Objectifying women

[Scented Nectar]

'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.

I'm not even going to try right now. Not enough coffee in me yet, but it's not just in living. In fact, sometimes cruelty is in the forcing of someone to remain alive against their will, such as on one's deathbed if in too much pain.

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?

I'm not talking about that sort of thing, since that can never be pre-assumed the way death can if one doesn't eat.

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'.

Not me. I'd rather see a highly empathic leader. If someone is willing to be unecessarily cruel to others, they will likely turn on their own.

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).

Who said it's not in the hurting? I'm referring to harms/pains/unhappinesses, all in that category of hurt. The vileness is in the intention. Boulders have no intention. Note that I'm using the word 'vile' to be my emotional opinion of such intentions. I'm not even attempting to say it's not subjective, but most can agree that a boulder is not being vile.

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

I don't give a shit what they are thinking. Are they doing it to others without consent? Anyone can talk themselves into any perspective. That doesn't make the perspectives equal somehow. Harm caused intentionally IS the difference. A big one.

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)

If the harm is known about, and yes, rapists do tend to know full well that they are causing harm to their victims, and the rapist does it anyways, that is the difference. If you don't understand this, I probably can't explain it further.

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?

Are you serious???

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

I missed the word 'might' in the original sentence of yours that I was replying to. Sorry about that. Huge 'ooops' on that one, for sure!!!

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...)

I think that it likely keeps at least some attacks from happening. If the guy is all spent from wanking, he won't be raping at least until he is horny again. Each wank = one less rape.