[Victoribus Spolia]

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[skinster]

What a dumb meme.

[Pants-of-dog]

The discussion about how transactions are the basis for our sexual assault laws and for how we look at sexual relationships seems legit and definitely shows a good way forward to a better relationship between the two sexes in terms of avoiding sexual assault.

There does not seem to be an intelligent rebuttal, which may be why the conservatives are simply posting memes that incorrectly imply that people won’t have sex because they are scared of being accused of sexual assault.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

The discussion about how transactions are the basis for our sexual assault laws

The article from Halifax was complaining that the laws are not based on seeing sex as a transaction. She wants them to be a way of ensuring that women get something good - ie a transaction:

Well-meaning slogans like ‘no means no’ and ‘yes means yes’ reinforce these explicit moments but disregard the significance of sex requiring ongoing enthusiasm. Women’s sexual gratification is completely disconnected from the idea of consent. In the context of consent, women are not expected to enjoy themselves despite the fact that women’s enjoyment guarantees consent. Women’s role in sex is still primarily framed as gatekeeper to men’s desires and channel for male orgasm, reinforcing rape culture’s premise that men’s sexual entitlement comes at women’s expense.

We prefer to talk about consent because it keeps the lid shut on the Pandora’s box of systematic and historical inequality between the sexes. We are too scared, and ashamed, to face just how many women have ‘consensual’ sex but don’t like it, and just how many men are okay with this. We avoid discussions about men’s antagonism to women’s sexual pleasure because men who rape and those who don’t are connected through these shared sexist attitudes.

Through complacency and defensiveness men reveal their biases and insecurities. They fear and loathe women’s sexual appetites because they equate sexual prowess with dominance. They must believe that if given the chance women would hurt them the way they’ve hurt us. What a depressing paranoia.

The legal system is part of rape culture. Its inadequate language and concepts won’t do. Consent is the lowest bar. Women want the sky.

[Pants-of-dog]

The article from Halifax was complaining that the laws are not based on seeing sex as a transaction. She wants them to be a way of ensuring that women get something good - ie a transaction:

The article does not explicitly discuss the transactional basis as the foundation on which we currently see sexual relations.

Instead, it discusses how consent is used to frame the debate, and how this is both necessary but also too limiting. And this is because we define consent as a moment that occurs before sex, like a deal being struck. In this deal, men get sexual gratification because we performed the proper progressive consent getting steps. This idea of the transactional basis was explicitly pointed out by our beloved PoFoites.

The problem with this deal paradigm is that it puts the woman in the role of a masturbatory aid that we have purchased, instead of being a distinct human being who is alive and experiencing things.

The idea of having women actually enjoy sex the whole time we are doing it includes the idea of consent and goes beyond that. It also includes a level of mutual respect where both people are recognised as being people who deserve to enjoy stuff.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

I don't turn to the law for whether I have and show mutual respect for someone else. One of the problems with the foolish stuff from Halifax was its demand that women need a "deal paradigm" that the law should recognise. She asks "what's in it for me?" She wants the sky. She complains that the law thinks about consent, which isn't a transaction.

[Potemkin]

I don't turn to the law for whether I have and show mutual respect for someone else. One of the problems with the foolish stuff from Halifax was its demand that women need a "deal paradigm" that the law should recognise. She asks "what's in it for me?" She wants the sky. She complains that the law thinks about consent, which isn't a transaction.

I disagree. The article argues, in fact, that we must go beyond the legalistic definition of 'consent'. The law, by its nature, cannot apply to anything other than a transactional arrangement. There's no law you can pass which can force people to love and respect each other. Yet that is what is needed - mutual love and respect. This is what she refers to as "wanting the sky". And this, it seems to me, is the fundamental point of the article - the thinking of liberal feminism is constrained within the legalistic, transactional framework of 'consent', which is not and cannot be defined in terms of desire or respect or pleasure, but only as a legally defined act of will. This already has the objectification of women and the alienation between men and women in our society built into it.

[Hindsite]

I disagree. The article argues, in fact, that we must go beyond the legalistic definition of 'consent'. The law, by its nature, cannot apply to anything other than a transactional arrangement. There's no law you can pass which can force people to love and respect each other. Yet that is what is needed - mutual love and respect. This is what she refers to as "wanting the sky". And this, it seems to me, is the fundamental point of the article - the thinking of liberal feminism is constrained within the legalistic, transactional framework of 'consent', which is not and cannot be defined in terms of desire or respect or pleasure, but only as a legally defined act of will. This already has the objectification of women and the alienation between men and women in our society built into it.

