There was one more thing those doctors did .... they failed to inform the patients they had syphilis. Because of that, the disease probably spread to their lovers, whether married or not.

I would consider that incredibly irresponsible on the part of the doctors.

Besides, why would the study need to go on for so long? It started in 1932. By 1947 penicillin was standard treatment (it was discovered in 1928). Why were the men still being studied until 1972? That's 25 years after penicillin was standard treatment and 44 years after penicillin was discovered.

And you want to say that blacks shouldn't consider racism a key factor in this experiment? That they shouldn't be mistrustful of a government that allowed such an experiment to go on until it was leaked to the press? How much longer do you suppose this experiment might have gone on if the press didn't get wind of it? How long should an experiment to watch the twisted effects of syphilis be allowed to go on?

Can you truly and honestly say this experiment would have been allowed to go on if those people were all white?

Ahhhh yes. There was no racism involved in Tuskeegee. *eyeroll*

I saw a documentary where several of the physicians involved in Tuskeegee flat out ADMITTED their racism - saying things like "blacks are more prone to promiscuity because they have smaller brains", "they are less clean", etc etc etc.

Here is a quote:

Taliford Clark of the Health Service explained why. "Macon County," he wrote, "is a natural laboratory; a ready-made situation. The rather low intelligence of the Negro population, depressed economic conditions, and the common promiscuous sex relations not only contribute to the spread of syphilis but the prevailing indifference with regard to treatment."

( http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/may97/tuskegee_5-16.html )

Denying the racism at the roots of the Tuskeegee experiment is just as ignorant as denying the Holocaust happened.

Edyt, Amanda: The author merely repeated that some questioned whether racism was in play. Let's all agree it was. And let's all agree the study was an atrocity. But the US government did not inject these men with syphilis, as Wright is claiming to go on to claim the US government injected blacks with HIV.

Furthermore, it was liberal government do-gooders behind it all.

Jill,

Looks like the others beat me to it.
As has been demonstrated there was clearly racism inherent in the experiment and they had PLENTY of room to give them penicillin. Penicillin was discovered before the experiment started and was the standard treatment only 10 years later, when the experiment was still going on.

Seriously, this was wayyy off base. You are simultaneously saying you care about black people (abortion rates etc) but also, this injustice (that has been quite a learning experience for the medical and scientific community) was no big deal. Kind of contradictory here. It's like saying you are supportive of black people, it's just that slavery was "not that bad."

As much as I wish I could disagree with Amanda and Edyt and disprove what they say, I can't. That is what distresses me most of all.

Yes, Jill it is certainly much kinder to deliberately withhold treatment for syphilis than to infect someone with it and then withhold treatment. Certainly African-Americans should not harbor any suspicion or ill will as a result of the Tuskeegee "experiments".

Suggestion- think before you write and have someone else read it before you post it.

These people were treated like lab rats - nothing nore noble than that. It was contemptible and inexcusable. And it would have been wrong no matter who this was done to. The fact that it was done to blacks was simply because the doctors knew they could get away with it.

Edyt, Amanda: The author merely repeated that some questioned whether racism was in play. Let's all agree it was. And let's all agree the study was an atrocity. But the US government did not inject these men with syphilis, as Wright is claiming to go on to claim the US government injected blacks with HIV.

We all know Wright makes a lot of baseless claims. That doesn't mean you should set out to disprove each and every one of them -- particularly this one about syphilis which was clearly racist. It doesn't matter that people weren't given syphilis. It was racist. And if someone wasn't treated for HIV/AIDS, there was often homophobic notions at play, even when the patient wasn't gay. When politics are at play, the patient suffers.

Furthermore, it was liberal government do-gooders behind it all.

Of course. I should have known this was just another attempt to take a stab at liberals. Wow. You're doing the same thing Wright is.

Jill -

It is very clear from the way the author phrased it that he does not believe racism was a factor, and you have reposted this nonsense without a remark to indicate you disagree with anything he said.

"Prior to the availability of penicillin in the 1940s and 1950s, the researchers couldn't have treated the men even if they wanted to."

BS. It was okay to experiment on them when it came to seeing how the disease effected them, but using them as trials for the effectiveness of Penicillian was wrong? RIIIIIGHT.

"Even after standardized penicillin treatments were available, it wasn't clear that the patients could have been helped. Some of the doctors believed that treating the decades-long infections would kill the men. "

BS again. So its better to just watch them die than try to treat them because it "wasn't clear"? Come on Jill... you've got to be kidding.

"Among scholars who've studied Tuskegee, there's a lot of debate about how much -- if any -- racism was involved in the experiment. But no one disputes that Tuskegee had nothing whatsoever to do with genocide or even a desire to spread the disease among the black population. "

Okay I get it. Actively giving them a disease is wrong, but denying them informed consent, lying to them, concealing information from them, isolating them, and letting them suffer and die long after they could have been treated is not really as big of a deal. Those silly black people should just get over it. Besides, it was just those damn liberals fault!! (like EVERYTHING else, right?)

*hint: when all else fails, just point fingers at people.*

(aren't you always the one correcting people who say Lincoln and others throughout history, recent and distant were liberals - because it meant something different back then?)

If I were you, I'd be embarassed by this post.

"But the US government did not inject these men with syphilis, as Wright is claiming to go on to claim the US government injected blacks with HIV."

Well duh, that part is no secret. Did it warrant an entire article. All one needs to do is read the report or do light research to find that out.

"but also, this injustice (that has been quite a learning experience for the medical and scientific community) was no big deal."

Before you jump on me for this, I know it being an atrocity is being addressed. But the 'no big deal' part is basically the idea that it wasn't that racist or the implication that some of the facts weren't 'as bad' (injecting vs non-treating, both are still bad.). And then, instead of calling it what it was, it was all really 'the liberals' fault.' It subtly demeans what happened and what we can learn from it.

These men may have been in the "tertiary" stage of syphillis, which while not contagious, is syphillis at its worst. Insanity, (Mob boss Al Capone went insane from tertiary syphillus), as well as internal organ damage, nervous system damage and skin ulceration.
This was hardly some benign disease process. These men, as well as their families, likely suffered terribly.
Would Goldberg have a different perspective if this "experiment" had taken place in a veteran's hospital?

Amanda, I agree that you as a liberal should be embarrassed by this post.

And Amanda said, "Okay I get it. Actively giving them a disease is wrong, but denying them informed consent, lying to them, concealing information from them, isolating them, and letting them suffer and die long after they could have been treated is not really as big of a deal."

Amanda, you're simply too smart to pull this crap. I've always given you more credit than this. Debate honestly.

Of course you're purposefully missing the point, that Obama's pastor, "mentor," as he put it, is a lunatic who plays fast and loose with facts for his own means.

This has to be one of the more stupid posts I've read here in awhile. If not the MOST inane.

FACT: This was a pointless study because at that point in time (the 1930's) we already KNEW the various stages of syphilis and how it progresses when it's left untreated. There was a limerick published in JAMA in 1932 (the same year the Tuskegee "experiment" began) which in DETAIL describes the progression of syphilis from the chancre to neurosyphilis. Given, that this was just published in 1932 in LIMERICK form means that the progression of untreated syphilis was already common knowledge.

FACT: As previously stated, penicillin was introduced in 1928 and within 10 years of its discovery it was being used to treat bacterial infections. Syphilis had already been described as a bacterium and they had been using an arsenic based anti-microbic to treat it since 1908- 20 years before the discovery of PENICILLIN (which was the TREATMENT OF CHOICE by 1947- 15 years after Tuskegee started). They also used malaria to cure/treat late-stage syphilis because they had a treatment/"cure" for malaria at the time.

It is quite easy to point out Wright is a conspiracy theorist nut job without downplaying one of the most horrendously, obviously racist, downright HORRIBLE things our government has done to people.

The article you posted is CLEARLY downplaying Tuskegee, even going so far as to insinuate it wasn't racist.

This isn't even a matter of debate. What occured is FACT. What the people responsible to have even admitted is FACT. The article you posted frames the whole thing as though because the men were not actively infected, its really no big deal and they should just get over it. I find that offensive and ridiculous.

