
And yes, their position on women's rights, rape, abortion, etc, all keeps coming up. 138 Republicans just voted AGAINST renewing the Violence Against Women Act. Not a single Democrat voted against it. It isn't me who has the bias. (I don't mean you, I mean them). Certainly, it isn't ALL of them, nor have I said that, but it does appear to be a prevalent attitude.
Also, I don't know what bias I might have that you mean. I am not a Democrat, and I find many of their politicians to be equally corrupt as Republicans. However, at least they aren't out in force AGAINST women's rights. I'm not spinning it, it's just a fact that a majority of Republicans are fighting hard to pass laws that are harmful to and aimed at oppressing women.
If you think they really think it's about the babies, then they wouldn't also be fighting against medical contraception coverage. And also fighting to make sure those babies, once born, don't get get any government aid if the need it.
(If I have a bias, perhaps it is from the female perspective, but it isn't from the democratic one you assumed).
Quote from: "Aroura33"So, one person. Good to know.
That is
exactly my point. We have two Republicans on the record saying this crap, and you're acting as if all Republicans think it.
Somehow, the extra Republican makes the sample size more apt?
Quote from: "Aroura33"So what I was talking about was how it has been said, if only by one republican, that legitimate rapes DO NOT cause pregnancies. So yeah, one of "them" did talk about legitimate rape, it IS a position that was argued, and you seemed to have misunderstood what I was referring to.
No, I didn't. I disagreed with your insinuation that that strain of thought is shared by the majority of Republicans.
Quote from: "Aroura33"And yes, their position on women's rights, rape, abortion, etc, all keeps coming up. 138 Republicans just voted AGAINST renewing the Violence Against Women Act. Not a single Democrat voted against it. It isn't me who has the bias. (I don't mean you, I mean them). Certainly, it isn't ALL of them, nor have I said that, but it does appear to be a prevalent attitude.
That is not the same as sharing the view that a woman's body has ways of shutting off pregnancy arising from rape, which renders this point a red herring. Additionally, because no one here, least of all me, has argued that the Republicans are concerned with defending women's rights, this is also a strawman.
Quote from: "Aroura33"If you think they really think it's about the babies, then they wouldn't also be fighting against medical contraception coverage. And also fighting to make sure those babies, once born, don't get get any government aid if the need it.
(If I have a bias, perhaps it is from the female perspective, but it isn't from the democratic one you assumed).
I don't think that. As noted above, I think their approach to women's rights is based upon their desire to maintain gender relations as closely as possible to pre-liberation norms. I reject, for that matter, the idea that they care about the baby at all. But that doesn't mean that what you wrote ("Whereas this Republican/legitimate rape thing keeps coming up") is accurate (the Republicans I know don't want to legitimize rape), and that crass generalization is what I was taking issue with, not the other views that you seem intent upon bundling up and loading onto my point.
As far as your bias, I think it's telling that you regard two Republican speakers as grounds for a broad generalization, but one Democratic speaker as being an insufficient sample (as implied by the mockery with which you opened your last post). I also think that it's causing you to misread me here, because I'm not defending the point the speaker put forth, which is indeed absolutely stupid. I'm simply saying that him, and one other speaker, do not and can not speak for all Republicans. To imply that they can and do is not supported.
While I will not pretend that Democrats don't say stupid things about rape (one in Colorado did just recently) let us not pretend that this is just two Republicans saying this kind of thing.
Multiple Republicans have claimed few, "one in millions and millions and millions,"pregnancies result from (true) rape. We've had Republicans qualify only some rapes as "legitimate," "honest", "emergency", or "forcible". We've had them say that some women "rape so easily" and women should "just relax and enjoy" rape. They've said rape is similar to having a baby out of wedlock and car theft. They've said women reporting rapes need counselors to ask if it wasn't really consensual sex (otherwise women will get away with claiming rape as an excuse to get an abortion) and women claiming to be raped have "buyers remorse". Plenty of them are trying to force invasive medical procedures on women who seek abortions, even after rape. Some have tried to criminalize abortions after rape as evidence tampering. We've seen a state legislator say that the reason an 11 year old was gang raped was her choice of clothing (but don't worry, school uniforms will stop future rapes). Republican legislators have attempted to lower and even eliminate punishment for marital-rape. Hell, their last VP nominee referred to rape as a "method of conception", co-sponsored Tod Akin's (of "legitimate rape fame") bill defining "forcible" and has now introduced a bill which, if it were to magically become law and constitutional, would potentially allow rapists to sue their victims to prevent abortions.
