Depends on the man. Women are pickier than men. To do a proper comparison requires sampling only men that the women find attractive, which is nearly impossible to do since one woman’s hunk will be an “ew” to another woman.
For example: be a man in any culture, even Islamic ones… no matter the male, if he stripped in a train station, the women (even in a safe crowded space) would be more averse than men will be, gasps, shock, actual fear.
Now if women did this… are the men scared? No!!
Not a chance!!
The difference between a culture like ours and theirs (islamists) is that our culture doesn’t interpret female sexually signaling as necessary consent.
The comfort/discomfort ratios are cross cultural however… women relative to men.
I still don’t see how any of that qualifies as rape, except maybe in the Islamist case, but even then it could be argued that the woman made the first offensive move by dressing like a slut.
It qualifies as rape because it activates the “no means yes” operator.
I’m not making the normal feminist argument that all sex is rape… of which there are two luminaries for that, I’m using a different argument that makes it POSSIBLE that sex isn’t rape.
I didn’t think of it at the time, but that’s another super-obvious reason MagsJ should not have censored me. It’s a damn classic feminist argument from women that all sex is ONLY rape.
Oh ok, so long as only some sex is rape, then I can see where you’re coming from. It was the “all sex is rape” impression that I had at first that caused me problems.
My argument is that all past and current sex is rape, not that future sex has to be rape, which, MagsJ, is a classical FEMINIST argument, from FEMALES.
Aright I’m confused again lol, but that’s ok because I’m sure you have it conceptualized somehow that makes sense to you, but I can’t see it mainly because I don’t want to put the effort into finding yet more ways people are exploiting each other, especially if it’s that complicated to explain. I suspect KT will have lots of fun with this in the morning lol
I don’t know what to say about Mags except that she doesn’t talk enough for me to formulate an impression, but she seems cool from what I can tell. Are you sure you didn’t go overboard?
All human thoughts and beliefs are subjective… even according to objectivists.
I don’t see how this is confusing…
All you’re committed to believing as an objectivist, is that an objective reality exists. It’s not necessary to also believe you have an unerring understanding of that reality.
In other words, objectivists CAN and DO believe they can be wrong about what’s objectively real.
But then again your definitions of “subjective” and “objective” are fairly uncommon. So let’s not let semantics confuse us.
I am not using YOUR definitions… I’m using those words as defined historically.
I’m not sure HOW to use your definitions…
It seems to me the only thing you would call “objective” is something “unconditionally real”…
Which would mean only the force or forces that are universal and eternal would qualify as “objective”… everything else is “subject” to certain conditions.
So anything conditional like “murder is wrong, depending on the situation” would make it “subject” to the conditions.
Even temporal things, like “on august 3rd 1992 it rained somewhere on planet earth” is subject to that specific date as well as subject to there being a planet earth etc.
Idk, you’ll have to get phyllo’s opinion on whether he thinks all human thoughts are subjective.
If it’s an opinion that “murder is only wrong sometimes, depending on the situation”, then how does that make one an objectivist?
How can I be an absolutist because I’m a relativist? Makes no sense.
No objectivist would merely hold that all things are relative except for the one thing that he cannot see. That’s not a practical definition, although technically correct.
Appeal to popularity. Why should mediocre intelligence dictate how words should be defined? Who cares how people prefer to colloquially define words, especially if those definitions overlap and have blurry boundaries. When I define categories, I like mutually exclusive definitions with well-defined boundaries.
For instance:
Communism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps 100% of profits
Fascism - gov controls 100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits
Socialism - gov controls <100% of means of production and keeps <100% of profits
Capitalism - gov controls 0% of means of production and keeps 0% of profits.
Everything is clearly defined and nothing overlaps.
But colloquially, people want capitalism to mean “gov regulates some arbitrary % of industry, subject to who you ask, and taxes only moderately, again subject to who you ask, but otherwise a free market.” So that when they finish defining their word, we don’t know anymore than before.
Or how to define perception, awareness, consciousness.
Perception - interception of information
Awareness - perception of perception - the interception of information that information has been intercepted.
Consciousness - perception of awareness.
I don’t care how words are defined, so long as they are mutually exclusive with definite boundaries. I don’t want “awareness” to be another flavor of “consciousness” or have “capitalism” conflated with “socialism” because it just leads to confusion.
No, you still haven’t understood that subjects can be inanimate. The negative is subject to the positive object and vice versa. Earth is subject to the sun and calls light from it the same way a positive terminal of a battery calls electrons from the negative. None of these things exist without their polar opposite. You can’t have an electron without a positron; it doesn’t make sense.
You have it backwards: the permanent object is an artifact of the objectivist.
That would be the objectivists, theists, religious, republicans, conservatives, dogmatists, narcissists, etc. And yes, it is sad.
You are trying to be deceptively here, most likely due to ignorance.
Ecmandu: It’s objectively stated: “on august 3rd 1992, it rained somewhere on planet earth.”
How do you know to confirm the above?
It is possible there was no rain on that day.
The above is most objective if we get a confirmation from a qualified weatherman who rely on Science and other advance knowledge.
However whatever objective facts the weatherman confirm, it is intersubjective as subjected to the Framework, System, Machinery, principles of weather forecasting.
Thus the objective conclusion of the qualified weatherman is intersubjective, i.e. ultimately subjective.
In addition, August 3rd 1992 is very subjective depending on which Nation’s or international time which can be very variable.
In addition, “raining” is also very subjective, depending on whether how we define ‘rain’ from light rain, heavy mist or thunderstorm, etc. How do you measure the limit of lightness of water falling down to be considered rain? Is it one drop of water, two drops, three or how many drops or liters of water before it is considered to be raining.
As you can see your supposedly “objective” statement is full of subjective variables which is consolidated and concluded by intersubjectively.
That is why I claim what is objective is ultimately and fundamentally subjective, i.e. intersubjective.
Your insistence to cling tenuously to objectivity alone for facts is due to a desperate internal psychology driven by an existential crisis.
I really don’t… that statement is true by definition.
If Phyllo thinks otherwise he’s using different definitions for those words OR he’s being self-contradictory.
It was an appeal to reason… you need to be aware of what words mean in order to understand what is being said, much less critique what’s being said.
I’m going to side-step the comment about mediocre intelligence… but note the irony.
Defining words is done for the purpose of clear communication… It helps when people take the time to clarify and discern how terms are defined.
But when you could just as easily express your thoughts on a matter using the established language, yet still prefer to redefine terms, it seems suspect.
Re-defining words that traditionally have a different meaning, lends itself to equivocating on those two meanings and thereby making specious arguments.
Everyone as a consequence has to remain extra vigilant to ensure you’re sticking with the new definition and not confusing it with the traditional one.
For example if you critique what it means to be an “objectivist”, as you have re-defined it, and then think that critique applies to a traditional objectivist, that would be a case of equivocation.
Likewise if you assume other people are using YOUR definitions, even though they have not agreed to do so, you won’t comprehend what they are saying and end up criticising your own misunderstanding rather than any of their arguments. That is a form of straw manning, but of course you’re not doing so intentionally… you’re just confused by semantics.
