The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay

[*bfine32*]

(05-30-2015, 03:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You've consistently shown a very narrow viewpoint on things yourself, in this thread and in other threads. That was all I was referring to. Pot meet kettle.

Just because you do not agree with my viewpoint does not mean it is narrow. You turned the discussion personal and that's on you. No one "made" you do it.

There is no "Pot meet kettle" unless you can show in this thread where I personally attacked someone. Don't try to drag me down to your level by assimilation. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-30-2015, 03:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just because you do not agree with my viewpoint does not mean it is narrow. You turned the discussion personal and that's on you. No one "made" you do it.

There is no "Pot meet kettle" unless you can show in this thread where I personally attacked someone. Don't try to drag me down to your level by assimilation. 

I wasn't referring to the "attack." I was referring to the narrow mindedness that you were claiming others were engaging in. Inferring one thing from an essay and not budging on the possibility that there could be other ways to view it is narrow mindedness. If you consider pointing out the narrow mindedness an "attack" then so be it.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-30-2015, 03:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So I brought up by replying to you mentioning it?

Of course the definition of words are important; however, the petty focus on one word becomes rediculous (spelled wrong on purpose).

Sanders says things such as "tied up", "on her knees" and "abused". Guess what the debate turns to: "Define abuse". I provide a definition in a sexual "context" which is the "context" of Bernie's paper and suddenly I'm "cherry picking" definitions and the "correct one" that states "mistreat, misuse, use to a bad effect or purpose" is the one I should have used and to some makes a world of difference.

So let me correct myself. Bernie suggested that men get sexually aroused by thinking of the mistreatment of women.

BTW, if it is consensual it is not mistreatment. He never states in the excerpt that we read that men get sexually aroused thinking of consensual sex with women. Or women fantasize about roll playing. he states they fantasize about getting raped.

You are cherry picking a lot,  a lot of women fantasize about being raped, although that doesn't necessarily mean they want to be raped.  Men fantasize of raping though don't necessarily want to actually rape.  Like many have said there is a lot of people that participate in consensual sexual activity that at first glance might seem abusive, but in actuality is not.

[*bfine32*]

(05-30-2015, 03:57 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: You are cherry picking a lot,  a lot of women fantasize about being raped, although that doesn't necessarily mean they want to be raped.  Men fantasize of raping though don't necessarily want to actually rape.  Like many have said there is a lot of people that participate in consensual sexual activity that at first glance might seem abusive, but in actuality is not.

I have asked for members here that become sexually aroused by fantasizing about abusing women to list their names; no one has; yet, I an continuously told it is common.

[Belsnickel]

(05-30-2015, 04:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have asked for members here that become sexually aroused by fantasizing about abusing women to list their names; no one has; yet, I an continuously told it is common.

You act as if everyone will jump to admit they fantasize about something that is socially stigmatized while their screen name is attached to it.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-30-2015, 04:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have asked for members here that become sexually aroused by fantasizing about abusing women to list their names; no one has; yet, I an continuously told it is common.

Bwahahhahaha...

I get that it's a message board and largely anonymous.  But did you really expect people to come jumping out in detail as to what they're into sexually.  This of course doesn't mean that it's uncommon, but then of course I suspect you knew that.

[*bfine32*]

(05-30-2015, 04:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You act as if everyone will jump to admit they fantasize about something that is socially stigmatized while their screen name is attached to it.

(05-30-2015, 04:28 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Bwahahhahaha...

I get that it's a message board and largely anonymous.  But did you really expect people to come jumping out in detail as to what they're into sexually.  This of course doesn't mean that it's uncommon, but then of course I suspect you knew that.

Well they did quickly come to the defense of a man that suggested such.

Sander's words were nothing short of appalling; yet, there is a concerted effort to mitigate them on this message board.

As I stated earlier if Ted Cruz, Ron Huckabee, or Ben Carson would have said such words I doubt the same folk would be running to their defense. I would further suggest their religion and views on homosexuality would be brought into focus. But those folks expect you to think they are open minded.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-30-2015, 04:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well they did quickly come to the defense of a man that suggested such.

Sander's words were nothing short of appalling; yet, there is a concerted effort to mitigate them on this message board.

As I stated earlier if Ted Cruz, Ron Huckabee, or Ben Carson would have said such words I doubt the same folk would be running to their defense. I would further suggest their religion and views on homosexuality would be brought into focus. But those folks expect you to think they are open minded.

I think I can confidently state that my position would be the same despite of who the author may have been.

That's pure speculation on your part.

[Belsnickel]

(05-30-2015, 04:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well they did quickly come to the defense of a man that suggested such.

Sander's words were nothing short of appalling; yet, there is a concerted effort to mitigate them on this message board.

As I stated earlier if Ted Cruz, Ron Huckabee, or Ben Carson would have said such words I doubt the same folk would be running to their defense. I would further suggest their religion and views on homosexuality would be brought into focus. But those folks expect you to think they are open minded.

(05-30-2015, 04:51 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I think I can confidently state that my position would be the same despite of who the author may have been.

That's pure speculation on your part.

I have to agree, if anyone had said the same I would be responding in the same manner. If someone had said men want to abuse women or women want to be raped, then there would be an issue. But that wasn't said, it was about the fantasies, which are more common than many people like to admit.

[GMDino]

(05-30-2015, 03:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Even the Mod turns to focusing on the poster rather that the subject. Show me one thread in this post where I called someone out personally.

I think I might just let you guys have this forum, because it is apparent that none can accept a different point of view.

[GMDino]

(05-30-2015, 03:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Just because you do not agree with my viewpoint does not mean it is narrow. You turned the discussion personal and that's on you. No one "made" you do it.

There is no "Pot meet kettle" unless you can show in this thread where I personally attacked someone. Don't try to drag me down to your level by assimilation. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-30-2015, 04:51 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I think I can confidently state that my position would be the same despite of who the author may have been.

That's pure speculation on your part.

(05-30-2015, 04:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have to agree, if anyone had said the same I would be responding in the same manner. 

Time will tell.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-30-2015, 05:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Time will tell.

Well considering between the old board and this one, I like to think my track record has been pretty consistent for the last 8yrs or so.  Especially in the PnR forum.  It hasn't been until recently that I've noticed you post in here regularly.

In fact I remember in your HOF post on the old boards, you said you didn't like to post in here because things got too real.  Not gonna lie, it's an opinionated bunch in here and things get heated. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-30-2015, 05:13 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Well considering between the old board and this one, I like to think my track record has been pretty consistent for the last 8yrs or so.  Especially in the PnR forum.  It hasn't been until recently that I've noticed you post in here regularly.

In fact I remember in your HOF post on the old boards, you said you didn't like to post in here because things got too real.  Not gonna lie, it's an opinionated bunch in here and things get heated. 

I will definitely give my opinion and it rubs many the wrong way because as retired military and conservative my views are not of the popular type around here. That is reason 1 when talk turned to moderators for this Board I immediately removed myself from consideration. 

Perhaps I will give this forum a break. The double-talk, insults (admittedly I have fought fire with fire), and wolf-pack mentality is just too ridiculous. 

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-30-2015, 10:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I will definitely give my opinion and it rubs many the wrong way because as retired military and conservative my views are not of the popular type around here. That is reason 1 when talk turned to moderators for this Board I immediately removed myself from consideration. 

Perhaps I will give this forum a break. The double-talk, insults (admittedly I have fought fire with fire), and wolf-pack mentality is just too ridiculous. 

Well when it comes to politics there is going to be a pack mentality for sure, but that's just the nature of the beast (you've got plenty of conservative friends in here.)  But then there is also a lot of posters from left of center as well.  Funny thing about it though is there is a lot of ex military in here, but many of us are not conservative.  I agree though, I have little time for double-talk or insults, I try to steer clear of that. 

[BmorePat87]

So I actually read the essay. I'd recommend all do so before commenting any further.

http://crooksandliars.com/files/images/15/05/man_and_woman_0.jpg

I can't post images on my phone, sorry.


It appears the point of the essay is a criticism of traditional gender roles In which the man expects the female to be submissive and the woman expects to have to serve or depend on the man. I would say after reading it all that the brief mention of sexual fantasies isn't suppose to be taken as Bernie suggesting men and women actually get off on this.

[GMDino]

(05-31-2015, 01:18 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So I actually read the essay. I'd recommend all do so before commenting any further.

http://crooksandliars.com/files/images/15/05/man_and_woman_0.jpg

I can't post images on my phone, sorry.


It appears the point of the essay is a criticism of traditional gender roles In which the man expects the female to be submissive and the woman expects to have to serve or depend on the man. I would say after reading it all that the brief mention of sexual fantasies isn't suppose to be taken as Bernie suggesting men and women actually get off on this.

Yes but who needs context to make a judgement not only about Sanders but about the majority who want to "abuse" women? 

[Ben Richards]

Bernie Sanders himself today described this essay as a poorly written 50 Shades of Grey. Anyhow, this pile was written 42 years ago and if people are digging shit like this up it's pretty obvious people are starting to fear him as a candidate.

[*bfine32*]

(05-31-2015, 01:18 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So I actually read the essay. I'd recommend all do so before commenting any further.

http://crooksandliars.com/files/images/15/05/man_and_woman_0.jpg

I can't post images on my phone, sorry.


It appears the point of the essay is a criticism of traditional gender roles In which the man expects the female to be submissive and the woman expects to have to serve or depend on the man. I would say after reading it all that the brief mention of sexual fantasies isn't suppose to be taken as Bernie suggesting men and women actually get off on this.

Of course you do.

I read it and came to the conclusion that he explains why gender roles cause us to get off on these fantasies. Nothing lead me to believe he doesn't think they do.

I wonder why Sanders is trying to distance himself from the article?

[GMDino]

(05-31-2015, 11:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you do.

I read it and came to the conclusion that he explains why gender roles cause us to get off on these fantasies. Nothing lead me to believe he doesn't think they do.

I wonder why Sanders is trying to distance himself from the article?

Of course you do.

You are obsessed with how people have sex and why its "wrong" compared to your view of sex based on religion.

We would expect nothing less of you.