Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evol-psych] Women who cry rape will ALWAYS be sent to prison, appeal court warns

Expand Messages
  • Orlando
    kis October 31, 2009 at 4:34 pm Look at it this way, too, Renee. Even things women don t necessarily think are signals of sexual receptiveness actually are.
    Message 1 of 13 , Oct 31, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      kis October 31, 2009 at 4:34 pm

      Look at it this way, too, Renee. Even things women don't necessarily think are signals of sexual receptiveness actually are. High heels change a woman's stance and walk to mimic the natural changes in her stance and walk when she's fertile, and tight jeans and skirts accentuate that. Blush simulates sexual arousal. Boobs are a butt women wear on their chests and enhancing them enhances the signal. A woman's darker, fuller lips mimic aroused female genetalia, and wearing lipstick (especially slick, shiny lipgloss) enhances that signal as well.

      Add in all the behavioral signals like the sensual displays women put on on a typical night club dance floor.

      So now, without even speaking to or making eye contact with a man, she's basically broadcast sexual signals all over the place. Add in a bunch of serious flirting and body language directed at a specific man, and then she agrees to go back to his place–even into his bedroom. She's basically spent all evening conveying a willingness to have sex.

      And then she says no. I don't call that consensual sex, but I have a hard time calling it rape.

      Or worse, she says yes, then decides she regrets it, that she never would have had sex with him if she hadn't had all those appletinis. Despite her consent, some would say it's still rape. Despite the fact that he might have had as much to drink as she had, and was therefore no more in control of his baser impulses than she was, some would still say it's rape.

      The definition of rape has gotten so murky it's ceased to have any reasonable meaning at all. We equate a woman being attacked walking from her car to her door after work with one who woke up next to a guy she decided she didn't like so much in the light of day and decides she didn't consent after all.

      It's pathetic, and it makes women look like kids who can't be held accountable for their own decisions. I mean, how many men wake up wishing they could gnaw their arm off because in a moment of drunken weakness they slept with Alice the Goon? But they DON'T call it rape.

      Source: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/10/31/the-biological-context-of-sexuality-and-mating/
    • Steve Moxon
      It s even worse. Under current crazy law, a man is deemed to have no right to decline to become a parent even if his only involvement in conception is a
      Message 2 of 13 , Nov 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        It's even worse. Under current crazy law, a man is deemed to have no right to decline to become a parent even if his only involvement in conception is a drunken bout of sex in a nightclub toilet, whereas the irresponsible woman in collusion with the state can force fatherhood on him and compel him to financially support the child for 18 years.
        If the man sensibly goes on the dole in protest, then the guys who were standing un-partnered at the edge of the nightclub dancefloor and who remain through their lives without a partner, are forced by the Government to pay through their taxes for the upkeep of the child.
        This in a milieu of social collapse, steadily declining incomes, and a local and global over-population crisis that soon will mean us facing the need to lose six billion people from the planet.
        This craziness is not going to last for very long.
         
        Steve Moxon [author of the book, The Woman Racket: The new science explaining how the sexes relate at work, at play and in society, 2008 Imprint Academic; and 'Dominance as adaptive stressing and ranking of males, serving to allocate reproduction by self-suppressed fertility: Towards a fully biological understanding of social system', 2009 Medical Hypotheses 73]
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Orlando
        Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 3:07 AM
        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Women who cry rape will ALWAYS be sent to prison, appeal court warns

         


        kis October 31, 2009 at 4:34 pm

        Look at it this way, too, Renee. Even things women don't necessarily think are signals of sexual receptiveness actually are. High heels change a woman's stance and walk to mimic the natural changes in her stance and walk when she's fertile, and tight jeans and skirts accentuate that. Blush simulates sexual arousal. Boobs are a butt women wear on their chests and enhancing them enhances the signal. A woman's darker, fuller lips mimic aroused female genetalia, and wearing lipstick (especially slick, shiny lipgloss) enhances that signal as well.

        Add in all the behavioral signals like the sensual displays women put on on a typical night club dance floor.

        So now, without even speaking to or making eye contact with a man, she's basically broadcast sexual signals all over the place. Add in a bunch of serious flirting and body language directed at a specific man, and then she agrees to go back to his place–even into his bedroom. She's basically spent all evening conveying a willingness to have sex.

        And then she says no. I don't call that consensual sex, but I have a hard time calling it rape.

        Or worse, she says yes, then decides she regrets it, that she never would have had sex with him if she hadn't had all those appletinis. Despite her consent, some would say it's still rape. Despite the fact that he might have had as much to drink as she had, and was therefore no more in control of his baser impulses than she was, some would still say it's rape.

        The definition of rape has gotten so murky it's ceased to have any reasonable meaning at all. We equate a woman being attacked walking from her car to her door after work with one who woke up next to a guy she decided she didn't like so much in the light of day and decides she didn't consent after all.

        It's pathetic, and it makes women look like kids who can't be held accountable for their own decisions. I mean, how many men wake up wishing they could gnaw their arm off because in a moment of drunken weakness they slept with Alice the Goon? But they DON'T call it rape.

        Source: http://www.the- spearhead. com/2009/ 10/31/the- biological- context-of- sexuality- and-mating/

      • Jim
        ... right to decline to become a parent even if his only involvement in conception is a drunken bout of sex in a nightclub toilet, whereas the irresponsible
        Message 3 of 13 , Nov 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment

          Mr Moxon type:

          > It's even worse. Under current crazy law, a man is deemed to have no right to decline to become a parent even if his only involvement in conception is a drunken bout of sex in a nightclub toilet, whereas the irresponsible woman in collusion with the state can force fatherhood on him and compel him to financially support the child for 18 years.

          He should have stuck a quid in one of those condom machines that are always to hand in nightclub toilets.  If he had been a gentleman he would not have taken advantage of an intoxicated woman (that's how I was brought up anyroad). Vasectomies are cheaper than abortions, for folks who can't hold their drink.

          > If the man sensibly goes on the dole in protest

          That's your political position is it, Mr Moxon?

          >then the guys who were standing un-partnered at the edge of the nightclub dancefloor and who remain through their lives without a partner, are forced by the Government to pay through their taxes for the upkeep of the child.

          If a man really wants a life-partner he can find one.   I suspect that many men who set their "standards" too high, do so because they wish to avoid real intimacy and responsibility.

          > This in a milieu of social collapse, steadily declining incomes, and a local and global over-population crisis that soon will mean us facing the need to lose six billion people from the planet.
          > This craziness is not going to last for very long.

          Roll on the apocalypse, eh, Mr Moxon? We are living in a golden age, that will undoubtedly turn to iron; obladee oblada life goes on bro'.

          Regards

          Jim Buck

           

           

        • Edgar Owen
          Orlando, Now there is a GOOD idea! A pre-sexual contract every woman would have to sign before sex, or that would simply be assumed by legislation to be agreed
          Message 4 of 13 , Nov 1, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Orlando,

            Now there is a GOOD idea! A pre-sexual contract every woman would have to sign before sex, or that would simply be assumed by legislation to be agreed on by every woman who consented to sex. It would be simple giving equal rights to the man to decide if any baby conceived from the sex would be carried to term or not, that the sex did NOT constitute rape etc. etc.

            Edgar



            On Nov 1, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Orlando Döhring wrote:

             



            People in the spearhead-sphere surely can decide not to marry or only using a prenup agreement to avoid the following fate:

            "Two, marriage is no insurance policy against being unceremoniously dumped. Maybe it was at one time, but not anymore. A woman loses NOTHING that can compare to what you will lose if she decides to divorce you. Worse, in 2009 America there is every incentive in the world for a woman to divorce at the slightest drop in her attraction for her husband. Financial, legal, social, sometimes even sexual. The god of biomechanics does not take a holiday from reality once you slip a ring  on your beloved’s finger." (roissy)

            But no matter whether you are more interested in short term relationships as these guys or look for a long term relationship you need to think about contraception. Surely you could use a condom but some people rather prefer not to use it for obvious reaons after knowing each other for a certain period of time.

            But then you are putting your whole fate in the hands of the woman. She might say she uses the pill but which is not true. I could imagine this happens quite a few times where the man does not want to have kids or the man is considered sufficiently financially equipped for expected alimony payments.

            Either at some point there will be the pill for the man so we can independently decide whether or not we want to father a child, or women need to be asked legally each time whether the man agrees to father a child with her with specific consequences if violated.


