Pheromones and Joseph's Jacobs' Gland.
R.L. Measures
local girls who were raised next door to each other, to go to the DMV so
that one of them could get take her learner's driving permit exam. I was
sitting in the back seat and the teenagers were in the front seat. One was
driving because she already had her learner's permit. During the 35-mile
trip, I smelled nothing unusual, however, my body apparently reacted
unconsciously to something wafting about in the air.
- Humans have two olfactory organs that send messages. One such organ is
located on the tongue. It sends recognizeable scent messages to the
brain. The other such organ is called the Jacobs gland. It apparently
detects pheromones and sends messages to an area below the naval. These
messages are not detected by the brain but they produce an observable
effect in the aforementioned region. There is an old Yiddish saying that
covers this phenomenon pretty accurately. This set me to thinking about
the situation "Prophet" Joseph Smith, Junior found himself in during
1843. He and Emma had taken in 4 orphan girls aged 17, 19, 19, and 23.
Joseph plurally married all four of 'em in 1843. According to later
testimony from some of the girls, Joseph's relationship with them was
coital - which, of course, Mormonite apologists still hotly deny. Since I
have had no unusual prior reactions from riding in a vehicle with either
girl, I assume that a double-dose of pheromones just might have caused the
problem. Consider the case of Joseph. With a quadruple dose of dangerous
teenbabe pheromones wafting about in his house, alas, something similar
was virtually inevitable.
- Thus, maybe Joseph was Not such a lech after all ?
cheers
--
Rich, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures (radio)
www.vcnet.com/measures/library.html (org. religion)
John Manning
My 35+ years in SLC, Utah provided me with many 'experiences' with
Mormon women. To speak conservatively, I'd say that they generally had
"extreme" sexual inclinations. Considering the professed tightly
repressive nature of their belief system, these females were intensely
'eager' in that department. BUT, when it came down to the bottom line,
they usually were heading for 'my' conversion to Mormonism so that they
could accommodate 'their' indoctrinated religious convictions. Their
sexual proclivity had a 'catch'. I actually feel sorry for them - that
they, within the context of their indoctrination - could not just be who
they really were/are - and that they had such a frenetic sexuality and
an inability to actually SEE where they were coming from.
That inability to actually SEE, reminds me of Woody Brison, Charles
Dowis, et al. Those guys live in a Jr. High School mentality where their
own clearly expressed inability to see beyond the flowery sunday school
expressions of their church lives in their minds. They easily dismiss
(in their own 'mind's[?]) the actual castrations, murders, thefts,
threats, discrimination, deception, arrogance, sexual indiscretion, lies
in the name of God, etc., that happened in the name of - and by - their
"church" members and leaders. And in the name of what they claim as
Christ. Then they claim that THEY were "persecuted". They USE that a
lot.
Cheers Rich,
John
Helen
"R.L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
news:2-2808020...@port56.dial.vcnet.com...
Interesting point...
Have you read the book "Perfume" ? A French novel set in the 1700's ? I can
not for the life of me remember the authors name ( he is quite well known
amongst those who love classics) It is a beautifully crated novel. It is
about a strange young man who is obsessed with smells. He can either
find them horrendous or appealing. He can smell three times the distance of
any animal with an impressive olfactory sense. Anyway, this guy really is
a total freak He is born to a hoar who dumps him in the market. He becomes
an orphan and even as a baby his wet nurse finds him repulsive as there is
something quite sinister about him. Yet he looks normal. . He is quite a
sociopath. He hates other humans and has no real attachments to anyone. He
finds work as a alchemist and starts to make perfume as an apprentice.
Anyway..to cut a long story short, he becomes obsessed with the smell of
teenage girls, apparently their scent( to him) is almost intoxicating. He
starts to kill teenage girls and then makes a perfume from them.!.It sounds
totally macabre and the general plot puts Hannibal to shame..While the main
character is quite revolting he makes strangely compelling reading. It is
not graphic re: the violence (thank God) and there is nothing sexual about
the girls as he does not find them physically attractive at all. He just
loves their smell. He one day realises, to his horror, that he has no
scent of his own. ( He finds this out after he lives in a cave for a year
eating bugs and moths and doing nothing, told you he was a freak) He is
absolutely horrified by his discovery, as smells seem to be the only way he
can understand his world.
He makes one more kill, makes the mother of all perfumes and then walks
deliberately into a crowd of vagrants. They kill him in a frenzy to
touch him as they are all obsessed with his presence( yet they can not
describe why or what it is that they desire so much about him ) They feel
not guilt that he dies because they feel as though they killed him out of
some kind of euphoric sense of love. ( so the author tell us) The novel
finishes on this note. Very strange novel yet very good read and makes one
ponder how the olfactory senses impact on our emotional and mental health.
Also kind of gave me the creeps about men for a while..but I got over it.
...If you can find the book, it is worth the read....]
Just wish I could remember the author......
R.L. Measures
<joh...@biohard.com.br> wrote:
€ This is interesting, John. Sexual salvation could have something to do
with this. The amazing thing is that the one true church proscribes a
type of foreplay that women seem to enjoy.
> That inability to actually SEE, reminds me of Woody Brison, Charles
> Dowis, et al. Those guys live in a Jr. High School mentality where their
> own clearly expressed inability to see beyond the flowery sunday school
> expressions of their church lives in their minds.
€ Indeed. 'Tis almost as if the thinking is being done elsewhere. My
guess is that McGregor realized what company he was in and he abandoned
ship.
>They easily dismiss
> (in their own 'mind's[?]) the actual castrations, murders, thefts,
> threats, discrimination, deception, arrogance, sexual indiscretion,
€ Joseph could well have been the unwitting victim of a quadruple-dose of
teenbabe pheromone's. The double-dose I experienced was scary.
> in the name of God, etc., that happened in the name of - and by - their
> "church" members and leaders. And in the name of what they claim as
> Christ. Then they claim that THEY were "persecuted". They USE that a
> lot.
€ What a laugher.
- "Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted
whenever I am contradicted."
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
>
later, John
An Metet
Bill Gates' dreams.
R.L. Measures
<he...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
€ No
>A French novel set in the 1700's ? I can
> not for the life of me remember the authors name ( he is quite well known
> amongst those who love classics) It is a beautifully crated novel. It is
> about a strange young man who is obsessed with smells. He can either
> find them horrendous or appealing. He can smell three times the distance of
> any animal with an impressive olfactory sense. Anyway, this guy really is
> a total freak He is born to a hoar who dumps him in the market. He becomes
> an orphan and even as a baby his wet nurse finds him repulsive as there is
> something quite sinister about him. Yet he looks normal. . He is quite a
> sociopath. He hates other humans and has no real attachments to anyone. He
> finds work as a alchemist and starts to make perfume as an apprentice.
> Anyway..to cut a long story short, he becomes obsessed with the smell of
> teenage girls,
€ I could detect no smell. The Jacobs gland apparently doesn't alert the
brain -- it alerts the male member. I used to have this problem with two
teenbabes in 8th grade Sunday-school. Myrna and Sherry were virtually
pulsars of pheromones.
>apparently their scent( to him) is almost intoxicating. He
> starts to kill teenage girls and then makes a perfume from them.!
€ bananas
>It sounds
> totally macabre and the general plot puts Hannibal to shame..While the main
> character is quite revolting he makes strangely compelling reading. It is
> not graphic re: the violence (thank God) and there is nothing sexual about
> the girls as he does not find them physically attractive at all. He just
> loves their smell. He one day realises, to his horror, that he has no
> scent of his own. ( He finds this out after he lives in a cave for a year
> eating bugs and moths and doing nothing, told you he was a freak)
€ a tad different for sure.
>He is
> absolutely horrified by his discovery, as smells seem to be the only way he
> can understand his world.
> He makes one more kill, makes the mother of all perfumes and then walks
> deliberately into a crowd of vagrants. They kill him in a frenzy to
> touch him as they are all obsessed with his presence( yet they can not
> describe why or what it is that they desire so much about him ) They feel
> not guilt that he dies because they feel as though they killed him out of
> some kind of euphoric sense of love. ( so the author tell us)
€ over the top.
>The novel
> finishes on this note. Very strange novel yet very good read and makes one
> ponder how the olfactory senses impact on our emotional and mental health.
> Also kind of gave me the creeps about men for a while..but I got over it.
€ my guess is that he crafted the novel to be downtown creepsville from
the get-go.
>
> ...If you can find the book, it is worth the read....]
> Just wish I could remember the author......
€ The title is enough to locate a copy. Thanks, Helen. later.
Helen
"An Metet" <anm...@freedom.gmsociety.org> wrote in message
news:c17aa18b4f646969...@anonymous.poster...
> First person to bottle this magic chemical will be rich beyond
> Bill Gates' dreams.
>
fmhlaw
"R.L. Measures" wrote:
I am confident Joseph was not a lech.
I don' t think your attempt to blame your experience on pheromones is valid,
though. I am a normally functioning male. Many times I have been in rooms
with not two or four, but dozens and even hundreds of women of
pheromone-transmitting age, without my libido getting the best of me. The
same is probably true of literally millions of other virile males. I think it
more likely that your reaction was caused by psychology than by physiology.
Trevor Holyoak
this problem. Can you imagine how the world would be if all men
automatically reacted this way in the presence of women?
- Trevor
Clovis Lark
> "R.L. Measures" wrote:
And what might you suppose was the inducement to deflower Fannie? And the
others, especially those already hitched to JSjr's lieutenants?
> I don' t think your attempt to blame your experience on pheromones is valid,
> though. I am a normally functioning male. Many times I have been in rooms
> with not two or four, but dozens and even hundreds of women of
> pheromone-transmitting age, without my libido getting the best of me. The
> same is probably true of literally millions of other virile males. I think it
> more likely that your reaction was caused by psychology than by physiology.
My dear, psychological responses are the result of physiological stimuli
and responses. What condemns these responses to the subcategory known as
"psychological" is that the end receptor organ is the brain.
Mormon Lover
Are you a dirty old man?
John Manning
You mean like your "prophet, seer and revelator" - Joseph Smith Jr ?
Happy hormones in the name of Christ? Orgasms for Jesus? Young babes
ravished for God - and married to make it look semi good while lying
about it to his wife, the brethren and the public - for the 'one true
church'?
Ignoring the facts is a common dance of LDS apologists. You and your
spiritually blind buddies are quite entertaining as you do the "Mormon
Shuffle".
"There's a sucker born every minute." P.T. Barnum
John
>
> - Trevor
Some call me...Tim
> I am confident Joseph was not a lech.
As confident as you were that Clinton created national monuments
to punish people for not supporting him?
--
"There ought to be limits to freedom."
--GW Bush explaining why he took
legal action against a web site
for making fun of him.
Tim
http://member.newsguy.com/~satire/
Mike W
> >
> > Interesting point...
> > Have you read the book "Perfume" ?
> "R.L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:2-2908022...@port177.dial.vcnet.com...
>
> ? No
It's by a German author, Patrick Süskind. Born in 1949, I think he's still
alive. Leave it to a German to write such a sad tale :-| The protagonist
was French.
Published in 1985 "Das Parfum. Die Geschichte eines Mörders" followed "Der
Kontrabass" (Double Bass) published in 1984.
> > A French novel set in the 1700's ? I can not for the life of me
> > remember the authors name (he is quite well known amongst those
> > who love classics) It is a beautifully created novel. It is
> > about a strange young man who is obsessed with smells. He can
> > either find them horrendous or appealing. He can smell three times
> > the distance of any animal with an impressive olfactory sense.
> > Anyway, this guy really is a total freak He is born to a hoar who
> > dumps him in the market. He becomes an orphan and even as a baby
> > his wet nurse finds him repulsive as there is something quite
> > sinister about him. Yet he looks normal. . He is quite a sociopath.
> > He hates other humans and has no real attachments to anyone. He
> > finds work as a alchemist and starts to make perfume as an apprentice.
> > Anyway..to cut a long story short, he becomes obsessed with the smell
> > of teenage girls,
> ? I could detect no smell. The Jacobs gland apparently doesn't alert
> the brain -- it alerts the male member. I used to have this problem
> with two teenbabes in 8th grade Sunday-school. Myrna and Sherry were
> virtually pulsars of pheromones.
I'd be careful relying on that notion. Was watching Discovery a couple of
nights ago (Wild Discovery, I think) and they commented that the human gland
stops working during the foetal stage. Who knows though, maybe you're a
freak? ;-) I suspect there's more complexity in your reaction than you're
prepared to describe. A simple, dormant gland is likely not the main
culprit.
Meanwhile, back at Joseph. There'll be no excuses, more like strange
gravity, if you ask me.
Mike
Helen
"Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:un2m70f...@news.supernews.com...
> > > "Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > Interesting point...
> > > Have you read the book "Perfume" ?
>
> > "R.L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> > news:2-2908022...@port177.dial.vcnet.com...
> >
> > ? No
>
> It's by a German author, Patrick Süskind. Born in 1949, I think he's
still
> alive. Leave it to a German to write such a sad tale :-| The
protagonist
> was French.
> Published in 1985 "Das Parfum. Die Geschichte eines Mörders" followed "Der
> Kontrabass" (Double Bass) published in 1984.
>
That's the one!! I have been thinking for the past few days.." what the
bloody hell is the name??" It was driving me nuts..
Thank you for the info. I have wanted to read his second one..must look it
up.
Germans write tales of woe huh?? Have you read "The Fixer" Set in Russia
focussing on the persecution of the Jews. A rather tragic tale and again I
can not think of the authors name....
Helen
"Mormon Lover" <m...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4NNb9.295111$m91.11...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Aren't you all??
(sorry, could not resit that one..)
Mike W
> > > >
> > > > Interesting point...
> > > > Have you read the book "Perfume" ?
> > > "R.L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > ? No
> > > "Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > It's by a German author, Patrick Süskind. Born in 1949, I
> > think he's still alive. Leave it to a German to write such
> > a sad tale :-| The protagonist was French. Published in
> > 1985 "Das Parfum. Die Geschichte eines Mörders" followed
> > "Der Kontrabass" (Double Bass) published in 1984.
> "Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote
>
> That's the one!! I have been thinking for the past few days..
> "what the bloody hell is the name??" It was driving me nuts..
> Thank you for the info. I have wanted to read his second one..
> must look it up. Germans write tales of woe huh?? Have you
> read "The Fixer" Set in Russia focussing on the persecution
> of the Jews. A rather tragic tale and again I can not think of
> the authors name....
Sigh. Cultural commentary... it comes off racist. It probably is. Any
rate, I meant sadistic. It seems that most new stuff out of Germany has
that mean streak. I have no references and I'd really appreciate being
proved wrong. I think (so the family story goes) there's some German blood
lurking in my background a few generations back and I've about given up hope
on having any sort of appreciation for that.
Much like the stuff that comes out of Canada's cultural community has a dark
and foreboding nature. It would seem they can't find joy in this empty
land. It's as if everything has to be a counter punch at America and it's
overwhelming shout. Say something dark and ugly back at them and you're
sure to be noticed. Personally, I'd prefer something uplifting but that's
probably just the escapist talking. The stupid, uncultured, ill-educated
escapist. I guess that's why I channel surf looking for sci-fi.
Anyrate, being bored I looked it up. "The Fixer" was written by Bernard
Malamud, an American author. Born in Brooklyn, New York in 1914 he died of
a heart attack in 1986. "The Fixer" was published around 1967 after he
travelled in the Soviet Union. Interestingly, it would seem, his last or
second last book was called "God's Grace" published in 1982.
Mike
Helen
> > > > > "Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Interesting point...
> > > > > Have you read the book "Perfume" ?
>
> > > > "R.L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ? No
>
> > > > "Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > It's by a German author, Patrick Süskind. Born in 1949, I
> > > think he's still alive. Leave it to a German to write such
> > > a sad tale :-| The protagonist was French. Published in
> > > 1985 "Das Parfum. Die Geschichte eines Mörders" followed
> > > "Der Kontrabass" (Double Bass) published in 1984.
>
> > "Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote
> >
> > That's the one!! I have been thinking for the past few days..
> > "what the bloody hell is the name??" It was driving me nuts..
> > Thank you for the info. I have wanted to read his second one..
> > must look it up. Germans write tales of woe huh?? Have you
> > read "The Fixer" Set in Russia focussing on the persecution
> > of the Jews. A rather tragic tale and again I can not think of
> > the authors name....
>
> Sigh. Cultural commentary... it comes off racist.
No, I did not say that the author was racist. He was simply telling the
story as how it happened. The factual way in which he told the accounts of
brutality and persecution , while passing no judgement on the actions of the
ignorant persecutors was actually very effective.
>It probably is. Any
> rate, I meant sadistic. It seems that most new stuff out of Germany has
> that mean streak. I have no references and I'd really appreciate being
> proved wrong. I think (so the family story goes) there's some German
blood
> lurking in my background a few generations back and I've about given up
hope
> on having any sort of appreciation for that.
>
> Much like the stuff that comes out of Canada's cultural community has a
dark
> and foreboding nature.
Really? I did not know of this....
> It would seem they can't find joy in this empty
> land. It's as if everything has to be a counter punch at America and it's
> overwhelming shout. Say something dark and ugly back at them and you're
> sure to be noticed. Personally, I'd prefer something uplifting but that's
> probably just the escapist talking. The stupid, uncultured, ill-educated
> escapist. I guess that's why I channel surf looking for sci-fi.
A good way to spend your time me thinks....
>
> Anyrate, being bored I looked it up. "The Fixer" was written by Bernard
> Malamud, an American author. Born in Brooklyn, New York in 1914 he died
of
> a heart attack in 1986. "The Fixer" was published around 1967 after he
> travelled in the Soviet Union. Interestingly, it would seem, his last or
> second last book was called "God's Grace" published in 1982.
>
Ah, thanks again Mike..I must admit to being a tad lazy when it comes to
bothering to look things up.
I actually just wandered out to my bookshelf to see if I could find it, yet
as many as I have I tend to lend them out to many friends and family and
loose track of who has what. But I own both books and yet can not find them
anywhere in the house..( which is annoying) It sounds like you enjoy
reading too, what genre of fiction do you like? I assume you enjoy science
fiction? What else? Any books to recommend?
I am lucky enough to have a brother who works for Pan Macmillan ( they also
distribute for Picador) and my sister previously worked for
Harper Collins..I have enjoyed access to some great, cheap ( and sometimes
free) books....
> Mike
>
>
Mike W
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Interesting point...
> > > > > > Have you read the book "Perfume" ?
> > > > > "R.L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > ? No
> > > > > "Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's by a German author, Patrick Süskind. Born in 1949, I
> > > > think he's still alive. Leave it to a German to write such
> > > > a sad tale :-| The protagonist was French. Published in
> > > > 1985 "Das Parfum. Die Geschichte eines Mörders" followed
> > > > "Der Kontrabass" (Double Bass) published in 1984.
> > > "Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote
> > >
> > > That's the one!! I have been thinking for the past few days..
> > > "what the bloody hell is the name??" It was driving me nuts..
> > > Thank you for the info. I have wanted to read his second one..
> > > must look it up. Germans write tales of woe huh?? Have you
> > > read "The Fixer" Set in Russia focussing on the persecution
> > > of the Jews. A rather tragic tale and again I can not think of
> > > the authors name....
> > "Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sigh. Cultural commentary... it comes off racist.
> "Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
> No, I did not say that the author was racist.
Heck no, not you. I was setting the stage for my commentary on current
German culture.
> He was simply telling the story as how it happened. The factual way
> in which he told the accounts of brutality and persecution, while
> passing no judgement on the actions of the ignorant persecutors was
> actually very effective.
> > It probably is. Any rate, I meant sadistic. It seems that most
> > new stuff out of Germany has that mean streak. I have no references
> > and I'd really appreciate being proved wrong. I think (so the family
> > story goes) there's some German blood lurking in my background a few
> > generations back and I've about given up hope on having any sort of
> > appreciation for that.
> >
> > Much like the stuff that comes out of Canada's cultural community has a
> > dark and foreboding nature.
>
> Really? I did not know of this....
I can't think of anything Canadian that might hit like something out of
Hollywood so we're left with the art houses to represent us. It's not
pretty.
> > It would seem they can't find joy in this empty land. It's as if
> > everything has to be a counter punch at America and it's overwhelming
> > shout. Say something dark and ugly back at them and you're sure to
> > be noticed. Personally, I'd prefer something uplifting but that's
> > probably just the escapist talking. The stupid, uncultured,
> > ill-educated escapist. I guess that's why I channel surf looking
> > for sci-fi.
>
> A good way to spend your time me thinks....
Heh.
> > Anyrate, being bored I looked it up. "The Fixer" was written by
> > Bernard Malamud, an American author. Born in Brooklyn, New York
> > in 1914 he died of a heart attack in 1986. "The Fixer" was
> > published around 1967 after he travelled in the Soviet Union.
> > Interestingly, it would seem, his last or second last book was
> > called "God's Grace" published in 1982.
> Ah, thanks again Mike... I must admit to being a tad lazy when it
> comes to bothering to look things up. I actually just wandered out
> to my bookshelf to see if I could find it, yet as many as I have I
> tend to lend them out to many friends and family and loose track of
> who has what. But I own both books and yet can not find them anywhere
> in the house..(which is annoying) It sounds like you enjoy reading
> too, what genre of fiction do you like? I assume you enjoy science
> fiction? What else? Any books to recommend? I am lucky enough to
> have a brother who works for Pan Macmillan (they also distribute for
> Picador) and my sister previously worked for Harper Collins..I have
> enjoyed access to some great, cheap (and sometimes free) books....
I read alot as a teenager. From my 20s onward it's been newspapers, mags,
the internet, TV & videos. Nothing much to offer on the literary front.
The last story that I remember being worth promoting was "Beyond the End of
Space and Time" by Dennis M. Dijak. You can find it at www 1stbooks com.
It's sci-fi again but it really rocked when I downloaded it in September of
2000. Right now I'm taking it slow with "The Sum of All Fears" by Tom
Clancy... saw the movie while in the middle of it. Another interesting
sci-fi was "Cascade" by Alison Sinclair. That's about all I can think of
right now.
Mike
Mormon Lover
"Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:3d72c766$0$31145$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
I think one has to be old first.
Helen
"Trevor Holyoak" <tre...@holyoak.com> wrote in message
news:ako58t$1jflau$1...@ID-155448.news.dfncis.de...
Many of them do react this way all the time......
Helen
They sound good. Have you read "Timeline" by Michael Creighton? Dam good
book. Now they are making it into a
"blockbuster" movie..so I can just imagine that it will be totally ruined...
I like all types of fiction, some of my favourite authors being Tim Winton
(and Australian) Isobel Allande,
Anne Tyler and Wally Lamb.
Helen
Oh well, that will happen....
>
Mormon Lover
When I'm as old as RLM he'll be dead.
Trevor Holyoak
But are the males or the females the ones to blame? If it were really
something that men had no control over, do you think the church would
encourage a priesthood leader to attend Relief Society meetings?
- Trevor
Helen
Oh men do have control over how they take responsibility for their
"reactions".Ie; self control.
I seriously do not think that women have much control over how men are wired
biologically and how easily they are aroused. What we do have control over
however is taking appropriate precautions. Ie: don't be alone anywhere
at night,blah blah blah .....Traditionally speaking men are the sexual
aggressors, they are stronger physically and I can not see how women should
take responsibility for that....
Helen
Ok....You're still a young chicken then??
How old is RL????
Mormon Lover
They can take responsibility by dressing and acting modestly rather than
provocatively. Why would a woman deliberately place herself in harm's way?
Don't wear red if you're entering a rink full of bulls.
Nathan Packer
That wouldn't have slowed Joseph. Remember, it was the pheromones. He
could follow his nose.
R.L. Measures
"Mormon Lover" <m...@aol.com> wrote:
€ when a woman spots the bulge, she knows that she unquestioningly has It.
R.L. Measures
(Nathan Packer) wrote:
€ scent messages detected by the Jacobs gland are not sent to the brain.
They are sent directly to the glans.
xganon
<3cPd9.458953$2p2.18...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
"Mormon Lover" <m...@aol.com> wrote:
> They can take responsibility by dressing and acting modestly rather than
> provocatively. Why would a woman deliberately place herself in harm's way?
Because they can get away with it.
> Don't wear red if you're entering a rink full of bulls.
Why not? Bulls are color blind. Even skating ones.
What a... dare I say it?... maroon.
TheJordan6
>Date: 9/8/2002 11:56 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <b50aad3e908a29df...@xganon.com>
<chuckle> Yeah, I caught that "rink" too. Mormon Lover (a.k.a. John Guynn)
occasionally commits typos which inadvertently create humor.
Randy J.
Helen
Logical but not very compassionate.
There is a famous chant "What ever we wear,
Where ever we go, yes means yes and not means no"
I know of chicks who were raped when they were wearing
some very modest clothing.. It is more about power than sex.
And what of the men who rape old ladies? (it happens a lot) Surely the
old dears
floral house dress, beige cardiganand sensible shoes with knee high
stockings were not a sexual turn on? Well, at least I presume they are
not...better let Agnes next door know now that her Bingo clothes are too
provocative .........
Helen
"Nathan Packer" <nat...@tctc.com> wrote in message
news:3d77e175...@netnews.insightbb.com...
He did not follow his nose........
lcs Mixmaster Remailer
"Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
> I know of chicks who were raped when they were wearing
> some very modest clothing..
It happens... but all rapes should be considered on a case by
case basis. When considering rape charges the factors of past
sexual history, state of mind, manner of dress and immediate
behavior should all be considered. A woman who drinks a six
pack, does a strip tease at a party, forgets all activity after
8:00pm, wakes up the next morning with a naked guy in bed next
to her and files rape charges is simply wrong.
> It is more about power than sex.
A myth invented by a woman unwilling to admit that the
intentional carbonation of male hormones is a very cruel thing
to do.
> And what of the men who rape old ladies? (it happens a lot)
They've never done an honest study. If rape is more about power
than sex then the sexual frustrations - lack of sexual activity -
of the rapist should have zero correlation with incidence of
assault. Why are they afraid to compile the statistics of lack
of willing partners? If these rapists were getting regular
action on their own they would not be as prone to take it by
force.
R.L. Measures
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
€ When it comes to typos, anti-depressant drug use, religious 'take', and
Jello consumption, Utah is without equal.
R.L. Measures
<he...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
€ pheromones don't register in the brain's direction finder, however, the
male member has a tendency to point the direction to the source of
emission.
Clovis Lark
The office pool at Workman, Nydeggar... must be eternally amused. One
wonders if they have a dedicated spelling debugger on staff.
> Randy J.
Clovis Lark
> In article <3d7c4547$0$26219$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>
> "Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>> I know of chicks who were raped when they were wearing
>> some very modest clothing..
> It happens... but all rapes should be considered on a case by
> case basis. When considering rape charges the factors of past
> sexual history, state of mind, manner of dress and immediate
> behavior should all be considered. A woman who drinks a six
> pack, does a strip tease at a party, forgets all activity after
> 8:00pm, wakes up the next morning with a naked guy in bed next
> to her and files rape charges is simply wrong.
Assuming that she was out to lunch, what type of sicko thinks sex with an
unconscious corpse constitutes consentual relations.
>> It is more about power than sex.
> A myth invented by a woman unwilling to admit that the
> intentional carbonation of male hormones is a very cruel thing
> to do.
A person who makes me mad enough to kill them does not mean that when I
act upon the urge I am not committing a crime: homocide.
>> And what of the men who rape old ladies? (it happens a lot)
> They've never done an honest study. If rape is more about power
> than sex then the sexual frustrations - lack of sexual activity -
> of the rapist should have zero correlation with incidence of
> assault. Why are they afraid to compile the statistics of lack
> of willing partners? If these rapists were getting regular
> action on their own they would not be as prone to take it by
> force.
Rape constitutes non-consentual relations. If your wife says "no", that
constitutes non-consentual relations. People who are unable to refrain
from copulating with people who are mentally incompetent (dead drunks,
drugged up, mentally retarded people) are engaged in non-consentual
relations. I know people who are quite active who make a rule of not
touching anyone of the opposite sex at parties where they are clearly
drunk. It IS possible to refrain and seek partners interested in
consentual relations. For those who cannot refrain, the prison system
provides plenty of opportunities for them to find out what non-consentual
relations constitute and how they are a manefestation of power and
violence.
Clovis Lark
Kinda like JSjr's divine rod?
R.L. Measures
Remailer <m...@anon.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <3d7c4547$0$26219$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>
> "Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
> > I know of chicks who were raped when they were wearing
> > some very modest clothing..
>
> It happens... but all rapes should be considered on a case by
> case basis. When considering rape charges the factors of past
> sexual history, state of mind, manner of dress and immediate
> behavior should all be considered. A woman who drinks a six
> pack, does a strip tease at a party, forgets all activity after
> 8:00pm, wakes up the next morning with a naked guy in bed next
> to her and files rape charges is simply wrong.
>
€ but not wrong about picking the right man for the job.
R.L. Measures
<cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
€ yea, verily brother Lark, and there was reportedly no shortage of women
who wished to receive it.
Clovis Lark
Good to know, since when it was pointed earthward, it was useless at
finding gold...
Tommy
>> some very modest clothing..
>
> It happens... but all rapes should be considered on a case by
> case basis.
Not true at all. "Rape" is rape. If non-consesual sex occured, there is
nothing left to consider. If consent is in question, that becomes another
matter...in which case, it may or may not be "rape". But your statement
leaves open the door that sometimes there is a just reason for non-
consensual sex...which is a poor statement to make. Take caution when
typing.
> When considering rape charges the factors of past
> sexual history, state of mind, manner of dress and immediate
> behavior should all be considered. A woman who drinks a six
> pack, does a strip tease at a party, forgets all activity after
> 8:00pm, wakes up the next morning with a naked guy in bed next
> to her and files rape charges is simply wrong.
Agreed. The man who slept with her is scum, but since consent is in
question, "rape" is as well. If she cannot remember anything, then she
obviously cannot remember saying "no". If she remembers saying "no", then
we're dealing with another situation entirely.
The flip side is that if a women has passed out, then consent is impossible
and se IS rape. If she remembers nothing, odds are she passed out and any
sex can be, at least initially, considered rape. In such a case, one would
have to ask a lot of questions from those at the party to see when she
became completely incapable of giving consent...and whether that was prior
to her dissapearence into a room with a man.
>> It is more about power than sex.
>
> A myth invented by a woman unwilling to admit that the
> intentional carbonation of male hormones is a very cruel thing
> to do.
Just because it is a cruel thing (when done on purpose) does not justify
rape. Men farting in front of women is a "cruel" thing (to most
women)...but they do it all the time. I daresay if a man farted in front
of a woman and she took that as an excuse to ram a 10 inch dildo up his
arse there would be a very upset man. There is NO excuse for rape.
>> And what of the men who rape old ladies? (it happens a lot)
>
> They've never done an honest study. If rape is more about power
> than sex then the sexual frustrations - lack of sexual activity -
> of the rapist should have zero correlation with incidence of
> assault. Why are they afraid to compile the statistics of lack
> of willing partners? If these rapists were getting regular
> action on their own they would not be as prone to take it by
> force.
>
You should watch more Discovery Channel. The amount of "action" these men
are getting has zero correlation to their proclivity to rape. Bottom
line...ANY man can get laid if he finds the right bar and the right girl.
Men who rape do so according to an agenda having little to do with sex.
Good looking men rape. Ugly men rape. Married men rape. Single men rape.
Men rape who just had sex with their wife 2 hours ago, etc.
Should they be asking each convicted rapist whether he has sex much? I
guess there are a few people, such as yourself, who care about this. But I
think the answer is clear...we simply can't, as a society, monitor how much
action a man gets. If he "needs" more to keep from becoming a rapist, he's
got problems far and beyond that which society can help. If a man steals
bread to eat...it's still stealing, though we may pity him. On the other
hand - NO man will die if he's not getting laid. I have no sympathy for
such a man and frankly am a bit disgusted at anyone who does.
TheJordan6
>Date: 9/9/2002 9:37 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <ali87k$ndb$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu>
Have you noticed that Mormon Lover doesn't post on weekends? I guess that
means the only computer he has access to is at his Monday to Friday workplace.
Randy J.
Mormon Lover
It.
>
Has what?
Mormon Lover
That's all fine and dandy, but you asked how a woman could take
responsibility for protecting herself, and the advice I gave is the one
common sense says is good advice. If you think there is no correlation
between male arousal and what a woman wears, then why does Victoria Secret
sells millions of outfits a year?
Mormon Lover
"Tommy" <to...@spiinc-tx.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92848C21810BF...@64.154.60.178...
I think this discussion got a little off track. I think the real issue is,
given the fact that men are hard wired to be the aggressor what can a woman
do to lessen the chance she will be viewed as a sexual object suitable for
victimization by an an oversexed man. Two obvious things come to mind: (1)
don't dress like a skank so as to send the message that "I am easy" and (2)
don't take drugs or alcohol in situations that require a clear headed
reaction to sexual come ons. It's called common sense.
Jack in the Box
"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020909195156...@mb-ci.aol.com...
MAYBE HE HAS A LIFE ON WEEKENDS, UNLIKE YOU LOSERS!!!!!
bwahahahahahaha.
TheJordan6
>Date: 9/9/2002 8:34 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <D6bf9.535093$m91.21...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
Nope, I'd say it's because he doesn't have a computer on weekends.
Randy J.
Clovis Lark
> Has what?
A J.D. obviously...
Clovis Lark
No comment, wink, wink...
> Randy J.
Clovis Lark
> bwahahahahahaha.
You mean,like that power walk down Hahvahd St. to ward meeting? You go,
boy.
R.L. Measures
<cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
€ Joseph's rod was apparently able to find mons veneris and gold. From
the Partridge sisters (Emily, 19 and Eliza, 23) , Joseph obtained $10,000
and from the Lawerence sisters (Sarah, 17 and Maria, 19) , Joseph obtained
$8,000. The Bottom line was that "prophet" Joseph receivethed 4 montes
veneris and $18kilobucks -- which was no small sum in 1843. But from his
wife Emma, the prophet got poisoned food which damn near killed him.
cheers, CL
R.L. Measures
"Mormon Lover" <m...@aol.com> wrote:
€ Living proof that God gave her the ability to suitably stimulate
males. This is the compliment about which no guy can lie.
Lee Paulson
Why should I be responsible for some man I don't know being unable to
exercise his common sense?
Oversexed is an excuse. Keep it in your pants if you aren't clear on a yes
answer.
Lee Paulson
>
> "Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3d7c4547$0$26219$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> >
> > "Mormon Lover" <m...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:3cPd9.458953$2p2.18...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> > >
> > > "Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> > > news:3d76929b$0$29910$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > > >
> > > > "Trevor Holyoak" <tre...@holyoak.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:al5kr8$1o17co$1...@ID-155448.news.dfncis.de...
> > > > > "Helen" <he...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3d75460f$0$29907$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Trevor Holyoak" <tre...@holyoak.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:ako58t$1jflau$1...@ID-155448.news.dfncis.de...
>
> That's all fine and dandy, but you asked how a woman could take
> responsibility for protecting herself, and the advice I gave is the one
> common sense says is good advice. If you think there is no correlation
> between male arousal and what a woman wears, then why does Victoria Secret
> sells millions of outfits a year?
>
Ah. I see. All men find the same sorts of things attractive. Pity.
Women must be more discriminating.
Tommy
> issue is, given the fact that men are hard wired to be the aggressor
> what can a woman do to lessen the chance she will be viewed as a
> sexual object suitable for victimization by an an oversexed man. Two
> obvious things come to mind: (1) don't dress like a skank so as to
> send the message that "I am easy" and (2) don't take drugs or alcohol
> in situations that require a clear headed reaction to sexual come ons.
> It's called common sense.
1. "Dressing like a skank" is subjective. What a Mormon might consider
such is no more than normal 'clubbing' attire for most of the women in
the world. Short skirts, tight tops, etc. I've never seen 1 survey that
attributed dress to rape. The only situation where that is relevant is
in prostitution, where there are always high numbers of rapes. Yes,
these women are skantily clad. Yes, they are often raped. But once sex
is already on the table, once sex is already proffered - we're dealing
with a different situation entirely. No, rape is not permissible then
either - but one might find less sympathy for the woman in such a case.
Bottom line - 6 out of 10 rape victims knew their attacker. The rapist
typically plans his rape in advance - and no amount of modest clothing
is going to save her.
2. True...if a girl becomes intoxicated around a prick, she has a
greater chance of being taken advantage of. Sad world we live in. She
should NOT have to worry about that - but you're right, in a world where
9 out of 10 men are mysogynists on some level, women do need to be
careful.
