First, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, went to Maldives to discuss the abolition of flogging as a punishment for extra marital affairs, specifically since figure shows that women are more easy targets of this form of punishment than men even when men are more common offenders. UN says that this practice is the most inhumane form of punishment. Public flogging is done more to humiliate than to physically punish.
Then, all hell broke loose as people rallied outside UN demanding, among many things, 'Ban UN'', ''Islam is not a toy'', ''Flog Pillay'' and ''slaughter anyone against Islam''.
Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed laments this turn of events, looking back to how Maldives was a matriarchal society and assigned great power and respect to its women. Now, Shadiya Ibrahim, member of the newly formed Gender Advocacy Working Group, claims women rights is vertually nonexistent in the country, as women are seen merely as reproductive tools and are met with unequal and severe punishment if this is violated. The group claims that radical Islamism is shifting the gender dynamics in the country for the worse. In some areas where imams (sort of islam religious leaders) are influential, female circumcision is even experiencing a resurgence and are kept from school.
I like to keep a level-headed approach to this as it involved cultural eccentricities, so I ask those who are expert on the topic (Islam law and women rights), why is this kind of "treatment" or views on women necessary for Islam? Is it a product of some historical event, or some underlying didactics that is meant for a greater order? And why is the law, even if you argue it is justified and culturally sanctioned, applied unevenly, with women women being punished faster and more readily than men offenders?
Women's rights is the most important thing. The Islamification in the Mideast the past 30 years has been extremely concerning. When Islamic fundamentalist beliefs was only kept to the Gulf countries, where people live like swine under Sharia, it now also exists in Iran, some people in Iraq and Lebanon influenced by Khomeini/Iran, Libya, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is more powerful than it's ever been.
As for sub-Saharan African countries, their social condition is really, really bad, maybe not like Saudi Arabia perhaps, but it's still terrible . I'm glad the UN is pressuring for women's rights, and at the risk of sounding like a socialist, yes I indeed believe equal human beings deserve equal treatment.
A good number of Muslim countries have tons of civil rights for women, so it's not a matter of religion in society, but religion in politics.
The women are punished more readily, because the point of punishing extra marital affairs is to ensure that women stay faithful to their husbands, so that the men can have greater certainty that the children they must provide for are actually their own blood.
On January 25 2012 16:30 vetinari wrote: The women are punished more readily, because the point of punishing extra marital affairs is to ensure that women stay faithful to their husbands, so that the men can have greater certainty that the children they must provide for are actually their own blood.
That is possible to check now a days. Force a DNA test on each child born by law. If the woman sleeps around and uses protection it won't matter. Might take a while to change the thinking to be that way.
You're just going to get the same tired responses from Islamic apologists, along the lines of "this isn't true Islam," and "Islam respects women" and "we have to respect their culture/how dare you bash Islam, it's the religion of love/peace!!"
Bottom line is that in practice Islam, when allowed to rule, is a patriarchal religion. Whether that's what the book says or not doesn't matter, it's how it is. Anything else is just the no-true-scotsman fallacy.
On January 25 2012 16:37 cari-kira wrote: religion doesn't matter, it depends on how developed the society is. woman had really bad times in the western world, too, don't forget this.
history didn't start with the wild west. scnr;-)
Religion is hugely important as it controls a lot of things in a society, including a lot of things you probably consider indexes of development. I also don't see why the past in the West matters - that's over and done. You can't just say "well, it's cool to flog women because, like, women were property once here too." We concluded that was wrong, and as such we conclude that this is wrong.
Didn't know what the fuck female circumcision was so...
The WHO has offered four classifications of FGM. The main three are Type I, removal of the clitoral hood, almost invariably accompanied by removal of the clitoris itself (clitoridectomy); Type II, removal of the clitoris and inner labia; and Type III (infibulation), removal of all or part of the inner and outer labia, and usually the clitoris, and the fusion of the wound, leaving a small hole for the passage of urine and menstrual blood—the fused wound is opened for intercourse and childbirth.[3] Around 85 percent of women who undergo FGM experience Types I and II, and 15 percent Type III, though Type III is the most common procedure in several countries, including Sudan, Somalia, and Djibouti.[4] Several miscellaneous acts are categorized as Type IV. These range from a symbolic pricking or piercing of the clitoris or labia, to cauterization of the clitoris, cutting into the vagina to widen it (gishiri cutting), and introducing corrosive substances to tighten it.
What... the fuck..... even Type 1 and 2 remove the clitoris?
God it is times like this that I really appreciate being born into a country where people aren't throwing acid into women's faces or doing shit like that. Thank fucking god all I worried about as a kid was my parents beating me a little if I fucked up in school.
This is way more fucked up than the other "horrible news" like gangbangers getting shot and daughters getting locked in toilets. This is an entire community that actively support this kind of shit.
On January 25 2012 16:37 cari-kira wrote: religion doesn't matter, it depends on how developed the society is. woman had really bad times in the western world, too, don't forget this.
history didn't start with the wild west. scnr;-)
Religion is hugely important as it controls a lot of things in a society, including a lot of things you probably consider indexes of development. I also don't see why the past in the West matters - that's over and done. You can't just say "well, it's cool to flog women because, like, women were property once here too." We concluded that was wrong, and as such we conclude that this is wrong.
You missed the entire point. Cari-kira did not write that is alright to flog women because women were treated poorly in the past here. The argument was that development (I will assume economic and educational, here) has the most important impact on treatment of women.
When the religion first started, women were given the right to participate in politics, fight in wars, work, etc. It was ahead of it`s time. Then things fell apart in regards to women after a few decades. What you`re seeing is culture rewriting religion. Islam isn't so ancient. Its history is easy to look up.
It is important to consider that things weren't so great for Women in Christian and Eastern societies in the past. Including the not-so-recent past (1960s James Bond "In Japan, men come first" quote). Perhaps not as bad as Islamic extremism, but it still cannot be ignored. This is more of the culture being centuries behind the times than really something that can be blamed on Islam. Women being secondary in society is nothing new to the world, just that some parts of the world are far behind and these places are using Islam as an excuse.
On January 25 2012 14:05 Keyboard Warrior wrote: First, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay....
Then, all hell broke loose as people rallied outside UN demanding, among many things, 'Ban UN'', ''Islam is not a toy'', ''Flog Pillay''....
I am a Muslim and I can assure you woman's has all the rights and there is nothing against woman in Islam, Westerns is trying to fight Islam in every way "and it is clear for everyone" so they are raising such topics.
Islam, as every other religion has rules, and you have to execute and commit to these rules, some of these rules concerning woman's and the relation between Man and Woman, for example: 1. Nude "we call it Awrah" where is defines the areas in the body for both Men and Woman which is not allowed for other people to see "man to man, man to woman, woman to man, woman to woman"
a. For man, the Nude "Awrah" is between the stomach to knees, the area between stomach to knees must be hide by cloth, you cannot go out in the street showing your knees or above, or your stomach and under, in your home, you are free to do whatever you want, but in front of people you are not. b. For woman, her Nude "Awrah" includes her entire body but the faces and hands, a woman cannot show her parts to foreign people (foreign are the men which she can marry).
I've always found female circumcision to be one of the most disturbing ideas humanly possible, that is still considered "normal" in certain places of this world... so wrong :/
On January 25 2012 18:11 bdair2002 wrote: I am a Muslim and I can assure you woman's has all the rights and there is nothing against woman in Islam, Westerns is trying to fight Islam in every way "and it is clear for everyone" so they are raising such topics.
Islam, as every other religion has rules, and you have to execute and commit to these rules, some of these rules concerning woman's and the relation between Man and Woman, for example: 1. Nude "we call it Awrah" where is defines the areas in the body for both Men and Woman which is not allowed for other people to see "man to man, man to woman, woman to man, woman to woman"
a. For man, the Nude "Awrah" is between the stomach to knees, the area between stomach to knees must be hide by cloth, you cannot go out in the street showing your knees or above, or your stomach and under, in your home, you are free to do whatever you want, but in front of people you are not. b. For woman, her Nude "Awrah" includes her entire body but the faces and hands, a woman cannot show her parts to foreign people (foreign are the men which she can marry).
Are you really trying to argue that there is no institutional sexism in Islamic countries and that it was all made up by the west to make Islam look bad? It's okay to claim that it is cultural rather than religious but to deny it entirely is absurd.
On January 25 2012 16:37 cari-kira wrote: religion doesn't matter, it depends on how developed the society is. woman had really bad times in the western world, too, don't forget this.
history didn't start with the wild west. scnr;-)
Religion is hugely important as it controls a lot of things in a society, including a lot of things you probably consider indexes of development. I also don't see why the past in the West matters - that's over and done. You can't just say "well, it's cool to flog women because, like, women were property once here too." We concluded that was wrong, and as such we conclude that this is wrong.
Agreed. this is going to end up like that 3rd world poverty thread... i'm so tired.
On January 25 2012 18:11 bdair2002 wrote: I am a Muslim and I can assure you woman's has all the rights and there is nothing against woman in Islam, Westerns is trying to fight Islam in every way "and it is clear for everyone" so they are raising such topics.
Islam, as every other religion has rules, and you have to execute and commit to these rules, some of these rules concerning woman's and the relation between Man and Woman, for example: 1. Nude "we call it Awrah" where is defines the areas in the body for both Men and Woman which is not allowed for other people to see "man to man, man to woman, woman to man, woman to woman"
a. For man, the Nude "Awrah" is between the stomach to knees, the area between stomach to knees must be hide by cloth, you cannot go out in the street showing your knees or above, or your stomach and under, in your home, you are free to do whatever you want, but in front of people you are not. b. For woman, her Nude "Awrah" includes her entire body but the faces and hands, a woman cannot show her parts to foreign people (foreign are the men which she can marry).
Christians may have nuns but I don't think they ever had an era where vagina cauterization made a resurgence.
Your analogy from clothing to socioeconomic and political discrimination and persecution seems perfectly legit though. I applaud you for seeing the light.
On January 25 2012 18:11 bdair2002 wrote: I am a Muslim and I can assure you woman's has all the rights and there is nothing against woman in Islam, Westerns is trying to fight Islam in every way "and it is clear for everyone" so they are raising such topics.
Islam, as every other religion has rules, and you have to execute and commit to these rules, some of these rules concerning woman's and the relation between Man and Woman, for example: 1. Nude "we call it Awrah" where is defines the areas in the body for both Men and Woman which is not allowed for other people to see "man to man, man to woman, woman to man, woman to woman"
a. For man, the Nude "Awrah" is between the stomach to knees, the area between stomach to knees must be hide by cloth, you cannot go out in the street showing your knees or above, or your stomach and under, in your home, you are free to do whatever you want, but in front of people you are not. b. For woman, her Nude "Awrah" includes her entire body but the faces and hands, a woman cannot show her parts to foreign people (foreign are the men which she can marry).
Are you really trying to argue that there is no institutional sexism in Islamic countries and that it was all made up by the west to make Islam look bad? It's okay to claim that it is cultural rather than religious but to deny it entirely is absurd.
He's from Israel where Muslim women do have "all the rights" (i'm not too sure what he was talking about in the rest of his post which seemed to contradict the first part of the first sentence, but the first paragraph is the one I'm referring to), and along with the guy from Jordan, these aren't countries with institutionalized sexism. A good number of Islamic countries don't have institutionalized sexism. These two guys are speaking from their own experiences. Not everywhere is Saudi Arabia. I know a whole community of Christians from Iraq who didn't face or see any institutional sexism (or considering their Christians, not even religious discrimination) before the Iraq War (obviously things have changed by now). Lebanese are similar. I've come across only a few people from Turkey, but I do know that Turkey has been almost fanatically politically/socially secular for almost a century.
On January 25 2012 18:11 bdair2002 wrote: I am a Muslim and I can assure you woman's has all the rights and there is nothing against woman in Islam, Westerns is trying to fight Islam in every way "and it is clear for everyone" so they are raising such topics.
Islam, as every other religion has rules, and you have to execute and commit to these rules, some of these rules concerning woman's and the relation between Man and Woman, for example: 1. Nude "we call it Awrah" where is defines the areas in the body for both Men and Woman which is not allowed for other people to see "man to man, man to woman, woman to man, woman to woman"
a. For man, the Nude "Awrah" is between the stomach to knees, the area between stomach to knees must be hide by cloth, you cannot go out in the street showing your knees or above, or your stomach and under, in your home, you are free to do whatever you want, but in front of people you are not. b. For woman, her Nude "Awrah" includes her entire body but the faces and hands, a woman cannot show her parts to foreign people (foreign are the men which she can marry).
Well for a start it's not just about, y'know, clothing- although already there we see a pretty huge double standard. A woman must be completely hidden, whereas a man can wear a damn loin-cloth.
It's about modernising, and adapting archaic ideas which are based on nothing (such as treating women third class citizens), and not living somewhere inbetween the modern era and the dark ages of stoning, flogging and all this throwback rubbish which some parts of the world cling onto.
Is this whole "Westerners are trying to find an excuse to have a go at Islam" thing really the kind of brainwashing that works? Is that what people think of us?
Sorry, my GF just walked out of the house, and her enormous robe blew around, allowing a man (who was wearing a tea-cloth around his waist btw so that's fine), to see the back of her leg. Must go and beat her... Gonna tell me I shouldn't? ARE YOU GOING TO OPPRESS ME AND MY ***BELIEFS***?? Heresy, burn the West.
I don't know how you get from flogging & female circumcision to Islam. And no, don't portray me as Islam defender, i'm agnostic, but the fact that you get to "discuss" Islam by starting from two things which might be aswell unrelated to religion (female circumcision is reported since 25 BC o_O) and flogging has always been a common way pf punishment in countries not ruled by our actual human rights based system.
The two things have to be abolished, that's for certain. But i don't understand how so many can instantly get down to bashing Islam (cause that's what it is) with just a few cues.Why not make an own Islam thread instead of hiding motives behind some selective news (selective cause it portraits the reaction of people on the maledives, where practice of any other religion than Islam is forbidden, you don't sting into a wasps nest then film the wasps and say: "well, look how angry they are, thus, all wasps are angry".)
On January 25 2012 18:11 bdair2002 wrote: I am a Muslim and I can assure you woman's has all the rights and there is nothing against woman in Islam, Westerns is trying to fight Islam in every way "and it is clear for everyone" so they are raising such topics.
Islam, as every other religion has rules, and you have to execute and commit to these rules, some of these rules concerning woman's and the relation between Man and Woman, for example: 1. Nude "we call it Awrah" where is defines the areas in the body for both Men and Woman which is not allowed for other people to see "man to man, man to woman, woman to man, woman to woman"
a. For man, the Nude "Awrah" is between the stomach to knees, the area between stomach to knees must be hide by cloth, you cannot go out in the street showing your knees or above, or your stomach and under, in your home, you are free to do whatever you want, but in front of people you are not. b. For woman, her Nude "Awrah" includes her entire body but the faces and hands, a woman cannot show her parts to foreign people (foreign are the men which she can marry).
Christians may have nuns but I don't think they ever had an era where vagina cauterization made a resurgence.
Your analogy from clothing to socioeconomic and political discrimination and persecution seems perfectly legit though. I applaud you for seeing the light.
vagina cauterization is PURELY cultural and has nothing to do with Islam or any other religion, it is even forbidden "Haram" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haraam) to perform this action, and it is one of the sins which cannot be penetrated (and I don't recall any Islamic or non Islamic country that allows this action in their laws, it is against the nature.)
"In Africa and the Middle East, it is performed by Muslims, Coptic Christians, members of various indigenous groups, Protestants, and Catholics, to name a few.”[3] One sect of Jews, the Falashas, also circumcise both sexes.[4] "
However, relations outside marriage (sex outside marriage, or before marriage is also Haraam in all religions afaik)
On January 25 2012 18:11 bdair2002 wrote: I am a Muslim and I can assure you woman's has all the rights and there is nothing against woman in Islam, Westerns is trying to fight Islam in every way "and it is clear for everyone" so they are raising such topics.
Islam, as every other religion has rules, and you have to execute and commit to these rules, some of these rules concerning woman's and the relation between Man and Woman, for example: 1. Nude "we call it Awrah" where is defines the areas in the body for both Men and Woman which is not allowed for other people to see "man to man, man to woman, woman to man, woman to woman"
a. For man, the Nude "Awrah" is between the stomach to knees, the area between stomach to knees must be hide by cloth, you cannot go out in the street showing your knees or above, or your stomach and under, in your home, you are free to do whatever you want, but in front of people you are not. b. For woman, her Nude "Awrah" includes her entire body but the faces and hands, a woman cannot show her parts to foreign people (foreign are the men which she can marry).
Are you really trying to argue that there is no institutional sexism in Islamic countries and that it was all made up by the west to make Islam look bad? It's okay to claim that it is cultural rather than religious but to deny it entirely is absurd.
Additionally, if you study Christianity I think you will find the premise of it centers around almost every "rule" being optional. That was the point of the New Testament.
In a completely related note, the cultural impact of Christianity 1.0 as of the release date resulted in greater freedom for Christian women compared to their Jewish counterparts. Because some people never bothered to patch their client to version 1.3.5, a lot of the contextual references were in later centuries use as a tool to restrict the freedoms of women, instead of empowering them.
In summary: Culture DOES play more of a part then religion, because culture serves as the lens through which the general population interpret their religion. Thus we can have the same religion practiced differently, because of religion being integrated instead of being isolated for the other sociological factors.
On January 25 2012 16:37 cari-kira wrote: religion doesn't matter, it depends on how developed the society is. woman had really bad times in the western world, too, don't forget this.
history didn't start with the wild west. scnr;-)
How can you even say this...
When did people in the west grow to be so weak willed that they openly started to embrace totalitarian governments and medieval practices as "alternative lifestyles."
Religion crushes everything. You are born into sin. When looking at a newborn, religion teaches you that it's the most deformed thing in the world, ready to be thrown into the lake of fire if god had to decide at that instance.
Religion hates sex, it hates the human body, it wants to crush both. Female circumcission does the first, the burqa does the second.
Religion hates not just freedom of speech, religion even hates freedom of thought. You can be judged to hell for simply thinking the wrong thing.
Religion is everything that humanity is not. Religion seeks to eradicate everything that makes us human.
Don't stand for these apologists that pretend that women in the west and women in the middle-east are just as wronged.
Don't stand for these people that are so dishonest that they would even deny the fate that women suffer in the middle-east.
Don't stand for the brainwashed stockholm syndrome women that cry in rapture as they are whipped, beaten and oppressed every day.
Oppose these religious and totalitarian ideas and the people that spread them at every turn. We are never going to live hand in hand with these people because they, at their very core, are our direct opposites.
One day every person on this earth will be able to read about how we tolerated these obscene acts. If there is an afterlife then that will be our cross to bear for all eternity.
On January 25 2012 18:11 bdair2002 wrote: I am a Muslim and I can assure you woman's has all the rights and there is nothing against woman in Islam, Westerns is trying to fight Islam in every way "and it is clear for everyone" so they are raising such topics.
Islam, as every other religion has rules, and you have to execute and commit to these rules, some of these rules concerning woman's and the relation between Man and Woman, for example: 1. Nude "we call it Awrah" where is defines the areas in the body for both Men and Woman which is not allowed for other people to see "man to man, man to woman, woman to man, woman to woman"
a. For man, the Nude "Awrah" is between the stomach to knees, the area between stomach to knees must be hide by cloth, you cannot go out in the street showing your knees or above, or your stomach and under, in your home, you are free to do whatever you want, but in front of people you are not. b. For woman, her Nude "Awrah" includes her entire body but the faces and hands, a woman cannot show her parts to foreign people (foreign are the men which she can marry).
Are you really trying to argue that there is no institutional sexism in Islamic countries and that it was all made up by the west to make Islam look bad? It's okay to claim that it is cultural rather than religious but to deny it entirely is absurd.
He's from Israel where Muslim women do have "all the rights" (i'm not too sure what he was talking about in the rest of his post which seemed to contradict the first part of the first sentence, but the first paragraph is the one I'm referring to), and along with the guy from Jordan, these aren't countries with institutionalized sexism. A good number of Islamic countries don't have institutionalized sexism. These two guys are speaking from their own experiences. Not everywhere is Saudi Arabia. I know a whole community of Christians from Iraq who didn't face or see any institutional sexism (or considering their Christians, not even religious discrimination) before the Iraq War (obviously things have changed by now). Lebanese are similar. I've come across only a few people from Turkey, but I do know that Turkey has been almost fanatically politically/socially secular for almost a century.
I am from Palestine, not Israel, and I've been in Suadi Arabia, Jordan and other countries.
On January 25 2012 16:37 cari-kira wrote: religion doesn't matter, it depends on how developed the society is. woman had really bad times in the western world, too, don't forget this.
history didn't start with the wild west. scnr;-)
How can you even say this...
When did people in the west grow to be so weak willed that they openly started to embrace totalitarian governments and medieval practices as "alternative lifestyles."
Religion crushes everything. You are born into sin. When looking at a newborn, religion teaches you that it's the most deformed thing in the world, ready to be thrown into the lake of fire if god had to decide at that instance.
Religion hates sex, it hates the human body, it wants to crush both. Female circumcission does the first, the burqa does the second.
Religion hates not just freedom of speech, religion even hates freedom of thought. You can be judged to hell for simply thinking the wrong thing.
Religion is everything that humanity is not. Religion seeks to eradicate everything that makes us human.
Don't stand for these apologists that pretend that women in the west and women in the middle-east are just as wronged.
Don't stand for these people that are so dishonest that they would even deny the fate that women suffer in the middle-east.
Don't stand for the brainwashed stockholm syndrome women that cry in rapture as they are whipped, beaten and oppressed every day.
Oppose these religious and totalitarian ideas and the people that spread them at every turn. We are never going to live hand in hand with these people because they, at their very core, are our direct opposites.
One day every person on this earth will be able to read about how we tolerated these obscene acts. If there is an afterlife then that will be our cross to bear for all eternity.
And yet why does Religion embrace the concept of marriage so much if it is so full of hate? You are arguing against a straw man. You could be more specific as religion is a pretty broad term to use.
I honestly see all the people here are arguing with no knowledge, and so much hate against religion in general, religions were found to help humanity not the opposite, you can look at US for Example, take the Gay marriage, I ask you a simple question, have you ever seen a dog having sex with another dog (male to male dog)? it is even against the nature, God created this world and provided us with the rules (religion), Have you ever go to school and you had the right to do what ever you want without punishment? isn't schools have rules and you have to understand and commit to these rules? well Life is more or less like school, you don't have complete freedom to do what ever you want (I bet everyone will agree if I say complete freedom is bad)
On January 25 2012 19:43 bdair2002 wrote: I honestly see all the people here are arguing with no knowledge, and so much hate against religion in general, religions were found to help humanity not the opposite, you can look at US for Example, take the Gay marriage, I ask you a simple question, have you ever seen a dog having sex with another dog (male to male dog)? it is even against the nature, God created this world and provided us with the rules (religion), Have you ever go to school and you had the right to do what ever you want without punishment? isn't schools have rules and you have to understand and commit to these rules? well Life is more or less like school, you don't have complete freedom to do what ever you want (I bet everyone will agree if I say complete freedom is bad)
Actually homosexuality does happen in nature... I have heard many examples of it. Doubtless many other posters will derail your entire argument with counter examples.
On January 25 2012 16:37 cari-kira wrote: religion doesn't matter, it depends on how developed the society is. woman had really bad times in the western world, too, don't forget this.
history didn't start with the wild west. scnr;-)
How can you even say this...
When did people in the west grow to be so weak willed that they openly started to embrace totalitarian governments and medieval practices as "alternative lifestyles."
Religion crushes everything. You are born into sin. When looking at a newborn, religion teaches you that it's the most deformed thing in the world, ready to be thrown into the lake of fire if god had to decide at that instance.
Religion hates sex, it hates the human body, it wants to crush both. Female circumcission does the first, the burqa does the second.
Religion hates not just freedom of speech, religion even hates freedom of thought. You can be judged to hell for simply thinking the wrong thing.
Religion is everything that humanity is not. Religion seeks to eradicate everything that makes us human.
Don't stand for these apologists that pretend that women in the west and women in the middle-east are just as wronged.
Don't stand for these people that are so dishonest that they would even deny the fate that women suffer in the middle-east.
Don't stand for the brainwashed stockholm syndrome women that cry in rapture as they are whipped, beaten and oppressed every day.
Oppose these religious and totalitarian ideas and the people that spread them at every turn. We are never going to live hand in hand with these people because they, at their very core, are our direct opposites.
One day every person on this earth will be able to read about how we tolerated these obscene acts. If there is an afterlife then that will be our cross to bear for all eternity.
And yet why does Religion embrace the concept of marriage so much if it is so full of hate? You are arguing against a straw man. You could be more specific as religion is a pretty broad term to use.
What does marriage have to do with love?
Homosexuals love each other just as much but most religions have a different idea about that kind of love. One that involves either rope, stones or a bonfire.
On January 25 2012 19:43 bdair2002 wrote: I honestly see all the people here are arguing with no knowledge, and so much hate against religion in general, religions were found to help humanity not the opposite, you can look at US for Example, take the Gay marriage, I ask you a simple question, have you ever seen a dog having sex with another dog (male to male dog)? it is even against the nature, God created this world and provided us with the rules (religion), Have you ever go to school and you had the right to do what ever you want without punishment? isn't schools have rules and you have to understand and commit to these rules? well Life is more or less like school, you don't have complete freedom to do what ever you want (I bet everyone will agree if I say complete freedom is bad)
Actually homosexuality does happen in nature... I have heard many examples of it. Doubtless many other posters will derail your entire argument with counter examples.
Nice try anyway. *Pats on back*
But It is against the nature right? can you give me a logical reason for it? have you seen it yourself? is it something normal where you go to Africa, and meh, lion having sex with other lion, don't you see that is strange thing? can you convince me it is that same as if you see Lion having with lioness?
Counter example does not mean it is normal thing, even in Islam, there is a rule for this if you see Animals doing this action.
Bottom line, counter example does not mean it is natural, stealing is not natural thing and rejected by all people by their nature, BUT you find some people doing it, and even some animals doing it (at least I saw a monkey stealing food from other animals /humans).
On January 25 2012 19:43 bdair2002 wrote: I honestly see all the people here are arguing with no knowledge, and so much hate against religion in general, religions were found to help humanity not the opposite, you can look at US for Example, take the Gay marriage, I ask you a simple question, have you ever seen a dog having sex with another dog (male to male dog)? it is even against the nature, God created this world and provided us with the rules (religion), Have you ever go to school and you had the right to do what ever you want without punishment? isn't schools have rules and you have to understand and commit to these rules? well Life is more or less like school, you don't have complete freedom to do what ever you want (I bet everyone will agree if I say complete freedom is bad)
Actually homosexuality does happen in nature... I have heard many examples of it. Doubtless many other posters will derail your entire argument with counter examples.
Nice try anyway. *Pats on back*
But It is against the nature right? can you give me a logical reason for it? have you seen it yourself? is it something normal where you go to Africa, and meh, lion having sex with other lion, don't you see that is strange thing? can you convince me it is that same as if you see Lion having with lioness?
Counter example does not mean it is normal thing, even in Islam, there is a rule for this if you see Animals doing this action.
Bottom line, counter example does not mean it is natural, stealing is not natural thing and rejected by all people by their nature, BUT you find some people doing it, and even some animals doing it (at least I saw a monkey stealing food from other animals /humans).
Do you even understand what the word natural means?
Occuring in nature.
Homosexuality occurs in nature. It is natural.
The only reason you seem to be bending the word to whatever twisted meaning it doesn't have, is because "natural" is a positive word, and you don't want to attach it to homosexuality.
On January 25 2012 19:43 bdair2002 wrote: I honestly see all the people here are arguing with no knowledge, and so much hate against religion in general, religions were found to help humanity not the opposite, you can look at US for Example, take the Gay marriage, I ask you a simple question, have you ever seen a dog having sex with another dog (male to male dog)? it is even against the nature, God created this world and provided us with the rules (religion), Have you ever go to school and you had the right to do what ever you want without punishment? isn't schools have rules and you have to understand and commit to these rules? well Life is more or less like school, you don't have complete freedom to do what ever you want (I bet everyone will agree if I say complete freedom is bad)
No, religion was not found to help humanity. And yes there is homosexuality in nature outside of human species and it is well documented.
The rules in society have to be judged by themselves, if they are helping the society or not. The rules are not valid just because some old book says they are. Modern countries try to set the rules in a way that what does not harm anyone is allowed. Woman wardrobe does not harm anyone (or to be precise, the harm done by women wearing what they want is miniscule compared to the harm done by regulating their clothing), so no reason for any such rules to be implemented. So yes rules are necessary, but the justification for the rules must be stronger than "because our religion says so".
Anyway clothing is really not the problematic part here, the circumcision and unjust and unequal punishments for infidelity are. You agree that circumcision is wrong, so no problem there. As for punishments for infidelity, the corporeal ones are nonsensical as can be seen in any statistic you care to look at. They are not very effective, keep people in unhealthy relationships and the only saving grace that maybe some families with children are saved is more than offset by unhappiness of everyone (often including children) involved.
On January 25 2012 19:43 bdair2002 wrote: I honestly see all the people here are arguing with no knowledge, and so much hate against religion in general, religions were found to help humanity not the opposite, you can look at US for Example, take the Gay marriage, I ask you a simple question, have you ever seen a dog having sex with another dog (male to male dog)? it is even against the nature, God created this world and provided us with the rules (religion), Have you ever go to school and you had the right to do what ever you want without punishment? isn't schools have rules and you have to understand and commit to these rules? well Life is more or less like school, you don't have complete freedom to do what ever you want (I bet everyone will agree if I say complete freedom is bad)
Actually homosexuality does happen in nature... I have heard many examples of it. Doubtless many other posters will derail your entire argument with counter examples.
Nice try anyway. *Pats on back*
But It is against the nature right? can you give me a logical reason for it? have you seen it yourself? is it something normal where you go to Africa, and meh, lion having sex with other lion, don't you see that is strange thing? can you convince me it is that same as if you see Lion having with lioness?
Counter example does not mean it is normal thing, even in Islam, there is a rule for this if you see Animals doing this action.
Bottom line, counter example does not mean it is natural, stealing is not natural thing and rejected by all people by their nature, BUT you find some people doing it, and even some animals doing it (at least I saw a monkey stealing food from other animals /humans).
It is natural as it occurs naturally without human interference. Of course heterosexual sex is different than homosexual, what is your point ? There are evolutionary hypothesis why it occurs. But frankly even if it was the most unnatural thing ever, do you understand the concept of victimless crime ? Your comparison to stealing is nonsensical. Theft causes harm, can you tell me what harm is caused by gays having sex ?
And just to point out stealing is also natural. Natural does not mean moral and unnatural does not mean immoral.
On January 25 2012 19:43 bdair2002 wrote: I honestly see all the people here are arguing with no knowledge, and so much hate against religion in general, religions were found to help humanity not the opposite, you can look at US for Example, take the Gay marriage, I ask you a simple question, have you ever seen a dog having sex with another dog (male to male dog)? it is even against the nature, God created this world and provided us with the rules (religion), Have you ever go to school and you had the right to do what ever you want without punishment? isn't schools have rules and you have to understand and commit to these rules? well Life is more or less like school, you don't have complete freedom to do what ever you want (I bet everyone will agree if I say complete freedom is bad)
Actually homosexuality does happen in nature... I have heard many examples of it. Doubtless many other posters will derail your entire argument with counter examples.
Nice try anyway. *Pats on back*
But It is against the nature right? can you give me a logical reason for it? have you seen it yourself? is it something normal where you go to Africa, and meh, lion having sex with other lion, don't you see that is strange thing? can you convince me it is that same as if you see Lion having with lioness?
Counter example does not mean it is normal thing, even in Islam, there is a rule for this if you see Animals doing this action.
Bottom line, counter example does not mean it is natural, stealing is not natural thing and rejected by all people by their nature, BUT you find some people doing it, and even some animals doing it (at least I saw a monkey stealing food from other animals /humans).
It is natural as it occurs naturally without human interference. Of course heterosexual sex is different than homosexual, what is your point ? There are evolutionary hypothesis why it occurs. But frankly even if it was the most unnatural thing ever, do you understand the concept of victimless crime ? Your comparison to stealing is nonsensical. Theft causes harm, can you tell me what harm is caused by gays having sex ?
And just to point out stealing is also natural. Natural does not mean moral and unnatural does not mean immoral.
God knows better than all of us, he created us, told us homosexual is forbidden, and we have to obey, as simple as that, I ma not going to do the research for you on how homosexual affects the society , creates a lot of diseases, you can do the search your self if you are willing to change to better.
On January 25 2012 19:43 bdair2002 wrote: I honestly see all the people here are arguing with no knowledge, and so much hate against religion in general, religions were found to help humanity not the opposite, you can look at US for Example, take the Gay marriage, I ask you a simple question, have you ever seen a dog having sex with another dog (male to male dog)? it is even against the nature, God created this world and provided us with the rules (religion), Have you ever go to school and you had the right to do what ever you want without punishment? isn't schools have rules and you have to understand and commit to these rules? well Life is more or less like school, you don't have complete freedom to do what ever you want (I bet everyone will agree if I say complete freedom is bad)
Actually homosexuality does happen in nature... I have heard many examples of it. Doubtless many other posters will derail your entire argument with counter examples.
Nice try anyway. *Pats on back*
But It is against the nature right? can you give me a logical reason for it? have you seen it yourself? is it something normal where you go to Africa, and meh, lion having sex with other lion, don't you see that is strange thing? can you convince me it is that same as if you see Lion having with lioness?
Counter example does not mean it is normal thing, even in Islam, there is a rule for this if you see Animals doing this action.
Bottom line, counter example does not mean it is natural, stealing is not natural thing and rejected by all people by their nature, BUT you find some people doing it, and even some animals doing it (at least I saw a monkey stealing food from other animals /humans).
It is natural as it occurs naturally without human interference. Of course heterosexual sex is different than homosexual, what is your point ? There are evolutionary hypothesis why it occurs. But frankly even if it was the most unnatural thing ever, do you understand the concept of victimless crime ? Your comparison to stealing is nonsensical. Theft causes harm, can you tell me what harm is caused by gays having sex ?
And just to point out stealing is also natural. Natural does not mean moral and unnatural does not mean immoral.
God knows better than all of us, he created us, told us homosexual is forbidden, and we have to obey, as simple as that, I ma not going to do the research for you on how homosexual affects the society , creates a lot of diseases, you can do the search your self if you are willing to change to better.
Where exactly do you find these rules God laid out for us to follow? I'm really interested what some other stipulations might be.
And you also forgot that homosexual people cause natural disasters(obviously)
On January 25 2012 19:43 bdair2002 wrote: I honestly see all the people here are arguing with no knowledge, and so much hate against religion in general, religions were found to help humanity not the opposite, you can look at US for Example, take the Gay marriage, I ask you a simple question, have you ever seen a dog having sex with another dog (male to male dog)? it is even against the nature, God created this world and provided us with the rules (religion), Have you ever go to school and you had the right to do what ever you want without punishment? isn't schools have rules and you have to understand and commit to these rules? well Life is more or less like school, you don't have complete freedom to do what ever you want (I bet everyone will agree if I say complete freedom is bad)
Actually homosexuality does happen in nature... I have heard many examples of it. Doubtless many other posters will derail your entire argument with counter examples.
Nice try anyway. *Pats on back*
But It is against the nature right? can you give me a logical reason for it? have you seen it yourself? is it something normal where you go to Africa, and meh, lion having sex with other lion, don't you see that is strange thing? can you convince me it is that same as if you see Lion having with lioness?
Counter example does not mean it is normal thing, even in Islam, there is a rule for this if you see Animals doing this action.
Bottom line, counter example does not mean it is natural, stealing is not natural thing and rejected by all people by their nature, BUT you find some people doing it, and even some animals doing it (at least I saw a monkey stealing food from other animals /humans).
It is natural as it occurs naturally without human interference. Of course heterosexual sex is different than homosexual, what is your point ? There are evolutionary hypothesis why it occurs. But frankly even if it was the most unnatural thing ever, do you understand the concept of victimless crime ? Your comparison to stealing is nonsensical. Theft causes harm, can you tell me what harm is caused by gays having sex ?
And just to point out stealing is also natural. Natural does not mean moral and unnatural does not mean immoral.
God knows better than all of us, he created us, told us homosexual is forbidden, and we have to obey, as simple as that, I ma not going to do the research for you on how homosexual affects the society , creates a lot of diseases, you can do the search your self if you are willing to change to better.
It is a shame, your first post in this thread was okay but when you opened up you just showed how ignorant and foolish you truly are. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone like you. A true shame.
On January 25 2012 19:43 bdair2002 wrote: I honestly see all the people here are arguing with no knowledge, and so much hate against religion in general, religions were found to help humanity not the opposite, you can look at US for Example, take the Gay marriage, I ask you a simple question, have you ever seen a dog having sex with another dog (male to male dog)? it is even against the nature, God created this world and provided us with the rules (religion), Have you ever go to school and you had the right to do what ever you want without punishment? isn't schools have rules and you have to understand and commit to these rules? well Life is more or less like school, you don't have complete freedom to do what ever you want (I bet everyone will agree if I say complete freedom is bad)
Actually homosexuality does happen in nature... I have heard many examples of it. Doubtless many other posters will derail your entire argument with counter examples.
Nice try anyway. *Pats on back*
But It is against the nature right? can you give me a logical reason for it? have you seen it yourself? is it something normal where you go to Africa, and meh, lion having sex with other lion, don't you see that is strange thing? can you convince me it is that same as if you see Lion having with lioness?
Counter example does not mean it is normal thing, even in Islam, there is a rule for this if you see Animals doing this action.
Bottom line, counter example does not mean it is natural, stealing is not natural thing and rejected by all people by their nature, BUT you find some people doing it, and even some animals doing it (at least I saw a monkey stealing food from other animals /humans).
It is natural as it occurs naturally without human interference. Of course heterosexual sex is different than homosexual, what is your point ? There are evolutionary hypothesis why it occurs. But frankly even if it was the most unnatural thing ever, do you understand the concept of victimless crime ? Your comparison to stealing is nonsensical. Theft causes harm, can you tell me what harm is caused by gays having sex ?
And just to point out stealing is also natural. Natural does not mean moral and unnatural does not mean immoral.
God knows better than all of us, he created us, told us homosexual is forbidden, and we have to obey, as simple as that, I ma not going to do the research for you on how homosexual affects the society , creates a lot of diseases, you can do the search your self if you are willing to change to better.
It is a shame, your first post in this thread was okay but when you opened up you just showed how ignorant and foolish you truly are. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone like you. A true shame.
I've removed him so the topic can return to the original subject.
On January 25 2012 17:16 LittleAtari wrote: When the religion first started, women were given the right to participate in politics, fight in wars, work, etc. It was ahead of it`s time. Then things fell apart in regards to women after a few decades. What you`re seeing is culture rewriting religion. Islam isn't so ancient. Its history is easy to look up.
Funny how everyone sort of ignored Atari's point, because he's 100% right
If you read the laws that were originally brought in, there isn't a single country in the world that follows them properly. Lets actually go with the adultery one for a second:
- For the punishment to actually be correct, there has to be proof that adultery occurred, and the law dictated there needs to be 4 witnesses to the action in question. There is also a clause about rape, acquitting the male/female from all blame if that was the case. Both parts are totally ignored nowadays, and the cases are all one sided.
- There were clear laws for the rules of engagement in wars. None of them are followed by terrorists, especially the part where non-combatants are not allowed to be harmed in any way shape or form.
- The hijab was always a matter of choice, but women are forced to wear it nowadays.
- Forced marriages were abolished because it ALWAYS came back to the choice of the bride/groom before a marriage was allowed. As we all know well, that's not the case anymore in a lot of countries
Its cultural traditions seeping back into religion that was the problem, not the other way around. And the same problem exists today because what we accepted those original mistakes and just moved on.
On January 25 2012 19:43 bdair2002 wrote: I honestly see all the people here are arguing with no knowledge, and so much hate against religion in general, religions were found to help humanity not the opposite, you can look at US for Example, take the Gay marriage, I ask you a simple question, have you ever seen a dog having sex with another dog (male to male dog)? it is even against the nature, God created this world and provided us with the rules (religion), Have you ever go to school and you had the right to do what ever you want without punishment? isn't schools have rules and you have to understand and commit to these rules? well Life is more or less like school, you don't have complete freedom to do what ever you want (I bet everyone will agree if I say complete freedom is bad)
Actually homosexuality does happen in nature... I have heard many examples of it. Doubtless many other posters will derail your entire argument with counter examples.
Nice try anyway. *Pats on back*
But It is against the nature right? can you give me a logical reason for it? have you seen it yourself? is it something normal where you go to Africa, and meh, lion having sex with other lion, don't you see that is strange thing? can you convince me it is that same as if you see Lion having with lioness?
Counter example does not mean it is normal thing, even in Islam, there is a rule for this if you see Animals doing this action.
Bottom line, counter example does not mean it is natural, stealing is not natural thing and rejected by all people by their nature, BUT you find some people doing it, and even some animals doing it (at least I saw a monkey stealing food from other animals /humans).
It is natural as it occurs naturally without human interference. Of course heterosexual sex is different than homosexual, what is your point ? There are evolutionary hypothesis why it occurs. But frankly even if it was the most unnatural thing ever, do you understand the concept of victimless crime ? Your comparison to stealing is nonsensical. Theft causes harm, can you tell me what harm is caused by gays having sex ?
And just to point out stealing is also natural. Natural does not mean moral and unnatural does not mean immoral.
God knows better than all of us, he created us, told us homosexual is forbidden, and we have to obey, as simple as that, I ma not going to do the research for you on how homosexual affects the society , creates a lot of diseases, you can do the search your self if you are willing to change to better.
User was temp banned for this post.
Oh final point before i stop bothering i wanted to counterpoint that pdf he linked. Though it should be plain and obvious why alot of points are outright wrong (and stupid), if anyone would like to read some counter arguments, i got some right here.
On January 25 2012 20:59 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Someone has some account on female circumcision? Why is it done in muslim countries?
Wikipedia has the following:
FGM is considered by its practitioners to be an essential part of raising a girl properly—girls are regarded as having been cleansed by the removal of "male" body parts. It ensures pre-marital virginity and inhibits extra-marital sex, because it reduces women's libido. Women fear the pain of re-opening the vagina, and are afraid of being discovered if it is opened illicitly.
You will find a host of different religious reasons or cultural reasons why people do it. But the truth is that it's always done for the same practical reason.
The big two religions hate the human sex drive. There is nothing more depraved then the act of sex. If it could they would eradicate it entirely.
What luck for them that they can eradicate the need for sex in the female. All it takes is a rusty razor.
On January 25 2012 18:11 bdair2002 wrote: I am a Muslim and I can assure you woman's has all the rights and there is nothing against woman in Islam, Westerns is trying to fight Islam in every way "and it is clear for everyone" so they are raising such topics.
Islam, as every other religion has rules, and you have to execute and commit to these rules, some of these rules concerning woman's and the relation between Man and Woman, for example: 1. Nude "we call it Awrah" where is defines the areas in the body for both Men and Woman which is not allowed for other people to see "man to man, man to woman, woman to man, woman to woman"
a. For man, the Nude "Awrah" is between the stomach to knees, the area between stomach to knees must be hide by cloth, you cannot go out in the street showing your knees or above, or your stomach and under, in your home, you are free to do whatever you want, but in front of people you are not. b. For woman, her Nude "Awrah" includes her entire body but the faces and hands, a woman cannot show her parts to foreign people (foreign are the men which she can marry).
To me that seems a bad example. Women have to be covered head to toe with only their faces and hands out (which would be entirely impractical if they couldn't, and culturally lots of them have their faces hidden and only their eyes out). I don't see how it is fair because men have to wear underpants. Or shorts or whatever.
And comparing it to nuns, in my opinion, is wrong. People choose to become nuns, and are a very small minority of Christians. Not that I agree with Christianity.
I am unsure how much of the sexism is technically "Islam" and how much of it is cultural. Some of the Sharia law I've seen is pretty appalling.
Not saying Islam is a bad religion but to have people rally against the UN because they aren't allowed to beat women anymore is simply horrible. Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but the way I see it, no culture, religion or anything whatsoever should defend the right to beat a woman (or a man for that matter). There are other, more civil, ways of dealing with extra marital affairs. Any religion or culture condoning these atrocities should really begin taking a cold, hard look at themselves. And the UN should be much more proactive about preventing this sort of stuff from happening.
So, if America was to world police this kind of thing, aside from making a huge amount of enemies with islamic sects, would the rest of the western world be in uproar? Seems to me this is the kind of thing we ought to get our selves involved in.
On January 25 2012 18:11 bdair2002 wrote: I am a Muslim and I can assure you woman's has all the rights and there is nothing against woman in Islam, Westerns is trying to fight Islam in every way "and it is clear for everyone" so they are raising such topics.
Islam, as every other religion has rules, and you have to execute and commit to these rules, some of these rules concerning woman's and the relation between Man and Woman, for example: 1. Nude "we call it Awrah" where is defines the areas in the body for both Men and Woman which is not allowed for other people to see "man to man, man to woman, woman to man, woman to woman"
a. For man, the Nude "Awrah" is between the stomach to knees, the area between stomach to knees must be hide by cloth, you cannot go out in the street showing your knees or above, or your stomach and under, in your home, you are free to do whatever you want, but in front of people you are not. b. For woman, her Nude "Awrah" includes her entire body but the faces and hands, a woman cannot show her parts to foreign people (foreign are the men which she can marry).
To me that seems a bad example. Women have to be covered head to toe with only their faces and hands out (which would be entirely impractical if they couldn't, and culturally lots of them have their faces hidden and only their eyes out). I don't see how it is fair because men have to wear underpants. Or shorts or whatever.
And comparing it to nuns, in my opinion, is wrong. People choose to become nuns, and are a very small minority of Christians. Not that I agree with Christianity.
I am unsure how much of the sexism is technically "Islam" and how much of it is cultural. Some of the Sharia law I've seen is pretty appalling.
Someone else stated that it's culture re-writing scripture. To a degree that is fair.
