Rape Culture is Real

[LuisDantas]

as simply as i can put it for you, a monogmous relationship is the only proper way to fulfill sexual desire. Its the way sanctioned by God as the creator of the sexual organs and desires.

He doesnt forbid sex for pleasure so long as it stays between two married adults.

Anything outside of this causes many problems and leads to abuse and many more problems.

The available evidence does not particularly support those statements. Unfortunately. It would be so much easier were that the case!

One can't help but notice that if God wants human sex to happen only monogamonously and inside marriages, he is having a very hard time letting us know. It is certainly not rare or unnatural to feel the drive in other situations.

Besides, as others noted, marriage and exclusivity are not even particularly associated with healthy relationships. Worthy a goal as a healthy, stable and motivating marriage is, it can't be attained by simple formulas. It takes knowing each other and learning to have mutual acceptance and respect.

 

[LuisDantas]

You really can't see how monogamy can be a solution to this problem?

Monogamy can't be a solution to any problem, because it is a vocation that some people can express and others can not.

 

[Pegg]

Monogamy can't be a solution to any problem, because it is a vocation that some people can express and others can not.

eventually there will be no choice in the matter.

 

[LuisDantas]

eventually there will be no choice in the matter.

That does not seem to be the trend, to say the least.

 

[Pegg]

That does not seem to be the trend, to say the least.

thats ok, God wont tolerate mans bad behaviour indefinitely....eventually he will bring his own form of justice just as he has in the past.

We have enough knowledge now to know what is the right path and the choice is ours....but soon there wont be a choice.

 

[LuisDantas]

thats ok, God wont tolerate mans bad behaviour indefinitely....eventually he will bring his own form of justice just as he has in the past.

Let him come, then. I will have some stern words to direct to him.

 

[Sunstone]

You really can't see how monogamy can be a solution to this problem?

Sure, because rape absolutely never happens within the context of a monogamous marriage.

 

[crossfire]

Sure, because rape absolutely never happens within the context of a monogamous marriage.

[sarcasm] And of course, it wouldn't be valid grounds for divorce if it did happen, because marriage is ownership of another's sexuality. [/sarcasm]

 

[Pegg]

[sarcasm] And of course, it wouldn't be valid grounds for divorce if it did happen, because marriage is ownership of another's sexuality. [/sarcasm]

that may be how man views it, but its certainly not how God views it.

 

[LuisDantas]

that may be how man views it, but its certainly not how God views it.

And yet you see monogamy as a solution to rape?

 

[dust1n]

I always found the blind belief in marriage as a perfect institution created by God and bestowed to people to be one of the most harmful things to a marriage itself.

Is it any wonder Atheist marriages may last longer than Christian ones - Salon.com

 

[Revoltingest]

I always found the blind belief in marriage as a perfect institution created by God and bestowed to people to be one of the most harmful things to a marriage itself.

Is it any wonder Atheist marriages may last longer than Christian ones - Salon.com

Our new slogan:
Atheists.....preserving traditional family values of the western world

 

[Shadow Wolf]

this is how the media and entertainment portray women.... we are very strongly influenced by what we see and hear. Attitudes are molded by what is dictated in the media and by what people watch. Ideas affect our views and if the ideas tell us that woman are inferior and 'sexual' then the people will respond to that.

And we can see how this is happening. Women are dressing more in more sexually provocative clothing because they see all the women in the media dressing like that and it becomes 'normal' to them.

men see women portrayed as sexually available and willing, and they view women that way.... more men treat women as sexually available and willing.

Now society has to implement more and more laws surrounding such behaviour because its so prevalent.

We have laws today that extent protections to me that my grandmother never had. She had tolerate abusive relationships because it was expected of women back then, and there were no laws against domestic violence and rape. Things were so bad for women when she was born that women had yet to gain to right to vote at the federal level.
But we still live in a patriarchal society where women are expected to be held accountable for the actions of men. If that was not the case, then rape victims would rarely be blamed for the crime, but "boys will be boys" is what they say when it comes to rape.

Animals only breed during certain times of the year when they are ready to reproduce. The rest of the year, they are not sexually active. A male animal of most species is only interested in the females when they come into season...and that may only be once or twice a year.

So if you want to place humans in the same category as animals with regard to sex, then we should only have sex when we want to reproduce, right?

Actually many other non-human animals have sex for pleasure. Bonobos have alot (I mean ALOT) of sex, dolphins are known for have sex for group bonding, female porcupines have been observed masturbating themselves, and male dogs around the world don't even need another dog or even living organisms to start humping.

It would be lovely if the rest of society agreed with that view... i agree with this view and thats why I believe the bible standard of monogamy and 'marriage before sex' should be adopted by everyone.

But unfortunately, this is not the way most people see it. Sex is being sold everywhere....a clear indicator that people do not view sex the way we do.

How does the Bible set the standard of monogamy? King David had enough wives and concubines to sleep with several different women a day and not sleep with the same woman twice for over a year. There were also forced marriages, arranged marriages, rapists marrying their victim, and some other forms of marriage that would infuriate most people throughout the Western world.

as simply as i can put it for you, a monogmous relationship is the only proper way to fulfill sexual desire. Its the way sanctioned by God as the creator of the sexual organs and desires.

He doesnt forbid sex for pleasure so long as it stays between two married adults.

Anything outside of this causes many problems and leads to abuse and many more problems.

That is not the case though. Humans cultures have practiced some sort of polygamy far more frequently than monogamy. We're actually biologically at a half-way point between being monogamous and polygamous (based on the size of the male's testicles and the amount of sperm he can produce and the number and frequency of offspring a woman can produce). And I have to be honest, the swingers and other polygamous types I have known have had fewer marital problems than the "regular" monogamy crowd. I also don't see polygamous people having the same sort of trust issues monogamous couples have, though they do exist.
Actually just on this forum there are several members who are living in happy and satisfying polygamous relationships.

'love' and mutual 'respect' is what would solve that problem.

Gods word says that a man should love his wife as he does himself. Im sure he would never abuse himself.

There are many men, Christian or otherwise, who abuse themselves. They abuse themselves, their wives, and their children.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Sure, because rape absolutely never happens within the context of a monogamous marriage.

Scary thing is that there are law enforcement officials and ER staff that are slow to respond to a rape victim who has reported the crime by her husband...and typically hears that because she's married that either she ****ed him off, she misunderstood his intentions, or she is probably just trying to get back at him.

The denial of marital rape is still very strong. It's much easier to believe that a married person is immune to committing such a violent crime.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It's definitely real, and I know this from personal experience. I won't go into details, but it's something I've been thinking about for some time, and the more I think about it, the madder I get. And it's even worse than most of you even realize.

 

[Brickjectivity]

No, I mean the glorification of individual aggression, actually. The mindset that values "hawks" in politics, "action heroes" in fiction, and thinks nothing of what violence actually is.

That is an interesting point, because to give up action heroes etc. would take effort. Also such fiction might need some kind of replacement, because it fulfils positive roles in addition to the negative ones. Some seemingly violent fiction exists to appeal to violent people (little boys for example) in order to teach them values. Look at Marvel comics, a lucrative operation whose authors frequently try to introduce philosophical ideas and concepts of non-violence into their violent art.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is an interesting point, because to give up action heroes etc. would take effort.

Yes. Moral effort. Of the same or similar nature that one has to employ to give up rape culture, it seems to me.

Also such fiction might need some kind of replacement, because it fulfils positive roles in addition to the negative ones. Some seemingly violent fiction exists to appeal to violent people (little boys for example) in order to teach them values. Look at Marvel comics, a lucrative operation whose authors frequently try to introduce philosophical ideas and concepts of non-violence into their violent art.

I have made character profiles for Marvel characters. There has been a worrying trend towards violence and moral ambiguity since the 1970s.

Violence peaked in the 1990s, a dark era for comics. Moral ambiguity is peaking now, where we don't really even know whether there is a point in distinguishing heroes from villains anymore, and most of the conflict is among the protagonists.

It has been very noticeable. Back in the Reagan 1980s people were hardly as morally volatile as we are these days.

The bottom line is, I think we should seriously consider what those values are and whether they are truly advisable. And I mean it to adults even more than to youngsters.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yes. Moral effort. Of the same or similar nature that one has to employ to give up rape culture, it seems to me.




I have made character profiles for Marvel characters. There has been a worrying trend towards violence and moral ambiguity since the 1970s.

Violence peaked in the 1990s, a dark era for comics. Moral ambiguity is peaking now, where we don't really even know whether there is a point in distinguishing heroes from villains anymore, and most of the conflict is among the protagonists.

It has been very noticeable. Back in the Reagan 1980s people were hardly as morally volatile as we are these days.

The bottom line is, I think we should seriously consider what those values are and whether they are truly advisable. And I mean it to adults even more than to youngsters.

Ok, thanks for explaining that. I don't want to argue against your evaluations of Marvel or your opinion about moral efforts or to discourage you. In my opinion any moral effort is itself positive since it has both internal and external effects. Suppose you find it moral to oppose a political party, but I find it moral to support that party. Well, perhaps one of us has made a wrong choice, but we are built up in ourselves as long as we exercise moral effort. Eventually our choices should coincide because of that build up of moral strength...theoretically.

That being said it is valuable to consider the violence in comics and other media and to question the wisdom of it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ok, thanks for explaining that. I don't want to argue against your evaluations of Marvel or your opinion about moral efforts or to discourage you. In my opinion any moral effort is itself positive since it has both internal and external effects. Suppose you find it moral to oppose a political party, but I find it moral to support that party. Well, perhaps one of us has made a wrong choice, but we are built up in ourselves as long as we exercise moral effort. Eventually our choices should coincide because of that build up of moral strength...theoretically.

There is truth to that. But it is a dangerous partial truth which I am trying to warn against.

One should learn to build up courage to act and to support one's convictions, true. But that is a double-edged sword, almost literally even. It can destroy morality perhaps more easily than it can lead to it. It is just an exercise on focus and enabling oneself without necessarily having the wisdom not to hurt oneself and others with it.

The other half of morality is the one that is truly necessary and can't be substituted: the courage to question and to accept change and challenge without resorting to attempts to overcome it. The courage to embrace instead of demanding. To destroy one's own armies instead of those of others.

That being said it is valuable to consider the violence in comics and other media and to question the wisdom of it.

I am fairly active on that area, as it turns out.

One particularly depressing example of the moral decadence of comics in the last few years is that all of the main teams have fairly open "wet works" squads. The Suicide Squad of the 1980s was something of an exception, and fairly critical of the trend it may have started. But now we have "Secret Avengers", "X-Force", and there was even a short-lived "JL Elite". All of those groups are deeply cynical in their supposed "pragmatism", and express the deep undercurrent of moral decadence that has set root in the last few decades. 9/11 and its reaction in the USA have visibly strenghtened the process, but did not create it.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There is truth to that. But it is a dangerous partial truth which I am trying to warn against.

One should learn to build up courage to act and to support one's convictions, true. But that is a double-edged sword, almost literally even. It can destroy morality perhaps more easily than it can lead to it. It is just an exercise on focus and enabling oneself without necessarily having the wisdom not to hurt oneself and others with it.

The other half of morality is the one that is truly necessary and can't be substituted: the courage to question and to accept change and challenge without resorting to attempts to overcome it. The courage to embrace instead of demanding. To destroy one's own armies instead of those of others.

I feel like you are convinced that a human being can become perfectly pure, perfectly nonviolent, perfectly moral. That may be true, but the conversation about comics hinges upon more than whether that is true. If it is true then, great; but if its not true then thinking it true is a mistake. In the latter case it would be better to come up with some kind of stop-gap solution instead of a complete surrender of all violence.

The other half of morality is the one that is truly necessary and can't be substituted: the courage to question and to accept change and challenge without resorting to attempts to overcome it. The courage to embrace instead of demanding. To destroy one's own armies instead of those of others.

I am not trying to say that you are wrong, but people aren't born with such courage. We are more like lions than philosophers. For every good or bad man who dies a child is born. If born without any culture, that child is likely to be a part of a rape though some may resist and make the world a better place.

One particularly depressing example of the moral decadence of comics in the last few years is that all of the main teams have fairly open "wet works" squads. The Suicide Squad of the 1980s was something of an exception, and fairly critical of the trend it may have started. But now we have "Secret Avengers", "X-Force", and there was even a short-lived "JL Elite". All of those groups are deeply cynical in their supposed "pragmatism", and express the deep undercurrent of moral decadence that has set root in the last few decades. 9/11 and its reaction in the USA have visibly strenghtened the process, but did not create it.

I have read some of these comics, but I cannot tell you whether they encouraged my convictions or poisoned my mind or whatnot. Some say that they are supporting moral choices by introducing moral conflict and situations that require moral convictions.