Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?

[Heat]

Um
I don't understand what you're saying
All i'm saying is that an attractive woman wearing hardly any clothes is much more likely to be targeted for rape because of the attention she is already drawing to herself.

That is the harsh reality. We are drawn to people who are.."pleasing" to look at.
Obviously a disabled person is less likely to be looked at in the way that a very attractive and naturally beautiful person is. There's really no way to change that, it's human nature, it's not the way it should be, everyone should be treated equal, but just because you are looking at the attractive person over the non-attractive person does not mean you are making a statement that she is not equal in comparison. You are simply preferring the outside appearance of someone over the other, we are all drawn toward different people, but a majority of the time, it's people who are "pleasing" to look at. It's not your human right to be seen equally to someone, everyone has different body structures, so yes, that's the way it is.


I tried really hard to not sound awkward while writing that, but I would like to not comment on this issue anymore .

It's not a reality though. I don't think rapists are like mm she's hot and has less clothes than the others so I'll take her.

Let's be real:

If you are less attractive, when people do not know your inside appearance[personality, etc.] they will associate you with the only thing that they do know, your outside appearance. So if you are unpleasant to look at they are going to associate you with unpleasant thoughts.

If you are attractive, when people don't know who you are on the inside, they'll associate you with the only thing they do know you by, outside appearance, so they would associate you with pleasant thoughts.

Now tell me seriously, that a rapist is just as likely to go after someone they associate with "unpleasant" than they are as "pleasant"

I hate to be dismissive, but if you deny that point you are just being unreasonable. I'm not saying that people who are seen by the general public as unattractive do not get raped, but to deny that people who are seen by the general public as attractive are not more likely to be raped, is simply not using logic.


I'm not saying anyone DESERVES to be raped, but it is HUMAN NATURE to be more interested in people who's outside appearance you associate with good thoughts.


You need to stop being an idealist, and start being a realist. If you don't know who someone is on the inside, you are going to associate them with their outside appearance, there may be a few exceptions, but it is human nature, you can train yourself to not do this, which is admirable and respectable to not judge someone based on their looks, i get it, but you are always going to have some bias based on their outside appearance, because that is all you have to go on before having an interaction, and if you can be real for a second, do you really think a Rapist wants to disregard a persons outside appearance for the sake of equality? Because that is LUUUUUUUUUUNACY.

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]Now tell me seriously, that a rapist is just as likely to go after someone they associate with "unpleasant" than they are as "pleasant"
[...]

Wow. You seem to have quite an insight into the mind of a rapist. But have you ever heard an expression that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"?

[Cato]

You need to stop being an idealist, and start being a realist. If you don't know who someone is on the inside, you are going to associate them with their outside appearance, there may be a few exceptions, but it is human nature, you can train yourself to not do this, which is admirable and respectable to not judge someone based on their looks, i get it, but you are always going to have some bias based on their outside appearance, because that is all you have to go on before having an interaction, and if you can be real for a second, do you really think a Rapist wants to disregard a persons outside appearance for the sake of equality? Because that is LUUUUUUUUUUNACY.

You're reasoning here is so simplistic that it's not even wrong; it's ridiculous.

Why do young men rape elderly women? And why does nobody care?: A special report by Linda Grant on a shocking crime which it seems we all prefer to ignore
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/...08839.html

What are we to make of it? Here are women not young, not sexually desirable by society's norms, beyond the menopause, still being considered fair game by rapists. What do the experts say - the psychologists, the specialists in the treatment of sex offenders, rape counsellors, Victim Support, national charities that promote the interests of older people?

Nothing.

[Heat]

[...]That is the harsh reality. We are drawn to people who are.."pleasing" to look at.
[...]

Really? Then I guess handsome, scantily clad men must be getting raped left and right, by homosexuals/bisexuals...

Can I report you for quote mining? Because I clearly explained myself in the statements before that.

It is not that anyone deserves to be raped, it is not that anyone will definitely be raped because of [x], it's that what is associated with "good" will be more likely to be raped. So you need to be a realist and conclude that someone who is generally perceived by outside appearance being associated with "good" will increase chances, regardless of what normal civil minded people like you and I think is just, or moral.

I hate that the fact that everyone hates rapists, makes them uber-biased toward any argument not solely professing the most extreme hatred of rape, and anything associated with it. I am not agreeing with it. I am not promoting it. I am not giving them the benefit of the doubt, or saying it is justified. I am simply giving an explanation of a reason for a common issue that is brought up, being the question of whether rape is more likely to be carried based on outside appearance. So grow up, and stop dismissing anyone who doesn't profess the ut-most extremity of hatred within their post like you do, instantly dismissing someone with a minority opinion does not mean they are wrong. Seems like everyone just read what I said and instantly said "HOW COULD YOU SAY THAT, OBVIOUSLY THATS NOT TRUE" before even trying to understand my point.

Oh and for you Homeless Nutter, get off your high-horse and stop trying to mock my views by taking a small quote of a much bigger explanation and making a sarcastic and petty comment for some cheap laughs.

[Heat]

You need to stop being an idealist, and start being a realist. If you don't know who someone is on the inside, you are going to associate them with their outside appearance, there may be a few exceptions, but it is human nature, you can train yourself to not do this, which is admirable and respectable to not judge someone based on their looks, i get it, but you are always going to have some bias based on their outside appearance, because that is all you have to go on before having an interaction, and if you can be real for a second, do you really think a Rapist wants to disregard a persons outside appearance for the sake of equality? Because that is LUUUUUUUUUUNACY.

You're reasoning here is so simplistic that it's not even wrong; it's ridiculous.

Why do young men rape elderly women? And why does nobody care?: A special report by Linda Grant on a shocking crime which it seems we all prefer to ignore
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/...08839.html

What are we to make of it? Here are women not young, not sexually desirable by society's norms, beyond the menopause, still being considered fair game by rapists. What do the experts say - the psychologists, the specialists in the treatment of sex offenders, rape counsellors, Victim Support, national charities that promote the interests of older people?

Nothing.

Did I ever make a claim that unattractive people don't get raped?
No I said specifically that was not what I was saying.

Did I ever say that we should care less/more about rape depending on the person?
No that is not what I said.

Like what the fuck?
Do people even read?
"Let me just act like he's a fucking idiot, then maybe he will be a fucking idiot."

Holy hell.

[Edwardo Piet]

Then you agree with Catholics that Protestants aren't true Christians, for instance?

No... I don't know what gave you that idea? The definition of Christian doesn't exclude Protestantism, Protestantism is a subset of Christianity. The fact Catholics think otherwise doesn't make them right.

I was merely pointing out that the NTS fallacy is commonly misunderstood and used incorrectly, so I provided you with the correct definition. I used to misuse it too.

Myself, I think the definition of "feminist" is muddled enough that winnowing the wheat from the chaff is a fool's quest. Rather thaan deal with how a person labels themselves, I prefer to deal with the individual. If someone calls themselves feminist and then goes on to spout nonstandard rhetoric, I'll address the rhetoric without worrying about the label.

I drew an analogy between atheism and feminism to explain how different groups of feminists don't define feminism itself just as different groups of atheists don't define atheism itself. True, as language develops bastardized definitions also become official definitions sometimes, but then in that case let's not equivocate the different definitions of the same thing.

The primary definition of feminism at the very least = Pro-women's rights and if there really is a bastardized version of feminism that has become an official definition in the dictionary, then let's recognize when the equivocation fallacy is made and people conflate the two.

Either way, different groups of feminists don't define feminism just as different groups of atheists don't define atheism. The dictionary defines feminism and atheism. If a group of atheists get together who think all religious people should be killed they don't define atheism itself at all. They're just a group of murderous people who happen to be atheists. Same thing would apply to a bunch of feminists who got together thinking all men should be killed. They don't define feminism. And feminists who also happen to be anti-men don't define feminism just as atheists who also happen to be anti-theists don't define atheism.

From the dictionary: "the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."

I don't care how many feminist groups there are that get together who are also anti-men, they don't define feminism itself. The above definition defines feminism.

[Heat]

You should Google "No means yes, yes means anal".

Trailer for an apropos documentary:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBNHGi36nlM

Envision an outdoor sporting event in the middle of summer, let's say temperature above 95F. The fattest, hairiest, nastiest person with five appendages has no problem pealing down to near nudity in an attempt to cool off, but a four appendage person does the same and people will lose their shit for various reasons. You suggest that you don't think that's "the way it should be, but the way it is". It's precisely 'the way it is' that feminism attempts to change.

Um
I don't understand what you're saying
All i'm saying is that an attractive woman wearing hardly any clothes is much more likely to be targeted for rape because of the attention she is already drawing to herself.

That is the harsh reality. We are drawn to people who are.."pleasing" to look at.
Obviously a disabled person is less likely to be looked at in the way that a very attractive and naturally beautiful person is. There's really no way to change that, it's human nature, it's not the way it should be, everyone should be treated equal, but just because you are looking at the attractive person over the non-attractive person does not mean you are making a statement that she is not equal in comparison. You are simply preferring the outside appearance of someone over the other, we are all drawn toward different people, but a majority of the time, it's people who are "pleasing" to look at. It's not your human right to be seen equally to someone, everyone has different body structures, so yes, that's the way it is.


I tried really hard to not sound awkward while writing that, but I would like to not comment on this issue anymore .

[...]Now tell me seriously, that a rapist is just as likely to go after someone they associate with "unpleasant" than they are as "pleasant"
[...]

Wow. You seem to have quite an insight into the mind of a rapist. But have you ever heard an expression that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"?

Man you really like to misrepresent what I say.

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]
It is not that anyone deserves to be raped, it is not that anyone will definitely be raped because of [x], it's that what is associated with "good" will be more likely to be raped. [...]

And how do you know that? How do you know what rapists associate with "good"? I've known people who f***ed animals. Do you think they f*** only, or predominantly the prized specimens? "This goat has crooked teeth, so I'm not going to stick my d*ck in it..."(?)

[DespondentFishdeathMasochismo]

[...]Now tell me seriously, that a rapist is just as likely to go after someone they associate with "unpleasant" than they are as "pleasant"
[...]

Wow. You seem to have quite an insight into the mind of a rapist. But have you ever heard an expression that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"?

I think they were saying a rapist is more likely to go for someone attractive, which seems like a really good reason for women to not wear mini skirts, if it will save them from getting raped, to be honest. I think it's better to be safe than sorry, to be honest.

[Losty]

It's not a reality though. I don't think rapists are like mm she's hot and has less clothes than the others so I'll take her.

Let's be real:

If you are less attractive, when people do not know your inside appearance[personality, etc.] they will associate you with the only thing that they do know, your outside appearance. So if you are unpleasant to look at they are going to associate you with unpleasant thoughts.

If you are attractive, when people don't know who you are on the inside, they'll associate you with the only thing they do know you by, outside appearance, so they would associate you with pleasant thoughts.

Now tell me seriously, that a rapist is just as likely to go after someone they associate with "unpleasant" than they are as "pleasant"

I hate to be dismissive, but if you deny that point you are just being unreasonable. I'm not saying that people who are seen by the general public as unattractive do not get raped, but to deny that people who are seen by the general public as attractive are not more likely to be raped, is simply not using logic.


I'm not saying anyone DESERVES to be raped, but it is HUMAN NATURE to be more interested in people who's outside appearance you associate with good thoughts.


You need to stop being an idealist, and start being a realist. If you don't know who someone is on the inside, you are going to associate them with their outside appearance, there may be a few exceptions, but it is human nature, you can train yourself to not do this, which is admirable and respectable to not judge someone based on their looks, i get it, but you are always going to have some bias based on their outside appearance, because that is all you have to go on before having an interaction, and if you can be real for a second, do you really think a Rapist wants to disregard a persons outside appearance for the sake of equality? Because that is LUUUUUUUUUUNACY.

I think what you're missing is the difference between why someone would want to have sex with another person vs why someone would rape a person.

Why do you think rapists are just horny people looking to get a hot piece of ass?