Wait, shouldn't we be "parsing or qualifying" it?
If someone wasn't actually raped, but claims to have been, then we now have an innocent, consenting adult who bears the stigma of a "sex offender" for the rest of their life.
Am I misunderstanding Akin's use of "legitimate"?
I'm taking it here to mean "a person who was actually raped" as opposed to "a person who claims to have been raped in order to justify an abortion".
Was Akin using "legitimate" to indicate rape executed through "violent assault" verses "psychological coercion" or "pharmacological manipulation"? (If the latter is the case, then I agree with the President here. I feel it should be noted that Akin's position stands on flawed science regardless.)

Great talk.

It took me about a year to seek help because of the shame/stigma. Now I feel like I have a responsibility to be more open to people about my mental health. I don't want people to treat me differently, but I don't want it to be perceived as a secret to keep to yourself either.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^Fletch:
Who says I don't read them? I'm always up for a laugh.
You say you don't read them. You've gone out of your way to tell me you don't read them. Now suddenly you're reading them again?
>> ^Fletch:
That said, I haven't seen a single comment you've ever made that wasn't SPAM. As a charter, I don't want to see ads, and I long ago tired of your incessant, blathering sales pitch. Quite frankly, someone as condescending, self-righteous, arrogant, ignorant, and obnoxious as yourself is not going to win any converts, and I think you know that. Which means your continued infection of VS must be ego-driven, a false sense that you are doing "good" in your tiny little universe. Then again, the ability to lie to oneself is fundamental to buying into the whole magic-man-in-the-sky thing, so maybe you can't/refuse to understand how most of us perceive you.
Many people on this site, including you, are antitheists; I know exactly how you feel about me, not withstanding, what it says in scripture:
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
I never expected to be welcomed into a community made up of atheists, agnostics and antitheists. However, there are a few that have crossed lines and been friendly with me, although they talk to me in private because of the massive social stigma against talking to me that people like yourself have perpetuated. I would also note that dag has always been welcoming and fair with me, and he has said a few times that he appreciates my contributions here. I've tried to participate more in the community, but since people always downvote all of my comments and videos, I just participate in the topics that interest me and try to find good conversation.
>> ^Fletch:
When I was a child, I remember running upstairs one Christmas morning and telling my parents that I not only saw Santa last night, but I TALKED to him as well. I related our entire conversation of cookies and reindeer, how I helped him carry the 4-man toboggan that now leaned against the fireplace, and how he gave our dog, Missy, a Milk-bone. I knew I was lying, but who would ever suspect? Santa is real, right? And he's magic. Everyone knows that. I wasn't lying about Santa. He was real to me, as he must be real to everyone. Just a small fib about our interaction that no mere muggle could challenge. I was a star. I TALKED to Santa! Company would come over, and my parents would have me relate my tale to them. They ate it up.
To me, you are the me who saw Santa, a pathetic nincompoop who feels solace in the fact that science can't prove a negative (it doesn't work that way), AND you're trying to sell me microwave popcorn and beefsticks, AND you won't quit ringing my doorbell.
Anyone can prove a negative. For instance, there are no muslim senators. You can check it out there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliation_in_the_United
_States_Senate
You could disprove the idea of God if it were logically inconsistant. I challenge you to come up with an argument.
You think I am here for me, but I am not. I am here because of Jesus, and because of you. I care about you enough to take all of your insults and condescension so I can have a chance to tell you how much God loves you. My only motive here, and in everything else in my life, is to serve the will of God. I haven't always done that, but in any case, it's not about me; my life is not my own; it belongs to Him.


TL;DR

>> ^Fletch:
Who says I don't read them? I'm always up for a laugh.

You say you don't read them. You've gone out of your way to tell me you don't read them. Now suddenly you're reading them again?

>> ^Fletch:
That said, I haven't seen a single comment you've ever made that wasn't SPAM. As a charter, I don't want to see ads, and I long ago tired of your incessant, blathering sales pitch. Quite frankly, someone as condescending, self-righteous, arrogant, ignorant, and obnoxious as yourself is not going to win any converts, and I think you know that. Which means your continued infection of VS must be ego-driven, a false sense that you are doing "good" in your tiny little universe. Then again, the ability to lie to oneself is fundamental to buying into the whole magic-man-in-the-sky thing, so maybe you can't/refuse to understand how most of us perceive you.

Many people on this site, including you, are antitheists; I know exactly how you feel about me, not withstanding, what it says in scripture:

1 Corinthians 1:18

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

I never expected to be welcomed into a community made up of atheists, agnostics and antitheists. However, there are a few that have crossed lines and been friendly with me, although they talk to me in private because of the massive social stigma against talking to me that people like yourself have perpetuated. I would also note that dag has always been welcoming and fair with me, and he has said a few times that he appreciates my contributions here. I've tried to participate more in the community, but since people always downvote all of my comments and videos, I just participate in the topics that interest me and try to find good conversation.

>> ^Fletch:
When I was a child, I remember running upstairs one Christmas morning and telling my parents that I not only saw Santa last night, but I TALKED to him as well. I related our entire conversation of cookies and reindeer, how I helped him carry the 4-man toboggan that now leaned against the fireplace, and how he gave our dog, Missy, a Milk-bone. I knew I was lying, but who would ever suspect? Santa is real, right? And he's magic. Everyone knows that. I wasn't lying about Santa. He was real to me, as he must be real to everyone. Just a small fib about our interaction that no mere muggle could challenge. I was a star. I TALKED to Santa! Company would come over, and my parents would have me relate my tale to them. They ate it up.

To me, you are the me who saw Santa, a pathetic nincompoop who feels solace in the fact that science can't prove a negative (it doesn't work that way), AND you're trying to sell me microwave popcorn and beefsticks, AND you won't quit ringing my doorbell.

Anyone can prove a negative. For instance, there are no muslim senators. You can check it out there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliation_in_the_United_States_Senate

You could disprove the idea of God if it were logically inconsistant. I challenge you to come up with an argument.

You think I am here for me, but I am not. I am here because of Jesus, and because of you. I care about you enough to take all of your insults and condescension so I can have a chance to tell you how much God loves you. My only motive here, and in everything else in my life, is to serve the will of God. I haven't always done that, but in any case, it's not about me; my life is not my own; it belongs to Him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece

The most common same sex relationship were beteen adult men and boys in their teens. It was called pederasty, or boy love basically. Relationships between two older men had the same stigma attached back then as it does today. Adult men were expected to be masculine. "there is ample evidence in the theater of Aristophanes that derides these passive homosexuals and gives a glimpse of the type of biting social opprobrium heaped upon them by their society." - Basically its not a good example and I cringe every time I hear it.

Then don't do it. Simple.

Why needlessly suffer? If your heart is in the right place that is all that matters. People will always read what they want too into your actions and words. Happens to everyone. And you may not want to hear this, but it is true that the negative stigmas are put less on you in America because you are a white male.

But don't blame all black people for your self-imposed penance and the bitterness it may bring you. No black commission orders white people to tiptoe on eggshells.>> ^Porksandwich:

I mean it sounds horrible saying it like is in this video......
But I have been in some situations doing work in predominately black neighborhoods where some of the people went out of their way to cause us problems, and a black guy working for us got up in a couple of their faces about it.
I have also had similar situations with some white guys who create problems for people when they think they should have been the ones who got the job or should be working.
Now, Im a white guy. And when you have a black guy act like this and see another black guy whose more attuned to your circumstances because he works with you being on your side...it makes it seem more racially fueled than if you have ignorant white people doing it....they are just white trash and you can write them off as white trash.......because you're white and you can do that.
But in the case of black people acting that way, you can't be sure if they just hate you because you're white or hate you because they think they deserve what you have like white trash does.
So........I can see the point of some of the comments the guy made because as a white guy you can't be sure how your actions will be seen...as long as the question of skin color or ethnicity is ever questioned. And it's questioned all the time in the US, so you have to be aware of that because some people will make issue of it if you just say you are sick and tired of ignorant bastards treating you this way because it makes you sound like a huge racist if you say it in reference to black people.....because it's always measured like that. Where as if a black guy said it in your defense, it'd be OK or at least less scrutinized.
And here's a fun thing to keep in mind. I have an US born Indian friend, I met him in college. The people who hated him most in college for seemingly no reason? Indians not born in the US, they hated his ass with a passion. I noticed it, thought maybe it was due to language they never spoke with him as some of them sucked at English and needed the others to help them figure stuff out. I asked and he said they hate him because he wasn't born in India. And you know who he came to hate the most? Non-US born Indians, because they treated him like shit for something he had no control over.
I mean if people just hate you because you are <whatever>, there ain't a whole lot you can do but ignore them. And if they keep it up and start to affect your life, you can only hate them back. Anything else is pretty much hoping the law will allow you some protection, because everything else is involves some horrible violence or death to solve it. You can't reason with irrational hatred.
I don't know the answer, but I can say that having to constantly wonder about this shit is stressing as hell but mentioning it to people draws this kind of "awww poor white male" crybaby attitude toward it. It slowly kills off your empathy/sympathy for others who think your life is awesome simply because you're male and white. I surely don't agree with this guy's view, but I have to wonder if in 40 years I'll be so tired of having to constantly weigh every comment or action I make against some invisible scale of political correctness will just wear me out and make me bitter.

>> ^curiousity:
Thank you for providing this example of your irrationality and intellectual dishonesty by, among other things, completely ignoring the counterpoints to the few studies I was able to get to.

I didn't ignore your counterpoints, I just took them in the balance of this comment of yours:

"Ha. I really have better things to do than continue this conversation that you've, obviously for a long time, been preparing for"

Since you had already dismissed me as unworthy of your time, I saw little reason to devote much of my time to responding to your points. And even if everything you said were true, which I do not concede, it still wouldn't be enough to overturn the general conclusion of homosexuality being harmful to the individual, community and society. The evidence from the Netherlands is particularly powerful as it shows that even in societies that are open to homosexuality, the risk factors are the same or even worse. I'll address your points:

gay party scene: please be specific..I can think of one study.

too old: if it has changed, please show the data

>> ^curiousity:
"Link below is from 2003. It clearly shows the need for STD and sex education in this country. If I was less educated and wasn't worried about getting a woman pregnant, I wouldn't worry about condoms either. It's not a hard concept, but one that I imagine you will easily dismiss because it undermines your argument."

Are homosexuals less educated on STDs and sex education? How else do you account for them being 63 percent of all new cases? Why are the statistics the same everywhere you look. Sex education can only do so much..many people know when they are engaging in risky behavior and do it anyway.

>> ^curiousity:
"A study from two cities in a southern state from 1994. I've included a quote for this study that, apparently, you overlooked: "Although a low response rate severely limits the interpretation of these data, they are justified by the absence of similar published data for both gays and lesbians living outside major metropolitan areas." (This data isn't very useful, but we don't have any other data so we should use it. Again, not a hard concept, but it undermines you conclusions... Ignore! Ignore!)"

Here is more data:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15838193

>> ^curiousity:
"I like how you didn't read all of those 134 words in the second link - "helps users escape internalized homophobia or other social stigmas." I also find it shocking that gay men in long-term, stable relationships are not constantly going to an STD testing clinic - Does this point make sense? You haven't been completely robbed of all logic, have you? If you want to be a little more honest with yourself and actually look at the studies, it is easy to see the gaps that undermines your jumping to validate your viewpoint."

