I totally agree with you, but I think you touched a problem that causes confusion....rape is rape, defined as unwanted penetration of the victim.
That's why men only counted for +-15% of victims outside of prison, and women a small percentage of perpetrators of "rape", they don't penetrate the men in most cases...This leads to the perception that this is mostly men attacking women, and for pure penetrating the victim rape it is....but if you add unwanted insertion (putting their penis in mouth/vagina/rectum against their wishes, etc) that male victim number skyrockets. If you count any sexual assault, unwanted sexual touching, it's near 50/50....with the same going for perpetrators. I was flabbergasted by that statistic.

If people don't want to make distinctions, do it across the board, which means going after the so far ignored women abusers with the same zeal....I've yet to hear a single one called out in the #me too movement, it's appearing to be pure male bashing, sadly.

No.

That's like saying the worst thing to happen with going out with friends for a drink is to be shot dead by a guy who didn't like you checking out his girlfriend.

A date doesn't end in rape. If your meeting with a person ends in rape, it never was a date to begin with. To say it was a date assumes the victim made a wrong choice at some point. Or worse, that the shitball would have allowed a different outcome.

Sexual assaults may have shades of gray, but I believe rape is rape. The idea of "date rape" would be laughable it it wasn't so moronic.

Dates and rapes are mutually exclusive.

Asis Ansari denies anything untoward or intentionally disturbing.....as is admitted by his accuser that's trying to have him convicted in the court of public opinion and blackballed....over her regretting having had bad consensual sex.

A bad date isn't rape, bad consensual sex later regretted isn't rape, an argument isn't rape, no chemistry isn't rape, only rape is rape and your contention is that this doesn't matter, they are equally guilty and deserve equal scorn and hate?!? Being weird is the same as being a rapist?!? Jesus fucking Christ, I always thought you were rational. This position you're taking is not rational, and drives rational people away from the movement....and will destroy it before it has any effect.
Being weird is a good thing, just look at the "normal" person and tell me they're worth emulating.

Don't stop using your brain.

Does this go both ways? If a man has a bad date, or bad sex, can he accuse the woman of exaggerated disgusting behavior publicly by lumping her in with serious abusers to hurt her professionally and personally as revenge for his own inability to say "stop" or "no"?

I hope that girl you had a bad date with in high school doesn't come back to show you the error of your position by adding your name to the "me too" list, destroying your career, family life, and future with no recourse to prove your innocence...all because she didn't orgasm.....but I do hope you see the error.

BTW, the next time you're caught saying something disturbing to someone else, you need to remind them you aren't trying to murder them. Your position means if you upset someone, that's the same as the worst thing you could have done, torture murder. There is no distinction.

In fact, your post did upset me, you fucking child raping monster. That's not overboard at all according to you, and you are exactly the same as a serial chomo...until legal sentencing time. That is what you advocate.
Fuck. People have all lost their fucking minds over this issue.

I don't know if the right's stance on gun control is the hypocrisy I'd point out about their so called "pro-life" stance, but I'll get to the hypocrisy in a moment.

It is odd how after every mass shooting here, which means we get to hear it a lot, the political right always jumps on the "oh no, they are trying to take our guns away", "if guns kill people, why don't they try to ban cars which kill more people" and other memes when nobody is talking about banning guns or forcing everyone to register all the guns they own, let alone take guns away. Closing the gun show loophole (and all such laws proposed that would close it still left open the ability to pass guns to family members without a license or registration), allow the CDC to track gun violence... these aren't unreasonable requests. Even exempting the gun industry from the same liability laws we hold nearly every other industry to (with a huge notable exception to fracking... hmm... another one the right loves) seems fairly reasonable, though I guess I can semi see the concerns... of course said concerns go back to the fact that nearly anyone can get a gun quickly and easily. 30+ homicides a day, 50+ gun related suicides every day, 40+ accidental deaths every day, hundreds treated for gun assault injuries every day, thousands of crimes committed at gun point from rape to robbery and burglary, and the list goes on and on... I support one's right to own guns, including hand guns, but we need to admit there is a gun violence problem. And it isn't a heart problem, if Cain had a gun he'd have used a gun, a rock is what was available to him at the supposed moment of action. And it isn't a lack of Jesus problem as over 78% of people in the US general population and other far more democratic, first word, advanced economy, fully free will, countries like the Netherlands have far more Atheists than us, but have far less gun violence... less violence overall. It's not a video game problem, as those games are popular outside the US, and again no correlative rise in violence. (And yes, the UK violence rate is higher, but it isn't an apples for apples correlation, they define far more things into their national violent crime rates than we do, when all things are equaled out, they have a much smaller one.) So it's time that the right just admit there is an issue with guns and violence in this country.

But as I said, we don't need to point to the rights stance on guns to prove they aren't actually pro-life. Just point to the fact they are the ones who are most in support of the death penalty. Just point to the fact they are the most pro-war and are the loudest war hawks, despite the fact Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers" I guess they figure that means forcing everyone to the US's will, since somehow God anointed the US with special privilege above all other nations (after all the Bible mentions the eagle rising against the bear, which must be the US rising against the Soviets). Point out that they support stand your ground, somebody taking your nice new TV, stand your ground and turn that crime into a death penalty there in your home... of course Jesus said if somebody takes your coat to give your shirt too, not that I'm sure He was meaning to freely let people take all your stuff, but I can guarantee He wouldn't have been pro-stand your ground. They don't support having guaranteed affordable health care, or having government assistance for the needy and the poor. Apparently that life only matters while in the womb, the quality of life after that doesn't matter, and if they can make it worse for the child then they don't care, so long as their taxes don't help the child.

They aren't by any stretch of the imagination pro-life. They are anti-abortion. I think abortion is far from ideal, and should be a last option. The best option is the same thing that the women not having abortions have, affordable health care. Access to contraceptive options like IUDs (which don't stop fertilized eggs from attaching to the uterus which they try to claim) and the pill... and it doesn't matter if the pill itself is cheap, the doctor visit to get them and follow ups need to be affordable too... somehow the right really likes to blame women and hold them accountable for the pregnancy, when in fact it's the guy who should be blamed. If they don't want a pregnancy, then he should wrap it as soon as it comes out of the pants. No playing "just the tip" or anything else like that. Then dispose of properly, and ideally, don't rely on it as the sole method of birth control. So guarantee all people, including women, access to affordable health care. Give them their free choice of birth control and I'd say encourage the use of the IUD which has an amazingly low failure rate compared to other birth control methods... that is if she's going to use a contraceptive on her end. Don't make it a crime to have a miscarriage... which is some of the most asinine law proposals ever created... and rape is rape, no such thing as "legitimate" rape, I don't care if the Bible is into punishing women for being rape victims (a virgin not betrothed has to marry the rapist and he has to pay her father 50 shackles of silver for the father's loss or property and the couple may never divorce, Deuteronomy 22:28-29 or if she's in a city and betrothed then she has to be put to death Deuteronomy 22:23-24, a passage defended because it says "because she cried not", but how often do people ignore crimes or say they didn't see anything, heck people film others raping a passed out girl, so "because she cried not" is a poor excuse).

TLDR: The right are far from being pro-life far beyond gun control, they support war, they support the death penalty, they support stand your ground, they are against the government helping the needy and the poor, and are against a truly affordable health care policy that would largely eliminate the need for abortions in the first place.

MY EARS! I'm going to hell because of you, she devil! GAH! I practiced celibacy and was home schooled to avoid any auditory temptations but now I'm ruined. Raped. Ear RAPED. Fucked in the ears.

And now I have no choice but to become the beast I always feared. FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK ME JESUS

Souls! Feed me souls! BLlaefoiugrbsrgbsgrubs -- and now I transform into my final form to destroy the sanctity of life and shatter the world. Laying siege to all holy lands! Nothing is sacred, all life is to be extinguished, and suffering will be endless. ENDLESS!!!!!

Millions, billions, trillions, untold time passes; dimensions crossed, the very meaning of ALL unraveled and laid forth, meaningless. Meaningless! All conflict, all freedoms, all philosophy is now folly; unnecessary as a multiuniversal nihilism cascades across the boundaries of consciousness. The godheads destroyed, their corpses rotting the core beyond ALL.

Blackness.

Void.

Nirvana crumbles and the enlightened turned against the balance. Yahweh screams in horror, corrupted and turned into a tentacle demon to rape its devoted followers. Ra's phallus goes limp. Baal is ground into an all beef hamburger patty. Shiva, Vishnu, Devi, Surya and Ganesha warp into a single form, becoming the Eye of Saron. The reptilians of earth devolve into alligators, and the greys become monkeys.

There is no shelter because there is only horror. For all eternity, in all realities.

Sorry, that's just my interpretation of the reporter's reaction.

It is interesting to consider why we're okay joking about murder but not rape, personally I consider rape to be just another kind of violence, like assault or murder. So, looking at it what way I don't understand why joking about rape trivializes rape victims but the plight of victims of other forms of violence aren't trivialized by humor? Also, we joke about murder all the time and yet we all know that it doesn't make it anymore socially permissible so why do jokes about rape make that more acceptable, because I'm not sure it does.
You may be right that jokes about murder are more socially acceptable because we've all (or at least most of us) have been there at one point.
And that rape is probably not the form of violence that most people reach for when thinking these dark thoughts, although I admit to contemplating the violation of some peoples bum holes with certain broom handles on occasion.
Emotionally I can understand why some people react the way they do to rape jokes but logically it's not enough to justify telling people they can't say it.

I find it hilarious too.

I think it makes another important sarcastic point aside the whole "legitimate rape" and "raped women don't get pregnant" comments from Akin. Apparently, when old white men have the "credentials" to talk about the whole issue, why not let the rapists tell their view too... why not ask farmers or the tech industry... what you say that women issues should be something WOMEN should be talking about?

@ReverendTed @vaire2ube Akin was suggesting that we can somehow tell if a rape is real based on whether the victim get's pregnant or not. It's not about determining the facts of a case based on evidence, criminal investigation, or whatever, it's because he's using some Victorian superstitious bullshit idea about what constitutes a "legitimate rape".

So no, in that regard we shouldn't be trying to parse rape into "real rape", "fake rape", "date rape", "man rape", "butt rape", "legitimate rape", "illegitimate rape", or any other kind of rape.

Care of The Onion: Pregnant Woman Relieved To Learn Her Rape Was Illegitimate

Rape is rape dadgummit

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

It's true - it does kind of look like ass with all of the ads splooged all over the page. After six years though - I've come to a conclusion: There's us, and there's them. There are the people we love who are the Sifters that find their way here - and there are the holipoli that rummage through our droppings as we forge a trail into the future.

That's a terrible way to think about site visitors - I know. Maybe it will be our eventual downfall - but have you seen the top 10 Google search terms that lead people to VideoSift? Here we go, for the past 30 days in descending order of popularity:


rape videos
rape video
hunger games trailer
rape scene
rape
irreversible
irreversible rape scene
rape scenes
inside vagina

There's our non-logged-in audience and it's kind of depressing. Google is 45% of our traffic. Fuck them. I'm a little happier about things that go nuts on Facebook for no apparent reason. Log out and look at the facebook comments on this moderately upvoted page. http://videosift.com/video/How-Belly-Dancers-Flip-Coins

So VideoSift is two worlds, the beautiful community where we live and make content and the other VideoSift that actually supports the site and pays the server bills.

There's an adage going around the Internet that if you aren't paying for a product or service ... you are the product or service. See Gmail for a good example of that. You are the product that's being offered to advertisers when you use Gmail. I hope that we have sidestepped that a little bit. It's true, that the content that we all create here does become a product that we offer to advertisers ... at least there is the option of Charter membership and at least we try and keep the ad saturation cordoned off to the non-logged in area.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Out of interest, what was the answer (both Romneys and the correct one if different)?

There's nothing in the Constitution about contraception.
That said, the controlling SCTOUS decision (Griswold v. Connecticut) says that people have a right to privacy, which bars states from trying to enforce legislation against contraceptives.
The Romney answer was essentially "I have no fucking clue, why don't you tell me what the SCOTUS said?"
And I forget if Paul weighed in, but I'm sure he'd have said "The tenth amendment says states can do whatever they fucking want to anyone," if he said anything at all.


First we need to ask "what" the constitution is in the first place before we say what is "in" the constitution...nobody seems to know what it truly is. It is a document that limits the government's ability to impose force upon people (Or impose its will--however you want to look at it...)

You cannot take our free press; you cannot take our guns; you cannot allow us to be enslaved; you cannot torture or search without warrant. You cannot arrest or seize without due process. Etc.

If it is not prohibited, then it is allowed. Think of it like, oh, the Law, but in reverse. You cannot speed on the roads. You cannot rape or burn houses. You cannot commit fraud. However, you can swindle people if you are good and lawful about it. You can defend yourself against aggression.

In other words--Universal Health Care is just fine because it is not prohibited.

But this is a double edged sword because it leaves much not covered completely to the Federal Government and States with only the people to balance them out with their morality.

