So Asperger's is a mitigating circumstance for rape?

Post Reply New Topic

I think the only point he's trying to make is that he doesn't like women very much to the extent that he will attack one that's been raped and try to sow distrust against women who've been victimized. What his motivation is for that specifically is something that only he likely understands because only he knows his own history with women.

I suspect finding a point will require redefining the word point. The poster in question seems to draw from a deep well of rage and resentment, not logic as commonly understood.

You got lost on tattoos and piercings.

Gems and precious metals can be worn as clip-ons or jewelry (which never penetrates living flesh). Pretty pictures can be worn on fabrics, painted on skin, or canvases, hung on the wall.

I maintain that it is an example of willful self harm, because what is more important, you or the ornament?

I believe she has objectified herself. That, possibly before the alleged rape. She has put herself in an untenable position, even before carving herself up.

Those who consider themselves valuable, sacred, possibly, holier-than-thou, would typically avoid those kinds-of opportunities. I know this has been called victim blaming.

But, she would like to be considered accountable.

Then, at which point, before or after.

Also, what does stewardship of the body entail. What is an improvement. What is pleasurable, and what is damage.

It's been called victim blaming because that's what it is. I don't expect you to be able to see that through your obvious hatred of and disdain for women, however. Your opinions on body modification in regards to women are typically sexist, misinformed, and generally unoriginal. I mean, obviously she deserved to get raped and basically asked for it because afterwards she got some tattoos or whatever. That is perfectly sane logic.

Already noted.

(Mostly shtick.)


So, my "obvious hatred and disdain" entails not putting any more holes in yourself and protecting your modesty.

I have no intention of harming you, personally, or allowing you to be harmed, against your will.

On rare occasions, I have risked my own safety.

My "modesty" is none of your business, and the concept of women's "modesty" being important and needing to be protected is incredibly sexist and patronizing and has nothing to do with sexual assault. The fact that you can't talk about sexual assault without bringing in "women's modesty" repeatedly tells me all I need to know about your sexist outdated perspective. You are a patriarchal dinosaur, and your type are dying out. I understand that's difficult to face, and probably makes you feel isolation and despair. Maybe that should be an indication to re-examine your perspective. It probably won't be though, as you sound older and pretty set in your ways.

I find it highly ironic, that I should be one of the kinds that women find exotic and dangerous. I am not a pretty boy, wouldn't typically use any well-thought-out lines, and really don't have any mean intentions, toward you. No problems with heteronormative women. Maybe, the cheerleaders are dinosaurs, too.



Lots of these kinds of people don't find me objectionable, in all honesty.

I'm not sure how you mean heteronormative here. Are you trying to imply that I must be a lesbian or androgynous or something because I find your sexism disgusting? Because I'm straight and rather feminine. I just don't care for sexism like the kind you're displaying here. Nothing you have expressed here gives you an air of "exoticism and dangerousnous"--more like an air of old times long past, and attitudes that long ago went out of fashion that older people cling to because they are afraid of change and of dealing with other human beings as equals. I don't really care what women in your life think of you, I only care you follow the rules of this site and not spew sexism at the women here. If you can't do that, you should find an audience of women elsewhere who find your ideas "exotic and dangerous". They should be easy to find, I'm sure.

P.S. I didn't watch the videos you posted. I'm not really interested in your sexism, other than to remove it from this forum.

All of the heffalumps and Sarkeesians alienate the (female) breeders, and have the cucks afraid to interact with women, in any way. You have probably forced people together, who never would have met, without you -- like they were the last two people, left on Earth.

Now, let's say that someone is struggling with an armload of books. It's a windy day, and a heavy door, and I just show sympathy, like I would to any other person. There is nothing at all risqué, in mind.

How does that make me look.

In my experience, it has made me stand out, just being a dumb boyscout. There is nothing original about it, at all. You want to say that I am selfish. I guess, I do it out of self-respect. I am not being clever. If I tell the truth, or just do what seems right, when everyone else is afraid, I actually do come across as aggressive.

You want to call me dinosauric, but there are cavewomen, who appreciate it, probably about 1 in 5-ish. No lie. They let you know who they are, without subtlety. There is no need for kludgy guesswork, on my part. And, it really doesn't matter, anyway. I wouldn't sit there and watch something bad happen to you, like it or not.

Sexism is not allowed here. The whole premise of this thread is offensive and the direction it's going is offensive. I don't know if it needs to be locked as the topic of discussion has veered off into a fight between people.

Has she asked for help, now.

See you, and don't wreck yourself.

The OP intended the title to come across as ironic, never imagining that any douchebag would try to vilify the victim of stranger rape. One can predict that douchebags will vilify the victims of the far more common date rape, but this seems excessive, even among douchebags.

As a woman, that someone would defend a violent rapist scumbag does not at all surprise me. It happens all the time. Ask any of the women in your life and they will likely tell you the same thing, that they've witnessed such behaviour being defended before. Remember, most rapists never see a jail cell--and a lot of those rapists that are floating around out there free have internet access just like you do, and an agenda to push. They have to support each other in their terrorizing of victims and potential victims, to try to discourage women from going to police, to keep women afraid, so they can keep doing what they do with impunity. The anonymity of the internet is the perfect venue for this to happen.

There is another online commenting community that I belong to that is mostly a feminist community, and any time there is an article about sexual assault it draws such predator trolls out of the woodwork. They all say the same kind of things, and they all share the same agenda--to discredit and terrorize victims of sexual violence, and to generally terrorize women and try to shift the blame for sexual violence onto victims to support themselves and other predators and to make their predation easier to get away with. But hey, rape culture doesn't exist right? Don't assume everyone thinks rape is wrong and disgusting behaviour--women know better. We get reminded all the time there are those who support it and think it is all the fault of victims not being "modest" enough, like friedmacguffins has done here. He is not an insignificant minority--there are more men out there like him than most decent men assume.

The poster of whom you speak has in the recent past expressed the same kind of barely concealed venom directed at racial minorities and poor people. That, and he is part of the Trumpian cult.

I never especially promoted Trump, personally.

Also, it seems to me, that noone should be more prudish than a third wave feminist. They get mad at other women, for putting on too much of a show. (So, do Amish and Islamist people.) And, feminists put careerism ahead of relationships (rhetorically).

So, she is picking the helpmeet, who is supposed lend moral support to her, perhaps, in some marriage of convenience. Why doesn't that imply that she is extremely selective.

You are basically taking the most notorious aspects of patriarchy, and turning them 180 degrees, in the opposite direction.

But, male chauvinists care who they are seen with, publicly. They are selective, physically, financially, and frugal with moral vices.

I just don't see this, in female chauvinists, not that it has to be that way. There is nothing actually keeping them from being responsible, is there. Either they are incapable, or it's a moral flaw.

as far as i understand this a legal long shot due to how it could be used in another case (it would set a dangerous precedent )