That's what I thought. Why should a feminist think carefully about this?LilithSlave said:
It's kind of simple and obvious.
(And I'm feeling slightly miffed that the OP insinuates a feminist wouldn't think so because feminism).
Man Flees From Nymphomaniac
- Thread starter KingWein22
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's kind of simple and obvious.
(And I'm feeling slightly miffed that the OP insinuates a feminist wouldn't think so because feminism).
Im still not sure how I feel about this?
Somewhere between slightly outraged and incredibly jealous.
Somewhere between slightly outraged and incredibly jealous.
I find the idea of a man being raped by a woman quite... odd. How can a woman rape a man if it's her that's being penetrated anyways?
If I'd said I was mighty pissed because THAT stupid (still not original) remark came up again someone could hold my anger against be (oh those feminazis, always so angry). So I try to not show it too much, sometimes.thaluikhain said:
By envelopment.James Crook said:
Rape is sex with someone or sexual deeds done to someone without their consent.
Relevant part: without their consent.
Some laws still mention only penetration, which is stupid.
Btw, you know who mainly argues for laws defining rape as sex without someone's consent, including women raping men by envelopment, instead of just forceful penetration (which mostly means rape done by men) or the likes? Who is arguing for those laws to treat all people equally when it comes to rape? Could it be feminists? Gosh, I think it is.
Yeah, that's right, the only people who ever argue for sexual equality are feminists.MomoElektra said:
It's certainly not the case that there are thousands of people who call themselves feminists who wouldn't even think to argue that men can be raped...
And it's certainly not the case that there are thousands of people in favour of equality in rape laws who would refuse to call themselves feminists...
It's a good job neither of those are true, because if either were, it might make your claim there sound rather selfish and arrogant.
Im not too sure how this hasn't come up already, Nymphomania is a pretty serious condition. It isnt just "oh, im very horny, I want to fuck a lot of people". Often the sufferer can't actually control themselves, and will try to have sex with the first person they see. Its also linked to a lot of other more widely recognised mental conditions like Bipolar disorder, and ALzhiemers.isometry said:
If this woman is actually a Nymphomaniac, its much better that she is sent into care than just being locked in a cell.
The "only" was made up by you. I didn't say that. Take a moment and wonder, will you? Why did you make this up?Maze1125 said:
Prove there's even one.
Never said there weren't. That's only in your mind.
Neither of what is true? You are not making much sense.
Of course it could just be that all labels we like to use to define ourselves are bullshit and really you are either for equality or a twat!Maze1125 said:
For effect.MomoElektra said:
This is a very interesting way to respond.
You first take the two statements as positive, asking me to prove one, and saying the other was true, even though I stated them in a negative way. This suggests you understood fully what I was saying despite the sarcasm I was using.
You then respond to the last line as though you were totally confused about the whole affair, directly contradicting the way you responded to the previous two lines.
This suggests to me you're doing nothing but nitpicking because you don't have an actual response.
As for proving there are feminists like that, I've met them, both on-line and in real life.
You prove that they don't exist.
Very true, which just makes it all the more absurd when people who call themselves feminists talk as though feminism was a significantly organised movement any more. I'm not seeing any of them throwing themselves under race-horses to get women convicted of rape.Tipsy Giant said:
First off, why did this degrade into yet another feminist topic? It has absolutely nothing to do with feminism.
On Topic: Yes there is such a thing as too much sex for an individual. There comes a time when your libido starts to wear down and you would rather watch a movie with your woman/man then get down and dirty (don't get me wrong, down and dirty time is still an active concern). My limit is down to once a day, and from my understanding as a male it will continue to drop further (not good in my eyes as I enjoy sex) without hormone treatments.
On Topic: Yes there is such a thing as too much sex for an individual. There comes a time when your libido starts to wear down and you would rather watch a movie with your woman/man then get down and dirty (don't get me wrong, down and dirty time is still an active concern). My limit is down to once a day, and from my understanding as a male it will continue to drop further (not good in my eyes as I enjoy sex) without hormone treatments.
I do too. I do too. My God...Daystar Clarion said:
Anyway, I find
Why?isometry said:
Why would you say that?
What possible good could come from saying that!?
Clearly you've never had sex before, because I tell you there is only so many times I can have sex in a single night before things start to become painful and I'm milked dry. Having it more than three times in a single session is god-awful.BathorysGraveland said:
So you admit you distorted what I said.Maze1125 said:
To make it seem I supported a view when I didn't.
Maze1125 said:
Hey, English is not my first language, I misread. Can you do without implying bad motives?
How do I prove a negative? Am I required to be able to do that now?
What about burden of proof?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof