Inclusive Communities and Representations of Violence against Women

I think the jury is still out on nature verses nurture but I tend to think it comes from the nurture side.

What I don't get is that it's assumed sex crimes come mainly from the bdsm/kink people. What about the Mr Normal tudding away in missionary on his pose ball or real life wife? Is he immune to fantasy?

You missed out "running for public office", Chris!

Pep (And using guns underage, of course)

What is underage? I plan to buy my daughter a pink "Chipmunk" rifle for her 4th birthday. She wanted the pink 9mm that caught her eye in a catalog, but that is too much gun for her.

I saw I ran screaming -

Chris, are you feeling OK?You are starting to spell like a Brit..

Brenda (Or you just outed yourself as Pep's Alt)

No, I am all for sex and experimenting. What I object to is women, vulnerable women, being subjected to stuff they do not want to be involved in, because some guy has seen it in a porno. See my link above to the study on this.



I think you are confusing the US with the UK. The UK has no ban on anal sex between consenting adults. The US anti-homosexual sodomy laws were invalidated by the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas, but a ban on sodomy is still in place for servicemen, under Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.





Very wrong. You have no idea of the power of propaganda. Falsified images of black men raping a white woman were circulated in the Southern States, resulting in the widespread lynchings of blacks. Images are used extensively for propaganda purposes to whip up hatred for the enemy. Hate leaflets were handed out to Israeli troops before their invasion of Gaza, and the slaughter of hundreds of Palestinian women and children. Pure coincidence that they targeted so many women and children?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/army-rabbi-gave-out-hate-leaflet-to-troops-1516805.html





Correct, and the 'proper punishment' in the UK, where the making of such images IS illegal, is 3 years in jail.

In the UK online gambling is not illegal, is a legitimate business, but when executives of two of the biggest companies were waiting for connecting flights in the US they were arrested and faced over 100 years in prison (due to mandatory sentencing for the money laundering charges, as they used (of course) banks outside of the US.

I wonder if Mark Kingdon could face arrest for being the purveyor of extreme pornography (by UK law, and UK definitions) if he ever visited the UK.

Rock

I'd say 6 is a good age for a 9mm.

Let's chip in and buy him a ticket to London.....One way.

Awwww! Pink! Sweet!

Pep (Do you think Dylan and Eric's Dads cared as much as you obviously do?)

After that, get her a real gun.

/me is much more scared now . . .

Pep ( . . . scared he might buy his daughter a pink gun for her next birthday)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponsonby Low:
I'm just not seeing Talking Down and Lecture-Not-Discussion. ...





I do appreciate that you took the time to reply.

I note the irony that the two numbered reasons you gave me (in the post quoted above) for characterizing Scylla Rhiadra's posting as Talking Down and Lecture-Not-Discussion are both about something you'd said having been ignored...and yet you explain that being 'occupied' might prevent you, yourself, from responding rapidly.

Possibly you pride yourself on responding to each sentence of a person's post. If so, that is good and fine.

But I think 'talk down' and 'lecture-not-discuss' are inapproriate characterizations for someone who doesn't respond to each sentence. Particularly in light of the fact that you're talking about the thread originator, who, at that point, had more than 150 posts to which to respond.

And for all we know, the OP, like you, may have been faced with other manner of things that might occupy time.

In such circumstances, it seems to me, it would be more reasonable to make a second post saying 'I notice you didn't address this point and I'm really hoping for a response' than to immediately apply a label of 'talking down' and 'lecturing'.


Is it possible that at the point you made your own post (the one that you felt wasn't responded to fully, thus inspiring the "talk down" characterization)...is it possible that at that point, S.R. was also 'occupied'; furthermore, isn't it possible that the fact that the thread had ten or more pages of posts might have contributed to S.R.s not making an individual comment on each and every sentence of your post?

I know that's convoluted. I'm just saying that I think that labeling someone as Talking Down and as Lecturing-Not-Discussing, simply because you didn't get an individual response to each sentence of your post---in a thread so large as this---was not measured or fair.



As you can see, I can't feel that a failure to respond individually to each and every sentence in someone's post, in so large a thread, qualifies as 'talking down' or 'lecturing.'

Maybe you and I will just have to accept that we define 'talking down' and 'lecturing' differently.

Nah I wouldn't buy it anyway. I know you are really Strife's Alt....you proved it in the "Mental Health" thread. You said IBTL and next post, Strife locked it.

Brenda (Is not sure where sarcasm stops and paranoia starts on that one)

Rock

An image didn't hang anyone.

A person or group of persons did.

They made a choice to hang them, nobody forced them to but themselves. Nothing made them do it but themselves.

And as I said, a man taking pictures of his wife in a consensual scene should not be a crime... to make it one is moronic.

If he bound an unwilling woman and took the pictures, then yes he should be punished for that crime.

(and bad move taking it out of context to try and suit yourself, it's bad form)

There is this thing called personal responsibility, we are all the root of anything we do.

I don't give into the urge to run over the guy taking too long in the cross walk, the urge is there... but I chose not to.

I dislike the nanny state making a person a criminal for what amounts to the decisions of individuals.

should we ban everything that isn't all happy happy joy joy for all because some people make bad decisions on it?



As for propaganda, you remind me of someone that watches fox news and considers it gospel.


And I will repeat this for you again:

An image can only give an urge, it is up to a person to decide if they will act on it.


I saw your link, and it's worthless by the way. Dig deeper next time with your sources, look at what is behind them... might surprise the hell out of you.

Here is a tidbit, the women still had the option to say no. They had other choices available than to do what they were pressured into. They chose to give in to the pressure..

Obviously not, since they let them buy guns on the black market and allowed them to be prescribed dangerous psychotic medicines.

Stop worrying. I actually PMd Strife and asked her to lock it, so I had a head start.

Pep (Damn, I coulda really got ya going . . . )

As much as I'm getting you going, I'm sure.

Now there is lesson #2 to be drawn about free speech from this thread.

If you don't observe the Community Standards the ResMods will get you?

Pep (You are not supposed to reopen a thread that has been locked.)

No we can't. We are all weak and vulnerable and need someone to make our choices for us. Isn't that what this entire conversation is about?

I got my first .22 when I was 8. I don't think I would have ever gone out for pink, though, even though now my motorcycle jacket is pink.

I thought that was Cato's job..........

Pink Leather? Oooohh. With matching pants and boots?

No, that friends of authority figures who may act solely on their own discretion have far more rights than anyone else. (Assuming, of course, this off-topic thread is the only one of- what- thousands recently that will be shut down because it's off time. By someone who is no longer a moderator. Because someone who knew him requested it.)

You have obviously not heard of the laws of incitement.

If a guy has a gun on a cop, and you shout, 'go on, shoot him', and he does, you know that you will face a murder charge too. You cannot claim that the guy who had the gun had a choice after listening to your words, and that you should be found innocent. It does not matter if the incitement was verbal, by the written word, or by inflammatory images.

It is just so naive to think incitement plays no part in crime.

BTW, you are not a member of the NRA by any chance are you? They have similar idiotic sayings about 'a gun never killed anyone..'

Rock