• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Anti-rape device

Status
Not open for further replies.

keith99

sola dosis facit venenum
Jan 16, 2008
23,125
6,819
72
✟387,565.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Ok CiC. A case can be made that a WIFE should submit to her husband as the Church shuold submit to Christ. Note this is WIFE to HUSBAND, not the general condition of women. But even thsi is a two sided coin. For the man is required to sacrfice himself as Christ sacrificed himself for the Church. Have you ever met even one man who lives up to that standard?

And what about the verses talling Christians to submit themselfs one to another? If that is the general case then Pauls admonisions are just a specific reminder.

Also Pauls words, like anything else, Scripture or not, should be viewed in context. They are corrections for specific problems. The actions of women in Corinth were disruptive in Church. Also many of the things Paul speaks of are cultural. His message is to not offend common morals, not unlike his words on obeying the secular law. They are reasonable viewed as warnings to not offend against custom and make the Church seem a strange and frightening thing. But trying to role instill customs from a far away time and place deos just what Paul was trying to prevent.
 
Upvote 0

RealDealNeverstop

Is Prayer Your First or Last Action?
Sep 15, 2007
15,003
1,290
54
✟43,818.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
CreedIsChrist, you seem to be quietly ignoring the fact that there are many men who are feminists.

My father, my male teachers at school, many of my male tutors at college, my boss at the jewellery shop in which I worked for two years, are all examples of men I know who share my feminist ideals. They do not feel trampled upon by feminism. They feel liberated by it. Feminism releases not just women, but also men, from the pressure to conform to traditional gender roles.

The oppressors are oppressed through their oppression of the Other but they cannot recognize the chains they are using because to them those restraints appear as reins for controlling their destiny as well as the destiny of their victims. It is a self-fulfilled prophecy of bondage.
 
Upvote 0

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.
Feb 20, 2007
6,215
683
38
Oxford, UK
✟32,193.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
The oppressors are oppressed through their oppression of the Other but they cannot recognize the chains they are using because to them those restraints appear as reins for controlling their destiny as well as the destiny of their victims.

Precisely. :)

It is a self-fulfilled prophecy of bondage.

Isn't that a Black Lace novel? :p
 
Upvote 0

RealDealNeverstop

Is Prayer Your First or Last Action?
Sep 15, 2007
15,003
1,290
54
✟43,818.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Ok CiC. A case can be made that a WIFE should submit to her husband as the Church shuold submit to Christ. Note this is WIFE to HUSBAND, not the general condition of women. But even thsi is a two sided coin. For the man is required to sacrfice himself as Christ sacrificed himself for the Church. Have you ever met even one man who lives up to that standard?

And what about the verses talling Christians to submit themselfs one to another? If that is the general case then Pauls admonisions are just a specific reminder.

Also Pauls words, like anything else, Scripture or not, should be viewed in context. They are corrections for specific problems. The actions of women in Corinth were disruptive in Church. Also many of the things Paul speaks of are cultural. His message is to not offend common morals, not unlike his words on obeying the secular law. They are reasonable viewed as warnings to not offend against custom and make the Church seem a strange and frightening thing. But trying to role instill customs from a far away time and place deos just what Paul was trying to prevent.

Interesting, we have a similar response to the above verses but I think the same mistake CIC made is the same mistake when it is clamed Rom 13 is talking about secular government. Paul was addressing the conflicts between Jewish and Gentile Christians, not conflict between Christians and the Roman government.
 
Upvote 0

CreedIsChrist

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2008
3,303
193
✟4,612.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Was my post read? Here it is again:



(Although I disagree)I never said the theological position is repulsive. It's clear I was speaking about slander since my post began with "SLANDERING." So please refrain from call me a hypocrite because a post was mis-read.

As for the cited verses, none of them carry a universal rule. You are not addressing a couple of fundamental aspects. Paul was trying to settle quarrels in certain areas and he was not subjecting women in the way that view is being thrust upon the text. Paul also worked with MANY FEMALE CHURCH LEADERS. If he truly was claiming women were to be submissive he would not have worked with and recognized women as an authority in the church.

Jesus was the first male Feminist of Christianity and if you read Mark as a whole you will see Jesus never had to correct women. In fact, he praised women for understanding his teachings while at the same time castigating the male disciples for not understanding his message. At the Resurrection, it was not men who first met Christ, it was a woman. It was not women who ran and hid while Christ was being Crucified, it was the men. The women remained Faithful. It was women who took the Good News of the Resurrection to the men who hid in fear. It was women who helped spread the Good News throughout the world. It was a woman who took the Good News to lands as far away as where France is today. It was women who freely gave their money to support the mission of sharing the Good News so before anyone comes along and tries to preach a theology of female submission before men they need to come with something stronger than bubble gum exegesis. Our Sisters in Christ are our equals, not objects of domination!

Eta: Was it a woman or a man who, standing face to face with the Risen Christ, still did not believe?



If you don't believe Gods word carrys a universal role then your saying God's word isn't static and can be changed. God is infallible and dosen't make declarations that "go out of style" because "we live in a new age where we don't have to do that anymore". Do you realize what your saying to God when you think that? With that view you can pretty much change God's word to anything you want it to be and thus create your own God(Idolism).

Women can be submissive in the Church while having authority too. Didn't you read about headcoverings being a sign of a womans authority and having long hair? A covered woman exudes an extreme amount of authority when you see them. Tell me honestly which woman is gonna recieve more respect? A righteous woman who understands her role in God's plan who is modest, understands that her husband is head of the family, takes care of her children, and not concerned with worldly vain things, or a modern feminist who is obnoxious and abrasive, divorced with out of wedlock kids(that is, if they live to even be born) and rejects any type of authority. Which person will truely get more respect and have true authority? If you don't believe women should be meek, submissive and supporting to their husbands then you don't follow God's word and have a problem with authority. If you have a problem with it then you have a problem with God's word, it has nothing to do with me.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
39
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
God is infallible and dosen't make declarations that "go out of style"
Then why the differences between the Old and New covenants?

Women can be submissive in the Church while having authority too.

War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength
 
Upvote 0

CreedIsChrist

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2008
3,303
193
✟4,612.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Then why the differences between the Old and New covenants?


Because God said in his scripture that he could create a new covenant where he would write his law on peoples hearts. That was directed by God. The New covenant is a forever covenant and thus the Gospel will always be binding for people looking for the truth. But a fallible human cannot say that certain parts of the Gospel don't apply anymore because of the times. If anything the apostles would be ten times harder on us than they were on the Corinthians or the Ephesians.
 
Upvote 0

EnemyPartyII

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2006
11,524
893
39
✟20,084.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Because God said in his scripture that he could create a new covenant where he would write his law on peoples hearts. That was directed by God. The New covenant is a forever covenant and thus the Gospel will always be binding for people looking for the truth. But a fallible human cannot say that certain parts of the Gospel don't apply anymore because of the times. If anything the apostles would be ten times harder on us than they were on the Corinthians or the Ephesians.
Doesn't really answer my question though... if God never changes his mind, and the Bible is God's word... why are we allowed to eat shellfish now?
 
Upvote 0

CreedIsChrist

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2008
3,303
193
✟4,612.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Doesn't really answer my question though... if God never changes his mind, and the Bible is God's word... why are we allowed to eat shellfish now?


God's plan had already been set out for us. It never was changed in the first place. God already knew what would happen. God knew that people could not fully follow the law perfectly. The law was created to show us our sin. Dust off your bible and you will find out why. THe book of Revelation however says that whoever adds to the book will become cursed. So by claiming that marriage has changed and that women are not to be submissive and understand their role in marriage as the bible says is in general adding on to the bible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

RealDealNeverstop

Is Prayer Your First or Last Action?
Sep 15, 2007
15,003
1,290
54
✟43,818.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
If you don't believe Gods word carrys a universal role then your saying God's word isn't static and can be changed. God is infallible and dosen't make declarations that "go out of style" because "we live in a new age where we don't have to do that anymore". Do you realize what your saying to God when you think that? With that view you can pretty much change God's word to anything you want it to be and thus create your own God(Idolism).

Women can be submissive in the Church while having authority too. Didn't you read about headcoverings being a sign of a womans authority and having long hair? A covered woman exudes an extreme amount of authority when you see them. Tell me honestly which woman is gonna recieve more respect? A righteous woman who understands her role in God's plan who is modest, understands that her husband is head of the family, takes care of her children, and not concerned with worldly vain things, or a modern feminist who is obnoxious and abrasive, divorced with out of wedlock kids(that is, if they live to even be born) and rejects any type of authority. Which person will truely get more respect and have true authority? If you don't believe women should be meek, submissive and supporting to their husbands then you don't follow God's word and have a problem with authority. If you have a problem with it then you have a problem with God's word, it has nothing to do with me.

I do not follow your version of what the bible says. That does not mean I don't follow what God has taught.

It's the same response every single time a position can't be defended. "Well, iam just the messenger, so if you ignore what God has said it is not my fault."

Every.

Single.

Time.

Here we see more slandering against women. From everything I have seen it looks like women are hated. Or at least the women who don't bow down before a certain view of scripture.

Everything in my post was ignored in lieu of the played out "I'm just the messenger" defense. How about simply addressing the posts that show good reasons why the presented argument that women should be submissive isn't very strong?

As for the "women can have authority in a church" I already know that argument. The gist of it is this: "Women with authority in the church teach younger women their proper roles in society. Any woman that teaches anything else is a deceiver and a false prophet. A feminist in sheep's clothing."

Basically, the woman can have authority that is doled out by men, according to men's rules.
 
Upvote 0

CreedIsChrist

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2008
3,303
193
✟4,612.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I do not follow your version of what the bible says. That does not mean I don't follow what God has taught.


You don't follow what God is saying inthe bible because you are obviously denying it. You are creating your own God in your own mind, not the God of the bible. The bible interperets itself. WHen the bible says "A man is head of the woman" there is not really any options left in the meaning except what it says. When the bible says women are to be submissive and humble it means just that. So please don't cop out on the "oh I don't follow YOUR version" when the bible is very clear on what its saying.


It's the same response every single time a position can't be defended. "Well, iam just the messenger, so if you ignore what God has said it is not my fault."

Every.

Single.

Time.


Its true, you have a problem with God's word in scripture. Your excepting the verses you want to except and ignoring the other ones. Its called selective hearing/reading.

Here we see more slandering against women. From everything I have seen it looks like women are hated. Or at least the women who don't bow down before a certain view of scripture.

But scripture is God breathed and thus if they do not follow scripture, they are not following God's word and do not have the truth.


Everything in my post was ignored in lieu of the played out "I'm just the messenger" defense. How about simply addressing the posts that show good reasons why the presented argument that women should be submissive isn't very strong?

I just posted around 8 bible verses saying women need to be submissve, humble and non wordly. Im addressing your posts with scripture. If you have a problem with what the scripture says on women then you have a problem with truth or are some way being brainwashed by the secular society that God's word dosen't hold any value anymore. Don't you think its kinda hypocritical to call yourself a christian and then promote things that the bible is obviously against?

As for the "women can have authority in a church" I already know that argument. The gist of it is this: "Women with authority in the church teach younger women their proper roles in society. Any woman that teaches anything else is a deceiver and a false prophet. A feminist in sheep's clothing."

If you think feminists have any authority today your sorely mistaken. The bible says we gain true authority when we lower ourselves and humble ourselves. When we try to go up we truely go down and visa versa. The last will be first and the first will be last.

Basically, the woman can have authority that is doled out by men, according to men's rules

No, women have authority as doled out by God. God has a role for women just as he has a role for men as clearly laid out in scripture. A person with the spirit of God would feel no opposition to what the scripture says. A woman with the spirit of God in her recognizes the role God has given her and she accepts it and rejoices in it without any opposition. If she has opposition then she probably does not have the Spirit of God in her and thus it will sound like nails on a chalkboard to her. And please stop saying that im slandering women, because if you view scripture as slandering women then please don't kid yourself and think your a christian who follows God. You've created your own God, not the God of the bible, which is Idolism.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RealDealNeverstop

Is Prayer Your First or Last Action?
Sep 15, 2007
15,003
1,290
54
✟43,818.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
You don't follow what God is saying inthe bible because you are obviously denying it. You are creating your own God in your own mind, not the God of the bible. The bible interperets itself. WHen the bible says "A man is head of the woman" there is not really any options left in the meaning except what it says. When the bible says women are to be submissive and humble it means just that. So please don't cop out on the "oh I don't follow YOUR version" when the bible is very clear on what its saying.

Its true, you have a problem with God's word in scripture. Your excepting the verses you want to except and ignoring the other ones. Its called selective hearing/reading.

But scripture is God breathed and thus if they do not follow scripture, they are not following God's word and do not have the truth.

That can be summed up as saying "If a certain interpretation isn't followed then one isn't following scripture." Scripture is not "self interpreting" even on what appear to be simple statements. Iam pretty sure there are a number of books that have been written in the last 500 years discussing interpretation.


I just posted around 8 bible verses saying women need to be submissve, humble and non wordly. Im addressing your posts with scripture. If you have a problem with what the scripture says on women then you have a problem with truth or are some way being brainwashed by the secular society that God's word dosen't hold any value anymore. Don't you think its kinda hypocritical to call yourself a christian and then promote things that the bible is obviously against?

I referenced the entire Gospel of Mark and there is no response to that yet here is an accusation iam ignoring scripture? Also, there has been more than one response to the cited verses but those haven't been addressed either.

All this does is reinforce what I said above because it seems like there isn't even a chance of exegesis and the only response will be "that's what scripture says" no matter what counter points are made.



If you think feminists have any authority today your sorely mistaken. The bible says we gain true authority when we lower ourselves and humble ourselves. When we try to go up we truely go down and visa versa. The last will be first and the first will be last.

Could an example of this humility philosophy be given from your posts? Why is it claimed feminists aren't humble?


No, women have authority as doled out by God. God has a role for women just as he has a role for men as clearly laid out in scripture. A person with the spirit of God would feel no opposition to what the scripture says. A woman with the spirit of God in her recognizes the role God has given her and she accepts it and rejoices in it without any opposition. If she has opposition then she probably does not have the Spirit of God in her and thus it will sound like nails on a chalkboard to her. And please stop saying that im slandering women, because if you view scripture as slandering women then please don't kid yourself and think your a christian who follows God. You've created your own God, not the God of the bible, which is Idolism.

Wow! That looks exactly like what I said a few posts back:

RDN said:
"Women with authority in the church teach younger women their proper roles in society. Any woman that teaches anything else is a deceiver and a false prophet. A feminist in sheep's clothing."

As for the slander bit...how was I unclear when I said the theological argument isn't the slander? The slander is claiming they hate God and are guilty of all sorts of crimes. Disagreeing with people does not afford a license to accuse them of hating God.

Why is it when such fundamentalist positions are advocated almost everything is recognized as "straight forward," except where Jesus said to love our neighbors and our enemies?

As for me being a hypocritical Christian, I completely agree. Iam one of the worst hypocritical Christians around, but that has nothing to do with slandering women nor not responding to counter points.
 
Upvote 0

CreedIsChrist

Well-Known Member
Jul 25, 2008
3,303
193
✟4,612.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
That can be summed up as saying "If a certain interpretation isn't followed then one isn't following scripture." Scripture is not "self interpreting" even on what appear to be simple statements. Iam pretty sure there are a number of books that have been written in the last 500 years discussing interpretation.

Yes the bible is self interperating. Even with all the different translations of the bible we still know what the general message says in each verse, with exceptions to verses that are meant to be symbolic like the book of Daniel and Revelation. When the bible says the man is the head of the woman it doubt it means that apples are oranges.


I referenced the entire Gospel of Mark and there is no response to that yet here is an accusation iam ignoring scripture? Also, there has been more than one response to the cited verses but those haven't been addressed either.

If other peoples responses hold more authority than God's word then you trust man and not God. Also most of the people defending you aren't even christians who have an agenda. And if non-christians are defending you, that is a very bad sign.

All this does is reinforce what I said above because it seems like there isn't even a chance of exegesis and the only response will be "that's what scripture says" no matter what counter points are made.


Counter points are not scripture. Again you put alot of trust in mens opinions.



Could an example of this humility philosophy be given from your posts? Why is it claimed feminists aren't humble?

Most feminists are not humble. They are abrasive, loud, obnoxious, support infanticide, and seek to undermine marriage. Should I bring out some quotes from some feminist leaders and let them speak for themselves?



Wow! That looks exactly like what I said a few posts back

Why do you have a problem with God's authority?



As for the slander bit...how was I unclear when I said the theological argument isn't the slander? The slander is claiming they hate God and are guilty of all sorts of crimes. Disagreeing with people does not afford a license to accuse them of hating God.

Do you even know what slander is? Slander is verbal form. What your accusing me of is libel. At least get it right what your trying to accuse me of. Secondly if you knew anything about law you will find that my statements are not libel at all and are free speech. Opinions are not libel if you knew the law.

If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable.

Fair comment on a matter of public interest, statements made with an honest belief in their truth on a matter of public interest (official acts) are defenses to a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.

So please stop accusing other peoples opinions as libel when you don't even know the conditions of what libel actually is.


Why is it when such fundamentalist positions are advocated almost everything is recognized as "straight forward," except where Jesus said to love our neighbors and our enemies?

Defending people who support infanticide and are rebellious to God's word is loving ones neighbor? Never knew that. Killing ones neighbor maybe, but loving?

As for me being a hypocritical Christian, I completely agree. Iam one of the worst hypocritical Christians around, but that has nothing to do with slandering women nor not responding to counter points

Again read the law before accusing other people of libel on this forum.
 
Upvote 0

cantata

Queer non-theist, with added jam.
Feb 20, 2007
6,215
683
38
Oxford, UK
✟32,193.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
feminist leaders

What's a feminist leader? I'm a feminist, and I've never heard of or felt the need for one, unless you mean women like Emmeline Pankhurst, whom I would imagine even you couldn't find fault with, at least not publicly.
 
Upvote 0
B

B'alaam

Guest
Most feminists are not humble. They are abrasive, loud, obnoxious, support infanticide, and seek to undermine marriage. Should I bring out some quotes from some feminist leaders and let them speak for themselves?
Actually I'd expect better than that
I'd expect quotes from (as you put it), "most feminists"
Not just a few select so-called 'leaders"

Opinions are not libel if you knew the law.
In that, you are correct.

So, Im assuming now that the following is merely your opinion, and not an actual fact, correct?- "Most feminists are not humble. They are abrasive, loud, obnoxious, support infanticide, and seek to undermine marriage."

I eagerly await you admitting that the above statement is not being presented as a 'fact'
Unless, of course, you have direct evidence that supports your assertion (opinion? fact?) that "most" feminists are as you describe them.
 
Upvote 0
B

B'alaam

Guest
What's a feminist leader? I'm a feminist, and I've never heard of or felt the need for one, unless you mean women like Emmeline Pankhurst, whom I would imagine even you couldn't find fault with, at least not publicly.
Wait...you didn't get the invite to the Feminazi Summer Jubilee? All the man-hating Leaders are gonna be there
Shoot, I thought we sent out invites to ALL the feminists of the world
Sorry we missed you, maybe next year k?
^_^
 
  • Like
Reactions: cantata
Upvote 0

RealDealNeverstop

Is Prayer Your First or Last Action?
Sep 15, 2007
15,003
1,290
54
✟43,818.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Yes the bible is self interperating. Even with all the different translations of the bible we still know what the general message says in each verse, with exceptions to verses that are meant to be symbolic like the book of Daniel and Revelation. When the bible says the man is the head of the woman it doubt it means that apples are oranges.




If other peoples responses hold more authority than God's word then you trust man and not God. Also most of the people defending you aren't even christians who have an agenda. And if non-christians are defending you, that is a very bad sign.




Counter points are not scripture. Again you put alot of trust in mens opinions.





Most feminists are not humble. They are abrasive, loud, obnoxious, support infanticide, and seek to undermine marriage. Should I bring out some quotes from some feminist leaders and let them speak for themselves?





Why do you have a problem with God's authority?





Do you even know what slander is? Slander is verbal form. What your accusing me of is libel. At least get it right what your trying to accuse me of. Secondly if you knew anything about law you will find that my statements are not libel at all and are free speech. Opinions are not libel if you knew the law.

If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable.

Fair comment on a matter of public interest, statements made with an honest belief in their truth on a matter of public interest (official acts) are defenses to a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.

So please stop accusing other peoples opinions as libel when you don't even know the conditions of what libel actually is.




Defending people who support infanticide and are rebellious to God's word is loving ones neighbor? Never knew that. Killing ones neighbor maybe, but loving?



Again read the law before accusing other people of libel on this forum.


Okay, it's pretty clear now that if anyone disagrees with a claim about scripture there will be a rubber stamp response accusing them of ignoring God. Even when they reference scripture it is claim they are ignoring God.

As for the libel, that's splitting hairs pretty badly. On a message board we are speaking to each other, not publishing text. We can't hear each other's voices but that doesn't mean this can't happen:

"Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community."

Libel is slander, but only published. Nothing on here is published as what we write is simply a different medium for speaking to each other. To say we can't slander on a board is as silly as saying someone can't go cruising in a car unless they own a PT Cruiser. Moreover, the accusations aren't simply "opinions" so that insults our intelligence and reveals an intellectually dishonest approach. The posts themselves prove it isn't simply an opinion because when I pointed out the problems with interpretation the response was the Bible "interprets itself." So the scapegoat of "opinion" has already been removed.

Know what is pretty bad? When it comes to secular language and defending the slander against women, there is suddenly this desire to delve into specifics about what words mean. But when it comes scripture, it gets glossed over. That reveals a personal agenda over having dialogue about scripture.

Go ahead and tell me how bad of a Christian iam and anything else you wish to throw down on the ad hom level. At the end of the day it doesn't matter because even if iam the worst Christian in history it won't change the fact that scripture is being exploited and twisted to justify domination over women.
 
Upvote 0

JCFantasy23

In a Kingdom by the Sea.
Jul 1, 2008
46,753
6,386
Lakeland, FL
✟509,627.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Here you go for evidence.

"A subset of rapists is driven by abnormal sexual cravings, and lowering their testosterone diminishes those cravings," said Dr. Fred Berlin, an associate professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.


Lowering testosterone also lowers violent tendencies in studies it has shown, not just rape. This would also be arguing rapists are not psychologically impaired so much as chemically imbalanced, taking responsibility out of their hands

“a 1989 German study by Wille and Beier, for instance, compared 99 surgically castrated sex offenders and 35 non-castrated sex offenders about a decade after their release from prison, and found that the recidivism rate of castrated offenders was 3%, while the rate for non-castrated offenders was 46%. . . . studies by James Dabbs et al. (See Crime Times, Vol. 1, No. 3, Page 2 ) . . . strongly suggest a link between elevated testosterone levels and violence, delinquency, substance abuse, and prison rule violations.”


How does castration link to substance abuse or prison rule violations? I am sure many who raped using their male member are unable to do so once castrated. Perhaps it is the psychological affect of castration that makes them lose interest. How is this proving, though, that a high sex drive causes rape? Also, castration does not affect testosterone completely.

  • Pornography's Relationship to Rape and Sexual Violence
    According to one study, early exposure (under fourteen years of age) to pornography is related to greater involvement in deviant sexual practice, particularly rape. Slightly more than one-third of the child molesters and rapists in this study claimed to have at least occasionally been incited to commit an offense by exposure to pornography. Among the child molesters incited, the study reported that 53 percent of them deliberately used the stimuli of pornography as they prepared to offend. [SIZE=-2]i[/SIZE]
Most kids look at nude mags or porn at least once before 14. Heck, I know I read loads of books I probably shouldnt have in elementary school, and that's when puberty hits the strongest, so pre-teens and teens trying to sneak peeks ... well it's common. I seriously doubt that it is true that 1/3 of rapists or child molesters do so because of porn. They may try that as a scapegoat.


The habitual consumption of pornography can result in a diminished satisfaction with mild forms of pornography and a correspondingly strong desire for more deviant and violent material.[SIZE=-2]ii[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]

[/SIZE] As the person becomes more jaded with porn and more experimental in viewing habits, this may be true. But how does this relate to creating rapists?
[SIZE=-2]
[/SIZE]
  • Pornography's Relationship to Child Molestation
    In a study of convicted child molesters, 77 percent of those who molested boys and 87 percent of those who molested girls admitted to the habitual use of pornography in the commission of their crimes.[SIZE=-2]iii[/SIZE] Besides stimulating the perpetrator, pornography facilitates child molestation in several ways. For example, pedophiles use pornographic photos to demonstrate to their victims what they want them to do. They also use them to arouse a child or to lower a child's inhibitions and communicate to the unsuspecting child that a particular sexual activity is okay: "This person is enjoying it; so will you."
Okay, it's pretty simple to me. As a straight person that is not a rapist or molestor, I have found some porn exciting while viewing it. Those interested in children will find child porn interesting. Those interested in rape will find forced played out rape scenarios interesting to view. Do I think it causes one or the other? No. It just is what they are drawn to.

As for using it for molestation purposes, sick people use many sick things to try and get children to bend to their will.

Exposure to Pornography May Incite Children to Act Out
Sexually against Other Children

Children often imitate what they've seen, read, or heard. Studies suggest that exposure to pornography can prompt kids to act out sexually against younger, smaller, and more vulnerable children. Experts in the field of childhood sexual abuse report that any premature sexual activity in children always suggests two possible stimulants: experience and exposure. This means that the sexually deviant child may have been molested or simply exposed to sexuality through pornography.[SIZE=-2]viii[/SIZE]
With kids that are young, this may be true. It is not the same to me by far as an adult rapist or child molester. My 9 year old cousin had my four year old cousin blow him in the closet when they were kids. I do not consider him a rapist or a child molester, just doing something he reallllly shouldn't have been.

Kids try to take a lot by force. Remember when you didn't want to share toys and just grabbed them from someone ? I dont think some kids realize the great significance of some of this forced stuff. When I was 10 my friends younger brother, who was 8, blocked me in the bedroom everytime and said he would not let me pass without kissing him first. I always got away by pushing him down and was stronger. Is he a rapist? No. He is a kid that is not understanding enough of the adult world.

This statement above proves porn is not good for kids. They misunderstand what they see. I will give you that young children fed violent porn may be attracted to violent sex as they are older. I seriously doubt this causes all cases of rape or child molestation, though.

In a study of six hundred American males and females of junior high school age and above, researcher Dr. Jennings Bryant found that 91 percent of the males and 82 percent of the females admitted having been exposed to X-rated, hard-core pornography. Over 66 percent of the males and 40 percent of the females reported wanting to try out some of the sexual behaviors they had witnessed. And among high schoolers, 31 percent of the males and 18 percent of the females admitted actually doing some of the things they had seen in the pornography within a few days after exposure.[SIZE=-2]ix[/SIZE]
But what does this have to do with rape? It is normal for kids to be curious on sex and different sexual positions and experimentation. If they see something in porn that looks exciting, they would be curious to try it. This is more on anti porn than rape though.


Wide-spread economic fluctuations are not the only causes of rape in this context. Within any given community, poor men are far more likely to rape than middle- class and successful men:
It's been said most serial rapists are those who have no power in their life, and cannot function well in jobs and relationships. Usually not school either. This does not cause them to be rapists, but is a side effect and part of their unbalanced personality. They lack power in their lives and try to find that power through forced sex.

I noticed one person said that alcohol was a depressant. Well it all depends on the person. Alcohol dosen't always act as a depressant otherwise we wouldn't be seeing people get in fights and get obnoxious on alcohol. Alcohol in many people causes an increase in libido the same way cocaine and methamphetime does. If you don't know that, then you aren't living in reality.
If a person is inclined to rape, I am sure the alcohol lowers their inhibitions more to where they are more likely to rape. However, they need to have rape in their heart in the first place. Most people who drink are not rapists.
And yes, medically alcohol is a depressant. Men seem to become more aroused but have harder times holding erection and [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] through the use of alcohol. Depressant as a medical term mainly means relaxation/depressant causing.

  • The mystery is that a man is more sexually active than a female. It is because a man has the sexual desire 33 times a week as compared to woman who has the sexual desire of only 9 times a week on an average.
    This means that on an average a man want to have sex around 5 times a day while a woman want to have sex just once in a day so a very high ratio of 5:1 prevails in the desire for sex.
The connection of this between rape is WAY too loose to be taken seriously. You are saying that rape must be because of a high sex drive because most rapists are men...and men have higher sex drives than women. This reasoning does not exclude that there could easily be other reasons it is mainly men that rape, it is an assumption that is too loose with too many other scenarios.


Gee, I wonder why men rape more than women? hmmmmmmmm. Women(these days at least unfortunately) are just as power hungry as men are now. Shouldn't female rape be skyrocking these days?
Women and men are different psychologically when it comes to sex. It's possible to rape a man but a lot rarer for many, many reasons. I am not sure how the above shows cause for rape though, just a statement showing more men than women rape.


About 40 percent of rapists report drinking before an intended rape. Groth said many do this as a way of blocking out their constant sexual thoughts, yet the alcohol only lessens their inhibitions.
This doesn't make sense to me. I have never heard of someone wanting to drink so they will not think about sex. ?? Makes very little sense.

Groth said drugs designed to diminish a person’s sexual urges and the need to rape have been in use since the 1970s. Depo Provera and Depo Lupron, when given to men in small doses, inhibits the production of testosterone and can stunt aggression.


Again, this is circular. I have always believed that high levels of testosterone leads to more violence in men, as it's been shown in many studies. I can't help but wonder why we don't give everyone with overly high testosterone treatment in prison for this and effectively reduce crime this way. Sigh, I suppose this would be too easy.

An overabundance of testosterone causes a feeling of wanting to dominate or control. Bullies, people who want to fight more, more inclined toward rape or violence as your study says. This is true. However, it is not an argument against what anyone else said. Because the high levels of T are creating the psychological imbalance.



Again if sex drive had nothing to do with rape why would they be using drugs like this that reduce sex drive on criminal rapists? ever think of that?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/09/970927110900.htm
Again, these drugs are working because they are evening out imbalances in the body causing excessive aggression


Now again, if sex drive has nothing to do with rape and sexual violence why is there a huge reduction in the percentage of future rape in offenders after they are castrated?
You have shown several good reports of those with excessive levels of testosterone. A high sex drive is not the same thing. Otherwise most women would have virtually no sex drive. High testosterone creates violent tendencies in a person, the need to override others. Hence "The testosterone was high in the room" phrase when men are about to right. People joke on testosterone being high when a man gets into his fighting stance. This is not related to sex drive.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.