Because access to guns is a lot more difficult. That's the second part to this problem.

I do think he's unto something. I have thought about it myself. Terrorists and mass-shooters all seem like pathetic little shit who are completely sexually repressed and/or sexually frustrated.

>> ^cracanata:

It's OK I can take some criticism, but still the problem is right there. What would it be the solution? How should the military respond to this, female only army? Or just recruit only feminists and hipsters, that will defeat the purpose of having a strong army. In my opinion a strong army is made of strong individuals that most of the times are just the sort of individuals that have low respect for life otherwise will be a weak army. War isn't about feelings and fairness in my opinion.
If that makes me a lunatic that has no morals so be it. Still you'll have to remember that war is shit. And I'm not even defending war or advocating for rapists, only trying to make some sense with what the subject offers.
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^cracanata:
War zone isn't a place for manners and PC, war is war on any front bringing stress and frustration and in this case the sexual frustration is showing it's teeth. Females should acknowledge the facts in respect of what the war is doing to the males before jumping into this "serving the country" boat, hell even most of men have no clue beforehand. The way I see it - war brings you closer to your natural roots in terms of instincts and needs especially for sexually troubled soon to be adults males.
To me this looks more like a calculated damage form the radical feminists, to further push the anti male agenda, the "Man are Pigs and something has to be done about it"
Also would be very interesting to know what exactly constitutes as "rape" in today's america. For my knowledge there is a very wide range of actions or situations that constitutes as rape or sexual assault in this day and age and has nothing to do with the sexual intercourse.
I might be wrong, I'm no expert, but honestly the PC is sickens me.

No what this does is acknowledge that male soldiers rape female soldiers and something must be done about it, because what's being done is trying to actively exonerate rapists. You're like a racist saying, "well black people should understand that they're property and trying to change that is wrong."
You're a lunatic that has no morals.


hmm, i think a good start would be to acknowledge the victims of rape and prosecute the perps? As previously mentioned, the fact that rape exists in the military isn't especially shocking. What is shocking and surprising is this "boys will be boys" military attitude regarding the rapes. Lets be clear here. A strong military needs proficient female soldiers. If you want the best then you better not limit yourself to 50% of the population. Women shouldn't expect to be raped for serving their country anymore than they should expect to be raped when they wear something that doesn't reach their knees...The stress of war dies not excuse rape. Rapists have demonstrated that they are capable of committing this heinous crime against their comrades - the frontline of war is the last place such a person should be unless you like inviting warcrime tribunals upon yourself.


I think that maybe you advocating for the Devil...but I do wonder why.

It's OK I can take some criticism, but still the problem is right there. What would it be the solution? How should the military respond to this, female only army? Or just recruit only feminists and hipsters, that will defeat the purpose of having a strong army. In my opinion a strong army is made of strong individuals that most of the times are just the sort of individuals that have low respect for life otherwise will be a weak army. War isn't about feelings and fairness in my opinion.
If that makes me a lunatic that has no morals so be it. Still you'll have to remember that war is shit. And I'm not even defending war or advocating for rapists, only trying to make some sense with what the subject offers.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^cracanata:
War zone isn't a place for manners and PC, war is war on any front bringing stress and frustration and in this case the sexual frustration is showing it's teeth. Females should acknowledge the facts in respect of what the war is doing to the males before jumping into this "serving the country" boat, hell even most of men have no clue beforehand. The way I see it - war brings you closer to your natural roots in terms of instincts and needs especially for sexually troubled soon to be adults males.
To me this looks more like a calculated damage form the radical feminists, to further push the anti male agenda, the "Man are Pigs and something has to be done about it"
Also would be very interesting to know what exactly constitutes as "rape" in today's america. For my knowledge there is a very wide range of actions or situations that constitutes as rape or sexual assault in this day and age and has nothing to do with the sexual intercourse.
I might be wrong, I'm no expert, but honestly the PC is sickens me.

No what this does is acknowledge that male soldiers rape female soldiers and something must be done about it, because what's being done is trying to actively exonerate rapists. You're like a racist saying, "well black people should understand that they're property and trying to change that is wrong."
You're a lunatic that has no morals.

>> ^cracanata:

War zone isn't a place for manners and PC, war is war on any front bringing stress and frustration and in this case the sexual frustration is showing it's teeth. Females should acknowledge the facts in respect of what the war is doing to the males before jumping into this "serving the country" boat, hell even most of men have no clue beforehand. The way I see it - war brings you closer to your natural roots in terms of instincts and needs especially for sexually troubled soon to be adults males.
To me this looks more like a calculated damage form the radical feminists, to further push the anti male agenda, the "Man are Pigs and something has to be done about it"
Also would be very interesting to know what exactly constitutes as "rape" in today's america. For my knowledge there is a very wide range of actions or situations that constitutes as rape or sexual assault in this day and age and has nothing to do with the sexual intercourse.
I might be wrong, I'm no expert, but honestly the PC is sickens me.


No what this does is acknowledge that male soldiers rape female soldiers and something must be done about it, because what's being done is trying to actively exonerate rapists. You're like a racist saying, "well black people should understand that they're property and trying to change that is wrong."

You're a lunatic that has no morals.

You, sir, are absolutely despicable. >> ^cracanata:

War zone isn't a place for manners and PC, war is war on any front bringing stress and frustration and in this case the sexual frustration is showing it's teeth. Females should acknowledge the facts in respect of what the war is doing to the males before jumping into this "serving the country" boat, hell even most of men have no clue beforehand. The way I see it - war brings you closer to your natural roots in terms of instincts and needs especially for sexually troubled soon to be adults males.
To me this looks more like a calculated damage form the radical feminists, to further push the anti male agenda, the "Man are Pigs and something has to be done about it"
Also would be very interesting to know what exactly constitutes as "rape" in today's america. For my knowledge there is a very wide range of actions or situations that constitutes as rape or sexual assault in this day and age and has nothing to do with the sexual intercourse.
I might be wrong, I'm no expert, but honestly the PC is sickens me.

War zone isn't a place for manners and PC, war is war on any front bringing stress and frustration and in this case the sexual frustration is showing it's teeth. Females should acknowledge the facts in respect of what the war is doing to the males before jumping into this "serving the country" boat, hell even most of men have no clue beforehand. The way I see it - war brings you closer to your natural roots in terms of instincts and needs especially for sexually troubled soon to be adults males.
To me this looks more like a calculated damage form the radical feminists, to further push the anti male agenda, the "Man are Pigs and something has to be done about it"
Also would be very interesting to know what exactly constitutes as "rape" in today's america. For my knowledge there is a very wide range of actions or situations that constitutes as rape or sexual assault in this day and age and has nothing to do with the sexual intercourse.
I might be wrong, I'm no expert, but honestly the PC is sickens me.

lol @ QM ... and the root of the problem comes to light... sexual frustration. surprise...

pffffft... i'd like to mention ladder theory. it seems to have been coined by a very angry, very sexually frustrated man on the internet. but i found it interesting. i have mostly dudes for friends. i've only gotten emotionally/sexually confused by 2 of them. one is a long term boyfriend. but i've interviewed them all about this ladder theory-ness. we all mostly agree with it. here it is:

men tend to have just one ladder, they would consider sticking their penis in every girl the know, just at varying levels. you may be the top rung on the ladder, or you may be at the very very bottom rung of the ladder. there is also the abyss... which is like "i'd rather chew my own arm off then sleep with this person". if you're there, you're either a relative or someone they dislike so much that you're not friends. or maybe you're an ex who did something awful.

girls have 2 ladders: a "guys they'd fuck ladder" and a "just friends" ladder. you can jump and/or straddle ladders, but you risk falling into the abyss.

i am aware that i've been/ may still be on some rung of my dude friends ladders, i suspect i occupy a rung at the very very bottom or maybe i'm in the abyss because i occupy "sister" status in their brains. they're all on my "just friends" ladder. so, it'll never happen. and i'm ok with that. i'm also not friends with emotionally stunted douchebags, which helps.

i feel like the only time you're not actually friends (despite whatever sexual interest may exist) is when you're so preoccupied with getting into your friends pants that you're not actually being her friend. or when one friend is in love and the other does not reciprocate. other than that, two reasonable, sexually attractive adults can be friends just fine.

bullshit. there are tons of ugly broads I could totally be just friends with.

assuming I never get drunk or sexually frustrated again.

The human spirit rejects the assertion of authority by pot-bellied, sexually frustrated high school dropouts in village people costumes.

>> ^LarsaruS:

>> ^dag:
It's kind of amazing to me that porn has, in my lifetime, gone from being outlieing deviant smut - to public service for male physiological release.
I'd like to see more reports on the psychological effect of porn on people. Addiction, diminished actual sexual response etc.
I'm not saying that porn is a terrible thing, but its acceptance into mainstream society has a huge impact on our culture.
I still remember this guy in college, in public speaking class, who advocated "relief booths" on street corners, to be housed by willing sex workers, to provide release for "stressed out males" - thereby reducing the masculine ills of society - fights, wars, etc. The premise being that most of the major problems of the world stem from male sexual frustration. He would say, that it's not mistake missiles and bullets are shaped like penises.

Give people food and regular sex and there would not be a reason to go to war... everybody would be full and satisfied. I'd give that guy some cred.


The "huge impact" mentioned has many facets. Think about leaving a fresh-baked cobbler in the window facing an alley or perhaps a gun near brothers 0-7 the oldest of which is as developmentally prepared for touching it as he is to his responsibilities to his siblings-One's ability to handle the overload relative to social mores and civility reveals the real societal rub. Yeah, porn affords release. How much can simpletons handle?

>> ^dag:

It's kind of amazing to me that porn has, in my lifetime, gone from being outlieing deviant smut - to public service for male physiological release.
I'd like to see more reports on the psychological effect of porn on people. Addiction, diminished actual sexual response etc.
I'm not saying that porn is a terrible thing, but its acceptance into mainstream society has a huge impact on our culture.
I still remember this guy in college, in public speaking class, who advocated "relief booths" on street corners, to be housed by willing sex workers, to provide release for "stressed out males" - thereby reducing the masculine ills of society - fights, wars, etc. The premise being that most of the major problems of the world stem from male sexual frustration. He would say, that it's not mistake missiles and bullets are shaped like penises.


Give people food and regular sex and there would not be a reason to go to war... everybody would be full and satisfied. I'd give that guy some cred.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's kind of amazing to me that porn has, in my lifetime, gone from being outlieing deviant smut - to public service for male physiological release.

I'd like to see more reports on the psychological effect of porn on people. Addiction, diminished actual sexual response etc.

I'm not saying that porn is a terrible thing, but its acceptance into mainstream society has a huge impact on our culture.

I still remember this guy in college, in public speaking class, who advocated "relief booths" on street corners, to be housed by willing sex workers, to provide release for "stressed out males" - thereby reducing the masculine ills of society - fights, wars, etc. The premise being that most of the major problems of the world stem from male sexual frustration. He would say, that it's not mistake missiles and bullets are shaped like penises.

I just figured since it was one huge sausage fest it was authorized release of male sexual frustration...

>> ^dag:

I've said all I have to say on this one- it was languishing in obscurity- but let's gnash teeth and tear hair some more.



First off, if I sounded snarky in my first post I apologize.

Now, in all fairness Dag, it just got promoted to the front page, so it is not obscure anymore. And I'd say this is worth gnashing teeth over since it goes to the very core of what we allow on the Sift. Either the Sift has rules or it doesn't. From the Video Sift FAQ:

#3 Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life displayed for entertainment).

Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera.(emphasis added)

The currently embedded video falls squarely in the snuff category as defined by the FAQ. The alternative of embedding the news clip about the murder in its place follows Sift guidelines for allowing videos of human fatalities (on or off-camera) in the event they are a "limited portion of a... news report." It also has the other benefits I mentioned in my original call for discussion post. All someone needs to do is change the embed link.

Now, if people think there is a valid reason why we should make an exception to the rules for this video I'd like to hear it. Some reasons have already been offered in this thread. Here are some of the reasons offered for why an exception should be made and the counter-arguments to them.

1. Lots of people voted for it.

If someone posted a porn vid, I'm sure lots of sexually-frustrated male (maybe even some female?) Sifters would vote it up too... but it would still be against the rules. If sifting vids is simply going to be a matter of popularity then there need not be any rules about posting videos anymore. While the upvoting may be good-intentioned, entr0py says it even better than I can:

>> ^entr0py:

So, you posted a snuff video? Why is most of the sift okay with this? It's insane that we have rules against members posting porn, but not lengthy graphic videos of people being murdered.
Of course I realize nearly all of the people who up-voted don't see it as entertainment, but are outraged by the event. And if this were presented as a news story that would be completely valid.
Still, I think anyone who would want to watch this, knowing it's contents, and knowing damn well that they will never personally do anything to bring about justice, is motivated by some morbid curiosity. And we shouldn't be encouraging that. Really it is disgraceful that it hasn't been removed yet.



2. It's newsworthy.

blankfist gave the best counter-argument against this, so I'll just quote him.

>> ^blankfist:

This may be newsworthy, but so are the Al Qaeda beheading videos. If this stays, then we should start sifting other horrible snuff vids, and I certainly don't want to see that... unless the poster's avatar has nice tits, of course.


3. It was languishing in obscurity.

So, even though several good reasons for discarding this video were given, because no one got around to doing it the video it must now remain on the Sift forever? In spite of the fact that it breaks the rules? In spite of the fact that it--at this very moment--is in the spotlight and hence not obscure? If that's the case, then if people "sneak" a porn vid or other snuff film in and not enough people make a fuss over it, the vid should get to stay. Shall we set a time period? Three days? Four days? If a vid hasn't been discarded in that period of time it gets a permanent repreive? That doesn't seem right to me.

Let's not let this fall into obscurity again. Let's have some ethical standards. Let's follow the rules we set out for ourselves.

Let's not allow videos of humans being murdered on the Sift, regardless of the original poster's good intentions (or otherwise).

To reiterate my position, I'm asking that we change the embed to a news story of the murder rather than the actual video of the murder. It'll take someone all of 30 seconds to do, but those 30 seconds will help ensure the future integrity of the Sift.

I've made my case. I'll leave it up to the other Sifters to decide how to proceed. I will ask this time, however, that we don't return this to the Sift until a decision is made one way or the other. Either it is snuff or it isn't. If it is snuff, then either an exception is being made or it isn't. Let's tie it up all neat and clean this time shall we?