[…] not in a hurry. Most the posts on the list are “Untimely Posts” – as I defined the category,”usually begun in the heat of some ongoing […]
This is for you, MacLeod:
"So it is that decency and honesty in all things are awful crimes in the world, and I would strike my contemporaries as being wicked and ferocious, even if my only crime were that I was not as false and as treacherous as they are."
Rousseau, Reveries of the Solitary Walker [Second Walk]
Could have been worse, and in some ways could be taken as simple confession, but in its phraseology obviously intended to offend, so unacceptable. Still, unless someone disagrees, or the better angels of Mr. MacKenzie's nature stage a coup, and lead him to request retraction, I think I'll leave it just where it is, as possibly useful for reference or further analysis at some point.
So you’re a white supremacist, Wade?
“black brains” as an insult?
I don't like blacks, and I don't like gays--and I sho nuff don't like libertarians.
YOO NO WAHT AHM SAYIN?
I wouldn't have blamed you, b-p, if you had responded more angrily, and I wouldn't blame you or anyone else for feeling that I have been far too easy on Mr. McKenzie. I admit I'm curious to see his reply to your questions, especially after the various warnings to him that I've been issuing. I'd invite him to give it his best, but I'm not fully confident that his best wouldn't be the same as his worst on this subject, so I can't promise ahead of time to let it stand.
So you're a white supremacist, Wade? "black brains" as an insult?
...ok, forget I ever though it was worth discussing anything with you, since you think I'm subhuman.
I assure you, I don't intend to make a habit of such profanity.
But, as I said, MacLeod--someone like you who delights in contemplating perverse phenomena with glib reserve, simply has no right to protest against such profanity.
What I've been trying to tell you, WM, is that these matters - race and sexual morality, to name two - that you seem to want to discuss are already provocative enough. Further provocation overheats the machine already running near extreme "tolerances." That you continue to add fuel to the fire despite repeated requests makes me wonder if you do really want to allow such a discussion to occur, or instead are driven to sabotage it, and so I'm forced to consider doing what I don't want to do.
I find that indulgence of verbal "license" almost invariably leads to deterioration of discussion, as the resort to words generally deemed offensive almost always marks a decision against the requirements of any serious inquiry to be conducted in common, and in favor of prejudice in the full sense of the term, though not incidentally also in the everyday social-political and legal sense. Brutal words deployed brutally are already brutal conduct, proxies for and often preludes to worse - "fighting words."
I do aspire to discuss things that are difficult to discuss, because other discussions are not interesting to me, but the pursuit of such discussion precludes and is precluded by, is short-circuited by, a refusal of mutual respect. There is, furthermore, nothing of interest to me to be said about "fuck, shit, or even nigger" in the language of "fuck, shit, or even nigger." Being "perturbed" by any resort to the latter is not a question of entitlement. It is a matter of reasonable estimation of a discussant's clear intention to perturb.
I remain confounded, and continue to be appalled, by your apparently irrepressible penchant for saying nasty and ridiculous things nastily and ridiculously. I mean especially the sentiment about gentile, black, and other brains. It's hard for me to imagine why you put it forward here, except out of a perverse and unwelcome desire to provoke just this kind of attention. Next time, I'll just delete it, and I suppose I'll have to ask you to stop commenting or I'll have to put you on permanent "moderation." I don't want to. You seem capable of much better.
Look, MacLeod, I don't intend to continue to pester you about this--but, despite your many virtues as a textual analyst, you seem to struggle a bit with the rhetorical dimensions thereof.
Surely, you couldn't have failed to miss that the real point of that exercise was to critique, in a roundabout and provocative way, bpsycho's silly claim that gays were "routinely" jailed and murdered in the United States in the past.
As to deletion with extreme prejudice--may I remind you that this very day you have made a rather blustery vow that you aren't going to be agitated by miscreancy like mine?
...which would be an argument for keeping it to yourself. You "suppose" it is a "self-indulgent fantasy," implying that you believe it may actually be something else instead or as well, an implication already present in your decision to share it. Whatever the explanations or purposes, once such statements exit the realm of subjectively entertained fantasy and are turned into common property, they have to be confronted, and as soon as possible: Otherwise, like a house-pet's mistake on the living room carpet, they leave a stain. The easiest thing for a blogger with bills to pay and a reasonable concern for his own reputation will be delete with extreme prejudice. I choose instead, for now, to take the time to respond directly, but I'd appreciate it if you'd keep the self-indulgence - and parody, and exaggeration, and so on - to a minimum, and restrict yourself as much as possible to statements you are prepared to defend.
