population explosion

13 views
Skip to first unread message

G

unread,
May 17, 1992, 4:39:19 PM5/17/92
to
In article <1992May15.1...@newton.ccs.tuns.ca>
jam...@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
> --

Message has been deleted

G

unread,
May 19, 1992, 9:38:29 AM5/19/92
to
In article <1992May18....@newton.ccs.tuns.ca>
jam...@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Nadeem Jamali) writes:
> In article <1992May17....@linus.mitre.org> m21...@mitre.org (G)
writes:

> >In article <1992May15.1...@newton.ccs.tuns.ca>
> >jam...@newton.ccs.tuns.ca (Nadeem Jamali) writes:
>
> .. previous article deleted

>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
>
> I do understand that being raped is a terrible experience. As you
> must have noticed in following parts of my posting, I have unequivocally
> denounced/condemned rape.

I do agree that you have condemned violent rape. Yes.

>
> It's unfortunate that in a discussion concerning such a sensitive issue
> related to women, you are stuck up with this one word 'giving' and are
> not accepting your mistake in using it the way you did.

Well I guess I also think that the man is giving his consent too. I think
the giving goes both ways.

>
> First, in the "analogy" you gave, you only showed one person giving
something.
> So, it wasn't very much of an analogy anyway. Second, the connotations of
> 'giving' as in 'giving consent' and as in 'giving money' are different.

> What I was referring to is the fact that if a man is initially not
willing
> to have sex, a woman's attempt to make him willing is socially more
acceptable
> than a man's attempt in a similar situation.
>In fact, if a man decides to
> continue the effort, he can very easily be accused of sexual harrassment
or
> something similar.. on the contrary, a man crying sexual harassment is
more
> of a joke.

Well no one male nor female should try to make someone willing in an
_inappropriate_ situation, like at the workplace or in public. Yes this
would be sexual harassment, no matter who tried. I don't think society
thinks it's ok for a women to try to make a man willing and not ok for a
man to try to make a woman willing. The key word to me is willing. If
they are willing no problem. Forcing someone by uncomfortable methods is
what is unacceptable - by either party.

>
> Coitus is a biological process. One's response can be changed from NO to
> YES or to a silent submission by a little effort. You just have to start
> the urge in the other person. The problem is that when a woman decides to
> persist, the man doesn't normally say anything unless he is real pissed
> off. If, au contrary, the guy goes on, the woman takes the liberty to
> cry rape. This has become a social norm.

I don't think so. There might _some_ women who might do this but it is
definitely not a social norm. Well actually since neither of us have any
studies or facts to back up our claims, let's desist on that matter.

>
> First, what I have referred to is not the violent kind of rape. This is
> the kind of "rape", in which the woman has reservations at the time of
> having sex, but when she wakes up in the morning, she concludes that she
> was raped.

Yes very unfortunate.

>
> See, even if the woman was enjoying the sex after initial resistance, she
> can cry rape the next day. The male is always in a vulnerable situation.
> Even if the woman did not say NO, she can always claim that she did.
> The man won't cry rape even if he did say NO.
>
> Also, if a woman is drunk when she has willingly had sex, next day she
can
> go and say that she has been raped.

That's true. You've heard of the case of a woman who was mentally ill?
Apparently she had multiple personalities. A man had sex with her when
one of her willing personalities appeared. Seems ok doesn't it? It came
to the court because I believe there was a law that said if someone is
aware of the mental illness of the patient then one cannot take advantage
of it for their own use. I don't know if the man was convicted or not.
Does anyone know?


>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
>

> Please let me repeat.. it is a biological process. Also, the sexual
excitements
> of a man and a woman are different in their levels and nature if plotted
> against time. Because of these things, women tend to be in an emotional
state
> to back out at a much later stage. A lot of women just suddenly stop
feeling

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> like having sex after a verbal consent. It's rare in males.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Where did you get this information from?


>
> The way society
> sees men and women is different. Because of this, men even when they are
> in extreme pain, don't normally accuse the woman because it is considered
> very unmanly (at loss of better words)..
>
> If you deny the mainly biological urges that at times make it difficult
for
> a man to acknowledge a NO, then just imagine, if the man decides to
leave the
> act just about the time the woman is about to get orgasm. Also, the way
> male sexual excitation level drops suddenly after orgasm, and female
level
> falls smoothly, if we really talk about reasserting ones rights, how
about
> the male stops immediately after getting orgasm. He will feel much better
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> that way, but it is out of the consideration for the woman that the guy
> won't normally do that.

So let's say the male stops immediately after getting orgasm. Ok, this
guy is inconsiderate. Does she feel raped or just cheated?

>
> >> 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.
> >
>

> Please refer to your own explanation of the work 'rape' above. Aren't you
> playing with the word 'property' here. Let's see how I justify my using
the
> word rape in contrast to your using the words 'property' and 'giving'.
>
> The words you are using have well-recognised multiple definitions. You
are
> using the fact that the same words mean different things in the analogy
and
> the real question at hand, to justify your point.

I guess I don't follow your point.

>
> I was introducing a new concept. A concept of a genuine male agony
chiefly
> caused by interruption of a biological process. I also suggested that
since
> the woman starts the cycle _delibrately_ (please note that I am
> considering the case in which the woman is initially a part in starting
> the cycle) and later stops it prematurely, she is to blame. Of the
existent
> words (at least those known to me), I found 'rape' to capture the outrage
> one feels for the violation best. This is one of the ways fresh concepts
> are named.. find the word that captures the concept. Had I given it a new
> name like 'epar', I would have had to formally define it.. something that
> I wanted to avoid.

I understand that you were introducing a new concept, and maybe to you the
word rape made the most sense. Fine. Without saying that you can't or
shouldn't do that, let's make sure we don't dilute the horror of rape
(male or female victims) by throwing the word around.

>
> >>
> >> Nadeem[satisfied with his Lever2000]Jamali
> >> --
>

> What I am concerned about is not winning/losing this/any debate. Most of
us
> are seeing how a the instuition of a family ceases to exist today the
way it
> once used to. There was a strength in the unit. It does serve the
purpose of
> a capitalist system that individuals rather than larger units are dealt
with.
> The way in which many non-issues are being brought up like hot valid
topics
> of discussion, and the way sides are being changed by the so called
intell-
> ectuals, I'm afraid they are up to destroying another instituition.. the
> instuition of which a male and a female are a part. Once that is broken,
> each individual will be an individual.. just like each animal is an
individual.
> When you hurt one, others run away rather than resisting.. that's a bad
> feeling.
>

We could go on forever about this, and I sense that neither of us do. So
good luck to you in your endeavors.

G


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages