Sigh Mike, why do you have to lie and slander to debate? If you want to rip me apart, at least tear me to shreads for the positions I've actually espoused.
What "blurring"? Rape and sex are clearly demarcated, dumb-ass.
You might ask Innerbrat I am merely quoting:
"Because a poor treatment of this character, and the character of the rapist can
blur the line between rape and sex"
I DON'T think misportrayal of rape blurs the line between rape and sex. I think they are CLEARLY demarcated by consent and the lack thereof. ALL other considerations are IRRELEVANT.
And don't even CRITICIZE it either, as we're doing in this thread, or some ass-wipe will crawl out of the woodwork and accuse you of fascism? Fuck you.
Critize it all you like, but don't tell me misportrayal has any real world effect, like say giving somebody a misunderstanding of sex and then becoming a rapist WITHOUT PROOF. My points are these:
1. Misprotrayal of rape in fiction has negligable, if any effect in the real world. It only effects those who can't differentiate fiction from reality ... and they are already screwed the hell up.
2. The public is MUCH more sensitive to rape than to murder, violence, or anything else comparatively evil. I personally think such a double standard is stupid, but that is just my opinion.
Nice strawman, asshole. I also like the black/white fallacy incorporated in your argument. The fact is that environment DOES affect behaviour, and fiction IS part of environment. How LARGE of an effect is debatable, and the rights of the individual may be argued to outweigh this effect, but to argue that the effect is simply not there is idiotic.
Pot meet kettle, kettle meet pot. Why is it you feel free to argue strawmen, "since environment has no effect whatsoever on behavioural patterns" and I should do the same?
I NEVER argued that the environment has no effect, I said I don't think "
misportrayals of actions in fiction havehave gross tangible results in reality."
I ascert that the misportrayal of rape in fiction has a negligable effect on the real world. Do you offer proof that it has a greater effect on the real world?
If you want to assert that misportrayal of rape has tangible effects ... fine DO SO. Don't make an idiotic strawman attack that I discount environmental influences all togethor.
And what if you have developed a lifelong belief that women secretly enjoy rape because of fictional portrayals which portray it thusly?
Then you are already delusional, being unable to differentiate between fiction and reality. If you are screwed up enough to make that leap then I seriously doubt something else won't provide a trigger.
Pleasure is as much psychological as physical, asshole. The sensation of a beautiful woman running her hands over your body is not going to give you the same feeling as the sensation of a 300-lb biker named Bubba running his hands over your body.
Pyscology IS physical. That is why anti-depressants and other drugs work.
IF the right set of biochemical/electrical conditions are present for a given feeling ... you feel it.
Biker Bubba doesn't feel the same because the SAME BIOCHEMICAL response doesn't go forward, most of the time. Your higher brain functions can and do alter the chemical and electrical conditions in your brain. If your higher brain functions aren't functioning ... then they may not have this effect.
In an nutshell Bubba's hands WILL set off the nerves under the skin, an electrical response will travel up to the brain and be processed in the parietal lobe and the medial forebrain bundle - largely the lateral hypothalamus -> ventral tegmentum route. This will then kick off a biochemical cascade with dopamine and other neurochemicals which IS the pleasure sensation, assuming of course that nothing else interferes. However Bubba's actions ALSO go from the parietal lobe to the amygdula and other cortecial areas. These process your higher brain response (the "psycological" response), and varies from person to person. If a NEGATIVE response comes from these regions then the signal cascade damps down and the pleasure response is killed. Its neurochemistry if you end up with the right biochemical and electrical values, you feel pleasure ... if these are interrupted, by other brain function or by say administration of naloxone ... you don't.
Indeed in the 60's they found that direct electrical stimulation of the brain lead not only to pleasure, but even to some test subjects developing romantic attraction to the researchers (
The Role of Pleasure in Human Behavior ).
In MOST rape cases the signal from the higher brain functions in the cortex is stronger than the one coming through the medial forebrain bundle. In MOST rape cases the victim DOESN'T feel pleasure, because the biochemical pathway doesn't go that route. In SOME cases the victim's higher brain response doesn't overwhelm the medial forebrain bundle's response. This leads to the pleasure/shame response where the victim is ashamed because the rape was pleasurable; most commonly the literature I've read on the subject deals with underage victims, but also with impaired victims.
I'd say that a custom title is in order for this asshole. He is now attempting to seriously argue that rape is not as serious a crime as claimed by women.
Damn now THERE is a strawman.
Compare this claim with my earlier statement:
"REGARDLESS of wether or not the victim undergoes a pleasure response IT IS STILL RAPE. IF YOU DON'T CONSENT IN SOME MANNER IT IS RAPE ... PERIOD. Pleasure, in the MINORITY cases it exists, or in the MAJORITY cases it doesn't IS IRRELEVANT. "
Show me ANYWHERE I said this makes the crime less serious. I have NEVER advocated ANYTHING of that nature.
If anything, feeling pleasure during the rape makes it WORSE for the victim.
The only reason not to shoot rapists is because we want them to have incentive not to kill their victims. The crime is vile, despicable, and horrible.
If it is misogynistic to beleive that pleasure is a well documented neurological condition ("Pleasure Centers of the Brain",
Scientific American among others), then I stand condemned.
If it is misogynistic to beleive that in a minority of rape cases, including statutory rape cases, the pleasure response still manages to fire; then I stand condemned.
If it is misogynistic to beleive that nonconsential sex is STILL RAPE even if the victim undergoes a biochemical pleasure response ... I stand condemned.
If it is misogynistic to beleive that pleasure due to the physical stimulation has NO bearing on the legality or morality of rape, I stand condemned.
If you wish to title me, I ask only that it be done on grounds of positions I have actually advocated, not the words Mike has slipped into my mouth.
