Are Glamour Models Immoral?

[musterion]

:think:

what if they commit rape by mistake?

Is that even possible?

Fire off a deer rifle without looking beyond some brush and you can accidentally kill someone.

But how would you even...

Nevermind. I don't want inside your head right now. :shocked:

 

[ok doser]

not sure I could explain it without getting banned :noid:


on the other hand, consider that the new guidelines for what constitutes "rape" include in ability to give consent due to inebriation

what if I pick up a girl at a bar who holds her liquor really well and doesn't appear to be inebriated and engage in sex with her assuming that she's able to give consent?

 

[ok doser]

So if someone wants to commit rape first and foremost...

why do they want to commit rape?

to satisfy their sexual urges?

or to satisfy their desire to control?

 

[Rusha]

That's one point we've never disagreed on. And I did not mean to imply YOU were excusing rapists in any sense. I know you better than that.

But I insist that seeking reasons for rape beyond simple, wicked lust (anger, control, mommy issues, wasn't tucked in as a tot, drunkenness, etc) places, even if unwittingly, the RESPONSIBILITY for the act outside the control of the rapist and, to that same degree, absolves him of it. It's a vague way of saying "Wasn't entirely his fault." I categorically refuse any premise that allows such to happen.

Rapists commit rape, first and foremost, because they WANT to.

The comment about control issues had to do with the character of the person in question. I am not speaking of self-control, but rather than need to control and dominate others.

 

[musterion]

what if I pick up a girl at a bar who holds her liquor really well and doesn't appear to be inebriated and engage in sex with her assuming that she's able to give consent?

Given the current climate, your wisest course of action - besides not being a fornicator - would be to first ask her to smile nicely for your phone's camera and time-stamp record her stating (a) she is not drunk and/or knows exactly what she's saying and (b) giving you consent to proceed. You then do not vary from her recorded statement. There's probably already an app for it.

But nothing beyond not being a fornicator is foolproof anymore. Then again, you don't even need to know a woman in order to be accused of rape and your life ruined.

 

[ok doser]

I got more but it'll have to wait - the librarian's pointing at the clock :wave2:

 

[musterion]

The comment about control issues had to do with the character of the person in question. I am not speaking of self-control, but rather than need to control and dominate others.

Again, I got that the first time. I just think it's false.

Angry men with control-of-others issues go around NOT raping women all the time. All men are angry at some point. All angry men do not commit rape.

Lustful, horny men DO rape women all the time, and do so without being angry or having control-of-other issues. Many of them are quite happy about it (evil and worthy of death, but happy).

Which personality trait - anger/control issues, or lust - is the constant in all rapes?

 

[Rusha]

Again, I got that the first time. I just think it's false.

Angry men with control-of-others issues go around NOT raping women all the time. All men are angry at some point. All angry men do not commit rape.

Lustful, horny men DO rape women all the time, and do so without being angry or having control-of-other issues. Many of them are quite happy about it (evil and worthy of death, but happy).

Which personality trait - anger/control issues, or lust - is the constant in all rapes?

I am going to go with anger and hatred. A man in an chemically induced stupor would be the possible exception.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Again, I got that the first time. I just think it's false.

Angry men with control-of-others issues go around NOT raping women all the time. All men are angry at some point. All angry men do not commit rape.

Lustful, horny men DO rape women all the time, and do so without being angry or having control-of-other issues. Many of them are quite happy about it (evil and worthy of death, but happy).

Which personality trait - anger/control issues, or lust - is the constant in all rapes?

What have you got to support that? Cites please.

 

[glorydaz]

An example of wrongly judging someone outside the church is calling Rusha a god-hater. That is why I made my original comment, and it stands.

You need to get off this nonsense about judging someone outside the church, since you clearly don't have a clue what Paul is saying in that text. I already told you Paul said we were to judge all things. 1 Cor. 2:15

As you can see in chapter 5, Paul is rightfully judging those in the world for what they are (fornicators, covetous, extortioners, idolaters).....he is explaining how we would have to go out of the world in order to avoid keeping company with them.

1 Cor. 5:9-10
I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.​

He is using judging in the sense that those INSIDE the church who claim to be brothers and do such things, we are to JUDGE (put out of the assembly).

We see here again he is "judging" those outside as fornicators, idolators, railers, drunkards, etc., but he judges (puts out) those who call themselves a brother and do such things.