Then the woman is asking for a fantasy world. We live in the real world of both love and hate, of good and evil, of joy and sorrow, and many other opposites. She can only have her fantasy world in her mind, not in reality. At least, not reality in this world.

[Godstud]

The world is not as you portray it, Hindsite. it's not simply black and white, good and evil, etc. You have a very simplistic way of looking at things that is not realistic.

Women are easy to please. Treat them with the utmost respect, and you can't go wrong. Is that so hard?

[Potemkin]

Then the woman is asking for a fantasy world. We live in the real world of both love and hate, of good and evil, of joy and sorrow, and many other opposites. She can only have her fantasy world in her mind, not in reality. At least, not reality in this world.

Not in this world as it currently exists, Hindsite. And after all, as a devout Christian, don't you also look forward to a better world? To quote the words of St Paul....

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

[Hindsite]

The world is not as you portray it, Hindsite. it's not simply black and white, good and evil, etc. You have a very simplistic way of looking at things that is not realistic.

Women are easy to please. Treat them with the utmost respect, and you can't go wrong. Is that so hard?

I am realistic because I treat women with utmost respect in person even when I don't want to.

Not in this world as it currently exists, Hindsite. And after all, as a devout Christian, don't you also look forward to a better world? To quote the words of St Paul....

Paul had his idea of a better world of love, but I might have a different idea of a better world in which I love to grab a woman by the butt and pussy and rub it real good. HalleluYah.

[Potemkin]

Paul had his idea of a better world of love, but I might have a different idea of a better world in which I love to grab a woman by the butt and pussy and rub it real good. HalleluYah.

In other words, you're a fake Christian. Nothing wrong with not being a Christian, of course, but why pretend you are?

[Prosthetic Conscience]

I disagree. The article argues, in fact, that we must go beyond the legalistic definition of 'consent'.

I agree that we must go beyond legal definitions in our relationships; but that is stating the bleeding obvious. Well, I thought it was, but you seem to think it's a leading-edge bit of thought. The author says "We are too scared, and ashamed, to face just how many women have ‘consensual’ sex but don’t like it, and just how many men are okay with this." If sex is consensual (no need for scare quotes), then a woman can decide to not have it with a partner who doesn't give her pleasure. It's not up to the law, or society in general, to ensure happiness for an individual, whether in eating, or sex, or relationships. If you think a restaurant serves bland food, then you go elsewhere. The same for a partner. To claim "the legal system is part of rape culture" because it doesn't address the pleasure a woman gets is supremely idiotic.

The law, by its nature, cannot apply to anything other than a transactional arrangement.

Obviously, it can. The law about assault is not about a transaction; similarly, the law about sexual assault is not about a transaction. Only parts of law are about transactions.

There's no law you can pass which can force people to love and respect each other. Yet that is what is needed - mutual love and respect. This is what she refers to as "wanting the sky".

Yes, mutual love and respect is needed, but that's not even what she wrote about. She writes about enjoyment of sex, enthusiasm, and sexual pleasure and appetites. That's the "sky" she says she wants. She is moaning that women don't get enough sexual satisfaction, and that makes the law part of rape culture. Which is why it's stupid, and reads like a parody.

[Potemkin]

I agree that we must go beyond legal definitions in our relationships; but that is stating the bleeding obvious. Well, I thought it was, but you seem to think it's a leading-edge bit of thought. The author says "We are too scared, and ashamed, to face just how many women have ‘consensual’ sex but don’t like it, and just how many men are okay with this." If sex is consensual (no need for scare quotes), then a woman can decide to not have it with a partner who doesn't give her pleasure. It's not up to the law, or society in general, to ensure happiness for an individual, whether in eating, or sex, or relationships. If you think a restaurant serves bland food, then you go elsewhere. The same for a partner. To claim "the legal system is part of rape culture" because it doesn't address the pleasure a woman gets is supremely idiotic.

It may be stating the bleeding obvious, but it still needs stating because it fails to happen so often. The reason it fails to happen is because we live in a certain type of society which inculcates certain types of attitudes in men and in women. You yourself talk about the sexual relationship as though it's a matter of shopping in the 'marketplace of relationships', like choosing which fancy restaurant to eat at. I see that as problematic.

Obviously, it can. The law about assault is not about a transaction; similarly, the law about sexual assault is not about a transaction. Only parts of law are about transactions.

I am referring to its application to the sexual relationship.

Yes, mutual love and respect is needed, but that's not even what she wrote about. She writes about enjoyment of sex, enthusiasm, and sexual pleasure and appetites. That's the "sky" she says she wants. She is moaning that women don't get enough sexual satisfaction, and that makes the law part of rape culture. Which is why it's stupid, and reads like a parody.

It reads like a parody to you because she is implying that what is needed is not merely a few tweaks to the existing laws about consent, but a radically new kind of society, but she never explicitly states this. Her thinking, in fact, is pointing towards the need for a revolutionary transformation of our existing society, but she seems to lack the clarity of thought to see this and follow it through. She therefore comes across to guys like yourself or Hindsite as being 'unrealistic' or indulging in 'fantasy'. St Paul was also being 'unrealistic' and indulging in 'fantasy', of course.

[Hindsite]

In other words, you're a fake Christian. Nothing wrong with not being a Christian, of course, but why pretend you are?

What is wrong about a Christian man thinking about grabbing a woman by the pussy? Jesus never said, "Thou shall not grab a woman by the pussy?" Especially if that woman is the man's wife and she lets him do it. Praise the Lord.

[Potemkin]

What is wrong about a Christian man thinking about grabbing a woman by the pussy? Jesus never said, "Thou shall not grab a woman by the pussy?" Especially if that woman is the man's wife and she lets him do it. Praise the Lord.

The problem is not that you grab your wife by the pussy, Hindsite. So long as she likes it, and agrees to it, I don't have a problem with that. No, the problem I have with your position is that you don't seem to see anything wrong with society as it currently exists, despite the fact that Christianity has explicitly asserted that the present state of the world is a fallen one, and that a better world is both possible and desirable. You seem to reject this idea tout court as being 'unrealistic' and a 'fantasy', even though it is a fundamental aspect of Christian theology. St Paul was talking about the end of alienation, about a new world and a new society of mutual love and respect. If you regard this sort of vision as being 'unrealistic' and an absurd 'fantasy', then I'm sorry, but I must really question your credentials as a 'Christian'.

[B0ycey]

What is wrong about a Christian man thinking about grabbing a woman by the pussy?

Jeez Hindsite. Has Trump warped your mind so much you have to do/agree with everything he does?

[Drlee]

What is wrong about a Christian man thinking about grabbing a woman by the pussy? Jesus never said, "Thou shall not grab a woman by the pussy?"

Trolling is not nice. But just in case you are not....that you are just ignorant....here you are:

Matthew 5:28 ESV
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

You do agree adultery is a sin, right?

1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 ESV
For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God;

Matthew 15:19-20 ESV
For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person.

Philippians 4:8 ESV
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

James 1:14-15 ESV
But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death.

Matthew 5.

8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

1 John 1:8 ESV /
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Colossians 3:5-6 ESV
Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.

Romans 8:5 ESV /
For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.

Matthew 26:41 ESV
Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

Matthew 15:17-20 ESV
Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person.

Matthew 5:27-30 ESV /
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Exodus 20:17 ESV
“You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.”

Which is it? Simple troll or simpleton?

[Hindsite]

error

[Hindsite]

The problem is not that you grab your wife by the pussy, Hindsite. So long as she likes it, and agrees to it, I don't have a problem with that. No, the problem I have with your position is that you don't seem to see anything wrong with society as it currently exists, despite the fact that Christianity has explicitly asserted that the present state of the world is a fallen one, and that a better world is both possible and desirable. You seem to reject this idea tout court as being 'unrealistic' and a 'fantasy', even though it is a fundamental aspect of Christian theology. St Paul was talking about the end of alienation, about a new world and a new society of mutual love and respect. If you regard this sort of vision as being 'unrealistic' and an absurd 'fantasy', then I'm sorry, but I must really question your credentials as a 'Christian'.

I don't believe that fantasy is possible until after Christ returns. Do you not understand that the evil mind of man is not going to make that fantasy world a reality?

Trolling is not nice. But just in case you are not....that you are just ignorant....here you are:

You do agree adultery is a sin, right?

Which is it? Simple troll or simpleton?

Simpleton, I guess. But how can I commit adultery with my wife?
Doesn't a man have the right to lust after his wife?