Seeing That Women Can Go Topless Now Do You Suppose A Lot More Rapes Will Happen?

[ignition]

Namaste,

Good point! But, don't forget, war is war.

I think many put American soldiers at a very high pedestal. They aren't exempted from barbaric behavior just because they are soldiers of the mighty eagle boasting the red, white, and blue anthem haha.

There are hundreds of pictures on the internet of American soldiers raping Muslim women. The women were wearing burqas and hijabs, yet they were still raped. The catch is that in most of the pictures, it seems that more than three American male soldiers were involved. Making most of these rapes in fact: gang-rapes.

Now, here is the ironic part: many American male soldiers also have been reported (and caught red handed) for raping their fellow American female soldiers. How can we trust soldiers that rape their own??

Now, here is the ironic part #2 (which is a contrast): in the Israeli (IDF) army, raping of female soldiers is not as intense as it is in the American army. In many cases, it is almost unheard of. I wonder why, eh?

- - - - - - - - - -
M.V.

That's true yeah. There's little to no morality with some US soldiers, but it's not just the US BBC News - Australia Navy cadet filmed rape 'to be accepted'

The Israeli point was a good point, I wonder why that is?

 

[DallasApple]

 

[Poeticus]

No it isn't. This thread is about "whether more rapes will happen" if women are allowed to show their boobs.

Do you think more male on male rape will happen because women show their boobs? Do you think showing their nipples is the reason men get raped by other men? Do you think more men will be raped if men go around topless?

If not, what do you think the reason is for heterosexual men raping other men, for example in prisons and conflict zones?

If you think it has nothing to do with nipple exposure, why are your explanations for the rape of men and the rape of women so different?

I'm asking you to use a little deductive reasoning here. I'm not changing the subject, I'm trying to show you that your hypothesis about why people rape cannot be correct.

Namaste,

I am talking about raping of females by males. I don't wish to engage in a conversation about male on male rape. If you make another thread regarding the matter, I will more be more than happy to engage in the conversation. We are not on opposing sides. I agree that male on male rape happens and "boobs" and shirtless things have nothing to do with it. But, you are misconstruing the topic.

M.V.

 

[ignition]

Why is that?

...because he wants to stay on topic and you don't?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Either way, women get raped more by men than men get raped by other men.

This minimizes male rape, which includes forced ejaculation and forced oral sex (not by me, but by the UN and Human Rights Watch) - which happens with alarming regularity in war and refugee camps around the world.

Female rape is simply more visible.

 

[Poeticus]

I agree.

But it depends on where you are. In some cases, it's just about shame, it's about repopulation. All the men are killed and the women are raped so they have the invaders' children -- and the theory is there will be no more resistance from that area. The Romans used this (rarely, I think) and it's happened in modern Africa.

It's very unfortunate, and I don't say this in response to you -- IT'S AN ARGUMENT AGAINST WAR -- lest someone display gross prejudice against someone else.

Namaste,

This! This! THIS! The above is what I am trying to say...yet, I am attacked from all sides and forced to talk about male on male...which I do not want to talk about, unless it is in a different thread...

M.V.

ps - Good post, Angellous!

 

[Alceste]

Namaste,

You are being too naive. The raping of females is the most efficient way to dishonor and destroy the pride of the male enemy.

"I think it would"....well, I hope it would...but, sadly, that is not the case...

Either way, women get raped more by men than men get raped by other men.

I live in the same world that you do. I have heard the same rape stories that you have heard. In fact, I have grown up around hearing them throughout my life: please look up the 1947 Partition in India. Males were not raped. But, women into the hundreds of thousands were systematically raped.

M.V.

The thing is, मैत्रावरुणि, you don't know whether men were raped during the partition in India. Given that it is a global phenomenon, but one that is rarely researched or reported, your assertion that it did not occur is rather suspect.

Since we have found that wherever it has been researched, it has in fact occurred, it's just wishful thinking to assume that the conflicts we didn't investigate somehow managed to escape this global phenomenon.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The thing is, मैत्रावरुणि, you don't know whether men were raped during the partition in India. Given that it is a global phenomenon, but one that is rarely researched or reported, your assertion that it did not occur is rather suspect.

Since we have found that wherever it has been researched, it has in fact occurred, it's just wishful thinking to assume that the conflicts we didn't investigate somehow managed to escape this global phenomenon.

Good point.

 

[Poeticus]

This minimizes male rape, which includes forced ejaculation and forced oral sex (not by me, but by the UN and Human Rights Watch) - which happens with alarming regularity in war and refugee camps around the world.

Female rape is simply more visible.

Namaste,

My intention is not to talk about male on male rape nor to minimize such an unfortunate and horrid occurrence.

But, to make you happy: I will state a fact that many (probably all of you) do not know, but will agree to it since I am using this post to speak about male on male molestation which can tantamount to rape:

During WWI, the Croatian Nazi Party known as the Ushtashes forced Serbian male captives to masturbate to pictures of Ushtashe generals...this was done in "concentration"-like camps....

As a side note, while this was occurring, Serbian women in the other rooms were being gang-raped by Croatian Ushtashes...

You can look these events up. I am not pulling them out of my ***...

M.V.

 

[ignition]

Namaste,

You are being too naive. The raping of females is the most efficient way to dishonor and destroy the pride of the male enemy.

"I think it would"....well, I hope it would...but, sadly, that is not the case...

Either way, women get raped more by men than men get raped by other men.

I live in the same world that you do. I have heard the same rape stories that you have heard. In fact, I have grown up around hearing them throughout my life: please look up the 1947 Partition in India. Males were not raped. But, women into the hundreds of thousands were systematically raped.

M.V.

Damn! You're right as well, estimates 75,000-100,000 women raped during the partition, that's insane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_women_during_the_partition_of_India

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Namaste,

My intention is not to talk about male on male rape nor to minimize such an unfortunate and horrid occurrence.

But, to make you happy: I will state a fact that many (probably all of you) do not know, but will agree to it since I am using this post to speak about male on male molestation which can tantamount to rape:

During WWI, the Croatian Nazi Party known as the Ushtashes forced Serbian male captives to masturbate to pictures of Ushtashe generals...this was done in "concentration"-like camps....

As a side note, while this was occurring, Serbian women in the other rooms were being gang-raped by Croatian Ushtashes...

You can look these events up. I am not pulling them out of my ***...

M.V.

I'm not sure why this is relevant. Shall I pull up an obscure fact that you shouldn't know about?

Do you know the wonderful stories of Diogenes the Cynic in Corinth? He had a very colorful sex life.

 

[Alceste]

Namaste,

I am talking about raping of females by males. I don't wish to engage in a conversation about male on male rape. If you make another thread regarding the matter, I will more be more than happy to engage in the conversation. We are not on opposing sides. I agree that male on male rape happens and "boobs" and shirtless things have nothing to do with it. But, you are misconstruing the topic.

M.V.

Tough titty. If we're going to talk about rape, we're going to talk about rape. All of it. Female on male, male on male, female on female and male on female. I'm not bending to your personal preferences, and my arguments are completely on topic.

The question posed is this: If women show their nipples, will the overall occurrence of rape be increased?

To answer the question, we HAVE TO examine the actual factors that are positively correlated with the occurrence of sexual violence, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator or the victim. What are they? Is public nudity one of them?

Turns out it isn't.

What is?

Violence. Poverty. Crime. Aggression. Confinement under the control of unaccountable individuals with complete power. Genocide. Conflict. War.

And another one you really should know about, called Rape Myth Acceptance. Those who have a high level of rape myth acceptance are more likely to rape others. First and foremost in the litany of "rape myths", the acceptance of which actually makes you more likely to rape, and less likely to seek help if you are raped, is the belief that the victims of sexual assault have "asked for it" somehow, whether through their way of dressing or acting, or through some kind of perceived misbehavior.

That is what this thread is about. The idea that topless women are inviting people to rape them is a RAPE MYTH, the acceptance of which makes you MORE LIKELY to become a rapist, and LESS LIKELY to seek help if you yourself are raped.

It's important that we attack these myths ruthlessly, wherever we find them.

 

[Poeticus]

The thing is, मैत्रावरुणि, you don't know whether men were raped during the partition in India. Given that it is a global phenomenon, but one that is rarely researched or reported, your assertion that it did not occur is rather suspect.

Since we have found that wherever it has been researched, it has in fact occurred, it's just wishful thinking to assume that the conflicts we didn't investigate somehow managed to escape this global phenomenon.

Namaste,

I thought you were merely naive...but, let me reiterate something which you can't seem to understand because you do not know the facts of the rapes during the 1947....and Angellous....no...it is not a good point that the above poster made...it is in fact highly un-researched.....

The male rapes didn't happen because the sole concentration was on raping females of the opposing religious groups:

1. The Muslims targeted Sikh and Hindu women to rape.
2. The Sikh and Hindus targeted Muslim women to rape.

The whole point of those riots (which were mini-wars, in my opinion) were to harm the opposing religious groups as much as possible. The best way to destroy the pride of the opposing religious groups was to rape their females. The South Asian mentality is that the honor is with the female.

These "rioters" didn't have time to rape males. That was not their objective. Even if men were raped (which would have been reported but wouldn't have necessarily occurred because that was never the goal; "to destroy an opposing religious group in South Asia let's rape their guys yo!") only a handful would have been raped. Sikhs resorted to decapitating their own female children to save them from getting raped. Do you know why they resorted to this? Of course you don't, because you came ill prepared on the matter and resorted to teach me about my own South Asian history. They resorted to doing such because it was something they thought they could do to still protect their "honor". The example of South Asia may be too complex for you to understand. To bring up the subject of male to male rape (which was pretty much non-existent during 1947 - and since you are the one who made the claim that it could have happened: bring me proof) is in fact insulting to the memory of those innocent women that were brutalized, burned alive, gang-raped, etc..

