Probably not the best example, tibs..since of course she confirmed that her opinion was what she thought the catholic opinion was, and mentioned that what with her being a catholic that's not really much of a surprise.

She suggested a return to puritanical sexual mores as a solution for rape. It's silly, and just downright offensive to hear a person promote their religious values as though this will somehow alleviate the issue of sexual assualt, lol.

(January 18, 2018 at 1:05 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Probably not the best example, tibs..since of course she confirmed that her opinion was what she thought the catholic opinion was, and mentioned that what with her being a catholic that's not really much of a surprise.

She suggested a return to puritanical sexual mores as a solution for rape, lol.

It was still an assumed motivation at that point. Thump is being a hypocrite. His words were "when you may or may not know why".

The assumed motivation of promoting ones religious values as a solution for sexual assault?  Doesn't take much to make the "assumption".......when one explicitly proposes their religious values as a solution for the problem of sexual assualt....

(January 18, 2018 at 12:55 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 12:37 pm)Mermaid Wrote: I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. I really really hope so.

Imagine this. Two people start making out. Clothes come off. They continue to make out, completely naked. Is it reasonable at that point for one of them to assume that its ok to reach for the others' genetelia?

If you're making out with someone and you both got naked and are making out naked, do you have to ask "may I touch your vagina?" If you do so without asking, is that sexual assault?

As I said before. Getting naked during a make out session certainly sends out a major non verbal cue.

This is arguable but I was asking about what Hammy said specifically, that a woman is consenting to sex if she does not say "Stop" or "No".

(January 18, 2018 at 5:35 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: e who aren't actually doing that.
The thing is is that that phrase is used as a pejorative to anyone supporting a woman online, whether for wanting to get laid, wanting to virtue-signal, wanting to self-image, or ... wait for it ... wanting to agree with her. Much like the term "snowflake", it's attained buzzword status, carrying its own luggage. But if you want to use it, you'll need to consider the energy it takes to haul that luggage, and whether it's worth it.

Yeah I totally get that. I fucking hate the word "snowflake", as well. And I totally get it that the term "White Knight" is used by the same sort of right-winged douche bags that I loathe.

Another one is "cuck" or "beta male" or "autistic screeching". I hate all those terms as well.

But I don't know how else to describe what I'm talking about. And as much as I dislike a word, just because the connotation is negative it doesn't make the dennotation meaningless. Some people really are White Knights in how they behave, and some people really are snowflakes in the sense of being hypersensitive. I wouldn't use that word though. I'd rather not use "White Knight" either but I can't think of a more succinct word to describe what I'm talking about.

As for "cuck", "beta male" and "autistic screeching." Well, as far as I'm concerned "beta male" doesn't apply to humans... it applies to erm... wolves for example. "Cuck" is likewise a 100% stupid term when used as an insult, and I personally would only refer to someone as a cuck if they actually had a legit cuckhold fantasy. To call them one then wouldn't be an insult. I mean... I have a cuckhold fantasy. I am a cuck. But only partially. It doesn't define who I am. And given a choice I'd rather enjoy a more sexually dominant position.

"autistic screeching"... well... likewise.... it is retarded to be used as an insult. But it doesn't mean autistic people never screech. In fact... if the autistic person is low functioning and unable to communicate distress verbally... they often do screech. Or scream. Or whatever. Once again it's the connotation and usage that is objectable. It doesn't mean the term wouldn't be accurate dennotation-wise in some contexts. It's just people don't usually use such terms literally.

Same with White Knight, if used as an insult merely to insult it doesn't make much sense. I'm using it purely to decribe the sort of folks I mean, who really do legit piss me off. So I am using it as an insult but not merely as an insult. I'm only using it to describe people who are legit like that. I wouldn't use it to decribe just any random guy who agrees with a woman. That's something that only a.... right-winged conservertard would do. That's a joke lol.

I mean... I relatively recently had a debate in Slack about taboo words/slurs... I'm still of the Carlinist position that there are no bad words and it's the context that truly matters. I use the word "retard" but not to refer to anyone who is mentally retarded. I don't use the word "nigger" because that doesn't have a secondary meaning. But it nevertheless is possible to say "nigger" without being a racist. This is an example. I'm saying it merely to illustrate that it doesn't make me a racist to merely spell out those letters to make a point.

If you can think of a better term for a guy who sticks up for a woman merely because he thinks he'll be more likely to get sexual favors if he does that.... then feel free to give me one. Because, yes, "White Knight" is a term associated with right-winged morons who also use words like "cuck", "snowflake" and terms like "beta male" and "autistic screeching." It doesn't make me one of those morons to use such words though. I don't care how I come across. I just say what I think.

I respect that I have been advised before by many, including you, that I ought to take more care in communicating what I actually mean rather than just blurting out what I think all the time... but... each to their own. This is my way.

Quote:I don't. A person's arguments stand or fall on their own merits ... lover, son, mother, whatever. If I don't agree with what's said, I won't support it. It helps when you've got a woman who doesn't need white-knighting.  

Oh I never intentionally do it. I think I already said that I can't even help it? I'm automatically biased in favor of people I love. It's not something I do intentionally though. And it's not something I would recommend. It's automatic and subconscious. It's not like I think to myself "Okay I'm going to agree with everything the person I love says."

If I don't actually agree with someone I love I will never pretend to agree with them, by the way, that's not what I'm saying. To be clear. What I am saying is that I find myslef convinced that everything they say is right and realizing that that can't be a coincidence and I must be interpreting everything they say from a completely biased perspective in order to bend over backwards and convince myself that they are legit right about everything.

It's unconscious self deception that literally causes me to believe that the person I love is right about (almost) everything. I find myself thinking to myself "I can't possibly really agree with them all the time. My feelings must be getting to my perspective here."

I do SOMETIMES find myself disagreeing with the person I love.... but pretty much only if they're arguing with me and I feel like I need to defend myself. I guess at the end of it all maybe this means I love myself more than anyone else?

That's just it you see... if it's a matter of survival I'd end up deluded and convinced that I was right about something crazy if that's what it took to survive. And that is absolutely not something I'd ever do on purpose.

I've been stressed hugely in the past and had a mental breakdown and ended up on a mental health ward suffering from acute psychosis.... because my brain would rather I lose touch with reality than fail to survive or cope. My mind went to my happy place.

And, delusions are by definition unintentional. "Honest belief" is a tautology. If you are deluded you are by definition honestly deluded. A delusion is an honest false belief. The person is not self aware enough to lie... and they instead honestly believe it.

I think that I'm not the only person who suffers more harmless delusions when it comes to people we love and care about. I think it's pretty common to be deluded into thinking someone you love is right about a lot of things that you would find yourself disagreeing with if it was someone you didn't like. It's functional and therefore not mental illness in that case.

I mean, to be honest, I don't merely intuit this. It's totally a thing already. I am merely recognizing a well known psychological phenomenon and cognitive bias that affects everyone subconsciously.

It's called the Halo Effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect

After reading one of my favorite books of all time "Thinking fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman I've known how incredibly irrational not just the religious folks are, but every single human on this planet is.

(January 18, 2018 at 1:05 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Probably not the best example, tibs..since of course she confirmed that her opinion was what she thought the catholic opinion was, and mentioned that what with her being a catholic that's not really much of a surprise.

She suggested a return to puritanical sexual mores as a solution for rape. It's silly, and just downright offensive to hear a person promote their religious values as though this will somehow alleviate the issue of sexual assualt, lol.

You find it offensive that she espouses an old-fashioned sexual morality? Who gives a shit? She suggested that maybe teaching those values would help in situations like these. She did not anywhere say it would solve rape. Why does it seem perfectly okay to wildly misrepresent a person if you don't agree with them?

"Hey, I maybe don't think this particular was sexual assault. She didn't make any effort to leave and he didn't seem to try to stop her from doing so. This situation seems like a gray area."

Guy in the back row, "She said she thinks if a victim doesn't try to leave it isn't rape!"

This has been a non-stop problem in this thread. One reasoned response turns into histrionics. That's not to say some of the arguments on my side of the fence haven't been ludicrous, but those aren't even the ones being picked apart. It's hilarious.

---

(January 18, 2018 at 1:10 pm)Khemikal Wrote: The assumed motivation of promoting ones religious values as a solution for sexual assault?  Doesn't take much to make the "assumption".......when one explicitly proposes their religious values as a solution for the problem of sexual assualt....

OMFG, not for sexual assault. That would only apply if she thought the situation she was offering her views as a solution for was assault.

(January 18, 2018 at 1:14 pm)Shell B Wrote: You find it offensive that she espouses an old-fashioned* sexual morality?*

*religious
*-as a solution to the problem of rape.

Yeah, I do.  It offends a readers intelligence and the basic decency of all mankind.

Quote:She suggested that maybe teaching those values would help in situations like these. She did not anywhere say it would solve rape. Why does it seem perfectly okay to wildly misrepresent a person if you don't agree with them?

Which it wont, because it never has.

(January 18, 2018 at 12:55 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 12:37 pm)Mermaid Wrote: I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not. I really really hope so.

Imagine this. Two people start making out. Clothes come off. They continue to make out, completely naked. Is it reasonable at that point for one of them to assume that its ok to reach for the others' genetelia?

If you're making out with someone and you both got naked and are making out naked, do you have to ask "may I touch your vagina?" If you do so without asking, is that sexual assault?

As I said before. Getting naked during a make out session certainly sends out a major non verbal cue.

OK, let's assume this is a first encounter between the two people.

I would find it *very* strange if the first thing that is done after removing clothes is to reach for genitals. Instead, I would expect more making out--kissing, touching, exploring and *eventually* after a fairly long bit of interaction *gradually* move to genitals. And even the make-out would be proceeded with an appreciative look and an offer to resume.

Going slowly not only builds up the mood, but it allows for multiple possibilities for stopping the action if someone isn't into it.

(January 18, 2018 at 6:33 am)pool the matey Wrote: The kind of men that need to be told "ffs stop it you creepo, I withdraw consent! I no longer give consent! Let me go!" shouldn't be having sex in the first place if you ask me, not that they ever could but the stars might align and they might get lucky, just like Ansari did, if it weren't for his celebrity status and his rich family he'd be lurking in some incel forums and sending hate messages to girls for not touching his pp.  

The ironic thing is... based on your post history and the sort of anti-feminist and sexist threads you've made and how creepy and rapey you've seemed in the past... the fact you are arguing the opposite perspective now merely to fit it just goes to show that the real "White Knight"s that I'm talking about really do exist.

And funny that you whine about incels when you're a perfect example of one. I guess ever since you decided to pretend to be Christian and renounce your 'sinful' ways of atheism, you also decided to pretend to be nice by stating things that some of the feminists you hate will actually agree with for once

My opinion is that... at least over here at AF... YOU don't have your own opinion anymore. You tried being yourself on AF ages ago, and everyone thought you were a douchebag... and you've decided to fake niceness and pretend to be a changed man and pretend that God exists ever since then.

Anyways, I'm getting off track here. Basically, your opinions on this thread seem just as disingenuous to me as your shit about turning Christian.

You know what, who knows? It's a small sample size, but CL is a Catholic and hasn't been assaulted. I'm a lifelong atheist and have on many occasions. I guarantee I wouldn't have been if I had thought spending time with men alone drinking in my teens was a detriment to my spiritual life. It wouldn't have stopped all of the things that happened to me in my life, but it would have stopped all but 2 of them. I'm not saying I'd offer the same argument, but she's not entirely wrong when she says it would have prevented this situation.

---

(January 18, 2018 at 1:15 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(January 18, 2018 at 1:14 pm)Shell B Wrote: You find it offensive that she espouses an old-fashioned* sexual morality?*

*religious
*-as a solution to the problem of rape.

Yeah, I do.  It offends a readers intelligence and the basic decency of all mankind.

Quote:She suggested that maybe teaching those values would help in situations like these. She did not anywhere say it would solve rape. Why does it seem perfectly okay to wildly misrepresent a person if you don't agree with them?

Which it wont, because it never has.

Do you have cataracts? She didn't offer it as a solution to rape. That never happened. Saying it did doesn't change shit.