Eske Esquire wrote:
ITT: Asylumites mock gbaji for his neanderthal views on rape; then assert neanderthal views on rape.
I don't agree one iota with gbaji about rape. In fact, i think societies taboo's concerning non-consensual sexual contact is likely a cause of half-wits concluding that 'it's not rape if there are no marks'.
You can't seem to grasp a rather simple concept and so conclude that I'm a neanderthal (I'll not dispute the claim against Smash)?
Who's the simpleton here?
The concept is indeed simple. That's precisely the problem. It's too reductionist. It disregards the obvious complexities of the issue - so much so, in fact, that I had to assume that you were trolling. Rape is traumatic for a variety of reasons, and that's self-evident. Take, for example, the trauma of having one's body used by force against one's will. Or the shock of an intimate action used in a violent, selfish manner? I'm just shooting from the hip here; there are plenty of reasons, and they're not all about petty hangups.
Your entire premise fails at its very conception. I don't disagree with you that our hangups about *** contribute the the trauma
. They very much do. But, unfortunately, that wasn't the extent of your claim.
Now you're just going the full gbaji: taking your point to extreme, stupid measures in order to defend it, when you should just pare it back to something vaguely logical.
And settle down, I didn't call you a neanderthal, just your argument. I called you a hypocrite.