Objectifying women

[Violet]

Here's my response written three days ago, not posted because my internet died (or perhaps it was Safari?) and fishing season started

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.

Are you suggesting that you can eat without doing harm to what you are eating (and perhaps also yourself)? Negligence is often what we call 'not caring' (or failing to observe), which was likely not intended, and 'just exists' (as you put it). I suppose then, that considering 'vile' to mean 'with the intention to harm another'... I should be considered positively vile for intending to cripple an attacking foe (perhaps to halt their attack, perhaps to put them on the defensive). I should also be called vile for intending to kill and eat anything what might be killed and eaten. Now... I'm fairly certain that you mean for 'vile' to not be used so gaily... perhaps you would like to redefine in a better sense? If you're having difficulties coming up with a workable definition for 'vile' (that follows your intent with the word), you could try outlining several scenarios which you consider to be 'vile', and following their common roots to your likely definition of 'vile'. This is, of course, only a suggestion if you are having difficulties.

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.

Context is vital when it comes to leading nations. At times, a terrifyingly brutal military annexation and genocide is a very good answer... perhaps the 'best' decision one can make. In other circumstances... doing so will cause other nations around you to form together and rally against you in a force that you are incapable of defeating (or that you would be unwilling to waste as many resources as would be necessary for the endeavor...). It may be from a video game, but I see that it applies in every real world case I can think of (ie: the Aztecs, the Roman Empire/Republic, Napoleon's France, Nazi Germany), and that is this quote

Finally, there will come a time when one empire recognizes its superior position and will attempt to eliminate all weaker competitors to win the game.

While it notably refers to the game... it is easily adapted to real world application by removing 'win the game', and inserting 'rule without worry about powerful foreign attack' (or similarly intended sentences)... or perhaps simply leaving it hanging.

If a leader does not consolidate and press their advantage while they have it... they may find that other leaders are not so forgiving There is also something to be said for how much more fear can be (though not necessarily that it will be) pressed upon an enemy facing potential genocide. v_v To explain what I mean further... you suggest that a leader should fight back the amount that is 'necessary', and that once there they must stop (in your opinion of course). However... if one can decimate their forces with few enough losses to take their opponent's resource claims: they can not only gain further resources for their nation's power... but also remove an enemy for a great period of time (if not forever). The only rational reason I can think of at this time to not do this is what might arise diplomatically with other nations as a result of such action. But even then... if the gain is great enough, and one feels secure in their ability to defend their newly extended borders against significant assault (and perhaps population)... it is a tantalizing option. An option no leader should not consider should they ever be in such a situation.

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.

If boulder disasters are not vile... I cannot see how a fair number of rapes, murders, robberies, and what have you are 'vile' either. Explain how one is vile and the other not, and we can evaluate further, without needing me to present superfluous examples under either the definition you sort of gave above, or my definition(s). ^_^

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.

And I'm referring to normal people... either unable to resist a certain thing (often pleasures such as sex, money, fame, and adrenaline rushes... and also often revenge, among other things), or not caring to resist such... who then perform actions such as rape, theft, doing stupid or reckless things in public, and even murder. There are many reasons they might do these things... anger, desire, an identified opportunity, easy target(s), attempting to improve public image, and what have you. And the interesting thing is that I think very little of it is done with the intent of hurting others. Why does the thief steal? Not likely because he is a robin hood who hates the rich and wants to hurt them in their pocketbooks. Why does the rapist sexually molest others? Not likely because they are violently sadistic bastards what simply wish to beat people up (and if they are... it's a whole lot easier to just beat people up). These are things done for the self... and even vandalism and trolling likely aren't trying to hurt others: they are trying to get thrills.

I was not attempting to cast them as unthinking... I was trying to cast them as emotional beings that often get lost in a moment and act without thinking about the consequence, or recognizing them and still performing it because of the strength of their fear/anger/desire/etc. In fact... i rather think that most (reported v_v) rapes occur in the home, with family or friends, because it is these people who are more likely to firstly: be at said home with the person in question, b: be trusted enough that they might be left alone for enough time that a rape can be the culmination of events between the two or more bodies in said room (which can be a 'slow' process), and c: family/friends rapists are likely more easily recognizable by the rape victim.

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.

And why would that be? Now we see a possibly different definition of 'vile' (one somewhat more akin to my own, but not there yet)... where apparently a vile thing is a thing that is forced.

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.

Not a lot less for me... I think they'd be about the same, depending on the presentation for each. But it was intended as an alternate argument that people are only raped who were not adequately protected. The unguarded treasure behind the curtain is a magnet to opportunity... the hefty safe surrounded by two security dogs with radio backup is perhaps the end of opportunity.

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.

Observe:

A is different than B.

A is different than C.

A is different than D.

B ≠ c ≠ D.

You can't get more different by changing A + B to A + C. You will likely get a different value... but B and C are not more different to A than D is to A. Just as you cannot become any more the same by such a method. There is no grey area v_v

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.

Jesus would disagree with that viewpoint. Just thought I'd throw it out there v_v

I do not think that thinking about anything is bad (unless they can hear our thoughts now... ). Nor do I thin murder, rape, and the like are necessarily evil. In fact... I can see many a situation for murder where it is absolutely positive from my point of view (unlike rape, which although I don't see anything that it can be used for (outside of the rare occurrence).

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.

I'm a proud pesterer, and manipulator. Anyway.... I wouldn't be so sure about these people not carrying it out... as perhaps the truth is simply that they haven't been subjected to a situation where they wouldn't do so. Yet.

It is indeed possible that all rapists share that characteristic... and I can't see anything to argue about it through my sleep and drug-addled brain. Do you know how difficult it is to stay awake after sleeping pills? ^_^

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

Perhaps you need more sleep, like me

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.

Don't apologize ^_^ I found it rather humorous! ^_^

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.

Well why would they have made them a prisoner if not to do so? v_v I rather think such cases are in the minute minority, but i definitely would agree with you here in declaring said rapist 'vile' ^_^

I wasn't trying to imply porn causes, or even necessarily enhances the desire. More things used to be vandalized before video games were around. Now it is more a social thing that ever before... and it is fairly rare (for me anyway) to see vandalism done by a single person v_v

*Saerules falls asleep after setting her forum status to away once more*