Objectifying women

[Violet]

'Vile' is in the intention. The lack of empathy to the point where the person causes preventable harm without a good enough reason to justify it. You might need to kill in order to eat and keep living, but you won't die if you don't rape.

What is defined as "good enough" varies from person to person too

And you are worth more than that which you ate? Why the obsession with remaining alive? I'm going to have some difficulty understanding what makes you think so towards either issue. Perhaps you should try to justify it.

You may well die by not raping. I can think of many situations where this might be the case. One that is not related to someone killing you if you don't rape some person: you choose not to rape a person... and thus when you get in your car and travel down the highway: you get hit and killed by a drunk driver.

Life is funny like that... isn't it?

Anyway, more seriously: I don't call not having empathy towards another to the point one is unwilling to cause harm ("without a good enough reason...?????") "vile". In fact... in leaders I consider that positively weak at times and them perhaps unworthy of the title of 'leader'.

It's in the disregard for other's happiness that the word vile applies, in my opinion. The lack of empathy is often referred to about sociopaths. These are totally preventable harms/pains/unhappinesses. It is the rapist that chooses to act them out instead of just keeping it to wanking thoughts, specialized porn, and perhaps having sex with people who consent to pretending nonconsent.

Ahh! So it is not in the hurting that you believe the word vile to be used now? That's an improvement... I can get down with that definition in some ways... but in this sense a large boulder is vile automatically by not regarding other's happiness. I still can't adhere to the definition you've presented here (as demonstrated by a boulder).

I have actually said this before, and I will say it again: the rapist may have in fact not chosen to rape... but rather not chosen to avoid raping. It is amazing what a perspective change can do for understanding a situation, imo

We are a somewhat social animal. We do have a hive like structure in some ways.

Hence my addition of 'yet'. I'd like to avoid the occurrence if possible

The cherries are never, or almost never eaten with the intention being harm. The ground glass is almost always eaten with the intention of harm. Shit happens anyways in life, but when intentional&preventable harm to others happen, there is a difference.

How about eating cherries or ground glass without thinking much (if at all) about what it was or what effect it would have on you? I call that an impulse.
Also, I think that harm (preventable or not) is often accidental... and that things done with an intent can be very difficult to prevent.
I do not think very many rapes are done with the intent to harm either.

Can you identify this 'difference' for me in a way that is not redundant? (ie: yellow is different from blue because yellow is different than blue)

There is a big difference between causing harm to yourself and causing it to others. With yourself, you are consenting.

I see it both as causing harm. Also, the self is not necessarily consenting to what it does (ie: reflex, impulse). Further: how does consent enter into is?

Hopefully that category of porn keeps many real attacks from happening. It's good to know that you have empathy and would not actually do it in real life. To me, that's where the entire difference, the 'vile' factor maybe, lies.

@ the bold: Did you assume I even have an attraction to raping? 0.o

One might hope it would keep many 'real attacks' from happening... but I honestly doubt it. Does pictures and videos of people smoking keep them from smoking? ^_< (last sentence was rhetorical joke, not an argument...)