Questions For Anna

[ok doser]

Not a call-out thread, just an attempt to capture a question (or two) that tend to get buried in the fast and furious overnight posting:


anna posted (in response to trad):

This isn't about what a spouse owes. It's about what a spouse inflicts on the other, and takes without the other's consent.

Intrigued by her choice of words, I asked:

in the case of a non-violent marital "rape", what has been taken?

and I followed up with this:

what was taken from the Swarthmore student in the following case of "rape"? Herewith, a Philadelphia magazine report about Swarthmore College, where in 2013 a student “was in her room with a guy with whom she’d been hooking up for three months”: “They’d now decided — mutually, she thought — just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. ‘I basically said, “No, I don’t want to have sex with you.” And then he said, “OK, that’s fine” and stopped. . . . And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything — I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep.’” Six weeks later, the woman reported that she had been raped.

 

[Truster]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....this is a call out thread.

 

[ok doser]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....this is a call out thread.

no, a call-out thread attempts to convict somebody (see anna's recent call-out threads here, here, here and here)

I'm just trying to get an answer, to understand what she means

 

[kmoney]

What are you calling a non-violent rape?

 

[Truster]

no, a call-out thread attempts to convict somebody (see anna's recent call-out threads here, here, here and here)

I'm just trying to get an answer, to understand what she means

You could have found that out in the threads in question.

This is a call out thread.

 

[ok doser]

You could have found that out in the threads in question.

like I said, they often tend to get buried

This is a call out thread.

if you insist :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

What are you calling a non-violent rape?

I'd say the Swarthmore "rape" qualifies

 

[PureX]

This thread is just another idiotic attempt at keeping the focus of negative attention on himself. Please ignore this sick fool.

 

[Traditio]

OkDoser has repeatedly brought up the Swarthmore case. I have yet to see anyone other than myself address it. I myself am still waiting to hear people like AnnaBenedetti, Rusha, etc. directly address it.

In my view, it simply wasn't a rape.

 

[Rusha]

OkDoser has repeatedly brought up the Swarthmore case. I have yet to see anyone other than myself address it. I myself am still waiting to hear people like AnnaBenedetti, Rusha, etc. directly address it.

I don't read or address his posts or questions.

 

[Traditio]

I don't read or address his posts or questions.

And yet you insist on taking part in discussions involving him, his arguments, his points, etc?

 

[Rusha]

And yet you insist on taking part in discussions involving him, his arguments, his points, etc?

Oh, perhaps you missed that the discussions have been about RAPE. Unless you are suggesting rape is a discussion that involves him, you have no point.

 

[Traditio]

Oh, perhaps you missed that the discussions have been about RAPE. Unless you are suggesting rape is a discussion that involves him, you have no point.

If the discussions have been originated by him or otherwise are oriented towards discussing things that he's brought up, then yes, it's perfectly reasonable that you should either 1. abstain from the discussion or else 2. respond to the points which are actually at issue.

There's a good reason I don't take part in discussion threads by certain people on this forum. I don't care what the topic is about. I'm not touching discussions with certain posters with a 10 foot pole.

 

[kmoney]

OkDoser has repeatedly brought up the Swarthmore case. I have yet to see anyone other than myself address it. I myself am still waiting to hear people like AnnaBenedetti, Rusha, etc. directly address it.

In my view, it simply wasn't a rape.

I wouldn't call that rape either.

 

[Rusha]

If the discussions have been originated by him or otherwise are oriented towards discussing things that he's brought up, then yes, it's perfectly reasonable that you should either 1. abstain from the discussion or else 2. respond to the points which are actually at issue.

Your opinion has been duly noted and dismissed. It is a DISCUSSION. I address comments by posters in the same way I do on discussion on other topics.

There's a good reason I don't take part in discussion threads by certain people on this forum. I don't care what the topic is about. I'm not touching discussions with certain posters with a 10 foot pole.

So you aren't interested in topics but rather the people discussing them? Got it.

There is a good reason I don't get involved with discussions about Catholicism. It doesn't interest me ... where as discussions regarding the death penalty, child abuse, domestic sexual and physical abuse (including rape), abortion, divorce, hate crime laws, gay marriage, etc. DO interest me.

Here's an idea: quit playing thread monitor. It isn't your job. A good portion of the time I ignore your responses as well ... for good reason.

 

[OCTOBER23]

After HOOKING UP with him for 3 months

Six weeks later, the woman reported that she had been raped.
-----------------------------------------------------
Ahhhhhhhahahahahahahahahaha lets see if she yelled out the window -RAPE

in the third TRY-MISTER.

 

[Traditio]

I wouldn't call that rape either.

I think that this is part of what fuels OkDozer's posting. No person in his right mind would call the case that he's cited "rape." That said, certain women are going to cry "rape" in those circumstances, and a certain number of radical feminists are going to agree with them.

If you want to call that case "rape," then it's certainly, in the words of OkDozer, a non-violent form of rape that shouldn't be prosecuble.

A problem with this discussion is that there's equivocations and ambiguities all over the place. What constitutes rape? What constitutes consent? What constitutes lack of consent?

You or I could say one thing, but the girl in the case that OkDozer cited is going to say something else entirely.

 

[Traditio]

Your opinion has been duly noted and dismissed. It is a DISCUSSION. I address comments by posters in the same way I do on discussion on other topics.

Imagine the following:

There are a couple of people having a discussion on a sidewalk. You hate one of those people and want nothing to do with that person. You will actively ignore whatever it is that comes out of his mouth. You still, however, walk up to these people and join their conversation, all the while ignoring the participant that you despise.

Does that make sense?

It doesn't to me. It strikes me as just bad form.

So you aren't interested in topics but rather the people discussing them? Got it.

I'm interested in both. There are certain people that I simply don't want to have discussions with, pretty much regardless of the topic.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Imagine the following:

There are a couple of people having a discussion on a sidewalk. You hate one of those people and want nothing to do with that person. You will actively ignore whatever it is that comes out of his mouth. You still, however, walk up to these people and join their conversation, all the while ignoring the participant that you despise.

Does that make sense?

It doesn't to me. It strikes me as just bad form.



I'm interested in both. There are certain people that I simply don't want to have discussions with, pretty much regardless of the topic.

Some people don't discuss. They twist your words around. They do not respond directly to points made. They turn things around on you. IOW, They are masters of rhetorical manipulation. These people only want you to either shut up or angry enough to get banned. Put them on ignore.

 

[Rusha]

Imagine the following:

There are a couple of people having a discussion on a sidewalk. You hate one of those people and want nothing to do with that person. You will actively ignore whatever it is that comes out of his mouth. You stll, however, walk up to these people and join their conversation, all the while ignoring the participant that you despise.

:yawn: This is not a sidewalk. This is a forum where I, unlike you, have purchased a lifetime membership. Since moderators have stated on more than one occasion "if you don't like someone or cannot get along with them, put them on ignore", I have done just that.

Does that make sense?

It doesn't to me. It strikes me as just bad form.

Good ... if *you* agreed with me, I would have to reconsider my position. Once again, I am not obligated to respond to anyone other than a moderator. It serves no purpose to fan the flames of a well known flame thrower ... unless of course you are one who sits on the sidelines, enjoying the fire.

I'm interested in both. There are certain people that I simply don't want to have discussions with, pretty much regardless of the topic.

Well, there you go! You have your answer. There are certain people I will not have a discussion with. Ever.