Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/29/04 10:24 PM, Maus wrote: Wow, did you even read what I wrote?
FOR EVERY LAW PASSED TO HELP RAPE VICTIMS, ANOTHER IS PASSED TO PROTECT THE ACCUSED'S CIVIL RIGHTS.
We have been working tirelessly. We just keep getting kicked in the teeth.

That's a surprising post coming from you, maus. You are not usually for stripping someone of their civil rights. The accussed deserves civil rights, right up till the end. If you mean something different than 'civil rights', then don't say 'civil rights'.

And no, I don't condone 'keeping it to themselves.' I am, however, being realistic about how people think and react.

That's very well, as long as it's not condoned.

you know, what would be better, is if someone who has actualy been raped, or someone who has been acused of rape to share their opinions. how much do you think would be different or the same?

At 12/29/04 10:47 PM, Fiend_Lore wrote: you know, what would be better, is if someone who has actualy been raped, or someone who has been acused of rape to share their opinions. how much do you think would be different or the same?

HELLOE. Both Freakapotimus and I have been raped.

As far as the civil rights issue. One example was the one I used before, of not being allowed to introduce priors in a rape trial. Those are civil rights. Do i think that is one that should be stripped? In this case, yes. Yes. Yes. I've never understood innocent until proven guilty again. Once you've been convicted of a crime, it should have bearing on any future crimes.

At 12/29/04 10:42 PM, Damien3003 wrote:

At 12/29/04 10:24 PM, Maus wrote: Wow, did you even read what I wrote?
FOR EVERY LAW PASSED TO HELP RAPE VICTIMS, ANOTHER IS PASSED TO PROTECT THE ACCUSED'S CIVIL RIGHTS.
We have been working tirelessly. We just keep getting kicked in the teeth.

That's a surprising post coming from you, maus. You are not usually for stripping someone of their civil rights. The accussed deserves civil rights, right up till the end. If you mean something different than 'civil rights', then don't say 'civil rights'.

Damien, man, it doesn't matter how much women fight, because it's still a man's world, and often they do stick together. I think the civil rights that MAUS is talking about probably includes that fact that a rapists previous record of violent sexual crimes can't be brought up in a new court trial. So, you can't blame us for not fighting for it openly, and it's not really something you can protest for, because just look at the reaction of men on this thread and tell me we wouldn't be putting ourselves in danger protesting in the streets for changes like this. Rape is a men's problem, not a women's problem!

it doesn't work like that. there have been multible cases of rape andrape cover up at military acadamyies

At 12/29/04 10:52 PM, Maus wrote:

At 12/29/04 10:47 PM, Fiend_Lore wrote: you know, what would be better, is if someone who has actualy been raped, or someone who has been acused of rape to share their opinions. how much do you think would be different or the same?

HELLOE. Both Freakapotimus and I have been raped.

And I know a few women who have been raped, such as my second cousin who had a child from the attack.

As far as the civil rights issue. One example was the one I used before, of not being allowed to introduce priors in a rape trial. Those are civil rights. Do i think that is one that should be stripped? In this case, yes. Yes. Yes. I've never understood innocent until proven guilty again. Once you've been convicted of a crime, it should have bearing on any future crimes.

Why is it the accused can't have his history brought up in court, but the woman can? Isn't that a double standard at least, if not a violation of her human rights? In the context, it seems almost obscene that the law would do that to a woman who has been the victim of a violent crime!

If a guy gets robbed, they don't bring up everytime he's left his gate unlocked.

At 12/29/04 10:56 PM, bambi_206 wrote:

That's a surprising post coming from you, maus. You are not usually for stripping someone of their civil rights. The accussed deserves civil rights, right up till the end. If you mean something different than 'civil rights', then don't say 'civil rights'.

Damien, man, it doesn't matter how much women fight, because it's still a man's world, and often they do stick together.

And that is sexist. Finding trust in someone because of what is between their legs is not only ignorant, it's primitive, and counter-productive. Why don't we work together, as a species? Instead of intentionally defining ourselves by gender? Is that not sexism...defining something by gender? That's what you do, when you 'band together with our fellow females'.

Fuck your sexist solidarity, and anyone who calls it truth. You're working backwards, and you don't even know it.

I think the civil rights that MAUS is talking about probably includes that fact that a rapists previous record of violent sexual crimes can't be brought up in a new court trial.

Just because a man, say, raped someone when he was 21...does that mean at age 52, with no previous charges of anything, save that one, he is assumed to STILL be a racist.

"Innocent until proven guilty'' does not mean 'innocent until proven guilty...until we convict you of a single charge...then, you're always guilty, ya' honky muhfucker.'

Innocent until proven guilty goes for every charge, ever...no many how many they are. And, on the same note, i'll say that the previous sexual history of a woman is unfair and heinous, unless relevant.

So, you can't blame us for not fighting for it openly, and it's not really something you can protest for, because just look at the reaction of men on this thread and tell me we wouldn't be putting ourselves in danger protesting in the streets for changes like this.

Bah. More melodrama. The homosexuals could have said the same thing. "If we go out on the streets, we'll be beaten, or raped, or something''. Yet, was a large majority harmed at all? Was even a small majority?
If the blacks, during the civil rights movement, could manage the courage to go the streets, and speak for what's fucking just, then you can.

I'm close to calling you a coward, again.

Rape is a men's problem, not a women's problem!

lol you are a humerous one. Tell that, dear, to the next woman that get's raped.

At 12/29/04 11:05 PM, Damien3003 wrote: Just because a man, say, raped someone when he was 21...does that mean at age 52, with no previous charges of anything, save that one, he is assumed to STILL be a rapist.

If. IF, a case like this were to come forward, you know that the defending attorneys would be trumpeting the fact that their last offense was nigh on thirty years previous. That argument is horseshit.

OK this arguement caught my eye just scanning the boards but now reading all 4 pages of it, I have found that this fight between male and female upon the subject of rape is at a standstill(considering that i have read the exact same arguements 4 times). The fact of the matter is that yes anyone who discriminates is being counter productive twords the actual cause. I do have actual sympathy for the raped but i also think that considering that the victim is most likely psycologically unstable espcially if it was an assualt, that it would also be counterproductive to instate a law that would force a victim to come forward. It is also true that statistics for rapes cannot be actually proven because one cannot say that most do not come forward when they acutally havent. It is also true that in many cases the idea of rape and sexual harrasment has been brought up as both a sham and a acutal social justice issue. There is a certain percentage of women or teen females who do use this horrible crime as an unprovable excuse to screw over their b/f. Then again there are the real cases, the fact of the matter is that courts have a hard time finding which is which.
Despite popular belief it is true that the girl if shed a tear and can perfectly mimic a real rape victim that they will most likely gain the upper hand. Then again the real victim comes along with the same problems and the court is leery. This is a fact because women are more able to be sympathized upon, because of their "frailty" (which is personally crap because i know a few girl who can kick my ass).
Now i know that you think that i am bias at my own but my statement is backed up by the sole fact that there would be no feminists had women been able to fight back physically. So the group of feminists were formed to use the law to make sure that women were given the rights they deserved.
All in all women deserve rights and they have been given them. But they look upon men as the oppressor because we are the opposite. This is the way it was when women didnt have any rights but now it is the men. A mans crediblilty is skewed greatly 'against that of a women's. This new age of men being opressed is started and honestly there will be "masclinists" eventually because the men are going to be so fed up with women opressing THEM.

P.S. I can understand that a woman can wear what she wants but what the hell is the point of showing cleavage or showing ass in a tight mini-skirt if none of us are not supposed to look. If women find it offensive for us to look down their shirts then dont show anything. You dont see men prancing around in tight leather crochless pants!

At 12/29/04 10:52 PM, Maus wrote:

At 12/29/04 10:47 PM, Fiend_Lore wrote: Once you've been convicted of a crime, it should have bearing on any future crimes.

It doesn't?! Well, balls! That is some f'd up s. I am so mad. You'd think it should. It's only a practical conclusion... Is our judicial system that poopy?

At 12/30/04 12:58 AM, mofomojo wrote: Rapists = Big Angry Horny Guys that can't get laid

Actually, rape is often more of a power issue than a "blueballs" issue. Some rapists like the feeling of being completely powerful over their victim(s), and being so in such a violent, violating way. Guys who can't get laid can just go to prostitutes, or something else, but they don't often rape. I know of at least one case where there was a serial rapist who was happily married and had kids, so you know he wasn't exactly not getting any. And I'd be surprised if their weren't other rapists like him.

At 12/30/04 01:47 AM, bambi_206 wrote:

At 12/30/04 12:58 AM, mofomojo wrote: Rapists = Big Angry Horny Guys that can't get laid

Actually, rape is often more of a power issue than a "blueballs" issue. Some rapists like the feeling of being completely powerful over their victim(s), and being so in such a violent, violating way. Guys who can't get laid can just go to prostitutes, or something else, but they don't often rape. I know of at least one case where there was a serial rapist who was happily married and had kids, so you know he wasn't exactly not getting any. And I'd be surprised if their weren't other rapists like him.

It's a frightening place, the mind of a rapist. It does seem to be more of a power issue. While male rapists use violence and brute strength, female rapists use seduction. That's something else I'm curious about. Why are there more male rapists than female rapists?

At 12/29/04 11:05 PM, Damien3003 wrote:

At 12/29/04 10:56 PM, bambi_206 wrote:

That's a surprising post coming from you, maus. You are not usually for stripping someone of their civil rights. The accussed deserves civil rights, right up till the end. If you mean something different than 'civil rights', then don't say 'civil rights'.

Damien, man, it doesn't matter how much women fight, because it's still a man's world, and often they do stick together.

