Proud2baLaker
Master of Science
FUCK YOU. By your logic right now Epstein was fine and old ass men raping girls was totally fine. Again, FUCK YOU YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Gender Studies 2: Boogaloo
- Thread starter MissThundercat
- Start date
Proud2baLaker
Master of Science
How is believing that adults RAPING children is wrong a mistake? Again I say FUCK YOU you piece of absolute shit. Just because it was a woman raping a young boy does not make it ok. You are so fucking off base with your take. There is no gray area here. Would you be ok with your daughter raping a 15 year old? Would you give her a high five and call her a hero? If so, then you are even a bigger piece of shit that I imagined
Kepler
I loafe and invite my soul
What's hip today may become passe.
If you think the wheel of history has stopped with us, well, I have some good news. You are wrong. It never stops.
Today's fads are tomorrow's horselaughs. And The Good People will believe exactly the opposite of us, someday, and hold us in contempt.
If you think the wheel of history has stopped with us, well, I have some good news. You are wrong. It never stops.
Today's fads are tomorrow's horselaughs. And The Good People will believe exactly the opposite of us, someday, and hold us in contempt.
Proud2baLaker
Master of Science
So believing statutory rape is wrong is a fad? Wow.
Proud2baLaker
Master of Science
Are you sure you aren't a trump supporter? For what it's worth a I've been sharing this exchange with a female friend who is as far left if not further left than you, and they agree that you are fucking piece of shit for this take. So congratulations I guess.
Proud2baLaker
Master of Science
I know you generally respect unofan and his opinions and what not. Take the loss. Realize you are wrong and apologize. Maybe you can save some face. Otherwise you will be known as the guy who thinks that rape is sometimes totally fine. That is not a good look no matter how much you try to present yourself as leftist. The only people I have ever seen try to defend rape of any kind are trumpets and bible thumpers
unofan
Well-known member
Dude, have you met people with Y chromosomes, let alone those under the age of 25? Even the smartest, most pulled together high school boy is still a moron.
The point of statutory rape laws is that you're too young to consent. Period.
Are there possible exceptional circumstances that should* negate guilt by the older party? Yes, but that doesn't change the reason for the law to begin with.
* The case that pisses me off to this day: guy met a girl in a bar with a 21-and-over only policy and had a bouncer checking IDs, was told by her she was a junior at the local university, thought she looked too young and asked to see her ID anyway, and was shown the fake ID that was good enough to fool the bouncer. Turns out she was actually 17, her parents forced her to report, and he was still charged and convicted anyway. He did everything he reasonably could to ensure she was of age, and he wouldn't have slept with her if he knew she wasn't.
Kepler
I loafe and invite my soul
I'll do my best to state a positive theory rather than dismissing this as hemlines. Then you'll all call me names, and then we can drop it.
1. Women are perpetually under threat of violence from men. This is what Dworkin meant by "vaginal penetration as an invasive dynamic under patriarchy." This is why rape of women by men is bad, and why we should have laws against it, and why we can use age as a stand-in for consent for Mf (older male, younger female).
2. The age you use to ban Mf is socially negotiated. The historical standard was a period is God's green light. I was raised in our society, so I think that's too young for the female, but if your whole society sets it as 13 or 17 or 21 or 25, have at it. Who am I to judge?
3. mF is entirely different. Males are obsessed with sex. Females are circumspect. They have to be; the risks fall on them. Applying the same age to both Mf and mF is merely the laziness of the state. The question then becomes, given the society we all share -- and I assure you as an aside I personally share your brain worms -- how do we arrive at a mF age?
4. The current paradigm is cognitive maturity, however we even violate that standard. Male brain development lags behind female. At lowest, the male child-to-adult cutoff, if we were serious, would be around 21, though I've read 22 or 23 is probably a better standard. As such, if we honored our own standard, a 19-year old male having sex with a 27-year old female ought to be prosecuted as rape. It is not. Therefore, all the rage is hypocrisy. Something else is going on behind the current law and the socially-enforced (witness this thread) anger.
5. My positive theory: cognitive capacity is our version of what in prior ages was fully believed to be the duty to protect sacred virignity. It is this century's demand that a law of the head supercedes the law of the body. This goes back to The City of God and well before. It goes back to the perennial Puritanical screech that the body is sinful and bad and the mind is pure and good.
