On Deservedness

[glorydaz]

I know the feeling.

Saying "Boo" hurts your feelings.

 

[glorydaz]

Women are not raped because of their (when such is the case) slutty behaviour. They are raped because of the animalistic attitudes of the men watching them. When I see slutty women I have no desire to rape them or have sex with them but I can well imagine that some men would feel that they were easy meat. I can also imagine that some men would think that the woman wanted to have sex. In all the cases, the man's reaction to the woman is not the inevitable consequence of the woman's behaviour. Therefore it is illogical to suggest that she deserved anything.

Thank you, DR. I can't really agree with that part.

That you have no desire to rape a woman with slutty behavior doesn't mean there aren't men who do have a desire to rape a woman when they see slutty behavior. You're basing your opinion on the fact that not all men react a certain way so it's "illogical" to say there is a direct correlation to the slutty behavior and what is deserved. That's like saying a person who plays Russian roulette doesn't deserve to be shot since there were 5 blanks in a gun. My "example" was a woman stripping at a frat party, and when a woman chooses to entice a bunch of drunk guys, she deserves whatever she gets. She does everything she can to entice men and then tries to play innocent? Only in lala land. Nope, I'm not buying it. In fact, I would be very surprised if the gal herself didn't admit she deserved exactly what she got. People aren't as stupid as many seem to think.

I really have fundamental problems with this. I have had cancer twice and am severely disabled as a result. Asking about what we deserve is quite the wrong question. I would not be alive if I for one moment thought that I deserved the suffering I have been through. Or indeed if I had also thought that I did not deserve it. If at any point I had succumbed to the thought that there was something wrong with me morally or that I had made morally bad decisions or that I was a victim of circumstances or of God's arbitrariness or such like, then I am sure I would have died of depression and lack of purpose. Many did. I am a relatively rare survivor of the kind of cancer I have had.

My heart goes out to you, but you've misunderstood me on this one.

We deserve whatever we get when we do something WRONG. We have a conscience, and we know when something is wrong. But we don't deserve mercy when we've done wrong, as some have claimed.


But, I did address the suffering you're speaking of.....that we receive, through no fault of our own. I spoke of the suffering that we endure....not because of anything we have done wrong...and why bad things happen to good people. I do see that the Lord allows us to suffer. In this world we will have tribulation, and there are reasons for that....besides our just living in a world of sin. I never even came close to saying we deserve all the suffering we go through...but that the Lord allows it for a purpose, and works it together for our good.

Does everything that happens to you have to be a punishment? I really have deep problems with this.

Well, cross that one off your list. I don't think that nor have I said it.

The difficulty you will have over this is that you can't know whether you did something wrong until after the event. Because generally right and wrong are understood in terms of their consequences. All we can say in this case is that the slutty woman took risks that she needn't have taken. Taking risks is not a sin. It is just the choices she makes. You may say 'I disagree with her lifestyle', but that doesn't make her morally guilty of anything.

I understand right and wrong not based on consequences but on what is right and wrong. Period. We were all created with a conscience...which is why we have no excuse.

But if the Christian faith is that God does the judging, then surely it is not our decision to claim that people are being punished for whatever actions they do? We should not judge.

But we don't give up our common sense, do we? We can still look at the facts and give our opinions, and I'm pretty sure that's what we're supposed to be doing here. When this question first came up, I said I could only think of one instance a woman's bad behavior would lead to her being raped. That's the only "judging" I take will take responsibility for. We are to judge all things....I've done so.

 

[glorydaz]

Is that what I've done?

I've had no cause to put you on the PC tyrant list as of yet. It was just a fair warning of what would undoubtedly come.

 

[glorydaz]

Yes, it does detract. If lions have morality and know they shouldn't attack the person then it's on them if they do. They can't say, "but he was standing out in the open! But he looked to tasty! But he made it so easy!" And if there is a law against lions attacking people then they should still face the full punishment.

Just because there is no "law" against stripping (offering himself up as bait), does that mean the victim has no fault?

 

[kmoney]

Just because there is no "law" against stripping (offering himself up as bait), does that mean the victim has no fault?

Yes. And a law against stripping is irrelevant. My answer would be the same either way, as it relates to rape.

 

[glorydaz]

Yes.

Oh, so since there is no law against abortion, that makes it right? No fault? :think:

 

[kmoney]

Oh, so since there is no law against abortion, that makes it right? No fault? :think:

No, that's not what I meant. Stripping is morally wrong no matter what.

And I modified my answer in case you missed it.

 

[glorydaz]

Yes. And a law against stripping is irrelevant. My answer would be the same either way, as it relates to rape.

Ah, the sacred "rape" again.

The guy who gets out of the car against advice and gets eaten by lions is innocent because there is no law against his getting out of the car. There is a law against eating humans so the lions are totally at fault.

Yep, that makes perfect sense. :chuckle:

 

[glorydaz]

No, that's not what I meant. Stripping is morally wrong no matter what.

And I modified my answer in case you missed it.

Yes I saw...."as it relates to rape". The magic word which washes away all fault.

 

[kmoney]

Ah, the sacred "rape" again.

The guy who gets out of the car against advice and gets eaten by lions is innocent because there is no law against his getting out of the car. There is a law against eating humans so the lions are totally at fault.

