The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Politicians who are legitimately stupid rarely get elected. (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=27907)

DanaC 08-21-2012 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sundae (Post 825494)
George Galloway is not currently covering himself in glory.
Although I have more respect for his reasoning having looked into all the information available.

I haven't been keeping up with Gorgeous George's exploits much lately. Ever since he hooked up with the rightwing conservative muslims. What's he been saying?

Cyber Wolf 08-21-2012 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 825490)
Akin should be raped ... legitimately.
After that, maybe just maybe I'll listen to what he has to say.

But then his rapist would have to be tried and would be convicted and end up with a sexual offender tag forever. I wouldn't want anyone to go through that because of Akin. Heck, I wouldn't want to wish Akin, in any sexual manner, on anyone, not even his wife.

Pico and ME 08-21-2012 04:46 PM

Yeah, but I totally understand the sentiment. He's got no effin empathy for rape victims and women in general, because he doesn't ever have to worry about sharing their experiences.

Pico and ME 08-21-2012 04:53 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Ya know, I think this is all just a run up to the 'Personhood Amendment'. Im really really glad that I am no longer in my childbearing years. My rights as a person would be akin to those of a slave.

Happy Monkey 08-21-2012 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 825483)
And apparently, none of the statutory rapes or incest victims in Steve King's personal experience have ever gotten pregnant.

Holy crap. My goofy interpretation of Steve King's quote is actually what his spokespeople are going with!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve King's actual spokesperson
“What he was saying was, he personally does not know a girl who was raped,” Brittany Lesser, a spokesperson for King said. “He never says, ‘I’ve never heard of that.’ There’s a fine line between ‘I’ve never heard of that’ and ‘I don’t know personally anybody who’s been raped. There’s a difference. There is a difference.”


infinite monkey 08-21-2012 06:36 PM

Good lord. Really? How stupid are we supposed to be? If any of this is damage control then they are completely misunderstanding the damage. "I'm so naive I didn't know such stuff actually happened."

See right through it.

monster 08-21-2012 08:47 PM

OK now that King guy IS stupid.

BigV 08-21-2012 10:33 PM

It gets better, people. And by better, I mean more insanely creative, the lengths to which the GOP talking heads are rationalizing and justifying and diluting and distracting everyone who has seen the emperor's shiny buttocks.

I give you Mike Huckabee.

According to Mike Huckabee, horrible rapes have created some extraordinary people.

Quote:

“Ethel Waters, for example, was the result of a forcible rape,” Huckabee said of the late American gospel singer. One-time presidential candidate Huckabee added: “I used to work for James Robison back in the 1970s, he leads a large Christian organization. He, himself, was the result of a forcible rape. And so I know it happens, and yet even from those horrible, horrible tragedies of rape, which are inexcusable and indefensible, life has come and sometimes, you know, those people are able to do extraordinary things.”
There's more, but really? What is the point? Akin's shown his colors, and people agree with his views about the whole deal, or not. No one's being persuaded. But there are a lot of people who now see clearly what was previously just beneath the surface.

monster 08-21-2012 10:45 PM

*sidetracking...... maybe.....*


so wait..... we shouldn't kill rape-babies because they might become good people, but it's ok to kill convicts because the chances are they probably did it and a few deaths of innocents is an OK price?

monster 08-21-2012 10:51 PM

um, and this is all posturing BS too ....


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19339362


To publicly urge a same-party candidate to resign, is all about the one doing the urging and not about the fuck-upper.

BigV 08-21-2012 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akin
He described the response to his comments as a "little bit of an over-reaction", saying he had mistaken "one word in one sentence on one day".

from your link.

ORLY?

let me guess, that word is "legitimate"? no? "rape"? "woman"? "pregnant"?

I actually can't guess.

What *one* word would change this whole thing around?

Cyber Wolf 08-22-2012 08:41 AM

1 Attachment(s)
.
Attachment 40151

henry quirk 08-22-2012 08:45 AM

make of this what you will and can
 
The Owner of The Couch forum posted this…

http://www.springerlink.com/content/wp5cnp43k6byxj4d/

…the abstract of which is this…


Is a given instance of rape more likely to result in pregnancy than a given instance of consensual sex? This paper undertakes a review and critique of the literature on rape-pregnancy. Next, it presents our own estimation, from U.S. government data, of pregnancy rates for reproductive age victims of penile-vaginal rape. Using data on birth control usage from the Statistical Abstract of the United States, we then form an estimate of rapepregnancy rates adjusted for the substantial number of women in our sample who would likely have been protected by oral contraception or an IUD. Our analysis suggests that per-incident rape-pregnancy rates exceed per-incident consensual pregnancy rates by a sizable margin, even before adjusting for the use of relevant forms of birth control. Possible explanations for this phenomenon are discussed, as are its implications to ongoing debates over the ultimate causes of rape.

DanaC 08-22-2012 09:08 AM

Wow. That's fascinating.

BigV 08-22-2012 09:21 AM

mornin hq

I didn't buy the paper for 40 bucks, so, I don't know what it says. But with respect to pregnancy from rape rates, I've heard from sources I found credible numbers around 5%. So, it's not vanishingly small. And by comparison, pregnancy from consensual sex might be the same or higher (conceivably lower--hehehehe I said conceivably), but, so what?

Poor brother Akin's remarks were not so inflammatory just because of the rate, which he apparently underestimates by a good margin, but because it reveals a huge gap between his understanding and reality. He compounds this error (ignorance is only an original sin, and curable) by doubling down in all his follow up statements. He does eventually say that people do get pregnant from rape, but this is really just the last veil stripped from his true belief. No abortion because the innocent child should not be punished.

That's a noble notion, but his claim that a fertilized egg is a child is unsupported by everything I know. The urge to cue Monty Python's "Every Sperm Is Sacred" as their theme song is almost as irresistible as the claim is ridiculous. Though I can't find a cite right now, it seems clear that this is Akin's position.

infinite monkey 08-22-2012 09:25 AM

Quote:

Akin's comments echoed as far away as the Democratic Republic of Congo, where award-winning playwright Eve Ensler penned a powerful open letter titled, "Dear Mr. Akin, I Want You to Imagine..."

Akin isn't giving up The U.S. author of "The Vagina Monologues" wrote that she was lying awake at 2 a.m. in Bukavu in the City of Joy in the Congo where she was working to support "thousands of women who have been raped and violated and tortured from this ceaseless war for minerals fought on their bodies."

"Mr. Akin, your words have kept me awake," she wrote, before explaining what it means for women who have been raped to hear him make the distinction between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" rape.

"The underlying assumption of your statement is that women and their experiences are not to be trusted. That their understanding of rape must be qualified by some higher, wiser authority," she wrote, before imploring him to imagine someone "violently, hatefully forcing themself into you so that you are ripped apart."
Quote:

On a more serious note, Brooks wrote: "What strikes me about the anachronistic attitudes of evangelicals and their Republican puppets to abortion, contraception, family planning, female economic empowerment and feminism in general, is just how unambiguously male these attitudes are.

"An entire political party in one of the most advanced and educated countries on earth has become a caricature of the most basal evolved insecurities about masculinity. They seem terrified of losing control over the means of reproduction and petrified of cuckoldry," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/world/...html?hpt=hp_t2

henry quirk 08-22-2012 09:29 AM

"I didn't buy the paper for 40 bucks"

Me neither...the abstract is all I got too. As to what it says, the abstract gives a sufficient overview to work with, hence my suggestion 'make of this what you will and can'.


#

*"a huge gap between his understanding and reality"

Agreed.









*it's the gap my posting of the abstract addresses...Akin believes a woman's flesh is capable of distinguishing between consensual and nonconsensual sex...he believes the flesh can then 'act accordingly'.

If the paper the abstract is drawn from is accurate, then, one potential and unsettling conclusion is a woman's body may indeed distinguish between consensual and nonconsensual sex and, in 'acting accordingly' may become more fertile (or receptive to insemination).

I offer no moral, ethical, or even personal assessment here...just offering up the nugget for each to do with as he or she will.

henry quirk 08-22-2012 09:56 AM

I googled this...

"Are per-incident rape-pregnancy rates higher than per-incident consensual pregnancy rates?"

...the title of the paper and abstract, and found this...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...n-other-women/

"As to why rape victims would have a higher rate of pregnancy, the Gottschalls put forward a few theories. They look at previous research, which suggests that men are more attracted to women who are fertile and ovulating. In consensual sex, women can decline sex at a time where there might be a high likelihood of pregnancy. That’s not the case in rape."


I prefer the above explanation(s) to the (again) unsettling notion rape could be biologically or evolutionarily beneficial.

In any event, as V says, "(there is) a huge gap between (Akin's) understanding and reality".

piercehawkeye45 08-22-2012 09:58 AM

I can get the article for free (yay public university!) but I'm not going to post it for legal reasons. PM if interested.

BigV 08-22-2012 10:18 AM

Quote:

If the paper the abstract is drawn from is accurate, then, one potential and unsettling conclusion is a woman's body may indeed distinguish between consensual and nonconsensual sex and, in 'acting accordingly' may become more fertile (or receptive to insemination).
... you were doing much better before this edit.

My theory for why the rate of pregnancy from consensual sex might be lower is that there's just a lot more sex going on, period (hehehe, I said period). Since there is just one chance for pregnancy per month, that rate gets... diluted when there's so much more non-baby making sex is going on.

henry quirk 08-22-2012 10:45 AM

"you were doing much better before this edit"
 
So: I don't get an A?

*shrug*

infinite monkey 08-22-2012 10:56 AM

I can't believe we're having discussions about the scientific validity of that pasty old white man's statement, when all over the world cats are sneaking into babies' cribs and stealing their breath!

--a public service announcement brought to you by Old Husband's Tales, Inc.

henry quirk 08-22-2012 11:00 AM

"all over the world cats are sneaking into baby's cribs and stealing their breath!"
 
Everyone knows the babies are askin' for it.

infinite monkey 08-22-2012 11:01 AM

Ch'yeah. Now get in the kitchen, baby, and make me a sandwich.

henry quirk 08-22-2012 11:04 AM

Don't be silly...that should be 'now crawl into the kitchen, baby, and make me a poop.'

infinite monkey 08-22-2012 11:06 AM

I got carried away, so giddy was I with all this smart boy talk about a statement that deserves no second thought beyond "this Akin guy is stupid and dangerous and a misogynist."

Although I'm sure his handlers have him saying stuff about how much he really loves women and stuff; they make the best sandwiches.

infinite monkey 08-22-2012 12:07 PM

Sorry guys, I was kidding...being my sarcastic old self. ;)

morethanpretty 08-22-2012 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite monkey (Post 825763)
Sorry guys, I was kidding...being my sarcastic old self. ;)

Don't be sorry for being yourself, we love yourself! Or at least I do.

infinite monkey 08-22-2012 12:45 PM

Thanks, mtp! :)

Pico and ME 08-22-2012 12:55 PM

Exactly, and your response was quite appropriate.

tw 08-22-2012 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite monkey (Post 825749)
... a statement that deserves no second thought beyond "this Akin guy is stupid and dangerous and a misogynist."

But that is mostly less relevant. We know that an adult who still thinks like a child automatically believes what he is told. Therefore children are more often recruited to do things that are stupid or unreasonable. The word 'brainwashing' is simply another description. That person then seeks 'proof' to justify his ideology or feelings. Meanwhile an adult learns facts and numbers. Then uses that knowledge to obtain a conclusion. Also called reasoning.

So what does that say about Akin? Well proven science says his ideological beliefs are wrong. Why then did he also reiterate hearsay(also called junk science) to justify his political agenda? Is he an adult who knows from facts and logical reasoning? Or a child who only recites what the 'powers that be' told him to believe.

Children know mostly from memory - what they were told. Adults use part of the brain that forms after the age of 16. And therefore learn why knowledge from hearsay or observation is bogus.