1 Cor. 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.​

We can't judge (put from our midst) those "that are without", when we are out there with them. God will judge them when the time comes. Paul is not even coming close to saying what you claim...clearly he has no problem at all addressing the ungodly's bad behavior.

1 Cor. 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?​

This is a perfect example of how you twist scripture, Elo. You may be able to fool those "without", who post here in the "Rest", but you would never get away with this kind of stuff in ECT.

 

[musterion]

I am going to go with anger and hatred.

Okee dokee.

 

[glorydaz]

Again, I got that the first time. I just think it's false.

Angry men with control-of-others issues go around NOT raping women all the time. All men are angry at some point. All angry men do not commit rape.

Lustful, horny men DO rape women all the time, and do so without being angry or having control-of-other issues. Many of them are quite happy about it (evil and worthy of death, but happy).

Which personality trait - anger/control issues, or lust - is the constant in all rapes?

:e4e:

 

[musterion]

https://www.google.com/search?q=ted...60&bih=517&usg=__NDmEQbiY63lrPU7iZW70RlOitbo=

 

[Arthur Brain]

Again, I got that the first time. I just think it's false.

Angry men with control-of-others issues go around NOT raping women all the time. All men are angry at some point. All angry men do not commit rape.

Lustful, horny men DO rape women all the time, and do so without being angry or having control-of-other issues. Many of them are quite happy about it (evil and worthy of death, but happy).

Which personality trait - anger/control issues, or lust - is the constant in all rapes?

Once again, cites please.

 

[glorydaz]

not sure I could explain it without getting banned :noid:


on the other hand, consider that the new guidelines for what constitutes "rape" include in ability to give consent due to inebriation

what if I pick up a girl at a bar who holds her liquor really well and doesn't appear to be inebriated and engage in sex with her assuming that she's able to give consent?

Bad behavior is risky behavior. It's easy to forget in this day and age that picking up a girl and having sex with her is wrong....especially when so many people are saying it's fine. But, it isn't, and ANYTHING could happen.

 

[musterion]

https://www.google.com/search?q=ted...iZW70RlOitbo=#tbm=isch&q=bill+clinton+smiling

 

[ClimateSanity]

You need to get off this nonsense about judging someone outside the church, since you clearly don't have a clue what Paul is saying in that text. I already told you Paul said we were to judge all things. 1 Cor. 2:15

As you can see in chapter 5, Paul is rightfully judging those in the world for what they are (fornicators, covetous, extortioners, idolaters).....he is explaining how we would have to go out of the world in order to avoid keeping company with them.

1 Cor. 5:9-10
I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.​

He is using judging in the sense that those INSIDE the church who claim to be brothers and do such things, we are to JUDGE (put out of the assembly).

We see here again he is "judging" those outside as fornicators, idolators, railers, drunkards, etc., but he judges (puts out) those who call themselves a brother and do such things.

1 Cor. 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.​

We can't judge (put from our midst) those "that are without", when we are out there with them. God will judge them when the time comes. Paul is not even coming close to saying what you claim...clearly he has no problem at all addressing the ungodly's bad behavior.

1 Cor. 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?​

This is a perfect example of how you twist scripture, Elo. You may be able to fool those "without", who post here in the "Rest", but you would never get away with this kind of stuff in ECT.

You have summarized the correct understanding of judging within and without the church . it requires careful consideration within context and not isolating snippets to make a point.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Bad behavior is risky behavior. It's easy to forget in this day and age that picking up a girl and having sex with her is wrong....especially when so many people are saying it's fine. But, it isn't, and ANYTHING could happen.

Yes, the copulating unmarried couple could get whisked off in a flying blancmange and be forced into surreal servitude of the 'pudding order' and blah blah blah...

 

[musterion]

 

[1PeaceMaker]

I am going to go with anger and hatred. A man in an chemically induced stupor would be the possible exception.

Agreed. I'm surprised that some men miss the performance issue that is integral to male sexuality.

How does a man remain physically capable while his victim is pushing away, weeping, screaming, beating on his chest, etc? Or even stiffly and stoically refusing?

Compare that to the man who can't perform if he's not sure his wife approves of his advances in every sense? Despite having a high, normally functioning sex drive?

In order to be aroused by the victims anger, fear, and resistance, there has to be gratification over his/her pain.

Even a drugged victim should put a lump so big in his stomach that there isn't room for any ambition like rape.