"We know how to treat a lady."

[KELLYG]

Face it if you wanted sex it is easy to get. Sexual assault in my opinion is less about sex and more about domineering and control of the individual that is perpetrated on.

 

[crushing]

I would like to agree with this, but it doesn't really explain the continuing high incidence of sexual assault in our societies.

Maybe this is another area for a 'regression to type' explanation, as certain non-human primates also engage in aggressive and coercive mating with unwilling females?

 

[Tez3]

I would like to agree with this, but it doesn't really explain the continuing high incidence of sexual assault in our societies.

It depends on what you call sexual assault. Women have been encouraged for a while now to report as rape any sexual intercourse they may have had while drunk and basically incapable on the theory that they have to be sober to agree. Being drunk out of their skull doesn't constitute consent so therefore it was rape is the thinking by some womens groups. Sometimes of course it is rape.
In the Civil Service and many companies, a sexual assault can be a hand on an arm or a peck on the cheek, even someone leaning over you can be thought of as sexual assault.
Another reason rape and sexual assault figures are up is because more women are feeling they can now report it to the police and be taken seriously. The fact that in law now a wife can report a rape instead of it being allowed in marriage is another reason.
Men too are now feeling they can report a sexual assault whereas before it would have been kept quiet.
I tend to think there isn't actually any more 'real' assaults than before more that they are being reported now.
We've had similiar situations in the past to the one in the OP, girls have come into barracks, had a good seeing to by a few soldiers then claimed rape when it becomes public knowledge, ah the mobile phone! I can bet anything we'll get the situation again fairly soon.

 

[zDom]

It depends on what you call sexual assault. Women have been encouraged for a while now to report as rape any sexual intercourse they may have had while drunk and basically incapable on the theory that they have to be sober to agree. Being drunk out of their skull doesn't constitute consent so therefore it was rape is the thinking by some womens groups. Sometimes of course it is rape.
In the Civil Service and many companies, a sexual assault can be a hand on an arm or a peck on the cheek, even someone leaning over you can be thought of as sexual assault.
Another reason rape and sexual assault figures are up is because more women are feeling they can now report it to the police and be taken seriously. The fact that in law now a wife can report a rape instead of it being allowed in marriage is another reason.
Men too are now feeling they can report a sexual assault whereas before it would have been kept quiet.
I tend to think there isn't actually any more 'real' assaults than before more that they are being reported now.
We've had similiar situations in the past to the one in the OP, girls have come into barracks, had a good seeing to by a few soldiers then claimed rape when it becomes public knowledge, ah the mobile phone! I can bet anything we'll get the situation again fairly soon.

I think there are also cases of consent in which the woman may not have really wanted to have intercourse — even said "No" and then later relented to continued attempts at seduction — but then, based on having said no at some point and not really wanting to have had sex, declare it was rape.

I know I have consented to do things (not necessarily sexual) that I really did NOT want to do but got pressured into doing only to have serious regrets after the fact. It doesn't change the fact that I did indeed consent.

But change the context to a woman agreeing to have sex even if she didn't really want to, and you are going to find law enforcement willing to arrest ("Well if you didn't WANT to, you were forced, weren't you, honey?"), juries willing to convict and judges willing to sentence for RAPE.

Mind you, I am NOT making excuses for rapists — but where does persuasion end and rape begin?

Something for both women AND men to think about.

I suggest women who are NOT consenting to make it crystal clear — and FIGHT your way out of the situation if pressed.

As for me, I'll not enter any grey areas: if I hear "No" it's pretty much time for me to leave the situation lest there be any misunderstandings. (Better to be rejected by one than judged by 12? )

 

[blindsage]

It depends on what you call sexual assault. Women have been encouraged for a while now to report as rape any sexual intercourse they may have had while drunk and basically incapable on the theory that they have to be sober to agree. Being drunk out of their skull doesn't constitute consent so therefore it was rape is the thinking by some womens groups. Sometimes of course it is rape.
In the Civil Service and many companies, a sexual assault can be a hand on an arm or a peck on the cheek, even someone leaning over you can be thought of as sexual assault.
Another reason rape and sexual assault figures are up is because more women are feeling they can now report it to the police and be taken seriously. The fact that in law now a wife can report a rape instead of it being allowed in marriage is another reason.
Men too are now feeling they can report a sexual assault whereas before it would have been kept quiet.
I tend to think there isn't actually any more 'real' assaults than before more that they are being reported now.
We've had similiar situations in the past to the one in the OP, girls have come into barracks, had a good seeing to by a few soldiers then claimed rape when it becomes public knowledge, ah the mobile phone! I can bet anything we'll get the situation again fairly soon.

All these things may be true, but I'm not really talking about the increase in reporting, or false claims, I'm talking about the general high incidence of actual sexual assault. It was there more than was discussed in the past, and it is high today. Your proposition that men treat women how they treat themselves runs into a significant problem in light of this.

 

[CoryKS]

This article seems to have caught a lot of people's attention. Taranto weighs in at the WSJ:

Four Times a Lady?
CNN reports on a sordid story that almost became an injustice:

Four young men falsely accused of raping an 18-year-old student at Hofstra University were trying to return their lives to normal Friday after an ordeal that two of them described as traumatic. . . .​

Authorities dropped charges and freed the four men hours after their accuser changed her story about having been forcibly tied up and sexually assaulted in a dormitory bathroom.​

"The woman admitted the encounters with each of the men were consensual," Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice told reporters at a news conference Thursday.​

The woman recanted her story Wednesday after authorities told her that part of the incident was recorded on a cell phone video, Rice said.​

"That was when she began to tell the truth," she said.​

If the acts were consensual and the young men are innocent of any crime, we're certainly glad this didn't go any further. But this quote is disturbing:

CNN affiliate WABC-TV of New York spoke with another of the accused, Stalin Felipe.​

"We respect women," he said. "We know how to treat a lady. The thing they said with the rope, come on. That's disgusting. That's what we were looked at as: disgusting men."​

It took four of them to treat her like a lady? Not committing rape is a necessary condition for respecting women, but it is hardly a sufficient one.

 

[Archangel M]

The number of false rape reports is one of LEs dirty little secrets. Sometimes you have to guard against too much skepticism.

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

Bt the way 'domestic' cats do indulge in multiple partners, a female cat will mate with as many males as possible. This means the male cannot kill the kittens as he isn't sure if they are his or not, lions of course when a male takes over a pride will kill all cubs not his then impregnate the females to make sure the offspring are his. So the theory of a human female taking multiple partners to stop dominant males killing her offspring is a very feasible one. It's not a situation where morals are concerned its a pragmatic solution to ensure the survival of offspring. We tend to forget I think the sex between two people is generally intended to perpetuate the species rather than give the preachers something to make people feel guilty about. For many discussing sex in this aspect is uncomfortable.

Sex between two people is a means of maximizing the reproductive success of those two individuals. Natural selection occurs at the level of the individual, not the group. Which may serve as an explanation for why truly altruistic behavior is rare.

 

[Tez3]

We have a joke here...a young lady goes to register the birth of her newly born offspring, on the line where it says father she puts 1 Para. The Registrar reads this and tells her she can leave it blank if she doesn't know who the father is.The young lady says she does know, it's 1 Para, the Registrar says she can't just put down what the father does for a living. The young lady says she hasn't so the bemused man asks her what she means. The young lady patiently explains that it's "1 Parachute Regiment''.


My shift partner is ex 1 Para, he smirks everytime he hears that joke!

 

[teekin]

I think there are also cases of consent in which the woman may not have really wanted to have intercourse — even said "No" and then later relented to continued attempts at seduction — but then, based on having said no at some point and not really wanting to have had sex, declare it was rape.

I know I have consented to do things (not necessarily sexual) that I really did NOT want to do but got pressured into doing only to have serious regrets after the fact. It doesn't change the fact that I did indeed consent.

But change the context to a woman agreeing to have sex even if she didn't really want to, and you are going to find law enforcement willing to arrest ("Well if you didn't WANT to, you were forced, weren't you, honey?"), juries willing to convict and judges willing to sentence for RAPE.

Mind you, I am NOT making excuses for rapists — but where does persuasion end and rape begin?

Something for both women AND men to think about.

I suggest women who are NOT consenting to make it crystal clear — and FIGHT your way out of the situation if pressed.

As for me, I'll not enter any grey areas: if I hear "No" it's pretty much time for me to leave the situation lest there be any misunderstandings. (Better to be rejected by one than judged by 12? )

How bout with your fist hitting my face? Tearing my clothes, palm accross my mouth so I can't scream? So I can't breath ? Issuing a threat while holding a gun, a knife, cracking a rib? I don't know, where does persuasion end and rape begin. Dude, I say "NO!" one time, just once and that's it. After that it's not persuasion it's coercion. If I fight or not it's my choice but You Will be going to jail. :flammad:

I wish there was a "Murderous Rage" icon

Your personal philosophy is the only sane way to go, IMVHO.
lori

 

[chrispillertkd]

I'll take you for a sight seeing trip around the training area here, that sort of behaviour is commonplace around here rofl!

If I lived in your area I'd move.

Still waiting for elder999 to provide me with some information on where he got his proof of all these gang bangs occuring (proof, as opposed to theory) and when they took place in our evolutionary history.

I'd also be interested in some proof that if such behavior did occur it was considered normative and not aberrant.

Thanks in advance, elder.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Archangel M]

Most mammals seem to be of the "males chase off other males for breeding rights" sort. The "dominant male" meme. Or they "hook up with one mate for the season".

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

If I lived in your area I'd move.

Still waiting for elder999 to provide me with some information on where he got his proof of all these gang bangs occuring (proof, as opposed to theory) and when they took place in our evolutionary history.

I'd also be interested in some proof that if such behavior did occur it was considered normative and not aberrant.

Thanks in advance, elder.

Pax,

Chris

Hey Chris,

For evidence as to what sorts of sociosexual behavior our ancestors engaged in, we have 2 sources:

1. Sociosexual behavior of our closest living relatives, which are bonobos and common chimpanzees;

2. Morphological traits in hominids, which includes Homo sapiens and their evolutionary pre-cursors (Australopithecus, Homo erectus, etc).

3. I'm excluding as a source the sociosexual behavior of modern human societies considered by laypersons to be "primitive", eg. tribes of Amazonian Indians, African Bushpeople, etc...many people in these sorts of arguments use them as examples of what humans must have been like before the development of permanent settlements, but this is a fallacy. They have been developing and changing just as long as industrial societies have.

So with respect to source #1, (and others in this thread have mentioned this already), both bonobos and common chimps (as well as many, many species of mammals, birds and fish) engage in promiscuous mating behavior. The common evolutionary argument for this is that it is a strategy to avoid infanticide. Interestingly enough, female common chimps also trade sex for meat, when males have made a kill and are reluctant to share.

With respect to source #2, biologists have demonstrated a clear association between 3 morphological traits and sociosexual behavior/social organization: when males compete directly with other males for mates, there is a reproductive advantage for large body size and larger weaponry (read large canine teeth). When the competition is foiled by females mating with more than one male, we see an increase in testicle size in relation to body size, because this provides an advantage in "sperm competition". Let's compare humans and chimps, our closest living relatives: male chimps fight each other over females, and they patrol the boundaries of their territories looking for strange males to kill, hence there is strong selective pressure to maintain large bodies and large canine teeth. However, the females mate promiscuously, so males also engage in sperm competition, so male chimps have absolutely enormous testicles for their body size. When hominid evolution is considered, there is a clear reduction in canine size and a slight reduction in sexual dimorphism (the difference in body size between males and females). Soft tissue is not preserved in fossil remains, so we don't know anything about testicle size of our extinct ancestors, but modern human males have VERY large testicles in relation to their body size. This indicates that human males may not compete directly for females (compared to chimps) but they still have the equipment to engage in sperm competition. This is strong evidence that our ancestors did indeed have gang bangs in the forest.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

They may know how to treat a lady. A woman in this situation can hardly be defined as a lady...

 

[chrispillertkd]

Hey Chris,

For evidence as to what sorts of sociosexual behavior our ancestors engaged in, we have 2 sources:

1. Sociosexual behavior of our closest living relatives, which are bonobos and common chimpanzees;

Is there anything in our direct evolutionary history?

2. Morphological traits in hominids, which includes Homo sapiens and their evolutionary pre-cursors (Australopithecus, Homo erectus, etc).

Any sort of actual evidence the behavior in question was engaged in? Any evidence that it was normative?

3. I'm excluding as a source the sociosexual behavior of modern human societies considered by laypersons to be "primitive", eg. tribes of Amazonian Indians, African Bushpeople, etc...many people in these sorts of arguments use them as examples of what humans must have been like before the development of permanent settlements, but this is a fallacy. They have been developing and changing just as long as industrial societies have.

Yes, it is a fallacy to make such an argument.

So with respect to source #1, (and others in this thread have mentioned this already), both bonobos and common chimps (as well as many, many species of mammals, birds and fish) engage in promiscuous mating behavior. The common evolutionary argument for this is that it is a strategy to avoid infanticide. Interestingly enough, female common chimps also trade sex for meat, when males have made a kill and are reluctant to share.

Interesting but irrelevant as these are not members of our direct evolutionary history.

With respect to source #2, biologists have demonstrated a clear association between 3 morphological traits and sociosexual behavior/social organization: when males compete directly with other males for mates, there is a reproductive advantage for large body size and larger weaponry (read large canine teeth). When the competition is foiled by females mating with more than one male, we see an increase in testicle size in relation to body size, because this provides an advantage in "sperm competition". Let's compare humans and chimps, our closest living relatives:

No, let's not compare them as chimps are not part of our direct evolutionary development. The statement was made that when "we lived in the forests" that the behavior in quesiton was commonplace. We weren't chimps at any point in our development. I'm interested in seeing proof that human ancestors engaged in such behavior, not that animals that exist today do so.

hominid evolution is considered, there is a clear reduction in canine size and a slight reduction in sexual dimorphism (the difference in body size between males and females). Soft tissue is not preserved in fossil remains, so we don't know anything about testicle size of our extinct ancestors, but modern human males have VERY large testicles in relation to their body size. This indicates that human males may not compete directly for females (compared to chimps) but they still have the equipment to engage in sperm competition. This is strong evidence that our ancestors did indeed have gang bangs in the forest.

Or not. It's certainly possible that other genetic mutation is responsible for the development of these physical characterists. And, as I said, I'm not interested in theories. I'm interested in proof. The original statement was made as if it was a matter of fact that such things occured. You've simply supplied a theory as to why it might have happened. I am interested in seeing the proof. Otherwise elder's original statement should really only be read as "it's my opnion that..."

So, anyway, I'm more than happy to see the scientific journal articles in which proof for the claim is conclusively presented.

Pax,

Chris

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

There is no proof in science, Chris. Only evidence to support a particular hypothesis. You want proof, become a mathematician.

 

[Tez3]

If I lived in your area I'd move.

Still waiting for elder999 to provide me with some information on where he got his proof of all these gang bangs occuring (proof, as opposed to theory) and when they took place in our evolutionary history.

I'd also be interested in some proof that if such behavior did occur it was considered normative and not aberrant.

Thanks in advance, elder.

Pax,

Chris

Why? the girls are willing and the soldiers may only have a short time to live before being blown to bits in 'Ghan, no ones being hurt here. You might not like it but who are you to judge?

 

[chrispillertkd]

There is no proof in science, Chris. Only evidence to support a particular hypothesis. You want proof, become a mathematician.

That's debateable. But you didn't even offer evidence.

Pax,

Chris

 

[chrispillertkd]

Why? the girls are willing and the soldiers may only have a short time to live before being blown to bits in 'Ghan, no ones being hurt here.

Speaking as someeone who used to counsel people who were sexually abused I'd seriously question whether or not anyone in that situation is being hurt.

You might not like it but who are you to judge?

I didn't say I was judging anybody. Nor did I say anything which even implied that I was doing so. Please stop projecting your own judgementalism onto others, Tez. Who are you to judge me?

Pax,

Chris

 

[Tez3]

Speaking as someeone who used to counsel people who were sexually abused I'd seriously question whether or not anyone in that situation is being hurt.



I didn't say I was judging anybody. Nor did I say anything which even implied that I was doing so. Please stop projecting your own judgementalism onto others, Tez. Who are you to judge me?

Pax,

Chris

You said that if you were me you'd move, thats plenty judgemental.

Just because a woman is free with her favours and that's her right, people who don't approve (though it's fine for men to do it) assume oh she must be abused, she can't really want to do it. Well, I know these girls better than you do and if there's any using going on here it's the girls using the lads.
I wouldn't project anything on you, couldn't be bothered.