Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?

[Heat]

Um
I don't understand what you're saying
All i'm saying is that an attractive woman wearing hardly any clothes is much more likely to be targeted for rape because of the attention she is already drawing to herself.

That is the harsh reality. We are drawn to people who are.."pleasing" to look at.
Obviously a disabled person is less likely to be looked at in the way that a very attractive and naturally beautiful person is. There's really no way to change that, it's human nature, it's not the way it should be, everyone should be treated equal, but just because you are looking at the attractive person over the non-attractive person does not mean you are making a statement that she is not equal in comparison. You are simply preferring the outside appearance of someone over the other, we are all drawn toward different people, but a majority of the time, it's people who are "pleasing" to look at. It's not your human right to be seen equally to someone, everyone has different body structures, so yes, that's the way it is.


I tried really hard to not sound awkward while writing that, but I would like to not comment on this issue anymore .

It's not a reality though. I don't think rapists are like mm she's hot and has less clothes than the others so I'll take her.

Never said all rapists only act based on attractiveness, only said the majority because of reasons I have explained.

Let's be real:

If you are less attractive, when people do not know your inside appearance[personality, etc.] they will associate you with the only thing that they do know, your outside appearance. So if you are unpleasant to look at they are going to associate you with unpleasant thoughts.

If you are attractive, when people don't know who you are on the inside, they'll associate you with the only thing they do know you by, outside appearance, so they would associate you with pleasant thoughts.

Now tell me seriously, that a rapist is just as likely to go after someone they associate with "unpleasant" than they are as "pleasant"

I hate to be dismissive, but if you deny that point you are just being unreasonable. I'm not saying that people who are seen by the general public as unattractive do not get raped, but to deny that people who are seen by the general public as attractive are not more likely to be raped, is simply not using logic.


I'm not saying anyone DESERVES to be raped, but it is HUMAN NATURE to be more interested in people who's outside appearance you associate with good thoughts.


You need to stop being an idealist, and start being a realist. If you don't know who someone is on the inside, you are going to associate them with their outside appearance, there may be a few exceptions, but it is human nature, you can train yourself to not do this, which is admirable and respectable to not judge someone based on their looks, i get it, but you are always going to have some bias based on their outside appearance, because that is all you have to go on before having an interaction, and if you can be real for a second, do you really think a Rapist wants to disregard a persons outside appearance for the sake of equality? Because that is LUUUUUUUUUUNACY.

I think what you're missing is the difference between why someone would want to have sex with another person vs why someone would rape a person.

Why do you think rapists are just horny people looking to get a hot piece of ass?

Never said this whatsoever, I said that a majority probably base their actions on perceived attractiveness, never grouped them all together and said "this is the only thing that can happen", many times I went out of my way to clarify this.

DID I EVER SAY ALL RAPISTS? NO I SAID IT INCREASES THE CHANCES YOU FUCKING MORON.

IGNORED.BLOCKED.REPORTED.

You're not funny misrepresenting people. You're fucking ignorant.

No. You are ignorant. Prove that dressing provocatively increases the risk of being raped. You can't because there's no evidence connecting the two.

It's an opinion, I was never claiming that it was fact. Oh and how do you expect me to prove that dressing provocatively increases the risk, with people like you instantly dismissing me? I made a perfectly good argument that when people associate feelings with "pleasure" as in someone who is attractive being "pleasing" to look at, that it makes complete sense someone would be more likely to act on pleasurely emotions as opposed to unpleasant emotions, such as someone unattractive possibly being unpleasing to look at. Yet, you never addressed this, of course. 

Because most rapists are people who can't get sex themselves, and if it's not some revenge-rape situation being discussed, it's safe to assume someone would be more likely to favor the person they find attractive. With that, we can deduce that a majority would find what is thought by the general public to be attractive, as attractive. Not all. But the majority. There'es nothing indicating that rapists hold, as a majority, a different view of whats attractive than the general public.

People who have consensual sex are doing so because they find each other attractive based on something other than just the outside. A rapist, for the exception of someone who stalks someone in specific, has not had a mutual connection with someone on the inside, and will favor the outside appearance, and if they favor and see them by their outside appearance, they will choose what they find pleasing rather than unpleasing.

Bolding is mine. You are wrong. Rapists are not people who can't get laid.

I never said that all Rapists are just people who can't get laid.

No. You are ignorant. Prove that dressing provocatively increases the risk of being raped. You can't because there's no evidence connecting the two.

There's no evidence of the two because people like to instantly dismiss this notion as being ignorant, and misogynist.


Yes this is most definitely a 50-50 world, where no matter what you dress like and no matter what you look like you are all seen and treated equally.



I'm done posting on this thread. I come in and get instantly dismissed, and misrepresented. None of my points being addressed. Just an instant dismissal, and judgement that they are wrong by default. No one attempted to prove my points wrong on a psychological level. No one tried to reasonable disprove them and tell me why this bias wouldn't be the case. Nothing of the sort.

Funny how anyone who disagrees with the majority is instantly seen as wrong.

I explained my points multiple times, gave deep psychological examples of why in my opinion this is a result of human nature. Meanwhile people sit here, mock, and laugh at my answers, not addressing them, as if tapping your friend on the shoulder and saying "Pfffffffffft look at this guy".

I think they were saying a rapist is more likely to go for someone attractive, which seems like a really good reason for women to not wear mini skirts, if it will save them from getting raped, to be honest. I think it's better to be safe than sorry, to be honest.

Well I think it's better to work out and walk around naked and if someone rapes you you beat them to death...but the reality is that I can't walk around naked and I likely couldn't beat someone to death. 

You should go back and read rexbecca the empress' post about how there is no evidence showing that how a person dresses affects their chance of being raped.

Can't find what you're talking about. Who posted what?

To be fair, I will comment once more, because I don't feel I have been contradictory ANYWHERE else,
but i'll concede that I did say "prove to me rapists aren't just people who can't get laid".
This is not what I meant, I just wasn't thinking about trying to address the indecisive and opposing argument,
I didn't mean to claim that "all rapists are people who can't get laid" by default as deduction from my question, I just phrased it improperly.


On everything else though, I stand by what I said, and many many many other times I have addressed that agnostic part of the argument and said "but this is definitely not the only thing that could happen" and many many many other times you have misrepresented my opinions and said "How can you believe this is the only thing that can happen" which is utterly dishonest and laughable.


However, yes, I forgot to address the other side, and that is not what I believe, but you are correct as based on what I said my statement was false.

I will happily concede your point, points like these when you clearly prove me wrong, however you have done nothing but misrepresent and misinterpret everything else I said.
I only came back for the sake of intellectual honesty. However if you go and misquote, misrepresent, whatever, my beliefs again, I refuse to post, as when you did, I explained myself numerous times, and you did the same thing over and over.

What have I misinterpreted please? Seems more like you have put words into my mouth. Your opinion is that in most cases blah blah blah. Your opinion is wrong. Opinion or not, there's no evidence to support it.

How ironic you claim to be an intellectual yet you show such disrespect, and are instantly dismissive of someone who disagrees.

The funniest part to me is that this is just what you misrepresented, not even including the other 3+ people that jumped on the bandwagon and did the exact same thing.