"Rape pregnancies are rare"

[bennyboy]

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.

[Nonsensei]

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.

[bennyboy]

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.

[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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

[bennyboy]

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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

[Nonsensei]

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.

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.

[Brian37]

Saw that story, sick sick sick.

[Johan]

Wow raped by 6 women .  :shock:

Death by snu-snu

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

[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.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

[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.

[bennyboy]

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.