I have a theory that equates contraception with a form of rape.
It goes something like this: Rape has nothing to do with consent, and everything to do with the intent of the rapist. If the only intent in a sex act is to use another person as an object for sexual gratification, then that is rape. The only concrete, material way to judge this is the intent to create a new life. Rapists aren’t thinking about a new life, and if they’re thinking about the future at all, they want their sex to be non-procreative. Contraception is about preventing new life from occurring- and thus making the woman available to be a sex object.
64 comments
... while at the same time, still missing the point ... actually, more shoving it to the side and putting something in its place instead.
No, wrong. Rape means a lack of consent from the victim. The intent of the attacker does not have to be rape, if the victim does not consent it simply is rape. A guy who thinks for some reason he is having consensual sex when it is in fact under duress or blackmail is still a rapist.
Say it with me now: Consent. Con-sent. There, you'll get the hang of it.
Also, "Faith on the couch", as in "having a psychiatric evaluation"? Perhaps it's time for just that.
Hey, there's this novel new concept: CONSENT
Rape is rape because there is no consent.
(Or, more likely, you're an asshole who doesn't understand why other peoples opinion or rights matter)
So basically if you give the word 'Rape' a totally different definition from what it actually has now, then circumstances which fall within your new definition will be considered 'Rape'.
You sir, are not very smart.
i have a theory that, since the sun rises in the east, somebody should give me a million dollars.
unfortunately, my theory has no connection with reality either.
Two problems with this; firstly, rape can be judged on the consent of both parties; secondly, rape is about violence and sometimes that violence is used as a weapon of war aim to create a new, hated life
So if, as happened in Bosnia and Kosovo, a soldier forces himself sexually on a woman with the intent of her having to carry and bear a child of the enemy, that's not rape, amirite?
Theodore Seeber, you are one sick brute.
"I have a theory that equates contraception with a form of rape. "
I have a theory that pizza is a form of transportation.
It goes something like this: When I order a pizza, it arrives in a car, along with many other pizzas. I only get the one pizza, then the car drives off with the others still inside. Obviously those other pizzas are there to make the car go.
Rape has nothing to do with consent
Stop. You're done.
Rape has everything to do with consent. That's the definition of rape--having sex with somebody without their consent.
By your logic, somebody could force themselves on anybody they wanted, and then get out of it by merely claiming they were trying to make babies. It's a disgusting travesty of justice.
Furthermore, you're a hypocrite. You're objecting to treating women as sex objects, but that's exactly what you're advocating. By taking a woman's consent out of the picture, by denying her the choice of contraception, you're reducing the woman to nothing more than a sex object.
Mmmhm. So. What about men who are sterile/vasectomized? Are they just walking sex objects who can't have consensual sex, ever?
And like women have never been raped with the intent to get them involuntarily knocked up. And like plenty of men don't think of their wives and women in general as both sex objects and baby assembling facilities, but that's basically it.
You heard it here, folks, every act of sex not implicitly intended for procreation is rape. EVERYONE STOP FUCKING, UNLESS YOU WANT TO MAKE BABIES.
Or...you know...Teddy here is twisting words around so tightly to vilify something that you can hear the words screaming in agony. But he wouldn't do that, it's not like he has an agenda or anything, right?
Rape is about power and control, sex is the vehicles used to exert that power and control.
Consent gives the woman control, she gives permission or withholds permission, thus putting her in a position of power. Without consent, the man exerts power and control against the will of the woman. Rape IS about consent (or a lack of consent).
Just shut up already. People don't have to become parents just because they get horny to justify your warped idea of rape. Rape is defined totally by consent.
And both women and men often consensually use each other for sexual gratification without wanting to become parents. That's not rape, that's a good time. Get over it.
But what about the more deeper, emotional aspect of sex like between two people who love each other? I love my wife deeply and see sex as the ultimate expression of love toward each other. The fact that you only see it as either for a way to get your rocks off or to make babies shows that there is something lacking in your understanding of sex. And your twisted idea of what is rape is just, well, twisted.
I have a theory about why fundies are so afraid of the word 'Consent'.
Not only does it destroy one source of righteous indignation, re. homosexuals (one word: Informed ), they're scared that - as per the whole 'Persecution' malarkey they claim they're 'suffering' (not being able to 'express their bigotry ... er, I mean "Faith " in public') - things will come to such a pass for them that they'll be forced to ask for the person(s) consent beforehand to 'proseltyse', nay, threaten them with 'Turn or Burn'.
Three words spring to mind: Personal Space. Litigious .
...but hey, I may be wrong . Would any fundie dare to do so, seeing as if they did claim that my theory was wrong, they'd argumentally corner themselves into having to admit that they wouldn't be True Chrisians if they weren't suffering 'Persecution'? Ruptured Retards - and their jewelled palaces & golden crowns (re. their bitching about FSTDT) - I'm looking at you .
A man who "buys" a bride in order to sire sons without her consent is a rapist.
Maniacs who keep women prisoner and sire children on them are rapists.
(I really wish neither of these things really happened, but they do)
A man who has sex with a willing partner but uses contraception is not a rapist.
How can anyone be so dumb as to not see this?
"Rape has nothing to do with consent, and everything to do with the intent of the rapist. If the only intent in a sex act is to use another person as an object for sexual gratification, then that is rape."
"and thus making the woman available to be a sex object."
@Hasher
Someone who has a preconceived notion that contraception is wrong, and will attempt to rationalize that notion in any possible way, including building a straw man argument by comparing it unfairly to something that everyone knows is wrong.
Yes, rape has nothing to do with consent and neither does your argument.
It kind of falls apart when the woman wants to have sex too, you know? I guess you've never been in that situation.
Rape has nothing to do with consent
Try telling that to a police officer or arguing that in a court of law.
Contraception is about preventing new life from occurring- and thus making the woman available to be a sex object.
As opposed to making her a walking baby factory, which is what fundies always want even though we have 7 billion people on the planet with an ever-increasing birth rate and dwindling resources.
A christian thinking of women as inanimate baby machines. How surprising.
Really though, we need more people like Theodore Seeber, Richard Mourdock and Todd "legitimate rape" Akin. The more these lunatics say what they really think about it, the sooner we won't have to deal with these assholes in politics.
"I have a theory that equates contraception with a form of rape."
you theory sounds spectacularly stupid. tell me about it!
"Rape has nothing to do with consent"
ffs
i mean really, fuck! it was the rapists *intention* not the lack of the victims consent that makes it rape. i mean FUCK. so someone can be raped and not know it, because they consented but the "rapist" still had rapeish intent. or you could "think" you were raped when you weren't, because, although you gave no consent, the rapist didn't have that elusive rapeish intent.
the victim is completely superfluous to the discussion.
So you mean that consented, protected sex is rape, but unprotected non-consented sex might not be, and this also indicates that the rapist decides whether it was rape, not the victim. Surely that should go well in court! Ugh.
This guy's definition of "rape" has as little to do with real rape as Kent Hovind's definition of "evolution" has to do with real evolution.
(Or as certain postmodern feminists' definitions of "pornography" have to do with real pornography. I swear, their argument boils down to "it's erotica if we like it, and porn if we don't." Sheesh.)
@#1536982, cdcdrr
No, wrong. Rape means a lack of consent from the victim. The intent of the attacker does not have to be rape, if the victim does not consent it simply is rape. A guy who thinks for some reason he is having consensual sex when it is in fact under duress or blackmail is still a rapist.
I thought that, in feminist theory, rape is an act of exerting power over and dehumanizing the victim. According to this belief it should no more be possible to rape someone accidentally than torture them accidentally.
Also, would you support the same punishment for the "unintentional" rapist as the stereotypical tree jumper? Open question for readers.
@cdcdrr
Er, I'm not sure if what it sounds like you said here is what you exactly meant. If Person A was being blackmailed into having sex with Person B by Person C, but Person B was totally unaware of this and couldn't be expected to know any better than thinking that Person A actually wanted to have sex with them from what Person A tells them, then Person A would be a rape victim but Person B wouldn't be a rapist. Person C would definitely be a rapist, the rapist in question, as the one responsible for subjecting Person A to nonconsensual sex with the intent of exercising power over them. Not that this scenario is very common.
If Person B did have some signs available to them that something was fishy but chose not to follow up on those signs, that would be a different story. They would share responsibility with Person C.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Intent does make a rapist, but lack of consent makes a rape victim. And you are so distorting the meaning of "object for sexual gratification" that it isn't funny. A woman wanting for herself to be able to have sex without getting pregnant is not making herself a sex object, she's making it easier for her to exercise her own sexuality the way she wants to. It's disgusting how you totally disregard women's desires and agency and turn their bodies into societal property.
@Frostythesnowman
"You do realise that women like sex too right?
Not with you obviously. "
image
And what Alv (above) could do to Theo here - via her G-class ability 'Absorb' - frankly, he'd be begging her to peg him with a chainsaw strapon, the pain would be far less. >:D
Then your idea of "rape" is wrong. Rape is non-consensual sex. Period.
By the way, some rapists impregnate their victims. Are you implying that their crime should go unpunished? Because that's what it sounds like.
So if I ever have sex with someone without their consent, and continue to engage in sex with them when they attempt to discontinue said act, it is totally not rape if I really truly want to get her pregnant.
Somehow I don't think the judge (or my conscience or the lady or society at large) would accept that excuse.
I can't believe I missed this earlier, this is an impressive level of stupid.
By your mental contortion act, a rapist that fully intends to impregnate a woman and force her to care for his spawn spawn isn't commiting rape but consentual sex with a condom is rape. Sex with a barren/sterile partner is rape. Sex for fun is rape.
Now, let's get into hypotheticals with you, me, a cluebat, and whether I'm trying to beat sense into you or the life out of you and how that translates as assault in your world.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