The islamic golden age is a good example of when women rights were actually very advanced for the time. In fact, back then, women had more rights then in some parts of the middle-east today. A lot of people, however, make the mistake of thinking that because islam was once the paragon of women rights, that it is still like that today.
Women have more rights in the west then they ever did in history and most certainly more then in the middle-east.
Islam and christianity are both horrible books when it comes to the treatment of women. Both confirm what people back then would have believed, women are inferior to men in every regard.
Having said that, religion can alway be read differently.
Only an extreme minority take the bible seriously. The majority doesn't adhere to anything in it, but still call themselves christians.
Muslims need to get to the same point. Call themselves muslims, disregard nearly everything in the quran, pretend that they are still muslims whilst in reality being secular.
The simple fact is that thousand year old books have literally nothing to tell about how to run a modern society. But people consider religion to be priority #1. The only solution to that conflict of interest is for the religious to become hypocrites. Pride themselves on being religious whilst working to eradicate all religious influences from their society.
On January 25 2012 21:28 ScaryGhost wrote: So, if America was to world police this kind of thing, aside from making a huge amount of enemies with islamic sects, would the rest of the western world be in uproar? Seems to me this is the kind of thing we ought to get our selves involved in.
The problem is that this stuff is most prevalent in the middle-of-nowhere regions of the world.
Worse yet, it's ingrained in the minds of these people as normal. Nothing is harder to end than something that people perceive as normal, because society reinforces the idea on it's fellow members of the society.
Meanwhile, the governments that control these countries are almost impossible to motivate. No dictator is going to bother sending troops to some backwater town and help women rights.
There is no reason for them to do it (they don't care about women) and every reason not to do it (makes the deeply religious people angry).
The problem with solving this issue is that you can't motivate the government and it's impossible to step in because it happens in the middle-of-nowhere regions.
On January 25 2012 20:59 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Someone has some account on female circumcision? Why is it done in muslim countries?
It is not done exclusively in Muslim countries as has been stated earlier. It is a cultural practice and a disgusting one at that.
Yeah, sorry I didnt mean that it was a practice exclusive to muslims. But Im just curious since the original article states to imam's pushing for it. If it not done for religious purposes though, then my confusion is settled.
Meanwhile, the governments that control these countries are almost impossible to motivate. No dictator is going to bother sending troops to some backwater town and help women rights.
There is no reason for them to do it (they don't care about women) and every reason not to do it (makes the deeply religious people angry).
The problem with solving this issue is that you can't motivate the government and it's impossible to step in because it happens in the middle-of-nowhere regions.
Currying favor with the west seems like a decent reason, although I agree, it would be incredibly hard to control, as dictators are more concerned with maintaining their control and it might seem like a sign of weakness in places where this happens. A general paradigm shift in these regions are truly what is required for things like this to stop entirely.
If you read the laws that were originally brought in, there isn't a single country in the world that follows them properly.
If you asked the people today why they are doing it, they would say - "because of Islam". These people aren't wrong, that IS their religion; so the blame can be placed on religion. Christianity has looked very different throughout its history as well, during which time period was 'true' Christianity practiced?
On January 25 2012 20:59 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Someone has some account on female circumcision? Why is it done in muslim countries?
It is not done exclusively in Muslim countries as has been stated earlier. It is a cultural practice and a disgusting one at that.
Yeah, sorry I didnt mean that it was a practice exclusive to muslims. But Im just curious since the original article states to imam's pushing for it. If it not done for religious purposes though, then my confusion is settled.
It's a bit of both. Culture and religion can easily get mixed.
Take for example the burqa, the piece of clothing where you can only see the eyes, sometimes not even that.
It's both religious and cultural. It's very prevalent in Pakistan and Afghanistan but you won't find it in Iran.
Afghanistan culture demands women to be completly covered. They read the scripture in such a way to justify it. This makes it both religious and cultural in nature.
In Iran you will find the hijaab, wich does not cover the face. Their religious leaders have declared that that is what the quran demands. But why not the burqa? Because it's a cultural part of Afghanistan/Pakistan rather then purely scriptural.
Both Afghanistan and Iran believe their reading is entirely correct. The truth is probably that their culture forces them to read a certain way. People look for confirmation on what they already believe.
Sorry, my GF just walked out of the house, and her enormous robe blew around, allowing a man (who was wearing a tea-cloth around his waist btw so that's fine), to see the back of her leg. Must go and beat her... Gonna tell me I shouldn't? ARE YOU GOING TO OPPRESS ME AND MY ***BELIEFS***?? Heresy, burn the West.
This sort of response is seriously not useful at all for any real discussion.
Although the hijab is a tool of oppression of women, I don't feel that is the first thing that needs to be fixed. even in western society it's ok for a guy to walk around with his shirt off but not a woman. This is a pretty big difference but still similar in its general tone. The large problem is that Muslim society(not all mind you) believes woman are inferior, which is what leads to atrocities such as vaginal mutilation.
Meanwhile, the governments that control these countries are almost impossible to motivate. No dictator is going to bother sending troops to some backwater town and help women rights.
There is no reason for them to do it (they don't care about women) and every reason not to do it (makes the deeply religious people angry).
The problem with solving this issue is that you can't motivate the government and it's impossible to step in because it happens in the middle-of-nowhere regions.
Currying favor with the west seems like a decent reason, although I agree, it would be incredibly hard to control, as dictators are more concerned with maintaining their control and it might seem like a sign of weakness in places where this happens. A general paradigm shift in these regions are truly what is required for things like this to stop entirely.
Power structure in many of these countries (most of them are in Africa) isn't like here in the west. The concept is very hard to grasp because it seems almost alien from us.
There isn't any part in the USA where you would say that the USA government does not have authority. It is acknowledged as controlling the entire region of the USA.
Western countries have police forces, large armies and (most importantly) infrastructure which makes large countries very small.
These African dictatorships don't work in a similar fashion. Poor infrastructure makes it impossible to project force all over the country. The further you get from the capital, the weaker the governments grasp grows. With towns that never even see a soldier or a police officer, it isn't strange that these people often don't even acknowledge the dictator as the leader.
The dictators control the capital. This is their seat of power. They can't project force much further and, often, they don't even want to.
Sending troops to these far away villages has three negative effects:
1) The people don't recognize the dictator, when he invades their lives they get angry. They don't acknowledge his leadership.
2) They are often deeply religious. Any step against them will create a religious backlash. Religion is one of the few things that can unify the people against the government.
3) Troops are removed from the capital, the seat of power, to go to a region the dictator hardly controls and doesn't even want to control.
Things get even more complex when you begin to wonder, what soldiers should be send? Part of the army is loyal to the dictator, yet another is loyal to members of his governement, yet another is loyal to the army general.
Do you send the loyalists? The general's men? Neither will want to send his forces because it weakens his position.
These governments would love to win points with the West but they won't do it at the cost of being knocked out of office by their general just because they send their personal guard to help women's rights.
FGM is considered by its practitioners to be an essential part of raising a girl properly—girls are regarded as having been cleansed by the removal of "male" body parts. It ensures pre-marital virginity and inhibits extra-marital sex, because it reduces women's libido. Women fear the pain of re-opening the vagina, and are afraid of being discovered if it is opened illicitly.
You will find a host of different religious reasons or cultural reasons why people do it. But the truth is that it's always done for the same practical reason.
The big two religions hate the human sex drive. There is nothing more depraved then the act of sex. If it could they would eradicate it entirely.
What luck for them that they can eradicate the need for sex in the female. All it takes is a rusty razor.
The big religions don't hate the sex drive. They fear the sex drive. And for good reason:
the optimal mating strategy for a male is to provide resources to his legitimate offspring, and to cuckold as many men as possible. This will give him as many offspring as possible and good provisioning for them too, maximise his chances of having living descendents now.
the optimal mating strategy for the average female is to obtain resources from one man, while obtaining higher quality genes from a variety of different males, since this arrangement will maximise the probability of her children surviving and reproducing.
If you think that allowing the human sex drive free reign is compatible with civilisaton . . . I have some pyramids to sell you.
On January 25 2012 16:30 vetinari wrote: The women are punished more readily, because the point of punishing extra marital affairs is to ensure that women stay faithful to their husbands, so that the men can have greater certainty that the children they must provide for are actually their own blood.
That is possible to check now a days. Force a DNA test on each child born by law. If the woman sleeps around and uses protection it won't matter. Might take a while to change the thinking to be that way.
DNA tests aren't exactly cheap, I recommend you read something about them before you toss out ideas like this.
[QUOTE]On January 25 2012 21:56 zalz wrote: [Quote] Meanwhile, the governments that control these countries are almost impossible to motivate. No dictator is going to bother sending troops to some backwater town and help women rights.
There is no reason for them to do it (they don't care about women) and every reason not to do it (makes the deeply religious people angry).
The problem with solving this issue is that you can't motivate the government and it's impossible to step in because it happens in the middle-of-nowhere regions.
Currying favor with the west seems like a decent reason, although I agree, it would be incredibly hard to control, as dictators are more concerned with maintaining their control and it might seem like a sign of weakness in places where this happens. A general paradigm shift in these regions are truly what is required for things like this to stop entirely. [/QUOTE]
Power structure in many of these countries (most of them are in Africa) isn't like here in the west. The concept is very hard to grasp because it seems almost alien from us.
There isn't any part in the USA where you would say that the USA government does not have authority. It is acknowledged as controlling the entire region of the USA.
Western countries have police forces, large armies and (most importantly) infrastructure which makes large countries very small.
These African dictatorships don't work in a similar fashion. Poor infrastructure makes it impossible to project force all over the country. The further you get from the capital, the weaker the governments grasp grows. With towns that never even see a soldier or a police officer, it isn't strange that these people often don't even acknowledge the dictator as the leader.
The dictators control the capital. This is their seat of power. They can't project force much further and, often, they don't even want to.
Sending troops to these far away villages has three negative effects:
1) The people don't recognize the dictator, when he invades their lives they get angry. They don't acknowledge his leadership.
2) They are often deeply religious. Any step against them will create a religious backlash. Religion is one of the few things that can unify the people against the government.
3) Troops are removed from the capital, the seat of power, to go to a region the dictator hardly controls and doesn't even want to control.
Things get even more complex when you begin to wonder, what soldiers should be send? Part of the army is loyal to the dictator, yet another is loyal to members of his governement, yet another is loyal to the army general.
Do you send the loyalists? The general's men? Neither will want to send his forces because it weakens his position.
These governments would love to win points with the West but they won't do it at the cost of being knocked out of office by their general just because they send their personal guard to help women's rights.
Yeah, that's why I think a paradigm shift is the only way to stop this sort of thing. In fact a religious figure would actually probably be one of the best influences that you could ask for to help alleviate this problem. It would be incredibly hard to spread a religious figure's voice to places like this however, it would take something similar to missionaries, and I doubt that would go over well in small villages that this sort of thing happens in. It's definitely a difficult problem to solve.
On January 25 2012 20:59 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Someone has some account on female circumcision? Why is it done in muslim countries?
Wikipedia has the following:
FGM is considered by its practitioners to be an essential part of raising a girl properly—girls are regarded as having been cleansed by the removal of "male" body parts. It ensures pre-marital virginity and inhibits extra-marital sex, because it reduces women's libido. Women fear the pain of re-opening the vagina, and are afraid of being discovered if it is opened illicitly.
You will find a host of different religious reasons or cultural reasons why people do it. But the truth is that it's always done for the same practical reason.
The big two religions hate the human sex drive. There is nothing more depraved then the act of sex. If it could they would eradicate it entirely.
What luck for them that they can eradicate the need for sex in the female. All it takes is a rusty razor.
The big religions don't hate the sex drive. They fear the sex drive. And for good reason:
the optimal mating strategy for a male is to provide resources to his legitimate offspring, and to cuckold as many men as possible. This will give him as many offspring as possible and good provisioning for them too, maximise his chances of having living descendents now.
the optimal mating strategy for the average female is to obtain resources from one man, while obtaining higher quality genes from a variety of different males, since this arrangement will maximise the probability of her children surviving and reproducing.
If you think that allowing the human sex drive free reign is compatible with civilisaton . . . I have some pyramids to sell you.
On January 25 2012 21:57 vetinari wrote:The big religions don't hate the sex drive. They fear the sex drive. And for good reason:
Fear manifests itself in the same fashion as hate for those in power. Kill that which you hate or fear.
the optimal mating strategy for a male is to provide resources to his legitimate offspring, and to cuckold as many men as possible. This will give him as many offspring as possible and good provisioning for them too, maximise his chances of having living descendents now.
the optimal mating strategy for the average female is to obtain resources from one man, while obtaining higher quality genes from a variety of different males, since this arrangement will maximise the probability of her children surviving and reproducing.
Religion was telling people how sinful they were long before such biological concepts had ever been thought of.
If you think that allowing the human sex drive free reign is compatible with civilisaton . . . I have some pyramids to sell you.
It's not something that needs to be controlled to any degree.
You can have a monogamous relationship or fuck every man/women that comes into your sight. The Netherlands is still standing.
On January 25 2012 20:59 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Someone has some account on female circumcision? Why is it done in muslim countries?
Wikipedia has the following:
FGM is considered by its practitioners to be an essential part of raising a girl properly—girls are regarded as having been cleansed by the removal of "male" body parts. It ensures pre-marital virginity and inhibits extra-marital sex, because it reduces women's libido. Women fear the pain of re-opening the vagina, and are afraid of being discovered if it is opened illicitly.
You will find a host of different religious reasons or cultural reasons why people do it. But the truth is that it's always done for the same practical reason.
The big two religions hate the human sex drive. There is nothing more depraved then the act of sex. If it could they would eradicate it entirely.
What luck for them that they can eradicate the need for sex in the female. All it takes is a rusty razor.
The big religions don't hate the sex drive. They fear the sex drive. And for good reason:
the optimal mating strategy for a male is to provide resources to his legitimate offspring, and to cuckold as many men as possible. This will give him as many offspring as possible and good provisioning for them too, maximise his chances of having living descendents now.
the optimal mating strategy for the average female is to obtain resources from one man, while obtaining higher quality genes from a variety of different males, since this arrangement will maximise the probability of her children surviving and reproducing.
If you think that allowing the human sex drive free reign is compatible with civilisaton . . . I have some pyramids to sell you.
Regardless of your opinions on sex or biology, you can't seriously think that mutilating half the population when they have their first period is an acceptable solution. That's fucking cruel.
the optimal mating strategy for a male is to provide resources to his legitimate offspring, and to cuckold as many men as possible. This will give him as many offspring as possible and good provisioning for them too, maximise his chances of having living descendents now.
the optimal mating strategy for the average female is to obtain resources from one man, while obtaining higher quality genes from a variety of different males, since this arrangement will maximise the probability of her children surviving and reproducing.
Religion was telling people how sinful they were long before such biological concepts had ever been thought of.
Because evolution, which applies to memes as much as it does to genes, had discovered that giving human instincts free reign is bad for the host society. What is optimal for the individual, is not necessarily optimal for society. The point of culture, religion, laws is to align the incentives so that what is good for the individual is good for society.
On January 25 2012 20:59 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Someone has some account on female circumcision? Why is it done in muslim countries?
Wikipedia has the following:
FGM is considered by its practitioners to be an essential part of raising a girl properly—girls are regarded as having been cleansed by the removal of "male" body parts. It ensures pre-marital virginity and inhibits extra-marital sex, because it reduces women's libido. Women fear the pain of re-opening the vagina, and are afraid of being discovered if it is opened illicitly.
You will find a host of different religious reasons or cultural reasons why people do it. But the truth is that it's always done for the same practical reason.
The big two religions hate the human sex drive. There is nothing more depraved then the act of sex. If it could they would eradicate it entirely.
What luck for them that they can eradicate the need for sex in the female. All it takes is a rusty razor.
The big religions don't hate the sex drive. They fear the sex drive. And for good reason:
the optimal mating strategy for a male is to provide resources to his legitimate offspring, and to cuckold as many men as possible. This will give him as many offspring as possible and good provisioning for them too, maximise his chances of having living descendents now.
the optimal mating strategy for the average female is to obtain resources from one man, while obtaining higher quality genes from a variety of different males, since this arrangement will maximise the probability of her children surviving and reproducing.
If you think that allowing the human sex drive free reign is compatible with civilisaton . . . I have some pyramids to sell you.
Oh god here we go again vet. Spouting the pseudoscientific bullshit. Though I see you've altered your view from women monogamous man polygamous. No these are not optimal strategies. Optimal for women would be finding a single high quality man while trying to goad the resources of as many men as possible. Of course almost no women do this and no people aim for "optimal" mating strategies, even in nature.
Sorry, but men and women aren't actually that different sexually. Everyone pretty much hunts for high fitness and higher quality of life for children.
On January 25 2012 18:11 bdair2002 wrote: I am a Muslim and I can assure you woman's has all the rights and there is nothing against woman in Islam, Westerns is trying to fight Islam in every way "and it is clear for everyone" so they are raising such topics.
Islam, as every other religion has rules, and you have to execute and commit to these rules, some of these rules concerning woman's and the relation between Man and Woman, for example: 1. Nude "we call it Awrah" where is defines the areas in the body for both Men and Woman which is not allowed for other people to see "man to man, man to woman, woman to man, woman to woman"
a. For man, the Nude "Awrah" is between the stomach to knees, the area between stomach to knees must be hide by cloth, you cannot go out in the street showing your knees or above, or your stomach and under, in your home, you are free to do whatever you want, but in front of people you are not. b. For woman, her Nude "Awrah" includes her entire body but the faces and hands, a woman cannot show her parts to foreign people (foreign are the men which she can marry).
I understand what you are trying to say, but I think you need to realize that not all 'westerners' are Islam haters. Yes, there are a lot of closed minded people, but I think there are a lot of those wherever you go. I think there are a lot of us that are quite tolerant.
Also, you're link for these 'rules' in regards to Christianity, takes you to a wiki page about nuns, which are predominantly Catholic. There's a huge difference between Catholicism and Christianity. There are no such specific 'rules' for New-Testament Christians, seeing as all of these rules were written in the Old Testament Torah-- which would be the 'rules' that you classified for Judaism.
But yes, all three religions, (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity), put value on modesty between men and women.
This is absolutely wrong to interfere with how muslims live. Not only it's none of our business, but also it's hypocritical. Why do you think you're right and they are wrong? Maybe their god is the one that's true and he wants what they do, not what YOU think gawd wants.
Seriously religious people are so stupid... on both sides
On January 25 2012 18:11 bdair2002 wrote: I am a Muslim and I can assure you woman's has all the rights and there is nothing against woman in Islam, Westerns is trying to fight Islam in every way "and it is clear for everyone" so they are raising such topics.
Islam, as every other religion has rules, and you have to execute and commit to these rules, some of these rules concerning woman's and the relation between Man and Woman, for example: 1. Nude "we call it Awrah" where is defines the areas in the body for both Men and Woman which is not allowed for other people to see "man to man, man to woman, woman to man, woman to woman"
a. For man, the Nude "Awrah" is between the stomach to knees, the area between stomach to knees must be hide by cloth, you cannot go out in the street showing your knees or above, or your stomach and under, in your home, you are free to do whatever you want, but in front of people you are not. b. For woman, her Nude "Awrah" includes her entire body but the faces and hands, a woman cannot show her parts to foreign people (foreign are the men which she can marry).
A single look at an islamic family in the park shows me that their women are suppressed. The boys laugh and play in comfortable clothing and give an impression of vitality, the girls sit on the bench with immovable tense faces, in dark clothing that covers everything besides their face and hands.
Yes there are similarities between Islam, Christianity and Judaism because these religions have the same origins. However in the west we are moving away from these despicable practices while Islam has had a movement towards more strictness in many areas.
And no I don't hate Islam, I just dislike when people are suppressed.
On January 25 2012 20:59 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Someone has some account on female circumcision? Why is it done in muslim countries?
Wikipedia has the following:
FGM is considered by its practitioners to be an essential part of raising a girl properly—girls are regarded as having been cleansed by the removal of "male" body parts. It ensures pre-marital virginity and inhibits extra-marital sex, because it reduces women's libido. Women fear the pain of re-opening the vagina, and are afraid of being discovered if it is opened illicitly.
You will find a host of different religious reasons or cultural reasons why people do it. But the truth is that it's always done for the same practical reason.
The big two religions hate the human sex drive. There is nothing more depraved then the act of sex. If it could they would eradicate it entirely.
What luck for them that they can eradicate the need for sex in the female. All it takes is a rusty razor.
The big religions don't hate the sex drive. They fear the sex drive. And for good reason:
the optimal mating strategy for a male is to provide resources to his legitimate offspring, and to cuckold as many men as possible. This will give him as many offspring as possible and good provisioning for them too, maximise his chances of having living descendents now.
the optimal mating strategy for the average female is to obtain resources from one man, while obtaining higher quality genes from a variety of different males, since this arrangement will maximise the probability of her children surviving and reproducing.
If you think that allowing the human sex drive free reign is compatible with civilisaton . . . I have some pyramids to sell you.
Regardless of your opinions on sex or biology, you can't seriously think that mutilating half the population when they have their first period is an acceptable solution. That's fucking cruel.
Of course I don't. I object to unnecessary cruelty, and female circumcision is nothing if not unnecessary. There are far less cruel methods of achieving the desired level of sexual repression.
By the way, I object to the word "opinion" there. those are the optimal mating strategies for an individual man or woman. Well, I suppose the optimal mating strategy for the male would include rape whenever feasible too.
Never forget that the sex drive exists for one reason, and one reason only: to pass on your genes. The optimal strategy for reproduction, that your body WILL drive you to do, if it decides that the risks are worth it, is regarded by us as immoral, because it is not optimal for society.
Essentially, thats what a moral act is: one that is good for society. Of the top of my head, I cannot think of any act that is detrimental to society and regarded as the morally right thing to do.
On January 25 2012 20:59 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Someone has some account on female circumcision? Why is it done in muslim countries?
Wikipedia has the following:
FGM is considered by its practitioners to be an essential part of raising a girl properly—girls are regarded as having been cleansed by the removal of "male" body parts. It ensures pre-marital virginity and inhibits extra-marital sex, because it reduces women's libido. Women fear the pain of re-opening the vagina, and are afraid of being discovered if it is opened illicitly.
You will find a host of different religious reasons or cultural reasons why people do it. But the truth is that it's always done for the same practical reason.
The big two religions hate the human sex drive. There is nothing more depraved then the act of sex. If it could they would eradicate it entirely.
What luck for them that they can eradicate the need for sex in the female. All it takes is a rusty razor.
The big religions don't hate the sex drive. They fear the sex drive. And for good reason:
the optimal mating strategy for a male is to provide resources to his legitimate offspring, and to cuckold as many men as possible. This will give him as many offspring as possible and good provisioning for them too, maximise his chances of having living descendents now.
the optimal mating strategy for the average female is to obtain resources from one man, while obtaining higher quality genes from a variety of different males, since this arrangement will maximise the probability of her children surviving and reproducing.
If you think that allowing the human sex drive free reign is compatible with civilisaton . . . I have some pyramids to sell you.
Oh god here we go again vet. Spouting the of as many men as possible. Of course almost no women do this and no people aim for "optimal" mating strategies, evpseudoscientific bullshit. Though I see you've altered your view from women monogamous man polygamous. No these are not optimal strategies. Optimal for women would be finding a single high quality man while trying to goad the resourcesen in nature.
Sorry, but men and women aren't actually that different sexually. Everyone pretty much hunts for high fitness and higher quality of life for children.
No, thats not the optimal strategy. Genetic diversity trumps a minor increase in available resources.
Everyone hunts for the highest attainable reproductive success*. The methods of achieving those are not the same for men and women. They cannot be the same, because men have penises and women vaginas, to put it crassly. In fact, not only are they not the same, but they are in competition.
*Well, in the absence of suicidal cultural conditioning. Happily, susceptibility to such cultural conditioning is quickly weeded out of the gene pool (though not entirely, since after a couple generations, the culture that promoted sterility is usually replaced by one that promotes fertililty + rape, etc.)
the optimal mating strategy for a male is to provide resources to his legitimate offspring, and to cuckold as many men as possible. This will give him as many offspring as possible and good provisioning for them too, maximise his chances of having living descendents now.
the optimal mating strategy for the average female is to obtain resources from one man, while obtaining higher quality genes from a variety of different males, since this arrangement will maximise the probability of her children surviving and reproducing.
Religion was telling people how sinful they were long before such biological concepts had ever been thought of.
Because evolution, which applies to memes as much as it does to genes, had discovered that giving human instincts free reign is bad for the host society. What is optimal for the individual, is not necessarily optimal for society. The point of culture, religion, laws is to align the incentives so that what is good for the individual is good for society.
What is good for the spread of religion is not necessarily good for society. That's like saying flu is good for the host ...
Are we still in such a state as a species that we need to be propagating like mad? Are we in such peril of imminent extinction that we still need to base our cultural norms off of what best produces the most children? Sure, women are the limiting factor in reproduction. That doesn't mean we should repress them, make them feel ashamed of their sexuality, or physically mutilate their bodies so that they can't ever enjoy sex. Such repression and control is never justified regardless of your, (and I'll say it again) OPINIONS of human sexuality and primitive reproductive strategies.
It's 2012. We're not dying out anytime soon due to lack of children. Sex for fun isn't a terrible thing that destroys society. Women not feeling inherently ashamed of their bodies and sexuality isn't going to cause the world to explode anytime soon.
Vetenari, Genetic diversity isn't having sex with multiple men you weirdo. You're mixing up your biological terms. That would only make sense if parents expected incest from their children or something weird like that.
Actually penises and vaginas don't really affect anything. Why would your gentalia affect reproductive strategy? No the only thing that would affect it is **pregnancy**. Theres competition between vaginas not between penises and vaginas. I have no idea what you meant by that.
I'm sorry but you have yet to show any understanding of human sexuality.
On January 25 2012 23:24 DoubleReed wrote: Vetenari, Genetic diversity isn't having sex with multiple men you weirdo. You're mixing up your biological terms. That would only make sense if parents expected incest from their children or something weird like that.
Actually penises and vaginas don't really affect anything. Why would your gentalia affect reproductive strategy? No the only thing that would affect it is **pregnancy**. Theres competition between vaginas not between penises and vaginas. I have no idea what you meant by that.
I'm sorry but you have yet to show any understanding of human sexuality.
Simple example of the benefits of genetic diversity:
Woman has 5 children, 4 with her husband, and 1 by another man. The black death comes. Neither she nor her husband are carriers of the genes for resistance to the black death. She dies, her husband dies, her 4 children by her husband die. But the other man was a carrier of the gene for resistance to the plague. Her 5th child survives. Her genetic lineage has a chance of continuing. Not very good perhaps . . . but greater than if she had been faithful.
Competition between penis and vagina example:
average woman can only obtain the resources of the average man, because she is of average fitness. If she has children only by him, her children will be of average fitness.
However, if she has sex with a man of high fitness (e.g. a mighty warrior, cassanova, etc), her children will be of above average fitness.
Hence, by cuckolding her resource provider, she maximises her reproductive success. However, the average man married to this woman loses. He provides resources but has a greatly diminished share of her reproductive potential.
Thus, competition between penis and vagina. If she maximises her reproductive success, he loses.
Is this clear enough? I know you want to believe that men and women are the same, hell, I did once too. But wishing will not make it so.
On January 25 2012 23:21 Haemonculus wrote: Are we still in such a state as a species that we need to be propagating like mad? Are we in such peril of imminent extinction that we still need to base our cultural norms off of what best produces the most children? Sure, women are the limiting factor in reproduction. That doesn't mean we should repress them, make them feel ashamed of their sexuality, or physically mutilate their bodies so that they can't ever enjoy sex. Such repression and control is never justified regardless of your, (and I'll say it again) OPINIONS of human sexuality and primitive reproductive strategies.
It's 2012. We're not dying out anytime soon due to lack of children. Sex for fun isn't a terrible thing that destroys society. Women not feeling inherently ashamed of their bodies and sexuality isn't going to cause the world to explode anytime soon.
Its not just about maximising reproduction, though. Its also about motivating people to produce well in excess of what they consume, so that the society can build up capital and hence outcompete other societies. And that is a huge reason for sexual repression: because the sex drive is too powerful a motivator to leave unharnessed.
Think about it. Which society will be more successful in the long run:
The one in which to get laid, you need to be sexy?
Or the one in which to get laid, you need to be a productive citizen?
Anyway, good night. And happy australia day to any other aussies out there.
That's not competition, that's deceit and exploitation. Sharing resources willingly cannot ever be competition in any usual sense.
A woman can't have children with multiple partners at the same time due to pregnancy. That is the main restraint on female reproductive strategy. The strategy you just described is a **male** strategy if anything. Actually that shows my point pretty well that our strategies are for the most part really similar.
But no that's not the main point. The fact is that society can function perfectly well without the government getting involved with the bedroom. Peoples rights should not be based on their genitals.
I don't understand what you're getting at. I'm not arguing that men and women are the same, but your thought process doesn't seem to have any goal whatsoever. You defend repressing sexuality, then go on to explain how sleeping around is the most genetically viable strategy, all while claiming that society depends on it.
edit: You're also bringing up examples and speaking about societies from hundreds of years ago. Tell me what justifies repression human sexuality in the modern world?
On January 26 2012 00:03 DoubleReed wrote: That's not competition, that's deceit and exploitation. Sharing resources willingly cannot ever be competition in any usual sense.
A woman can't have children with multiple partners at the same time due to pregnancy. That is the main restraint on female reproductive strategy. The strategy you just described is a **male** strategy if anything. Actually that shows my point pretty well that our strategies are for the most part really similar.
But no that's not the main point. The fact is that society can function perfectly well without the government getting involved with the bedroom. Peoples rights should not be based on their genitals.
Of course its competition. Its a nasty form of competition, but its still competition. Its a no holds barred competition over reproductive success. In other words: Life.
I think i get your point now. You are saying that the male and female strategies are similiar because the point is to maximise quantity, quality and genetic diversity of descendents.
But you are conflating the goal with with the strategy. You and I could have the same goal: making a million dollars. But your strategy could be to work in academia, while mine could be to compete in MMA. Same goal, greatly different strategies.
By the way, I hate it when people say "get the government out of the bedroom". Its a meaningless statement, because just about every government policy influences what goes on in the bedroom, if you look carefully enough. Think about it.
I don't think it's fair to blame religion for horrifying, reactionary religious governments. That would be like blaming atheism for horrifying, atheist governments (NK, China, USSR, etc). Certainly bad people manipulate religion to get off on their disgusting power trips, but using religion as a tool to manipulate minds that have already been down-trodden is not the basis of religion.
Religion is the answer to question we have not, yet, been able to answer. Before the advent of space exploration, religion explained the sun, the moon, and the stars. Before the great strides in biology and chemistry, religion answered what we are, and how we work. There are still questions the answers to which we do not know. At this point, there is no factual basis for any theory of the beginning of the universe-- certainly there are reasonable theories, but there is no knowledge.
Faith is belief without knowledge, and I agree that faith can be dangerous. But with regards to the way the universe works, I have as much proof that God created the Universe as anyone does that it was a random act of nothingness: absolutely no proof at all. Everything we know, from Newton's laws of conservation to Einstein's relativity theory is based on assumptions-- sometimes irrational assumptions. The set of assumptions we use today are different than those used by ancient philosophers. We decide what is "right" or "factual" based on the set of assumptions which explain the most while assuming the least-- we don't use necessarily the "correct" assumptions, but rather the most useful ones.
A higher power didn't ask, nor did it give authority, nor would a benevolent higher power accept the actions that these exploitative Imams are hoping to take. There is cruelty in man, not religion.
He's responding to me Haem. He's suggesting our sexual strategies have to be repressed in order for a sensible society to work. And perhaps as men and women are different means they should be treated differently. It's bullshit, of course. Differences between male and female mating strategies are minor at best, and everything he's claimed is incorrect and some even inverted.
The fact is that all evidence shows that men and women are far more similar than most people believe. There is zero justification for any state to grant rights based on sex.
No vetinari, that's not competition. Women compete with each other on reproductive success not against men. You are making less than no sense.
On January 26 2012 00:11 Haemonculus wrote: I don't understand what you're getting at. I'm not arguing that men and women are the same, but your thought process doesn't seem to have any goal whatsoever. You defend repressing sexuality, then go on to explain how sleeping around is the most genetically viable strategy, all while claiming that society depends on it.
edit: You're also bringing up examples and speaking about societies from hundreds of years ago. Tell me what justifies repression human sexuality in the modern world?
What I have been trying to say, is that sleeping around is the most genetically viable strategy. In the absence of effective sexual repression, people will sleep around, because that is what we are programmed to do.
Sleeping around is what is best for the individual.
However, what is best for society is to harness the power of the sex drive to get people to work for the benefit of society. Sleeping around, however, undermines the rationing of sex and thus its motivating effect.
Thus, some form of sexual repression is beneficial for society.
In essence, we are spending our accumulated social capital, in order to experiment with secularism, feminism, socialism, capitalism, etc. Time will tell whether these investments will pay off, or bankrupt us. If they pay off, all well and good. If not . . . then oh shit.
The example from hundreds of years ago was explaining the benefit of genetic diversity: it facilitates adaptation to changes in environment. The example had nothing to do with sexual repression.
On January 26 2012 00:27 DoubleReed wrote: He's responding to me Haem. He's suggesting our sexual strategies have to be repressed in order for a sensible society to work. And perhaps as men and women are different means they should be treated differently. It's bullshit, of course. Differences between male and female mating strategies are minor at best, and everything he's claimed is incorrect and some even inverted.
The fact is that all evidence shows that men and women are far more similar than most people believe. There is zero justification for any state to grant rights based on sex.
No vetinari, that's not competition. Women compete with each other on reproductive success not against men. You are making less than no sense.
DoubleReed, in your words:
1. what is the optimal mating strategy for a man? 2. what is the optimal mating strategy for a woman? 3. what is the impact of the male strategy succeeding on the women involved? 4. what is the impact of the female strategy succeeding on the men involved?
Think about it. Remember, the optimal mating strategy will maximise the quantity, quality and genetic diversity of the individual's descendents.
I still don't see how supposed increased productivity could ever justify repressing half the population.
edit: I'd also hesitate to ever say that religion made a country more prosperous. If anything in Europe it resulted mainly in a massive exportation of wealth in the forms of church tithes.
I cannot see how you say feminism is an experiment in possibly reducing productivity, (and insinuating that it's a failed one to boot)
If we're solely focused on overall productivity as a society, and not opposed to the violation of equality for certain members of society, why not reinstate slavery? That was crazy productive for the ruling class and what jump started the American economy after all.
On January 26 2012 00:26 mbr2321 wrote: I don't think it's fair to blame religion for horrifying, reactionary religious governments. That would be like blaming atheism for horrifying, atheist governments (NK, China, USSR, etc). Certainly bad people manipulate religion to get off on their disgusting power trips, but using religion as a tool to manipulate minds that have already been down-trodden is not the basis of religion.
Religion is the answer to question we have not, yet, been able to answer. Before the advent of space exploration, religion explained the sun, the moon, and the stars. Before the great strides in biology and chemistry, religion answered what we are, and how we work. There are still questions the answers to which we do not know. At this point, there is no factual basis for any theory of the beginning of the universe-- certainly there are reasonable theories, but there is no knowledge.
Faith is belief without knowledge, and I agree that faith can be dangerous. But with regards to the way the universe works, I have as much proof that God created the Universe as anyone does that it was a random act of nothingness: absolutely no proof at all. Everything we know, from Newton's laws of conservation to Einstein's relativity theory is based on assumptions-- sometimes irrational assumptions. The set of assumptions we use today are different than those used by ancient philosophers. We decide what is "right" or "factual" based on the set of assumptions which explain the most while assuming the least-- we don't use necessarily the "correct" assumptions, but rather the most useful ones.
A higher power didn't ask, nor did it give authority, nor would a benevolent higher power accept the actions that these exploitative Imams are hoping to take. There is cruelty in man, not religion.
Yes it is fair to blame religion.. especially in the case of the genital mutilation community being almost entirely religious. North Korea atheist government? NK is like the perfect theocratic state lol... Maoism? Stalinism? Those aren't secular, exercise some critical thinking.
Agreed religion was one of our species failed attempts at understanding the universe. You correctly point out it was the best we could do pre modern science but fail to mention that now with what we know religion has been proven wrong on like very single occasion.
Well here your just proving how unaccommodating of discussion religion is. God did it end of story. There is no quest for truth and knowledge just people content with ignorance.
So you know the mind of god? You know god would disagree with these people? How did you come by such knowledge?
On January 26 2012 00:11 Haemonculus wrote: I don't understand what you're getting at. I'm not arguing that men and women are the same, but your thought process doesn't seem to have any goal whatsoever. You defend repressing sexuality, then go on to explain how sleeping around is the most genetically viable strategy, all while claiming that society depends on it.
edit: You're also bringing up examples and speaking about societies from hundreds of years ago. Tell me what justifies repression human sexuality in the modern world?
What I have been trying to say, is that sleeping around is the most genetically viable strategy. In the absence of effective sexual repression, people will sleep around, because that is what we are programmed to do.
Sleeping around is what is best for the individual.
However, what is best for society is to harness the power of the sex drive to get people to work for the benefit of society. Sleeping around, however, undermines the rationing of sex and thus its motivating effect.
Thus, some form of sexual repression is beneficial for society.
In essence, we are spending our accumulated social capital, in order to experiment with secularism, feminism, socialism, capitalism, etc. Time will tell whether these investments will pay off, or bankrupt us. If they pay off, all well and good. If not . . . then oh shit.
The example from hundreds of years ago was explaining the benefit of genetic diversity: it facilitates adaptation to changes in environment. The example had nothing to do with sexual repression.
Please provide source on all us being sluts without sexual repression... You know there are animals that have lifelong monogamous relationships right? Your trying to sound scientific and rational but... lol
One powerful strategy for both sexes is to find a partner (most likely one due to dangers of jealousy) with high general fitness (genetic, social, intelligent, etc) and with high attraction (physical, emotional, etc). Marriage is socially beneficial and adultery puts financial, physical, and social risk to the adulterer and hisher child. Having long term relationship ensures higher chance of the child's success as well.
I'd have to think more optimal strategies. But nature doesn't necessarily give us the pure optimal strategy. I'm pretty sure optimal would involve a lot of murder and rape.
We are programmed mostly by rules of attraction, not by strategy. We cheat because we like sex and attraction isnt one-to-one and we don't think about the consequences to our children and family.
On one hand, Women have it pretty rough in certain islamic countries.
On the other hand, a lot of times my hairs stand up on end when the UN gets involved with something so trivial. Aren't there better things for them to be working on? Are they really going to use the POWER of GLOBAL GOVERNMENT to ensure people are treated equally when they cheat on their spouses?
You'd think they maybe instead of attacking a symptom (cultural misogyny) they could address the problem (lack of education), which also happens to cure other problems. Then again, countries that the west bombs the fuck out of pretty much have a free pass to fucked up society, in my opinion. It's pretty hard to remain civil and orderly when there's always the chance that your house gets randomly exploded.
Well if women have more rights that usually increases education by increasing teachers. Women's rights is a big deal economically, not just socially. This is definitely an important global issue.
On January 26 2012 00:26 mbr2321 wrote: I don't think it's fair to blame religion for horrifying, reactionary religious governments. That would be like blaming atheism for horrifying, atheist governments (NK, China, USSR, etc). Certainly bad people manipulate religion to get off on their disgusting power trips, but using religion as a tool to manipulate minds that have already been down-trodden is not the basis of religion.
Religion is the answer to question we have not, yet, been able to answer. Before the advent of space exploration, religion explained the sun, the moon, and the stars. Before the great strides in biology and chemistry, religion answered what we are, and how we work. There are still questions the answers to which we do not know. At this point, there is no factual basis for any theory of the beginning of the universe-- certainly there are reasonable theories, but there is no knowledge.
Faith is belief without knowledge, and I agree that faith can be dangerous. But with regards to the way the universe works, I have as much proof that God created the Universe as anyone does that it was a random act of nothingness: absolutely no proof at all. Everything we know, from Newton's laws of conservation to Einstein's relativity theory is based on assumptions-- sometimes irrational assumptions. The set of assumptions we use today are different than those used by ancient philosophers. We decide what is "right" or "factual" based on the set of assumptions which explain the most while assuming the least-- we don't use necessarily the "correct" assumptions, but rather the most useful ones.
A higher power didn't ask, nor did it give authority, nor would a benevolent higher power accept the actions that these exploitative Imams are hoping to take. There is cruelty in man, not religion.
Yes it is fair to blame religion.. especially in the case of the genital mutilation community being almost entirely religious. North Korea atheist government? NK is like the perfect theocratic state lol... Maoism? Stalinism? Those aren't secular, exercise some critical thinking.
Agreed religion was one of our species failed attempts at understanding the universe. You correctly point out it was the best we could do pre modern science but fail to mention that now with what we know religion has been proven wrong on like very single occasion.
Well here your just proving how unaccommodating of discussion religion is. God did it end of story. There is no quest for truth and knowledge just people content with ignorance.
So you know the mind of god? You know god would disagree with these people? How did you come by such knowledge?
Are you seriously trying to tell me that Stalinism and Maoims-- off shoots of Communism, which completely and totally rejects all faith in a higher power -- is theocratic in nature? On that point, we must fundamentally disagree, as you have absolutely no foundation upon which to base that claim, and I can't refute a point which defies all previously held definitions of society.
Your point may have been that Kim Jung Il, Stalin, and Mao all force their personal beliefs on their people in their tenure as Totalitarian dictators, and that this mimics the Theocratic Totalitarian dictators of the past. I agree on that point. That was my original point as well. People are bad-- it's not religion's fault that Imam's might start circumcising females. If it wasn't a religious position of authority ordering it, it would be a secular position of authority-- a mayor, a governor, a general, a dictator or any other positions within a whole host of easily corrupted authorities.
Religion hasn't failed in understanding the universe. Religion has succeeded in the same way that every other theory has succeeded-- it has used the least amount of assumptions to explain the most. I admit that I don't know everything-- I haven't delved into the depths of the universe and unlocked every secret therein-- there are things none of us knows. Religion answers the unanswerable, it gives reason to that which we cannot reason, it brings purpose to life. Am I arguing that my religion is correct? No. Am I arguing that any religion is correct? No. I am saying that Religion, right or wrong, is useful.
On your last point, you're right. I don't know the mind of God. I cannot see His Will. I know nothing about the metaphysical world-- that doesn't mean I can't postulate or reason what a Just God would allow. I have never come across any sacred text that asks females to be circumcised, and the thought itself is so horrifying that I would reject any faith that called for female circumcision.
My overall point is: I can accept that I believe without knowing for sure. Can you accept that you do not believe with the same lack of complete understanding?
EDIT: fixed quotes EDIT 2: clarified one of my points
On your last point, you're right. I don't know the mind of God. I cannot see His Will. I know nothing about the metaphysical world-- that doesn't mean I can't postulate or reason what a Just God would allow. I have never come across any sacred text that asks females to be circumcised, and the thought itself is so horrifying that I would reject any faith that called for female circumcision.
You would not circumcise females even if it was god's will? Explain please.
On your last point, you're right. I don't know the mind of God. I cannot see His Will. I know nothing about the metaphysical world-- that doesn't mean I can't postulate or reason what a Just God would allow. I have never come across any sacred text that asks females to be circumcised, and the thought itself is so horrifying that I would reject any faith that called for female circumcision.
You would not circumcise females even if it was god's will? Explain please.
If a higher power told me to circumcize a female, I would not want to worship that higher power. I would also hope that I wouldn't do it, knowing that I would be punished for not doing so. This is making the assumption that a higher power would will that, though.
On January 25 2012 23:08 Nancial wrote: This is absolutely wrong to interfere with how muslims live. Not only it's none of our business, but also it's hypocritical. Why do you think you're right and they are wrong? Maybe their god is the one that's true and he wants what they do, not what YOU think gawd wants.
Seriously religious people are so stupid... on both sides
What I find wrong is mutilation of women, not islam.
Are people seriously discussing "optimal mating strategies" as if they have even the slightest right to intervene?
What sickening collectivist and totalitarian nonesense.
Supressing every individual in the world in order to appease the non-existent "collective." The collective does not exist, stop offering human lives and freedom to its pyre.
It's pretty clear all the Islamic defenders did not bother to actually read the Qu'ran.
It is a simple FACT that Islam is a very volatile religion, the Qu'ran is full of crap, it literally says jews should be killed, women are stupid and will make up most of hell and that a womans word can not be trusted because they are liars. Some other gems are that Muslims can not be friends with non musilms, your in a permanent state of war with ALL non believers, that cats and dogs should be massacred because they are unclean and ofcourse the 40 virgins thing (this has been found to be likely a mistranslation of the Assyrian word for grape vines, despite that most muslims still believe it though) a lot of other stuff I can't remember right now, suffice to say the Qu'ran is the most agressive religious book I've ever read. And of course there's all the wonderful stuff in the Hadiths about Muhammad having sex with a 9 year old.
Most Islamic apologists won't tell you this because they WANT their religion to be peaceful because they are, but because they've already been indoctrinated by this flavor of religion as a child they rather lie to themselves then accept the truth and either rewrite their own religion or choose another one.
Muslims can be wonderful people, the religion however will always be barbaric and the peacefulness of the people is often dictated by how seriously they take their own religion. A good example is Thailand, there in the Buddhist part everything is peaceful while the Muslim part is a clusterfuck of violence and religious murders.
And to the "but westerners abused women too" crowd, true, but not even close to the levels being portrayed in the Muslim communities, we might have all beaten our women but at least we didn't mutilate their vagina's because we thought god told us to.
On January 26 2012 02:34 zalz wrote: Are people seriously discussing "optimal mating strategies" as if they have even the slightest right to intervene?
What sickening collectivist and totalitarian nonesense.
Supressing every individual in the world in order to appease the non-existent "collective." The collective does not exist, stop offering human lives and freedom to its pyre.
Sorry, I have argued against his pseudoscience before and got a little carried away.
Even if his pseudoscience wasn't laughably false, it certainly wouldn't justify infringing on the rights of humans.
