What do you think will happen to Kobe....

beef?

Stir-fry? Stew? Bar-Bee-Que?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and then see how fucking funny you think it is.

Not that I wish to further appeal to the type of beast that would make a joke of what may have actually been a woman's rape.

Funny..real funny

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I realize it is already on the internet but you had to help spread it as well? Think it maybe makes it a bit easier for some crazed sports fan to find her?

I am amazed by your sensitivity.

Sorry for the loss of your family members.

She's somebody's family too.

that site never would have been posted on DU if I didn't do it. :eyes:

Think it maybe makes it a bit easier for some crazed sports fan to find her?

I guess this DU post made it easier for the train of news trucks and cars driving by her house all day long to find her. :eyes:

You need to learn how to distinguish sarcasm from insensitivity, then maybe you won't be so quick to jump down the throat of any male comment that doesn't meet your standard.

If Kobe did it, he should go to jail. If she is an attempted suicider looking for fame and fortune to get out of her presumably miserable existence, then she should go to jail for lying.

Let's see what the jury decides.

we haven't tangled before to my knowledge. As far as I am concerned everyone helping to make her address known is doing some harm. I apologize in advance for my sense of absolutism. YOu are right. It isn't fair to you. She's a celebrity now.

One question. What if she is an attempted suicider looking for fame and fortune to get out of her miserable existance who was raped?

BTW the victim's name was removed from a thread on DU yesterday. There are many women who have been raped that post on DU and they probably didn't want to put them in an incident but heck it might infringe on your freedom to be..well...

normal court trial. The accused's lawyers know this, ergo the smear campaign in the court of public opinion, so that the jury pool is tainted prior to trial.

If you don't see it happening, just look at how the defense has already successfully manipulated the opinions presented here. It is a defense strategy to smear the alleged victim, and it appears to be working with people who may otherwise be intelligent.

It will backfire, though. Not a person on this board can say that they haven't made a mistake earlier in their lives. Let's just hope that they never have to contend with such a situation with a daughter, who perhaps went braless or wore her skirt too short.

Now, I have to go to work...good evening :-)

One question. What if she is an attempted suicider looking for fame and fortune to get out of her miserable existance who was raped?

Then some sort of 'special circumstances' penalty, like an extra 10 years or so in jail, should be imposed if it is obvious/proven he took advantage of an 'unstable' woman.

My regrets to the women here who are rape victims.

Over a few years in the early 80s I dated 4 women in Baton Rouge when I worked there. To my naive astonishment, three were 'damaged' from male abuse. One women had a boyfriend who would beat her with coathangers, and once stood over her bed so she could witness him killing her cat with his bare hands. The second was just used as punching bag. The third, and most damaged imho, was an incest victim from 18 months old to 17 yrs old by her father. The father went to jail for 7 years where he died incarcerated, but to make the matter worse, she was ostracized for life by the rest of her family for 'squeeling' on dad, and by her mother who KNEW.

So I have had some life experiences then that opened my eyes to the real world of female abuse, which is probably the reason that I stopped telling or passing along derogatory jokes about women.

Now that I have had some DU sensitivity enlightenment, I will try to be more aware of my approach to sarcasm.

I appreciate your response. I clearly did not read your post as sarcasm nor was it marked as such. I still object to a link to a site that not only shows her picture but also lists her address.

I do appreciate that you shared as much though about your level of understanding. I appreciate that you stated what you did and am sorry if what is clearly sarcasm to others wasn't to me.

It isn't about making enemies but there are some areas where one cannot expect a compromise from me. This is one.

profile disabled. LMAO...talk about a contradiction.

I thought she was 'allegedly' raped. You must have some inside track on the news. Since she was definitley raped, as you infer, my bad.

And since you have to know my profile, I'm Steve from Boston, I'm a marine biologist, and my hobbies are scuba diving and ocean kayaking. I've never been arrested or EVER assaulted a women. I hope this makes you feel better.

And if you care to check, most DU'ers hide their profiles for reasons of security.

I care as little about who you are as I care who the rape victim is, and I refuse to play games of semantics with a person who called her Kobe's "teenage honey" and what she considered to be rape, a "date."

The irony is in your outting the victim while worrying about your own security. Laughable!

I so do not care about this irrelevant non-news. It belongs on espn and SI, not all the cable news outlets. This is the same as shark attacks, Laci, and Chandra: tabloid gossip to distract us from what's really going on.

Who the fuck gives a crap, when are they gonna fill me in on 'J-Lo's' menstrual cycle... doesn't seem so farfetched to me.

From the inane banter i hear at work, Kobe is already guilty in the court of public opinion, but hey... OJ happens, you never know.

Not more than a blip on the news scene. I hope it doesn't become OJ Redux.

I hadn't heard!

Evidence too strong, forget OJ syndrome repeat.

Gonna lose his ass. This one fuck has a chance for the world record held by Jim Bakker who fucked Jessica Hahn one time and lost 1.28576 billion dollars. He and Tammy were doing $65 Mil per year until his monumental fuck up. pardon the pun. its been 16 years and times that by 65 million

Koby will lose $100 mil per year for the nx 15 years... Buh bye 1.5 billion$

I am not even going to begin. Some people are just not capable of being sensitized to women's issues. My last say on this thread... except that I find it piteous that DUers would further contribute to the exploitation of this young woman.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Kobe's soul just like Bush can see into Putin's.

I'm not saying he did it. I am saying IF he did then that means this young woman was raped. Women picture it happening to your body. Men picture it happening against your will with a person/probably a man several times your size that doesn't care if you say it really does hurt against your wishes and see if you still laugh.

Rape isn't funny.

until proven guilty.

that part isn't funny. That is my objection. And ya know what, I probably won't shut up about it. So one of two things will happen as long as I make my comments within the rules.

Either people will quit mocking what may actually be a rape victim or they will have me challenging them every fucking time they do it.

This is a discussion board. I am discussing just like you are.

What is really ridiculous is if you ask the many beacons of justice on this thread about OJ, who was acquitted, I think you will get an very interesting and contradictory response.

I might be wrong but I would take odds on the bet.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

all they need is a couple men to hold them down on their stomach with their ass up in the air while another man rams them real hard while they lie there helpless. Consider it a ...well...sensitivity training.

That is the biggest copout bullshit I have ever heard. Their biology may preclude empathy but their socialization through about third grade might have taught them an ounce of decency. They CHOSE to reject that environmental adaptation. It's called "free to be as big of an ass about it as I want to be."

Thanks for the science lesson, I know we cannot help that we are animals and mammals and have glands and hormones and chromosomes and all that happy horseshit. Let's pretend the charge is murder and you are now using man's survival mechanism and anything it perceives as a threat whether real or imagined but not including ACTUAL self defense...does the analogy still hold? I didn't think so.

"all they need is a couple men to hold them down on their stomach with their ass up in the air while another man rams them real hard while they lie there helpless. Consider it a ...well...sensitivity training."

