![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Rape. and values
Nov. 30th, 2005 11:39 amThe rheotoric on the right, about the "moral relativism" on the left (for those like me who are for choice, and against capital punishment, unlike those who are against abortion and for capital punishment), has always amused me.
I am neither an absolutist, nor a relativist. I am a moral pragmatist. Barring some amazing, and irrefutable revelation from on high, there is nothing which can be said to be wrong, if a society agrees to it (suttee comes to immediate mind, which brings up the caste system, and a host of other things Europeans found strange, if not horrible among the natives. Our marriage customs were/are bizarre, and immoral to the indians of the Pacific Northwest, because we didn't/don't take the proper sorts of consanguinity into account).
So I tend to take the "swinging fist" rule as primary, and the value of life as pretty damned high. Since I don't think the State can be trusted to make the right choices all the time in issues of punishment (and the evidence is overwhelming that it can't) I am against capital punishment, because mistakes can't be corrected.
Not that I am against killing people, per se, but as a state action it's wrong. In the same way I value the present life of the woman over the potential life of the fetus. No more than I would mandate abortions by the state, will I allow it to prohibit them.
Ok, that's to address the issues of, "moral relativism."
VoxDay (a wretched example of blowhard given credence because he is extreme, and sadly one who is given a pulpit because his father is wealthy and there are too many who either think it amusing to see him foam at the mouth, or actually agree with him, said the following recently.
I’m just curious what basis the moral relativists have for condemning rape in the first place. If I deem the slaking of my desire for lust - or violence, if you prefer that theory of rape - to be an intrinsic good, who are you to condemn it? Certainly, one could argue that it is a violation of private property rights, but then, what of those moral relativists who reject the notion of private property. If all property is held in common, then how can a woman object if I decide to make use of that which belongs to me?
If only this were something over the top, a bit of satire (like the comment Michelle Malkin lifted from Eric Muller's blog for her recent book, the one which was satirically pointing out the difficulties of her arguments; in context it was plainly tongue in cheek, and she [as a public figure, open to such skewering]. She paints it as a sign of how much more virulent is the hate on the left than it is on the right), but it isn't.
It is, sadly, typical of both how he seems to think, and how he presents himself, and those he sees as his foes.
Actual rape is another area in which the feminists shot themselves in the foot. Back in the day, women had the protection of their fathers, husbands and brothers. Their fathers, husbands and brothers usually had guns. So what have the feminists been trying to do? Get rid of the men AND the guns! I’d take the protection of a man or a gun over a chastity belt any day!
Yep, women as property. If they'd just give up this whole idea of being real people, then they wouldn't get raped. After all it rape didn't exist before the rise of Feminsism... (what, it did... oh! Never Mind.)
For those of us who thought rape was about violence, or even sex, well Vox is willing to put is straight, because rape, you see, is life affirming, Yes, in a profound and awesome way, rape is actually the possibility for life, whereas the other crimes - stealing, lying, murdering - are all about destruction. which is, I suppose, an argument against hormonal birth control, because that would prevent the rape from leading to conception.
Then again, he seems to think paternity as a possibilty is a reason to be against rape, which means we can blame it on feminism again, because that nasty birth control removes that nagging fear.
Actually, the only thing that makes me consider rape to be as awful as it is IS the possibility of life, and also STDs. In of itself, while [rape] can be fairly painful, is not that much of a big deal. Certainly, it’s trespassing against your property and could result in great bodily harm, and you have the right to defend yourself, but mostly it’s psychologically damaging more than anything else.
I’m always very skeptical of women who claim they were raped- especially to completion- because it is actually extremely difficult to rape a struggling, dry woman. Now, if there’s a weapon involved I could see why a woman might not resist, but for the most part I think that if a woman regrets having sex, she thinks it was rape.
Yeah. Sure. Can't rape the unwilling (sort of a vagina dentata where lack of interest equal dryness to the point of sandpaper I suppose). I'm sure the women in Bosnia really wanted to be raped, that's why it happened so often, and in a culture where chastity is so important that a rape victim is shunned.
