What about the Corporate Joygirls/boys? I seem to remember that it was standard practice to have their own joygirls to the mid level and scientific employees as a way to maintain security. I highly doubt that a mega is going punish Mr. Scientist for raping a joygirl that the corp provided to him.

use your imagination... a not-very-subtle warning.... maybe slow down a researcher without killing him/her for whatever reason.... make an example of what happens to the daughters of certain competing corp execs who make business decisions the raping corp doesn't like...

for starters.

Argument by analogy is not a fallacy. It is a cornerstone of inductive reasoning. The fallacy you are thinking of is argument by false analogy. This only applies if the analogy is, indeed, false.

Either way, your assertion that my statement was an arguement by analogy is incorrect. It doesn't fit the form of an argument by analogy.

I did not imply that BMT and was similar to sexual encounters. I simply asserted that there exist, in human communications, certain situations where the words said do not match the meaning intended to be conveyed because the speaker is unable or unwilling to overtly his true meaning.

But we're saying the same thing. We're just niggling over details. Lets make a deal. If you don't be an ass then I won't. Okay? It'll make everyone much happier.

Some people get off on the illusion of being forced or coerced. Not everyone does, of course. Most people don't. But quite a few do. Once you break character and consent is overtly confirmed that illusion is dead and there is no way to bring it back.
Surely, you get that there is a difference between acting out a fantasy and doing the real thing. Surely, you get that characters say things that their actors do not mean.

If its that kind of club, certainly. If it is that kind of club doing so would be explicitly required by the rules. If they are having casual sex so soon after meeting there is a fairly good chance that it is that kind of club. Obviously, you don't do much BDSM.

Perhaps you din't mean to imply it, but including the story in a thread about rape indicates that you have the idea that it has something to do with rape. How about we agree that there are things that go on in Air Force basic training that involve communication, but that it isn't relevant to a discussion about rape?

Saying "who cares" is being an ass? Trust me, when I'm being an ass, you'll know.

Ummm... Yeah. I know that. I even said something along those lines in my followup post. What's your point?

I'll reiterate what I said: If you're into protesting but actually having it happen, use a safe word. If your partner never mentions a safe word, don't assume that the signals you think you're getting are the signals that are being sent, and go by the "no means no" rule of consent.

Heck, even if you're in the midle of receiving the best fellatio this side of Dallas's famous Debbie, the moment she stops and says no, doing anything besides asking has a good chance of constituting rape. Likewise, the moment he says no, doing anything besides asking has a good chance of constituting rape.

No matter what the situation, if there has not been some prior agreement, doing anything after a "no" is quite likely rape.

Debbie isn't from Dallas, she just does it. In theory, at least—the city never appears, and is only a plot point.

~J

yes, actually, i do know that 95% of of accused rapists aren't all guilty, because there have been a number of cases where the accused rapist was acquited based on genetic evidence. moreover, i also know that there are a fair number of false convictions who were later exonerated, also based on genetic evidence--so not even all of the 5% that do get convicted are actually guilty.

regardless, you aren't really arguing that those 95% are all guilty. you're arguing that some of them are guilty--an unknown percentage. if you're not calling for a witch hunt, though, you should probably not use langauge that indicates a witch hunt.

Cool, they said a word. Now, what about the other 90% of communication that's going on? You know, then *nonverbal* communication? Granted, the 90% number is kinda mythical, but the point is that saying one word isn't the same thing as laying down a clear message.

Um, yeah. So, like, if we send a lot more accused drug dealers to jail, the drug abuse rates will go down? Wow, nice idea... pity it doesn't work.

You're completely off base. First of all, he's completely right about puberty. Largely, it's the concentrations of FSH and LH that determine what secondary characteristics develop, and how. Even later in life, pumping someone full of hormones from the opposite sex can start androgynizing them. You can read about this in any fifth-grade human biology textbook, so I'd say that he's perfectly justified in sounding "confident".

Second, let's not just choose 20 random scientists, let's go to the best. Dr. Reimer is the head of pediactric urology at John Hopkins, which is one of the leading teaching hospitals in the country. What does he have to say on the subject? It shouls also be added that Dr. Reimer also has advanced degrees in psychiatry, so he'd be the best at ruling out any social/societal infulence. This study is just the icing on the cake, BTW-- there's lots and lots more that pretty much show that gender identity is determined well before birth.

You're confusing two totally separate things here: the placebo effect, and the judgement-impairing effects of alcohol. The placebo effect is what convinces people that they're drunk in the first place. Alchohol does impair judgement, but it doesn't grant permission to do anything. That bit is entirely societal in nature.

No, you don't have to do a study. However, the facts are quite different. There is no societal excuseability factor in this country for being drunk. I mean, go ahead and picture it: "Yes, your honor, I know I was driving too fast when I hit that school bus full of kids and killed everyone, but it's not a big deal-- I was drunk!" If anything, we're currently *harder* on people who are drunk or stoned, because we feel they made the situation worse.

You're confusing the personal safety factor with a societal/permissive one. Namely, people can say or do things while drunk, without damaging their own self-concept. That does not equal permission, or indicate that alcohol isn't lowering inhibitions and impairing judgement.

Not just "no", but "Hell no". Literally. You don't stop muggers by saying "pretty please, no." For your own safety, you need to be very clear and firm and up-front about what you want, and where the lines are to be drawn.

LOL Just because some are overturned and some are acquitted doesn't mean that a specific percentage of them are not guilty. Or do you have hard numbers somewhere? "Some" and "a number of" do not statistics make.

Alternatively you could not assume a witch hunt where no reason for the assumption exists.

Edit: I chose 95% as a guesstimate of the number of rapists who are accused that are actually guilty. I could have chosen 60%, or even 25%. The point was that there are more rapists going free then there are being convicted, if only because a large number of rapes aren't even reported. The more rapists that go to jail the more people there will be that might think twice. If "she's asking for it" is no longer an accepted defense people may begin to ask themselves a little more forcefully whether that no really means no or not.

If you've been reading this thread and/or the last one you know that I'm not advocating conviction of innocent people.

What part of "no means no" do you not understand?

Really? I'm not selling drugs because I don't want to go to jail. That's at least one person that a higher pecentage of drug convictions has affected. I doubt I'm unique in the morass of humanity.

And there are studies that show it isn't. So what? You can find a study somewhere to "prove" anything. I don't disagree that gender roles are determined during puberty (or even before). It's the "entirely by hormones" part that is up in the air. Had he said "partially" or even "mostly" it would have been ok. But when you start talking in absolutes about a subject which scientists don't agree on all you're doing is assuming that one group of the scientist's work is more correct then another's.

I'm glad we agree. Why you felt you needed to phrase that as an argument is beyond me. LOL

Again we agree. Thank you. I've asid all along that being drunk is no excuse for rape. Yet again you phrase it as a disagreement, but I suppose that's just your style of writing.

Yes, I know. Thanks for agreeing again. My, aren't we just on the same wavelength today.

It is in your best interests to be as clear as possible, true. But no matter what else is going on, the moment you say "no," no matter what other signals are being sent or believed to have been sent, continuing becomes rape. Should you have kicked him in the balls and fled? Maybe. But that does not change the fact that you were raped.

The responsibility for personal protection falls on the rapee. But the responsibility for the rape falls on the rapist. With or without the presnce of clear signals (or at least, clear in the sense that some people think "no" sometimes means "yes"), and with or without any form of self defense, chaperoning, or whatever else can help reduce the likelihood of being raped, the reponsibility for the rape falls onto the rapist. Victims are never guilty for the crimes commited upon them without their consent.

Exactly. In a new relationship there already exists a safe word that has been well defined by society as meaning "don't have sex with me" for decades, and that word is "no."

if i've had a few drinks and the girl saying "no" is slow-dancing with my and grabbing my ass? it's easily possibe that i'll misunderstand both the "n" and the "o". sure, i should be listening for that all-important "no", but it's kinda hard to concentrate when she's groping me like that. and when i wake up in the morning to find the cops slapping cuffs on me and calling me a rapist, i'll probably be pretty pissed at the girl. i mean, if she didn't want to fuck me, why did she follow me into that dark bedroom?

i'm guilty as sin, understand. i'm a moron. i should've backed off the first time she said "no", and not touched her even if she'd stripped naked right in front of me a second later and started unbuttoning my fly. but what the hell--i came to this party to get laid. if she's not here to do the same, maybe she oughtn't be leading me around like that?

the simple fact is that humans take a lot of their understanding of a situation from non-verbal clues. when it comes to rape, that's a real problem. "no means no" is a great principle, and everyone should follow it--but in real life, it's going to get ignored more often than not, because that's how social interaction works. if a girl says "no" but acts "yes" and she gets raped, there are two people who fucked up and made that happen.

to take Snow Fox's counterargument as an extreme example, if i'm saying "please Snow Fox don't cut off my balls" while simultaneously dropping my pants, what's the most likely outcome?

From what I've seen of Snow Fox I'm guessing that you won't get your balls cut off.

Wrong, it gets ignored because of a lack of education and prosecution. If everybody looked at the phrase "no means no" and took it at face value there would be no ignoring it. It's the people that see "no means no" and add an "except when I'm involved" to the end of it that causet he problems.

Wrong. There's one person that made it happen: the rapist. The other person perhaps did some things that did not prevent it, but the final decision to ignore the word no is always in the hands of the rapist. Attempting to say anything else is what gets people off the hook because "she was asking for it," despite the obvious fact that she said "no," a clear indicator.

Nonverbal clues can and will be misconstrued. Anyone thinking otherwise is a fool. As such, it's the straightforward verbal clues that have to be heeded.

six of one, half a dozen of the other. if everyone took the phrase "no means no" at face value, it would indicate a change in the way that society worked. our society does not work in such a way that no always means no.

to a point. the rapist is the one who did the rapery, and that's why he's guilty no matter the circumstances. but if the power to prevent something bad from happening is in your hands, and you fail to act--or act in such a way that the bad thing is even more likely to happen--you are also at fault. if the girl in my example above had said "no" firmly and stopped groping me, there's a good chance i wouldn't wake up in handcuffs the next morning. nonverbal clues can be misconstrued, and that's why people need to pay close attention to the cues they're giving out.

that is exactly the point i'm trying to get across.

Where did you get the idea that APD-afflicted individuals have people skills? While they're frequently charismatic, that appears to stem largely from the fact that they are, due to their inability to feel fear, relatively self-confident in appearance.

~J

That's precisely what I'm meant. To an autistic, that's 'people skills'. That, and the superficial charm they often have.

Exactly true, which is why society needs a swift kick in the ass.

I hope you were speaking sarcastically. If not, may your balls rot off like your brain already has.

I think the existence of BTLs, smart agents, and hot sim has probably put a damper on the human sex trade, at least the higher end (costwise) side of it. Why risk keeping a human prisoner when you can have a program capable of fulfilling all your sexual desires? Some still would, because they want the power. The ones that just want the sex could be satiated by a chip and some trodes.

And you advise I review basic reading comprehension?

~J

Preach brother. I agree on both counts, about bullshido.net but also about the importance of self defense. I think that a basic readyness and ability to perform self defense would go a long way towards empowering people in the face of crime.

Let me state my opinion about that this way: many of the people who initially feel like self defense on any level is impractical for them or less desirable than calling the police are to a certain extent living in an imaginative bubble at least when it comes down to physical issues of survival in the face of an immediate physical threat. This imaginative bubble, unfortunately, ensures that they will be more likely to freeze up or fail to resist in the event that they really are victimized in a serious physical way.

The fact of the matter is that the police have no legal obligation to save you from a situation you might be in and furthermore if you were attacked by someone in most cases there's simply no way the police could get to you in time to help you. If you look at physical threats from a practical level, realizing that it can take less than a minute for someone to jump you and do you in, you would necessarily realize that even an attempt at self defense is a lot better than willing the cops to materialize. I would guess that a lot of people who let themselves be victimized without fighting back did so because they were mentally off balance and scared and had never really contemplated about how ultimately when someone is attacked they themselves are usually the only person who will be able to save their own life. I would guess that they never really contemplated the specific details of violence and thus never stumbled upon the inevitable conclusion that if you want to stop someone from killing you or hurting you in most cases you are the only one who will be in the position to even attempt it.

That being said, I honestly think that the best way to reduce rape (I mean, American style acquaintance rape, and not necessarily hardcore South African stranger rape where the threat level might be a lot higher) is seriously for women to get more physically aggressive and train in a credible grappling art. From the standpoint of acquaintance rape or a situation where there could be a misunderstanding leading to a rape that would give you the tools to physically shut down the person before the rape even occurs.

One issue that I've heard brought up in rape seminars and such regarding acquaintance rape or date rape is that the woman in question lets herself be raped because she dosen't really want to hurt the rapist. But if the woman in question were good at a credible grappling art that wouldn't be an issue. I can submit fellow grapplers, my good friends, and they can submit me, and there's never really any serious injuries or hard feelings. If a woman were really good at a credible grappling art she wouldn't need to worry about hurting the would-be rapist while simultaneously being buffeted by all kinds of out of control emotions. IN most cases it would be pretty simple to say no and armbar or RNC the guy especially if he dosen't know how to grapple.

And you know what? That would pretty much be the end of the problem. Unless the guy in question is dead set on really hurting the woman and is willing to fight all out, or else premeditate a particularly well planned and brutal stranger rape, I think that a good RNC would really shut him down.

sarcastic? no. talking about the specific "we", as in mfb and James McMurray? also no--"we", in this case, is the society mfb and James McMurray are a part of. disparaging of this fact? yes.

Nice Straw Man you and Cain are burning? Can I get in on that.

I didn't see a point in responding earlier since it was off topic but now that my words have been twisted I have little choice.

My "entirely" did not refer to gender identity. It refered to the formation of secendary sex characteristics such as breast composition, hip structure, and ect. This is a well proven fact. Sure, the exact size of your boobies is dependant on genetics, diet, and exercise as is the exact with of your hips, but the structure is determined by hormones.

My "almost entirely" did not refer to gender identity. It refered to primary sexual characistics other then the gonads (which I specificly excluded). It is a well proven fact that gonad structure is determined by the Y chromosome (or lack thereof) but that the structure of internal ducts and external glands are entirely determined by hormones secreted by the devolped gonads (or lack thereof). This is a well proven fact.

My only referance to gender identity was that "there is some evidence" that it is set by hormones during gestation.

The patterns and the causes of fetal and adolecent sexual differentiation are well established scientific facts. They have been proven beyond any resonable doubt by study, observation, and experimentation. Sure, it is possible that scientists have it wrong in the same way it is possible that all gunshot victims in the history of the world were actually killed by invisible death rays from Mars and guns are, in fact, cmpletely harmless.

And yes, you can find scientistswho disagree in the same way you can find scientists who support "intelligent design" over evolution. They're quacks. I had a physics professor who believed in rincarnaton and that aliens have visited the earth. I don't consider these to be scientificly valid theories.

http://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/Ge...le_jh_page2.htm

That's grounds for an entirely different 8 page debate. Oh wait, we already did that in the Ninja gets his neck stepped on thread.

And thanks for saying "credible grappling art." Anything else would have become an 8 page side topic about which is better, the one you mentioned or the one some random DSer invented in his mom's basement.