On January 26 2012 00:27 DoubleReed wrote: He's responding to me Haem. He's suggesting our sexual strategies have to be repressed in order for a sensible society to work. And perhaps as men and women are different means they should be treated differently. It's bullshit, of course. Differences between male and female mating strategies are minor at best, and everything he's claimed is incorrect and some even inverted.
The fact is that all evidence shows that men and women are far more similar than most people believe. There is zero justification for any state to grant rights based on sex.
No vetinari, that's not competition. Women compete with each other on reproductive success not against men. You are making less than no sense.
You are right that he mixes stuff and states as fact reproductive strategies without any hard proof. But saying male and female mating strategies are just slightly different is kind of strange. Of course depends what is minor for you, but exactly the fact that women can get pregnant as you stated (and pregnancy is a big time and resource investment for a woman) means that their strategies are different.
On January 26 2012 02:55 Scootaloo wrote: It's pretty clear all the Islamic defenders did not bother to actually read the Qu'ran.
It is a simple FACT that Islam is a very volatile religion, the Qu'ran is full of crap, it literally says jews should be killed, women are stupid and will make up most of hell and that a womans word can not be trusted because they are liars. Some other gems are that Muslims can not be friends with non musilms, your in a permanent state of war with ALL non believers, that cats and dogs should be massacred because they are unclean and ofcourse the 40 virgins thing (this has been found to be likely a mistranslation of the Assyrian word for grape vines, despite that most muslims still believe it though) a lot of other stuff I can't remember right now, suffice to say the Qu'ran is the most agressive religious book I've ever read. And of course there's all the wonderful stuff in the Hadiths about Muhammad having sex with a 9 year old.
Most Islamic apologists won't tell you this because they WANT their religion to be peaceful because they are, but because they've already been indoctrinated by this flavor of religion as a child they rather lie to themselves then accept the truth and either rewrite their own religion or choose another one.
Muslims can be wonderful people, the religion however will always be barbaric and the peacefulness of the people is often dictated by how seriously they take their own religion. A good example is Thailand, there in the Buddhist part everything is peaceful while the Muslim part is a clusterfuck of violence and religious murders.
And to the "but westerners abused women too" crowd, true, but not even close to the levels being portrayed in the Muslim communities, we might have all beaten our women but at least we didn't mutilate their vagina's because we thought god told us to.
I have never read so much crap in one post in my life....Muslims can marry Jews and Christians. I don't know where you got the idea that Muslims aren't allowed to be friends with non-Muslims. Prophet Muhammad didn't consummate his marriage when Aisha was 9 years old and if you actually read any history on her. She was far from a child and was the leader of the religion after his death, but no one talks about that she was the authority of the religion and how she was the main teacher of it when he was alive and dead. No one talks about how important she was in leading second largest religion in the world. No one looks at the history to see that men and women married around that age and lived independently.
The 40 virgins, is a mis-translation, not to grapes, but that you will get all sexual desires fulfilled in heaven with 40 'hurineiin' - beings who's sole purpose is sex. Putting the label of virgins on them makes it seem like they're human, but they're not. Islam doesn't shy away from sex. Society does. Having sex with one's spouse is an act of worship and is seen as a mutual duty in a marriage. If you want to go into how Islam teaches people to treat sex, the man has to keep going until the woman is satisfied or else he's seen as not doing his duty to her as a husband. If you're muslim, have sex with your spouse as much as possible. God loves it.
As Judicator said, I have my own experiences with Middle Eastern countries. It is very live-able and most westerns would probably love to vacation in Jordan, Egypt, UAE, etc. They certainly like being allies with even the more conservative countries. I know people who were born and raised in the USA, but still moved to the Middle East when they got older. They had all the flair of Western culture in them, but they still chose to live in the Middle East because they saw other opportunities there.
Does female circumcision happen? Yes it does, because people are stupid idiots that think a woman shouldn't enjoy herself. Does it come up in Islamic and in-culture debates? YES IT DOES. I've seen talk shows on Arabic and Islamic television that have brought on circumcised women to talk about their experiences. It ruins marriages because the woman isn't feeling any pleasure in sex. Point is that it's a hot topic and a large part of society acknowledges that it is bad. There is nothing in the Quran that talks about a woman being circumcised. It talks about male circumcision but never female circumcision. If it did, then you could bet that most Mideastern women would be circumcised, but they're not because this situation is in the minority.
Edit: about cats and dogs being slaughtered. Really?
Narated By 'Abdullah bin 'Umar : Allah's Apostle said, "A lady was punished because of a cat which she had imprisoned till it died. She entered the (Hell) Fire because of it, for she neither gave it food nor water as she had imprisoned it, nor set it free to eat from the vermin of the earth." – [Bukhari Vol.4, Book 56, #689]
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “While a dog was going round a well and was about to die of thirst, an Israeli prostitute saw it and took off her shoe and watered it. So Allah forgave her because of that good deed.” (Book #56, Hadith #673)
I'm not terribly concerned about Islam or their culture to be honest... I just worry about my own and that is what everyone should do. Maybe I've just grown tired of the never ending war propaganda and I just want to leave people alone so long as they are not trying to hurt me.
As for female circumcision in particular... again I can't be terribly concerned about it while so many young boys are mutilated every day in my own country. Now people will usually respond to this with arguments about the severity or the extent of the mutilation that takes place but I think that is irelevent and that we are in no position to criticize another culture... it just comes down to me not liking when a permanent modification is made to someone's natural body without their consent. Obviously some procedures have to be done when someone is in a hospital and a body part is seriously infected, damaged or broken in some way and cannot be repaired or it would risk the life of the patient.
So yeah when I hear about fgm..i think it is mostly propaganda. The people in those countries don't practice female circumcision in order to control women... they do it because it is their culture and it is what they think they are supposed to do...it is the exact same reasons many fathers want their sons to be circumcized in the United States. Now if you look at the reasons why these procedures came into existence in the first place then it probably was to suppress women, again just like circumcision of males was adopted originally to attempt to stop boys from masterbating. Even so the people who want their kids mutilated and the people who practice it aren't thinking of the procedure as a punishment or even as soemthing negative..they are making their kids look "normal" to their culture.
I would say just let their culture evolve and we can worry about our own cultures. It is too easy to look at someone else and find something that they do is barbaric or just plain wrong but you should also try to look at things from different angles. For example we tend to look at these third world countries in terms of "women's rights" and of course based on our own idea of what it means for women to have rights. Personally I don't believe in women's rights or men's rights, I believe in individual rights. In the countries in question do the men really have "more" rights than the women? Are they better off overall? Or do they just have their own expectations and burdens? When their country goes to war who gets forced into combat and killed? When their is civil war or general chaos many women get raped and that gets treated as a worse crime than all of the men who get slaughtered. I don't think any of them have very many rights so why do we always hear the focus on women's rights? Because it is propaganda... it sparks an emotional reaction in a lot of people... if anything it appeals to a very sexist notion that women are indeed weak, helpless cattle that need to be protected.
On January 26 2012 04:15 macil222 wrote: As for female circumcision in particular... again I can't be terribly concerned about it while so many young boys are mutilated every day in my own country. Now people will usually respond to this with arguments about the severity or the extent of the mutilation that takes place but I think that is irelevent and that we are in no position to criticize another culture... it just comes down to me not liking when a permanent modification is made to someone's natural body without their consent. Obviously some procedures have to be done when someone is in a hospital and a body part is seriously infected, damaged or broken in some way and cannot be repaired or it would risk the life of the patient.
Female circumcision is way different than male circumcision. When a woman is circumcised, she feels little to no pleasure at all in sex.
On January 26 2012 04:15 macil222 wrote: I'm not terribly concerned about Islam or their culture to be honest... I just worry about my own and that is what everyone should do. Maybe I've just grown tired of the never ending war propaganda and I just want to leave people alone so long as they are not trying to hurt me.
As for female circumcision in particular... again I can't be terribly concerned about it while so many young boys are mutilated every day in my own country. Now people will usually respond to this with arguments about the severity or the extent of the mutilation that takes place but I think that is irelevent and that we are in no position to criticize another culture... it just comes down to me not liking when a permanent modification is made to someone's natural body without their consent. Obviously some procedures have to be done when someone is in a hospital and a body part is seriously infected, damaged or broken in some way and cannot be repaired or it would risk the life of the patient.
So yeah when I hear about fgm..i think it is mostly propaganda. The people in those countries don't practice female circumcision in order to control women... they do it because it is their culture and it is what they think they are supposed to do...it is the exact same reasons many fathers want their sons to be circumcized in the United States. Now if you look at the reasons why these procedures came into existence in the first place then it probably was to suppress women, again just like circumcision of males was adopted originally to attempt to stop boys from masterbating. Even so the people who want their kids mutilated and the people who practice it aren't thinking of the procedure as a punishment or even as soemthing negative..they are making their kids look "normal" to their culture.
I would say just let their culture evolve and we can worry about our own cultures. It is too easy to look at someone else and find something that they do is barbaric or just plain wrong but you should also try to look at things from different angles. For example we tend to look at these third world countries in terms of "women's rights" and of course based on our own idea of what it means for women to have rights. Personally I don't believe in women's rights or men's rights, I believe in individual rights. In the countries in question do the men really have "more" rights than the women? Are they better off overall? Or do they just have their own expectations and burdens? When their country goes to war who gets forced into combat and killed? When their is civil war or general chaos many women get raped and that gets treated as a worse crime than all of the men who get slaughtered. I don't think any of them have very many rights so why do we always hear the focus on women's rights? Because it is propaganda... it sparks an emotional reaction in a lot of people... if anything it appeals to a very sexist notion that women are indeed weak, helpless cattle that need to be protected.
I am going to assume you don't know what a clitoris does lol.
On January 26 2012 01:02 DoubleReed wrote: One powerful strategy for both sexes is to find a partner (most likely one due to dangers of jealousy) with high general fitness (genetic, social, intelligent, etc) and with high attraction (physical, emotional, etc). Marriage is socially beneficial and adultery puts financial, physical, and social risk to the adulterer and hisher child. Having long term relationship ensures higher chance of the child's success as well.
I'd have to think more optimal strategies. But nature doesn't necessarily give us the pure optimal strategy. I'm pretty sure optimal would involve a lot of murder and rape.
We are programmed mostly by rules of attraction, not by strategy. We cheat because we like sex and attraction isnt one-to-one and we don't think about the consequences to our children and family.
The rules of attraction are just a tool of the strategy. The strategy in question is strategy of the genes to propagate not a strategy of a single individual. Looking at evolutionary strategies simply from the point of individual might be deceiving. Cheating is part of the evolutionary strategy. It is just not a strategy of the individual that cheats, but the genes that make him statistically more likely to cheat.
That is why vetinari is simplifying what the reproductive strategy is (apart from stating as fact and even somewhat butchering things that are just working hypothesis), he also seems to think that reproductive strategy is set of prescribed behaviours for an individual. Current human reproductive behaviour is a product of competition between strategies of our genes and their coalitions.
But if we simplify it and try to project that strategy into an individual possible explanation of differences in behaviour between sexes is based on what it means for the member of that sex to propagate. For a men the essential part takes basically no effort. For women the essential part is extremely big and time-consuming investment called pregnancy. If that would be all we knew about human reproduction the strategies would look like : Men would fuck as much as possible and women would try by some criteria pick the best mate.
Of course since we know that human increase their reproductive success by having complex society and by actually caring for their offspring after it is born, that means we have to account for that in those strategies. The caring for your offspring part means that male strategies will move closer to female ones, thus making monogamy possible and even wanted, but also means that male will be more motivated to avoid female infidelity at all costs, while having themselves as many children on the side as possible. For females it means that best case scenario is to get a mate with good (for propagation) genes and good abilities to care for the offspring. Of course not all can get such a mate, especially because those two properties kind of exclude themselves, so second best case scenario is to have as a partner someone with good abilities to care for the offspring while being impregnated by someone having good genes. This dichotomy will create amongst males two possible strategies. Either be a "nice guy" and try to make sure at all costs that your partner is not cheating on you. Or be the guy that tries to impregnate as many women as possible. Of course that is the simplified situation and in reality some mixed strategies will be employed. But the basic situation is similar to the hawk-dove scenario strategies. And as they show best strategy for the genes is some kind of mixed strategy. And everything gets extremely complex. And that is without even putting culture into the mix. I hope that shows why the simplified version of vetinari is just that, too simple. It is also wrong as he mixed some things up anyway.
But there are still statistically significant differences between behaviour of the sexes that are consequence of different investment cost into the propagation. On different levels of the simplification they are different, but on the highest level of simplification the "men are not picky and will fuck everything and women will carefully pick" is kind of true, if you understand that it is just a simplification and describes human sexual behaviour only very roughly and should be treated only as such and the reality is much more complicated and the differences between sexes much less extreme, but still significant.
But those differences are not an excuse for repression of sexuality. The only repression of sexuality that is needed for society to exist is for that society to make sure that children are provided for and positively reinforce fidelity. Negative repressions were historically shown to be ineffective and counterproductive and were mostly based on flawed image of human sexuality, similarly like vetinari's.
Yes, mcc I can tell what you mean. I meant to reject his views specifically not the whole idea. However I would prefer not to derail the thread further as it seems like an incredible non sequitur that I caused lol
Demonizing Islam is unhelpful imo. Judiasm and Christianity all subjugate women in some way and yet western cultures now have women's rights. It's more of a matter of secularizing Islam where it is extreme.
On January 26 2012 04:36 DoubleReed wrote: Yes, mcc I can tell what you mean. I meant to reject his views specifically not the whole idea. However I would prefer not to derail the thread further as it seems like an incredible non sequitur that I caused lol
Demonizing Islam is unhelpful imo. Judiasm and Christianity all subjugate women in some way and yet western cultures now have women's rights. It's more of a matter of secularizing Islam where it is extreme.
I agree
As for your solution, yes, but I would say that the way to do it is increase prosperity and make society more secular, this is I think the only way to make Islam more secular. I do not think you can do it directly.
On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice.
Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer.
Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts.
On January 26 2012 00:26 mbr2321 wrote: I don't think it's fair to blame religion for horrifying, reactionary religious governments. That would be like blaming atheism for horrifying, atheist governments (NK, China, USSR, etc). Certainly bad people manipulate religion to get off on their disgusting power trips, but using religion as a tool to manipulate minds that have already been down-trodden is not the basis of religion.
Religion is the answer to question we have not, yet, been able to answer. Before the advent of space exploration, religion explained the sun, the moon, and the stars. Before the great strides in biology and chemistry, religion answered what we are, and how we work. There are still questions the answers to which we do not know. At this point, there is no factual basis for any theory of the beginning of the universe-- certainly there are reasonable theories, but there is no knowledge.
Faith is belief without knowledge, and I agree that faith can be dangerous. But with regards to the way the universe works, I have as much proof that God created the Universe as anyone does that it was a random act of nothingness: absolutely no proof at all. Everything we know, from Newton's laws of conservation to Einstein's relativity theory is based on assumptions-- sometimes irrational assumptions. The set of assumptions we use today are different than those used by ancient philosophers. We decide what is "right" or "factual" based on the set of assumptions which explain the most while assuming the least-- we don't use necessarily the "correct" assumptions, but rather the most useful ones.
A higher power didn't ask, nor did it give authority, nor would a benevolent higher power accept the actions that these exploitative Imams are hoping to take. There is cruelty in man, not religion.
Yes it is fair to blame religion.. especially in the case of the genital mutilation community being almost entirely religious. North Korea atheist government? NK is like the perfect theocratic state lol... Maoism? Stalinism? Those aren't secular, exercise some critical thinking.
Agreed religion was one of our species failed attempts at understanding the universe. You correctly point out it was the best we could do pre modern science but fail to mention that now with what we know religion has been proven wrong on like very single occasion.
Well here your just proving how unaccommodating of discussion religion is. God did it end of story. There is no quest for truth and knowledge just people content with ignorance.
So you know the mind of god? You know god would disagree with these people? How did you come by such knowledge?
Are you seriously trying to tell me that Stalinism and Maoims-- off shoots of Communism, which completely and totally rejects all faith in a higher power -- is theocratic in nature? On that point, we must fundamentally disagree, as you have absolutely no foundation upon which to base that claim, and I can't refute a point which defies all previously held definitions of society.
Your point may have been that Kim Jung Il, Stalin, and Mao all force their personal beliefs on their people in their tenure as Totalitarian dictators, and that this mimics the Theocratic Totalitarian dictators of the past. I agree on that point. That was my original point as well. People are bad-- it's not religion's fault that Imam's might start circumcising females. If it wasn't a religious position of authority ordering it, it would be a secular position of authority-- a mayor, a governor, a general, a dictator or any other positions within a whole host of easily corrupted authorities.
Religion hasn't failed in understanding the universe. Religion has succeeded in the same way that every other theory has succeeded-- it has used the least amount of assumptions to explain the most. I admit that I don't know everything-- I haven't delved into the depths of the universe and unlocked every secret therein-- there are things none of us knows. Religion answers the unanswerable, it gives reason to that which we cannot reason, it brings purpose to life. Am I arguing that my religion is correct? No. Am I arguing that any religion is correct? No. I am saying that Religion, right or wrong, is useful.
On your last point, you're right. I don't know the mind of God. I cannot see His Will. I know nothing about the metaphysical world-- that doesn't mean I can't postulate or reason what a Just God would allow. I have never come across any sacred text that asks females to be circumcised, and the thought itself is so horrifying that I would reject any faith that called for female circumcision.
My overall point is: I can accept that I believe without knowing for sure. Can you accept that you do not believe with the same lack of complete understanding?
EDIT: fixed quotes EDIT 2: clarified one of my points
Kim Il Sung, Mao, Stalin and Hirohito all elevated themselves to a position above the normal human, therefore establishing divinity (Hirohito was seen an actually god). Effectively becoming the Jesus' of what essentially were state religions.
On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice.
Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer.
Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts.
Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth.
Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you.
On January 26 2012 00:11 Haemonculus wrote: I don't understand what you're getting at. I'm not arguing that men and women are the same, but your thought process doesn't seem to have any goal whatsoever. You defend repressing sexuality, then go on to explain how sleeping around is the most genetically viable strategy, all while claiming that society depends on it.
edit: You're also bringing up examples and speaking about societies from hundreds of years ago. Tell me what justifies repression human sexuality in the modern world?
What I have been trying to say, is that sleeping around is the most genetically viable strategy. In the absence of effective sexual repression, people will sleep around, because that is what we are programmed to do.
Sleeping around is what is best for the individual.
However, what is best for society is to harness the power of the sex drive to get people to work for the benefit of society. Sleeping around, however, undermines the rationing of sex and thus its motivating effect.
Thus, some form of sexual repression is beneficial for society.
In essence, we are spending our accumulated social capital, in order to experiment with secularism, feminism, socialism, capitalism, etc. Time will tell whether these investments will pay off, or bankrupt us. If they pay off, all well and good. If not . . . then oh shit.
The example from hundreds of years ago was explaining the benefit of genetic diversity: it facilitates adaptation to changes in environment. The example had nothing to do with sexual repression.
Your interpretation of the sex drive is way to simple. Yes we do have this sense of attraction to everything that moves and as a consequence human beings want to sleep around. However, there is also a sense of attachment that is felt to a single mate. This sense is also a part of the sex drive, it is a large part of what keeps people together in spite of the want to fuck everyone drive. For more on this you should differ to a proper biologist that studies this:
On January 26 2012 00:26 mbr2321 wrote: I don't think it's fair to blame religion for horrifying, reactionary religious governments. That would be like blaming atheism for horrifying, atheist governments (NK, China, USSR, etc). Certainly bad people manipulate religion to get off on their disgusting power trips, but using religion as a tool to manipulate minds that have already been down-trodden is not the basis of religion.
Religion is the answer to question we have not, yet, been able to answer. Before the advent of space exploration, religion explained the sun, the moon, and the stars. Before the great strides in biology and chemistry, religion answered what we are, and how we work. There are still questions the answers to which we do not know. At this point, there is no factual basis for any theory of the beginning of the universe-- certainly there are reasonable theories, but there is no knowledge.
Faith is belief without knowledge, and I agree that faith can be dangerous. But with regards to the way the universe works, I have as much proof that God created the Universe as anyone does that it was a random act of nothingness: absolutely no proof at all. Everything we know, from Newton's laws of conservation to Einstein's relativity theory is based on assumptions-- sometimes irrational assumptions. The set of assumptions we use today are different than those used by ancient philosophers. We decide what is "right" or "factual" based on the set of assumptions which explain the most while assuming the least-- we don't use necessarily the "correct" assumptions, but rather the most useful ones.
A higher power didn't ask, nor did it give authority, nor would a benevolent higher power accept the actions that these exploitative Imams are hoping to take. There is cruelty in man, not religion.
Yes it is fair to blame religion.. especially in the case of the genital mutilation community being almost entirely religious. North Korea atheist government? NK is like the perfect theocratic state lol... Maoism? Stalinism? Those aren't secular, exercise some critical thinking.
Agreed religion was one of our species failed attempts at understanding the universe. You correctly point out it was the best we could do pre modern science but fail to mention that now with what we know religion has been proven wrong on like very single occasion.
Well here your just proving how unaccommodating of discussion religion is. God did it end of story. There is no quest for truth and knowledge just people content with ignorance.
So you know the mind of god? You know god would disagree with these people? How did you come by such knowledge?
Are you seriously trying to tell me that Stalinism and Maoims-- off shoots of Communism, which completely and totally rejects all faith in a higher power -- is theocratic in nature? On that point, we must fundamentally disagree, as you have absolutely no foundation upon which to base that claim, and I can't refute a point which defies all previously held definitions of society.
Your point may have been that Kim Jung Il, Stalin, and Mao all force their personal beliefs on their people in their tenure as Totalitarian dictators, and that this mimics the Theocratic Totalitarian dictators of the past. I agree on that point. That was my original point as well. People are bad-- it's not religion's fault that Imam's might start circumcising females. If it wasn't a religious position of authority ordering it, it would be a secular position of authority-- a mayor, a governor, a general, a dictator or any other positions within a whole host of easily corrupted authorities.
Religion hasn't failed in understanding the universe. Religion has succeeded in the same way that every other theory has succeeded-- it has used the least amount of assumptions to explain the most. I admit that I don't know everything-- I haven't delved into the depths of the universe and unlocked every secret therein-- there are things none of us knows. Religion answers the unanswerable, it gives reason to that which we cannot reason, it brings purpose to life. Am I arguing that my religion is correct? No. Am I arguing that any religion is correct? No. I am saying that Religion, right or wrong, is useful.
On your last point, you're right. I don't know the mind of God. I cannot see His Will. I know nothing about the metaphysical world-- that doesn't mean I can't postulate or reason what a Just God would allow. I have never come across any sacred text that asks females to be circumcised, and the thought itself is so horrifying that I would reject any faith that called for female circumcision.
My overall point is: I can accept that I believe without knowing for sure. Can you accept that you do not believe with the same lack of complete understanding?
EDIT: fixed quotes EDIT 2: clarified one of my points
You are correct to a degree. Yes, blaming only religion is forgetting about the atrocities you mentioned. But blaming religion is quite correct, as is blaming marxism-leninism, stalinism, maoism and other ideologies. Atheism is not an ideology in the same vein and blaming atheism makes no sense as atheism is just disbelief in deity and cannot motivate any actions.
In this particular case blaming islam in particular is not correct as it is not specific to islamic communities and is more of a problem of some common proto-ideology (basically it is cultural issue, practical remnant of some past mostly forgotten proto-ideology, possibly even specifically religion).
As for your tangent, no religion does not make less assumptions than science for example, actually it makes more and it explained less in quality and even in quantity.
On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice.
Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer.
Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts.
Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth.
Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you.
In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT.
On January 26 2012 02:55 Scootaloo wrote: It's pretty clear all the Islamic defenders did not bother to actually read the Qu'ran.
It is a simple FACT that Islam is a very volatile religion, the Qu'ran is full of crap, it literally says jews should be killed, women are stupid and will make up most of hell and that a womans word can not be trusted because they are liars. Some other gems are that Muslims can not be friends with non musilms, your in a permanent state of war with ALL non believers, that cats and dogs should be massacred because they are unclean and ofcourse the 40 virgins thing (this has been found to be likely a mistranslation of the Assyrian word for grape vines, despite that most muslims still believe it though) a lot of other stuff I can't remember right now, suffice to say the Qu'ran is the most agressive religious book I've ever read. And of course there's all the wonderful stuff in the Hadiths about Muhammad having sex with a 9 year old.
Most Islamic apologists won't tell you this because they WANT their religion to be peaceful because they are, but because they've already been indoctrinated by this flavor of religion as a child they rather lie to themselves then accept the truth and either rewrite their own religion or choose another one.
Muslims can be wonderful people, the religion however will always be barbaric and the peacefulness of the people is often dictated by how seriously they take their own religion. A good example is Thailand, there in the Buddhist part everything is peaceful while the Muslim part is a clusterfuck of violence and religious murders.
And to the "but westerners abused women too" crowd, true, but not even close to the levels being portrayed in the Muslim communities, we might have all beaten our women but at least we didn't mutilate their vagina's because we thought god told us to.
I have never read so much crap in one post in my life....Muslims can marry Jews and Christians. I don't know where you got the idea that Muslims aren't allowed to be friends with non-Muslims. Prophet Muhammad didn't consummate his marriage when Aisha was 9 years old and if you actually read any history on her. She was far from a child and was the leader of the religion after his death, but no one talks about that she was the authority of the religion and how she was the main teacher of it when he was alive and dead. No one talks about how important she was in leading second largest religion in the world. No one looks at the history to see that men and women married around that age and lived independently.
The 40 virgins, is a mis-translation, not to grapes, but that you will get all sexual desires fulfilled in heaven with 40 'hurineiin' - beings who's sole purpose is sex. Putting the label of virgins on them makes it seem like they're human, but they're not. Islam doesn't shy away from sex. Society does. Having sex with one's spouse is an act of worship and is seen as a mutual duty in a marriage. If you want to go into how Islam teaches people to treat sex, the man has to keep going until the woman is satisfied or else he's seen as not doing his duty to her as a husband. If you're muslim, have sex with your spouse as much as possible. God loves it.
As Judicator said, I have my own experiences with Middle Eastern countries. It is very live-able and most westerns would probably love to vacation in Jordan, Egypt, UAE, etc. They certainly like being allies with even the more conservative countries. I know people who were born and raised in the USA, but still moved to the Middle East when they got older. They had all the flair of Western culture in them, but they still chose to live in the Middle East because they saw other opportunities there.
Does female circumcision happen? Yes it does, because people are stupid idiots that think a woman shouldn't enjoy herself. Does it come up in Islamic and in-culture debates? YES IT DOES. I've seen talk shows on Arabic and Islamic television that have brought on circumcised women to talk about their experiences. It ruins marriages because the woman isn't feeling any pleasure in sex. Point is that it's a hot topic and a large part of society acknowledges that it is bad. There is nothing in the Quran that talks about a woman being circumcised. It talks about male circumcision but never female circumcision. If it did, then you could bet that most Mideastern women would be circumcised, but they're not because this situation is in the minority.
Edit: about cats and dogs being slaughtered. Really?
Narated By 'Abdullah bin 'Umar : Allah's Apostle said, "A lady was punished because of a cat which she had imprisoned till it died. She entered the (Hell) Fire because of it, for she neither gave it food nor water as she had imprisoned it, nor set it free to eat from the vermin of the earth." – [Bukhari Vol.4, Book 56, #689]
Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “While a dog was going round a well and was about to die of thirst, an Israeli prostitute saw it and took off her shoe and watered it. So Allah forgave her because of that good deed.” (Book #56, Hadith #673)
I'm talking crap eh, let me give you a few Qu'ran quotes, it's a terrible and boring book and I can't blame you for not reading it.
-On the befriending non muslims:
Qur'an (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
Qur'an (5:80) - "You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide." Those Muslims who befriend unbelievers will abide in hell. (there is more if you'd like)
-He married Aisha when she was 6, he fucked her when she was 9, it's pretty clear you don't know shit about the religion your talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha If you honestly think that at 9 she was mature enough to have sex, get your head checked. She might have been important to the religion after the 'prophet' raped her for years, that's not something that's relevant to this argument.
-http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/opinion/martyrs-virgins-and-grapes.html According to the NYT it's grapes, I'm willing to entertain your sex slave theory as well though. But if you think that we should we be so free about our sexuality, why does the Islam only profess this for men? Women need to wear their rediculous shrouds, women are heavily persecuted if they cheat, their word can not be taken seriously in a court of law (which is where one would prove the cheating) and women DO NOT get 40 male sex slaves. Just sounds like Muhammad was a massive pervert.
-I never said female circumcision was in the Qu'ran, just that it was a cultural habit for muslims, only making the point that westerners did'nt do it even in our past, read my points before responding please.
-Muhammad, during his conquests (he was a warlord, i.e. raper and murderer, remember?) would at numerous times murder out the entire cat and dog population of his lands because they where unclean, read your history, and the Hadith's contain numerous quotes like this:
Hadith - Bukhari 3:515, Narrated Abu Huraira
I heard Allah's Apostle saying; "Angels (of Mercy) do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human being or an animal)."
I find it amusing how you accuse me of not knowing my history when you just repeat the politically correct nonsense they tell you on television. Hope for you your not actually a muslim because Allah would definitely smite you for not knowing your own religion.
On January 26 2012 04:15 macil222 wrote: As for female circumcision in particular... again I can't be terribly concerned about it while so many young boys are mutilated every day in my own country. Now people will usually respond to this with arguments about the severity or the extent of the mutilation that takes place but I think that is irelevent and that we are in no position to criticize another culture... it just comes down to me not liking when a permanent modification is made to someone's natural body without their consent. Obviously some procedures have to be done when someone is in a hospital and a body part is seriously infected, damaged or broken in some way and cannot be repaired or it would risk the life of the patient.
Female circumcision is way different than male circumcision. When a woman is circumcised, she feels little to no pleasure at all in sex.
That is not true. There are many forms of FGM. The least damaging forms are also very similar to male circumcision. The most severe forms which are also the most rare would obviously inhibit female pleasure but as I said that is not the point.... I am not opposed to it because of the severity I am opposed to it because it is a violation of a person's body. Male circumcision is the same thing, unless there is a medical reason why the foreskin should be removed, such as certain disease conditions, then it is not justified. We do not preemptively amputate organs because they might get diseased, we remove them when they do.
Even tonsils which were thought to serve no purpose only a few years ago were only removed when a person was getting frequent sore throats or had oversized tonils which caused difficulty swallowing. And of course now they are not removed unless there is good cause.
The male foreskin does serve a purpose. I have no problem with an adult male or female having their organs modified, but children should not have these procedures forced upon them.
These debates always turn into this same old male vs female circumcision debate because on one side you have people who look only at the severity of the procedures and then you have people such as myself who are concerned with the general principle.
So as I said I am opposed to fgm but I am not going to get outraged over it or suggest that we support some framework to deal with it internationally while we still have our own problems here. Furthermore I can just accept that they have a different culture with some aspects that I disagree with. All of this talk ultimately just builds up negative sentiment about a culture in another part of the world that in no way affects our lives and yet we end up twisting ourselves up trying to solve these "problems" that aren't even seen as problems by the people there...not even the mutilated women for the most part who would probably always think of themselves as being "normal" until the western interlopers show up and convince them that they are victims.
I wish Germany and Northern Europe would be able to start up some international bodies to come into the United States and set us straight on a number of things including but not even close to limited to male circumcision.
On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice.
Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer.
Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts.
Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth.
Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you.
In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT.
In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes.
On January 26 2012 04:15 macil222 wrote: As for female circumcision in particular... again I can't be terribly concerned about it while so many young boys are mutilated every day in my own country. Now people will usually respond to this with arguments about the severity or the extent of the mutilation that takes place but I think that is irelevent and that we are in no position to criticize another culture... it just comes down to me not liking when a permanent modification is made to someone's natural body without their consent. Obviously some procedures have to be done when someone is in a hospital and a body part is seriously infected, damaged or broken in some way and cannot be repaired or it would risk the life of the patient.
Female circumcision is way different than male circumcision. When a woman is circumcised, she feels little to no pleasure at all in sex.
That is not true. There are many forms of FGM. The least damaging forms are also very similar to male circumcision. The most severe forms which are also the most rare would obviously inhibit female pleasure but as I said that is not the point.... I am not opposed to it because of the severity I am opposed to it because it is a violation of a person's body. Male circumcision is the same thing, unless there is a medical reason why the foreskin should be removed, such as certain disease conditions, then it is not justified. We do not preemptively amputate organs because they might get diseased, we remove them when they do.
Even tonsils which were thought to serve no purpose only a few years ago were only removed when a person was getting frequent sore throats or had oversized tonils which caused difficulty swallowing. And of course now they are not removed unless there is good cause.
The male foreskin does serve a purpose. I have no problem with an adult male or female having their organs modified, but children should not have these procedures forced upon them.
These debates always turn into this same old male vs female circumcision debate because on one side you have people who look only at the severity of the procedures and then you have people such as myself who are concerned with the general principle.
So as I said I am opposed to fgm but I am not going to get outraged over it or suggest that we support some framework to deal with it internationally while we still have our own problems here. Furthermore I can just accept that they have a different culture with some aspects that I disagree with. All of this talk ultimately just builds up negative sentiment about a culture in another part of the world that in no way affects our lives and yet we end up twisting ourselves up trying to solve these "problems" that aren't even seen as problems by the people there...not even the mutilated women for the most part who would probably always think of themselves as being "normal" until the western interlopers show up and convince them that they are victims.
I wish Germany and Northern Europe would be able to start up some international bodies to come into the United States and set us straight on a number of things including but not even close to limited to male circumcision.
No they don't because other then you nobody would ever dare to compare the cutting of the foreskin to the cutting of the clitoris.
You are gravely uninformed and as result, are doing a great deal of harm.
People that don't understand the subject can come into this thread and read your posts. Then they think to themselves, ooh well, cutting off the foreskin isn't so bad and if the female circumcision is the same in scope then I don't really care.
Stop suggesting that male circumcision and female gential mutilation are in the same ballpark. It's wrong at best and incredibly dishonest at worst.
There are not two groups on this debate. It's just lonely you that thinks these two procedures are more or less the same. I don't know if you were just uninformed or if you are being incredibly dishonest, but you are wrong either way.
Islam does not promote mutilation of female genitalia (and don't tell me corrosive substances and shit like that isn't mutilation) and massive sexism. Stupid people do. Now that that's out of the way, I am truly tired of backward pile-o-shit nations that are screwing their own citizens over and refusing to accept reason. Sure, the UN does barge in a lot and the western culture may seem to be an unwelcome influence, but you kind of have to realize at some point that something mystical called "science" has nullified your arguments for sexism and maybe, just maybe, the women you are mutilating, humiliating and abusing actually have feelings.
On January 26 2012 04:15 macil222 wrote: As for female circumcision in particular... again I can't be terribly concerned about it while so many young boys are mutilated every day in my own country. Now people will usually respond to this with arguments about the severity or the extent of the mutilation that takes place but I think that is irelevent and that we are in no position to criticize another culture... it just comes down to me not liking when a permanent modification is made to someone's natural body without their consent. Obviously some procedures have to be done when someone is in a hospital and a body part is seriously infected, damaged or broken in some way and cannot be repaired or it would risk the life of the patient.
Female circumcision is way different than male circumcision. When a woman is circumcised, she feels little to no pleasure at all in sex.
That is not true. There are many forms of FGM. The least damaging forms are also very similar to male circumcision. The most severe forms which are also the most rare would obviously inhibit female pleasure but as I said that is not the point.... I am not opposed to it because of the severity I am opposed to it because it is a violation of a person's body. Male circumcision is the same thing, unless there is a medical reason why the foreskin should be removed, such as certain disease conditions, then it is not justified. We do not preemptively amputate organs because they might get diseased, we remove them when they do.
Even tonsils which were thought to serve no purpose only a few years ago were only removed when a person was getting frequent sore throats or had oversized tonils which caused difficulty swallowing. And of course now they are not removed unless there is good cause.
The male foreskin does serve a purpose. I have no problem with an adult male or female having their organs modified, but children should not have these procedures forced upon them.
These debates always turn into this same old male vs female circumcision debate because on one side you have people who look only at the severity of the procedures and then you have people such as myself who are concerned with the general principle.
So as I said I am opposed to fgm but I am not going to get outraged over it or suggest that we support some framework to deal with it internationally while we still have our own problems here. Furthermore I can just accept that they have a different culture with some aspects that I disagree with. All of this talk ultimately just builds up negative sentiment about a culture in another part of the world that in no way affects our lives and yet we end up twisting ourselves up trying to solve these "problems" that aren't even seen as problems by the people there...not even the mutilated women for the most part who would probably always think of themselves as being "normal" until the western interlopers show up and convince them that they are victims.
I wish Germany and Northern Europe would be able to start up some international bodies to come into the United States and set us straight on a number of things including but not even close to limited to male circumcision.
No they don't because other then you nobody would ever dare to compare the cutting of the foreskin to the cutting of the clitoris.
Can you read?
He said that he was against it, clearly, and he never stated that cutting the foreskin was like FGM. EVER. He just said that male circumsicion at birth was a problem and that it should be looked at since it still happens a lot here, in the NA, because we, sadly, can't do much to stop a cultural practice in another country.
And for a fact, male circumsicion at birth is a problem. Yes, it's not damaging for the health of the boy, but is damaging for the sexual pleasure and therefore should be a choice.
On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice.
Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer.
Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts.
You are wrong on so many levels.
First circumcision in the west has nothing to do with health or sanitary practices.
The foreskin is not "just some layer of skin". There are more nerve endings in the foreskin than in the glans of the penis or in the clitoris. Different nerves provide different sensations and different types of feedback. The foreskin also keeps the glans moist and prevents it from constantly being exposed to air and keeps it from rubbing against clothing all day. It also facilitates sexual intercourse because the penis can "glide" in and out of the foreskin. I wonder how a women would feel if her clitoris was exposed to the outside of her body all day and had to rub against her clothing constantly.
There are no real health benefits acquired by circumcision in a modern country and even if they were I'd still be opposed to forcing it on infants rather than making it an option for adults. Even the studies done which show decreased risk of HIV were done on Africans who do not practice safe sex and who operate in an environment with extremely high rates of HIV and poor sanitation and little access to routine medical care. The potential benefit itself is also very minor and it is completely trumped by the sexual practices of the men. If you are engaging in high risk sex then your risk is going to be "high"... normal penis or circumcised will not make a big difference.
Oh and then there are urinary tract infections. Circumcision reduces the overall risk of a male developing a UTI...the problem with using that as an excuse to circumcise is that females seem to get by in life just fine and even an intact male has a much lower chance of developing UTIs than any female.
And you and I both say FGM serves no purpose but for some people in those cultures it DOES serve a purpose because for them it is NORMAL.
On January 26 2012 04:15 macil222 wrote: As for female circumcision in particular... again I can't be terribly concerned about it while so many young boys are mutilated every day in my own country. Now people will usually respond to this with arguments about the severity or the extent of the mutilation that takes place but I think that is irelevent and that we are in no position to criticize another culture... it just comes down to me not liking when a permanent modification is made to someone's natural body without their consent. Obviously some procedures have to be done when someone is in a hospital and a body part is seriously infected, damaged or broken in some way and cannot be repaired or it would risk the life of the patient.
Female circumcision is way different than male circumcision. When a woman is circumcised, she feels little to no pleasure at all in sex.
That is not true. There are many forms of FGM. The least damaging forms are also very similar to male circumcision. The most severe forms which are also the most rare would obviously inhibit female pleasure but as I said that is not the point.... I am not opposed to it because of the severity I am opposed to it because it is a violation of a person's body. Male circumcision is the same thing, unless there is a medical reason why the foreskin should be removed, such as certain disease conditions, then it is not justified. We do not preemptively amputate organs because they might get diseased, we remove them when they do.
Even tonsils which were thought to serve no purpose only a few years ago were only removed when a person was getting frequent sore throats or had oversized tonils which caused difficulty swallowing. And of course now they are not removed unless there is good cause.
The male foreskin does serve a purpose. I have no problem with an adult male or female having their organs modified, but children should not have these procedures forced upon them.
These debates always turn into this same old male vs female circumcision debate because on one side you have people who look only at the severity of the procedures and then you have people such as myself who are concerned with the general principle.
So as I said I am opposed to fgm but I am not going to get outraged over it or suggest that we support some framework to deal with it internationally while we still have our own problems here. Furthermore I can just accept that they have a different culture with some aspects that I disagree with. All of this talk ultimately just builds up negative sentiment about a culture in another part of the world that in no way affects our lives and yet we end up twisting ourselves up trying to solve these "problems" that aren't even seen as problems by the people there...not even the mutilated women for the most part who would probably always think of themselves as being "normal" until the western interlopers show up and convince them that they are victims.
I wish Germany and Northern Europe would be able to start up some international bodies to come into the United States and set us straight on a number of things including but not even close to limited to male circumcision.
No they don't because other then you nobody would ever dare to compare the cutting of the foreskin to the cutting of the clitoris.
You are gravely uninformed and as result, are doing a great deal of harm.
People that don't understand the subject can come into this thread and read your posts. Then they think to themselves, ooh well, cutting off the foreskin isn't so bad and if the female circumcision is the same in scope then I don't really care.
Stop suggesting that male circumcision and female gential mutilation are in the same ballpark. It's wrong at best and incredibly dishonest at worst.
There are not two groups on this debate. It's just lonely you that thinks these two procedures are more or less the same. I don't know if you were just uninformed or if you are being incredibly dishonest, but you are wrong either way.
On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice.
Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer.
Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts.
Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth.
Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you.
In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT.
In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes.
Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic.
It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that? Why do you need to go on and add the "Yes, but" segment, implying that our outrage at the initial topic is somehow invalid because we're not equally outraged at some other issue?
Male circumcision performed on grown boys is terrible, as is any procedure performed on an unconsenting infant, no one's denying that. To claim that it happens on a comparable basis, or that criticisms of FGM are somehow incorrect or shortsighted because of a lack of concern for another topic is absurd. Ending your posts with a quip about all those women's studies classes, (that I haven't ever taken, for the record), just makes you look like an asshole.
On January 26 2012 06:59 zalz wrote:Stop suggesting that male circumcision and female gential mutilation are in the same ballpark. It's wrong at best and incredibly dishonest at worst.
There are not two groups on this debate. It's just lonely you that thinks these two procedures are more or less the same. I don't know if you were just uninformed or if you are being incredibly dishonest, but you are wrong either way.
"How DARE you compare serfdom with slavery!! Serfdom is NOTHING LIKE slavery! True, the serfs are not fully free, but they are are not OWNED like slaves! I can assure you that I have never whipped MY serfs! For you to compare serfdom with slavery is absurd, vile, and indefensible!"
Do you see why your argument is similar to the above? Just because FGM is worse than male circumcision doesn't mean it's not a major problem. It's still a violation of a child's most basic civil rights: the right to an intact body, and both are done primarily in the name of religion. If you refuse to see the similarity, you are either patently misinformed or simply denying male victimhood.
If all you need to discredit discussion on anything plaguing mankind is a reference to some other negative action happening elsewhere in the world, then we'd might as well give up on any form of online discussion.
On January 26 2012 04:15 macil222 wrote: As for female circumcision in particular... again I can't be terribly concerned about it while so many young boys are mutilated every day in my own country. Now people will usually respond to this with arguments about the severity or the extent of the mutilation that takes place but I think that is irelevent and that we are in no position to criticize another culture... it just comes down to me not liking when a permanent modification is made to someone's natural body without their consent. Obviously some procedures have to be done when someone is in a hospital and a body part is seriously infected, damaged or broken in some way and cannot be repaired or it would risk the life of the patient.
Female circumcision is way different than male circumcision. When a woman is circumcised, she feels little to no pleasure at all in sex.
That is not true. There are many forms of FGM. The least damaging forms are also very similar to male circumcision. The most severe forms which are also the most rare would obviously inhibit female pleasure but as I said that is not the point.... I am not opposed to it because of the severity I am opposed to it because it is a violation of a person's body. Male circumcision is the same thing, unless there is a medical reason why the foreskin should be removed, such as certain disease conditions, then it is not justified. We do not preemptively amputate organs because they might get diseased, we remove them when they do.
Even tonsils which were thought to serve no purpose only a few years ago were only removed when a person was getting frequent sore throats or had oversized tonils which caused difficulty swallowing. And of course now they are not removed unless there is good cause.
The male foreskin does serve a purpose. I have no problem with an adult male or female having their organs modified, but children should not have these procedures forced upon them.
These debates always turn into this same old male vs female circumcision debate because on one side you have people who look only at the severity of the procedures and then you have people such as myself who are concerned with the general principle.
So as I said I am opposed to fgm but I am not going to get outraged over it or suggest that we support some framework to deal with it internationally while we still have our own problems here. Furthermore I can just accept that they have a different culture with some aspects that I disagree with. All of this talk ultimately just builds up negative sentiment about a culture in another part of the world that in no way affects our lives and yet we end up twisting ourselves up trying to solve these "problems" that aren't even seen as problems by the people there...not even the mutilated women for the most part who would probably always think of themselves as being "normal" until the western interlopers show up and convince them that they are victims.
I wish Germany and Northern Europe would be able to start up some international bodies to come into the United States and set us straight on a number of things including but not even close to limited to male circumcision.
No they don't because other then you nobody would ever dare to compare the cutting of the foreskin to the cutting of the clitoris.
Can you read?
He said that he was against it, clearly, and he never stated that cutting the foreskin was like FGM. EVER. He just said that male circumsicion at birth was a problem and that it should be looked at since it still happens a lot here, in the NA, because we, sadly, can't do much to stop a cultural practice in another country.
And for a fact, male circumsicion at birth is a problem. Yes, it's not damaging for the health of the boy, but is damaging for the sexual pleasure and therefore should be a choice.
How is that not sensible?
It's like discussing forest fires when someone walks in and says we should also pay attention to the candle on the table.
By comparing a giant problem to a small problem, you make a dishonest argument.
It happens all the time. If you try to dicuss human rights there is going to be someone that points to some obscure case in the US that went wrong, then he points to Zimbawe where people are tortured by the police on a daily basis and they say "well, both have problems."
First of all, male circumcision isn't even the topic of debate. And second, to bring it up in relation to FGM is to make light, the damage that FGM inflicts.
