Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - AlexanderGoMavs
1
...sell your theory.....to your wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters...
Interesting that you invoke the titles of women who the patriarchy obliges us to protect.
Those are not titles to me. Those are women I know and love. You can involve yourself in theory all you want, but you have to imagine putting that theory into practice in order to know who it affects and how it will affect them. Feminists live in the "theory" world, and their intellectual flatulence is responsible for a lot of the static between men and women, and that static doesn't need to exist. You shouldn't want to be like them. I can't believe I have to explain all this.
Well, I confess, I have recntly been debating feminists and forgot to switch perspectives. The 'theory' I was leading to is that these primary relationships that we have with women form our basis for being concerned about women's well being at all. Without those relationships we wouldn't care much what happened to women.
Yeah, I should just chuck all my responsibilities and duties and say the hell with it. What a wonderful world that would be if we all did the same.
2
Feminists do not want harmony between the genders, because it would destroy their livelihood. There can only be profit and power for them if the genders are bickering, so they do what they can to foster this static. They are only happy when the rest of us are not. Now, consider this:
By pushing this "rape" theory of yours, you are creating static not just between the genders, but even among your own gender. Not only that, by making all this static, you do the work of feminists for them, saving them the time, energy, and expense of having to do it themselves. They would probably send you a thank you card if they didn't hate men so much.
3
...sell your theory.....to your wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters...
Interesting that you invoke the titles of women who the patriarchy obliges us to protect.
Those are not titles to me. Those are women I know and love. You can involve yourself in theory all you want, but you have to imagine putting that theory into practice in order to know who it affects and how it will affect them. Feminists live in the "theory" world, and their intellectual flatulence is responsible for a lot of the static between men and women, and that static doesn't need to exist. You shouldn't want to be like them. I can't believe I have to explain all this.
4
While I am not in agreement with limiting the vote for specific populations I also see that we have a severe problem that needs a strong solution. I hope you will offer us what your solutions might be Alexander. I hope you stick around.
dr evil,
The complaint about feminists is that they try to define rape in the broadest terms possible to include even gross exaggerations. What I've seen here in this thread looks to be an attempt to define rape down to exclude all definitions of rape and basically create a world that is an adolescent male's fantasy. Both types of "definitions" are wrong because they are gross exaggerations that do NOTHING to help anything or anyone. Two wrongs, in other words, do not make a right. Most of us know what is rape and what isn't, why try to change it? The only reason to change it is to suit the perverted views of either feminists or guys like I've seen on this thread. If the men here really want to create solutions, they need to let go of their bitterness and work on real solutions, instead of "solutions" that will end up creating only more problems. Your credibility is on the line, dudes.
5
I still have yet to hear how any of you plan to sell your theory of "rape is just unplanned sex" and "rape is all in your head" to your wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters, and also to their husbands, sons, brothers and fathers. That would not be a sales pitch, but a con job. Not only that, while you are masterbating over your rape fantasies, you will have succeeded in uniting a majority of men not with you but against you. Think of that. You will unite men who wholly oppose your ideas on the definition of rape (and I can promise you that it will be a majority) with FEMINISTS! Your efforts to take away the definition of rape from feminists and defining in the way you've mentioned on this thread will not rob feminists of power, but only empower them further. They will not wither away and die, but grow stronger. No doubt they have already cut and paste your responses and will save it for future use. You have handed them a noose and ammo to use against you later. Congratulations.
I can see that further posting here will be pointless. Goodbye.
6
AlexanderGoMavs
Then how would you know what they think and whether or not they were traumatized by rape?
Because I have been a psychologist for 30 years.
That tells me nothing. We don't know whether you were a good one or a former "D" student.
Because I have looked at the evidence.
Because I have not been as bamboozled as you by the propaganda that invades us.
You also fail to define what you mean by 'rape'.
We seem to mean the same thing regarding the definition of rape, because you didn't bring that up until now. Why didn't you bring that up before if you had some question regarding my definition of rape?