            --- In evolutionary- psychology@ yahoogroups. com, "Steve Moxon" <stevemoxon3@ ...> wrote:
            >
            > It's even worse. Under current crazy law, a man is deemed to have no right to decline to become a parent even if his only involvement in conception is a drunken bout of sex in a nightclub toilet, whereas the irresponsible woman in collusion with the state can force fatherhood on him and compel him to financially support the child for 18 years.
            > If the man sensibly goes on the dole in protest, then the guys who were standing un-partnered at the edge of the nightclub dancefloor and who remain through their lives without a partner, are forced by the Government to pay through their taxes for the upkeep of the child.
            > This in a milieu of social collapse, steadily declining incomes, and a local and global over-population crisis that soon will mean us facing the need to lose six billion people from the planet.
            > This craziness is not going to last for very long.
            >
            > Steve Moxon [author of the book, The Woman Racket: The new science explaining how the sexes relate at work, at play and in society, 2008 Imprint Academic; and 'Dominance as adaptive stressing and ranking of males, serving to allocate reproduction by self-suppressed fertility: Towards a fully biological understanding of social system', 2009 Medical Hypotheses 73]


          • Steve Moxon
            Mr Buck exposes his anti-male prejudicial hysteria at every turn. Why does he assume that the wioman and not the man is intoxicated?! Why does he assume that
            Message 5 of 13 , Nov 1, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              Mr Buck exposes his anti-male prejudicial hysteria at every turn.
               
              Why does he assume that the wioman and not the man is intoxicated?!
              Why does he assume that despite all of the resources and education put into female contraception that somehow it's the man's responsibility to use contraception, even when it destroys and thereby renders largely pointless the sexual experience?!
              Why does he recommend invasive and not reliably reversible sterilisation for males as an alternative to simple vacuum contrsception: about the simplest procedure in all medicine?!
              Why does he insist that males but not females can only have sex with a "life partner" rather than a casual partner?!
              Why does he think that partnerless men have set their 'standards' too high in order not to form a committed relationship?!
               
              Because he is a PC-fascist bigot; that's why.
               
              Steve Moxon [author of the book, The Woman Racket: The new science explaining how the sexes relate at work, at play and in society, 2008 Imprint Academic; and 'Dominance as adaptive stressing and ranking of males, serving to allocate reproduction by self-suppressed fertility: Towards a fully biological understanding of social system', 2009 Medical Hypotheses 73]
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Jim
              Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 12:32 PM
              Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Women who cry rape will ALWAYS be sent to prison, appeal court warns

               

              Mr Moxon type:

              > It's even worse. Under current crazy law, a man is deemed to have no right to decline to become a parent even if his only involvement in conception is a drunken bout of sex in a nightclub toilet, whereas the irresponsible woman in collusion with the state can force fatherhood on him and compel him to financially support the child for 18 years.

              He should have stuck a quid in one of those condom machines that are always to hand in nightclub toilets.  If he had been a gentleman he would not have taken advantage of an intoxicated woman (that's how I was brought up anyroad). Vasectomies are cheaper than abortions, for folks who can't hold their drink.

              > If the man sensibly goes on the dole in protest

              That's your political position is it, Mr Moxon?

              >then the guys who were standing un-partnered at the edge of the nightclub dancefloor and who remain through their lives without a partner, are forced by the Government to pay through their taxes for the upkeep of the child.

              If a man really wants a life-partner he can find one.   I suspect that many men who set their "standards" too high, do so because they wish to avoid real intimacy and responsibility.

              > This in a milieu of social collapse, steadily declining incomes, and a local and global over-population crisis that soon will mean us facing the need to lose six billion people from the planet.
              > This craziness is not going to last for very long.

              Roll on the apocalypse, eh, Mr Moxon? We are living in a golden age, that will undoubtedly turn to iron; obladee oblada life goes on bro'.

              Regards

              Jim Buck

               

               

            • Jim
              ... I didn t assume that; you are making things up to foam at the mouth about. ... into female contraception that somehow it s the man s responsibility to use
              Message 6 of 13 , Nov 1, 2009
              • 0 Attachment


                Mr Moxon type:

                > Why does he assume that the wioman and not the man is intoxicated?!

                I didn't assume that; you are making things up to foam at the mouth about.

                > Why does he assume that despite all of the resources and education put into female contraception that somehow it's the man's responsibility to use contraception, even when it destroys and thereby renders largely pointless the sexual experience?!

                More fool you then if you are landed with maintenance and have to become a dole cheat.

                > Why does he recommend invasive and not reliably reversible sterilisation for males as an alternative to simple vacuum contrsception: about the simplest procedure in all medicine?!

                A one off vascetomy is cheaper in the long run, and it allows Tom to see pussy without paying out too many of his  pennies.

                > Why does he insist that males but not females can only have sex with a "life partner" rather than a casual partner?!

                I only knock around with respectable people, and they tend to have long and happy marriages. How things are in the demi-monde, I have no idea, Mr Moxon.

                > Why does he think that partnerless men have set their 'standards' too high in order not to form a committed relationship?!

                If you are standing unpartnered at the edge of the dance floor then you have chosen an environment in which you are at a disadvantage.  Why not join a drama group?  All your histrionics suggest an unused talent.

                >
                > Because he is a PC-fascist bigot; that's why.

                Piffle!

                Regards

                Jim Buck

              • R A Fonda
                ... This craziness is not going to last for very long.
                Message 7 of 13 , Nov 1, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  > This in a milieu of social collapse, steadily declining incomes, and a local and global over-population crisis that soon will mean us facing the need to lose six billion people from the planet.
                  This craziness is not going to last for very long. <
                   
                  Well said, and anyone who can't see the collapse in process is just in denial.
                   
                  RAF 
                   
                • Steve Moxon
                  If Mr Buck were cursing as he shaved, he d swear that the image in the mirror was one of his imaginary unfriendly political opposites frothing at the mouth
                  Message 8 of 13 , Nov 1, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    If Mr Buck were cursing as he shaved, he'd swear that the image in the mirror was one of his imaginary unfriendly political opposites frothing at the mouth with rabies.
                     
                    We've now fully confirmed that this bigot has nothing whatsoever to contribute to a science forum, so all his posts from now on will be on auto-delete in my email inbox.
                     
                    Steve Moxon [author of the book, The Woman Racket: The new science explaining how the sexes relate at work, at play and in society, 2008 Imprint Academic; and 'Dominance as adaptive stressing and ranking of males, serving to allocate reproduction by self-suppressed fertility: Towards a fully biological understanding of social system', 2009 Medical Hypotheses 73]
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: Jim
                    Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 4:11 PM
                    Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Women who cry rape will ALWAYS be sent to prison, appeal court warns

                     


                    Mr Moxon type:

                    > Why does he assume that the wioman and not the man is intoxicated? !

                    I didn't assume that; you are making things up to foam at the mouth about.

                    > Why does he assume that despite all of the resources and education put into female contraception that somehow it's the man's responsibility to use contraception, even when it destroys and thereby renders largely pointless the sexual experience?!

                    More fool you then if you are landed with maintenance and have to become a dole cheat.

                    > Why does he recommend invasive and not reliably reversible sterilisation for males as an alternative to simple vacuum contrsception: about the simplest procedure in all medicine?!

                    A one off vascetomy is cheaper in the long run, and it allows Tom to see pussy without paying out too many of his  pennies.

                    > Why does he insist that males but not females can only have sex with a "life partner" rather than a casual partner?!

                    I only knock around with respectable people, and they tend to have long and happy marriages. How things are in the demi-monde, I have no idea, Mr Moxon.

                    > Why does he think that partnerless men have set their 'standards' too high in order not to form a committed relationship? !

                    If you are standing unpartnered at the edge of the dance floor then you have chosen an environment in which you are at a disadvantage.  Why not join a drama group?  All your histrionics suggest an unused talent.
                    >
                    > Because he is a PC-fascist bigot; that's why.

                    Piffle!

                    Regards

                    Jim Buck

                  • Mark Hubey
                    ... Denialism (e.g. placebos) are intangible benefits. They make living worthwhile :-)
                    Message 9 of 13 , Nov 1, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      R A Fonda wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > > This in a milieu of social collapse, steadily declining incomes, and
                      > a local and global over-population crisis that soon will mean us
                      > facing the need to lose six billion people from the planet.
                      > This craziness is not going to last for very long. <
                      >
                      > Well said, and anyone who can't see the collapse in process is just in
                      > denial.
                      >
                      > RAF
                      >
                      Denialism (e.g. placebos) are "intangible" benefits. They make living
                      worthwhile :-)



                      http://www.amazon.com/Denialism-Irrational-Thinking-Scientific-Threatens/dp/1594202303/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257096527&sr=8-1
                      <http://www.amazon.com/Denialism-Irrational-Thinking-Scientific-Threatens/dp/1594202303/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257096527&sr=8-1>

                      *In this provocative and headline- making book, Michael Specter
                      confronts the widespread fear of science and its terrible toll on
                      individuals and the planet.*