On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice.
Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer.
Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts.
Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth.
Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you.
In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT.
In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes.
Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic.
It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that?
So should we basically never state our opinion and only flood each topic with "omg! terrible!" without adding anything? It's a forum, it's not a news site. We are here to discuss, nothing else, not just to read and being angry after.
That's just retarded to even say that it's a problem to state a fact that is related to the event. How does-it "belittle" the topic, stating that some other practices like that are happening to men too and should be looked at the same way?
Most women wants to be treated equal, not to be treated as a victim and be treated as a being that need to be protected more than a man. Yes, FGM is terrible. But, male circumsision is terrible too and should be looked at the same way, not being completly ignored because it is happening to women. BOTH SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AND STOPPED!
But sadly, it's a cultural practice and there is little we can do from here to stop it, as terribe as it is.
On January 26 2012 06:59 zalz wrote:Stop suggesting that male circumcision and female gential mutilation are in the same ballpark. It's wrong at best and incredibly dishonest at worst.
There are not two groups on this debate. It's just lonely you that thinks these two procedures are more or less the same. I don't know if you were just uninformed or if you are being incredibly dishonest, but you are wrong either way.
"How DARE you compare serfdom with slavery!! Serfdom is NOTHING LIKE slavery! True, the serfs are not fully free, but they are are not OWNED like slaves! I can assure you that I have never whipped MY serfs! For you to compare serfdom with slavery is absurd, vile, and indefensible!"
Do you see why your argument is similar to the above? Just because FGM is worse than male circumcision doesn't mean it's not a major problem. It's still a violation of a child's most basic civil rights: the right to an intact body, and both are done primarily in the name of religion. If you refuse to see the similarity, you are either patently misinformed or simply denying male victimhood.
This is exactly the kind of post I talk about above.
One one hand you have a forest fire. On the other you have a candle on the table.
"Well, both have fire."
It makes light of heavy subjects by dragging in remote small issues.
On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice.
Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer.
Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts.
Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth.
Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you.
In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT.
In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes.
Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic.
It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that?
So should we basically never state our opinion and only flood each topic with "omg! terrible!" without adding anything? It's a forum, it's not a news site. We are here to discuss, nothing else, not just to read and being angry after.
That's just retarded to even say that it's a problem to state a fact that is related to the event. How does-it "belittle" the topic, stating that some other practices like that are happening to men too and should be looked at the same way?
Most women wants to be treated equal, not to be treated as a victim and be treated as a being that need to be protected more than a man. Yes, FGM is terrible. But, male circumsision is terrible too and should be looked at the same way, not being completly ignored because it is happening to women. BOTH SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AND STOPPED!
But sadly, it's a cultural practice and there is little we can do from here to stop it, as terribe as it is.
They aren't looked at differently because it's men and women...
They are looked at differently because they inflict vastly different scales of damage. One does nothing to either the sex drive or the experience of sex. The other destroys the libido and any enjoyment of sex.
On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice.
Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer.
Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts.
Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth.
Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you.
In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT.
In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes.
Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic.
It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that?
So should we basically never state our opinion and only flood each topic with "omg! terrible!" without adding anything? It's a forum, it's not a news site. We are here to discuss, nothing else, not just to read and being angry after.
That's just retarded to even say that it's a problem to state a fact that is related to the event. How does-it "belittle" the topic, stating that some other practices like that are happening to men too and should be looked at the same way?
Most women wants to be treated equal, not to be treated as a victim and be treated as a being that need to be protected more than a man. Yes, FGM is terrible. But, male circumsision is terrible too and should be looked at the same way, not being completly ignored because it is happening to women. BOTH SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AND STOPPED!
But sadly, it's a cultural practice and there is little we can do from here to stop it, as terribe as it is.
Zzz... Then state your opinion on said topic. If you think it's a bad practice, say so. If you think it has its merits, state that instead.
Coming into any thread discussing something and saying "this discussion is bullshit because we're also not upset at X" does absolutely trivialize the original discussion.
If I think Lost Temple is imbalanced, for reason X or Y, and you come barging in and say "BUT PYTHON IS BROKEN TOO, WHY AREN'T WE DISCUSSING THAT??" you're not adding anything of value to the discussion.
And holy shit, look at some of these recent replies. The OP is about the abuses of women in certain countries, and we have people spouting out "women want to be treated X" and "women demand unfair treatment" and "what about the MENSSS"! posts.
Does no one else see this? *crazypills.gif from zoolander*
On January 26 2012 07:30 zalz wrote:It's like discussing forest fires when someone walks in and says we should also pay attention to the candle on the table.
By comparing a giant problem to a small problem, you make a dishonest argument.
By implying male circumcision is a small problem relative to FGM, you are making a dishonest (or ignorant) argument.
On January 26 2012 07:30 zalz wrote:First of all, male circumcision isn't even the topic of debate. And second, to bring it up in relation to FGM is to make light, the damage that FGM inflicts.
No, it's being brought up by people to point out the hypocrisy and the pedestalization of female victimhood concurrent with the denial of male victimhood.
It's little different from how feminist frequently lobby to fund women's shelters and deny funding for shelters that admit men/teenage boys. If you really care about human rights, you wouldn't ignore the male half of humanity. Or, as suggested my post above, it would be ridiculous to ignore serfdom when opposing slavery in the same country. Opposing both should go hand-in-hand when fighting for human rights.
On January 26 2012 07:32 zalz wrote:It makes light of heavy subjects by dragging in remote small issues.
You missed the point completely then. You are implicitly assuming that male circumcision is a "remote small issue". That's either ignorant or disingenous.
If you can't see why your position is blatantly hypocritical, then you should take some time to put aside your ingrained biases and think about it carefully.
On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice.
Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer.
Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts.
Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth.
Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you.
In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT.
In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes.
Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic.
It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that? Why do you need to go on and add the "Yes, but" segment, implying that our outrage at the initial topic is somehow invalid because we're not equally outraged at some other issue?
Male circumcision performed on grown boys is terrible, no one's denying that. To claim that it happens on a comparable basis, or that criticisms of FGM are somehow incorrect or shortsighted because of a lack of concern for another topic is absurd. Ending your posts with a quip about all those women's studies classes, (that I haven't ever taken, for the record), just makes you look like an asshole.
I am not trivializing anything at all. The truth is that is that focusing on these women's issues when they are part of much larger more encompassing issues trivializes all of the other issues which are ignored. I would argue that those poor men are trivialized every time some speech is given about female circumcision and males are left out even though most of the arguments are exactly the same. I am just sick of stuff becoming an issue only when it hurts women. The FGM issue is something that has been propagandized and pushed by feminist groups for decades and it is the only reason it gets discussed. Just because I say it has been heavily propagandized (it certainly has been) doesn't mean I don't think it is bad..I do.
And lets put it th is way. One of the lowest classifications of female circumcision is the removal of the clitoral hood...this is almost exactly the same thing as male circumcision. If someone in the United States brought their daughter into a doctors office and asked that their her foreskin (oops i mean clitoral hood) be removed not only would the doctor not perform the procedure but they would likely get the state involved to possibly take away the child for fear that the parents would keep looking for a doctor who would perform the operation.
I like to classify things. To me the issues are part of larger, more encompassing class called "unnecessary child genital mutilation". There is no need in my opinion to talk about these issues separetely other than to appeal to people via class/gender warfare tactics.
Nevertheless I don't think we are in a good position to dictate to other cultures which of their practices are barbaric or not
On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice.
Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer.
Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts.
Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth.
Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you.
In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT.
In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes.
Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic.
It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that? Why do you need to go on and add the "Yes, but" segment, implying that our outrage at the initial topic is somehow invalid because we're not equally outraged at some other issue?
Male circumcision performed on grown boys is terrible, no one's denying that. To claim that it happens on a comparable basis, or that criticisms of FGM are somehow incorrect or shortsighted because of a lack of concern for another topic is absurd. Ending your posts with a quip about all those women's studies classes, (that I haven't ever taken, for the record), just makes you look like an asshole.
Nevertheless I don't think we are in a good position to dictate to other cultures which of their practices are barbaric or not
Why not? Surely causing someone pain is not good? And surely we're all members of the human species and shouldn't be so "polite" as to not help our fellow man when they happen to be on a different political border?
On January 26 2012 06:59 zalz wrote:Stop suggesting that male circumcision and female gential mutilation are in the same ballpark. It's wrong at best and incredibly dishonest at worst.
There are not two groups on this debate. It's just lonely you that thinks these two procedures are more or less the same. I don't know if you were just uninformed or if you are being incredibly dishonest, but you are wrong either way.
"How DARE you compare serfdom with slavery!! Serfdom is NOTHING LIKE slavery! True, the serfs are not fully free, but they are are not OWNED like slaves! I can assure you that I have never whipped MY serfs! For you to compare serfdom with slavery is absurd, vile, and indefensible!"
Do you see why your argument is similar to the above? Just because FGM is worse than male circumcision doesn't mean it's not a major problem. It's still a violation of a child's most basic civil rights: the right to an intact body, and both are done primarily in the name of religion. If you refuse to see the similarity, you are either patently misinformed or simply denying male victimhood.
This is exactly the kind of post I talk about above.
One one hand you have a forest fire. On the other you have a candle on the table.
"Well, both have fire."
It makes light of heavy subjects by dragging in remote small issues.
No it is more like on one hand we have a big forest fire and on one hand we have a somewhat smaller forest fire but we will only focus on the big forest fire because we can say it hurts women.
My point is NOT that circumcision of one gender or another isn't a bad thing. You *ARE* trivializing an issue when you instead of commenting on said issue, accuse people of bias or agenda by not commenting on another.
On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice.
Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer.
Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts.
Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth.
Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you.
In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT.
In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes.
Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic.
It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that?
So should we basically never state our opinion and only flood each topic with "omg! terrible!" without adding anything? It's a forum, it's not a news site. We are here to discuss, nothing else, not just to read and being angry after.
That's just retarded to even say that it's a problem to state a fact that is related to the event. How does-it "belittle" the topic, stating that some other practices like that are happening to men too and should be looked at the same way?
Most women wants to be treated equal, not to be treated as a victim and be treated as a being that need to be protected more than a man. Yes, FGM is terrible. But, male circumsision is terrible too and should be looked at the same way, not being completly ignored because it is happening to women. BOTH SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AND STOPPED!
But sadly, it's a cultural practice and there is little we can do from here to stop it, as terribe as it is.
They aren't looked at differently because it's men and women...
They are looked at differently because they inflict vastly different scales of damage. One does nothing to either the sex drive or the experience of sex. The other destroys the libido and any enjoyment of sex.
Forest fire, candle light.
Well, go look at it on the internet a bit, please, before stating bullshit. Removing the foreskin does have an effect on the sex drive and the experience of sex. Pretty much every guys, at least that I know, that got their foreskin cut while being adult, lost a lot. Sex is a lot less fun for them and they miss the feelings that they lost by losing their foreskin. Basically, one of them told me that it was now twice as fun before. Kid that got their foreskin cut at birth don't know it simply because they neved had sex with it.
And not, it's not about "scale of damage". Yes, female circumsicion is worst, i understand that... But the general practice of the circumsision without agreement or medical reason should be looked at, not just the female one, but INCLUDING IT, off course.
So actually, it's more like forest fire and house fire. Yes, one cause more damage, but both should be stopped and looked at. We should not be ignoring one completly just because one is worst. And male circumsision is ignored. That is the point... nothing else. We are not diminishing the impact of the topic, actually, we are adding things to it.
On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice.
Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer.
Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts.
Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth.
Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you.
In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT.
In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes.
Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic.
It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that? Why do you need to go on and add the "Yes, but" segment, implying that our outrage at the initial topic is somehow invalid because we're not equally outraged at some other issue?
Male circumcision performed on grown boys is terrible, no one's denying that. To claim that it happens on a comparable basis, or that criticisms of FGM are somehow incorrect or shortsighted because of a lack of concern for another topic is absurd. Ending your posts with a quip about all those women's studies classes, (that I haven't ever taken, for the record), just makes you look like an asshole.
Nevertheless I don't think we are in a good position to dictate to other cultures which of their practices are barbaric or not
Why not? Surely causing someone pain is not good? And surely we're all members of the human species and shouldn't be so "polite" as to not help our fellow man when they happen to be on a different political border?
But we have our own issues in our own country. Maybe when we stop genital mutilation in the United States... or at least acknowledge what it is then I will be more willing to be concerned about people in their own far away cultures who have their own reasons and motivations for doing things.
On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice.
Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer.
Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts.
Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth.
Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you.
In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT.
In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes.
Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic.
It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that? Why do you need to go on and add the "Yes, but" segment, implying that our outrage at the initial topic is somehow invalid because we're not equally outraged at some other issue?
Male circumcision performed on grown boys is terrible, no one's denying that. To claim that it happens on a comparable basis, or that criticisms of FGM are somehow incorrect or shortsighted because of a lack of concern for another topic is absurd. Ending your posts with a quip about all those women's studies classes, (that I haven't ever taken, for the record), just makes you look like an asshole.
Nevertheless I don't think we are in a good position to dictate to other cultures which of their practices are barbaric or not
Why not? Surely causing someone pain is not good? And surely we're all members of the human species and shouldn't be so "polite" as to not help our fellow man when they happen to be on a different political border?
But we have our own issues in our own country. Maybe when we stop genital mutilation in the United States... or at least acknowledge what it is then I will be more willing to be concerned about people in their own far away cultures who have their own reasons and motivations for doing things.
As I said, political borders shouldn't hinder humanitarian empathy and aid.
On January 25 2012 16:37 cari-kira wrote: religion doesn't matter, it depends on how developed the society is. woman had really bad times in the western world, too, don't forget this.
history didn't start with the wild west. scnr;-)
You failed to mention that women had bad times in the western world too, BECAUSE OF RELIGION.
On January 26 2012 07:42 Haemonculus wrote: My point is NOT that circumcision of one gender or another isn't a bad thing. You *ARE* trivializing an issue when you instead of commenting on said issue, accuse people of bias or agenda by not commenting on another.
If both were happening here in the United States, or even in the West in general then I would comment on both or whichever was the topic at hand but the difference is one is here one is way over there. We have people that are so blind that they will get oturaged about things happening overseas but have no problem with things that they personally do here even though the activities are logically the same, differing only in severity.
It is like people getting outraged over Russia's treatment of Georgia a few years ago while our troops are marching all across the globe.
On January 26 2012 07:38 Haemonculus wrote:The OP is about the abuses of women in certain countries, and we have people spouting out "women want to be treated X" and "women demand unfair treatment" and "what about the MENSSS"! posts.
"Whatabouthtemenz" is a bullshit feminist meme designed to deny the experiences of male victimhood.
The reason male circumcision is being brought up is not to play the oppression Olympics, or to shift the discussion to men's issues. The reason it's brought up is to point out the hypocrisy of fighting for human rights only for visible, pedestalized victims (girls) while ignoring boys.
Any person against slavery should also be against serfdom. While the former is more severe than the latter, fighting against both goes hand-in-hand. The problem here is that plenty of people completely ignore male circumcision and then get offended when someone points out the hypocrisy. It's little different from how feminists get outraged by male-on-female violence and completely ignore female-on-male violence (remember the 14-year-old girls molesting the 11-year-old boys thread, and how feminists didn't give a shit?), but still insist on claiming the mantle of pro-gender equality.
On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice.
Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer.
Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts.
Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth.
Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you.
In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT.
In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes.
Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic.
It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that? Why do you need to go on and add the "Yes, but" segment, implying that our outrage at the initial topic is somehow invalid because we're not equally outraged at some other issue?
Male circumcision performed on grown boys is terrible, no one's denying that. To claim that it happens on a comparable basis, or that criticisms of FGM are somehow incorrect or shortsighted because of a lack of concern for another topic is absurd. Ending your posts with a quip about all those women's studies classes, (that I haven't ever taken, for the record), just makes you look like an asshole.
Nevertheless I don't think we are in a good position to dictate to other cultures which of their practices are barbaric or not
Why not? Surely causing someone pain is not good? And surely we're all members of the human species and shouldn't be so "polite" as to not help our fellow man when they happen to be on a different political border?
But we have our own issues in our own country. Maybe when we stop genital mutilation in the United States... or at least acknowledge what it is then I will be more willing to be concerned about people in their own far away cultures who have their own reasons and motivations for doing things.
As I said, political borders shouldn't hinder humanitarian empathy and aid.
No, it should not, we probably all agree on that, but sadly, going in a country and trying to change their belief can never go right. I think there is a lot of examples of that.
On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice.
Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer.
Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts.
Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth.
Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you.
In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT.
In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes.
Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic.
It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that? Why do you need to go on and add the "Yes, but" segment, implying that our outrage at the initial topic is somehow invalid because we're not equally outraged at some other issue?
Male circumcision performed on grown boys is terrible, no one's denying that. To claim that it happens on a comparable basis, or that criticisms of FGM are somehow incorrect or shortsighted because of a lack of concern for another topic is absurd. Ending your posts with a quip about all those women's studies classes, (that I haven't ever taken, for the record), just makes you look like an asshole.
Nevertheless I don't think we are in a good position to dictate to other cultures which of their practices are barbaric or not
Why not? Surely causing someone pain is not good? And surely we're all members of the human species and shouldn't be so "polite" as to not help our fellow man when they happen to be on a different political border?
But we have our own issues in our own country. Maybe when we stop genital mutilation in the United States... or at least acknowledge what it is then I will be more willing to be concerned about people in their own far away cultures who have their own reasons and motivations for doing things.
Well, if we realize that the common factor in both situations (male and female circumcision) is the twisted influence that religion has in culture then we are pretty clear of what we are supposed to do, here and abroad.
On January 26 2012 07:42 Haemonculus wrote:My point is NOT that circumcision of one gender or another isn't a bad thing. You *ARE* trivializing an issue when you instead of commenting on said issue, accuse people of bias or agenda by not commenting on another.
And you trivialize the issue of male circumcision when you routinely ignore it, and then consider it derailing when it's brought up. Maybe if the UN made an effort to fight male circumcision, then people wouldn't feel the need to bring it up when they fight against FGM?
Let's say the UN fought against cancer and ignored heart disease; don't you think people would eventually bring up heart disease when the UN makes yet another move to fight cancer?
How about we fight against both FGM and male circumcision at the same time and trivialize neither?
On January 25 2012 17:47 Crisium wrote: It is important to consider that things weren't so great for Women in Christian and Eastern societies in the past. Including the not-so-recent past (1960s James Bond "In Japan, men come first" quote). Perhaps not as bad as Islamic extremism, but it still cannot be ignored. This is more of the culture being centuries behind the times than really something that can be blamed on Islam. Women being secondary in society is nothing new to the world, just that some parts of the world are far behind and these places are using Islam as an excuse.
Japan isn't the west, if he says, "the men come first here" he implies that in the west they don't Also implying they may or may not come first is quite different that brutally striking someone on the back with a whip or stick.
On January 26 2012 07:42 Haemonculus wrote:My point is NOT that circumcision of one gender or another isn't a bad thing. You *ARE* trivializing an issue when you instead of commenting on said issue, accuse people of bias or agenda by not commenting on another.
And you trivialize the issue of male circumcision when you routinely ignore it, and then consider it derailing when it's brought up.
How about we fight against both at the same time and trivialize neither?
Words of wisdom there. Both, male and female mutilation of genitalia, are religious-induced savage practices that should be eradicated from modern societies. None in his own mind would mutilate his own child's genitalia if absurd religious beliefs weren't in the equation.
The WHO has offered four classifications of FGM. The main three are Type I, removal of the clitoral hood, almost invariably accompanied by removal of the clitoris itself (clitoridectomy); Type II, removal of the clitoris and inner labia; and Type III (infibulation), removal of all or part of the inner and outer labia, and usually the clitoris, and the fusion of the wound, leaving a small hole for the passage of urine and menstrual blood—the fused wound is opened for intercourse and childbirth.[3] Around 85 percent of women who undergo FGM experience Types I and II, and 15 percent Type III, though Type III is the most common procedure in several countries, including Sudan, Somalia, and Djibouti.[4] Several miscellaneous acts are categorized as Type IV. These range from a symbolic pricking or piercing of the clitoris or labia, to cauterization of the clitoris, cutting into the vagina to widen it (gishiri cutting), and introducing corrosive substances to tighten it.
What... the fuck..... even Type 1 and 2 remove the clitoris?
God it is times like this that I really appreciate being born into a country where people aren't throwing acid into women's faces or doing shit like that. Thank fucking god all I worried about as a kid was my parents beating me a little if I fucked up in school.
This is way more fucked up than the other "horrible news" like gangbangers getting shot and daughters getting locked in toilets. This is an entire community that actively support this kind of shit.
Thats islam. Or at least traditions that are followed in muslim countrys. Islam really is a giant turd inside a sandwich. Pretending to be good, but whenever someone says something bad about it, they just go and kill that person. At least thats what the holy books from islam tell people to do.
On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: [quote] Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer.
Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts.
Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth.
Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you.
In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT.
In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes.
Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic.
It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that? Why do you need to go on and add the "Yes, but" segment, implying that our outrage at the initial topic is somehow invalid because we're not equally outraged at some other issue?
Male circumcision performed on grown boys is terrible, no one's denying that. To claim that it happens on a comparable basis, or that criticisms of FGM are somehow incorrect or shortsighted because of a lack of concern for another topic is absurd. Ending your posts with a quip about all those women's studies classes, (that I haven't ever taken, for the record), just makes you look like an asshole.
Nevertheless I don't think we are in a good position to dictate to other cultures which of their practices are barbaric or not
Why not? Surely causing someone pain is not good? And surely we're all members of the human species and shouldn't be so "polite" as to not help our fellow man when they happen to be on a different political border?
But we have our own issues in our own country. Maybe when we stop genital mutilation in the United States... or at least acknowledge what it is then I will be more willing to be concerned about people in their own far away cultures who have their own reasons and motivations for doing things.
As I said, political borders shouldn't hinder humanitarian empathy and aid.
No, it should not, we probably all agree on that, but sadly, going in a country and trying to change their belief can never go right. I think there is a lot of examples of that.
I guess I'm just a dreamer then. Is it really impossible to stop humanitarian nightmares in the world? I know the enforcers of said nightmares would fight us, and people stuck on the fence might be rallied to their cause, but do those factors make it an ignoble or worthless cause?
On January 26 2012 08:00 Roe wrote:I guess I'm just a dreamer then. Is it really impossible to stop humanitarian nightmares in the world? I know the enforcers of said nightmares would fight us, and people stuck on the fence might be rallied to their cause, but do those factors make it an ignoble or worthless cause?
It's a noble cause we should fight for, but we need to do it carefully to avoid backlash.
You always need to be careful in criticizing people's religious/cultural beliefs, however backward, or else people may dig in deeper due to cognitive dissonance. This is true whether you're criticizing FGM, creationism, or Scientology.
On January 26 2012 07:42 Haemonculus wrote:My point is NOT that circumcision of one gender or another isn't a bad thing. You *ARE* trivializing an issue when you instead of commenting on said issue, accuse people of bias or agenda by not commenting on another.
And you trivialize the issue of male circumcision when you routinely ignore it, and then consider it derailing when it's brought up. Maybe if the UN made an effort to fight male circumcision, then people wouldn't feel the need to bring it up when they fight against FGM? If the UN fought against cancer and ignored heart disease, don't you think people would eventually bring up heart disease when cancer is brought up?
How about we fight against both FGM and male circumcision at the same time and trivialize neither?
Whhhatt the fuck. We're in a thread about FGM, and corporal punishment for marital affairs. No one is trivializing male circumcision because it's not part of the original thread.
To boot, I'm not ignoring it. If you're willing to dig through my post history you'll find I've written plenty against male circumcision in the past as well. It's irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.
And you *are* pulling the "what about the mens" crap. Dismissing it as "bullshit feminist memes" doesn't change that. You're coming into a thread about issues facing women in parts of the developing world, and dismissing entire discussion on the topic on the basis that men are treated unfairly in entire other parts of the world. It does not make your argument valid, nor does it invalidate the original discussion.
As a terran player, I think dark swam is some serious bullshit and way too powerful vs an all-ranged army. If protoss players come into the thread and start whining about spider mines being too strong vs dragoons, and demanding discussion on that instead, it completely derails the original topic, and yes, it DOES trivialize the bullshit that is defilers. All of a sudden there's outrage over vultures, and people trying to discuss zerg OP tier3 shit are being harassed about not mentioning a terran unit.
On January 26 2012 08:05 Haemonculus wrote:To boot, I'm not ignoring it. If you're willing to dig through my post history you'll find I've written plenty against male circumcision in the past as well. It's irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.
I was using "you" in the impersonal sense, referring to the UN's practices, rather than you specifically. The UN does nothing to fight against male circumcision; therefore, it is relevant to criticize the UN's position as a human rights organization when it ignores half the human popoulation.
It would be preferable if the UN devoted resources to fight both FGM and male circumcision, rather than focus only on the designated victims. That's the point that some of us are trying to make in this thread, even if some of us are doing so poorly.
On January 26 2012 08:05 Haemonculus wrote:As a terran player, I think dark swam is some serious bullshit and way too powerful vs an all-ranged army. If protoss players come into the thread and start whining about spider mines being too strong vs dragoons, and demanding discussion on that instead, it completely derails the original topic, and yes, it DOES trivialize the bullshit that is defilers. All of a sudden there's outrage over vultures, and people trying to discuss zerg OP tier3 shit are being harassed about not mentioning a terran unit.
That's a poor analogy. A better comparison would be Terran players complaining about dark swarm, and Zerg players coming in to complain about irradiate. The correct response would be to acknowledge that dark swarm and irradiate are both overpowered, and to understand how they are related. Insisting the irradiate is irrelevant to the discussion would mean that you are not actually "pro-game balance" but merely "pro-Terran".
On January 26 2012 08:05 Haemonculus wrote:To boot, I'm not ignoring it. If you're willing to dig through my post history you'll find I've written plenty against male circumcision in the past as well. It's irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.
I was using "you" in the impersonal sense, referring to the UN's practices, rather than you specifically. The UN does nothing to fight against male circumcision; therefore, it is relevant to criticize the UN's position as a human rights organization when it ignores half the human popoulation.
It would be preferable if the UN devoted resources to fight both FGM and male circumcision, rather than focus only on the designated victims. That's the point that some of us are trying to make in this thread, even if some of us are doing so poorly.
On January 26 2012 08:05 Haemonculus wrote:As a terran player, I think dark swam is some serious bullshit and way too powerful vs an all-ranged army. If protoss players come into the thread and start whining about spider mines being too strong vs dragoons, and demanding discussion on that instead, it completely derails the original topic, and yes, it DOES trivialize the bullshit that is defilers. All of a sudden there's outrage over vultures, and people trying to discuss zerg OP tier3 shit are being harassed about not mentioning a terran unit.
That's a poor analogy. A better comparison would be Terran players complaining about dark swarm, and Zerg players coming in to complain about irradiate. The correct response would be to acknowledge that dark swarm and irradiate are both overpowered, and to understand how they are related. Insisting the irradiate is irrelevant to the discussion would mean that you are not actually "pro-game balance" but merely "pro-Terran".
Alright, SC analogies don't entirely work.
Regardless, you've completely co-opted the original discussion. We went from an OP about women losing rights in one part of the world, being unfairly punished for having affairs, and FGM in general, to all of a sudden talking about how unfair it is that male circumcision isn't being lambasted by the UN.
Do you not see how you've invalidated the original topic? Trivialized the plights these women are experiencing? Instead proposed that these men's issues are more important? You have absolutely hijacked the original subject on the basis that your issue, which you feel is under-criticized, is more important, and in doing so completely taken away focus from the fact that these women in that country are being beaten and mutilated.
On January 26 2012 07:42 Haemonculus wrote:My point is NOT that circumcision of one gender or another isn't a bad thing. You *ARE* trivializing an issue when you instead of commenting on said issue, accuse people of bias or agenda by not commenting on another.
And you trivialize the issue of male circumcision when you routinely ignore it, and then consider it derailing when it's brought up. Maybe if the UN made an effort to fight male circumcision, then people wouldn't feel the need to bring it up when they fight against FGM?
Let's say the UN fought against cancer and ignored heart disease; don't you think people would eventually bring up heart disease when the UN makes yet another move to fight cancer?
How about we fight against both FGM and male circumcision at the same time and trivialize neither?
Male and female circumcision are not analogous. If you can't see that than you are not an objective thinker and there is no point in trying to convince you otherwise, so I'll simply assume you're misinformed and implore you to research what female circumcision is.
On January 26 2012 08:27 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Male and female circumcision are not analogous. If you can't see that than you are not an objective thinker and there is no point in trying to convince you otherwise, so I'll simply assume you're misinformed and implore you to research what female circumcision is.
I'm very well aware of what FGM is, and that's why I call it FGM rather than female circumcision as you did.
Like most people in Western countries, you have strong biases regarding male circumcision. You need to do some research on male circumcision before throwing your assumptions all over the place.
On January 26 2012 08:24 Haemonculus wrote:Regardless, you've completely co-opted the original discussion. We went from an OP about women losing rights in one part of the world, being unfairly punished for having affairs, and FGM in general, to all of a sudden talking about how unfair it is that male circumcision isn't being lambasted by the UN.
The discussion was co-opted because people refused to acknowledge the problem of male circumcision. If it was accepted that male circumcision is also a problem, and that the UN should be fighting against it too, then we wouldn't have had pages of debate on it.
On January 26 2012 08:24 Haemonculus wrote:Do you not see how you've invalidated the original topic? Trivialized the plights these women are experiencing? Instead proposed that these men's issues are more important? You have absolutely hijacked the original subject on the basis that your issue, which you feel is under-criticized, is more important, and in doing so completely taken away focus from the fact that these women in that country are being beaten and mutilated.
No one articulate has proposed that male circumcision is more important. I will unequivocally state that FGM is really fucking awful and arguably significantly worse than male circumcision. But that doesn't mean that male circumcision isn't worth talking about, especially when the UN (nor the rest of Western society, including people who are ostensibly egalitarian human rights activists) isn't doing it.
The panic over "taking focus away from the wimmenz" is a terribad concept propogated by feminism, and it's crap. It's the reason why otherwise well-meaning feminists minimize the existence of male victims (particularly of domestic violence and rape), in order to ensure that women continue to recieve attention/funding from the public.
Talking about how awful heart disease is doesn't make people care less about cancer, and if you really care about people's health, you should speak up about both when one of them doesn't garner any public discourse. Same applies here.
To be fair to the people that reacted with hostility to the original insertion (teehee) of male circumcision into this topic, the guy who introduced it did so by way of the claim that he didn't care about FGM because (a) we have no way of knowing whether it's right or wrong and (b) because there is male circumcision in our own culture, and it's bad too. I suspect a post like yours, where you go through some of the more horrific elements of male circumcision, and the practices that surround it, would be responded to with substantially less vitriol. Instead, we got a guy that did the one-two cultural-relativism-into-we're-evil-too transition, which isn't the best for currying favour.
On January 26 2012 08:27 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Male and female circumcision are not analogous. If you can't see that than you are not an objective thinker and there is no point in trying to convince you otherwise, so I'll simply assume you're misinformed and implore you to research what female circumcision is.
I'm very well aware of what FGM is, and that's why I call it FGM rather than female circumcision.
Like most people in Western countries, you have strong biases regarding male circumcision. You need to do some research on male circumcision before throwing your assumptions all over the place.
Untrue, I wish I hadn't been circumcised. It simply isn't comparable. On one hand a bit of skin is cut, and there is actually a fair amount of evidence that it reduces std's. On the other there are males that have an irrational and disturbingly obsessive concern with becoming a cuckhold. So they simply agree to cut off the genitalia of all women to eliminate their sex drive and fuse their vagina together, cutting it open again when they are ready to use their sex doll/baby vessel. HOW IN THE FUCK DOES THAT COMPARE? You are the one with the bias. A bias to give preferential treatment to a culture other than your own. Such bias stems from a sense of superiority to said culture. Your sense of superiority enables you to treat them as if they we're ignorant children. The concept of ethnocentrism was an important development so that anthropologists would take care to view things objectively. Some people missed the point and embraced bias for the "other side", because they actually see sides for some twisted reason. You are one of them.
Edit: Castration compares to FGM. Male circumcision does not.
On January 26 2012 08:24 Haemonculus wrote:Regardless, you've completely co-opted the original discussion. We went from an OP about women losing rights in one part of the world, being unfairly punished for having affairs, and FGM in general, to all of a sudden talking about how unfair it is that male circumcision isn't being lambasted by the UN.
The discussion was co-opted because people refused to acknowledge the problem of male circumcision. If it was accepted that male circumcision is also a problem, and that the UN should be fighting against it too, then we wouldn't have had pages of debate on it.
And you seriously see nothing wrong with your thought process on that?
On January 26 2012 08:24 Haemonculus wrote:Do you not see how you've invalidated the original topic? Trivialized the plights these women are experiencing? Instead proposed that these men's issues are more important? You have absolutely hijacked the original subject on the basis that your issue, which you feel is under-criticized, is more important, and in doing so completely taken away focus from the fact that these women in that country are being beaten and mutilated.
No one articulate has proposed that male circumcision is more important. I will unequivocally state that FGM is really fucking awful and arguably significantly worse than male circumcision. But that doesn't mean that male circumcision isn't worth talking about, especially when the UN (nor the rest of Western society, including people who are ostensibly egalitarian human rights activists) isn't doing it.
The panic over "taking focus away from the wimmenz" is a terribad concept propogated by feminism, and it's crap. It's the reason why otherwise well-meaning feminists minimize the existence of male victims (particularly of domestic violence and rape), in order to ensure that women continue to recieve attention/funding from the public.
Talking about how awful heart disease is doesn't make people care less about cancer, and if you really care about people's health, you should speak up about both when one of them doesn't garner any public discourse. Same applies here.
Talking about how awful heart disease is doesn't make people care less about cancer. Granted.
Going to an ACS meeting and screaming about heart disease and criticizing anyone speaking about cancer at a CANCER MEETING on the basis that they aren't acknowledging how terrible heart disease is, is quite a different story. You *are* giving the impression that their issues are somehow not important, and you are absolutely hijacking their discussion and undermining the importance of the original issue.
Again, if bringing up another issue is all that's needed to invalidate discussion any subject, then why bother discussing anything in the first place? Japanese whalers invading Australian waters? POACHERS IN AFRICA ARE KILLING ELEPHANTS YOU HEARTLESS TWAT. Corrupt politicians getting away with bribery? BUT IN COUNTRY X THEY AREN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO EXPRESS POLITICAL DISSENT! Etc etc.
Seriously, listen to yourself. "I'm going to constantly interrupt your discussion until someone validates my opinion that issue X is just as bad!!!" How is that *not* suggesting that one is more important than the other?
On January 26 2012 02:55 Scootaloo wrote: It's pretty clear all the Islamic defenders did not bother to actually read the Qu'ran.
It is a simple FACT that Islam is a very volatile religion, the Qu'ran is full of crap, it literally says jews should be killed, women are stupid and will make up most of hell and that a womans word can not be trusted because they are liars. Some other gems are that Muslims can not be friends with non musilms, your in a permanent state of war with ALL non believers, that cats and dogs should be massacred because they are unclean and ofcourse the 40 virgins thing (this has been found to be likely a mistranslation of the Assyrian word for grape vines, despite that most muslims still believe it though) a lot of other stuff I can't remember right now, suffice to say the Qu'ran is the most agressive religious book I've ever read. And of course there's all the wonderful stuff in the Hadiths about Muhammad having sex with a 9 year old.
Most Islamic apologists won't tell you this because they WANT their religion to be peaceful because they are, but because they've already been indoctrinated by this flavor of religion as a child they rather lie to themselves then accept the truth and either rewrite their own religion or choose another one.
Muslims can be wonderful people, the religion however will always be barbaric and the peacefulness of the people is often dictated by how seriously they take their own religion. A good example is Thailand, there in the Buddhist part everything is peaceful while the Muslim part is a clusterfuck of violence and religious murders.
And to the "but westerners abused women too" crowd, true, but not even close to the levels being portrayed in the Muslim communities, we might have all beaten our women but at least we didn't mutilate their vagina's because we thought god told us to.
Brave. Hit the jackpot. Aren't you afraid of being labeled a Islamophobic ^__^?
Anyway we'll see in 30 years how Islam has evolved. Perhaps muslims will become materially wealthy and just throw Allah out the window. I've seen many-a muslim quit going to prayers while they study in Australia. Maybe we shouldn't be that wary of Muslims and their extremist tendencies. Just make them richer - maybe that will kill off the extremism? Guess Malaysia / Brunei don't produce as many terrorists as Pakistan.
And gentile Christians follow the law of liberty: Love God, Love Mankind. A REAL Christian lives prayerfully, lovingly, joyfully and generously. Real Christians have a lot of sex with their spouses :D (Gen1:28, 1 Cor 7). This means REAL Christians don't mutilate female genitals thank you very much. And REAL christians confess their sin and make restitution. So I will now apologise for my brethren and forefathers of the era between 250AD~1960, who have in many ways, not honoured God's word in "In His image He created them. Man and woman He created them." Peace from our Father to all of you TL netizens
Can we please talk about about something else other than circumcision? I've never even actually heard about it discussed as a "men's rights" issue. Maybe an infant's rights issue or a religion issue.
FGM on the other hand is always considered a women's rights issue and that's why it is something being discussed in the OP.
But I think most people agree that we should be promoting gender equality globally, so maybe people are just moving on to more controversial discussion for fun? It hopefully will go hand in hand with LGBT rights as well.
And gentile Christians follow the law of liberty: Love God, Love Mankind. A REAL Christian lives prayerfully, lovingly, joyfully and generously. Real Christians have a lot of sex with their spouses :D (Gen1:28, 1 Cor 7). This means REAL Christians don't mutilate female genitals thank you very much. And REAL christians confess their sin and make restitution. So I will now apologise for my brethren and forefathers of the era between 250AD~1960, who have in many ways, not honoured God's word in "In His image He created them. Man and woman He created them." Peace from our Father to all of you TL netizens
Christianity has been plenty harmful to women's rights over the centuries. Don't think for a moment that it doesn't have similar blood on its hands.
On January 26 2012 08:39 sunprince wrote: The discussion was co-opted because people refused to acknowledge the problem of male circumcision. If it was accepted that male circumcision is also a problem, and that the UN should be fighting against it too, then we wouldn't have had pages of debate on it.
And you seriously see nothing wrong with your thought process on that?
Perhaps I was unclear. Let me fix my sentence for clarity: If it was accepted in this thread that male circumcision is also a problem, and that the UN should be fighting against it too, then we wouldn't have had pages of debate on it.
On January 26 2012 08:49 Haemonculus wrote:Going to an ACS meeting and screaming about heart disease and criticizing anyone speaking about cancer at a CANCER MEETING on the basis that they aren't acknowledging how terrible heart disease is, is quite a different story. You *are* giving the impression that their issues are somehow not important, and you are absolutely hijacking their discussion and undermining the importance of the original issue.
In case you've forgotten, this isn't a FGM meeting. It's a thread about a news article. One of feminism's negative impacts on public discourse is a bizarre tendency to instantly shut out discussion when designated victims are the topic, in order to ensure that the focus stays on the designated victims.
There's lots of side discussions on related issues whenever we have a news topic post, but for some reason, the only ones minimized by otherwise intelligent and articulate posters such as yourself are those that threaten the classic feminist construction of victimhood (ironically, when people talk about men's issues, people are quick to jump in and insist on how women have it worse).
On January 26 2012 08:49 Haemonculus wrote:Again, if bringing up another issue is all that's needed to invalidate discussion any subject, then why bother discussing anything in the first place? Japanese whalers invading Australian waters? POACHERS IN AFRICA ARE KILLING ELEPHANTS YOU HEARTLESS TWAT. Corrupt politicians getting away with bribery? BUT IN COUNTRY X THEY AREN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO EXPRESS POLITICAL DISSENT! Etc etc.
You're missing the point, which is that male circumcision is intrinsically related to the subject of FGM, especially since cultures that practice FGM also practice male circumcision. The idea is that while we're educating people to stop FGM we might as well work against male circumcision in the same breath, yet we don't because the latter is nearly universally accepted by Western societies.
Seriously, though, as long as you're spreading the message to third-world citizens that FGM is wrong, it's not hard to simply oppose all forms of bodily integrity violation, but the UN chooses not to do so due to potential opposition.
The discussion was co-opted because people refused to acknowledge the problem of male circumcision. If it was accepted that male circumcision is also a problem, and that the UN should be fighting against it too, then we wouldn't have had pages of debate on it.
If I've mis-characterized it as anything but "I'm going to interrupt until someone agrees that my issue is bad too", then so be it.
In regards to which victims are more deserving of our concern, again the OP is about a particular group of women in a particular country losing rights, being physically beaten, and undergoing FGM. You then bring up another set of victims, (suffering from human rights abuses that you freely admit are less pressing), and detract attention from the original topic. If pointing this out is merely clinging to "feminist constructs", then we probably have very little more to say to each other.
On January 26 2012 08:48 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Untrue, I wish I hadn't been circumcised. It simply isn't comparable. On one hand a bit of skin is cut, and there is actually a fair amount of evidence that it reduces std's. On the other there are males that have an irrational and disturbingly obsessive concern with becoming a cuckhold. So they simply agree to cut off the genitalia of all women to eliminate their sex drive and fuse their vagina together, cutting it open again when they are ready to use their sex doll/baby vessel. HOW IN THE FUCK DOES THAT COMPARE?
Both are violations of the fundamental human right to bodily integrity, specifically gential integrity. Both are traumatic events with unknown consequences. Both are performed under inhumane and unsanitary conditions in third world nations for little justification besides religious/cultural traditions.
There's actually very little research on the "benefits" of male circumcision, and if the FDA looked at the limited studies done to date, they would classify it as an untested procedure with unknown benefits/drawbacks (yes, there's some evidence for HIV reduction, but it's so limited that it's not advocated by most organizations, including the CDC). It's a suspiciously ex post facto justification for a religious practice that is thousands of years old (note that circumcision was once similarly promoted for its benefits in preventing masturbation". There's a reason why no professional medical associate in the world recommends routine infant circumcision.
On top of that, there's growing evidence that there are severe harms caused by male circumcision. Aside from the potential risks of surgery, it's increasingly apparent that circumcision as a traumatic surgery on infants (especially when performed religiously by rabbis etc. rather than medical professionals) has psychological consequences. It's been noted, for example, that the male/female ratio of autism in 1st world nations with routine infant circumcision is 4 to 1 compared to the 2.3 to 1 ratio in 1st world nations that without.
The discussion was co-opted because people refused to acknowledge the problem of male circumcision. If it was accepted that male circumcision is also a problem, and that the UN should be fighting against it too, then we wouldn't have had pages of debate on it.
If I've mis-characterized it as anything but "I'm going to interrupt until someone agrees that my issue is bad too", then so be it.
I agree that my line was unclear, hence my correction in my previous post responding to you.
On January 26 2012 09:26 Haemonculus wrote:In regards to which victims are more deserving of our concern, again the OP is about a particular group of women in a particular country losing rights, being physically beaten, and undergoing FGM. You then bring up another set of victims, (suffering from human rights abuses that you freely admit are less pressing), and detract attention from the original topic.
I'm not sure why you insist on playing the oppression Olympics and discussion who is "more deserving of our concern". The answer is both deserve our concern.
The idea is that the UN can easily and should oppose male circumcision at the same time while opposing FGM. When you send out people to educate third world inhabitants about why FGM is wrong, it's pretty easy to include a message about why male circumcision (and any other sort of bodily mutilation) is wrong.
You seem to be insisting on a zero-sum game when there is none.
It's got nothing to do with oppression olympics. My point originally was to point out how counter productive it is to derail threads with other topics and to bicker about which is more important. When you come into a thread with "yes, but", you *do* trivialize the original topic. This principle can be applied to anything.
On January 26 2012 08:48 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Untrue, I wish I hadn't been circumcised. It simply isn't comparable. On one hand a bit of skin is cut, and there is actually a fair amount of evidence that it reduces std's. On the other there are males that have an irrational and disturbingly obsessive concern with becoming a cuckhold. So they simply agree to cut off the genitalia of all women to eliminate their sex drive and fuse their vagina together, cutting it open again when they are ready to use their sex doll/baby vessel. HOW IN THE FUCK DOES THAT COMPARE?
Both are violations of the fundamental human right to bodily integrity, specifically gential integrity. Both are traumatic events with unknown consequences. Both are performed under inhumane and unsanitary conditions in third world nations for little justification besides religious/cultural traditions.
There's actually very little research on the "benefits" of male circumcision, and if the FDA looked at the limited studies done to date, they would classify it as an untested procedure with unknown benefits/drawbacks (yes, there's some evidence for HIV reduction, but it's so limited that it's not advocated by most organizations, including the CDC). It's a suspiciously ex post facto justification for a religious practice that is thousands of years old (note that circumcision was once similarly promoted for its benefits in preventing masturbation". There's a reason why no professional medical associate in the world recommends routine infant circumcision.
On top of that, there's growing evidence that there are severe harms caused by male circumcision. Aside from the potential risks of surgery, it's increasingly apparent that circumcision as a traumatic surgery on infants (especially when performed religiously by rabbis etc. rather than medical professionals) has psychological consequences. It's been noted, for example, that the male/female ratio of autism in 1st world nations with routine infant circumcision is 4 to 1 compared to the 2.3 to 1 ratio in 1st world nations that without.
Do you know of any cultures that have a form of male circumcision that involves cutting off the entire penis, fusing the resulting hole shut, and then forcing some sort of painful seminal extraction technique when they're expected to fulfill their life function of producing a child, all simply because the women are deathly afraid of being cheated on?
screw it, i had a post but i decided its best not to get involved with religious people. they just dont attempt to listen or understand others points of view.
On January 26 2012 08:48 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Untrue, I wish I hadn't been circumcised. It simply isn't comparable. On one hand a bit of skin is cut, and there is actually a fair amount of evidence that it reduces std's. On the other there are males that have an irrational and disturbingly obsessive concern with becoming a cuckhold. So they simply agree to cut off the genitalia of all women to eliminate their sex drive and fuse their vagina together, cutting it open again when they are ready to use their sex doll/baby vessel. HOW IN THE FUCK DOES THAT COMPARE?