The problem is that women desparately want to believe that the men they
are around are not such low life scums. I can't blame them. I know
that if I park at the mall that I have a pretty good chance of being
door dinged by some soccer mom doubled parking her 10 ton SUV. And
where that's 90% of people parked at the mall....maybe I should just
never go to the mall. But that shouldn't be MY fault. I shouldn't have
to pay for others' bad judgement and lack of courtesy. That's why I get
angry at any suggestion that a women is ever, in any way, resposible for
being raped. Should she have drank a bit less? I guess. But why
should she have to pay for a man's inability to obey the law?? In the
end...she does.
Tommy
> responsibility for protecting herself, and the advice I gave is the
> one common sense says is good advice. If you think there is no
> correlation between male arousal and what a woman wears, then why does
> Victoria Secret sells millions of outfits a year?
>
Don't confuse arousal and rape. I get aroused. I don't rape. Lingere's
chief purpose, these days, IS arousal. If a woman struts out of the
bathroom in a wee nightie, odds are she's working her man up for a fun
night. If a woman walks into a bar wearing a wee nightie, I can see men
thinking she's looking to score.
Most women in clubs, regardless of what they're wearing, are there to
dance, listen to music, make friends, etc. If a man takes a mini skirt as
a sign that a woman is looking for action, that man is the type who will
find ANY excuse to score and the girls miniskirt is a side issue.
If you want to give women advice - give it on an actionable level. If a
woman is not interested in sex, she shouldn't talk about sex to a stranger
in a bar. She shoudn't suggest they go back to her apartment alone. She
shouldn't make out with a guy in a bathroom stall. THESE are points at
which a man can say a woman has intentionally tried to arouse him and he
then may feel justified in pursuing her even if she resists. The man is
still a jerk - but the woman has less defense. If she's there to meet
friends, dance and listen to music...that's all she should be doing.
Bottom line - men who subscribe to, and advocate women dressing modestly to
avoid rape only strengthen the defense of men who rape scantily clad women.
If you perpetuate this gross lie, then men will be more inclined to act on
it and you then become, on some level, complicit to such rapes.
Mormon Lover
"Lee Paulson" <lrpa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:all1g3$1quqhi$1...@ID-146277.news.dfncis.de...
No one said they shouldn't. However, it takes two to tango, and men are by
nature more aggressive sexually than women, and some men are more aggressive
than other men and can't be trusted. Therefore, don't be dumb and put
yourself in a situation that you can't control. It's common sense. Just
because you would expect people in general to be good and wholesome doesn't
mean you don't supervise your children when in public places. Likewise,
just because you are correct in expecting men to act as gentlemen always,
the fact that they don't means you need to take necessary precautions. It's
common sense. The attitude that a woman can "dress however she pleases
whenever and whereever she wants" is naive given the reality of our society.
> Why should I be responsible for some man I don't know being unable to
> exercise his common sense?>
No one said you are responsible for men, the point is you should be
responsible for yourself. Don't stir the hornets nest if you don't want to
get stung.
>
> Oversexed is an excuse. Keep it in your pants if you aren't clear on a
yes
> answer.>
That is good advice for men. As for men who reject such advice, be wise if
you're a woman and don't stir the hornets nest unless you want to get stung.
Mormon Lover
> > I think this discussion got a little off track. I think the real
> > issue is, given the fact that men are hard wired to be the aggressor
> > what can a woman do to lessen the chance she will be viewed as a
> > sexual object suitable for victimization by an an oversexed man. Two
> > obvious things come to mind: (1) don't dress like a skank so as to
> > send the message that "I am easy" and (2) don't take drugs or alcohol
> > in situations that require a clear headed reaction to sexual come ons.
> > It's called common sense.
>
> 1. "Dressing like a skank" is subjective. What a Mormon might consider
> such is no more than normal 'clubbing' attire for most of the women in
> the world. Short skirts, tight tops, etc. I've never seen 1 survey that
> attributed dress to rape. The only situation where that is relevant is
> in prostitution, where there are always high numbers of rapes. Yes,
> these women are skantily clad. Yes, they are often raped. But once sex
> is already on the table, once sex is already proffered - we're dealing
> with a different situation entirely. No, rape is not permissible then
> either - but one might find less sympathy for the woman in such a case.
>
> Bottom line - 6 out of 10 rape victims knew their attacker. The rapist
> typically plans his rape in advance - and no amount of modest clothing
> is going to save her.>
You may have a point but what you fail to realize is that ladies who get
raped are more often than not those who are not in places and situations
that one would consider to be safe. Part of modesty is keeping yourself out
of situations where you're most likely to be assaulted, and that includes
seedy night clubs, frat parties, and raves.
>
> 2. True...if a girl becomes intoxicated around a prick, she has a
> greater chance of being taken advantage of. Sad world we live in. She
> should NOT have to worry about that - but you're right, in a world where
> 9 out of 10 men are mysogynists on some level, women do need to be
> careful.>
Yep, one should never assume we are surrounded by angels and should behave
accordingly. The idea that a woman can get drunk and high around skanky men
with no repurcussions is ludicrous.
>
> The problem is that women desparately want to believe that the men they
> are around are not such low life scums. I can't blame them.>
It's not wise to assume too much. It's best to be wise as serpents.
> I know
> that if I park at the mall that I have a pretty good chance of being
> door dinged by some soccer mom doubled parking her 10 ton SUV.>
If she's double parked in two stalls that means she's farther away from your
car door than if she's single parked in a single stall.
And
> where that's 90% of people parked at the mall....maybe I should just
> never go to the mall. But that shouldn't be MY fault. I shouldn't have
> to pay for others' bad judgement and lack of courtesy.>
Or just brush it off as a cost of living in society. Your car can't be
perfect forever. Don't be so materialistic.
That's why I get
> angry at any suggestion that a women is ever, in any way, resposible for
> being raped.>
No one said a woman is responsible for being raped. What we're talking
about is taking reasonable precautions and avoiding potentially reckless
behavior.
Should she have drank a bit less? I guess. But why
> should she have to pay for a man's inability to obey the law?? In the
> end...she does. >
Until all men are saints that's what women will have to do. BTW, a woman on
a date at BYU is far far less likely to experience date rape than a woman at
a typical party school. And that's precisely because the Mormon church is
about the only segment of society that explicitly rejects the double
standard and expects men to be just as chaste as women, perhaps more so do
to the missionary culture.
Mormon Lover
I know two things that all men I have ever talked to find attractive. And
according to scientific studies, men are hard wired to find women's breasts
enticing. Thus, the more a woman's breasts are on display the more that
woman becomes a sexual object to the men with whom she interacts. This is
biology.
> Pity.
>
> Women must be more discriminating.
>
The only men who don't find a woman's breasts alluring are gay men.
Mormon Lover
> > That's all fine and dandy, but you asked how a woman could take
> > responsibility for protecting herself, and the advice I gave is the
> > one common sense says is good advice. If you think there is no
> > correlation between male arousal and what a woman wears, then why does
> > Victoria Secret sells millions of outfits a year?
> >
>
> Don't confuse arousal and rape. I get aroused. I don't rape. >
Don't confuse your good behavior and good upbringing with men who have not
been taught as you have and who do not behave as you do. You should be
greatful for having correct values. Get down on your knees and thank God
you are one of the good ones, then do what you can to persuade men to be
more curteous to women and more respectful of their bodies.
>Lingere's
> chief purpose, these days, IS arousal. If a woman struts out of the
> bathroom in a wee nightie, odds are she's working her man up for a fun
> night. If a woman walks into a bar wearing a wee nightie, I can see men
> thinking she's looking to score.>
That would seem to be a valid assumption.
>
> Most women in clubs, regardless of what they're wearing, are there to
> dance, listen to music, make friends, etc. If a man takes a mini skirt as
> a sign that a woman is looking for action, that man is the type who will
> find ANY excuse to score and the girls miniskirt is a side issue.>
What you have to understand is that many rapists are losers who feel
powerless to secure the love of a woman. Such losers are going to select
what they consider to be the easiest targets.
>
> If you want to give women advice - give it on an actionable level.>
I did. I never once said they were at fault. I only said there were common
sense things they could do to protect themselves from the minority of men
who are losers and who don't respect women.
If a
> woman is not interested in sex, she shouldn't talk about sex to a stranger
> in a bar. She shoudn't suggest they go back to her apartment alone. She
> shouldn't make out with a guy in a bathroom stall. THESE are points at
> which a man can say a woman has intentionally tried to arouse him and he
> then may feel justified in pursuing her even if she resists.>
Those are all great points. But are you saying that a tease deserves to be
raped more than other women? Anyone else out there feel a tease is more
deserving of being raped than other women?
> The man is
> still a jerk - but the woman has less defense. If she's there to meet
> friends, dance and listen to music...that's all she should be doing. >
So you're saying that a woman who is a tease deserves to be raped more than
other women? That's shocking.
>
> Bottom line - men who subscribe to, and advocate women dressing modestly
to
> avoid rape only strengthen the defense of men who rape scantily clad
women. >
Communication comes in many forms--both verbal and nonverbal. For some odd
reason you seem to think that a woman who verbalizes certain things is more
deserving of rape than a woman who sends nonverbal messages with her dress
and demeanor. That's nonsensical.
> If you perpetuate this gross lie, then men will be more inclined to act on
> it and you then become, on some level, complicit to such rapes.>
What should we make of your position that women who are verbally provacative
are more deserving of rape that those who are nonverbally provacative?
>
>
>
Mormon Lover
> males. This is the compliment about which no guy can lie.
>
Just last week my brother and I were joking about high school when 5 minutes
before the bell you gaze too long and the hotty next to you and you get an
embarrassing woody.
Mormon Lover
"Clovis Lark" <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:alju21$33c$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
What's that?
Clovis Lark
> What's that?
Giggle
Anonymous
<RGpf9.549036$m91.22...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>
"Mormon Lover" <m...@aol.com> wrote:
> The only men who don't find a woman's breasts alluring are gay men.
I think the rack on Pamela Anderson is pretty gross.
Clovis Lark
An MD is raped in an ER closet during her shift while dressed in scrubs
and a lab coat. A jogger is raped in a park while dressed in exercize
clothes. A woman, dressed in casual attire is raped in her own apartment
by an intruder. All 3 cases took place in NYC in the late 80's. They
testify to the fact that ANY attire, ANY locale is fair game for an
assault.
Modesty is relative. Appropriate attire for women going to ward is
considered the attire of whores in Saudi Arabia.
>>
>> 2. True...if a girl becomes intoxicated around a prick, she has a
>> greater chance of being taken advantage of. Sad world we live in. She
>> should NOT have to worry about that - but you're right, in a world where
>> 9 out of 10 men are mysogynists on some level, women do need to be
>> careful.>
> Yep, one should never assume we are surrounded by angels and should behave
> accordingly. The idea that a woman can get drunk and high around skanky men
> with no repurcussions is ludicrous.
Funny that the reverse isn't recited "the idea that a skanky man can abuse
an intoxicated woman with no repercussions is ludicrous". Being drunk or
prone to violence does not give a perpetrator the right to assault or
murder, why is it different with sexual assault?
>>
>> The problem is that women desparately want to believe that the men they
>> are around are not such low life scums. I can't blame them.>
> It's not wise to assume too much. It's best to be wise as serpents.
The last serpent I saw was a roadkill.
anon...@remailer.hastio.org
Tommy <to...@spiinc-tx.com> wrote:
> 1. "Dressing like a skank" is subjective. What a Mormon might consider
> such is no more than normal 'clubbing' attire for most of the women in
> the world.
So most women in the world dress like a skank.
> Short skirts, tight tops, etc. I've never seen 1 survey that
> attributed dress to rape.
I've never seen any studies on the issue - they would be far too
politically incorrect to even attempt.
> The only situation where that is relevant is in prostitution,
> where there are always high numbers of rapes.
Coincidence, of course. Prostitutes are raped only because men
want power.
> Bottom line - 6 out of 10 rape victims knew their attacker.
Women are particularly poor judges of character in many cases.
And many of those "date rape" situations are followed up with
continued contact.
> The rapist typically plans his rape in advance
References? I say that most date rapes are spur of the moment
sorts of things.
> and no amount of modest clothing is going to save her.
How many times is a Quaker raped on a date?
> in a world where 9 out of 10 men are mysogynists on some level,
References? Or vapor statistics in action?
> The problem is that women desparately want to believe that the men they
> are around are not such low life scums.
Then why do so many women seek out the low life scums?
Tommy
No, you simply have an elitist view of morality and modesty. A man who
has no problem with cleavage on display at the beach may also be the
same man who condemns a girl for a tight sweater. Who are YOU to say
what it modest, or appropriate?
>> Short skirts, tight tops, etc. I've never seen 1 survey that
>> attributed dress to rape.
>
> I've never seen any studies on the issue - they would be far too
> politically incorrect to even attempt.
Myth: Rape only happens to young attractive women.
Fact: Rape can and does strike anyone at anytime. Age, social class,
ethnic group and has no bearing on the person a rapist chooses to
attack. Research data clearly proves that a way a woman dresses and / or
acts does not influence the rapists choice of victims. His decision to
rape is based on how easily he perceives his target can be intimidated.
Rapists are looking for available and vulnerable targets.
Statistics were obtained from various sources including the study Rape
in America, 1992, National Victim Center, The Federal Bureau of
Investigations and the National Crime Survey.
>> The only situation where that is relevant is in prostitution,
>> where there are always high numbers of rapes.
>
> Coincidence, of course. Prostitutes are raped only because men
> want power.
Like any other rape. Are you on my side now?
>> Bottom line - 6 out of 10 rape victims knew their attacker.
>
> Women are particularly poor judges of character in many cases.
> And many of those "date rape" situations are followed up with
> continued contact.
Myth: Sexual assault is an impulsive, spontaneous act.
Fact: Most rapes are carefully planned by the rapist. A rapist will rape
again and again, usually in the same area of town and in the same way.
Sources same as referenced above.
Yes, some women do continue contact with the rapist. But this is most
common where the woman does not even realize she has been raped. She
knows she had sex forced upon her. But many women take that as a
reality of a marraige/relationship. Sad.
>> The rapist typically plans his rape in advance
>
> References? I say that most date rapes are spur of the moment
> sorts of things.
See above. Read more.
>> and no amount of modest clothing is going to save her.
>
> How many times is a Quaker raped on a date?
Well...they don't "date" now, do they? I believe their courting process
is pretty anitiquated. Is there abuse and rape within the Quaker
community? Most likely. But I can't imagine a place where the women
are less likely to report such when it happens. Rape is already the
least reported crime in the US. It's worse within a close knit society.
>> in a world where 9 out of 10 men are mysogynists on some level,
>
> References? Or vapor statistics in action?
My line was not meant as a statistic. Just a view point. I was remiss
if it came out as fact (how could such even BE a fact??)
>> The problem is that women desparately want to believe that the men
they
>> are around are not such low life scums.
>
> Then why do so many women seek out the low life scums?
They do? I think they just end up with scum because there's a lot of
scum out there. Scum hides itself very well...at least initially.
Tommy
>
> Don't confuse your good behavior and good upbringing with men who have
> not been taught as you have and who do not behave as you do.
I don't.
>> Most women in clubs, regardless of what they're wearing, are there to
>> dance, listen to music, make friends, etc. If a man takes a mini
>> skirt as a sign that a woman is looking for action, that man is the
>> type who will find ANY excuse to score and the girls miniskirt is a
>> side issue.>
>
> What you have to understand is that many rapists are losers who feel
> powerless to secure the love of a woman. Such losers are going to
> select what they consider to be the easiest targets.
Correct. Which is why dress has NOTHING to do with it.
> If a
>> woman is not interested in sex, she shouldn't talk about sex to a
>> stranger in a bar. She shoudn't suggest they go back to her
>> apartment alone. She shouldn't make out with a guy in a bathroom
>> stall. THESE are points at which a man can say a woman has
>> intentionally tried to arouse him and he then may feel justified in
>> pursuing her even if she resists.>
>
> Those are all great points. But are you saying that a tease deserves
> to be raped more than other women? Anyone else out there feel a tease
> is more deserving of being raped than other women?
Is English your first language? No offense...but is it? You don't seem
to have gotten ANYTHING out of my statements above.
NO ONE deserves to be raped. Not because of the way they dress, act,
speak, etc. But if a man is going to look for provocation, he's much
more likely to find it in a woman who directly instigates sexuality with
him through words, touch, etc. But even this, apparently, has little to
nothing to do with rape. In the end, it's about power.
>> The man is
>> still a jerk - but the woman has less defense. If she's there to
>> meet friends, dance and listen to music...that's all she should be
>> doing. >
>
> So you're saying that a woman who is a tease deserves to be raped more
> than other women? That's shocking.
*sigh* English, my friend. English. Read it again. You're asking for
valid ways a woman can do her BEST to avoid rape. You say dressing
modestly. I say that doesn't matter (see bottom). I say she should
avoid bringing sexual content into an evening where it's not desired.
And you get that I think a girl who does so DESERVES to get raped?
False witness, my friend. Remember the 10 commandments? Unless you
really ARE clueless, you surely were able to realize that I said nothing
even close to that which you are suggesting. So you're either looking
to paint a false picture on purpose or you don't read very well. For
the sake of a decent (non-derogatory) conversation, I'm going to assume
you are just clueless.
>> Bottom line - men who subscribe to, and advocate women dressing
>> modestly
> to
>> avoid rape only strengthen the defense of men who rape scantily clad
> women. >
>
> Communication comes in many forms--both verbal and nonverbal. For
> some odd reason you seem to think that a woman who verbalizes certain
> things is more deserving of rape than a woman who sends nonverbal
> messages with her dress and demeanor. That's nonsensical.
See above. Read. Think. Absorb. Ponder. Reply.
>> If you perpetuate this gross lie, then men will be more inclined to
>> act on it and you then become, on some level, complicit to such
>> rapes.>
>
> What should we make of your position that women who are verbally
> provacative are more deserving of rape that those who are nonverbally
> provacative?
Well...at least by this point I truly believe you're not trying to be
nasty and just don't understand English. That's fine. I'll try and be
more clear (simple) in my future posts.
Below is just a wee bit to get you headed in the right direction. Since
my English is less than clear, maybe another's will help:
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html
Mormon Lover
I can't argue with you there. It can happen anywhere. So too people can
get run over just about anywhere including cross walks. Does that mean they
should feel free to play on the Santa Monica Freeway? As a general rule
women are more likely to be raped when they are in less safe places, just
like a person is more likely to get hit playing on the SM Freeway that in a
cross walk.
>
> Modesty is relative. Appropriate attire for women going to ward is
> considered the attire of whores in Saudi Arabia.>
I guess there is such a thing as moral relativism, and one should consider
what is appropriate under the circumstances. Just because you might wear a
speedo at Huntington Beach doesn't mean you ought to wear one to Dodger
Stadium. You can, but chances are you will send certain nonverbal messages.
>
>
> >>
> >> 2. True...if a girl becomes intoxicated around a prick, she has a
> >> greater chance of being taken advantage of. Sad world we live in. She
> >> should NOT have to worry about that - but you're right, in a world
where
> >> 9 out of 10 men are mysogynists on some level, women do need to be
> >> careful.>
>
> > Yep, one should never assume we are surrounded by angels and should
behave
> > accordingly. The idea that a woman can get drunk and high around skanky
men
> > with no repurcussions is ludicrous.
>
> Funny that the reverse isn't recited "the idea that a skanky man can abuse
> an intoxicated woman with no repercussions is ludicrous".>
Of course there are repercussions--they can be thrown in jail. But that's
not the topic. We're discussing how women can take responsibility for
protecting themselves, not how we can apportion blame. One is practical,
the other more philosophical.
Being drunk or
> prone to violence does not give a perpetrator the right to assault or
> murder, why is it different with sexual assault?>
You are absolutely right. No one has the right to be violent or commit
sexual assault. Then again, no one has said otherwise so you're preaching
to the choir. This isn't a blame game, it's about understanding cause and
effect and knowing what the practical consequences of certain actions are.
If you want to verbally abuse scuzzy criminals for the criminal behavior
they commit, you'll get no argument from me. We agree. I think violent
rapists often get off to easy. They used to hang rapists hundreds of years
ago. Now they get a couple of years then go free, especially here in
California. Remember the movie Dragnet? It ends by saying the criminals
each got consecutive sentences of something like 999 years each.......and
that they would be up for parole in 7 years.
due
> > to the missionary culture.
>
Tommy
> get raped are more often than not those who are not in places and
> situations that one would consider to be safe. Part of modesty is
> keeping yourself out of situations where you're most likely to be
> assaulted, and that includes seedy night clubs, frat parties, and
> raves.
False. Rape knows NO local. It happens anywhere, anytime. Read the
facts.
> If she's double parked in two stalls that means she's farther away
> from your car door than if she's single parked in a single stall.
Nope. Most of the double parkers I come across simply park with their
tires crossing into the next parking spot. And typically, they do so
next to a car already parked, leaving little to no room to get in and
out of the vehicle.
> Or just brush it off as a cost of living in society. Your car can't
> be perfect forever. Don't be so materialistic.
Heh...that's an easy answer. I wonder if you'd be so flipant if someone
painted a 9 ft. swastica on your home's roof in neon red paint. Big
deal...cost of living in a society. Don't be so materialistic. That
arguement doesn't fly. We all have personal property and can hope for a
fare amount of respect for it. Or are you fine with someone bashing in
your car's hood with a baseball bat? Surely YOU are not so
materialistic to mind?? It wouldn't hurt the car. Just cosmetic. No
big deal. I bet it's fun even. If you don't care about such things I'd
love to do so myself.....
> Until all men are saints that's what women will have to do. BTW, a
> woman on a date at BYU is far far less likely to experience date rape
> than a woman at a typical party school. And that's precisely because
> the Mormon church is about the only segment of society that explicitly
> rejects the double standard and expects men to be just as chaste as
> women, perhaps more so do to the missionary culture.
Well, there is certainly still a double standard in Mormon theology and
sex. I mean...in polygamist times a man could have sex with 30-40 wives
in a year. Doens't sound very equal to me.
BYU? Don't know. It's very possible that there is less rape there.
Who knows, though. LDSers at BYU marry at such an early age that
statistics would be hard to quantify with any national norm. I could
just as easily say there is little rape at MIT Grad school. Is there?
I dunno. But for similar reasons to BYU, I imagine rape would be lower
there than nation averages.
Anonymous
Tommy <to...@spiinc-tx.com> wrote:
>
> > So most women in the world dress like a skank.
>
> No, you simply have an elitist view of morality and modesty.
I have higher standards than most people. This is a good thing.
> A man who has no problem with cleavage on display at the beach may also
> be the same man who condemns a girl for a tight sweater.
In the first place, such issues are contextual. In the second,
I dislike cleavage displays at the beach as well.
> Who are YOU to say what it modest, or appropriate?
Somebody who apparently has higher standards than you do.
> > I've never seen any studies on the issue - they would be far too
> > politically incorrect to even attempt.
>
> Myth: Rape only happens to young attractive women.
Never said it did. I am asking for honest statistics to show
trends. But just because non-young non-attractive women are
raped does not mean that the rape was power-based rather than
sexually-based.
> Fact: Rape can and does strike anyone at anytime. Age, social class,
> ethnic group and has no bearing on the person a rapist chooses to
> attack.
Considering that many rapists target specific demographics would
indicate that your claim is false. Rare indeed would be the
rapist who went after young _and_ old.
> Research data clearly proves that a way a woman dresses and / or
> acts does not influence the rapists choice of victims.
You are citing specific sets of data. Perfect. You won't mind
producing your references will you?
> His decision to rape is based on how easily he perceives his target
> can be intimidated. Rapists are looking for available and vulnerable
> targets.
Yuh think? Still doesn't address the issue why rapist A goes
exclusively after 13 year olds while rapist B goes after college
students in off-campus housing and rapist C targets geriatrics.
> Statistics were obtained from various sources including the study Rape
> in America, 1992, National Victim Center, The Federal Bureau of
> Investigations and the National Crime Survey.
All provide raw numbers only. I want references to the studies
and analysis.
> >> The only situation where that is relevant is in prostitution,
> >> where there are always high numbers of rapes.
> >
> > Coincidence, of course. Prostitutes are raped only because men
> > want power.
>
> Like any other rape. Are you on my side now?
No, I was being quite sarcastic. Prostitutes are generally
raped because they act and dress, well, like prositutes and the
guy wants a free ride.
> Myth: Sexual assault is an impulsive, spontaneous act.
>
> Fact: Most rapes are carefully planned by the rapist. A rapist will rape
> again and again, usually in the same area of town and in the same way.
>
> Sources same as referenced above.
You are saying that date rape is the same as any other rape?
Highly unlikely. There are predatory rapes and there are
convenient rapes. The high school jock who finds the drunk
freshman at the post-game party probably didn't wake up that
morning and plan it out. Or are you saying that he did?
> Yes, some women do continue contact with the rapist. But this is most
> common where the woman does not even realize she has been raped. She
> knows she had sex forced upon her. But many women take that as a
> reality of a marraige/relationship. Sad.
Let's see... sex was forced upon her and she didn't know she was
raped? You don't give women much credit, do you?
> >> in a world where 9 out of 10 men are mysogynists on some level,
> >
> > References? Or vapor statistics in action?
>
> My line was not meant as a statistic. Just a view point. I was remiss
> if it came out as fact (how could such even BE a fact??)
Intentionally making claims that you don't even believe yourself?
> > Then why do so many women seek out the low life scums?
>
> They do? I think they just end up with scum because there's a lot of
> scum out there. Scum hides itself very well...at least initially.
How many women seek out the bad boy? The rebel? The guy who
treated his last girlfriend horribly, but this time he'll be
different?
Mormon Lover
> > So most women in the world dress like a skank.
>
> No, you simply have an elitist view of morality and modesty. A man who
> has no problem with cleavage on display at the beach may also be the
> same man who condemns a girl for a tight sweater. Who are YOU to say
> what it modest, or appropriate?>
Would you wear a speedo to Dodger Stadium? If not why not? Who are you to
say there is anything wrong with it?
For that matter, do you think wearing a speedo to Dodger stadium or while
walking down Santa Monica Blvd. east of Doheney doesn't send certain
noverbal messages?
>
> >> Short skirts, tight tops, etc. I've never seen 1 survey that
> >> attributed dress to rape.
> >
> > I've never seen any studies on the issue - they would be far too
> > politically incorrect to even attempt.
>
> Myth: Rape only happens to young attractive women.>
Fact: since you say that date rape accounts for a higher than average
number of rapes, and since young attractive women go on more dates than old
women or women or who aren't attractive, it follows that young attractive
women are raped more on average than women at large. This directly follows
from your date rape statistic.
>
>
> Fact: Rape can and does strike anyone at anytime.>
That's like saying: Fact: people can be hit by cars anywhere and anytime;
therefore, there is no statistical basis for saying that crossing freeways
in LA is more dangerous than entering cross walks.
You're mixing possibilities with probabilities.
Age, social class,
> ethnic group and has no bearing on the person a rapist chooses to
> attack.>
That's nonsense. You just said that most rapes are date rapes. Therefore,
going on dates bears a strong statistical correlation with getting raped.
Ergo, those who go on dates most are more likely to be raped. Those who
date the most are younger, more attractive women.
> Research data clearly proves that a way a woman dresses and / or
> acts does not influence the rapists choice of victims.>
Show me the research.
His decision to
> rape is based on how easily he perceives his target can be intimidated.
> Rapists are looking for available and vulnerable targets. >
Young attractive women are perceived as being vulnerable, especially if they
lack the self esteem necessary to dress modestly. I've heard many renouned
feminists say on nightly news that getting boob jobs and dressing to allure
men is a clear sign of a lack of self esteem. If femenists can figure this
out, you better believe that rapists have figured it out too.
>
> Statistics were obtained from various sources including the study Rape
> in America, 1992, National Victim Center, The Federal Bureau of
> Investigations and the National Crime Survey.>
Show the statistics and show me how you drew your conclusion.
>
>
> >> The only situation where that is relevant is in prostitution,
> >> where there are always high numbers of rapes.
> >
> > Coincidence, of course. Prostitutes are raped only because men
> > want power.
>
> Like any other rape. Are you on my side now?>
He was mocking you. "Men only go to prostitutes because they want power,
not because they want to get their rocks off."
>
> >> Bottom line - 6 out of 10 rape victims knew their attacker.
> >
> > Women are particularly poor judges of character in many cases.
> > And many of those "date rape" situations are followed up with
> > continued contact.
>
> Myth: Sexual assault is an impulsive, spontaneous act.
>
>
> Fact: Most rapes are carefully planned by the rapist. A rapist will rape
> again and again, usually in the same area of town and in the same way.>
You said most rapists rape on dates. Why would women go on dates with men
with a habit of date rape? Don't these sorts of things get out or are date
rapists entirely immune from their acts being known? Maybe women should
talk more and compare notes?
>
> Sources same as referenced above.
>
> Yes, some women do continue contact with the rapist. But this is most
> common where the woman does not even realize she has been raped. She
> knows she had sex forced upon her. But many women take that as a
> reality of a marraige/relationship. Sad.>
And yet I've been told by women they have a rape fantasy. Not one that
involves your typical scumbag rapist, but a lover of their choice.
>
> >> The rapist typically plans his rape in advance
> >
> > References? I say that most date rapes are spur of the moment
> > sorts of things.
>
> See above. Read more.>
I think your "evidence" is not solid on this point.
>
> >> and no amount of modest clothing is going to save her.
> >
> > How many times is a Quaker raped on a date?
>
> Well...they don't "date" now, do they? I believe their courting process
> is pretty anitiquated.>
Yet above you said it happens to everyone, as if to imply that there is
nothing a woman can do to change the incidence of rape.
> Is there abuse and rape within the Quaker
> community? Most likely. But I can't imagine a place where the women
> are less likely to report such when it happens. Rape is already the
> least reported crime in the US. It's worse within a close knit society.>
Are you saying Quakers rape but keep it hush hush better than most?
>
> >> in a world where 9 out of 10 men are mysogynists on some level,
> >
> > References? Or vapor statistics in action?
>
> My line was not meant as a statistic. Just a view point.>
As is the rest of what you posted.
> I was remiss
> if it came out as fact (how could such even BE a fact??)
>
> >> The problem is that women desparately want to believe that the men
> they
> >> are around are not such low life scums.
> >
> > Then why do so many women seek out the low life scums?
>
> They do? I think they just end up with scum because there's a lot of
> scum out there. Scum hides itself very well...at least initially.>
Women instinctively don't want to date "nice guys" but "bad boys". Every
guy I know who got a motorcycle said he got more dates because of it.
>
>
Clovis Lark
Most women do not willing place themselves in obvious positions of risk.
However, initial perceptions or situations can and do change. The nice
feller who offers to accompany you for coffee to discuss an aspect of law
in class turns out to be Ted Bundy. The senior partner suddenly corrals
you. Those guys at the bar who were rooting with you for the Patriots
and telling jokes suddenly pounce. It happens. No doubt, you shouldn't
meander into a dark park alone or down a deserted street where nobody is
familiar alone. But even where exercising common sense, ambiguous social
or general surroundings can change into hostile territory.
>>
>> Modesty is relative. Appropriate attire for women going to ward is
>> considered the attire of whores in Saudi Arabia.>
> I guess there is such a thing as moral relativism, and one should consider
> what is appropriate under the circumstances. Just because you might wear a
> speedo at Huntington Beach doesn't mean you ought to wear one to Dodger
> Stadium. You can, but chances are you will send certain nonverbal messages.
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> 2. True...if a girl becomes intoxicated around a prick, she has a
>> >> greater chance of being taken advantage of. Sad world we live in. She
>> >> should NOT have to worry about that - but you're right, in a world
> where
>> >> 9 out of 10 men are mysogynists on some level, women do need to be
>> >> careful.>
>>
>> > Yep, one should never assume we are surrounded by angels and should
> behave
>> > accordingly. The idea that a woman can get drunk and high around skanky
> men
>> > with no repurcussions is ludicrous.
>>
>> Funny that the reverse isn't recited "the idea that a skanky man can abuse
>> an intoxicated woman with no repercussions is ludicrous".>
> Of course there are repercussions--they can be thrown in jail. But that's
> not the topic. We're discussing how women can take responsibility for
> protecting themselves, not how we can apportion blame. One is practical,
> the other more philosophical.
Systematic application of the law rather than blaming the victim would
seem a big help. Also strong and absolute education with repercussions
about violence against those weaker than you beginning at an early age,
would help.
Mormon Lover
> > You may have a point but what you fail to realize is that ladies who
> > get raped are more often than not those who are not in places and
> > situations that one would consider to be safe. Part of modesty is
> > keeping yourself out of situations where you're most likely to be
> > assaulted, and that includes seedy night clubs, frat parties, and
> > raves.
>
> False. Rape knows NO local.>
If that's true, then why do you say that most rapes are date rapes?
Obviously there seems to be a strong correlation between dates and rapes, so
rape does indeed know local.
> It happens anywhere, anytime. Read the facts. >
Car accidents happen everywhere too. They just happen more often in certain
places than others. You are mixing up possibility with probability.
>
> > If she's double parked in two stalls that means she's farther away
> > from your car door than if she's single parked in a single stall.
>
> Nope. Most of the double parkers I come across simply park with their
> tires crossing into the next parking spot. And typically, they do so
> next to a car already parked, leaving little to no room to get in and
> out of the vehicle.>
Shame shame shame. If you don't getting your door bumped in public places,
store your car in your garage and walk. No one says everything has to be
your fault for you to act prudently.
>
> > Or just brush it off as a cost of living in society. Your car can't
> > be perfect forever. Don't be so materialistic.
>
> Heh...that's an easy answer. I wonder if you'd be so flipant if someone
> painted a 9 ft. swastica on your home's roof in neon red paint. >
That's a pretty dumb analogy. Why, what would you do if some guy exposed
himself to you on your front porch? See the relevance? I don't either.
>Big
> deal...cost of living in a society. Don't be so materialistic. That
> arguement doesn't fly. We all have personal property and can hope for a
> fare amount of respect for it. Or are you fine with someone bashing in
> your car's hood with a baseball bat?>
If you cannot see the difference between an inadvertant act by a woman and
the deliberate act of a vandel, you are pretty dumb. BTW, for someone who
defends a woman's right to dress, drink and act recklessly, you sure are
harsh one women who get distracted because they have kids ("soccer moms").
> Surely YOU are not so
> materialistic to mind?? It wouldn't hurt the car. Just cosmetic. No
> big deal. I bet it's fun even. If you don't care about such things I'd
> love to do so myself.....>
I'm sure you would. You probably enjoy various forms of assault and
property damage. You seem to be a pretty angry guy.
>
> > Until all men are saints that's what women will have to do. BTW, a
> > woman on a date at BYU is far far less likely to experience date rape
> > than a woman at a typical party school. And that's precisely because
> > the Mormon church is about the only segment of society that explicitly
> > rejects the double standard and expects men to be just as chaste as
> > women, perhaps more so do to the missionary culture.
>
> Well, there is certainly still a double standard in Mormon theology and
sex.>
Not when it comes to the law of chastity, which was my point exactly. Which
explains why BYU women are much less likely to get date raped than compared
to women who date at large (as you say, 6 out of 10 rapes are date rapes,
yet date rape is so rare at BYU as to be essentially nonexistant).
<snip anachronistic and irrelavant opinion>
>
> BYU? Don't know. It's very possible that there is less rape there. >
It's not only possible, it's "fact" as you like to say.
> Who knows, though. LDSers at BYU marry at such an early age that
> statistics would be hard to quantify with any national norm.>
Say what? There's either date rape or there isn't. And you said yourself
that rape can happen to anyone regardless of circumstances. Now you say
that engaging in the behavior of marrying young is an antidote to rape.
That backs up my point that behavior matters when it comes down to rape. It
refutes your assertion that it happens to everyone equally regardless of
circumstances and behavior.
> I could
> just as easily say there is little rape at MIT Grad school. Is there?
> I dunno. But for similar reasons to BYU, I imagine rape would be lower
> there than nation averages.>
Why would MIT be similar to BYU insofar as rape is concerned?
>
Tommy
You think you do. You do not. You have a standard based on your own
skewed personal standard. Your standard cannot be "proven" better using
any set of qualifyers or control. In such a case, your standard is
inferior and therefor....lower than mine. Circular. No modesty standard
can be adequately defined as higher - except within a small group (example:
Mormons) who all happen to have the same agreed upon standard. Such
standard is valid only within the group. The Taliban's standard for
morality is, by reasoning similar to yours, "higher" than your own even.
Yet, as it falls outside of accepted norms, we regard it as technically
"lower". Such is the Mormon standard on modesty. To those within the
clique is an appropriate standard, to most of us outside the bubble, it is
simply another way for the Mormon male to limit the freedom of the Mormon
female...again...a lower standard.
>> A man who has no problem with cleavage on display at the beach may also
>> be the same man who condemns a girl for a tight sweater.
>
> In the first place, such issues are contextual. In the second,
> I dislike cleavage displays at the beach as well.
Cleavage in a nightclub is JUST as contextual as cleavage at a beach. As
for your dislike - I think my statements above address that. How about
bare legs at a beach?? Ooooooo! Early Mormons would have shouted their
condemnation at such. Bare ankles?? God Forbid!!!
>> Who are YOU to say what it modest, or appropriate?
>
> Somebody who apparently has higher standards than you do.
See above.
> Never said it did. I am asking for honest statistics to show
> trends. But just because non-young non-attractive women are
> raped does not mean that the rape was power-based rather than
> sexually-based.
I can do some research. This is not somthing I keep handy. I have seen,
in my life, a lot of data on this and the experts ALWAYS say the rape in,
in fact, power based and not sexual in nature.
>> Fact: Rape can and does strike anyone at anytime. Age, social class,
>> ethnic group and has no bearing on the person a rapist chooses to
>> attack.
>
> Considering that many rapists target specific demographics would
> indicate that your claim is false. Rare indeed would be the
> rapist who went after young _and_ old.
Just like rare is the serial killer who targets young AND old. They have a
mode d operem and stick to it. This says nothing as to any sexual
motivation.
> You are citing specific sets of data. Perfect. You won't mind
> producing your references will you?
Will look. Why don't you as well? I KNOW I can find research to back up
my points, given time. How bout you?
>> His decision to rape is based on how easily he perceives his target
>> can be intimidated. Rapists are looking for available and vulnerable
>> targets.
>
> Yuh think? Still doesn't address the issue why rapist A goes
> exclusively after 13 year olds while rapist B goes after college
> students in off-campus housing and rapist C targets geriatrics.
Sure it does. It addresses it in the same way a department store addresses
it's purchasing program. They stock a LOT of different colors of clothing.
Each person is different as to preferences. Each person buys a different
color. When it comes to the power game that is rape - each man perceives
weekness/vulnerability differently. Each finds his target where he sees
the opening.
>> Like any other rape. Are you on my side now?
>
> No, I was being quite sarcastic. Prostitutes are generally
> raped because they act and dress, well, like prositutes and the
> guy wants a free ride.
Not true. Men are already getting a "free" ride with a prostitute. If he
simply doesn't want to pay for it he can just do her, then take the money
back and kick her out of the car. There's no sexual motivation for raping
a prostitute - the most willing sexual partner one could find. If he jilts
the prostiture out of money he'll have a pimp coming for him...but even
worse should he rape her!
> You are saying that date rape is the same as any other rape?
> Highly unlikely. There are predatory rapes and there are
> convenient rapes. The high school jock who finds the drunk
> freshman at the post-game party probably didn't wake up that
> morning and plan it out. Or are you saying that he did?
No, date rape is slightly different. Not ALL rapes are planned. Planning
doesn't have be a man writing in his journal that he plans on raping a
girl. It can be as simple as a jock deciding he's going to have her, one
way or another.
Think back to high school - few high school jocks have problems getting
laid. If a jock forces himself on a girl, it's not because he wants it and
can't get it...it's because he is not going to be denied. Power.
Typically, all he'd have to do is go back to the party and find someother
'willing' participant.
>> Yes, some women do continue contact with the rapist. But this is most
>> common where the woman does not even realize she has been raped. She
>> knows she had sex forced upon her. But many women take that as a
>> reality of a marraige/relationship. Sad.
>
> Let's see... sex was forced upon her and she didn't know she was
> raped? You don't give women much credit, do you?
You don't give my statements much, do you? Read more. When they interview
rape victims, you hear over and over that they didn't equate what was
happening with "rape" until they were out of the situation and were able to
look back. Same as battered women. They go into self denial. I do think
very highly of women. But anyone can loose their capacity to reason when
they are being abused.
> Intentionally making claims that you don't even believe yourself?
Nope. Read. I DO believe it. I post that just to state that I have no,
and know of no hard statistics to back my statement. Therefor I'm
qualifying it as nothing more than a point of view. Easy to understand
once you try.
> How many women seek out the bad boy? The rebel? The guy who
> treated his last girlfriend horribly, but this time he'll be
> different?
>
Many men do the same. They go for a big boobed dumb blonde who treats them
bad. Doesn't mean all men are dumb. Just some are blinded to the better
qualities the should look for in choosing a mate. And it CERTAINLY doesn't
mean go into bad relationships knowing they are going to be hurt. They
always believe that it will be different. People make mistakes - this is
very differnt from asking to be abused.
Mormon Lover
"Anonymous" <nob...@paranoici.org> wrote in message
news:91d0e65e79024c49...@paranoici.org...
>
> In the first place, such issues are contextual. In the second,
> I dislike cleavage displays at the beach as well.>
I love cleavage, especially at the beach. :)
Mormon Lover
"Anonymous" <nob...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote in message
news:9a7c10227c5d357a...@remailer.privacy.at...
I would concur that many women with oversized plastic boobs look bad, but I
said "a woman's breasts" not size triple D silicone implants. One of the
things that makes PA's look bad is that most of her silicone is visible.
Dolly Parton, on the other hand, is more universally held in high esteem by
both men and women, and her silicone implants are twice the size of PA's.
They're just never visible in public.
xganon
Tommy <to...@spiinc-tx.com> wrote:
> > I have higher standards than most people. This is a good thing.
>
> You think you do. You do not. You have a standard based on your own
> skewed personal standard. Your standard cannot be "proven" better using
> any set of qualifyers or control.
Higher, better. Higher, better. Higher, better. One of these
words is not like the other...
> In such a case, your standard is inferior and therefor....lower than mine.
Inferior because... ?
{snip}
> Yet, as it falls outside of accepted norms, we regard it as technically
> "lower".
You are saying that "lower" is the same thing as "different"?
Uh huh. Some of you people are so _cute_ when you're spewing :)
> Such is the Mormon standard on modesty. To those within the
> clique is an appropriate standard, to most of us outside the bubble, it is
> simply another way for the Mormon male to limit the freedom of the Mormon
> female...again...a lower standard.
If I was drinking a beer I'd spray all over my monitor. Modesty
limits the freedom of the female? ~snicker~ I'll bet you'd
allow your 8 year old daughter to wear a thong and a pasty out
in public... anything else would be severely limiting her
freedom, eh?
> Cleavage in a nightclub is JUST as contextual as cleavage at a beach.
Beach, sun, swimming. Nightclub, booze, dancing. Yep... same
thing.
> As for your dislike - I think my statements above address that. How about
> bare legs at a beach?? Ooooooo! Early Mormons would have shouted their
> condemnation at such. Bare ankles?? God Forbid!!!
You can find thongs for your 6 year old at most trendy clothing
shops.
> I can do some research. This is not somthing I keep handy. I have seen,
> in my life, a lot of data on this and the experts ALWAYS say the rape in,
> in fact, power based and not sexual in nature.
Ooooooooooo.... an 'expert' said. Most experts used to say the
sun went 'round the earth, and since they were 'experts'.....
> > You are citing specific sets of data. Perfect. You won't mind
> > producing your references will you?
>
> Will look. Why don't you as well? I KNOW I can find research to back up
> my points, given time. How bout you?
Because I discredit your theories and don't feel like expending
any effort to look for something that I don't think is there.
> > No, I was being quite sarcastic. Prostitutes are generally
> > raped because they act and dress, well, like prositutes and the
> > guy wants a free ride.
>
> Not true. Men are already getting a "free" ride with a prostitute.
Free, paying money. Free, paying money. Free, paying money.
One of these concepts is not like the other...
> If he simply doesn't want to pay for it he can just do her, then take the
> money back and kick her out of the car.
That would be rape.
> > You are saying that date rape is the same as any other rape?
> > Highly unlikely. There are predatory rapes and there are
> > convenient rapes. The high school jock who finds the drunk
> > freshman at the post-game party probably didn't wake up that
> > morning and plan it out. Or are you saying that he did?
>
> No, date rape is slightly different. Not ALL rapes are planned. Planning
> doesn't have be a man writing in his journal that he plans on raping a
> girl. It can be as simple as a jock deciding he's going to have her, one
> way or another.
I'm glad that you aren't planning our nation's future.
> Think back to high school - few high school jocks have problems getting
> laid. If a jock forces himself on a girl, it's not because he wants it and
> can't get it...it's because he is not going to be denied. Power.
Sex.
> >> Yes, some women do continue contact with the rapist. But this is most
> >> common where the woman does not even realize she has been raped. She
> >> knows she had sex forced upon her. But many women take that as a
> >> reality of a marraige/relationship. Sad.
> >
> > Let's see... sex was forced upon her and she didn't know she was
> > raped? You don't give women much credit, do you?
>
> You don't give my statements much, do you?
No, I don't.
> Read more. When they interview
> rape victims, you hear over and over that they didn't equate what was
> happening with "rape" until they were out of the situation and were able to
> look back.
Rape declarations after the fact... coerced into pressing
charges. Crying rape not because she thought it was rape, but
because somebody else wanted her to think so.
Anonymous
Tommy <to...@spiinc-tx.com> wrote:
> False. Rape knows NO local. It happens anywhere, anytime. Read the
> facts.
Ok, smartypants, cite _one_ rape which has ever taken place
while waiting in line at an airport security checkpoint. Cite
_one_ rape which has ever taken place during mass. Cite _one_
rape that took place in a major league stadium during a game.
Cite _one_ rape which has ever taken place in the dairy aisle of
the local supermarket.
Oops... guess rape _doesn't_ happen "anywhere, anytime", does it?
> BYU? Don't know. It's very possible that there is less rape there.
> Who knows, though. LDSers at BYU marry at such an early age that
> statistics would be hard to quantify with any national norm. I could
> just as easily say there is little rape at MIT Grad school. Is there?
> I dunno. But for similar reasons to BYU, I imagine rape would be lower
> there than nation averages.
Wait... you said rape was an anytime/anywhere sort of thing?
Are you saying within the same post that some environments and
situations are safer than others?
Tommy
>> who has no problem with cleavage on display at the beach may also be
>> the same man who condemns a girl for a tight sweater. Who are YOU to
>> say what it modest, or appropriate?>
>
> Would you wear a speedo to Dodger Stadium? If not why not? Who are
> you to say there is anything wrong with it?
>
> For that matter, do you think wearing a speedo to Dodger stadium or
> while walking down Santa Monica Blvd. east of Doheney doesn't send
> certain noverbal messages?
It says "I have poor taste in clothing". Or it says "I am on my way to the
beach". Or it says "I am a Calvin Klein model". Only nonverbal message I
see there is lack o' fashion sense.
I would not wear a speedo to Dodger Stadium. But I bet it has been done by
some sports fanatic at some point in history. I don't wear a speedo
ANYWHERE. I also don't begrudge anyone the right to do so if they so
choose. I have my standard. Others have theirs. No one's is "higher'
than any one else'.
>> >> Short skirts, tight tops, etc. I've never seen 1 survey that
>> >> attributed dress to rape.
>> >
>> > I've never seen any studies on the issue - they would be far too
>> > politically incorrect to even attempt.
>>
>> Myth: Rape only happens to young attractive women.>
>
> Fact: since you say that date rape accounts for a higher than average
> number of rapes, and since young attractive women go on more dates
> than old women or women or who aren't attractive, it follows that
> young attractive women are raped more on average than women at large.
> This directly follows from your date rape statistic.
Young women, 18-24, are the most likely to be raped, yes. Attractive, no.
I am out and about a LOT and can attest to the idea that attractive girls
are out LESS than the fair to non attractive females. :)
Come on! Attractive girls don't date anymore than other girls. They may
date more attractive men, maybe. They may get rich men more easily. But
most young, single girls date. Most date a lot. And most date enough to
eventually get married.
>> Fact: Rape can and does strike anyone at anytime.>
>
> That's like saying: Fact: people can be hit by cars anywhere and
> anytime; therefore, there is no statistical basis for saying that
> crossing freeways in LA is more dangerous than entering cross walks.
If cars drove anywhere and everywhere it would be a similat analogy. Since
they only drive on roads, hopefully, it's more like saying "fact, you have
as much chance of being hit on a small residential street and a freeway".
Which is true, I believe. Since rapists live in every walk of society,
your analogy is far off. This isn't MY idea - I'm going off published rape
statistics.
> You're mixing possibilities with probabilities.
Not at all. I'm showing you actual rape facts.
> Age, social class,
>> ethnic group and has no bearing on the person a rapist chooses to
>> attack.>
>
> That's nonsense. You just said that most rapes are date rapes.
> Therefore, going on dates bears a strong statistical correlation with
> getting raped. Ergo, those who go on dates most are more likely to be
> raped. Those who date the most are younger, more attractive women.
See above. Or do you have published "date facts" that we can see? Of
COURSE that's not true at all. And I did not say "most" rapes are date
rapes. If I did, I spoke out of context and I appologize. "Many" rapes are
date rapes. Many are not. What I said was "most" women know their
attackers prior to the rape.
>> Research data clearly proves that a way a woman dresses and / or
>> acts does not influence the rapists choice of victims.>
>
> Show me the research.
I did. I'll look for more since you obviously can't find any to support
your own theories.
> His decision to
>> rape is based on how easily he perceives his target can be
>> intimidated. Rapists are looking for available and vulnerable
>> targets. >
>
> Young attractive women are perceived as being vulnerable, especially
> if they lack the self esteem necessary to dress modestly. I've heard
> many renouned feminists say on nightly news that getting boob jobs and
> dressing to allure men is a clear sign of a lack of self esteem. If
> femenists can figure this out, you better believe that rapists have
> figured it out too.
Getting a boob job is related how?? Do many have low self esteem? I guess
that could be true. Are some of them raped? Yeah..I guess. But I dare
say if you researched this you will find a relatively small portion of rape
victims to have had boob jobs. Rediculous postulation. Read more.
>> Statistics were obtained from various sources including the study
>> Rape in America, 1992, National Victim Center, The Federal Bureau of
>> Investigations and the National Crime Survey.>
>
> Show the statistics and show me how you drew your conclusion.
Will look. Am just quoting off a rape awareness web site right now...
>> >> The only situation where that is relevant is in prostitution,
>> >> where there are always high numbers of rapes.
>> >
>> > Coincidence, of course. Prostitutes are raped only because men
>> > want power.
>>
>> Like any other rape. Are you on my side now?>
>
> He was mocking you. "Men only go to prostitutes because they want
> power, not because they want to get their rocks off."
He was wrong. Want to join the club?
>> >> Bottom line - 6 out of 10 rape victims knew their attacker.
>> >
>> > Women are particularly poor judges of character in many cases.
>> > And many of those "date rape" situations are followed up with
>> > continued contact.
>>
>> Myth: Sexual assault is an impulsive, spontaneous act.
>>
>>
>> Fact: Most rapes are carefully planned by the rapist. A rapist will
>> rape again and again, usually in the same area of town and in the
>> same way.>
>
> You said most rapists rape on dates. Why would women go on dates with
> men with a habit of date rape? Don't these sorts of things get out or
> are date rapists entirely immune from their acts being known? Maybe
> women should talk more and compare notes?
Where are you getting this? Can you show me where I said most rapes happen
on dates so that I can dutifully retract my mistep? Do you really think
most women know ANYTHING about a man's prior sexual deviencies?? And if a
woman DOES not a man date raped before, how many women do think would go
out with him?? Not many, I assure you!
>> Sources same as referenced above.
>>
>> Yes, some women do continue contact with the rapist. But this is
>> most common where the woman does not even realize she has been raped.
>> She knows she had sex forced upon her. But many women take that as
>> a reality of a marraige/relationship. Sad.>
>
> And yet I've been told by women they have a rape fantasy. Not one
> that involves your typical scumbag rapist, but a lover of their
> choice.
You know some women that need to talk with a counselor. A rape fantasy is
not considered a "healthy" thing to have and may indicate some other
problems buried. I knew a girl who had a rape fantasy. Years later she
confided that she had been abused as a child.
>> >> The rapist typically plans his rape in advance
>> >
>> > References? I say that most date rapes are spur of the moment
>> > sorts of things.
>>
>> See above. Read more.>
>
> I think your "evidence" is not solid on this point.
At least I'm presenting SOMETHING. At the very least it holds more weight
that your personal rebuttals.
>> >> and no amount of modest clothing is going to save her.
>> >
>> > How many times is a Quaker raped on a date?
>>
>> Well...they don't "date" now, do they? I believe their courting
>> process is pretty anitiquated.>
>
> Yet above you said it happens to everyone, as if to imply that there
> is nothing a woman can do to change the incidence of rape.
True. So?
>> Is there abuse and rape within the Quaker
>> community? Most likely. But I can't imagine a place where the women
>> are less likely to report such when it happens. Rape is already the
>> least reported crime in the US. It's worse within a close knit
>> society.>
>
> Are you saying Quakers rape but keep it hush hush better than most?
Very likely.
>> >> in a world where 9 out of 10 men are mysogynists on some level,
>> >
>> > References? Or vapor statistics in action?
>>
>> My line was not meant as a statistic. Just a view point.>
>
> As is the rest of what you posted.
No...in most cases I try and post published statistics...or at least
opinions expressed by experts in the field. So what you are posting is
what......? Fact?
> Women instinctively don't want to date "nice guys" but "bad boys".
> Every guy I know who got a motorcycle said he got more dates because
> of it.
>>
Please.
Let me tell you. I am 29, tall, decent looking, have shoulder length hair
and play guitar and sing lead in a band. I have a steady girlfriend and
don't sleep around. I have no problems talking to girls at a bar -
especially after a gig. Lot's of my friends are that good looking,
motorcycle driving, bad-boy type you speak of (most are also very nice
people). These "bad boys" are typically puppy dogs when it comes to girls.
Laughably so in most cases.
Guys who get motorcycles and suddenly find themselves scoring more are
scoring with some boring girls. Where are you from??? I know that many
women want someone more interesting than your typical crop-haired frat-boy
- but I hear of more girls raped by football players than I do from "bad-
boys".