Maybe I’m lucky I don’t speak pig Latin.
Allow me to translate it for you, then.
oyischegay opskay=gentile brains
chwarzersay opskay=black brains
Now, something tells me that a man who--so politely, so pedantically--contemplates the gay "cruising" scene in 1970s San Francisco, or women being deliberately and publicly gang-raped in order to demonstrate the virtues of traditional sexual discipline, or Greeks and Romans having sex with teenage boys, simply isn't entitled to be perturbed about the words fuck, shit, or even nigger.
Sheez, CKM--did I not characterize it as a self-indulgent fantasy?
Sheez, WM - sometimes you say the most insanely unpleasant things. The obvious answer is "there are places you can go where that is the policy." You might respond that you do not like those places, but a) you did isolate this one particular feature as "infinitely" preferable, a statement that leaves no room for adjustment in relation to merely finitely important concerns, and b) it is pure presumption, with no basis in experience and no reasonable basis in ideas, that whatever you might find unpleasant or unwelcoming about those other available destinations (Iran, Uganda, the areas under control of the Islamic State come first to mind) is related by happenstance rather than necessity to regimes of sexual discipline enforced by threats of extreme punishment.
The days when people were routinely jailed or even murdered for simply exercising their sexual preference were terrible, and deserved to die out.
Homosexuals were never "routinely" jailed or murdered in the United States--that's a self-indulgent fantasy.
For my own part, I think life in a country that did routinely jail--or even kill--homosexuals would be infinitely preferable to life in contemporary libertarian America. But I suppose that, too, is a self-indulgent fantasy.
(You guys having that problem I mentioned on the other thread - of leaving a comment and being shot over to some unexpected location? I may have to take the time to solve it...)
Maybe I'm lucky I don't speak pig Latin. It might have been preferable to some of the older Germanic terms you employ earlier in that comment, WM: I wouldn't like to see use of them becoming a habit at this site. On the other hand, I do read modern German pretty well, and someone just happened to tweet, in keeping with the theme of the day - relating to the dreadful events in Paris - a statement in German that I'll translate as follows: "Tolerance is above all the recognition that it makes no sense to get agitated." So, I won't get agitated about your salty language in this trigger-warned context.
As to the specific source of your agitation, I would not find it surprising if the Swarthmore woman and others of her type, if and when they do finally achieve elite status as you suggest, lead a vast effort to restore a stricter moral code, precisely to save the youth of their day from their own experiences. One set of progressives are already moving in that direction, which I take to be your preferred direction. Though they do not indict the Swarthmore woman or her general circumstances as "degraded," the overall thrust of their campaign is, I think, "sex-negative," and is taken that way. Even if many others are still at the stage where they hope against all evidence that they can have their erotic cake and eat it, too, they may draw the conclusion from a combination of experience and their own logic that a culture of "free love" and a culture of safety, especially for women, remain two different cultures, technological patches notwithstanding.
For a while it looked like the AIDS epidemic might be received as a lesson along those lines - and maybe in fact it was. I think it's noteworthy that, whatever you think about so-called marriage equality, it amounts to the replacement of a fairly extreme degree of "licentiousness" - I mean especially the orgiastic excesses of the '70s "cruising" scene - with "a license."
Some gay men and women have at times more or less confessed that they were "scared straight-ish," as though by God's wrath: Others insist that they are making a free choice or embracing something that they nurtured as an ideal all along. Traditionalists may believe that a greater wrath must still be coming, but I'm thinking now of an event that got a bit of press a few months ago, in which a young woman, who may have been a porn star or "sex worker" or both, rented a house (I think in San Francisco (where else?)), and invited members of the public to observe and even participate as she staged what some would view as her own gang rape. In the woman's description, what was occurring was the exact opposite of spontaneous or licentious sexuality: She justified or "licensed" the act as an important step in her own personal process of self-discovery, and so on. You might find her description persuasive. You might find that it makes the whole exhibition even more appalling. Either way, in this context what's interesting is how utterly rationalized and justified it was. In some ways it evokes the classical view of erotic love, which was somewhat indifferent toward particular sex acts, but concerned that the superior individual went about it in a superior way, or, as is typically said, demonstrated his maintenance of self-control. Not that the fathers of Athens or Rome would have approved, but the framing doesn't seem to have much in common with Flower Children concepts.
