Not Sex

This post is about sex and related topics, btw. (also, I should be working on homework.)

The thing is I'm also not sure where to start. I can start with this: I was involved in an internet argument about rape. also I just read a book about rape. a Natural history of Rape, actually. Written by scientists. (biology, Mr. Thornhill and anthropology, Mr. Palmer) Stating and making a case for rape being about sex and less violence or power. (it states that males with less influence, wealth, thing women want would be more likely to rape, but men with access to women will rape too.)

The argument was whether or not dress had to do with the likelihood of getting raped. My stance as most of the people that were vocal (except the opposing opinion, one woman)was that wearing revealing clothes will draw attention to the young woman in question. Her argument was we were blaming the victim. We were not, we were saying that a rapist would notice someone wearing revealing clothes and depending on the situation would be more likely to rape her-- provided she was vulnerable. Not saying that would be the only possible woman a rapist would pick.

I decided to read the book because, of another internet argument. I wondered if rape could be genetic. I did a search and found a site about scorpionflies. (pieces from the book of the book) Female scorpionflies (I can't find the page I read) prefer to mate with a male that brings a gift of saliva or a dead bug. She will avoid males without gifts. If a male does not have a gift but still wants to mate he has some sort of limb– a clamp located on the top of the abdomen. He will use this organ to hold a female while he mates with her. The organ has no other purpose; if the organ is covered in beeswax it prevents the male from forcing sex, but he can still mate with her if he has a gift.

The book argues that the majority of woman raped are when they are the most fertile (15ish to 22ish) and that they have the most psychological pain compared to younger or older females raped. This is because it greatly impairs their reproductive success. (they didn't get to choose; their mates might leave them; etc) (I was called out in the debate, because of that. "funny that was the first thing that came to your mind." I cited my source later, but she'd already said it was a mysogonistic thread and left.) The book states that rape is either an adaptation or by-product of one (the authors disagreed.) The fact that most rape victims are young women is one of the reasons they say for rape to be sexually motivated.

If rape was all about power why wouldn't rapists just beat women? and why do women experience more psychological pain after being raped versus being assaulted? If men rape just to prove their manliness, why wouldn't women rape to prove that they are more powerful then the patriarch? Some social scientists, the book states, would say that rape is entirely learned and getting rid of the patriarch would stop rape, but again if it's about power that also wouldn't work, especially if it was a matriarch. (of course, that's not a statement for it being biological(genetic and environment)/about sex.) If it is about power why do most rapists only used enough force to subdue the woman and most let them live?

If rape is about sex, wearing 'sexy' clothes will attract more attention from a rapist. That does not mean that only sexy women get raped. This also doesn't mean it is her fault. It is just something she should be aware of. It's not her fault. It is not the only reason women don't report rape. (because they think they will be blamed because they dressed sexy.) One other being their males might leave them, believing they have damaged goods or that she wasn't raped, but was covering for consensual sex. reproductive success is lost by a rape.

Just because it most probably have evolved does not make it right. I am not blaming any victims of rape for being raped.


Conservapedia Fun!

I am sure-- if you actually are reading this that you know what Conservapedia is. This post is dedicated to me commenting on things from then Feminism article.

Feminism originally was an expression used by suffragettes - who were predominantly pro-life - to obtain the right for women to vote in the early 1900s in the United States and the United Kingdom. By the 1970s, however, liberals had changed the meaning to represent people who favored abortion and identical roles or quotas for women in the military and in society as a whole.

abortion was illegal by 1870, before women's right to vote and well they were kind of more concerned with getting rights. Please tell me why women can't have the same roles as men? Yes, I have said their are genetic differences between the sexes, but it doesn't mean that a female can't do the same things that males do.

"Specifically, a modern feminist tends to:"

* believe that there are no meaningful differences between men and women (The most significant belief underlying contemporary feminism is that there are no sex differences; therefore advocacy for equal rights must be extended to advocacy for equal results or outcomes.)

Yes, uhm, yes? let's see differences... body structure, better ability to see color (males have a better time with depth perception and stuff about how objects take up space. I don't know if that's what it is. It was developed for hunting.) different sexual preferences, (women tend to want men with resources, are more picky about mates) but nothing that makes one sex better then the other. different, but equal.

* oppose chivalry and even feign insult at harmless displays of it (see battle between the sexes)

Yes, because otherwise we are expecting all the rights of men while being treaded better then them. We cannot have the best of both worlds. If I hold the door for you I expect you to enter and to thank me, that is all. I do not want you to stand there ad insist I go in first. (there was an instance of this where my boyfriend was holding the other door and he stopped to insist I went in first, but did not for my boyfriend) side note: the "see battle of the sexes" is there because that was a link to another part of the site that did not go there.

* view traditional marriage as unacceptably patriarchal

a traditional marriage is a patriarchy. Especially if we look in the Bible.

Gen4:19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
Ephesian5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.


Under English common law, which was adopted by the states after independence, the identity of the wife was merged into that of the husband; he was a legal person but she was not. Upon marriage, he received all her personal property, and managed all property owned by her. In return, the husband was obliged to support his wife and children. A married woman, therefore, could not sign a contract without the signature of her husband.

again I probably could find more. (sorry, that wasn't cited it was making my computer run slow.)(also, that was of course, changed)

* detest women who are happy in traditional roles, such as housewives, and especially dislike those who defend such roles

If you are happy, fine, as long as you are doing so freely.