Yep, that makes perfect sense. :chuckle:

Sure it does. Does a woman taking her clothes off mean the guy has no control of his body anymore? Of course not. It's his decision and his decision alone.

And it's not just about 'sacred rape'. I'd make the same argument for other things. This thread just happens to be about rape.

 

[patrick jane]

Sure it does. Does a woman taking her clothes off mean the guy has no control of his body anymore? Of course not. It's his decision and his decision alone.

And it's not just about 'sacred rape'. I'd make the same argument for other things. This thread just happens to be about rape.

I've said no to dozens of women throughout my lifetime, since puberty in fact. I always say NO, it makes them want you even more.

 

[glorydaz]

Sure it does. Does a woman taking her clothes off mean the guy has no control of his body anymore? Of course not. It's his decision and his decision alone.

And it's not just about 'sacred rape'. I'd make the same argument for other things. This thread just happens to be about rape.

The man is at fault for raping the stripper. No question about it.

Stripping is morally wrong. You admitted that. The woman is at fault for her "bad behavior". No question about it.

How is it the stripper suddenly becomes an innocent victim with no fault?

 

[glorydaz]

I've said no to dozens of women throughout my lifetime, since puberty in fact. I always say NO, it makes them want you even more.

Why don't you just shut up? You're disgusting.

 

[Rusha]

I've said no to dozens of women throughout my lifetime, since puberty in fact. I always say NO, it makes them want you even more.

Could be .... though it doesn't matter. No means no. Any violent response they would have would on THEM.

 

[Desert Reign]

Thank you.
Now all you have to do is to stretch your imagination a little further and give the lions a wee bit more moral choice mentality such that you are able to say truly that the lions knew they were not allowed to attack and eat human beings but they did it anyway because normally human beings are in cars but this one was outside offering itself up as food. Does that fact in any way detract from your above statement assigning fault to the victim? Does the fact that the lions knew this change the responsibility of the victim, does this fact competely exonerate him?

Yes, it does detract. If lions have morality and know they shouldn't attack the person then it's on them if they do. They can't say, "but he was standing out in the open! But he looked to tasty! But he made it so easy!" And if there is a law against lions attacking people then they should still face the full punishment.

Just because there is no "law" against stripping (offering himself up as bait), does that mean the victim has no fault?

Yes. And a law against stripping is irrelevant. My answer would be the same either way, as it relates to rape.

Ah, the sacred "rape" again.

The guy who gets out of the car against advice and gets eaten by lions is innocent because there is no law against his getting out of the car. There is a law against eating humans so the lions are totally at fault.

Yep, that makes perfect sense. :chuckle:

Sure it does. Does a woman taking her clothes off mean the guy has no control of his body anymore? Of course not. It's his decision and his decision alone.

And it's not just about 'sacred rape'. I'd make the same argument for other things. This thread just happens to be about rape.

KM, you seem to be giving contradictory answers here. You recognise that the person who got out of the car was being stupid and was at fault when there was no one else to blame (that's what you said) but as soon as there is someone else to blame all of a sudden the person who got out of the car is no longer at fault for anything. This seems a contradictory position. How do you account for it? In my question above quoted, I asked you about the person who got out of the car but you sidestepped the question and answered with respect to the lions. I was not asking about the lions. Once again, please answer the question, you seem to be going out of your way to avoid answering it.

EDIT: Just noticed this:

The man is at fault for raping the stripper. No question about it.

Stripping is morally wrong. You admitted that. The woman is at fault for her "bad behavior". No question about it.

How is it the stripper suddenly becomes an innocent victim with no fault?

which more or less asks the sme question.

 

[bybee]

KM, you seem to be giving contradictory answers here. You recognise that the person who got out of the car was being stupid and was at fault when there was no one else to blame (that's what you said) but as soon as there is someone else to blame all of a sudden the person who got out of the car is no longer at fault for anything. This seems a contradictory position. How do you account for it? In my question above quoted, I asked you about the person who got out of the car but you sidestepped the question and answered with respect to the lions. I was not asking about the lions. Once again, please answer the question, you seem to be going out of your way to avoid answering it.

Always the necessity to place blame? It is simply cause and effect. The guy chooses to confront a lion. He gets attacked because that is what hungry lions do. He suffers the consequences.
Are you equating a hungry lion with gonadal youths?
That in the presence of temptation they will do what comes naturally?
Your analogy doesn't work for me.

 

[annabenedetti]

Sure it does. Does a woman taking her clothes off mean the guy has no control of his body anymore? Of course not. It's his decision and his decision alone.

Yes it is. He's the one who's committing the crime.

 

[ok doser]

thank you captains obvious

 

[badp]

likewise, I would say that certain circumstances exist in which a woman deserves to be raped, in that she had earned it by her actions

What you're describing is not rape. If a woman does something stupid and ends up doing something she regrets, that's not rape. She can pretend it is, like liberals pretend "gay marriage," but that's not what it is.

 

[ok doser]

What you're describing is not rape. If a woman does something stupid and ends up doing something she regrets, that's not rape. She can pretend it is, like liberals pretend "gay marriage," but that's not what it is.

rape has been redefined by the feminists

and nobody has shown any sympathy about all the times i was raped: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4536855&postcount=549