Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

g5jamz

"Knock out" teen shot breaking/entering

287 posts in this topic

ok lets settle this then.

ncb do you believe that objectifying women is wrong?

Huddle Counseling session begins:

Hoping nobody needs a tissue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was going to tell you to stop adding nothing to threads but then i remembered the last six pages of this one

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i was going to tell you to stop adding nothing to threads but then i remembered the last six pages of this one

I think you have a good heart, but are getting to embark on a long road of frustration with the "intervention". Just sayin...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not "intervening" i'm trying to determine whether or not there is any substantial base to GS's claims.

i see my statement about adding nothing still stands

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok lets settle this then.

ncb do you believe that objectifying women is wrong?

Just so we're on the same page... I did some googling on "objectifying women" making sure I understood what you are asking me.

My understanding of "objectifying women" is to treat women merely as a instrument of sexual pleasure or desire. Is that an agreeable definition? If so...

...to answer your question... yes, I do believe that that practice is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd say that's a good starting place for sure. GS is pretty convinced you don't think rape is rape in all cases and that sometimes the rape victim is to blame rather than the rapist who did the raping... is he wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd say that's a good starting place for sure. GS is pretty convinced you don't think rape is rape in all cases and that sometimes the rape victim is to blame rather than the rapist who did the raping... is he wrong?

Honestly I'm a tad offended that you even need ask that.

He got all this "rape apology" stuff from one comment I made in a thread about a girl who was statutorily raped by her supervisor in a Starbucks. Yeah, I probably could have worded what I said a little differently, but you know Cantrell... picks up on one thing and runs with it...

Long story short (and I linked my previous response to this in the post from this morning) I was not saying the girl wasn't raped. I wasn't saying that she caused the rape or anything even remotely like that... rape is a serious, serious issue and I would never wish it on any woman. That particular thread was about her suing Starbucks because they didn't prevent the situation when in fact Starbucks and her own family intervened (multiple times I might add), she continued that relationship willingly, and then four years later, sued for money damages because of it.

The guy in that case was a sleeze, he slept with an underage girl and was rightly convicted for it. I've never said otherwise. My comments were SOLELY in regards to the lawsuit not the rape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I'm a tad offended that you even need ask that.

He got all this "rape apology" stuff from one comment I made in a thread about a girl who was statutorily raped by her supervisor in a Starbucks. Yeah, I probably could have worded what I said a little differently, but you know Cantrell... picks up on one thing and runs with it...

Long story short (and I linked my previous response to this in the post from this morning) I was not saying the girl wasn't raped. I wasn't saying that she caused the rape or anything even remotely like that... rape is a serious, serious issue and I would never wish it on any woman. That particular thread was about her suing Starbucks because they didn't prevent the situation when in fact Starbucks and her own family intervened (multiple times I might add), she continued that relationship willingly, and then four years later, sued for money damages because of it.

The guy in that case was a sleeze, he slept with an underage girl and was rightly convicted for it. I've never said otherwise. My comments were SOLELY in regards to the lawsuit not the rape.

i don't mean to offend, i'm asking it for the sake of what we're trying to unearth here. GS somehow has gotten the impression that you're "pro-rape" which is clearly a misnomer of some sort. i'm trying to get to the bottom of it.

continuing in this vein, would you say there's a difference between statuatory rape and "regular" rape (i'm not sure what you'd call it) as it relates to the morality or legality of it, or the punishment involved? or simply the terms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't mean to offend, i'm asking it for the sake of what we're trying to unearth here. GS somehow has gotten the impression that you're "pro-rape" which is clearly a misnomer of some sort. i'm trying to get to the bottom of it.

continuing in this vein, would you say there's a difference between statuatory rape and "regular" rape (i'm not sure what you'd call it) as it relates to the morality or legality of it, or the punishment involved? or simply the terms?

In regards to the legality of it, no absolutely not. In regards to the morality of it... I certainly see it more grey than Cantrell does. A 16 year old girl having consensual sex with a 19 year old boy in most states is statutory rape. Does a 16 year old (generally) have enough sense to know what she's doing... sure she does, but not always.

Now... say that 19 year old guy is having sex with a 14 year old... well, she might like it and even consent to it, but that doesn't make it OK. In either case, is the law broken? Yes. Should the 19 year old guy be punished? Yes.

Are they necessarily the same case? In the eyes of the law... probably, because the law is absolute, but in the eyes of the law in regards to other issues, such as the aformentioned case of Starbucks not doing enough to stop it... it's grey, there can always be mitigating circumstances.

It is my longstanding view that each and every single case, no matter what the issue, should be looked at upon the merits of itself. Nothing is absolute.

There's also the issue of "forced rape" and "coercive rape" versus statutory rape. Is there a difference between a man throwing a woman down and forcibly raping her against her will, and a slightly older guy smooth talking his way into a teenagers bed? Yes there is a difference.

I'm sure some can and will pick apart my statements above, but I think you get the gist of my opinion.

Edit: Just sitting here thinking about this a bit... in reference to statutory rape... I think the law would be better if it was an age range instead of a flat age. For instance: technically, if there was no force or coercion involved, a 15 year old having consensual sex with an 11 year old is not illegal, but that's one of those situations where it probably should be. Whereas a 17 year old having consensual sex with a 19 year old is illegal... it probably shouldn't be.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a much more fruitful discussion than OMG UR TEH DUMBZ :)

last question... do you think stuff like the LL forum and the flavor that bleeds over into stuff like avatars could be construed as disrespect for/objectification of women as sex objects?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites