Could someone explain to me what it matters if some people have a genetic predisposition to rape? Some people are born sociopaths. It doesn't mean that they don't go to jail if they are caught hurting other people.

I do not believe that women are any kinder or more compassionate then men. If women were stronger and larger then most men, there would be more female on male rapes because there are women that like to dominate and humiliate others. For the most part, men are larger then women and so don't have to worry about being raped by women.

(January 4, 2015 at 1:49 pm)Nope Wrote: Could someone explain to me what it matters if some people have a genetic predisposition to rape? Some people are born sociopaths. It doesn't mean that they don't go to jail if they are caught hurting other people.

I do not believe that women are any kinder or more compassionate then men. If women were stronger and larger then most men, there would be more female on male rapes because there are women that like to dominate and humiliate others. For the most part, men are larger then women so don't have to worry about justifying their clothing choices because some female might find their tight shirt attractive.

Super interesting questions. I agree that it doesn't matter if people have a genetic predisposition towards rape. The law is the law and genetic predispositions shouldn't matter.

The second part is really interesting. Would there be female on male rapes if women were larger and stronger? I'm really not sure. I think that there would be a similar level of domestic violence except with men as the victims and women the perpetrators but I'm not sure about rape. It just seems such an inherently male thing because of the penetration aspect of it all.

(January 4, 2015 at 1:49 pm)Nope Wrote: Could someone explain to me what it matters if some people have a genetic predisposition to rape? Some people are born sociopaths. It doesn't mean that they don't go to jail if they are caught hurting other people.

I do not believe that women are any kinder or more compassionate then men. If women were stronger and larger then most men, there would be more female on male rapes because there are women that like to dominate and humiliate others. For the most part, men are larger then women and so don't have to worry about being raped by women.

I think rape desire is natural as someone pointed out, however not being able to control your body is not natural.

Let's take the institution of property - We humans created laws because otherwise we would kill each other for proprietary rights over objects, like houses, buildings, food and clothing - Is propriety natural? Some might say not, and we could say humans killing others to gain new property is valid as a naturalistic behaviour - But we can't forget that humans aren't just biology, we are complex beings with philosophical, ethical and moral traits that are very peculiar compared to other species. What separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is our ability to rationalize behaviour and determine more or less what we do...

I've already linked a study that shows some significant factors regarding sexual assault that prove biology isn't the only factor to blame - i.e. Factors like believing in gender roles or consumption of alcohol - In fact if rape is natural as bennyboy says, why are sexual assaulter often drunk as stated in the study I forwarded - After all, someone drunk has less conscience and control, so the logical conclusion is that a sober rational human doesn't have an excuse to not control his behaviour..

I've already admitted that I have rape fantasies, but I'm also able to control my impulses, urges and I don't think it's natural for someone to not have control over their bodies knowing the law. To not have control would be, for example, a kleptomaniac, those people really have an uncontrollable urge to steal, but as far as I know if some sex predators even plan their crimes and stalk the victim, that just proves that it isn't as natural as bennyboy tries to make it seem.

Something important I'd like to clear out and bennyboy said is that I'm not here to demonize rapists or any other criminals, demonizing criminality and thinking executing all criminals solves the problem is an irrational idea - I'm all for rehabilitation, I'm just trying to clear some myths or wrong ideas.

Nope, the case of sociopaths is highly different because it is a condition people have no control over, it's more debatable, however sexual assault as I linked is not primary perpetuated by people with mental diseases or problems, it's done by many kinds of people - They are an heterogeneous group.

Perhaps you think of penetration as being a salient aspect of rape because you are approaching it from the angle of the sex that penetrates? Food for thought. For my end, I'm confident that females could just as easily find a way to approach that from their own plumbing related experience. IE, he isn't "penetrating" her - she's using him. That we can already find examples of this in non-rapey women leads me to conclude that there's no barrier to a similar expression of rape.

(January 4, 2015 at 1:49 pm)Nope Wrote: Could someone explain to me what it matters if some people have a genetic predisposition to rape? Some people are born sociopaths. It doesn't mean that they don't go to jail if they are caught hurting other people.

According to experts such as forensic psychologists, a sociopath is rather created than born that way. There's an abundance of literature on the matter and the whole field seems to be very much in agreement with each other. Rapists also work their way up to rape, from petty crimes such as being peeping Toms, public exposure to actual rape.

And there are less sociopathic women than men. Again, according to the experts, women tend to be more into self hurt while men direct their aggression to hurting others. That's not to say, women sociopaths don't exist.

(January 4, 2015 at 8:29 am)bennyboy Wrote: The second poster in this article has already done some research. After about 2 more minutes with google, I think there's enough research out there to justify starting a science thread about the issue of genetics and rape. I'm not sure there's really much more to be said in the context of atheism and anti-feminism that hasn't been said yet?

