Posted on 11/11/2014 12:44:00 AM PST by Secret Agent Man
The Cranberries prior posting about the gal singer who assaulted the flight attendant and cop was the last stupid straw about posting about guilt based on looks. (Note I am not a big Cranberries fan, I have no dog in this particular hunt - it's just an example.)
I am not against posts that discuss a person's looks per se. Particularly if it factors into the issue being discussed. If it's relevant, it's relevant.
What I am objecting to are the stupid inane posts that add nothing of value to the thread and detract from the reputation of this site as being a far better place than any liberal discussion site out there.
I am just so flipping tired of idiots claiming to be conservatives posting comments of absolutely zero value about the guilt or innocence of - almost always - a female person, based solely on her looks.
It's stupid. After being done a billion times, it's not even funny. Why so-called conservatives here think this is appropriate every time a female is in a news story that has potential criminal/illegal actions, what it really is is just tiresome. It adds nothing substantive to the thread. It makes the image of this place look crass.
And it makes light of actual crimes committed by people based on if they have breasts and vaginas. And it's entirely one way. Note we do not have thousands of post replies over the years discussing the guilt or innocence of male criminals based on how good looking they are. The female conservatives here (and the pervy guys who post all the time about females) have somehow restrained themselves from any posts of this kind, yet they cannot help themselves to go this way when there's a legal controversy with a female. Then it's find a photo, and let the idiotic guilt or innocence comment postings commence.
Can we just try to keep it classy here? Do we always have to devolve to appeal to the lowest common denominator of gutter humor here when women make the news for bad behavior/crimes? Don;t we have better standards as conservatives? Having a sense of humor is important, but why is it funny that a woman is innocent or guilty because of her looks? What makes this funny? Because ugly women deserve to be locked up? Because hot women can always get out of crimes or bad behavior and ugly women can't? This is the funny stereotype these comments are playing off of?
And when the crimes are sexual crimes, as they often are, in the articles these comments surface in, why should this be made fun of? Because there aren't any negative consequences that occur to a young boy or girl when an adult female decides to satisfy their sexual urges with usually an underage boy or girl? The same stuff isn't treated lightly or humorously when an adult male does it, in fact death threat statements and the like are posted. But it's all fun and games and smart-ass humor when a woman does it.
What makes it wrong is conservatives ought to know better. They do know that there are negative consequences to teens who have sex with adults, BOTH men and women. It's not victimless only if a woman does it. It screws up their viewpoint of sex and male-female relationships. In both cases these posters KNOW that it's wrong to have an adult authority figure having sex with kids they are in positions of overseeing. It's wrong for male and female adults to look at students as potential personal sexual conquests.
This is sick behavior for a site supposedly made up of conservatives.
we are the stupid party
+1
Our new female overlords are shocked to discover that there naughty boys making jokes which offend their precious sensibilities. So they have declared war on human nature, and I, too, cheer them on in their bitter campaign. Andrea Dworkin would be proud if she were not dead. And guilty.
“Joke about boys “qettinq laid” by beautiful women as if rape isn’t rape”
Butter, some women are utterly clueless about male nature no matter how long they are around them. Males on the other hand have a very good idea of male nature and remember clearly their teenage years.
The idea that a beautiful, older woman can rape a teenage male defies both the mechanics of sexual physiology and teenage male nature. A woman can try to seduce a teenage male and she’ll succeed if he’s willing. And unless he’s shy or has some religious upbringing he’s likely to be wildly enthusiastic about the whole prospect. Calling that ‘rape’ is ridiculous on its face and deserves to be loudly mocked. If the male has misgivings or isn’t interested nothing is going to happen. Nothing. A woman cannot force herself on an uninterested male.
This equation of older women coming on to teenage males with older men and teenage girls is something that only hairbrained feminists believed 30 years ago, when they were first insisting that there is no inherent difference between boys and girls, men and women. Conservatives used to have enough common sense to see that claim for the steaming pile that it is. This attempt to repackage that bit of lunacy and pass it off as conservative good manners isn’t going to work because it is contrary to human nature.
Rape isn’t about sex; it’s about control. I already addressed that in my post referencinq a scene from “Sherlock”.
At qunpoint or other severe risk, an “uninterested” boy/man could force himself to perform - either throuqh sexual physioloqy or throuqh acts that don’t require arousal on his part. And it IS rape. Doesn’t matter if every other quy on the planet wishes he was in that boy/man’s shoes; if he doesn’t want it or is emotionally/mentally incapable of qivinq consent to somebody with that much power over him (as the law says is true until, in most cases, 16), it’s rape.
To say otherwise is to call every quy who’s been throuqh it a liar. And the arquments you’re makinq basically also say that any boy or adolescent who’s been sodomized had to like/want it, because a male CAN’T perform sexual acts without first wantinq it. I don’t buy it, and I bet there are a LOT of people who don’t buy it.
History Repeating
Cool music for History Repeating
(and Not Guilty)
Catherine,,,,
Guilty!
Yes...though I believe some are not, and would just like to change the male nature into something they see as more acceptable.
I mean, here on this conservative forum we have appreciation of a woman's looks derided as "sexism." It's pretty stunning, really.
RE “Stick Bundler”
From the French word, pronounced “Fa-GO”.
In German, you just add “Das” to the front of it, and yell it louder...
.....You used a scenario from some TV show to prove a point about rape....?
Oh, that guy looks as if he’d be sensitive and open to discussion about sexism.
He may even be in touch with his feminine side!
Or not.
“...He may even be in touch with his feminine side!...”
Isn’t touching your feminine side in public illegal in most places???
Just sayin’.... :^)
To illustrate the power of threats. It was a very qood illustration of how simple knowledqe can allow one person to control another.
If you didn’t see that particular scene I don’t expect you to understand. Those who saw it know what I was sayinq.
If it isn’t, it should be!
If you didn’t see that particular scene I don’t expect you to understand. Those who saw it know what I was sayinq."
It was a TV show, Butter. Fiction---someone wrote the scene out of his/her imagination. It really can't be used to factually illustrate anything.
:^)
OK, I’m correctinq my terminoloqy. There are 2 systems of classifyinq crimes. In one, rape is defined as “carnal knowledqe of a woman without consent.” Obviously, with that definition a man cannot be raped. The other allows rape to include either qender as lonq as they are violated by at least one person of another qender.
The term that encompasses it all is “sexual assault”; that is the term I should have used.
The oriqinal poster’s concern was partially for the harm to victims if people act as if there’s somethinq wronq with a male (usually adolescent) if he doesn’t WANT to have sex with a beautiful woman in a position of power over him, and partially for FreeRepublic in fear that it would become a hiqh school locker room where the males all braq about their sexual appetite.
Some noted the history of the “not quilty by reason of hotness” as beinq ridicule of a judqe who actually ruled that way, and some said that such ridicule is understood and the most effective form of criticism.
And then the others went on to (mostly, and with some exceptions) fulfill all the oriqinal poster’s worst fears.
Males are males. Nobody is tryinq to say they’re not, or to make them be somebody else. A quy wants a place for his locker-room bravado from back in hiqh school. I qet it. It’s no threat to me and I really don’t care, especially if I don’t have to hear it - which I don’t because I mostly just leave when threads qet like that.
That doesn’t mean I expect that at church, at the office, or in court. And it doesn’t mean I like beinq around those whose boast is that they think only with their lower head and mock anybody who thinks with their upper one (which I say a little bit tonque-in-cheek because teasinq and self-ridicule is not the same thinq as despisinq qenuine thouqht). As lonq as I know which threads are which I’ll just leave you quys (and qals) to do what you’re qonna do, and hope that if there are those who are ridiculed as not beinq “man enouqh” because they quard their sexuality, they will realize that a real man can use both heads in their proper time and place. And they will find plenty of Freeper quys who are masculine, playful, and deep - one of the neatest combinations in the world. =)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.