Obvious facts about rape

Here is another reposted HA thread:
*************

Since the perception of the whole rape issue by feminized Western men is complete bullshit, I thought I would point out the obvious.

1. Feminist females define "rape" as being any sex they later regret. It is not so much that they will lie and say you raped them when they know you didn't. If you have sex and then they regret it for some reason, such as that you are of lower perceived status than they thought, then as far as they are concerned you "raped" them. Conversely, if you threw a female to the ground, ripped her clothes off and f***ed her without so much as a by your leave and she felt positive about what happened later on, it would probably not even occur to her to think she was raped. Increasingly the ZOG pigs and shysters are following this feminist definition of rape. Thus the very same physical actions on the man's part could see him categorized either as a great lover or rapist depending on the later claimed emotional response of the female. Since it is not possible to objectively examine an emotional response, it follows that most "rape" cases are now prosecuted on spectral evidence, similar to the Salem witch trials.

2. If we define "rape" as being forced sex, females do not think this is particularly bad or a big deal. Only self-hating manginas think rape is a big deal. Females like manly men who take charge of them and do what they want to them, not sniveling manginas begging them for sex and asking their permission nanosecond by nanosecond. Hence most erotic fiction aimed at females contains rape or quasi-rape scenes and females getting off on being raped is well known in criminology circles. In contexts where it is desirable and socially acceptable for them to have sex, females generally like being raped.

3. If females are not really opposed to rape, why then do they want men to be jailed whenever they claim rape? It is simply because feminist females are criminally insane psychopaths who think that non-elite men should be jailed, robbed, killed or whatever whenever they feel like it. Sure they will come up with something bad you have supposedly done as an excuse to have the pigs attack you, but they regard this as a quaint formality.

4. Rape is not considered to be a big deal by evil Western regimes because of supposed physiological damage to the female (which is to say, because the female's feelings may be hurt). I mean, how f***ing ridiculous would that be - to imprison someone for years at enormous expense for hurting some skank's feelings. It is incredible that anyone takes this aspect of the rape nonsense seriously. Traditionally rape was a property crime against the female's owner, and so it remains. Today the ruling class assert that they own females, along with everything else. This is what feminism is all about. Therefore, as far as they are concerned, any sexual contact with females by non-elite men is a property crime against them. This policy is slowly being phased in and made more apparent. Eventually they will drop the silly hurt feelings bogosity and tell it like it is.

5. Sane societies do not revolve around the idiot "consent" or other mindless whims of females. In sane societies females are placed under the control of men such as their husbands, fathers, pimps or whoever, and those men decide when they will have sex or not within the rules of that society. Often it would be considered the obligation females to have sex. After all, we all have unchosen obligations, and there is no reason why sex should be any different. The crime of rape consists of forced sex outside the rules of society, such as a burglar forcing a married woman to have sex while robbing her house. As stated, it is really the same today, except it s the ruling class laying claim to all females. The consent thing is a red herring.

Cornfed wrote

Here is another reposted HA thread:
*************

 Since it is not possible to objectively examine an emotional response, it follows that most "rape" cases are now prosecuted on spectral evidence, similar to the Salem witch trials.

It actually is now possible to measure via brain patterns during sleep post traumatic stress disorders.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22754042

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23763708

The most current one even distinguishes by gender.

Just out of curiosity, men mandating obligatory sex to women and that subsequently leading to women being (I assert) unhappy doesn't seem to be a particularly productive way to run a society.

All civilized societies in history required female chastity and outlawed rape.  Whether the reason that rape was outlawed was to protect chastity or protect women's feelings doesn't really matter.  What matters is following history's example to create a sane culture, and this means both requiring female chastity and outlawing rape within that culture.  I consider questions of right and wrong as applied to modern culture to be senseless questions since modern culture is so far gone that it should simply be plundered to whatever degree possible without any regard for morality.

Ember wrote

It actually is now possible to measure via brain patterns during sleep post traumatic stress disorders.