If the federal and state government both said Pot was legal--pot is legal. If they say alcohol is banned, it is banned. If they say contraceptives are prohibited, they are prohibited. Period. If they made rape legal, RAPE is LEGAL. We may not like that scary thought--but that's the power, that's the force of government, even in a democracy (Adolph Hitler and his followers would have agreed, so would Rome and many other democracies.)

Sadly, dumb fucks even say the constitution only applies to citizens...even though it really has nothing to do with "The people." It cannot apply to anyone because it only applies to the State...

Now, and this is where I detach and am not a blind fanboy of Ron Paul's, he get's the constitution ass-backwards... Still, I would take his broken views and make honest men out of politicians than to propagate the election of spineless bad-guys-finish-first shit bags.

@gorillaman
First, Human sexual relationships in a democratic society should be, at its heart, about consent. That is why RAPE is RAPE and sexual abuse of children is ABUSE. So that rules out animals, although some eat animals we still are expected to treat them humanely. We can't just sexually coerce them.

Second, Marriage usually deals with socially sanctioned semi-permanent relationships for the purposes of assigning responsibilities for having sex with intention to procreate and raising children. Therefore you can't marry an inanimate thing. It also takes two gametes to make a new human. If it took any number of gametes to do that, then we'd be talking about a different situation. But two individuals are directly needed to create a child, and therefor should be the basis of any discussion of marriage. A pair. Our biology is the reason why 'free love' doesn't work. Despite whatever anecdotal evidence given, the large scale practices and ideas of swingers and free love are dead. We are ultimately programmed to serially be looking for ONE other person to aid in the creation of a child. Extra pair copulations (cheating) happen, there is no denying that, but its the exception that makes the rule. People break up and become angry over it. It can kill relationships, it is seen as a betrayal. Now, I believe homosexuality is significant enough (10%-12% of the human population) to be granted the same rights of marriage as heterosexual people, even though currently it has little to with offspring - except for adoption. While the academic debate on whether homosexuality is nature or nurture is far from over (Its probably both). They, being humans, still feel the same biological desire to pair off with someone, just like anyone else.


Now when the time comes that children can be created out of more than two gametes, I'd be willing to reassess. Also, if you want to leave marriage up to other institutions aside from the state - I'm fine with that too, just don't expect things to actually change.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'kristen schaal, tds, rape, rapeish, funding, daily show' to 'kristen schaal, tds, rainbow, rape, rape rape, rapeish, rwb, funding, daily show' - edited by calvados

I say that's a wonderful validation for agnosticism. I just explained this to you the other day. We cannot know anything for sure because we only have our flawed senses and limited mental capacity to rely on. That's agnosticism.

As a former agnostic, I am familar with what it is. Are you agnostic?

Big bang theory doesn't say the universe sprang forth from nothing, it says the universe rapidly expanded from the singularity. All the matter of today's universe existed, in some form, in the singularity. Any proposals about the state of the universe prior to the Planck epoch are pure speculation. The rest of your argument is all based on this false presupposition so I won't bother refuting it.

Mainstream big bang theory says time and space had a beginning. If you don't want to discuss this, it's up to you.

Humans were social creatures long before they invented/discovered Yahweh. We lived in tribes. Hunters cooperated to bring home meat for everyone while gatherers collected fruits/vegetables to also share. Children were raised by the tribe as a whole. The tribe had safety in numbers. Members who were found to be stealing or cheating would find others were no longer willing to cooperate with them, possibly they would face exile. Tell me, would you be more likely to survive, especially in the wild, if you worked in harmony with the others or if you had to do everything for yourself? Similar traits are common in many mammals and birds. Warm-blooded creatures are generally too high-maintenance to be entirely self-sufficient. We can't crank out hundreds of offspring every mating season and walk away. We need to cooperate to survive. None of those non-human mammals have heard God's Word, either, and they seem to be doing pretty well.

As far as the animals go, it is written in the bible that God takes care of them. Yes, cooperation is necessary to survive but this doesn't account for all moral behaviors. The behaviors you describe all help perpetuate your existence because you are doing them to gain an advantage socially. What about behaviors that have no advantage, which are actually determintal to your survival? Self-sacrifice, for instance..Someone who runs into a burning building to save a baby risking death to do it. If all morality is just selfishness, how do you explain this behavior. It's foolish from that standpoint, because it makes you less likely to survive. Why do people risk their lives for others?

