I want your honest opinions here. Please read the following link about why men rape.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/why-men-want-to-rape...

I will be honest. The thought that this might be true is freeing. I am recovering from multiple rapes throughout my life. For the past 24 hours I have been very sick. I have been retraumatized and now I am trying to get centered to where I feel safe again. I don't feel safe right now. I want to know why so many men have raped me. Why??? So I just googled "why men rape" and I found this article. It seems like a theory that has been dismissed, yet it is the first time I have ever read that rape is an evolutionary adaptation to mating. Do you realize how freeing this is for me????? If this is true then it really does mean that 1. I am truly NOT to blame, and 2. I am not a "victim" of violence. I know that probably doesn't make sense to you, but in a twisted sort of way it gives me my power back to accept that the men who have hurt me throughout my life.....all of them....were doing so because of an evolutionary drive, not because there was or is anything wrong with ME!

For years I have been told that MY boundaries are weak. And I am sure (I know) this is true. But I am not any more "weak" or "soft" than many women, and I am sick of racking my brain trying to figure out what I did wrong and how to "fix" myself. What if I don't need fixing? What if I am just fine? What if WE need to take a look as a society to realize our own understanding of rape is incomplete? I understand the worry that sex offenders will use this defense to their benefit, but the current judicial system here in the U.S really does no justice. Rapists are rarely prosecuted anyway. What if it REALLY is not my fault.....but furthermore.....what of there isn't a DAMN thing wrong with me?

Do you think rape is an evolved adaptation as this article suggests? Or is it an act of violence as we have always been told? Or am I just too fucked up to know what I'm saying right now? I am sick, and tired, and I am afraid to face the world, because I don't feel safe at all. So I don't know if anyone even can identify with me. I don't know.

Views: 2094

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Okay, how about a parent who gives up all supervisory and legal control of and legal responsibility for their child so that the child can function as an independent adult before the age of 18. 

Legally, it's called emancipation.

Now, I know what you're going to do, which is that you're either going to dismiss this as an example or force it to fit with your contention.

how about a parent who gives up legal control and responsibility for their child so that the child can function as an independent adult before the age of 18. Legally, it's called emancipation.

This is a bit of a bad example.  Child emancipation is usually done through a petition by the child to gain independence when the parent is incompetent, abusive, or even dead.  It is the child taking power from the parent with the assistance of the state.

Now, I know what you're going to do, which is that you're either going to dismiss this as an example or force it to fit with your contention.

Poisoning the well against my reply doesn’t give weight to your argument.   Setting aside sophistry, I’ll help you make your argument.  Let’s take an idealized example of this argument.

(A) is an exceptionally gifted 16 year old, from a loving home, who has a chance to study out of country.  (A) and her parents decide to petition jointly for emancipation, so that she can live independently while away.

This could indeed be an example of giving power without coercion or strings attached.  My questions are;

  1. Why would (A) need emancipation when simply having control over her checkbook and other finances would do?
  2. What advantage does legal emancipation confer that she wouldn’t have without it?
  3. Is this a realistic scenario?

This is a bit of a bad example.  Child emancipation is usually done...

By using the word "usually" not "always," you just lost the case.

I've heard of irrevocable trusts and just googled the term.

I apologize for my initial reply.  I reread it this morning, and it comes off as dismissive.  Let me give you a proper reply.

Irrevocable trusts are used mainly for estate and tax purposes, along with some similar tools.  I don’t see how they would be used to give power.  They are more for protection, and as legal means to project power.

Estate example;
(A) is in decline, and even though she has a will, her family makes the Lannisters look like the Bradys.  They are already getting lawyers to contest her will.  To make sure her assets aren’t squandered, and to protect her legacy, she turns over her estate in its entirety to (B), because (B)’s motives and attitude are most in tune with her own.

A personal example,
I used to manage operations for a business.  The owners had three businesses under one set of licensing, and one of the other locations broke the law, racked up license violations, and the city was going to shut down all three locations.
The owner’s response was two-fold.  They closed down the violating location and tried to pin legal responsibility on the manager, and they turned over all of the remaining assets and licensing to their son.  It wasn’t long before the two businesses were back up and running, and the violating location was open again a year later under a different manager.  The son didn’t want any part of running the business; he took a little cash on the side and went his merry way.

So, I would claim that irrevocable trusts and similar tools aren’t used to freely give power.  They are tools to legally protect, and to project power.

Irrevocable trusts are used mainly for estate and tax purposes, along with some similar tools.