And what happens to Republicans who make these comments? Nothing, except in cases of extraordinary outrage and slim hope of winning (re)election, anyway. Even Tod Akin got back much of the support he initially lost once it looked like he still had a chance of winning.
Quote from: "kilodelta""Rape pregnancies are rare" when a man is the victim.
Some people say women raping men is not possible .
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "leo"Quote from: "kilodelta""Rape pregnancies are rare" when a man is the victim.
Some people say women raping men is not possible .
Six Women Rape Man To Death In Nigeria: Uroko Onoka, Wealthy Nigerian In Bentue State, Killed By His Six Wives
//http://www.ibtimes.com/six-women-rape-man-death-nigeria-uroko-onoka-wealthy-nigerian-bentue-state-killed-his-six-wives
//http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/01/women-raping-men-a-surviv_n_2224204.html
There are other cases. I remember years ago Times magazine made a file on this.
Wow raped by 6 women . :shock:
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Mermaid"I'd say 2, 3, 4 and 5 are all major problems.
5? really?
Yes, really.
There's a difference between having a desire and being willing to act on it or to accept its consequences.
Quote from: "bennyboy"Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Mermaid"I'd say 2, 3, 4 and 5 are all major problems.
5? really?
Yes, really.
There's a difference between having a desire and being willing to act on it or to accept its consequences.
I would argue that if you aren't willing to act upon it or accept its consequences then you don't really want it.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"I would argue that if you aren't willing to act upon it or accept its consequences then you don't really want it.
I'm pretty sure I want to fuck the buxom highschool girl who lives in my building. And I'm equally sure that I'm not willing to act upon it or accept its consequences. The difference is that one is a lizard-brain emotional response, and the other is based on my world view and my assessment of my current station in life.
Similarly, a woman could both be sexually aroused, and say, "No. I'm a virgin and I don't want to become pregnant." No means no, and rape is rape-- that she's able to express her will despite her lizard-brain instincts is a virtue, not an indicator that she "was asking for it" and that it wasn't a legitimate rape.
That doesn't mean that a highschool boy who gets hot and heavy with a girl at a party and can't stop himself at the last minute is the same as a psycho who waits in the alley for a victim to walk by. It does, however, mean that a girl can both be raped and become pregnant, and that compassion for that fact means she should have health care options.
Quote from: "bennyboy"Quote from: "Nonsensei"I would argue that if you aren't willing to act upon it or accept its consequences then you don't really want it.
I'm pretty sure I want to fuck the buxom highschool girl who lives in my building. And I'm equally sure that I'm not willing to act upon it or accept its consequences. The difference is that one is a lizard-brain emotional response, and the other is based on my world view and my assessment of my current station in life.
Similarly, a woman could both be sexually aroused, and say, "No. I'm a virgin and I don't want to become pregnant." No means no, and rape is rape-- that she's able to express her will despite her lizard-brain instincts is a virtue, not an indicator that she "was asking for it" and that it wasn't a legitimate rape.
That doesn't mean that a highschool boy who gets hot and heavy with a girl at a party and can't stop himself at the last minute is the same as a psycho who waits in the alley for a victim to walk by. It does, however, mean that a girl can both be raped and become pregnant, and that compassion for that fact means she should have health care options.
I feel you are dissecting a final decision into separate elements to try to support your point. You feel the desire to fuck that high school girl, but other factors have outweighed that and you now do not want to fuck her because of what might happen. If something changes you might change your mind, but as it stands now you do not want to do it.
This is because it isn't just a question of "do I want to have sex with her?". The answer to that is obviously yes, but it isnt the whole story. The whole story is "Do I want to have sex with her and am I willing to take the consequences of that action?" to which the answer is no.
So, If a woman wants to have sex with a man and DOES then it cannot be rape. She has considered all the consequences and still wanted to do it. This is very different from what essentially amounts to a base desire to have someone give her an orgasm. To peel that one factor out and use it as evidence that a woman can want something while simultaneously not wanting it (for lack of a better phrase) is an incomplete analysis. The human mind considers many impulses and factors but ultimately comes to one decision.
Quote from: "Poison Tree"While I will not pretend that Democrats don't say stupid things about rape (one in Colorado did just recently) let us not pretend that this is just two Republicans saying this kind of thing.
