From: ddfr@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com   
      
   In article ,   
    Aqua  wrote:   
      
   > David Friedman wrote:   
   > > In article ,   
   > >  Aqua  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >> David Friedman wrote:   
   > >>> In article ,   
   > >>>  Aqua  wrote:   
   > >>>   
   > >>>> David Friedman wrote:   
   > >>>>> In article ,   
   > >>>>>  "Suzanne Blom"  wrote:   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>>>> "Brainwashed into" meaning "hold different views on the subject than   
   > >>>>>>> you   
   > >>>>>>> do?" Presumably animals that exhibit similar patterns of behavior   
   > >>>>>>> have   
   > >>>>>>> also been brainwashed into them?   
   > >>>>>>>   
   > >>>>>> Very few animals engage in nonconsensual sexual behavior.  Ducks are   
   > >>>>>> perhaps   
   > >>>>>> the major counterexample.   
   > >>>>> The question isn't nonconsensual behavior but ambiguous behavior. A lot   
   > >>>>> of animal courtship looks as though the male is   
   > >>>>> seducing/bribing/bullying the female into sex, with the female   
   > >>>>> initially   
   > >>>>> reluctant. Aqua, observing similar behavior in humans, interprets it as   
   > >>>>> the result of the brainwashing of females.   
   > >>>> Excuse me, the fu@k?   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> Animals don't have money, indoor plumbing, contraception, etc, etc, etc.   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> You honestly think human sex is conducted on some kind of   
   > >>>> pre-linguistic, pre-cultural level?   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> Remind me never to be on the same continent as you.   
   > >>> I think observing animal behavior gives us some information about what   
   > >>> behavior patterns are built-in and what patterns are the result of the   
   > >>> ways in which humans differ from animals. You observe a pattern we share   
   > >>> with lots of other species--and confidently assert that it is the result   
   > >>> of "brainwashing," i.e. of conditions we don't share with other species.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> It isn't logically impossible, but it isn't the way to bet.   
   > >> This is still complete and utter bulls^%t.   
   > >>   
   > >> Most animals do not have rape.   
   > >   
   > > I didn't say they did, as you should be able to figure out by reading   
   > > what I posted.   
   > >   
   > >> As Helen points out, most female animals are perfectly capable of   
   > >> demonstrating just how uninterested they are in sex if they're not on   
   > >> heat.   
   > >>   
   > >> Even in species where the female initially shows reluctance or has to be   
   > >> persuaded, there's a long, long way from initial reluctance to having a   
   > >> penis inside an unwilling vagina.   
   > >>   
   > >> Please show me the "pattern we share with lots of other species".   
   > >   
   > > The pattern of apparent reluctance to mate by females--even when, as   
   > > shown by their later behavior, they are willing, or willing to be   
   > > persuaded. That was a pattern in humans that you were attributing to   
   > > brainwashing.   
   >   
   > NO, I was not.   
   >   
   > Do stop mis-representing me to suit your side of the argument.   
   >   
   > What I was attributing to brainwashing was the behaviour of some western   
   > women _while_having_penis_in_vagina_sex_ (not during courtship) that   
   > apparently means some western men can't tell if the sex they're having   
   > is consensual or not.   
      
   That may be what you meant, but it was not clear that you meant it from   
   what you posted. Once the intercourse starts, the rape has already   
   happened, supposing that there isn't consent. So the ambiguity that is   
   relevant to the argument is ambiguity in whether or not the woman's   
   behavior prior to intercourse signals consent. My point was that   
   ambiguity in that behavior was a pattern we share with lots of other   
   species.   
      
   > The stereotype represented by "lie back and think of England"   
      
   Which, as you may know, seems to be a bogus historical anecdote. The   
   nearest Victoria is known to have come to that was advice on   
   childbearing, not intercourse.   
      
   > or "beige   
   > - I think I'll paint the loungeroom beige".  The brainwashing that leads   
   > some women to have rape fantasies - not because they want to be raped,   
   > but because the indoctrination against choosing to have and enjoying sex   
   > is so powerful.   
      
   How do you know that's the reason for such fantasies? We don't know what   
   fantasies other species have, but we do know that females of some other   
   species mate with males who behave in an aggressive way that looks a lot   
   like rape from our standpoint. How would you find out whether your   
   asserted fact is true?   
      
   ...   
      
   > I also get the impression it's part of your way of thinking about sex,   
   > by for example your claim that the only difference between rape and sex   
   > is consent.   
      
   That is, indeed, the legal distinction--putting aside the special case   
   of statutory rape, which is classified as rape on the theory that the   
   minor party is incapable of giving legally relevant consent.   
      
   > To me, that's exactly analogous to saying the only   
   > difference between theft and gift-giving is consent, but you're very   
   > resistant to that idea.   
      
   On the contrary. As I think you could see by reading what I wrote, what   
   I am resistant to is not the idea that the difference between theft and   
   gift-giving is consent but the idea that forms of gift-giving whose   
   observable circumstances look like the circumstances of theft are common   
   enough to be a source of significant confusion between the two.   
      
   --   
    http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/   
    Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.   
    Published by Baen, paperback in bookstores now   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)