Both are violations of the fundamental human right to bodily integrity, specifically gential integrity. Both are traumatic events with unknown consequences. Both are performed under inhumane and unsanitary conditions in third world nations for little justification besides religious/cultural traditions.
There's actually very little research on the "benefits" of male circumcision, and if the FDA looked at the limited studies done to date, they would classify it as an untested procedure with unknown benefits/drawbacks (yes, there's some evidence for HIV reduction, but it's so limited that it's not advocated by most organizations, including the CDC). It's a suspiciously ex post facto justification for a religious practice that is thousands of years old (note that circumcision was once similarly promoted for its benefits in preventing masturbation". There's a reason why no professional medical associate in the world recommends routine infant circumcision.
On top of that, there's growing evidence that there are severe harms caused by male circumcision. Aside from the potential risks of surgery, it's increasingly apparent that circumcision as a traumatic surgery on infants (especially when performed religiously by rabbis etc. rather than medical professionals) has psychological consequences. It's been noted, for example, that the male/female ratio of autism in 1st world nations with routine infant circumcision is 4 to 1 compared to the 2.3 to 1 ratio in 1st world nations that without.
Do you know of any cultures that have a form of male circumcision that involves cutting off the entire penis, fusing the resulting hole shut, and then forcing some sort of painful seminal extraction technique when they're expected to fulfill their life function of producing a child, all simply because the women are deathly afraid of being cheated on?
Let's start with what's common... I know of two religions which mandate genitalia mutilation in infants... the consequences of it are pretty much secondary to the main point of the discussion which is that religions make regular people behave like sadist butchers.
On January 26 2012 08:48 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Untrue, I wish I hadn't been circumcised. It simply isn't comparable. On one hand a bit of skin is cut, and there is actually a fair amount of evidence that it reduces std's. On the other there are males that have an irrational and disturbingly obsessive concern with becoming a cuckhold. So they simply agree to cut off the genitalia of all women to eliminate their sex drive and fuse their vagina together, cutting it open again when they are ready to use their sex doll/baby vessel. HOW IN THE FUCK DOES THAT COMPARE?
Both are violations of the fundamental human right to bodily integrity, specifically gential integrity. Both are traumatic events with unknown consequences. Both are performed under inhumane and unsanitary conditions in third world nations for little justification besides religious/cultural traditions.
There's actually very little research on the "benefits" of male circumcision, and if the FDA looked at the limited studies done to date, they would classify it as an untested procedure with unknown benefits/drawbacks (yes, there's some evidence for HIV reduction, but it's so limited that it's not advocated by most organizations, including the CDC). It's a suspiciously ex post facto justification for a religious practice that is thousands of years old (note that circumcision was once similarly promoted for its benefits in preventing masturbation". There's a reason why no professional medical associate in the world recommends routine infant circumcision.
On top of that, there's growing evidence that there are severe harms caused by male circumcision. Aside from the potential risks of surgery, it's increasingly apparent that circumcision as a traumatic surgery on infants (especially when performed religiously by rabbis etc. rather than medical professionals) has psychological consequences. It's been noted, for example, that the male/female ratio of autism in 1st world nations with routine infant circumcision is 4 to 1 compared to the 2.3 to 1 ratio in 1st world nations that without.
Do you know of any cultures that have a form of male circumcision that involves cutting off the entire penis, fusing the resulting hole shut, and then forcing some sort of painful seminal extraction technique when they're expected to fulfill their life function of producing a child, all simply because the women are deathly afraid of being cheated on?
Let's start with what's common... I know of two religions which mandate genitalia mutilation in infants... the consequences of it are pretty much secondary to the main point of the discussion which is that religions make regular people behave like sadist butchers.
On January 26 2012 05:41 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:
On January 26 2012 02:50 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Ive heard of female circumcision before, but never really had the time to think about it.
But thinking of it now, God isnt it like VERY VERY painful? Words fail.
At least on men its only the foreskin (I am circumcised as an infant), but in women, its like the very organ. Awful practice.
Removal of foreskin is actually advantageous for health reasons, especially penile cancer.
Female circumcision is just fucked up and serves no purpose, and it does remove like body parts rather than some layer of skin. Just fucking sick. Dismemberment is always disgusting. Unfortunately, humans aren't like starfish and can regenerate lost body parts.
Multiple studies have shown that removal of the foreskin have no effect on health in modern society. It is more clean only if you live in the desert and don't shower less than once per year, which was the norm for when the practice was invented. Actually, the health risks of removing foreskin far outweigh any stochastic reduction in risk that you are assuming to be true with no medical studies to back it up. This is especially the case with religiously proper ways of doing the circumcision, such as the Jewish way that calls for the rabbi to remove the skin with the use of his mouth.
Both of them are pretty disgusting practices to be doing to an infant child. If you want to alter your body, your free to do it, but no one should be able to choose for you.
In female "circumcision", it's not done at birth. It's done after her first period. They *cut your clitoris out of your body*, sometimes remove parts of the labia, and often SEW YOU SHUT.
In the same countries where they perform female genital mutilation at puberty, they also perform male circumcision at puberty. In some countries young men get their foreskin cut off with unsanity "knives" (if you can even call them knives) with no anisthetics and no food or water for several days while they have to sit in solitary confinement while it heals...if it gets infected, gangrene, painful, scarrings...too bad, many men die as a result of this barbaric procedure. It is too bad you will never hear about it in your women's studies classes.
Answers like this don't help anything though. The "Yes, but" cop-out bullshit does nothing but belittle the original topic.
It changes the subject. It trivializes the original discussion. It insinuates that whatever you're trying to talk about is somehow more important than the original discussion. Can't you just say "this practice is terrible", and leave it at that? Why do you need to go on and add the "Yes, but" segment, implying that our outrage at the initial topic is somehow invalid because we're not equally outraged at some other issue?
Male circumcision performed on grown boys is terrible, no one's denying that. To claim that it happens on a comparable basis, or that criticisms of FGM are somehow incorrect or shortsighted because of a lack of concern for another topic is absurd. Ending your posts with a quip about all those women's studies classes, (that I haven't ever taken, for the record), just makes you look like an asshole.
Nevertheless I don't think we are in a good position to dictate to other cultures which of their practices are barbaric or not
Why not? Surely causing someone pain is not good? And surely we're all members of the human species and shouldn't be so "polite" as to not help our fellow man when they happen to be on a different political border?
But we have our own issues in our own country. Maybe when we stop genital mutilation in the United States... or at least acknowledge what it is then I will be more willing to be concerned about people in their own far away cultures who have their own reasons and motivations for doing things.
If you are not participating in actions you criticize I see no problem whatsoever. Also you only start caring about distant suffering after all the incomparably small suffering close to you is solved ? That seems cold.
On January 26 2012 07:42 Haemonculus wrote: My point is NOT that circumcision of one gender or another isn't a bad thing. You *ARE* trivializing an issue when you instead of commenting on said issue, accuse people of bias or agenda by not commenting on another.
If both were happening here in the United States, or even in the West in general then I would comment on both or whichever was the topic at hand but the difference is one is here one is way over there. We have people that are so blind that they will get oturaged about things happening overseas but have no problem with things that they personally do here even though the activities are logically the same, differing only in severity.
It is like people getting outraged over Russia's treatment of Georgia a few years ago while our troops are marching all across the globe.
Only in severity ? That is the only difference that matters for the f... sake. You comparing circumcisions in western world that are done in sterile and nearly painless way to the shit the OP is talking about and calling them "logically the same". They are not. Amount of suffering matters and in this case is so different that the western circumcision is comparatively non-issue. And that is why people treat it as such.
On January 26 2012 07:42 Haemonculus wrote:My point is NOT that circumcision of one gender or another isn't a bad thing. You *ARE* trivializing an issue when you instead of commenting on said issue, accuse people of bias or agenda by not commenting on another.
And you trivialize the issue of male circumcision when you routinely ignore it, and then consider it derailing when it's brought up. Maybe if the UN made an effort to fight male circumcision, then people wouldn't feel the need to bring it up when they fight against FGM?
Let's say the UN fought against cancer and ignored heart disease; don't you think people would eventually bring up heart disease when the UN makes yet another move to fight cancer?
How about we fight against both FGM and male circumcision at the same time and trivialize neither?
And it was a terrible thing when we eliminated smallpox worldwide, but did not do so at the same time with tuberculosis. We should have done both or nothing, even though resources were limited. If something does not solve everything bad in the world at once, let us rather do nothing.
Yes, people would bring up heart disease, but separately as they are separate issues. Your analogies are as bad as possible.
On January 26 2012 07:42 Haemonculus wrote:My point is NOT that circumcision of one gender or another isn't a bad thing. You *ARE* trivializing an issue when you instead of commenting on said issue, accuse people of bias or agenda by not commenting on another.
And you trivialize the issue of male circumcision when you routinely ignore it, and then consider it derailing when it's brought up. Maybe if the UN made an effort to fight male circumcision, then people wouldn't feel the need to bring it up when they fight against FGM?
Let's say the UN fought against cancer and ignored heart disease; don't you think people would eventually bring up heart disease when the UN makes yet another move to fight cancer?
How about we fight against both FGM and male circumcision at the same time and trivialize neither?
And it was a terrible thing when we eliminated smallpox worldwide, but did not do so at the same time with tuberculosis. We should have done both or nothing, even though resources were limited. If something does not solve everything bad in the world at once, let us rather do nothing.
Yes, people would bring up heart disease, but separately as they are separate issues. Your analogies are as bad as possible.
Well at least people agreed that they're both bad to have. If you put the FGM and circumcision all under genital mutilation, you might be able to kill two birds with one stone, though you'll have twice the resistance. No extra resources needed for making the argument though so that's different from fighting two diseases at once.
On January 26 2012 10:16 CptCutter wrote: screw it, i had a post but i decided its best not to get involved with religious people. they just dont attempt to listen or understand others points of view.
What you mean is "Religious people don't agree with me therefore they aren't worth talking to." If you aren't willing to take some heat from those who's practices and lifestyle you are denouncing then whatever you were going to say probably didn't matter much anyway.
On January 26 2012 12:57 Abort Retry Fail wrote: Seriously, how many here are muslims and have read the Quran? Can we please stop arguing if we don't know anything about it?
Some people say Islam us a violent religion and despise jews and women. Others say it is a religion of peace.
We need quotes from Quran to prove this and have a discussion.
On January 26 2012 08:48 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Untrue, I wish I hadn't been circumcised. It simply isn't comparable. On one hand a bit of skin is cut, and there is actually a fair amount of evidence that it reduces std's. On the other there are males that have an irrational and disturbingly obsessive concern with becoming a cuckhold. So they simply agree to cut off the genitalia of all women to eliminate their sex drive and fuse their vagina together, cutting it open again when they are ready to use their sex doll/baby vessel. HOW IN THE FUCK DOES THAT COMPARE?
Both are violations of the fundamental human right to bodily integrity, specifically gential integrity. Both are traumatic events with unknown consequences. Both are performed under inhumane and unsanitary conditions in third world nations for little justification besides religious/cultural traditions.
There's actually very little research on the "benefits" of male circumcision, and if the FDA looked at the limited studies done to date, they would classify it as an untested procedure with unknown benefits/drawbacks (yes, there's some evidence for HIV reduction, but it's so limited that it's not advocated by most organizations, including the CDC). It's a suspiciously ex post facto justification for a religious practice that is thousands of years old (note that circumcision was once similarly promoted for its benefits in preventing masturbation". There's a reason why no professional medical associate in the world recommends routine infant circumcision.
On top of that, there's growing evidence that there are severe harms caused by male circumcision. Aside from the potential risks of surgery, it's increasingly apparent that circumcision as a traumatic surgery on infants (especially when performed religiously by rabbis etc. rather than medical professionals) has psychological consequences. It's been noted, for example, that the male/female ratio of autism in 1st world nations with routine infant circumcision is 4 to 1 compared to the 2.3 to 1 ratio in 1st world nations that without.
Do you know of any cultures that have a form of male circumcision that involves cutting off the entire penis, fusing the resulting hole shut, and then forcing some sort of painful seminal extraction technique when they're expected to fulfill their life function of producing a child, all simply because the women are deathly afraid of being cheated on?
Let's start with what's common... I know of two religions which mandate genitalia mutilation in infants... the consequences of it are pretty much secondary to the main point of the discussion which is that religions make regular people behave like sadist butchers.
That may be the main point of your discussion.
Whatever, but truly are you suggesting MGM is somehow 'better' than FGM.. that's a disgusting thought.
On January 25 2012 16:37 cari-kira wrote: religion doesn't matter, it depends on how developed the society is. woman had really bad times in the western world, too, don't forget this.
history didn't start with the wild west. scnr;-)
Religion is hugely important as it controls a lot of things in a society, including a lot of things you probably consider indexes of development. I also don't see why the past in the West matters - that's over and done. You can't just say "well, it's cool to flog women because, like, women were property once here too." We concluded that was wrong, and as such we conclude that this is wrong.
Agreed. this is going to end up like that 3rd world poverty thread... i'm so tired.
please don't misunderstand me on purpose. this way we won't get nowhere. i was referring to religion not having any influence on laws on modern countries. secularization. thats what i was talking about. perhaps christians have the same regulations regarding nudity and morale as the islam has, but you will find only a few (if any) countries where that matters, because these are not laws you have to obey and can get punished by authorities. in developed countries religion has no real power,. and if you look at history (or compare a church to a democratic system), you surely know why.
On January 25 2012 16:42 cz wrote: You're just going to get the same tired responses from Islamic apologists, along the lines of "this isn't true Islam," and "Islam respects women" and "we have to respect their culture/how dare you bash Islam, it's the religion of love/peace!!"
Bottom line is that in practice Islam, when allowed to rule, is a patriarchal religion. Whether that's what the book says or not doesn't matter, it's how it is. Anything else is just the no-true-scotsman fallacy.
I really hope you're not implying that any other Judeo-Christian religion is any better. Over the course of their histories, Islam does have the longest running respect for women of any of the three religions.
On January 26 2012 12:57 Abort Retry Fail wrote: Seriously, how many here are muslims and have read the Quran? Can we please stop arguing if we don't know anything about it?
Some people say Islam us a violent religion and despise jews and women. Others say it is a religion of peace.
We need quotes from Quran to prove this and have a discussion.
Let me just shamelessly quote myself from a discussion on page 6 with a guy from Yemen who never responded:
I'm talking crap eh, let me give you a few Qu'ran quotes, it's a terrible and boring book and I can't blame you for not reading it.
-On the befriending non muslims:
Qur'an (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
Qur'an (5:80) - "You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide." Those Muslims who befriend unbelievers will abide in hell. (there is more if you'd like)
-He married Aisha when she was 6, he fucked her when she was 9, it's pretty clear you don't know shit about the religion your talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha If you honestly think that at 9 she was mature enough to have sex, get your head checked. She might have been important to the religion after the 'prophet' raped her for years, that's not something that's relevant to this argument.
-http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/opinion/martyrs-virgins-and-grapes.html According to the NYT it's grapes, I'm willing to entertain your sex slave theory as well though. But if you think that we should we be so free about our sexuality, why does the Islam only profess this for men? Women need to wear their rediculous shrouds, women are heavily persecuted if they cheat, their word can not be taken seriously in a court of law (which is where one would prove the cheating) and women DO NOT get 40 male sex slaves. Just sounds like Muhammad was a massive pervert.
-I never said female circumcision was in the Qu'ran, just that it was a cultural habit for muslims, only making the point that westerners did'nt do it even in our past, read my points before responding please.
-Muhammad, during his conquests (he was a warlord, i.e. raper and murderer, remember?) would at numerous times murder out the entire cat and dog population of his lands because they where unclean, read your history, and the Hadith's contain numerous quotes like this:
Hadith - Bukhari 3:515, Narrated Abu Huraira
I heard Allah's Apostle saying; "Angels (of Mercy) do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human being or an animal)."
I find it amusing how you accuse me of not knowing my history when you just repeat the politically correct nonsense they tell you on television. Hope for you your not actually a muslim because Allah would definitely smite you for not knowing your own religion.
Some other things to note was that Muhammad, whenever he would undergo a vision he would start shaking violently and foam would come from his mouth, i.e. epilepsy. And the guy had red hair and light skin, most likely eastern European or from India, where men will die their hair red out of tradition. And Muhammad was never capable of writing, much like the Bible, we are not always certain who wrote the Qu'ran, we just know it has changed inbetween translations and copy's and to suit a specific rulers desires, much like the Bible and Tora. The religious concensus is that the Qu'ran has never been changed, it's even officially forbidden to translate it (Muhammad was a bit paranoid when it came to writing, drawing and singing, i.e. he banned most forms of it), the Arabic language however was not invented yet and most likely Aramaic or Assyrian was used, moreover, Muhammad was illiterate, so he was incapable of writing himself and even the question of when it was written is hard to answer as like with the Bible being edited and compiled by the Romans to suit their needs and the Tora by the Babylonian era Jews, it is very likely that the Caliphate has been the one to compile the final edition.
Oh and when it comes to muslims and the Qu'ran, it is important to realize most muslims have never and will never read the Qu'ran, it's in ancient arabic due to the whole translation being a sin clause, so their knowledge of the Qu'ran generally comes from what their Imams want them to know, so if they go to a peaceful mosque in a relatively stable country they will assume it's filled with love and rules about keeping yourself clean, if you live in Iraq or Indonesia though they will fill the people will all the bile and crap about killing and oppressing the book has to offer.
Demonizing does nothing. There are plenty of abhorrent parts of the bible as that nobody cares about. Because we're secular. Secularizing Islam is the only way change would probably happen.
Let me preface by saying I'm a devout atheist, the crusades where just as abhorrent as the Ghazi's murdering spree's (Google Timur if you think the Jihad is the Islamic form of a Crusade) and although the believers might be the same people, their beliefs are not. I take it we can both agree that Buddhism is a less violent then Christianity or Judaism, purely based on the way their sacred texts are written and their implications, exactly the same thing can be said about Christianity or Judaism compared to Islam.
The Bible might have a couple of controversial statements, it's not even close to the Qu'ran, humor me and try reading a bit of the Qu'ran, the way of writing is just completely different, where the Bible is often stories about people doing questionable things the Qu'ran is mostly the prophet saying things, whereas a character in the Bible might murder out a tribe or such, it is not the prophet telling them it is a thing that should always be done. Not to mention that most of questionable shit in the Bible is also included in the Qu'ran, as it's from the same Aramaic monotheistic roots, Jesus is just another prophet for Muslims.
On January 26 2012 09:54 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Do you know of any cultures that have a form of male circumcision that involves cutting off the entire penis, fusing the resulting hole shut, and then forcing some sort of painful seminal extraction technique when they're expected to fulfill their life function of producing a child, all simply because the women are deathly afraid of being cheated on?
smokeyhoodoo: FGM is worse than male circumcision!!1 Think of the wimminz!!! sunprince: Well yeah, but we're not talking about which one is worse. We're saying both are awful ways in which the bodily integrity of children are violated, and all because of religion. smokeyhoodoo: But FGM is WORSE! Think of hte wimminz!!!
-_-
On January 26 2012 12:46 mcc wrote:And it was a terrible thing when we eliminated smallpox worldwide, but did not do so at the same time with tuberculosis. We should have done both or nothing, even though resources were limited. If something does not solve everything bad in the world at once, let us rather do nothing.
Yes, people would bring up heart disease, but separately as they are separate issues. Your analogies are as bad as possible.
You fail logic forever. It's like you're incapable of understanding why male circumcision and FGM are intrinsically related, or that it makes sense to fight them at the same time.
Male and female circumcision might both be deplorable and related but this is mostly a matter of how badly it messes up lives.
Sexual harassment and rape might be related, but a lot more effort get's spent on preventing and persecuting rape. As such spending more effort on getting the female circumcision point through is understandable and desireable, not to mention that the female circumcision part might not get taken seriously if it advocates the banning of male circumcision as well, which tends to be relevant to a lot more people.
On January 26 2012 12:57 Abort Retry Fail wrote: Seriously, how many here are muslims and have read the Quran? Can we please stop arguing if we don't know anything about it?
Some people say Islam us a violent religion and despise jews and women. Others say it is a religion of peace.
We need quotes from Quran to prove this and have a discussion.
Let me just shamelessly quote myself from a discussion on page 6 with a guy from Yemen who never responded:
I'm talking crap eh, let me give you a few Qu'ran quotes, it's a terrible and boring book and I can't blame you for not reading it.
-On the befriending non muslims:
Qur'an (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
Qur'an (5:80) - "You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide." Those Muslims who befriend unbelievers will abide in hell. (there is more if you'd like)
-He married Aisha when she was 6, he fucked her when she was 9, it's pretty clear you don't know shit about the religion your talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha If you honestly think that at 9 she was mature enough to have sex, get your head checked. She might have been important to the religion after the 'prophet' raped her for years, that's not something that's relevant to this argument.
-http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/opinion/martyrs-virgins-and-grapes.html According to the NYT it's grapes, I'm willing to entertain your sex slave theory as well though. But if you think that we should we be so free about our sexuality, why does the Islam only profess this for men? Women need to wear their rediculous shrouds, women are heavily persecuted if they cheat, their word can not be taken seriously in a court of law (which is where one would prove the cheating) and women DO NOT get 40 male sex slaves. Just sounds like Muhammad was a massive pervert.
-I never said female circumcision was in the Qu'ran, just that it was a cultural habit for muslims, only making the point that westerners did'nt do it even in our past, read my points before responding please.
-Muhammad, during his conquests (he was a warlord, i.e. raper and murderer, remember?) would at numerous times murder out the entire cat and dog population of his lands because they where unclean, read your history, and the Hadith's contain numerous quotes like this:
Hadith - Bukhari 3:515, Narrated Abu Huraira
I heard Allah's Apostle saying; "Angels (of Mercy) do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human being or an animal)."
I find it amusing how you accuse me of not knowing my history when you just repeat the politically correct nonsense they tell you on television. Hope for you your not actually a muslim because Allah would definitely smite you for not knowing your own religion.
Some other things to note was that Muhammad, whenever he would undergo a vision he would start shaking violently and foam would come from his mouth, i.e. epilepsy. And the guy had red hair and light skin, most likely eastern European or from India, where men will die their hair red out of tradition. And Muhammad was never capable of writing, much like the Bible, we are not always certain who wrote the Qu'ran, we just know it has changed inbetween translations and copy's and to suit a specific rulers desires, much like the Bible and Tora. The religious concensus is that the Qu'ran has never been changed, it's even officially forbidden to translate it (Muhammad was a bit paranoid when it came to writing, drawing and singing, i.e. he banned most forms of it), the Arabic language however was not invented yet and most likely Aramaic or Assyrian was used, moreover, Muhammad was illiterate, so he was incapable of writing himself and even the question of when it was written is hard to answer as like with the Bible being edited and compiled by the Romans to suit their needs and the Tora by the Babylonian era Jews, it is very likely that the Caliphate has been the one to compile the final edition.
Oh and when it comes to muslims and the Qu'ran, it is important to realize most muslims have never and will never read the Qu'ran, it's in ancient arabic due to the whole translation being a sin clause, so their knowledge of the Qu'ran generally comes from what their Imams want them to know, so if they go to a peaceful mosque in a relatively stable country they will assume it's filled with love and rules about keeping yourself clean, if you live in Iraq or Indonesia though they will fill the people will all the bile and crap about killing and oppressing the book has to offer.
You take quotes completely out of context. The things you quote in the Quran are referencing particular events. The Quran has been translated MANY TIMES http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/Quran-English-Translation?store=ALLPRODUCTS&keyword=Quran English Translation . The thing with Muslims is that they clarify the difference between a translation and an authentic copy because as anyone who knows more than one language knows, things get lost in translation. Islam has an official language, Arabic. The Quran is best expressed in its original language, Arabic. The Arabic Quran is seen by Muslims as the Word of God (not the creation of God), whereas translations are seen as man made. I have no idea where you got the idea that Arabic didnt exist. The original is sitting in the Topkapı Palace in Turkey: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/topkapi.html Google: Topkapı Palace, Quran. This is the first result. Muhammad may have not been able to write, but he could speak and he had friends that could write. It's why it's tradition among Muslims to memorize the Quran. They have competitions broadcast on TV for it.
I was born and raised in the USA. I have lived in the Middle East. I have studied Islam in school. The issues you have are just completely wrong. The fact that you think that Arabic didn't exist at origin of Islam shows that you know nothing of how the Quran was compiled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Arabic_alphabet
Every Quran I have opened around the world and read in Arabic is exactly the same. The issues of religion being practiced differently is completely cultural and political. In Islamic schools in the US, I was taught Evolution (Surprise we got there before the public school system). However, in certain Mideast countries, it's not taught in schools no matter if it's secular or religious. http://www.cracked.com/article_18911_5-ridiculous-things-you-probably-believe-about-islam_p2.html
The way you talk about Imams, you talk about them the same way a sainthood works in Christianity which doesn't exist in Sunni Islam.
But I suppose nothing I say matters because I'm just one of those women that wears ridiculous 'shrouds.'
On January 27 2012 02:58 Keyboard Warrior wrote: More guys are uncircumcized.
Thats interesting.
Concidering it's only the US and certain religious groups who practice circumcision it's actully quite obvious. Unless you thought this forum was 90% American, in which case I understand your surprise. I would be more interested in the US specific %.
On January 26 2012 12:57 Abort Retry Fail wrote: Seriously, how many here are muslims and have read the Quran? Can we please stop arguing if we don't know anything about it?
Some people say Islam us a violent religion and despise jews and women. Others say it is a religion of peace.
We need quotes from Quran to prove this and have a discussion.
Let me just shamelessly quote myself from a discussion on page 6 with a guy from Yemen who never responded:
I'm talking crap eh, let me give you a few Qu'ran quotes, it's a terrible and boring book and I can't blame you for not reading it.
-On the befriending non muslims:
Qur'an (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
Qur'an (5:80) - "You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide." Those Muslims who befriend unbelievers will abide in hell. (there is more if you'd like)
-He married Aisha when she was 6, he fucked her when she was 9, it's pretty clear you don't know shit about the religion your talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha If you honestly think that at 9 she was mature enough to have sex, get your head checked. She might have been important to the religion after the 'prophet' raped her for years, that's not something that's relevant to this argument.
-http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/opinion/martyrs-virgins-and-grapes.html According to the NYT it's grapes, I'm willing to entertain your sex slave theory as well though. But if you think that we should we be so free about our sexuality, why does the Islam only profess this for men? Women need to wear their rediculous shrouds, women are heavily persecuted if they cheat, their word can not be taken seriously in a court of law (which is where one would prove the cheating) and women DO NOT get 40 male sex slaves. Just sounds like Muhammad was a massive pervert.
-I never said female circumcision was in the Qu'ran, just that it was a cultural habit for muslims, only making the point that westerners did'nt do it even in our past, read my points before responding please.
-Muhammad, during his conquests (he was a warlord, i.e. raper and murderer, remember?) would at numerous times murder out the entire cat and dog population of his lands because they where unclean, read your history, and the Hadith's contain numerous quotes like this:
Hadith - Bukhari 3:515, Narrated Abu Huraira
I heard Allah's Apostle saying; "Angels (of Mercy) do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human being or an animal)."
I find it amusing how you accuse me of not knowing my history when you just repeat the politically correct nonsense they tell you on television. Hope for you your not actually a muslim because Allah would definitely smite you for not knowing your own religion.
Some other things to note was that Muhammad, whenever he would undergo a vision he would start shaking violently and foam would come from his mouth, i.e. epilepsy. And the guy had red hair and light skin, most likely eastern European or from India, where men will die their hair red out of tradition. And Muhammad was never capable of writing, much like the Bible, we are not always certain who wrote the Qu'ran, we just know it has changed inbetween translations and copy's and to suit a specific rulers desires, much like the Bible and Tora. The religious concensus is that the Qu'ran has never been changed, it's even officially forbidden to translate it (Muhammad was a bit paranoid when it came to writing, drawing and singing, i.e. he banned most forms of it), the Arabic language however was not invented yet and most likely Aramaic or Assyrian was used, moreover, Muhammad was illiterate, so he was incapable of writing himself and even the question of when it was written is hard to answer as like with the Bible being edited and compiled by the Romans to suit their needs and the Tora by the Babylonian era Jews, it is very likely that the Caliphate has been the one to compile the final edition.
Oh and when it comes to muslims and the Qu'ran, it is important to realize most muslims have never and will never read the Qu'ran, it's in ancient arabic due to the whole translation being a sin clause, so their knowledge of the Qu'ran generally comes from what their Imams want them to know, so if they go to a peaceful mosque in a relatively stable country they will assume it's filled with love and rules about keeping yourself clean, if you live in Iraq or Indonesia though they will fill the people will all the bile and crap about killing and oppressing the book has to offer.
You take quotes completely out of context. The things you quote in the Quran are referencing particular events. The Quran has been translated MANY TIMES http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/Quran-English-Translation?store=ALLPRODUCTS&keyword=Quran English Translation . The thing with Muslims is that they clarify the difference between a translation and an authentic copy because as anyone who knows more than one language knows, things get lost in translation. Islam has an official language, Arabic. The Quran is best expressed in its original language, Arabic. The Arabic Quran is seen by Muslims as the Word of God (not the creation of God), whereas translations are seen as man made. I have no idea where you got the idea that Arabic didnt exist. The original is sitting in the Topkapı Palace in Turkey: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/topkapi.html Google: Topkapı Palace, Quran. This is the first result. Muhammad may have not been able to write, but he could speak and he had friends that could write. It's why it's tradition among Muslims to memorize the Quran. They have competitions broadcast on TV for it.
I was born and raised in the USA. I have lived in the Middle East. I have studied Islam in school. The issues you have are just completely wrong. The fact that you think that Arabic didn't exist at origin of Islam shows that you know nothing of how the Quran was compiled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Arabic_alphabet
Every Quran I have opened around the world and read in Arabic is exactly the same. The issues of religion being practiced differently is completely cultural and political. In Islamic schools in the US, I was taught Evolution (Surprise we got there before the public school system). However, in certain Mideast countries, it's not taught in schools no matter if it's secular or religious. http://www.cracked.com/article_18911_5-ridiculous-things-you-probably-believe-about-islam_p2.html
The way you talk about Imams, you talk about them the same way a sainthood works in Christianity which doesn't exist in Sunni Islam.
But I suppose nothing I say matters because I'm just one of those women that wears ridiculous 'shrouds.'
How did I take the quotes out of context? Doing some quick reading around the 5:50 mark it seems to well in context, the rest of the text just being more rules about treating religious people and what one has to do to get on Allah's good side, my quoting of 5:51 was accurate. I know the Qu'ran has been translated many times, I'm just using the most used and easily accessible varieties because we're having a discussion and I do not read Arabic, I've seen multiple translations of several passages and the changes are not that great, there are ofcourse the occasional hard to translate word because current Qu'ran scholars don't even know exactly what they mean, which is a language problem from when it was first translated, but I'll get to that later, most of the Qu'ran is pretty easily understood and the translations don't differ that much, if you want to present different translations to my chosen verses, well, I don't understand why you havn't already.
If your a Qu'ran scholar you probably know of the 'weird' words pop up in the Qu'ran occasionaly, and the missing of vowels in old versions of the text? (From what I read these spelling changes are considered known and not a problem) What other language do you know of that lacks vowels? And what was the Lingua Franca of the Mecca area? Syro-Aramaic, the Qu'ran was passed on orally in Syro-Aramaic and most likely written down by people native to that language or written down in Syro-Aramaic itself, have a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the_Koran
The reason why you won't hear anything about it is because it has some rather nasty implications for the Qu'ran. Did you ever wonder why the Qu'ran is so segmented and like the Bible or the Tora is divided into clear segments, different styles of writing, occasionaly holds contradictory statements and has numbers to index the entire thing? What we know from the creation of the Tora and the Bible is that they where collections of stories going around during those days, in the case of the Bible this has been recorded because the Romans where pretty cool guys, in the Tora's case it was a certain king who used it as a way to keep his people together when they where being shipped off to different parts of the world by the Babylonians. And in the same fashion the Qu'ran was created, from a ton of versions going around at that time, compiled to fit the purpose of creating the religion that the people who survived after the prophet wanted it to be.
And Arabic did not properly exist when the Qu'ran was created, apart from the fact that Muhammads people did not speak it because it was not native to their region, the only versions of arabic that existed where in proto-form and native to the region your nametag says your from, classic Arabic was created specifically for writing down the Qu'ran, most likely when Muhammad was already dead.
In Islam it's a lot easier to become a saint then in Christianity, for all intents and purposes it is more useful to refer to a Imam as an equivelant of a Catholic Priest, as they perform roughly the same functions, and I don't think I ever alluded to Imams as Saints.
Mind you my problem with Hijabs and such is not as much how it looks as it's implications, the relevant part of the Qu'ran states that women must cover themselves to avoid men losing control of themselves and because they are shameless whores otherwise, equaling humans to beasts that lack any form of self control, and nowhere in the Qu'ran does it state anything similar for men, just women, who, according to the Qu'ran are PROPERTY of the man.
And I'm an atheist remember? Unlike a muslim I will take your opinion just as seriously as I would that of a man.
On January 27 2012 03:40 Scootaloo wrote: Male and female circumcision might both be deplorable and related but this is mostly a matter of how badly it messes up lives.
Sexual harassment and rape might be related, but a lot more effort get's spent on preventing and persecuting rape. As such spending more effort on getting the female circumcision point through is understandable and desireable, not to mention that the female circumcision part might not get taken seriously if it advocates the banning of male circumcision as well, which tends to be relevant to a lot more people.
+1
I think your 'sexual harrassment and rape' analogy so far is much better than the Starcraft and disease analogies other people have tried.
I'm opposed to male circumcision, too. But FGM is a subject more people can agree on, so to get things done quickly and effectively, I find it best to focus on that first before tackling the issues of male circumcision. I do hope that it will be next, though.
But I suppose nothing I say matters because I'm just one of those women that wears ridiculous 'shrouds.'
I have no idea where that came from. But there's nothing sexist about what he's been saying, so I'm rather confused. Why would he disregard you because you are a woman that wears a certain type of clothing? It's rather insulting that you would say that to him.
Even the Ten Commandments are written in a rather sexist way. The commandment of Coveting specifically describes a wife as property. These are just basic facts about religion. Of course, almost no religious person uses them like that, because while the religion might be detestable, religious people are trying to decent just like everyone else. To make the claim that any of these religions isn't sexist is just factually inaccurate. Everyone knows that they are. Priests, rabbis, and imams will all admit to the sexism of these religions.
Due to these religions, which are essentially just obsolete ideologies, it trends more conservative thought. It prevents necessary social change to cultures. There is literal scripture against treating women equally, meaning that there will always been fundamentalists and people in power that will resist such things. To claim that religion is innocent is blatant fallacy. I don't think demonizing Islam in particular does anyone any good, but that's a strategy comment. Secularization is the way to go. When you come out directly opposed to someone's religious beliefs, then people tend to shut down and refuse to listen to anything you say. We want actual change, we don't just want people to get angry.
But I suppose nothing I say matters because I'm just one of those women that wears ridiculous 'shrouds.'
I have no idea where that came from. But there's nothing sexist about what he's been saying, so I'm rather confused. Why would he disregard you because you are a woman that wears a certain type of clothing? It's rather insulting that you would say that to him.
Even the Ten Commandments are written in a rather sexist way. The commandment of Coveting specifically describes a wife as property. These are just basic facts about religion. Of course, almost no religious person uses them like that, because while the religion might be detestable, religious people are trying to decent just like everyone else. To make the claim that any of these religions isn't sexist is just factually inaccurate. Everyone knows that they are. Priests, rabbis, and imams will all admit to the sexism of these religions.
Due to these religions, which are essentially just obsolete ideologies, it trends more conservative thought. It prevents necessary social change to cultures. There is literal scripture against treating women equally, meaning that there will always been fundamentalists and people in power that will resist such things. To claim that religion is innocent is blatant fallacy. I don't think demonizing Islam in particular does anyone any good, but that's a strategy comment. Secularization is the way to go. When you come out directly opposed to someone's religious beliefs, then people tend to shut down and refuse to listen to anything you say. We want actual change, we don't just want people to get angry.
I can't comment on Islam, as I know very little about it but I can say: The Ten Commandments are not at all sexist. They specifically mention honoring thine father AND thine mother. As for the coveting you just mentioned: You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. — Exodus 20:17 (NIV) Only a person with an agenda against religion would take that as saying women are property. You should not covet your neighbors wife because she is a great partner to him, not a posession. After that, who are you to say religion is obsolete ideology? Forgiveness and loving your fellow man is obsolete? Should we just forget everything Jesus preached? Stop taking scripture so literally, stop denouncing the lifestyle of billions, and maybe instead of playing the blame game with regards to issues you can do something about it aside from further your own anti-religion agenda.
I think what's kind of sexist about that Bible quote is mostly that it warns against coveting your neighbor's wife, but not a neighboring woman's husband.
It kind of sounds like the Bible is written only with men in mind, and like the author only expected for men to read it -- or forgot about female readers entirely. Because I'm sure he did not mean that it was okay for women to covet a neighbor's husband by omitting the 'husband' here.
All that said, that quote wouldn't get my panties in a twist. There's a whole lot of Bible quotes I've read that were a lot more blatant than this one.
On January 27 2012 14:32 ampson wrote: You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. — Exodus 20:17 (NIV) Only a person with an agenda against religion would take that as saying women are property.
Even without interpreting it as property it is sexist. It says nothing about coveting your neighbour's husband, only wife. Belongs also states that the wife is included in belongings, meaning the man has the stronger claim in the relationship (not that she is property).
On January 27 2012 14:32 ampson wrote: You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. — Exodus 20:17 (NIV) Only a person with an agenda against religion would take that as saying women are property.
Even without interpreting it as property it is sexist. It says nothing about coveting your neighbour's husband, only wife. Belongs also states that the wife is included in belongings, meaning the man has the stronger claim in the relationship (not that she is property).
The scripture gets across a point and uses a wife as an example of coveting a relationship. It would be no different if it said husband, son, daughter, or father. Wife here is simply the relationship stated.
On January 27 2012 14:32 ampson wrote: You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. — Exodus 20:17 (NIV) Only a person with an agenda against religion would take that as saying women are property.
Even without interpreting it as property it is sexist. It says nothing about coveting your neighbour's husband, only wife. Belongs also states that the wife is included in belongings, meaning the man has the stronger claim in the relationship (not that she is property).
The scripture gets across a point and uses a wife as an example of coveting a relationship. It would be no different if it said husband, son, daughter, or father. Wife here is simply the relationship stated.
Yeah, but what's odd here is that the author went thr extra mile to distinguish between manservants and maidservants, and yet doesn't bother to mention a husband.
On January 26 2012 12:57 Abort Retry Fail wrote: Seriously, how many here are muslims and have read the Quran? Can we please stop arguing if we don't know anything about it?
Some people say Islam us a violent religion and despise jews and women. Others say it is a religion of peace.
We need quotes from Quran to prove this and have a discussion.
Let me just shamelessly quote myself from a discussion on page 6 with a guy from Yemen who never responded:
I'm talking crap eh, let me give you a few Qu'ran quotes, it's a terrible and boring book and I can't blame you for not reading it.
-On the befriending non muslims:
Qur'an (5:51) - "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."
Qur'an (5:80) - "You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide." Those Muslims who befriend unbelievers will abide in hell. (there is more if you'd like)
-He married Aisha when she was 6, he fucked her when she was 9, it's pretty clear you don't know shit about the religion your talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aisha If you honestly think that at 9 she was mature enough to have sex, get your head checked. She might have been important to the religion after the 'prophet' raped her for years, that's not something that's relevant to this argument.
-http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/opinion/martyrs-virgins-and-grapes.html According to the NYT it's grapes, I'm willing to entertain your sex slave theory as well though. But if you think that we should we be so free about our sexuality, why does the Islam only profess this for men? Women need to wear their rediculous shrouds, women are heavily persecuted if they cheat, their word can not be taken seriously in a court of law (which is where one would prove the cheating) and women DO NOT get 40 male sex slaves. Just sounds like Muhammad was a massive pervert.
-I never said female circumcision was in the Qu'ran, just that it was a cultural habit for muslims, only making the point that westerners did'nt do it even in our past, read my points before responding please.
-Muhammad, during his conquests (he was a warlord, i.e. raper and murderer, remember?) would at numerous times murder out the entire cat and dog population of his lands because they where unclean, read your history, and the Hadith's contain numerous quotes like this:
Hadith - Bukhari 3:515, Narrated Abu Huraira
I heard Allah's Apostle saying; "Angels (of Mercy) do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture of a living creature (a human being or an animal)."
I find it amusing how you accuse me of not knowing my history when you just repeat the politically correct nonsense they tell you on television. Hope for you your not actually a muslim because Allah would definitely smite you for not knowing your own religion.
Some other things to note was that Muhammad, whenever he would undergo a vision he would start shaking violently and foam would come from his mouth, i.e. epilepsy. And the guy had red hair and light skin, most likely eastern European or from India, where men will die their hair red out of tradition. And Muhammad was never capable of writing, much like the Bible, we are not always certain who wrote the Qu'ran, we just know it has changed inbetween translations and copy's and to suit a specific rulers desires, much like the Bible and Tora. The religious concensus is that the Qu'ran has never been changed, it's even officially forbidden to translate it (Muhammad was a bit paranoid when it came to writing, drawing and singing, i.e. he banned most forms of it), the Arabic language however was not invented yet and most likely Aramaic or Assyrian was used, moreover, Muhammad was illiterate, so he was incapable of writing himself and even the question of when it was written is hard to answer as like with the Bible being edited and compiled by the Romans to suit their needs and the Tora by the Babylonian era Jews, it is very likely that the Caliphate has been the one to compile the final edition.
Oh and when it comes to muslims and the Qu'ran, it is important to realize most muslims have never and will never read the Qu'ran, it's in ancient arabic due to the whole translation being a sin clause, so their knowledge of the Qu'ran generally comes from what their Imams want them to know, so if they go to a peaceful mosque in a relatively stable country they will assume it's filled with love and rules about keeping yourself clean, if you live in Iraq or Indonesia though they will fill the people will all the bile and crap about killing and oppressing the book has to offer.
You take quotes completely out of context. The things you quote in the Quran are referencing particular events. The Quran has been translated MANY TIMES http://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/Quran-English-Translation?store=ALLPRODUCTS&keyword=Quran English Translation . The thing with Muslims is that they clarify the difference between a translation and an authentic copy because as anyone who knows more than one language knows, things get lost in translation. Islam has an official language, Arabic. The Quran is best expressed in its original language, Arabic. The Arabic Quran is seen by Muslims as the Word of God (not the creation of God), whereas translations are seen as man made. I have no idea where you got the idea that Arabic didnt exist. The original is sitting in the Topkapı Palace in Turkey: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/topkapi.html Google: Topkapı Palace, Quran. This is the first result. Muhammad may have not been able to write, but he could speak and he had friends that could write. It's why it's tradition among Muslims to memorize the Quran. They have competitions broadcast on TV for it.
I was born and raised in the USA. I have lived in the Middle East. I have studied Islam in school. The issues you have are just completely wrong. The fact that you think that Arabic didn't exist at origin of Islam shows that you know nothing of how the Quran was compiled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Arabic_alphabet
Every Quran I have opened around the world and read in Arabic is exactly the same. The issues of religion being practiced differently is completely cultural and political. In Islamic schools in the US, I was taught Evolution (Surprise we got there before the public school system). However, in certain Mideast countries, it's not taught in schools no matter if it's secular or religious. http://www.cracked.com/article_18911_5-ridiculous-things-you-probably-believe-about-islam_p2.html
The way you talk about Imams, you talk about them the same way a sainthood works in Christianity which doesn't exist in Sunni Islam.
But I suppose nothing I say matters because I'm just one of those women that wears ridiculous 'shrouds.'
On January 27 2012 13:31 Scootaloo wrote: How did I take the quotes out of context? Doing some quick reading around the 5:50 mark it seems to well in context, the rest of the text just being more rules about treating religious people and what one has to do to get on Allah's good side, my quoting of 5:51 was accurate.
When I speak of context. I mean historical context. The Quran was revealed in parts and in response to a lot of the events that were going at the time. These verses were revealed when Muslim's had just lost the Battle of Uhud and the surrounding tribes saw this as weakness. At the time, the Muslims had particular problems with the Jews living in Medina. That threatened the security of not only the Muslims, but the rest of the city. This was a time of war with some of the tribes of Mecca and the Muslims. Mecca, being the city that Muslims had been driven out of because they were getting persecuted. Medina is the city they were invited to after a censuses was reached that they would be willing to accept Muslims and many people there had already accepted Islam. These verses are referring to specific Jews and specific Christians of that time. Specifically, the Jewish tribe of Banu Nadir of Medina was believed to be plotting to kill the Prophet Muhammad. There were a lot of political issues going on at the time. That's what those verses are referring to.
So when I speak about context of the Quran, it's learning what each verse is in response to which historical event. Muslims are allowed to marry Christians and Jews. They are allowed to eat from the food that they prepare. Original Sharia Law (not current Sharia law practiced in some Mid East countries) provided laws for protecting the rights of Christians and Jews in a Muslim government.
On January 27 2012 13:31 Scootaloo wrote: I know the Qu'ran has been translated many times, I'm just using the most used and easily accessible varieties because we're having a discussion and I do not read Arabic, I've seen multiple translations of several passages and the changes are not that great, there are ofcourse the occasional hard to translate word because current Qu'ran scholars don't even know exactly what they mean, which is a language problem from when it was first translated, but I'll get to that later, most of the Qu'ran is pretty easily understood and the translations don't differ that much, if you want to present different translations to my chosen verses, well, I don't understand why you havn't already.
The translation issue is what lead to Uthman, the third Caliph, declaring that the Quran would only be official in Arabic. Uthman was a close friend of Prophet Muhammad when he was still alive and at this time. So all the translated copies of the time were rounded up, burnt, and copies of the Arabic version were distributed.
As for Quran scholars, they've had it figured it for ages. You can't be a Quran scholar without being fluent in Arabic. The Arabic of the Quran is written in 'Fus-ha' Arabic, which is generally looked at as the 'written' form of Arabic. Whereas when you hear someone speaking Arabic, it'll differ based on which region you live in, similar to how different areas of the US and Canada have different lingo or accents. However written Arabic is what you're taught in school. A lot of the children television programs are in Fus-ha Arabic because it encourages the language that children will read in and it's more universal. Arab countries are small and so lots of media is broadcast to more than one nation. So keeping it in the written language that every Arab understands is a lot more convenient and appeals to larger audience.
If you're talking about the Quran being translated from one language into Arabic, then you're just wrong because Arabic is the Original language of the Quran. Now if you're talking about how the Quran's letters physically look different now. That's another topic.
On January 27 2012 13:31 Scootaloo wrote: If your a Qu'ran scholar you probably know of the 'weird' words pop up in the Qu'ran occasionaly, and the missing of vowels in old versions of the text? (From what I read these spelling changes are considered known and not a problem) What other language do you know of that lacks vowels? And what was the Lingua Franca of the Mecca area? Syro-Aramaic, the Qu'ran was passed on orally in Syro-Aramaic and most likely written down by people native to that language or written down in Syro-Aramaic itself, have a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the_Koran
So that brings me to the issue of vowels. Just to put it out there. A lot of modern Arabic text in the middle east is not written with vowels because a native Arabic speaker does not need them in order properly read and understand Arabic. Those little tick marks that represent the vowels were added in to make it easier for people who were new to Arabic to read the Quran. The way Arabic is structured is that if you read a sentence, based on the grammatical structure of the sentence, you will know how to read that sentence and how every word is pronounced. Basically, the pronunciation of Arabic with or without those marks is the same. The word is still the same word. So while Luxenberg may argue that it's different. To Arabs, it's all the same. It's why this hasn't caused much of an issue in the east and in the Muslim community. We know about the evolution of the language, but a lot of Arabs still read Arabic without the vowels.
As for the Sana's manuscripts. They're just parts of the original. Why would I care for that when I have a near complete copy in Turkey? The Sana's scripts are from Yemen. My location is Jordan/Palestine :p
On January 27 2012 13:31 Scootaloo wrote: The reason why you won't hear anything about it is because it has some rather nasty implications for the Qu'ran. Did you ever wonder why the Qu'ran is so segmented and like the Bible or the Tora is divided into clear segments, different styles of writing, occasionaly holds contradictory statements and has numbers to index the entire thing? What we know from the creation of the Tora and the Bible is that they where collections of stories going around during those days, in the case of the Bible this has been recorded because the Romans where pretty cool guys, in the Tora's case it was a certain king who used it as a way to keep his people together when they where being shipped off to different parts of the world by the Babylonians. And in the same fashion the Qu'ran was created, from a ton of versions going around at that time, compiled to fit the purpose of creating the religion that the people who survived after the prophet wanted it to be.
I go to a Catholic university in the US and I have had to learn about the compilation of the Bible and Tora. The Quran was treated much differently. Any contradictory statements in the Quran are people not understanding that historical context that I was referring to earlier. If you didn't know that those verses earlier were referring to a certain political situation, it would seem contradictory that the Quran would later tell Muslims to marry Christians and Jews. If the Quran, was as you said compiled from different things and agreed upon then why don't Muslims have things like the Gospel of Mary or rejected chapters floating around? Why is it that every sect of Islam uses the same Quran and we don't have a different Quran for Hannafi or Shafi Muslims? http://www.islam101.com/quran/preservedQ.htm
On January 27 2012 13:31 Scootaloo wrote: And Arabic did not properly exist when the Qu'ran was created, apart from the fact that Muhammads people did not speak it because it was not native to their region, the only versions of arabic that existed where in proto-form and native to the region your nametag says your from, classic Arabic was created specifically for writing down the Qu'ran, most likely when Muhammad was already dead.
refer to above explanation of how Arabic has changed and how it doesn't affect anything
On January 27 2012 13:31 Scootaloo wrote: In Islam it's a lot easier to become a saint then in Christianity, for all intents and purposes it is more useful to refer to a Imam as an equivelant of a Catholic Priest, as they perform roughly the same functions, and I don't think I ever alluded to Imams as Saints.
The issue with Sainthood vs being an Imam is that Sainthood implies a type of divinity whereas being an Imam doesn't. In current context, an Imam just leads a Mosque. Whereas a scholar would be the one to issue a ruling. Scholars, again, not divine, but they are there to debate.
On January 27 2012 13:31 Scootaloo wrote: Mind you my problem with Hijabs and such is not as much how it looks as it's implications, the relevant part of the Qu'ran states that women must cover themselves to avoid men losing control of themselves and because they are shameless whores otherwise, equaling humans to beasts that lack any form of self control, and nowhere in the Qu'ran does it state anything similar for men, just women, who, according to the Qu'ran are PROPERTY of the man.
And I'm an atheist remember? Unlike a muslim I will take your opinion just as seriously as I would that of a man.
Oh, thank God. I thought I was dealing with all the Muslim men who have been imprisoning and oppressing me all my life. SAVE ME!! (sarcasm). I love my Muslim men. Man, people think Muslim women have it bad. I don't even want to think about how it would feel if people thought you were abusing your wife or daughter.
So before you bring it up and this will be fun to discuss based on what we've talked about. The main verse that non-Arabic speakers use to talk about Women being the property of Men in Islam is: (4:34) Men are in charge of women by what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend from their wealth.
The reason why this will be fun to talk about because I will have to clear up translation errors in this, which has been a nice topic for the two of us. "Men are in charge of women" Translation error. Where the English says 'in charge,' there is an Arabic word that has no direct translation into English. Men are qawamuun of women. This word has a lot of implications. The easiest way to explain it would be that it is asking men to protect, honor, and take care of women. It is demanding chivalry from men in dealing with women. When I was in Islamic school a simple act of this was that the boys never allowed me to sit on the floor. They would always bring me a chair and the issue was sometimes, I wanted to sit on the floor. I was pretty comfortable. I mean I know a chair is generally seen as better than the floor, but sometimes you just want to do want you want to do.
As for the second part concerning a woman taking from a man's wealth. This is pretty important because a woman's own wealth in Islam is considered her own and any she gives to her husband is considered a form of charity, whereas, with a Man's wealth, giving it to his wife is considered his duty. That being said, a lot of the gender roles in Islam are considered guidelines rather than 'Your husband-wife relationship MUST be this way' because a woman can be the bread winner of the family and it would be pretty bad if she didn't contribute to the family. Khadijah, Prophet Muhammad's first wife, married before prophethood and died during it, was the breadwinner. She actually was the one that initiated the relationship with Muhammad and ask him to marry her. (and people think it's liberal when a woman proposes to a man today ;>.>)
As for the Hijab, the main verse goes like this: “O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.” (Quran 33:59)
Hijab is mostly for the woman than it is for the man. I love wearing hijab for a few reasons: 1) It identifies me as Muslim. I live in the United States. It's important that when I'm at work and in school where people may have misconceptions about Muslims that they know that the girl who's playing StarCraft in the game lab, making jokes, and pulling off great animation pieces is Muslim. This is because I have a personality. I wasn't abused and in reality my parents pushed me to go far in life and even once encouraged me to go leave the house for college, believing that it would teach me more independence.
2) Personal reasons on what I think of the image of women in society. Fact of the matter is, I don't like that women are objectified. I don't support women being displayed half naked in malls. To some women, that's part of sexual equality and it's the man's fault for taking women that way. I, however, believe that it goes both ways and don't even support that image of men. I won't shout from the rooftops that I think that people need to look at female equality differently because women still debate among themselves about what it means to be equal with a man and will always debate that. Me wearing a hijab is me showing my stance but not being in your face about it. It passively promotes my idea. If you like it, great. If you don't, I'll move on with my life.
3) Wearing hijab isn't about being a whore or not being a whore. It's one part of the religion. I've seen just because you do 'X' amount of things that are required by your religion doesn't mean that you're a good person and doesn't mean that you're actually religious. There are women who wear hijab with tight clothing. There are women who don't wear hijab and who aren't even Muslim who dress very modestly.
Hijab is more than about sex. It's about representing just one of the many images of woman.
But I suppose nothing I say matters because I'm just one of those women that wears ridiculous 'shrouds.'
I have no idea where that came from. But there's nothing sexist about what he's been saying, so I'm rather confused. Why would he disregard you because you are a woman that wears a certain type of clothing? It's rather insulting that you would say that to him.
He said that Muslims made women wear ridiculous shrouds in a previous post. I was calling him out on it because I didn't like that he referred to something that I particularly enjoy as ridiculous or 'shroud' like. Also, I find it insulting that he thinks I come from a background where my opinion isn't respected and heard. So he said it all first. I am correcting his misconceptions.
Edit 2: Looks like he edited it out already, but for context, DoubleReed, I was referring to something he specifically said.
i would never try to impose my opinion on others, but i reject religious symbols in today's society whole heartedly. everyone can believe whatever they want and practise whatever they want but flaunting it in public is not a solution. Thus, i reject people who wear giant crosses or stars or nikab/burka.
On January 27 2012 15:35 brokor wrote: i would never try to impose my opinion on others, but i reject religious symbols in today's society whole heartedly. everyone can believe whatever they want and practise whatever they want but flaunting it in public is not a solution. Thus, i reject people who wear giant crosses or stars or nikab/burka.
People should be able to wear whatever they want in my opinion. I find it wrong when people are discriminated against because of the way they choose to dress. If someone likes to wear a hijab/burka, they should be able to do so. That said I see why a burka might be undesirable due to security or work related reasons.
It is wrong, however, when people are under pressure to wear certain things. Dressing "immodestly" is still dangerous for women in many places.
If we're talking about sexism specifically the Bible is pretty bad as well, the Ten Commandments might not hold too much overly sexist things but the the book is filled with sexist quotes, let me give a couple:
1 Corinthians 11:3
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
1 Corinthians 11:7 - 9*
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Ephesians 5:22 - 25*
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
There's a lot more but I think I made my point.
The simple fact is that the behavioral differences (which I might add are not that great if left untouched by culture, most of them have to do with hormones, the brains of men and women are almost identical) between the sexes often lead to a patriarchal society, there have been matriarchal societies but because the patriarchal ones (sadly enough) tend to be more inclined to conquering they often eventually wiped out or assimilated matriarchal ones.
This is important in understanding the background most monotheistic ideas of God came from. The Tora, and it's "Sequels", the Bible and Qu'ran, draw heavily from mythology much older then their own creation, the sun God veneration of Ra, the Greek Mythras and creation myths, Persian mysticism and various other smaller cults that where active in the region at that time.
All of these, including the religions we're discussing where created in patriarchal societies, that usually only acknowledge a female prophet or seer in extreme hardships (i.e. Jeanne D'Arc), the messages these male prophets get tends to be based on their imagination and worldview, and growing up in a heavily patriarchal society will make you say dumb shit like women being property of men or a woman being of lesser value then a man.
Even in a religious context this could still work, the Vatican has acknowledged these other similar prophets and religions as precursors to their beliefs, earlier attempts by God to teach humanity or signs of what was to come, I suspect the Jews did the same, Judaism is by far the most mystic of the Abrahamic religions, and unlike Christianity and especially Islam it promotes freedom of thinking, I've not read anything specifically about Islam on this matter either but I have no doubt the more progressive, free-thinking, secular Muslims like LittleAtari have drawn similar conclusions already.
Now, on to my personal views, I believe most prophets where either afflicted with mental diseases such as Epilepsy in the case of Muhammad, under the influence of Shamanistic drugs for Moses, or in the case of Jesus either never existed, the first person to actually write about Jesus was the apostle Paul (please don't say the gospels where written by the original Matthew and such, check wiki before starting a discussion about that plz) and as any Christian knows Paul was never there at the Last Supper and had never seen Jesus, his conversion was roughly 30 years after Jesus supposed death, he was an Aramaic working for the Roman legions and while murdering a Christian, he was converted by a vision he had, or Jesus was a man who might have done a couple of what was considered miracles and had a lot of extra myths, from religions in that region, attached onto him most likely after his death, during the creation of the Bible we know today by the Romans, there are numerous Gospels that deal with things such as Jesus conversing in great detail with animals or the Gospel of Judas (that was most likely not written by the actual Judas).
I believe all three religions where created in a concious effort by people specifically out to control masses, the Bible by a Roman Council, the Tora by a Jewish king and his advisors and the Qu'ran by the descendants and friends of Muhammad, all essentially compilations of religious myths before them with a bit of new dogmatism attached, to create the most suitable religion to hold together an empire spanning far more land than could be reasonably ruled from a single location at that time.
Consider how the Bible and Qu'ran shamelessly rip of their prequels, and even the Tora blatantly rips off regional religions before itself, all the strange religions humanity has had have updated themselves or died out according to what was needed, the static religions we have now are a fairly new concept only brought on by the fact that our human ingenuity gave us the ability to forge empires, a written language and the means of copying, before that all religions where like infertile mutant offspring, dying off when it's host culture got destroyed, only surviving as ancients myths through oral tradition.
Even religion itself progresses through stages of evolution, until, when sufficient secularism has been reached and people have little life threatening things to worry about, it eventually dies out. Europe, bastion of religion for centuries, slowly becoming more and more atheist as general wealth and technological progress grows, the wealthy part of South East Asia (China, Japan, Korea and possibly Thailand), same story, America is a lot younger, but even there atheism is pretty well accepted, and perhaps when it's government will stop fearmongering this will grow again, secular wealthy countries like Turkey work the same, even the Ottomans where relatively secular until the very end, Jannisaries alone are in clear violation of the Qu'ran, and it was their obsession with Islam that made them eventually fall into stagnation as they refused to accept scientific progress and got crushed and divided in the First World War.
The only thing that would be able to create relative comfort for the entire world is scientific progress, feed and house everyone, replace destructive governments, root out religious militants and any other major threat to the human conciousness, if we can create this state before our host empires collapse I believe this civilization can honestly be the first one to not eventually get destroyed through usual means (war, regional scale natural disasters, leaders incompetence), and through our blissfull relative comfort, humanity will entirely lose it's need for religion, until eventually we're on the bridge of an S-Class Starcruiser with a bald British Guy playing a French guy and we'll laugh about our forefathers mutilating and murdering eachother for anything else then Space Diamonds.
Edit: Oh god I finish this and you respond, if you don't mind I'll postpone the continuation of our discussion until tomorrow LittleAtari, it's getting quite interesting but sleep is a rather important comodity.
On January 27 2012 15:35 brokor wrote: i would never try to impose my opinion on others, but i reject religious symbols in today's society whole heartedly. everyone can believe whatever they want and practise whatever they want but flaunting it in public is not a solution. Thus, i reject people who wear giant crosses or stars or nikab/burka.
People should be able to wear whatever they want in my opinion. I find it wrong when people are looked down upon for their outer appearance. If someone likes to wear a hijab/burka, they should be able to do so. That said I see why a burka might be undesirable due to security or work related reasons.
It is wrong, however, when people are under pressure to wear certain things. Dressing "immodestly" is still dangerous for women in many places.
Such as the alleys of any city in the western world at night. Dressing "immodestly" is a risk factor for sexual assault by strangers.
On January 27 2012 15:35 brokor wrote: i would never try to impose my opinion on others, but i reject religious symbols in today's society whole heartedly. everyone can believe whatever they want and practise whatever they want but flaunting it in public is not a solution. Thus, i reject people who wear giant crosses or stars or nikab/burka.
People should be able to wear whatever they want in my opinion. I find it wrong when people are looked down upon for their outer appearance. If someone likes to wear a hijab/burka, they should be able to do so. That said I see why a burka might be undesirable due to security or work related reasons.
It is wrong, however, when people are under pressure to wear certain things. Dressing "immodestly" is still dangerous for women in many places.
Such as the alleys of any city in the western world at night. Dressing "immodestly" is a risk factor for sexual assault by strangers.
There is no statistical evidence that it is a risk factor. Also only a few percent of sexual assaults are perpetrated by strangers.
I daresay that a lot of women in Germany feel safe on the streets at night no matter how they are dressed.
@Scootaloo, do you care to elaborate what do you mean by saying that the Romans created the Bible? I guess you are right in a sense that the bishops at the time were already Roman citizens but if you are implying that Roman authorities handed the Bible to Christians that is a theory I have not heard before. Even then, the texts that got into the official canon (there were several canons circulating with about the same texts) of the New Testament were already pretty widely recognized and read in parishes. Only few texts like Revelations caused controversy if they should be included or not.
If you are referring to the fact that the emperor called forth the first synods, which of course is a bit problematic for the Catholic church, I think your conclusion is still quite far-fetched to say the least.
On January 27 2012 15:35 brokor wrote: i would never try to impose my opinion on others, but i reject religious symbols in today's society whole heartedly. everyone can believe whatever they want and practise whatever they want but flaunting it in public is not a solution. Thus, i reject people who wear giant crosses or stars or nikab/burka.
People should be able to wear whatever they want in my opinion. I find it wrong when people are looked down upon for their outer appearance. If someone likes to wear a hijab/burka, they should be able to do so. That said I see why a burka might be undesirable due to security or work related reasons.
It is wrong, however, when people are under pressure to wear certain things. Dressing "immodestly" is still dangerous for women in many places.
Such as the alleys of any city in the western world at night. Dressing "immodestly" is a risk factor for sexual assault by strangers.
There is no statistical evidence that it is a risk factor. Also only a few percent of sexual assaults are perpetrated by strangers.
I daresay that a lot of women in Germany feel safe on the streets at night no matter how they are dressed.
Most statistics point to women being sexually assaulted by people. In which case, I think a lot more is going on there than just how they dressed (It probably didn't matter at all)
@scootaloo, you really don't need to waste time on me. I've lived my religion and studied it. You read off of wikipedia and translations. I read the original article written by scholars and the Quran in Arabic. You're not going to convince me of anything else. It's like someone who reads about starcraft vs actually playing the game. I don't have time to go back and forth with you and I'm pretty sure most religion threads end up locked, so I'll discontinue talking about the issue. I'm done and have got stuff to do. If you're genuinely curious about my views on certain issues, I'll discuss them via PM on my own time. I'll be off TL a few days. See you later bro. I see you're new to TL, so welcome to the site o/ ps. I'm far from secular.
On January 27 2012 15:35 brokor wrote: i would never try to impose my opinion on others, but i reject religious symbols in today's society whole heartedly. everyone can believe whatever they want and practise whatever they want but flaunting it in public is not a solution. Thus, i reject people who wear giant crosses or stars or nikab/burka.
People should be able to wear whatever they want in my opinion. I find it wrong when people are looked down upon for their outer appearance. If someone likes to wear a hijab/burka, they should be able to do so. That said I see why a burka might be undesirable due to security or work related reasons.
It is wrong, however, when people are under pressure to wear certain things. Dressing "immodestly" is still dangerous for women in many places.
Such as the alleys of any city in the western world at night. Dressing "immodestly" is a risk factor for sexual assault by strangers.
One of the greatest warpings of the truth is how rape is portrayed.
Rape is almost exclusively committed by people that the victim knows.
The #1 person most likely to rape you? The husband. The husband also doesn't face any punishment for raping his wife because the majority of countries do not consider a man forcing sex on his wife as rape.
Dressing "immodestly" has never shown to have any relation to rape.
This is in response to all those who criticize religion in this thread. I agree with you, but with a different reason. This was shared to me by an atheist friend and I agree with it 100%. The video expresses my view as well on how cultural/societal influences on religion are what cause most of the issues being argued about here.
Not meant as a evangelistic post, but as info to those who do have not studied the bible outside of theological scholastics. And hopefully this applies to Islam and other religions as well. Also, just so ppl know, I'm not a Christian.
On January 27 2012 17:34 zalz wrote:The #1 person most likely to rape you? The husband. The husband also doesn't face any punishment for raping his wife because the majority of countries do not consider a man forcing sex on his wife as rape.
While you're on the right track, this statement is false. Most rape in Western society is acquaintance rape where one or both parties are intoxicated.
On January 27 2012 17:34 zalz wrote:The #1 person most likely to rape you? The husband. The husband also doesn't face any punishment for raping his wife because the majority of countries do not consider a man forcing sex on his wife as rape.
While you're on the right track, this statement is false. Most rape in Western society is acquaintance rape where one or both parties are intoxicated.
When did we agree that rape stops being rape past western boundaries?
I even mentioned the husband being immune to persecution. You can be arrested for raping your wife in western countries.
So my very post already contains references to regions outside the western world. So why you suddenly decide to exclude that and pretend like I made the mistake? I don't know. You can explain how you drew that conclusion.
On January 27 2012 16:07 Scootaloo wrote: If we're talking about sexism specifically the Bible is pretty bad as well, the Ten Commandments might not hold too much overly sexist things but the the book is filled with sexist quotes, let me give a couple:
1 Corinthians 11:3
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
1 Corinthians 11:7 - 9*
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Ephesians 5:22 - 25*
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
There's a lot more but I think I made my point.
The simple fact is that the behavioral differences (which I might add are not that great if left untouched by culture, most of them have to do with hormones, the brains of men and women are almost identical) between the sexes often lead to a patriarchal society, there have been matriarchal societies but because the patriarchal ones (sadly enough) tend to be more inclined to conquering they often eventually wiped out or assimilated matriarchal ones.
This is important in understanding the background most monotheistic ideas of God came from. The Tora, and it's "Sequels", the Bible and Qu'ran, draw heavily from mythology much older then their own creation, the sun God veneration of Ra, the Greek Mythras and creation myths, Persian mysticism and various other smaller cults that where active in the region at that time.
All of these, including the religions we're discussing where created in patriarchal societies, that usually only acknowledge a female prophet or seer in extreme hardships (i.e. Jeanne D'Arc), the messages these male prophets get tends to be based on their imagination and worldview, and growing up in a heavily patriarchal society will make you say dumb shit like women being property of men or a woman being of lesser value then a man.
Even in a religious context this could still work, the Vatican has acknowledged these other similar prophets and religions as precursors to their beliefs, earlier attempts by God to teach humanity or signs of what was to come, I suspect the Jews did the same, Judaism is by far the most mystic of the Abrahamic religions, and unlike Christianity and especially Islam it promotes freedom of thinking, I've not read anything specifically about Islam on this matter either but I have no doubt the more progressive, free-thinking, secular Muslims like LittleAtari have drawn similar conclusions already.
Now, on to my personal views, I believe most prophets where either afflicted with mental diseases such as Epilepsy in the case of Muhammad, under the influence of Shamanistic drugs for Moses, or in the case of Jesus either never existed, the first person to actually write about Jesus was the apostle Paul (please don't say the gospels where written by the original Matthew and such, check wiki before starting a discussion about that plz) and as any Christian knows Paul was never there at the Last Supper and had never seen Jesus, his conversion was roughly 30 years after Jesus supposed death, he was an Aramaic working for the Roman legions and while murdering a Christian, he was converted by a vision he had, or Jesus was a man who might have done a couple of what was considered miracles and had a lot of extra myths, from religions in that region, attached onto him most likely after his death, during the creation of the Bible we know today by the Romans, there are numerous Gospels that deal with things such as Jesus conversing in great detail with animals or the Gospel of Judas (that was most likely not written by the actual Judas).
I believe all three religions where created in a concious effort by people specifically out to control masses, the Bible by a Roman Council, the Tora by a Jewish king and his advisors and the Qu'ran by the descendants and friends of Muhammad, all essentially compilations of religious myths before them with a bit of new dogmatism attached, to create the most suitable religion to hold together an empire spanning far more land than could be reasonably ruled from a single location at that time.
Consider how the Bible and Qu'ran shamelessly rip of their prequels, and even the Tora blatantly rips off regional religions before itself, all the strange religions humanity has had have updated themselves or died out according to what was needed, the static religions we have now are a fairly new concept only brought on by the fact that our human ingenuity gave us the ability to forge empires, a written language and the means of copying, before that all religions where like infertile mutant offspring, dying off when it's host culture got destroyed, only surviving as ancients myths through oral tradition.
Even religion itself progresses through stages of evolution, until, when sufficient secularism has been reached and people have little life threatening things to worry about, it eventually dies out. Europe, bastion of religion for centuries, slowly becoming more and more atheist as general wealth and technological progress grows, the wealthy part of South East Asia (China, Japan, Korea and possibly Thailand), same story, America is a lot younger, but even there atheism is pretty well accepted, and perhaps when it's government will stop fearmongering this will grow again, secular wealthy countries like Turkey work the same, even the Ottomans where relatively secular until the very end, Jannisaries alone are in clear violation of the Qu'ran, and it was their obsession with Islam that made them eventually fall into stagnation as they refused to accept scientific progress and got crushed and divided in the First World War.
The only thing that would be able to create relative comfort for the entire world is scientific progress, feed and house everyone, replace destructive governments, root out religious militants and any other major threat to the human conciousness, if we can create this state before our host empires collapse I believe this civilization can honestly be the first one to not eventually get destroyed through usual means (war, regional scale natural disasters, leaders incompetence), and through our blissfull relative comfort, humanity will entirely lose it's need for religion, until eventually we're on the bridge of an S-Class Starcruiser with a bald British Guy playing a French guy and we'll laugh about our forefathers mutilating and murdering eachother for anything else then Space Diamonds.
Edit: Oh god I finish this and you respond, if you don't mind I'll postpone the continuation of our discussion until tomorrow LittleAtari, it's getting quite interesting but sleep is a rather important comodity.
On January 27 2012 15:35 brokor wrote: i would never try to impose my opinion on others, but i reject religious symbols in today's society whole heartedly. everyone can believe whatever they want and practise whatever they want but flaunting it in public is not a solution. Thus, i reject people who wear giant crosses or stars or nikab/burka.
People should be able to wear whatever they want in my opinion. I find it wrong when people are looked down upon for their outer appearance. If someone likes to wear a hijab/burka, they should be able to do so. That said I see why a burka might be undesirable due to security or work related reasons.
It is wrong, however, when people are under pressure to wear certain things. Dressing "immodestly" is still dangerous for women in many places.
Such as the alleys of any city in the western world at night. Dressing "immodestly" is a risk factor for sexual assault by strangers.
One of the greatest warpings of the truth is how rape is portrayed.
Rape is almost exclusively committed by people that the victim knows.
The #1 person most likely to rape you? The husband. The husband also doesn't face any punishment for raping his wife because the majority of countries do not consider a man forcing sex on his wife as rape.
Dressing "immodestly" has never shown to have any relation to rape.
Which is why I included the qualifier "by strangers".
Last time I checked, a husband, aquaintance, friend, brother, father, uncle, etc, etc, is not a stranger.
At any rate, stranger rape is a quarter of forcible rapes. (I'm not including "agreeing to sex while drunk and regretting it the next morning", "he threatened to break up with me if we didn't have sex", "I changed my mind during the sex but was too scared to tell him to stop", "my body language was saying yes, I didn't say no, but I never explicitly said "fuck me"" as rape.)
Of those stranger rapes, a significant amount is motivated in whole or part by the perception that the victim was a slut, and therefore deserved it. Guess what contributes to the perception that a particular woman is a slut.
By the way zalz, if a woman has sex against her will, in countries were marital rape is not a crime, she was not raped, because in her jurisdiction, she gave consent to vaginal sex to her husband in perpetuity when she said "I do".
On January 27 2012 20:43 vetinari wrote:Which is why I included the qualifier "by strangers".
Last time I checked, a husband, aquaintance, friend, brother, father, uncle, etc, etc, is not a stranger.
At any rate, stranger rape is a quarter of forcible rapes. (I'm not including "agreeing to sex while drunk and regretting it the next morning", "he threatened to break up with me if we didn't have sex", "I changed my mind during the sex but was too scared to tell him to stop", "my body language was saying yes, I didn't say no, but I never explicitly said "fuck me"" as rape.)
Of those stranger rapes, a significant amount is motivated in whole or part by the perception that the victim was a slut, and therefore deserved it. Guess what contributes to the perception that a particular woman is a slut.
Humans retro-actively write their memory. People can create memories after the event. They raped a person, they have to justify it for themselves because nobody wants to view themselves as evil, so they call her a slut to justify their actions whilst during the act itself, they were never motivated by such perceptions.
But I would still like a link to a stastic that shows that "The perception that she was a slut" is a main motivator of rape. It's not something that I ever came across but if you have some evidence that I missed, by all means, share it.
By the way zalz, if a woman has sex against her will, in countries were marital rape is not a crime, she was not raped, because in her jurisdiction, she gave consent to vaginal sex to her husband in perpetuity when she said "I do".
She was still raped because rape is forced sex.
I don't care that a bunch of medieval dictators pass a law that says it's not rape.
North-Korea can call itself a democracy all it likes, it's not. Saudi-Arabia can say that forcing sex on your wife is fine, it's still rape.
On January 27 2012 18:05 zalz wrote:So my very post already contains references to regions outside the western world. So why you suddenly decide to exclude that and pretend like I made the mistake? I don't know. You can explain how you drew that conclusion.
There is little to no reliable detailed criminological data on rape outside the Western world. I invite you to correct me by providing any sort of data to corroborate your assertions.
You admit an understanding that marital rape is not recognized in many socieites. What makes you think there would be any reliable incidence of rape reporting in those societies?
In other words, I call BS. Your assertion that marital rape is the most common is unsubstantiated.
On January 27 2012 20:43 vetinari wrote:Which is why I included the qualifier "by strangers".
Last time I checked, a husband, aquaintance, friend, brother, father, uncle, etc, etc, is not a stranger.
At any rate, stranger rape is a quarter of forcible rapes. (I'm not including "agreeing to sex while drunk and regretting it the next morning", "he threatened to break up with me if we didn't have sex", "I changed my mind during the sex but was too scared to tell him to stop", "my body language was saying yes, I didn't say no, but I never explicitly said "fuck me"" as rape.)
Of those stranger rapes, a significant amount is motivated in whole or part by the perception that the victim was a slut, and therefore deserved it. Guess what contributes to the perception that a particular woman is a slut.
Humans retro-actively write their memory. People can create memories after the event. They raped a person, they have to justify it for themselves because nobody wants to view themselves as evil, so they call her a slut to justify their actions whilst during the act itself, they were never motivated by such perceptions.
But I would still like a link to a stastic that shows that "The perception that she was a slut" is a main motivator of rape. It's not something that I ever came across but if you have some evidence that I missed, by all means, share it.
By the way zalz, if a woman has sex against her will, in countries were marital rape is not a crime, she was not raped, because in her jurisdiction, she gave consent to vaginal sex to her husband in perpetuity when she said "I do".
She was still raped because rape is forced sex.
I don't care that a bunch of medieval dictators pass a law that says it's not rape.
North-Korea can call itself a democracy all it likes, it's not. Saudi-Arabia can say that forcing sex on your wife is fine, it's still rape.
Its not a main motivator, its a contributing factor. The main motivator for stranger rape is an unfulfilled desire for sex.
No, rape is sex without free consent. If you consent to sex, you were not raped. I currently have a mobile broadband contract with my telco. They take 30 bucks from my bank account every month. However, I don't want them to take money from my account. Since I have not cancelled my contract (divorced), it is not theft when they take the money from my bank account. On the other hand, if I entered a contract in which I had to approve each payment, and they take it from my account without my approval, then it was theft.
No one is raped because they are perceived to be slutty. Someone gets raped because another person makes the conscious decision to rape them. When you start talking about how it would have been prevented had the victim taken certain precautions, you shift the blame to them.
If I mug you because I think you look rich, I'm still making a conscious decision to commit a crime against you. No one's going to start "well why didn't you dress like a bum so you looked less mugging-worthy?" lines, which would imply that you are somewhat responsible for a crime committed against you by another.
And yes it's true that the vast majority of rapes are committed by people the victim is acquainted with. However I don't think marital rape is the most common subsection of that.
As an analogy, living in contemporary Iraq or Afghanistan means that you are more likely to die violently. That doesn't mean it's the fault of IED victims for living there, but understanding this fact can be useful.
On January 27 2012 21:50 Haemonculus wrote:If I mug you because I think you look rich, I'm still making a conscious decision to commit a crime against you. No one's going to start "well why didn't you dress like a bum so you looked less mugging-worthy?" lines, which would imply that you are somewhat responsible for a crime committed against you by another.
If you visibly display jewelry while walking through a slum late at night, I think people would point out that you should have done some things differently. Again, that doesn't make it your fault.
On January 27 2012 21:50 Haemonculus wrote: No one is raped because they are perceived to be slutty. Someone gets raped because another person makes the conscious decision to rape them. When you start talking about how it would have been prevented had the victim taken certain precautions, you shift the blame to them.
If I mug you because I think you look rich, I'm still making a conscious decision to commit a crime against you. No one's going to start "well why didn't you dress like a bum so you looked less mugging-worthy?" lines, which would imply that you are somewhat responsible for a crime committed against you by another.
And yes it's true that the vast majority of rapes are committed by people the victim is acquainted with. However I don't think marital rape is the most common subsection of that.
No one has their car stolen because they leave the keys in the ignition. Someone has their car stolen because another person makes the conscious decision to steal their car. When you start talking about how it would have been prevented had the victim taken certain precautions, you shift the blame to them.
On January 27 2012 21:50 Haemonculus wrote: No one is raped because they are perceived to be slutty. Someone gets raped because another person makes the conscious decision to rape them. When you start talking about how it would have been prevented had the victim taken certain precautions, you shift the blame to them.
If I mug you because I think you look rich, I'm still making a conscious decision to commit a crime against you. No one's going to start "well why didn't you dress like a bum so you looked less mugging-worthy?" lines, which would imply that you are somewhat responsible for a crime committed against you by another.
And yes it's true that the vast majority of rapes are committed by people the victim is acquainted with. However I don't think marital rape is the most common subsection of that.
No one has their car stolen because they leave the keys in the ignition. Someone has their car stolen because another person makes the conscious decision to steal their car. When you start talking about how it would have been prevented had the victim taken certain precautions, you shift the blame to them.
Have I got that right?
This is a very touchy subject for one simple reason. Juries are fucking stupid. For decades lawyers have used the "well she was clearly asking for it" defence to get people who don't even deny rape acquitted. It is the duty of the lawyer to do whatever they can for their client but it's a bullshit argument and holds absolutely no water. But juries are stupid and they accept it and countless rape victims have to sit there in court and listen to their peers conclude that the horrific crime that was inflicted upon them was not because the guy who did it to them was a criminal but was as a result of their actions.
People are wrong to say that there aren't things you can do to lower the chance of getting raped. However they are very much in the right to get pissed off whenever people use that argument. That argument has been twisted to justify countless atrocities against women and whenever it is repeated in any form it reinforces the idea that the blame doesn't lie solely with the rapist.
Ehh... you could argue that there are things someone can do to prevent assault, sure. It just seems incredibly arbitrary. Most convicted rapists can't even remember what their victim was wearing. Many rapes also happen inside the home, in which case it's unlikely she was really dressing "provocatively" or whatnot.
You could argue "she might not have been raped if she hadn't been wearing that skirt." Alright, well in that case, we could also argue that she very likely wouldn't have been raped if she'd just stayed home that night. Or if she never left the house without a guard, or a weapon. Where do we draw the line of "you should have done X to protect yourself?" In every case, arguing over what could have been done *by* the victim to prevent/deter a crime, you are blaming the victim, and ignoring the fact that another person made the conscious decision to assault them.
As for your car analogy, what the fuck? What does it say about our culture/society in general if "it looked easy" or "I thought I could get away with it" is seen as a valid or excusable motive for a crime?
On January 27 2012 21:50 Haemonculus wrote: No one is raped because they are perceived to be slutty. Someone gets raped because another person makes the conscious decision to rape them. When you start talking about how it would have been prevented had the victim taken certain precautions, you shift the blame to them.
If I mug you because I think you look rich, I'm still making a conscious decision to commit a crime against you. No one's going to start "well why didn't you dress like a bum so you looked less mugging-worthy?" lines, which would imply that you are somewhat responsible for a crime committed against you by another.
And yes it's true that the vast majority of rapes are committed by people the victim is acquainted with. However I don't think marital rape is the most common subsection of that.
No one has their car stolen because they leave the keys in the ignition. Someone has their car stolen because another person makes the conscious decision to steal their car. When you start talking about how it would have been prevented had the victim taken certain precautions, you shift the blame to them.
Have I got that right?
if you leave your window open insurance companies wont pay out because youre being a dumb ass. plus criminals will tell you that they will only target dumb asses because they are more likely to get away with it. bad metaphor when going with rape really.
On January 27 2012 23:42 Haemonculus wrote: Ehh... you could argue that there are things someone can do to prevent assault, sure. It just seems incredibly arbitrary. Most convicted rapists can't even remember what their victim was wearing. Many rapes also happen inside the home, in which case it's unlikely she was really dressing "provocatively" or whatnot.
You could argue "she might not have been raped if she hadn't been wearing that skirt." Alright, well in that case, we could also argue that she very likely wouldn't have been raped if she'd just stayed home that night. Or if she never left the house without a guard, or a weapon. Where do we draw the line of "you should have done X to protect yourself?" In every case, arguing over what could have been done *by* the victim to prevent/deter a crime, you are blaming the victim, and ignoring the fact that another person made the conscious decision to assault them.
As for your car analogy, what the fuck? What does it say about our culture/society in general if "it looked easy" or "I thought I could get away with it" is seen as a valid or excusable motive for a crime?
I have the right to property but that doesn't mean I should expect that right to be held as sacrosanct by other people because many people are dicks. Likewise women have the right to not be raped but that doesn't mean they should act like there aren't any rapists in the world.
Nobody has any problem telling children not to go off with strangers at the same time nobody blames the children who do get abducted. On the other end of the spectrum if someone I knew decided to go out by himself and get really drunk and then woke up in the morning with no wallet I'd have little sympathy for him, regardless of his rights. Both had their rights violated and neither is to blame for it but the world is a shitty place, you accept that being morally in the right does not stop wrong being done to you and you try and limit that. Girls on a night out should, for their own safety, follow a few guidelines such as not accepting drinks from strangers. Failure to follow these is exhibiting the same naivity as a child accepting sweets from a stranger, we shouldn't blame them for the crime any more than we'd blame the child but we can recognise that they've taken insufficient precautions.
Returning to my original point, the problem is juries. They don't understand that when someone gambles with their ability to prevent an evil act from being done to them that does not mean they cause the evil. Juries buy it so lawyers use it so rapists get away with it and feminists get pissed off with it and then random police officers giving people good advice get in trouble.
Yea, if I'm not mistaken most rapes occur among young adult women, so to claim sexual attractiveness (like clothing) has nothing to do with it seems wrong.
Of course in many African countries there has evolved the idea of corrective rape for lesbians which is pretty much exactly what it sounds like. That might fall under LGBT rights instead of women's rights. But really, no human should be getting raped.
The "asking for it" argument is complicated, because the criminality of the act is based on the other person Not asking for it. (ie if you leave your keys in the ignition of your car, maybe you are giving it away as a donation to whoever wants it... like a sofa left on the side of the road.)
The problem is making sure people understand that just like with a car, the person must actually be explicitly asking for it for it to be legal.
What the distinction ends up as is moral/legal responsibility v. 'responsibility' of the consequences (ie no insurance company payout)
Alright, but I don't see accepting a drink from a stranger in quite the same light as altering your choice of clothing for the evening. Firstly, we're focused on the traditional "stranger rape" which is something like 22% of all rapes.
In the drink from a stranger situation, the drugged-drink-giver has clearly already made the decision to try to rape someone that night. That's already been decided. Accepting that drink makes you the victim, instead of someone else. Not accepting that drink merely prevents *you* from being the victim. The crime still likely happens to someone else.
With the what she was wearing routine, we're working on one of two assumptions. Either someone has already decided to rape another person, and is looking for a victim, (and evidence suggests that they look for weak/lonely/timid women, not necessarily attractiveness. They are picking someone unlikely to fight back or report them to the police,) or that the perpetrator was in fact not necessarily planning on raping anyone that night, but upon seeing the victim dressed a certain way, decided to. In either case it just seems highly counter productive to focus on the actions/dress of the victim when the decision to commit the crime was clearly on the rapist. It's incredibly troubling that in almost every situation, the discussion inevitably turns to scrutiny of the victim. It's become that acceptable.
But again, we're focusing on the stranger-rape case, which is relatively rare. Statistically, you know your assailant, and he didn't abduct you in a dark alleyway. Most likely he came to your apartment, and you let him in.
Have you considered that in the case of stranger rape it is possible that the rapist is aware that people get away with rape if they can convince the jury that the victim had taken insufficient care to protect herself and that dressing provocatively can be argued to have taken insufficient care. The "she was asking for it" defence is well known, while an increased attractiveness from dressing a certain way may be disregarded by the rapist an increased vulnerability may not be. Women are afraid of going to the police, and with good reason, the conviction rate on rape is really low. They're afraid that when they say they were drunk, that they may not remember parts of the night, that they dressed up and accepted drinks from guys etc they'll have to remember the night in court and then watch as the jury blames them for it.
Someone who would not want to report the rape is someone who is vulnerable, the weaknesses in the system are public knowledge, both to rapists and victims. Anything that makes it less likely the rapist will get convicted, even if it shouldn't in a just world, makes the target more vulnerable.
I'm absolutely aware of that. The conviction rate and the rate at which rapes are often not reported are horridly depressing. Which is why it's so important to talk about and debunk the faulty logic behind those numbers.
It's a cyclical problem . People get away with rape in court because of the "she was asking for it" defense. Then we, as greater society, go home and talk on the internet about maybe there's some merit to her outfit causing rape. We all talk about it, and hear about it on the media, and it starts to become generally accepted.
Then someone gets raped, and the defense uses the "she was asking for it" routine. It's become way too acceptable, and discussions such as this in which people do seem to support the notion that the victim's outfit is somehow an important factor are part of the problem.
I did not think that defense was ever used legally to be honest. I thought that was just a society shame thing (still bad of course because it means people don't come forward). That's pretty messed up.
On January 26 2012 07:42 Haemonculus wrote:My point is NOT that circumcision of one gender or another isn't a bad thing. You *ARE* trivializing an issue when you instead of commenting on said issue, accuse people of bias or agenda by not commenting on another.
And you trivialize the issue of male circumcision when you routinely ignore it, and then consider it derailing when it's brought up. Maybe if the UN made an effort to fight male circumcision, then people wouldn't feel the need to bring it up when they fight against FGM?
Let's say the UN fought against cancer and ignored heart disease; don't you think people would eventually bring up heart disease when the UN makes yet another move to fight cancer?
How about we fight against both FGM and male circumcision at the same time and trivialize neither?
And it was a terrible thing when we eliminated smallpox worldwide, but did not do so at the same time with tuberculosis. We should have done both or nothing, even though resources were limited. If something does not solve everything bad in the world at once, let us rather do nothing.
Yes, people would bring up heart disease, but separately as they are separate issues. Your analogies are as bad as possible.
Well at least people agreed that they're both bad to have. If you put the FGM and circumcision all under genital mutilation, you might be able to kill two birds with one stone, though you'll have twice the resistance. No extra resources needed for making the argument though so that's different from fighting two diseases at once.
Actually fighting bigger resistance means that extra resources are necessary.
On January 26 2012 09:54 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Do you know of any cultures that have a form of male circumcision that involves cutting off the entire penis, fusing the resulting hole shut, and then forcing some sort of painful seminal extraction technique when they're expected to fulfill their life function of producing a child, all simply because the women are deathly afraid of being cheated on?
smokeyhoodoo: FGM is worse than male circumcision!!1 Think of the wimminz!!! sunprince: Well yeah, but we're not talking about which one is worse. We're saying both are awful ways in which the bodily integrity of children are violated, and all because of religion. smokeyhoodoo: But FGM is WORSE! Think of hte wimminz!!!
On January 26 2012 12:46 mcc wrote:And it was a terrible thing when we eliminated smallpox worldwide, but did not do so at the same time with tuberculosis. We should have done both or nothing, even though resources were limited. If something does not solve everything bad in the world at once, let us rather do nothing.
Yes, people would bring up heart disease, but separately as they are separate issues. Your analogies are as bad as possible.
You fail logic forever. It's like you're incapable of understanding why male circumcision and FGM are intrinsically related, or that it makes sense to fight them at the same time.
Ok, then you seem to fail comprehension. I was criticizing your analogies, which were bad.
Ok I'm just going to raise points that you guys can argue about by yourselves!
First off I'll start by saying that each individual has free will.
Women and men do a lot of bad things men used to sell their daughters for land and marry shit tons of women etc. women used to cheat on husbands and socialize in such a way that would bring I'll fortune on another person. I hope you understand what I am saying if anything before money was invented we were trading women, virgins, and our daughters for other things why? What value is in this really? Some people seem to know by themselves through a general or deep thinking but I only just skimmed this topic for a single reason.
That reason is we know what men are like we know that some men will protect their women and family to the bitter ultra-violent death and the women "MAY" not have to even lift a finger as he slaves away for his whole life doing what men do well. Not to say that there are no great women out there because there are (Just not Hilary Clinton lol), and there have been over the many generations..... sadly I don't know any that would be of good use for an example (lol I'm just making them sound worse). However knowing this about men the thought came to me was that in western society we sort have really fucked ourselves over I mean think about it! I will give you two examples because in Islamic society basically you can say the women have no rights basically your rights are what your husband gives to you and they can never leave them or it's over your life may be over. However in western society if the wife leaves the husband her life is not over it could very well be just beginning.
Now my examples are very brutal and swing more to the side of hating on women but I just want you guys to think about it! I am not married yet but if I do (though I don't like the thought of marriage) I would like to stick it out with the one person I chose and if anything you all have your own ideas on that kind of stuff. Anyways getting to the point in our culture their is life without the husband as in when you get a divorce or separated you can leave with whatever the courts decide my example is that of an article I read once where the wife divorced a man in France because they got married and the husband never had sex with the wife...... confusing for like 21 years or something like that so she won like a ton of money and then a couple years later sued for emotional damages and won more money.
As very confusing as it is in Islamic culture you know you can't do that nor would you get away with scarring a man like that so when I think about how women are treated there the thought came to me that as wrong as it may seem it seems right and for western culture you know the whole court system getting a divorce and whatever as wrong as it may seem it too seems right....... so basically I'm confused I'm on the fence about this but in all I just threw this out there for you guys to think about it.
Ps. I may have run on too long and If I seem like I don't know what I'm talking about ignore this post.
1) Woman dresses provocatively (this is not criminal) 2) Rapist targets women who dress provocatively (this is criminal)
Until dressing provocatively is a crime, it shouldn't be an acceptable excuse for the rapist. Period. There is no circumstance in which rape suddenly becomes non-criminal. It doesn't matter if you walked around naked. Rape is a crime because it's rape. This is so self-evident that I can't believe people actually take issue with it. Yes, dressing unobtrusively will make you less appealing to a minority of rapists (remember, rape is often an act of domination rather than lust) but that doesn't really imply that dressing provocatively implies the rapist did nothing wrong.
On January 28 2012 01:22 Golem72 wrote: Ok I'm just going to raise points that you guys can argue about by yourselves!
First off I'll start by saying that each individual has free will.
Women and men do a lot of bad things men used to sell their daughters for land and marry shit tons of women etc. women used to cheat on husbands and socialize in such a way that would bring I'll fortune on another person. I hope you understand what I am saying if anything before money was invented we were trading women, virgins, and our daughters for other things why? What value is in this really? Some people seem to know by themselves through a general or deep thinking but I only just skimmed this topic for a single reason.
That reason is we know what men are like we know that some men will protect their women and family to the bitter ultra-violent death and the women "MAY" not have to even lift a finger as he slaves away for his whole life doing what men do well. Not to say that there are no great women out there because there are (Just not Hilary Clinton lol), and there have been over the many generations..... sadly I don't know any that would be of good use for an example (lol I'm just making them sound worse). However knowing this about men the thought came to me was that in western society we sort have really fucked ourselves over I mean think about it! I will give you two examples because in Islamic society basically you can say the women have no rights basically your rights are what your husband gives to you and they can never leave them or it's over your life may be over. However in western society if the wife leaves the husband her life is not over it could very well be just beginning.
Now my examples are very brutal and swing more to the side of hating on women but I just want you guys to think about it! I am not married yet but if I do (though I don't like the thought of marriage) I would like to stick it out with the one person I chose and if anything you all have your own ideas on that kind of stuff. Anyways getting to the point in our culture their is life without the husband as in when you get a divorce or separated you can leave with whatever the courts decide my example is that of an article I read once where the wife divorced a man in France because they got married and the husband never had sex with the wife...... confusing for like 21 years or something like that so she won like a ton of money and then a couple years later sued for emotional damages and won more money.
As very confusing as it is in Islamic culture you know you can't do that nor would you get away with scarring a man like that so when I think about how women are treated there the thought came to me that as wrong as it may seem it seems right and for western culture you know the whole court system getting a divorce and whatever as wrong as it may seem it too seems right....... so basically I'm confused I'm on the fence about this but in all I just threw this out there for you guys to think about it.
Ps. I may have run on too long and If I seem like I don't know what I'm talking about ignore this post.
Sorry bud but there's so much backwards and illogical thinking in this post I don't even know where to start.
The idea of the house-wife vacation lifestyle is patently absurd. I don't even know where to begin addressing this point, so the only thing I can say is that you should read some literature on the subject. There's whole books dedicated to why you're wrong.
You're also doing something ridiculous when you put all the blame on a divorce on the woman, and all the pain on the man. And even if this absurdly simplistic and incorrect notion was true, do you honestly think the pain of some men having to go through a divorce is even REMOTELY similar to the pain that women have to go through in highly patriarchal societies? Could you imagine if you were denied any right to a real education and opportunity for a career? Where people had strict restrictions right down to what you wear and when you can speak? Where it's illegal to do something as simple as drive a car, or even walk down the street unaccompanied by a male companion? Where any resistance to these gender norms could get you killed (see honor killings)?
But no, some men have to pay out in a divorce when their wife stays at home, essentially providing free childcare/cleaning etc. Like what do you think? Should a woman who gave up a career opportunities due to obligations at home just be left with nothing at the time of divorce? If you wanted to pay a third party to do all of the things a housewife does for free it has been estimated that it would cost upwards of $100,000.00 per year. Should this contribution not qualify for a share of the joint couple's estate?
Get off the fence, you look like a moron up there.
On January 28 2012 01:34 Shiori wrote: 1) Woman dresses provocatively (this is not criminal) 2) Rapist targets women who dress provocatively (this is criminal)
Until dressing provocatively is a crime, it shouldn't be an acceptable excuse for the rapist. Period. There is no circumstance in which rape suddenly becomes non-criminal. It doesn't matter if you walked around naked. Rape is a crime because it's rape. This is so self-evident that I can't believe people actually take issue with it. Yes, dressing unobtrusively will make you less appealing to a minority of rapists (remember, rape is often an act of domination rather than lust) but that doesn't really imply that dressing provocatively implies the rapist did nothing wrong.
I agree. Also a lot of that minority of rapes where the rapist doesn't know the victim it's a crime of opportunity rather than a calculated crime targeting someone based on clothes or whatnot. Meaning they choose the victim based on who happens to walk along that specific road, the one that just happens to step out of the bus right then and so on. They shouldn't get a pass because the victim happens to wear a short skirt.
On January 28 2012 01:34 Shiori wrote: 1) Woman dresses provocatively (this is not criminal) 2) Rapist targets women who dress provocatively (this is criminal)
Until dressing provocatively is a crime, it shouldn't be an acceptable excuse for the rapist. Period. There is no circumstance in which rape suddenly becomes non-criminal. It doesn't matter if you walked around naked. Rape is a crime because it's rape. This is so self-evident that I can't believe people actually take issue with it. Yes, dressing unobtrusively will make you less appealing to a minority of rapists (remember, rape is often an act of domination rather than lust) but that doesn't really imply that dressing provocatively implies the rapist did nothing wrong.
I agree. Also a lot of that minority of rapes where the rapist doesn't know the victim it's a crime of opportunity rather than a calculated crime targeting someone based on clothes or whatnot. Meaning they choose the victim based on who happens to walk along that specific road, the one that just happens to step out of the bus right then and so on. They shouldn't get a pass because the victim happens to wear a short skirt.
Taking this into account, it might be the wall flower that is most likely to end up getting raped by strangers.
After all, the type of girl that dresses "provocatively" is more likely to be in the company of men, making her an unappealing target for a rapist that is waiting for a lone victim.
Someone else already said it. Rape is more about domination then simple lust. We approach the mind of a rapist from a normal persons mind. Who would you rape? Well if I had to rape someone, obviously the prettiest girl.
On January 28 2012 02:42 zalz wrote:Someone else already said it. Rape is more about domination then simple lust. We approach the mind of a rapist from a normal persons mind. Who would you rape? Well if I had to rape someone, obviously the prettiest girl.
That's just not how these people think.
The "rape is about power" bullshit comes from feminist ideology and is not supported by criminological/sociological research.
Criminological studies suggest that like every other crime, the motivations for rape are multifaceted. There is significant research which shows that most male rapists do not prefer rape over consensual sex, and while male rapists have been shown to be more aroused by forced sex than a typical male, they are still more strongly aroused by consensual sex. There's also a strong correlation between the rise of widely available porn, and a decrease in sexual violence, which utterly contradicts the feminist idea of "Porn is the theory; rape is the practice."
The notion of "rape is about patriarchy and is an attempt to maintain power over women" is based on feminist theorycrafting rather than empirical data. In general, males don't use sex to get/maintain social status and social power; they use social status and social power over others to get sex. When it comes to humans (and to a limited degree, some of our primate cousins), it's females that are the ones to use sex in order to gain social power/status. The mistake made by feminist thinkers was projecting female motivations for sex onto males.
On January 27 2012 21:50 Haemonculus wrote: No one is raped because they are perceived to be slutty. Someone gets raped because another person makes the conscious decision to rape them. When you start talking about how it would have been prevented had the victim taken certain precautions, you shift the blame to them.
If I mug you because I think you look rich, I'm still making a conscious decision to commit a crime against you. No one's going to start "well why didn't you dress like a bum so you looked less mugging-worthy?" lines, which would imply that you are somewhat responsible for a crime committed against you by another.
And yes it's true that the vast majority of rapes are committed by people the victim is acquainted with. However I don't think marital rape is the most common subsection of that.
No one has their car stolen because they leave the keys in the ignition. Someone has their car stolen because another person makes the conscious decision to steal their car. When you start talking about how it would have been prevented had the victim taken certain precautions, you shift the blame to them.
Have I got that right?
This is a very touchy subject for one simple reason. Juries are fucking stupid. For decades lawyers have used the "well she was clearly asking for it" defence to get people who don't even deny rape acquitted. It is the duty of the lawyer to do whatever they can for their client but it's a bullshit argument and holds absolutely no water. But juries are stupid and they accept it and countless rape victims have to sit there in court and listen to their peers conclude that the horrific crime that was inflicted upon them was not because the guy who did it to them was a criminal but was as a result of their actions.
People are wrong to say that there aren't things you can do to lower the chance of getting raped. However they are very much in the right to get pissed off whenever people use that argument. That argument has been twisted to justify countless atrocities against women and whenever it is repeated in any form it reinforces the idea that the blame doesn't lie solely with the rapist.
Its mostly to do with the fact that to get a rape conviction, you need the actus reus, that is, the sex without consent, and the mens rea, that is, the rapist must know that he is raping the victim.
Because there is often very little physical evidence that can point unequivocally towards a rape, it comes down to convincing the jury, beyond reasonable doubt, that the woman had in fact not given consent and that the defendant knew this. Which is why things like sexual history were taken into account: the jury had to determine whether the accused rapist had reasonable cause to believe that the woman had given consent. It is not enough for a woman to merely say in court, "I told him no", because women can and do lie about being raped (feeling guilty, revenge, shame), or, in the case of inebriation, may not remember giving consent.
This is also why the conviction rate per reported rape is so low: there is not enough evidence in most cases to convince a jury that the mens rea existed, so the police don't bother to take it to trial. Of those cases that make it to trial, a rape trial is far more likely to get a conviction than a murder trial.
On January 28 2012 01:03 Haemonculus wrote: I'm absolutely aware of that. The conviction rate and the rate at which rapes are often not reported are horridly depressing. Which is why it's so important to talk about and debunk the faulty logic behind those numbers.
It's a cyclical problem . People get away with rape in court because of the "she was asking for it" defense. Then we, as greater society, go home and talk on the internet about maybe there's some merit to her outfit causing rape. We all talk about it, and hear about it on the media, and it starts to become generally accepted.
Then someone gets raped, and the defense uses the "she was asking for it" routine. It's become way too acceptable, and discussions such as this in which people do seem to support the notion that the victim's outfit is somehow an important factor are part of the problem.
The 'she was asking for it' defence is obscene, and thankfully seems to be an attitude that is less widely held than it was before. At least I should bloody-well hope so!
On the other hand, take a recent case over here. It was an anti-rape campaign, aimed at students (both male and female). For the women, some of the advice was to paraphrase 'don't over-drink, try to stay with friends'. Apparently, this was grievously offensive to the more feminist inclined thinkers who pressured our Student's Union so much that (if I recall correctly) a lot of the posters were taken down
This is a great example of taking feminist invective and using it in a ridiculous manner. Alcohol is a dangerous drug, that makes people much more vunerable to all manner of harm than they otherwise would be. To promote moderation in drinking is NOT victim-blaming in the same way that saying 'oh well she dressed like a slut' is.
One girl told me I was actively condoning rape with my stance on this particular point though, which was nice to hear. 'Oh you wouldn't say that if you knew a rape victim.' I do actually, and she was raped on a night out after drinking a lot and essentially blacking out, but I try not to use emotive stories to bolster my arguments as I don't feel comfortable doing such a thing.
Rape has become an issue that cannot be debated sensibly anymore, which is a shame. Many of the statistics I have seen are worthless, because of the difficulties in obtaining them, and a lot of material I've seen on this issue is basing itself on small sample sizes and extrapolating to find nation-wide trends.
Would be grateful actually if anybody could PM me some actual useful, reliable data to have a look at.
On January 27 2012 21:50 Haemonculus wrote: No one is raped because they are perceived to be slutty. Someone gets raped because another person makes the conscious decision to rape them. When you start talking about how it would have been prevented had the victim taken certain precautions, you shift the blame to them.
If I mug you because I think you look rich, I'm still making a conscious decision to commit a crime against you. No one's going to start "well why didn't you dress like a bum so you looked less mugging-worthy?" lines, which would imply that you are somewhat responsible for a crime committed against you by another.
And yes it's true that the vast majority of rapes are committed by people the victim is acquainted with. However I don't think marital rape is the most common subsection of that.
No one has their car stolen because they leave the keys in the ignition. Someone has their car stolen because another person makes the conscious decision to steal their car. When you start talking about how it would have been prevented had the victim taken certain precautions, you shift the blame to them.
Have I got that right?
This is a very touchy subject for one simple reason. Juries are fucking stupid. For decades lawyers have used the "well she was clearly asking for it" defence to get people who don't even deny rape acquitted. It is the duty of the lawyer to do whatever they can for their client but it's a bullshit argument and holds absolutely no water. But juries are stupid and they accept it and countless rape victims have to sit there in court and listen to their peers conclude that the horrific crime that was inflicted upon them was not because the guy who did it to them was a criminal but was as a result of their actions.
People are wrong to say that there aren't things you can do to lower the chance of getting raped. However they are very much in the right to get pissed off whenever people use that argument. That argument has been twisted to justify countless atrocities against women and whenever it is repeated in any form it reinforces the idea that the blame doesn't lie solely with the rapist.
Its mostly to do with the fact that to get a rape conviction, you need the actus reus, that is, the sex without consent, and the mens rea, that is, the rapist must know that he is raping the victim.
Because there is often very little physical evidence that can point unequivocally towards a rape, it comes down to convincing the jury, beyond reasonable doubt, that the woman had in fact not given consent and that the defendant knew this. Which is why things like sexual history were taken into account: the jury had to determine whether the accused rapist had reasonable cause to believe that the woman had given consent. It is not enough for a woman to merely say in court, "I told him no", because women can and do lie about being raped (feeling guilty, revenge, shame), or, in the case of inebriation, may not remember giving consent.
This is also why the conviction rate per reported rape is so low: there is not enough evidence in most cases to convince a jury that the mens rea existed, so the police don't bother to take it to trial. Of those cases that make it to trial, a rape trial is far more likely to get a conviction than a murder trial.
I think his point was also that juries of ones peers are a bad idea for deciding judicial matters in general. In this particular case they are often too willing to consider "she was asking for it".
On January 27 2012 23:42 Haemonculus wrote: Ehh... you could argue that there are things someone can do to prevent assault, sure. It just seems incredibly arbitrary. Most convicted rapists can't even remember what their victim was wearing. Many rapes also happen inside the home, in which case it's unlikely she was really dressing "provocatively" or whatnot.
You could argue "she might not have been raped if she hadn't been wearing that skirt." Alright, well in that case, we could also argue that she very likely wouldn't have been raped if she'd just stayed home that night. Or if she never left the house without a guard, or a weapon. Where do we draw the line of "you should have done X to protect yourself?" In every case, arguing over what could have been done *by* the victim to prevent/deter a crime, you are blaming the victim, and ignoring the fact that another person made the conscious decision to assault them.
As for your car analogy, what the fuck? What does it say about our culture/society in general if "it looked easy" or "I thought I could get away with it" is seen as a valid or excusable motive for a crime?
I have the right to property but that doesn't mean I should expect that right to be held as sacrosanct by other people because many people are dicks. Likewise women have the right to not be raped but that doesn't mean they should act like there aren't any rapists in the world.
Nobody has any problem telling children not to go off with strangers at the same time nobody blames the children who do get abducted. On the other end of the spectrum if someone I knew decided to go out by himself and get really drunk and then woke up in the morning with no wallet I'd have little sympathy for him, regardless of his rights. Both had their rights violated and neither is to blame for it but the world is a shitty place, you accept that being morally in the right does not stop wrong being done to you and you try and limit that. Girls on a night out should, for their own safety, follow a few guidelines such as not accepting drinks from strangers. Failure to follow these is exhibiting the same naivity as a child accepting sweets from a stranger, we shouldn't blame them for the crime any more than we'd blame the child but we can recognise that they've taken insufficient precautions.
Returning to my original point, the problem is juries. They don't understand that when someone gambles with their ability to prevent an evil act from being done to them that does not mean they cause the evil. Juries buy it so lawyers use it so rapists get away with it and feminists get pissed off with it and then random police officers giving people good advice get in trouble.
This exactly.
I'd be a fool to walk down a dark back alley at 3 am in a bad neighborhood where gang members hang out with a 2000 dollar Rolex and jewelry etc. That doesn't validate the actions of those who beat and rob me. Nor does it follow that I was asking for it. But, simply, I bear some responsibility for what has happened to me. Whether you're a man or a woman, you are responsible for your actions and the decisions you make.
There are certain people who use a horrible crime (that has implications for both sexes by the way) like rape as a pretext for female empowerment by espousing the notion that women should feel empowered to freely and almost defiantly express themselves however they choose. In theory it sounds right, but in reality it really is an infantile, irresponsible, and damaging thing to teach young girls, because it's too idealistic and doesn't speak to the limitations that exist in our society. When I'm a father I'll be sure to talk to my daughter about it very carefully.
I used to find nightclubs interesting, countless sociological experiments on display free to view. Among them a notable difference in the way guys and girls behave. Guys are often very careful about what they say, who they talk to, and apologizing should they accidentally bump into someone. There's an understanding that, however ridiculous it may be, they may have to answer for it if they end up offending someone. Some Girls often show up sober, expect to leave drunk, and get in free after bypassing the lineup. They'll "cocktease" for drinks. Mouth off if it doesn't work. I've seen girls in bars throw drinks in guys faces (perhaps justifiably) then turn around and dance like they've done nothing the least bit provocative. It's a privileged mindset. One that's probably been told it deserves to do what it wants sans consequences. Not one that is particularly considering the potential outcomes of irreverent actions.
On January 28 2012 01:03 Haemonculus wrote: I'm absolutely aware of that. The conviction rate and the rate at which rapes are often not reported are horridly depressing. Which is why it's so important to talk about and debunk the faulty logic behind those numbers.
It's a cyclical problem . People get away with rape in court because of the "she was asking for it" defense. Then we, as greater society, go home and talk on the internet about maybe there's some merit to her outfit causing rape. We all talk about it, and hear about it on the media, and it starts to become generally accepted.
Then someone gets raped, and the defense uses the "she was asking for it" routine. It's become way too acceptable, and discussions such as this in which people do seem to support the notion that the victim's outfit is somehow an important factor are part of the problem.
On the other hand, take a recent case over here. It was an anti-rape campaign, aimed at students (both male and female). For the women, some of the advice was to paraphrase 'don't over-drink, try to stay with friends'. Apparently, this was grievously offensive to the more feminist inclined thinkers who pressured our Student's Union so much that (if I recall correctly) a lot of the posters were taken down
Yeah, this is a problematic and irresponsible mindset. The message is to take responsibility and be careful about what's going on around you, but it's erroneously interpreted to mean "if you get raped it's your fault."
In terms of implications for the legal system, it isn't so black and white. Women have lied about rape in the past. That doesn't mean we should ever assume a woman of lying when she makes that accusation, but the guy has the right to defend himself against those accusations too. And he is innocent until proven otherwise. Is it a perfect system? Nope.
If we assume that someone is innocent until proven guilty, we must assume that the accuser is lying or mistaken until proven otherwise.
If, on the other hand, we assume that the accuser is telling the truth, it logically follows that the defendant is guilty until proven innocent.
Since, the assumption that the accuser is lying or mistaken is hurtful to women's feelings, when it comes to any crime or misdemeanor were the accused is male and the accuser is female, we assume the man to be guilty and even acquittal does not change the verdict that has been given in the court of public opinion.
On January 28 2012 02:42 zalz wrote:Someone else already said it. Rape is more about domination then simple lust. We approach the mind of a rapist from a normal persons mind. Who would you rape? Well if I had to rape someone, obviously the prettiest girl.
That's just not how these people think.
The "rape is about power" bullshit comes from feminist ideology and is not supported by criminological/sociological research.
Criminological studies suggest that like every other crime, the motivations for rape are multifaceted. There is significant research which shows that most male rapists do not prefer rape over consensual sex, and while male rapists have been shown to be more aroused by forced sex than a typical male, they are still more strongly aroused by consensual sex. There's also a strong correlation between the rise of widely available porn, and a decrease in sexual violence, which utterly contradicts the feminist idea of "Porn is the theory; rape is the practice."
The notion of "rape is about patriarchy and is an attempt to maintain power over women" is based on feminist theorycrafting rather than empirical data. In general, males don't use sex to get/maintain social status and social power; they use social status and social power over others to get sex. When it comes to humans (and to a limited degree, some of our primate cousins), it's females that are the ones to use sex in order to gain social power/status. The mistake made by feminist thinkers was projecting female motivations for sex onto males.
And a plethora of research and data will disagree with your notions of what rape is really about. To label it all as feminist bullshit is just silly.
Rape is about sex and on a subconscious level, pregnancy.
The point of war is to fuck women, whether it be foreign women who are raped after their menfolk are killed, or domestic women who give up their vaginas to the vanquishing heroes/heroic defenders.
On January 31 2012 15:02 vetinari wrote: Rape is about sex and on a subconscious level, pregnancy.
The point of war is to fuck women, whether it be foreign women who are raped after their menfolk are killed, or domestic women who give up their vaginas to the vanquishing heroes/heroic defenders.
To come to the original point: how does dressing modestly help women in this case anyway? If anything, it makes them a more precious target even by your weird logic.
The notion that rapists somehow want to punish women that are not following traditional dress codes stems from these traditions themselves, and so can only serve as motivation to abolish them.
Even if dressing a certain way would be a factor in the motivations for rape - which no one showed any statistical evidence for, despite all the drivel this thread produced on the subject - it is a minor one and that does not justify telling women to limit their freedom and does most certainly NOT justify speaking of mitigating circumstances for the offender.
On January 31 2012 15:02 vetinari wrote: Rape is about sex and on a subconscious level, pregnancy.
The point of war is to fuck women, whether it be foreign women who are raped after their menfolk are killed, or domestic women who give up their vaginas to the vanquishing heroes/heroic defenders.
To come to the original point: how does dressing modestly help women in this case anyway? If anything, it makes them a more precious target even by your weird logic.
The notion that rapists somehow want to punish women that are not following traditional dress codes stems from these traditions themselves, and so can only serve as motivation to abolish them.
Even if dressing a certain way would be a factor in the motivations for rape - which no one showed any statistical evidence for, despite all the drivel this thread produced on the subject - it is a minor one and that does not justify telling women to limit their freedom and does most certainly NOT justify speaking of mitigating circumstances for the offender.
Since your post is a strawman, I will ignore it and explain to you my weird logic:
The purpose of life is to pass on our genes. Our bodies, instincts, mental processes and memes have been shaped by evolution to achieve this end.
The other purpose of life is to pass on our memes. Our bodies, instincts, mental processes and genes have been shaped by evolution to achieve this end.
Human nature is not subject to the human will, since there is no such thing as free will anyway. We are just biological machines, programmed to pass on our genes and memes.
There is competition, between gene and gene, gene and meme, and meme and meme to survive and propagate themselves, and humans are the pawns of the chess game of life.
On January 31 2012 15:02 vetinari wrote: Rape is about sex and on a subconscious level, pregnancy.
The point of war is to fuck women, whether it be foreign women who are raped after their menfolk are killed, or domestic women who give up their vaginas to the vanquishing heroes/heroic defenders.
To come to the original point: how does dressing modestly help women in this case anyway? If anything, it makes them a more precious target even by your weird logic.
The notion that rapists somehow want to punish women that are not following traditional dress codes stems from these traditions themselves, and so can only serve as motivation to abolish them.
Even if dressing a certain way would be a factor in the motivations for rape - which no one showed any statistical evidence for, despite all the drivel this thread produced on the subject - it is a minor one and that does not justify telling women to limit their freedom and does most certainly NOT justify speaking of mitigating circumstances for the offender.
Since your post is a strawman, I will ignore it and explain to you my weird logic:
The purpose of life is to pass on our genes. Our bodies, instincts, mental processes and memes have been shaped by evolution to achieve this end.
The other purpose of life is to pass on our memes. Our bodies, instincts, mental processes and genes have been shaped by evolution to achieve this end.
Human nature is not subject to the human will, since there is no such thing as free will anyway. We are just biological machines, programmed to pass on our genes and memes.
There is competition, between gene and gene, gene and meme, and meme and meme to survive and propagate themselves, and humans are the pawns of the chess game of life.
I think that covers it.
You clearly don't understand how complex a process evolution - especially cultural evolution - is when you use your simple logic to derive in what way evolution shaped us. It took a lot of "computing" to get this far.
You showed your ignorance before when you asserted that because some traditions survived the competition between "meme and meme" they must be good for society and mankind, which is clearly a fallacy.
And just because we are products of evolution doesn't mean we are not able to go beyond our programming, intelligence does in fact allow us to do so.
On January 31 2012 15:02 vetinari wrote: Rape is about sex and on a subconscious level, pregnancy.
The point of war is to fuck women, whether it be foreign women who are raped after their menfolk are killed, or domestic women who give up their vaginas to the vanquishing heroes/heroic defenders.
To come to the original point: how does dressing modestly help women in this case anyway? If anything, it makes them a more precious target even by your weird logic.
The notion that rapists somehow want to punish women that are not following traditional dress codes stems from these traditions themselves, and so can only serve as motivation to abolish them.
Even if dressing a certain way would be a factor in the motivations for rape - which no one showed any statistical evidence for, despite all the drivel this thread produced on the subject - it is a minor one and that does not justify telling women to limit their freedom and does most certainly NOT justify speaking of mitigating circumstances for the offender.
Since your post is a strawman, I will ignore it and explain to you my weird logic:
The purpose of life is to pass on our genes. Our bodies, instincts, mental processes and memes have been shaped by evolution to achieve this end.
The other purpose of life is to pass on our memes. Our bodies, instincts, mental processes and genes have been shaped by evolution to achieve this end.
Human nature is not subject to the human will, since there is no such thing as free will anyway. We are just biological machines, programmed to pass on our genes and memes.
There is competition, between gene and gene, gene and meme, and meme and meme to survive and propagate themselves, and humans are the pawns of the chess game of life.
I think that covers it.
No, it does not cover it. Meme theory is more philosophy than biology, makes no testable predictions and is currently useful only as a proto-hypothesis. In fact, given the current understanding of the human brain, defining a meme is in itself fraught with pitfalls, let alone trying to use it in a concrete hypothesis.
What you have just posted is a meaningless amalgamation of oversimplified biology, philosophy and metaphor. What's your point?
On January 28 2012 02:42 zalz wrote:Someone else already said it. Rape is more about domination then simple lust. We approach the mind of a rapist from a normal persons mind. Who would you rape? Well if I had to rape someone, obviously the prettiest girl.
That's just not how these people think.
The "rape is about power" bullshit comes from feminist ideology and is not supported by criminological/sociological research.
Criminological studies suggest that like every other crime, the motivations for rape are multifaceted. There is significant research which shows that most male rapists do not prefer rape over consensual sex, and while male rapists have been shown to be more aroused by forced sex than a typical male, they are still more strongly aroused by consensual sex. There's also a strong correlation between the rise of widely available porn, and a decrease in sexual violence, which utterly contradicts the feminist idea of "Porn is the theory; rape is the practice."
The notion of "rape is about patriarchy and is an attempt to maintain power over women" is based on feminist theorycrafting rather than empirical data. In general, males don't use sex to get/maintain social status and social power; they use social status and social power over others to get sex. When it comes to humans (and to a limited degree, some of our primate cousins), it's females that are the ones to use sex in order to gain social power/status. The mistake made by feminist thinkers was projecting female motivations for sex onto males.
On January 31 2012 15:02 vetinari wrote: Rape is about sex and on a subconscious level, pregnancy.
The point of war is to fuck women, whether it be foreign women who are raped after their menfolk are killed, or domestic women who give up their vaginas to the vanquishing heroes/heroic defenders.
To come to the original point: how does dressing modestly help women in this case anyway? If anything, it makes them a more precious target even by your weird logic.
The notion that rapists somehow want to punish women that are not following traditional dress codes stems from these traditions themselves, and so can only serve as motivation to abolish them.
Even if dressing a certain way would be a factor in the motivations for rape - which no one showed any statistical evidence for, despite all the drivel this thread produced on the subject - it is a minor one and that does not justify telling women to limit their freedom and does most certainly NOT justify speaking of mitigating circumstances for the offender.
Since your post is a strawman, I will ignore it and explain to you my weird logic:
The purpose of life is to pass on our genes. Our bodies, instincts, mental processes and memes have been shaped by evolution to achieve this end.
The other purpose of life is to pass on our memes. Our bodies, instincts, mental processes and genes have been shaped by evolution to achieve this end.
Human nature is not subject to the human will, since there is no such thing as free will anyway. We are just biological machines, programmed to pass on our genes and memes.
There is competition, between gene and gene, gene and meme, and meme and meme to survive and propagate themselves, and humans are the pawns of the chess game of life.
I think that covers it.
You clearly don't understand how complex a process evolution - especially cultural evolution - is when you use your simple logic to derive in what way evolution shaped us. It took a lot of "computing" to get this far.
You showed your ignorance before when you asserted that because some traditions survived the competition between "meme and meme" they must be good for society and mankind, which is clearly a fallacy.
And just because we are products of evolution doesn't mean we are not able to go beyond our programming, intelligence does in fact allow us to do so.
Uh, no. We can't go beyond our programming, since to go beyond our programming, it would require something that can act outside our programming. In other words, it would require the existence of the soul. Something that I'm sure a good atheist doesn't believe in.
For a start, I never stated that they must be good for society, but there is a distinct possibility that they are good for the survival of the society. Keep in mind that one of the ways memes (cultures, religions, whatever) compete with each other is by getting the hosts of the meme (or whatever you want to call it), to kill the hosts of the other meme. For reference, I would like to survive, I would like my family to survive and I would like my society to survive, in such a way to maximise the long term happiness of the current members of society and their descendants.
Second, the fact that you find evolution - especially cultural evolution - to be complex, doesn't mean it actually is. While genetics, epigenetics, neural interactions may be extremely complicated, that doesn't mean the idea behind evolution is all that complicated.
In truth, it is quite simple: it comes down to reproductive fitness and adaptability to changes in environment. This is true of both biological and cultural evolution. The mechanisms? Not so simple, but then, the mechanism doesn't really matter that much to us, the result does. After all, you do not need to know exactly how metastable proteins can shift into a different form, if you have transmissible spongiform encelopathy. You're going to die anyway.
On January 31 2012 15:02 vetinari wrote: Rape is about sex and on a subconscious level, pregnancy.
The point of war is to fuck women, whether it be foreign women who are raped after their menfolk are killed, or domestic women who give up their vaginas to the vanquishing heroes/heroic defenders.
To come to the original point: how does dressing modestly help women in this case anyway? If anything, it makes them a more precious target even by your weird logic.
The notion that rapists somehow want to punish women that are not following traditional dress codes stems from these traditions themselves, and so can only serve as motivation to abolish them.
Even if dressing a certain way would be a factor in the motivations for rape - which no one showed any statistical evidence for, despite all the drivel this thread produced on the subject - it is a minor one and that does not justify telling women to limit their freedom and does most certainly NOT justify speaking of mitigating circumstances for the offender.
Since your post is a strawman, I will ignore it and explain to you my weird logic:
The purpose of life is to pass on our genes. Our bodies, instincts, mental processes and memes have been shaped by evolution to achieve this end.
EDIT: And to answer to your original post, what then, do you make of male on male rape?
The other purpose of life is to pass on our memes. Our bodies, instincts, mental processes and genes have been shaped by evolution to achieve this end.
Human nature is not subject to the human will, since there is no such thing as free will anyway. We are just biological machines, programmed to pass on our genes and memes.
There is competition, between gene and gene, gene and meme, and meme and meme to survive and propagate themselves, and humans are the pawns of the chess game of life.
I think that covers it.
You clearly don't understand how complex a process evolution - especially cultural evolution - is when you use your simple logic to derive in what way evolution shaped us. It took a lot of "computing" to get this far.
You showed your ignorance before when you asserted that because some traditions survived the competition between "meme and meme" they must be good for society and mankind, which is clearly a fallacy.
And just because we are products of evolution doesn't mean we are not able to go beyond our programming, intelligence does in fact allow us to do so.
Uh, no. We can't go beyond our programming, since to go beyond our programming, it would require something that can act outside our programming. In other words, it would require the existence of the soul. Something that I'm sure a good atheist doesn't believe in.
For a start, I never stated that they must be good for society, but there is a distinct possibility that they are good for the survival of the society. Keep in mind that one of the ways memes (cultures, religions, whatever) compete with each other is by getting the hosts of the meme (or whatever you want to call it), to kill the hosts of the other meme. For reference, I would like to survive, I would like my family to survive and I would like my society to survive, in such a way to maximise the long term happiness of the current members of society and their descendants.
Second, the fact that you find evolution - especially cultural evolution - to be complex, doesn't mean it actually is. While genetics, epigenetics, neural interactions may be extremely complicated, that doesn't mean the idea behind evolution is all that complicated.
In truth, it is quite simple: it comes down to reproductive fitness and adaptability to changes in environment. This is true of both biological and cultural evolution. The mechanisms? Not so simple, but then, the mechanism doesn't really matter that much to us, the result does. After all, you do not need to know exactly how metastable proteins can shift into a different form, if you have transmissible spongiform encelopathy. You're going to die anyway.
Are you claiming that if you don't hold particular ideas, you, your family or your society is going to come to harm? That's not a wild claim, by the way, simply a clearer way of stating what many people believe, such as the belief in free speech.
In any case, we've yet to hear why the notion that rape not being only about sex, but also power is going beyond our "programming". Also, it would be good to explain what is and is not in our programming as regards this topic.
Natural selection may not be very complicated, but one must first propose a heritable variation and differential reproductive success as a result of that variation. What heritable variation are you proposing?
EDIT: To answer your original post, what then, do you make of male on male rape in situations of extreme power differential?
On January 31 2012 20:30 vetinari wrote: In truth, it is quite simple: it comes down to reproductive fitness and adaptability to changes in environment. This is true of both biological and cultural evolution.
Just because we know the basic steps of a process does not mean that we understand its trends and results in sufficient detail to make well founded statements. In other words you try to derive too much from the simple premises you listed. There are many numerical problems out there that are easy to formulate but nigh impossible to solve.
On January 28 2012 01:03 Haemonculus wrote: I'm absolutely aware of that. The conviction rate and the rate at which rapes are often not reported are horridly depressing. Which is why it's so important to talk about and debunk the faulty logic behind those numbers.
It's a cyclical problem . People get away with rape in court because of the "she was asking for it" defense. Then we, as greater society, go home and talk on the internet about maybe there's some merit to her outfit causing rape. We all talk about it, and hear about it on the media, and it starts to become generally accepted.
Then someone gets raped, and the defense uses the "she was asking for it" routine. It's become way too acceptable, and discussions such as this in which people do seem to support the notion that the victim's outfit is somehow an important factor are part of the problem.
The 'she was asking for it' defence is obscene, and thankfully seems to be an attitude that is less widely held than it was before. At least I should bloody-well hope so!
On the other hand, take a recent case over here. It was an anti-rape campaign, aimed at students (both male and female). For the women, some of the advice was to paraphrase 'don't over-drink, try to stay with friends'. Apparently, this was grievously offensive to the more feminist inclined thinkers who pressured our Student's Union so much that (if I recall correctly) a lot of the posters were taken down
This is a great example of taking feminist invective and using it in a ridiculous manner. Alcohol is a dangerous drug, that makes people much more vunerable to all manner of harm than they otherwise would be. To promote moderation in drinking is NOT victim-blaming in the same way that saying 'oh well she dressed like a slut' is.
One girl told me I was actively condoning rape with my stance on this particular point though, which was nice to hear. 'Oh you wouldn't say that if you knew a rape victim.' I do actually, and she was raped on a night out after drinking a lot and essentially blacking out, but I try not to use emotive stories to bolster my arguments as I don't feel comfortable doing such a thing.
Rape has become an issue that cannot be debated sensibly anymore, which is a shame. Many of the statistics I have seen are worthless, because of the difficulties in obtaining them, and a lot of material I've seen on this issue is basing itself on small sample sizes and extrapolating to find nation-wide trends.
Would be grateful actually if anybody could PM me some actual useful, reliable data to have a look at.
There are several ways to look at that ad campaign. There have been similar ones in the states lately, and yes they're catching a lot of flak. I can see both sides of the issue. On the one hand, giving out advice on drinking habits doesn't seem too malicious, but it doesn't do much to solve the actual problem.
In the drinking scenario, we're again dealing with the "stranger in a bar/club" situation. Some subset of men are taking advantage of drunk women. You can look at the problem in several ways, but the point of view we take with the "give out drinking advice" campaign is "some women are drinking too much and putting themselves at risk," instead of "some criminals are taking advantage of them when they do." It suggests that the rapists/abusers are a constant, cannot be dealt with, etc, and that instead of doing something about the attacker, we try to alter the actions of the potential victim so that they don't get abused. We do seemingly nothing to treat the real problem, which is a group of criminals that have become so culturally accepted that they feel they can get away with their crimes.
That is likely what your friend meant when she said your stance was condoning rape. Might not at all have been what you intended, but when you focus the only corrective action on the victim and not the criminal, it can easily be seen as condoning the crime. If some rapist is at a bar clearly intending to rape someone, and only if that someone is drunk, then sure, some women that might have gotten drunk but didn't because of an ad campaign telling them not to, but it leaves the underlying problem. There's still some rapist at the bar intending to rape someone. That hasn't been fixed at all. Chances are he'll simply go after another victim, and then we can all lambast her decision to drink at a bar.
As for info, I always post this DoJ summary in threads like this. Long summary document, and all sources used are cited in the footnotes. Very informative, less than two years dated, and dispels a LOT of bullshit myths about rape in our culture.
Rape isn't an issue no one can talk about. It might be hard here, with retards like vetinari or sunprince babbling about this or that, but don't think it's an issue that cannot be debated.
While that is true, it is not precisely my claim. My claim is that in order for my society, my family and I to not come to harm, other people must generally hold certain ideas and act in accordance with them. Not exactly a controversial idea, when it comes to ideas like "murder is bad", but rather more controversial when it comes to ideas where the negative consequences are not obvious, such as "liberalism is bad".
Where we differ, I expect, is that we value certain things differently. That is, we place different weights on the value of liberty, security, honor, justice, fairness, equality, life, stability, the wellbeing of various groups, the welfare of our descendants, etc.
Back to rape.
Hmm, a heritable variation: willingness to rape. Differential reproductive success: person who is willing to rape is likely to impregnate a woman, especially since men can identify ovulating women (ovulating women seem more attractive). Hence, the willingness to rape is likely to increase reproductive success, provided that the "willingness to rape" trait is balanced with a "be careful to not get caught" trait.
Evidence for this being true: women who are raped tend to be disproportionately attractive, they tend to be young, and, barring the use of the pill, are more likely to conceive than one would expect if men were unable to determine whether a woman is ovulating. In addition, stranger rape is disproportionately likely to be by unattractive men with dismal chances of acquiring a willing mate. The availability of pornography also negatively correlates with prevalence of rape, including that the availability of child pornography negatively correlates with sexual molestation of children.
As a result of this, we can conclude that rape is about sex. That there are rationalisations, doesn't change its underlying reason.
If it helps, consider these:
What is sex for? What is love for?
You could say that sex is about expressing your love. But this is a rationalisation, its about introducing sperm to egg. The pleasure gained from it is purely to get you to do it more. You could say that love is about sharing experience, transcendant joy, connection to God. But, in truth, its about maintaining paternal investment and maternal investment into the children.
On January 28 2012 01:03 Haemonculus wrote: I'm absolutely aware of that. The conviction rate and the rate at which rapes are often not reported are horridly depressing. Which is why it's so important to talk about and debunk the faulty logic behind those numbers.
It's a cyclical problem . People get away with rape in court because of the "she was asking for it" defense. Then we, as greater society, go home and talk on the internet about maybe there's some merit to her outfit causing rape. We all talk about it, and hear about it on the media, and it starts to become generally accepted.
Then someone gets raped, and the defense uses the "she was asking for it" routine. It's become way too acceptable, and discussions such as this in which people do seem to support the notion that the victim's outfit is somehow an important factor are part of the problem.
The 'she was asking for it' defence is obscene, and thankfully seems to be an attitude that is less widely held than it was before. At least I should bloody-well hope so!
On the other hand, take a recent case over here. It was an anti-rape campaign, aimed at students (both male and female). For the women, some of the advice was to paraphrase 'don't over-drink, try to stay with friends'. Apparently, this was grievously offensive to the more feminist inclined thinkers who pressured our Student's Union so much that (if I recall correctly) a lot of the posters were taken down
This is a great example of taking feminist invective and using it in a ridiculous manner. Alcohol is a dangerous drug, that makes people much more vunerable to all manner of harm than they otherwise would be. To promote moderation in drinking is NOT victim-blaming in the same way that saying 'oh well she dressed like a slut' is.
One girl told me I was actively condoning rape with my stance on this particular point though, which was nice to hear. 'Oh you wouldn't say that if you knew a rape victim.' I do actually, and she was raped on a night out after drinking a lot and essentially blacking out, but I try not to use emotive stories to bolster my arguments as I don't feel comfortable doing such a thing.
Rape has become an issue that cannot be debated sensibly anymore, which is a shame. Many of the statistics I have seen are worthless, because of the difficulties in obtaining them, and a lot of material I've seen on this issue is basing itself on small sample sizes and extrapolating to find nation-wide trends.
Would be grateful actually if anybody could PM me some actual useful, reliable data to have a look at.
There are several ways to look at that ad campaign. There have been similar ones in the states lately, and yes they're catching a lot of flak. I can see both sides of the issue. On the one hand, giving out advice on drinking habits doesn't seem too malicious, but it doesn't do much to solve the actual problem.
In the drinking scenario, we're again dealing with the "stranger in a bar/club" situation. Some subset of men are taking advantage of drunk women. You can look at the problem in several ways, but the point of view we take with the "give out drinking advice" campaign is "some women are drinking too much and putting themselves at risk," instead of "some criminals are taking advantage of them when they do." It suggests that the rapists/abusers are a constant, cannot be dealt with, etc, and that instead of doing something about the attacker, we try to alter the actions of the potential victim so that they don't get abused. We do seemingly nothing to treat the real problem, which is a group of criminals that have become so culturally accepted that they feel they can get away with their crimes.
That is likely what your friend meant when she said your stance was condoning rape. Might not at all have been what you intended, but when you focus the only corrective action on the victim and not the criminal, it can easily be seen as condoning the crime. If some rapist is at a bar clearly intending to rape someone, and only if that someone is drunk, then sure, some women that might have gotten drunk but didn't because of an ad campaign telling them not to, but it leaves the underlying problem. There's still some rapist at the bar intending to rape someone. That hasn't been fixed at all. Chances are he'll simply go after another victim, and then we can all lambast her decision to drink at a bar.
As for info, I always post this DoJ summary in threads like this. Long summary document, and all sources used are cited in the footnotes. Very informative, less than two years dated, and dispels a LOT of bullshit myths about rape in our culture.
Rape isn't an issue no one can talk about. It might be hard here, with retards like vetinari or sunprince babbling about this or that, but don't think it's an issue that cannot be debated.
*sigh* Let me put it in a way even a woman can understand:
THERE WILL ALWAYS BE EVIL PEOPLE.
Is it so fucking hard to understand that you cannot convince sociopaths to give up their pleasures for the good of society? You can only take steps to protect yourself and to steps to ensure that in the event of a rape, you are a credible witness (this is important, as anyone who has ever had any dealings with females knows that they are champion liars.)
On January 31 2012 22:19 vetinari wrote: While that is true, it is not precisely my claim. My claim is that in order for my society, my family and I to not come to harm, other people must generally hold certain ideas and act in accordance with them. Not exactly a controversial idea, when it comes to ideas like "murder is bad", but rather more controversial when it comes to ideas where the negative consequences are not obvious, such as "liberalism is bad".
Where we differ, I expect, is that we value certain things differently. That is, we place different weights on the value of liberty, security, honor, justice, fairness, equality, life, stability, the wellbeing of various groups, the welfare of our descendants, etc.
Back to rape.
Hmm, a heritable variation: willingness to rape. Differential reproductive success: person who is willing to rape is likely to impregnate a woman, especially since men can identify ovulating women (ovulating women seem more attractive). Hence, the willingness to rape is likely to increase reproductive success, provided that the "willingness to rape" trait is balanced with a "be careful to not get caught" trait.
Evidence for this being true: women who are raped tend to be disproportionately attractive, they tend to be young, and, barring the use of the pill, are more likely to conceive than one would expect if men were unable to determine whether a woman is ovulating. In addition, stranger rape is disproportionately likely to be by unattractive men with dismal chances of acquiring a willing mate. The availability of pornography also negatively correlates with prevalence of rape, including that the availability of child pornography negatively correlates with sexual molestation of children.
As a result of this, we can conclude that rape is about sex. That there are rationalisations, doesn't change its underlying reason.
If it helps, consider these:
What is sex for? What is love for?
You could say that sex is about expressing your love. But this is a rationalisation, its about introducing sperm to egg. The pleasure gained from it is purely to get you to do it more. You could say that love is about sharing experience, transcendant joy, connection to God. But, in truth, its about maintaining paternal investment and maternal investment into the children.
I've bolded and underlined the problem. Heritable variation is exactly that, heritable variation. How is willingness to rape a heritable variation? The heritability of the trait correlates with the strength of selection. Can you demonstrate that "willingness to rape" is heritable and to what extent? Without that, the entire argument evaporates into thin air.
You could say that love is about sharing experience, transcendant joy, connection to God. But, in truth, its about maintaining paternal investment and maternal investment into the children.
That's an assertion. Once again you simplify a complex matter. Trauma has shown to bring people together for instance. You're also ignoring social and financial pressures and things like that. I suppose you could argue that the general idea came from parentage but that only explains why we are pushed into it from the outset, not our individual reasoning.
Obviously many people love each other while not having children.
Edit: whoa, did not expect the blatant sexism from vetinari tbh. I'm sure he justifies it through evolution though XD kinda explains a lot though.
On January 31 2012 23:04 hummingbird23 wrote: Holy crap, I hadn't even read the post he was temp banned for before replying. Seriously, vetinari is a fucking misogynist through and through.
If you have read his post in other threads of similar topic this is have been abundantly clear for a long time
While that is true, it is not precisely my claim. My claim is that in order for my society, my family and I to not come to harm, other people must generally hold certain ideas and act in accordance with them. Not exactly a controversial idea, when it comes to ideas like "murder is bad", but rather more controversial when it comes to ideas where the negative consequences are not obvious, such as "liberalism is bad".
Where we differ, I expect, is that we value certain things differently. That is, we place different weights on the value of liberty, security, honor, justice, fairness, equality, life, stability, the wellbeing of various groups, the welfare of our descendants, etc.
Back to rape.
Hmm, a heritable variation: willingness to rape. Differential reproductive success: person who is willing to rape is likely to impregnate a woman, especially since men can identify ovulating women (ovulating women seem more attractive). Hence, the willingness to rape is likely to increase reproductive success, provided that the "willingness to rape" trait is balanced with a "be careful to not get caught" trait.
Evidence for this being true: women who are raped tend to be disproportionately attractive, they tend to be young, and, barring the use of the pill, are more likely to conceive than one would expect if men were unable to determine whether a woman is ovulating. In addition, stranger rape is disproportionately likely to be by unattractive men with dismal chances of acquiring a willing mate. The availability of pornography also negatively correlates with prevalence of rape, including that the availability of child pornography negatively correlates with sexual molestation of children.
As a result of this, we can conclude that rape is about sex. That there are rationalisations, doesn't change its underlying reason.
If it helps, consider these:
What is sex for? What is love for?
You could say that sex is about expressing your love. But this is a rationalisation, its about introducing sperm to egg. The pleasure gained from it is purely to get you to do it more. You could say that love is about sharing experience, transcendant joy, connection to God. But, in truth, its about maintaining paternal investment and maternal investment into the children.
This post just reek of complete and utter ignorance. If he have read anything about studies of sexual assault he can't possibly hold this opinion. He have his incredible sexist opinions based on a contrived logic based on biology that he keeps applying to all issues while completely disregarding the scientific facts.
Well now that he's been banned for blatant sexism I'll freely speculate. The biology stuff he has also been rather inconsistent about (which should be expected considering it's falsity). I imagine it is post hoc rationalization, allowing him to usually keep calm in conversations where he feels strongly against women. He can use cold logic, so he can hold his own in conversation. Unfortunately, he seems to always come to random and hilarious conclusions, but that's due to the post hoc part of his reasoning.
It's funny to see pepole, none of which learned anything about biology, maintaining society etc in a level above high-school (varisomething probably learned from PUA books) argue among themselves about these subjects.
On topic - would be nice if helping the women in these countries could be prioritized, but seriously, western countries, in my opinion, shouldn't intervene in any way, shape or form with other countries, let them do their thing, we do our thing, eventually we'll see who's right and who's wrong (china is right BTW).
Being a man and a woman is different, that's a fact. Not biogically different thought, having boobs is not that important, but sociologically. The position of the man and the woman in the society are different, and if women are dominated in many fields, it is not always the case. For exemple, it is well known since ages that men have a hard time living through divorce while it's easier for women. Also the suicide rate for men is higher than for women, all those have been discussed to death since the beginning of the century, it's nothing new.
I have ties with islamic countries through my father and I know how things are in those societies. I know people will not believe it, but in those society men are just completly lost without their wife. To say it in another way, in the house the wife is the master. Without her the familly would just cease to exist. Most young kids are educated with a mother who they are completly tied to. Their independance toward women is almost zero even for the most basic things : they don't know how to cook, they are completly dependant for their laundry, they never buy any food at all. But they are dependant not because they slack, but because their mothers will never let them any liberty or responsability : it is the mothers' power, and they intend to keep it. Because of that, they all have a weird bond with their mother : they love her, like a god, but they hate the female gender outside of their mother because they are always in demand toward that sex (while young women are independant).
So overall, sexism in islamic countries is not in link with the religion in my opinion, it's more likely due to the education of the male and their place within the society, especially in respect to their mother and women in general.
On January 31 2012 23:40 RageBot wrote: It's funny to see pepole, none of which learned anything about biology, maintaining society etc in a level above high-school (varisomething probably learned from PUA books) argue among themselves about these subjects.
On topic - would be nice if helping the women in these countries could be prioritized, but seriously, western countries, in my opinion, shouldn't intervene in any way, shape or form with other countries, let them do their thing, we do our thing, eventually we'll see who's right and who's wrong (china is right BTW).
On January 31 2012 23:40 RageBot wrote: It's funny to see pepole, none of which learned anything about biology, maintaining society etc in a level above high-school (varisomething probably learned from PUA books) argue among themselves about these subjects.
On topic - would be nice if helping the women in these countries could be prioritized, but seriously, western countries, in my opinion, shouldn't intervene in any way, shape or form with other countries, let them do their thing, we do our thing, eventually we'll see who's right and who's wrong (china is right BTW).
I agree, but I'm always torn on that issue. Should we intervene in other country's domestic problems? Do we need tell them how to run their shit?
I often find myself answering "no" to questions like that, but sometimes you've got to wonder if anyone does speak for the oppressed minorities in those areas. There was a nat geo article several months back about the lives of women in some parts of the developing world, and lots of it was sickening. One of the stories was about two sisters living in... Afghanistan or Iran, can't remember, but anyway the eldest sister was my age. The two girls had never been allowed outside their family's house once in their entire lives. I couldn't even fathom such a life. Their father was interviewed and said something like "not til they're married." The things those girls will never know, and never experience... It's very sad.
Or the girls living in societies that practice FGM. As much as I don't feel it's our place to go intervene and tell these people that their culture is wrong, I also worry that no one else will speak for the oppressed if we don't.
This is the first I've heard about this. What in the holy fuck got into those people. "slaughter anyone against Islam'' lol. There's an easy solution to this problem. Flog more men.
On January 31 2012 23:40 RageBot wrote: It's funny to see pepole, none of which learned anything about biology, maintaining society etc in a level above high-school (varisomething probably learned from PUA books) argue among themselves about these subjects.
On topic - would be nice if helping the women in these countries could be prioritized, but seriously, western countries, in my opinion, shouldn't intervene in any way, shape or form with other countries, let them do their thing, we do our thing, eventually we'll see who's right and who's wrong (china is right BTW).
On January 31 2012 23:40 RageBot wrote: It's funny to see pepole, none of which learned anything about biology, maintaining society etc in a level above high-school (varisomething probably learned from PUA books) argue among themselves about these subjects.
On topic - would be nice if helping the women in these countries could be prioritized, but seriously, western countries, in my opinion, shouldn't intervene in any way, shape or form with other countries, let them do their thing, we do our thing, eventually we'll see who's right and who's wrong (china is right BTW).
I agree, but I'm always torn on that issue. Should we intervene in other country's domestic problems? Do we need tell them how to run their shit?
I often find myself answering "no" to questions like that, but sometimes you've got to wonder if anyone does speak for the oppressed minorities in those areas. There was a nat geo article several months back about the lives of women in some parts of the developing world, and lots of it was sickening. One of the stories was about two sisters living in... Afghanistan or Iran, can't remember, but anyway the eldest sister was my age. The two girls had never been allowed outside their family's house once in their entire lives. I couldn't even fathom such a life. Their father was interviewed and said something like "not til they're married." The things those girls will never know, and never experience... It's very sad.
Or the girls living in societies that practice FGM. As much as I don't feel it's our place to go intervene and tell these people that their culture is wrong, I also worry that no one else will speak for the oppressed if we don't.
The thing is this - you can't help them, you just can't. Look at the way the middle east is right now, while the west have tried to establish democracies (and get resources, yeah yeah I know), the moment the west leaves, everything collapses - the genocides in Syria right now, the way Copts are arrested and murdered in Egypt, not to mention the failing Israeli democracy (70% of Israel's citizens didn't didn't come from cultures that practice democratic rule, and it's on a highway to destruction in 20~ years). Not to mention that, even if the west had absolutley good intentions, most pepole will see the "re-eduction" as an attempt of invasion and brainwash, and they will defend their culture at all costs, consider how that via-whatever guy said, no multiply the difference between your worldviews tenfold, and imagine that china (or whatever) invades your country, and teaches you that this is the "right way to live", would you understand? And another, important thing to consider- many of these girls who are behind a Burka all day long, and who are FGMed... they support this you know, you may see it as something cruel, but many of them see that as a word of god, and who are you to tell them that this is wrong, can you imagine that they see the way you are "treated" by western civilization as the same amount of cruelity?
On February 01 2012 00:18 WhiteDog wrote: I will drop my thought here.
Being a man and a woman is different, that's a fact. Not biogically different thought, having boobs is not that important, but sociologically. The position of the man and the woman in the society are different, and if women are dominated in many fields, it is not always the case. For exemple, it is well known since ages that men have a hard time living through divorce while it's easier for women. Also the suicide rate for men is higher than for women, all those have been discussed to death since the beginning of the century, it's nothing new.
I have ties with islamic countries through my father and I know how things are in those societies. I know people will not believe it, but in those society men are just completly lost without their wife. To say it in another way, in the house the wife is the master. Without her the familly would just cease to exist. Most young kids are educated with a mother who they are completly tied to. Their independance toward women is almost zero even for the most basic things : they don't know how to cook, they are completly dependant for their laundry, they never buy any food at all. But they are dependant not because they slack, but because their mothers will never let them any liberty or responsability : it is the mothers' power, and they intend to keep it. Because of that, they all have a weird bond with their mother : they love her, like a god, but they hate the female gender outside of their mother because they are always in demand toward that sex (while young women are independant).
So overall, sexism in islamic countries is not in link with the religion in my opinion, it's more likely due to the education of the male and their place within the society, especially in respect to their mother and women in general.
:O that's very interesting but could you explain more about the bolded part? I didn't get it.
On January 31 2012 23:40 RageBot wrote: It's funny to see pepole, none of which learned anything about biology, maintaining society etc in a level above high-school (varisomething probably learned from PUA books) argue among themselves about these subjects.
On topic - would be nice if helping the women in these countries could be prioritized, but seriously, western countries, in my opinion, shouldn't intervene in any way, shape or form with other countries, let them do their thing, we do our thing, eventually we'll see who's right and who's wrong (china is right BTW).
I agree, but I'm always torn on that issue. Should we intervene in other country's domestic problems? Do we need tell them how to run their shit?
I often find myself answering "no" to questions like that, but sometimes you've got to wonder if anyone does speak for the oppressed minorities in those areas. There was a nat geo article several months back about the lives of women in some parts of the developing world, and lots of it was sickening. One of the stories was about two sisters living in... Afghanistan or Iran, can't remember, but anyway the eldest sister was my age. The two girls had never been allowed outside their family's house once in their entire lives. I couldn't even fathom such a life. Their father was interviewed and said something like "not til they're married." The things those girls will never know, and never experience... It's very sad.
Or the girls living in societies that practice FGM. As much as I don't feel it's our place to go intervene and tell these people that their culture is wrong, I also worry that no one else will speak for the oppressed if we don't.
Do not worry that nobody will speak for the oppressed.
Know that if we don't, it is a simple fact that nobody will.
That sounds most like Afghanistan. Such behaviour is not suprising in that part of the world. Most of the girl there did not even go to school. It was illegal for girls to go to school when the taliban ruled. Now that America is there, a lot of girls are able to go to school.
It could be Iran, but it is very unlikely. Iran has a suprisingly westernized population. It's just that a reasonably sized minority of zealots has come into power. The people of Iran and the government of Iran are probably the most different people/government in the world.
The taliban banned music, dancing, singing, poetry and even kite flying.
The hatred that these people have for life is hard to grasp for us. People who believe that every culture is equal have simply not read enough about the taliban.
For most of them, this world is just a waiting room. For them it's as clear as day that they will go to heaven when they die. So why would they let things like music distract them? Why would they allow any hapiness to exist in this world? It's temporary. It's a distraction which might cause them to miss out on heaven.
Can we intervene in every internal affair in the world? No, that will never be possible.
Does that mean we should tolerate totalitarianism? Does that mean we should call them our equals?
Just because we don't have enough water to put out all the fires, doesn't mean we should call the fire a nice 'alternative' that is no more or less destructive then the trees it turns to cinder.
On January 31 2012 23:40 RageBot wrote: It's funny to see pepole, none of which learned anything about biology, maintaining society etc in a level above high-school (varisomething probably learned from PUA books) argue among themselves about these subjects.
On topic - would be nice if helping the women in these countries could be prioritized, but seriously, western countries, in my opinion, shouldn't intervene in any way, shape or form with other countries, let them do their thing, we do our thing, eventually we'll see who's right and who's wrong (china is right BTW).
I agree, but I'm always torn on that issue. Should we intervene in other country's domestic problems? Do we need tell them how to run their shit?
I often find myself answering "no" to questions like that, but sometimes you've got to wonder if anyone does speak for the oppressed minorities in those areas. There was a nat geo article several months back about the lives of women in some parts of the developing world, and lots of it was sickening. One of the stories was about two sisters living in... Afghanistan or Iran, can't remember, but anyway the eldest sister was my age. The two girls had never been allowed outside their family's house once in their entire lives. I couldn't even fathom such a life. Their father was interviewed and said something like "not til they're married." The things those girls will never know, and never experience... It's very sad.
Or the girls living in societies that practice FGM. As much as I don't feel it's our place to go intervene and tell these people that their culture is wrong, I also worry that no one else will speak for the oppressed if we don't.
The thing is this - you can't help them, you just can't. Look at the way the middle east is right now, while the west have tried to establish democracies (and get resources, yeah yeah I know), the moment the west leaves, everything collapses - the genocides in Syria right now, the way Copts are arrested and murdered in Egypt, not to mention the failing Israeli democracy (70% of Israel's citizens didn't didn't come from cultures that practice democratic rule, and it's on a highway to destruction in 20~ years). Not to mention that, even if the west had absolutley good intentions, most pepole will see the "re-eduction" as an attempt of invasion and brainwash, and they will defend their culture at all costs, consider how that via-whatever guy said, no multiply the difference between your worldviews tenfold, and imagine that china (or whatever) invades your country, and teaches you that this is the "right way to live", would you understand? And another, important thing to consider- many of these girls who are behind a Burka all day long, and who are FGMed... they support this you know, you may see it as something cruel, but many of them see that as a word of god, and who are you to tell them that this is wrong, can you imagine that they see the way you are "treated" by western civilization as the same amount of cruelity?
This sounds cowardly. This sounds wussy. Maybe you're willing to give up so easily on bettering these peoples lives but I'm not.
All you're really saying is the specific strategies we've employed haven't worked. That says nothing about all strategies.
We don't necessarily have to be militarily aggressive in defending these rights, and in fact that's usually not recommended.
On January 28 2012 02:42 zalz wrote:Someone else already said it. Rape is more about domination then simple lust. We approach the mind of a rapist from a normal persons mind. Who would you rape? Well if I had to rape someone, obviously the prettiest girl.
That's just not how these people think.
The "rape is about power" bullshit comes from feminist ideology and is not supported by criminological/sociological research.
Criminological studies suggest that like every other crime, the motivations for rape are multifaceted. There is significant research which shows that most male rapists do not prefer rape over consensual sex, and while male rapists have been shown to be more aroused by forced sex than a typical male, they are still more strongly aroused by consensual sex. There's also a strong correlation between the rise of widely available porn, and a decrease in sexual violence, which utterly contradicts the feminist idea of "Porn is the theory; rape is the practice."
The notion of "rape is about patriarchy and is an attempt to maintain power over women" is based on feminist theorycrafting rather than empirical data. In general, males don't use sex to get/maintain social status and social power; they use social status and social power over others to get sex. When it comes to humans (and to a limited degree, some of our primate cousins), it's females that are the ones to use sex in order to gain social power/status. The mistake made by feminist thinkers was projecting female motivations for sex onto males.
And a plethora of research and data will disagree with your notions of what rape is really about. To label it all as feminist bullshit is just silly.
This isn't proof or even evidence for the claim that rape is about asserting dominance over your victim. At the very best it suggests that at times that might be part of the equation. If you're making a claim that rape is about X, then the onus of proof is on you, not the people who deny that single mindedness. Criminologists, sociologists, and psychologists would put forth that the human psyche is very complex, particularly a pathological deranged one that wants to rape someone. As a result, to assert that it all boils down to power is contradictory and counter intuitive.
Men can potentially assert their (sometimes) physical dominance over women without raping them. In fact, to say something somewhat horrible, if I hated some girl and for some reason wanted to let her know that I physically dominate her and that she's utterly powerless, I don't believe I'd need or want to rape her. Ergo, the desire to rape someone is probably not born simply of a mindset that wants to maintain power over woman.
Is it just straight men that want to maintain power over women? Do gay men wish to maintain power over women? If so would they really go about it with rape?
You're overlooking something else. Can the mindset that is capable and willing to impulsively rape someone even be scrutinized in such a way to outline a logical process with a purpose? If an isolated case could be would you really be content to extend that to all rape cases?
On January 31 2012 23:40 RageBot wrote: It's funny to see pepole, none of which learned anything about biology, maintaining society etc in a level above high-school (varisomething probably learned from PUA books) argue among themselves about these subjects.
On topic - would be nice if helping the women in these countries could be prioritized, but seriously, western countries, in my opinion, shouldn't intervene in any way, shape or form with other countries, let them do their thing, we do our thing, eventually we'll see who's right and who's wrong (china is right BTW).
I agree, but I'm always torn on that issue. Should we intervene in other country's domestic problems? Do we need tell them how to run their shit?
I often find myself answering "no" to questions like that, but sometimes you've got to wonder if anyone does speak for the oppressed minorities in those areas. There was a nat geo article several months back about the lives of women in some parts of the developing world, and lots of it was sickening. One of the stories was about two sisters living in... Afghanistan or Iran, can't remember, but anyway the eldest sister was my age. The two girls had never been allowed outside their family's house once in their entire lives. I couldn't even fathom such a life. Their father was interviewed and said something like "not til they're married." The things those girls will never know, and never experience... It's very sad.
Or the girls living in societies that practice FGM. As much as I don't feel it's our place to go intervene and tell these people that their culture is wrong, I also worry that no one else will speak for the oppressed if we don't.
The thing is this - you can't help them, you just can't. Look at the way the middle east is right now, while the west have tried to establish democracies (and get resources, yeah yeah I know), the moment the west leaves, everything collapses - the genocides in Syria right now, the way Copts are arrested and murdered in Egypt, not to mention the failing Israeli democracy (70% of Israel's citizens didn't didn't come from cultures that practice democratic rule, and it's on a highway to destruction in 20~ years). Not to mention that, even if the west had absolutley good intentions, most pepole will see the "re-eduction" as an attempt of invasion and brainwash, and they will defend their culture at all costs, consider how that via-whatever guy said, no multiply the difference between your worldviews tenfold, and imagine that china (or whatever) invades your country, and teaches you that this is the "right way to live", would you understand? And another, important thing to consider- many of these girls who are behind a Burka all day long, and who are FGMed... they support this you know, you may see it as something cruel, but many of them see that as a word of god, and who are you to tell them that this is wrong, can you imagine that they see the way you are "treated" by western civilization as the same amount of cruelity?
This sounds cowardly. This sounds wussy. Maybe you're willing to give up so easily on bettering these peoples lives but I'm not.
All you're really saying is the specific strategies we've employed haven't worked. That says nothing about all strategies.
We don't necessarily have to be militarily aggressive in defending these rights, and in fact that's usually not recommended.
On January 28 2012 02:42 zalz wrote:Someone else already said it. Rape is more about domination then simple lust. We approach the mind of a rapist from a normal persons mind. Who would you rape? Well if I had to rape someone, obviously the prettiest girl.
That's just not how these people think.
The "rape is about power" bullshit comes from feminist ideology and is not supported by criminological/sociological research.
Criminological studies suggest that like every other crime, the motivations for rape are multifaceted. There is significant research which shows that most male rapists do not prefer rape over consensual sex, and while male rapists have been shown to be more aroused by forced sex than a typical male, they are still more strongly aroused by consensual sex. There's also a strong correlation between the rise of widely available porn, and a decrease in sexual violence, which utterly contradicts the feminist idea of "Porn is the theory; rape is the practice."
The notion of "rape is about patriarchy and is an attempt to maintain power over women" is based on feminist theorycrafting rather than empirical data. In general, males don't use sex to get/maintain social status and social power; they use social status and social power over others to get sex. When it comes to humans (and to a limited degree, some of our primate cousins), it's females that are the ones to use sex in order to gain social power/status. The mistake made by feminist thinkers was projecting female motivations for sex onto males.
And a plethora of research and data will disagree with your notions of what rape is really about. To label it all as feminist bullshit is just silly.
This isn't proof or even evidence for the claim that rape is about asserting dominance over your victim. At the very best it suggests that at times that might be part of the equation. If you're making a claim that rape is about X, then the onus of proof is on you, not the people who deny that single mindedness. Criminologists, sociologists, and psychologists would put forth that the human psyche is very complex, particularly a pathological deranged one that wants to rape someone. As a result, to assert that it all boils down to power is contradictory and counter intuitive.
Men can potentially assert their (sometimes) physical dominance over women without raping them. In fact, to say something somewhat horrible, if I hated some girl and for some reason wanted to let her know that I physically dominate her and that she's utterly powerless, I don't believe I'd need or want to rape her. Ergo, the desire to rape someone is probably not born simply of a mindset that wants to maintain power over woman.
Is it just straight men that want to maintain power over women? Do gay men wish to maintain power over women? If so would they really go about it with rape?
You're overlooking something else. Can the mindset that is capable and willing to impulsively rape someone even be scrutinized in such a way to outline a logical process with a purpose? If an isolated case could be would you really be content to extend that to all rape cases?
I've never claimed that it was only about power. But what I did say was to brush aside all mention of it as feminist bullshit was just silly.
On January 28 2012 02:42 zalz wrote:Someone else already said it. Rape is more about domination then simple lust. We approach the mind of a rapist from a normal persons mind. Who would you rape? Well if I had to rape someone, obviously the prettiest girl.
That's just not how these people think.
The "rape is about power" bullshit comes from feminist ideology and is not supported by criminological/sociological research.
Criminological studies suggest that like every other crime, the motivations for rape are multifaceted. There is significant research which shows that most male rapists do not prefer rape over consensual sex, and while male rapists have been shown to be more aroused by forced sex than a typical male, they are still more strongly aroused by consensual sex. There's also a strong correlation between the rise of widely available porn, and a decrease in sexual violence, which utterly contradicts the feminist idea of "Porn is the theory; rape is the practice."
The notion of "rape is about patriarchy and is an attempt to maintain power over women" is based on feminist theorycrafting rather than empirical data. In general, males don't use sex to get/maintain social status and social power; they use social status and social power over others to get sex. When it comes to humans (and to a limited degree, some of our primate cousins), it's females that are the ones to use sex in order to gain social power/status. The mistake made by feminist thinkers was projecting female motivations for sex onto males.
And prison rape?
To highlight another point noted. To brush off the notion that power isn't a factor, and labelling it as a feminist rhetoric is an insult to the field. And if you really want to break down sociological/psychological/criminological analysis on what causes behaviour, the whole field comes crumbling down. There is no guarnateed method in conclusively determining behaviour, there is only strong correlations. We can't explain why some people choose to deviate and why others do not.
Can you explain why some men will go about their urges by paying for hookers, while others will rape? Money isn't a factor, considering that stats say it isn't the homeless that commit rape. Not to mention that a high proportion of rapists that are reported are known to victims, relatives or even people they're in a relationship with.
And the logic that the onus is on me to prove that power plays a role in rape? That logic can just as easily be pointed back at him or you, that you need to disprove that power doesn't play a role. Considering that the counter-point is going against long-established research, the onus is on others to disprove it.
On January 31 2012 23:40 RageBot wrote: It's funny to see pepole, none of which learned anything about biology, maintaining society etc in a level above high-school (varisomething probably learned from PUA books) argue among themselves about these subjects.
On topic - would be nice if helping the women in these countries could be prioritized, but seriously, western countries, in my opinion, shouldn't intervene in any way, shape or form with other countries, let them do their thing, we do our thing, eventually we'll see who's right and who's wrong (china is right BTW).
I agree, but I'm always torn on that issue. Should we intervene in other country's domestic problems? Do we need tell them how to run their shit?
I often find myself answering "no" to questions like that, but sometimes you've got to wonder if anyone does speak for the oppressed minorities in those areas. There was a nat geo article several months back about the lives of women in some parts of the developing world, and lots of it was sickening. One of the stories was about two sisters living in... Afghanistan or Iran, can't remember, but anyway the eldest sister was my age. The two girls had never been allowed outside their family's house once in their entire lives. I couldn't even fathom such a life. Their father was interviewed and said something like "not til they're married." The things those girls will never know, and never experience... It's very sad.
Or the girls living in societies that practice FGM. As much as I don't feel it's our place to go intervene and tell these people that their culture is wrong, I also worry that no one else will speak for the oppressed if we don't.
The thing is this - you can't help them, you just can't. Look at the way the middle east is right now, while the west have tried to establish democracies (and get resources, yeah yeah I know), the moment the west leaves, everything collapses - the genocides in Syria right now, the way Copts are arrested and murdered in Egypt, not to mention the failing Israeli democracy (70% of Israel's citizens didn't didn't come from cultures that practice democratic rule, and it's on a highway to destruction in 20~ years). Not to mention that, even if the west had absolutley good intentions, most pepole will see the "re-eduction" as an attempt of invasion and brainwash, and they will defend their culture at all costs, consider how that via-whatever guy said, no multiply the difference between your worldviews tenfold, and imagine that china (or whatever) invades your country, and teaches you that this is the "right way to live", would you understand? And another, important thing to consider- many of these girls who are behind a Burka all day long, and who are FGMed... they support this you know, you may see it as something cruel, but many of them see that as a word of god, and who are you to tell them that this is wrong, can you imagine that they see the way you are "treated" by western civilization as the same amount of cruelity?
This sounds cowardly. This sounds wussy. Maybe you're willing to give up so easily on bettering these peoples lives but I'm not.
All you're really saying is the specific strategies we've employed haven't worked. That says nothing about all strategies.
We don't necessarily have to be militarily aggressive in defending these rights, and in fact that's usually not recommended.
Do you have any othersuggestions?
Economic, diplomatic, and cultural pressure. We do a lot of it already. That's basically what the thread is about. We aren't saying that we'll invade countries that perform these practices. We are however condemning and shaming them. The Internet makes much of it inevitable, but that doesn't mean we should be less active.
Saying things like "you can't help them, you just can't" is just defeatist. Instead you should try to come up with other ways. Maybe we can be subversive and less direct. Let's talk about possible ways to accelerate social progress.
On January 28 2012 02:42 zalz wrote:Someone else already said it. Rape is more about domination then simple lust. We approach the mind of a rapist from a normal persons mind. Who would you rape? Well if I had to rape someone, obviously the prettiest girl.
That's just not how these people think.
The "rape is about power" bullshit comes from feminist ideology and is not supported by criminological/sociological research.
Criminological studies suggest that like every other crime, the motivations for rape are multifaceted. There is significant research which shows that most male rapists do not prefer rape over consensual sex, and while male rapists have been shown to be more aroused by forced sex than a typical male, they are still more strongly aroused by consensual sex. There's also a strong correlation between the rise of widely available porn, and a decrease in sexual violence, which utterly contradicts the feminist idea of "Porn is the theory; rape is the practice."
The notion of "rape is about patriarchy and is an attempt to maintain power over women" is based on feminist theorycrafting rather than empirical data. In general, males don't use sex to get/maintain social status and social power; they use social status and social power over others to get sex. When it comes to humans (and to a limited degree, some of our primate cousins), it's females that are the ones to use sex in order to gain social power/status. The mistake made by feminist thinkers was projecting female motivations for sex onto males.
And a plethora of research and data will disagree with your notions of what rape is really about. To label it all as feminist bullshit is just silly.
This isn't proof or even evidence for the claim that rape is about asserting dominance over your victim. At the very best it suggests that at times that might be part of the equation. If you're making a claim that rape is about X, then the onus of proof is on you, not the people who deny that single mindedness. Criminologists, sociologists, and psychologists would put forth that the human psyche is very complex, particularly a pathological deranged one that wants to rape someone. As a result, to assert that it all boils down to power is contradictory and counter intuitive.
Men can potentially assert their (sometimes) physical dominance over women without raping them. In fact, to say something somewhat horrible, if I hated some girl and for some reason wanted to let her know that I physically dominate her and that she's utterly powerless, I don't believe I'd need or want to rape her. Ergo, the desire to rape someone is probably not born simply of a mindset that wants to maintain power over woman.
Is it just straight men that want to maintain power over women? Do gay men wish to maintain power over women? If so would they really go about it with rape?
You're overlooking something else. Can the mindset that is capable and willing to impulsively rape someone even be scrutinized in such a way to outline a logical process with a purpose? If an isolated case could be would you really be content to extend that to all rape cases?
I've never claimed that it was only about power. But what I did say was to brush aside all mention of it as feminist bullshit was just silly.
If you don't claim it's only about power then why did you respond to someone who said "The 'rape is about power' bullshit comes from feminist ideology and is not supported by criminological/sociological research." He wasn't necessarily saying power isn't a factor in some cases of rape, he's disregarding the predominantly feminist notion that rape is just a psychological tool men use to maintain power over women. There is zero data directly supporting that notion, zero. Furthermore it flies in the face of common sense. Let's acknowledge that there are cases of males raping males for power (in prison). While this does suggest that rape can be about power, it immediately undermines rape as something specifically used to keep women in "their place." Further, it renders somewhat childish and offensive the notion that rape for power is a women's issue.
On January 28 2012 02:42 zalz wrote:Someone else already said it. Rape is more about domination then simple lust. We approach the mind of a rapist from a normal persons mind. Who would you rape? Well if I had to rape someone, obviously the prettiest girl.
That's just not how these people think.
The "rape is about power" bullshit comes from feminist ideology and is not supported by criminological/sociological research.
Criminological studies suggest that like every other crime, the motivations for rape are multifaceted. There is significant research which shows that most male rapists do not prefer rape over consensual sex, and while male rapists have been shown to be more aroused by forced sex than a typical male, they are still more strongly aroused by consensual sex. There's also a strong correlation between the rise of widely available porn, and a decrease in sexual violence, which utterly contradicts the feminist idea of "Porn is the theory; rape is the practice."
The notion of "rape is about patriarchy and is an attempt to maintain power over women" is based on feminist theorycrafting rather than empirical data. In general, males don't use sex to get/maintain social status and social power; they use social status and social power over others to get sex. When it comes to humans (and to a limited degree, some of our primate cousins), it's females that are the ones to use sex in order to gain social power/status. The mistake made by feminist thinkers was projecting female motivations for sex onto males.
And a plethora of research and data will disagree with your notions of what rape is really about. To label it all as feminist bullshit is just silly.
This isn't proof or even evidence for the claim that rape is about asserting dominance over your victim. At the very best it suggests that at times that might be part of the equation. If you're making a claim that rape is about X, then the onus of proof is on you, not the people who deny that single mindedness. Criminologists, sociologists, and psychologists would put forth that the human psyche is very complex, particularly a pathological deranged one that wants to rape someone. As a result, to assert that it all boils down to power is contradictory and counter intuitive.
Men can potentially assert their (sometimes) physical dominance over women without raping them. In fact, to say something somewhat horrible, if I hated some girl and for some reason wanted to let her know that I physically dominate her and that she's utterly powerless, I don't believe I'd need or want to rape her. Ergo, the desire to rape someone is probably not born simply of a mindset that wants to maintain power over woman.
Is it just straight men that want to maintain power over women? Do gay men wish to maintain power over women? If so would they really go about it with rape?
You're overlooking something else. Can the mindset that is capable and willing to impulsively rape someone even be scrutinized in such a way to outline a logical process with a purpose? If an isolated case could be would you really be content to extend that to all rape cases?
I've never claimed that it was only about power. But what I did say was to brush aside all mention of it as feminist bullshit was just silly.
On January 28 2012 02:42 zalz wrote:Someone else already said it. Rape is more about domination then simple lust. We approach the mind of a rapist from a normal persons mind. Who would you rape? Well if I had to rape someone, obviously the prettiest girl.
That's just not how these people think.
The "rape is about power" bullshit comes from feminist ideology and is not supported by criminological/sociological research.
Criminological studies suggest that like every other crime, the motivations for rape are multifaceted. There is significant research which shows that most male rapists do not prefer rape over consensual sex, and while male rapists have been shown to be more aroused by forced sex than a typical male, they are still more strongly aroused by consensual sex. There's also a strong correlation between the rise of widely available porn, and a decrease in sexual violence, which utterly contradicts the feminist idea of "Porn is the theory; rape is the practice."
The notion of "rape is about patriarchy and is an attempt to maintain power over women" is based on feminist theorycrafting rather than empirical data. In general, males don't use sex to get/maintain social status and social power; they use social status and social power over others to get sex. When it comes to humans (and to a limited degree, some of our primate cousins), it's females that are the ones to use sex in order to gain social power/status. The mistake made by feminist thinkers was projecting female motivations for sex onto males.
And prison rape?
To highlight another point noted. To brush off the notion that power isn't a factor, and labelling it as a feminist rhetoric is an insult to the field.
To what field exactly? Feminism? The notion that rape is just about power is something I only hear from feminists. Let it be insulting. The notion that women need to be empowered and have equal opportunities is above critique. Feminism is not above critique.
On January 28 2012 02:42 zalz wrote:Someone else already said it. Rape is more about domination then simple lust. We approach the mind of a rapist from a normal persons mind. Who would you rape? Well if I had to rape someone, obviously the prettiest girl.
That's just not how these people think.
The "rape is about power" bullshit comes from feminist ideology and is not supported by criminological/sociological research.
Criminological studies suggest that like every other crime, the motivations for rape are multifaceted. There is significant research which shows that most male rapists do not prefer rape over consensual sex, and while male rapists have been shown to be more aroused by forced sex than a typical male, they are still more strongly aroused by consensual sex. There's also a strong correlation between the rise of widely available porn, and a decrease in sexual violence, which utterly contradicts the feminist idea of "Porn is the theory; rape is the practice."
The notion of "rape is about patriarchy and is an attempt to maintain power over women" is based on feminist theorycrafting rather than empirical data. In general, males don't use sex to get/maintain social status and social power; they use social status and social power over others to get sex. When it comes to humans (and to a limited degree, some of our primate cousins), it's females that are the ones to use sex in order to gain social power/status. The mistake made by feminist thinkers was projecting female motivations for sex onto males.
And a plethora of research and data will disagree with your notions of what rape is really about. To label it all as feminist bullshit is just silly.
This isn't proof or even evidence for the claim that rape is about asserting dominance over your victim. At the very best it suggests that at times that might be part of the equation. If you're making a claim that rape is about X, then the onus of proof is on you, not the people who deny that single mindedness. Criminologists, sociologists, and psychologists would put forth that the human psyche is very complex, particularly a pathological deranged one that wants to rape someone. As a result, to assert that it all boils down to power is contradictory and counter intuitive.
Men can potentially assert their (sometimes) physical dominance over women without raping them. In fact, to say something somewhat horrible, if I hated some girl and for some reason wanted to let her know that I physically dominate her and that she's utterly powerless, I don't believe I'd need or want to rape her. Ergo, the desire to rape someone is probably not born simply of a mindset that wants to maintain power over woman.
Is it just straight men that want to maintain power over women? Do gay men wish to maintain power over women? If so would they really go about it with rape?
You're overlooking something else. Can the mindset that is capable and willing to impulsively rape someone even be scrutinized in such a way to outline a logical process with a purpose? If an isolated case could be would you really be content to extend that to all rape cases?
I've never claimed that it was only about power. But what I did say was to brush aside all mention of it as feminist bullshit was just silly.
On January 28 2012 02:42 zalz wrote:Someone else already said it. Rape is more about domination then simple lust. We approach the mind of a rapist from a normal persons mind. Who would you rape? Well if I had to rape someone, obviously the prettiest girl.
That's just not how these people think.
The "rape is about power" bullshit comes from feminist ideology and is not supported by criminological/sociological research.
Criminological studies suggest that like every other crime, the motivations for rape are multifaceted. There is significant research which shows that most male rapists do not prefer rape over consensual sex, and while male rapists have been shown to be more aroused by forced sex than a typical male, they are still more strongly aroused by consensual sex. There's also a strong correlation between the rise of widely available porn, and a decrease in sexual violence, which utterly contradicts the feminist idea of "Porn is the theory; rape is the practice."
The notion of "rape is about patriarchy and is an attempt to maintain power over women" is based on feminist theorycrafting rather than empirical data. In general, males don't use sex to get/maintain social status and social power; they use social status and social power over others to get sex. When it comes to humans (and to a limited degree, some of our primate cousins), it's females that are the ones to use sex in order to gain social power/status. The mistake made by feminist thinkers was projecting female motivations for sex onto males.
And prison rape?
And if you really want to break down sociological/psychological/criminological analysis on what causes behaviour, the whole field comes crumbling down. There is no guarnateed method in conclusively determining behaviour, there is only strong correlations. We can't explain why some people choose to deviate and why others do not.
Agreed. This is why I don't think it's possible to reduce the motivation for rape to one solitary attribute.
On January 28 2012 02:42 zalz wrote:Someone else already said it. Rape is more about domination then simple lust. We approach the mind of a rapist from a normal persons mind. Who would you rape? Well if I had to rape someone, obviously the prettiest girl.
That's just not how these people think.
The "rape is about power" bullshit comes from feminist ideology and is not supported by criminological/sociological research.
Criminological studies suggest that like every other crime, the motivations for rape are multifaceted. There is significant research which shows that most male rapists do not prefer rape over consensual sex, and while male rapists have been shown to be more aroused by forced sex than a typical male, they are still more strongly aroused by consensual sex. There's also a strong correlation between the rise of widely available porn, and a decrease in sexual violence, which utterly contradicts the feminist idea of "Porn is the theory; rape is the practice."
The notion of "rape is about patriarchy and is an attempt to maintain power over women" is based on feminist theorycrafting rather than empirical data. In general, males don't use sex to get/maintain social status and social power; they use social status and social power over others to get sex. When it comes to humans (and to a limited degree, some of our primate cousins), it's females that are the ones to use sex in order to gain social power/status. The mistake made by feminist thinkers was projecting female motivations for sex onto males.
And a plethora of research and data will disagree with your notions of what rape is really about. To label it all as feminist bullshit is just silly.
This isn't proof or even evidence for the claim that rape is about asserting dominance over your victim. At the very best it suggests that at times that might be part of the equation. If you're making a claim that rape is about X, then the onus of proof is on you, not the people who deny that single mindedness. Criminologists, sociologists, and psychologists would put forth that the human psyche is very complex, particularly a pathological deranged one that wants to rape someone. As a result, to assert that it all boils down to power is contradictory and counter intuitive.
Men can potentially assert their (sometimes) physical dominance over women without raping them. In fact, to say something somewhat horrible, if I hated some girl and for some reason wanted to let her know that I physically dominate her and that she's utterly powerless, I don't believe I'd need or want to rape her. Ergo, the desire to rape someone is probably not born simply of a mindset that wants to maintain power over woman.
Is it just straight men that want to maintain power over women? Do gay men wish to maintain power over women? If so would they really go about it with rape?
You're overlooking something else. Can the mindset that is capable and willing to impulsively rape someone even be scrutinized in such a way to outline a logical process with a purpose? If an isolated case could be would you really be content to extend that to all rape cases?
I've never claimed that it was only about power. But what I did say was to brush aside all mention of it as feminist bullshit was just silly.
On January 28 2012 02:42 zalz wrote:Someone else already said it. Rape is more about domination then simple lust. We approach the mind of a rapist from a normal persons mind. Who would you rape? Well if I had to rape someone, obviously the prettiest girl.
That's just not how these people think.
The "rape is about power" bullshit comes from feminist ideology and is not supported by criminological/sociological research.
Criminological studies suggest that like every other crime, the motivations for rape are multifaceted. There is significant research which shows that most male rapists do not prefer rape over consensual sex, and while male rapists have been shown to be more aroused by forced sex than a typical male, they are still more strongly aroused by consensual sex. There's also a strong correlation between the rise of widely available porn, and a decrease in sexual violence, which utterly contradicts the feminist idea of "Porn is the theory; rape is the practice."
The notion of "rape is about patriarchy and is an attempt to maintain power over women" is based on feminist theorycrafting rather than empirical data. In general, males don't use sex to get/maintain social status and social power; they use social status and social power over others to get sex. When it comes to humans (and to a limited degree, some of our primate cousins), it's females that are the ones to use sex in order to gain social power/status. The mistake made by feminist thinkers was projecting female motivations for sex onto males.
And prison rape?
Can you explain why some men will go about their urges by paying for hookers, while others will rape? Money isn't a factor, considering that stats say it isn't the homeless that commit rape. Not to mention that a high proportion of rapists that are reported are known to victims, relatives or even people they're in a relationship with.
Rape Stats - National Crime Victimization Survey - US 2005 Against my better judgement, I'll even waste my time to post up proof of it. The site may be a victim advocacy group, but the data comes from the U.S Department of Justice..
Of course I can't explain it, that's the point we're making, it defies explanation, or at least easy explanation. Thanks for providing the stats, although the only thing they prove beyond the shadow of any doubt is that rape is a crime that is perpetrated by a wide variety of people of a wide variety of background of a wide variety of ages in a wide variety of locations, likely for a wide variety of reasons.
On January 28 2012 02:42 zalz wrote:Someone else already said it. Rape is more about domination then simple lust. We approach the mind of a rapist from a normal persons mind. Who would you rape? Well if I had to rape someone, obviously the prettiest girl.
That's just not how these people think.
The "rape is about power" bullshit comes from feminist ideology and is not supported by criminological/sociological research.
Criminological studies suggest that like every other crime, the motivations for rape are multifaceted. There is significant research which shows that most male rapists do not prefer rape over consensual sex, and while male rapists have been shown to be more aroused by forced sex than a typical male, they are still more strongly aroused by consensual sex. There's also a strong correlation between the rise of widely available porn, and a decrease in sexual violence, which utterly contradicts the feminist idea of "Porn is the theory; rape is the practice."
The notion of "rape is about patriarchy and is an attempt to maintain power over women" is based on feminist theorycrafting rather than empirical data. In general, males don't use sex to get/maintain social status and social power; they use social status and social power over others to get sex. When it comes to humans (and to a limited degree, some of our primate cousins), it's females that are the ones to use sex in order to gain social power/status. The mistake made by feminist thinkers was projecting female motivations for sex onto males.
And a plethora of research and data will disagree with your notions of what rape is really about. To label it all as feminist bullshit is just silly.
This isn't proof or even evidence for the claim that rape is about asserting dominance over your victim. At the very best it suggests that at times that might be part of the equation. If you're making a claim that rape is about X, then the onus of proof is on you, not the people who deny that single mindedness. Criminologists, sociologists, and psychologists would put forth that the human psyche is very complex, particularly a pathological deranged one that wants to rape someone. As a result, to assert that it all boils down to power is contradictory and counter intuitive.
Men can potentially assert their (sometimes) physical dominance over women without raping them. In fact, to say something somewhat horrible, if I hated some girl and for some reason wanted to let her know that I physically dominate her and that she's utterly powerless, I don't believe I'd need or want to rape her. Ergo, the desire to rape someone is probably not born simply of a mindset that wants to maintain power over woman.
Is it just straight men that want to maintain power over women? Do gay men wish to maintain power over women? If so would they really go about it with rape?
You're overlooking something else. Can the mindset that is capable and willing to impulsively rape someone even be scrutinized in such a way to outline a logical process with a purpose? If an isolated case could be would you really be content to extend that to all rape cases?
I've never claimed that it was only about power. But what I did say was to brush aside all mention of it as feminist bullshit was just silly.
On January 28 2012 02:42 zalz wrote:Someone else already said it. Rape is more about domination then simple lust. We approach the mind of a rapist from a normal persons mind. Who would you rape? Well if I had to rape someone, obviously the prettiest girl.
That's just not how these people think.
The "rape is about power" bullshit comes from feminist ideology and is not supported by criminological/sociological research.
Criminological studies suggest that like every other crime, the motivations for rape are multifaceted. There is significant research which shows that most male rapists do not prefer rape over consensual sex, and while male rapists have been shown to be more aroused by forced sex than a typical male, they are still more strongly aroused by consensual sex. There's also a strong correlation between the rise of widely available porn, and a decrease in sexual violence, which utterly contradicts the feminist idea of "Porn is the theory; rape is the practice."
The notion of "rape is about patriarchy and is an attempt to maintain power over women" is based on feminist theorycrafting rather than empirical data. In general, males don't use sex to get/maintain social status and social power; they use social status and social power over others to get sex. When it comes to humans (and to a limited degree, some of our primate cousins), it's females that are the ones to use sex in order to gain social power/status. The mistake made by feminist thinkers was projecting female motivations for sex onto males.
And prison rape?
And the logic that the onus is on me to prove that power plays a role in rape? That logic can just as easily be pointed back at him or you, that you need to disprove that power doesn't play a role. Considering that the counter-point is going against long-established research, the onus is on others to disprove it.
No, because our position is questioning a very specific assertion that all rape is about men maintaining power over women, that is not supported by any meaningful research (in fact the research suggests there are likely many factors involved). That assertion carries with it the burden of evidence and proof, debunking it does not, in fact the best way to debunk it is to point to a lack of evidence/proof.
What I'm wondering is why you took exception to his post in the first place if you agree that rape isn't as simple as the predominantly feminist assertion that it's just about power.
EPT
. I'm glad the UN is pressuring for women's rights, and at the risk of sounding like a socialist, yes I indeed believe equal human beings deserve equal treatment.![[image loading]](http://sharkrobot.com/images/medium/shirt_vgc_heylisten_MED.jpg)
