[quote]Mick28 wrote:
EmilyQ wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
(Opens door starts to walk in)
Whoa! I didn’t mean to interrupt this liberal blow-fest…I’ll just let you guys keep stroking each other.
Forliar likes this sort of thing anyway, and after all isn’t this all about him trying to feel good about what he does?
Over 3,000 posts and he’s still feeling…not quite right…
(closes door)
Coward.
Bitch.[/quote]
Weakling.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
zeb, arousal is an odd thing. It is also not the same as desire or love. Women can get aroused during rapes, doesn’t mean they want to be raped. [/quote]
This could take the cake for the most idiotic thing that I have read on this board… Where did you hear that women can get aroused during rape? Most women who get raped are dry down there to begin with and from what I hear the whole ordeal is painful, humiliating and usually leaves them with emotional and psychological scars.
Please stop e-fighting.
[quote]phil_leotardo wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
zeb, arousal is an odd thing. It is also not the same as desire or love. Women can get aroused during rapes, doesn’t mean they want to be raped.
This could take the cake for the most idiotic thing that I have read on this board… Where did you hear that women can get aroused during rape? Most women who get raped are dry down there to begin with and from what I hear the whole ordeal is painful, humiliating and usually leaves them with emotional and psychological scars.
[/quote]
You might not want to jump so fast to calling someone else idiotic. While you are not wrong in how you described rape and its effects, sexual arousal during rape is quite well documented (in female and male vicims). It is also well documented that many women have violent rape fantasies.
An interesting and pertinent paragraph is quoted below, and paints a very sad picture of society where anti-homosexual people and feelings still permeate.
"Some gay survivors remark that it was only during sexual abuse that they became aware of the possibility of same-sex sexual activity, and while they know that what they experienced was abuse, they learned something about their sexuality, and may have liked some of the stimulation. It is very concerning that some gay youth only learn about same-sex sex in the context of abuse! "
The full article touches on several issues and is quite informative anecdotally.
A brief discussion on rape fantasies; http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_45/ai_n24383385/pg_12/
Here is a paper that differentiates rape and sexual arousal;
[i]"Abstract
The review examines whether unsolicited or non-consensual sexual stimulation of either females or males can lead to unwanted sexual arousal or even to orgasm. The conclusion is that such scenarios can occur and that the induction of arousal and orgasm does not indicate that the subjects consented to the stimulation. A perpetratorâ??s defence simply built upon the fact that evidence of genital arousal or orgasm proves consent has no intrinsic validity and should be disregarded."[/i]
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1353113103001536
This article describes a fascinating study on mind vs genitals in women.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/humannature/archive/2009/01/26/rape-fantasies-and-female-arousal.aspx
Women were asked to record their arousal to various kinds of imagery, and their actual arousal was also measured; the two did not always coincide, for example greater arousal was measured (than reported) when straight women were shown lesbian pornography. Arousal was also measured (but not reported) when viewing bonobos mating.
The results provide some evidence for a hypothesis of arousal (lubrication) in women as an evolutionary defense mechanism; in pre-civilised times the natural urges of males would have been far more unchecked and rape therefore far more common. Women who were able to lubricate in response to such threats would reproduce and suffer less physical damange, women who were unable were less likely.
In conclusion, Cockney Blue was exactly write when he said; “zeb, arousal is an odd thing. It is also not the same as desire or love. Women can get aroused during rapes, doesn’t mean they want to be raped.”
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
phil_leotardo wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
zeb, arousal is an odd thing. It is also not the same as desire or love. Women can get aroused during rapes, doesn’t mean they want to be raped.
This could take the cake for the most idiotic thing that I have read on this board… Where did you hear that women can get aroused during rape? Most women who get raped are dry down there to begin with and from what I hear the whole ordeal is painful, humiliating and usually leaves them with emotional and psychological scars.
You might not want to jump so fast to calling someone else idiotic. While you are not wrong in how you described rape and its effects, sexual arousal during rape is quite well documented (in female and male vicims). It is also well documented that many women have violent rape fantasies.
An interesting and pertinent paragraph is quoted below, and paints a very sad picture of society where anti-homosexual people and feelings still permeate.
"Some gay survivors remark that it was only during sexual abuse that they became aware of the possibility of same-sex sexual activity, and while they know that what they experienced was abuse, they learned something about their sexuality, and may have liked some of the stimulation. It is very concerning that some gay youth only learn about same-sex sex in the context of abuse! "
The full article touches on several issues and is quite informative anecdotally.
A brief discussion on rape fantasies; http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_45/ai_n24383385/pg_12/
Here is a paper that differentiates rape and sexual arousal;
[i]"Abstract
The review examines whether unsolicited or non-consensual sexual stimulation of either females or males can lead to unwanted sexual arousal or even to orgasm. The conclusion is that such scenarios can occur and that the induction of arousal and orgasm does not indicate that the subjects consented to the stimulation. A perpetrator�¢??s defence simply built upon the fact that evidence of genital arousal or orgasm proves consent has no intrinsic validity and should be disregarded."[/i]
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1353113103001536
This article describes a fascinating study on mind vs genitals in women.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/humannature/archive/2009/01/26/rape-fantasies-and-female-arousal.aspx
Women were asked to record their arousal to various kinds of imagery, and their actual arousal was also measured; the two did not always coincide, for example greater arousal was measured (than reported) when straight women were shown lesbian pornography. Arousal was also measured (but not reported) when viewing bonobos mating.
The results provide some evidence for a hypothesis of arousal (lubrication) in women as an evolutionary defense mechanism; in pre-civilised times the natural urges of males would have been far more unchecked and rape therefore far more common. Women who were able to lubricate in response to such threats would reproduce and suffer less physical damange, women who were unable were less likely.
In conclusion, Cockney Blue was exactly write when he said; “zeb, arousal is an odd thing. It is also not the same as desire or love. Women can get aroused during rapes, doesn’t mean they want to be raped.”[/quote]
So because some cunt psychologist wrote in in a blog it has to be true right?
I don’t know what its like in England, but in a large city like NYC, you have no idea how many women are raped in places like alleys and abandoned buildings, usually by one or more individuals at the same time. It’s so bad there that it is more uncommon to meet a woman who HAS been raped than vice versa.
From the women I have spoken with, they are not excited in the first place which means that their vaginas are dry. I mean seriously, do you think that the rapist uses foreplay and condoms? For fucks sake, if the guy has HIV, being raped can be a death sentence. Can you imagine the kind of terror that instills in someone? If a woman is close to ovulating, then it means that she has to have an abortion. In some cases, where the victim is young, their reproductive organs are destroyed.
Usually too they either get beat or it is at gunpoint. Either way it is under the threat of violence and forced upon them. Many times these women suffer severe depression, trust issues with men, physical pain and trauma that effects them later into life and suffer things like nightmares.
I hope the two of you get get raped by two guys with 12 inch cocks and no vaseline. Maybe they will make you suck their dicks or else they will knock your teeth out with a pipe. After you get a few stitches in your asshole, tell me how you hard a hard on during the whole ordeal. May both of you twats get raped for posting this kind of drivel on this board.
This is more like the reality that I have heard from women who have been raped:
I think that a victim of rape who enjoyed it as people who enjoyed getting surgery without anesthesia.
Dude during a rape, the woman is most likely scared out of her mind, or even worse. Do you honestly think some study is as accurate to the real life experience? I don’t believe that study to be accurate for shit, not at all.
How in the world did this thread get so off course? Shouldn’t this thread be about the global cabal of central bankers trying to form a world government via gay marriage?
That is probably the only response that even starts to make sense in this thread.
Like most of the “gay” threads this continues to live on well past the point where it actually makes any sense.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
That is probably the only response that even starts to make sense in this thread. [/quote]
Did you miss the other “gay” thread where this argument actually came up? It was my introduction to Zeb…not a name I’ll forget soon after that!
Full disclosure: He later claimed that he “accidentally” included this argument and that he “really” doesn’t believe it.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
How in the world did this thread get so off course? Shouldn’t this thread be about the global cabal of central bankers trying to form a world government via gay marriage?[/quote]
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
That is probably the only response that even starts to make sense in this thread.
Did you miss the other “gay” thread where this argument actually came up? It was my introduction to Zeb…not a name I’ll forget soon after that!
Full disclosure: He later claimed that he “accidentally” included this argument and that he “really” doesn’t believe it. [/quote]
I’m surprised that you want to carry this on, you didn’t have much of a stomach for the facts on the other thread. If so you can begin to answer all of the other questions that you dodged on that thread relative to why the statistics for gay marriage are so low in states and countries where gay marriage is allowed.
Care to begin, or are you going to do what you did on the other thread and turn tail and run?
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
phil_leotardo wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
zeb, arousal is an odd thing. It is also not the same as desire or love. Women can get aroused during rapes, doesn’t mean they want to be raped.
This could take the cake for the most idiotic thing that I have read on this board… Where did you hear that women can get aroused during rape? Most women who get raped are dry down there to begin with and from what I hear the whole ordeal is painful, humiliating and usually leaves them with emotional and psychological scars.
You might not want to jump so fast to calling someone else idiotic. While you are not wrong in how you described rape and its effects, sexual arousal during rape is quite well documented (in female and male vicims). It is also well documented that many women have violent rape fantasies.
…
Women were asked to record their arousal to various kinds of imagery, and their actual arousal was also measured; the two did not always coincide, for example greater arousal was measured (than reported) when straight women were shown lesbian pornography. Arousal was also measured (but not reported) when viewing bonobos mating.
The results provide some evidence for a hypothesis of arousal (lubrication) in women as an evolutionary defense mechanism; in pre-civilised times the natural urges of males would have been far more unchecked and rape therefore far more common. Women who were able to lubricate in response to such threats would reproduce and suffer less physical damange, women who were unable were less likely.
In conclusion, Cockney Blue was exactly write when he said; “zeb, arousal is an odd thing. It is also not the same as desire or love. Women can get aroused during rapes, doesn’t mean they want to be raped.”[/quote]
“Rape” occurs along a spectrum, and can mean a number of things. It can mean sex with someone who is too drunk/drugged to offer clear consent, it can mean a make out session that doesn’t end when the victim tries to withdraw, it can mean a stronger stranger physically overpowering a weaker victim without causing damage beyond the sexual violation, or it can mean a sudden violent assault that brutalizes the victim in any number of ways.
I would say that arousal is impossible in the last scenario, likely in the first couple, unlikely in the second to last. And I shouldn’t have to say this, but visual stimulation is not an indicator that the acts themselves are arousing.
The term rape conjures for a lot of people the thought of an assault, but the legal definition of the word has been expanded well beyond that, so be cautious when reading data that suggests that rape is arousing in any regard for women. Were any of you Sopranos watchers? The rape of Dr. Melfi was one of the most terrifying things I’ve seen on film. There was nothing arousing about that. I can’t imagine many women would have found it stimulating.
Women’s fiction (romance) is filled with loss-of-will that goes well beyond sexual. In today’s social climate sexual ravishment is not really marketable, so instead you might have some external threat that compels the hero to take over (lot of cops in romance). The battle of wills is engaged in that way, which gives the novel its core conflict. I don’t think it’s because women wish to lose their ability to self-determine, though. I think it’s because the idea of a supernaturally strong, smart, decisive male is so appealing. And of course, what those novels have the strong, smart men doing so decisively is pleasing the woman. Whereas the reality of domineering men is that they’re mostly stupid bullies, which isn’t arousing at all.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
If so you can begin to answer all of the other questions that you dodged on that thread relative to why the statistics for gay marriage are so low in states and countries where gay marriage is allowed.
[/quote]
Says the guy who has yet to even comment on the comprehensive recent UCLA study that I posted, which unlike the cherry picked stats that he provided, systematically looked at gay unions in EVERY state of the country with legal recognition, and found that 40% of gay couples took advantage of these legal unions. Further, the study statistically projected that 90% of gay couples will do so in the next 20 years.
Of course, the more comprehensive stats don’t fit Zeb’s agenda, so he ignores them like they don’t exist, while accusing everyone else of ignoring his pet stats.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
If so you can begin to answer all of the other questions that you dodged on that thread relative to why the statistics for gay marriage are so low in states and countries where gay marriage is allowed.
Says the guy who has yet to even comment on the comprehensive recent UCLA study that I posted, which unlike the cherry picked stats that he provided, systematically looked at gay unions in EVERY state of the country with legal recognition, and found that 40% of gay couples took advantage of these legal unions. Further, the study statistically projected that 90% of gay couples will do so in the next 20 years.[/quote]
Forlife it seems that the UCLA study was “Cherry picked” as there seems not one other legitimate piece of data to back it up!
Now please explain away the following:
Not Cherry Picked:
“A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands (the first country in the world to legalize “marriage” for same-sex couples), published in the journal AIDS in 2003, found that the average length of “steady partnerships” was not more than 2 < years (Maria Xiridou et al., in AIDS 2003, 17:1029-1038).”
Not Cherry Picked:
“Same sex couples make up 0.46 % of all couples in Australia.
(19,594 couples, 2001 census)”
Not Cherry Picked:
“Sweden and Norway
Government statistics for Sweden show only 0.55% of couples are same-sex and in Norway 0.68%.”
Not Cherry Picked:
“In The Netherlands, where same sex couples are allowed to â??marryâ??, a recent study published in AIDS magazine, found that the average length of a relationship between two men is 1.5 years. In addition the study found that they have eight other â??partnersâ?? each year.”
Not Cherry Picked:
“The Netherlands Official statistics from The Netherlands government show that few homosexuals actually get married. â??Another important change in formal union behaviour in The Netherlands is the fact that homosexuals may not get married. This has been legal since 2001. â?¦ The number of homosexual marriage is still small; in 2002 just under 1,000 marriages between two men and fewer still between two women were registered.”
Not Cherry Picked:
“Scandinavia In 'homosexual-friendlyâ?? Scandinavian countries, where same-sex â??civil unionâ?? type relationships have existed for 10 years, male-male union breakdown (â??divorceâ??) is 50% higher than heterosexual unions. For female-female coupling the breakdown figure is 170% higher.
Source: Deathblow to Marriage, Kurtz, National Review.”
The Journal of “AIDS”
Government stats.
The Census
Come on Forlife, give it up. It seems that most gays are happy to continue on in the lifestyle that they enjoy which is having many, many sex partners.
Why does this fact disturb you anyway?
Why run from the truth?
Why not try to argue from the side of truth instead of your usual half truths and out right lies?
Never mind I know why.
[quote]EmilyQ wrote:
Jab1 wrote:
phil_leotardo wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
zeb, arousal is an odd thing. It is also not the same as desire or love. Women can get aroused during rapes, doesn’t mean they want to be raped.
This could take the cake for the most idiotic thing that I have read on this board… Where did you hear that women can get aroused during rape? Most women who get raped are dry down there to begin with and from what I hear the whole ordeal is painful, humiliating and usually leaves them with emotional and psychological scars.
You might not want to jump so fast to calling someone else idiotic. While you are not wrong in how you described rape and its effects, sexual arousal during rape is quite well documented (in female and male vicims). It is also well documented that many women have violent rape fantasies.
…
Women were asked to record their arousal to various kinds of imagery, and their actual arousal was also measured; the two did not always coincide, for example greater arousal was measured (than reported) when straight women were shown lesbian pornography. Arousal was also measured (but not reported) when viewing bonobos mating.
The results provide some evidence for a hypothesis of arousal (lubrication) in women as an evolutionary defense mechanism; in pre-civilised times the natural urges of males would have been far more unchecked and rape therefore far more common. Women who were able to lubricate in response to such threats would reproduce and suffer less physical damange, women who were unable were less likely.
In conclusion, Cockney Blue was exactly write when he said; “zeb, arousal is an odd thing. It is also not the same as desire or love. Women can get aroused during rapes, doesn’t mean they want to be raped.”
“Rape” occurs along a spectrum, and can mean a number of things. It can mean sex with someone who is too drunk/drugged to offer clear consent, it can mean a make out session that doesn’t end when the female tries to withdraw, it can mean a stronger stranger physically overpowering a weaker victim without causing damage beyond the sexual violation, or it can mean a sudden violent assault that brutalizes the victim in any number of ways.
I would say that arousal is impossible in the last scenario, likely in the first couple, unlikely in the second to last. And I shouldn’t have to say this, but visual stimulation is not an indicator that the acts themselves are arousing.
The term rape conjures for a lot of people the thought of an assault, but the legal definition of the word has been expanded well beyond that, so be cautious when reading data that suggests that rape is arousing in any regard for women. Were any of you Sopranos watchers? The rape of Dr. Melfi was one of the most terrifying things I’ve seen on film. There was nothing arousing about that. I can’t imagine many women would have found it stimulating.
Women’s fiction (romance) is filled with loss-of-will that goes well beyond sexual. In today’s social climate sexual ravishment is not really marketable, so instead you might have some external threat that compels the hero to take over (lot of cops in romance). The battle of wills is engaged in that way, which gives the novel its core conflict. I don’t think it’s because women wish to lose their ability to self-determine, though. I think it’s because the idea of a supernaturally strong, smart, decisive male is so appealing. And of course, what those novels have the strong, smart men doing so decisively is pleasing the woman. Whereas the reality of domineering men is that they’re mostly stupid bullies, which isn’t arousing at all.
[/quote]
Very well thought out Emily. The fact that it comes from a womans perspective only makes this that much more meaningful.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Forlife it seems that the UCLA study was “Cherry picked” as there seems not one other legitimate piece of data to back it up![/quote]
Lol, I love how you blithely dismiss the most recent comprehensive study of gay legal unions in the U.S., with a blanket statement that “there isn’t one other legitimate piece of data to back it up!”. How about actually addressing the scope, methodology, and approach of the study? Are you really interested in the facts, or only in cherry picking stats that support your anti-gay agenda?
The UCLA study was conducted within the last 2 years, and it systematically and comprehensively includes gay union statistics from every state of the union! What more do you want than that?
We’re talking about gay unions in the U.S., not in the Netherlands. Also, we are talking about legal gay unions, not “steady partnerships”. The UCLA study specifically looked at LEGAL GAY UNIONS, and found the longevity of these unions was comparable with the longevity of straight couples.
[quote]Same sex couples make up 0.46 % of all couples in Australia
(19,594 couples, 2001 census)[/quote]
Irrelevant, since again we’re talking about the U.S., and more importantly since Australia didn’t even support gay civil unions until 2006.
[quote]Sweden and Norway
Government statistics for Sweden show only 0.55% of couples are same-sex and in Norway 0.68%.[/quote]
Sweden didn’t begin providing gay marriage until 5/1/09, and Norway only made gay marriage legal in 1/1/09.
Again, you are not comparing apples since we are talking about LEGAL UNIONS, not about the average length of any gay relationship.
Again, we’re talking about legal recognition in the U.S. Why are you harping on stats in other countries, while blatantly ignoring the comprehensive UCLA study, which systematically looks at every state in the U.S.? Furthermore, gay marriage in the Netherlands has varied from 3% to 6% of the total number of marriages, which is perfectly in line with your estimate that gays make up 5% of the population.
[quote]In 'homosexual-friendly�?�¢?? Scandinavian countries, where same-sex �?�¢??civil union�?�¢?? type relationships have existed for 10 years, male-male union breakdown (�?�¢??divorce�?�¢??) is 50% higher than heterosexual unions. For female-female coupling the breakdown figure is 170% higher.
Source: Deathblow to Marriage, Kurtz, National Review."[/quote]
Kurtz’s study was methodologically flawed, and has been extensively criticized. For example, he didn’t include coverage of marital decline in other European countries that didn’t recognize same-sex relationships, so he couldn’t draw a fair comparison. Nor did he consider legal unions in the U.S., for example in Vermont. Kurtz himself admitted that the numbers included in his particular study were too small to allow accurate conclusions to be drawn from statistics.
There you have it. I’ve taken the time to specifically address every one of your cherry picked “statistics”.
Now how about doing the same justice to the UCLA study, which unlike your “statistics”, systematically and comprehensively looks at every single state which provides some form of legal recognition for gay couples?
You don’t have an answer to this, and you know it as well as I do. The systematic study proved that 40% of gay couples are currently in some form of legal union in states that allow such unions, and statistically predicted that 90% will be in a legal union in the next 20 years. Furthermore, it showed that gay couples in legal unions have the same divorce rate as straight couples in legal unions.