Once again, you'll do handstands and backflips to make sure everything fits your notion. You're more interested in not being wrong than in seeing the truth of it. And once again, you lose the battle by admitting they have other uses than the main one.

Again, I have simply stated their main use, and that it does not conform to the argument that you have put forth.

I don't have to go through mental contortions to validate my point, because no argument is being brought against it.  All that is being done is people are saying (What about X) without showing how X is used in the way that they are promoting.

Declare victory all you want William Lane Unseen.  You still haven't made a cogent argument.

I've shown why there's no point in arguing with someone who, like those who argue that there's no such thing as an unselfish act, operates by forcing every potentially disconfirming argument to fit with his conception.

I've shown why there's no point in arguing with someone who, like those who argue that there's no such thing as an unselfish act, operates by forcing every potentially disconfirming argument to fit with his conception. nothing.

Fixed that for you.

When you make an argument, you need to show how it ties in with what you are arguing against.  You can’t simply say, WHAT ABOUT CHICKEN??!!.  You have to show how chicken impacts the situation.  When the other person replies with ways that chicken does not apply to the situation, they are not forcing chicken to fit with anything.  The person is simply showing the weakness of your argument.

“WHAT ABOUT CHICKEN??!!”

“Chicken doesn’t work in this situation.  It is an animal that is usually eaten by people.”

“You said USUALLY.  Ha HA, I win.”

“No.  Wolves and other creatures can eat chickens.  You haven’t shown how chickens prove your point.”

“CHEATER-FACE!”

Obfukation - When you make an argument, you need to show how it ties in with what you are arguing against.

Actually, no I don't. The burden is on you, because you are arguing something counterintuitive. Almost everyone but you would say, "Of course people can give up power, and do it all the time," but you're reductionist approach can only see everything through the personal prism of "power can only be taken, never given." 

Let me ask you, if President Obama surprises a senator with an appointment as Ambassador to Liechtenstein, the only "power" the senator has is that of accepting the offer or not accepting it. Tell me this, though, hasn't Obama the power of delegation? from whom did he wrest that power?

Now, when you say power can only be taken, I assume you mean the wresting of power not the passive accepting of power (power that comes with the job, for example).

What is your convoluted explanation for that?


Let me ask you, if President Obama surprises a senator with an appointment as Ambassador to Liechtenstein, the only "power" the senator has is that of accepting the offer or not accepting it.

The Ambassador to Liechtenstein would wield whatever power he at the whim of the person who delegated it.  This is not ‘giving’ power.  This is power through proxy.  If the AtL does something that in not approved, then the power is revoked.

Tell me this, though, hasn't Obama the power of delegation? from whom did he wrest that power?

The POTUS wields power that is temporarily granted to him, and if he abuses it, or is incompetent enough to warrant it, he can have that power revoked through impeachment.  (ie. Richard Nixon)

Delegating power is not “giving” power, it is loaning power with considerable strings attached.  Go into any business or political setting.  If a person who has authority delegates power to an underling, and that underling mishandles it, there are consequences.

Obfuskation, I've pointed out how you argue and you've given us ample examples of how you force round pegs into square holes. You're going to think you won no matter what, just like someone arguing on behalf of a religion.

Obfus, I appreciate your more detailed and clear reply.

I mentioned irrevocable trust because, in responding to your Nothing and no one can give somebody power.  Power is taken I wanted something easier to explain than my experience as president in a few clubs.

For instance, the first time I was a student club president, a woman whose opinion I valued told me the first meeting had gone better than any of the previous year's meetings. Aside from calling on every one who raised a hand, I didn't know what I had done right. A few days before the second meeting I gave (delegated) the presiding task to my vice president and didn't go to the meeting.

I gave the power easily because the burdens of presiding were greater than the rewards. Had the rewards been greater, your words would have more validity and my vice president would have had to take the task from me.

And so, in my experience, whether or not power can be given depends in part on whether the rewards of power exceed its burdens.

Now, consider the members who, by electing someone to office, confer power. Whether they take the power back depends at least on Do any of them want to accept the burdens of the office?

With that question I opened the workaholism issue.

There's working for pleasure and there's working for need. Some people enjoy the benefits of office; workaholics use the office to satisfy needs that non-workaholics satisfied earlier in their lives, such as shyness.

Shy people usually don't approach others, probably because they fear rejection. When not-pathologically shy people take a leadership position such as president or even committee chair, they will find that people approach them. Unless they totally screw up, they will be free of their fear of rejection and enjoy the attention. In another important task of office, developing future leaders, they will probably fail.

In short, the validity of your words depends on a few things.

RSS

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service