tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post7637591226720736859..comments2024-03-27T15:34:14.749-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Gays won't inherit the kingdom? Was something lost in translationVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35103717123246359652011-09-29T10:47:50.400-07:002011-09-29T10:47:50.400-07:00Ben: "I believe what people mean by "rap...Ben: "I believe what people mean by "rape is not about sex" is the idea a rapist isn't really for the most part a horny person who is so overcome with sexual lust he forces himself on another person to relieve that lust."<br /><br />That probably fits the classic serial rapist profile. However, since rape has a legal definition, it can also include the event where a partially intoxicated male lusts after a female (possibly intoxicated too) and due to the reduced inhibition brought on by the alcoholic intoxication and impaired judgement (he may misconstrue her signals and believe she actually wants sex) he forces himself on her, believing she really wants him, for the purpose of relieving his arousal and not to subjugate her per se.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74419256288084296782011-09-25T23:19:39.216-07:002011-09-25T23:19:39.216-07:00I believe what people mean by "rape is not ab...I believe what people mean by "rape is not about sex" is the idea a rapist isn't really for the most part a horny person who is so overcome with sexual lust he forces himself on another person to relieve that lust. <br /><br />Rather the rapist is a sadistic person who derives his primary enjoyment from the sadistic pleasure he feels in forcing somebody to do what they don't want to do and degrade that person so they may feel powerful at the victims expense.<br /><br />The forced sex act is merely a tool to that end.<br /><br />But OTOH when making love & one of the persons is shall we say more dominant that is between the couple.<br /><br />If a guy doesn't mind his wife acting all Xena on him or if a gal doesn't mind if her hubby is Don Juanish. That's between them.<br /><br />I fail to see how sexual dominance has anything to do with rape? Rape is the crime of forced sex. But during consensual sex who ever turns out to be dominant hey just go with it.<br /><br />There that solves that no need to thank me.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75215375150066633542011-09-25T16:08:32.933-07:002011-09-25T16:08:32.933-07:00Rape is an expression of power, control and domina...<i>Rape is an expression of power, control and dominance. It is not about sex. Since sexual intent is not present it cannot be a sex act.</i><br /><br />Well then, apparently rape doesn't exist at all! After all, the very definition of rape is "a forcible sex act"! That's what distinguishes it from, say, forcing someone to give you their lunch money, or go to a really awful chick flick. But, since it's not a sex act or about sex after all, there must not be any such thing as rape! Brilliant!The Deucenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2469344813780529722011-09-22T17:09:41.432-07:002011-09-22T17:09:41.432-07:00"... at the AIDS clinic you volunteer at.&quo..."<i>... at the AIDS clinic you volunteer at.</i>"<br /><br />Talk about "hair of the dog"!Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-661432619329363482011-09-22T14:05:08.359-07:002011-09-22T14:05:08.359-07:00Ilion,
Translation: Just B.Prokop being Prokop.