Women DO instictively want to date nice guys. They just don't want
"boring" guys.
Mormon Lover
> >> Don't confuse arousal and rape. I get aroused. I don't rape. >
> >
> > Don't confuse your good behavior and good upbringing with men who have
> > not been taught as you have and who do not behave as you do.
>
> I don't.>
Good. So don't counsel women to behave as if they're always going to
interact with persons of your good moral behavior when, as you say, "9 out
of 10 men are misogynists". Just because you own a tame fox is no reason to
place a chicken in a den of foxes.
>
> >> Most women in clubs, regardless of what they're wearing, are there to
> >> dance, listen to music, make friends, etc. If a man takes a mini
> >> skirt as a sign that a woman is looking for action, that man is the
> >> type who will find ANY excuse to score and the girls miniskirt is a
> >> side issue.>
> >
> > What you have to understand is that many rapists are losers who feel
> > powerless to secure the love of a woman. Such losers are going to
> > select what they consider to be the easiest targets.
>
> Correct. Which is why dress has NOTHING to do with it.>
Does not logically follow. According to feminists who have opined on how
women dress and especially breast implants, such things are signs of low
self esteem. Publicly wearing your low self esteem on your esposed breasts
is like a flashing sign that says "abuse me", at least according to
feminists.
>
> > If a
> >> woman is not interested in sex, she shouldn't talk about sex to a
> >> stranger in a bar. She shoudn't suggest they go back to her
> >> apartment alone. She shouldn't make out with a guy in a bathroom
> >> stall. THESE are points at which a man can say a woman has
> >> intentionally tried to arouse him and he then may feel justified in
> >> pursuing her even if she resists.> >
BUT THAT MAKES RAPE IN SUCH CASES (ie. date rape where the woman acts
provacatively) A CRIME OF SEXUAL PASSION! yet you said elsewhere sex has
nothing to do with it.
> >
> > Those are all great points. But are you saying that a tease deserves
> > to be raped more than other women? Anyone else out there feel a tease
> > is more deserving of being raped than other women?
>
> Is English your first language? No offense...but is it? You don't seem
> to have gotten ANYTHING out of my statements above. >
I think you're problem is that your arguments have boomeranged against you.
You seem to think that dressing and acting slutty is entirely ok but that
talking slutty is somehow worse and makes a woman more expectant of being
raped. Worse, you first said that rape has nothing to do with sex or
arousal, then you said you would advise women not to act sexy on dates if
they don't want to arouse men than might then rape them. Consistency
doesn't seem to be your forte.
>
> NO ONE deserves to be raped. Not because of the way they dress, act,
> speak, etc. But if a man is going to look for provocation, he's much
> more likely to find it in a woman who directly instigates sexuality with
> him through words, touch, etc.>
I note you use the word "provocation" rather than sexual arousal, even
though that's exactly what your scenario entails. Just call a spade a
spade. What you mean to say is that women shouldn't deliberately arouse a
man by acting sexy (verbally and tactally) unless they intend on causing a
"provocation" with that man that could lead to rape. So now you have argued
strongly that rape is indeed about sexual arousal not simply power. Why
would a man need more "power" just because he's aroused? Your case is
getting flimsier by the moment.
> But even this, apparently, has little to
> nothing to do with rape. In the end, it's about power. >
If words and touch have nothing to do with rape any more than dressing
provacatively, then it clearly follows that your advice to women is no
different than mine. You say not to talk sexy and touch them so as to
arouse them, but if rape is only about power and not about sex, then your
advice is meaningless.
>
>
> >> The man is
> >> still a jerk - but the woman has less defense. If she's there to
> >> meet friends, dance and listen to music...that's all she should be
> >> doing. >
> >
> > So you're saying that a woman who is a tease deserves to be raped more
> > than other women? That's shocking.
>
> *sigh* English, my friend. English. Read it again. You're asking for
> valid ways a woman can do her BEST to avoid rape.>
But you said that rape is not about sex. If so, why would acting sexy lead
to more rapes (ie. why counsel women to refrain from acting sexy both
verbally and tactally)? If being verbally and tactally sexy leads to rape,
why would acting in a way that is known to be a "provocation" to men
(dressing slutty) not also lead to rape? You are drawing very artificial
distinctions.
> You say dressing
> modestly. I say that doesn't matter (see bottom).>
You have said lots of things that are logically inconsistant. You said rape
is never about sex but only power. Then you said that women should not
talk, touch or otherwise act sexy or they will increase the likelihood of
rape. If so, then it's only a matter of degrees. Since men are extremely
visual, nonverbal cues such as dress and demeanor are just as arousing as
touch and talk in many cases. To a rapist, probably more so because many
rapists don't feel a connection to the victom so that nonverbal cues are
more powerful than verbal ones.
> I say she should
> avoid bringing sexual content into an evening where it's not desired. >
Why would that be if rape isn't about sex?
> And you get that I think a girl who does so DESERVES to get raped? >
You strongly implied that those who say a woman should dress modestly
believe that women who dress like sluts DESERVE to get rapes. Of course we
don't. But if as you say a woman is more responsible for what happens if
she talks and touches in a sexual way, then dressing and acting in a
sexually provacative way is logically no different.
>
> False witness, my friend. Remember the 10 commandments? Unless you
> really ARE clueless, you surely were able to realize that I said nothing
> even close to that which you are suggesting.>
Simple man. Just like you implied that those who advocate modest dress
think slutty dressers deserve to be raped. You said time and time against
that slutty dressers can dress slutty without deserving rape. By this you
implied we thought they deserved it; otherwise, why argue it? If women who
dress like ho's don't DESERVE rape, why talk about actions like talking or
touching as being different unless you wish to imply that these women
DESERVE it.
> So you're either looking
> to paint a false picture on purpose or you don't read very well. For
> the sake of a decent (non-derogatory) conversation, I'm going to assume
> you are just clueless.>
You're a piece of work.
>
>
> >> Bottom line - men who subscribe to, and advocate women dressing
> >> modestly
> > to
> >> avoid rape only strengthen the defense of men who rape scantily clad
> > women. >
> >
> > Communication comes in many forms--both verbal and nonverbal. For
> > some odd reason you seem to think that a woman who verbalizes certain
> > things is more deserving of rape than a woman who sends nonverbal
> > messages with her dress and demeanor. That's nonsensical.
>
> See above. Read. Think. Absorb. Ponder. Reply.>
Back at ya!
>
> >> If you perpetuate this gross lie, then men will be more inclined to
> >> act on it and you then become, on some level, complicit to such
> >> rapes.>
> >
> > What should we make of your position that women who are verbally
> > provacative are more deserving of rape that those who are nonverbally
> > provacative?
>
> Well...at least by this point I truly believe you're not trying to be
> nasty and just don't understand English.>
I'm neither. I'm demonstrating the inconsistency and weakness of your
contradictory positions.
> That's fine. I'll try and be
> more clear (simple) in my future posts.>
One way might be to take consistant positions. Here's one clue: don't
argue that rape is not about sex and then say it's good advice for a woman
not to act sexy.
>
> Below is just a wee bit to get you headed in the right direction. Since
> my English is less than clear, maybe another's will help:
>
> http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html
>
> Myth: Rape only happens to young attractive women.>
We aren't talking about "only" we are talking about probabilities. You said
rape happens most often in the context of dates. And guess what, young
attractive women date on average more than old and less attractive women.
Ergo they must, according to your stats, be the most common victims (if your
6 out of 10 rapes are date rapes stat is correct)
>
>
> Fact: Rape can and does strike anyone at anytime. Age, social class,
> ethnic group and has no bearing on the person a rapist chooses to
> attack.>
It CAN happen to anyone, but it MOST COMMONLY happens to women in certain
situations.
> Research data clearly proves that a way a woman dresses and / or
> acts does not influence the rapists choice of victims.>
If true, your advice to women not to act sexy on dates is no more valid than
the advice to dress modestly.
Mormon Lover
You guys are really funny, but you seem to have some inside scoop of which I
am currently unaware.
Tommy
news:417eaa1c141233df...@remailer.xganon.com:
> In article <Xns92859062F6531...@64.154.60.178>
> Tommy <to...@spiinc-tx.com> wrote:
>
>> False. Rape knows NO local. It happens anywhere, anytime. Read the
>> facts.
>
> Ok, smartypants, cite _one_ rape which has ever taken place
> while waiting in line at an airport security checkpoint. Cite
> _one_ rape which has ever taken place during mass. Cite _one_
> rape that took place in a major league stadium during a game.
> Cite _one_ rape which has ever taken place in the dairy aisle of
> the local supermarket.
"ANYWHERE, ANYTIME". Not "EVERYWHERE, EVERYTIME". weeeeeeee. Let's
look at the difference, shall we? By saying something can happen
anywhere we are suggesting there's really no place that a rape could NOT
happen. No one has said a rape HAS happened EVERYWHERE on Earth. I'm
sorry...I don't mean to belittle....but your response was really stupid
(I can't think of a better descriptive, much to my dismay).
I daresay a rape has occured in a grocery store, if not it's within the
isle. Yes, they have happened in airports. Yes, in major league
stadiums during games. Hell...20 girls were raped at the last
Woodstock, IN THE MIDDLE OF A CROWD!!. Horrible but true.
As for airport security, there have been LOTS of molestation complaints
from women lately. I guess a lot of groping has been going on since
security was stepped up. Not rape, but violation nontheless.
> Oops... guess rape _doesn't_ happen "anywhere, anytime", does it?
Oops. Yes it does (or can). Spin the wheel again.
>> BYU? Don't know. It's very possible that there is less rape there.
>> Who knows, though. LDSers at BYU marry at such an early age that
>> statistics would be hard to quantify with any national norm. I could
>> just as easily say there is little rape at MIT Grad school. Is
there?
>> I dunno. But for similar reasons to BYU, I imagine rape would be
lower
>> there than nation averages.
>
> Wait... you said rape was an anytime/anywhere sort of thing?
> Are you saying within the same post that some environments and
> situations are safer than others?
Sure, of course I am. Just because a police chief CAN rape a woman he's
just pulled over (and that has happened), it doesn't mean that cops are
unsafe people to be around. In fact, I'd say being around policemen,
such as having a job at the police department, might lower your chances
of rape. Doesn't mean you CAN'T get raped there. But the chances might
be lower.
You're trying too hard to play in this game. Just relax and the words
will come to you, I promise.
Tommy
> interact with persons of your good moral behavior when, as you say, "9
> out of 10 men are misogynists". Just because you own a tame fox is no
> reason to place a chicken in a den of foxes.
Would never think of doing so. I agree completely, Women SHOULD be aware,
My point is that it's a shame that life is so.
>> Correct. Which is why dress has NOTHING to do with it.>
>
> Does not logically follow. According to feminists who have opined on
> how women dress and especially breast implants, such things are signs
> of low self esteem. Publicly wearing your low self esteem on your
> esposed breasts is like a flashing sign that says "abuse me", at least
> according to feminists.
Just because some feminists feel boob jobs = low self esteem, it means
little to a rapist...unless he's in the habit of reading a lot of books
published by feminists. Oh, the irony if true.
I just think most rapists would never carry the thought process that far.
"hmmm...I've got red head in the corner. Real boobs...leave her alone.
OH! There's a nice bronde with fake boobs...low self esteem...she's the
one!".
We're talking about choices to rape made, even in advance, on a more
subconscious level.
>> > If a
>> >> woman is not interested in sex, she shouldn't talk about sex to a
>> >> stranger in a bar. She shoudn't suggest they go back to her
>> >> apartment alone. She shouldn't make out with a guy in a bathroom
>> >> stall. THESE are points at which a man can say a woman has
>> >> intentionally tried to arouse him and he then may feel justified
>> >> in pursuing her even if she resists.> >
>
>
> BUT THAT MAKES RAPE IN SUCH CASES (ie. date rape where the woman acts
> provacatively) A CRIME OF SEXUAL PASSION! yet you said elsewhere sex
> has nothing to do with it.
Not true. It makes it a rape of passion, true. But one of anger and
possesion, not sex. Sex is not the final provocation for rape. That comes
only from anger (in its many forms), not sexual need.
>> > Those are all great points. But are you saying that a tease
>> > deserves to be raped more than other women? Anyone else out there
>> > feel a tease is more deserving of being raped than other women?
>>
>> Is English your first language? No offense...but is it? You don't
>> seem to have gotten ANYTHING out of my statements above. >
>
> I think you're problem is that your arguments have boomeranged against
> you. You seem to think that dressing and acting slutty is entirely ok
> but that talking slutty is somehow worse and makes a woman more
> expectant of being raped. Worse, you first said that rape has nothing
> to do with sex or arousal, then you said you would advise women not to
> act sexy on dates if they don't want to arouse men than might then
> rape them. Consistency doesn't seem to be your forte.
Two things.
1. I've stayed consistent thoughout these posting. If someone carts away
a statement, holds it up and says it dissagrees with some other random
statement - not my problem. When someone posts several times, there are
enough statements generated to find a few that seem contradictory. But
follow the thread and you will not be able to do so with my posts without
changing the meaning of my words.
If a women chooses to intentionally arouse a man and then embarrass him by
pulling sex off the table at the last minute, she should be careful because
that will anger some men into rape. The only reason I even brought that up
in the first place was to offer some form of alternate counsel to give a
woman....anything other than "Don't dress like a slut". If a rape
counselor were to read my posts and say "You know....it really doesn't
matter what a woman says and does either." I wouldn't be offended. I can
find lots of statistics showing how little dress matters, I was addlibbing
on the possibility of words and actions mattering. It doesn't change the
thrust of my points at all.
2. "you said you would advise women not to act sexy on dates" Never said
this. This is what I'm talking about where people take something out of
context and warp it to mean something entirely different. A woman can act
sexy all she wants and it will have no bearing on her being raped. If, on
the other hand, a woman actually instigates sex and tries to stop 1/2 way
through, that might lead some men to rape, IMO. I could be wrong, but I
can see it happening. Again, not because the man is aroused - but he is
angered and takes that anger out on the girl. A horny man can stop himself
from raping if he is not the type to rape. If he is the type to rape, no
amount of arousal is needed to make him rape. The point of avoiding a
sexual situation is that you are farther from help, usually, once you have
progressed to sexual acts.
>> NO ONE deserves to be raped. Not because of the way they dress, act,
>> speak, etc. But if a man is going to look for provocation, he's much
>> more likely to find it in a woman who directly instigates sexuality
>> with him through words, touch, etc.>
>
> I note you use the word "provocation" rather than sexual arousal, even
> though that's exactly what your scenario entails. Just call a spade a
> spade. What you mean to say is that women shouldn't deliberately
> arouse a man by acting sexy (verbally and tactally) unless they intend
> on causing a "provocation" with that man that could lead to rape. So
> now you have argued strongly that rape is indeed about sexual arousal
> not simply power. Why would a man need more "power" just because he's
> aroused? Your case is getting flimsier by the moment.
You ability to change meanings of sentences is astounding. Provocation is
not at ALL similar to arousal in my scene. In my scene, provocation comes
from the woman turning him down, not from her turning him on.
> If words and touch have nothing to do with rape any more than dressing
> provacatively, then it clearly follows that your advice to women is no
> different than mine. You say not to talk sexy and touch them so as to
> arouse them, but if rape is only about power and not about sex, then
> your advice is meaningless.
Since you refuse to grasp (or even try to) the meaning behind my posts,
your responses are meaningless.
Sorry - clipping below some of the rest of this circular mess.
>> And you get that I think a girl who does so DESERVES to get raped? >
>
> You strongly implied that those who say a woman should dress modestly
> believe that women who dress like sluts DESERVE to get rapes. Of
> course we don't. But if as you say a woman is more responsible for
> what happens if she talks and touches in a sexual way, then dressing
> and acting in a sexually provacative way is logically no different.
I never said that. I feel that men who suggest that women who dress
scantilly are partially to blame for the rape are prepetuating a situation
where men find more excuses to do so.
>> False witness, my friend. Remember the 10 commandments? Unless you
>> really ARE clueless, you surely were able to realize that I said
>> nothing even close to that which you are suggesting.>
>
> Simple man. Just like you implied that those who advocate modest
> dress think slutty dressers deserve to be raped. You said time and
> time against that slutty dressers can dress slutty without deserving
> rape. By this you implied we thought they deserved it; otherwise, why
> argue it? If women who dress like ho's don't DESERVE rape, why talk
> about actions like talking or touching as being different unless you
> wish to imply that these women DESERVE it.
I argue it because of what I've said above and many times before: You
perpetuate the idea, you encourage the defense of the men who do it. By
such logic, I admit I should just retract my statements about women leading
men into sexual situations and then dropping them. And I guess I will now
do so. It was irresposible...but at least more credible than what was
floating around as the alternative.
>> So you're either looking
>> to paint a false picture on purpose or you don't read very well. For
>> the sake of a decent (non-derogatory) conversation, I'm going to
>> assume you are just clueless.>
>
> You're a piece of work.
Thank you. I know doing research and presenting established ideas, as
opposed to non-credible personal ideology, is rare on this BB...but I'll
stand on my own if I have to. It still amazes me to be the one attacked
when I'm the only one to have presented even a shread of outside research
and opinion. I guess I should have expected that here. So - what research
are YOU presenting?
>> > Communication comes in many forms--both verbal and nonverbal. For
>> > some odd reason you seem to think that a woman who verbalizes
>> > certain things is more deserving of rape than a woman who sends
>> > nonverbal messages with her dress and demeanor. That's
>> > nonsensical.
>>
>> See above. Read. Think. Absorb. Ponder. Reply.>
>
> Back at ya!
And around again.
> I'm neither. I'm demonstrating the inconsistency and weakness of your
> contradictory positions.
I can't help it if the farmer is confusing to the cow.
>> That's fine. I'll try and be
>> more clear (simple) in my future posts.>
>
> One way might be to take consistant positions. Here's one clue:
> don't argue that rape is not about sex and then say it's good advice
> for a woman not to act sexy.
I won't do so. In fact...never did. That's funny.
>> Fact: Rape can and does strike anyone at anytime. Age, social class,
>> ethnic group and has no bearing on the person a rapist chooses to
>> attack.>
>
> It CAN happen to anyone, but it MOST COMMONLY happens to women in
> certain situations.
False. Where are you getting this???
