From: dcrosgr@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: talk.rape
Subject: The Argument Clinic on Talk.Rape
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:43:01 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

In article <SYNTH.92Jul31092032@deepthought.unm.edu>, synth@deepthought.unm.edu (Synth F. Oberheim) writes:

> 
> dc> No, unless rape means anything Synth defines as rape, it does not
> dc> mean force.  It means unwanted/unconsnted to sex.
> 
> "Unwanted and unconsented" automatically implies force or dominance of
> some kind.  But you *cannot* say that force and dominance automatically
> means rape if you have variables like S/M and bondage.  

You do not need those variables even. How many people here have been in a
relationship where either in or out of the bedroom, one partner was not a
little more dominant or forceful. Humans automatically, like any other tribe
animal, establish a pecking order for situations, even if there are only two.
Men traditionally more assertive in seeking out sex, although, please God!,
this is changing to where women are assuming some of the sexual pursuer role.

> 
>> Laz> If these ... are really typical of the fantasies of the males you
>> Laz> were socialized with, then the fact that you still associated with
>> Laz> them says almost as much about you as it does about them.
>> 
>> "Still associated with them"?  From what hat did you pull *this* rabbit
>> out of ...?
> 
> dc> 3. If you still associate with them, you are wilfully associating
> dc>    with men who (you have claimed) want to rape women.
> 
> Yes?  And where did I ever say or even imply that I still associate
> with them?

So you no longer associte with men who have expressed fantasies like to one you
stated earlier this week? Men who are willing to fantaszie about sex while
oblivious to their parners?

> 
>>> I agree that simply hearing of someone expressing a desire to have sex
>>> with someone, without explicitly describing whether or not that person
>>> consents, cannot be construed to be a rape fantasy. 
>> 
>> Laz> From where I sit, it obviously looks like you're construing
>> Laz> exactly that.
>> 
>> You mean "looked", don't you, since I had now clarified that?  Or does
>> that not matter to you?
> 
> dc> Then instead of defending you prior post, admit that you have no
> dc> evidence to equate "I'd love to shove my dick in her mouth" with
> dc> "I'd love to rape her."
> 
> Since I wasn't contradicting myself, but rather clarifying what was
> meant, I have nothing to "admit".  Possibly you might look up
> "clarified" in Webster's ...

If you do not believe, nor have tried to imply, that a large number of men have
rape fantasies, as evidenced by your personal example of all the men who would
state publicly that they would like to shove their members in an attractive
female, what was the point of your original post on this thread?

The problem we are facing is that you stated something that which follows a
pattern similar to the following:

Synth: X proves Y
Us: No, X does not prove Y.
S: Yes X proves Y
U: X only proves Y if Z is also present.
S: Let me clarify, Y can not be proven without Z, therfore X is irrelevant.
U: That's what we said.
S: No, that is what I said.

I feel like Syth is really John Cleese in disguise!

DC


 


> 
> 
> ===============================================================================
>     :: :: :: :: ::     Synth F.    synth@deepthought.unm.edu    U S E N E T   
>  :: :: :: :: :: :: ::  Oberheim    synth@yenta.alb.nm.us             in color!
> ===============================================================================
> "Contestant number two?"
> "I can kill Midi using only 30 calories, Bob!"