Politicians who are legitimately stupid rarely get elected.

[infinite monkey]

Then he should have explained that. In your scenario, is he actually ashamed that his underage daughter sinned, wasn't pure?

[Cyber Wolf]

At what point will he schedule her stoning then? The book most of these guys claim to follow as the only guide to life they need says unmarried mothers should be stoned.

Or would he (or the rest of them) fess up to cherry-picking the parts that suit them/their situation best?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Then he should have explained that. In your scenario, is he actually ashamed that his underage daughter sinned, wasn't pure?

No no, because the woman is too stupid/innocent to make any decision regarding sex. That's why it's always rape, unless the man gets God's permission and marries her first.

[DanaC]

I would imagine that the closer society moves towards a right-wing christian ideal, the more 'illegitimate' rapes there will be. As the social consequences for the woman of extra-marital or pre-marital sex increase there would be a greater need to explain it away by designating it as non-consensual.

This may well mean that in stricter families and communities there is a greater risk of consensual sex being classified as non-consensual. Which could then feed back into that family and community and form a greater suspicion of women's claims of rape.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by DanaC

right-wing christian ideal

Four words were never more mis-matched.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I would imagine that the closer society moves towards a right-wing christian ideal, the more 'illegitimate' rapes there will be. As the social consequences for the woman of extra-marital or pre-marital sex increase there would be a greater need to explain it away by designating it as non-consensual.

This may well mean that in stricter families and communities there is a greater risk of consensual sex being classified as non-consensual. Which could then feed back into that family and community and form a greater suspicion of women's claims of rape.

Historically, rape has been seen less as a violation of a woman than as a theft from a man to whom that woman belonged, either her husband or her father, who suffered an economic loss (a woman’s marriageability spoiled) and an insult to his honor. There was also the problem of bastard children, who were considered a social burden; the Athenian state, for example, was primarily occupied with protecting bloodlines, and so treated rape and adultery the same way. Hammurabi’s code describes rape victims as adulterers; English law of the seventeenth century takes a similar position. In Puritan Massachusetts, any woman pregnant through rape was prosecuted for fornication. In the nineteenth century, the American courts remained biased toward protecting men who might be falsely accused. In order to prove that an encounter was a rape, the woman had to demonstrate that she had resisted and been overcome; she usually had to show bodily harm as evidence of her struggle; and she had somehow to prove that the man had ejaculated inside her.

In the early and mid-twentieth century, rape remained underreported because women feared adverse consequences if they spoke out about what had happened to them. In 1938, Dr. Aleck Bourne was put on trial in England for performing an abortion on a fourteen-year-old rape victim, and his acquittal reflected a populist movement to liberalize abortion, especially for rape victims. The trial was widely covered in the U.S. and led to open debate about the validity of abortion; the following year, the first hospital abortion committee in the United States was formed, and by the nineteen-fifties these committees were ubiquitous. Although they approved only “therapeutic” abortions, they increasingly accepted the recommendations of psychiatrists who said a woman’s mental health was endangered by her pregnancy. Well-connected and well-to-do women could obtain psychiatric diagnoses fairly easily, and so abortions became the province of the privileged. Ordinary rape victims often had to prove that they were nearly deranged. Some were diagnosed as licentious, and had to consent to sterilization to obtain abortions.

much more

[BigV]

Regarding strident calls from the Republican Party for Akin to withdraw from the race, I find myself on Akin's side. I feel he should stay in the race. And not only because I think he is a poor candidate and that McCaskill can and should prevail in the general election against him. But also because he is the choice of the voters. Akin said as much himself, and more power to him. I think he's wrong on the facts, and those who believe him are wrong too. But it is true that he was chosen by the voters to stand in the general election.

The alternative is to accede to the wishes of the party. The party wants to reject the clear intent of the voters. I find this objectionable. I find it hypocritical for any party leadership to make such demands. The party backed him in the first place, put him forward as the party's representative, and in other circumstances proclaims "the will of the voter this" and "the will of the voter that". This is as patronizing as a parent of a young child, when faced with a child who is aggravatingly copying their parent's bad behavior, says "do as I say, not as I do". Only ten times more patronizing and insulting as we voters are not children.

Stay in the race Akin. I hope you lose, but you deserve to run.

[tw]

Originally Posted by BigV

Regarding strident calls from the Republican Party for Akin to withdraw from the race, I find myself on Akin's side. I feel he should stay in the race.

Again, I do not think that election is a slam dunk. Most people had already decided long ago. Polls put McCaskill far behind.

Also curious - and I don't understand what this means. McCaskill had manipulated her primary campaign ads to feed or encourage support to Akin. I do believe Cellar dwellers exist in MO. What was that report saying?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by tw

Again, I do not think that election is a slam dunk. Most people had already decided long ago. Polls put McCaskill far behind.
--snip

So... let me try to understand. Election not a slam dunk in your opinion, maybe indicating an evenly divided electorate.

Most people already decided, maybe indicating little change in the current state of mind of the electorate.

then...

Polls put McCaskill far behind, maybe indicating a wide margin of victory for Akin since McCaskill's behind.

See? How am I supposed to reconcile your first statement with your third statement? You seem to contradict yourself.

Furthermore, McCaskill is not "far behind" in the polls according to my research. She's ahead.

[tw]

Originally Posted by BigV

How am I supposed to reconcile your first statement with your third statement? You seem to contradict yourself.

The math is easy. McCaskill was behind by 11%to 14%. That obviously said nothing about where McCaskill is today. You are confusing what was with what is. Then assumed an "evenly divided race" conclusion without any reason other than your feelings. You jumped to a conclusion rather than read what was posted.

Now, for McCaskill to win, at least 6% or 7% of voters must change. I see no reason to believe Akins core support really care about his statments. Many apparently agree with him. I suspect most who would vote for Akins are attached to the 'liberal verse conservative' dogma. Don't care about realities. Just want to be told how to think.

Based in that suspicion, I suspect many politicians, who called for him to resign publically, were not doing so privately. It was only politically convenient them to do so.

We will see. If Akins does lose >6% of those who actually vote, then he did have significant moderate support. But I suspect behind the scenes, the 'powers that be' always knew where his support was coming from. If true, then they were only calling for him to withdrawl for political reasons; not from their hearts. Knowing full well the statement would be quickly forgotten even months later.

Rather depressing that so many actually support a political dogma that encourages Akins to make those statements. However even advertising can manipulate well over 50% to believe outright lies. And they deny being manipulated by that propaganda.

Akins only made it interesting.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by tw

The math is easy. McCaskill was behind by 11%to 14%. That obviously said nothing about where McCaskill is today. You are confusing what was with what is. Then assumed an "evenly divided race" conclusion without any reason other than your feelings. You jumped to a conclusion rather than read what was posted.

Now, for McCaskill to win, at least 6% or 7% of voters must change. I see no reason to believe Akins core support really care about his statments. Many apparently agree with him. I suspect most who would vote for Akins are attached to the 'liberal verse conservative' dogma. Don't care about realities. Just want to be told how to think.

Based in that suspicion, I suspect many politicians, who called for him to resign publically, were not doing so privately. It was only politically convenient them to do so.

We will see. If Akins does lose >6% of those who actually vote, then he did have significant moderate support. But I suspect behind the scenes, the 'powers that be' always knew where his support was coming from. If true, then they were only calling for him to withdrawl for political reasons; not from their hearts. Knowing full well the statement would be quickly forgotten even months later.

Rather depressing that so many actually support a political dogma that encourages Akins to make those statements. However even advertising can manipulate well over 50% to believe outright lies. And they deny being manipulated by that propaganda.

Akins only made it interesting.

You're not originally from this planet, are you?

I'm outclassed when it comes to trying to connect with you, trying to understand the logic behind your discussion. It is clear to me that we have dramatically different standards of proof, of cheapshots, of English, of the concept of linear, sequential time... that kind of stuff.

You've failed to convince me, or instruct me, or persuade me. There's been a bit of aggravation and a bit of amusement, but I've got better things to do than to teach you to sing. I withdraw from the field of debate. See ya!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Again, I do not think that election is a slam dunk. Most people had already decided long ago. Polls put McCaskill far behind.

Also curious - and I don't understand what this means. McCaskill had manipulated her primary campaign ads to feed or encourage support to Akin. I do believe Cellar dwellers exist in MO. What was that report saying?

I believe I read some of the Republicans were supporting a younger candidate, wanting to dump Akin, but McCaskill felt she had a better shot against Akin.

Years ago, letting Akin run with his foot in his mouth would have been the RNC saying he's been a loyal old war horse, he'll probably lose but let him run and retire. But not now, they will fight tooth and nail for every seat, especially in the senate. If they didn't think he could win, they'd probably assassinate him. Besides, Ryan and company agree with him.

[Cyber Wolf]

This 11 year old's body must have really wanted it...

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012...-several-times

http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_ne...?quick_picks=1

Though I suspect Akin would focus on the Mom and say something about lack of family values...

[BigV]

Originally Posted by tw

Shame on you for posting cheapshots.

Let's get the cheapshot out of the way first, shall we?

Do you even know where babies come from dumbass? You don't indicate any such knowledge with your recent posts.

There? Feel better? Until now, I haven't made any cheapshots, the ridiculousness of your claim makes mockery impossible (see Poe's Law).

Originally Posted by tw

Nope.

It's still "Nope." despite your subsequent posts. Now to your further failure to support your claim with any evidence whatsoever.

I asked you to provide some support for this claim of yours:

Originally Posted by tw

snip--

Reveiw the science. Statistics suggest that women are more likely to become pregnant from sex that occurs during greater emotion. That applies both to rape and to illicit sex (martial cheating). Yes, the pretty boy lover is more often likely to get a wife pregnant than the husband.

--snip

Let's review what you say.

I said your claim is false. You say

Originally Posted by tw

Of course it isn't.

Ok, you're off to a good start. You've unabiguously reiterated your belief in your original statement. I asked you for a cite, or some other evidence to bolster your claim that

Originally Posted by tw

Statistics suggest that women are more likely to become pregnant from sex that occurs during greater emotion.

and you follow up with:

Originally Posted by tw

Considering the number of statements I have made so contrary to popular belief (ie predicting Desert Storm and its response months in advance, the mythical Saddam WMDs, a financial morass called AIG, stupidity of the Chevy Volt, actual cost of Mission Accomplished, escalating military tensions between China and its neighbors, etc).

A nonsensical sentence fragment. Hm.

Originally Posted by tw

Since overwhelmingly unpopular statements have been proven correct so often, then you should accuse with caution. Or at least first learn some facts rather than entertain a feeling. The emotional only remember how unpopular those statement were; and forget unpopular statements were also the accurate ones.

What are you saying here? You've made extremely unpopular statements in the past, but were correct, so I should challenge you on

Originally Posted by tw

Statistics suggest that women are more likely to become pregnant from sex that occurs during greater emotion.

"with caution"? I have learned many facts, I am cautious when caution is called for. Your claim is certainly "overwhelmingly unpopular" but it still hasn't been "proven correct". Not yet anyway, but you talk some more, so let's go see.

Originally Posted by tw

...
Facts come from research into infidelity and propagation of the species.

A quibble--facts can be revealed from research, they don't actually come from research

Originally Posted by tw

Long known was that infidelity and rape tends to result in a higher fertility.

See? This is a claim, it is not evidence. It is an assertion, a false attribution or an appeal to tradition, both fallacious.

Originally Posted by tw

That was never disputed.

Whether or not it has ever been disputed before (and I'm skeptical of that one too), I'm disputing it now. Still no evidence.

Originally Posted by tw

Researchers have been asking why. Genetic diversity is considered important for the advancement of the species. For example, one in five children are sired by someone other than the wife's spouse. A number that has held consistent even during the 1950s when adults were so more 'moral'. The resulting diversity is considered genetically healthy. A trend that begs the current hypothesis.

What the heck are you talking about? I read ahead and this little detour into a different fantasy and it doesn't connect with your original claim about that

Originally Posted by tw

Statistics suggest that women are more likely to become pregnant from sex that occurs during greater emotion.

Originally Posted by tw

A higher fertility rate during rape or infidelity creates increased genetic diversity. Undisputed is the higher fertility rate. The outstanding question is why and how important that would be for survival of the species.

You're fond of using "undisputed" and "never disputed" and "long known" when you try to round out an argument for one of your claims. The REAL outstanding question is "where are the facts to support your claims?". Answer that one and the others will be much easier to explain and understand.

Originally Posted by tw

Research with animals in England and Australia both demonstrated that the male who "copulatory ambushes" the female also have sperm with higher fertility rates. The romancing mate or 'pretty boy' male tends to be less fertile.

Cite, please.

Originally Posted by tw

In this case, the rapist and not the victim is more fertile. Bottom line conclusion remains despite unsubstantiated and speculative denials.

Let me try to paraphrase you to check my understanding: "I'm right because I'm right because you haven't disproved my claim." Ridiculous.

Originally Posted by tw

Also noted; women tend to become more interested or flirtatious with 'other' males around the time of ovulation. Not only spending more attention on them. But also having increased sexual fantasies about them. Another reason why women tend to have more children from extramarital liaisons - desired or forced.

Other interesting trends also exist. Men under increased stress prefer heavier women with bigger butts. Another trend also believed related to species survival.

Adults who suffered through famines as children or adolescents tend to have fatter children. Also unpopular because many only feel it must be wrong rather than first learn facts. How can a famine decades earlier change genetics?

I'm just tired of trying to understand your logic. There's so much noise and so little signal..."forced extramarital liasons" um... is that code for illegitimate rape? Come on man. Talk english, it aren't that hard.

Originally Posted by tw

Another question not yet answered.

At last, a true statement. This should be your signature, or at least your disclaimer

Originally Posted by tw

But that trend is also clear. Another trend suspected to be related to survival of the species.

Do you feel those are also wrong ... without first learning facts? Responsible denial means first learning facts before condemning.

Since I'm not a child, I learn from other ways--not just from the pedantic repetition of dogma (or dog crap). I'd be happy to deny your claims responsibly if you would just share some actual facts. Let's see some facts from you. Until you do, your claims remain unsubstantiated. Show us some of the facts and proof you esteem so highly.

[DanaC]

*applauds*

Nicely done V.

The men preferring bigger women when stressed is from a recent study that was splashed all over the news a little while ago. Men were put into stresful situations (such as public speaking) and their BMI preferences charted. It was in order to test out at a small scale what tends to be seen at a bigger scale between food secure communities and food poor communities.

The research supports other work that has shown perceptions of physical attractiveness alter with levels of economic and physiological stress linked to lifestyle.

"If you follow people moving from low-resource areas to higher resource-areas, you find their preferences shift over the course of about 18 months. In evolutionary psychology terms, you try to fit your preferences to what works best in a particular environment," said Dr Tovee.

Moreover, the researchers were keen to emphasise how fluctuating environmental conditions could alter the popular perception of an "ideal" body size.

What that has to do with the female body apparently being more likely to conceive during high emotion, I have no fucking clue. Except in the very broadest sense: evolutionary developments favour healthy procreation and that affects desire and behaviour, as well as physiological responses. But that can't be trotted out as a general argument for a specific phenomenon wihout that phenomenon being proven in its own right.

This smacks of the 'well it stands to reason, doesn't it..?' line of arguing. The sort of thing that seems to make sense because of other very looselyrelated stuff. There's a whole library's worth of pseudo-scientific bullshit floating around in our culture about evolutionary aspects of gender. It seems to have a greater grip on our imaginations than the stuff that can actually be proved.