>> Research data clearly proves that a way a woman dresses and / or
>> acts does not influence the rapists choice of victims.>
>
> If true, your advice to women not to act sexy on dates is no more
> valid than the advice to dress modestly.
Possibly. Like I said...I was offering only what I thought was better
advice than the yee-haw "don't dress slutty" nonesense that was being
thrown out.
xganon
Tommy <to...@spiinc-tx.com> wrote:
> "ANYWHERE, ANYTIME". Not "EVERYWHERE, EVERYTIME".
ANYwhere includes _all_ locations. ANYtime includes _all_
situations. Clearly this is not the case.
> By saying something can happen anywhere we are suggesting there's
> really no place that a rape could NOT happen.
But there are clearly places and circumstances where they _do_
not happen.
> No one has said a rape HAS happened EVERYWHERE on Earth.
Your implication was that there is _zero_ delta of probability
of incidence from one situation to the next. This is clearly
false.
> I'm sorry...I don't mean to belittle....but your response was
> really stupid
Don't generalize.
> (I can't think of a better descriptive, much to my dismay).
Might I suggest a good thesaurus? www.m-w.com is a good choice.
>
> > Oops... guess rape _doesn't_ happen "anywhere, anytime", does it?
>
> Oops. Yes it does (or can). Spin the wheel again.
Not according to the definition of "anywhere" that you'll be
able to find in a dictionary.
> You're trying too hard to play in this game. Just relax and the words
> will come to you, I promise.
You're so cute when you're missing the point :)
Tommy
>> really no place that a rape could NOT happen.
>
> But there are clearly places and circumstances where they _do_
> not happen.
"have not", not "do not". Just because a rape "has not" occurred at a
local does not in any way mean that such place is a safe haven from rape.
Surely you are capable of seeing the point, no? Poor a writer as I am, I'm
afraid I can't dumb it down any more. My deepest appologies.
>> No one has said a rape HAS happened EVERYWHERE on Earth.
>
> Your implication was that there is _zero_ delta of probability
> of incidence from one situation to the next. This is clearly
> false.
I did not at all state that there "is _zero_ delta of probability
of incidence from one situation to the next". I stated what every rape
infomation site, book, report, etc. states: that a rape is possible in any
circumstance, in any location. This is clearly true. Why is anyone
arguing with this???? This is accepted, published, researched and verified
data. This BB is an amazing place.
>> I'm sorry...I don't mean to belittle....but your response was
>> really stupid
>
> Don't generalize.
Wasn't. That was pretty specific.
>> (I can't think of a better descriptive, much to my dismay).
>
> Might I suggest a good thesaurus? www.m-w.com is a good choice.
Thank you. My results:
asinine, fatuous, foolish, silly, simple; brute, brutish, dummel,
lumbering, oafish, slow, slow-witted, sluggish; ||half-assed; crass;
backward, half-witted, retarded; idiotic, imbecilic
Much better.
> You're so cute when you're missing the point :)
Oh, the irony.
I'm cute in many situations. I COULD be cute anywhere.
(I hope you do understand that that does not imply that I am ALWAYS cute
EVERYWHERE.)
R.L. Measures
"Mormon Lover" <m...@aol.com> wrote:
> "R.L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:2-1009020...@dsc02.lai-ca-1.rasserver.net...
> > In article <OXaf9.423619$Aw4.17...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>,
> > ? Living proof that God gave her the ability to suitably stimulate
> > males. This is the compliment about which no guy can lie.
> >
>
> Just last week my brother and I were joking about high school when 5 minutes
> before the bell you gaze too long and the hotty next to you and you get an
> embarrassing woody.
€ 'tis not embarrassing because you didn't do it. High-schools are not
without jeopardy.
--
Rich, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures (radio)
www.vcnet.com/measures/library.html (org. religion)
R.L. Measures
<to...@spiinc-tx.com> wrote:
> >> Don't confuse arousal and rape. I get aroused. I don't rape. >
> >
> > Don't confuse your good behavior and good upbringing with men who have
> > not been taught as you have and who do not behave as you do.
>
> I don't.
>
€ Many convicted rapists had a control freak for a mother, aunt, older
sister - or all of the above. Rape is about control - not sex.
Mormon Lover
> > I can't argue with you there. It can happen anywhere. So too people
can
> > get run over just about anywhere including cross walks. Does that mean
they
> > should feel free to play on the Santa Monica Freeway? As a general rule
> > women are more likely to be raped when they are in less safe places,
just
> > like a person is more likely to get hit playing on the SM Freeway that
in a
> > cross walk.
>
> Most women do not willing place themselves in obvious positions of risk.
> However, initial perceptions or situations can and do change. The nice
> feller who offers to accompany you for coffee to discuss an aspect of law
> in class turns out to be Ted Bundy. The senior partner suddenly corrals
> you. Those guys at the bar who were rooting with you for the Patriots
> and telling jokes suddenly pounce. It happens. No doubt, you shouldn't
> meander into a dark park alone or down a deserted street where nobody is
> familiar alone. But even where exercising common sense, ambiguous social
> or general surroundings can change into hostile territory.>
Which goes to show that one can never be too careful. What is reasonable is
contextual. I happen to believe that it is common sense for a woman to not
advertise her sexuality in extremely provacative ways in certain situations.
Another poster said that dressing wild is always ok, while talking and
touching a man in a provocative way is not ok and can lead to rape. He said
this after saying rape is not a crime of sexual passion but of power. If
it's not about sex but only of power, why would it matter if a woman talks
and acts sexy rather than simply dressing sexy?
>
>
> >>
> >> Modesty is relative. Appropriate attire for women going to ward is
> >> considered the attire of whores in Saudi Arabia.>
>
> > I guess there is such a thing as moral relativism, and one should
consider
> > what is appropriate under the circumstances. Just because you might
wear a
> > speedo at Huntington Beach doesn't mean you ought to wear one to Dodger
> > Stadium. You can, but chances are you will send certain nonverbal
messages.
>
> >> Funny that the reverse isn't recited "the idea that a skanky man can
abuse
> >> an intoxicated woman with no repercussions is ludicrous".>
>
> > Of course there are repercussions--they can be thrown in jail. But
that's
> > not the topic. We're discussing how women can take responsibility for
> > protecting themselves, not how we can apportion blame. One is
practical,
> > the other more philosophical.
>
> Systematic application of the law rather than blaming the victim would
> seem a big help.>
I have not seem the argument that the law should be ignored or not
systematically applied. If one was made, it doesn't seem reasonable.
> Also strong and absolute education with repercussions
> about violence against those weaker than you beginning at an early age,
> would help.>
True. So would a good dose of morality in general. Chastity is a good
thing for both men and women. No double standard. Equal across the board,
as is taught in the Mormon church. It's kinda hard for a guy who believes
in keeping chaste that it's ok to sexually violate women or girls.
Stormin Mormon
"anywhere, anytime". Your "we are all the same" view of life is
not one I share. One of the things about people is that some are
well behaved, and some are not.
BTW, you just called myself and every other poster on this NG a
rapist. On behalf of all of us on the NG, I am calling for an
immediate apology.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
www.mormons.org
"Tommy" <to...@spiinc-tx.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92859062F6531...@64.154.60.178...
Mormon Lover
"Anonymous" <rema...@remailer.xganon.com> wrote in message
news:417eaa1c141233df...@remailer.xganon.com...
> In article <Xns92859062F6531...@64.154.60.178>
> Tommy <to...@spiinc-tx.com> wrote:
>
> > False. Rape knows NO local. It happens anywhere, anytime. Read the
> > facts.
>
> Ok, smartypants, cite _one_ rape which has ever taken place
> while waiting in line at an airport security checkpoint. Cite
> _one_ rape which has ever taken place during mass. Cite _one_
> rape that took place in a major league stadium during a game.
> Cite _one_ rape which has ever taken place in the dairy aisle of
> the local supermarket.
>
> Oops... guess rape _doesn't_ happen "anywhere, anytime", does it?>
By saying it could happen anywhere anytime, he merely says that it's
possible, not that it's equally probable "anywhere, anytime". This is the
type of slight of hand one needs to watch out for. This is a dishonest
argument. Of course it COULD happen anytime anywhere. That's not the
issue. It's were it's MOST LIKELY to happen, all things being equal. It's
much less likely to happen at a BYU dance, for example, than at a rave.
It's much less likely to happen to a woman who dresses and acts modestly and
doesn't frequent sleazy places than a woman who dresses and acts like a slut
and frequents places where men to like slutty women congregate.
>
> > BYU? Don't know. It's very possible that there is less rape there.
> > Who knows, though. LDSers at BYU marry at such an early age that
> > statistics would be hard to quantify with any national norm. I could
> > just as easily say there is little rape at MIT Grad school. Is there?
> > I dunno. But for similar reasons to BYU, I imagine rape would be lower
> > there than nation averages.
>
> Wait... you said rape was an anytime/anywhere sort of thing?
> Are you saying within the same post that some environments and
> situations are safer than others?>
Of course he is. Ergo, a woman CAN avoid situations that increase the
likelihood of rape.
>
>
>
Mormon Lover
> Anonymous <rema...@remailer.xganon.com> wrote in
> news:417eaa1c141233df...@remailer.xganon.com:
>
> > In article <Xns92859062F6531...@64.154.60.178>
> > Tommy <to...@spiinc-tx.com> wrote:
> >
> >> False. Rape knows NO local. It happens anywhere, anytime. Read the
> >> facts.
> >
> > Ok, smartypants, cite _one_ rape which has ever taken place
> > while waiting in line at an airport security checkpoint. Cite
> > _one_ rape which has ever taken place during mass. Cite _one_
> > rape that took place in a major league stadium during a game.
> > Cite _one_ rape which has ever taken place in the dairy aisle of
> > the local supermarket.
>
> "ANYWHERE, ANYTIME". Not "EVERYWHERE, EVERYTIME". weeeeeeee. Let's
> look at the difference, shall we?>
Yeh, let's. You imply it happens in all places and at all times with the
same level of frequency. Clearly it doesn't. That's what we're talking
about. We're talking about lessening the chance that it WILL HAPPEN at all.
One way is for a woman to behave more modestly and stay away from places
where sleezy men are more likely to congregate.
> By saying something can happen
> anywhere we are suggesting there's really no place that a rape could NOT
> happen. No one has said a rape HAS happened EVERYWHERE on Earth. I'm
> sorry...I don't mean to belittle....but your response was really stupid
> (I can't think of a better descriptive, much to my dismay).>
His response was appropriate because your post appeared to imply it was
equally likely to happen "anywhere and anytime" when clearly there are some
places and some circumstances where it is much more likely to happen than
others.
>
> I daresay a rape has occured in a grocery store, if not it's within the
> isle. Yes, they have happened in airports. Yes, in major league
> stadiums during games.>
But it's far more rare at these places than at wild parties and raves.
> Hell...20 girls were raped at the last
> Woodstock, IN THE MIDDLE OF A CROWD!!. Horrible but true. >
See what I meen. Woodstock was a wild party and a rave. It involved
lewdness and alcohol and drugs. All the things I said increase the
likelihood of rape.
>
> As for airport security, there have been LOTS of molestation complaints
> from women lately. I guess a lot of groping has been going on since
> security was stepped up. Not rape, but violation nontheless.>
Let's keep on topic. Frisking is never convenient but it may be necessary
for airport security.
>
>
> > Oops... guess rape _doesn't_ happen "anywhere, anytime", does it?
>
> Oops. Yes it does (or can).>
It can, but not with the same level of frequency. That's the real issue.
It's about probabilities, not possibilities. That's all.
> Spin the wheel again.
>
> >> BYU? Don't know. It's very possible that there is less rape there.
> >> Who knows, though. LDSers at BYU marry at such an early age that
> >> statistics would be hard to quantify with any national norm. I could
> >> just as easily say there is little rape at MIT Grad school. Is
> there?
> >> I dunno. But for similar reasons to BYU, I imagine rape would be
> lower
> >> there than nation averages.
> >
> > Wait... you said rape was an anytime/anywhere sort of thing?
> > Are you saying within the same post that some environments and
> > situations are safer than others?
>
> Sure, of course I am. Just because a police chief CAN rape a woman he's
> just pulled over (and that has happened), it doesn't mean that cops are
> unsafe people to be around. In fact, I'd say being around policemen,
> such as having a job at the police department, might lower your chances
> of rape. Doesn't mean you CAN'T get raped there. But the chances might
> be lower. >
Just like a woman's chances are lower if she makes an effort to keep out of
harms way, both in terms of how she dresses and behaves, the company she
keeps, and the types of places she frequents. Sure, it CAN happen "anywhere
anytime" but we shouldn't assume it WILL happen "anywhere anytime" with the
same frequency.
Mormon Lover
"xganon" <rema...@xganon.com> wrote in message
news:165abc600a2751b3...@xganon.com...
> In article <Xns9285A354D1D4B...@64.154.60.178>
> Tommy <to...@spiinc-tx.com> wrote:
>
> > "ANYWHERE, ANYTIME". Not "EVERYWHERE, EVERYTIME".
>
> ANYwhere includes _all_ locations. ANYtime includes _all_
> situations. Clearly this is not the case.>
Obviously. It can't happen if the woman is alone and locked in an
impermeable barrier. It can't happen while skydiving or scuba diving in a
cave that only fits one person at a time. And it's LESS LIKELY to happen if
the woman is modest and acts less like a tramp and avoids dangerous people
and places.
>
> > By saying something can happen anywhere we are suggesting there's
> > really no place that a rape could NOT happen.
>
> But there are clearly places and circumstances where they _do_
> not happen.>
And there are myriads of places, times and circumstances where it is MUCH
LESS LIKELY to happen.
>
> > No one has said a rape HAS happened EVERYWHERE on Earth.
>
> Your implication was that there is _zero_ delta of probability
> of incidence from one situation to the next. This is clearly
> false.>
Obviously. It's a sort of slight of hand trick that is intellectually
dishonest.
>
> > I'm sorry...I don't mean to belittle....but your response was
> > really stupid
>
> Don't generalize.
>
> > (I can't think of a better descriptive, much to my dismay).
>
> Might I suggest a good thesaurus? www.m-w.com is a good choice.
>
> >
> > > Oops... guess rape _doesn't_ happen "anywhere, anytime", does it?
> >
> > Oops. Yes it does (or can). Spin the wheel again.
>
> Not according to the definition of "anywhere" that you'll be
> able to find in a dictionary.>
It can't happen in a place where only one person can fit.
>
> > You're trying too hard to play in this game. Just relax and the words
> > will come to you, I promise.
>
> You're so cute when you're missing the point :)>
LOL.
Mormon Lover
> No modesty standard can be adequately defined as higher - >except within a
small group (example: Mormons) who all happen >do have the same agreed upon
standard.>
I don't think modesty standards are that different within or without the
Mormon church. It's really a matter of taking them seriously. No father
wants his daughter to dress and act like a tramp, whether Mormon or not.
The Mormon church just does a better job of applying such standards and
reinforcing them culturally.
> Such
> standard is valid only within the group. The Taliban's standard for
> morality is, by reasoning similar to yours, "higher" than your own even.
> Yet, as it falls outside of accepted norms, we regard it as technically
> "lower". Such is the Mormon standard on modesty.>
Such is not. To equate the two is ludicrous. That's moral relativism gone
hay wire.
> To those within the
> clique is an appropriate standard, to most of us outside the bubble, it is
> simply another way for the Mormon male to limit the freedom of the Mormon
female>
<chuckle> Mormon women have far more freedom on dates because they know
that when they date a Mormon guy they presumptively share the same standards
of chastity. This allows Mormon women to enjoy most situations more because
they don't have to be constantly on their guard like women who date men
trying to get into their pants.
>...again...a lower standard.
To a moron I guess.
>
> >> A man who has no problem with cleavage on display at the beach may also
> >> be the same man who condemns a girl for a tight sweater.
> >
> > In the first place, such issues are contextual. In the second,
> > I dislike cleavage displays at the beach as well.
>
> Cleavage in a nightclub is JUST as contextual as cleavage at a beach. As
> for your dislike - I think my statements above address that. How about
> bare legs at a beach?? Ooooooo! Early Mormons would have shouted their
> condemnation at such. Bare ankles?? God Forbid!!!>
What about bare genetalia? No difference? You think a woman bearing her
bush isn't more likely to arouse attention than a woman in a one piece?
>
> >> Who are YOU to say what it modest, or appropriate?
> >
> > Somebody who apparently has higher standards than you do.
>
> See above.>
>
> > Never said it did. I am asking for honest statistics to show
> > trends. But just because non-young non-attractive women are
> > raped does not mean that the rape was power-based rather than
> > sexually-based.
>
> I can do some research. This is not somthing I keep handy. I have seen,
> in my life, a lot of data on this and the experts ALWAYS say the rape in,
> in fact, power based and not sexual in nature.>
If so, why did you say you would advise women not to talk nasty and touch a
man provacatively to the point where the man is more likely to demand and
force sex? If it's not sexual in nature, it wouldn't matter how much of a
tease a woman is. But sexual arousal clearly DOES matter because I've yet
to hear of the man who raped a woman while limp.
>
> >> Fact: Rape can and does strike anyone at anytime. Age, social class,
> >> ethnic group and has no bearing on the person a rapist chooses to
> >> attack.
> >
> > Considering that many rapists target specific demographics would
> > indicate that your claim is false. Rare indeed would be the
> > rapist who went after young _and_ old.
>
> Just like rare is the serial killer who targets young AND old. They have
a
> mode d operem and stick to it. This says nothing as to any sexual
> motivation.>
If rapists aren't sexually motivated, why does a rape begin with an erection
and end with an ejaculation?
>
> > You are citing specific sets of data. Perfect. You won't mind
> > producing your references will you?
>
> Will look. Why don't you as well? I KNOW I can find research to back up
> my points, given time. How bout you?>
You've said rape isn't about sex, only power. But it doesn't take research
to prove the fact that rapes begin with an erection and end with an
ejaculation.
>
> >> His decision to rape is based on how easily he perceives his target
> >> can be intimidated. Rapists are looking for available and vulnerable
> >> targets.
> >
> > Yuh think? Still doesn't address the issue why rapist A goes
> > exclusively after 13 year olds while rapist B goes after college
> > students in off-campus housing and rapist C targets geriatrics.
>
> Sure it does. It addresses it in the same way a department store
addresses
> it's purchasing program. They stock a LOT of different colors of
clothing.
> Each person is different as to preferences. Each person buys a different
> color. When it comes to the power game that is rape - each man perceives
> weekness/vulnerability differently. Each finds his target where he sees
> the opening.>
So to speak....
>
> >> Like any other rape. Are you on my side now?
> >
> > No, I was being quite sarcastic. Prostitutes are generally
> > raped because they act and dress, well, like prositutes and the
> > guy wants a free ride.
>
> Not true. Men are already getting a "free" ride with a prostitute. If he
> simply doesn't want to pay for it he can just do her, then take the money
> back and kick her out of the car. There's no sexual motivation for raping
> a prostitute - the most willing sexual partner one could find.>
By definition, if the prostitute is consenting only because of the money, to
not pay the money makes the act a rape because it negates consent. A man
who promises certain things in exchange for sex can be guilty of rape if he
secured the woman's consent by false pretenses (ie. pretending to be someone
he wasn't).
> If he jilts
> the prostiture out of money he'll have a pimp coming for him...but even
> worse should he rape her!>
He already has raped her when he doesn't pay.
>
> > You are saying that date rape is the same as any other rape?
> > Highly unlikely. There are predatory rapes and there are
> > convenient rapes. The high school jock who finds the drunk
> > freshman at the post-game party probably didn't wake up that
> > morning and plan it out. Or are you saying that he did?
>
> No, date rape is slightly different. Not ALL rapes are planned.>
I doubt if most date rapes are planned. Planning on having consensual sex
and then taking it by force is not premeditated rape.
> Planning
> doesn't have be a man writing in his journal that he plans on raping a
> girl. It can be as simple as a jock deciding he's going to have her, one
> way or another.
>
> Think back to high school - few high school jocks have problems getting
> laid. If a jock forces himself on a girl, it's not because he wants it
and
> can't get it...it's because he is not going to be denied. Power. >
No. because he's horny. His boner is living proof of his sexual arousal by
the particular girl.
> Typically, all he'd have to do is go back to the party and find someother
> 'willing' participant. >
Speculation. Could be that all have already paired up or the remaining ones
are dogs.
>
> >> Yes, some women do continue contact with the rapist. But this is most
> >> common where the woman does not even realize she has been raped. She
> >> knows she had sex forced upon her. But many women take that as a
> >> reality of a marraige/relationship. Sad.
> >
> > Let's see... sex was forced upon her and she didn't know she was
> > raped? You don't give women much credit, do you?
>
> You don't give my statements much, do you? Read more. When they interview
> rape victims, you hear over and over that they didn't equate what was
> happening with "rape" until they were out of the situation and were able
to
> look back.>
If a girl doesn't know she is getting raped at the time, there is something
seriously wrong with the girl's understanding. If she said no and then was
boned anyway, how could she misunderstand till later? Is this some sort of
suppressed memory thing?
> Same as battered women. They go into self denial. I do think
> very highly of women. But anyone can loose their capacity to reason when
> they are being abused.>
Only to a point. Not to the level you are suggesting.
>
> > Intentionally making claims that you don't even believe yourself?
>
> Nope. Read. I DO believe it. I post that just to state that I have no,
> and know of no hard statistics to back my statement. Therefor I'm
> qualifying it as nothing more than a point of view. Easy to understand
> once you try.
>
> > How many women seek out the bad boy? The rebel? The guy who
> > treated his last girlfriend horribly, but this time he'll be
> > different?
> >
> Many men do the same. They go for a big boobed dumb blonde who treats
them
> bad. Doesn't mean all men are dumb.>
No, it means they like big boobs because of biology. What biological trait
encourages women to like abusive men? Are abusive men really great
providers in disguise?
> Just some are blinded to the better
> qualities the should look for in choosing a mate. And it CERTAINLY
doesn't
> mean go into bad relationships knowing they are going to be hurt. They
> always believe that it will be different. People make mistakes - this is
> very differnt from asking to be abused.>
No one is asking for abuse. Some of us, however, are more realistic in how
women can prevent it without falling into the trap of spewing ideological
platitudes.
>
Nomen Nescio
Tommy <to...@spiinc-tx.com> wrote:
> If a women chooses to intentionally arouse a man and then embarrass him by
> pulling sex off the table at the last minute, she should be careful because
> that will anger some men into rape.
Didn't you say that rapes are planned events?
> I can find lots of statistics showing how little dress matters
But don't seem to have any interest in doing so even when asked
point blank.
> A woman can act sexy all she wants and it will have no bearing on her being
> raped.
Which contradicts what you said just a few lines above... that
bit about "pulling sex off the table at the last minute". Can't
you at least be consistent within the same post?
> If, on the other hand, a woman actually instigates sex and tries to stop
> 1/2 way through, that might lead some men to rape, IMO. I could be wrong
> but I can see it happening.
But you said that rape is a planned crime, and one of power and
not sex. Will you _please_ make up your mind?
> I never said that. I feel that men who suggest that women who dress
> scantilly are partially to blame for the rape are prepetuating a situation
> where men find more excuses to do so.
But since women know that men feel this way, only the stupid
ones wouldn't recognize that scanty dress may provoke some of
the more neanderthal males into unacceptable behavior.
> >> Fact: Rape can and does strike anyone at anytime. Age, social class,
> >> ethnic group and has no bearing on the person a rapist chooses to
> >> attack.>
> >
> > It CAN happen to anyone, but it MOST COMMONLY happens to women in
> > certain situations.
>
> False. Where are you getting this???
Which is a more common situation for rape - the grocery store at
noon or in the back of a van on a deserted lovers' lane at
midnight after sharing a six pack? In church at 3pm or in a
frat house bedroom at 3am? Let's think long and hard about
this...
Mormon Lover
> >> No, you simply have an elitist view of morality and modesty. A man
> >> who has no problem with cleavage on display at the beach may also be
> >> the same man who condemns a girl for a tight sweater. Who are YOU to
> >> say what it modest, or appropriate?>
> >
> > Would you wear a speedo to Dodger Stadium? If not why not? Who are
> > you to say there is anything wrong with it?
> >
> > For that matter, do you think wearing a speedo to Dodger stadium or
> > while walking down Santa Monica Blvd. east of Doheney doesn't send
> > certain noverbal messages?
>
> It says "I have poor taste in clothing". Or it says "I am on my way to
the
> beach". Or it says "I am a Calvin Klein model". Only nonverbal message I
> see there is lack o' fashion sense.>
If you have ever been on Santa Monica Blvd east of Doheney you'd know
wearing a speedo sends other messages. Next time you're in LA I'll drive
you by "The Rage" and you can see for yourself what I'm talking about.
>
> I would not wear a speedo to Dodger Stadium. But I bet it has been done
by
> some sports fanatic at some point in history. I don't wear a speedo
> ANYWHERE. I also don't begrudge anyone the right to do so if they so
> choose. I have my standard. Others have theirs. No one's is "higher'
> than any one else'.>
We aren't talking about standards. We're talking about the nonverbal
messages men and women send to others in their manner of dress. A woman who
dresses like a whore screams out certain messages loud and clear, just like
you would wearing a speedo in the middle of West Hollywood. It's not just
about "fashion".
>
> >> >> Short skirts, tight tops, etc. I've never seen 1 survey that
> >> >> attributed dress to rape.
> >> >
> >> > I've never seen any studies on the issue - they would be far too
> >> > politically incorrect to even attempt.
> >>
> >> Myth: Rape only happens to young attractive women.>
> >
> > Fact: since you say that date rape accounts for a higher than average
> > number of rapes, and since young attractive women go on more dates
> > than old women or women or who aren't attractive, it follows that
> > young attractive women are raped more on average than women at large.
> > This directly follows from your date rape statistic.
>
> Young women, 18-24, are the most likely to be raped, yes.>
Bingo.
> Attractive, no. >
That doesn't follow from your statistic. I've seen stats that show that
attractive women have many more sexual and dating partners than ugly ones.
Thus, more attractive women date more making them more likely to experience
date rape.
> I am out and about a LOT and can attest to the idea that attractive girls
> are out LESS than the fair to non attractive females. :)>
Maybe you don't see them because they are in the back seat of cars getting
raped.
>
> Come on! Attractive girls don't date anymore than other girls.>
That's absurd. Of course they do. Fat ugly girls never get as many dates
as shapely beautiful ones.
> They may
> date more attractive men, maybe. They may get rich men more easily. But
> most young, single girls date. Most date a lot. And most date enough to
> eventually get married. >
You are hillariously wrong. Men fight over themselves to get the babes such
that babes date more. It's a fact.
>
> >> Fact: Rape can and does strike anyone at anytime.>
> >
> > That's like saying: Fact: people can be hit by cars anywhere and
> > anytime; therefore, there is no statistical basis for saying that
> > crossing freeways in LA is more dangerous than entering cross walks.
>
> If cars drove anywhere and everywhere it would be a similat analogy.>
Just like cars don't drive anywhere and everywhere with the same frequency,
rapists don't congregate anywhere and everywhere with the same frequency.
Ergo, modesty in dress, action and locale (avoiding raves and sleezy places)
makes all the difference in the world.
> Since
> they only drive on roads, hopefully, it's more like saying "fact, you have
> as much chance of being hit on a small residential street and a freeway".
> Which is true, I believe.>
Only because people typically have the common sense not to cross freeways
like they cross streets. Similarly, most women with common sense don't
place themselves in harm's way so as to avoid situations where rapes are
most likely.
> Since rapists live in every walk of society,>
Now you're at it again. You imply that rapists live everywhere in society
with the same frequency and that they act out their crimes everywhere with
the same frequency. Clearly they don't. place, time and circumstances are
the biggest things that change the probability of rape.
> your analogy is far off. This isn't MY idea - I'm going off published
rape
> statistics.
>
> > You're mixing possibilities with probabilities.
>
> Not at all. I'm showing you actual rape facts.>
You have not shown that every woman is equally likely to get raped in every
possible circumstance. Until you do, you have not in the least refuted the
notion that dress, behavior and location can make a difference in not
getting raped.
>
> > Age, social class,
> >> ethnic group and has no bearing on the person a rapist chooses to
> >> attack.>
> >
> > That's nonsense. You just said that most rapes are date rapes.
> > Therefore, going on dates bears a strong statistical correlation with
> > getting raped. Ergo, those who go on dates most are more likely to be
> > raped. Those who date the most are younger, more attractive women.
>
> See above. Or do you have published "date facts" that we can see?>
I have the fact that of college roomates that I knew, the cute ones always
had dates and the ugly ones never had dates.
> Of
> COURSE that's not true at all. And I did not say "most" rapes are date
> rapes.>
Yes you did. You said that 6 out of 10 rapes are date rapes.
> If I did, I spoke out of context and I appologize. "Many" rapes are
> date rapes. Many are not. What I said was "most" women know their
> attackers prior to the rape.
>
> >> Research data clearly proves that a way a woman dresses and / or
> >> acts does not influence the rapists choice of victims.>
> >
> > Show me the research.
>
> I did. I'll look for more since you obviously can't find any to support
> your own theories.>
I have researched women quite thoroughly, and my conclusion is quite clear.
Cute ones date much more than ugly ones.
>
> > His decision to
> >> rape is based on how easily he perceives his target can be
> >> intimidated. Rapists are looking for available and vulnerable
> >> targets. >
> >
> > Young attractive women are perceived as being vulnerable, especially
> > if they lack the self esteem necessary to dress modestly. I've heard
> > many renouned feminists say on nightly news that getting boob jobs and
> > dressing to allure men is a clear sign of a lack of self esteem. If
> > femenists can figure this out, you better believe that rapists have
> > figured it out too.
>
> Getting a boob job is related how?? Do many have low self esteem?>
That's what feminists have been saying. They do this because they have
"false consciousness" and want to please men.
> I guess that could be true. Are some of them raped? Yeah..I guess.
But I dare
> say if you researched this you will find a relatively small portion of
rape
> victims to have had boob jobs. Rediculous postulation. Read more. >
It's about self esteem. Boob jobs is but one facet. Another is sleeziness
in dress in an attempt to attract a man. Feminists hate the bimbo. Nothing
threatens them more. Thus, they write bimbos off as not being one of them
and lacking sophistication and self esteem. Look at how they rallied around
Anita Hill (one of them) but said that Paula Jones (not one of them) was
nothing but "trailor trash". Do you think "trailor trash" describes someone
with high self esteem in their minds?
>
> >> Statistics were obtained from various sources including the study
> >> Rape in America, 1992, National Victim Center, The Federal Bureau of
> >> Investigations and the National Crime Survey.>
> >
> > Show the statistics and show me how you drew your conclusion.
>
> Will look. Am just quoting off a rape awareness web site right now...
>
> >> >> The only situation where that is relevant is in prostitution,
> >> >> where there are always high numbers of rapes.
> >> >
> >> > Coincidence, of course. Prostitutes are raped only because men
> >> > want power.
> >>
> >> Like any other rape. Are you on my side now?>
> >
> > He was mocking you. "Men only go to prostitutes because they want
> > power, not because they want to get their rocks off."
>
> He was wrong. Want to join the club?>
I'm not sure what your club requirements are. Are you saying men DON'T go
to prostitutes for sex but only for power?
>
> >> >> Bottom line - 6 out of 10 rape victims knew their attacker.
> >> >
> >> > Women are particularly poor judges of character in many cases.
> >> > And many of those "date rape" situations are followed up with
> >> > continued contact.
> >>
> >> Myth: Sexual assault is an impulsive, spontaneous act.
> >>
> >>
> >> Fact: Most rapes are carefully planned by the rapist. A rapist will
> >> rape again and again, usually in the same area of town and in the
> >> same way.>
> >
> > You said most rapists rape on dates. Why would women go on dates with
> > men with a habit of date rape? Don't these sorts of things get out or
> > are date rapists entirely immune from their acts being known? Maybe
> > women should talk more and compare notes?
>
> Where are you getting this? Can you show me where I said most rapes
happen
> on dates so that I can dutifully retract my mistep? Do you really think
> most women know ANYTHING about a man's prior sexual deviencies??>
You said most women knew their attacker? If so, they obviously didn't know
them well enough. I guess it's true--there are some things that a woman
will believe because whe wants to believe it.
And if a
> woman DOES not a man date raped before, how many women do think would go
> out with him?? Not many, I assure you!
>
> >> Sources same as referenced above.
> >>
> >> Yes, some women do continue contact with the rapist. But this is
> >> most common where the woman does not even realize she has been raped.
> >> She knows she had sex forced upon her. But many women take that as
> >> a reality of a marraige/relationship. Sad.>
> >
> > And yet I've been told by women they have a rape fantasy. Not one
> > that involves your typical scumbag rapist, but a lover of their
> > choice.
>
> You know some women that need to talk with a counselor.>
That would include most women, because according to psychologists, it's
quite a common thing, this rape fantasy.
>A rape fantasy is
> not considered a "healthy" thing to have and may indicate some other
> problems buried. I knew a girl who had a rape fantasy. Years later she
> confided that she had been abused as a child.>
Any takers here? Are rape fanstasies among women abnormal and indicative of
abuse or mental illness?
>
> >> >> The rapist typically plans his rape in advance
> >> >
> >> > References? I say that most date rapes are spur of the moment
> >> > sorts of things.
> >>
> >> See above. Read more.>
> >
> > I think your "evidence" is not solid on this point.
>
> At least I'm presenting SOMETHING. At the very least it holds more weight
> that your personal rebuttals.>
I've only offered common sense, which you've attempted to rebut, not very
convincingly I might add.
>
> >> >> and no amount of modest clothing is going to save her.
> >> >
> >> > How many times is a Quaker raped on a date?
> >>
> >> Well...they don't "date" now, do they? I believe their courting
> >> process is pretty anitiquated.>
> >
> > Yet above you said it happens to everyone, as if to imply that there
> > is nothing a woman can do to change the incidence of rape.
>
> True. So?>
You mean to say that there is nothing a woman can do to lessen the incidence
of rape? That's nutty. What about carrying a concealed weopon? Even some
feminists are beginning to advocate that option.
>
> >> Is there abuse and rape within the Quaker
> >> community? Most likely. But I can't imagine a place where the women
> >> are less likely to report such when it happens. Rape is already the
> >> least reported crime in the US. It's worse within a close knit
> >> society.>
> >
> > Are you saying Quakers rape but keep it hush hush better than most?
>
> Very likely.>
Those wild and crazy Quakers, the beacon of all that liberals love in
sectarian religion, are covering up rapes. That's a new one.
>
> >> >> in a world where 9 out of 10 men are mysogynists on some level,
> >> >
> >> > References? Or vapor statistics in action?
> >>
> >> My line was not meant as a statistic. Just a view point.>
> >
> > As is the rest of what you posted.
>
> No...in most cases I try and post published statistics...or at least
> opinions expressed by experts in the field. So what you are posting is
> what......? Fact?>
Common sense.
>
> > Women instinctively don't want to date "nice guys" but "bad boys".
> > Every guy I know who got a motorcycle said he got more dates because
> > of it.
> >>
>
> Please.
>
> Let me tell you. I am 29, tall, decent looking, have shoulder length hair
> and play guitar and sing lead in a band. I have a steady girlfriend and
> don't sleep around. I have no problems talking to girls at a bar -
> especially after a gig. Lot's of my friends are that good looking,
> motorcycle driving, bad-boy type you speak of (most are also very nice
> people). These "bad boys" are typically puppy dogs when it comes to
girls. >
And yet you and they dress and act in a way that you think is cool because
you think it gets you chicks. Try cutting your hair, wearing polyester,
inserting a pocket protector in your short sleeve shirt pocket, and hanging
a slide rule on your belt and see if it changes anything. I'm sure you know
it would, just like you know that you are more aroused by women who dress
and act sexy than those who dress like Quakers.
> Laughably so in most cases.
>
> Guys who get motorcycles and suddenly find themselves scoring more are
> scoring with some boring girls. Where are you from???>
The land of tinsel and glitter itself. Where ads for "rich gentlemen only"
and "sugar daddies" abound in the local underground newspaper (LA Express).
> I know that many
> women want someone more interesting than your typical crop-haired frat-boy
> - but I hear of more girls raped by football players than I do from "bad->
boys". >
Could be, but no one said they weren't. BTW, can you say where you
"hear[d]" it?
>
> Women DO instictively want to date nice guys. They just don't want
> "boring" guys.>
Like the wildest chick in my high school who wanted to date the 4.0 guy. We
joked that he would have to wear the chastity belt.
>
>