M.V.

 

[Poeticus]

That is what this thread is about. The idea that topless women are inviting people to rape them is a RAPE MYTH, the acceptance of which makes you MORE LIKELY to become a rapist, and LESS LIKELY to seek help if you yourself are raped.

Namaste,

And, I never stated anything to the contrary. Yet, you are crusading against me.

You can talk about male on male rape in this thread all you like. But, I will not engage in that topic, for I will engage only on the topic of male on female rape.

M.V.

 

[Poeticus]

I'm not sure why this is relevant. Shall I pull up an obscure fact that you shouldn't know about?

Do you know the wonderful stories of Diogenes the Cynic in Corinth? He had a very colorful sex life.

Namaste,

My post completely flew over your head. It was to engage in this rapid discourse about male on male rape. I did. Now, stop badgering me about male on male rape.

M.V.

 

[ignition]

Violence. Poverty. Crime. Aggression. Confinement under the control of unaccountable individuals with complete power. Genocide. Conflict. War.

You could use all those terms to describe property theft, usurping of land, or bank robberies couldn't you? It's an arbitrary set of words that in no way lead a person think only of rape.

 

[Alceste]

Namaste,

I thought you were merely naive...but, let me reiterate something which you can't seem to understand because you do not know the facts of the rapes during the 1947....and Angellous....no...it is not a good point that the above poster made...it is in fact highly un-researched.....

The male rapes didn't happen because the sole concentration was on raping females of the opposing religious groups:

1. The Muslims targeted Sikh and Hindu women to rape.
2. The Sikh and Hindus targeted Muslim women to rape.

The whole point of those riots (which were mini-wars, in my opinion) were to harm the opposing religious groups as much as possible. The best way to destroy the pride of the opposing religious groups was to rape their females. The South Asian mentality is that the honor is with the female.

These "rioters" didn't have time to rape males. That was not their objective. Even if men were raped (which would have been reported but wouldn't have necessarily occurred because that was never the goal; "to destroy an opposing religious group in South Asia let's rape their guys yo!") only a handful would have been raped. Sikhs resorted to decapitating their own female children to save them from getting raped. Do you know why they resorted to this? Of course you don't, because you came ill prepared on the matter and resorted to teach me about my own South Asian history. They resorted to doing such because it was something they thought they could do to still protect their "honor". The example of South Asia may be too complex for you to understand. To bring up the subject of male to male rape (which was pretty much non-existent during 1947 - and since you are the one who made the claim that it could have happened: bring me proof) is in fact insulting to the memory of those innocent women that were brutalized, burned alive, gang-raped, etc..

M.V.

Lol at "too complicated for me to understand". It's painfully easy for me to understand. You're personally titillated (hopefully on a mostly subconscious level) by thinking about men raping women and you want to make sure the conversation is about that, and doesn't deviate into any territory that makes you feel like this is not a sexy topic any more. For example:

"You are all spies," the commander said. "I will show you how we punish spies." He pointed to Jean Paul. "Remove your clothes and take a position like a Muslim man."
Jean Paul thought he was joking. He shook his head and said: "I cannot do these things."

The commander called a rebel over. Jean Paul could see that he was only about nine years old. He was told, "Beat this man and remove this clothes." The boy attacked him with his gun butt. Eventually, Jean Paul begged: "Okay, okay. I will take off my clothes." Once naked, two rebels held him in a kneeling position with his head pushed towards the earth.

At this point, Jean Paul breaks off. The shaking in his lip more pronounced than ever, he lowers his head a little further and says: "I am sorry for the things I am going to say now." The commander put his left hand on the back of his skull and used his right to beat him on the backside "like a horse". Singing a witch doctor song, and with everybody watching, the commander then began. The moment he started, Jean Paul vomited.

Eleven rebels waited in a queue and raped Jean Paul in turn. When he was too exhausted to hold himself up, the next attacker would wrap his arm under Jean Paul's hips and lift him by the stomach. He bled freely: "Many, many, many bleeding," he says, "I could feel it like water." Each of the male prisoners was raped 11 times that night and every night that followed.

The rape of men | Society | The Observer

 

[Poeticus]

This is a thread about rape. Period. Please stop insisting we limit the discussion to "women getting raped". It's an arbitrary and frankly obnoxious demand. I'm no more comfortable reading about women getting raped than you are reading about men getting raped. The difference is that I am equally uncomfortable talking about men getting raped, whereas you seem determined to talk only about women getting raped and totally avoid the subject of male on male rape. Why is that?

I'm only saying that regardless of the gender of the victim, the primary motive is the same.

Namaste,

Make another thread.

M.V.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Namaste,

My post completely flew over your head. It was to engage in this rapid discourse about male on male rape. I did. Now, stop badgering me about male on male rape.

M.V.

I don't care what you want. Really. I will post whatever I like.

Here's something you may not know: you're on a public forum and people will interact with you, perhaps agreeing or disagreeing with you.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The rape of men | Society | The Observer

Or friend could care less I'm afraid.