Why couldn't they?

Because the level of aggression, hatrid and lust for destruction necessary for such things only exists in males.

The female human is the most creative force on the plannet

The male human is the most destructive.

_

Some people might think I am sexist, but I stand by these things which are observably true.

It is the case that, for example in the German extermination and concentration camps, there were some female guards - but only a male controlled society could have created such an atrocity.

In all human history, all wars have been caused and in the most part fought by men.

---------- Post added at 03:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:43 PM ----------

And you might as well ask "why cant a dog play the piano?" His paws are capable of hitting the notes just as a humans are... but in fact we know dogs do not play the piano. And women do not make wars.

As with the rape issue I disagree. I think your perception of the human female is off, far off from reality.

Let's just agree to disagree.

But take a look at this

Or this

I am happy to debate my view fully - but I think it should be in another thread if you want to. Otherwise this thread will be full of discussion about only one aspect.

I'll pass, it's a pointless debate. You believe one thing and I another. I fail to see either of us changing our views.

Dude, Strange: you're British. Boadica? Warrior-queen of the Britons who gave the Romans quite a few ruined night's sleep?

Joan Of Arc? Roxane the Scythian? Mary Bonny? Fa Mulan? Golde Meir? Margaret Thatcher? Do any of these names ring a bell, or did y'all hang onto the Malv...sorry, Falklands, with the kind help of Mr. Churchill's ghost?

As for women being incapable in regards to concentration camps, I give you Ilsa Koch, The Bitch Of Buchenwald. You might also investigate the curious case of Countezza Erzabet Bathory.

And that stuff about women not being able to slaughter animals? C'mon out to the farm. Mom leaves the beheading of chickens to me, but she shoots 2-5 deer every year: cleans 'em and butchers 'em too. You have no business making pronouncements about what women can do until you've seen a 65-year-old grandmother elbow-deep in deer guts and flirting with her husband the whole time.

And, as ever and always, do you have any sources for your pronouncements? Sorry, no; "Common sense," or "observation" or "everyone knows" do not count as sources.

Come on, Dunedan, those women were all clearly psychologically male. :rolleyes:

And Leonardo da Vinci was probably psychologically female, like most artists and inventors.

I should know, because I'm psychologically female.

Would you like to come to my tea party?

Boudica was a freedom fighter, not a warlord.

Joan of Arc was a general, and was probably pyschologically male (I believe she dressed as a man for example)

Maggie Thatcher and Golde Meir did not make war on their own, they were leaders of countries involved in conflicts. And in the case of the English attack on the Argentinian Maldives island, this was hardly a major conflict, more like gunboat dimplomacy from a fading empire unwilling to accept its diminishing world power.

I havent heard of the others

As for Countess Bathory - it is widely held that the accusation of bathing in blood etc are nonesence that the crimes she was alleged of committing were cooked up. There is no real evidence that she was anything more than a victim.

Ilsa Koch - as I said, yes there were examples of females guards. But a female society would not have created the the concentration camp.

The American female soldier (named England?) who was involved in the pictures of torture of Iraqi prisoners is probably the most widely known and blamed person in the whole sorry incident. Yes, she was guilty of course. But more guilty than the commanding officers that allowed or encouraged the abuse? I think not.

_

Society accepts the cases of transvestites and transsexuals who are born as male but feel themselves to be emotionally female. It can go the other way, and some women are doubtles born as emotionally male. These are the kind of women (rare as it is) who are involved in cases like this.

Women can't be understood by Strange Famous. ;)

I don't think this is derailing a thread, because there are multiple stereotypes relating to women and sex that could use some busting up. This is one of those issues. The idea that the woman is always a passive party and the man always an active party in sexual intercourse is completely indefensible, sexist nonsense. It also provides an interesting segway into the use of language in the discussion and the way it shapes stereotypes.

We define sex by the masculine role of penetrating, so of course folks see the man as the active party when the idea of sex comes up. It's built into the language. Let us change the terminology. Let us define sex as the act of enveloping. No longer will the man penetrate the woman, the woman will envelop the man. The vagina envelops the penis. The woman is the active party and the man passive. The woman is the actor, doing the enveloping, and the man is passive, the object being used in the act of sexual intercourse.

To speak of sex in terms of active parties and passive parties is a matter of the language you choose to frame the debate. Because men have been framing the debate for years it seems that framing it from the masculine perspective is the most natural way (to me at least) it is still however arbitrary. There are no passive parties in act of sexual intercourse. This is the crux of the issue of female rape as well. Determining the active and/or passive party is irrelevant to whether or not a rape has taken place, the issue is one of being able to freely consent to being an active party.

Great, I can't stop thinking about Pacman with a clitoris on his forehead.

Speaking of something in the terms which are opposite to reality doesnt change reality

If A fire burns in the woods we would say that the fire consumes the tree's. If someone says the tree's catch fire on purpose, it doesnt change reality. It is merely a false statement.

The sexual act - between a man and a woman, is one where the man is active and the female is passive. This doesnt mean that the woman has to lie still and think of England. The woman can in every case be as or more energetic.

But the actual biology determines that the man enters the woman. Biologically a woman cannot rape a man. I think even in the case where a woman uses a dildo on a man against his will, this would probably be defined as a type of sexual assault.

A woman cannot rape a man in any situation where the penis penetrates the woman in any case, this is certain. This is true if he is given a "cock ring", if he is drugged, if he has a gun to his head.

Pointing a gun at the man's head and demanding he performs sexually certainly is criminal in almost any society - but it isnt rape.

Just think of it as a cockhug.

---------- Post added at 12:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 PM ----------

You're thinking that rape is purely: being sexually penetrated without consent, unless you are male.

Rape, however, is more like engaging in sexual intercourse without consent.

But it's difficult to reason with you because you ascribe to binary opposition in these matters. (I'm referring specifically about your comments regarding male/female creative/destructive, etc.)

I think we can go a little further, although it is a harder case to argue, because we live in a male (ie capitalist) society, it is hard to be certain about what life would be like in a female (ie communist/utopian) society WITHOUT relying on making judgments about the essential human nature of people

Violence is alien to the female pyschology entirely.

Yes, it is true that woman can and do commit acts of violence (although of course far less and far less brutal than men) - but insofar as this does happen it is a characteristic of being forced to live in a male capitalist society and under the influance of the dominant male capitalist dogma and conditioning of society (which preaches competition, conquest, violence, power as socially good and necessary)

It is against the true nature of the female to engage in any act of physical or emotional violence.

Good grief! :surprised:

It could be argued that capitalism is female because it is the female that demands from the male resources to be supplied for their offspring.

And that communism is male, because males would rather have resources shared to increase their chances to have sexual access to females, and possibly multiple females.

It's quite logical when you think of it that way.

But practically speaking all of this is nonsense.

And if you want to see how absent violence is in the female psyche, try doing something nasty to her child.

Rape - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Males can not control whether they get an erection or not. case in point Three women abduct, rape man in Karachi - Pakistan - World - The Times of India

So yes strange, men can be and are raped.

I can control whether I have an erection or not to a degree (think about something sexy, think about something unsexy), and I suspect most men are the same.

well biology disagrees with you

See page two http://www.wsu.edu/~biol251/topic8.pdf

So, no you can't control your erection

Yep, I COMPLETELY agree, there is NO way you got false information. The internet is always accurate!

**goes off to google search for a pregnancy test**

Erm...Quite so. Speaking about something in opposite terms which are just as much an accurate reflection of reality also doesn't change the reality, it just reflects the arbitrary nature in in the choice of our terms, which was the point.

The sexual act - between a man and a woman, is one where the man woman is active and the female male is passive. This doesn't mean that the woman man has to lie still and think of England. The woman man can in every case be as or more energetic.

But the actual biology determines that the man enters the woman woman surrounds the man.

Women can't look good bald.

Unless she's Shanaid O'Connor..................nothing compares,,,,,,nothing compares....to you......

or Demi Moore U-RAH!

If you haven't seen The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo believe me when I tell you that a woman can indeed rape a man.

read the book (and hated it, was almost embarassed for the writer)

I assume you are talking about Lisbeth and the parole officer?

This would be a case of aggivated sexual assault in my opinion. She doesnt rape him, because she doesnt have a penis. She assaults him sexually, and the tattoo would probably count as wounding.

She certainly could be looking at 3 to 5 years for her crimes (although there is somewhat significant provocation)... but she isnt a rapist.

However, the parole office was, if you recall?

A conversation between Strange Famous & Naturalmanhood would be.....

I gotta go. Somewhere. I need air.

Women are thriftier than men.;)
Example: I never wasted any meat when I hunted deer. I shot most all of them, in the head.
I was wearing Victoria Secret underwear beneath my blaze orange.
(I must be one of those cross-dressing psychologically male...critters.)

What if she has a psychological penis?

You cannot commit imaginery rape. It is actually one of the most revolting crimes in existence.

Well, perhaps you can imagine my confusion, then, as to why you would undermine the seriousness of it.

Imagine, if you will, a female schoolteacher taking advantage of a minor male student.


Oh, wait, that's just "some kind of sexual assault," or, perhaps, an extremely rare case where a psychologically male female did a male thing. I guess it depends on whether the teacher penetrated the boy? It's such a difficult concept because the teacher doesn't have a cock, and women are clearly nothing but a creative force in the world. But does it even matter? The boy being such a violent destructive force, no matter how dormant and with potential yet to be fulfilled?

Uh, yeah. I'd like to see YOU and the other men here go through some of the more painful experiences women endure in their life.
http://www.droliverlynn.com/read_write/mirena.gif

You see that thing? I had it WILLINGLY inserted into my uterus. Do you know how much it fucking hurt to have my uterus measured for it, to have my cervix dilated, and then to have it put in? How much it's hurt since then just in the process of my uterus getting used to having a foreign object inside? Yeah. And the pain endured for that process is NOTHING compared to natural childbirth. It's also nothing compared to kidney stones, which if you haven't experienced those--well, then you have no concept of what real pain feels like.

And yeah, a woman can rape a man. I know of an instance within my own circle of friends where a guy I know was raped. Essentially, he would have never chosen to let this girl have sex with him had he been sober; she got him really fucking drunk to the point of near-incapacitation, stimulated him, and climbed on top. He doesn't even remember it.

A female teacher taking advantage of a male student is just that, taking advantage, maybe an abuse of authority

But the male student likely does not even see himself as a victim, and nor does most of society. If the average 15 year old male reported to his parents or peer group that he had been seduced by a 28 year old female teacher - they would likely congratulate him, and the teacher thought of as a sad case who couldnt find a real man so had to settle for a 15 year old. If a 15 year old female reported the same thing the teacher would be treated, rightly, as a predator and a sexual pervert who should most likely be imprisoned.

You might think thats unfair, but the reality is thats the way most people see the world. Thats the way human beings are.

Biologically and physically, men always want to have sex at every possible opportunity - even if emotionally or for social reasons they dont

Every time a man penetrates a woman he is BIOLOGIALLY CONSENTING to the act - whether he wants to tell his mates afterwards "oh I was so drunk, she took advantage of me" or she used a cock ring on him or whatever else.

Thats why there's a difference.

Biologically consenting? WTF does that mean? He had a physiological response that enabled sex?

Without being overly crude, what do you think it means?

If his body didnt consent, he would not have a hard on. If he physically did not want sex, he would be unable to have it.

The idea that the uncontrollable physiological response of obtaining an erection could demonstrate the conscious act of consenting is laughable. There are plenty of ways to induce an erection in a man against his will, the simplest of which is likely asphyxiation. A man who cannot properly be considered to consent to anything, such as someone unconscious, is also perfectly capable of obtaining and maintaining and erection.

Strange, I know you hate science and all, but your statement is simply not true. As I quoted earlier, erection is an involuntary response.

Well, I must be some kind of medical freak then. Because I find my erection is not involuntary at all. It is a result of sexual arousal.

I suppose you would have me believe for most men it just has a mind of its own? And it is some kind of coincidence that it just happens to get hard when men want to have sex?

Come on, be realistic. I am not saying that a man can summon or dismiss an erection at the snap of his fingers, but it happens when someone is sexually excited. If they are not sexually excited (ie - if they are not biologically consenting) then it wont get hard

_

I 100% guarantee that if I was to have a knock on my door now, and a sexy woman was there and she grabbed me and started french kissing me etc, my cock would get hard. I wouldnt have consented to do anything, but my body would consent. I might not want to do anything with her (because for example I dont want to cheat on my girlfiend - ie an emotional reason) - but my physical reaction would be as I described.

If the same thing happened but a man grabbed me and kissed me, I would not have any erection, my body would not be consenting to this assault (and of course I would immediately take steps to remove the pervert from the house with justified violence)

Women cannot understand the concept of male bonding.

Strange Famous is the king of creating a kick-ass debate. Hands down.

Damn right. I'll back up what snowy says.
I've passed a couple kidney stones in the last few years. And I now have no intention of giving birth to a child. Fuck. that. shit.

That's all I'll contribute to this thread though. I'm feeling anti-men these days, so making my blood boil is not a good idea...:no:

So by this statement you claim that you've never woken up with an erection?

I was thinking of, say, an 8-year-old male. Would his parents congratulate him?

So you don't think a 28-year-old female who takes advantage of an 8-year-old boy is a "predator" or "sexual pervert" who should most likely be imprisoned?

You've already demonstrated that you don't quite understand how most people view the world or the way human beings are.

Is this Kinsey or Freud? This applies to men and their mothers too, right?

If a woman is sexually aroused but decides not to have sex, has she already consented because she's already lubed up and ready to go? Should she pay up?

There is a difference between the body being aroused and the decision to not have sex. You even said so yourself above.

You describe below a scenario about a sexy woman barging in and forcibly arousing you. That's not voluntary arousal. That's automatic. Otherwise, you'd be able to "turn if off" or you'd have been able to "leave it off" in the first place despite her tongue.

The reason why men want to have sex is because of the sexual response, i.e. arousal. In most cases, erections are part and parcel of the sexual response. Try being aroused without an erection next time. Try resist being aroused around something you find sexy, touching in particular...if it's so voluntary.

Couldn't you just have said no to the erection?

People, don't you guys realize the pain threshold argument is really psychological? A woman from the burbs can last as long as a man from the same place in a torture chamber. It all depends on their life experiences. A woman conditioned to withstand torture can last longer than a man not conditioned and to argue how long a man and a woman from the same place can stand what amounts of pain is futile because not all men are the same and most certainly not all women.

If men had some sort of menstrual cycles and had to deal with cramps I believe just as many men as women would opt for an IUD.

Why couldn't we stick to normal regular stereotypes like steak and arnold schwarzenegger movies?

And I suppose it exists only in human animals, whereas other female animals and their inherent protection of young would not be considered true nature when they attack and kill anything they view as a threat to their offspring, that is the true nature of violence in women, but violence still exists in women outside of the nurture/protect realm also.

Though it is true that men are, biologically, more aggressive in general than women, this does not negate violence in women. I teach my boys to turn the other cheek and then if they are hit in that cheek also, to defend themselves, period. I tell them that a woman will kill them just as easily as a man and they have a responsibility to defend themselves, regardless of gender. They are taught that violence in any form is unnecessary and that self-defense should only go so far as it is necessary to remove the threat. Women can be very, very violent, it is not against our nature to be violent, it is merely against our wish in evolving humanity, most women like life as that is our gift to men, to present them with the life they create inside of us, but don’t think for one moment that it is against my nature to protect that life, wherein I possess my violent nature, the nature to protect life, and I will protect children and the weak and innocent to my own death, violently. :thumbsup:

I don’t agree with all in the site listed (especially the anti-feminism bs, though I am not pro nor anti feminism, I do not see feminism as anti-male), but it shows a lot of female violence. And physical child abuse does fall in the hands of women, in general, more so than men.

Bull Busters. Violent Women : Underground Productions : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

What exactly does that mean?