Objectifying women

[Scented Nectar]

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? ^_^

Yes. I have had my Saturday morning Wake 'N Bake, which is a combo of very strong coffee and a nice joint of fine Canadian tokables (Ontario bud is every bit as good as the famous BC bud). A weekend morning ritual. I was talking about the basic survival instinct most life forms have, and how I don't have an opinion of that instinct as vile. I don't have much of an opinion on it at all morally speaking, it just exists, sometimes with pleasant results (for the eater in the case of a carnivorous meal), or with unpleasant results (for the eaten). The intention of harm/negligence, or that sort of thing is not there.

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.

It's only important when it comes to self defense. A leader must not be so overly pacifist that they don't fight back to the fullest necessary extent. But that's where it must end, in my opinion.

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'.

Boulder disasters are not vile. Rape always is. I can't think of any situation where it wouldn't be. The only way it wouldn't be, is in some sort of weird situation where the rapist really doesn't think it's nonconsentual, but that is not what I've been talking about.

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

I'm referring to people who carry out their horniness about nonconsent on real life nonconsenting people, and who know full well that doing so causes them harm, but do it anyways. I am assuming they are not as fully unthinking as your example, on some sort of 'must fuck any warm hole' mode without even noticing that they are doing it an unwilling one.

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>.

I would think it vile for someone to forceably cut your hair, and vile for them to forceably prevent you from cutting your own hair. It would also be vile for you to force someone else to cut your hair for you.

Of course, the haircut example is probably a lot less traumatic and harmful as what rape victims go through, especially when you can't catch AIDS or get pregnant too easily from a haircut. There also wouldn' t be the social stigma that you must have been somehow asking for your hair to be cut forceably, etc.

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

Is the red lover forcing the red hater to be in a brightly lit room with their eyelids glued open and where everything is flourescent red? We are not talking about one person liking sex and one person not. I'm not talking about that, anyways.

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.

I am only talking about people who get off on sadistic desires and who carry it out in real life. A friend sometimes likes to use the expression 'the difference between bad and evil is that bad is just thinking about it, while evil is doing it'. Everyone has a variety of 'bad' thoughts, which I don't even personally think should be called 'bad', as long as they are never carried out. Murder is a good example. I'm pretty sure that everyone has at some time had the desire to murder someone knowing full well that whatever has pissed them off really isn't bad enough to deserve killing in revenge/defense. With rapists, it is obvious that this must be similar. I doubt they are thinking that they better rape someone because society will think less of them if they don't.

I personally can only maintain being horny around people who are definitely either horny about me too, or at least where it's unknown yet. If I see any sign that they are repulsed by me, or even disinterested, my horniness about them vanishes. I am lucky that way, and I suspect most people are also. If I wasn't so lucky, then I would hope that I would be a good enough person to not actually carry it out, or even pester/harass them. There are many 'bad' desire thoughts people don't carry out in real life due to empathy because they would cause harm if actually done. I have to assume that for rapists, sex with someone who's not enjoying it is one of those.

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 ^_^)

Even after coffee and my um, thought enhancement ciggy, I still don't know the words to make what I mean any clearer.

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 want to give you another huge apology on that one. That was a really shitty mistake for me to have made. I am also very against false accusations of such things, and the nasty stigma that can result. I thought you were actually brave enough to publically admit such a desire and not a vile person since you wouldn't actually do it in real life due to not wanting to hurt someone for real.

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

In the same way, a rapist with a prisoner will very likely repeatedly rape them. I really don't think porn CAUSES the desire. It is merely yet another opportunity to get off on whatever desire the porn viewer has, including for those who like things that would be harmful in real life, such as rape.