Jerry Springer may run for US Senate

The weakest ones are those who receive the most pain from it… those who need the most help from people like your wife. Is that difficult to understand or something?

Woman A: Brutally raped, a couple months later is mostly recovered.

Woman B: Brutally raped, a couple decades later is still raped with respect to her personality.

Woman B gets all the attention and help, and it is Woman B that creates your wonderfully uplifting words. Woman A (outside of the immediate concerns) is IGNORED.

Who does the lawyer enjoy pointing to when enacting punishment… Woman A or Woman B? Gotta love the neck braces and the Woman Bs!

99% of the time what humans call profound is not. So I hardly think (even assuming you are being honest) that after I incorporate you into my attack the obviously objective “You are not profound!” words are very meaningful.

Debate is a bit more valuable than “He hurt me… I’m going to lash out at him blindly!”

Beware the ad hominem…

What is Jakub’s Hypothesis?

Woman A: Brutally raped, a couple months later is mostly recovered.

Yeah, because that happens all the time. :roll:

The weakest ones are those who receive the most pain from it… those who need the most help from people like your wife. Is that difficult to understand or something?

Woman A: Brutally raped, a couple months later is mostly recovered.

Woman B: Brutally raped, a couple decades later is still raped with respect to her personality.

Woman B gets all the attention and help, and it is Woman B that creates your wonderfully uplifting words. Woman A (outside of the immediate concerns) is IGNORED.

Who does the lawyer enjoy pointing to when enacting punishment… Woman A or Woman B? Gotta love the neck braces and the Woman Bs!

99% of the time what humans call profound is not. So I hardly think (even assuming you are being honest) that after I incorporate you into my attack the obviously objective “You are not profound!” words are very meaningful.

Debate is a bit more valuable than “He hurt me… I’m going to lash out at him blindly!”

Beware the ad hominem…[/quote]

Brian, the problem is that you just don’t have a clue on the subject being discussed. If you ever dealt with this in the real world you’d realize how completely clueless you are, and you’d also realize how completely distasteful your comments are. You just don’t have a clue how rape effects women. Many people don’t, but they realize that they don’t. You don’t realize how ignorant your are. I doubt I can convince you of that either. This is not a case of “weakness” and you’re repeating of that theme, that some women can be brutally raped and then “shake it off”, is repulsive. But until you see it first hand, I don’t think you have the capacity to understand that.

You are killing me over here DrCrypt. I was trying to capture mentally the image of a man who utters the phrase “A woman either wants or does not want a particular man to inject her with sperm” and I think you’ve come pretty close to it here.

One just has to wonder when the last time Koontz got laid was and with what species…

This reminds me of another discussion in which rape was trivialized. This is, by far, the most disgusting thing I’ve seen in a while. Good job, Koontz. You really know how to personify everything wrong with the world.

Brian did say some pretty disgusting things, but I disagree that his reasoning on the fundaments of rape trivialises it.

The problem is that Brian doesn’t have a fucking clue about this and is just making up intellectual crap as he goes along.

A woman either wants or does not want a particular man to inject her with sperm.

I mean, seriously, WTF?

Wrong - equating women who willingly have sex and then for some reason don’t like the results (“you’re NOT going to buy me a Porche?”) with real rape trivializes rape. It shows a fundamental ignorance of what rape even is - most rapes are actually crimes of power and violence, not sexual desire.

The point is, they are not willingly having sex if they are being deceived about the identity of the person they are having sex with.

You might get a woman to have sex with you by driving up in a Porsche and telling her you’re a millionaire, but when it turns out you rented the Porsche and are nearly flat broke, she’ll regret having sex with you.

In both forced and deceit rape, the woman is having sex against her will. The difference is in forced she immediately knows it, while in deceit she finds out later.

“What is Jakub’s hypothesis?”

[i]Grinning at the confusion of the Forum’s Most Respected Thinker By Far, The Narrator lit a cigarette and reflected on the delusional redundancy of the question. Hadn’t Brian been passing out earlier and earlier in front of the Everquest window every night, his finger firmly pressed against the macro he had bound to an advertisement for participants in a progressive sexual study that (he hoped) would one day allow him to role-play the act of injecting sperm into the vagina of a hypothetical girl? Hadn’t he been waking up later and later to blindly flail down the corridors of misinterpretations his adversaries had built up around him, like slaughterhouse grates, to purposely lead him into increasingly hilarious quotables? If you spend enough time in the Sieve, couldn’t you wake up one day as somebody else?

It was so obvious: “You know this because I know this.” But by the last word, the Narrator’s grin had already gone slack, his eyes glassy. The lapse out of his distinctive style of omniscient third-person narration had been a dire mistake. With that and a final smoke ring billowing from suddenly vacant space, The Narrator vanished…

…and the Most Respected Thinker On The Forum By Far awoke to the distant rumbles of the Verant, Mythic and Origin home offices exploding, the feel of soapy residue on his hands and the sensation of drowning in a terrible sea of sudden introspection. It was Like deja Vu all over Again.[/i]

No, Koontz is trivializing rape by broadening the definition so that it becomes meaningless.

CAVEAT EMPTOR, Koontz. It’s your responsibility to make sure you know what you’re buying. Just like its your ultimate responsibility to protect yourself and property. The police just can’t be everywhere at all times.

Koontz, you’re a sociopathic half-wit.

In your silly scenario, the woman has a distinct and specific choice: she can go home with the liar based on a clear value judgment, or she can choose not to. If she refuses, no retribution is visited upon her. And at the risk of handing you the opportunity to further muddy the argument: if she sleeps with a guy under the illusion that he’s rich, does it really matter that he’s NOT rich at the time of intercourse?

In most cases of rape, the woman does NOT have a real choice - she is drugged, or assaulted, or forcibly corced via a threat to her family, her property, or her well-being.

If you can’t see this very FUNDAMENTAL difference - choice versus coercion - then congratulations: you’ve managed to abstract a barbarity into a mere point of ill-reasoned academic contention.

The only argument against my position is Emotive/Pathological… that is, that the very definition of rape is one of psychological pain, and since deceitful sex results in much less psychological pain, it isn’t rape at all.

And I’ve already said that Emotive arguments lead toward the kind of horrific legal and moral situations I showed in my example. To which there were no rebuttals.

As for your silly usage of “choice”… if she thinks the guy is a millionaire and sleeps with him and it turns out he is broke, where exactly is the choice? Wasn’t she coerced into sex based on a lie? Since when is it ok to TRICK a woman but not to strongarm her?

You guys are completely wrong in your “degradation” theory. I already have pointed out two kinds of rape (forced/deceit which are based on the time in which the woman knows her will is being abused). I have no problems understanding the psychological difference between the cases and between details within the same categories.

If anything, this introduces the truth that rape is about the woman not accepting the IDENTITY of her sexual partner. Obviously a man who takes a woman by force when she is unwilling is rape. Obviously a man who takes a woman by deceit when she is unwilling (once the deceit is uncovered) is rape. What’s the problem?

Here’s something that hopefully will make things totally obvious to even the braindead among you…

{Bows to the gods of Science Fiction for their example!}…

A species of Alien (you know, like the green martians or whatever) travels to Earth, and in true V-like fashion they are able to appear entirely human. Furthermore, the master plan is for males of this species to breed with human females, in order to corrupt the gene pool or as an experiment or whatever.

Now… a human woman is entirely deceived, has sex with the alien male, and later (after she gives birth, lets say) finds out the truth. How is this NOT rape, you idiots? But according to your wonderful definition, its not rape at all. It probably isn’t even a crime.

That example was to set the logic… rape is sex against the will of the woman. Here’s more clarity…

Two cases. One in which the man is honest with the woman about his identity. She then can make a good judgement about whether to have sex with him or not. Another in which the man lies about his identity, in which case she makes a poor judgement about whether to have sex with him or not.

The whole point in mating rituals is a kind of judgement of each other… to find out if the other is right for you. Once the man achieves a certain status with the woman (and vice versa, although it usually requires less for the man) they enter sexual relations.

But if this status is based on a lie, the woman in fact is NOT ready to enter sexual relations. She MIGHT have sex with him if she knew the truth, or she might have sex with him if she knew the truth even though he lied, but that’s all speculation. The point is, the man is deceiving her into raising him to a status he has not truly earned. He rapes her.

Anders Hallin can smell a Pro-Woman position from several continents away. He doesn’t even need to think, he just uses his nose. Although I prefer to think of it as a pro truth, pro honesty position. Pro justice.

Anders need not applaud me too much… he’ll be disavowing me due to some other position of mine soon enough I’m sure.

So, when I tell my kid there is no Santa Claus and it causes him psycological pain, is his mind being raped ?

If anything, this introduces the truth that rape is about the woman not accepting the IDENTITY of her sexual partner. Obviously a man who takes a woman by force when she is unwilling is rape. Obviously a man who takes a woman by deceit when she is unwilling (once the deceit is uncovered) is rape. What’s the problem?

So, this woman is married to a man for 20 years, does the family thing, and finds out her husband is cheating on her. Is 20 years of screwing now redefined as rape because she never knew the true identity of her husband and she has psycological damage?

You and Catharine MacKinnon should go out on a date and have a few drinks together.
[/i]

Anders need not applaud me too much… he’ll be disavowing me due to some other position of mine soon enough I’m sure.

And has in fact already done so. In this thread. Several times.

Again, Koontz, you prove you don’t have a clue what rape really is. Nothing to do with “emotive” - it has everything to do with the true definition of rape. You still cling to the totally clueless thought that rape is about a woman having sex and then deciding whether it was a good idea or not. You don’t have a clue when it comes to testing your definition to see if it makes any sense or not - yeah, the alien story is very compelling. A man doesn’t “take” the woman by deceipt in the same manner that a man rapes a woman. She still has a choice. She can still say no. In your twisted definition, a woman can become “un-raped” - a hooker has a check bounce, she has been raped. The man says “oh, sorry, wrong account - here’s the cash and a $100 tip for the trouble” and she’s happy and so now she’s been unraped. A woman sleeps with a man because she thinks he’s famous, then finds out in the morning he isn’t. In your mind, since her rationale for having sex was to have sex with a famous person, she’s been raped. Then later the day after she finds out that she really does like the guy, and is glad she slept with him - she’s un-raped. A woman sleeps with her husband for 20 years, then he goes bankrupt and she divorces him. She was “raped” for 20 years because her desire was to have a husband that was rich and would allow her to live her entire life in luxury, in your ignorant definition. A year later, her Hubby gets rich again, she takes him back, and now she’s been “un-raped”. I go to a bar, get smashed, think a woman is really good looking, go to bed with her, wake up the next morning and see her without her make-up on and with me sober, find out she looks like Sandra Berhardt - in your definition, I’ve been raped. Spend the day with her, find out she’s really great, decide that I’m glad I slept with her - I’m un-raped.

Koontz, your problem is that you still don’t understand that rape, despite whatever definition you decide to come up with, is not about consentual sex, no matter whether the woman chose poorly or not. If a woman willingly decided to have sex, and then finds out she was fooled, the guy may be guilty of a lot of things - fraud, lack of character, immorality, etc. - but it isn’t rape and your arbitrary definition of rape doesn’t make it so. She made a bad decision, but she made a willful decision. Her poor judgement doesn’t make it rape. If she thought he was rich, and that was her criteria for having sex, she could have waited and hired a detective to investigate his bank account before having sex - nothing made her have to have sex that night. If she thought he was Brad Pitt and she always wanted to have sex with Brad Pitt, she could have done more investigation of whether he really was, could have spent some time with him, etc. before having sex - it is her choice. If a hooker has sex with a guy and the check bounces, she could have required cash, she could have said no sex until the cash or credit card clears - her choice. A woman making a bad choice in willingly having sex is not rape - she still has the choice of what to do. Hell, with your definition, a woman could ask a man if he is good in bed, he could say yes and think he is, she could decide afterwards that he wasn’t and be disappointed and she would be “raped”. The problem with your definition of rape isn’t emotive - it’s that your definition is non-sensensical.

Go read a text on rape, understand that rape is a crime of control and power and often violence and not about having a good time. Read about the three categories of rapist and what drives them. Read about the impact of rape on its victims. Then see if you can blithely post the utterly distasteful blather that you have been posting. Your posts remind me of those who would tell a woman who has been raped she should have just laid back and enjoyed it - you have about that level of understanding of what the crime is all about.

According to the Emotists the degree of the crime is dependent on the degree of pain of the child. More pain = more crime… which means that the point in which it turns from abuse into rape is also dependent on the degree of pain.

No, because the man developed into a cheater… cheating as an action means he takes the action after the marriage. Now, if he was cheating on her during the engagement (and deceiving her into thinking otherwise) or planning on cheating after the marriage and not telling her that introduces the possibility of rape into the scenario.

Also, as a woman ages the value of the rape declines. Its much worse to rape a 20-year old than to rape a 50 year-old.

I’ll be visiting the Ivory Tower of Feminism soon enough. I have a feeling those around me will want to be sober at the time.

So that you don’t accuse them of raping you?

I of course never said that. I said that YOUR position is Emotive… that only something that produces pain of consciousness can be rape. Deceit, which seperates the pain from the crime, according to you is therefore far preferred.

Humans NEVER are in as much pain when they are not conscious of it during its committal. That hardly means that the crime is any less damaging.