Coveting might lead to theft, murder, etc, or it might lead to nothing. Someone on my block drives a nice Audi A6. I see it now and then and think, "Man, I wish I had an A6" and then I go on with my day. I do not envy them, steal from them, assault them, or murder them. The line is drawn at which point I cause another person harm. Wishing I had an A6 doesn't hurt anyone.

Just because it doesn't lead to it every time, doesn't mean it won't eventually. It's suprising what people will compromise under certain circumstances. Personally, I've never seen anything good that came from it in my life. I think there plainly a wisdom to never coveting what you don't have, or refuse to earn for yourself. I know plenty of people who sit around jealous of other peoples things and accomplishments. They feel their lives are unfair because that everyone else has more than they do. Yet, if they just ignored that and did for themselves, to their own satisfaction, they would be much happier people.

I do not lack an objective standard for morality. Harmfulness is pretty damn objective. It's not my feelings, it's theirs. It's not ok to rape people because people don't like being raped, ergo rape is not morally justified in my world view. Is it justified in some peoples' world view? Yes, unfortunately it is, but they are a very small minority of the total population (though I'd be very happy for them to be even smaller).

It is so objective? What if you have three men, and two decide that the other cannot be trusted..so they kill him. They did harm, but they think it was for the best, so is that ok? This is what morality by concensus easily leads to, when it is just mere opinion and agreement. Do you know how much evil has been done in the world because of thinking like that? Feelings are not objective..they are really the most subjective thing you could think of. Without an absolute standard of good which people have to obey, it could only be subjective opinion. In which case people will just make it up as they go along. As a limited human with a subjective experience, how could your morality ever be objective?

@shinyblurry

The most interesting thing is that the Universe sprang into existence from no prior material.

Big bang theory doesn't say the universe sprang forth from nothing, it says the universe rapidly expanded from the singularity. All the matter of today's universe existed, in some form, in the singularity. Any proposals about the state of the universe prior to the Planck epoch are pure speculation. The rest of your argument is all based on this false presupposition so I won't bother refuting it.

How do you respond to the argument that, if we're simply biological machines then all of our thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions which therefore cannot be trusted?

I say that's a wonderful validation for agnosticism. I just explained this to you the other day. We cannot know anything for sure because we only have our flawed senses and limited mental capacity to rely on. That's agnosticism.

Well, how would you explain the uniformity of morality that we see in all cultures, past and present. It would have to be something explained by biology, except there is no biological imperative except selfishness.

Humans were social creatures long before they invented/discovered Yahweh. We lived in tribes. Hunters cooperated to bring home meat for everyone while gatherers collected fruits/vegetables to also share. Children were raised by the tribe as a whole. The tribe had safety in numbers. Members who were found to be stealing or cheating would find others were no longer willing to cooperate with them, possibly they would face exile. Tell me, would you be more likely to survive, especially in the wild, if you worked in harmony with the others or if you had to do everything for yourself? Similar traits are common in many mammals and birds. Warm-blooded creatures are generally too high-maintenance to be entirely self-sufficient. We can't crank out hundreds of offspring every mating season and walk away. We need to cooperate to survive. None of those non-human mammals have heard God's Word, either, and they seem to be doing pretty well.

In regards to whether thoughts can be harmful..well, consider for example the commandment not to covet. It's a thought crime because it leads to breaking all of the other commandments. Coveting leads to envy, envy to desire, desire to larceny, murder, lying, stealing and adultry. It's entirely rational, nipping problems in the bud before they even begins.

Coveting might lead to theft, murder, etc, or it might lead to nothing. Someone on my block drives a nice Audi A6. I see it now and then and think, "Man, I wish I had an A6" and then I go on with my day. I do not envy them, steal from them, assault them, or murder them. The line is drawn at which point I cause another person harm. Wishing I had an A6 doesn't hurt anyone.

Lacking an objective standard for morality, what makes it wrong? Why is it bad to have sex with animals, hurt people, rape people..if it's just your feelings. If that's the case, some people feel that raping people is just great..doesn't that make them morally justified in your world view?

I do not lack an objective standard for morality. Harmfulness is pretty damn objective. It's not my feelings, it's theirs. It's not ok to rape people because people don't like being raped, ergo rape is not morally justified in my world view. Is it justified in some peoples' world view? Yes, unfortunately it is, but they are a very small minority of the total population (though I'd be very happy for them to be even smaller).