Homosexual Marriage

[falcondude]

Originally Posted by OMGfat123

I don't mind homosexuality at all. It's just when it becomes between you its a problem. I one was at the mall with my friend and i saw to gay couples but i mean i didn't mind it but when they started to make out in front of us thats when it gets to me as a problem. I don't like two men making out in front of me but i don't mind at all the homosexualites.

I totally agree with this. I think that people deserve the freedom to do whatever they want to (as long as its not raping people), whether they are straight or gay. How would straight people react if they weren't allowed to marry? That's how homosexuals must feel when they aren't allowed to marry/be together/etc.

[Chrissi]

Originally Posted by devonin

Um...females can absolutely rape males. This is one of those prejudices about gender and sexuality that has actually made life a lot harder for a lot of men. The same attitude that makes the -very- large number of men who are abused by their wife so hesitant to come forward and look weak has led to this idea that it is impossible for a man to be raped in a way that doesn't include sodomy.

There are isolated cases in history, if any, of women raping men. Women can abuse, coerce, and molest men, but actual RAPE is nearly impossible. It requires a woman either forcing a man's penis inside of her with his explicit non-consent, or raping him with a foreign object, which, depending where you're from, only counts as abuse and not rape.

Can you give me a case of a woman who raped a man? It's exceedingly hard to find.

Rape is almost entirely a male crime. Don't pretend it's not. Women who rape are statistical aberrations. It's abnormal and extremely rare. It has been theorized that rape by women is a crime solely resulting from the acceptance of more masculine roles for women.

This doesn't mean it's not a tragedy when a woman rapes someone, but in general terms, it's not anywhere close to the problem of men who rape. Just by sheer numbers.

All of the cases of rape by a woman that I have ever found are actually rape by a man through a third party. What I mean is, women are often influenced by men to rape or aid in the rape of someone. Rarely does the intent sincerely come from the woman.

It's nice to try to be gender neutral and all; whatever a man can do, a woman can also do, right? Well, in this case, it doesn't work so well. Rape is almost entirely a male crime and women who rape are anomolies.


As well, of the women who rape/abuse/molest/coerce, you will notice that motivations are typically very different from the motivations of men. Men who rape may do it to attempt to shame the victim, or hurt the victim, with excuses along the lines of "she was being a ****tease" or "he needed to know his place". Women rarely have such motivations. As well, in some pathological/serial rapists, there is a strong urge or desire to rape - the pain they cause their victims sexually arouses them, and they go from victim to victim as a matter of desire. Think Ted Bundy. He had strong urges to rape and assault women.

Now, I took a course on this whole deal, and the fact is that despite some pathological/serial male rapists being motivated by urges, desires, or deep fantasies, there is not ONE woman in all of recorded history who fits this profile. Not a single one. There has never been a woman who raped "for the fun of it". In the few cases there are, they always do it to some end or goal.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Chrissi

There are isolated cases in history, if any, of women raping men. Women can abuse, coerce, and molest men, but actual RAPE is nearly impossible. It requires a woman either forcing a man's penis inside of her with his explicit non-consent, or raping him with a foreign object, which, depending where you're from, only counts as abuse and not rape.

Um...So you've defined what rape is...fair enough. If a woman is physically stronger than a man, how is it any harder for her to carry out that action than for a man to do the same to a woman?

Can you give me a case of a woman who raped a man? It's exceedingly hard to find.

rather a lot of that stems from the fact that up until rather recently, it was not even a legal possibility for a woman to rape a man. No such charge existed, so obviously nobody was charged with it. There have been several trials where a man alleged rape by a woman, but to my knowledge there has never been a conviction, primarily on the ground of the defense trying to make a case that poor weak woman can't possibly make a man have penetrative sex without his express consent.

Rape is almost entirely a male crime. Don't pretend it's not. Women who rape are statistical aberrations. It's abnormal and extremely rare. It has been theorized that rape by women is a crime solely resulting from the acceptance of more masculine roles for women.

This doesn't mean it's not a tragedy when a woman rapes someone, but in general terms, it's not anywhere close to the problem of men who rape. Just by sheer numbers.

Okay...so we should never address any problem when there happen to be larger problems? More people starve to death than are raped in a year, maybe we should not consider rape to be a problem worth addressing because by sheer numbers, there's a bigger problem?

