From the New York Times (via Michele):
A high school principal in Columbus, Ohio, has been fired and three assistant principals suspended without pay because they failed to notify the police last month about accusations that a 16-year-old special-education student had been sexually assaulted in the school auditorium by a group of boys, one of whom videotaped the incident, school officials said yesterday.
The principal and her assistants not only failed to report the incident but also urged the girl’s father to avoid calling the police out of concerns that reporters would become aware of the assault, according to statements given to school investigators.
The police are investigating four teenagers in connection with the incident, a spokeswoman for the Columbus police, Sherry Mercurio, said yesterday, but no charges have been filed. […]
One of the three assistant principals, Richard Watson, said he had found the videotape and then viewed it with other administrators. Their conclusion, they told investigators, was that there had been no coercion.
From what the NBC story says, it appears that the boys may have been caught because they were showing off by playing the video for friends in math class. While the school administration may not have found any signs of coercion, the police investigators found quite a lot. From the Times:
One witness’s statement said a boy pulled the girl onto the auditorium stage, ordered her to be quiet, pushed her to her knees and forced her to perform oral sex on him.
“If you scream, I’ll have all my boys punch you,” the boy told her and then hit her in the face, causing her mouth to bleed, a student told the investigators.
The girl told a special-education teacher minutes after the incident that she had been forced to have oral sex with two boys behind a curtain on the stage while at least two others watched. She said the boys stopped only after someone arrived in the auditorium and scared them off.
The girl, who has a speech defect, “just kept saying she was scared,” the special-education teacher told the investigators.
Maybe there’s less to this story than it seems; maybe the witnesses are lying, for example. But if the witness statements are accurate, then the boys should be arrested and tried as rapists.
MaxedOutMama , aka MOM, has an interesting post regarding this story. She doesn’t think the boys will ever be punished:
I’m outraged too, but not at all surprised. For one thing, multiple boy on one girl blowjob orgies aren’t that rare any more, even in school. There is a fine line between manipulation, intimidation and outright force. Stories such as these aren’t that rare – developmentally disabled girls are often manipulated and abused in this way in school. So are emotionally vulnerable girls. Once you have kids blowing each other in the school johns in junior high, things get pretty much out of control.
I’ll give you my guess. This boys will not be convicted of any criminal charges. There will not be enough evidence; the testimony (said quietly behind closed doors) will be that the word was that this girl was known for giving blowjobs to boys. Those involved will say they thought she was consenting. Those witnessing it will agree. Not one of all the boys involved said anything to school authorities. Not one. They don’t know the difference between right and wrong, consenting and enforced acts. If they haven’t participated themselves they have all heard about such acts before.
(Link to MOM via My Whim is Law).
MOM is already mistaken about what at least one of the witnesses is saying (if the New York Times‘ account is accurate). I’m also more than a little skeptical about how common “multiple boy on one girl blowjob orgies” are – as far as I can tell, adults have always vastly exaggerated how much sex kids are having. But I worry that she’ll be proved right about the odds of any of these boys being convicted of rape.
MOM goes on to suggest that “instinct” may be responsible for this disgusting act: “Instinct in a young, roving band of teenage boys dictates imposing sexually upon a vulnerable girl…” In MOM’s view, young boys have an instinct towards gang-rape, which they need to be guided away from. I don’t think there’s much evidence to support MOM’s view, however. Have any anthropologists found that hunter-gatherer societies have a high incidence of gang rape, or if they don’t, that they spend a lot of time teaching their boys that gang-rape is wrong?
I don’t think boys have a natural instinct for gang-rape. However, I do think boys have a natural instinct to rely their peer group for validation and for their self-identity (that’s something I think MOM and I agree on). In a culture which teaches boys that masculinity is measured by “getting some,” that if they’re not a man they’re nothing, that having sex is not only normal but an entitlement, and that women don’t have much worth, it’s unsurprising that gang rapes happen. It’s even less surprising that the victim is (it seems) disabled, since the disabled are also not seen as being worth much by our society.
I doubt these boys were acting out of a desire for sexual release. I think they were acting out of a desire to show each other that they’re not scared, that they’re brave, that they’re men. From the point of view of the boys, their victim was just an object, which they used for demonstrating their masculinity to each other.
MOM then makes what seems to me to be a surprising, and out-of-place, digression:
Here’s reality. Girls can be imposed upon sexually, but once they learn the sexual game they can often whipsaw adolescent boys with it. Boys often find one-on-one sex really frightening until they’ve proved to themselves that they can do it, but no such inhibitions exist in a group. Adolescent boys are often just as emotionally vulnerable as girls. Girls have an instinct to use their own powers of sexual attraction. Nature made it so. An attractive, intelligent girl can become a superstar by her junior year in high school if she plays her cards well, especially if she is carefully and selectively sexually active. In the process she may cut an old boyfriend into emotional pieces.
No doubt some girls act just as MOM describes. But what does any of this have to do with a “developmentally disabled” girl who is dragged onto an auditorium stage, hit, and told “if you scream, I’ll have all my boys punch you”? The girl in this case wasn’t using her “powers of sexual attraction” to make herself a “superstar”; she was raped by a bunch of assholes using the power of threats and fists. To use a discussion of a girl being gang-raped as a springboard for discussing how girls are victimizers, too, is bizarre and disturbing.
There’s a lot more to MOM’s post, some of which I agree with, some of which I don’t; take a look.
UPDATE: Due to having nearly 500 responses, this thread is now closed. If you want to continue the discussion, please do so on this new thread.
Actually, I introduced “slut” and “loser” as an example of how society condones and actively socializes for rape.
If you think this is attacking, then you shouldn’t be all balls out about this not being a rape culture. … and I mean balls out in a rugby kinda way.
Well it isn’t a damn rape culture…
There is a lot of rape, but that doesn’t mean that “society” thinks that it is cool.
And I doubt that there is some sort of a community of rapists which interact and learn from each other. It’s individuals acting on their own.
There is a lot of rape, so something must be done to reduce it, but saying false and/or overexaggerated things doesn’t help anyone.
What do you achieve by saying that there is a rape culture?
La Lubu:
alpha – most successful with the opposite sex
beta – average (most people)
gamma – very unsuccessful
I am not speaking about 30+ year old women though, but young women around my age.
I wouldn’t refer to a married mother as a “girl”. And I don’t refer to myself or males my age as “men” either… That would sound weird. How old are you?
But whatever, have it your way.
I just saw post #46 by Aegis… what a nice post. I agree with everything.
Someone: grow up. Live a little. Don’t get pissy with us because you don’t see what’s right in front of your eyes. Damn, son. I don’t think you even begin to understand the world you live in, with your computer games, your irradiated food, your toxic water, your wars on brown-skinned people. Your back’s up against the wall because some women (and men) are trying their best to translate their experiences into meaning and all you’re spouting is the same old tired McWTO “who me?” kind of “reasoning”.
It was a ridiculous post. And it could only have been written by someone without an iota of empathy or common sense.
For example:
Um…exist? Although it helps if you’re on the track team. Has Aegis spoken to women about their high school experiences? We frequently felt–and continue to feel–attracted, powerless and unrequited as well, but we never assaulted anyone.
Someone, I am thirty-seven years old, and I have been getting pissed off at men not having the decency to call me a woman since I was sixteen. Now frankly, I give a break to the elderly on this. You don’t qualify. The proper term is “woman”, or “young woman” if you feel the need to get age in there. Not girl. Even if you are a boy. If you were ten years old, I would still be telling you to refer to women as women, not as girls.
Thank you for defining alpha, beta and gamma. I’m still not quite clear on the concept though, since it leaves gay folks out entirely (or do gays and lesbians have “delta, iota, lambda” designation?). That, and it seems to benefit those who choose to play the field more than stay with one partner, regardless of other factors. Otherwise, how would you determine who is “most successful” other than by number of partners? Unless you change your definition to “most sexually attractive”, but then that presents its own problem, as there are quite homely people who are still determined to be sexually attractive, and quite handsome ones who inspire all the passion of stale white bread.
Ah, well. When I googled it, the definition of “gamma” man turned up to be a combination of the “alpha” (aggressive) and “beta” (laid-back) man, and was said to be the heighth of sexual attractiveness….the best of both worlds.
Then again, maybe I’m easily confused. I’m still trying to figure out how a thread on rape turned into a discussion on the sexual power of females, and how powerless non-alpha males supposedly are in the face of it. I gotta give an “amen!” to piny’s last statement.
I am writing up my response to Ampersand, but I just had to reply to piny’s last post…
I am not claiming that feeling powerless/unrequited can lead to assault. Read my quote again:
Note: I am NOT saying that male powerlessness leads to sexual assault, I am saying that it can lead to chauvinistic or negative attitudes towards women. And when did I say that girls didn’t feel powerless? Please don’t put words into my mouth, it is very alienating.
I am interested in your suggestion that a young man simply by existing (and possibly being on the track team?) can have as much sex appeal as a young woman who has access to cute clothes and beauty care. That isn’t a satisfactory answer to my perfectly reasonable question, so please explain where you are coming from. It seems to me that girls simply have more sexual power than young males do, regardless of whether they are aware of that power or not. This is for various reasons, such as the nature of attraction itself and the social rules for heterosexual interaction. One of the reasons is simply because female sexuality is more commodified than male sexuality. I realize that these are provocative claims, but since they are somewhat tangential to the this thread, I will only explain them if people are interested.
After reading La Lubu’s last post, I would like to clarify that when I said girls, I meant “young women.” I will also take a stab at explaining the alpha/beta/gamma definitions later on.