As for myself, I don't have time today to collect and work through my further thoughts on this subject, or to refine these adequately, but I didn't want to leave your comment unanswered. Time permitting, I may return to the topic of convergence or re-convergence of conservative and progressive concepts, and may also have something to say about "sodomy" vs sodomy.
Of course, there’s a more traditional ideal of liberty which one finds in, say, Hegel or the New Testament. According to that ideal, liberty is the freedom to be a truly moral human being—one who is enslaved neither to an institution nor to sin and pleasure (e.g.–and pertinently–sexual promiscuity).
That assumes that one is "enslaved" by merely making decisions that some grand arbiter of morality disapproves of. "Freedom" only to do as you're told is a contradiction.
“Blather” strikes me as simply unfair.
Yes, it was very unfair and I owe you an apology. In fact, I would have apologized to you much sooner, but I've been completely away from the computer these past few days. Though I could render an account of the snap judgment that prompted me to write that misbegotten comment, it would only confirm the fact that I'm an intemperate fool--and I think you already know that. I'd like to retract both that comment and its smart-aleck successor in their entirety. I'm genuinely sorry and I do hope you'll please forgive me.
You have a rich, complex writing style that I like, admire and envy. I wouldn't want to say anything that would inhibit you from being yourself. Not because I'm philosophically committed to people being themselves--I'm not--but rather because I truly admire your self-expression. There is, of course, a temperamental difference that holds between the two of us. You seem to have the proper philosophic temperament, characterized by moderation and sobriety. Despite my affection for philosophy, my own temperament is more akin to that of the religious enthusiast or poetaster. I only mention this because I think the temperamental difference contributes to occasional friction between us. For example, that difference gives rise to differing—even opposed—political allegiances.
Which brings me back to the original topic of conversation. I really do think the point you're making about the obsolescence--due to the decline of monogamy and the ideal of feminine virtue--of the notion of "rape" is very interesting. Now, though I'm sympathetic to conservatism, I wouldn't describe myself as a conservative for the simple reason that I'm even more sympathetic to the so-called far right. I object not only to equality, but to liberty as well. Of course, there's a more traditional ideal of liberty which one finds in, say, Hegel or the New Testament. According to that ideal, liberty is the freedom to be a truly moral human being—one who is enslaved neither to an institution nor to sin and pleasure (e.g.--and pertinently--sexual promiscuity). But I don't think for even one second that the average American believes liberty means anything other than license or licentiousness--the freedom to sin to one's heart's content. Liberty in its classical sense is the province only of certain devotees of philosophy or religion. And so I consider American libertarianism to be execrable.
Nevertheless, I suppose I find myself--for the purposes of this discussion--in the position of the conservatives whom you reference in the original post, those who lament the passing of the ideals of monogamous marriage and virtuous femininity. I'm fond of saying that American society specializes in producing masculinized sluts and feminized cads--a perverse state of affairs, in my view. To take up once more the lewd example of the Swarthmore coed: American libertarians and progressives don’t seem at all perturbed by this picture of a slutty, degraded and degrading girl. All they care about is that she may have been “raped” because she didn’t sign a consent-to-be-fucked form before her caddish occasional lover fucked her for the umpteenth time. (And this gal is a student at an elite college who is liable to be taking her place among America’s ruling elite in years to come! God save us.) You seem to recognize such perversities--unlike the typical progressive--yet you appear to be at peace with this state of things. I, on the other hand, am revolted by it and that leads me at times to want to lash out and say to you: "What!?! You're just going to sit there in smug philosophic lucidity, at the end of history, while America becomes a gigantic shithole full of deluded flies and dungbeetles who fancy themselves to be human beings!?!” (HT: Zarathustra)
In closing, I just want to say that the reason I termed my initial comment an obvious farce is that it was characterized by a certain "exaggerated" quality--which you did indeed reference in your reply. Yet, you seemed to suppose that those exaggerations were un-self-conscious. You'll excuse my recourse to schwein-lateinisiertes Jiddisch (an unkosher combination, I admit)--but, while I'm undoubtedly an example of oyischegay opskay, I would devoutly hope I'm not an example of chwarzersay opskay. (Now, don't get your dander up, it's just a joke—offered, I assure you, in extremest dispassion.)