It's nice to try to be gender neutral and all; whatever a man can do, a woman can also do, right? Well, in this case, it doesn't work so well. Rape is almost entirely a male crime and women who rape are anomolies.

It certainly does work as well. it is -primarily- a male crime yes, that's irellevant to my statement that women can and are recorded as having raped men. ToshX claimed that in order for a man to be raped, you needed another man to rape them, and I denied that claim.

"Woman can too rape men" != "Women raping men is precisely as large a problem as men raping women"

[ToshX]

ToshX claimed that in order for a man to be raped, you needed another man to rape them, and I denied that claim.

I once thought that a while ago, but most people actually say it isn't even considered rape if a woman does it. The worst that could happen from a woman forcing it upon a man is the man would get an STD for get injured or something like that. With a man forcing it upon a woman, the woman can and likely will not only get both injured and a possible STD, but she can and often does end up pregnant and scarred for life(or a very, very long time). I'm not saying men won't get the same feeling, I'm just saying it's not quite the same. It feels a whole lot different to be forced to have an orgasm than it does to be forced to have an orgasm inside of you which could potentially make you pregnant.

I mean, all sorts of things can go wrong.

Don't get me wrong, women can do some pretty bad stuff to men as well, I'm just saying not quite to the same extent.

I'm sure you could bring it to "oh, what if the woman physically abuses the man to an extreme extent?" Well in that case, it probably wouldn't just be rape.

[devonin]

Define rape for me then...I'm pretty sure that the legal term involves penetrative non-consensual sex. It seems that you're demanding that a great deal more be proven to be the case before you'll call it rape, and I'd like to know how you're defining the term before we continue.

[Chrissi]

Originally Posted by ToshX

It feels a whole lot different to be forced to have an orgasm than it does to be forced to have an orgasm inside of you which could potentially make you pregnant.

I sense something wrong with that statement.

[ToshX]

I define it differently depending on who is different.

The reason I believe it to be correct that way is because both genders don't go through the same things. If both genders had the same body parts, I'd say otherwise.

Originally Posted by Chrissi

I sense something wrong with that statement.

I don't. Tell me, then, what is wrong?

[Chrissi]

Originally Posted by ToshX

t feels a whole lot different to be forced to have an orgasm than it does to be forced to have an orgasm inside of you

...

[ToshX]

As in, for a girl to be forced to have a guy cum inside of her.

Doesn't that make sense <__<

[metalliram]

There has never been a woman who raped "for the fun of it".

Uh, what about the girl I knew who raped several girls AND her boyfriend just because she was bored and wanted to amuse herself?

It feels a whole lot different to be forced to have an orgasm than it does to be forced to have an orgasm inside of you which could potentially make you pregnant.

The reason I believe it to be correct that way is because both genders don't go through the same things. If both genders had the same body parts, I'd say otherwise.

You're right. Men and women would go through VERY different things both physically and emotionally. But you are suggesting that a woman's experience would automatically be worse. I don't agree with that. I think that they would be equally, and uniquely horrifying experiences. For a woman it would be because they were being physically harmed, could become pregnant, could get an STD. For a man it would be because they were physically being taken advantage of, could get an STD, could GET THE RAPIST pregnant and have to deal with the problems that came with that. Problems like potentially being unable to support or protect a child they helped concieve, and knowing the mother was not a very good person (to say the least). As well as various other types of mental and financial damage.

And emotionally the woman would feel violated, dominated, 'ruined', worthless. While a man could easily feel those same things. I've heard of raped women feeling shame over unwanted arousal during their rape... imagine the feelings a man would experience over not only feeling unwanted, and unwilled arousal... but the fact that his very arousal was what allowed him to be raped!

[Chrissi]

Originally Posted by ToshX

As in, for a girl to be forced to have a guy cum inside of her.

Doesn't that make sense <__<

You mean forced to have someone else have an orgasm inside you. The way you phrased it made it nonsensical.

[ToshX]

Originally Posted by Chrissi

You mean forced to have someone else have an orgasm inside you. The way you phrased it made it nonsensical.

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean. Sorry if I worded it poorly, I was kind of distracted with something and couldn't really get the wording out properly. Basically, the idea was in my head, but I got interrupted while typing it and it ended up looking really weird and even gave off the wrong message.