Reveiw the science. Statistics suggest that women are more likely to become pregnant from sex that occurs during greater emotion. That applies both to rape and to illicit sex (martial cheating). Yes, the pretty boy lover is more often likely to get a wife pregnant than the husband. So why did Congressman Akins recite a conclusion without first learning science? What does he use to make conclusions? Logical reasoning or ideology from the political agenda?

His actions suggest brainwashing by a political agenda has more relevance than facts, science, and numbers. So, does he think like an adult? Or does he recite hearsay and soundbytes like an adult who still thinks like a child?

infinite monkey 08-22-2012 02:58 PM

I don't know. In which instance might I get to punch him in his stoopid face? ;)

footfootfoot 08-22-2012 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite monkey (Post 825825)
I don't know. In which instance might I get to punch him in his stoopid face? ;)

Dress up like a fawning conservative bible belt page girl and apply to work on his campaign. You might get a number of chances to do that.;)

infinite monkey 08-22-2012 03:16 PM

I'm an accomplished actress, yes, but I don't think even I could pull off that role. ;)

DanaC 08-22-2012 03:27 PM

'So hey, whatever happened to Infi?'

'What you didn't hear about that? She went off to pretend to be a bible-belt religious conservative activist, and fell through a gap in reality. It was brutal.'

infinite monkey 08-22-2012 03:29 PM

'Yeah, I heard her head exploded and some new universe was created.'

BigV 08-22-2012 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 825803)
But that is mostly less relevant. We know that an adult who still thinks like a child automatically believes what he is told. Therefore children are more often recruited to do things that are stupid or unreasonable. The word 'brainwashing' is simply another description. That person then seeks 'proof' to justify his ideology or feelings. Meanwhile an adult learns facts and numbers. Then uses that knowledge to obtain a conclusion. Also called reasoning.

So what does that say about Akin? Well proven science says his ideological beliefs are wrong. Why then did he also reiterate hearsay(also called junk science) to justify his political agenda? Is he an adult who knows from facts and logical reasoning? Or a child who only recites what the 'powers that be' told him to believe.

Children know mostly from memory - what they were told. Adults use part of the brain that forms after the age of 16. And therefore learn why knowledge from hearsay or observation is bogus.


Reveiw the science. Statistics suggest that women are more likely to become pregnant from sex that occurs during greater emotion. That applies both to rape and to illicit sex (martial cheating). Yes, the pretty boy lover is more often likely to get a wife pregnant than the husband. So why did Congressman Akins recite a conclusion without first learning science? What does he use to make conclusions? Logical reasoning or ideology from the political agenda?

His actions suggest brainwashing by a political agenda has more relevance than facts, science, and numbers. So, does he think like an adult? Or does he recite hearsay and soundbytes like an adult who still thinks like a child?

If you're an adult, you'll provide a cite for this statement. Otherwise, I'll consider it ideology/brainwashing/hearsay/junk science soundbite from someone who thinks like a child.

DanaC 08-22-2012 03:55 PM

You'd be amazed how many of our cultures' assumptions about gender originate with that medieval misundrstanding of female organs. Many of the others originate with the next great scientific misunderstanding which followed on from that during the European enlightenment.

Ibby 08-22-2012 05:42 PM

Akin is in a position to MAYBE win, but it's looking grim for him. But the state's demographics strongly favor a Republican win.
Akin has until Sept. 25 to drop out of the race. He hasn't said "no way" yet, but he seems extremely reluctant, in spite of the national party apparatus throwing him under the bus.
If he DOES drop out, there's a very good chance that the GOP could nominate someone with a much better shot, less tainted by the controversy.
If the democrats know what's good for 'em, they're gonna "rope-a-dope" for a while, let Akin's narrow lead hang around until AFTER the deadline, THEN hit him with everything they've got after there's nobody else the GOP can replace him with.

Ibby 08-22-2012 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibby (Post 825881)
Akin is in a position to MAYBE win, but it's looking grim for him. But the state's demographics strongly favor a Republican win.
Akin has until Sept. 25 to drop out of the race. He hasn't said "no way" yet, but he seems extremely reluctant, in spite of the national party apparatus throwing him under the bus.
If he DOES drop out, there's a very good chance that the GOP could nominate someone with a much better shot, less tainted by the controversy.
If the democrats know what's good for 'em, they're gonna "rope-a-dope" for a while, let Akin's narrow lead hang around until AFTER the deadline, THEN hit him with everything they've got after there's nobody else the GOP can replace him with.

too late to edit - I posted this without seeing that there was a page 2 (with 60 posts per page that is), hence the non-sequitur-ness. still relevant, thread drift notwithstanding.

Happy Monkey 08-27-2012 03:26 PM

We've got another one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Smith
Mark Scolforo, Associated Press: How would you tell a daughter or a granddaughter who, God forbid, would be the victim of a rape, to keep the child against her own will? Do you have a way to explain that?

Smith: I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views. But, fortunately for me, I didn’t have to.. she chose they way I thought. No don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t rape.

Scolforo: Similar how?

Smith: Uh, having a baby out of wedlock.

Scolforo: That’s similar to rape?

Smith: No, no, no, but… put yourself in a father’s situation, yes. It is similar. But, back to the original, I’m pro-life, period.


infinite monkey 08-27-2012 03:30 PM

How stupid are pasty old white guys trying to look?

They're doing a bang-up job, for sure.

Happy Monkey 08-27-2012 03:40 PM

Problem 1: Child-out-of-wedlock is similar to rape.

Problem 2: I'm glad my daughter made a choice I agree with, but I wish I could have forced her to if she hadn't.

ETA: Though it looks like he's not going to disprove this thread's title.

ZenGum 08-28-2012 09:54 PM

Seriously, America, I think it's time you went to see the school counselor.

infinite monkey 08-28-2012 10:29 PM

Dear Zen,

Please excuse the regular kids in the class. Our dog ate our homework.

Signed,

Epstein's mother

Griff 08-29-2012 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 826790)
Problem 1: Child-out-of-wedlock is similar to rape.

I would love to see an assessment which produces a scatter graph that gets at what activities people see as more "evil" than others. I have this gut feeling that these nutters would place consensual pre-marital /extra-marital sex too damn close to rape, but we'd also be surprised at other human activities which get a pass or an over-reaction.

Clodfobble 08-29-2012 07:21 AM

I wonder if the misstep is not what people think it is, here. I imagine, for example, that his daughter was underage when she got knocked up. What if he was about to say that in her situation it was statutory rape--but she married the guy after all, and it wouldn't make for a very nice Thanksgiving if he accidentally got his son-in-law incarcerated years after the fact.

Still, as a supposed victim of statutory "rape" myself, I know firsthand that the lines are a lot blurrier when it comes to consensual underage vs. forcible. They are still nothing alike.

infinite monkey 08-29-2012 07:25 AM

Then he should have explained that. In your scenario, is he actually ashamed that his underage daughter sinned, wasn't pure?

Cyber Wolf 08-29-2012 10:10 AM

At what point will he schedule her stoning then? The book most of these guys claim to follow as the only guide to life they need says unmarried mothers should be stoned.

Or would he (or the rest of them) fess up to cherry-picking the parts that suit them/their situation best?

Clodfobble 08-29-2012 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite monkey (Post 827074)
Then he should have explained that. In your scenario, is he actually ashamed that his underage daughter sinned, wasn't pure?

No no, because the woman is too stupid/innocent to make any decision regarding sex. That's why it's always rape, unless the man gets God's permission and marries her first.

footfootfoot 08-29-2012 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by infinite monkey (Post 825745)
I can't believe we're having discussions about the scientific validity of that pasty old white man's statement, when all over the world cats are sneaking into babies' cribs and stealing their breath!

--a public service announcement brought to you by Old Husband's Tales, Inc.

Ohhh, Infi you insensitive bitch. That was low. You know damn well that my cat's breath was stolen by a baby in the towers on 9/11.
--a public service announcement brought to you by Tired Old Internet Memes, Inc.

tw 08-29-2012 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monster (Post 825284)
I'm finding it really hard to stay away from religion here, which will undoubtedly cause me to offend just about every body, so i think I'd better stop.

Nonsense. No matter what your religious belief, it must have zero affect on anyone else. Satanic is the man who imposes his religion on anyone else.

Religion is only a relationship between you and your god. Even your church is only a adviser who says at the end the day, "Only you have the correct beliefs." Does not matter if you believe something different from the pastor or church. His job, at the end of the day, is to respect the only relevant relationship - between you and your god.

A church that expels parishioners (because they have different religious beliefs) is the only evil party. If your religious opinions offend anyone else, then that other person is evil. Because your religion is never imposed on them. And their beliefs never imposed on you. Same concepts apply to any non-Satanic person anywhere in the world.

Satan loves when the Pope orders all American legislatures to impose Catholic doctrine on all Americans. No wonder this Pope also all but protected pedophilia. Another example of religion imposing their dogma on all others. Because the Church is even more important than god. And because those concepts even justify the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition.

No wonder women cannot be trusted in any position of authority in Satan's favorite religions.

BigV 08-29-2012 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 825803)
snip--

Reveiw the science. Statistics suggest that women are more likely to become pregnant from sex that occurs during greater emotion. That applies both to rape and to illicit sex (martial cheating). Yes, the pretty boy lover is more often likely to get a wife pregnant than the husband. So why did Congressman Akins recite a conclusion without first learning science? What does he use to make conclusions? Logical reasoning or ideology from the political agenda?

--snip

Good to see you back in this thread again, tw.

Care to back up your statement now?

tw 08-30-2012 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV (Post 827200)
Care to back up your statement now?

Nope.

xoxoxoBruce 08-30-2012 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 825860)
You'd be amazed how many of our cultures' assumptions about gender originate with that medieval misundrstanding of female organs.

What? that's crazy talk, we all know they don't exist.

Oh dear, I'm so embarrassed. :o I misread what you wrote. I thought you wrote female orgasms. :bolt:


I only remember two illegitimate rapes. Both cases involve consensual sex until they were caught, one by a cop and the other by a relative of the girl. In both cases the girl claimed she was being raped.

DanaC 08-30-2012 05:57 AM

I would imagine that the closer society moves towards a right-wing christian ideal, the more 'illegitimate' rapes there will be. As the social consequences for the woman of extra-marital or pre-marital sex increase there would be a greater need to explain it away by designating it as non-consensual.

This may well mean that in stricter families and communities there is a greater risk of consensual sex being classified as non-consensual. Which could then feed back into that family and community and form a greater suspicion of women's claims of rape.

BigV 08-30-2012 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw (Post 827242)
Nope.

I am unsurprised.

The statement is unsupportable; the statement is false. When you repeat lies like this you severely damage your credibility. You double the damage when (in the same post, no less) you assail someone for doing the same thing:

Quote:

So what does that say about Akin? Well proven science says his ideological beliefs are wrong. Why then did he also reiterate hearsay(also called junk science) to justify his political agenda? Is he an adult who knows from facts and logical reasoning? Or a child who only recites what the 'powers that be' told him to believe.

Children know mostly from memory - what they were told. Adults use part of the brain that forms after the age of 16. And therefore learn why knowledge from hearsay or observation is bogus.
You've got a lot going for you tw. You squander much of it with such hypocrisy.

footfootfoot 08-30-2012 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 827257)
right-wing christian ideal

Four words were never more mis-matched.:yelsick:

tw 08-30-2012 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigV (Post 827336)
The statement is unsupportable; the statement is false.

Of course it isn't. Considering the number of statements I have made so contrary to popular belief (ie predicting Desert Storm and its response months in advance, the mythical Saddam WMDs, a financial morass called AIG, stupidity of the Chevy Volt, actual cost of Mission Accomplished, escalating military tensions between China and its neighbors, etc). Since overwhelmingly unpopular statements have been proven correct so often, then you should accuse with caution. Or at least first learn some facts rather than entertain a feeling. The emotional only remember how unpopular those statement were; and forget unpopular statements were also the accurate ones.