I reject this propaganda the mind puts out there to demand authoritarian control of the Self. The mind grows out of and is part of the body, and any attempt to call it entirely separate by Plato, Augustine or Descartes is driven by anxiety and fear of our substrate. The mind wants certain things; the body wants certain things. Often they agree; often they are in conflict. Because humans are both obsessed with and repelled by their sexuality, we spend a lot of our time making up reasons to deny ourselves pleasure. Catholics and Calvinists are infamous, but we all do it. Our current justification -- more than that, honest belief -- in the mF cutoff is another such instance. It is highly suspect.
Now, I personally subscribe to it, just like you. But I don't believe everything I believe should go for everyone else. I am not the end of history, nor is my society.
This concludes my lecture. "A poor argument requires many words" and all that, but you know me, why use 10 words when 1000 will do? If you want to burn me in effigy, at least do me the courtesy of reading it with an open mind before gathering the straw.
1. Women are perpetually under threat of violence from men. This is what Dworkin meant by "vaginal penetration as an invasive dynamic under patriarchy." This is why rape of women by men is bad, and why we should have laws against it, and why we can use age as a stand-in for consent for Mf (older male, younger female).
2. The age you use to ban Mf is socially negotiated. The historical standard was a period is God's green light. I was raised in our society, so I think that's too young for the female, but if your whole society sets it as 13 or 17 or 21 or 25, have at it. Who am I to judge?
3. mF is entirely different. Males are obsessed with sex. Females are circumspect. They have to be; the risks fall on them. Applying the same age to both Mf and mF is merely the laziness of the state. The question then becomes, given the society we all share -- and I assure you as an aside I personally share your brain worms -- how do we arrive at a mF age?
4. The current paradigm is cognitive maturity, however we even violate that standard. Male brain development lags behind female. At lowest, the male child-to-adult cutoff, if we were serious, would be around 21, though I've read 22 or 23 is probably a better standard. As such, if we honored our own standard, a 19-year old male having sex with a 27-year old female ought to be prosecuted as rape. It is not. Therefore, all the rage is hypocrisy. Something else is going on behind the current law and the socially-enforced (witness this thread) anger.
5. My positive theory: cognitive capacity is our version of what in prior ages was fully believed to be the duty to protect sacred virignity. It is this century's demand that a law of the head supercedes the law of the body. This goes back to The City of God and well before. It goes back to the perennial Puritanical screech that the body is sinful and bad and the mind is pure and good.
I reject this propaganda the mind puts out there to demand authoritarian control of the Self. The mind grows out of and is part of the body, and any attempt to call it entirely separate by Plato, Augustine or Descartes is driven by anxiety and fear of our substrate. The mind wants certain things; the body wants certain things. Often they agree; often they are in conflict. Because humans are both obsessed with and repelled by their sexuality, we spend a lot of our time making up reasons to deny ourselves pleasure. Catholics and Calvinists are infamous, but we all do it. Our current justification -- more than that, honest belief -- in the mF cutoff is another such instance. It is highly suspect.
Now, I personally subscribe to it, just like you. But I don't believe everything I believe should go for everyone else. I am not the end of history, nor is my society.
This concludes my lecture. "A poor argument requires many words" and all that, but you know me, why use 10 words when 1000 will do? If you want to burn me in effigy, at least do me the courtesy of reading it with an open mind before gathering the straw.
Last edited:
FadeToBlack&Gold
Proud Statist
Not necessarily Trumpers, but bros in general (though they do tend to vote R). Not too long ago I had to explain to a 37 year-old male why a romantic/sexual relationship with an 18-20 year-old would be morally questionable for him, rather than something we'd all slap him on the back and go "Atta boy" for. Even if society has technically deemed it legal.
Kepler
I loafe and invite my soul
I would just wonder what they talk about. Fucking is one thing. But a relationship means you have breakfast and talk about Rousseau and the Mets and I'm thinking she's probably not going to keep her end up.
If you're dating Mary Wollstonecraft, fine, go for it; at 15 she could converse circles around any of us and probably fucked better, too. But pretty much any other woman under 35 (or male under 45) is as dull as paint drying. They just don't have anything interesting to say, yet.
If you're dating Mary Wollstonecraft, fine, go for it; at 15 she could converse circles around any of us and probably fucked better, too. But pretty much any other woman under 35 (or male under 45) is as dull as paint drying. They just don't have anything interesting to say, yet.
Last edited: