Huckabee: Always Look on the Bright Side of Rape!

GhostWriter16 said:

That may be what most contemporary theologians think, but there's no way to draw that conclusion from the Early Church, which, in spite of all their incredible good, had an unhealthily negative view of sex (Just look at some of the things Tertulian says about it) There's really no Biblical reason to think that ANYONE is prohibited from marrying or having sex in marriage if they wish to (The already married pretty obviously aside, because they're already married)

Click to expand...

Tertullian was kind of reactionarily anti-Hellenistic and nutty, so his thoughts on sex wouldn't characterize the whole of Patristic thought. The image of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant is a pretty ancient one, so I think the analogy was justified.

Those Marian views are a leftover relic from the earlier times when sex was intristically considered shameful. Now, you could argue that those views are true in spite of the motives by which they were created, but then again, why? Especially when you take a mostly unambiguous text (When you say "A did not happen until B" it usually implies "A" did in fact happen eventually. Otherwise, why not just write "Joseph did not lie with his wife till the end of his days" or even the more basic "Joseph did not lie with his wife?")

Click to expand...

The English is a little misleading there. The Greek word for "until" is a bit more ambiguous, and is used in Matthew 28:20 and the Septuigant text of Psalm 72:7. The specific narrative of Joseph as an old widower and Mary as a perpetual virgin is found in writing as early as the Protoevangelium of James (c. 145), and I think it's pretty possible the author was drawing on some older oral traditions. It may be a relic, but it's a very old one. As for exactly why it should be believed, you can find a pretty solid defense here.

Crezth said:

It's not exactly a relevant concern, all things said, when only 9% of rape cases include male victims.

Click to expand...

It's a minority of incidents for sure, but I don't think marginalizing it like that is particularly healthy. 9% is still a pretty decent chunk of rape. We ain't talking breast cancer here.

It should be noted that I am not sympathizing or agreeing with Huckabee's message.

I'm bringing awareness to the fact that men can indeed get raped, and that it happens a significant amount of the time.

Tertullian was kind of reactionarily anti-Hellenistic and nutty, so his thoughts on sex wouldn't characterize the whole of Patristic thought. The image of Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant is a pretty ancient one, so I think the analogy was justified.

Click to expand...

Maybe "justified" but that doesn't really mean its right.

The English is a little misleading there. The Greek word for "until" is a bit more ambiguous, and is used in Matthew 28:20 and the Septuigant text of Psalm 72:7. The specific narrative of Joseph as an old widower and Mary as a perpetual virgin is found in writing as early as the Protoevangelium of James (c. 145), and I think it's pretty possible the author was drawing on some older oral traditions. It may be a relic, but it's a very old one. As for exactly why it should be believed, you can find a pretty solid defense here.

Click to expand...

I'll look at your link, although, as I said, the general negative view of sex among Christians, due to Roman orgies being so common, is easily understandable but not so simply right. I would submit that sex between married couples doesn't corrupt or damage perfection at all. In fact, the only human being that couldn't have sex was Jesus because he was God and so that was obviously a different situation (Da Vinci Code aside.) Other than ancient hangups on sex, which aren't Biblical, I can't imagine a good reason for it, but I'll read that link and find out

Oldschooler88 said:

Well I wouldn't go as far to say wikipedia has a liberal bias, but it certainly has an anti-male one (it's article on Misogyny is far more elaborated than its article on misandry).

Click to expand...

This is because misogyny is an actual worldwide issue that has been the dominant paradigm for the better part of human history.

In any case, as I've stated before, many men simply don't report their rapes. And I've spoken to many people that believe it is simply physically impossible for a woman to rape a man even though it is indeed possible, so yeah.

Click to expand...

Yes, many women also don't report their rapes - that's one of the big problems at work here. A good majority of rape cases also don't follow through to prosecution. This and the 9% figure tell us that:

1) Rape is an unsolved problem.

2) Women get the worst of it.

Plus, with all the men getting raped in jail, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's on a 50/50 level. Which whether it's even on a 50/50 level or not is besides the point. I just doubt it's at a 91/9 level.

Click to expand...

Because you are a man and furthermore lack perspective.

edit: and if you want a source to prove my point, then here ya go:

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID45-PR45.pdf

Click to expand...