Multiple Republicans have claimed few, "one in millions and millions and millions,"pregnancies result from (true) rape. We've had Republicans qualify only some rapes as "legitimate," "honest", "emergency", or "forcible". We've had them say that some women "rape so easily" and women should "just relax and enjoy" rape. They've said rape is similar to having a baby out of wedlock and car theft. They've said women reporting rapes need counselors to ask if it wasn't really consensual sex (otherwise women will get away with claiming rape as an excuse to get an abortion) and women claiming to be raped have "buyers remorse". Plenty of them are trying to force invasive medical procedures on women who seek abortions, even after rape. Some have tried to criminalize abortions after rape as evidence tampering. We've seen a state legislator say that the reason an 11 year old was gang raped was her choice of clothing (but don't worry, school uniforms will stop future rapes). Republican legislators have attempted to lower and even eliminate punishment for marital-rape. Hell, their last VP nominee referred to rape as a "method of conception", co-sponsored Tod Akin's (of "legitimate rape fame") bill defining "forcible" and has now introduced a bill which, if it were to magically become law and constitutional, would potentially allow rapists to sue their victims to prevent abortions.
And what happens to Republicans who make these comments? Nothing, except in cases of extraordinary outrage and slim hope of winning (re)election, anyway. Even Tod Akin got back much of the support he initially lost once it looked like he still had a chance of winning.
We've also had more than one Democrat speak about the desirability of restricting guns. We could dig up many more than Feinstein, and you know that for a fact. I could point to GC advocates who support the refusal of local officials to let out permits even though the applicant has met every state-mandated qualification. I could point to statements about how this or that gun should be outlawed based upon a crime in which the desired ban-item wasn't even used. I could point to slippery-slope intentions on the part of many gun control advocates who are largely Democrat, and then go on to argue that Democrats not only don't trust people, but that they cannot be trusted on the matter.
And that would all be fallacious, because Democrats, like Republicans, are a complex group with varied views.
Meanwhile, you've missed the point, which was that holding a double-standard is not rational argumentation, no matter how much you try to justify it.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "bennyboy"Quote from: "Nonsensei"I would argue that if you aren't willing to act upon it or accept its consequences then you don't really want it.
I'm pretty sure I want to fuck the buxom highschool girl who lives in my building. And I'm equally sure that I'm not willing to act upon it or accept its consequences. The difference is that one is a lizard-brain emotional response, and the other is based on my world view and my assessment of my current station in life.
Similarly, a woman could both be sexually aroused, and say, "No. I'm a virgin and I don't want to become pregnant." No means no, and rape is rape-- that she's able to express her will despite her lizard-brain instincts is a virtue, not an indicator that she "was asking for it" and that it wasn't a legitimate rape.
That doesn't mean that a highschool boy who gets hot and heavy with a girl at a party and can't stop himself at the last minute is the same as a psycho who waits in the alley for a victim to walk by. It does, however, mean that a girl can both be raped and become pregnant, and that compassion for that fact means she should have health care options.
I feel you are dissecting a final decision into separate elements to try to support your point. You feel the desire to fuck that high school girl, but other factors have outweighed that and you now do not want to fuck her because of what might happen. If something changes you might change your mind, but as it stands now you do not want to do it.
This is because it isn't just a question of "do I want to have sex with her?". The answer to that is obviously yes, but it isnt the whole story. The whole story is "Do I want to have sex with her and am I willing to take the consequences of that action?" to which the answer is no.
So, If a woman wants to have sex with a man and DOES then it cannot be rape. She has considered all the consequences and still wanted to do it. This is very different from what essentially amounts to a base desire to have someone give her an orgasm. To peel that one factor out and use it as evidence that a woman can want something while simultaneously not wanting it (for lack of a better phrase) is an incomplete analysis. The human mind considers many impulses and factors but ultimately comes to one decision.
I do not accept your definition of "want." It's perfectly possible to want to do something and still not do it. That's because want is an emotional state, and action is mediated at least partly by non-emotional brain function.
If a woman has the emotional desire to have sex with a man, but says "No. Don't do it," then he's still raping her if he goes ahead, EVEN IF she experiences pleasure. Because rape isn't about feelings, it's about permission.
Quote from: "bennyboy"I do not accept your definition of "want." It's perfectly possible to want to do something and still not do it. That's because want is an emotional state, and action is mediated at least partly by non-emotional brain function.
If a woman has the emotional desire to have sex with a man, but says "No. Don't do it," then he's still raping her if he goes ahead, EVEN IF she experiences pleasure. Because rape isn't about feelings, it's about permission.
Well-put.
Quote from: "bennyboy"I do not accept your definition of "want." It's perfectly possible to want to do something and still not do it. That's because want is an emotional state, and action is mediated at least partly by non-emotional brain function.
I feel pretty sure that is exactly the point I made in the text you quoted.
Quote from: "bennyboy"If a woman has the emotional desire to have sex with a man, but says "No. Don't do it," then he's still raping her if he goes ahead, EVEN IF she experiences pleasure. Because rape isn't about feelings, it's about permission.
If she says no, she doesn't want him to do it. There's really no way around this. At some point you come to a comprehensive decision, and it is that decision that expresses your feelings about something. Again, you are attempting to peel a specific part of an overall decision and use it as evidence of a woman being able to want something while not wanting it. It simply doesn't work like that.
Saw that story, sick sick sick.
Quote from: "leo"Wow raped by 6 women . :shock:
Death by snu-snu
(//http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTx-fylvWXftIWI69_7-mSRESjOTqePWBZYIynYSsNwc0zyx--a8Q)
Quote from: "Nonsensei"If she says no, she doesn't want him to do it. There's really no way around this. At some point you come to a comprehensive decision, and it is that decision that expresses your feelings about something. Again, you are attempting to peel a specific part of an overall decision and use it as evidence of a woman being able to want something while not wanting it. It simply doesn't work like that.
I disagree. Emotions are often not nearly so cut-and-dried.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Poison Tree"While I will not pretend that Democrats don't say stupid things about rape (one in Colorado did just recently) let us not pretend that this is just two Republicans saying this kind of thing.
Multiple Republicans have claimed few, "one in millions and millions and millions,"pregnancies result from (true) rape. We've had Republicans qualify only some rapes as "legitimate," "honest", "emergency", or "forcible". We've had them say that some women "rape so easily" and women should "just relax and enjoy" rape. They've said rape is similar to having a baby out of wedlock and car theft. They've said women reporting rapes need counselors to ask if it wasn't really consensual sex (otherwise women will get away with claiming rape as an excuse to get an abortion) and women claiming to be raped have "buyers remorse". Plenty of them are trying to force invasive medical procedures on women who seek abortions, even after rape. Some have tried to criminalize abortions after rape as evidence tampering. We've seen a state legislator say that the reason an 11 year old was gang raped was her choice of clothing (but don't worry, school uniforms will stop future rapes). Republican legislators have attempted to lower and even eliminate punishment for marital-rape. Hell, their last VP nominee referred to rape as a "method of conception", co-sponsored Tod Akin's (of "legitimate rape fame") bill defining "forcible" and has now introduced a bill which, if it were to magically become law and constitutional, would potentially allow rapists to sue their victims to prevent abortions.
And what happens to Republicans who make these comments? Nothing, except in cases of extraordinary outrage and slim hope of winning (re)election, anyway. Even Tod Akin got back much of the support he initially lost once it looked like he still had a chance of winning.
We've also had more than one Democrat speak about the desirability of restricting guns. We could dig up many more than Feinstein, and you know that for a fact. I could point to GC advocates who support the refusal of local officials to let out permits even though the applicant has met every state-mandated qualification. I could point to statements about how this or that gun should be outlawed based upon a crime in which the desired ban-item wasn't even used. I could point to slippery-slope intentions on the part of many gun control advocates who are largely Democrat, and then go on to argue that Democrats not only don't trust people, but that they cannot be trusted on the matter.
And that would all be fallacious, because Democrats, like Republicans, are a complex group with varied views.
Meanwhile, you've missed the point, which was that holding a double-standard is not rational argumentation, no matter how much you try to justify it.
And I'd say that anti-gun attitude is held by a significant portion of Democrats (if Aroura33 disagrees then you can take it up with him [her?]). You did not appear to be merely claiming that I am holding a double-standard, you also appeared to say that only two (or, at most, an insufficient few) republicans have made this type of statement on rape and that there is not a sizable group of Republicans who think this way.
Quote from: "Poison Tree"And I'd say that anti-gun attitude is held by a significant portion of Democrats (if Aroura33 disagrees then you can take it up with him [her?]). You did not appear to be merely claiming that I am holding a double-standard, you also appeared to say that only two (or, at most, an insufficient few) republicans have made this type of statement on rape and that there is not a sizable group of Republicans who think this way.
No, what I've said is that the sample size given (of two that I know of -- feel free to add to it) is found sufficient to castigate Republicans, while an equally-miniscule sample size is regarded as insignificant as regards Democrats, and that that is a clear double-standard. I'm inclined to think it indicates bias.
As far as how many Republicans think that rape is less-likely to result in pregnancy, I have no data. Do you? Until I have some good data, I'm not inclined to ascribe such a position to such a large number of people, based on so few expressions of the opinion in question.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Poison Tree"And I'd say that anti-gun attitude is held by a significant portion of Democrats (if Aroura33 disagrees then you can take it up with him [her?]). You did not appear to be merely claiming that I am holding a double-standard, you also appeared to say that only two (or, at most, an insufficient few) republicans have made this type of statement on rape and that there is not a sizable group of Republicans who think this way.
No, what I've said is that the sample size given (of two that I know of -- feel free to add to it) is found sufficient to castigate Republicans, while an equally-miniscule sample size is regarded as insignificant as regards Democrats, and that that is a clear double-standard. I'm inclined to think it indicates bias.
As far as how many Republicans think that rape is less-likely to result in pregnancy, I have no data. Do you? Until I have some good data, I'm not inclined to ascribe such a position to such a large number of people, based on so few expressions of the opinion in question.
Why should this specific quote (or those two specific quotes) about pregnancy from rape be quarantined and only viewed in strict isolation instead of being viewed as part of a larger attempt by many Republicans to minimize rape? Especially when this comment was made while Celeste Greig was trying to distance himself from unpopular comments on rape, specifically Tod Akins'--this is a Republican trying to show a kinder, gentler side regarding rape.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"If she says no, she doesn't want him to do it.
Wrong. A word's a word, and a feeling's a feeling; they are not the same.
And that's why 20 year-old douches are running around saying stupid shit like, "Sometimes no means yes," and "Sometimes you just gotta TAKE the pussy." They're expressing the idea that they can judge whether a woman "really" wants to have sex with them despite what she says, or fails to say.
It's why Republican douches say stupid shit like, "If she got pregnant, it wasn't really rape, because the female body has ways of shutting that stuff down."
In both cases, "It was my belief that she was horny, therefore it was consensual" puts far too much power of arbitration in a man's hands, despite the fact that 1) he's likely too drunk to make correct decisions; 2) he has such a massive vested interest in the outcome of the judgment that it's equivalent to letting a president sit as judge at his own impeachment.
Quote from: "Poison Tree"Why should this specific quote (or those two specific quotes) about pregnancy from rape be quarantined and only viewed in strict isolation instead of being viewed as part of a larger attempt by many Republicans to minimize rape? Especially when this comment was made while Celeste Greig was trying to distance himself from unpopular comments on rape, specifically Tod Akins'--this is a Republican trying to show a kinder, gentler side regarding rape.
Because that is what
you did upthread when they imputed that view to all Republicans, I had thought. "These statements" read to me as if you were referring to this specific claim of violent rape is a view held by the general body of Republicans:
Quote from: "In his OP, Poison Tree"How many of these statements are needed before this stops being individual republicans making miss-statements or poor word choices and is instead seen as a scientifically illiterate, anti-woman viewpoint which is systemic in the Republican party?
In context, it looks as if you are clearly imputing this stupid view to the mass of Republicans -- or at least asking your readers to do that for you.
I'm not arguing that the Republican party is concerned about women's issues. As I've said already, I think they're clearly not. But -- I don't think it's any more right to impute this sort of stupidity to Republicans than it is to impute Sen. Feinstein's antipathy to the 2nd Amendment to the body of Democrats.
Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Quote from: "Poison Tree"Why should this specific quote (or those two specific quotes) about pregnancy from rape be quarantined and only viewed in strict isolation instead of being viewed as part of a larger attempt by many Republicans to minimize rape? Especially when this comment was made while Celeste Greig was trying to distance himself from unpopular comments on rape, specifically Tod Akins'--this is a Republican trying to show a kinder, gentler side regarding rape.
Because that is what you did upthread when they imputed that view to all Republicans, I had thought. "These statements" read to me as if you were referring to this specific claim of violent rape is a view held by the general body of Republicans:
Quote from: "In his OP, Poison Tree"How many of these statements are needed before this stops being individual republicans making miss-statements or poor word choices and is instead seen as a scientifically illiterate, anti-woman viewpoint which is systemic in the Republican party?
In context, it looks as if you are clearly imputing this stupid view to the mass of Republicans -- or at least asking your readers to do that for you.
I'm not arguing that the Republican party is concerned about women's issues. As I've said already, I think they're clearly not. But -- I don't think it's any more right to impute this sort of stupidity to Republicans than it is to impute Sen. Feinstein's antipathy to the 2nd Amendment to the body of Democrats.
I can see room for confusion with the way I worded my first post, but certainly my second one must have made it clear that I was referring to a broader range of Republican rape comments, yes?
And I still say that antipathy (or, at least, apathy--even unfriendly apathy) to the 2nd Amendment is a view with significant support among liberals, just as I maintain that views on rape reflected in the soundbites I mentioned in my second post enjoy significant support among Republicans.