I'm sure that some drug use may be based on their feelings of being persecuted, but if it's all based on discrimination then why are the usage rates the same in countries where homosexuality is practically institutionalized? I also wonder where personal responsibility ever comes into play? Do you think people can blame all of their behavior on environmental factors and not take any responsibility for their own choices? If I lose all of my money because of some dishonest bank and become homeless, does that mean I now have a right to steal? Or when I steal, am I not a criminal?

>> ^curiousity:
There is a classic false argument of saying that being intolerant of intolerance is actually intolerance. If you want to classify my refusal to allow your intolerant claims to stand unabated in that manner, so be it. I do apologize that I didn't make myself more clear about not thinking you were a homophobe, but the simple fact is that I look at people's actions and speech instead of why they say they are doing something. Your actions of condemnation are the same end result and that is what I meant to draw the parallel too, but I had to leave for work and unfortunately didn't make that point clearly.

How are my claims intolerant? I am not intolerant of anyone, I am intolerant of sin. There is a difference between judging someone as a person and judging their behavior. I am incapable of judging anyone, because I would only be a hypocrite, being equally guilty as they are, but I can tell if what they're doing is right or wrong. And yes, it is intolerant (by definition) to be intolerant of those who don't tolerate your position. You either welcome everyone to the table, including those who disagree with you, or you do exactly what you accuse them of doing to you.

>> ^curiousity:
It irks me that you dismiss what I say as trying to undermine only part of your evidence. (To be more honest, I think that irksome feeling is more tied into your utter refusal to address those points of contention… which was expected, but still frustrating.) I didn't have enough time to go through all of your provided evidence. I had to leave for work soon and while writing is lovely, it is a laborious action for me - it takes a while for me to write anything surpassing cursory. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, is that I actually was reading and thinking about the studies. So while you were able to throw together quite a few apparently supporting studies for your viewpoint in an hour, I was much slower because I read those studies beyond the headline and skimming the abstract. Congratulations, you succeeded in becoming skillful on the quantity side... perhaps now it is time to focus on the quality side.

As I indicated, your post was dismissive..therefore I didn't spend much time on it. I appreciate the time you did spend but there was no indication you weren't interested in further dialogue.

>> ^curiousity:
Please in the future, respond after reading/viewing any evidence provided. This is similar to all the comments I see here asking you to actually watch the video before announcing that (shock!) what you thought was right was still right because you saw something that you disagree with in the first couple of minutes. If you don’t have the evidence or that evidence is something is the hazy distance of memory, just leave a comment that you need to refresh your memory on those resources. I completely understand this situation as I voraciously and nomadically spelunk into various intellectual subjects. On a semi-regular basis and depending on the subject, I will have to re-find that research that I faintly remember. I know that my writing style can come off as hyper-aggressive and be a little off-putting (especially when coupled how people have responded to you here on videosift.) I can only speak for myself, but if your response to my initial comment said simple that you had read it in some research long ago, that was hazy, and you needed to find those sources – this conversation could have went a very different route.

I'm open to a change in conversation. I am not super interested in arguing about statistics until kingdom come. I realize that they are not going to convince you of anything. I was just trying to support my statement. Since you feel that you understand some psychological motive about me that underlies my behavior, what do you think that is exactly? I can tell you that I do sincerely feel love for all people, even those who openly hate me. Mind you, sometimes I fail to show it, or even show the opposite..but that is something the Lord is helping me with. Some people are harder to love than others, but I see them all as being in the image of God and worthy of my love and respect. I can honestly say that have no predisposition against homosexuals, but you feel I do; so tell me why.

>> ^curiousity:

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^shinyblurry:

...snip...

Of course you have some information to verify your confirmation bias. There is an issue that some of these studies focus (or were only able to find) gay people in the gay party scene. This typically includes younger (or older that stayed in the party scene) people who normally engage in riskier behaviour. Hard to include those people who are quietly gay due to some fear or just preference. Some of these studies are quite old too (one of your cited studies is from 1981... Seriously?) Much has changed for gay men and women in the last 15+ years.


- Link below was not found (even with unbreaking the link.) Obviously you've been working on this presentation for a while so that you can quickly "prove" that gays are the blight on society that you claim.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrezDb=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=2242700&ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_Resul
tsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

- Link below is from 2003. It clearly shows the need for STD and sex education in this country. If I was less educated and wasn't worried about getting a woman pregnant, I wouldn't worry about condoms either. It's not a hard concept, but one that I imagine you will easily dismiss because it undermines your argument.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5424a2.htm

- A study from two cities in a southern state from 1994. I've included a quote for this study that, apparently, you overlooked: "Although a low response rate severely limits the interpretation of these data, they are justified by the absence of similar published data for both gays and lesbians living outside major metropolitan areas." (This data isn't very useful, but we don't have any other data so we should use it. Again, not a hard concept, but it undermines you conclusions... Ignore! Ignore!)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1615476/

- I like how you didn't read all of those 134 words in the second link - "helps users escape internalized homophobia or other social stigmas." I also find it shocking that gay men in long-term, stable relationships are not constantly going to an STD testing clinic - Does this point make sense? You haven't been completely robbed of all logic, have you? If you want to be a little more honest with yourself and actually look at the studies, it is easy to see the gaps that undermines your jumping to validate your viewpoint.

http://www.narth.com/docs/methuse.html



Ha. I really have better things to do than continue this conversation that you've, obviously for a long time, been preparing for. We'll just have to agree to disagree, but I feel that, as with many born-again, you've lost your empathy to your newfound religious fervor. While my dad isn't a born again, he hides and validates his homophobia with the word of god and the bible. I know, I know - you aren't homophobic... you just see them as immoral sinners destroying society, a force that must be stopped, etc, etc.

In conclusion, logic and self-honesty - what the fuck are those?

Sorry, like I told Jimms I have OCD and now that I have the free time I am going through un-replied comments... Its 5 AM and I can't sleep! I have issues...

The only part that I am confused about here is that Paul's position on abortion is like the elderly family members you mention shoving their point of view down your throat but not passing and not enforcing laws on everyone elses' behalf. He would advocate for State's to make "moral" laws but would not provide a federal law to blanket everybody.

In other words, if the federal government banned abortion like they did gay marriage, Paul would seek to rescind that law. And conservatives would be in an uproar because some States would make abortion legal. (California's laws on Pot sound an awful lot similar to the argument I make here... He would lift the ban.) He would be termed very liberal for that opinion. So it stands that I am confused...

>> ^peggedbea:

I feel like I may have already addressed this a few comments up.
It's the pro-life rhetorical devices he's using. I get an innocent slip of the tongue. I make them constantly. But it's all adding up to a picture of a misogynistic, rascist old dinosaur. And maybe he's even misogynistic and rascist in the way my elderly family members are. I love them anyway and over look their archaic viewpoint an awful lot, but I don't want them making, passing and enforcing laws on everyone elses behalf.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
I respect your opinion on this matter peggedbea, so I will ask. In my above comments I note that he probably messed up the wording--what do you think? We all use prefaces, or nervous words when speaking, especially about difficult subjects. And sometimes we come off wrong. Change his words around a bit and they sound fine--dopey, but not malicious.
Your boss probably said, "Well, if she is honestly sick" or a church goer "If he honestly tries to work hard and can't afford the bills then I don't mind helping."
(And if there is more in that 40 minute video that contradicts me, well, I do have a life and am not going to watch it, so point it out plz. That goes for anyone too.)
>> ^peggedbea:
it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

I feel like I may have already addressed this a few comments up.
It's the pro-life rhetorical devices he's using. I get an innocent slip of the tongue. I make them constantly. But it's all adding up to a picture of a misogynistic, rascist old dinosaur. And maybe he's even misogynistic and rascist in the way my elderly family members are. I love them anyway and over look their archaic viewpoint an awful lot, but I don't want them making, passing and enforcing laws on everyone elses behalf.
>> ^Lawdeedaw:

I respect your opinion on this matter peggedbea, so I will ask. In my above comments I note that he probably messed up the wording--what do you think? We all use prefaces, or nervous words when speaking, especially about difficult subjects. And sometimes we come off wrong. Change his words around a bit and they sound fine--dopey, but not malicious.
Your boss probably said, "Well, if she is honestly sick" or a church goer "If he honestly tries to work hard and can't afford the bills then I don't mind helping."
(And if there is more in that 40 minute video that contradicts me, well, I do have a life and am not going to watch it, so point it out plz. That goes for anyone too.)
>> ^peggedbea:
it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

I respect your opinion on this matter peggedbea, so I will ask. In my above comments I note that he probably messed up the wording--what do you think? We all use prefaces, or nervous words when speaking, especially about difficult subjects. And sometimes we come off wrong. Change his words around a bit and they sound fine--dopey, but not malicious.

Your boss probably said, "Well, if she is honestly sick" or a church goer "If he honestly tries to work hard and can't afford the bills then I don't mind helping."

(And if there is more in that 40 minute video that contradicts me, well, I do have a life and am not going to watch it, so point it out plz. That goes for anyone too.)

>> ^peggedbea:

it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

I disagree. He's discussing what HE SEES as a way around a system that outlaws abortion period. A system that he is on record, in favor of, btw.

In the cases of "honest rape" he is not opposed to emergency contraception. The phrase "honest rape" is anti-woman, victim blamey, proto-fascist rhetoric. I have 0 problem with his stance on emergency contraception. I also have no problem with a system that disallows late term abortion, except in cases when the mothers life is in danger. Late term abortion is ghastly. I'm against it. But "late term abortion" is also another pro-life rhetorical device. To make the entire arena of reproductive choice emotionally repulsive. The instances of late term abortions are extremely rare, but there's tons of hype about it out of the mouths of pro-lifers.

So, his rhetoric is abhorrent. Add this to his revisionist speeches in front of confederate flags, insanely rascist newsletters with his name on it, and I find it hard to believe that it's all an accident. I'm no longer buying that he's just a doting, old, confused by stander instead of a misogynistic, racist old dinosaur from the 1950's.

Oh, and as an OB/GYN, he should be WELL aware of the various psychological and emotional states of victims of sexual assaults. He should be well aware that we all don't just immediately rush over to the emergency room screaming "rape". And that just because we didn't do that, it doesn't mean we weren't "honestly" violated.
>> ^aurens:

To be frank, I think you (and others) are missing the point.
Ron Paul, as I see it, is addressing an obvious problem with a system that would allow medical treatment (early-stage abortion, or the prevention of pregnancy) only for rape victims, namely that you'd have to have a way of turning away (EDIT: and identifying) women who sought abortions for reasons other than rape. He's not suggesting a rubric for doing so (I don't think the interview format would have allowed him to), nor is he making any assumptions about the nature of rape victims or rapists. (Remember: he's a trained obstetrician-gynecologist. I'd bet he knows more about sexual assault than most of us do.) The phrase "honest rape" (yes, a terribly chosen phrase) is part of an attempt to address the problem described above, one which he didn't adequately explain.>> ^peggedbea:
it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

To be frank, I think you (and others) are missing the point.

Ron Paul, as I see it, is addressing an obvious problem with a system that would allow medical treatment (early-stage abortion, or the prevention of pregnancy) only for rape victims, namely that you'd have to have a way of turning away (EDIT: and identifying) women who sought abortions for reasons other than rape. He's not suggesting a rubric for doing so (I don't think the interview format would have allowed him to), nor is he making any assumptions about the nature of rape victims or rapists. (Remember: he's a trained obstetrician-gynecologist. I'd bet he knows more about sexual assault than most of us do.) The phrase "honest rape" (yes, a terribly chosen phrase) is part of an attempt to address the problem described above, one which he didn't adequately explain.>> ^peggedbea:

it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

>> ^peggedbea:

it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

This x1000

it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.

ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss