<<<I don't think any of us disagreed with these
thoughts, E. I am sure that I didn't. I'd have to
go back and print out all the posts, and read it all
again, to make sure, but that's my impression.
I hesitate to say the next thing, because I am
sure you are going to challenge me to say where
you said this, but what I was arguing against was
a tone of "business as usual" for some men who
practiced rape. That it was in some times, and in
some places, normal, and expected behavior. The
example of soldiers was given, I don't remember
who first. I wonder if you think that using an
army to invade the territory of another nation is
normal, and expected behavior, as well. I would
say not.>>>
I won't go back either (well, i might, mightn't I?); but I'm telling you that those thoughts are precisely what I was trying to get agreement to, and did briefly, on the part of a number of people; we almost had a general sign on to Steven's statement, which bit the dust when you specified that all rapists were insane, and then statements began being made again about "rape" (all rape) and how adjunct sex was to "it" (all of it) to 'rapists,' (all rapists.)
I think you now find it incredible that that statement was taken exception to, Blue. I found it incredible at the time, myself.
I myself didn't mention marauding armies, though might discuss that phenomenon in a separate discussion. Gotta rest up first. I didn't say or imply 'business as usual,' not in words or in tone; I characterized rapists in the strongest negative terms. I called them, all of them, monstrous, and criminals. In one post, the one in which I replied to your statement that all rapists were 'insane,' I made a point in which I used the words 'a shit' to describe a rapist; as soon as you indicated that you assumed that that was the sum of my condemnation of that rapist, I came on to make clear that of course the shitty rapist was also a criminal; but that i thought there was little evidence that would justify calling him 'insane' in the case I had postulated, simply because he neither before nor forever after gave evidence of insanity. (You never replied as to whether not guilty by reason of insanity should be an acceptable defense for all rapists.) I believe your position remains that all rapists are insane.
Blue, there would have been no long, repetitive argument here if everyone agreed with my statement, "
<<<<For some men, force is their fetish. It is what turns
them on sexually.Sexually.
For some men.
Some men are guiltless psychopaths. For some of them, the
violence is only wasted energy, and only done to get what
they, guiltlessly, want: sex with that person at that moment.>>>>
But if everyone now does agree to it, I'm relieved. Maybe what happened was that the horror of 'business as usual' where rape is concerned was triggered where it didn't apply, and caused an inability to perceive what I was, in fact, actually saying. Which from the beginning was only what i said in the above quote. |