Rational justice systems are about facts, not feelings. Suppose someone breaks your leg. You would have no choice but to suffer physical incapacitation and pain, time off work etc. The offender's punishment would generally be judged on that basis. Of course the emotional responses of people to such an incident would vary widely. Some people would regard it as no big deal or even view it positively as a good reason to take time off their lousy job or whatever. Others would become despondent and commit suicide. The offender's punishment should be the same in either case, because he should be judged on what he is proven to have done, not the emotional response of someone else which is beyond his control. Suppose you found that I was so upset with you disagreeing with me that I killed myself. If you are a basically good hearted person you might be upset, but would you think you should go to prison? You would probably think you were responsible only for what you had physically done to me, not for what I chose to do to myself.

The other issue is the often retrospective nature of the female's emotional response. If her friends are gushing over how lucky she was to have sex with a certain guy the next day, she will likely be overjoyed even if he ripped her clothes off and had sex with her without so much as a by your leave. If they mock her, she will likely be upset, even if she happily spread her legs at the time. This is not a rational basis to decide whether to lock people up for years or not.

Just out of curiosity, men mandating obligatory sex to women and that subsequently leading to women being (I assert) unhappy doesn't seem to be a particularly productive way to run a society.

The reality is that pretty much everything is mandated to women because women are not self-aware and can't think for themselves. Therefore, almost everything about their lives is mandated by men. The only question is which men and what they mandate. As I point out in the thread "The sluts have no choice", women having degrading sex acts performed on them by scumbags is effectively mandated by the men running Western society and I think this is horrific. I think women would be much happier if they were subjected to traditional moral systems where men close to them directly controlled their sexuality. If you think about it, much of our lives are effectively dictated, and this is necessary and desirable.

fschmidt wrote

All civilized societies in history required female chastity and outlawed rape.  Whether the reason that rape was outlawed was to protect chastity or protect women's feelings doesn't really matter.  What matters is following history's example to create a sane culture, and this means both requiring female chastity and outlawing rape within that culture.  I consider questions of right and wrong as applied to modern culture to be senseless questions since modern culture is so far gone that it should simply be plundered to whatever degree possible without any regard for morality.

My question did not speak to morality but rather to human/societal dynamics.  As  you've asserted in one of your other posts about suffrage, women were hardly powerless in society because of their roles as companions and child rearing.  Creating an unhappy environment for women by riding them roughshod into the marriage bed with no regard for their feelings and no plan to change those feelings is not going to be harmonious.  I'm speaking more to the tone of the OP that implied (to me) that women's feelings about sex (marriage bed or not) was largely irrelevant to a productive society so long as men did the deciding.  Also, that men deciding would lead to forceful sexual interactions (to wit: women love to be forcefully handled).  

You've been married as long as I have, fschmidt, I seriously doubt that your entire marriage has been one of forceful sexual interactions with your wife.  Nor do I believe that her feelings have no influence what so ever on you or your family.  And, even further, I doubt your wedding night featured a violent tie-her-down and 'take' her virginity setting.

And, seriously, even if it weren't for biblical teachings to love your wife - is that roughshod way the way you would prefer it to be?

Cornfed wrote

Ember wrote

It actually is now possible to measure via brain patterns during sleep post traumatic stress disorders.

Rational justice systems are about facts, not feelings.

Your assertion above was that 'rape' is defined by sexual intercourse with the inclusion of a bad or traumatic experience.  That sex happened and even matching who the partner was is objectively determined these days.  That the victim was traumatized apparently is in the process of being objectively determined (I realize such studies are very current and in progress) but could present facts for a trial.  The punishment need not reflect the amount of suffering incurred - as in your broken leg example - but rather what ever punishment rape would bring to a perpetrator.

Cornfed wrote

 Suppose you found that I was so upset with you disagreeing with me that I killed myself. If you are a basically good hearted person you might be upset, but would you think you should go to prison? You would probably think you were responsible only for what you had physically done to me, not for what I chose to do to myself.

Let's move the goal posts back to where they were.  In the case of a rape, there was a measurable and detectable physical event that the victim did not choose to do to herself (by definition).  Her feelings are relevant per your suggestion that sometimes women choose to have sex and that is not rape verses sometimes women are traumatized by sex without consent and it's a toss up to determine just how upset or even if they are upset at all.  Those were two defining requirements of a crime which can factually be determined.  

Writing something upsetting on a blog is not something defined as a crime.  Nor I am doing to you in any way.  You can stop reading should you experience suicidal ideation- and then please call 911.  Should the idea that someone out there on the Internet doesn't like your opinions traumatizes you to the point of suicidal ideation, then I plead with you to take advantage of available medical services in your area.  Oh, and unplug.

Cornfed wrote

Just out of curiosity, men mandating obligatory sex to women and that subsequently leading to women being (I assert) unhappy doesn't seem to be a particularly productive way to run a society.

The reality is that pretty much everything is mandated to women because women are not self-aware and can't think for themselves. Therefore, almost everything about their lives is mandated by men. The only question is which men and what they mandate.

Women are not self-aware?  The actual REALITY is that women are homo sapiens sapiens and therefore are just as self aware and capable of thinking as men are.  We are the same species - a sexually dimorphic species which does mean there are differences between the sexes but that each is necessary  (currently) for reproduction of other members of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens.  You also made a comment on your women's suffrage movement about women 'evolving as parasites' which again suggests a rather incomplete understanding of biology and speciation.

Women can also think, obviously, as we learn just like other humans and share the same brain complexity.  If we were completely incapable of independent thought then it simply wouldn't be safe to leave us home alone with small children.  Nor would we contribute in any way to society.  

If you truly believe that women are some other species rather than homo sapiens sapiens, our brain complexity is significantly different such as to prevent thinking and self awareness, or are not aware of themselves enough to distinguish themselves as individuals, then please, cite me your sources.

Cornfed wrote

 If you think about it, much of our lives are effectively dictated, and this is necessary and desirable.

Not really.  If you want to look for something overwhelmingly dictated, look at machinery.  Without assistance via software or human intervention.  Plows don't wake up in the spring and commence to work.  Many everyday tasks require judgement and decision making that is simply too expensive (complex) to program into devices. For example, try to program a machine to determine whether an infant needs a feeding, diaper change, or just some attention.

Ember, I am going to give you specific answers to your questions.  But first, the regular members of this forum don't agree on everything, but we all have a fairly reactionary view.  For example, I am Jewish and Cornfed isn't exactly a big fan of Judaism.  That's fine, we still agree on more than we disagree.

One thing we agree on is that the idea of marital rape makes no sense.  Rape means forced sex, so is a sexual crime.  But marriage implies general sexual consent.  So the real problem with raping one's wife isn't so much the "sex" part as the "forced" part.  In other words, there isn't much difference between forcing one's wife to have sex and forcing one's wife to cook dinner.  The issue is that forcing requires violence or at least a threat of violence.  And assault is a crime even in marriage.

That said, it is worth going deeper and asking what the sexual obligations are in marriage.  I will give 3 answers: Jewish, Christian, and Liberal.

The Old Testament obliges the husband to have sex with his wife in Exodus 21:10, and obliges the wife to be faithful to the husband in the Ten Commandments.  The Old Testament does not oblige the wife have sex with her husband and does not oblige the husband to be faithful to the wife.  This means that the wife can demand sex but the husband cannot.  However, if the wife refuses sex, the husband can simply inform the wife that he will get sex elsewhere.  So if the wife wants the husband to be faithful, she should not withhold sex.  The Jewish view is that men and women are not equal, they are different.  But this just means they have different roles and obligations.  Neither sex is superior and neither sex should submit to the other.

The New Testament requires sexual fidelity of the husband and requires wives to submit to their husband.  This is the traditional Christian view which is different from Judaism, but is also reasonable and consistent.  If the husband is going to be required to be faithful to the wife, then it is reasonable that the wife should submit to the husband and provide sex on demand.  Both the Christian and Jewish approach make sure that the husband cannot be forced into celibacy.  But the Christian approach requires women to submit to men.  Judaism is fundamentally against submission of any kind.

Liberalism requires sexual fidelity of the husband without requiring wives to submit to their husbands.  This means that if the wife refuses sex, the husband is forced into celibacy.  Since celibacy is an unacceptable position for most men, the end result of the Liberal approach is that husbands are forced to submit to their wives to get sex.  Needless to say, this is absurd.

My family works on the Jewish model which works well for us.

My basic contention, fschmidt, is that you've lived with the same woman for 23 years.  I've lived with the same man for 22 years.  I guess if you want to write rules about who's entitled to what and when... you've pretty much lost at the starting gate.   If you want monogamous marriage then too much "forcing" of either party is going to rip the whole thing apart.  

At the end of the day, you come home to the same woman that you slept with last night.  If you persist on making her unhappy by 'forcing' her to do <whatever> then I seriously doubt that you will have a pleasant experience.  Same with me.  If I consistently insist on 'forcing' my husband to be celibate, then we just aren't going to get along well.  Good sex makes a good marriage.  Also, good wholesome cooking works, too.

My basic reaction to Cornfed is simply that he seems to completely disregard the idea that women are self aware and we are also thinking people.  We are also quite capable of decision making - otherwise you wouldn't be able to leave us without parental supervision with an infant.   As you know, I was raised to be a wife and mother (which sadly are dying art forms) - I don't need to be 'directed' on how to clean a house or how much salt goes in the food.  I also behave quite appropriately in public - particularly with regard to his business contacts (During our discussion of younger women he decided that I AM his trophy wife - I do my best to make him proud).  Women problem solve quite well.

Regardless of the chosen religion, starting off with anything other than a mutually enjoyable relationship seems counter intuitive to me.  Just like society, if you're surrounded by people you hate working with then it's unlikely that a whole lot is going to get done.  Don't squander half your human resources by pretending they can't think or do anything productive besides have babies.

All these rules resemble a pre-nuptual agreement.  ie - We've already decided to fail so let's sort out which one takes the blame and what we can reasonably inflict on him/her because that accomplishes...

Serious question:  Why can't existing laws just apply to people who are married?  If it's wrong to beat someone up - then don't beat up your spouse.  If it's wrong to kill someone - don't kill your spouse.  But keep the part about inheritance and the social constructs of family and even some sexual agreements.  If you create a cooperative environment (as our marriage functions)  then all that 'submitting' business falls by the way side.

Ember, you would never have written what you wrote if you didn't live in a society that always sides with women against men.  In a true state of nature with no rules, men have all the advantages because they are physically stronger.  They can "rape" the wife, have sex with whoever they want, and throw out the wife whenever they feel like it.  In such an environment, you would appreciate the value of rules to protect wives.  You may claim that you don't need any rules with your husband, and that may be true, but you never know for sure, especially when just starting in a marriage.  In general it is women who really want rules to protect themselves against physically stronger men.  Claiming to not need rules while living in a society full of rules that benefit women at men's expense is simply double-talk.

The rules I outlined are basically guidelines that form the basis of an understanding in marriage.  If there is no understanding of basic guidelines, then marriage cannot work.  The whole idea of marriage being based strictly on emotions is a recipe for disaster.  Emotions are volatile and unreliable.  A marriage is fundamentally a contract to form a family.  Ideally the government should treat it as such and simply apply contract law with no special laws about marriage.  The contracts themselves could be designed by religions for their members to reflect each religion's view of marriage.  Without a contract or at least an understanding, a marriage would fall apart after the first fight in the marriage.  The main thing that holds marriages together at all in modern culture is that the husband knows he will be totally screwed over in case of divorce, so he has a strong incentive to make the marriage work.  Wives have no incentive at all, and so wives are generally totally out of control in modern society.

The simple proof that your view is wrong is that your view is the mainstream view, and most marriages in mainstream culture are a disaster.  Marriages in traditional cultures that follow my view tend to work much better.

So, men don't want rules in marriage - it's all for women's sake?

Also, I never advocated for a marriage based 'solely' on emotion.  But, let's not forget that the emotions are there and they do effect (strongly) choices that might be made in a crux.

Let me boil it down.  I advocate for monogamous marriages in which both parties get to contribute each in their own way according to their own talents and gifts.  Also, they both get to achieve a somewhat equal level of satisfaction/happiness/peace.  Honestly, I can't tell if you guys just feel as if it's wrong if the wife gets anything enjoyable in the marriage contract - vs. just making sure she does her duty.  Yeesh.

You are just proving Cornfed right.

fschmidt wrote

You are just proving Cornfed right.

Fair enough, if that substantiates something to you.  It certainly provides no information to me.  I am quite alarmed at the destruction of the family and its future implications,  though perhaps not in the same way or for the same reasons.

Thank you for your time.