You argued that women have a greater effect on men than vice versa, and are more capable of driving men wild with desire than vice versa: “What can a young man do to have the dynamite sexual effect on women that an attractive young woman can have on him through cute clothes and beauty care?” This isn’t true, as any woman could tell you. Women desire just as much as men; they simply aren’t allowed to admit to desire on the same terms.
Of course female sexuality is more commodified than male sexuality. Women are forced to trade on sexuality–under a punishing set of social dicta on when and how women are allowed to be sexual–in order to get any power at all. This is not to say that men have less sexual power, only that women are not allowed to participate with as much freedom and control on the buyer end of the transaction–they’re not supposed to admit to the existence of demand at all.
Men are not rendered powerless by this disparity; quite the contrary. Because their power does not depend on their sexuality, they have greater sexual autonomy. They don’t need sexual “power” to be powerful. Men’s bodies are not favors to be bestowed or objects to be purchased. Their sexuality is not worthless, but free.
Plus, women have to live with the idea that anything they have can be taken by force or extortion; being sexual or attractive is as much a liability as a source of power. Possessing something isn’t always the same as controlling it, and it doesn’t always amount to power over the people who want it.
God knows I never feel more powerful than when someone decides to force unwanted sexual interaction on me.
Preach, piny!
I’d also like to add that for a young man who sees himself as not getting enough attention from the opposite sex, there are more avenues for him to follow in that regard. He can try a sport, as piny observed. He can play a musical instrument, or learn how to sing. He can develop his verbal skills, whether through debating, rapping, poetry, foreign language, or just being a general quick-witted smartass. He can be a class clown.
What about the young women? Generally, it’s just about the looks, as Aegis observed. Young men can morph into Adonis on the basis of some skill they have developed or acquired; young women, only on their beauty (as perceived by others). Young men can find their sexual power from within themselves, young women, only from the eye of the beholder. Now tell me who has more power.
Aegis, don’t bother.
They won’t even acknowledge that women have a much stronger sexual effect on men than the reverse.
This is so something so painfully obvious that even if you stab your eyes out you can still see it.
They just will continue ignoring objective reality so that it seems like they are “oppressed” while actually applying this said sexual power in real life every day. (If it is possible for them.)
Look at La Lubu now saying that males have “more power” because they can be considered attractive because of a skill… While women don’t have to do anything, just to be female.
And no they don’t have to be beautiful as a goddess.
Just not being pig-ugly is sufficient, she will have guys approaching her.
La Lubu says that she is 37 years old, but she is apparently so clueless about how simple things like this work? Haha… I doubt it.
She won’t even admit that a “beta” male and a “beta” female have about an equal chance to find someone, and can somewhat balance a relationship out, no, she wants women to be the victims single-handedly, despite the fact that women have tons of influence in a relationship, and the “passive” role of being the sex that is pursued after gives them a certain amount of power.
Let’s just end this argument, since these people aren’t going to be honest.
Typo fix: *They will just
Or look at Amanda suddenly switching the topic to sexual harrassment,
Yes, since this is only way interaction between males and females happens, and obviously Aegis was saying that a woman is powerful when she is being sexually harrassed.
Not when she is being flirted with normally, no.
piny says:
No they bloody don’t. Women display all signs of having less sexual desire than men. And certainly they are much less visually attracted to men than men are to women.
They could want sex, but they don’t want men! Women are much more inclined towards bisexuality, women look much less at porn, women masturbate less, women pursue sex less (preferring to be the ones pursued), etc.
And even when a woman is interested in some particular man, she will give him “hints” instead of being direct, so that he is the one that talks to her and acts like he is the one that wants her and she is the one being pursued, so that she can still have this man without losing her sexual power.
And I bet just about every man out there would be very very happy if he would suddenly have all kinds of women asking him out, coming up to him wanting to have sex, etc.
This is every teenage boy’s dream, really.
Instead of him trying to get the girl to have sex with him, she wants it on her own. It is the most common male fantasy!!
The way it is set up now isn’t limitting women, it is giving them more power, this is why it isn’t likely to change in any near future, and this is why the different sexual associations, like “slut” and “stud” will continue existing, and this is why the more boorish among men will continue treating women as sexual objects, ie “Yeah I fucked that bitch”.
It is two sides of the same coin.
Look at the whole picture, instead of just the parts you want to prove your point about women being powerless.
What the hell is this punishing “social dicta” supposed to be? The slut thing? It barely affects anyone.
Look around, about eighty percents of modern young women are indeed fitting the definition of a “slut”. They may even call themselves that and laugh about it with a bottle of beer in their hand. They don’t care.
The slut thing has no force anymore, this is self-explanatory due to the fact that so many women actually are pretty content being “sluts”.
Remember this sentence and quit repeating this stuff about “sluts” over and over.
I am not saying that men are powerless, just that women aren’t.
What the hell??
Um… Someone? You dont think that “women much more inclined towards bisexuality” thing has anything to do with the fact that most straight males (like me) have “a thing” for seeing two women kiss etc. and straight females (usually) dont seem have a similar thing for two men kissing? The “ick factor” about (male) gays in general? And btw, I dont believe women are more bisexual, mainly because its not supported by any serious studies. And of course lesbians still face a lot of discrimination, but have you ever (even for a second) wondered why it seems that all those hot girls in playboy etc. seem to have a thing for other women too? Could it be (Gasp!) that its a pretty common male fantasy? And about society condoning rape: Well, its all been said in previous posts so im going to be brief. Ill admit that of course its about inviduals choosing to rape but societal factors have a lot to do with WHY rapists feel a need to rape. Men suffering terribly from “not getting any” is bullshit as long as we`ll just talking about physical sex and not emotional (being close or feeling appreciated) or societal (oh cool, you have a cute girlfriend, or oh cool, you got laid laid last night with that blonde from the nightclub) because theres always masturbation. Did I make any sense yet?
And women who choose to be sluts, well a common attitude is “once a slut always a slut”. These women are in a serious trouble if and when they want to commit in a serious relationship because most men consider them more like fuck-buddies than girlfriends and actually wouldnt want a girlfriend like that. Too much “whore” and too little “madonna” I suppose? And trust me, those girls may be cool in high school and in college, but once they get a little older the slut reputation is going to hurt A LOT. For men, being a stud or a player is doing nil or positive to reputation.
This just proves my point doesn’t it…?
Males find females kissing sexy.
Females find males kissing disgusting or don’t care.
Why? Because women are the “sexy” gender.
Yes… But this is not what I am referring to.
I am talking about average women in real life.
They are certainly less disgusted by the possibility of kissing or touching another female than it is for males.
They don’t have the same fear of being seen as “gay”, and they don’t have the same revulsion for homosexual contact.
Female friends interact with each other in more physically intimate ways than male friends with each other. They do things like kissing each other on the cheek, brushing each other’s hair, hugging, telling their emotions, etc.
For males this would be crossing the “gay” border.
There is much more bisexual females than bisexual males too, I know this by observing people.
Yes… I am not saying that rapists rape because they don’t get enough sex.
They rape because they are fucked up.
You are misunderstanding my posts, try to read more closely, I am talking about a completely different thing.
For both males and females there are their own advantages and their own disadvantages. It is not true to say that males have all the power in the “dating game”. Not even close to it.
(And as a consequence, it follows that men don’t actually dictate all of society’s rules to women, and they don’t have the upper hand in every relationship, or even in the majority of them.)
But I still believe that the more free uncommited sex there is, the more difficult it becomes for the average males and females to get in a good stable relationship.
(Imagine that the typos are fixed.)
Females find males kissing disgusting or don’t care.
Right, because you say so? Try speaking for yourself, instead of making this kind of laughable generalisations.
I could tell you a few things about that from personal and anecdotical experience, but let’s just look at what’s out there. One instance. Just last week I caught a bit of this programme on tv that spoke of the success of Queer as Folk and how many female fans the series had, even interviewed groups of young women who gathered to watch the series religiously. They were asked, what they liked so much about it, after all, it’s about gay men having sex. Their replies: because the guys in the series are so sexy and it’s sexy to watch them having sex – one said, where else do you see a man’s naked butt on tv!
Also, some may remember some scenes My OwnPrivate Idaho between Keanu Reeves and River Phoenix. Totally non-explicit, as far as I recall, it was all a lot more romantic than Queer as Folk for sure, but I remember was a moment when River declares his love for Keanu near the campfire, that the female audience in the cinema went awwww….; then later you see them in bed, Keanu kissing River’s nipple. Find me a woman who found that disgusting, I’ll send you $1,000.
It’s men who can be grossed out by those things, if they have some issues with the concept of homoeroticism, because it affects them and their idea of who they are as males. For women, as long as the two males involved are sexy (and I doubt men would fantasise about Margaret Thatcher having sex with Madeleine Albright either), believe me, there is no such disgust reaction. In fact, you often have the opposite.
Why? Because women are the “sexy”? gender.
Women display all signs of having less sexual desire than men. And certainly they are much less visually attracted to men than men are to women.
You must have missed a few thousand years of art and about a hundred of pop culture. Hello? Did you just land on earth from Mars? Ever heard of Elvis? the Beatles? Leonardo di Caprio? boybands? teen magazines packed with posters of male celebrities or models? I mean, you have an embarrassingly huge choice of instances of famous men who have drawn hordes of swooning women, for decades, from early Hollywood to today’s pop scene. In case you need that kind of instance, which would mean you’ve never come across real women in real life who do find non-famous men they know sexy. Come on, you must be taking the piss.
Not suprising, since you’ve talked such crap all throughout this thread, but really, this idea that women don’t find men sexy has to be the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard. Even if you never left your room and only watched tv and browsed the internet, you’d know it’s crazy.
Plus, you know what’s really wrong at the root of all your reasoning here? That you see uncommitted free sex as a problem, but not the idea of sex as competition – you talking of getting any, beta-gamma-alpha, successful or not successful, like for you that’s taken for granted, that sex has to be about a kind of market competition for real estate property.
That’s what’s really screwed up, and that’s why you’re talking of rape as if it was a part of all that, and that’s why you’re not understanding a thing others have said to you on this thread.
Ampersand said:
You are right. My comment had no place in this thread.
I honestly don’t think my response was over the top. On the contrary, I think the way I got jumped on in this thread for daring to disagree was over the top. I have done my best to see other people’s sides in this discussion. Some posters may be disappointed that I did not see their side, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t try!
As for polemical claims, I will grant that they are a valuable heuristic, and they can make people see things in new ways. The problem comes when people forget that they are polemical, and treat them as if they were empirical. This tendency leads only to extremism, which further polarizes discussion. I am certain that is what will happen with claims like “society condones rape.” We have the same problem with MRA claims like “men are seen as the disposable sex in our society.”
As for whether “society condones rape” is an empirical claim or not, that depends. Specifically, it depends on exactly what you mean by “society.”
If you mean society as the collection of individuals that compose it, then you would have to show that virtually all its individual constituents believed that forced/coerced sex was ok. (I am using the term “forced sex” here instead of rape, to answer the criticism that society only condemns obvious violent or stranger rape.) This would either require empirical demonstration, or you would have to give other very convincing reasons why the vast majority of society would have those beliefs (such as showing that the endorsement of forced sex can necessarily be inferred from their other beliefs). The problem here is that it is very difficult to make blanket statements about what the vast majority of people believe, without using some kind of empirical methods. I think there are only a few kind of very general claims that can be made about what the vast majority of individuals believe, and these are on un-controversial subjects (e.g. “the sky is blue”).
On the other hand, if you mean “society” as a certain set of institutions, norms, and values, then “society condones forced sex” would not be an empirical claim. Yet it is not clear that current social norms lead to an endorsement of forced sex. There are clearly norms that do lead to an endorsement of forced sex. There are also norms that condemn forced sex. These norms are in conflict. I am not claiming that they balance each other out, or that the second set of norms always triumph (that really depends on the context, the subculture, the individuals involved, etc…). Yet I think there is enough ambivalence towards forced sex that I could not claim that “social norms endorse forced sex” without committing a fallacy of composition (conflating some social norms with all social norms).
Even if it was true that “current social norms lead to an endorsement of forced sex,” it would still be problematic to claim that “society condones forced sex.” Why? Because it would invite equivocation on the word “society.” People would extrapolate that if society (as in the social norms) endorses forced sex, then the vast majority of individuals in society (as in the collective of individuals) must condone forced sex. Yet as I have explained, there is no support for that conclusion. There is a gap between social norms and what individuals actually believe and act on (thank goodness).
I agree that “some social norms encourage attitudes and beliefs about gender and sexuality that have the effect of making rape more acceptable and common than it might be otherwise.” I am not sure that saying that society condones rape is best way to summarize that statement. Society endorses attitudes and beliefs about politics that led to the election of Bush. But does it follow that society endorses Bush? Obviously not. In short, just because there are forces in society that contribute to a phenomenon, it doesn’t follow that society condones that phenomenon.
Actually, most of the posters in this thread in this thread seemed united in their attempt to shout me down. I was going to address them as “you guys,” but that term seemed innappropriate considering that most of them were female. I will admit that perhaps my alternative wasn’t any more appropriate.
If I was to accept it, I would have to change my standards of evidence.
I saw Q Grrl’s comment as a thinly-veiled attempt to dismiss my argument and psychoanalyze me. I disagree with her? It must be because I stand to lose something from agreeing. After all, I must protect my “class interests,” don’tcha know? She did clarify that she didn’t intend her question towards me personally, but simply saw me as part of a larger class of males who held the same ideas about rape. That really warms my heart: now I know that instead of trying to be insulting, she is simply making baseless assumptions about me (and it’s also interesting that she can mind-read my beliefs about rape when I haven’t really explained them yet). Perhaps questions about my motives and attitudes could have been appropriate in another context if phrased more respectfully.
I will think about this. At the very least it would further convince me of the irrationality of humankind. It would also make me think that misogynistic attitudes were more prevalent than I had thought.
Of course, I must ask similar questions to you and anyone else in this thread to whom they apply: If you let go of the belief that society condones rape, would there be anything in your own life that would need changing? Is there anything you would view differently?
No, it proves your point of view, that was what I was highlighting. Males finding males kissing is SO disgusting to some MALES that they actually get violent. That is sad and pathetic and causes a lot of grief.
Im confused. So are you equating these things that females do as a proof of their bisexuality? Get this: women may not think themselves as the “sexy gender” and therefore dont consider these things sexual. Try to change your point of view. And telling emotions… Pfft. Both genders do that, but in different manners.
Okay, when did I say males have all the power? So lets bury that straw-man right away. You erroneously claimed that “sluttiness” isnt a disadvantage and Im telling you it is. Men have their disadvantages too.
So does this mean I should just dismiss female disadvantages? Two wrongs dont make right. And btw, it isnt only males dictating rules for females and vice versa. Males dictate the “dont be a pussy or a fag” rule to other males (some females buy this too), and females partly dictate rules for females (newsflash: many women dislike sluts).
I agree.
Yes I know what you are saying, and my comment was pretty much unrelated to your comments. But is it really so hard to see some societal pressure towards males causing that “fucked-upness”? And the fucked-up theory might actually make it difficult to convict rapists. (Look, he´s not fucked up therefore she is lying). Or by your alphabetical ranking if “alpha” male rapes a “gamma” female then chances are that people will find it very, very hard to believe there actually was a rape.
Oops, double quote.
Actually, seeing this i cant agree anymore that uncommitted free sex is a problem. That is more to the root of the issue.
someone says:
Absolute rubbish. Women want sex. Many many many women want lots and lots of sex. Some want it every single second of the day. Some want it without commitment (I have a large circle of female friends who get severely moody without regular sex, and frequently get pissed off with men wanting them to commit, or trying to take relationships to another level when they just want sex – I’m not saying this is every women’s attitude, but the men are often shocked by their refusal to commit, out of some bizarre idea that women can’t want uncommitted sex).
And yes, some don’t want sex. Some men don’t want sex either. Both sides get disadvantaged by the continued stereotyping of men/women desires and wants.
But men are more inclined to homosexuality (according to most surveys I’ve seen it comes out about 30% of men are gay, about 10% of women – although this could be cultural pressure on men to be gay instead of bi, women to be bi not gay).
Yes women look at less porn. But women write more porn (type “slash fanfiction” into google – go on I dare you). Women do not mateurbate less – they just admit to it less. Do you really think Ann Summers is a multi-million pound industry because women like looking at vibrators?
I remember hearing a radio survey on BBC Radio 1 – it was asking women to call it and tell them how often they masteurbated. the catagories were a) never b) once a month c) once a week d) one a day. Nearly all the women who called got quite confused by which one to choose – they usually masterbated mulitple times a day.
How does one tell who is pursuing sex and who isn’t?
When i like a guy, I walk up to him and tell him. When I think guys looks sexy, I tell them. When I want to dance with them, I ask. When I want to sleep with them, I ask. When I want to date tham I ask. My date to my high school prom? I asked him. My last boyfriends? I asked him. I do hint, usually when I’m unsure as to whether I’ll get a favourable response (more often an apporach I use with women than with men), but when I’m sure how I feel about someone I tell them.
I don’t like feeling pursued, I don’t like pursuing. I would prefer to meet someone on a equal footing, up front about our feelings and our desires from a relationship. Unfortunately, direct approaches often confuse or intimidate men, as they have been told that they *should* be the ones making the first move.
Females find males kissing disgusting or don’t care
Ask any female Joss Whedon fan. (Or again, slash fanfiction into google – the majority of slash tends to be male on male fantasies written by women) Male/male is the ultimate sexy for me – it’s slightly rebellious, it’s multiple pretty boys. hmm…Mal/Jayne….
ROFLMAO
Best. Line. Ever.
*sigh* How would I know how I feel if there wasn’t a man to tell me? Here I was thinking I had a strong sexual appetite! Thank god someone to correct me?
Seriously, you’d think women never, ever go without. I wish.
Someone, do you not acknowledge the “madonna/whore” complex? Do you not recognize that the woman viewed as “sexy” at night will be “nasty” in the morning?! Hell, Dave Chapelle had a comedy routine centered around that; that the woman performed so many sexually incredible exploits that night he couldn’t even look at her in the morning!
And don’t run away from the topic I brought up: the active vs. passive way of being sexually attractive. Do you have any clue of the number of drop-dead gorgeous young women who think of themselves as being plain or ugly? Fact is, confidence (sexual or otherwise) doesn’t come from other people. It comes from within. Young men have the option of taking themselves from “beta” status to “alpha” status by developing personal traits other than looks—after all, “looks” are something you either have or not, you can’t really “work” on that. And by developing a talent, these young men gain a certain confidence that translates sexually. They learn to find themselves attractive, so they carry themselves in a way that others find attractive.
Also, you have a very Anglo-Saxon assumption about physical intimacy between men. Not everyone is hung up on the idea of physical touch as being primarily sexual. Have you never seen Italian, French, Spanish, Latin American, or Middle-Eastern men interact? Get out of the house sometime, someone!
Actually, all men need is money and the instantly transition to “alpha.” Look at Donald Trump. *shudder*
Q Grrl, I also *shudder* at that thought! But what I was really trying to get at is, there isn’t any comparable way for young women to increase their ‘alphabetical’ status; it is limited by physical appearance. An ugly guy can learn how to sing and become Casanova. A homely girl can learn how to sing, or be a sports star, or play the saxophone, or whatever….and she’s still gonna be the “she’s so talented! too bad she’s ugly!” girl.
Those are for sex? All the women I know use them as paperweights. And they’re great for getting rid of that underarm flab. And such pretty colors! I’ve used mine to make a centerpiece for the dining-room table, along with some snapdragons and ‘mums. I call it, “Summer (Self-)Lovin’.”
Who says that women shift for themselves less frequently than men? Was I a tweener freak? I always figured the tendonitis was from typing.
Also, what?
Are you saying that women (a) enjoy intercourse less? (b) are less sexually aggressive? (c) are less open about sexual desire? (d) any or all of the above?
Because those things are all true, in general terms. But they have nothing to do with an innate lack of libido.
I was making a huge post, but then I managed to fuck up with saving it, and now it is lost. What a shame… I will make a new one after sleep.
I seriously doubt that someone will bother answering any of this anymore. But this caught my eye:
Almost everyone else claims that this isnt true, therefore everyone else is in denial or simply dishonest. Flawless logic here?
Someone: my apologies… I managed to submit exactly at the time i couldnt yet see your post. By all means, keep posting. Discussion is healthy.
I’m almost the exact opposite of the woman that someone has in mind. For some reason this strikes me as very funny.
Out of curiosity, does anyone who posts here mostly fit someone’s generalizations of either men or women? Do you know anyone who does? I’d like to know how weird I am, comparatively speaking.
What if you happen to fit generalizations about both? Does that count?
Hello there. Here is my new huge post. I think this will (hopefully) be my last post here, since this thread is becoming huge and pointless. I agree with what Aegis says, so you can discuss this with Aegis if you want and have an opponent with better verbal skills.
noodles
Some women might find some men sexy, but this isn’t comparable to the nearly obsession with sexy women that almost every heterosexual man has. There is much more magazines packed with female celebrities and models.
And of course let’s not forget the world of porn… The majority of porn is targetted at heterosexual males and it features sexy female models. Porn which features male models as the “main attraction” is called gay porn. Gay porn is mainly targetted at gay men, not women. Out of the few girls (I call them girls because they are girls my age…) I know that admitted to looking at porn, none of them look at gay porn. One looks at lesbian porn, but she is heterosexual.
I can’t find any polls now, but I bet if a study was conducted it would find out that most women actually prefer looking at couples having sex rather than at men having sex (with no women), or a single naked man.
There is a magazine called Playgirl which originally started as a “counter” to Playboy, and it features male models. At this point 25% of the readership are gay men, and its sales are much lower than Playboy.
There are however some young women that enjoy looking at yaoi (gay hentai), but for every girl that looks at yaoi, there is 10 guys looking at regular straight porn. (The number 10 is a random one.)
Let’s look at the world of advertising. Without a doubt, you have noticed that many ads feature sexy female models. Why?
Because the advertising industry has done research and apparently such ads are more effective. Why are they more effective? Because these images of sexy women have a magnetic effect on male viewers and make the advertisement settle down better in their brain.
Is there a comparable amount of attractive male models featured in advertisements? No, there is not. Is this because advertisiments don’t target women? This is very untrue, lots and lots of advertisements target women (just look at the airtime that female hygiene products alone get).
So why do these advertisements rely much less on attractive male models? My guess is that advertising companies have been doing research, and they have found out that this wouldn’t be as effective.
Summary:
There is tons of cultural evidence that suggests that women as a group are less sexually interested in looking at attractive men than the reverse, and in general they focus less on the visual aspect.
It doesn’t matter whether this is due to genetics or upbrining, it is how it is, and this is what matters.
There might be some women whose levels of visual interest in the opposite sex are comparable or even higher than the average man, but those are not the norm.
In western culture the position of the “sexy” and “beautiful” sex is held by women without a doubt. (And is there a culture where it isn’t?)
Outside of this blog this is acknowledged by pretty much anyone. I had several girls tell me “women are the sexy ones”. I bet even gay males will agree that women are nicer to look at, although they don’t have sexual feelings about them.
It is easy to see that women have evolved to rely on looks as their primary means of attracting the opposite sex.
For thousands of generations, women have been primarily selected by appearance, while men have been primarily selected by status. High status men usually ended up with beautiful women. (Although it’s different in some cultures, like patriarchal cultures that practice arranged marriage, where the family’s social status (mostly determined by wealth and lineage) plays the most important part for both.)
I don’t know what you are trying to say here… I didn’t invent sexual competition. Blame mother nature?
I am not talking about rape as if it is a “part of all that”, this is now a separate discussion. It split off from the discussion about sluttiness, remember?
—-
Aegis
Yes…
Very true.
—-
armchair
No…. I am equating these things to a proof of more tolerance to intimate activity with the same sex.
Isn’t it obvious from what I said?
See, I said “For males this would be crossing the “gay” border”. This means that for females it isn’t crossing the gay border. It is socially acceptable for them.
It doesn’t mean that all females that do these things are bisexual, it means that they have a much higher “gay border”.
“Gay border” is a term made up by me on the spot. One is crossing the gay border when others begin doubting their heterosexuality seriously
(not as a joke).
I didn’t call these things sexual, I called them “intimate”. They are things that would cause males that did them to other males to cross the “gay border”.
Yes, exactly.
Females often do it in such manners that for males would be crossing the border.
So it still shows that there is a higher “gay border” for women in the intimacy direction.
Perhaps women can be crossing the gay border by acting “too masculine”, but that means moving away from intimate interaction.
For women a much higher level of intimate interaction with the same sex is acceptable.
Female norms of heterosexuality are less strict than male ones.
(This is an observation, not a complaint.)
You didn’t, that was intented to all the people that seemed to imply that women are at a significant disadvantage, such as Ampersand and piny.
It might be, but the statement
by piny is exaggerated.
I was trying to explain that many many women, perhaps the majority of young women, fit under the definition of a “slut”, and it doesn’t seem to bother them that much. And certainly they still retain their sexual power. What is sexual power? Sexual power is the ability to make your own conditions for selecting a partner and for how this partner should act in a relationship via using one’s sexual attractiveness.
“If you want to be with me, you have to fit these criteria, and you have to act towards me like this and this.”
I don’t see how being “slutty” significantly impairs this ability.
You can try to explain to me the logic behind your point of view if you want…
This is very true, and it might be part of the reason why most posters here have a view that there is a bias against rape victims.
—-
VK
Saying “women are less interested in sex than men” is not the same as saying “women are asexual”.
And, “women are interested in sex as much as men” is not the same as “women experience the same visual interest in men as the reverse”.
Being interested in sex is not exactly the same as being visually interested in men.
piny says:
Yes, exactly.
piny is disagreeing with it later, but it is very true in my opinion.
I doubt that anyone can honestly say that it isn’t true. Just observe the people around you…
Why did they stop at 30%? They should go for the 100.
Does this mean that you agree that women are less sexually motivated by visual attraction? Good. :)
I know what slash fiction is. Don’t worry about me, I am quite literate in this type of things. ;)
These women are a minority compared to the overwhelming majority of heterosexual men (especially young men) that look at porn with sexy female models almost every day.
Yes, this is a very good point.
You see, for a heterosexual male, the whole point of sex is making love to a woman. He needs breasts and a vagina.
But for women, is a man even necessary?
Is it about having a man in bed, or is it about just having sex?
Are most heterosexual women as terrified and repulsed by the thought of having sex with another woman as men are by the thought of having sex with another man?
Are they sexually aroused by normal heterosexual porn aimed at males that focuses on female models?
Are they sexually aroused by images of naked women alone (not having sex with someone, just looking sexy)?
You are taking the term “pursuing” too literally.
It is just a word that I used to describe that usually males are the ones that “get” females.
—-
piny
You still didn’t explain the logic behind this. Will you bother?
Are all women raised in Oliver Twist style orphanages?
It is quite true, and you are either being dishonest or you are confused.
Even if women have the same “innate libido” (as you call it in a later post), their sexuality isn’t focused as much on men’s appearance as male sexuality is focused on women’s appearance.
Ok?
If you read the responses above to other posters you will see that many of them wrote things that just confirm my point, women are less sexually interested in men’s appearance, they are less visually attracted to men than men are to women. This is what allows them to have the “passive” role.
Denying the incredibly powerful psychological effect that a sexy woman has on men is just foolish. This has been written about in books, it has been a topic of theatrical plays and movies, jokes, mythology, it is an obvious part of culture.
There is no such meme as “homme fatal”, is there?
Sexy women have a magnetic sexual effect that can be so powerful that it can even overcome one’s judgement and instinct of self-preservation.
—-
La Lubu
This is a complicated topic.
How does one increase their sexual ranking?
First we need to understand properly what it is.
How can we define which individuals are more sexually successful and which are less?
I don’t think that visual attractiveness alone is a good means to define this.
Since in the end what matters is how many potential sexual partners this person has to choose from, and the sexual rankings of these potential partners.
So what variables matter in deciding one’s ranking?
1) Looks
This is your appearance, the more goodlooking the better.
This is much more important for females than for males, and its ability to move her up is also much stronger than for males.
Even a very shy girl will still have guys interested in her if she looks good.
2) Contacts and social visibility
You can’t have potential partners to choose from if you don’t know people…
Being famous increases this very much and takes you to the “high alpha” level unless you are very unattractive. (In such a case money can help, and it usually comes along with being famous.)
For “gamma” males there might be a bit more of an increase than for “gamma” females.
3) Social skills
You need to know how to keep social contacts, how to meet new people, how to flirt, how to be funny…
Being shy is a large minus, but it is much more important for males than for females.
A shy male is usually “gamma” or “low beta” simply because of being shy.
4) Image
This is how others perceive you. Your personality and your social status.
A strategy of “pickupers” or “players” is to act in such a way that causes women to be confused about their social status.
Money contributes a lot for this, especially for males. Being rich equals being automatically transferred to “alpha” status, although if he is unattractive, these potential sexual partners probably won’t be genuinely interested in him, but rather in his money.
Now let’s examine your examples.
If a guy is ugly, this almost always makes him “gamma” unless he is rich. Learning to sing gives him more exposure to other “gamma” females, and perhaps more confidence, so he becomes “high gamma”. A beta female still would rather date or have sex with a normal guy that can’t sing instead of an ugly one that can sing, since she has nothing to gain from his singing skills, unless he becomes a professional singer and his singing career makes him rich. Then he can choose from lots of “alpha” and even more “beta” females, so he becomes “alpha”.
If a girl is ugly, this makes her “gamma” too. Learning how to sing gives her more exposure to other “gamma” males, and perhaps more confidence, so she becomes “high gamma”. A rich man has nothing to gain by being with her, he would rather use his money to find attractive women or women from his own social circle.
An “alpha” guy that is “alpha” due to being goodlooking and socially popular but not rich, probably has no interest in her either, he can select among much more attractive women.
However, if she becomes rich, he might have an interest in exchange for money and a luxurious lifestyle.
But I do agree that for women being a “sugar mommy” is less socially acceptable, and even more important is the fact that being with a non-attractive woman for money is quite socially unacceptable for men, so there will be less attractive men for her to choose from.
And some rich (comparable to her, but not significantly wealthier) but unattractive men might want to be in a relationship with her because they feel more comfortable this way than with an attractive woman that uses them for money.
This means that being rich moves her up less than an ugly man, but she still becomes “alpha”, due to her ability to select among “alpha” males. Also with modern technology, it is quite possible for her to use her money to improve her looks to become attractive, and even very attractive. She can do this if she is young enough.
These are oversimplifications of course, it is much more complicated in real life, since different people have different personalities, different needs, etc. Some people may not like being used for money, especially when they eventually decide that they want a stable relationship/marriage, so they are limiting their options with this. (But the potential still remains.)
Summary:
Unattractive (or ugly) males and females don’t rise much in their ranking due to acquiring skills or confidence.
Unattractive males and females do rise in ranking by acquiring money to the point of being significantly wealthier than the average, but males rise more than females.
Sexiness/good looks does much more for attractive females than for attractive males.
Oh wow… two unclosed quotes… :(
Maybe Ampersand can fix this.
Good grief.
I know it’s pointless, but can’t help asking this question: if you think that only some women find men sexy and are visually attracted to men but it’s not the norm, then how do you explain the relationship between heterosexual women and heterosexual men? Do all those ‘normal’ women who don’t find men sexy and/or visually attractive (not necessarily the same thing) have sex with the men just because, what, they’re supposed to? It’s a chore?
And since I made the example of pop celebrities and boybands – all those female teenagers who literally turned talentless bland singers and dancers into millionaire planetary celebrities by buying their records, posters, merchandise , teen magazines with features on them, and flocking to their shows, and made their record company’s fortunes, are what, “not normal”? Is that why they’re a favourite marketing target of the record industry?
And again how do you go from public examples of massive female attraction to male celebrities to… porn? In your world, that must be the same relation that rape has to dating, right?
Good lord what a sad, sad view of human relationships! But gosh, who are we to argue here, after all, out there, in the real world, it’s all about this frantic darwinian competition where females get laid by being sexy passive preys and males by being unsexy aggressive predators, that’s just the way it is, was, has been and always will be, because it’s like that for so many ‘normal’ people, and polls would no doubt confirm that. It’s not like anyone ever needs to question assumptions or social models, after all.
Nice post, good summary someone. But still im compelled to point out something.
About this…
Seems to me even you agree there is a bias against rape victims? Why the resistance? And I would even add that (as many posters have pointed out) there is a different bias against “alpha” (I dont care that much for the ranking system but for the sake of an example) female victims. Against “gamma” victims the bias is that she should just be happy that someone (not the poster!) found her sexy enough to fuck and “maybe shes just bitter he didnt call the next day and wants revenge” thing, and the other bias, the bias against “alpha” victims is that shes such a sexual superstar that the poor boy(s) couldnt resist” the invincible power of her magnetic pussy”. And curiously, in many rape cases BOTH biases are used at the same time.
Now you or Aegis havent still explained why you think this view about male and female “rank” and sexuality hasnt much to do with rape… Because indeed the views about sexuality are very much cultural and social (well of course biology is involved too), and things like “madonna-whore” complex and (male) homophobia arent universal or biological…
And girls contend on being sluts thing. As I explained, it might be cool at SOME point of the girls lives. Yet the attitude that a cool cosmo-girl with model looks gets everything isnt quite true… One thing about girls relying on their all-powerful sexuality is that a “player” man can just act relatively jaded and lo and behold the girl trying harder to make him interested (WTF? man resisting my looks? Maybe im not that hot? Must… try … harder … must … be… prettier! Ad infinitum.). Point being that these “ultra-hot femmes” (who IMHO, are usually quite immature, not because of looks but because of over-reliance on those looks) really have only as much power as men are willing to give them, and ill admit plenty of naive men are willing to give them much (and oh btw. if such a man ends up raping her then its too often “well she was such a tease and theres only so much humiliation a man can take” attitude all over again.) What im trying to get at posters here (me included though im usually just happy lurking) seem to know “the rules of the game” and they are saying these rules suck!
On retrospect, I should have usen the term young women instead of girls.
(New post when/if the quotes are fixed, it’s annoying this way.)
Again I will say that the rampant denial in this thread about rape is proof in the pudding of our rape culture. Aegis and someone would rather talk about women’s sexiness… coincidence? I think not.
Aegis and Someone — what are your plans for taking to you buddies about the prevalence and facts regarding rape? How are you planning on changing how sex education is taught in light of how many boys and young men are either clueless or in denial about its effects on girls/women?
What Q Grrl said. It’s telling that in response to a post about a videotaped sexual assault against a disabled girl, the conversation slips into the “men want sex all of the time and women don’t” myth. As if that has anything to do with rape, which is a crime of entitlement.
Here’s an excerpt from the original post about the original case:
One witness’s statement said a boy pulled the girl onto the auditorium stage, ordered her to be quiet, pushed her to her knees and forced her to perform oral sex on him.
“If you scream, I’ll have all my boys punch you,”? the boy told her and then hit her in the face, causing her mouth to bleed, a student told the investigators.
The girl told a special-education teacher minutes after the incident that she had been forced to have oral sex with two boys behind a curtain on the stage while at least two others watched. She said the boys stopped only after someone arrived in the auditorium and scared them off.
The girl, who has a speech defect, “just kept saying she was scared,”? the special-education teacher told the investigators.
Wow. That’s all about sex, huh. Who knew that punching someone in the mouth and making her bleed, forcing her to give you a blow job, and humilating her was all due to sex?
That wasn’t sex. It was bullying, entitlement, and humiliation. It was coercion and brutality. So let’s just drop the BS strawman about women using sex and women being so sexually desireable but not as libidinous as men.
Follow the conversation and stop attacking me.
I mentioned this already about a thousand times. Follow the conversation!!
The discussion about sexuality is not related to the discussion about rape!
It branched off about 30 posts ago.
The arguments in this discussion are not related to the discussion about rape.
This means that Sheelzebub’s comment “that wasn’t sex” is not a counter to my posts at all. Of course it wasn’t sex, it was rape.
“Women using sex but not being as libidinous as men” is not used by me as an argument in the discussion of rape. Do you understand?
someone: first of all, you are the individual who branched this conversation off into discussion of sexuality, not rape. You were the person to bring in “active” vs. “passive” sexuality as having anything to do with rape, and furthermore, you came up with the incredibly sexist assumption that women are “passive” and uninterested in sex, which is probably as good an indication as any that you must have never had any actual, bona-fide contact with living, breathing women. In fact, you made so many outrageous assertions completely unrelated to rape, that some folks here (like myself) have indulged you in a futile attempt to redirect your assumptions. I’m done.
Rape is not about sex. It is a crime of violence. Your bringing sexuality into the discussion is telling of the general societal assumption that rape is about sex, and that therefore the rape victim must have done something to attract her attacker. I’ve heard morons say rape exists as a sociobiological strategy to impregnate females. I’ve heard morons say that rape exists because men lower on the societal totem pole don’t get enough opportunity to have sex with women. And I’ve heard morons say that rape is just another manifestation of “alpha” traits in men; that the most aggressive men rape.
It’s all bullshit.
And STOP calling women “girls”. It’s obnoxious.
Q Grrl:
I think the attitude behind the denial might be that women already have an edge with their “sexiness” and “sexual power” that only they possess (I dont think so). So demanding the end of aspects of culture that endorse rape in subtle or not-so-subtle ways and start treating rape and sexual crimes in non-misogynist way would tilt the balance too much in favour of women. Therefore men must resist that. Zero-sum “logic” at its worst.
Someone:
Um, no. That is simply freedom. I fail to see how women can make conditions and men cannot. Of course both genders simply must have this power in a society that dares to call itself free.
Why via using sexual attractiveness? The sexual attraction is already there (on both sides, or at least it should be) for the relationship to work at all. If it is one-sided (like only man is attracted) and woman is in it for gifts, money etc. then a certain not very polite w-word comes to mind.
The logic is most guys dont want a slut as a girlfriend (more modern viewpoints are emerging but this is still true among many, like most my friends and me too though it IS wrong to categorize… but old habits die hard). Most guys want a nice girl (preferably pretty girl-next-door type with a touch of sexiness but not too much) as a girlfriend and the “nasty” girls as a fuck-buddies and one night-stands when single. I think the too little sex appeal=boring, too much=slut thing sucks. That is why I have had respect for feminists trying to change these crappy attitudes from the day I learned feminism isnt about man-hating as it is portrayed…
Sheelzebub:
I agree.
Whew. That should do it. I think ive explained myself enough for a while, I dont want to repeat myself if someone chooses not to listen.
Someone — diverting topics of discussion is a stereotypically male action that attempts to trivialize what women are saying. That’s basic feminism. It goes beyond insulting — I believe it is a learned behavior, one built on male privilege and male ideas regarding “debates”, “rationality”, and “standards.”
*If* you want to have this conversation, have it in the appropriate setting. Otherwise your actions and your posting move beyond the grounds of insulting and become political motivations, with a political agenda. If *that* is what you want, then you need to quit whining about US attacking you when in reality it is YOU attacking us.
More precisely, you’re getting your feathers all ruffled over a diversion that you created. To me that seems both suspect and horridly self-serving/ego-centric. However, if you are not that naive, then it seems both misogynistic and highly politicized.
Which is it?
Someone, you are the one who brought the subject of sexuality into the conversation, and I pointed out that your arguments have nothing at all to do with the post at hand–but that it was telling that a post about a rape devolved into some BS about sociobiology. IOW, I did keep up with the conversation; I made an observation about the direction you nudged it in, and the subsequent dismissal of the original crime. You introduced sexuality into a discussion about rape. I called bullshit.
Do you understand?
And FTR, if you think my post was attacking you, then I suggest you frequent blogs that focus on stuffed bunnies. People will disagree with you in a debate, and they won’t speak in iambic pantameter when they do so.
La Lubu: No, you are misunderstanding me.
Read again (for the 1000th time) what I said: “the arguments about sexuality are not related to the arguments about rape”. It isn’t about justifying rape or anything. It is a new discussion now. And I didn’t “purposefully divert” it, I just responded to people’s posts. Follow the damn conversation, please… please?
Q Grrl: What… the hell??
Sheelzebub: Whatever…
You know, Someone, in reading back through your posts, your attitude about rape is: its a crime! and then you simply stop discussing it or apparently even considering it. We’re trying to tell you that it goes beyond crime and becomes a social control over women (and that is the benefit that men receive, yes, all men; and that is why society condones it). You, as an 18 year old man, seem perfectly content to sum up your entire world view of rape as: Its a Crime! How neat and convenient. Now you can just leave it up to the authorities to handle the evil criminal rapists and you can go out to your nearest pub and chat up girls [sic] without ever havinig to consider the parallels between the rapists’ actions and your assumed perrogative to hit on girls [sic] in pubic space. Afterall, those same girls [sic] are in a bar frequented by males (shocking) so it follows in your mind that they just naturally want to be talked at by those men. It never seems to occur to you that they might just want to get a buzz on and chat with their own friends. How novel that would be! Because some men rape (and girls/women are taught to be civil and nice), all men believe they have access to women’s attention, bodies, affection, and resources 24/7. And most women don’t want to earn the reputation of being rude, or a bitch, although bitch is hard to avoid when the men who benefit from other men raping refuse to admit that they are benefitting. They just can’t understand why the womens are all upset, and angry, and just so, so mean and bitchy. Why, they’re attacking the men! Look at all the power they hold over men! How sexy they are! Yet so dispassionate! and if they’re ignoring me it must mean I’m a beta male RATHER THAN WOMEN HAVING SOMETHING MORE INTERESTING TO PAY ATTENTION TO OTHER THAN SOME DAMN MAN WHO WANTS TO CHAT HER UP
yeah, but you know. Rape is a CRIME and rapists are evil and women are sexy and wear cute clothes and men are more visually stimulated and aroused and all they want to do is chat but rape is a CRIME and rapists are evil but women are sexy and wear cute clothes — and you never once see that in both CHATTING and CRIME you are objectifying women for your own sexual release.
Duh. I mean. Double Duh.
For now (until the damn broken quotes are fixed) I will just ask everyone to lose their steam and please attempt to be rational. I am not defending rape. Okay?
Oh hey… just when I submitted that post, they were fixed. Nice.
Someone: it’s called F.E.M.I.N.I.S.M. feminism. feminism
…like in feminist theory
theory
Don’t ask me to be rational, especially on your terms, when discussing rape. Can’t do it, nor do I want to.
Dear Q Grrl: Take a deep breath. Get out of your computer chair. Have a walk in the park, listen to some birdies singing, get your thoughts together. The come back and be sane again. Alright?
La Lubu: When you put words in my mouth such as
I have to waste time on explaining things that I already said and defending myself, thus lowering the quality of communication.
Please don’t do it anymore.
No I didn’t bring it in as having anything to do with rape, and I mentioned about a million times that the two discussions are in fact unconnected.
The original reason that I brought it up is an explanation for different social attitudes to males and females switching sexual partners often. (“Stud” vs “slut”.)
I didn’t say that women are uninterested in sex.
If you had actually bothered to read my “huge post”, you would see this part:
This should answer this nicely.
I can agree with you that maybe I am wrong that women as a group are interested in sex less, I am not a woman so I can’t know for sure.
But this isn’t what is important now.
What is important now is that by twisting my words you are forcing me to defend myself unnecessarily.
Q Grrl, when I joined in this discussion it wasn’t even about discussing rape anymore. I twas about whether society condones rape.
Someone — that’s discussing rape.
Why are you so insistent on setting the boundaries of the rape discussion. Is it really that you don’t think that there is much to say?
And why are you trying to control my anger?
I am not insistent on anything, I am just replying to people’s posts, participating in the conversation. For example armchair brought up the topic of society’s attitudes to rape once again in his/her last post, so I am going to write something in response to that.
I am trying to control your anger because I don’t actually enjoy people yelling at me and using personal attacks.
We have two options to go from now:
Option 1: Let all hell break loose, use personal attacks, twist each other’s words, and make it one big ugly mess.
Option 2: Try to maintain some standard of decency, try to not twist each other’s words (although sometimes misunderstandings can happen), try to refrain from personal attacks, attempt to make the discussion somewhat productive instead of having a wordwrestling match without rules.
I perfer anarchy than I do the rules set forth by young men. Reread post 252 until you understand that your “rudeness” is much more harmful, and I believe specific and intended, than anything here that you might regard as a “personal” attack.
Better yet, count the times that you have used the word “girl” to describe an adult female, and then contemplate how that is, in fact, a personal attack. Especially in light of your continued use of the word after objections were raised.
And for the record, you’re calling our ideas “assinine” is, what? Civil? Polite? a Standard of Decency?
Is that what passes for a level playing field these days?
I apologized for that, and I apologize again.
Okay I didn’t want it to be a silly catfight, but since Q Grrl asks me too…
Rereading post 252.
Angry Q Grrl, post number 1
Sexist nonsense.
Okay… I will take note.
Prove that I possess said “male privilege”.
This is a personal attack.
Those crazy males with their crazy ideas like “not using personal attacks”.
This leaves me with no option to come out as a decent person, so it is a personal attack.
—-
There…
I never used it to describe an adult female, I used it to describe a young female (under the age of 23), which is common usage.
It isn’t a personal attack since I didn’t call anyone in here a girl.
You can’t have a personal attack without any person being its target, or can you…
Q Grrl, can we end this nonsense please.
If you don’t want to discuss with me about male and female difference in sexuality and how the sexual selection mechanism works, then don’t.
If you want to discuss with me about how society condones rape, and what attitudes contribute to it, then do so normally, without going into an anger fit.
If you don’t want to discuss anything with me, then don’t.
uh, dude. The onus is not on me regarding your participation here. You’re free to leave on your own.
But, having said that… let me get this straight… my saying you have male privilege is a personal insult, but you calling grown women “girls” is “common” usage and not an insult?
well, how ’bout this: YOU ARE A FUCKING MISOGYNISTIC RAPE APOLOGIST BOY.
Get it? That’s insulting. That’s an attack.
Saying you have privilege is pointing out a political belief about the way you have been raised in a patriarchal culture. It expands to the entire class of men and is not limited to or by you.
And just because other men call grown females “girl” does not make it O.K. or common, especially after those very women have told you not to do it.
and FTR, my post up there is a perfect example of being uncivil — as opposed to all the lightweight complaints that most men around here have about feminist posting styles.
Saying that I have male privilige is a personal insult, because I am a real person present in this thread.
Calling young women in their early twenties, or young than 20 girls is not an insult, because the aforementioned young women are a category of people, not a particular person here. You can’t have a personal insult without any particular person being insulted.
What you can do is call it sexist, but do this I will disagree.
It’s a matter of definition.