But you are suggesting that a woman's experience would automatically be worse.

I didn't mean it that way. I'm saying if the EXACT SAME THINGS happened to the EXACT SAME people(assuming two people could be exactly the same, that is), it'd usually be harder on the girl because it's a lot more unpleasant having something stuffed in you while probably bleeding all over than it is having something trying to make you have an orgasm.

I think that they would be equally, and uniquely horrifying experiences.

I wouldn't say equally, but they would both be horrifying experiences, don't get me wrong.

could GET THE RAPIST pregnant and have to deal with the problems that came with that. Problems like potentially being unable to support or protect a child they helped concieve, and knowing the mother was not a very good person (to say the least). As well as various other types of mental and financial damage.

If someone were really raped and got someone pregnant WITHOUT IT BEING THEIR CHOICE, I'm sure something could be arranged so that the one raped is not held responsible. I don't know this as a fact, but I'd think if the lawmakers used common sense with this one, they'd see that a person who's forced into making someone pregnant shouldn't be forced to raise the child, or even SUPPORT the child.

but the fact that his very arousal was what allowed him to be raped!

Well, there's not much that can be done. It's not as if he would have a choice or would enjoy it if he really didn't want it. I mean, no matter how much you're against it, if someone's stroking your dick, you're probably going to be aroused.

I mean, you could hate it so much, you could hate how it feels. You could hate how the person looks. You could be trying to think of things to make the erection go down. However, in the end, there's really no avoiding it. The fact that it's physical basically takes over most mental parts making it almost impossible to not be aroused if a person tries hard enough.

Same goes for women. They could be screaming and crying, trying to get away, but they'd still be aroused just because of the physical thing that's happening to them.

Also, I realize it could be even MORE humiliating for men to get raped simply because they were "overpowered", and it could really hurt them as a person, make them want to change their gender/sexuality, etc. I'm not saying they don't go through the exact same things, I'm just saying given exactly equal circumstances with the same people of different genders, women are probably more likely to get more hurt just due to the fact of how the rape occurs.

[metalliram]

I'm saying if the EXACT SAME THINGS happened to the EXACT SAME people(assuming two people could be exactly the same, that is), it'd usually be harder on the girl because it's a lot more unpleasant having something stuffed in you while probably bleeding all over than it is having something trying to make you have an orgasm.

So you were reffering only to the actual penetration. I was thinking broader than that. But yes, I agree that it would be far more physically unpleasant to be penetrated forcefully.

I wouldn't say equally, but they would both be horrifying experiences, don't get me wrong.

Are you still reffering only to the penetration?

If someone were really raped and got someone pregnant WITHOUT IT BEING THEIR CHOICE, I'm sure something could be arranged so that the one raped is not held responsible. I don't know this as a fact, but I'd think if the lawmakers used common sense with this one, they'd see that a person who's forced into making someone pregnant shouldn't be forced to raise the child, or even SUPPORT the child.

I was thinking more of the emotional damage that might be caused for the father of the child if he were to be PREVENTED from being involved with the child. Custody of children is almost always given to mothers. If a man were to care about the child, despite how it was conceived, he would have almost no leverage to get custody. And due to the general opinion that women either don't rape, or that it is a very small matter when they do, he would also most likely have a hard time convincing anyone the child was not the result of a one-night stand. Also, while a woman would have considerable physical evidence of the rape, a man might be unable to show such proof.

Well, there's not much that can be done. It's not as if he would have a choice or would enjoy it if he really didn't want it. I mean, no matter how much you're against it, if someone's stroking your dick, you're probably going to be aroused.

My point isn't about whether or not it can be helped. It's about the deep shame that I can imagine would come as a result. For women there's enough shame involved when they become aroused while being raped. For men, there would also be potential self-hatred due to the fact that if he were not aroused, the woman would not be able to rape him. If a woman is aroused while being raped, it makes no difference as to whether she can be raped or not, whereas for a man, it creates the possibility.

[ToshX]

Are you still reffering only to the penetration?

Well, when I was talking about that, yes.

I was thinking more of the emotional damage that might be caused for the father of the child if he were to be PREVENTED from being involved with the child. Custody of children is almost always given to mothers. If a man were to care about the child, despite how it was conceived, he would have almost no leverage to get custody. And due to the general opinion that women either don't rape, or that it is a very small matter when they do, he would also most likely have a hard time convincing anyone the child was not the result of a one-night stand. Also, while a woman would have considerable physical evidence of the rape, a man might be unable to show such proof.

This is true. The only way he could really prove that it was rape is if the woman abused him during it.

Then again, a woman could, without being abused or even raped, say the same thing if there was simply sex...

My point isn't about whether or not it can be helped. It's about the deep shame that I can imagine would come as a result. For women there's enough shame involved when they become aroused while being raped. For men, there would also be potential self-hatred due to the fact that if he were not aroused, the woman would not be able to rape him. If a woman is aroused while being raped, it makes no difference as to whether she can be raped or not, whereas for a man, it creates the possibility.

Yeah, but I don't think it would be THAT bad considering there would be absolutely nothing they could do to stop it. But maybe that feeling of helplessness would make them feel worse. I don't really know how it'd turn out.

[metalliram]

Originally Posted by ToshX

Then again, a woman could, without being abused or even raped, say the same thing if there was simply sex...

Who do you honestly think is more likely to be believed? A woman, or a man.... The woman claiming to be raped, while having not actually been, is in a position of power because she is more likely to be believed. The man who was actually raped is in a position where he will most likely not be believed, thus causing him even more suffering.

Yeah, but I don't think it would be THAT bad considering there would be absolutely nothing they could do to stop it. But maybe that feeling of helplessness would make them feel worse. I don't really know how it'd turn out

Well, imagine you were being tortured... we'll say with electric shock. That would be distressing enough. But add in a new factor, a device that stimulates your brain. This device interacts with your brain in such a manner to cause you to uncontrollably move your arm. You can't help that your arm is moving... that's just what happens when your brain recieves certain messages... but unless your arm is moving, you cannot be shocked. Now not only are you in a situation where you are being tortured, but if you were to prevent your body from functioning in a certain way, you could stop the method of torture. Would you feel ok because you just couldn't help it?

I know that seems like an odd way to try to explain it... but I hope it gets the point across.

[-paexaea-]

Holy ****, how do you go from Homosexual Marriage to rape?

Jesus christ.

[ToshX]

Who do you honestly think is more likely to be believed? A woman, or a man.... The woman claiming to be raped, while having not actually been, is in a position of power because she is more likely to be believed. The man who was actually raped is in a position where he will most likely not be believed, thus causing him even more suffering.

Well of course. The way things work is bull****, if I may say so myself.

Well, imagine you were being tortured... we'll say with electric shock. That would be distressing enough. But add in a new factor, a device that stimulates your brain. This device interacts with your brain in such a manner to cause you to uncontrollably move your arm. You can't help that your arm is moving... that's just what happens when your brain recieves certain messages... but unless your arm is moving, you cannot be shocked. Now not only are you in a situation where you are being tortured, but if you were to prevent your body from functioning in a certain way, you could stop the method of torture. Would you feel ok because you just couldn't help it?

If I honestly could not help myself, I would not feel as bad, to be perfectly honest. Then again, I have a really weird way of doing things, and end up not feeling very bad for doing some things I do that others consider terrible simply because I can't help myself, so there's no reason trying to change it more than a possible amount.

I know that seems like an odd way to try to explain it... but I hope it gets the point across.

No, I understood you pretty well.

I mean, to be entirely honest, I don't know how I'd react, because nothing like that has ever happened to me physically.

Originally Posted by -paexaea-

Holy ****, how do you go from Homosexual Marriage to rape?

Jesus christ.

Dunno, read a page or two back or whenever this rape topic started. I consider it very interesting, myself, as we've said almost everything there is to say about homosexual marriage until someone brings up a new point that reverts it back to the topic.

[metalliram]

There have been a lot of topics covered over the history of this thread. It's sort of a 'how many steps to reach THIS from THIS' kind of thing....

You could go from cereal boxes to genocide if you talked long enough.

[ToshX]

Yeah, conversations change drastically all of the time. I was once talking to a regular here about Diablo 2, then it turned into a talk of bestiality, then about an FFR regular or something. "Unrelated" things turn into related things fairly quickly.

[Biz Ounce]

gay fagggots burn in hell