In rape, the victim is lowered to that of a mere object to be used to achieve the rapists own ends. That use of someone as an object is pure hatred.
When one masterbates, they are most often using an image of another to satisfy their own sexual desires. In the same token, they are using the other to achieve their own ends. That is still hatred.
Thus I see no difference.
48 comments
Oh, dear....
Hiring someone to work for you is using their skills to make more money. That is also, evidently, pure hatred!
Is this really the road you want to go down? Even a kangaroo is envious of your logical leaps.
No no no no no no NO NO NO!!!!
There IS a difference. One action hurts another person, another doesn't. It's that simple.
What about fictional depictions? You know, erotic paintings, drawings, CGI? Erotic fiction?
See, when you automatically equate masterbation with rape, you end up with all sorts of heavy water.
Oh, and "when one masterbates"? How about two? Is that OK?
Other people see the difference. In the former, the person is coercing another and in the latter he doesn't. Ah, and sometimes, well, most of the times, there is not an image, it's a composición of many individuals or an abstraccion over an ideal
Initially impressed at fundie's grasp of rape, then they had to blow it by suggesting masturbation is morally equivalent to rape.
But the problem is fundies and their insistence that the people in their heads are real (e.g. god, or in this case, their fantasy lover) and can actually be harmed by their thoughts.
Masturbation causes no harm to the "victim." Therefore, it's not rape.
That IS still hatred.
bogeyjlg IS a hater.
There is something deeply, deeply wrong with this argument. Something that I can feel deep down in my marrow.
It's bullshit, that much should be obvious. But beyond being bullshit, it also involves a thorough misunderstanding of the nature of rape and why it's wrong.
I was about to say, "Mh, okay." Then I saw them compare masturbation to fucking rape, and...
Boogaloojig or whatever your name is, you know the difference between masturbation (*Singing* Hey hey, use your spellcheck~) and rape, right? One is something that hurts no one, another is one that leaves someone traumatized.
Though I must commend you for seeing that rape is an awful, awful thing. You're a step above some fundies, so you've got that going for you. Which is nice.
One is an actuaal person, who does not consent, the other is imaginary.
If you cannot tell the difference please seek help.
No one can rape themselves since they are giving consent.
Pretty much all sex involves lust and satisfying your sexual desires. What other point is there?
Who are you,the thought police?
@LDM
That first implies that the rapist is found guilty in a court of law and the judge is not some sort of idiot as well.
As for the quote: Anti-masturbation moron... at least that seems kinda new around here.
Wow, your use of pseudo-Kantian logic to equate masturbation with fucking rape astounds me. Not so much for the stupidity, but just for the misunderstanding of what "informed consent" requires.
Spoiler: there's pretty much *always* informed consent with masturbation. There's *never* informed consent with rape. There's your difference.
Moreover, forgive me if this sounds insensitive, but it *is* in keeping with the "thinking" this guy is using so I feel it relevant: Masturbation would not in any way prevent people from masturbating; procreative sex would still certainly happen at a sustaining (or greater) level regardless of masturbation's acceptance. Rape would; if rape were widespread, humans would quickly grow dangerously paranoid about doing anything anymore, and childbirth, and sexuality in general, would likely tank. That's probably an oversimplification, but that's what I imagine would be an issue.
Or maybe things would just be like with ducks...but even then that leads to its own logical issues.
Also, I know someone who touches herself to mental images of me (and vice versa) and I find it quite flattering. A real honor. Certainly doesn't somehow keep me from masturbating anyway ;).
The difference is that the rape-victim is there in person, and will be harmed, both physically and psychologically.
reading the full forum thread was instructive. Most people there seemed not fundie at all. One even said that
St. Thomas Aquinas is possibly the hardest human to quote correctly in context due to his writing style. Frequently he sets up arguments and then proceeds to shoot them down. Sometimes I believe he'll even set up what seems like four or five valid arguments until he actually writes what he believes...which addresses and refutes all previous points. This makes me suspect all quotations of him because even if you read the entire paragraph you still may not be reading in context... Me likes.
Nice link. And WTF to that specific quote, of course.
In the same token, they are using the other to achieve their own ends. That is still hatred.
In most cases, the person being "used" has either agreed to be an object for such use, or is being paid to be so... not exactly the same as "being forced to be a fuck toy for one person's pleasure while traumatising the one being used" is it?
You eat consecrated bread in church, don't you? If so, then by your logic and the magic of transubstantiation, you're a cannibal who loathes Jesus enough to literally eat him alive! How metal is that!
Wait a minute, you actually call that 'Communion'? Whoops, my bad...
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.
