Woman MADE him rape her

[Siamanto]

Its very logical to repsect a prostitute more than a s lut.I didnt had any intention to insult you.
For example they are bringing women from ex-soviet countries in west Europe lately and they are treating them exactly like slaves.They promise them that they will help them find a job.I have seen this 100 times.In the end after they move in the foriegn country , without the knowledge of the language ,without any papers , they get beat ,threatend that if they try to go to police they and their families will die.The women then get sold to other ''bussinesmen''and so it continues.It is the modern slave trades.Its happening with young kids as well.
So its quite logical , that i will respect a prostitute which is forced in a situation like that ,more than a s lut which doesnt know what selfrespect means and never heared about a love on a plane higher than that of the merely physical.

RedBrigade,
I don't know if it's "logical" or not; but I understand why one would sympathize with - and understand the situation of - a woman (or man) who accepts a certain form of slavery and/or a diminishing role in order to support her (or his) family or loved ones etc. etc.
Do I understand you correctly? More or less!
However, I don't think that a girl or woman who wears mini skirts or revealing outfits is a "slu*t." One can be a "slu*t" with conservative clothing and one can be a respectable, intelligent, tasteful and loving person with provocative clothing. It just happens that I like much better the latter! Question of taste!
Not every girl or woman wears revealing clothes for the same reasons!

[Red Brigade]

I must apologize - I think I was mistaken in equating RedBrigade's thinking with that of religious fundementalists who think women are sub-human. My apologies to the religious fundementalists.

Men of ill judgment often ignore the point.

[spiral]

Men of ill judgment often ignore the point.

What was your point?

[Red Brigade]

However, I don't think that a girl or woman who wears mini skirts or revealing outfits is a "xxxx." One can be a "xxxx" with conservative clothing and one can be a respectable, intelligent and loving person with provocative clothing. It just happens that I like much better the latter! Question of taste!
Not every girl or woman wears revealing clothes for the same reasons!

I agree with you, i didn't called women who wear skirts s luts.
The definition of a s lut like i said before for me is an individual, male or female, who ignores a love on a plane higher than that of the merely physical, like i said above.

[spiral]

I agree with you, i didn't called women who wear skirts s luts.
The definition of a s lut like i said before for me is an individual, male or female, who ignores a love on a plane higher than that of the merely physical, like i said above.

I wouldn't define xxxx as you did, but let's take your definition.

"A person who ignores love on a plane higher than that of the merely physical."

Belief in 'love' is no different than belief in one's 'god'. It merely comforts people to believe that there is this 'wonderful' thing called 'love'. So the fact that a person does not believe in it does not make them a xxxx.

---------

My definition of xxxx would be, a person (male or female) who allows him/herself to be used like a rag than tossed to the curb. Continuously.


Someone who dresses provocatively does not fit in my/nor your definition.

Even if the woman was a 'xxxx', she did not allow herself, she was forced by 'Aymen'....

..who reminded me of Lenny from Of Mice and Men for some reason... Maybe dumber.

[nairi]

The definition of a s lut like i said before for me is an individual, male or female, who ignores a love on a plane higher than that of the merely physical, like i said above.

Still doesn't justify her being raped.

My question is: how do you know a "s lut" doesn't have psychological problems like a prostitute who only knows how to deal with her problems through sex? Some people take drugs, others take to drinking, and some, well, fall for sex. In other words, instead of labeling a person like that, ask yourself whether she or he is happy with what they are doing. If so, respect it, just like they should respect your celibacy. If not, help them. Judging, for one, won't help them. Blaming them for being raped will probably make the problem even worse. It all boils down to tolerance. As long as they're law-abiding citizens, you have absolutely no reason to disrespect them, just like they have no reason to disrespect you.

[spiral]

"aymen, promise me you'll pray"
-"O.k, I will"


haha

[winoman]

regardless - who are you or anyone to judge what someone determines is best for them. How are you to know that they (these women that you denigrate) don't have conceptions of love from planes "higher" then your conception or anything you might imagine (doesn'ty seem as if it would be difficult)? And even if they do not believe in "higher planes" or such per se - who is it for you to say that dressing in whatever way - be it provocatively - or sexily - of showing a bit of ankle - or what have you - who are you to tell them that they are wrong? Who are you to say that they deserve to be attacked because of the way they might dress? And who are you to denigrate a women for her dress or because perhaps she enjoys sex (and men who do are held to the same standard?) - etc. I fail to understand who made you the authority and why you think you know better then anyone else.

[Red Brigade]

Human Nature

Still doesn't justify her being raped.

My question is: how do you know a "s lut" doesn't have psychological problems like a prostitute who only knows how to deal with her problems through sex? Some people take drugs, others take to drinking, and some, well, fall for sex. In other words, instead of labeling a person like that, ask yourself whether she or he is happy with what they are doing. If so, respect it, just like they should respect your celibacy. If not, help them. Judging, for one, won't help them. Blaming them for being raped will probably make the problem even worse. It all boils down to tolerance. As long as they're law-abiding citizens, you have absolutely no reason to disrespect them, just like they have no reason to disrespect you.

Belief in 'love' is no different than belief in one's 'god'. It merely comforts people to believe that there is this 'wonderful' thing called 'love'. So the fact that a person does not believe in it does not make them a xxxx.

I don't think it is the same, simply because god doesn't exist but the person you love is very real and it is prooven that he/she exists.Love & sexual desire is a complicated issue and there is a huge difrence between them , their origin and their purposes are different.
Love is created by humans , is what i beleive.Sexual erection is natural , it was ''created'' by the nature for us , so we can reproduce ourselves and have descendants.So the s luts are simply falling in their wild insticts created by the nature.It is exactly in this very point that i have my objections.I disagree with the general idea , of men/women falling on their natural insticts,since i do not consider them part of the ''human nature'' as some think.It is the root which brings the disasters in the world of men/women.I beleive that men/women should at last leave our wild insticts aside.Because it is only in this manner that we will live in a world where all of us will live in a world worth to live in.
Everything is about the political volition of the Goverments.To make us live in societies in which everything is based in economy , instead of science and art,philosophy,elements which are used to tame the wild insticts and which are created by men and not by the nature.
Because in a world based in economy and market exchanges , you need to have wild insticts , because the stronger one survives and you have to build your success upon others and become better than them.Every time that you will succeed , you will put someone under you.Economical societies in which are based on rivalry and conflictions , ANTAGONISM between people.Most of those ''educated'' people who attend at ,especialy economical, universities ,and become politicians,bussinesmen, in the future , the first thing that they are taught is that without an antagonistic society it is not possible for a country , the world and the humans generaly to advance and prosper.Its quite obvious and we can see that , this system didn't worked for us in the last century,since the majority of the people around the world are living in poverty, hence the system is failed and is made on purpose to fail and benefit the few and capable.
My suggestion is that the world should change a direction of 180 degrees.The world as a whole should be built based on education , science, arts ,philosophy.It is a matter of EDCUATION ( ΠΑΙΔΕΙΑ ).Everyone according to their basic needs.Because when you have to worry all the time about if you are going to have food or money to pay your bills tomorow, you will always have this primitive insticts , which after so many years of evolution still are in us.Our education in the school is made and designed in such a way , according the needs of the free market.Thus it is imposible to prosper in such a society , since the masses will never gain general full knowledge ,to gain a critical way of thinking ,they will always keep their wild insticts,and never care about things more important than this $.
So this is my conclusion : that in a world , that everything is built in the name of profit and antagonism, we are doomed , to live with those consequences and keep our untamed insticts , since it is the only way for us to survive in such an antagonistic, economical based world.Humans react according to the environment that they live in and it is this environment which eventualy defines the behaviour of the humans.If we don't reconstruct this environment then nothing will change.We have the capability to change this environment and way of life, hence our own ''human nature'' and behaviour,it is simply on our own very hands.

[Red Brigade]

regardless - who are you or anyone to judge what someone determines is best for them. How are you to know that they (these women that you denigrate) don't have conceptions of love from planes "higher" then your conception or anything you might imagine (doesn'ty seem as if it would be difficult)? And even if they do not believe in "higher planes" or such per se - who is it for you to say that dressing in whatever way - be it provocatively - or sexily - of showing a bit of ankle - or what have you - who are you to tell them that they are wrong? Who are you to say that they deserve to be attacked because of the way they might dress? And who are you to denigrate a women for her dress or because perhaps she enjoys sex (and men who do are held to the same standard?) - etc. I fail to understand who made you the authority and why you think you know better then anyone else.

Aut tace, aut loquere meliora silentio.