The Film Thread

[Letters]

As I said, there are ways that women may act which potentially puts them at more risk but that absolutely doesn't mitigate and shouldn't be brought up in court.
If I went into a jewellers and noticed the cabinet had been left unlocked so nicked a load of stuff the fact it was left unlocked wouldn't be a factor in the ensuing court case.
"They were asking for it..."

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

No I think the level of intoxication has to be a factor. Otherwise we are simply stating that if a woman claims she's been raped she's been raped.

Take one of the examples in the Wikipedia entry, if they guy believed he had raped her and it had not been consensual it's fair to say he wouldn't have even mentioned what happened to her

[Power n Glory]

Men generally are the ones who do the chasing when it comes to relationships and women are the chased. It's a simplification but it's generally how things are.
And that is not because of "society", it's just a reflection of men and women being different and that is part of our nature.
In nature in plenty of species the male just goes up to the female and gets on with it, there doesn't seem to be much consent going on. I'm sure thousands of years ago it was the same for humans and that must have been so for most of our history as a species, so one could argue what we now call sexual assault is in our "nature".
We, of course, have now evolved beyond that. We have morals and laws and that is no longer deemed appropriate but the underlying nature remains. If we lived in a perfect world everyone would follow those morals, but we don't.
Were there no difference between the genders you'd expect an equal number of assaults by men on women and by women on men but that's not what happens. The fact that it's men who commit most of these offences is a reflection of our nature.

And the fact that women get better maternity leave than men get paternity and do better in divorce cases is a reflection of women being thought as the primary carer and men being thought of as the "provider". And that also goes back to what we see in many species in nature, men and women simply have different roles. The idea that a man would be the stay at home dad and the woman would be the one going out to work is a very recent idea. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but it isn't traditionally how things have been.

It's a real worry that you’re having a problem distinguishing the difference between courting and sexual assault/rape. It’s also funny to hear you use evolution to back up your argument. Genesis says nothing about our nature being likened to the animals. But we can side step that debate.

There has to be a level of self-control. If we were to talk about cases involving minors, we’re not going to talk about what the girl was wearing or make any excuses for a man’s ‘nature’ or what provoked him. Think about what you’re saying for second.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

I could be wrong but you appear to be conflating defence in court/mitigation with Rape prevention.

The simple fact is predators going to be predators and whilst there is no excuse for their behaviour, it's not unreasonable to state that in order to prevent yourself being a victim of this predator, if you're going to get drunk make sure you're in a group of people. The same way crime prevention ads advise people to leave their lights on when they go out at night to avoid being burgled.

[Letters]

It's a real worry that you’re having a problem distinguishing the difference between courting and sexual assault/rape.

I'm not. You asked about our nature. I'm comparing our nature (millions of years of evolution) and our society (thousands of years of morals and laws)

It’s also funny to hear you use evolution to back up your argument. Genesis says nothing about our nature being likened to the animals. But we can side step that debate.

We can, but I don't believe Genesis to be a science book. To me it is revealing deeper truths.

There has to be a level of self-control.

Of course. I never argued differently.

If we were to talk about cases involving minors, we’re not going to talk about what the girl was wearing or make any excuses for a man’s ‘nature’ or what provoked him.

No, but it is not "natural" for men (or women) to be wanting to have sex with minors. Sex is about reproduction. In modern times women start menstruating much younger but historically that wasn't so, so in terms of what natural men shouldn't be wanting to have sex with minors. That is a completely different argument. On a side note, the age of consent is fairly arbitrary and varies from country to country.

Think about what you’re saying for second.

I have. I'm not clear what you're disagreeing with me about.

[Power n Glory]

No, but it is not "natural" for men (or women) to be wanting to have sex with minors. Sex is about reproduction. In modern times women start menstruating much younger but historically that wasn't so, so in terms of what natural men shouldn't be wanting to have sex with minors. That is a completely different argument. On a side note, the age of consent is fairly arbitrary and varies from country to country.

Where did you get that from? Minors were being married off way back when.

We can, but I don't believe Genesis to be a science book. To me it is revealing deeper truths.

What's the deeper truth? Either way we cut it, whether we believe man was made in the image of God or millions of years of evolution, both sides of the coin believe we should demonstrate self-control since we are not animals.

It’s all getting lost in the sauce but some pretty messed reasoning going on here.

[Letters]

The deeper truth that I think Genesis is claiming is that we are a creation and were created for a purpose. The nuts and bolts of how and when are for science to sort out.

We might not think of ourselves as animals but some of our behaviours do come from our animal past. Obviously we now have morals and don't just wallow in our own shit (well, mostly because of MrsL in my case), but things like the "fight or flight" response come from way back in our past.

And I didn't get it "from" anywhere, I thought it was quite well known that due to better nutrition or whatever girls start their periods earlier but since you asked I found this:
https://www.bustle.com/articles/1144...ughout-history

Yes, young girls were being married off hundreds of years ago, probably thousands. The idea of a what is a socially acceptable consent age has changed over time. But I'm talking about behaviours which come from much longer timescales.

You say my reasoning is "messed up" but once again have not been clear about what you disagree with me about.

[Power n Glory]

This is a funny conversation. You’re talking about what’s natural and historical for gender but then throw in evolution and how societal norms have changed over the years. If that’s what you lean on, couldn’t it be argued that what we’re seeing today and changes in how gender is considered is just a part evolution and not just some PC agenda? Not so sure about trying to marry evolution and Christianity together. One has ideas set in stone and the other is based on nature adapting to an environment.

[Letters]

couldn’t it be argued that what we’re seeing today and changes in how gender is considered is just a part evolution and not just some PC agenda?

I don't think so because there is no evolutionary pressure for these things. 2 genders is the best model for the continuation of life which is what drives evolution.
It's debatable whether we are still evolving, I'd imagine not or not in any major way simply because the whole survival of the fittest thing, which is what creates evolutionary pressure, no longer applies because of modern medicine and ethics which allow people to breed who back in the way would have died long before that was possible. Not saying that is a bad thing btw!

Christianity does have set in stone, quite literally #10commandments. But IMO it has little to say about the mechanics of how life developed. As I said I don't believe Genesis is intended to be read scientifically. Many Christians disagree with me but to me the evidence is pretty compelling for an old earth and some form of evolution.

[Power n Glory]

I don't think so because there is no evolutionary pressure for these things. 2 genders is the best model for the continuation of life which is what drives evolution.
It's debatable whether we are still evolving, I'd imagine not or not in any major way simply because the whole survival of the fittest thing, which is what creates evolutionary pressure, no longer applies because of modern medicine and ethics which allow people to breed who back in the way would have died long before that was possible. Not saying that is a bad thing btw!

Christianity does have set in stone, quite literally #10commandments. But IMO it has little to say about the mechanics of how life developed. As I said I don't believe Genesis is intended to be read scientifically. Many Christians disagree with me but to me the evidence is pretty compelling for an old earth and some form of evolution.

There is pressure. We’re overpopulated. I’ve heard theories about homosexuality being mother nature’s way of dealing with an over population. Theories on why more women are being born than men.