Facts come from research into infidelity and propagation of the species. Long known was that infidelity and rape tends to result in a higher fertility. That was never disputed. Researchers have been asking why. Genetic diversity is considered important for the advancement of the species. For example, one in five children are sired by someone other than the wife's spouse. A number that has held consistent even during the 1950s when adults were so more 'moral'. The resulting diversity is considered genetically healthy. A trend that begs the current hypothesis.

A higher fertility rate during rape or infidelity creates increased genetic diversity. Undisputed is the higher fertility rate. The outstanding question is why and how important that would be for survival of the species.

Research with animals in England and Australia both demonstrated that the male who "copulatory ambushes" the female also have sperm with higher fertility rates. The romancing mate or 'pretty boy' male tends to be less fertile. In this case, the rapist and not the victim is more fertile. Bottom line conclusion remains despite unsubstantiated and speculative denials.

Also noted; women tend to become more interested or flirtatious with 'other' males around the time of ovulation. Not only spending more attention on them. But also having increased sexual fantasies about them. Another reason why women tend to have more children from extramarital liaisons - desired or forced.

Other interesting trends also exist. Men under increased stress prefer heavier women with bigger butts. Another trend also believed related to species survival.

Adults who suffered through famines as children or adolescents tend to have fatter children. Also unpopular because many only feel it must be wrong rather than first learn facts. How can a famine decades earlier change genetics? Another question not yet answered. But that trend is also clear. Another trend suspected to be related to survival of the species.

Do you feel those are also wrong ... without first learning facts? Responsible denial means first learning facts before condemning. Shame on you for posting cheapshots.

xoxoxoBruce 08-30-2012 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanaC (Post 827257)
I would imagine that the closer society moves towards a right-wing christian ideal, the more 'illegitimate' rapes there will be. As the social consequences for the woman of extra-marital or pre-marital sex increase there would be a greater need to explain it away by designating it as non-consensual.

This may well mean that in stricter families and communities there is a greater risk of consensual sex being classified as non-consensual. Which could then feed back into that family and community and form a greater suspicion of women's claims of rape.

Quote:

Historically, rape has been seen less as a violation of a woman than as a theft from a man to whom that woman belonged, either her husband or her father, who suffered an economic loss (a woman’s marriageability spoiled) and an insult to his honor. There was also the problem of bastard children, who were considered a social burden; the Athenian state, for example, was primarily occupied with protecting bloodlines, and so treated rape and adultery the same way. Hammurabi’s code describes rape victims as adulterers; English law of the seventeenth century takes a similar position. In Puritan Massachusetts, any woman pregnant through rape was prosecuted for fornication. In the nineteenth century, the American courts remained biased toward protecting men who might be falsely accused. In order to prove that an encounter was a rape, the woman had to demonstrate that she had resisted and been overcome; she usually had to show bodily harm as evidence of her struggle; and she had somehow to prove that the man had ejaculated inside her.

In the early and mid-twentieth century, rape remained underreported because women feared adverse consequences if they spoke out about what had happened to them. In 1938, Dr. Aleck Bourne was put on trial in England for performing an abortion on a fourteen-year-old rape victim, and his acquittal reflected a populist movement to liberalize abortion, especially for rape victims. The trial was widely covered in the U.S. and led to open debate about the validity of abortion; the following year, the first hospital abortion committee in the United States was formed, and by the nineteen-fifties these committees were ubiquitous. Although they approved only “therapeutic” abortions, they increasingly accepted the recommendations of psychiatrists who said a woman’s mental health was endangered by her pregnancy. Well-connected and well-to-do women could obtain psychiatric diagnoses fairly easily, and so abortions became the province of the privileged. Ordinary rape victims often had to prove that they were nearly deranged. Some were diagnosed as licentious, and had to consent to sterilization to obtain abortions.
much more


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:46 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.