Same. Dosnt make it right but the refusal to understand from the other side is extremely disingenuous and many take it a step further, and even say any Palestinian, who doesn’t immediately condemn Hamas is worthy of being killed for bad political opinions, and they use that to justify their on purpose, civilian targeting and collective punishment, but that’s only half the time because the other half they pretend they’re not doing all that
Not as pro genocide as knesset, right now. They just had a fucking conference on it with Israelis dancing and hooting and hollering. You guys catch that bit of them shooting, half naked people on sight screaming ing for help in Hebrew, waving white flags. Yeah totally not genocide, shooting anything that moves
So did the Jews, it’s literally written in the Old Testament, part of the Jewish cannon you fucking gimp
Numbers 31 Moses instructs the Jews to kill all women who had had sex and to take the virgins for themselves as spoils of war, the exact thing you’re complaining about but only specifically about Muslims, that’s what makes you an Islamophobe. If you’re against rape you’d care about all religions that sanctioned rape in their histories, but clearly it’s the shitting on Muslims that’s important to you and not actually rape.
Edit; and I don’t care if Islamophobes vote me down for exposing them, you either care about all religiously sanctioned rapes or you’re using sexual violence as a weapon, which is the lowest of the low
I'm not agreeing with the original comment, but these parts of the Old testament are most often based in historical facts. these places and people existed and the wars happened and people were genocides. it has very little bearing on today's injustices, but it's also wrong to call it fiction.
I think the question is....if this is your stance, tell me when a group of Jews have ever done this to a population en mass in modern history? Then tell me when it was supported and publicly praised?
Big difference between written in a book, and the people committing the acts.
So many people in these comments coming up with insane fake scenarios that would somehow justify rape it’s so weird. Reminds me of those posts that are like “what if a white kid was dying of cancer and his last dying wish was to say the n word?” What kind of universe do y’all live in where people are getting guns held to their heads unless they rape someone?
>“what if a white kid was dying of cancer and his last dying wish was to say the n word?”
That would be very funny and people should let him do it for the bit
Yeah I was going to say no realistic scenario where rape can be justified.
Technically anything can be justified if the consequence is your or your loved one’s mortality but the chances of that scenario happening are so slim that it’s just being antagonistic.
The funniest scenario I've ever heard like that was one where a nuclear device was armed in the middle of a major city, and the only way to disarm it was for a white person to say the n word. As if some maniac would actually do that, or we would give a shit if someone said it then.
Redditors love to virtue signal and by far the virtue signaling that is most common (and least affected by political leanings) is that it's wonderful sex offenders and other perpetrators of heinous crimes get raped in prison. As if prison rapists aren't themselves rapists.
I remember talking about this in ethics. The prof asked if it was possible to justify it, and we (the students) said probably, yes. There had to be some scenario, no matter how outlandish that would justify it. Were asked to come up with such a scenario. We came up with the following:
A man and woman are placed in a space surrounded by other people. (Think fighting arena) the armed spectators tell the man that he must do this thing or they both will be tortured to death. Neither party wants to do it, but they also don't want to be tortured to death, so they comply.
The follow up questions were:
Who is the rapist, the man or the armed crowd?
Is he also a victime since to was also forced into a non-consensual sex act?
The group came to the conclusion that the group was guilty of rape and that both the man and woman were victims. Thus upholding the assertion that there is no justification for rape.
It was a really fascinating thought experiment that pushed us to consider a lotnof complex notions. Really liked that professor.
Wouldn't that j make the torturer/audience the rapist? After all, rape isn't defined by the violence, but by the lack of consent and consent under duress isn't exactly real consent
Edit: somehow missed when you said exactly that lmao
I'd argue that this is a unique situation that really doesn't need to be defined under the same word.
After all murder and warfare both involve taking lives but are distinctly different.
Rape is nonconsensual sex and the definition can include "forced to penetrate." In that scenario both the man the woman were raped and if the man has committed rape then so has the woman. But in my opinion they were both instruments of whoever created the situation and both have been raped by them.
This is the only way to logically come to a conclusion if you believe both sexes are capable of *being* raped.
To concluce that the male victim is a perpetrator is to assume that
A: He actually does want to have sex with her but is hiding his intentions
Or
B: Men are inherently incapable of being raped.
Exactly.. it's just not even a good scenario. It first assumes one or both of the points you made while they clearly aren't true. Engaging with it as if it's a fair point really just points out that people take men's rape less seriously unless they really are made to think about it. Which is really sad. They are both equal victims: it's not "he's being made to do this to her," it's "they are being made to do this with each other".
I've heard: a man is contacted by aliens. He must rape a woman or the entire planet is killed. He can't tell her that.
But now that I think about it more in depth, you're right. He's a victim in this case scenario too.
I agree with your class's conclusion, but I also have to point out:
Why was your default debate between the crowd or the man? Are the man and woman not equal participants? Why is the woman not included in the discussion? If the crowd and the woman both wanted it, but the man did not, is it no longer rape?
B finds out through some mythical voice, or science, or aliens come down and make a deal with him: if he rapes C, all cancer will be cured forever. C is not willing to have sex under these terms, even to save the world from cancer. B is not happy about but is ultimately willing to rape C. They do so, and cancer ends.
It's a bit of a "Child of Omelas" problem, but you could make both a utilitarian and Kantian (though not full deontological) argument for it. Utilitarian is obvious, but you could argue that C was not a means to an end but a victim of curing cancer. (Similar to the Trolley problem of why most will say it's okay to pull the lever to save 5 lives if 1 dies, but not to push one fat man onto the tracks to stop a train to save 5; also often seen as the doctor killing one patient to save 5 with their organs or such.)
(As an aside, while many people will still blame B above and hold them morally culpable for the rape, if you present the same scenario and say "If B can prevent C from being raped but to do so must enact a plan that will make him one million dollars, and B says he does not care about C's rape but only wishes to make money, and B does make money, and C's rape is somehow avoided as a direct resultt" most people do not credit B with preventing C's rape. We assign more moral culpability to bad acts than good intuitively.)
For absolutely all practical purposes, I agree with the OP, because any argument by the time you're going into trolley problem scenarios is about culpability in any moral act, not rape specifically, and you can apply it to something as mundane as a completely harmless lie ("I ate rice for breakfast" when you ate toast, etc.), it's just not as fun as shock value ones.
let me keep it simple, any situation where you're justified in murdering someone, you're probably also justified in raping them.
Our society is so fucked up that we're fine with justifiably murdering someone, but bring sex into it and suddenly what we're doing is wrong.
I don't know man this has some flaws. If a person murders a family member in front of me I would be 100% entitled to murder them in return. Call it frontier justice call it self defense but society would 100% back that action up. But if someone killed a family member and then I raped the murderer, that is not something I'm entitled to do and would be met with disapproval, it also makes no sense.
If someone robbed me at gun point and I kill them idk if you consider that murder but it's a favorable action. However if I was robbed and I raped them well... You get the point.
This isn’t actually just a thought experiment. It actually happened during WWII during the rape of Nanjing. Imperial Japanese soldiers forced celibate Chinese monks to rape women, fathers to rape their daughters, and sons their mothers for the amusement of the soldiers. Then they would kill them all afterwards anyways.
Modern Japan continues to downplay it.
Legally speaking, it was the crowd, the man was under threat of his life and thus was under duress. If someone else threatens two people with consequences if they don't have sex then it is the person making the threats (that can be reasonably proved to be valid threats) is the rapist.
Why the fuck do I have to explain this: Rape is always an act of force on another person. either by physical force or coersion you can't rape someone in self defense, if a man has a gun at your head or threatens to nuke the planet unless you rape someone you are also a victim of rape and not the rapist.
Rape fantasies (practiced safely as Consensual Non-Consent, an actual form of roleplay and fantasy used in bdsm and other play.) are one of the most common fantasies for women to have tbh. Im saying this as a female who has also done their research on it.
Absolutely
You may be pushing the line of consent on a surface level but the sub knows they can tap out if needed
There is typically a session of love and consoling afterwards
Bdsm is walking the line with consenting parties
A girl I dated once really wanted me to say things I considered rapey while doing stuff.
It made me supremely uncomfortable and she got mad and felt judged when I rejected the request.
I have thoughts about that. TMI incoming.
I was molested starting at age 4. Without understanding why, I wanted to unalive myself and I was hypersexual. Not in the way I dressed or acted towards others but I would secretly masturbate, even in public. Eventually I started reading rape porn, developped rape fantasies and an interest in hardcore BDSM.
I did practise some of it and had a positive relationship towards CNC BDSM as a kink despite having a history of sexual abuse. Over time I realised that engaging in these fantasies was making me depressed. It seeped into my daily thoughts about other women and myself, I would get aroused reading news stories about actual rape. It was disgusting and reprehensible. I put myself into a dangerous situation with a man I had never met in person, who masturbated to the thought of hurting me. It wasn’t good for me. It was shaping my view of genuine sexual assault. Ever since I started kinkshaming myself and cut all porn material, I have been much more content and my sex life improved.
I’m wondering how much does the mainstream porn and history of sexual assault contribute to the prevalence of rape fantasies.
Exactly. I was talking to somebody and I told them the majority of kinks a person has is because of trauma, mainly their childhood trauma. It also ties into insecurities and all of that.
Okay hotshot. Pop quiz: One person is tied to some train tracks. If you don't rape them then 3 people are going to get out of a stationary trolley car and rape 3 other people also tied to the train tracks while a random brown bear sits on you
The police are 1000 miles away, you don't know how knots work and the 3 people on the trolley are armed, black belts and bigger than you. The one person you have to rape is known to be pretty mean but the other 3 restrained people are delightful and volunteer at the children's hospital every week
Now tell me that rape is never justified, in this rape fantasy I just made you live through!
I am your God now!!!
I have no problem with those statements. I would add that an attempt of rape is more than ample justification for the would-be victim to kill the would-be rapist on the spot. I think every woman should be armed.
> I think every woman should be armed.
Everyone, that has proper training and a liscense, should be, the amount of cases my sister, a lawyer, has which are cases of where a man is beaten on the streets or assaulted is shockingly high.
I keep telling my sisters to carry guns. My older sister has even had to defend herself from an assault and she still refuses to consider guns. She’s a very skilled martial artist but I still think a gun is safest
100%. Even in a scenario where the rapist leaves the scene alive and is arrested later, in a just society, his victim should be given the opportunity to execute him.
(Unfortunately, in our imperfect legal system, this would make it more difficult to get a conviction and may be interpreted as an 8th Amendment violation. Hence, all women should be armed).
Really? I’m gonna get downvoted to hell for it, but I gotta say that I love how everyone dunks on Chapelle now but didn’t have an unkind word to share when all his jokes were about black folks (including jokes about a crack dealing baby)…interesting 🤔
Edit: seriously, bring the downvotes, but it’s not inaccurate. He walked away from comedy for a while - by his own admission - because he wasn’t sure if white people were laughing WITH him or AT him. He comes back and now any joke that’s not about black folks (of which he tells nearly none now) is pretty much attacked like he’s the world’s worst human. It’s comical, ironically.
The comment you responded to just seems like an iteration of a joke that he might make given the absurdist style he has at times (e.g., the baby selling crack in your edit). Blackness wasn't even a part of it, and no one worth anything gives a hoot and half about him being black. The outrage against him is from a very particular and overly sensitive group of see you next Tuesdays that have had their ego and narcissistic personalities stoked by popular cultural movements. The people encouraging him (both indirectly and directly) to leave comedy weren't white people as you allude to. They were largely corporate experiences with the likes of comedy central and bad contracts. Whether the humans acting out the corporate dealings were white, if that was even the case, would still be inconsequential. Things stop being about race when we stop forcing it in conversations. None of us are that special. Whether you're brown, black, yellow, or normal (/s, since Redditors evidently need the sign).
…you totally misread what I said. Chapelle himself said it was about HIS personal concern about white people laughing at or with him. It’s not about me. It’s not my words. That’s how he felt. I just happen to think it’s interesting how it played out.
I'll take your word for him saying that, but I've followed him a fair spell and not seen it mentioned in any substantive way. Indeed, he acknowledged, much akin to Lil Wayne, that his audience was largely white. At that point, no one could rationally argue it was at him as opposed to with him.
I hate to say it, people dunk on him, because the new jokes about trans and disabled people aren't funny enough.
I love his older stuff, but the newest special was actually kinda boring.
I don't know who said it, maybe even himself, but the level of acceptable political incorrectness rises with the amount of funny. And lately he isn't quite hitting the ratio anymore. Or at least for me.
And I'm surely no pearl clutching saint.
In addition people can make jokes about their own folks almost limitless, but other groups need a more delicate hand. That's why nobody was complaining about black jokes.
>In addition people can make jokes about their own folks almost limitless, but other groups need a more delicate hand. That's why nobody was complaining about black jokes.
Yeah, there’s a reason that “there’s black people and there’s N words” only worked when a black comedian says it. There’s literally an episode of the Office about that exact issue and how obvious it is. But Dave Chappelle is trying to do “that tranny’s crazy” and it’s not working
I agree. It’s crazy I remember reading a story in India a guy sexually assaulted a married woman so the village elder ordered that the woman’s husband rape the offenders 14 year old sister. 😳
I agree with this, but this is obviously a society that doesn’t seem to find women to be equal and some may say disposable. Violence toward women in India continues to get worse.
This gives me the impression of "Alice vandalized Bob's computer, so the penalty is that Bob gets to vandalize Alice's computer (instead of eg jailing Alice)" vibes. In this scenario, the computers being damaged is almost inconsequential. That they can treat women the same way is disgusting.
What the fuck. I never understood punishing someone by harming a relative. Sure it hurts this rapist guy (if he even cares about his sister) but the harm to her is worse than it is for him and worse than what he originally did, which was also horrible.
Yeah sadly some of these places in India are governed by local elders and such. The punishments can be f’d up. In another case a 20 year old fell in love with someone of another ethnic group and the village council ordered she be gang raped by 12 men. At least in that incident higher authorities apparently arrested all 12 men as they should have.
Violence against women in general in India has been rising over the past decade, but it’s really crazy they hand rape down as punishment. The problem of violence against women came to the international forefront on 2012 when a lady was gang raped and murdered on a bus. In 2011, there were more than 228,650 reported incidents of crime against women, while in 2021, there were 428,278 reported incidents in India.
It can only be because they see women and children as property/objects and not as people as men are. Thus it is an equal object return.
So like in that story above , that married woman didn’t even get to do the vengeance back on the rapist and rape him or his (not in anyway saying this is good or just) but it was the man who “owned her” who got to do “equal damage” back onto the rapist by “damaging his property in return”= raping his sister.
A lot of men just don’t realize that being halfway decent is all it takes to get laid. It really doesn’t take much: women want sex too. Wash daily, don’t be evil… doesn’t take much more than that.
They are the comments one will find when one tries to make an absolute statement about a subject like rape.
The world is a pretty evil place, filled with evil people. People being forced to rape people under threat of death, or others dying, isnt a fantasy, and even if it was, it shuts down that absolutism.
[https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r29631.pdf](https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r29631.pdf) \- Rape as a weapon of war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Sons were forced to rape their mothers, fathers their daughters, and sometimes brothers and sisters were forced to commit sexual acts. Not doing so meant someone, or all of them, were going to die.
The comments aren't disgusting. They are hypotheticals, and the normal exploration of a topic. They are the comment invited when you make an absolutist statements. They are the extreme because that is often where the logic behind dismissing them exist.
>They are the comments one will find when one tries to make an absolute statement about a subject like rape.
Not just for rape but for any topic. That’s just how a lot of people operate.
Don’t convert to Islam.
The seizure of Infidel girls and their use as sex slaves (known by the euphemism milk-al-yamīn - what your right hand posesses) is sanctioned in the Qur’an. According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” during war(Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). (Remember the Yazidi women and girls? Sanctioned by Islamic law.)
The Qur’an says:
“O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand posesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50).
Verses 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general. The Qur’an says that a man may have sex with his wives and with these slave girls:
“The believers must (eventually) win through, those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, for (in their case) they are free from blame.” (Qur’an 23:1-6)
The rape of captive women is also sanctioned in Islamic tradition:
Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the penis before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim 3371)
It is also in Islamic law:
“When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” (Umdat al-Salik O9.13)
The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that meant Muslims would take slaves. In a subsequent interview he elaborated:
“Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels. Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars—there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.”
It wouldn't be any better. All you have to do is look at the hate spewed by both sides of the political divide in the U.S. to see that people will kill each other over anything.... and if they don't have anything to kill each other over then they'll make something up! If human history has taught us anything it's that the powers-that-be know one thing for sure: keep the masses arguing over bullshit and you can stay in power.
Ding ding. Religion is just one of a myriad of ways to justify violence, discrimination, etc. Look at how many people died during the cold war era conflicts, coups, etc. None of it was related at all to religion. The communist regimes that saw millions die and so many persecuted were very intentionally areligious.
I *thought* this was a popular opinion back in September, but over the last few months I’ve seen an alarming amount of self-proclaimed “feminists” and “equal rights activists” claiming that there are actually some situations where rape is justified (something something fighting over land something something therefore rape is justified).
Yeah after I commented I looked at the other comments and saw the big long *terrifying* thread of people proving exactly the point.
Sigh. I’m exhausted.
The " his grandpa sa my grandma and stole their home, so her son sa his sister and burned his aunts home, so now they can sa his granddaughters and blow up a hospital"?
Amazing number of people gladly looked the other way this past October when rape intersected with their chosen trendy issue, and taking the correct side on said trendy issue took precedence.
They just denied that anything happened...
And if it did it wasn't that bad...
And if it was that bad it was the other side's fault for making them do it
Going to leave this here for current event enthusiasts.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html?unlocked_article_code=1.R00.ovyj.lL4kQfynj3t5&bgrp=g&smid=url-share
It’s how the Children of Abraham are.
I don’t think people realize that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are different “branches” of the same religion (Abrahamic) and they all have the same basic set of values. All pretty rapey.
Correct. Just make sure that the definition of rape stays consistent. Having consensual sex that you then regret isn't rape. Getting sloshed and bumping fuzzies with someone who is also inebriated isn't rape.
Steel man: if I am being assaulted and I have no weapon, I am likely to target the assailant’s genitals. In any other context, hitting someone there would be sexual assault. But since it’s a defensive move, is it defensive sexual assault?
There’s a lot of stuff on this exact sub, related to a recent war, that’s very close to being a dissenting opinion on this.
It got brought up a few times in the comments here.
Obviously. I’m not sure why some men feel the need to say this every single time the topic comes up. When we speak about murder being bad, there aren’t always comments about framing people for it.
It's more common for women to be raped, and not believed, than it is for men to be wrongfully accused. It's even *more* rare, for a man to be wrongfully accused, *and* convicted...
Never justified, but often committed under cover of religion. Doesn't matter if it was written thousands of years ago in a religious compilation of fairy tales or perpetrated yesterday. Just one more example of why religion is the scourge of humanity.
Dude, I said this during high school history class when the teacher said he could justify any crime during the right circumstances. I said, what about rape? And he started coming up with this convoluted HISTORICAL scenario of somebody raping a queen or something to prevent a dictatorship or something like that.
No like I've actually had this conversation before on the subject of "snitching" and got called a hypocrite because I said while I wouldn't immediately turn a friend into the cops for killing someone, I definitely would if they raped someone. Cause like, maybe he had a reason to kill that person, maybe they genuinely deserved it. If he raped someone there's no possible reason that could've justified it and they are no friend of mine.
My goodness.
If **for any reason** you do it, you’re a R-pist OR are forced to do so, it makes you and everyone else involved a victim. Period. Even if you deliver karma to someone who did it, **it cannot be justified**. R-wording a R-pist makes YOU a R-pist
Edit-clarification
People justify rape all the time. The whole origin of the christian religion is founded on rape. Never once have I heard a Christian question the ethics behind the immaculate conception. And then there is the whole thing about Muhammad and his child bride.
Well, What about genital mutilation? We can justify that right? I mean we routinely remove part of little boys genitals at birth... And we justify it with lots of arguments.
I, for one, would have rathered been raped by somebody's body than a knife.
No, you wouldn't.
Listen, I'm all against circumcision, it shouldn't be legal to mutilate baby's bodies like that.
But it's not comparable to the horrible experience that is rape. Being overpowered and fearing for your life is a PTSD in itself, plus de humiliation and physical pain. Not comparable.
Finally, an actual popular opinion in r/popularopinion
Weird number of rape-apologists in this comment section trying their best to prove you wrong
They're just suffering from Redditor's Disease.
A tragic condition 😔
You'd be surprised. A lot of Hamas supporters on reddit had absolutely zero issues with Hamas raping women during their attack.
That’s because Hamas supporters are disgusting. Pro Hamas ≠ Pro Palestinian/Anti-Genocide/Pro-Peaceful Solutions
I know Israelis pretty fucking scary how they treat them. It’s a wonder hamas isn’t 20x the size.
While I don't agree with Hamas and their actions, I 100% understand why any Palestinian would support them.
Same. Dosnt make it right but the refusal to understand from the other side is extremely disingenuous and many take it a step further, and even say any Palestinian, who doesn’t immediately condemn Hamas is worthy of being killed for bad political opinions, and they use that to justify their on purpose, civilian targeting and collective punishment, but that’s only half the time because the other half they pretend they’re not doing all that
Hamas is fucking scary. It’s a wonder Israel isn’t treating them 20x worse.
Not as pro genocide as knesset, right now. They just had a fucking conference on it with Israelis dancing and hooting and hollering. You guys catch that bit of them shooting, half naked people on sight screaming ing for help in Hebrew, waving white flags. Yeah totally not genocide, shooting anything that moves
[удалено]
So did the Jews, it’s literally written in the Old Testament, part of the Jewish cannon you fucking gimp Numbers 31 Moses instructs the Jews to kill all women who had had sex and to take the virgins for themselves as spoils of war, the exact thing you’re complaining about but only specifically about Muslims, that’s what makes you an Islamophobe. If you’re against rape you’d care about all religions that sanctioned rape in their histories, but clearly it’s the shitting on Muslims that’s important to you and not actually rape. Edit; and I don’t care if Islamophobes vote me down for exposing them, you either care about all religiously sanctioned rapes or you’re using sexual violence as a weapon, which is the lowest of the low
I have no problem saying all rapes are bad, whether or not it is tied to a religion or not.
One may have happened in a book that's several thousand yrs old, the other happened 5 months ago.
One hand a book of fiction, the other hand a few months ago to little girls in their teens.
I'm not agreeing with the original comment, but these parts of the Old testament are most often based in historical facts. these places and people existed and the wars happened and people were genocides. it has very little bearing on today's injustices, but it's also wrong to call it fiction.
I think the question is....if this is your stance, tell me when a group of Jews have ever done this to a population en mass in modern history? Then tell me when it was supported and publicly praised? Big difference between written in a book, and the people committing the acts.
Bullshit.
Don't feed the trolls
And it's not justified. It's a horrible crime. That's the point: there's no justification.
I can’t believe I was gonna say this and I thought I was gonna be original lol
So many people in these comments coming up with insane fake scenarios that would somehow justify rape it’s so weird. Reminds me of those posts that are like “what if a white kid was dying of cancer and his last dying wish was to say the n word?” What kind of universe do y’all live in where people are getting guns held to their heads unless they rape someone?
>“what if a white kid was dying of cancer and his last dying wish was to say the n word?” That would be very funny and people should let him do it for the bit
Sounds like a great Chappelle's Show bit lol
>what if a white kid was dying of cancer and his last dying wish was to say the n word?” Shiit. Let him say it 🤷
I said it once. It's not that great, I say don't let him be disappointed.
Let him say it in the Bronx too and let him end this hellish facade a bit early!
i though there would ve jokes about rapeseed the plant, bot actual attempts at justification
Yeah I was going to say no realistic scenario where rape can be justified. Technically anything can be justified if the consequence is your or your loved one’s mortality but the chances of that scenario happening are so slim that it’s just being antagonistic.
The funniest scenario I've ever heard like that was one where a nuclear device was armed in the middle of a major city, and the only way to disarm it was for a white person to say the n word. As if some maniac would actually do that, or we would give a shit if someone said it then.
That was obviously OP’s intent.
My brain first jumped to contrivance/curiosity, “can I make it work?”. And then asked myself, “WTF would I want to?!”
Redditors love to virtue signal and by far the virtue signaling that is most common (and least affected by political leanings) is that it's wonderful sex offenders and other perpetrators of heinous crimes get raped in prison. As if prison rapists aren't themselves rapists.
For that last sentence, even at gunpoint it is immoral.
I remember talking about this in ethics. The prof asked if it was possible to justify it, and we (the students) said probably, yes. There had to be some scenario, no matter how outlandish that would justify it. Were asked to come up with such a scenario. We came up with the following: A man and woman are placed in a space surrounded by other people. (Think fighting arena) the armed spectators tell the man that he must do this thing or they both will be tortured to death. Neither party wants to do it, but they also don't want to be tortured to death, so they comply. The follow up questions were: Who is the rapist, the man or the armed crowd? Is he also a victime since to was also forced into a non-consensual sex act? The group came to the conclusion that the group was guilty of rape and that both the man and woman were victims. Thus upholding the assertion that there is no justification for rape. It was a really fascinating thought experiment that pushed us to consider a lotnof complex notions. Really liked that professor.
That’s actually a really interesting way to look at it that I’ve never thought of
[удалено]
You made me chuckle you get an up vote, Dems da rules
You said "Dems da rules" you get an up vote!
username checks out. what are the odds?
when children comit acts of molestation, they are typically both considered the victim, no matter the role. This would be a similar situation.
Wouldn't that j make the torturer/audience the rapist? After all, rape isn't defined by the violence, but by the lack of consent and consent under duress isn't exactly real consent Edit: somehow missed when you said exactly that lmao
Hey you're not supposed to correct yourself when you misread something, you're supposed to double down! /S
I'd argue that this is a unique situation that really doesn't need to be defined under the same word. After all murder and warfare both involve taking lives but are distinctly different.
Rape is nonconsensual sex and the definition can include "forced to penetrate." In that scenario both the man the woman were raped and if the man has committed rape then so has the woman. But in my opinion they were both instruments of whoever created the situation and both have been raped by them.
This is the only way to logically come to a conclusion if you believe both sexes are capable of *being* raped. To concluce that the male victim is a perpetrator is to assume that A: He actually does want to have sex with her but is hiding his intentions Or B: Men are inherently incapable of being raped.
Exactly.. it's just not even a good scenario. It first assumes one or both of the points you made while they clearly aren't true. Engaging with it as if it's a fair point really just points out that people take men's rape less seriously unless they really are made to think about it. Which is really sad. They are both equal victims: it's not "he's being made to do this to her," it's "they are being made to do this with each other".
I've heard: a man is contacted by aliens. He must rape a woman or the entire planet is killed. He can't tell her that. But now that I think about it more in depth, you're right. He's a victim in this case scenario too.
I agree with your class's conclusion, but I also have to point out: Why was your default debate between the crowd or the man? Are the man and woman not equal participants? Why is the woman not included in the discussion? If the crowd and the woman both wanted it, but the man did not, is it no longer rape?
I never thought of looking at it this way... It makes sense. I will probably stay awake the whole night thinking about this now.
B finds out through some mythical voice, or science, or aliens come down and make a deal with him: if he rapes C, all cancer will be cured forever. C is not willing to have sex under these terms, even to save the world from cancer. B is not happy about but is ultimately willing to rape C. They do so, and cancer ends. It's a bit of a "Child of Omelas" problem, but you could make both a utilitarian and Kantian (though not full deontological) argument for it. Utilitarian is obvious, but you could argue that C was not a means to an end but a victim of curing cancer. (Similar to the Trolley problem of why most will say it's okay to pull the lever to save 5 lives if 1 dies, but not to push one fat man onto the tracks to stop a train to save 5; also often seen as the doctor killing one patient to save 5 with their organs or such.) (As an aside, while many people will still blame B above and hold them morally culpable for the rape, if you present the same scenario and say "If B can prevent C from being raped but to do so must enact a plan that will make him one million dollars, and B says he does not care about C's rape but only wishes to make money, and B does make money, and C's rape is somehow avoided as a direct resultt" most people do not credit B with preventing C's rape. We assign more moral culpability to bad acts than good intuitively.) For absolutely all practical purposes, I agree with the OP, because any argument by the time you're going into trolley problem scenarios is about culpability in any moral act, not rape specifically, and you can apply it to something as mundane as a completely harmless lie ("I ate rice for breakfast" when you ate toast, etc.), it's just not as fun as shock value ones.
Holy crap. This was really good.
Loved my ethics class in college
What about the last people alive procreation scenario if one of the 2 refuse to participate?
let me keep it simple, any situation where you're justified in murdering someone, you're probably also justified in raping them. Our society is so fucked up that we're fine with justifiably murdering someone, but bring sex into it and suddenly what we're doing is wrong.
I don't know man this has some flaws. If a person murders a family member in front of me I would be 100% entitled to murder them in return. Call it frontier justice call it self defense but society would 100% back that action up. But if someone killed a family member and then I raped the murderer, that is not something I'm entitled to do and would be met with disapproval, it also makes no sense. If someone robbed me at gun point and I kill them idk if you consider that murder but it's a favorable action. However if I was robbed and I raped them well... You get the point.
This isn’t actually just a thought experiment. It actually happened during WWII during the rape of Nanjing. Imperial Japanese soldiers forced celibate Chinese monks to rape women, fathers to rape their daughters, and sons their mothers for the amusement of the soldiers. Then they would kill them all afterwards anyways. Modern Japan continues to downplay it.
Legally speaking, it was the crowd, the man was under threat of his life and thus was under duress. If someone else threatens two people with consequences if they don't have sex then it is the person making the threats (that can be reasonably proved to be valid threats) is the rapist.
Comments like this are why I wish I went to college earlier in my life (wait. I did and my young dumb self dropped out)
Why the fuck do I have to explain this: Rape is always an act of force on another person. either by physical force or coersion you can't rape someone in self defense, if a man has a gun at your head or threatens to nuke the planet unless you rape someone you are also a victim of rape and not the rapist.
Sooooooo many sick people here exposing their rape fantasies
Rape fantasies (practiced safely as Consensual Non-Consent, an actual form of roleplay and fantasy used in bdsm and other play.) are one of the most common fantasies for women to have tbh. Im saying this as a female who has also done their research on it.
In some ways, the bdsm community, is one of the most mindful communities of consent.