And that is sexist. Finding trust in someone because of what is between their legs is not only ignorant, it's primitive, and counter-productive. Why don't we work together, as a species? Instead of intentionally defining ourselves by gender? Is that not sexism...defining something by gender? That's what you do, when you 'band together with our fellow females'.

Fuck your sexist solidarity, and anyone who calls it truth. You're working backwards, and you don't even know it.

Are you actually saying that sexism doesn't still exist? Or are you saying that it has no relevance on the issues of sexual harassment or violence and the law, or what? Why do you feel solidarity with your fellow Americans? Isn't solidarity on such an emotional gender issue as rape not as understandable as that?

I think the civil rights that MAUS is talking about probably includes that fact that a rapists previous record of violent sexual crimes can't be brought up in a new court trial.

Just because a man, say, raped someone when he was 21...does that mean at age 52, with no previous charges of anything, save that one, he is assumed to STILL be a racist.

"Innocent until proven guilty'' does not mean 'innocent until proven guilty...until we convict you of a single charge...then, you're always guilty, ya' honky muhfucker.'

I don't know, do they do the same thing in cases of murder, or drug trafficking, or theft? A person's history usually does have an impact on their behaviour in the present and future, no? I don't think that a man's history of violent crimes makes him guilty in all future charges brought against him, but allowing that evidence in court would show the propensity he has for crimes of this type, and this might influence a judge or jury, if he is proven guilty in the case he is currently charged in, to give him a harsher sentence and keep him off the street. Why do you expect women to be the only chivalrous ones when the justice system is stacked against them? Shouldn't the law also do as much as it can to protect women from these violent men? Shouldn't that include a consideration of his criminal past, not to establish guilt, but at least to add weight to his sentence?

Innocent until proven guilty goes for every charge, ever...no many how many they are. And, on the same note, i'll say that the previous sexual history of a woman is unfair and heinous, unless relevant.

See the last section of my above argument. I agree, "innocent until proven guilty", but then why do the polices and the courts take a cautious position in cases of acquaintance rape? Isn't the rape the more serious crime between it and the false accusation?

Rape is a men's problem, not a women's problem!

lol you are a humerous one. Tell that, dear, to the next woman that get's raped.

Who does the raping? Men. Who are the politicians who write the laws that protect the rapists' "civil rights"? Probably men. Who are authorities, from the first cop on the scene to the judge to the prison guards? Mostly men. Though I hate the word, women are the victims. Saying that rape is a women's problem is like saying that famine and civil war is a problem for starving Sudanese children to solve.

At 12/30/04 01:53 AM, Pyrrho wrote: It's a frightening place, the mind of a rapist. It does seem to be more of a power issue. While male rapists use violence and brute strength, female rapists use seduction. That's something else I'm curious about. Why are there more male rapists than female rapists?

I think that is a side efffect of the ideal of "masculine" our society holds. A good man is supposed to be strong, independent, rational, powerful and forcefully assertive. Ideally, if men want something, they just take it. Could this ideal lead some men who, for whatever reason, can't live up to this ideal in their minds to act out violently towards women? Has everyone heard of Mark Lepine and the Montreal Massacre? Could it be because of sexism maybe?

At 12/30/04 12:30 AM, dominus_kima wrote: I have found that this fight between male and female upon the subject of rape is at a standstill(considering that i have read the exact same arguements 4 times). The fact of the matter is that yes anyone who discriminates is being counter productive twords the actual cause. I do have actual sympathy for the raped but i also think that considering that the victim is most likely psycologically unstable espcially if it was an assualt, that it would also be counterproductive to instate a law that would force a victim to come forward. It is also true that statistics for rapes cannot be actually proven because one cannot say that most do not come forward when they acutally havent. It is also true that in many cases the idea of rape and sexual harrasment has been brought up as both a sham and a acutal social justice issue. There is a certain percentage of women or teen females who do use this horrible crime as an unprovable excuse to screw over their b/f. Then again there are the real cases, the fact of the matter is that courts have a hard time finding which is which.

Good points. It is a shame that women would fake rape as revenge. Those women have no idea what sort of damage they cause to the women who are actually raped. Same goes for sexual assault, of course. But as Damien3003 keeps saying, sexual assault is more subjective, as that makes it even messier to deal with. :P

Despite popular belief it is true that the girl if shed a tear and can perfectly mimic a real rape victim that they will most likely gain the upper hand. Then again the real victim comes along with the same problems and the court is leery. This is a fact because women are more able to be sympathized upon, because of their "frailty" (which is personally crap because i know a few girl who can kick my ass).

Thank you. This is one of the reasons that men in power don't do more to prevent rape or protect women. If the big strong men save the little frail women from the big bad rapists, then the big men are given hero status and power. Therefore, all men benefit from rape, whether they like it, know it or not. That is how this is a sexism issue. It truly is about inequality, whether you see it or not.

Now i know that you think that i am bias at my own but my statement is backed up by the sole fact that there would be no feminists had women been able to fight back physically. So the group of feminists were formed to use the law to make sure that women were given the rights they deserved.
All in all women deserve rights and they have been given them. But they look upon men as the oppressor because we are the opposite. This is the way it was when women didnt have any rights but now it is the men. A mans crediblilty is skewed greatly 'against that of a women's. This new age of men being opressed is started and honestly there will be "masclinists" eventually because the men are going to be so fed up with women opressing THEM.

There already is a men's movement. They fight mostly for equal parental rights for fathers, but for other equalities for men as well. You probably have heard about their crazy stunts in England, climbing Buckingham Palace and such. It's not really about oppression, because women don't hold the powerful position in the gender arena as far as I know. It is about equality in all aspects of life, same as real feminists' goals.

P.S. I can understand that a woman can wear what she wants but what the hell is the point of showing cleavage or showing ass in a tight mini-skirt if none of us are not supposed to look. If women find it offensive for us to look down their shirts then dont show anything. You dont see men prancing around in tight leather crochless pants!

Well, you guys don't have mixed messages bombarding you left and right. How are women dressed on magazine covers, on TV, music videos, in popular movies? What sort of girls get the attention of boys and the in-crowd in high school? Isn't the message: "(Un)Dress for success"? Also, women who do use their sexual appeal often are successful. Then how are women told to protect themselves from sexual harassment? Cover up. Don't use your sexual appeal if you don't want to be looked at. Isn't that kind of a pervasive and sexist double standard?

It's a frightening place, the mind of a rapist. It does seem to be more of a power issue. While male rapists use violence and brute strength, female rapists use seduction. That's something else I'm curious about. Why are there more male rapists than female rapists?

I read somewhere that most rapists are people who have had some real hard time growing up, masturbate frequently, like to see people suffer under this circumstance and obviously carnt stop thinking about sex. Some males fit into these catergories really well. Thats why you see more male rapists the female. And being physically stronger they can get there victim alot easier. Like you said females rely on thier "seduction" techniques however most dont have the strenght to back it up. If a female rapists ended up leading there victim back to wherever using this technique and raped them. The male may see this as a 1 night stand and not realise her true intent so most are never reported or thought about it.

This may be a little confusing. I tried to put this in the clearest way possible.

At 12/30/04 02:06 AM, bambi_206 wrote:

At 12/29/04 11:05 PM, Damien3003 wrote: And that is sexist. Finding trust in someone because of what is between their legs is not only ignorant, it's primitive, and counter-productive. Why don't we work together, as a species? Instead of intentionally defining ourselves by gender? Is that not sexism...defining something by gender? That's what you do, when you 'band together with our fellow females'.
Fuck your sexist solidarity, and anyone who calls it truth. You're working backwards, and you don't even know it.

Are you actually saying that sexism doesn't still exist?

I'm saying the ways and means by which you partake your particular task are failing. You are viewed in society's eyes as extremists. You want to make a difference? Stop scaring people off with that 'only females understand this, let's band together...the penis owners are bad' crap. People don't like it. Mayhaps that's why your cause has so little effect.

Or are you saying that it has no relevance on the issues of sexual harassment or violence and the law, or what?

The way by which you voice your concenrs, your mediums, if you will, have no relevance on anything. And the only reason (and it's not because your point holds no validity) is because you take some things to extreme. You are viewed as extremists.

Why do you feel solidarity with your fellow Americans? Isn't solidarity on such an emotional gender issue as rape not as understandable as that?

No, it's not. My nationalism, my love of this country and all the people within...it transcends gender, and race, and political leaning, and NFL preferences...it transcends everything. So is nationalism, and patriotism.

Your love, your solidarity, your empathy, however...it picks and chooses. It is not all encompassing. Don't even try to compare it to my nationality, because it's a fucking insult.

"Innocent until proven guilty'' does not mean 'innocent until proven guilty...until we convict you of a single charge...then, you're always guilty, ya' honky muhfucker.'

I don't know, do they do the same thing in cases of murder, or drug trafficking, or theft? A person's history usually does have an impact on their behaviour in the present and future, no?

It may, it may not. It depends on the case. Justice is not blind, anymore...and it looks at every case, individualy. It's all about context, in this country. Mayhaps a persons history, whether it be criminal or sexual, DOES have an effect on the case, mayhaps it doesn't. You want an all defining, every-case-scenario rule, and that's not how America works. Nor canada, for that matter.

I don't think that a man's history of violent crimes makes him guilty in all future charges brought against him, but allowing that evidence in court would show the propensity he has for crimes of this type,

Under that rationality, i can say the say the same derogatory shit about a women. (and i think you're gonna just be tickled)

I don't think a woman's history of permiscuous sexual behavior makers her more willing to sleep with a stranger, but allowing that evidence in court would show the propensity she has for this kind of permiscuous behavior.

If you can do it, then i can, as well.

Why do you expect women to be the only chivalrous ones when the justice system is stacked against them? Shouldn't the law also do as much as it can to protect women from these violent men?

Of course. My talk of chilvary, if you had not noticed, was not just aimed at raped women. It was aimed at the court system, and police officers, and the DA of every state in America (or canada).

Shouldn't that include a consideration of his criminal past, not to establish guilt, but at least to add weight to his sentence?

It depends on context. If his crime happend in, say, the last fifteen years, then it may be relevant. If it happened, i don't know, thirty or fourty years ago...no, it's not relevant, at all. I dont want people to look back at me at eighteen, when i'm sixty, and base what kind of man I am off of what i was. The same goes for a woman, and her sexual history.

Once again, my empathy is covers everyone, while your's picks and chooses.

See the last section of my above argument. I agree, "innocent until proven guilty", but then why do the polices and the courts take a cautious position in cases of acquaintance rape? Isn't the rape the more serious crime between it and the false accusation?

The police are simply doing their job. They HAVE to take a cautionary stance. They can't just believe everything everyone walks in and says, or accuses. Due process must happen, even in rape cases.

Rape is a men's problem, not a women's problem!

lol you are a humerous one. Tell that, dear, to the next woman that get's raped.

Who does the raping? Men. Who are the politicians who write the laws that protect the rapists' "civil rights"? Probably men.

So there are no female politicians? You're speculating. Source it, or drop it.

:Who are authorities, from the first cop on the scene to the judge to the prison guards?

No female cops, either? No female security guards? My best friends mother is a prison guard.
No female judges?
You're demeaning women's position in society, by acting this way.

Though I hate the word, women are the victims. Saying that rape is a women's problem is like saying that famine and civil war is a problem for starving Sudanese children to solve.

Saying that rape is not a woman's problem is stupid. Rape is EVERYONE'S problem to solve. Let me say it again: Let's work together, as a species, to improve things...let's not demean ourselves by splitting up 'teams' by gender'.

We're not in fucking middle school, anymore, sister.

At 12/30/04 02:29 AM, bambi_206 wrote: Good points. It is a shame that women would fake rape as revenge. Those women have no idea what sort of damage they cause to the women who are actually raped. Same goes for sexual assault, of course. But as Damien3003 keeps saying, sexual assault is more subjective, as that makes it even messier to deal with. :P

Actually, i was speaking of sexual harrassment, as subjective. Sexual assualt is usually pretty clear cut, actually.

Well, you guys don't have mixed messages bombarding you left and right. How are women dressed on magazine covers, on TV, music videos, in popular movies?

Oh, and pictures of johny depp, leonardo dicaprio, brad pitt, and george clooney really make me feel good about myself, don't they? And how girls practically cum in their pants everytime depp shows his face on tv. My girlfriend, for one. My mother, for christsakes.

I'm no brad pitt, sister. Don't act like men aren't subject to the same self esteem issues as women, because it's crap.

What sort of girls get the attention of boys and the in-crowd in high school? Isn't the message: "(Un)Dress for success"?

Hey, if you knew anything about the 'in crowd' (and it's a sad fact that i know this, is it not?) in a high school, you'd know those kind of girls 'aren't like that'. They don't, as they say, 'put-out'. And, because you'll twist my words like a doorknob, let me say: She shouldn't have to undress for anything, or please anyone, etc, etc, yadda. My only point was, you're wrong. The 'in-crowd' aint where you'd find 'the slutty girls'.

Also, women who do use their sexual appeal often are successful.

Well, shame on them for using their bodies, instead of potential talents, to rise to the top.

Then how are women told to protect themselves from sexual harassment? Cover up.

No. You protect yourself from sexual harrassment by being assertive. That's common knowledge, i think. Once you've affirmed that you do not like your boss's comments about your dress, that they make you uncomfortable, and that he should stop, that's it. If he continues, you've clearly got him on a sexual harrassment charge. If he fires you for it, you can take THAT up in court too. It's a win win situation...if a woman asserts herself in the workplace, immediately.

At 12/30/04 02:49 AM, Damien3003 wrote:

At 12/30/04 02:29 AM, bambi_206 wrote: Good points. It is a shame that women would fake rape as revenge. Those women have no idea what sort of damage they cause to the women who are actually raped. Same goes for sexual assault, of course. But as Damien3003 keeps saying, sexual assault is more subjective, as that makes it even messier to deal with. :P

Actually, i was speaking of sexual harrassment, as subjective. Sexual assualt is usually pretty clear cut, actually.

Yeah, oops, that what I meant. :P

Well, you guys don't have mixed messages bombarding you left and right. How are women dressed on magazine covers, on TV, music videos, in popular movies?

Oh, and pictures of johny depp, leonardo dicaprio, brad pitt, and george clooney really make me feel good about myself, don't they? And how girls practically cum in their pants everytime depp shows his face on tv. My girlfriend, for one. My mother, for christsakes.