The very first paragraph in the very first post lays bare the problem with this being used as a support:

Quote:What rape is not a biologically deviated behaviour depends on whether we decide to accept the following assumption about human nature or not: The main general features of our species (language, moral sense, intelligence, personality, attractiveness between the sexes) are genetically programmed. The environment contributes to the flowering of these innate abilities, but it works upon material already structured. The mind is equipped with emotions, drives, and faculties of reasoning and communicating -shaped by natural selection- that act over the course of human evolution, and owe their basic design to information in the genome.

[Italics in original -- Parks]

The importance of EP to human behavior is disputed. Altruism has a possible explanation there, rage as well. Rape? Perhaps. However, nothing you've linked to supports the certainty with which you wrote:

(January 3, 2015 at 12:42 am)bennyboy Wrote: And X% of these boys, in certain circumstances, will commit rape. And no world view or legal system will prevent this, because it's ingrained in the species at a genetic level.

Show me a peer-reviewed study or two demonstrating that it is embedded in the genome. That would support your argument much better than linking to forum threads which, to their credit, acknowledge the assumptions they're making -- even as you don't.

******************************

(January 4, 2015 at 6:04 am)Godslayer Wrote:

(January 2, 2015 at 7:07 pm)Blackout Wrote: And why is that a good thing? Some might argue raising kids sucks and it's hardworking, some might even say it's a benefit for men.

Why is alimony and child support a benefit for men?....(sigh)

Ask the women who get it, they get to live off the men's paychecks scott free and can even take their house and half their shit. But you're going to complain about how getting the custody and free money is somehow not a benefit, shut the fuck up.

I want to address this a little further. As a single, joint-custodial father, regular child support is in my interest because it is in my son's best interest to have a stable home whether he's at her house or mine that night. Child support is not enough for a woman with a child to live "scott free".

Raising a child is goddamned expensive, and it's only right that the noncustodial parent pay support. I don't begrudge my support (our ruling gives me 42% custody, her 58%, and I pay support to cover the difference) because I know it's put to good use. If I thought it was being put to bad use, I would have every right to reopen the custody case with new evidence, and adjust the settlement accordingly -- just like any other noncustodial parent.

As for alimony, in many states that isn't paid man-to-woman, but higher earner-to-lower earner.

And finally, even though raising my son is hard work, there's no way I'd say it sucks, and I doubt I'm rare amongst parents in feeling that way.

---

(January 4, 2015 at 1:49 pm)Nope Wrote: Could someone explain to me what it matters if some people have a genetic predisposition to rape? Some people are born sociopaths. It doesn't mean that they don't go to jail if they are caught hurting other people.

It bothers me because inevitably some asshole will use it in an attempt to excuse his own brutal behavior, or that of others.

Additionally, such a general claim as "it lies in the human genome, but we don't know what X% is" is a subtle way of saying that every man is potentially a rapist, and I disagree with that view.

Unsupported views should be questioned.

Quote:I want to address this a little further. As a single, joint-custodial father, regular child support is in my interest because it is in my son's best interest to have a stable home whether he's at her house or mine that night. Child support is not enough for a woman with a child to live "scott free".

Raising a child is goddamned expensive, and it's only right that the noncustodial parent pay support. I don't begrudge my support (our ruling gives me 42% custody, her 58%, and I pay support to cover the difference) because I know it's put to good use. If I thought it was being put to bad use, I would have every right to reopen the custody case with new evidence, and adjust the settlement accordingly -- just like any other noncustodial parent.

As for alimony, in many states that isn't paid man-to-woman, but higher earner-to-lower earner.

And finally, even though raising my son is hard work, there's no way I'd say it sucks, and I doubt I'm rare amongst parents in feeling that way.

The whole point was that godslayer was wrongly saying feminists want all the benefits including alimony and child custody, and he refuses to acknowledge, even after I've told him (and I've been in contact with feminists, read enough articles, studies, blogs and so on) that feminists are against privilege for women, if a feminist wants women to be recognized as equals, why would she support a legal measure that is based on the assumption that she is supposed to be a child caregiver and bearer more than men? Not to mention gay couples who raise kids perfectly (gay men I mean) and disprove the idea that women are more fit to do it. Godslayer also made a somewhat inopportune reference to women who are benefited living with men's money, perpetuating the assumption that they are gold diggers - And yes, child custody and paychecks are not enough to live your life most times, for example my dad gave to my mom after they got divorced approximately 300€, which was enough for feeding and so on but she had to work hard to pay the rent and all other expenses, so saying child support is a tremendous benefit is not correct, it's mostly not enough for someone to live a high quality life (if the person receiving doesn't work)

I respect and support your right to have child custody, as long as you prove in court to have better conditions for it, and I think that should be most significant criteria, independently of gender. And I think that even after our slight debate, you would be better off acknowledging many feminists support that right of yours and understand feminazis are shouldn't be an excuse for one to be anti-feminist.

(January 4, 2015 at 12:30 pm)Blackout Wrote: Like atheism just requires lack of belief, feminism requires "belief" in equality.

No, it doesn't even require that. It requires a belief or institution related to females. You can be a feminist if you think women are better than men. You can also be a feminist even if you don't believe women are equal to men-- by supporting cultural institutions which benefit women. In neither of these two cases does feminism require "belief" in equality.

