Pornobabe Dies

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Btw, she's also one of those lovely people who says EVERY sexual act is rape.

Is not.

The Guardian!

Like che said, only if you believe it. The Guardian is the type of publication that would minimize Dworkin's controversial words.

From the same article:

Intercourse remains a means, or the means, of physiologically making a woman inferior: communicating to her, cell by cell, her own inferior status ... pushing and thrusting until she gives in

Sounds like sex = rape to me.

When che and I both think she's said that, then you know you got yourself a problem .

[JohnT]

If women dress down in baggy clothes and don't wear make-up to many people it's because they're frigid or they're lesbians. But if they dress attractively, they're trolling for compliments, teases or sluts.

All the women I see with baggy clothes and no makeup tend to be draggin' a couple of kids behind them. Women who dress "attractively" are either "single" or "working."

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

When you say "working" it makes me question the neighborhoods you are frequenting.

[JohnT]

As in "jobs" and stuff. Knoxville is the buckle of the Bible belt: our whores aren't bothering the good folk of the city, they're working the Interstate truck stops where they belong!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Which reminds me I need to drive up to Tennesee sometime soon again.

[JohnT]

Be sure to visit the truck stop at Watt Rd, exit 373 on I-40. Our working gals need your patronage!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Local economy.

[JohnT]

I wonder what Saint Marcus would have to say about the similarity of man and woman, and whether the differences are just culturally imposed.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

[Michael Jackson Mode]

When you say differences, see you're thinking sexual

[/Michael Jackson Mode]

[Jon Miller]

Marcus hasn't posted for a long time...

JM

[St Leo]

Originally posted by JohnT
I wonder what Saint Marcus would have to say about the similarity of man and woman, and whether the differences are just culturally imposed.

I have the opposite problem. Intelligent guys capable of prolonged communication are ever elusive. Girls are easier to find.

[Jon Miller]

I had that trouble in HS

in college I found smarter guys...

Jon Miller

[Ted Striker]

I'd hyt it

[Zylka]

you know in basic reading of all described thus far; expanding classifications of male and female does make limited sense - at least for those few minds out there looking (and able) to recognize such specification repeatedly, throughout mature life. Though as John T appropriately pointed out, for this world, it indeed has no practical place. Not quite yet, at least.

We're still, at such a high level, hard-wired as animals. I'm going to have to agree with any assertion that the majority of males are "potential rapists" as the majority of males are indeed hard-wired as rapists. By cognitive arrival; the average "male" will experience inclining pangs to do just that. In any basic lustful stare, for instance, males are cognitively hardwired towards thoughts of physical superiority in the sexual act. In any basic lustful stare for a female, the hardwiring is towards thought of losing control to a man fit enough (ie., per average, genitically endowed enough) to ensure just that. Thus the model male puts up offensive front, the model female defensive - ensuring an average repeating pattern of the strongest seed surviving through reproduction. As not all born males are necessarily "strong" enough to force any female, weaker seeds (were) repeatedly weeded out

By evolutionary convention; the sex side of this loosely continuing male-female partnership which is more physically active is the one to be established as the more offensive. That's common sense. The same common sense states that the defensive side compliments/completes the repeated equation by putting up full enough a fight as to ward off the weakest of potential "mates". The defensive side therefore comes more and more a cognitive roleplayer to be just that, a defensive.

In evolutionary repition - rape has a mathematical spot as human science. And our hardwired brains have FAR but evolved to the same convention that our sudden and exponential social growth has provided. Bottom line; that which many like to describe as "arbitrary" roles in gender are not so blankly "arbitrary". Gender roles, in their infancy - stem from and are ultimately supported by the natural cognitive state of humans.

Now when we include current systems of mentioned social growth.. things obviously get touchier. The average male is still going to have repeating thoughts of wanting to rape; those same thoughts being effectively dulled from action by learned social convention & its justification by socially imposed consequence.

And if males are ultimately the force based superior in the equation; where did this consequence based system of shunning rape come from? Why did Godess worship, then Chivalry, then Women's equality, et all, all come about and STAY tolerated - when man's force could assure otherwise? For the most part, likely in repeated social practise and compounded learning: that increased benefit in child raising from the defensor comes from a nice balance of beating her enough to submit, but no so much as to entirely debilitate :|

(Yes ladies, not to mention the fact that a male lead tyranny would in so many ways be a painfully difficult enforcement for males themselves)

So as social learning increases with compounding effect; the system slowly fine tunes itself to "what level of oppression is needed?" in weight with "how little physical/mental injury can be afflicted upon the defensor (to assure best child raising / general co-operative results)".

Upon which.. at least in Western Society - Women achieve their arrived power of socially granted/upheld right to personal defense. This defense, of course - comes at price of the counter swing a male dominant system has slowly, subtly, and subconsciously put into place: that of exaggerating gender roles. It's at least my theory, that in the repeated social dulling of hard-wired needs - a collectively frustrated male mindset finds collective and subconscious solace in forced gender exaggeration. The females, the more able and genitically endowed females, become more visibly female in their hardwiring acceptance of being defendor. The (lesser) females, the less able and genitcally endowed females, slightly less often become visibly female in their hardwiring partial acceptance of being defendor. The more offendor prone females, the more genitically assertive and perhaps aggressive ones - more often reject the concept, etc. In such scale of graduation, it eventually furthers contrast levels of "the female" for easier male selection/identification.

This, of course - has its own mirror trend in female expectation of male gender exaggeration; though one much smaller by convention of who's overall "running the show".

It gets incredibly complicated when our previously mentioned exponential social learning gets to a point of everyone coming to know the system - then seeking unique and further specification in mainstream realization of the old systems' simplicity. I think that's a part of universal recognition we're embarking upon today, with mention and debate of sexuality, gender role and sex definition at a historically massive peak. Violent, perhaps resurgent hiccup of the now male lead system will probably come about when biologically readable definitions of individual humans and their "scale" of sex become available and challenge the fine tuning opression outright.

Either that or the fine tuning continues until a relative equality is reached. A full "equality" or erasure of sex seems impossible, as our still unchanged hardwiring would always challenge for something different. Who knows. All I know for now is that I'm about to beat off to some nice SHAVED likes and their linking bonus zone before going to bed.

GRUNT. Deceptively partial Male.

[Dis]

Imagine the financial costs that we would incur if we had to add more restrooms for these "other" genders.