...Ilion,<br /><br /><i>Translation: Just B.Prokop being Prokop.</i><br /><br />I think Prokop was just railing against single issue voters, so he may have been on a completely different page.<br /><br /><i>I used to know, and try to be friends with, some such persons. I tell you, they were among the most boring people I have ever encountered. And, I quickly learned that, for various reasons and depending on the individuals, I didn't want to be in a public place with more than one at a time.</i><br /><br />One of the most fascinating conversations I ever had was with a bisexual girl who had some very interesting commentary about one part of homosexual culture. A few things she insisted:<br /><br />* The 'lesbian community' more or less has a revolving door built into it. Where you have a sizable number of girls who 'become lesbians', and then later pull an Anne Heche. One overriding claim being that lesbians are driven a whole lot more by politics, and that they don't compare well to the whole gay male community thing. (I remember a while ago some study suggesting that while male homosexual inclination seemed to have a genetic basis, the basis was largely missing with lesbians.)<br /><br />* One thing I always suspected, but it was interesting to hear support of it: The claim that gays and lesbians aren't exactly too enthralled about being lumped in with transexuals. (Long story short: "They're actually pretty crazy.")<br /><br />* Various other tidbits about the tension between homosexual-inclined males and lesbians and so on and so forth. With the former being more likely to be professionals and wealthy, and the latter more likely to work in LESBIAN POWER setups and thus many being poor or on the dole.<br /><br />I also remember having a conversation with a guy who went on and on trying to convince me about how his 'lifestyle was completely normal' and how he's 'been in a committed monogamous relationship with his boyfriend for X years', thus offering himself as evidence against supposed gay promiscuity.<br /><br />The problem was, I knew other friends of this particular guy, so I was privy to conversations he had with other people that he didn't realize confided in me. I wanted to ask, "Why are you talking about ~decade of monogamy when you have an open relationship, and you've been blowing guys at the AIDS clinic you volunteer at? Also, do you think that lying to my face says something about your own feelings on this matter?"<br /><br />That said, I personally throw people with these inclinations in with furries: I have a low view of the activity (in this case for natural law and religious reasons), but I can separate it from their person if they kindly stop asking for my approval and support. Furries are more likely to grant this in practice. And while the conversation was interesting, the people weren't necessarily - and with some there really seems to be an aspect of, "Holy hell, is it possible for you to talk or be about anything else?"<br /><br />That's the real tragedy of the situation. I actually think, biblically and otherwise, these are condemnable activities comparable to many other common ones. It's just the others tend not to have - sorry Bob - an obsession over the whole damn thing.<br /><br />There's my complete two cents.Crudehttp://crudeideas.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4886626787232403692011-09-22T09:10:25.561-07:002011-09-22T09:10:25.561-07:00Einfach: "If the obsession did not exist, nei...<b>Einfach:</b> "<i>If the obsession did not exist, neither would the controversy.</i>"<br /><br />Traslation: stop resisting the cultural changes we wish to impose upon your societies and there won't be any controversy.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9523734791659554442011-09-22T08:56:25.308-07:002011-09-22T08:56:25.308-07:00BenYachov said...
"If Brenda is going to star...BenYachov said...<br /><i>"If Brenda is going to start channeling that brain dead Andrea Dwarken crap"</i><br /><br />Not every feminist agrees with her and I doubt you know what she actually said as opposed to her media image.brendahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14544680532155804010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14709463567600408102011-09-22T08:53:54.842-07:002011-09-22T08:53:54.842-07:00Jason Pratt said...
"You seem to have skipped...Jason Pratt said...<br /><i>"You seem to have skipped over the part in Victor's reply where he agreed"</i><br /><br />I wasn't responding to Victor.<br /><br /><i>"If any exchange counts as sex when intended to count as sex, then rape counts as sex even though the intention also involves oppression."</i><br /><br />Ok, I agree that some rapist may think "I am using sex as a means of dominating you". But in common usage the word "sex" can have different and even conflicting meanings. <br /><br />Homosexuality is not defined as the act of homosexual sex. Sexual orientation is not defined by the kind of sex one happens to engage in. Commentors here are confusing the biological act with the social institution. In common use "having sex" can mean ciotus or it can refer to a suit of social performances that people label as "sex".<br /><br />People of the ancient world were like people today. And I'm pretty sure that as soon as you had large cosmopolitan cities you had the whole gamut of human sexual expression. I'm equally confident that they made whatever social adjustments they needed to. <br /><br />What some authors believe is that what Paul was referring to was the practice of court prostitution of young boysbrendahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14544680532155804010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72607452105852388542011-09-22T06:37:13.713-07:002011-09-22T06:37:13.713-07:00Mike Darus said...
It is not fair to say that homo...Mike Darus said...<br /><i>It is not fair to say that homosexual behavior is an obsession. It gains focus by being a currently controversial topic.</i><br /><br />If the obsession did not exist, neither would the controversy.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83931583802081064692011-09-21T19:01:49.126-07:002011-09-21T19:01:49.126-07:00"... but the people who join Gay Organization..."<i>... but the people who join Gay Organizations and go to marches and make their sexual inclination into a full-blown case of identity are not obsessed.</i>"<br /><br />I used to know, and try to be friends with, some such persons. I tell you, they were among the most boring people I have ever encountered. And, I quickly learned that, for various reasons and depending on the individuals, I didn't want to be in a public place with more than one at a time.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75620194013641879542011-09-21T18:55:52.546-07:002011-09-21T18:55:52.546-07:00Mike Darus: "B. Prokop: It is not fair to say...<b>Mike Darus:</b> "<i>B. Prokop: It is not fair to say that homosexual behavior is an obsession. It gains focus by being a currently controversial topic.</i>"<br /><br />Translation: Just B.Prokop being Prokop.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57669058375188746412011-09-20T16:14:16.500-07:002011-09-20T16:14:16.500-07:00mattghg said...
I think Brenda is just not using w...mattghg said...<br /><i>I think Brenda is just not using words with their standard meanings. I'm a grad student in Linguistics and I can tell you that when we say 'speech act' we definitely mean what is done by an act of speaking.</i><br /><br />In the US, spending money on a political ad is speaking.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78666495921295635012011-09-20T13:12:45.796-07:002011-09-20T13:12:45.796-07:00If Brenda is going to start channeling that brain ...If Brenda is going to start channeling that brain dead Andrea Dwarken crap then obviously it is futile to have a rational conversation with her.<br /><br />I made a short non-controversial statement at the top of this blog and I get jumped on?<br /><br />Sorry Brenda I don't need this I already have a wife.<br /><br />PS:BTW stop raping Crude. He hates it.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62298846042970401602011-09-20T12:58:47.154-07:002011-09-20T12:58:47.154-07:00Brenda,
You seem to have skipped over the part in...Brenda,<br /><br />You seem to have skipped over the part in Victor's reply where he agreed, <i>against</i> the traditional interpretation of the Sodom incident, that it <i>wasn't</i> about out-of-control homosexuality but about asserting territorial dominance.<br /><br />Jason: {{Sexting is pretty clearly a substitute for the physical event, and is dependent on the standard physical event for its referent meaning.}}<br /><br />That means I'm not contradicting myself when I go on immediately afterward to write, "Someone could 'sext' in order to annoy or show dominance without engaging in the physical action of it, but it's still using sexual behavior for that purpose."<br /><br />My comments afterward are entirely consonant with that concept, too. A physically sexual act may not be occurring but sexual behavior is still being used in a variant fashion.<br /><br /><br />Brenda: {{I say *any* exchange counts as sex if we intend for it to count as sex.}}<br /><br />Except when you turn around and deny that *ANY* exchange counts as sex if we intend for it to count as sex. Which you have to do in order to define "sex" as <i>only</i> involving consensual coital activity (physical or otherwise). If any exchange counts as sex when intended to count as sex, then rape counts as sex even though the intention <i>also</i> involves oppression.<br /><br />There are multiple forms of oppression, and rape is a sexual form of oppression.<br /><br />We don't have a good word for consensual sex in English so we use a verbal variant: partners <i>have</i> sex, instead of "sexing" (like a verb--although there are less polite verbs which might serve just as well for that purpose.)<br /><br />This is exemplified in your own recent reply to Victor. The reason we all know you meant consensual sex in one usage is because you used the common verbal variant: "Everyone assumes that there was mutual consent because that is what people mean when they say 'we had sex'". The reason everyone assumes this is not because the word "sex" was used, but because the verbal variant "had sex" was used (maybe strengthened by the communal "we"). You could have written "we fucked" and everyone would have understood (unless qualified in some other way) that it was consensual, too.<br /><br />Similarly, if you had quaintly said "we had coitus", everyone would have known that consensus was implied. The two terms are interchangeable.<br /><br /><br />I'm sympathetic about wanting to use terms more precisely for technical purposes; but "sex" is rarely if ever used <i>in itself</i> as a consensual term (so would be a poor choice as a technical term for consensual behavior related to procreation in various ways even when procreation is impossible as a result), and we already have plenty of ways to communicate consensus compared to non-consensus with sufficient accuracy.<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38641973332506487612011-09-20T12:55:09.430-07:002011-09-20T12:55:09.430-07:00If one defines the physical act of coitus as sex t...<i>If one defines the physical act of coitus as sex then how do you account for cybersex? According to your definition Sexting (a real word now) cannot exist. If one's definitions fail to capture reality then I'm in favor of changing the words to match what is real.</i><br /><br />Who said I 'defined the physical act of coitus' as sex? Heck, who said any sexual act must be coitus? I'm fine with calling cybersex a sexual act - I have a problem with this gaming of 'sexual acts' such that rape can never be sexual, but pumping gas can be.<br /><br /><i>The goal here is to understand the world and I think that understanding rape as a power relation is better. I'm pretty sure that by far most people in Western first world countries agree with me when I say it's about power and not sex.</i><br /><br />Yeah, and I think you're wrong. More than that, what does that have to do with anything? Can most of the Western first world be wrong? You'd better hope so on this one.<br /><br /><i>That's right, because in order for sex to occur there must be mutual consent. If you are engaging in coitus and you do not have the consent of your partner you are not having sex, you are engaged in a power relation where you are the dominant partner.</i><br /><br />No, not even according to your own definition. You said that plugging a power cord into an outlet is 'sexual if you want it to be'. So apparently only one party needs to view it as a sexual act, and then only in part.<br /><br />You keep talking about a 'power relation' and dominance. Great. Sex acts and sexual acts can involve both. Clearly. You keep responding with an assertion of definition, but if that's all you got, well hey... You're having sex with me. Right now. In this discussion.<br /><br />And I hate it. Stop it!<br /><br /><i>That in those times people (I expect mostly men but women can and have committed rape) used anal rape as a means or expression of domination and power.</i><br /><br />And as a sexual act.<br /><br /><i>I highly doubt that.</i><br /><br />Stop having sex with me, Brenda. No means no.<br /><br />Seriously, this is reaching like crazy - and the best part is, you just keep asserting it, as if that makes all the objections and controversy with the claim go away. That may work in the right classroom on campus or in the right, niche internet forum. In the wrong place, you're just validating your Crazy Credentials.<br /><br />In, apparently, an aggressively domineering sexual manner.<br /><br />... Ugh.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23404865146936424462011-09-20T12:28:36.615-07:002011-09-20T12:28:36.615-07:00Jason Pratt said...
