Leo's Blog Discussion Mega-Thread

[trenton]

I have read about standards of rape being invented.

Firstly, Marital rape wasn't fully recognized in America until 1993. The reason is that too many people simply assumed that the relationship itself conferred consent. To this day, the outcome is that in intimate relationships there are still men who use force to get sex, believing it is consensual. Therefore the rapist in his worldview claims "it was consensual" because that is how humans have thought for millennia. It required numerous horrendous cases of rape and murder to make the alternative framework of consent hard to reject.

This also explains why women don't have consent rights in parts of the middle east. If developed countries haven't done this until recently, then of course less developed countries would not have these kinds of consent frameworks. In fact, ancient rape laws are defined as "rape is when a man penetrates a virgin woman without the consent of her father." This is part of what points toward "Marry the Rapist" laws and "inviting the rape." In this worldview it makes sense because if a woman has what we would consider consensual sex with a man she loves, then in their worldview it would be equivalent to inviting rape because the father did not consent. The woman may have decided she wanted to marry this man anyway despite him technically being classified as a rapist. From this point of view rape and marrying the rapist would be considered "good for the woman because she wants it" as Leo was describing. Unfortunately, this also applies to women who were violently assaulted in cases which we would consider rape in western countries.

I hope it helps to clarify how wide the range is in terms of defining rape. Some frameworks make the rape of males literally impossible. Therefore pedophilia would be described as something like sodomy instead in ancient laws of sexual misconduct.

[aurum]

In conjunction with inventing rights, the leftist also often believes that human evil has to be taught.

Evil is not seen as something innate to humans. It's always social conditioning, trauma, lack of education, patriarchy or some other malevolent force blocking the inherent goodness of people. Which is of course is partially true, but still misunderstands the situation.

 

[trenton]

@aurum how would a leftist explain someone like Ted Bundy? Sometimes people have structural differences in their brain which make them incapable of empathy. Combine that with a joy for power and control and you end up with a sadistic serial killer. Does the leftist account for brain structure in psychopaths?

[aurum]

1 hour ago, trenton said:

@aurum how would a leftist explain someone like Ted Bundy? Sometimes people have structural differences in their brain which make them incapable of empathy. Combine that with a joy for power and control and you end up with a sadistic serial killer. Does the leftist account for brain structure in psychopaths?

Some might account for brain structure.

But they might also say something like "Ted Bundy wasn't born a sadistic killer. No child grows up wanting to hurt others. The lack of love he received in his childhood, plus his patriarchal conditioning that women are inferior turned him into a killer. But that wasn't the real Ted Bundy. If Ted had a different childhood and had been taught differently, we would have seen the true Ted Bundy".