I didn't "acknowledge" that your comment was "a farce," WM. I was going on your past performance, and the comment struck me as likely meant in earnest, though it did make me laugh. Am I now to assume that your past contributions at this blog have also been tongue in cheek? If so, then you've put one over on me.
I don't take "overly polite" as a criticism, especially in the context of a topic as fraught as rape. Treating it as a subject for "farce" strikes me as much more questionable. As for the rest, I'm not sure what would be any more or less "pedantic" in my comment than in my usual posts or comments. I don't, of course, consider myself a pedant. I suppose no pedant does, but, if you find the content and style of that comment insufferable, then there are plenty of other blogs in the sea. "Blather" strikes me as simply unfair. My comment was only a comment, not the most carefully developed expression, and I was trying to to close the gap between your views as stated and a more realistic assessment. I made the apparent mistake of taking you seriously, of trying to see things from your point of view or from the point of view you expressed, but there was nothing parodistic in my statement. I consider its arguments defensible, and I consider the comment itself substantive enough.
It's beyond me what purpose it would serve for you to have your statements in general treated with suspicion of bad faith. It undermines any possibility of dialogue at all. Maybe your suggestion that I must have been responding to your parody with parody was itself parodistic. How could I tell? I have no idea who or what you are when you're not commenting on my blog, or what statements qualify for you as so obviously unsupportable they could be intended only as jokes.
The days when people were routinely jailed or even murdered for simply exercising their sexual preference were terrible, and deserved to die out. The shift you lament is towards individual liberty, may we never turn around on this path.
Interestingly--though my comment was obviously a farce, as you indeed acknowledge--the overly polite, pedantic blather that is your reply makes it seem as if you are more or less in agreement with it.
Surely, your reply too was a parody?
no the 'hookup culture' is not synonymous with rape, these activists seem to ignore that detail in their paradigm as if this was the Victorian era, and not the aspect detailed in Penny Dreadful
The question isn't simply whether the guy did something shameful, even setting aside remnant uncertainty about what actually took place. The question is also whether what he is thought or described to have done is so shameful it deserves the name of a crime that until relatively recently was still punishable by death in some states. The question is also whether that other guy, George Will, deserves to be shamed for asking that other question under the larger question and suggesting that the answer ought to be "no." A third question might be whether some degree of complicity in the crime or crimes can be assigned to the woman in particular and to her self-styled supporters in a different way, and whether refusing to do so isn't to deprive them of the same meaningful agency that you seem to want to stand up for. What makes the question even more complex is that the meaning and presumable purposes of "shame" are also subject to change and variation.
You take the point to an extreme, WM. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry or both, or whether I or we should be thanking you for the performance or executing some form of blog-suitable punishment or both.
The understanding and use of the word "rape" evolving in the way you describe, as further movement along an already observable trajectory, would not be unprecedented, in somewhat the same way that euphemisms, especially ones related to sexual activity, often have turned into prohibited speech in time, or that prohibited terms, originally the worst curses available, may become everyday speech, or, often in our culture, remain prohibited at one table and at the next table over a virtually obligatory sign of belonging. It wouldn't surprise me to learn today, or tomorrow, that one or another youth subculture was already using the term in just the way you describe. I think it was in a novel by Jerzy Kosinski, possibly COCKPIT, which I would have read several aeons ago, that a naive female narrator grows up using the word "rape" as a synonym for sex. I've also addressed the theory advanced by some radical feminists that all heterosexual intercourse is rape. The immediate context was the incest taboo, and the inability that many contemporary discussants have justifying it - see last esp. paragraph: https://ckmacleod.com/2012/09/04/the-brady-bunch-annihilated/.
Yet as long as we are sexual beings, there will still be significant differences between assault in general and sexual assault in particular, whatever the terminology. I removed as too preachy lines I originally wrote meant to caution those sympathetic to the conservative point of view from expressing it as a betrayal of their own concept. If the hook-up culture is in some sense a rape culture, and it matters that it is, then, even if "Swarthmore rape" isn't rape like rape used to be, a crime has still been committed, and victims, perhaps your own children or nieces and nephews are being victimized, or are asking for empathy. Mourning for a lost order of things or lost possibility may not be encouraged by the depiction of it, or the self-depiction of those struggling to recall, evoke, or restore it or aspects of it, as merely cruel.