"Someone could "sext...Jason Pratt said...<br /><i>"Someone could "sext" in order to annoy or show dominance without engaging in the physical action of it, but it's still using sexual behavior for that purpose."</i><br /><br />You contradict yourself. If sexual behavior is *only* the physical act then how can sending ascii text count as sex? I say *any* exchange counts as sex if we intend for it to count as sex. It is simply not enough to describe the physical or biological phenomenon, in humans we must take the intent into account.<br /><br />Ya know, there's a paper in this.brendahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14544680532155804010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56283840653573865942011-09-20T12:17:47.108-07:002011-09-20T12:17:47.108-07:00Victor, my definition of sex as the collective int...Victor, my definition of sex as the collective intent that "we are having sex" is in line with Searle's speech act theory. How can anyone familiar with the internet not see that for sex to occur all you need is the ability to exchange information? <br /><br />I understand that in common usage words are fuzzy things. That's why I feel the need to nail down the meaning here.<br /><br /><i>"In one sense, rape is obviously a sex act"</i><br /><br />What do you mean by "sex act"? Do you mean to say that if there is no physical presence there is no intent to force sexual relations on another? Isn't phone sex a sex act? Under MY definition (it's not mine but..) I can explain phone sex the same way I explain any other sex act and I can explain "phone rape" similarly.<br /><br />And this all goes back to TheoGeek's point, homosexual rape isn't what we mean by homosexuality today any more than we think hetro-rape is what anyone thinks of when we say "John and I had sex last night." Everyone assumes that there was mutual consent because that is what people mean when they say "we had sex". If John had unconsensual sex with her, or him, the victim would say "John raped me".<br /><br />And yes I understand that I just used "sex" to stand for coitus but our language is like that. The same word can mean two diametrically opposed things in different contexts. That is why we need to be precise about our words and how they are used.<br /><br /><i>"they were primarily motivated by out-of-control homosexual desire."</i><br /><br />No they weren't. They were motivated by a desire for homosexual rape. Homosexual desire as we understand it today implies mutual consent.brendahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14544680532155804010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64174202254125816362011-09-20T12:08:31.413-07:002011-09-20T12:08:31.413-07:00Sexting is pretty clearly a substitute for the phy...Sexting is pretty clearly a substitute for the physical event, and is dependent on the standard physical event for its referent meaning.<br /><br />Someone could "sext" in order to annoy or show dominance without engaging in the physical action of it, but it's still using sexual behavior for that purpose.<br /><br />(For a pre-internet example, see the infamous scene in the film <i>Hair</i> where hippies steal a horse in order to ride up to a group of female riders and harrass them with sexual terms, only some of which actually involve coitus per se! It's done to amuse the hippies with their own exertion of ideological power over the women, and amounts to a non-physical rape, even though the audience is supposed to think it's funny.)<br /><br />Variant and aberrant versions of sexuality are still sexuality in variant and aberrant versions thereof. Flatly redefining the term to only refer to mutual consent and expecting everyone else to go along with it as though its inherent meaning is blatantly obvious, seems over-convenient.<br /><br />(An insistence on the redefinition at least requires <i>mutual consent</i>--but a mutual consent of term usage <i>against</i> established linguistic norms for no clearly obvious reason. Thus the mutual consent reasonably unlikely to happen. Insert Freudian irony as appropriate. {wry g})<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65451247976726742712011-09-20T11:48:25.941-07:002011-09-20T11:48:25.941-07:00The Crude one said:
"Are you really going to ...The Crude one said:<br /><i>"Are you really going to tell me that if no consent is involved, it isn't a sexual act at all?"</i><br /><br />If one defines the physical act of coitus as sex then how do you account for cybersex? According to your definition Sexting (a real word now) cannot exist. If one's definitions fail to capture reality then I'm in favor of changing the words to match what is real.<br /><br />The goal here is to understand the world and I think that understanding rape as a power relation is better. I'm pretty sure that by far most people in Western first world countries agree with me when I say it's about power and not sex.<br /><br /><i>"but no rapist can ever even intend that the rape be a sexual act?"</i><br /><br />That's right, because in order for sex to occur there must be mutual consent. If you are engaging in coitus and you do not have the consent of your partner you are not having sex, you are engaged in a power relation where you are the dominant partner.<br /><br />Which was the whole point of the article linked to in the OP. That in those times people (I expect mostly men but women can and have committed rape) used anal rape as a means or expression of domination and power. AND that, according to the link, was what "arsenokoites" was intended to refer and condemn. Namely those who engaged in that type of behavior. And that is not how we understand homosexuality today. Therefore "arsenokoites" does not refer to what we understand as homosexuality. Therefore loving homosexual unions are not prohibited in those sacred texts.<br /><br />Got it?<br /><br /><i>"I'm starting to realize what's going on here."</i><br /><br />I highly doubt that.brendahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14544680532155804010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12722824285134758442011-09-20T11:30:58.599-07:002011-09-20T11:30:58.599-07:00I think that you can perform sexual acts for the s...I think that you can perform sexual acts for the sake of sexual gratification, or perform them to exercise power over another person. I suppose there are some rapes that are primarily motivated by the desire to dominate, and some that are motivated by a desire for sexual gratification. In one sense, rape is obviously a sex act, but if by sex act you mean an act primarily motivated by the desire for sexual gratification, then it need not be that. <br /><br />For example, the typical picture of Sodom and Gomorrah is that the men of Sodom were wanted the enjoyment of homosexual activity, they noticed two new men in their city, and they pursued them for that purpose. Of course, they were rude enough not to ask for permission, but they were primarily motivated by out-of-control homosexual desire. <br /><br />That's probably not right; I am inclined to think they saw two strangers in their city, they wanted to show them who was boss, and therefore demanded them for the sake of sexual domination. <br /><br />Consider what happens when someone is sodomized with a broomstick. There's no physical gratification involved at all, but this is sometimes done to people to dominate them.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86854071798722656752011-09-20T11:27:42.338-07:002011-09-20T11:27:42.338-07:00mattghg said...
"when we say 'speech act&...mattghg said...<br /><i>"when we say 'speech act' we definitely mean what is done by an act of speaking."</i><br /><br />Raising your hand is speech. You are in class and the prof asks everyone if they want to leave early. It's such a beautiful day. If enough people agree then class is dismissed. "Raise your hand if you do"<br /><br />Raising your hand then counts as a speech act but it only counts if your intention in action is that you are voting to dismiss the class. If you suddenly have a twitch and raise your arm that does not count and presumably you could make an appeal that you didn't actually *intend* to cast your vote for dismissal. (You have studying to do and would like to get on with it.)<br /><br />Or imagine you are in a foreign country where you don't speak the language. It's perfectly possible for you to order a cup of espresso at the café without uttering a single word. Waving your arms around, gesturing, pointing, grunting etc are all speech acts and they can get the job done.<br /><br />That's all language IS, it's conditions of satisfaction placed on conditions of satisfaction. In other words, the condition of satisfaction for voting in class is that you raise your arm. But that is not enough, there is an additional condition placed on raising your arm, namely that you *intend* to raise your arm.<br /><br />Rape and "having sex" have two different conditions of satisfaction. In order for sex to occur there must be mutual consent. If there is no consent there is no sex because "sex" is not the physical act of coitus. You don't even need to be physically present for sex. All you need is the ability to communicate your intent that "we are having sex".<br /><br />Rape is a completely different intention. It is "I am dominating you". I think the word rape should be reserved for "coitus without the partner's consent" so I wouldn't say that unwanted sexual advances say by telephone count are rape but the same intentional act is there. But it's always about power and expressing your power over another individual despite their objections.<br /><br />The elderly and vulnerable get raped most often, young attractive co-eds not quite as much. Rapists take advantage of the vulnerable and they will rape an 85 year old woman if they can because <b>it isn't about the sex</b>, it's about power.<br /><br />This is elementary feminism. Y'all should know better. While I don't always agree with every feminist principle I do agree with this and you all should think long and hard about the role of consent in future sexual relations if you're wise.<br /><br />If I have to work so hard to explain heterosexuality 101 it seems difficult to explain more advanced topics.brendahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14544680532155804010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83647717045929609432011-09-20T08:16:15.793-07:002011-09-20T08:16:15.793-07:00I think Brenda is just not using words with their ...I think Brenda is just not using words with their standard meanings. I'm a grad student in Linguistics and I can tell you that when we say 'speech act' we definitely mean what is done by an act of <i>speaking</i>.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342391408412861663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79557034523903520872011-09-20T03:11:40.381-07:002011-09-20T03:11:40.381-07:00Rape is an expression of power, control and domina...<i>Rape is an expression of power, control and dominance. It is not about sex. Since sexual intent is not present it cannot be a sex act. ALL speech acts, and rape is most certainly a speech act, must have an intention in action (the intended goal or outcome). The intention in action of rape is "I have power over you without your consent". </i><br /><br />I'm pretty sure the next part very often is, "And I'm going to use that power for some sexual acts. Without your consent."<br /><br />Are you really going to tell me that if no consent is involved, it isn't a sexual act at all? I can make any act into a sexual act by intending it to be so, but no rapist can ever even intend that the rape be a sexual act? I mean, clearly consent isn't necessary for a sex act according to you, unless the wall plugs have started talking.<br /><br /><i>We humans are perfectly capable of having sex even if we are on opposite sides of the earth and our only mode of communication is ascii characters on a cell phone.</i><br /><br />Cybersex is 'having sex', full stop, but a rapist is not engaged in a sexual activity, ever? Filling a car with gas is a sexual act if I intend it, but rape is never a sexual act?<br /><br /><i>"Woman" does not refer to females and "man" does not refer to males, it refers to those who perform the social role of woman or man.</i><br /><br />Oh, okay, now I'm starting to realize what's going on here.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80357536249604256152011-09-20T02:27:37.125-07:002011-09-20T02:27:37.125-07:00By the way:
"The text then goes on to say&q...By the way: <br /><br />"The text then goes on to say"<br /><br />The text says no such thing. You're aware of course that nowhere have you actually given a QUOTE. What you have is a translation and just what the proper translation should be is the very matter being debated.<br /><br />Crude said:<br /><i>"Come on. Yes, rape is a sex act."</i><br /><br />We humans are speech act performing free agents where X equals Y in context C. In a completely different context D, X can easily mean Z. So... X (coitus) = Y (making love) in context C (consent). OR X (ciotus) = Y (rape) in context D (no consent). Coitus is not sex, it is a purely physical act and is no more sexual than inserting a male electrical plug into a female outlet is "sex". But it is if you intend it to be sexual. Your intention in action transforms inserting a plug into an outlet into a sexual act if that is what you intend it to be.<br /><br />Rape is an expression of power, control and dominance. It is not about sex. Since sexual intent is not present it cannot be a sex act. ALL speech acts, and rape is most certainly a speech act, must have an intention in action (the intended goal or outcome). The intention in action of rape is "I have power over you without your consent". <br /><br />On the other hand two people can only be having sex if they both intend to be havine sex. We humans are perfectly capable of having sex even if we are on opposite sides of the earth and our only mode of communication is ascii characters on a cell phone. It doesn't even need to be detailed. All that is needed is that we intend it to be a mode of sexual expression.<br /><br />It is a mistake to focus on biology when it comes to humans and our behaviors. We are language using agents and have the ability to transcend our biology. It is a category mistake to think that the mode of expression is what matters, it does not. All that matters is the intention in action and it is that intention that just *constitutes* having sex. What mode we choose to express out sexual intent *through* is incedental. <br /><br />Gender is also a performance. "Woman" does not refer to females and "man" does not refer to males, it refers to those who perform the social role of woman or man. It is a wonderful fact that we can do these things.brendahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14544680532155804010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47727226964991480722011-09-20T01:33:36.731-07:002011-09-20T01:33:36.731-07:00BenYachov said...
Rape is not discussed in this te...BenYachov said...<br /><i>Rape is not discussed in this text</i><br /><br />Try to keep up. It IS discussed in the referenced article which I have already quoted but will again since is seems difficult to understand:<br /><br /><i>"A meaning that explains a lot of the evidence (but not all) is "anal rape""</i><br /><br />The word who's meaning is being speculated about is "arsenokoites". You may agree with his suggested interpretation or not but it is very clear that Theo Greek believes that acts of "having sex with someone in order to prove dominance over them" were common then. <br /><br />"In short, Greek usage provides no reason at all to think that the word means "homosexual". No study I have ever seen has concluded that the word meant "homosexual" in Greek."<br /><br />That is how arsenokoites can refer to something other than homosexuality.brendahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14544680532155804010noreply@blogger.com