I am DEEPLY offended by this comment. What is that, some kind of JOKE? How dare you fail to ALWAYS discuss or refer to ANYTHING rape-related without the proper, hushed, reverent and deeply sympathetic manner! How could you be so insensitive as to inject ANY semblance of humor into SO SERIOUS a subject?!?

I really would've thought that your socialization through about third grade might have taught you an ounce of decency.

BTW, "Their biology may preclude empathy" is exactly the OPPOSITE of what I said.

I sought only to enlighten, not to 'cop-out'. We ARE animals, and life is not fair, ya know? It would be nice, I suppose, if men and women thought and felt the exact same way about EVERYTHING. Both sexes would certainly spend a lot less time obsessing about why their partner just doesn't express their thoughts CORRECTLY (i.e. the way THEY would). Excuse me for pointing out the EXPLANATION for WHY it is the case that men and women don't think exactly alike. Obviously, coming to an 'understanding' of these differences is not nearly as important as our need to denigrate and find fault with the other for these differences.

Excuse me for offending you with my in-depth analysis of the situation, rather than spewing syncophantic dogma that makes us feel good inside for the moment, but does nothing to enlighten one another or resolve anything more than superficially. I'll try to be more benign and banal next time.

was no more than a fancy, scientific and painfully long way of saying, "boys will be boys."

I did gather that you stated empathy was possible but between all that darwinistic tripe about their cellular make-up, the point did get a bit lost.

Yeah I have alot of nerve.

I will understand why men aren't naturally sympathetic about rape probably a fucking LOT faster that many will understand why it is no fucking laughing matter for women. I will be sympathetic about their possible encounter with a rapist when I can expect the same. At that time, I expect to come up with some long in depth anaysis that will make them feel better about ther male (most likely) predator and his hunter gatherer instincts or shall I say IMPULSES.

In case you don't realize, I am clearly not alone in this. Many women you exchange friendly communications with on other threads and some you might even like to make the acquaintance of will no longer click on threads such as this, not because they want to live and let live but because they can't due to the incidents it brings up. If they did they would leave DU.

The only thing sycophantic was the triangulating manner in which you spoke of all this as though biology plainly lays it out there. Sorry but if it doesn't apply in other areas of crime where our deep animalistic needs for survival exist then it doesn't apply here. Try fostering this level of understanding regarding a murder.

I apologize for my sycophantic logic. It's just that when one extrapolates it out to many conditions for which this biology might be an explanatory principle, it doesn't hold water.


on edit: oh and one more thing, your explanation seems to equate rape with sex rather than violence but I know that seems a bit too sycophantically dramatic and pedestrian compared to your thoughtful analysis.

Which seems to be that, and please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, "anybody who even APPEARS, in my esteem, to fail to refer to rape in the most deeply referential, sympathetic tones at all times, and/or even SUGGESTS that a woman MIGHT make up a story about being raped, is clearly simply a fucking asshole who failed to learn his social skills beyond the third grade".

I have to say, your analysis is just stunningly cogent and thoughtful. Thanks for your contribution. What is particularly useful about it is the ability it gives us to extrapolate, which you've clearly argued is a critical component to any valid analysis. Using your framework, any divergence in the way ANYTHING is viewed or expressed by men vs. women may be accurately determined to result from guys being tactless, boorish assholes, as opposed to my NONSENSE about them having a slightly different biochemical makeup and role within the natural world. And I must say, although your position requires little or no actual THOUGHT, it makes up for its shortcomings by it's beautiful simplicity and ease of application.

Ya know, NSEA, I did my best to explain why some of the good men and women on this site seem to be doing a bit of 'head-butting' on this issue. You seem to have chosen to WRONGLY interpret that I sought to 'give guys a pass' to laugh about rape in a rape victims face, or even to commit rape, if I'm interpreting you correctly. Nothing could be further from the truth, in fact. If you made an honest attempt to think about what I said rather than reacting with spite out-of-hand, I think my point should've been clear.

Under the circumstances, I'm forced to conclude that because you have YOUR analysis of the situation (see above) pretty well determined, any attempt to provide an alternate explanation is going to be met with hostility. I'm sorry that you didn't find that my analysis to be remotely enlightening. Allow me to also apologize for the fact that I AM a SCIENTIST, and tend to attempt to explain many things based on my scientific background.

One more thing? You might want to look up the word 'syncophant' before you go throwing it around nonsensically.

One last thing: I find your reply above to be disingenous, unnecessarily hostile, and utterly devoid of attempt to reach understanding, despite my obvious attempt to debate in an un-emotional, detached manner, as well as in good faith.

I bid you a good evening...and hope to find you in a more open-minded state another time.

and the explanation you plagiarized from Craig Palmer (U Colorado) and Randy Thornhill (UNM) has come under tremendous fire from numerous disciplines, including anthropology, psychology, and biological science.

Perhaps it would be wise of you in the future to inform others that what you are spouting is the most controversial and least accepted evolutionary biological hypothesis to emerge this millennium. NSMA is correct in saying that Thornhill's hypothesis is an evolutionary explanation of why "boys will be boys." Instead of portraying rape as an expression of domination, power, and control, you try to tell us that it is an evolutionary mutation. It's not just feminists who are railing against Palmer and Thornhill's work--many of your peers in the "scientific community" are discrediting as well.

The hypothesis you used is not even being taken very seriously by Thornhill's peers in evolutionary biology. If you really are a scientist, you should expand your journal selection to include peer reviewed articles, not just the most salient and controversial ones.

Now, tell me, who's the sycophant?

I didn't PLAGIARIZE JACK S**T, woman. I am extremely annoyed at your insinuation that I did.

That entire post was OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I've never even thought about the subject before. That was 'stream of consciousness' writing. I have NO IDEA who these people are that you are talking about. I've never seen this subject discussed in writing, EVER.

Furthermore, this is an ABSOLUTE misstatement of my point:

"Instead of portraying rape as an expression of domination, power, and control, you try to tell us that it is an evolutionary mutation"

BULLSHIT. I don't know what these clowns you mention are talking about, but I didn't try to tell you anything of the sort. Please do not put words in my mouth, nor assume that I am EXCUSING RAPE!

My point is about the disconnect that women and men often have when DISCUSSING THE SUBJECT. And that disconnect has a biological basis, mostly because, in nature, the concept of a male being raped is MEANINGLESS, because a male will have sex with virtually any female that will LET HIM. Females ARE NOT that way, and they can, in fact, have sex forced on them by the males of their species, which is BAD for the female and the species as a whole.

If you want to take issue with this hypothesis of MINE, feel free. But don't you DARE accuse me of PLAGIARISM, nor of being a syncophant to some assholes who would attempt to justify rape. You utterly and completely miss the point.

even the manner in which you addressed me and Jchilds was a bit telling (woman! grunt!)

The problem with your thoughtful scientific analysis is that one can't truly offer up a thoughtful scientific analysis for SOME men. One would have to offer up the other variables and the reasons that it isn't SO for ALL men if one were only going to reference SOME men.

I know what sycophant means and was simply taking your condescending notion of your 10 cent explanation and throwing it back at you.

Tell ya what Chill. I have learned that I must deal with the facr that neanderthals are my political allies. I do.

Sorry you think I'm closed minded for giving a NO PASS where NO PASS is deserved.

Thanks for setting me straight Tarzan. Me go make fire now.

"The problem with your thoughtful scientific analysis is that one can't truly offer up a thoughtful scientific analysis for SOME men. One would have to offer up the other variables and the reasons that it isn't SO for ALL men if one were only going to reference SOME men"

Thanks for admitting my analysis was thoughtful, even though you seem to disagree with my conclusion. Or was that more vitriolic sarcasm towards someone whose only goal is to look at apparent communication problem we're having here, and attempt to dissemble why the problem exists? I'm still waiting to hear YOUR thoughtful analysis ...

The rest of this statement I'm not able to make out the point of. Are you of the opinion that one cannot possibly GENERALIZE about ANYTHING in human nature? Do you think that for the generalization be correct, every single individual must follows the generalization? If EVERYONE follows it, then it is more a LAW than a generalization.

Lets face it: Human existence is full of phenomena that can SOMETIMES be attributed to genetics, and sometimes not. Two obvious things that come to mind are alcoholism and homosexuality. SOME people are gay, or are alcoholics, because of their genes. And SOME are because of environment, or because of choices they make in life. To whit: There are plenty of people with the alcoholism gene who never go on to become alcoholics. Does this mean we must throw out the hyposthesis that alcoholism can be caused by genetics? Because that appears to be the analog of what you are saying about my hyposthesis...

singular of phenomena -- as a scientist.

Check your earlier post with the "scientific" justification for rape.

this is a scientific explanation for why men don't understand rape, not a justification for rape, per se...see the difference? it's meant to enlighten us, and hopefully, to encourage a detached, off-hand, casual sort of discussion about rape (of the kind men can manage on this subject, all day long, apparently) vs. an undetached, personal, emotional (of the kind you women have on this subject)...see the difference? of course, this is all related to the biological urges we inherited from our animal ancestors, and nothing at all to do with socialization, objectification, our culture of violence, sexism, or the dreaded "m" word.

XX

"this is all related to the biological urges we inherited from our animal ancestors, and nothing at all to do with socialization, objectification, our culture of violence, sexism, or the dreaded "m" word"

Let me ask you something, and do try to be honest, despite the fact that I have apparently deeply offended you with all this crazytalk (you see, we're no good at this stuff!)?

Have you ever discussed the concept of rape with another woman before? I have to imagine that you have. I know I have. Many times. You know what? There really isn't a whole lot of variation from woman to woman on this subject. They have ALL said to me that it makes them feel sick when they talk about it. They talk about waves of revulsion washing over them. They almost always cut the conversation short, complaining that they start to see themselves in a rape situation, and they quickly can't talk about it anymore. And these aren't even women who have been through it, either. It's much more profound for the ones that have. When I see this, it makes me want to cry along with them, and I have, many times.

Now, before you try to make me out to be some jerk (AGAIN) by inserting YOUR preconceptions into my words, instead of just reading what I write, I want to be clear... This reaction is 100% normal and natural. I am not trying to disparage women, call them horrible NAMES like "emotional" or anything else that offends your feminist sensibilities. I believe that you are literally, psychologically built to be sickened by the thought of rape. Again, this is natural and RIGHT. It is part of natures perfect mechanism. I am not making fun, or calling you 'sissies', or nothing bad, okay?

I'm saying that this reaction IS what I have experienced, a number of times with women I've had talks with about rape for one reason or another. Now, if this is in fact entirely non-representative, then we have ABSOLUTELY located the exact reason for our uh, 'disagreements', you and me! Because I'm operating under the assumption that this is a basically universal reaction with women.

Am I just entirely wrong about a certain predictability from one woman to the next with regards to how she feels when she starts to really talk about a rape, especially if she's discussing her own experience, or that of someone she cares deeply about? Or, are their in fact, women that'll crack off a rape joke like it's a knock-knock joke til the cows come home? Is this my imagination?

Because if I AM entirely wrong about this, I am more than willing to conceed that may conclusion might just be way off base. I am operating under an assumption that I have gotten a representative sample here, where maybe I did not. And hence, my conclusion I've drawn would be entirely erroneous. It could be anyway, but it is largely based on what I have personally seen, and my attempt to interpolate a logical causative factor that explains the uniform to effect on women that I've seen. Again, this is not meant as a put-down, there is nothing negative to what I'm saying.

However, if it IS the case that this reaction is as common and as uniform throughout the population as I have seen in my small sample, it follows logically that there is something deeper to this than it being a purely learned response (I guess to the fact that guys are antisocial, violent, sexist assholes).

When you're talking about people having a physical reaction to something that appears to involve actual biochemical changes (such as nausea), AND it is virtually universal amongst some population segment - I hate to say it, but - it is quite likely something that you are BORN with. Not something you you've just learned after birth.

And I think if you watch the way a female chimp will go ballistic on a male chimp who tries to mount her without her approval, and thought about it in a rational way, you would realize that you are, in fact, INSTINCTUALLY revolted by rape. Society doesn't help, of course, but the abhorrence toward being taken against your will is HARD-WIRED. And that is good. It is nature. It is perfect and right.

Now, feel free to engage in HONEST debate on this matter, if you have a debate for me to consider. I have no need for more condescending snickering like your post above. If there is something inherently offensive in my suggestion, PLEASE do enlighten me, okay? Cause for the life of me, I don't understand a hostile reaction to the notion that women fear rape instinctively? Why is this so BAD a thing to say?

i experienced uncontrollable RAGE...not revulsion, not fear, not nausea. i wanted to get a gun and blow his sorry ass away. i still feel that way, some twenty years later.

my friend who was raped and assaulted in horrying ways by her step-father attempted suicide....several times. she's been in therapy for thirty years, and when her pathetic mother (the woman who didn't protect her) finally died last year...she seems to finding some peace in her life.

my friend was was raped by her neighbor when she was 15, still has sexual problems...at 30. she still thinks it was her fault.

my friend who was raped by a stranger with a knife who broke into her house freaks out when anyone gets too close to her.

so no...i don't think all women have the same response to being sexuallt assaulted, and i don't think THAT is about biology either.

some women respond with depression and drug abuse, some kill their assaulter (or want to), some blame themselves forever. it depends of the INDIVIDUAL woman. what's common to the experience of having a violent act committed against your person is: TRAUMA.

could it be women actually experience post-traumatic stress from rape? could that be what you witness when you talk with women about rape?

after 20 years, i can describe the rape with appropriate clinical detachment...somthing i probably couldn't do 19 years ago.

and then my computer crashed before i could post my response. suffice it say: you may have some insight in the the psychology of some men on this issue (and its biological roots), but you don't know much about women. and i agree with nsma...it's really very easy to empathize with rape victims if you can imagine yourself as one. i think that's what empathy is all about...why would that offend anyone?

After all, the "men are programmed to rape" idea is based on anthropological models formulated in the Victorian era. Not much is really known how early humans lived and even less as to what their social structure was. Of course, there are some early sites, like Malta, that show evidence of either a matriarchial or equalitarian society, but much of the information as to the social structure of early humans is nothing but conjecture and is colored by the prejudices of the era in which they were formed. For example, we are still in an era where manhood is still somewhat equated with killing big things, and often scenes of early human life are illustrated with pictures of men throwing spears at a mastodon, when the archeaological evidence gives more credence to both men and women snaring rabbits. Imagining your ancient ancestors as rabbit catchers is somewhat less ennobling than imagining one is descended from fearless hunters, even though a bit of logic will lead one to the conclusion that those who tried to kill much larger prey probably didn't live long enough to have descendents.

As to the model of the tender, nuturing madonna wanting one male to help her care for her young - well, that's been largely discredited, and common sense will tell you why: early humans probably lacked an understanding of genetics and the concept of fatherhood. The concept of ownership of offspring developed later, and once it arrived, so did the ideas of marriage and female marital chastity. Before that, it is more likely that children were viewed as the responsibility of the entire social group, and being of the woman. This views are based largely on primate behavior studies, and while humans are animals, we're a different sort and later perhaps a different model will emerge. Whatever the case, the model of the brutal cavemen is no longer taken very seriously by scholars in the field.

SEX IS A BIOLOGICAL NEED. RAPE IS A SOCIAL ABERRATION.

And humans stopped depending on BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION during, if I can remember correctly, Homo Habilis. Instead, humankind adapted CULTURAL MEANS of adaptation.

So all of this evolutionary explanation for RAPE is not even on topic. Do you think rapists think, "I'm going to rape that 80 year old woman or 6 year old little boy so that I can sew my seed and preserve my biological line?" Give me a break!

And matriarchies and matrilinal societies existed ON THIS VERY CONTINENT at the time of European arrival. Were it not for the protoCherokee beloved women's permission, men in their clans would not have waged warfare, since they sought permission from the women to do so.

The "men are programmed to rape" hypotheses have never been proven, and have been largely discredited by a wide array of students of human behavior.

I have said all I am going to say on this topic...But I will reiterate that RAPE IS NOT PROCREATIVE SEX!!!!!

Read the first 10-15 post on this thread. You were a part of the discussion. You SEE the disconnect? That instant falling-out that happened, you see it? That probably would NOT have happened if the subject wasn't rape. My POINT is that this sort of DISCONNECT happens often when men and women start to have a conversation on the subject.

Now, please note my careful distinctions between people and animals, as I see now that in my first post I was not careful enough with the distinction.

To a woman, men sometimes seem to fail to grasp the seriousness of the subject. I believe that this has a biological basis, in that a man is not biologically predisposed to take the threat of rape AGAINST HIS PERSON seriously. There is NO SUCH THING in the wild. Male ANIMALS, man's ancestors (a Chimp, for example), do not get 'raped'. Period. Phenomena doesn't exist. On the other hand, in many animals species, including some of our closest relatives, the female of the species, i.e. womens ancestors, have been fighting off aggresive male animals who would 'rape' them (by human definitions) in a heartbeat.

However, it is extremely important to the individual female AND the species as a whole that the female mates ONLY with strong, healthy males, and that SHE has the final say in the matter. Nature TRUSTS her to pick in such a way that the species will benefit from her choice.

Bottom-line, WOMEN are decendants of a very long evolutionary line of FEMALE ANIMALS which had to be on guard against the phenomena of aggressive males of their species trying to force themselves onto them. This lineage stretches back many millions of years. MEN are descendants of a very long evolutionary line of MALE ANIMALS for whom the concept of BEING raped was ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS. And even if they were somehow molested, there was no unhealthy young involved, hurting their chance for successful progeny. MEN are not genetically predisposed to WORRY about rape. Women are basically terrified of it, and that is NOT just because MEN are evil rapists, its because MALE ANIMALS of their own species have ALWAYS been a danger in this way.

Human women ARE genetically predisposed to fear and abhor the idea, and a part of this (I BELIEVE) is due to our animal heritage. When you DO talk about the animal ancestral basis for this fear, in THAT context, a 'rape' IS being used by male animals to unfairly procreate, not because of their psychological issues. Likewise, the female animals will fight AGAINST a 'rape' happening, because of the reproductive consequences.

TALKING about this subject should probably always be restricted to groups of people who are ALL of the same sex, is the truth. Because men just can't really muster up quite the same level of emotional response to the subject as women, because, quite frankly, it just doesn't AFFECT them (unless they go to jail!), and they don't have a genetic heritage of millions of years of being of the gender that is supposed to get to decides when sex happens.

In other words, in many ways, trying to talk to a guy about this subject is much akin to talking to him about going through labor, or PMS. We try to put ourselves in your shoes, to make you happy, but there's really no way we're EVER QUITE gonna 'get it', and we'll probably always end up saying 'the wrong thing'. Which I am here to bear witness to...

Are we straight?

Your sexist attitudes are quite apparent. Women can't discuss without emotional connections. Women can't see things analytically. Yah, right. Look at the thread headers and see who's been emotional.

I bet if your daughter were raped you would trash the whole neanderthalic "disconnect" bullshit and feel differently, and you could then muster an emotional response.

By the way, there is a race thread going in the lounge right now. Why don't you go to it and expound on the evolutionary basis of racism, of the need to see people of different colors as others, thereby justifying it too. /sarcasm

Advice from a professional archaeologist: When you take you final exam in Anthro 101, steer clear of using that Evolutionary Rape pseudoscientific bs on your essay response. Your instructor will laugh at you.

Now you are just purposefully baiting me for no good reason. I've tried to debate in good faith, instead all I've gotten is a ration of shit.

"Women can't discuss without emotional connections. Women can't see things analytically. Yah, right. Look at the thread headers and see who's been emotional."

When it comes to rape, your damn right women get emotional. Most of them will admit it, too. Proudly. Unlike yourself, who sits here spewing venom, distorting my message in a vindictive manner, acting indignant that I imply women get emotional when discussing rape like it's some sexist comment? Please. It's bloody self-evident when rape is the subject. And there's nothing WRONG with their having that reaction to the subject, either. It is clearly a horrible thing.

I never made ANY INSINUATION about women's emotional connections/analytical ability that was anywhere NEAR as general as what you disingenuously imply here. This conversation has focused entirely on rape, no conclusions have been suggested outside that framework. Furthermore, I NEVER SAID I was not an emotional person. Nor did I ever "justify" rape based on evolution. YOU tried to put those words in my mouth, I went OUT of my way to clarify that I meant and said no such thing in my last post to you, yet you ignore it and make your claim against me again. Your style of arguing is entirely dishonest. You wantonly distort my words, accuse me of plagiarism with no foundation? THAT is what's bullshit, ma'am.

You just watch what happens when men and women get together on these Kobe threads over the next few months, okay? Then, you tell me, who, in general, gets more emotional over the subject of rape, boys or girls? And then you explain to ME your GRAND NOTION of WHY women jump down guy's throats whenever they say ANYTHING about rape that the women think is 'wrong'? Like, your doing RIGHT NOW? Okay? And when you're done, you can explain how your explanation has NOTHING to do with our evolutionary biology, okay?

I am NOT sexist in the least. I LOVE women dearly and deeply, and have all the respect in the world for them. I most certainly understand women's attitude about rape, just because I believe it fundamentally largely comes from instinct doesn't mean I go around taking it 'lightly'.

I absolutely DO believe that racism is biological as well. EVERYTHING has biological foundations. And I would go debate it, if I had the energy. Spinning my wheels for hours here trying to make a single, very simple point has tired me out...

Good day...

the man that doesn't think now. At least there's hope for his future thought process.

One last point. Although everything has biological foundations, that does not underscore biology as cause in the matter. In fact, recent studies also shoot holes in your racism theory (whatever it is and please don't bore me with the details) since what we consider to be races aren't really races at all.

Finally, were I to run your explanations past a psychologist friend, I am certain he would find psychological explanations for your deep need to over explain what is really quite simple and denigrate your opponenets with claims of emotionality. Just so you know, I CHOOSe the anger with which I respond. It is less anger and more of conscious communication to my opponent in this debate. The communication is, I won't be letting up....so give up or get tough cause it's gonna get rocky.

My point is to foster understanding here, nothing more. It's not to fight, its to avoid fighting. Men, in general do not always 'get' the way a woman reacts to the subject of rape. Allow me to illustrate...

The scenario that you described so graphically for me above, the scene where I'm held down and raped? To ponder this doesn't bother me on an emotional level. Your describing that happening to me doesn't upset me. I cannot even really fathom the concept. I can honestly say that I believe that could happen to me, and I could wake up the next morning and never really think about it again, except maybe I might hope to someday kick the guys asses that did it to me. I cannot see myself being emotionally scarred from the experience, at least, not any more than if I was simply beaten up and robbed.

Now, since it seems to be your goal to establish that I am a mental defective, I'm sure your reaction will be that there must be something seriously WRONG with me to think that. But I'd be willing to bet that a lot of guys would say the same thing, if they were honest about it. Could you EVER EVER EVER see a woman having such a nonchalant attitude about getting raped? My guess is: absolutely not. Now, am I insinuating that men are in some way 'better' because of this attitude? Again, absolutely NOT. We are simply DIFFERENT in the way we think about certain things, and I *BELIEVE* it has a biological basis. That ALL I'm saying.

My take on why this it is because females, both people and animals, instinctually feel that THEY are supposed to be the one that determines WHEN sex happens between two people. A male is basically always willing (again, I believe due to the fact that this is a viable reproductive strategy for a male, but NOT for a female), and in virtually all higher animals, the act happens when the female says 'okay, lets do it'. Females feel this priviledge to decide is THEIRS, on a very deep level. And it IS theirs! That is natures WAY.

Males, both people and animals, on the other hand, are completely accustomed to the idea that THEY are NOT the one that determines when sex happens. We are accustomed to the notion that we ain't in charge. Females are supposed to have this power, not the males. And again, in nature, for millions of years of evolution, the male has never had to worry about being 'raped'. Doesn't exist for us in the wild. But it does for females. You ever studied Chimpanzee society, by chance?

I don't know what else to say, NSEA. All I'm trying to do is EXPLAIN, not make you angry. We can certainly agree to disagree. There must be SOME reason why guys often fail at saying the 'right' thing when trying to have a rational discussion about this subject with a woman. Look how much trouble you and I are having? You literally WILL NOT let me discuss the matter outside the parameters of YOUR understanding of the subject without hostility. Please, do clue me in as to why you think this is? Why do YOU think you keep getting pissed off at guys on the board in the threads about this case? What is YOUR explanation of the phenomena? You've just run into a few anomalies, a few jerks guys who are out to piss you off? Or are you willing to conceed that, for SOME reason (PERHAPS, its because WE are RARELY the victim, nor are we conditioned to worry about BEING a victim? If so, do you not think that there is BIOLOGY involved in WHY we are not the victims?) a lot of guys just don't GET IT? Hmmm?

As this case develops, I believe you're going to keep seeing conflicts here on DU where the ladies feel that men just aren't as sensitive as they should be about the subject. I've certainly seen you engage a number of men already about it, myself included. All I'm asking is for you to understand: We DON'T GET IT the way that YOU DO. It doesn't make us wrong, okay? We don't MEAN to say the wrong, insensitive thing, we just don't know what the RIGHT THING IS, sometimes. Cause WE DON'T GET IT like you do. I believe I know why that is, you think I'm full of shit about why I think that is. FINE. Feel free to explain why YOU think it is, if you care to. Or, feel free to go on being pissed at me, and the rest of the guys that violate your standards when discussing this subject in the future, if thats what you prefer. I don't really give a hoot. I've done my best to explain, & I have nothing more to say.

Peace!

for starters. i don't for one minute believe most men buy this anymore than i do. i know that abner louima understands the trauma of rape, as does any many who has experienced it. and i do think men can feel empathetic towards a rape victim. after all, they are their mothers, wives, sisters, lovers, friends...and children.

the problem in this case is the nature of his particular rape allegation...it's of the he said/she said variety. i can see how some men might identify with bryant and discount the woman's allegation. i don't think that has anything to do with biological urges. and i don't discount the influence of biology on psychology...i just don't think it's as strong as you do.

i don't think any man (who isn't a monster) would claim not to understand the trauma rape would cause a woman who was abducted, raped, and maimed. or the trauma a baby or a child might experience as a result of rape.

as i said, it has more to do with the nature of this case than with hardwiring. one last thing: even if you can't imagine being raped...can you imagine how you might feel if it happened to a woman you love? or how she might feel? can you imagine that she might be traumatized because of that violation? lack of empathy has nothing to so with biology.

It's impossible to get my point across. I'm just rehashing my same points, trying to hone them as finely as possible so as to avoid ANY misinterpretation (or misquoting), and I'm just not capable of expressing what I'm talking about here. Despite my best efforts and intentions, I just become MORE misunderstood. It's seriously starting to irritate me at this point. I'm still not sure that this media is even capable of being utilized to express my thoughts, is the truth.

Honestly, if you knew how much I personally really DO CARE and UNDERSTAND what a horrible thing a violation like you describe is, being "abducted, raped, and maimed"... I am not trying to make an excuse for ME with regards to how I would respond to that happening to someone I care about for godsakes! You would be hard pressed to find a more supportive friend than me, in real life. Nobody would show you MORE care than I would if something like this happened to you! Despite my detached sounding prose in the other posts, I am very sensitive and empathetic when those around me are in pain.

Unfortunately, the original post that caused me to speak about this is gone. But you can still see the fallout in early posts. A male DU'er posted the girl's picture and said that Kobe won't be getting any more dates with THIS girl anymore. Two girls tore into him for what they perceived as him not being sensitive enough about the whole thing. The point I'm addressing is NOT who was right, but rather WHY do some guys seem so clueless when it comes to what it is appropriate to say and what is not?

I'm basically defending the guy who made the initial post that started the whole mess. WHY? Because the ladies were obviously upset about what they perceieved as insensitivity on his part. I didn't WANT them to be upset, have a bad opinion of guys in general, or, whatever was making them unhappy. I tried my best to explain because I am sensitive to their being unhappy.

To help defuse what SEEMED (sorry if 'concerted anger' is by definition not an emotion) to be an emotional situation, I wanted to EXPLAIN, in a cold, logical manner, where *I THINK* the disconnect between men and women comes from on this. I HOPED to give folks a tool, a mental construct if you will, wherein they would be able to understand each other better. It's NOT that this guy was out to be an insensitive jerk, it's that he just doesn't inherently KNOW what is okay to say, PARTICULARLY when actual victims are party to the conversation. Does that make sense at all?

The point is, the initial poster did not SEEK TO BE INSENSITIVE and/or hurtful towards anybody, yet it seemed to be interpreted that way. I am just trying to explain where *I THINK* the disconnect comes from. It is instinctual for a woman to act and think a certain way about this subject, and it is simply not *THE EXACT SAME* way as a man is going to. This would likely be particularly true if the man had never been touched by the phenomena in his life. The poster said that he had, though, so ... he at least has a decent size 'clue' - yet, it was apparently not *enough* of a clue to keep him out of trouble.

All I can say is: stand back and watch this story unfold. You will most probably see a whole bunch more conversations just like the one above. And it will ALWAYS be a guy, ticking off a girl. WHY is that? Could it POSSIBLY have anything to do with guys not inherently feeling the same automatic, visceral, powerful revulsion when they ponder the subject? DO guys and girls ALL feel exactly the same way about it, it's just that there's a few guys here who are freaks of nature, and just think rape is a big joke? These handful of jerks are a just a stand-alone subset, ENTIRELY separate from the rest of the population, male and female both, who ALL share the IDENTICAL knowledge of what is okay and what is NOT okay to say when broaching this subject?

Let me ask you: would you think that people who are actual rape survivors might just have a stronger reaction to a perceived insensitive remark than someone who's never been touched by it in any way? I don't think you'd try to make THAT case, would you? Clearly, there is SOME natural variation to how people react to discussions on this subject, right, based on their experiences, among other things? Now, if had I tried to assuage the ladies anger by saying that 'he's just never been through it, so he doesn't know what its (not)okay to say about it', do you think THAT would have flyed? No, it would not. Because they would counter back something like "well, you don't have to have gone through it to know better than to say THAT". And they'd probably be correct, for many cases. But in the cases where they are just wrong, what is the explanation? You have either the 'cuz he's an asshole' or 'cause of something else'. In MY opinion, it IS that 'something else'. That being: He's a guy and doesn't have a clue.

My point here is: ladies, I don't want you to feel hurt or upset. Sincerely. If a guy says something you think is somehow 'wrong' about this subject, and you find it hurtful or angering, try to alleviate that feeling by simple saying to yourself: "He is a male creature, and many male creatures, to whom rape is socially AND biological totally foreign, are too far removed from the experience to know that what they are saying is hurtful to some of us, particularly, survivors. Unless I have other reason to think he is being purposefully spiteful or misogynistic, I will simply seek to enlighten him as to what is and what is not appropriate when discussing this matter in our presence."

Or don't. You don't need my telling you what to do, anyway. I'll just shut up now. Everybody: flame away. Not my business anyway.

Peace.

and that explains it. i sensed your motives weren't to intentionally hurtful (though i still think your theory is wacked) so i continued to engage with you. i guess the point that wrecks your theory is that not all men are insenisitive or unenlightened or whatever. perhaps, like yourself, some of these men have evolved.

and of course, as i mentioned, this case is sensational in a number of ways...i won't expect the same reaction (the post that got deleted) if it were a case where the victim was murdered, for example. and whatever this person posted appeared to violate the rules, since it is gone. i am glad you stuck around to show your human face...i was beginning to worry.

in general, i think your assertion that men and women view rape differently has some merit, however, i don't think your biological arguments as the cause of this disconnect fail to take some many other things into consideration...like culture, socialization, and so on. and the fact is...our culture is particularly violent and hostile for women and children. it's hard to ignore that part of the equation. and it's hard to ignore that men are the perpetrators of most of the violence.

and as a rape survivor, i do react strongly to these discussions...no doubt about it. but, as i mentioned, i am skeptical about this case, for many reasons. so, i don't necessarily automatically identify with the alleged victim. nor do i think it's insensitive to speculate about her motives. as i hear more evidence, i might change my mind. there are cases of false accusation, and as a black woman, i am particularly sensitive to the history of false accusation against black men. on the other hand, i know that the star syndrome does warp and inflate egos. i'll wait for the trail to make up my mind.

your argument was perceived as making excuses for men behaving badly, though i understand now that was not your intent. individuals who behave in crass and insensitive ways are assholes. they may be assholes who don't know any better, but i don't think biology necessarily explains THAT either. those individuals deserve criticism...and they are NOT all men. on the other hand, i think anyone with half a brain should understand why rape is such an emotionally-charged issue, given the number of rapes that occur in this county.

at the very least, we can educate each other. one last thing, i think there is a gender disconnect on the nature of rape. in general, i think women tend to see it as more of a crime of power and control and violation than merely forced sex, as perhaps more men do.

peace.

but I will hash this out with you

My point is to foster understanding here, nothing more. It's not to fight, its to avoid fighting. Men, in general do not always 'get' the way a woman reacts to the subject of rape. Allow me to illustrate...
The scenario that you described so graphically for me above, the scene where I'm held down and raped? To ponder this doesn't bother me on an emotional level. Your describing that happening to me doesn't upset me. I cannot even really fathom the concept. I can honestly say that I believe that could happen to me, and I could wake up the next morning and never really think about it again, except maybe I might hope to someday kick the guys asses that did it to me. I cannot see myself being emotionally scarred from the experience, at least, not any more than if I was simply beaten up and robbed.

I have to be more subjective in my response to this. That you may not get it or it doesn't bother you is YOUR UNIQUE wiring, not a biological phenomenon built into MEN per se. YOu may on some level even use your non-chalance to avoid the times when you weren't physically in control of your life so as to not confront a time when you might not be in control again. That emotional barrier has less to do with biological wiring than socialization. The same socialization that says "boys will be boys."

Now for the subjective answer. I have had a couple of male clients over the years who had been raped in the workplace and in order to get them fairly compensated I had to learn a bit on the subject. First, I was expressing in GRAPHIC terms how it would be for you to be raped. While you said it didn't bother you, go back and read your reaction to me...it may have been because I was not nice in my response, it may have been because it bothered you more than you will admit.

At any rate, where I am going with this is men DO get raped and when they do it is usually MORE traumatic for a man than a woman. Most of the women I have known that were raped could continue funtional even after it occurred. An employee of mine showed up for work the next day after being car jacked and raped and dropped off 25 miles from her home. Women get over it better than men. A man who is raped is more likely to commit suicide than a woman who is raped. WHY? Because of genes and biology? NO because of socialization that says BOYS ARE STRONG AND GIRLS ARE WEAK and other similar messages that while having some Darwinian roots no longer apply in modern culture.

Tha male client I had, BTW, was permanently and totally functionally disabled as a result of his rape.


Now, since it seems to be your goal to establish that I am a mental defective, I'm sure your reaction will be that there must be something seriously WRONG with me to think that. But I'd be willing to bet that a lot of guys would say the same thing, if they were honest about it. Could you EVER EVER EVER see a woman having such a nonchalant attitude about getting raped? My guess is: absolutely not. Now, am I insinuating that men are in some way 'better' because of this attitude? Again, absolutely NOT. We are simply DIFFERENT in the way we think about certain things, and I *BELIEVE* it has a biological basis. That ALL I'm saying.

I'm not out to establish that you are a mental defective. I WAS out to establish that you were using biology to justify the male reaction to rape much the same way some men use BIOLOGY to justify that men rape at all, can't hear NO and shouldn't have to once any sexual contact such as making out or the like is concerned. My point..one can learn to be sensitive the same way one can learn to go jack off to get rid of that stiffy once she says NO. I DO understand IMPULSE as regards both emotions and sexuality but that is what it is. IMPULSE . And, even that IMPULSE to get what you want is more psychologically mediated than biologicaly mediated but for the stiffy. ( Sorry for the common vernacular, just trying to keep it fun)My evidence is all the gentlemen that accept a NO graciously albeit with a bit of a grudge.

That IMPULSE is fed by motion pictures that show her saying NO, him ravaging her and her enjoying it. (message...no means yes...go for it)
That IMPULSE is fed by images and commercials and suggestions all throughtout our culture.

And that IMPULSE is fed by other cultural norms as well ( which is why the impulse is fed in other cultures too.....studying matriarchal cultures might have you see that it is less mediated by your chromosomes than a set of belief systems fostered from a young age...about the age language became available to you)

AND in America, that IMPULSE is fed by a backlash to women taking more control of their lives over the last 30 years which has resulted in a violent aggression towards women.

Heck, look at all the threads with people crying PC the minute women object to being described in certain language, If LANGUAGE doesn't keep women in their place, why object to removing it? Why was the backlash rooted in name calling? Because name-calling and language PSYCHOLOGICALLY reinforce dominance that wouldn't exist physically but for the images re-inforced.

Final note on that paragraph, women often develop a psychological response to rape called "la belle indifference." It means what it says, beautiful indifference ..similar to denial but a different manifestation. So, yes I CAN envision both a victim of rape having a non-chalant attitude and ...heck...you can go witness it on some of the KOBE threads right now. In the world of psychological responses, ANYTHING is possible.

My take on why this it is because females, both people and animals, instinctually feel that THEY are supposed to be the one that determines WHEN sex happens between two people. A male is basically always willing (again, I believe due to the fact that this is a viable reproductive strategy for a male, but NOT for a female), and in virtually all higher animals, the act happens when the female says 'okay, lets do it'. Females feel this priviledge to decide is THEIRS, on a very deep level. And it IS theirs! That is natures WAY.

Males, both people and animals, on the other hand, are completely accustomed to the idea that THEY are NOT the one that determines when sex happens. We are accustomed to the notion that we ain't in charge. Females are supposed to have this power, not the males. And again, in nature, for millions of years of evolution, the male has never had to worry about being 'raped'. Doesn't exist for us in the wild. But it does for females. You ever studied Chimpanzee society, by chance?

I can't respond to this statement except as an amateur observer. My experiences with chimpanzees extend to long hours stoned watching discovery channel. I DO understand that evolutionary process however and would suggest that the difference is less to HARDWIRING from genes in recent times and more to two things...socialization and language.

I concede that a man can't feel a woman's pain on an issue anymore than a woman can feel a man's pain about going bald unless they are a chmo patient, but again, the response comes MORE FROM SOCIALIZATION than geneology.


In regards to your last few paragraphs, go back and read the response between myself and Submariner. It looks as though we did resolve it although I cannot speak for him. It looks as though he DOES get it and was being sarcastic. If anything, the exchange and what he ultimately shared in the end about his past experiences indicate to me that he CAN empathize and was simply not thinking when he did it. YOu might attribute that to biology, I simply don't.

I'm not out to make enemies with anyone. If you think that by offering a biological explanation, you can come up with a biological solution to violence against women and maybe even a magic pill to have men get the severity of the situation, I whole heartedly invite you to create it. I'm up for anything that will make a difference.

I frankly don't think you can..and BTW, I firmly believe that anything that explains leads to a remedy, not an excuse..which is why I also don't buy it.

My view of it leads to a remedy...drill it in their head until they get it...they may not like it but they'll get it. Heck, lots of guys already do.

Rape does happen in nature, by the way.

And, ChillEB, I have studied chimpanzee behavior, especially among the Bonobos. Male bonobos rape even male adolescent offspring. Studies of bonobos also show that they have sex NOT JUST FOR BIOLOGICAL PROCREATION, but for social reasons, i.e. when they spot a new food source, they engaged in a frenzy of sexual contact...including homosexual. Those anthropologists among us who keep up with current anthropological investigation are aware of this.


Good response, NSMA. I wouldn't waste any more time on this DUer.

Sadly, you are correct about another point, NSMA: Some DUers have just enough knowledge (and hubris) to be dangerous. And another cliche': A wise man can admit his follies; a fool never does.

Anyway, I am through with this thread. No amount of intentional provocation will bring me back to it.

"No amount of intentional provocation will bring me back to it. "
What, you don't think YOU'VE engaged in intentional provocation? PLEASE!?! Your whole post is one big one.

"Rape does happen in nature, by the way."
Of COURSE rape happens in nature. The fact that it does is quintessential underpinning of my entire argument. You cannot possibly believe that I was ignorant of this, if you actually read my posts. What would compel you to point it out "by the way" as though I didn't know, when in fact it is the CRUX of my position, stated over and over?

"And another cliche': A wise man can admit his follies; a fool never does."

You haven't seen me say "I *THINK*" or "I *BELIEVE*" OVER AND OVER? You haven't noted the use of the word "HYPOTHESIS"? You didn't see my post above to noiret (to paraphrase): "if I'm wrong about my sample being representative of the population, then my entire argument goes out the window"? Does this not imply a willingness to admit my folly? The way I see it, YOU are the one thats been self-righteous, not me, my friend.

"Male bonobos rape even male adolescent offspring. Studies of bonobos also show that they have sex NOT JUST FOR BIOLOGICAL PROCREATION, but for social reasons, i.e. when they spot a new food source, they engaged in a frenzy of sexual contact...including homosexual. "

Care to elaborate as to how you feel this fact REFUTES my theory? During these little 'social orgies', do the female bonobo offer up their asses the way that the subservient non-alpha males do for the alpha-males? Call me crazy, but I don't see how you equate that to 'rape'? I thought it was only called 'rape' when one partner is UN-willing? It could be argued that it's actually consensual sex. As such, it may or may not be germane to my hypothesis. I'd guess that the females don't do that when they are ovulating - just recklessly have sex with whatever male is nearby? Or do they? You tell me ...

So, for my troubles, I'm called a 'fool', a 'neandertal', and a 'plagiarizing syncophant', proffering a '"scientific" justification for rape'? WTF? I just don't get the reaction, unless you are assuming that I'm justifying rape itself on the same grounds. Just because SOME people would do that does NOT mean that I DO! Let me say one more time: THAT WAS NEVER MY POINT. That is not what I think, and I think anyone who does is a fucking idiot. Last I checked, talking about rape and rape itself are not the same thing.

You know, Noiretblu and I have engaged in EXACTLY the sort of enlightening discussion that I come to DU for. You know: Sharing and learning, with some semblance of respect for one another's thoughts, making efforts to clear up misunderstandings, that sort of thing? What I DON'T come here for is to be misrepresented, misquoted, and denigrated by someone with a chip on their shoulder, and NO apparent desire to engage in honest debate. Good day.

for the benefit of a thoughtful, cogent, non-aggresive argument ... That's all I ever wanted this whole time.

"I WAS out to establish that you were using biology to justify the male reaction to rape much the same way some men use BIOLOGY to justify that men rape at all,"

Which you've done a fine job of. But you must understand: My point was not, is not, and will NEVER BE that rape ITSELF is justified based on nature. It's appears that I've offended you due to your assumption that because I'm saying one thing that REMINDS you of a similar (but more distasteful) argument, that I must logically support that other argument as well. I can understand why you might think that is what I'm getting at, but that is NEVER what I said, nor what I think. Far from it. I just want to be very clear on that, okay? I DO think that a certain disconnect exists between men and women in general on the subject of rape, and *MY BELIEF* is that it has a natural, biological basis, in a general sort-of way. I'm not saying, nor did I ever say, that this is universal. NOTHING is when you talk about human beings. Different guys are WILDLY different in terms of their sensitivity to women's issues. THIS I believe to be largely social and learned, but no doubt even this has hormonal links, too ;) Don't you think that in general gay men are a little more sensitive to women's concerns? I do...

And FINALLY? All I ever wanted was to start an intelligent debate and dialogue, hopefully with the end result being that the sexes end up understanding one another a little better. I have no problem with you thinking I'm totally off base here. More power to you...

Peace...

"it's really very easy to empathize with rape victims if you can imagine yourself as one."

Clearly, I stated that men certainly have the capacity (left implied, but unstated: an obligation) to feel empathy for a woman who's been violated in this horrible way.

MY point is that a man will never truly FEEL the same way as a woman about the CONCEPT of it, for a number of reasons which I feel come down to biology. Most pertinently, the fact that it is clearly the females role within a species to dictate when sex happens between two individuals. It is virtually a given that a male (talking about an animal here, not a married man) will have sex whenever given the opportunity. Therefore the concept of 'rape' is meaningless to a male animal. The male has NO instinctive 'reaction' to the concept, in other words, because it doesn't APPLY to the male. Because of this, you could talk to your average man about the subject of rape all day long, and he could easily discuss it in a detached, analytical manner, never approaching the level of emotion or intensity you see from a woman within seconds of beginning the discussion. He has NO intrinsic FEAR of the notion, just as the male animal has no fear of it. Do you follow me now?

My only point was to explain why it may SOMETIMES appear to women that men don't quite 'get' how serious of a thing rape is. Again, I think the difference arises because the concept of rape is a VERY REAL thing for the female of virtually ALL animal species. A PART of why women fear it so strongly is because their female animal ancestors feared it. To fear this is deeply ingrained in the female, to a male, again, the concept has virtually no meaning. That, I BELIEVE is where a certain level of disconnect comes into the discussion when men and women try to have a conversation about the subject.

That is my ONLY point in all that. NOT trying to 'explain' rape, nor excuse it, nor am I trying to give men a pass to be insensitive about it. I personally haven't seen anybody here BEING particularly insensitive about it, actually, but I do see a bit of animosity from the ladies here the second they perceive that a male is failing to assign proper reverential deference to any discussion of the topic. All I'm trying to explain is WHY men MAY not share quite the level of hysteria about the subject: it's biological - males in nature don't get raped, the term has NO MEANING to us. Females must be eternally vigilant against it, for its critical that they CHOOSE a worthy partner to bear young with, and males definitely DO try to 'have their way' with females out there in nature. Do they not?

I should have remembered the fact that women really can't discuss the subject in an offhand, abstract sort of way like I can. I do know better, actually...

offhand, abstract and casually...it is a very personal subject. for some of the rape survivors here, for example. i hope you have an opportunity to read some of these stories...some really horrific and tragic stories. i marvel at the strength of these women.

tell me...what's the deal with not picking up soap in the shower? i think me DO fear rape, though they probably don't like to admit it. so, no...i don't buy this 'biology as destiny' argument.
and men are brothers, husbands, fathers and friends to women...they are affected by rape too. mark klaus, for example...his little girl was raped and murdered.

it is easier to talk about is more human terms, i think.

in general, i think it's true that men don't identify with the vicims of rape, not because of biology, but because of gender.
since i am a social scientist, what is the lowest possible thing you can being in male culture? isn't it to be feminine? a sissy? a punk?
hence the belief that rape is simply forced sex, which maybe be true in some cases, but certainly not all...probably not most.
i do think there is a difference between getting too excited with your girlfriend and stalking, abducting, torturing a stranger.
i'm not so sure the distinction is as clear for some.

i was taught to fear because of the society i grew up in...it may have something to do with some instinctual fear inherited from animal ancestors. but, it has more to do with learning how to survive in a potentially hostile environment...this one tight here.
women were being raped and dismembered by a serial killer in the area where i went to high school. there are some home invaders on the loose in this area now.

i don't think all men are insensitive about rape, or believe it is an imposition to be sensitive about it, since it is a very personal subject. this conversation has gone way beyond whatever was happening in this thread...and i wasn't commenting on it really. only on your post.

A 3 year study shows that while male student-athletes comprise 3.3% of the population, they represent 19% of sexual assault perpetrators and 35% of domestic violence perpetrators. (Benedict/Crosset Study)

In 1995, while only 8.5% of the general population was charged with assault, 36.8% of athletes were charged with assault.


The general population has a conviction rate of 80%. The conviction rate of an athlete is 38%. (Benedict/Crosset Study)

There were approximately 20,000 sexual assaults of males ages 12 and over in the United States in 1991. (Bureau of Justice statistics, 1992)

According to FBI crime statistics, less than 2 percent of the reported rape cases are found to be false. There are no more false reports of rape than there are of any other crime.



http://www.ncava.org/ncavamain.html

There's some sports stats for ya

and serve 1 with the rest probation...

I think he'll return to pro basketball when he gets out.

:hi:

and maybe a year or two .. tops