What did I say in that post that was in any way dishonest Jill? Or do you just have a problem admitting that all actually happened?

So Jill, should you be embarrassed too? You're a medical professional, after all, and that's who carried out the experiment.

I think that liberals *should* learn a lesson from Tuskegee, which is that racism can poison even something that is originally well-intended (learning more about a disease is itself a worthwhile goal).

By the way, I think you overestimate the amount that African-Americans really trust the Democratic Party. They just trust the Republicans *even less*. And painting the Democrats as the party of "ever-expanding government power" is laughable when the Republicans are the ones who want to put more people in jail, invade more countries, and spy on Americans. Talk about ignoring the log in your own eye...

Jill - the timing of this post seems to coincide with the objective/subjective (morality stances) discussion that was going on in the Shvarts comments thread last night and this morning.

Any correlation? (Other than the obvious news stream?)

As far as cultural relativism is concerned this seems to be a great case for discussing that idea.

Would it be too much to look to that civility that seemed to be so clear cut this morning?

AMEN to Jen R.

YES Jen R

I would venture to say this article is a desperate attempt to link any and everything with abortion. Gotta say, though, I just don't see the connection.

Rae 3:33PM

Its likely much was already known, I don't know how it could not have been. Syphillis was hardly new. I'm sure observing war veterans and ladies of dubious repute over the decades prior to there being any effective treatment answered any questions concerning the long term effects of syphillis and enabled the medical authors to write the article you mentioned.

In the movie "Of Human Bondage" based on the book which was written in 1915, the main character, a doctor, immediately recognizes the symptoms tertiary syphillis in a prostitute and is well aware of her fate. Obviously people, even those not in the medical field as this author, were already knowledgable of syphillis and its stages and symptoms.

Would it be too much to look to that civility that seemed to be so clear cut this morning?

// Clarification- this statement was intended for everyone and not simply for Jill.

@Mary: Exactly. They knew exactly what the course of the disease was. They just wanted to see if it was "different" in black people- like they were a different SPECIES entirely...which is laughable. They knew exactly what would happen because syphilis has been around probably since the dawn of time. Syphilis (particularly tertiary syphilis) was often used in art and literature during the 1500's.

People have been studying syphilis for years, and have been trying different treatments (like mercury, common in the 1700-1800's) for the disease throughout the ages.

They gathered absolutely no new information in this "experiment" (if you can even call it that).

Oooh... Mary, you think that would be on Netflix? *goes to check*

I wish I could remember the name of the documentary I saw. We watched it in my ethics course freshman year of HS.

They actually showed video footage of white people lining up for penicillian shots taken within days of footage of the black men in the experiment having blood drawn, having spinal taps, and being told they had "the bad blood". It was so hard to watch. Looking around the room when we were watching it, I noticed almost everyone was crying or at least a little misty.

The worst part was the interviews that were conducted in the 70s with several of the doctors involved who were still completely unapologetic, able to look right in to the camera and make claims about black people having smaller brains, LONG after it was proven without a doubt that was a lie.

haha, Rae, I did my senior Epi thesis paper on congential syphilis if you're interested in a thrilling page turner. =)

in addition to what you mentioned, they were even aware of the danger of congenital syphilis way back in the 1700s.

None of this stuff was a really a mystery by the 40s.

There were two(maybe more) versions. I'm sure you can find them on Netflix or Amazon. The first in 1934 with Bette Davis as the prostitute, the second in the 1960's with Kim Novak in the role and Laurence Harvey as the doctor. I liked the 1960's version. I found it a rather emotionally draining film but an excellent one.
Due to public sensibilities at that time(1934), its more of an insinuation that she had syphillis, though if I recall correctly in the 1960's version, it was said she had syphillis.

Given last night's thread, if morality is really culturally relative, then how could what happened be considered wrong, in the sense that it is morally wrong?

It seems that one culture's opinion of the horror (today) is calling another culture's opinion (in the past) a moral outrage.

If morality really is culturally relative as was argued, then there should be no basis for that outrage.

Could someone - perhaps Edyt, please explain the reasoning why this is morally wrong and why your outrage isn't merely your own subjective opinion. (I believe that phylosopher called that the conventionalist stance).

Thanks.

@Amanda: I'd love to read it. You have my email via facebook, right? I'd like to read about something that's not leprosy or whooping cough (the two things I've been reading journal articles on...*vomit*).

Amanda, I'm still looking at going into public health, but instead of epidemiology (yawn), I want to do something in which I can work in STD and pregnancy prevention...would that be considered "maternal/child" public health?

Amanda you know that they weren't injected with syphillis.

Pip, you know they weren't injected.

Jen R, you know they weren't injected.

But I was listening to Michael Medved last week and a number of callers brought this up, thinking that they HAD been injected.

So, the misconception is out there.
There is NOTHING right about what went on in Tuskegee. It was horrible. I can't imagine anyone trying to defend or downplay it.

I think the point of this post was simply to point out how easily a lie can be accepted as truth if told often enough.

Like the amount of deaths caused by illegal abortions before Roe V Wade.

If Rev. Wright continues to perpetuate the lie that the government infected homosexuals with HIV, sooner or later it could become accepted as truth and in 50 years we'll be having this discussion again.

What happened in Tuskegee was horrible. And as Chris said, the convoluted moral somersaults that were done to make the experiment seem "kosher" are a perfect example of the hoops we are willing to jump through to justify doing something that is clearly wrong. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. And the doctors that treated these black patients did it too.

The connection to abortion, is that people twist and turn the objective moral truth that abortion is evil, and somehow make it seem good. As Doug would say, it's all in the eye of the beholder. But what happens when the beholders are mad men?

MK,

Good point. Dehumanize the victims, view their lives as having little value, and you can "justify" just about anything.

Sent Rae - though I realized I only have the draft on this comptuer - the final was pretty much the same, only a few pages longer with more sources cited.

And yes, that would be maternal/child public health, which is what my concentration was. I loved it for the 5 years I was involved, but the downside, which I've lamented about often, is the utter disregard for a living wage in most of the positions available for those qualifications. I just couldn't reconcile spending 100k for a masters degree to make less than 40k a year. So instead I'm focusing on speech therapy and hoping I can pull my interest in public health in to it, while continuing to be active as a volunteer in the maternal/child field. Things may be very different where you're at, but in Boston, the only MPH jobs that pay a living wage are research (epi) based. BLAH.

I think the point of this post was simply to point out how easily a lie can be accepted as truth if told often enough.

That's a fine point, and I'm sure it's your point, but I don't think it's Jill's.

I think Jill's/Goldberg's point is to smear liberalism, with a side of "aren't blacks stupid to still vote for Democrats?"

@Amanda: I'm thinking of taking a "back way" into Public Health and not outright getting an MPH or a PhD in public health. As it stands, I'm going to finish my microbiology degree and pick up a second major in "clinical laboratory sciences" so I can be qualified as a lab technician (you know, the really important people, lol, the ones who do all the tests for the doctors :-p).

Then I plan to work at that for a few years to gain some "life experience" and what not before going to graduate school in microbial pathogenesis (or something). :) I think a good strong background in science will be a great help in getting a job with the department of health.

However, I do think it's BS that they pay people in maternal/child public health so poorly when that is probably the MOST important component of public health. Healthy mothers and babies = healthier population = lower healthcare costs!

People are stuuuuupid.

mk said But what happens when the beholders are mad men?

Ah...good point MK. Nietzsche, who went mad and died from syphilis, understood that without an immovable, immutable, universal transcendent objective morality, we could go mad - that there was a real risk in killing God.

His parable The Madman touches upon that idea, and what Nietzsche sees is something incomprehensibly dark and sinister for humanity. Replacing God with ourselves.

Nietzsche was Hitler's favorite philosopher, and inspired the idea of the Aryan superman.

Where does cultural relativism lead?

Ugh, this post was almost as stupid as Jill's Sweet and Sour Fetus one awhile back.

Not only is the prolife connection a big a stretch as Wright's using this example to prove the government created HIV, it's also downright offensive to African Americans to belittle Tuskegee like this.

@Chris: The reason Nietzsche was Hitler's favorite philosopher was because Hitler was a dimwit who didn't understand the facetiousness behind Nietzsche's comments about how "awesome" the "blond-haired beast" is/was.

Nietzsche actually cracks me up though, he was a funny guy...and had an epic mustache.

That's a fine point, and I'm sure it's your point, but I don't think it's Jill's.

LOL...touche! But couldn't we pretend that it was Jill/Goldbergs point and go from there?

MK - I agree with what you are saying completely, but none of that was implied by Jill, and was CERTAINLY not implied by Goldberg.

Goldberg was making a completley assanine argument that Tuskegee isn't as big of a deal as "liberals" make it out to be, because the victims were not infected by the government.

Jill then took the "ITZ ALL TEH LIBERALZ FAULT!!" thing, and ran with it.

Hee. Well, we could, but I'm not sure there's far to go. You're right, it's a good point, I've got nothing to add. ;-)

@Amanda: I just finished reading your paper, it was most excellent. Very well written and very interesting (I kid you not, I had no idea the stats for congenital syphilis was that high).

"epic mustache. "

AHAHAHAHAHAH

"LOL...touche! But couldn't we pretend that it was Jill/Goldbergs point and go from there?"

Sorry MK, I had started writing my post before you and Jen R commented. Thats what I get for multitasking - I start writing something, then start doing something else, and come back to my comment 10 minutes later after everyone else has said the same thing I was going to say, and usually they say it better anyway. haha. =)

Where does cultural relativism lead?

I wrote a comment once about freedom.
People think freedom means doing whatever they want.
But truly, a person is only free if CAN do something and also choose NOT to do something. I smoke. Some would say I am free to smoke. But I'm not free at all. I can't NOT smoke. So freedom is an illusion.

Girls here talk about the freedom to have sex with whomever they want. But are they free to remain celibate? Could they really say no? Or does sex control them? Same with drugs and alcohol. Or any immoral behaviors. Sooner or later, they own you, you stop owning them.

It is the rules and the following of them that really set us free. By adhering to natural law, to the divine law, to objective morality, we are free to so much more. We can feel safe. We can know what to expect. We can be sure that things will work. When the rules keep changing on a whim, everyone is lost at sea.

As I once told Doug, it is only by understanding the rules of art...perspective, different mediums, etc, that one is "free" to paint.

Where does this type of thinking lead us? If we don't follow an absolute truth, then whoever has the most "power" will make the truth for everyone else. And then no one will be free. This is how dictatorships are born.

Holy cow, you guys are freaking dense. If you don't think it's different that the doctors allowed these already sick people to suffer for 'science' rather than actually infecting them with disease, then you have no business being involved in an internet discussion, or really any serious discussion at all.

It's true that the doctors allowed black people to remain sick when they could have healed them. It's true that they justified their evil 'research' with racism. But it is NOT true that they infected the black people in the first place, which is what Jeremiah Wright uses as a precedent in his argument for how it could be that the US government intentionally infected blacks with HIV. Wright took a terrible, evil experiment and made it even worse in an attempt to justify his own racist attitudes. That's the point.

But let's all pretend that that wasn't Jill's point, even if she has said that it was at least twice already. Duh, Jill R DUM, she R complaint abut LIBRULZ, HUR HUR HUR stooped RETHUGLICAN!!!!11111oneoneone

If you ask me, the Tuskegee experiment sounds a lot like embryonic stem cell research. Let's sacrifice a few people for the greater scientific good - after all, they aren't really "people" - they're blacks, or embryos. It's OK to sacrifice them for the good of "real" people. Right? Isn't that pretty much how the logic of the ESCR proponents goes?

@Chris: The reason Nietzsche was Hitler's favorite philosopher was because Hitler was a dimwit who didn't understand the facetiousness behind Nietzsche's comments about how "awesome" the "blond-haired beast" is/was.

It didn't really matter if Hitler was a dimwit or not, he simply took Nietsche's ideas out to their logical conclusions. We can be as opinionated about Hitler as we want to be, but it took real effort and many lives to squelch his "ideas", and we're still suffering from the after-effects. (Okay, we're deep into Godwin's law. ;-)

MK - I've been reading Francis Beckwith and Greg Koukl's book Relativism:Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air which provides a pretty good introduction to the topic we've been discussing. Very well researched and fairly easy to read and understand.

I don't expect anyone who's a firm believer in the idea that morality is subjective to be swayed by the book if they aren't being intellectually honest. However, it does draw pretty solid lines between relativism and serious outcomes.

These people were treated like lab rats - nothing nore noble than that. It was contemptible and inexcusable. And it would have been wrong no matter who this was done to. The fact that it was done to blacks was simply because the doctors knew they could get away with it.

Posted by: TexasRed at May 5, 2008 3:08 PM

I think the unborn are treated like lab rats-nothing more than that. They are the most vulnerable of us all and have no voice. Abortionists know they can make oodles of money from abortion because it's legal so they can get away with it.

It's contemptable and inexcusable.

Exactly when does the unborn feel pain? No one can really say for sure, so the PC world will continue to vehemently support their torture from being ripped limb from limb, skull puncturing and brains sucked out, ribs crushed with a forceps, burned by saline solution, decapitated, etc...

"Holy cow, you guys are freaking dense. If you don't think it's different that the doctors allowed these already sick people to suffer for 'science' rather than actually infecting them with disease, then you have no business being involved in an internet discussion, or really any serious discussion at all"

Well thats good John, considering no one, not a single person, said that they didn't think it was different.

But BRAVO for once again proving to all of us that you are incapable of making a single post on this board without calling someone names. And this time you can't blame it on getting frustrated with an ongoing argument - because that was completely unprovoked and unwarranted, and even aimed at people who agree with you about plenty of things.

Chris - I notice and appreciate your civility this time around. I'm not ignoring you, I really just dont know what the heck to think about the moral relativism thing. I used to think I knew, until my church hosted an asylee during my first year of college who was a victim of FGM...and showed us pictures.

Oh hush John. Obviously you have nothing of value to add to the discussion either.

" I really just dont know what the heck to think about the moral relativism thing."

I know we have a different understanding of who God is, Amanda, but wouldn't you say that objective moral values are grounded in God's nature? Aren't you saying that those pictures showed you that FGM is NEVER in any culture and for any reason OK? This would be good evidence to show that just because a certain culture has accepted something as normal or morally permissible, it does not make it so. God love you.

Great Post Jill.... Goldberg really exposes the lies that Rev Wright and other race hustlers like to float around.

Bobby -

Well...it depends.

For example, homosexuality in many cultures, including Christian cultures, is perfectly fine. In many others, its not.

If we put aside what we may believe GOD thinks is right or wrong, homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone in THIS life. You may believe it will lead to damnation after a person dies, but I think we can agree that the average gay person is not inflicting harm on anyone (other than themselves if that is what you believe). What I DO think is relative is what different cultures believe God thinks when it comes to choices that do not have the ability to harm other people.

Another good example is eating beef...in most American cultures, its perfeclty fine, while in some cultures here, and in India, it is viewed as disgusting. I don't think in this case there is a definite right and wrong. I think in this case its relative.

My aunts being gay is not hurting anyone. If it turns out that y'all are right, and they are going to go to Hell, they still lived their lives without hurting other people, so thats really just their problem.

But when it comes to things like FGM, forced abortion/sterilization, slavery, segregation, rape, etc- there is a VICTIM in those cases...someone forced to endure something who couldn't just say "no I don't want that"...then I see it very differently.

I can say "I'm straight." and no one is going to hold a knife to my throat and force me to become gay or eat a cheeseburger. On the other hand, FGM and rape often do happen with a knife to a woman's throat. Maybe its silly of me to see the distinction there, but its just the thought that comes most naturally to me.

Haha, just as an aside - my sister is a hardcore vegan. She eats NO animal products what so ever. She thinks eating flesh is disgusting. Its not about diet for her, its about morals.

My dad and I, on the other hand, will throw a steak on the grill and sit there salivating as it cooks.

And we're in the same family, let alone a larger culture.

and yet there is no fighting, no need to figure out if there is a right vs a wrong, because none of us are being hurt by the others decision.

Thanks for sharing, Amanda. If I'm understanding you correctly, I would say that you are NOT a moral relativist. You seem to have drawn the line at those actions which do immediate harm to others as your criteria for what is wrong and although I don't agree with it, it is a fair moral basis. A true moral relativist, by contrast, would say that murder, rape, FGM, etc. are all amoral and that there is a world in which such actions are permissible.

I also think your distinction about certain actions be moral in some cultures yet immoral in others is valid, although I do disagree with one of your examples (take a wild guess, hehe, although I do NOT believe your aunt is necessarily going to hell). I think something like public nudity is a good example. Here in the US, being naked (especially a woman) is morally unacceptable because it can cause lust for people. I know that I am the first one to whom impure thoughts come when seeing a naked woman. However in some cultures, nudity is just a way of life and part of the culture. It does not arouse sexually impure thoughts or lead people based on lust to take actions like rape. So in that case, it is relative to the culture. But I understand your point. Bottom line is, you're not a relativist :)

I see John L is still spreading sunshine wherever he goes...

John L @5:26 PM --> good point.

@Bobby: Rape doesn't have anything to do with "lust". Yes, rapists use that excuse (she was so hot, she was totally asking for it! or I couldn't control myself, she was so hot!), but it's not true. Rape is a power struggle, it has nothing to do with lust.

As Doug would say, it's all in the eye of the beholder. But what happens when the beholders are mad men?

MK, then most aren't going to agree with them.

As I once told Doug, it is only by understanding the rules of art...perspective, different mediums, etc, that one is "free" to paint.

MK, who decides what the "rules" are? It's all the same thing.
.....

Where does this type of thinking lead us? If we don't follow an absolute truth, then whoever has the most "power" will make the truth for everyone else. And then no one will be free. This is how dictatorships are born.

Nobody has any proof of any "absolute truth" in the moral realm. No, it's not power that makes the truth for everybody else, there, though power will make the rules, as far as laws - there will will a sufficient opinion for them, and that's true regardless of whether the people involve make pretensions toward imaginary absolutes or not.

I think I should just start replying to every post with something completely nonsensical like "rubber baby buggy bumpers". Not like it really matters, anyway.

Nice.

John, do yourself a favor and seriously...go and start boxing or wrestling. Maybe take up ultimate fighting. Or a shrink. A shrink may be helpful.

It may do *wonders* for your personality defect.

9:17 PM,

Is it just me, or is anyone else beginning to think that John's "chaste lifestyle" isn't really a "choice"????

@JLM: *gigglefit* I've been thinking that for a loooooooooong time. I am glad somebody other than me finally said something. :0)

Rae,
I've often wondered about it myself, then after THAT post, I became pretty sure!!!!

Thank you Bobby, I would say you're probably right. I'd need a refresher from Ethics 101 when we talked about these things in more detail, but I do know that I couldn't quite reconcile either end without thinking of examples like the ones we both mentioned.

Nudity is a very good example I think, especially because it can vary so much from culture to culture - and most people can look at things like climate and tradition and understand the differences. It also typically doesn't harm anyone...unless an Irish guy decides to move to the Sahara and walk around in a loin cloth...since 3rd degree burns could be considered harmful. hehe.

I knew you would disagree about the homosexuality thing...but I'm curious as to whether or not you agree with what I said about it not harming anyone outside of the gay person, if your belief is that they will be punished for their choice after their death. Also you said you don't think my aunts would necessarily go to hell. Why is that?

Sorry, folks. I bend over backwards to be nice and helpful to good, honest people who deserve it.

I also go out of my way to denounce, insult, and trash liars, frauds, and other despicable people like all of the worthless imbeciles who jumped on Jill in this thread. Just the way I am. Don't like it? Ignore me. Or go ahead and insult me. It's all the same to me.

John,

I'm glad to see Amanda doesn't dignify that very crass post by responding to it.

Me too, Mary. Though my only regret is that it is not nearly crass enough.

John, 9:52PM

Or go ahead and insult me.

I'm not going to stoop to the level of insulting you.

It's funny how pro-aborts can throw around insults and accusations, but they can't take it very well....

Sorry, folks. I bend over backwards to be nice and helpful to good, honest people who deserve it.

All people deserve kindness and respect regardless of whether you feel they "deserve" it or not. Grow up.

I also go out of my way to denounce, insult, and trash liars, frauds, and other despicable people like all of the worthless imbeciles who jumped on Jill in this thread. Just the way I am. Don't like it? Ignore me. Or go ahead and insult me. It's all the same to me.

That must take a lot of effort..as opposed to..I don't know being mature and ignoring them.

But I have no problem ignoring you...I'll just lump you into the other commenters on here that I don't read cause I don't think they offer anything valid to the convo and just want to hurl insults. And news flash...you'll be lumped in with the PCer's buddy in that respect then.

I would say I probably read Laura's comments more than I read your's..because her's actually have a little sarcastic humor to them..your's are just rude and ridiculously arrogant.

Get off the computer and work on your people skills.

John,

It was plenty crass, and has no place anywhere on this blog.

Thank you Mary and Elizabeth.

=)

I always liked you two anyways, but still... thank you.

John,

I had to remove that comment....

please all, try to stick to the topic and avoid direct insults.... (thats goes for me too!)

Thank you Jasper.

Bravo.

Awww man, I hate when comments get deleted..I always miss them!

Amanda,

You're welcome. I appreciate the compliment, I'm fond of you as well.

Now folks, mother hen must call it a night. Good nite everyone and sleep well.

Hehe goodnight Mary!

Amanda, I've always liked you too! I don't always agree with you..but your logic and compassion shine through in your comments!

Ah, well, regardless of how it may seem, I really have no intention of causing trouble for Jill, so I'll take my final leave now. Try not to celebrate too much, heh.

I actually do have one other regret. I regret that I couldn't make you understand the true meaning of anger. Anger is when people sit around playing word games as 4,000 are slaughtered on a daily basis. Anger is when those who know damn well that they are advocating the murder of children plead ignorance, and lead you down endless, pointless, meaningless pathways of discussion as a means of distraction. Anger is when people who claim to support the lives of the unborn come up with justifications for why they have no choice but to support those who intend to continue the killing.

I'm sure Jasper and some of the others understand what I'm saying. And that is good enough for me.

"I would say I probably read Laura's comments more than I read your's..because her's actually have a little sarcastic humor to them..your's are just rude and ridiculously arrogant."

I disagree completely Elizabeth, John L makes really good points and knows his stuff well. I learned quite a bit about my own faith from him.

Mary - Goodnight!

Bobby - I did reply to your response but it got buried in some sillyness (that I'm still a little baffled as to where it came from...but anyway). I hope you don't miss it...I'm very interested in your response.

John L.,

Then why are you on here talking if our discussions anger you so much?

You'll never get anywhere in the justice for the unborn with your attitude..and you don't even care. THAT is what is sad.

John,

please consider coming back, many of us enjoy your posts...

Jasper,

His comments are riddled with insults and that's why I don't read them..he may have good points..but they get lost in-between the insults..and negativity gets tiring to read comment after comment.

negativity and arrogance. "worthless imbeciles" from a man who pretends to believe all life is precious?

John

You'd really rather leave than just...NOT be nasty to people?

I find that very, very sad.

Anger accomplishes nothing. The conversations on this board create common ground, even if its just a little bit...a few agreements here and there, it allows all of us to think about things differently and step outside our notions of people/beliefs/opinions we aren't personally familiar with. We all know that a change in the legal status of abortion is not going to change in the very near future. So in the mean time, the only thing we can ALL agree on and work towards is helping women in need. You may not realize, but a bunch of PC'ers and PL'ers getting along on a site like this makes BOTH sides think before they yell and scream, as opposed to doing something more productive.

This is why I no longer support PP, and feel the same way about some of the things they say as I feel about things Jill says when she is being particularly divisive and finger pointing, as this post happened to be today.

There are people here who feel JUST as passionate about this cause as you do, but are able to communicate it in a mature, respectful, and productive way.

I get the sense tonight that you're younger than I thought you were, and to see so much bitterness and anger and hatred being spewed, unprovoked, from someone roughly my age is very disturbing to me.

It makes me worry that something horrible has happened to you to make you so angry at such a young age. Because of that, I ask that the rest of you refrain from insulting John...only because I'd rather err on the side of my gut feeling that no one who leads a happy and fulfilling life would be so angry and so filled with negativity. I disagree that this is arrogance on John's part, but rather, the exact opposite. Confident people do not feel the need to act this way.

If you are truly done posting here John, I hope life treats you well.

The point of this post is that liberals suddenly seem to become illeterate and go into denial when the truth comes out about what that faction did and contiues to do whether it be Tuskeegee or Planned Parenthoods obvious racism. It seems that both sidez can become slaves to ideology and not the truth.

It wouldn't surprise me in 50 years when a more enlightened population discusses how barbaric abortion was and how pro-choicers will go down in infamy as gross supporters of these present day atrocities. We know that it is inevitabls that scientific discoveries will happen which will reveal more than we now know about babies in ths womb and that the viability window gets larger and larger. Is that what each of you pro-choicers really want as a legacy? The truth always wins and it is a no risk position to take.

And guys, I am the chief of insulters on this site and utterly unqualified to lecture you on why we shouldn't be insulting each other. However, this is what I have personally learned. It's easy to insult when we are wrapped up in such an emotionally heart rending issue as abortion. We make a mistake thinking that pro-choicers don't care. They do care, just in a different way. They're coming from a different view point that lacks what we have; the knowledge of God. In some ways I can see how they can think like that, even though I disagree with them.

And Hal is right. If I preach a loving Christ, it is very hard for someone who doesn't believe in the Christ that I believe in to embrace that Christ, when I act in a way that is contrary to the very nature of Christ. While I believe Christ would be totally against abortion, I also believe that while He would be firm in the rebuke of those that supported, performed and promoted it, somehow they would also get the message that He loved them unconditionally.

I think Jesus would try to love them into changing their thinking, not insult them.

While it is very hard for me to withold the insulting speech, I think I am commanded to do so. And John, I would rather listen to your genius redintions and apologetics than your insults. What d'ya all say?

And if I ever insult anyone again, including TR, I would like to be held accountable and strongly rebuked.

Thank you HisMan.

That's awesome, HisMan! Kudos.

Okay, not that I'm condoning outbursts here, but John L has always reminded me of this scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iysIFnDmBUg

"@Bobby: Rape doesn't have anything to do with "lust". Yes, rapists use that excuse (she was so hot, she was totally asking for it! or I couldn't control myself, she was so hot!), but it's not true. Rape is a power struggle, it has nothing to do with lust."

Rae, are you sure it's limited though to ONLY a power struggle? I mean, I agree that that is part of it, but wouldn't you say lust plays at least some role? Perhaps that's where one begins; with lustful thoughts, and then moves on. I dunno, I"m no psychologist. God love you.

Hisman, and Amanda, very good posts.

John L, I do hope that you won't be leaving over this. I completely understand your feelings, and how frustrating this topic can be, but after seeing at least 3-4 people totally changing their perspective on abortion, and turning around to be pro-life (some of those people being people I never would have guessed would have changed their views on abortion), I really think that we have to give these people a chance.

Each person you talk to could be another person who could understand how much we love and care about unborn children AND their mothers, and realize that the pro-life position isn't what they think it is, and they could be another person who would turn around and begin fighting to protect the right to life that unborn children deserve, and the honest to goodness care and support that their mothers' deserve.

It seems so obvious to you and me that the unborn children are persons and deserve the right to life, but to some of them, it's not at all obvious, sadly.

John, I truly hope that we can keep working together and I hope that you won't leave.

Hey Amanda. I just had to shut the computer down almost immediately after I posted last night, so I didn't miss you post.

"I knew you would disagree about the homosexuality thing...but I'm curious as to whether or not you agree with what I said about it not harming anyone outside of the gay person, if your belief is that they will be punished for their choice after their death. Also you said you don't think my aunts would necessarily go to hell. Why is that?"

Well, yes, I do believe that homosexuality harms those outside of the gay person. This follows from the general principal that we (Catholics) hold that there is no such thing as "private" sin (if in fact homosexual acts are indeed sin). In other words, there is no such thing as a sin that doesn't affect everyone by the very definition. One of the reasons (still from a Catholic perspective) that we believe this is based on St. Paul's imagery of the Church as the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12 etc). We are all interconnected in some mystical way, and as St. Paul says in verse 26, "if one suffers, all suffer." Since sin is any affront to God, it affects everyone in Christ's body.

Now what I wrote above is fairly abstract, and to some people, possibly meaningless. That's the very general understanding of how sin affects everyone. But I'll try to turn specifically now to homosexual acts. Of course, let it be known up front that I love homosexuals and I sympathies greatly with them. But if I love them, I do want the highest and greatest good for them, which is heaven, and if they are doing something that jeopardizes their chances of going there, I have to speak out of love for them. One way I believe it affects others is by weakening the understanding of marriage. Marriage is not a contract; yet, a covenant like we see being sworn in the Old Testament. Whereas a contract is an exchange of goods or services (this is yours, that is mine), a covenant is an exchange of persons (I am yours and you are mine). There is always a sign of total self-giving in a covenant. For example, the sign of the covenant with Abraham was circumcision. It was symbolic of the idea that "if I ever break this covenant, let me be cut off from you (as my foreskin is being cut off from me)." Now in marriage, the covenant sign is the conjugal act. It is meant to be totally self-giving and fruitful.

OK, so what was the point of all that? Well, homosexual couples biologically don't have the equipment to perform such an act. As a result, the sense of beauty and sacredness, total self-giving and fruitfulness is lost when people consider the conjugal act. If a homosexual couple can participate in an act that doesn't have all "that baggage" with it, why can't a heterosexual couple? My point is that I believe that it has contributed to flippant use of sex, recreational sex outside of marriage, etc. becuase it gives the idea that sex is for pleasure and that there is no commitment attached to it. So things like divorce, adultery, pornography, etc. seem less like problems now. Now, I'm not a psychologist as I told Rae above, and I"m no sociologist either. I don't have hard evidence or stats to back this up, but I'm just discussing what I believe to be some a priori logic. I also realize that there is a very cyclic nature to many of the sins of the flesh, and I don't mean to lay the entire burden of the problem on homosexual behaviour. I just believe it has made a contribution. How much, I don't know.

So I hope that makes a little bit of sense, Amanda. I know you'll disagree, but that's at least one way I see it.

Now onto something a little nicer, and that is your question about why I believe your aunts aren't NECESSARILY going to hell. And just like my first answer to you, there is more of a general principle here that your aunt's case possibly falls under. And that is that we believe that one can not be punished or held accountable for something that they didn't know. Consider a couple passages spoken by Jesus himself (John 9:41 and John 15:22)

41Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

22If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin.

These verses seem to indicate what I said above; that one can not be held accountable for what they do not know is sin. That being said, I do believe homosexual acts are against the natural law and can be know to be wrong by reason apart from revelation. But, I also know that there is so much confusion in today's society. I am sure that there are many people who genuinely believe that homosexual acts are pleasing to God. I believe that they are very very wrong, but the fact remains that they may truly believe that. So with that in mind, knowing that someone can not be punished for what they don't know is wrong, I can say that no one (and your aunts in particular) is automatically going to hell. Their understanding is know to God and to God alone. So that is what I meant.

Sorry for being long winded. God love you.

This is why I no longer support PP...wow Amanda! That is good news. :)

John L. I hope you will continue posting here. I learn something from everyone on this blog.

HisMan @ May 5, 2008 11:30 PM - Excellent.

It's a struggle we who believe all face.

Rae, are you sure it's limited though to ONLY a power struggle? I mean, I agree that that is part of it, but wouldn't you say lust plays at least some role? Perhaps that's where one begins; with lustful thoughts, and then moves on. I dunno, I"m no psychologist. God love you.

Bobby, YES rape and sexual assault most definitely are power struggles. That's why many victims of rape aren't necessarily the most "attractive" women (according to our cultural standards of beauty) or aren't usually wearing short skirts or whatever.

And I really really would encourage you to learn more about rape and the kind of people who rape, because ideas like yours ... that rape is a result of lust ... lead to blaming the victim for behaving or acting in a certain way. It's not the victim's fault for wearing a skirt, or for having a few drinks, or for being flirty. If she says no, she said no!!! (Unconsciousness is also an unspoken no) The only person who would really want to have sex with an unwilling person is someone who wants to be in a position of power.

Besides, I think it's insulting to imply that men cannot control their urges around an attractive woman. Seriously, give yourselves more credit and respect than that!

Edyt, acknowledging that rape has something to do with lust is not the same as blaming the victim for rape. And men can lust after unattractive women too, by the way.

Yes, a person who would have sex with an unwilling person is wanting to be in a position of power, but also they desire sexual gratification so strongly that they ignore or simply don't care that the other person does not as well.

The very definition of lust is:
1. Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.
a. An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.

The rapist or sexual assailant obviously has a lust for power, but what they also have is a lust for sexual gratification, and it is certainly unrestrained and intense.

Edyt, I know that you have been the victim of sexual assault, and I am sorry. I also have been the victim of sexual assault.

"My point is that I believe that it has contributed to flippant use of sex, recreational sex outside of marriage, etc. becuase it gives the idea that sex is for pleasure and that there is no commitment attached to it. So things like divorce, adultery, pornography, etc. seem less like problems now."

I can see, no matter how much I may disagree, that people may think God is against homosexual acts. But I think this statement is a bit of a stretch. My aunts have been together for 12 years - they're getting married this summer. Our good family friends who just adopted a child last fall have been together for 9. There is a couple at my church who just celebrated their 20th anniversary by getting married (yay for Massachusetts). There is another lesbian couple at my church who are in their 50's, have been together as long as I've been going to that Church (so at least 15 years), and have adopted 2 girls from China that I used to babysit for. My friend who was murdered last year was killed because he was targeted by some monsters using the dating sight he had joined in hopes of finding someone to spend the rest of his life with.

All the while, divorce rates and infidelity rates are astronomical across the board - all religions, all cultures - even among people who are completely opposed to homosexuality. All the while, a movie can show a pretty graphic sex heterosexual sex scene and still get a PG-13 rating, while anything more than homosexual KISSING gets an R rating. TV is the same. Public displays of homosexual affection in most of this country are still very taboo, meanwhile you have girls looking up to the likes of Paris Hilton. I mean, have you ever seen a lesbian celebrity walking around with hardly any clothes on? Have you seen music videos lately? Always heterosexual exploitation of sexuality. Always. I can't reconcile that seeing a gay couple holding hands or a man wearing a skirt could possibly do more damage to a child than turning on MTV and seeing some guy singing with 12 mostly naked oiled up girls with breast implants humping his legs in a hot tub.

So I simply cannot see any connection between the "flippant use of sex" in our culture and homosexuality.

"Edyt, I know that you have been the victim of sexual assault, and I am sorry. I also have been the victim of sexual assault."

Oh gosh, I'm so sorry to hear that! I can't even begin to imagine the horrors of sexual assault.

Edyt, I admittedly don't know that much about these things, but it seems at least SOMETIMES lust plays a role, albeit a small one? I mean, it just seems like if it was always purely about power, there are other ways to do that. It seems like rape would be a sort of combination of wishing power and wishing it in a sexual way. Again, I don't *really* know what I'm talking about, just thinking out loud here. But I agree with Bethany that even if there is lust present, it does not imply that the woman should be blamed, even though some may falsely do this.

Amanda @ 6:49 PM

No problem. I find it interesting you remembered I asked about it, and I'm also interested in why the FGM pictures would have impacted your moral perspective. I don't recalling reading that in the comments.

At times it's hard to post when you get called away and the thread direction changes and then Bobby (or sometimes myself) posts a dissertation. ;-)

Bethany, my past history has nothing to do with my understanding of rape, nor is it necessary for you to bring it up any time we have a discussion about sexual assault or rape.

I'd also encourage you to research rape and the type of people who rape. Here's a pretty basic link that is a good start.

Perhaps that may fit with the "dictionary" definition of lust, but ... (and I know I'm just very particular about words because it's my career path but still... ) when you imply rape is a result of lust, you place some of the blame of the incident on the victim.

For example, it breeds the idea that "if that woman was not worth lusting over, she wouldn't be raped" and that women "should be proud to be raped, it shows she's worth lusting over."

In a culture that is so overtly sexual, I'm shocked you don't see this as a problem.

Edyt, this was the first time I brought it up. You brought it up in a previous topic. How am I then "bringing it up every time we discuss this topic"? I was expressing my sympathy for what happened to you. I'll try to remember not to make that mistake again. @@

Perhaps that may fit with the "dictionary" definition of lust, but ... (and I know I'm just very particular about words because it's my career path but still... ) when you imply rape is a result of lust, you place some of the blame of the incident on the victim.
For example, it breeds the idea that "if that woman was not worth lusting over, she wouldn't be raped" and that women "should be proud to be raped, it shows she's worth lusting over."

You miss the point. It is not "about her". It's about the assailant's desire for sexual gratification. He desires sex. He sees a woman, the woman "exists" (no sin on her part), he takes her to fulfill his lust for sexual gratification.

It is all about lust, but it is not in any way the fault of the woman.

Bethany said

Edyt, I know that you have been the victim of sexual assault, and I am sorry. I also have been the victim of sexual assault.

I'm sorry to hear about that for both of you.
I was a victim of sexual assault when I was young.

Edyt said

Besides, I think it's insulting to imply that men cannot control their urges around an attractive woman. Seriously, give yourselves more credit and respect than that!

Actually, it's not as easy as that. I wish I could say it was, but I don't think women really understand men. I'm not defending rapists or those who commit sexual assault, but date-rape happens way too often. Even that article referenced yesterday in proliferations about the girl from UC Irvine who had an abortion admitted the guy couldn't control himself - and she enabled him.

Bethany, I am so sorry. ((((Hugs))))

Thanks Carla and Chris. I was 12 years old and was very fortunate that it was only assault and didn't become rape. The person assaulting me heard voices just as he was getting ready to "get there", and ran off. Some girls aren't that fortunate, sadly..

It's about the assailant's desire for sexual gratification. He desires sex. He sees a woman, the woman "exists" (no sin on her part), he takes her to fulfill his lust for sexual gratification.

Except... that it's not.

Chris,

If a woman says no, you don't have sex with her. I don't care if you have blue balls or whatever, if you (and by that I mean all men) don't have the common decency to respect a woman's wishes when it comes to her body, then you probably shouldn't be allowed around women ever.

"No" is not a hard concept.

I do not understand why in our society every time a sexual act happens, a woman is blamed and told she should have "kept her legs shut."

I was raised around boys, I know what they're like. And I know that if a person is decent, they will respect a woman's desire to not have sex.

Bethany, Chris, and Bobby... please read the following:

Quoted directly from

MEN WHO RAPE
The Psychology of the Offender

A. NICHOLAS GROTH, PH.D.

Director, Forensic Mental Health Associates
Webster, Massachusetts

RAPE: A PSEUDOSEXUAL ACT
A number of popular notions and stereotyped images persist in
regard to the offender, his victim, and the offense. With regard to the
offender, he is frequently regarded as a lusty male who is the victim of a
provocative and vindictive woman, or he is seen as a sexually frustrated
man reacting under the pressure of his pent-up needs, or he is thought
to be a demented sex-fiend harboring insatiable and perverted desires.
All these views share a common misconception: they all assume that the
offender's behavior is primarily motivated by sexual desire and that rape
is directed toward gratifying only this sexual need. Quite to the con­
trary, careful clinical study of offenders reveals that rape is in fact serv­
ing primarily nonsexual needs. It is the sexual expression of power and
anger. Forcible sexual assault is motivated more by retaliatory and com­
pensatory motives than by sexual ones. Rape is a pseudosexual act,
complex and multidetermined, but addressing issues of hostility (anger)
and control (power) more than passion (sexuality). To regard rape as an
expression of sexual desire is not only an inaccurate notion but also an
insidious assumption, for it results in the shifting of the responsibility
for the offense in large part from the offender onto the victim: if the
assailant is sexually aroused and is directing these impulses toward the
victim, then it must be that she has deliberately or inadvertently stimu­
lated or aroused this desire in him through her actions, style of dress, or
some such feature. This erroneous but popular belief that rape is the
result of sexual arousal and frustration creates the foundation for a
whole superstructure of related misconceptions pertaining to the off­
fender, the offense, and the victim.

Edyt - both you and Bethany are correct, but not necessarily in the ways that you think. Lust isn't merely sexual in nature, although that's an outlet for men. Words on a page aren't the same as testosterone coursing through your system.

Most think that it's a guys thing, but maybe you could explain how I was held down by two older guys and a girl was about to "do her thing" with me - against my will, when I was 10 or 11.

It's not merely sexual lust, there's something else involved, something malicious and evil.

Chris, I am so sorry for what happened to you as well.

Except... that it's not.

Edyt, even the article you sent me a link to confirmed what I was trying to say. Here, I will copy and paste a few portions to show you what I mean:

"In a power rape, power appears to be the dominant factor motivating the offender. (no argument there, Edyt) In these assaults, it is not the offender's desire to harm his victim but to possess her sexually."

"Such offenders entertain obsessional thoughts and masturbatory fantasies about sexual conquest and rape." (lust!)

"In reality, the offender tends to find little sexual satisfaction in the rape. The assault is disappointing, for it never lives up to his fantasy. " (this is always the case with lust!)

Sadistic rape:
"In a third pattern of rape, both sexuality and aggression become fused into a single psychological experience known as sadism. There is a sexual transformation of anger and power so that aggression itself becomes eroticized. This offender finds the intentional maltreatment of his victim intensely gratifying and takes pleasure in her torment, anguish, distress, helplessness, and suffering." (pain and anguish of the woman is a "turn on" for this type of rapist, and it is this which he lusts after and craves to feed his deranged sexual appetite)

I think this comment may be what you are trying to say:

"Sexuality is NOT the primary motive underlying rape."

But I am not disagreeing with that. I am simply saying that lust is a large factor.

Amanda, I think that in cases of rape, lust for power and lust for sexual gratification go hand in hand.

Bethany, look ... Every time I prove a point to you, you twist your words around to sound like you were agreeing with me all along. Anyone can read your comments and see that.

So from now on, I'm not going to prove anything to you. You can do the research on your own and educate yourself on matters you don't understand.

Sorry.

Rape
Encyclopedia of Psychology

Rape is essentially an act of power and dominance. Although an estimated 15 to 40 percent of American women are victims of rape or attempted rape, men are raped as well. Women are more likely to be raped by someone they know; between 50 and 70 percent of all rapes occur within the context of a romantic relationship, and more than half the time the assault takes place in the victim's home.

"Rape". Encyclopedia of Psychology. 20010406. FindArticles.com. 06 May. 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0002/ai_2699000285

Edyt, I am not trying to twist anything I have said. If you will read ALL of my comments you will see that I agreed that lust was not the "primary" motivator in the first place. I said that it had something to do with it and indeed is a factor in rape. I thought we still disagreed on that point. I'm sorry that you cannot control your temper long enough to debate this with me honestly.

Temper? I'm not shouting at you. I'm just respectfully saying, I'm tired of you being dishonest in your debating and I will no longer engage you.

Edyt said

I was raised around boys, I know what they're like. And I know that if a person is decent, they will respect a woman's desire to not have sex.

You're assuming decency, and morals. And you're being very objective about truth here as well.

"No" is not a hard concept.
That doesn't look gray or subjective in any way.

I am a guy. So you were raised around boys. That's doesn't add anything to the subject. You don't understand them completely, just like I will never understand what it's like to carry a baby. Experiential truth is something that can't be shared. It can be described, but that's as far as it goes. And just like moving too fast with a car through a stoplight, the momentum will carry through, so it is with various hormone rushes. Immediate stopping doesn't always happen. The "No" needs to come long before the system is ignited. Is it always that strong? No, but at times it can be.

All 3 of us have had experiences that no one can truly comprehend the way they impacted us - because they haven't had that experience themselves. They may have had something similar happen, but it's not exactly the same.

Bethany - your 9:44 post said this:

"You miss the point. It is not "about her". It's about the assailant's desire for sexual gratification. He desires sex. He sees a woman, the woman "exists" (no sin on her part), he takes her to fulfill his lust for sexual gratification.

It is all about lust"

That is patently false. And the fact that that is a misconception (though a very common one) is universally accepted in the field of psychology. I'm not arguing your point from my own opinion, but from experts who have conducted years of clinical research. Neither you or I are experts in this matter, so rather than arguing with your opinion, if you'd like to have Edyt and I end up with a foot in the mouth, I'd ask you to try to find a published journal or encyclopedia article that reflects your view that "it is all about lust" and that a rapist "desires sex" or "sexual gratification".

If you look up that book I posted from (Men Who Rape), you can see some other excerpts. That book is used as a text in a lot of sexuality/psych courses.

And Chris - I have to dig and find the study I read, but the majority of women who commit rape are victims of rape or sexual abuse themselves, and commit rape or sexual assault as an act of vengence towards men when they usually can't get back at the man who victimized them - again, nothing to do with sexual desire or lust.

Temper? I'm not shouting at you. I'm just respectfully saying, I'm tired of you being dishonest in your debating and I will no longer engage you.

Show me where I have been dishonest, Edyt.

Amanda, when I said "it's all about lust", I obviously was speaking of the lust for power, AND the lust for sex which I had been trying to clarify time and time again ad nauseum.

Chris, I completely agree with your posts, and I am so sorry that you too were victimized as a child.

Neither you or I are experts in this matter, so rather than arguing with your opinion, if you'd like to have Edyt and I end up with a foot in the mouth, I'd ask you to try to find a published journal or encyclopedia article that reflects your view that "it is all about lust" and that a rapist "desires sex" or "sexual gratification".

I used the article that Edyt herself posted to show her what I was saying, Amanda.
If that's not good enough to explain what I'm saying, I don't know what is.

"The "No" needs to come long before the system is ignited. Is it always that strong? No, but at times it can be."

Ridiculous. As soon as someones says no, there is absolutely no evidence that hormones or "momentum" can take over the human body's physical ability to STOP whatever they are doing. Our muscles and bones do not function from momentum, but from signals from our brains which we have complete control over, other than cases of paralysis and/or nerve disorders.

When someone says no, and a person keeps going - that is the precise moment where the transition from lust to power occurs.

My boyfriend can approach me with lust, and vis versa. And that can be an consentual, enjoyable experience. The minute one of us says no, or pushes the other away, the other would stop - regardless of lust. If one of us did not stop, that would no longer be about the lust we might be feeling, but about the ability to force one's self on another (i.e: power).

when I said "it's all about lust", I obviously was speaking of the lust for power, AND the lust for sex which I had been trying to clarify time and time again ad nauseum.

So... when you said this:

It's about the assailant's desire for sexual gratification. He desires sex. He sees a woman, the woman "exists" (no sin on her part), he takes her to fulfill his lust for sexual gratification.

... you were talking about power? Even though you quite clearly said "lust for sexual gratification"?

There's your dishonesty, Bethany. I will not debate with someone in this manner.

Carla - Thanks for your concern.

Amanda - no doubt there were prior problems with the girl. But the two older guys were controlling the situation. I was fortunate to get away due to the untimely arrival of an older sister who happened upon the situation.

Lust isn't always about sex. And I'm not saying she was being lustful, but I believe the guys were, and that caused the situation to spin out of control.

When someone says no, and a person keeps going - that is the precise moment where the transition from lust to power occurs.

Why is it a transition, and not a fusing of both?

"Amanda, when I said "it's all about lust", I obviously was speaking of the lust for power"

Well if thats what you meant, I think if you re-read your posts, you can see where your wording is not clear - as you specifically said that the rapist is desiring sex and sexual gratification - not desiring power or the gratification he gets from power.

when I said "it's all about lust", I obviously was speaking of the lust for power, AND the lust for sex which I had been trying to clarify time and time again ad nauseum.
So... when you said this:
It's about the assailant's desire for sexual gratification. He desires sex. He sees a woman, the woman "exists" (no sin on her part), he takes her to fulfill his lust for sexual gratification.
... you were talking about power? Even though you quite clearly said "lust for sexual gratification"?
There's your dishonesty, Bethany. I will not debate with someone in this manner.
Posted by: Edyt at May 6, 2

How is that dishonest? That's totally what I believe. I haven't backed off of that statement and I don't intend to. It absolutely is about a lust for sexual gratification, and the man's desire to have that sexual gratification NO MATTER WHAT, and NO one is going to stop him. Power and lust go hand in hand in this situation. They are one and the same, when it comes to rape.

Well if thats what you meant, I think if you re-read your posts, you can see where your wording is not clear - as you specifically said that the rapist is desiring sex and sexual gratification - not desiring power or the gratification he gets from power.

Do you not understand that those two can be the same thing? His desire for sex is so strong and he wants the sexual gratification so much that he will not let anyone get in his way of getting it. This is obviously where the "power" comes in, and it is a combination of lust and power which drives the man to rape a woman.

Lust is not the same as love. Lust is not the same as simply "being attracted to". Lusting in this manner is coveting, desiring something so badly that you obsess about it and decide that you will have what you covet at whatever cost.

Chris:

You're assuming decency, and morals. And you're being very objective about truth here as well.

I'm sorry that you don't understand moral relativism. I explained it in the other thread but you were unwilling to talk about it so I'm not sure informing you now will make a difference.

I am a guy. So you were raised around boys. That's doesn't add anything to the subject. You don't understand them completely, just like I will never understand what it's like to carry a baby. Experiential truth is something that can't be shared. It can be described, but that's as far as it goes.

So... because I will never know what it's like to be a guy, I can't say that guys should be able to keep their penis in their pants? If women should be able to keep their legs closed, the sentiment should go both ways, no matter what your sex drive is.

And just like moving too fast with a car through a stoplight, the momentum will carry through, so it is with various hormone rushes. Immediate stopping doesn't always happen. The "No" needs to come long before the system is ignited. Is it always that strong? No, but at times it can be.

Why not? Are you not in tune with your partner? Do you not care how she feels? If I or my boyfriend says "stop" or "no" at any moment ... even after penetration, we'll immediately stop because we care more about how each other is feeling rather than ourselves. The "no" should be able to come at any moment and know that the partner will stop, without a doubt, for any reason whatsoever. That's what it means to have a respectful sexual experience.

I'll be back in a few hours to discuss more...gotta run to the CPC.
Have a good day, everyone!

Then by your own definition, Bethany, lusting is not what causes or leads to rape.

Amanda said When someone says no, and a person keeps going - that is the precise moment where the transition from lust to power occurs.

Amanda - term clarification, lust is a form of power.

You're treating them as two states - they aren't. That's the point Bethany was making re: the paper that Edyt referenced.

My boyfriend can approach me with lust, and vis versa.

Umm - no. If your boyfriend really approached you with lust, you would be frightened. Lust is self-centered - in that case he's merely using you to satisfy his sexual desires. That's virtual masturbation, not love-making.

Yelling "No" at the top of your lungs doesn't stop the situation when one has no desire to listen to you because you've turned into a non-person to them. That's lust.

Hate to say it, pro-lifer's hear that same exact argument all the time from the pro-choice side re: the unborn:

The unborn are treated as non-persons by someone who is self-centered and refuses to listen to someone telling them to stop, because one is going to die, and one or more people are going to get hurt.

I have to go, and won't be back until much later. I'd like see what you think about that.

Edyt: I'm sorry that you don't understand moral relativism. I explained it in the other thread but you were unwilling to talk about it so I'm not sure informing you now will make a difference.

Relativism was covered pretty extensively on the other thread. The discussion can only go so far, because after that it's all relative.

Bethany, my past history has nothing to do with my understanding of rape, nor is it necessary for you to bring it up any time we have a discussion about sexual assault or rape.

Past history can't be ignored, unless it's forgotten. How can past history NOT influence one's understanding?

I'd also encourage you to research rape and the type of people who rape. Here's a pretty basic link that is a good start.

"Basic link"? - a bit condescending?

Perhaps that may fit with the "dictionary" definition of lust, but ... (and I know I'm just very particular about words because it's my career path but still... ) when you imply rape is a result of lust, you place some of the blame of the incident on the victim.

Not necessarily. Lust is in the mind of the perpetrator, independent of the victim. Bethany is saying over and over, it is a part of it, not always a cause.

For example, it breeds the idea that "if that woman was not worth lusting over, she wouldn't be raped" and that women "should be proud to be raped, it shows she's worth lusting over."

I doubt that's what Bethany had in mind. "Worth lusting over"? Those are words of a crazy person, not typical.

In a culture that is so overtly sexual, I'm shocked you don't see this as a problem.

You're talking about the people who want to say that "women should be proud to be raped"? Of course they are a problem. Who's doubting that?

Chris: 11:07

Excellent post!

Chris,Edyt,and Bethany: As a fellow survivor, I'd like to share one of my favorite quotes. "The world breaks everyone and,afterward, many are strong at the broken places."-Ernest Heminway.
(((((((((hugs)))))))))

Past history can't be ignored, unless it's forgotten. How can past history NOT influence one's understanding?

Because when my assault happened I was under the influence that it was my fault. Since then I've taken a human sexuality course, read a few books about rape and sexual assault, written several articles on the topic (which includes interviewing people who have been sexually assaulted) and reading various medical texts online... I can say my perception of what happened has completely changed. In this circumstance, I don't think my understanding of rape is affected by what happened to me at that time. Whether I had been sexually assaulted or not is not the issue in question. We are talking about what rape is ... and therefore I trust the experts over my own experiences.

"Basic link"? - a bit condescending?

I don't get what you mean. I think you're reading into that, honestly. What I meant was that it was very basic reading. It wasn't a medical website with a lot of technical jargon, it was in plain, basic terms. I'm not downplaying Bethany's intelligence or ability to read. But you don't educate someone by teaching him or her the most complicated material first. You start with the basics.

Not necessarily. Lust is in the mind of the perpetrator, independent of the victim. Bethany is saying over and over, it is a part of it, not always a cause.

I never said lust was not a part of it. But Bethany was implying that lust and sexual desire was the reason rapists rape, which Amanda and I vehemently disagree with. She keeps implying that rape is a desire for sex, when it is not.

I doubt that's what Bethany had in mind. "Worth lusting over"? Those are words of a crazy person, not typical.

You're talking about the people who want to say that "women should be proud to be raped"? Of course they are a problem. Who's doubting that?

You'd be surprised at how "typical" that sentiment is. And I know that's not what Bethany was trying to say, but that doesn't change the fact that when you make rape seem like it could be in any way the victim's fault, then people will do so. It's sad and unfortunate but it happens.

Janet -

if you don't think that mindset is a common one, I'd urge you too look up trial summaries or transcripts from rape cases, and you'll find that in the majority of rape cases, the defense is based around attacking the sexual history of the victim, in an attempt to call in to question whether or not she was "asking for it" by virtue of how many men she slept with in the past or if she was an exotic dancer in college.

your arugment may be that thats just a defense tactic, but if it didnt WORK on convincing juries that women can somehow contribute to their destiny of becoming a victim of rape, they wouldn't continue to use it constantly.

Thank you, Amanda. You said that way better than I did.

f you don't think that mindset is a common one, I'd urge you too look up trial summaries or transcripts from rape cases, and you'll find that in the majority of rape cases, the defense is based around attacking the sexual history of the victim, in an attempt to call in to question whether or not she was "asking for it" by virtue of how many men she slept with in the past or if she was an exotic dancer in college.

Amanda, there are also many men who are accused unfairly of rape, which is the reason that in courts of law, they need to know the sexual history of the woman, etc, and hear every detail of the story, to see if everything adds up.. It helps them to understand her character, to be able to discern more fairly whether she is telling the truth or not.

Do you have any idea how unfair it would be to go to jail for being a rapist because some girl decided to accuse you of rape because she was angry with you about something, and you were innocent?

As much as I would like to think no girl would ever lie about such a thing, you can't just take a girls' word for it every single time.

There are so many girls who have lied about being