I'm no brad pitt, sister. Don't act like men aren't subject to the same self esteem issues as women, because it's crap.

It's not exactly the same, because of the volume for one, and the level of dress, for another. I'm not talking about how seeing a half-naked woman on Stuff makes me feel, it's about the impact it has on the behaviour of people in our society.

What sort of girls get the attention of boys and the in-crowd in high school? Isn't the message: "(Un)Dress for success"?

Hey, if you knew anything about the 'in crowd' (and it's a sad fact that i know this, is it not?) in a high school, you'd know those kind of girls 'aren't like that'. They don't, as they say, 'put-out'. And, because you'll twist my words like a doorknob, let me say: She shouldn't have to undress for anything, or please anyone, etc, etc, yadda. My only point was, you're wrong. The 'in-crowd' aint where you'd find 'the slutty girls'.

Also, women who do use their sexual appeal often are successful.

Well, shame on them for using their bodies, instead of potential talents, to rise to the top.

Then how are women told to protect themselves from sexual harassment? Cover up.

No. You protect yourself from sexual harrassment by being assertive. That's common knowledge, i think. Once you've affirmed that you do not like your boss's comments about your dress, that they make you uncomfortable, and that he should stop, that's it. If he continues, you've clearly got him on a sexual harrassment charge. If he fires you for it, you can take THAT up in court too. It's a win win situation...if a woman asserts herself in the workplace, immediately.

Damien3003, I love how you "pick and choose" what words you read, arguments you refute, and what points you gather from my posts. And sounds like you are claiming "empathetic superiority" over me. Still want to make lots of babies?

So are you on my side, or are you anti-feminist? Why is most of society so afraid of feminists, because I though extremists used like, violence and stuff to make their points heard? I don't know any feminists into making bombs.

Anyways, answer me this, can it possible for a prostitute to be raped?

Damien3003, you say that previous history of violent crimes should have an impact and be included in some cases in some contexts ("time gap" dependent) when it comes to charges of rape or sexual assault, so why did you also defend this specific "civil right" of men charged with these crimes?

And like I said before, please, do extrapolate from my generalizations, because I hate it when you blow up my entire argument because I didn't phrase it to be all-encompassing of every single possibility. You hate my method, and I hate yours. I thought you wanted to debate the issue, not the method of argument.

I love how you accuse me of demeaning women, when you won't even take a glance at the White Ribbon Campaign site. Please, let's work together as one species. You start there.

And how can I not separate us into genders? You know as well as I do that they are a social reality, so why are so naive as to believe we can function in a debate on sexual harassment without them?

At 12/30/04 03:45 AM, bambi_206 wrote:

Oh, and pictures of johny depp, leonardo dicaprio, brad pitt, and george clooney really make me feel good about myself, don't they? And how girls practically cum in their pants everytime depp shows his face on tv. My girlfriend, for one. My mother, for christsakes.
I'm no brad pitt, sister. Don't act like men aren't subject to the same self esteem issues as women, because it's crap.

It's not exactly the same, because of the volume for one, and the level of dress, for another.

For every attractive female flaunted on my television, there is an attractive male to match. You just notice the females, because that shit gets under your skin, more than the males.

Hey, if you knew anything about the 'in crowd' (and it's a sad fact that i know this, is it not?) in a high school, you'd know those kind of girls 'aren't like that'. They don't, as they say, 'put-out'. And, because you'll twist my words like a doorknob, let me say: She shouldn't have to undress for anything, or please anyone, etc, etc, yadda. My only point was, you're wrong. The 'in-crowd' aint where you'd find 'the slutty girls'.

Also, women who do use their sexual appeal often are successful.

Well, shame on them for using their bodies, instead of potential talents, to rise to the top.

Then how are women told to protect themselves from sexual harassment? Cover up.

No. You protect yourself from sexual harrassment by being assertive. That's common knowledge, i think. Once you've affirmed that you do not like your boss's comments about your dress, that they make you uncomfortable, and that he should stop, that's it. If he continues, you've clearly got him on a sexual harrassment charge. If he fires you for it, you can take THAT up in court too. It's a win win situation...if a woman asserts herself in the workplace, immediately.

Damien3003, I love how you "pick and choose" what words you read, arguments you refute, and what points you gather from my posts.

Respond to what i've presented, or drop it.

And sounds like you are claiming "empathetic superiority" over me.

Empathetic superiority? No, i've claimed nothing. I've been nothing but rational. And since you did not respond to my points, that shall remain, until properly disputed.

At 12/30/04 03:59 AM, bambi_206 wrote: So are you on my side, or are you anti-feminist?

I'll not demean myself by picking one side or another. I'll say that on some issues, feminists have a point. On others, they should have never bothered to even raise their voice about such petty shit.
Context, sister.

:Why is most of society so afraid of feminists, because I though extremists used like, violence and stuff to make their points heard? I don't know any feminists into making bombs.

An extremist doesn't have to hurt anyone, physically or mentally, to be an extremist. Having 'extreme' views often makes you an 'extremist'. Funny how root words work, isn't it?

Anyways, answer me this, can it possible for a prostitute to be raped?

Well, i suppose if some jon holds her down, and doesnt pay her, sure. That's a rape, if i've ever seen one.

Damien3003, you say that previous history of violent crimes should have an impact and be included in some cases in some contexts ("time gap" dependent) when it comes to charges of rape or sexual assault, so why did you also defend this specific "civil right" of men charged with these crimes?

Because everyone deserves civil rights, and due process. Once again, it all depends on context.

You hate my method, and I hate yours. I thought you wanted to debate the issue, not the method of argument.

And yet you responded to very little of my last major post, claiming i was simply 'claiming empathetic superiority'. Why does one or the other have to be superior, dear? We're debating, leave it at that.

I love how you accuse me of demeaning women, when you won't even take a glance at the White Ribbon Campaign site. Please, let's work together as one species. You start there.

Well, it seems i've already found something to disagree with, on your site.

"The responsibility of men to help prevent violence against women."

This is one of their highly acclaimed 'issues'. Now, this is what i'm talking about. Dividing it up by sex, like school children in a gymnasium. They didnt say 'the responsibility of all citizens to help prevent violence against women', no. They said 'the responsibility of MEN'.

I already dislike your site. It's everything i expected it to be, and MORE.

And how can I not separate us into genders? You know as well as I do that they are a social reality, so why are so naive as to believe we can function in a debate on sexual harassment without them?

It's a social reality only because the weak constantly point it out. It's just something else to divide a nation, to divide a group into lesser than what they are. No, i do not support the white ribbon campaign, because it's 'men working against men who commit violence'. That's, quite literally, one sided. The responsiblity's is everyone.

Oh, and something to prove my point: a quote from the site's home page: "Silence Perpetuates Violence''. Just like i've been saying, all day. Only, they boiled it down to a three word phrase. How nifty. Don't make me use it again :)

Still want to make lots of babies?

No, i was only joking about that.

I hate children.

Did the White Ribbon Campaign site say specifically that it is only mens' resposibility in all of society toprevent violence towards women, or is that specifically their own goal? I don't think there's anything wrong with them defining their goal as men working toward a solution. It is a campaign for men only, you know, in solidarity with women, especially those who experience male violence. And if you still don't like it, go to Amnesty International, because I believe that is exactly what you are asking for, all people striving to end violence against women. You might also want to check out:

Amnesty International - Stop Violence Against Women
Amnesty International Canada
Amnesty International Canada - Stop Violence Against Women Campaign
Amnesty International USA
Amnesty International Women's Action Council - Stop Violence Against Women Campaign

And for good measure:

Women, HIV/AIDS and human rights
Fighters target women in Central African Republic
Women denied right to vote in Saudi Arabia
and finally
Highlighting violence against women

At 12/30/04 04:26 AM, Damien3003 wrote:

Because everyone deserves civil rights, and due process. Once again, it all depends on context.

I'll hold you to that one in the future Damien.

First off i would like to say that the violence against women is almost completley crap. ((excuse the context: strictly USA)) i can understand the uprising to rape and sexual assualt is really violence but what about the violence twords men? If there is any kind of violence you hear of it is most likely inbetween two men killling each other. Now when a woman gets involved it becomes a whole different matter that unless she started it the men are to blame until the details come out of the woodwork in court.
To tell you the truth the most discriminated gender/ racial category is the white male. Seriously hear me out, try getting into college being a normal white guy. It is a fact ((it was on the news ppl)) that students of other races or genders get extra points in college applications as opposed to white males. Why is this: the colleges are afraid of being called racist, or sexist. THey would much rather give them a few extra points than have to go through court and spend all the money to prove that the student is just not up to par to their standards.
Also what Bambi and Damien where arguing over that a woman has to ability to use her sexual "appeal" to get to the top of the hill. Men do not have such privilges and why do you think that corporations supposedly ((this is not backed so it is sheer assumption on my part)) hire males more?
It is simple. There are so many women that are getting to the top that the males are left behind and due to the fact that the vast majority of buisnesses are run by a male figure that , that man feels some amount of sympathy for his "fellow man". This leads also to the idea of masculine busniess sexism. Which if the women didnt use their priviliges as some do; would not exist!

First off, bambi, yes...on this issue, i support amnesty international. It IS exactly how it should be: ALL people working together, regardless of gender, race, and politicial offiliation, to stop as much violence against women as they can.

At 12/30/04 12:51 PM, dominus_kima wrote: It is simple. There are so many women that are getting to the top that the males are left behind and due to the fact that the vast majority of buisnesses are run by a male figure that , that man feels some amount of sympathy for his "fellow man". This leads also to the idea of masculine busniess sexism. Which if the women didnt use their priviliges as some do; would not exist!

Ok, whoa there, brother. So, are you saying that, because of women's sexual appeal only, they are actually getting MORE jobs then men? Because that's ridiculous. And, furthermore, you downright and blatenly made the statement "If women didn't use their (sexual) priviligde and appeal, they would not exist in the workplace."
Do you realize how fucking sexist that sounds?

At least in bambi's extreme statements, she actually pretty much knew what she was talking about. You, however, or just making things up.

At 12/30/04 06:08 AM, ReiperX wrote:

At 12/30/04 04:26 AM, Damien3003 wrote: Because everyone deserves civil rights, and due process. Once again, it all depends on context.

I'll hold you to that one in the future Damien.

Ah, as expected, too. Yet, i covered myself for future problems, did i not? I made sure to point out that context must be considered. I'm sure i'll remind you of that fact, somewhere down the line.

At 12/26/04 02:33 PM, FunkinAround wrote: At 12/26/04 06:49 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote

An argument in which I refered to FunkinAround as a "he."

I find it funny that you automatically think I'm a male.

What's even funnier is that you automatically think that "women are bitches" and that it's "simple as that." To further-strengthen my amusement you also said that you weren't "really saying all are, but nonetheless 85% of them are" without any evidence. Whether you're a male or a female, you still have no support for your claims sweetykins.

Ok, whoa there, brother. So, are you saying that, because of women's sexual appeal only, they are actually getting MORE jobs then men? Because that's ridiculous. And, furthermore, you downright and blatenly made the statement "If women didn't use their (sexual) priviligde and appeal, they would not exist in the workplace."
Do you realize how fucking sexist that sounds?

::

I can understand how that might have been taken wrongly but i meant that masucline sexism would not exist had not many women used their sexual appeal to gain acess to the buisness world or scare the employer with accusations of sexism. I meant nothing of the woman being non-existant.((sry if that offended you it was worded incorrectly))

At 12/30/04 09:39 PM, dominus_kima wrote:

Ok, whoa there, brother. So, are you saying that, because of women's sexual appeal only, they are actually getting MORE jobs then men? Because that's ridiculous. And, furthermore, you downright and blatenly made the statement "If women didn't use their (sexual) priviligde and appeal, they would not exist in the workplace."
Do you realize how fucking sexist that sounds?

I can understand how that might have been taken wrongly but i meant that masucline sexism would not exist had not many women used their sexual appeal to gain acess to the buisness world or scare the employer with accusations of sexism.

lol you've just said the same fucking thing you said in your previous post. You are very plainly saying : Sexism, in the workplace, would not exist if woman had not used their sexual appeal as an advantage, in the first place.
And, once again, that's fucking sexist.

What a fucking crazy thread. Anyway, Damien_FLAGG (formerly known as Damien3003), I'm glad you support Amnesty International, but that doesn't negate the work that the White Ribbon Campaign is doing. They are specifically an organization for men who want to do something personally to help stop violence against women. I don't think they would ever, ever say that they (men) are solely responsible for the well-being of women throughout the world. If you got that impression, you are once again mistaken.

On the existence of sexism, and the perceived discrimination that some white men feel, please tell me, who basically rules the world? How many CEOs of the world's wealthiest corporations are white male? How many Ivy League college students are white male? How many kids of a different ethnic background can afford to go to those schools? How many of America's rich families are headed by a white male? Who benefits most from the way the system is set up right now? Before you go accusing women of only using sex appeal to get get jobs and positions of power (we don't have the same level of intelligence, aptitude, or skill and ability as men?), you should take a look at things like this tragedy and this absolutely ridiculous, insensitive and unfounded accusation that women suffer. Then tell me that white men suffer more than women. Tell me women just point fingers without cause. Tell me feminism is an extremist tactic to crush the white men and place them under women's rule.

And just to clarify, there can exist no such thing as "masculine sexism", because men are the powerful group. Women can't oppress the men, as would be implied by the use of the term "sexism".

Stop with the victim mentality. If you think like a victim, you will be a victim. If you think like a success, you will be a success. The reason women didn't before is because they bought into a mentality that said 'I'm not worthy.' We know that we ARE worthy, we just have to work a little harder for it because the corporate world is not our realm. So work harder, make yourself a success, and stop blaming others for your station in life. You live in a country that allows women to become whatever they want, short of a front line combat soldier.

If men are not to be our 'sole protectors' women need to take matters into their own hands and stand up to be counted. Not depend on someone else to put her there. The blame game gets old fast, and makes women look whiny, and lazy. I'm not saying you are, I'm just sharing the perception it yields.

Many of my friends from HS that were girls got into Ivy League schools. They don't admit students based on gender like you coyly suggest. Sexism is largely an excuse for not getting things done. "Oh, I didn't get the job because I'm a woman.' How often does that really happen, vs. not getting the job because they were underqualified? Not every single woman that claims it was discriminated against.