I apologize for misinterpreting your post.

Thank you.

Lol.

"BJJ is t3h suxx0r because it dosen't prepare you for t3h str33t, and by t3h str33t I mean t3h g0ug3 and t3h m0nk3y st34ls p34ch.

If you want t3h r34l s3lf-d3f3nse, you must train: WILDCAT MARTIAL ARTS. Me and my buddy Kevin invented it based on the SR3 description in our basement last week."

right. I agree that far. But that is where the term 'no means no' comes into play. NO is not ambiguous and even claiming he was devil's advocate, I don't buy it. His arguments was the most offensive anyone here has made. He was not just playing the other side, he was being obnouxious about it. There were less stupid ways to phrase it, he choose not to. He called down the thunder, it's here.

That's just plain wrong.

Of course it's not always enough. Anyone can be taken down and if we raise the threat level by assuming that, for example, there will always be multiple armed attackers who are willing to injure the victim, then unarmed combat becomes less and less likely to work.

However, I believe that the improvements in mental disposition that credible training creates would end up being a significant improvement over a lot of peoples' default mental dispositions.

Furthermore, in the US at least, in many cases the threat level won't be really really high. Not every attack on the street is a coordinated, cold-blooded affair; instead, a lot of times they're impulsive.

Would you be more likely to sell drugs if you wouldn't go to jail for it? The answer tends to be "not really". Generally, regardless of the sentences involved, the socioeconomic factors drive drug sale/abuse more than anything else.

What slapping on higher penalties does accomplish, though, is to reduce supply. This, as anyone who's studied basic economics knows, drives up demand. The higher the demand, the more desperate people get to obtain it. Prohibition never really gets the job done.

Um... where do I begin? First of all, gender roles are determined *well* before puberty. You'll see gender-typed behavior in infants, sometimes even neonates. Gender roles have almost nothing to do with puberty at all. Gender identity, which we're discussing, doesn't really have much to do with puberty either. The psysiological basis for gender identity is difficult to pin down, but it is very real.

Second, let's look at what your own link has to say on the subject of early gender identity development:

If you're going to cite a source to prove your point, cite one that agrees with your point.

Then why did you say: "I myself have done things when drunk that I shouldn't have done but knew I could just say 'I was drunk.'", if you weren't angling for an excuse?

One word, by itself, means nothing. Remember, most of our communication is nonverbal. An attitude of "No" is much more powerful than saying "pretty please, no".

The last part is true. However, an actual demonstration is a better form of self defense than saying "pretty please". Which would you rather your kids do, if a stranger tried to take them: say "Please let me go" or scream for help?

Among the rape victims I know, several of them were women who were well-trained in martial arts, including solid grappling training. The shock of sudden betrayal is always a factor; and also, sometimes the attacker is a loved one. Even the bearable pain of an arm-bar is difficult to do when it's someone you care about.

If you've been reading all the posts, though, you'll see that no one is so stupid as to suggest that solid grappling makes you invulnerable. It all depends on the threat level.

The other thing I'd refine is that grappling per se is essential. The problem with standup in this context is that a lot of it is neutralized when you get dragged to the ground. Therefore grappling ability is really key, since takedowns can be hard to resist.

This reminds me of a one night stand from my own past
I was handcuffed, tied up, and helpless
she was going down on me while saying "No, no, we shouldn;t,I have a boyfriend."

Does this make me a rapist?

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"

Incorrect. There is no ambiguity in the word. If you disagree I direct you to any dictionary ever written. The difference in this scenario is that she is performing the acts. This is obviously a case where she is acting, and should probably have mentioned a safe word. The no in this instance means "I will define when we stop." If she turns you blue while saying no and starting and stopping that's well within her rights as a woman. If she stops at any point while saying no and you press the issue it becomes rape.

She's not too smart for behaving as she is, but if at any point she stops, then it stops or becomes rape.