This is mostly tangential. Where are the cold hard implications that the level is 50-50, or at least definitely not 91-9? Give me something relevant instead of a skep journal paper about how sometimes people are bullies in consensual relationships!

GhostWriter16 said:

I'm sure its not 50/50 but I agree with you the stats are at least a little off due to more frequent non-reports.

Click to expand...

Frequent non-reports is an issue when talking about male and female rape instances.

GhostWriter16 said:

Even if its only 9%, that's not "Irrelevant." That said...

Click to expand...

_random_ said:

It's a minority of incidents for sure, but I don't think marginalizing it like that is particularly healthy. 9% is still a pretty decent chunk of rape. We ain't talking breast cancer here.

Click to expand...

The problem is not that 9% is too many, but that it is too little (keeping in mind that a percentage represents a component of a whole which has somehow flitted the minds of people contemplating this figure here). The very fact that the remaining 91% goes to women suggests strongly that this is a crime that, primarily, affects women. QED.

You can argue that 9% is 9% too much rape, but by the same token you ought to argue that 91% is 91% too much rape. The sheer disparity should inform our decisionmaking when it comes to policy on an issue like this; pretending that we ought to treat the playing ground as though it is level when it is decidedly not is a severe disservice to women everywhere.

You should realize that misogyny is only "an actual worldwide issue" because feminist have made it one. You probably even believe that the western world is still under "male privilege" when the truth is much closer to the opposite.

You still have not disputed my claim that more males simply do not report their rapes as opposed to women.

And since men can't get pregnant, they have less proof of their rape. Among other things.

You're just spewing out politically correct feminist hogwash with your comments like "Because you are a man and you lack perspective".

I must say I'm solidly left wing, but the fact that conservatives tend not to discriminate against men is one of their few redeeming qualities. What's sad about these feminist radicals is they fail to see the irony in their own argument.

That is, I could equally say "A woman will lack a mans perspective.

Oldschooler88 said:

You should realize that misogyny is only "an actual worldwide issue" because feminist have made it one. You probably even believe that the western world is still under "male privilege" when the truth is much closer to the opposite.

Click to expand...

How many women can you find in this group?

How about this one (this is the all-time high score, too)?

You still have not disputed my claim that more males simply do not report their rapes as opposed to women.

Click to expand...

Because you have not supported it.

And since men can't get pregnant, they have less proof of their rape. Among other things.

Click to expand...

Which would matter more, again, if a more significant quantity of rape cases followed through to prosecution (hint: even when they do, and even with the women's privileged access to such preponderances of evidence, the accused often cannot be found guilty).

You're just spewing out politically correct feminist hogwash with your comments like "Because you are a man and you lack perspective".

Click to expand...

That was just me being cheeky, but you do lack perspective.

I must say I'm solidly left wing, but the fact that conservatives tend not to discriminate against men is one of their few redeeming qualities.

Click to expand...

The very edifice of our society discriminates against women. It is inherent; there's nothing political about pointing that out.

Unless, of course, you were interested in maintaining the status quo. Which the conservatives do want, so I suppose that's a fair point.

What's sad about these feminist radicals is they fail to see the irony in their own argument. That is, I could equally say "A woman will lack a mans perspective.

Click to expand...

Indeed, but since women aren't deciding policy that largely affects men, I don't see the problem here.

Cut the over-the-top MRA stuff, OldSchooler. It marginalizes the ways in which men are legitimately disadvantaged.

MRA? What does that even mean?

The fortune 500 and congress mean nothing. I mean, there are far less individual human beings in the fortune 500 (ceos that is) or congressman than there are in mass population. And that's where females have the edge.

It's funny how you completely ignored the fact that I brought up that males have less proof that they can get raped, and turned it into an argument against me.

And as for female privilege? How about the fact that females are statistically more likely to go to college? And to graduate with a degree?

Or the fact that women get special bonuses and incentives for going into "male dominated" fields such as engineering and science, where as men get no such things for entering female dominated fields such as English?

Or the fact that 80% of suicides are males?

How about the fact that the entire school system is geared towards females?

edit: I also do not know what MRA means.