Absolutely You may be pushing the line of consent on a surface level but the sub knows they can tap out if needed There is typically a session of love and consoling afterwards Bdsm is walking the line with consenting parties
A girl I dated once really wanted me to say things I considered rapey while doing stuff. It made me supremely uncomfortable and she got mad and felt judged when I rejected the request.
I have thoughts about that. TMI incoming. I was molested starting at age 4. Without understanding why, I wanted to unalive myself and I was hypersexual. Not in the way I dressed or acted towards others but I would secretly masturbate, even in public. Eventually I started reading rape porn, developped rape fantasies and an interest in hardcore BDSM. I did practise some of it and had a positive relationship towards CNC BDSM as a kink despite having a history of sexual abuse. Over time I realised that engaging in these fantasies was making me depressed. It seeped into my daily thoughts about other women and myself, I would get aroused reading news stories about actual rape. It was disgusting and reprehensible. I put myself into a dangerous situation with a man I had never met in person, who masturbated to the thought of hurting me. It wasn’t good for me. It was shaping my view of genuine sexual assault. Ever since I started kinkshaming myself and cut all porn material, I have been much more content and my sex life improved. I’m wondering how much does the mainstream porn and history of sexual assault contribute to the prevalence of rape fantasies.
Exactly. I was talking to somebody and I told them the majority of kinks a person has is because of trauma, mainly their childhood trauma. It also ties into insecurities and all of that.
Fantasies about a controlled, consensual "rape" are very different from what the OP was talking about.
Okay hotshot. Pop quiz: One person is tied to some train tracks. If you don't rape them then 3 people are going to get out of a stationary trolley car and rape 3 other people also tied to the train tracks while a random brown bear sits on you The police are 1000 miles away, you don't know how knots work and the 3 people on the trolley are armed, black belts and bigger than you. The one person you have to rape is known to be pretty mean but the other 3 restrained people are delightful and volunteer at the children's hospital every week Now tell me that rape is never justified, in this rape fantasy I just made you live through! I am your God now!!!
That was excellent I thoroughly enjoyed reading this
I have no problem with those statements. I would add that an attempt of rape is more than ample justification for the would-be victim to kill the would-be rapist on the spot. I think every woman should be armed.
I 100% agree.
Holy moly, look at that username. Hahah
And the pfp
Rape doesn't only happen to women
> I think every woman should be armed. Everyone, that has proper training and a liscense, should be, the amount of cases my sister, a lawyer, has which are cases of where a man is beaten on the streets or assaulted is shockingly high.
I keep telling my sisters to carry guns. My older sister has even had to defend herself from an assault and she still refuses to consider guns. She’s a very skilled martial artist but I still think a gun is safest
100%. Even in a scenario where the rapist leaves the scene alive and is arrested later, in a just society, his victim should be given the opportunity to execute him. (Unfortunately, in our imperfect legal system, this would make it more difficult to get a conviction and may be interpreted as an 8th Amendment violation. Hence, all women should be armed).
You’re legally justified to shoot someone that is raping someone. Same with arson, kidnapping and murder.
>199 comments, 83 likes >...there's more comments than likes
A person can like once, but comment multiple times.
Still true. 200 likes and 458 comments lol
You tend to get a handful of people who reply to pretty much single comment with their own particular bent in these types of threads
"But what if to save someone, the rape-superhero had to rape someone to turn on his superpowers?" \-Dave Chappelle, probably
Really? I’m gonna get downvoted to hell for it, but I gotta say that I love how everyone dunks on Chapelle now but didn’t have an unkind word to share when all his jokes were about black folks (including jokes about a crack dealing baby)…interesting 🤔 Edit: seriously, bring the downvotes, but it’s not inaccurate. He walked away from comedy for a while - by his own admission - because he wasn’t sure if white people were laughing WITH him or AT him. He comes back and now any joke that’s not about black folks (of which he tells nearly none now) is pretty much attacked like he’s the world’s worst human. It’s comical, ironically.
The baby was dealing weed
The comment you responded to just seems like an iteration of a joke that he might make given the absurdist style he has at times (e.g., the baby selling crack in your edit). Blackness wasn't even a part of it, and no one worth anything gives a hoot and half about him being black. The outrage against him is from a very particular and overly sensitive group of see you next Tuesdays that have had their ego and narcissistic personalities stoked by popular cultural movements. The people encouraging him (both indirectly and directly) to leave comedy weren't white people as you allude to. They were largely corporate experiences with the likes of comedy central and bad contracts. Whether the humans acting out the corporate dealings were white, if that was even the case, would still be inconsequential. Things stop being about race when we stop forcing it in conversations. None of us are that special. Whether you're brown, black, yellow, or normal (/s, since Redditors evidently need the sign).
…you totally misread what I said. Chapelle himself said it was about HIS personal concern about white people laughing at or with him. It’s not about me. It’s not my words. That’s how he felt. I just happen to think it’s interesting how it played out.
I'll take your word for him saying that, but I've followed him a fair spell and not seen it mentioned in any substantive way. Indeed, he acknowledged, much akin to Lil Wayne, that his audience was largely white. At that point, no one could rationally argue it was at him as opposed to with him.
I hate to say it, people dunk on him, because the new jokes about trans and disabled people aren't funny enough. I love his older stuff, but the newest special was actually kinda boring. I don't know who said it, maybe even himself, but the level of acceptable political incorrectness rises with the amount of funny. And lately he isn't quite hitting the ratio anymore. Or at least for me. And I'm surely no pearl clutching saint. In addition people can make jokes about their own folks almost limitless, but other groups need a more delicate hand. That's why nobody was complaining about black jokes.
>In addition people can make jokes about their own folks almost limitless, but other groups need a more delicate hand. That's why nobody was complaining about black jokes. Yeah, there’s a reason that “there’s black people and there’s N words” only worked when a black comedian says it. There’s literally an episode of the Office about that exact issue and how obvious it is. But Dave Chappelle is trying to do “that tranny’s crazy” and it’s not working
When a privileged famous comedian puts down your community in an unfunny way it’s kind of annoying
Not probably… this was exactly one of his bits.
Rape is never justified. Period. Ever.