You are given anesthetic in order for you to not be in pain during an injury to your body. Its to sedate you, make you compliant.

But the only reason a doctor isn’t committing a crime during this process is that you WILL it to occur.

I’m sure you’d be delighted to hear that a medical procedure that you thought was an appendectomy was something else, done against your will. The doctor could say "Its ok, you weren’t conscious at the time! You felt no pain! You didn’t need that extra kidney!

You’ll have to shrug your shoulders in helplessness and agree… since you were not in pain, not conscious during the crime, since you were deceived and not forced, you’ll have to pull out your most vicious words and call the doctor… IMMORAL! Oh man what a devastating blow! That guy is REELING!

Why is it so wonderfully ok to deceive a woman into having sex? Do you think that sort of thing is funny or do you shrug it off as “Well, if she’s so stupid to be deceived then she deserves her fate.”

No, the issue is that when she is DECEIVED into sex it is, in fact, rape. Mere poor judgement on the woman’s part is her own fault.

Not if the man is successfully deceptive. If the woman will only have sex with any male millionaire between the ages of 15 and 50 and he deceives her into thinking he is a millionaire between those ages, she WILL have sex with him. Zero choice. He rapes her.

There is no choice present in mating rituals. Either things lead to sex or things do not lead to sex. When deceit is part of “things lead to sex” rape becomes a possibility.

She was never raped in the first place if he in fact was always going to pay.

Bear in mind that a prostitute doesn’t necessarily mind a check bouncing as long as cash comes quickly after. She DOES mind a check bouncing and then no cash in its place, however.

Yes, with the caveat that he deceives her into thinking he is famous.

No… she was still raped. Later events simply led to an improvement in her position toward him.

Bear in mind that rape is an event that occurs at a specific time. Future events can always change people’s opinion of a person.

No… unless you can think of a way for a man to deceive a woman into thinking she is guaranteed that he won’t go bankrupt, and then the man uses that way to deceive the woman. I don’t think any guarantees of that kind can exist. Even Bill Gates could be sued for all he’s worth or some kind of strange loophole in his will might leave everything upon his death to his cat, or something.

No.

No, because rape can only be done by a man (or something else with the ability to impregnate the victim) to a woman (or something else with the ability to become pregnant).

Getting smashed is self-deception, so what she did doesn’t even qualify as a crime. HOWEVER, I would say that she has zero claims to any alimony and zero claims to any further interaction with you under such circumstances.

No.

My definition is anything but arbitrary and you haven’t produced a single good argument against it.

How exactly is “rape is sex against the will of the woman” arbitrary?

Nice Strawman tactics there. Congrats. Poor judgement is still willful judgement. Being deceived however aborts the will.

So what are you saying… that all women are now required to take such drastic steps? What a waste of time… its better to just call deception a crime and therefore enable trust.

On that theory, if a man attacks you with a knife, your argument can be…

You could have backed up, or ran away, or avoided the blow. Its your choice. No crime is being committed by the attacker!

Even extreme “investigation” can fail to detect the truth if the deception is good enough. And she shouldn’t HAVE to investigate.

LOL… I’ll have to remember that the next time I bounce a check.

Mr. Retailer, you fucking idiot, you could have required cash or said no merchandise until the credit card clears… its YOUR FAULT!

And when a policeman comes I’ll say… “It was jeff lackey’s principle in action. View its grandeur! What are you doing? Keep your hands off me, vile forceful scum! Rape, Rape!”

Bear in mind that its a crime to not pay for services rendered… the only reason you aren’t hauled away when a check bounces is that you are still expected to pay.

No, she doesn’t… in the cases of successful deception. You are successfully deceiving her INTO HAVING SEX. Where is the choice?

Yes, although that’s not a serious situation. There are many details and many different variations and aspects of a rape.

I shiver in terror before the veracity of that claim while sitting in my jail cell after refusing to pay due to the server daring to accept checks.

LOL… you speak from Rape 101 as if its some kind of deep truth.

Though notice that most women that are raped are young (under 40) and that most people that are raped ARE women. If all rape is about control, power, and violence then there would be a more even distribution of gender and age. And Date Rape is obviously about men who sexually desire their victims.

But since even Rape 101 spoken by the humans of today is partially true I won’t be harsh.

Whoa… so much for my efforts to understand myself. Who needs that stuff when I have you to enlighten me?

Mr. Gypsy… can you read my palm? Tell me my past, my present, my future! OOH!

I’m thinking I’m going to be sticking with my own views on myself. Thanks for the attempt to be helpful though.