(January 4, 2015 at 12:30 pm)Blackout Wrote: BTW, I'm not coercing you, for that I'd have to threaten you with force (definition of coercion)

You said (to another user):

(January 4, 2015 at 10:41 am)Blackout Wrote: If you had any intelligence, you'd know feminism is about equality for females, males, trans, people without gender and everyone. Your ignorance or disagreement doesn't change the definition, the fact you don't like it doesn't change the concept either.

There IS an implied threat in this kind of language: accept your definitions, or face the social consequences-- in this case being considered unintelligent or ignorant. These are not the words of rational argument-- they are words used to manipulate, and they are (admittedly mild) examples of the kind of imposed dogma that causes some people to express anti-feminist positions.

(January 4, 2015 at 6:14 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(January 4, 2015 at 12:30 pm)Blackout Wrote: Like atheism just requires lack of belief, feminism requires "belief" in equality.

No, it doesn't even require that.

(January 4, 2015 at 10:41 am)Blackout Wrote: If you had any intelligence, you'd know feminism is about equality for females, males, trans, people without gender and everyone. Your ignorance or disagreement doesn't change the definition, the fact you don't like it doesn't change the concept either.

This is the language of implied coercion. You are clearly attempting to railroad someone to accept your definition of feminism.

Simply looking at two online dictionaries directly contradict your basic definition of feminism, particularly the second page that states clearly it's about equality and not supremacy.

Your refusal to accept the fact that the key word is equality and that nothing else is necessary doesn't change the definition and it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

Also, since coercion is the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance or force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force it's pretty clear I wasn't coercing you since I was not advocating a change of your opinion or position, I was simply saying that your personal opinion is completely irrelevant to determine the doctrinal definition of feminism which is pretty clear to most feminists and pro-feminists, as much as a lack of belief in gods is the basic definition of atheism - In my case, I claim gods don't exist, but I'm still not going to say that's the definition of atheism just because of my personal position, I'll happily admit that the most basic definition is the agnostic variant which proposes to lack knowledge in deities - The fact you have a different opinion or feminazis have a different opinion doesn't change the core definition.

EDIT - Fixed the 2 broken links since they were not working

(January 4, 2015 at 6:29 pm)Blackout Wrote:

(January 4, 2015 at 6:14 pm)bennyboy Wrote: No, it doesn't even require that.

This is the language of implied coercion. You are clearly attempting to railroad someone to accept your definition of feminism.

Simply looking at two online dictionaries directly contradict your basic definition of feminism, particularly the second page that states clearly it's about equality and not supremacy.

Yes, because a 1-line entry in an online dictionary encapsulates all of feminism, right? Anyway, you are inaccurate: the believe in the equality of women is SUFFICIENT to term someone a feminist. It is not, however, required, as there are other definitions. It's a little annoying that in your attempt to railroad the conversation, you deliberately ignored another definition of feminism in your own link-- one of the ones I just cited: 2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests . You do not have to believe women are equal to act on behalf of their rights and interests. Nor do you have to act on behalf of women's rights and interests to believe that they are (or should be) equal.


As for the second link, what can I say? Are you sure "urbandictionary" is really the place to go to when you want rock-solid definitions with which to support your points?

Quote:Your refusal to accept the fact that the key word is equality and that nothing else is necessary doesn't change the definition and it doesn't change the fact that you're wrong.

Your refusal to accept that a 1-line summary definition in an online dictionary, ignoring both the etymology and the historical usage of the word, is insufficient to represent all of feminism, doesn't change the fact that many people are using the word differently than you do and that these differences are important in understanding why some atheists seem "anti-feminist." If you actually want to engage in discussion about why some people (including atheists) are anti-feminist, you need to figure out what THEY mean by the word, not what you insist they must mean.

Quote:Also, since coercion is the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance or force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force it's pretty clear I wasn't coercing you since I was not advocating a change of your opinion or position, I was simply saying that your personal opinion is completely irrelevant to determine the doctrinal definition of feminism

"Doctrinal definition" means dogma. And the fact that many atheists have an aversion to dogma explains why many atheists seem "anti-feminist." My "opinion" is that "feminism" means "a doctrine, belief, or movement about women," because I happen to know what "femin" and "-ism" mean. As for coercion, I would say that "accept what I say or you'll be branded as unintelligent" IS a kind of intimidation. It's clearly not a rational argument, is it?


Finally, you really have to get over this definitional cherry-picking. Words have long, rich histories that cannot be summarized in 5-word one-liners, and to believe otherwise is to exhibit intellectual laziness (See what I did, there?). I could easily respond with http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/feminism , in which feminism is represented in terms of advocacy, and not belief. Would you then say that feminism most certainly does not require a belief in the equality of women? I doubt that.

The very same dictionary you quoted (Webster's online) defines atheism as:

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity; b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Are you next going to go into a thread about atheism and insist that these, and only these, are the only allowable definitions of atheism? I doubt that, as well.