Message from discussion
population explosion
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!agate!linus!linus.mitre.org!mitre.org!m21757
From: m21...@mitre.org (G)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: population explosion
Message-ID: <1992May17.203919.6196@linus.mitre.org>
Date: 17 May 92 20:39:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: linus.1992May17.203919.6196
Sender: n...@linus.mitre.org (News Service)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Lines: 84
Nntp-Posting-Host: siddiqui.mitre.org
In article <1992May15.183417.17...@newton.ccs.tuns.ca>
jama...@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Nadeem Jamali) writes:
> >If you and I are pals and I have a wallet with 5 $1000 bills in it, and
I
> >tell you that I have them. You have no right to take it. I think we
> >agree on that. If I say I'll give you 1 of the bills and just as I
have
> >removed it from my wallet and am about to hand it to you, I change my
mind
> >and put it back into my wallet, and tell you I've changed my mind. You
> >have no right to _take_ it anyway! Ambiguous situation or not, I
withdrew
> >my offer.
>
>
> It's strange how women think that they are 'giving' something to someone
> while having sex. Sex is not a woman's property. This attitute stinks.
When women's bodies are ravaged, violently, against their will, then
something is _taken_ from them. The sense of control over ones own life _and_ body,
self-respect, a sense of security etc. etc.
When people have non-rape sex they are both "giving" their consent.
> The problem with delibrately arousing one sexually and then refusing to
have
> sex (what a friend of mine used to refer to as KLPD) is not like showing
$1000
> bills. There is an emotional cycle that is started in the process, that
should
> normally end in an intercourse.
>
> You're talking about rapes. How many men are unwillingly seduced every
day.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> The fact is that most men must have been led into a sexual intercourse by
> some woman atleast once. Suppose, if a guy tells a girl, "NO I'm too
tired", and
> she tries to get him in the "right mood", is that an attempt to rape him.
> Where does the "NO means NO" go then.. well, what to talk of "MAYBE
means NO".
I think by the nature of the word seduction the men were quite willing.
If anyone gets another in the right mood, then they are in the right mood!
This means agreement on both sides. There is no "no" at that time. Are
you confusing "seduction" with "rape"?
>
> Rape is not justified. Alright. I condemn rape. So do most men.. even
many
> rapists do condemn rape. But saying NO at an awkward time just to
reassert
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Have you had a bad experience? How do you know if someone is saying no
just to reassert ones rights and when she really means no? It's not clear
to you? It doesn't matter. No is no. Yes one really shouldn't play
around with another like that, but it is not "at least equally
contemptible" by any stretch of the imagination!
> ones rights is atleast equally contemptible. It looks like the woman is
raping
> the man... and there are so many of these rapes happening out there every
> day, without anyone doing anything about it.
The rape that I am talking about is forcing sex upon someone against
their will, and yes men have been raped too (mostly by other men)!
Another definition of rape is "outrageous violation". If you think that
someone who says no after turning the other person is an "outrageous
violation", that is your perogative.
> The kind of attitude women seem to have today will probably make men
> sick of the idea of sex.
>
> I didn't mean to offend anyone. I apologise if I have. But I am utterly
> disgusted by "G's" reference to sex as if it is a woman's personal
property.
Guess what? A woman's body and consent is her personal property. She can at any time say no. It takes 2 to tango and if one does not want to, you don't tango.
>
> Nadeem[satisfied with his Lever2000]Jamali
> --
|
