Objectifying women

[Violet]

I could have sworn I responded to this before 0.o I'm not certain why. :S

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.

Indeed. Have you had your coffee yet? ^_^

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.

It rather can be preassumed in many a situation And indeed... one need not necessarily eat to remain alive... as the IV should tell you v_v

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.

And yet they will be far more powerful than the leader who cringes at the thought of hurting others. v_v And a powerful leader is an important thing for a country to have.

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 wouldn't agree... it is a vile thing for a boulder to flatten a car. But under your definition, I suppose it applies. But even under such... I can see many a situation where a rapist or murderer is not 'vile'.

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, on the other hand, care very much what they are thinking... and if you consider it only vile in the intention: it wouldn't be 'vile' unless they were thinking about doing it for reasons you deem to be 'vile'... all of which requires thinking. If they were thinking nothing, and acting on instinct/impulse... one might rightly say they are as lacking in vileness as the boulder you exemplified above v_v

Also, i do not understand why this point about consent keeps getting made... ie: I do not consent to have other people cut my hair, and I am fully honest when I say I will immediately attempt to horribly maim or kill whomever does such. That is why people don't cut my hair (because I have made the consequences for such clear, and the people affected by them appear to wish to avoid them). But if they didn't know I would do that, or if they believed I could not, and yet still wanted to cut my hair: what reason should they have to not do so? My lack of consent for it? Hah... <insert cynical viewpoint here>.

And that is there perspective, which is as valid to them as yours is to you. So really... just who is to say who is right? v_v Their perspective is likely quite similarly valuable to them as yours is to you. That harm is caused intentionally in one view, and that it is considered vile to cause harm intentionally in another, exemplifies that they are different. But the difference is no greater than one person loving red, and another one hating said color. Differences are just that: different. You can't become more different by changing an attribute that is already different into another attribute that remains different to the compared attribute. Anyhow... i really don't see how it is that large of a difference

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.

I actually think that many rapes are done because of a great pressure to fuck someone, and an opportunity arising along with this great pressure, to a person either not resilient enough to resist it, or uncaring to resist it. I don't think that an intent to harm (as one might think of in the sense of an assassination) enters into it on even an uncommon basis (though perhaps it does rarely occur, not that I would know of any such instances. Perhaps serial rapists?) even enters into it, even though they likely know they are causing 'harm' to the one they are raping.

I do not understand why a rapist would rape with the intent to harm unless they were sadistic.

Are you serious???

When I said that? Yes. Quite serious. I even did the little emoticon to make myself clearly serious. I'll repeat: "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 it? " (And edited a small mistake I just noticed too, how quaint ^_^)

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!!!

How frightening ^_^ Someone briefly thought that one so silly as I would rape someone? ^_^ Nobody can say no to Saerules... she's far too lovable, cute, sexy, and caring to be resisted!

---

---

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.

I rather notice that the more I masturbate, the higher my libido seems to grow, if only temporarily Men (and women...) can 'get horny again' rather quickly... especially when encouraged by things they find sexually attractive v_v