You see, for example if I said “jews suck”, and there were some jews in the discussion, it still wouldn’t be a personal insult against them, it would be an insult against jews. But if I said “you suck because you are a jew”, or “you are using stereotypical jewish tactics designed to triviliaze the things that white aryans have to say, and it is a learned behaviour built on jew privilege”, then this would be a personal insult.
Do you understand? I hope you finally do…
Typo fix: but to this
For someone whose giving us all lectures on civility, I find your own application of it to be. . .lacking.
You might want to get to that stuffed bunny blog if you insist on deliberately misconstruing a point that makes you uncomfortable with a personal attack.
Q, I must say, these discussions go through the same pattern:
A subject concerning women is featured in a post.
A poster brings goes on a tangent that has nothing to do with the post, acts patronizing, and belittles a group (ex. calling adult women girls and calling his opponents ideas assinine).
People who point out that their tangent has nothing to do with the post or the subject are accused of being irrational and attacking them.
Said poster lectures us all on civility while continuing to engage in his own belittiling behavior. Others bite, and then the thread goes on yet another tangent, the original outrage (over the rape and its coverup) forgotten. Instead, the thread focuses on the poster’s hairsplitting and lectures over civility, his injured feelings and his entitlement to act boorishly while lecturing us lowly females.
This is getting boring now.
ooooh, boorish.
nail.hammer.bang.
someone. I know damn good and well you don’t refer to African American men under the age of 23 as “boy”.
Stop. Calling. Women. Girls. It is NOT, I repeat NOT common usage to refer to women under the age of 23 as “girls”. In fact, if it happens in a place of employment, it is evidence of a hostile work environment. Particularly if it happens again, after the offender was asked not to use that term. It is rude. It is insulting. It is obnoxious.
KNOCK IT THE FUCK OFF, ok?!!
I’d wondering why calling someone on their privilege is a personal insult.
whoooooo-buddy, I’m damn sure glad I’m a dyke. So, so, so much easier. We have secret handshakes that determine who we’re allowed to shag. And we gave up on the pissing contests ’cause we kept peeing down our own legs.
.Someone: grow up. Live a little. Don’t get pissy with us because you don’t see what’s right in front of your eyes. Damn, son. I don’t think you even begin to understand the world you live in, with your computer games, your irradiated food, your toxic water, your wars on brown-skinned people. Your back’s up against the wall because some women (and men) are trying their best to translate their experiences into meaning and all you’re spouting is the same old tired McWTO “who me?”? kind of “reasoning.”?
Diversion or no diversion, I miss you so when I’m away, Q. 8)
>>It is quite true, and you are either being dishonest or you are confused.
Even if women have the same “innate libido”? (as you call it in a later post), their sexuality isn’t focused as much on men’s appearance as male sexuality is focused on women’s appearance.
Ok?
If you read the responses above to other posters you will see that many of them wrote things that just confirm my point, women are less sexually interested in men’s appearance, they are less visually attracted to men than men are to women. This is what allows them to have the “passive”? role.
Denying the incredibly powerful psychological effect that a sexy woman has on men is just foolish. This has been written about in books, it has been a topic of theatrical plays and movies, jokes, mythology, it is an obvious part of culture.
There is no such meme as “homme fatal”?, is there?
Sexy women have a magnetic sexual effect that can be so powerful that it can even overcome one’s judgement and instinct of self-preservation.>>
No one is saying that men are never slackjawed with desire. I am taking issue with your apparent belief that you have to have a penis to feel slackjawed desire.
As a former woman who felt exactly that kind of sexual attraction as a teenager and young adult, and who has talked about feeling exactly that kind of attraction with plenty of other women, I’m telling you that you are full of shit. Women are just as physically attracted to men’s bodies as men are to women’s bodies. Women are just as likely to experience lust, even the wild, mouthwatering kind. And that lust is just as much about men’s appearances as its male counterpart. Trust me on this. Unlike you, I’ve actually been there. Women and young women dream about hot pieces of ass just as much as guys do. They have wet dreams. They jack off all the damn time. They fantasize. They look.
The strength of female desire doesn’t exist in literary or artistic tradition because–oddly enough–that literary and artistic tradition is overwhelmingly male and kinda sexist. Men have been writing about their sex drives for thousands of years. Women weren’t allowed to write about theirs until relatively recently–it’s still problematic for a woman to talk about sexual desire that doesn’t involve pornstar performances. Historically, women haven’t even been subjects–they weren’t supposed to want or possess anything, let alone men. The idea of a lustful, demanding woman threatens all of that on the most basic level. Women aren’t supposed to be sexually voracious. Men, furthermore, aren’t supposed to be objectified in that way. So women are taught to _make_ their attraction about other things, and to call an appetite for sex a desire for romantic love. Pick up a romance novel sometime for an excellent example of how something that’s all about fucking has to be all about getting hitched and pregnant.
And if you think that men’s bodies don’t have an effect on women powerful enough to overcome the instinct for self-preservation, how do you explain the large number of women who have fucked around outside of marriage since it was a capital crime? The consequences for extramarital sex have been more severe for women than for men since marriage has existed.
>>Plus, women have to live with the idea that anything they have can be taken by force or extortion
You still didn’t explain the logic behind this. Will you bother?
Are all women raised in Oliver Twist style orphanages?>>
We were talking about the commodification and trade of sex, remember? Re-read what I said in that context, and maybe it’ll make sense to you. I’ll spell it out, just in case: Women have to live with the threat of rape–you know, forced sex? They also have to live with the threat of malicious rumor, or with being made popular by an association with a guy who expects sex. That’s where the extortion thing comes in.
>>Do you really think Ann Summers is a multi-million pound industry because women like looking at vibrators?
Yes, this is a very good point.
You see, for a heterosexual male, the whole point of sex is making love to a woman. He needs breasts and a vagina.
But for women, is a man even necessary?
Is it about having a man in bed, or is it about just having sex?>>
Are you saying that you’ve never jacked off?
someone, apart from your appalling double standards about civility and your demand to lecture women on their own sexuality (and yes, the fact you’re not a woman is rather relevant when you’re making statements about what women like or don’t like!), you are writing as if your ideas of sexuality, for men and women alike, are absolutely self-evident truths, not something that develops at social and cultural level. See your reply on my 221 comment about your notion of sex as competition for real estate property, how you talk of alpha-beta-gamma, successful predators and losers and sexy preys, all you have to say is:
Because mother nature didn’t equip women with sexual organs, sexual desire, brains capable of sexual attraction and sexual response to visual stimulation? It only gave that faculty to men?
And you know that for sure because you’re an 18 year old boy (no, it’s not an insult, it’s only your age, you’re still a boy!) and had two girlfriends. So you know a lot more about women than women past their teenager years do.
You don’t think that’s a problem when you’re trying to have a discussion, you know, you pretending to know more about a certain group of people than members of that group?
What’s weirdest in your view is that, by making that kind of statements about female (and male) sexuality, you are indeed giving support to the view of rape as a sort of extension of that “natural” sexual drive for aggressivity and competition that is at the root of all sexual desire.
No of course, you’re not saying that directly, you’re not saying, hey rape is only a natural extension of sexual competition. You just don’t question your own statements about men as predators and women as preys. Which is at the basis of how rape is condoned, either literally (when the victim is less-than-perfectly-chaste, the she asked for it; she went into his bedroom; she got drunk, etc. etc.), or indirectly, via general cultural assumptions about how heterosexual men, unlike women, are the only ones capable of such irresistible sexual attraction towards the opposite sex, that they just can’t control themselves if a woman “provokes” them…
See, you’re proving the point about how society condones rape, and you don’t even realise it!
And that’s exactly the problem – the condoning is not done at a direct, straightforward “rape is ok” level. No, everyone acknowledges it is a crime. Of course. The laws say so! The condoning takes place at that level where women are believed to have sexual control only of men’s desires, not of their own; where women are believed to not have as powerful sexual desires of their own as men have; where categorical statements about women being from venus and men from mars are made, everything explained through “mother nature”, and all social and cultural elements discarded, not to mention individual differences.
You don’t even see how all that works. That is exactly the point of the “society condones rape” question.
correction, should be – “The condoning takes place at that level where women are believed to have sexual control only of men’s desires, not the right to their own; …”
The idea that women exercise this sexual power on men, but are not really capable of such powerful sexual drives of their own, so, they’re destined to be passive objects in that competition, or exercise a sort of power by proxy.
And yes, talking about how rape can be condoned, and how that relates to assumptions about sexuality, is talking about rape, duh…
Just for the record, “condone” means to treat an offense as negligible — that is, it’s something that’s wrong, but not worth bothering about. Which is, as has been well documented, how rape is usually treated.
And Noodles, I’d been wondering whether to point out that Someone’s absurd digression about his views on female sexuality, that women are passive sex objects, implies that normal sexual relations between men and women would differ little from “date rape” — and thus, Someone’s views condone rape.
Yo, Someone. What made the boys in the original story (you know, the reason why we’re all here in the first place) rape a disabled girl?
Give me an answer beyond “they’re fucked up” and I’ll talk your mom into letting you stay out past midnight. Bonus!
I don’t know Lauren, there could be a whole lot of reasons. I am not a teenage psychology expert.
What kind of an answer do you expect?
Brian Vaughan
Stop twisting my words around to make them mean what you want them to mean.
Here, I will quote myself again:
See, I am not saying that women are incapable of having sexual desires or whatever you are trying to say I said.
Women being less interested in sex than men is something that I can observe by looking at the world around me, where men are the ones that are more occupied with trying to find sexual partners and looking at sexual materials.
Treated by whom, Vaughan?
By the victim’s family?
By neutral people that read about it in a newspaper or hear from acquaintances?
I would like you to show me someone that goes into a rage because of reading about a murder, or a serial killer in a newspaper.
You aren’t making sense.
And I have no idea how are you able to decode my attitude to rape from what I wrote about gender differences in sexuality, and it isn’t even what you made it seem like.
I don’t think that a normal heterosexual relationship should be like daterape, I think that a woman should have sex when she feels like she wants to have sex.
Quit accusing me of all kinds of nonsense.
Women being less interested in sex than men is something that I can observe by looking at the world around me
Ok then, someone, you say so, we’ll all accept it’s true. There, that’s a proper discussion for you, I guess?
You could try avoiding straw men, though – no one said you were saying that women have *no* desires whatsoever at all, but you did just reiterate that you don’t believe women have as much interest in sex as men, or can be as visually attracted to a visually appealing and/or sexy male as males can be to a visually attractive and/or sexy female. That is what was being pointed out as a statement that is not grounded in reality. So, don’t play the misunderstood puppy, ok?
What noodles just said.
noodles,
This statement by you certainly implies that you understood my posts to mean “women have no sexual desires whatsoever”.
But anyway here is what I am trying to say.
Let’s assume there is a “variable” in every individual’s brain called $sexualdrive.
So, from what I have observed in the world around me it seems like if you calculated the average for all males it would be like this:
$sexualdrive == 10
And for females it would be like this:
$sexualdrive == 7
For asexuals it would be:
$sexualdrive evolutionary sense for women to have the same sexual drive as men, because sex makes women pregnant.
So they can’t just go around and have sex with as many partners as possible, that would be detrimental to evolution.
Instead they evolved to hold out until they feel like this guy is the “best” they can get now. (Whatever “best” means for her.)
This wouldn’t be possible if they were attracted to men as much as men are attracted to women, and had the same drive to have sex.
Men can afford having a higher sexual drive because they don’t get pregnant.
As for women being visually attracted to men as much as the reverse, I don’t believe this. You have all the world in front of your eyes that disproves this.
Women are the ones that emphasize their body and facial features, wear the sexy clothes, haircuts, makeup, etc.
If men could attract women by exposing their body and acting in a demure teasing or in a “luring” manner, they would be doing it massively.
They don’t, because it doesn’t work, for most men at least.
In the real world, noodles, women are the ones showing off their body, and men are the ones gazing.
It happens a tiny bit in the reverse, but not really comparable.
In fact if we look at humans, we can see an interesting thing.
Humans are a dimorphic species.
Males and females have distinct differences in their appearance.
Now I have to ask you: how did this happen?
Does this mean that males and females have been selected by different criteria throughout the generations? Yes, of course it does, else they would end up looking similar to each other.
Now I have to go into graphical detail of describing body parts and sexual actions, since you are forcing me to do this.
I am sorry if this offends someone, or whatever.
Male and female differences in appearance
What are the differences in appearance between an adult natural* female and an adult natural male? (Natural means growing up naturally without intentional modifications.)
The differences are:
1) Skin texture
Females have a smooth skin texture, males have a rougher texture.
I will make a wild theory that perhaps women have evolved to have smoother skin because it is more pleasant to touch and to look at.
2) Body hair
Men’s bodies are covered with hair after. Women’s bodies are much less hairy, similar to a child’s body.
When girls go through puberty they don’t experience the same growth of hair on their body as boys do, they stay more or less on the same level of hairiness, while boys eventually become much hairier as they mature.
I will make a wild theory that the reason for this is the same as above, more pleasant to touch and to look at.
3) Facial hair
The most important difference between a natural male and a modern male, is that in primitive times a man’s entire face was covered by a beard.
Are women attracted to bearded faces, noodles? Are you?
Women’s faces, on the other hand, are clear from hair, this allows other individuals to look at her face, and it makes kissing her easy and enjoyable.
4) Facial features
Women have smoother and less intimidating facial features.
I will make a wild guess and say that having intimidating man-like facial features would repel males, so they have evolved to have more “gentle” and “timid” features, as well as some “luring” features, like eyes and lips.
5) Body shape
Women have special fat tissue under their skin to give their body a distinct shape and make it more rounded and “flowing”. We could call this the “feminine form”.
The “feminine form” is what males are actually attracted to the most, not individual features like breasts or lips.
There is no doubt that the primary purpose of this evolution is to be appealing to males. It has no purpose otherwise.
But what body features have males evolved to appeal to females?
I don’t know of any.
For example, a man’s legs are just legs for walking. But a woman’s legs are legs for walking and attracting the opposite sex.
Kind of like a stick insect and a beetle. The beetle just uses its legs to walk, the stick insect uses them to pretend to be a tree branch.
The same is true for any other body part.
Perhaps this is because for thousands of generations, looks played just a small part in a man’s chance to be successful with the most beautiful women.
Remember, his face was actually covered by a beard.
What made a man successful was being successful in his community and having a high status among other males.
To summarize:
1) Men and women have evolved to use different reproductive strategies because of a thing that is called “pregnancy”.
2) Men have not evolved to rely on looks as the primary means of attracting the opposite sex.
3) Women have evolved to rely on looks as the primary means of attracting the opposite sex.
And indeed, this is what we still see in the modern world.
So you see, what I say is logical and makes evolutionary sense. What you say makes no evolutionary sense, and it isn’t how the real world works.
Now, if you twist my words and say something like “you are using sexist stereotypes about what women have to be like to attract men”, or “you are trying to lecture women on what they should be like”, or “your views mean that you condone rape” I will have to stab a knife in your head.
I am not forcing anyone here to behave in any particular way, I am just describing how the world works.
Oh wow… It got messed up.
Here is how the messed up part should be:
1) Men and women have evolved to use different reproductive strategies because of a thing that is called “pregnancy”?.
Well, there you have it, Folks. EVOLUTION made those boys commit oral rape against the girl with the speech impediment. (Too bad I slept through the part of sex ed where they explained that oral sex could get a girl pregnant.)
Thank NOTA that I found this thread. For years, I’ve been wondering what it would be like if Brittney Spears was crossed with John Gray, and finally “someone” comes along to answer my question.
Oh, and “$sexualdrive” is the new title for my new blog, appearing first thing tomorrow. Who could top such sheer genius ? Certainly not me. Free doorstop-sized ugly gold hiphop medalions will be awarded to the first twenty posters. Cleverest post wins a purple Camaro a case of leopard-print hotpants.
I guess if I ask politely not to twist my words, it is not enough for some individuals.
Sigh… Where is my knife again?
“Women being less interested in sex than men is something that I can observe by looking at the world around me, where men are the ones that are more occupied with trying to find sexual partners and looking at sexual materials. ”
That’s called sexism and objectification by men. It’s a pretty weak stance to confuse desire with the social conditioning to objectify.
Also, has it not crossed your mind that because men are so busy objectifying that a whole shit load of them actually perform quite miserably in bed. They are conditioned to focus on the “money shot” and never actually learn how to have sex. That, right there son, is a damn good reason for women not to appear interested in sex. It is such a let down to get all worked up and then some man just climbs on top of you and humps around a little and then falls asleep (been there, done that, left the house). Plus, even relatively good sex with men (i.e, the man gets a little creative, just a little) doesn’t focus on the women’s orgasms (no, not just one, but the multiple ones we’re capable of and like). Men generally stop sex when their erection is gone. In fact, I’ve talked to men who have no idea what lesbians do in bed because there is no penis. Imagine how exciting sex with them must be… NOT. Most men probably can’t even conceive of a “quickie” that lasts for an hour.
So, in a nutshell, because men suck performance wise there are a lot of women who become disintrested in sex with men — regardless of their desire or arousal.
Who wants an alpha male who can’t make you come?
Here, I will write my views about rape and the case in the original post explicitly:
I am not defending rape!!
I do not know why these boys raped her, since I am not an expert of teenage psychology. There could be all kinds of reasons.
Perhaps they were imitating older young men which were abusive towards women, or maybe they even saw them raping someone.
Perhaps they thought that it would be “cool” and “dangerous”.
Perhaps something else.
My passage about evolution is not a defense of their action.
There is never an excuse for rape.
Most rapists actually don’t rape because they are so irrestably attracted to their victim. Many of them don’t even remember what she looked like.
Rapists rape because they enjoy the feeling of power that it gives them.
Even in a case where a man is so incredibly attracted to a woman that he becomes completely obsessed with her, rape isn’t excusable. He can masturbate or whatever, he doesn’t have a right to force her into sexual acts.
It is not acceptable to rape a woman regardless of how much one is attracted to her.
Hey someone:
Here’s a hint for you. YOU ARE IN OVER YOUR HEAD. You have been for sometime now. What you should have said, oh, around 200 posts ago: “These ideas are new to me. I will think about them. I’ve never been raped, so I can’t know firsthand how that feels and I’m starting to see that maybe I DO have male privilege.” That would have been a rad rad thing to read. In fact, the raddest, most intelligent men in my life say things like that.
Hopefully you’ll grow up a little, and one day look back and remember this whole conversation with a little embarrassment. And if not…if five years from now, you’re still on your soap box, feeling indignant, like you are SO RIGHT, well…then I can officially group you into the majority of asshole men out there, there’s so many of them, what’s one more.
But I won’t do that now. You’re 18, you’re a BOY. You still have some living to do. One can still hope. Good luck!
IOW, “someone,” you engaged in a bunch of pointless, cliched, and incredibly annoying thread-drift because you wanted to cover up your discomfort at having no real explanation for the crime the rapists committed.
I’m shocked. [rolleyes]