Changes in the meaning of the word "woman" also follow the pattern you describe - and I think exaggerate - reflecting a simple economic process of decline in "market value" with lost relative exclusivity or scarcity. Here as in your discussion of rape, however, the offense taken at most tables in the great cafeteria will be indicative of the distance between where we actually are and where you imagine us arriving.
What is unclear about what I said? That woman is a human being with free will, the guy by ignoring her No treated her like a hole in the wall. If anything should be shamed, it's that.
Sodomy used to denote an unpardonable offense, a “crime” that dared not speak its name. Today, however, respected pundits like Andrew Sullivan openly write about the pleasure they derive from “sodomizing” other men and being “sodomized” by them in turn. Distinguished figures like President Obama urge the citizenry to celebrate “sodomy”.
I can't recall Obama urging a celebration of sodomy. I can recall him however saying that he no longer sees a problem with same sex marriage -- which is a good thing since no one has any business infringing on the relations of consenting adults regardless of what they think.
What I find most interesting about the original post is the suggestion that "rape" may no longer be a meaningful notion. I'm not certain whether the intention of the piece was to persuade the reader to that effect or was rather meant to be something of an evocative provocation, but I must admit that it is coming close to having a persuasive effect upon me. That persuasion, in turn, invites speculation as to whether or not the term "woman" possesses any longer a meaningful significance.
Under any dispensation of meanings or significances, I think I would have a hard time sympathizing with the Swarthmore coed--let alone in the contemporary dispensation, where all vestiges of traditional morality have been swept away only to be replaced by a vacuous and manipulative "ethics of consent". Like the very notion of "rape" itself, which is something of a spectral outline or silhouette of a distinction that was meaningful in a former epoch, we may soon find that "consent" too is nothing but a perverse mirage tormenting the minds of those dying of thirst.
The coed was "hooking up" with her partner for three months beforehand. That is to say, she is a "hooker". Hookers typically derive remuneration from the provision of their services, but it would seem that the Swarthmore coed preferred to "hook" for free. She might even be likened to a volunteer "comfort woman" doing her part to pacify the insistent drives of young male college students--that is, if the term "woman" is still a meaningful distinction.
As the original post implies, I sincerely doubt whether it is at all possible in this day and age to "rape" a "woman". Sex in our time has all the dignity and preciousness of passing gas. It is possible, I suppose, to make "rape" illegal and impermissible in the same way that it might be possible to make farting illegal and impermissible--but I don't think the one prohibition could be any more substantive than the other.
I mean, imagine if the latest campus inanity was to vilify farting and to protest against a "fart culture". Interestingly, since farting is a conduct overwhelmingly associated with the male of the species, any movement against an ostensible "fart culture" would serve essentially the same politically manipulative purpose that the campaign against "rape" serves. Nevertheless, like the current campaign against so-called rape, it would lack intellectual substantiveness--even if many poor lads were made to suffer onerous sanctions for the "crime" of passing gas.
But I suspect that "rape" is a notion that will soon go the way of "sodomy". Sodomy used to denote an unpardonable offense, a "crime" that dared not speak its name. Today, however, respected pundits like Andrew Sullivan openly write about the pleasure they derive from "sodomizing" other men and being "sodomized" by them in turn. Distinguished figures like President Obama urge the citizenry to celebrate "sodomy". Those who still oppose "sodomy" are increasingly thought of as retrograde villains, deserving of misfortune. It may be that, in time to come, respectable men will openly flaunt the pleasure to be derived from "raping" "women"--and "women" too will boast of the enjoyments of being "raped". Perhaps a future U.S. President will extol the virtues of "rape" and "rapists"--and vilify the reactionary holdouts who continue to oppose such wholesome activity.
(Throughout this comment, I have placed the term "woman" in quotation marks because, like "sodomy" or "rape", it seems to have only a nostalgic significance. In so far as "woman" denotes a specifically feminine type of human being, something distinct from a female brute or animal, it wouldn't appear any longer to be meaningful. Of course, it might still do service as signifying something that is formally human (in the sense of having the typical "human" appearance) and possessing the female genitalia (in the sense of that kind of genitalia which are passive in the sex-act). But just as no one in their right mind would be concerned about a barnyard hen being mounted by an aggressive rooster--or fretting about the lack of "consent" involved therein--it would seem anachronistic to be concerned today about analogous phenomena occurring in regard to "women".)
