I wonder what would happen if there were some kind of counseling/therapy (non-drug) that allowed an adult who was raped to completely heal psychologically from it, such that it had no emotional color to them anymore. I'm talking about total healing, not just "getting over it". I wonder how this would be reacted to. Would people want to hold on to the damaged-for-life model we currently use so that they could justify punishment of the perpetrator?
Clayton: Yes, it is. Hence, parting ways. I dabbled with postmodernism before discovering Mises... that's when I realized that postmodernism is just the disfiguration of philosophy to save statism from its inevitable death at the hands of any rational philosophy. Postmodernism is "words as war"... aka garbage philosophy. Clayton -
Yes, it is. Hence, parting ways. I dabbled with postmodernism before discovering Mises... that's when I realized that postmodernism is just the disfiguration of philosophy to save statism from its inevitable death at the hands of any rational philosophy. Postmodernism is "words as war"... aka garbage philosophy.
Clayton -
You must not have heard of Poststructuralist Anarchism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-anarchism
Relevant.
ROFL! That is the truest depiction of legal process ever!
Yep, I'm a big fan of casual sex. Legalize it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHWSrdSFq2I
We don't own our social reputations.
They are formed by other people observing and judging our behavior.
And any woman indulging in indiscriminate casual sex is actually engaging on a very clear tradeoff.
She is sacrificing her reputation with people contemptuous of such behaviors.
Of course such a tradeoff is more troublesome for some women rather than other women.
For several reasons, chiefly family upbringing, some women don't expect much benefit from being highly esteemed by those people who are usually scornful of female promiscuity. Many of these women seldom have direct social contact with people abiding traditional mores.
For these women, the reputation tradeoff is thus cheaper and we rationally expect (and accordingly observe) a more libertine sexual conduct from them.
That is, they can afford being sluts insofar as the social standards concerning whatever they want for their lives are not so strict.
However some women do strive for respectful social positions, and they understand that this can only be achieved by restraining most lustful desires that might eventually afflict them.
"Slut-shaming" is one of the social mechanisms that allows women to self-select between these paths.
Abolishing "slut-shaming", if possible, would likely result in unintended outcomes, like prostitutes teaching elementary classes, call girls working on investment banking and strippers becoming attorney generals.
Scenarios that are clearly absurd even for those of us who think women of ill reputation in general and whores in particular do have an important role and services to perform in a free society and should not be altogether persecuted for their choice of a living.
One thing nobody has mentioned so far is that what clothes are seen as acceptable for women to wear is not determined by men, but by women. Virtually all "social policing" of women is in fact done by women. That is not to say men don't have opinions of their own, but as it happen women don't care about any of them. Women are as likely to take fashion advice from men, as men are to consult women on engines. Blaming "the patriarchy" for women not being able to do something or dress in a certain way without their reputations suffering is absurd, because all of that is actually the result of what goes on within the sisterhood itself. Men don't know crap about women (witness our resident "male feminists"), ergo if men think a woman who engages in certain acitivities or dresses in a certain way is therefore worthy of condemnation that is because that is what they have been told to belive by other women. That in mind, it is easy to understand how "male feminists" combating alleged "slut shaming" actually means men ("feminists") firstly sticking their nose where it doesn't belong and into what they don't understand, and more importantly results in the ironic but predictable situation of males ("feminists") scolding and lecturing (deviant, socially-policing) women. For all their stated pro-femaleness and enlightment and elevation and what not in the end male feminists are what they allege to hate, testicled moralizers scolding women for activities (sharing an opinion on percieved "loose women") that do not violate any natural law. And how patronising and patriarchal is that?
I'm a male feminist and quick to encourage women to dress as skimpy as possible.
@Marko: You have nailed the nail on its head.... </thread>
http://theweek.com/article/index/99999/how-tiffany-shepherd-teacher-became-leah-lust-porn-star She don't seem to be real empowered to me. And she's getting paid. Or is it like the give up your worldly possesions BS. You have to be promiscuous but it doesn't count if you do it to pay the bills.
This is a good source too: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/
Clayton's quote: "Rape was never a "women's issue" to begin with."
As long as the elite-orchestrated Battle of the Sexes continues, women will still believe the lie that many men weren't oppressed just like them: physically/sexually, economically, politically. Most men (and women) have been oppressed by a small group of powerful people all throughout history. Divide and conquer--keep them at each other's throats and playing the "we had it worse" game instead of joining together to fight the state. The power of men and women working together is irrepressible.