* shirk traditional gender activities, like baking

no, I sew. I do not know how to bake and have no interest in learning. Of, course, should I wish to bake a cake I can read directions, but so can my boyfriend.

* support affirmative action for women

meh, whatever.

* prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do

No, but they shouldn't feel like they need to wear a dress at any occasion, ever. (Men can wear dresses if they like too, I prefer they look good in them, because that's what women's cloths are usually for-- looking good.)

* seek women in combat in the military just like men, and coed submarines

While, I don't approve of most combat. I see no reason why a female cannot join the military if she so wishes. She is just as capable. Perhaps more so if it is so that childbirth is more painful then kidney stones. (I do not know.)

* refuse to take her husband's last name when marrying.

Why should she have to? She isn't his property. What if she doesn't like his last name? It also gets rid of the idea that people should have sons to carry on the family name. again, she can if she wants.

* distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events (Eg: Henry VIII's wives take precedence in common knowledge to his actual reign.)

He had six wives! there was more of them then of him! besides his wives he is also known for separating the church of England from the Roman Catholic.
as for "distorting" history. I have no knowledge since that is the only example he gave. But since women weren't important they would not have been written about as much.

* object to being addressed as "ma'am," or feminine nicknames such as "sweetheart" or "honey"; object to other female-only names, such as "temptress"

Temptress isn't even a complement! The jury for myself is still out on "Ma'am" as for "sweetheart" and "honey" Sometimes I get annoyed when Boyfriend calls me "dear" and I am not sweet or made of honey. Besides, I'm pretty sure some guys get called that. Oh, bytheway I really don't like it when a guy who is not my boyfriend calls me such. I've gotten used to it as far as females go. They have a habit of calling people "hun" and "sweety" and such. and hun goes for any gender. So, it's not all that feminine in how girls use it.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a staunch advocate of civil rights and non-violence said, "When a mother has to work she does violence to motherhood by depriving her children of her loving guidance and protection."

Irrelevant, just because he was an advocate of civil rights does not make him infallible.

Larrey Anderson, philosopher, writer and submissions editor for American Thinker, links feminism to Marxism, and concludes, "Feminism by grounding itself in the philosophy of Hegel and Marx, is condemning women to a new servitude: slavery to the state."

as opposite to... slavery of the husband/father? or are your just upset, because if that's true you will be a slave to the state too and you won't have any slaves of your own? Besides what's wrong with Hegel and Marx? also, you are the only one saying feminism is grounding itself there?

The rest, while some of it isn't hateful toward men, most is and it is just saying that feminism is what everyone else has so-called taken from their Limaugh word "femi-nazis" The rest is just perpetuating the fact that most people now of this generation won't call themselves a feminist for fear of being called someone who hates men or thinks women are better. That is not what Feminism is. That is an extreme version-- kind of like reverse racism. Treating some other group of people like shit, because they used to treat your people like shit doesn't work. The people you are treating like shit didn't have anything to do with the ones that used to treat your kind like shit besides being the same-- whatever. Follow me? If we repress another group, later they will rise up and repress us again.


I have a problem

Boyfriend is a writing major and, knows the possible implications of words, very rarely calls me sexy, hot, or variants of those. He will call me pretty, beautiful or elegant. (and he has a habit of kissing my hand. Hence the drawing of us as knights) This is not the problem. I'd rather him call me what he does then what he doesn't very much.

The problem is the only think I can call him is handsome. Cute is for fuzzy animals-- usually, anyway I think he might take a fence (okay, okay, offense) to that. Well, Handsome is what I always think is a guy is wearing a fancy outfit. (of course, he needs to be good looking too.)

Well, it doesn't matter, handsome is well enough.



Boyfriend's argument about cake.

Let's bake a cake! Gather all the necessary ingredients and put them together in the proper way in a dish. Okay! let's put this in the oven and see how it turns out.
Now, five minutes after putting it in the oven take it out. Is that a cake?

Now, let's make a human! Gather all the necessary ingredients and put them together in the proper way. Okay! Now, five minutes after conception let's take it out of the womb. Is that a human?

just because all the parts are there does not make it a cake. Yes, it can only become a cake or a pile of junk, but that does not make it a cake. It does not mean you threw away a cake.
You can't have a feminist blog without some statement about abortion. Besides that Cake argument I don't know what to say. (if anyone does read this, it's probably where I'm likely to get crap.)
Let's go with some basics.

Rape. Someone gets raped. She doesn't tell anyone. She gets pregnant. She knows that if she has the kid. That kid will remind her of the rapist and not be treated well by her. (or by any boyfriends she might have) She also knows that if she gives the child up for adoption, the kid would probably have a terrible life. This is ignoring the pregnancy and birth process.

Danger for the mother. The mother is in danger. She might die. If she wants to live, well the unborn will have to die. Making her sacrifice herself for the child is not her sacrificing herself. It's the law sacrificing her. (Note that this is the only type of abortion legal in the third trimester.)

Failed Birth Control. It happens. They tell you it can happen. I don't think that people should use abortion as birth control. (but via cake, I don't see why they can't.)

ICHEB: I'm detecting another life-sign.
SEVEN: Where?
ICHEB: Inside Lieutenant Torres. It could be a parasite.
(Star Trek: Voyager) I wish I had a better quote, but it's the only one I could think of.