And, because rape is really just buyer's remorse (he says that, honest), we know the accusations of it (like the girl in Orange County who was unconscious, and filmed, and the similar case, also filmed, with the girl, I forget where, who was mentally disabled, and in a wheelchair. We know they really wanted it, it wasn't rape)
In the middle east a woman needs a Man as a witness to charge another man with rape. Women are not smart enough to realize what they are doing to innocent men.
Rape in this country, in many places, is a worse crime than murder. What’s striking is that there are only 15k convictions for 85k accusations. It has the lowest conviction rape of any major crime. Which is scarey and tells us that women are not capable of making decisions on their own.
It couldn't have anything to so with the idea that the women are the victims, and somehow, (like people who respond to 419 spam, or "update" their accounts with e-bay) not only asked for it, but really wanted it. That much of a rape trial is often the accused's lawyer painting the woman as a slut. That the rapist is given not just the benefit of the doubt, but allowed to turn the trial around and the victim much prove the crime was committed, preferably by getting injured during the attack.
Just in case it isn't plain that this is the way he thinks, Isn’t this obvious? Not to “blame the victim” or anything, but you have to take responsibility for your actions. If a woman dresses like a ho and flirts like a streetwalker, she is probably going to have to deal with a few sexual advances. What else would you expect?
It’s a bit like approaching a group of Crips late at night and calling them a bunch of bleepin’ faggots and then slapping one in the face. They still wouldn’t be within the law when they promptly shot you and stole your jeans, but you still reap what you sow.
Yep, if you wear revealing clothing you deserve to be raped; only it isn't really rape because, well he doens't believe in rape, and he's gonna blame the victim, even if it was rape, which of course it probably wasn't.
The problem isn't that VoxDay is so extreme, but that so many of his underlying mantra are still at large... women could avoid rape if they didn't provoke men being the most prominent.
Men could avoid rape by, avoiding rape. Those who advocate the punishment model could prevent rape by seeing to it that those who rape get convicted.
And those who favor either of those can prevent rape by smacking down idiots like VoxDay. It's a lot like playing whack-a-mole, but it needs to be done.
I am neither an absolutist, nor a relativist. I am a moral pragmatist. Barring some amazing, and irrefutable revelation from on high, there is nothing which can be said to be wrong, if a society agrees to it (suttee comes to immediate mind, which brings up the caste system, and a host of other things Europeans found strange, if not horrible among the natives. Our marriage customs were/are bizarre, and immoral to the indians of the Pacific Northwest, because we didn't/don't take the proper sorts of consanguinity into account).
So I tend to take the "swinging fist" rule as primary, and the value of life as pretty damned high. Since I don't think the State can be trusted to make the right choices all the time in issues of punishment (and the evidence is overwhelming that it can't) I am against capital punishment, because mistakes can't be corrected.
Not that I am against killing people, per se, but as a state action it's wrong. In the same way I value the present life of the woman over the potential life of the fetus. No more than I would mandate abortions by the state, will I allow it to prohibit them.
Ok, that's to address the issues of, "moral relativism."
VoxDay (a wretched example of blowhard given credence because he is extreme, and sadly one who is given a pulpit because his father is wealthy and there are too many who either think it amusing to see him foam at the mouth, or actually agree with him, said the following recently.
I’m just curious what basis the moral relativists have for condemning rape in the first place. If I deem the slaking of my desire for lust - or violence, if you prefer that theory of rape - to be an intrinsic good, who are you to condemn it? Certainly, one could argue that it is a violation of private property rights, but then, what of those moral relativists who reject the notion of private property. If all property is held in common, then how can a woman object if I decide to make use of that which belongs to me?
If only this were something over the top, a bit of satire (like the comment Michelle Malkin lifted from Eric Muller's blog for her recent book, the one which was satirically pointing out the difficulties of her arguments; in context it was plainly tongue in cheek, and she [as a public figure, open to such skewering]. She paints it as a sign of how much more virulent is the hate on the left than it is on the right), but it isn't.
It is, sadly, typical of both how he seems to think, and how he presents himself, and those he sees as his foes.
Actual rape is another area in which the feminists shot themselves in the foot. Back in the day, women had the protection of their fathers, husbands and brothers. Their fathers, husbands and brothers usually had guns. So what have the feminists been trying to do? Get rid of the men AND the guns! I’d take the protection of a man or a gun over a chastity belt any day!
Yep, women as property. If they'd just give up this whole idea of being real people, then they wouldn't get raped. After all it rape didn't exist before the rise of Feminsism... (what, it did... oh! Never Mind.)
For those of us who thought rape was about violence, or even sex, well Vox is willing to put is straight, because rape, you see, is life affirming, Yes, in a profound and awesome way, rape is actually the possibility for life, whereas the other crimes - stealing, lying, murdering - are all about destruction. which is, I suppose, an argument against hormonal birth control, because that would prevent the rape from leading to conception.
Then again, he seems to think paternity as a possibilty is a reason to be against rape, which means we can blame it on feminism again, because that nasty birth control removes that nagging fear.
Actually, the only thing that makes me consider rape to be as awful as it is IS the possibility of life, and also STDs. In of itself, while [rape] can be fairly painful, is not that much of a big deal. Certainly, it’s trespassing against your property and could result in great bodily harm, and you have the right to defend yourself, but mostly it’s psychologically damaging more than anything else.
I’m always very skeptical of women who claim they were raped- especially to completion- because it is actually extremely difficult to rape a struggling, dry woman. Now, if there’s a weapon involved I could see why a woman might not resist, but for the most part I think that if a woman regrets having sex, she thinks it was rape.
Yeah. Sure. Can't rape the unwilling (sort of a vagina dentata where lack of interest equal dryness to the point of sandpaper I suppose). I'm sure the women in Bosnia really wanted to be raped, that's why it happened so often, and in a culture where chastity is so important that a rape victim is shunned.
And, because rape is really just buyer's remorse (he says that, honest), we know the accusations of it (like the girl in Orange County who was unconscious, and filmed, and the similar case, also filmed, with the girl, I forget where, who was mentally disabled, and in a wheelchair. We know they really wanted it, it wasn't rape)
In the middle east a woman needs a Man as a witness to charge another man with rape. Women are not smart enough to realize what they are doing to innocent men.
Rape in this country, in many places, is a worse crime than murder. What’s striking is that there are only 15k convictions for 85k accusations. It has the lowest conviction rape of any major crime. Which is scarey and tells us that women are not capable of making decisions on their own.
It couldn't have anything to so with the idea that the women are the victims, and somehow, (like people who respond to 419 spam, or "update" their accounts with e-bay) not only asked for it, but really wanted it. That much of a rape trial is often the accused's lawyer painting the woman as a slut. That the rapist is given not just the benefit of the doubt, but allowed to turn the trial around and the victim much prove the crime was committed, preferably by getting injured during the attack.
Just in case it isn't plain that this is the way he thinks, Isn’t this obvious? Not to “blame the victim” or anything, but you have to take responsibility for your actions. If a woman dresses like a ho and flirts like a streetwalker, she is probably going to have to deal with a few sexual advances. What else would you expect?
It’s a bit like approaching a group of Crips late at night and calling them a bunch of bleepin’ faggots and then slapping one in the face. They still wouldn’t be within the law when they promptly shot you and stole your jeans, but you still reap what you sow.
Yep, if you wear revealing clothing you deserve to be raped; only it isn't really rape because, well he doens't believe in rape, and he's gonna blame the victim, even if it was rape, which of course it probably wasn't.
The problem isn't that VoxDay is so extreme, but that so many of his underlying mantra are still at large... women could avoid rape if they didn't provoke men being the most prominent.
Men could avoid rape by, avoiding rape. Those who advocate the punishment model could prevent rape by seeing to it that those who rape get convicted.
And those who favor either of those can prevent rape by smacking down idiots like VoxDay. It's a lot like playing whack-a-mole, but it needs to be done.
