![]() |
The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay (/Thread-The-National-Review-defends-Bernie-on-rape-essay) |
RE: The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay - bfine32 - 05-30-2015 (05-30-2015, 02:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I came across this while trying to find a full copy of the essay in question: http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/28/politics/bernie-sanders-rape-essay-1972/index.html Why would he try to distance himself if it is not uncommon? RE: The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay - GMDino - 05-30-2015 (05-30-2015, 02:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's see how common it is. Please define "abuse". And what roll consensual plays in it. Bondage would be seen as "abuse" if the two people were not consensual involved in it. How wax, nipple clamps, ****rings, bastinado, whipping...all forms of "abuse" that some couples employ in the sex life. Of course, not a good conservative like yourself who has "normal sex"...but people that I am *sure* are outside your circle. ![]() RE: The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay - Belsnickel - 05-30-2015 (05-30-2015, 02:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Why would he try to distance himself if it is not uncommon? Maybe because it's politics and he knows how it looks. Maybe because he doesn't like how it was written. Maybe because his views on things in the article as a whole have changed. Hard to say, you'd have to ask him. RE: The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay - Belsnickel - 05-30-2015 (05-30-2015, 02:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: Please define "abuse". Good points here. Some things I have done with former girlfriends, some outsiders might view as abusive even though it was entirely consensual. We just never thought of it as such because it was done in a safe manner and everything was consensual. I'm just glad the one didn't get intot hat furry crap until after we had broken up. ![]() RE: The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay - bfine32 - 05-30-2015 (05-30-2015, 02:41 PM)GMDino Wrote: Please define "abuse".sexual abuse noun 1. rape, sexual assault, or sexual molestation. Not sure why you included consensual; as Sanders made no reference to it in the excerpt I read. RE: The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay - bfine32 - 05-30-2015 (05-30-2015, 02:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Good points here. Some things I have done with former girlfriends, some outsiders might view as abusive even though it was entirely consensual. We just never thought of it as such because it was done in a safe manner and everything was consensual. Where did Sander mention consensual in the paper? RE: The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay - GMDino - 05-30-2015 (05-30-2015, 02:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: sexual abuse Because it plays a roll in you asking who has fantasies about "abusing" women. And I cited many, may things that would be "abuse" that many couples engage in. But, as usual, you ignored all of that. Quote:a·buse You certainly upped your game Tommy. RE: The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay - Belsnickel - 05-30-2015 (05-30-2015, 02:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Where did Sander mention consensual in the paper? Why does he need to? There are more definitions of the word abuse than the one you have cherry picked. What makes you certain that was the definition in mind when he used the word? RE: The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay - bfine32 - 05-30-2015 (05-30-2015, 02:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: Because it plays a roll in you asking who has fantasies about "abusing" women. My bad I thought you wanted me to define abuse in the context of sexual encounters. I was trying to keep the topic on the OP (Sanders Paper) in which consensual sex was not discussed; only abuse and rape. But yes, you have provided an adequate definition of abuse. Still I do not fantasize about how to "use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse." in my sexual fantasies. But like I said; I'm usually in the minority around here. RE: The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay - bfine32 - 05-30-2015 (05-30-2015, 03:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Why does he need to? Because that is the feeble defense being offered. Belsnickel Wrote:There are more definitions of the word abuse than the one you have cherry picked. What makes you certain that was the definition in mind when he used the word? Which definition do you think he had in mind? I "cherry picked" the first one listed. RE: The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay - Belsnickel - 05-30-2015 (05-30-2015, 03:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because that is the feeble defense being offered. No, you didn't pick the first definition. You chose the definition for sexual abuse because that is what you read into it. However he never stated sexual abuse, just abuse. There is a difference. RE: The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay - bfine32 - 05-30-2015 Amazingly enough the debate has boiled down to the definition of a word. Who would have guessed. RE: The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay - RICHMONDBENGAL_07 - 05-30-2015 (05-30-2015, 03:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Amazingly enough the debate has boiled down to the definition of a word. I know right! That never happens when you're in the discussion. ![]() RE: The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay - bfine32 - 05-30-2015 (05-30-2015, 03:10 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No, you didn't pick the first definition. You chose the definition for sexual abuse because that is what you read into it. However he never stated sexual abuse, just abuse. There is a difference. OK, so he suggests men become sexually aroused thinking of women being "mistreated, misused, used to a bad effect or bad purpose" and never suggests consensual. I can see how that makes a world of difference. RE: The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay - bfine32 - 05-30-2015 (05-30-2015, 03:14 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I know right! That never happens when you're in the discussion. Where did I bring it up? Others are concerned with definitions and "context". RE: The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay - Belsnickel - 05-30-2015 (05-30-2015, 03:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: OK, so he suggests men become sexually aroused thinking of women being "mistreated, misused, used to a bad effect or bad purpose" and never suggests consensual. It actually does. But at this point I'm not surprised you don't see that. RE: The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay - bfine32 - 05-30-2015 (05-30-2015, 03:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It actually does. But at this point I'm not surprised you don't see that. 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. RE: The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay - RICHMONDBENGAL_07 - 05-30-2015 (05-30-2015, 03:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Amazingly enough the debate has boiled down to the definition of a word.Right here. (05-30-2015, 03:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Where did I bring it up?Well considering that words have definitions and context means a lot, seems like you should be more concerned with both. ![]() RE: The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay - Belsnickel - 05-30-2015 (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. 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. RE: The National Review defends Bernie on rape essay - bfine32 - 05-30-2015 (05-30-2015, 03:28 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: Right here. 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. |