And "bamboozled by propaganda?" Just because I don't support the "rape is all in your head" theory? Not only would you have to try to run that theory by the women, you have to also run that theory by their husbands, sons, brothers, and other male family members. Good luck on that.
Yes. Both men and women can be traumatised by rape.
So women can be raped, even by your definition!
It depends on the circumstances. But, for example, in a study of women whom, it was alleged, had been 'raped', some 30% of them were still dating their alleged 'rapists' 3 months later.
Furthermore, most 'rapes' these days seem to be occurring between intimate partners who are having 'relationship problems'.
And, further, the vast majority of rape allegations are false e.g. see my piece Rape Baloney, now on MND ...
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-b/a-b-misc/ah081404.htm
I wasn't talking about the kinds of "rape" that feminists define, I was referring to the idea that "rape is just unplanned sex". Since we are jumping to conclusions here, I will assume that you support the idea that "rape is just unplanned sex", even for male on male rape.
7
AlexanderGoMavs wrote to LST8000
How would you know how cavewomen felt about rape? You know any cavewomen?
Do you know any cavewomen AlexanderGoMavs?
No, do you? Then how would you know what they think and whether or not they were traumatized by rape?
Did you know that female chimps copulate 40 or 50 times day when they are in estrus?
Thanks for the info, but what the hell does that have to do with anything? Humans aren't chimps or bonobos, or any apes, so any comparison arguments are irrelevant. Apples and oranges.
Do you think that when men evolved away from being chimps that females suddenly switched off their sexual desires and suddenly became traumatised at uninvited sex?
Do you think that nature designed women to be traumatised forever when an object that was **designed** to fit into them was placed there 'uninvited'?
100 years ago, women could be 'traumatised' by espying the leg of a table.
In some places today, women can be 'traumatised' should a man merely espy her breasts by accident.
People are largely **trained** to be 'traumatised'.
Germaine Greer: "I would rather be raped without violence than lose my little finger in an accident."
Before I answer any of that, tell me if the "rape trauma myth" also applies to male on male rape. If rape is "all in the head" for women who are raped, then it must also be so for men who are raped. You can't have rape victims only for one gender and not for the other. Feminists already argue that way, and they are wrong. You wouldn't be any more right than they are if you try to argue the reverse of what they claim about rape and its victims.
8
Are you trying to say here that males are "genetically programmed" for rape or something ? This is false. If it was so, then rape would be accepted everywhere. But rape is considered unacceptable in any society in the world and always has been. (as far as i know)
The feminist idiocy about how men use rape as a "conscious strategy" is completely retarded, because in all societies, men are the ones that punish rapists for rape !!
Rape seems against evolution to me, because if in a caveman society all men would run around and rape women then giving food to women and protecting them wouldn't make any sense because a man that was protective of women would not have any evolutionary advantage over a man that wasn't ! It also makes the female sexual behaviour (bargain for sex) completely useless. If female behaviour is like that then we conclude that they could actually withhold sex !
However this doesn't mean that rape didn't happen, but it wasn't the norm !
Also about sensitivity: I believe that cavewomen weren't as fussy about rape as modern women are, because the "emotional damage" of rape is really in her head. If it doesn't involve violence then it is just some unplanned sex. It isn't that terrible !!
How would you know how cavewomen felt about rape? You know any cavewomen? And I'd like to see you explain that the "emotional damage" of rape is all in a woman's head to a feminist. Oh, wait, you could probably do that. Okay then, explain that to your wife, or your daughter, or to your mother or your sister. If you really believe that rape is just unplanned sex, then you will have to explain it to these women, otherwise you'll know that this line of thinking is a load of shit. However, if you really feel this way about rape, then you must also feel that way about male on male rape. Then you'll have to explain how male on male rape is just unplanned sex to the men in jail who have been raped repeatedly. If you guys want to be taken seriously by either men OR women, stay away from making such stupid statements.
9
I never saw how comparing the behavior of humans to chimps, bonobos or other primates ever proved helpful. We ain't no damn monkeys, no matter what Darwin says.
And we do have the concept of men helping each other. It's called team sports, in which men on one team help each other to a common goal, which is victory over the other team. There's lots of life lessons in sports, especially team sports, which is why I like sports so much. I'm encouraging both my sons into sports so that they can learn the value of both teamwork and competition, and why one doesn't have to be to the exclusion of the other. There's also good life lessons to be learned from rivalries, even sibling rivalries.
10
"A dime has 118 ridges around the edge."
I'm actually glad to know this, because I always lost my place after 67.
"A goldfish has a memory span of three seconds. "
That makes me think of Ellen DeGeneres' character in Finding Nemo. She was hilarious. My kids love that movie.
"In the last 4,000 years, no new animals have been domesticated."
It's high time we domesticated some new animals, instead of them living off of welfare. Put their damn lazy asses to work.
"If you are an average American, in your whole life, you will spend an average of 6 months waiting at red lights."
Thus you have the cause of road rage.
"The winter of 1932 was so cold that Niagara Falls froze completely solid."
I hope those guys who go over Niagra falls in barrels knew this before they tried to go over.
"Women blink nearly twice as much as men. "
I think Bilbo is on to something.
"Your stomach has to produce a new layer of mucus every two weeks; otherwise it will digest itself"
This I didn't have to know.
11
This has got to be the craziest thread I have ever seen. Been away awhile, but the Stars and the Mavs' season is prematurely over. While I am not as big a baseball fan, it is good to see the Texas Rangers doing well. Not too many seasons that Ranger fans can say that. I just hope by the end of the season, the Rangers and their fans are saying "Alex who?"
12
Comparing Japan to Iraq is comparing apples and oranges. Japan was directly responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor. To my knowledge, Iraq was NOT responsible for 9-11. Neither is Afghanistan. So who and where is the enemy? Are we going to take over the entire Muslim Middle East region? What about Muslims in Europe, and Asia and everywhere else? Are we going to send them to reservations or concentration camps? The scale and the scope of the terrorist threat is vast, and not solved through attacking countries not capable of defending themselves against a full American military invasion force. We have come across looking like bullies, and the soldiers involved in this torture story only reinforced that. I am all for taking out the true enemy responsible for terrorist attacks when we have found them, but only until we find them. After all this, the terrorist threat still exists. So what are we supposed to do now? When does it end? What is the exit strategy? Answers anyone?
13
I can't agree with an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth policy. We're supposed to be better than that, and we're supposed to be setting the example for others to follow. What made this story so bad is precisely that these soldiers behaved no better than the people that did the torturing before them. Going eye for an eye will only make things worse, as it will only result in further and further escalation of violence with no end. We're supposed to be helping end violence in Iraq, not give excuses to inflict more of it.
14
Last I checked, all of the victims were male. They are the ones for whom I feel the most.
Actually, the ones for whom I feel most are the U.S. troops on the ground over there who will, no doubt, come under increased fire as the insurgents retaliate for these actions.
Apparently the responsible troops weren't thinking about the potential flak that could result from their stupid acts. I am surprised that proper treatment of the prisoners wasn't covered before the troops went over to Iraq. I agree with you that it is hard enough for our troops there as it is, why make things worse with this? And why air this story? As concerned as most of the media has been about the number of troops dying there since the hostilities began, didn't 60MII realize that, by airing this story, they are only endangering the very troops that they profess to be concerned about? And they say that Bush acts before he thinks.
15
I didn't know of this until years later. She felt that embarrassed by the whole ordeal, like I would blame her for this. She actually had tears in her eyes as she told me. The funny thing is, I felt bad like I had failed in some brotherly duty to protect her, but I can't be everywhere with her to watch out for her. Nor would she want me to.
