sex, gods, and rock and roll

[JNeighb934@aol.co]

In a message dated 04/26/99 2:32:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time, WILLELA@aol.com
writes:

>

I know this thread has been beaten to death, but this statement is so full of
shit that I just have to put my two cents worth in, too. Rape is not about
sexual fulfillment; it is about control and/or getting one's way no matter
what. I am a man and a good deal of the pleasure I get out of sex is the
pleasure I sense the woman getting out of it. This is the way most people
feel about sex, giving and receiving mutual pleasure. A rapist is not
concerned about the woman's pleasure. A violent rapist usually has a
psycological need to control women, while a date rapist is a selfish person
who has to have his way, and probally feels inadequate if he doesn't get it.
The bottom line is that rapists don't care about the woman's feelings or
needs or satisfaction, and I believe that most rapists satisfy a
psychological need, not a sexual need, when they rape. Therefore, I can
honestly say I would never rape because I would get no sexual satisfaction
out of it. I could not force myself on a woman who did not want me and was
frightened of and repulsed by me; I would feel pathetic doing so. Think
about it. It takes a specific kind of psychological makeup to actually be
capable of rape. It's one thing to sit around on your computer feeling horny
and looking at porn shots and thinking, "Man, if that bitch walked in my room
right now I'd jump her bones and #@$% the %$^& out of her!" Most similar
male sexual fantasy mental wanderings-daydreams imagine the woman immensely
enjoying the man's sexual might. However, it is quite another thing
altogether, in reality, to face a frightened, struggling woman who you know
thinks you are a monster, and physically hold her down while you force your
penis into her vagina repeatedly. As I said, it takes a certain kind of
personality to actually go through with this act. Your statement that most
men don't rape out of fear of consequences is bogus. With an act such as
rape, fear of consequences has very little to do with it, in my opinion.
More likely, fear of consequences keeps those who do rape from raping more
often and in the open. I say that those who do not rape now would not rape
under any circumstances, even if there were no laws against it.
As far as the gods dorking mortals, I say it's totally up to the DM. The BR
gods were once human, so they would be likely candidates to interact with
mortals in such a way. However, I think gods would only create offspring,
either divine or semi-devine, with an exact pupose in mind. I seriously
doubt that divinities in their godly forms in the outer planes would feel
sexual desires, at least not like humans do. Their avatars might, however,
so they would probably send them to consumate the act, as opposed to the
implanting a seed/virgin birth method. Anyway, such offspring between mortal
and god should be rare and have a specific destiny to live and reason for
being.

[WILLELA@aol.co]

Ok, one last message on rape since you want to argue it.
Bearcat [barvas@xoommail.com(Joao Clark Medeiros)] points out that
inductive logic can't prove all men are rapists, only that some are. True
enough, But we are talking potential rapists, and facing some serious
evidence. When those insisting they would never rape offer little more than
statements made as well by thousands of known rapists, we are wise to assume
they have the potential too. That may not be precisely logical, but it is
routine, and routinely correct.
Homosexuality serves no reproductive purpose? But it most certainly
does. Just what that purpose is is a matter of considerable debate. Some
possibilities: The homosexual is a good supporter of children, and makes up
for his own lack of children by giving his siblings' kids a better chance of
success. Homosexuality is a combination of genes, each of which improves
reproductive success. Unfortunately for the homosexual, the combination of
all of them negates reproduction. However, since those having, say, 9 out of
10 genes, do so well, the homosexual continues to reappear.
These, and/or others, may or may not be the exact method, but
homosexuality definitely does improve reproduction in some cases. A point of
interest here is that it has been reported in about 20% of species seriously
studied.

jneighb934@aol.com says that since he gets pleasure from the woman's
pleasure, he would not rape because she would get no pleasure from that. The
argument fails on its face since he only gets some of his pleasure from her
pleasure. A distinct minority in all liklihood. He would thus find rape
less enjoyable than more voluntary associations, but still pleasurable.
He would also like to claim that the purpose of rape is to control the
woman, not sex. This theory is popular with some feminists, but has major
problems when confronted with evidence. Rape is a sexual action, not an
attempt to control. (Often enough the rapist ceases all contract with his
victim, which makes control both difficult, and apparently unimportant.)
When we consider other species, we see the oranutan rapes, but has almost no
social life and no attempt to control the female. The chimp by contrast has
much more social life and makes considerable effort to control the female
(one tactic being to beat her up until she is too terrified to say no when
she is fertile, which may be months later.) But clear rape is rare at most.
We control in order to rape, not rape in order to control.
Yours for deeper dungeons
David Argall