• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

What the thread title says


  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .

DallasApple

Depends Upon My Mood..
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.

Lets face it.Every body rapes every body all the time all day long.

 

Alceste

Vagabond
मैत्रावरुणिः;3425190 said:
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.

I rest my case.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
मैत्रावरुणिः;3425180 said:
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.

I just adore people who jump from what they think should be true to what they are willing to assert is true without providing any evidence at all to support the logical legitimacy of their jump. If only wishing something were true could make it true!
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
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:

Namaste,

Did you even read my whole post? It was about your failed attempt at teaching me about my own history of the Indian Partition...

Also, how dare you!?! I have reported your post for slandering me. You think I get off on this conversation? Are you out of your mind? Go troll someone else. I am done with this futile conversation. You should have stopped at trying to teach me about my own history. You just went way over board. I hope your post gets removed.

M.V.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
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.

Rapists DON'T think "only" of rape. They do all sorts of violent and aggressive things in every aspect of their lives. If you're getting your jollies stealing land and robbing banks, chances are you might also enjoy the odd rape once in a while, provided you're not the rapee.
 

Badran

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Not seeing relevancy to male rape in a discussion addressing the motivations behind rape indicates a severely superficial and selective approach.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
मैत्रावरुणिः;3425221 said:
Namaste,

With all due respect, cry me a river.

M.V.

I shall cry you two.
 

ignition

Active Member
Rapists DON'T think "only" of rape. They do all sorts of violent and aggressive things in every aspect of their lives. If you're getting your jollies stealing land and robbing banks, chances are you might also enjoy the odd rape once in a while, provided you're not the rapee.
The fundamental difference between a rape and a theft is the actions, the forced sex. Kind of a no-brainer.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
मैत्रावरुणिः;3425227 said:
Namaste,

One is fine.

M.V.

You'll take as many as I give you.

And you're gunna like it.
 

DallasApple

Depends Upon My Mood..
Rapists DON'T think "only" of rape.

I"m gonna have to stew on this.Most "rapist" never even think of "rape".I honest to God don't believe most "rape" is premeditated or even considered rape at all even if it is.Not in the U.S...Its ENTITLEMENT mentality and some times spur of the moment.Its not even recognized as RAPE! Just "boys will be boys".
 
Top