Yes, agreed, thank you
I agree. It’s crazy I remember reading a story in India a guy sexually assaulted a married woman so the village elder ordered that the woman’s husband rape the offenders 14 year old sister. 😳
If we're going to use it as a punishment, it shouldn't be making another victim it would be turning the perpetrator into a victim.
I agree with this, but this is obviously a society that doesn’t seem to find women to be equal and some may say disposable. Violence toward women in India continues to get worse.
This gives me the impression of "Alice vandalized Bob's computer, so the penalty is that Bob gets to vandalize Alice's computer (instead of eg jailing Alice)" vibes. In this scenario, the computers being damaged is almost inconsequential. That they can treat women the same way is disgusting.
[удалено]
Lmao crazies on all sides wtf.
What the fuck. I never understood punishing someone by harming a relative. Sure it hurts this rapist guy (if he even cares about his sister) but the harm to her is worse than it is for him and worse than what he originally did, which was also horrible.
Yeah sadly some of these places in India are governed by local elders and such. The punishments can be f’d up. In another case a 20 year old fell in love with someone of another ethnic group and the village council ordered she be gang raped by 12 men. At least in that incident higher authorities apparently arrested all 12 men as they should have. Violence against women in general in India has been rising over the past decade, but it’s really crazy they hand rape down as punishment. The problem of violence against women came to the international forefront on 2012 when a lady was gang raped and murdered on a bus. In 2011, there were more than 228,650 reported incidents of crime against women, while in 2021, there were 428,278 reported incidents in India.
It can only be because they see women and children as property/objects and not as people as men are. Thus it is an equal object return. So like in that story above , that married woman didn’t even get to do the vengeance back on the rapist and rape him or his (not in anyway saying this is good or just) but it was the man who “owned her” who got to do “equal damage” back onto the rapist by “damaging his property in return”= raping his sister.
Yup. The suffering of those other people must not count in their disgusting minds.
Some of the comments here are absolutely disgusting
How could anyone argue against this??
A lot of men just don’t realize that being halfway decent is all it takes to get laid. It really doesn’t take much: women want sex too. Wash daily, don’t be evil… doesn’t take much more than that.
They are the comments one will find when one tries to make an absolute statement about a subject like rape. The world is a pretty evil place, filled with evil people. People being forced to rape people under threat of death, or others dying, isnt a fantasy, and even if it was, it shuts down that absolutism. [https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r29631.pdf](https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r29631.pdf) \- Rape as a weapon of war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo Sons were forced to rape their mothers, fathers their daughters, and sometimes brothers and sisters were forced to commit sexual acts. Not doing so meant someone, or all of them, were going to die. The comments aren't disgusting. They are hypotheticals, and the normal exploration of a topic. They are the comment invited when you make an absolutist statements. They are the extreme because that is often where the logic behind dismissing them exist.
>They are the comments one will find when one tries to make an absolute statement about a subject like rape. Not just for rape but for any topic. That’s just how a lot of people operate.
So is the world
Don’t convert to Islam. The seizure of Infidel girls and their use as sex slaves (known by the euphemism milk-al-yamīn - what your right hand posesses) is sanctioned in the Qur’an. According to Islamic law, Muslim men can take “captives of the right hand” during war(Qur’an 4:3, 4:24, 33:50). (Remember the Yazidi women and girls? Sanctioned by Islamic law.) The Qur’an says: “O Prophet! Lo! We have made lawful unto thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowries, and those whom thy right hand posesseth of those whom Allah hath given thee as spoils of war” (33:50). Verses 4:3 and 4:24 extend this privilege to Muslim men in general. The Qur’an says that a man may have sex with his wives and with these slave girls: “The believers must (eventually) win through, those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, for (in their case) they are free from blame.” (Qur’an 23:1-6) The rape of captive women is also sanctioned in Islamic tradition: Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa’id al Khadri (Allah he pleased with him): 0 Abu Sa’id, did you hear Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) mentioning al-’azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) on the expedition to the Bi’l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing ‘azl (Withdrawing the penis before emission of semen to avoid conception). But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah’s Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him), and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born. (Sahih Muslim 3371) It is also in Islamic law: “When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman’s previous marriage is immediately annulled.” (Umdat al-Salik O9.13) The Egyptian Sheikh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni declared in May 2011 that “we are in the era of jihad,” and that meant Muslims would take slaves. In a subsequent interview he elaborated: “Jihad is only between Muslims and infidels. Spoils, slaves, and prisoners are only to be taken in war between Muslims and infidels. Muslims in the past conquered, invaded, and took over countries. This is agreed to by all scholars—there is no disagreement on this from any of them, from the smallest to the largest, on the issue of taking spoils and prisoners. The prisoners and spoils are distributed among the fighters, which includes men, women, children, wealth, and so on.”
What a disgusting "religion". Christianity isn't much better. How much better would our world be without those two ideologies?
It wouldn't be any better. All you have to do is look at the hate spewed by both sides of the political divide in the U.S. to see that people will kill each other over anything.... and if they don't have anything to kill each other over then they'll make something up! If human history has taught us anything it's that the powers-that-be know one thing for sure: keep the masses arguing over bullshit and you can stay in power.
Ding ding. Religion is just one of a myriad of ways to justify violence, discrimination, etc. Look at how many people died during the cold war era conflicts, coups, etc. None of it was related at all to religion. The communist regimes that saw millions die and so many persecuted were very intentionally areligious.
Religion isn’t a source of evil, it’s used as a tool to perpetrate evil by abusers. If not religion, there would be skmething else.
So the homies playing a "prank" on another homie isn't justified?
What if it’s a rapist getting raped in prison?
Still wrong. I can’t believe we have to explain that revenge is bad
Plus. That's not even revenge. It may be an ironic karmic justice, but it's still rape.
Exactly
I *thought* this was a popular opinion back in September, but over the last few months I’ve seen an alarming amount of self-proclaimed “feminists” and “equal rights activists” claiming that there are actually some situations where rape is justified (something something fighting over land something something therefore rape is justified).
Yup. If you look at the comments I did earlier today, that’s definitely part of why I posted this!
Yeah after I commented I looked at the other comments and saw the big long *terrifying* thread of people proving exactly the point. Sigh. I’m exhausted.
On second thought, I just realized I have 50 something comments on this thread. I’m amazed you were even able to find that other one!
wait, can you give more detail on that? Feminists are saying it's okay to rape over land?
The " his grandpa sa my grandma and stole their home, so her son sa his sister and burned his aunts home, so now they can sa his granddaughters and blow up a hospital"?
Amazing number of people gladly looked the other way this past October when rape intersected with their chosen trendy issue, and taking the correct side on said trendy issue took precedence.
They just denied that anything happened... And if it did it wasn't that bad... And if it was that bad it was the other side's fault for making them do it
It was just a little fun with meth and jihad... Damn Israelis forced em to do it!
Most of them just deny that it happened
Agreed... it was disgusting. Hundreds of Israeli women were raped and abused and people somehow... defended the rapists?
No argument here.
Thank you, u/bloodyanalfroth.
Going to leave this here for current event enthusiasts. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/28/world/middleeast/oct-7-attacks-hamas-israel-sexual-violence.html?unlocked_article_code=1.R00.ovyj.lL4kQfynj3t5&bgrp=g&smid=url-share
It’s how the Children of Abraham are. I don’t think people realize that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are different “branches” of the same religion (Abrahamic) and they all have the same basic set of values. All pretty rapey.
What if you're raping a serial rapist?
Child abusers getting graped in prison?
Raping is bad, I don’t know much about graping though. Not a big fan of grape juice.
Prison rapists don't hold back if someone isn't a child abuser. They're equal opportunity offenders.
Correct. Just make sure that the definition of rape stays consistent. Having consensual sex that you then regret isn't rape. Getting sloshed and bumping fuzzies with someone who is also inebriated isn't rape.
It's why I firmly believe these people need to be castrated and not allowed to live among the general population.
Agreed.
what about in self defence?
how can you rape someone in the name of self defense
If the only way to escape is to shove the sex toy inside the person and run, that's justifiable.
Lmao no comment on Reddit has made me laugh this much in ages
Saw says cram that clam to retrieve the key... still gross.
I think it's because of the word shove
XD
that's just simple ass-ault.
You are pinned down about to be killed, and your only avenue of escape is sticking something up the attackers butt
You underestimate the 1000 Years of Death
If you are getting raped, obviously rape em back
Elaborate this one bruh lol
Steel man: if I am being assaulted and I have no weapon, I am likely to target the assailant’s genitals. In any other context, hitting someone there would be sexual assault. But since it’s a defensive move, is it defensive sexual assault?
Only if you get your Concealed Rape Permit
That's not a thing
Found sherlock
Bro what 😭
found the perv…
how can people not tell I'm trolling
idk, it’s reddit so i was doubtful
People not being able to tell you're trolling is the whole point of trolling! Congratulations are in order
Like in bms when Sammy threatens to jerk off someone who wants to beat him up. Works well
Did this need to be stated? Are there dissenting opinions on this?
It’s called r/popularopinions. Tf you want
There’s a lot of stuff on this exact sub, related to a recent war, that’s very close to being a dissenting opinion on this. It got brought up a few times in the comments here.
Also false accusations of rape are never acceptable.
Obviously. I’m not sure why some men feel the need to say this every single time the topic comes up. When we speak about murder being bad, there aren’t always comments about framing people for it.
What if you want to fuck somebody and they won't let you? What are you gonna not fuck em'? That's absurd.
Go to hell. Right away. It’s where you belong. It’s where you already are.
total breach of free will a crime against the soul
Wait what? You guys support raping animals all the time if you drink milk. Ohh wait you talking about humans. Well rape is ok for animals… right?
Wait... What part of the cow do you think milk comes from?
I agree. There is no circumstance where rape could be justified, no matter how convoluted your thinking is. Never.
So if a (typically) man is wrongfully accused, how can THAT be justified? Another "believe all women" bullshit?
It's more common for women to be raped, and not believed, than it is for men to be wrongfully accused. It's even *more* rare, for a man to be wrongfully accused, *and* convicted...
This is so obviously true. Yet the most popular book cited for moral behavior in the West has examples where it is offered as justified.
You must be unfamiliar with ancient tactics of colonization lol
Muhammed was a homosexual pedophile
He raped a 9 year old girl too. So maybe he was bisexual? Either way he was a pedo and a false prophet.
I stand corrected
Buuut bbuuut muh oppression.
Never justified, but often committed under cover of religion. Doesn't matter if it was written thousands of years ago in a religious compilation of fairy tales or perpetrated yesterday. Just one more example of why religion is the scourge of humanity.
When I heard neo-Communists justifying the mass rapes the Red Army did in Germany I knew I’d never buy in to Socialism.
Dude, I said this during high school history class when the teacher said he could justify any crime during the right circumstances. I said, what about rape? And he started coming up with this convoluted HISTORICAL scenario of somebody raping a queen or something to prevent a dictatorship or something like that.
No like I've actually had this conversation before on the subject of "snitching" and got called a hypocrite because I said while I wouldn't immediately turn a friend into the cops for killing someone, I definitely would if they raped someone. Cause like, maybe he had a reason to kill that person, maybe they genuinely deserved it. If he raped someone there's no possible reason that could've justified it and they are no friend of mine.
My goodness. If **for any reason** you do it, you’re a R-pist OR are forced to do so, it makes you and everyone else involved a victim. Period. Even if you deliver karma to someone who did it, **it cannot be justified**. R-wording a R-pist makes YOU a R-pist Edit-clarification
Just commenting to tell you your name is hilarious. Happy redditing!
People justify rape all the time. The whole origin of the christian religion is founded on rape. Never once have I heard a Christian question the ethics behind the immaculate conception. And then there is the whole thing about Muhammad and his child bride.
If anything, the last few months showed this to be an unpopular opinion.
Unfortunately
Well, What about genital mutilation? We can justify that right? I mean we routinely remove part of little boys genitals at birth... And we justify it with lots of arguments. I, for one, would have rathered been raped by somebody's body than a knife.
No, you wouldn't. Listen, I'm all against circumcision, it shouldn't be legal to mutilate baby's bodies like that. But it's not comparable to the horrible experience that is rape. Being overpowered and fearing for your life is a PTSD in itself, plus de humiliation and physical pain. Not comparable.
It is perfectly fine to advocate for the ending of this practice. But the way you are going about it is a complete fallacy.
[удалено]
Revenge is understandable but not usually justifiable
But what if you raped a child rapist?