                      In /Denialism, New Yorker/ staff writer Michael Specter reveals that
                      Americans have come to mistrust institutions and especially the
                      institution of science more today than ever before. For centuries, the
                      general view had been that science is neither good nor bad-that it
                      merely supplies information and that new information is always
                      beneficial. Now, science is viewed as a political constituency that
                      isn't always in our best interest. We live in a world where the leaders
                      of African nations prefer to let their citizens starve to death rather
                      than import genetically modified grains. Childhood vaccines have proven
                      to be the most effective public health measure in history, yet people
                      march on Washington to protest their use. In the United States a growing
                      series of studies show that dietary supplements and "natural" cures have
                      almost no value, and often cause harm. We still spend billions of
                      dollars on them. In hundreds of the best universities in the world,
                      laboratories are anonymous, unmarked, and surrounded by platoons of
                      security guards-such is the opposition to any research that includes
                      experiments with animals. And pharmaceutical companies that just forty
                      years ago were perhaps the most visible symbol of our remarkable advance
                      against disease have increasingly been seen as callous corporations
                      propelled solely by avarice and greed.

                      As Michael Specter sees it, this amounts to a war against /progress/.
                      The issues may be complex but the choices are not: Are we going to
                      continue to embrace new technologies, along with acknowledging their
                      limitations and threats, or are we ready to slink back into an era of
                      magical thinking? In /Denialism/, Specter makes an argument for a new
                      Enlightenment, the revival of an approach to the physical world that was
                      stunningly effective for hundreds of years: What can be understood and
                      reliably repeated by experiment is what nature regarded as true. Now, at
                      the time of mankind's greatest scientific advances-and our greatest need
                      for them-that deal must be renewed.


                      About the Author

                      *Michael Specter* writes about science, technology, and global public
                      health for /The New Yorker/, where he has been a staff writer since
                      1998. Specter previously worked for the /The New York Times/ as a roving
                      correspondent based in Rome and before that as the /Times'/s Moscow
                      bureau chief. He also served as the national science reporter for /The
                      Washington Post/ as well as the New York bureau chief. He has twice
                      received the Global Health Council's Excellence in Media Award, as well
                      as the Science Journalism Award from the American Association for the
                      Advancement of Science.
                      ------------------------

                      Of course, since the PoMos distrust science because it is just another
                      sociall-constructed narrative the denialists would simply get their
                      intangible benefits by denying science has anything important to say
                      about "the human condition".


                      --


                      Regards, H.M. Hubey
                      "There are two kinds of truth, deep truth and shallow truth, and the function of Science is to eliminate the deep truth." Niels Bohr
                    • Mark Hubey
                      You would have to agree to sexual matters. Many years ago there were reports on tabloids about the alleged sex agreements between JFK s ex-wife Jacqueline and
                      Message 10 of 13 , Nov 1, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        You would have to agree to sexual matters. Many years ago there were
                        reports on tabloids about the alleged sex agreements between JFK's
                        ex-wife Jacqueline and Onassis.
                        I never found out if the allegations were true.

                        For example, you would have to have agreements like "no more than 3
                        headaches as an excuse per week". No more than x-times "not being in the
                        mood". etc etc. It is what is being forced upon us.

                        Ex Falso Quodlibed. (Right out of simple logic).

                        From a false axiom/assumption/proposition anything follows.


                        That is not even science but simple logic. If you start off with the
                        wrong assumptions (e.g. opinions, otherwise known as theories in the
                        ologies) you can even wind up carrying the donkey.

                        And you won't even understand that you are carrying the donkey and there
                        is something wrong with carrying the donkey.

                        We always talk about "awareness" and "self-awareness" as something that
                        distinguishes the lower life animals from the higher ones.

                        Well, there is something similar in knowledge. As your knowledge
                        increases you reach a point where you start to understand your
                        ignorance. IOW, you become knowledgeable of your knowledge (ignorance).
                        If your knowledge levels are lower than this (e.g. like animals that
                        have no self-awareness) you can say the dumbest things and not realize
                        that you are dumb and ignorant. Instead you will come to believe that
                        you are a magnificent expert on truly difficult and momentous things in
                        life (e.g. the human condition) and not even comprehend that you are
                        swimming in an intellectual swamp and that you will never be able to
                        leave that swamp.


                        Edgar Owen wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > Orlando,
                        >
                        > Now there is a GOOD idea! A pre-sexual contract every woman would have
                        > to sign before sex, or that would simply be assumed by legislation to
                        > be agreed on by every woman who consented to sex. It would be simple
                        > giving equal rights to the man to decide if any baby conceived from
                        > the sex would be carried to term or not, that the sex did NOT
                        > constitute rape etc. etc.
                        >
                        > Edgar
                        >
                        >




                        Regards, H.M. Hubey
                        "There are two kinds of truth, deep truth and shallow truth, and the function of Science is to eliminate the deep truth." Niels Bohr
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.