Don't see how the position "disregards" possible disagreement any more than any other position strongly held, or held at all. To believe one thing as opposed to another is inherently or implicitly to hold the other position in lower "regard" in some sense.
As for a full cross-comparative critique of the history and theory of the sexual division of labor, I'll hold off on that - though I recall a past bigly pointless discussion, somewhat pointlessly discussed here: https://ckmacleod.com/2013/06/06/not-discussing-a-conservative-understanding-of-the-sexual-division-of-labor/ Same goes for the presumptions underlying "unattached to a free-willed human being who makes decisions for its use." In the meantime, presuming that men simply "had it better" under the old regime removes some of the best arguments for the modern one, it seems to me.
A conveniently defined virtue of theirs that completely disregards possible disagreement. Oh, and seems to always fall on the woman.
What about the moral character of the type of person who treats the bodies of others as if they're means to an end, unattached to a free willed human being who makes the decisions for its use? Where's the shame on them?
That wasn't supposed to be a reply to your comment, I don't know why it showed up that way. Didn't see your message until now.
Not a source of shame, b-p, necessarily, or only in the sense that "shame" and sexual exclusivity originate in certain organic realities of childbearing and -raising in pre-modern environments - when infant mortality was a leading cause of death, first for babies, and then for mothers; when paternity was always inherently uncertain; and when simple, effective, inexpensive birth control wasn't widely available. Simply to presume, however, that the old regulation of sexual desire is completely obsolete, or that the initial adaptations to the removal of the old problems are good, balanced, and sustainable, may be mistaken.
The "Real Blame" in conservatives' eyes would be connected to the destruction of virtue, which used to be one effect of rape, an injury to both the direct victim and all of her relations, and now is in this conservative view a cause of rape or what is called rape, and in another sense is already a kind of slow-motion achievement of the same destructive effect. To put it baldy, in case I wasn't clear enough in the post, Will et all seem to think and to be saying or coming very close to saying that progressivism produces an equivalent of rape, that the Swarthmore woman was already as-though-raped, or "destroyed," and that, if there is a rape culture, then the hook-up culture is the real rape culture. The event that six weeks later the victim chooses to view as rape would in this scheme be the culmination of an extended process of degradation. Some radical feminists might once have agreed in some ways.
a Yankee fan, lounging on the rug and enjoying Tommy John tossing slowballs, was suddenly seized by his ankles and dragged away from the television, utters words of surprise and protest, but a determined woman cared not and yanked the trousers from his skinny legs, sank down upon him and had her way with him because her thermometer informed her that it was the optimal time to conceive a son.
had he been a fully-committed feminist and less of a Yankee fan, he could have had her arrested rather than watch the end of the game.
turned out he enjoyed the consequences of this sexual assault ...who also became a fan of baseball.
Ah - now I think I see what you mean. It seems to me that precisely what you describe would be within the outer limit of the crime of rape according to the new definition, and to be appalled with the ghastly Will over his expressing his view does seem at least to evoke the distance between political correctness and how people live.
if I'm reading your reply correctly, you're not focusing upon that which I wrote in order to discuss larger points that a poor, simple frog hasn't raised.....
...much as people decrying an interpretation of a particular incident decry that interpretation in pursuit of imposing an uniform response to classes of sexual interactions.
the view from down here is that criminalizing actions (or demonizing opinions) requires some attention to the particular.
If I'm reading your interpretation of George Will & those who agree with him on this correctly, their view is effectively that The Real Blame falls on modern civilization failing to interpret the human body itself as a curse or object of shame as their chosen religious & cultural traditionalism would prefer.
Not exactly a surprise, and I'd say you're spot on in interpreting them. However, the reason that it's considered "unspeakable" is that it's a humongous insult to the very concept of individual agency & self determination, not to mention widely missing the point. To say in the context of a rape allegation that people should not like sex so much is a non-sequitur.
a viewpoint that considers it not to be a felonious act when one person initiates intercourse with a regular partner who is not eager at the time but who is cajoled into (passively) engaging.
Which or whose viewpoint would that be, Mr.Phrog - if you can describe it without expressing it?
when a sorta-semi-reasonable viewpoint is too ghastly to be expressed, what have we gained?
no rape is a very serious offense with serious consequences, precisely it should not be bandied about loosely,