"Men's Rights Activist"

Edit: X-post

_random_ said:

"Men's Rights Activist"

Edit: X-post

Click to expand...

I fancy myself as one of those.

_random_ said:

"Men's Rights Activist"

Edit: X-post

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it's "Male Rights Activist".

You definitely give off that vibe. It's fine to draw attention to things like higher suicide rates or problems gaining custody, but power in society is distributed pretty overwhelmingly toward men.

Edit: Dammit, again?

_random_ said:

You definitely give off that vibe. It's fine to draw attention to things like higher suicide rates or problems gaining custody, but power in society is distributed pretty overwhelmingly toward men.

Edit: Dammit, again?

Click to expand...

Then why are men more likely to be laid off or homeless?

Why are men more likely to be a victim of domestic violence and nearly all forms of violent crimes?

Why do so many of you continue to believe that men have superior salaries for the same job even though it's been disproven many times over?

Oldschooler88 said:

The fortune 500 and congress mean nothing. I mean, there are far less individual human beings in the fortune 500 (ceos that is) or congressman than there are in mass population. And that's where females have the edge.

Click to expand...

So having money and power means nothing, gotcha. How do women have the edge again?

It's funny how you completely ignored the fact that I brought up that males have less proof that they can get raped, and turned it into an argument against me.

Click to expand...

Because it's not a relevant point; having that proof doesn't help women in any demonstrable way, because it still usually boils down to he-said she-said which isn't enough to convict on.

And as for female privilege? How about the fact that females are statistically more likely to go to college? And to graduate with a degree?

Click to expand...

That's a good start, but still somehow does not accommodate pay disparities or other hard disadvantages for women in the workforce. There are reasons for this, of course, and the pay disparity is ardently defended by classical economics, but that doesn't make the system any less unequal.

Or the fact that women get special bonuses and incentives for going into "male dominated" fields such as engineering and science, where as men get no such things for entering female dominated fields such as English?

Click to expand...

Because those "male dominated" fields are also where job opportunities and upwards mobility are, and encouraging women into investing their time into those fields levels the playing field in the long run?

Or the fact that 80% of suicides are males?

Click to expand...

That's a problem, yes. I wouldn't expect an all-women panel to approach the problem, however (and not just because so few women are in a position to staff such a panel).

How about the fact that the entire school system is geared towards females?

Click to expand...

How do you figure?

Why do so many of you continue to believe that men have superior salaries for the same job even though it's been disproven many times over?

Click to expand...

Don't you even start that garbage.

Oldschooler88 said:

Then why are men more likely to be laid off or homeless?

Why are men more likely to be a victim of domestic violence and nearly all forms of violent crimes?

Why do so many of you continue to believe that men have superior salaries for the same job even though it's been disproven many times over?

Click to expand...

Some women's lib issues are still timely and true. Some of it is "liberal" inertia. Conservatives aren't the only guilty party to liking the status quo since it doesn't force re-evaluation of principles.

You believe English has no job opportunities? I'm an English major and take personal offense to that.

Lots of technical writers easily make 150 K a year, and that's what the emphasis of my English degree is, just so you know.

It is a MYTH that men get paid more than women for the same job.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8212662/Gender-pay-gap-down-to-womens-lifestyle-choices.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

As for how the school system is geared toward females? How about this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10616/Is-school-biased-boys.html

And you still haven't given me a remotely good answer for why women are more likely to go to college, nor have you done so with the fact that 80% of suicides are male.

This thread is now about male privilege.

...STILL better than what it was originally about.

Crezth said:

Don't you even start that garbage.

Click to expand...

It's not actually garbage. If you care to look specifically at salaries of the urban young(~30 years and younger) who have made similar life choices(not assuming the majority of childrearing for example) pay disparity favors female professionals. It's not the whole picture, true. But given that pay disparity has a long lifecycle of inertia(just ask the boomers) and wage trends are accelerating rather than equalizing since 2008, there are some pretty interesting assumptions to be drawn about the next 40 years in wage equality. Oldschooler may be overstating, but it's clearly not garbage.

I think the reality of the situation is that power is no longer distributed towards men the way it used to be.

There may be some inequalities, probably on both sides, but to assume that the whole Republican party hates women and be able to get away with it without being lauded as a total idiot says something....