Nature v Civilisation, Hypocrisy v Political Correctness

Post Reply New Topic

Unsurprisingly, my recent thread about sex crimes went completely pear-shaped - many people are scared to challenge the new wisdom for fear of being vilified/arrested etc. The thread eventually wandered off into the area of victimless crimes - if a crime has no victims, then why is it a crime?

My earlier thread was intended to be entirely about the struggle for understanding between adult men and adult women about the difference between sexual behaviour which is perfectly OK, and sexual behaviour which is clearly criminal. I maintain my position that there is no agreed point at which a sexual act becomes a reportable sexual assault.

But, also unsurprisingly, it was impossible to avoid the point of view which seems to automatically associate sex, and the discussion of sex, with some kind of dodgy, perverted or unnatural behaviour.

Let me lay my cards upon the table. Some years ago, I spent some time as a driver for an escort agency. I learned a great deal about sexual needs and sexual behaviour, and it is nowhere near as straightforward as people would like to believe.

One of the comments which appeared on my earlier thread is that parents can never be held responsible for any crime which might be committed against their offspring. Today in the UK we have a massive scandal about hundreds of children who were systematically abused in very recent years by gangs of mostly Pakistani men.

In the majority of cases, the blame seems to be almost entirely attributed to the failure of the authorities to take proper care of the victims.

But in many many cases they were 'in loco parentis', were they not? So why is it impossible for parents to be criticised, whilst the 'care' workers whose job was to assume the responsibilities of parenthood are publicly pilloried?

One of the reasons for the failure of the authorities to take proper action is said to be that, because the criminals were mostly of Pakistani origin, there was too great a risk of being accused of racial discrimination. What?

On today's BBC World at One programme, there was a lengthy report of the child abuse scandal, and it was followed by an adult victim's description of a sexual assault on a crowded tube train. The implication seemed to be that the incident was in some way comparable to the systematic grooming and abuse of children by Pakistanis. She was physically unharmed except for some spunk down her stockings (the guy must have had very thin trousers!), and she found it hard to believe that such an offence had actually taken place. She gave no indication that she had been especially traumatised by the sexual nature of the crime, and I think her reaction was probably similar to anyone who has come home to a burgled house. When I had a trailer stolen from behind my van in a supermarket car park, I spent several minutes walking round and round the van in a state of total disbelief. I seriously believe that the label 'sexual assault' is not yet clearly defined - if violence is involved, then where is the need to add in the sexual bit? If two guys brawling end up getting kneed in the nuts, is that a sexual assault? If violence is not involved, and the effects of the crime are entirely psychological, then the crime could easily be treated as an extreme case of bullying (with a sentence to suit).

One of the hookers who I used to drive to jobs had a favourite fantasy, and she used to get seriously pissed off when her client would refuse to act it out. The fantasy was about travelling on a crowded tube train, and having a total stranger jerk himself off by rubbing his dick against her backside. Nothing could have pleased her more than being assaulted in such a way.

As I have said before, the perversion of our animal behaviour is probably caused by the very process of civilisation which tries, but fails, to stamp it out altogether.

Please think carefully before getting up on your high heels and calling me a pervert (again) - I am seriously perplexed by the inability, so far, of the process of civilisation to find an acceptable way to include sex in its list of essentials.

A perpetrator is a perpetrator, regardless of race. Shame on any authorities for putting fear of being called bigots ahead of the needs of the victim.
As for the girl who "appeared" to have not been traumatized by the Pakistani man who had rubbed himself against her - it was still a crime against a child, regardless of the girl's response. With sex offenders, it's never just one victim - there will always be others till he's stopped.
And in regard to the prostitute you knew who enjoyed having a client masturbate against her backside in public - it's hardly sexual assault when both she and the client were willing participants of consensual age.

I really hope that others will read my post more carefully than you did. Your comments are a bigoted distortion of what I actually said.

You know, you could have just corrected my error rather than getting personal.
The reason why I had missed that the victim in this case was an adult was because you had been writing about children just prior to that. Just the same, it was an unwanted sexual advance - and a messy one, too - and still a crime. And if the woman didn't come across as traumatized, it might have something to do with how you Brits "keep a stiff upper lip."

Yeah I think unwanted sexual contact should be a crime regardless of how 'traumatized' the individual who experiences it seems if someone makes an intentional sexual advance on someone who has not given any consent than it certianly is an issue and should be treated as such. I mean yeah if I was on a bus or train and someone did that they'd be lucky if I don't punch them in the damn face as a reflex or something. I just don't see how that is ok unless the woman consented to it.

What does that mean ?

I think that if the victims of sexual assault were simply to punch their attacker in the face, then the problem would be solved.

But, hey, that's a bit kind of 'primitive' innit - and civilisation doesn't like 'primitive', does it..

Sex is one of the basic essentials of a healthy life. Most everybody needs it (I see a few ASD's who don't). For everyone else, it's a need like eating and sleeping. I'll emphasize that point, it is a "need" that you can not put off indefinetly. I think this is where a lot of people, and the catholic church go wrong. They believe they shouldn't do it, even though it's a fundamental human need. Once that need reaches crisis point, the animal brain takes over and that's when hurt to others happens.

Society is history. If you want to understand the present, you have to understand our history. How we got here, and what happened in the past to shape our present.

While I don't have an answer for you, why sex is both taboo and pervasive in society. I'm sure if you study medieval society, and the crimes that happened in thoes times, you might gain an understanding of both the rule of law, and human fears.

Every war ever fought ; rape and pillage.

and I agree with Sweetleaf: Every unwanted sex act is a crime. No if's or but's.

this BS is so getting locked.

won't be long at all.....

I think in some cases that could very well essentially solve it, however if its to the extent of rape then it gets more complicated....As I think much of the time they are also essentially attacking the person so punching them in the face could prove difficult, not to mention I think more action need to be taken against them than a punch in the face...but for that bus instance a good punch/smack in the face could work.

That is why I think there should be legal prostitution, because then everyone has access to sex regardless even if not in a relationship, not to mention would probably make it safer for the people who make money that way. And would probably reduce sexual frustration in the population.

OP what is it you cannot understand. Just because someone you knew fantasied about having bloke jerk off by rubbing himself on her in a crowded space, does not mean that this behaviour should be legalised, trust me the vast majority of women would feel incredibly violated. Whilst I will agree that we are somewhat sexually repressed (blame the idiotic religious aesthetics for that one, Origen castrated himself so that he did not give into his sexual urges for example), It sounds to me as if you want everyone to be able to act out their sexual urges wherever and whenever they want, and with whom they want whether it be consensual or not.

You seem to be confused about the "no means no" argument, and yes for people like us who do not understand some social intricacies this can be confusing, but, if you take things literally then no means no, and if you miss a subtle turn on, then all that has happened is you didn't get laid, much safer than trying to argue in court that the other person didn't really mean no. And anyhow, people who argue that NO can sometimes mean Yes, are obfuscation the fact that when someone really means no there is little doubt about it.

As to your assertion that "I think that if the victims of sexual assault were simply to punch their attacker in the face, then the problem would be solved." are you f*****g kidding me, if you think that most women do not try and fight back in some way then you are delusional, the power differential is one of the reasons people rape in the first place, they get off on their power.

I think you need to go out into the real world and talk to people who have been abused. I have met around 25 women who have been raped and not one of them has dealt with the emotional trauma in the same way. I agree that sexual assault has gained prominence over other crimes, but like I said in an earlier thread this is no reason to castigate this elevation rather it should be seen as a goal for society to reach regarding all crimes against a person.

With regard to peoples lifes being destroyed through false allegations ie mud sticks, I have long been of the opinion that a persons details should be repressed by the law until they are found guilty.

Your premise here seems to be that nature is being compromised when males are not allowed to spread their seed in this way that pleases them, with limited penalties.

But no, this is not in alignment with nature, as women inherently are more cautious of who they share seed with as the repercussions are years for women, and only for as little as a few moments for the male.

And actually our culture is a very free one now, as far as sexual liberation goes, by the widely available and easily accessible avenues for porn, with almost any vicarious, voyeuristic, virtual reality of fantasy at ones fingertips and keyboard ready to go.

As far as I know, you have similar access in England to all of that, as well as your escort friends.

Mirror neurons work well enough to get a thrill and fulfill any fantasy one wants to fulfill behind closed doors in the privacy of one's on shelter.

Sexual assault is not a logical, legal, moral, ethical, or even natures way to go, from the act you describe here that is of a highest sexual assault nature to any woman anywhere at anytime that does not welcome this horrifying act of perversion, yes perversion, as it is not naturally, legally, or socially acceptable within the guidelines of what it takes to live peacefully and cooperatively in life, like all social animals must do, well enough, to survive with basic subsistence.

And yes, there is most definitely a cultural double standard here, that also goes along with natures way.

I've been rave dancing, yes me at age 54 as a noted extremely good dancer, at my metro area RAVE club with hundreds of college age students, all who are at least legal age and the age of consent.

Almost every time I go, at least one woman will approach me with her rear and bump and grind me on my front.

To be honest, it depends on if the woman is attractive enough, as to whether or not I find it acceptable, and am willing to tolerate it, as no I don't really find it appropriate as I am a married man with ring fully displayed on finger.

Does it hurt me; no.

But quite honestly some of the women don't give up when I protect my private parts with my leg, as no I don't want some of those butts rubbing up against that part of me, and I at 230 Lbs of solid muscle, at times have leg butted them a few feet farther away to get the point across, that no their butt is not welcome 'there'..

But the thing is I am a man and weigh 230Lbs and can lift 720Lbs easily with my legs, at my local military gym with free weights.

No hell no, I will never approach any of these women, with such behavior, whether I am married or not, or no matter what my damn fantasy might be, as BY GOD THOSE women are human beings, and in their nature is the fact that men overall are stronger and capable of exerting their will physically no matter what their defense might be against the sexual assault.

So yes, I can truly say, I have been sexually assaulted on the dance floor where I go by women, to dance RAVE STYLE, technically as it were, but no, I don't have to go again, if I do no want to risk it, and no, there is no chance a woman is ever going to get me pregnant by doing this if I'm not in the mood, no matter how much she bumps and grinds me, so I let it go, and keep dancing and just keep that leg up there, that can lift 720Lbs to protect myself from foreign butts that I do not care for bumping and grinding me.

The key point here, is, it is impossible for a man to understand the full vulnerability a women feels unless they have been in this place, and unfortunately some men who are not as strong as me are raped by men too, and yes they have a better understanding of what this vulnerability feels like.

My feeling here is there is no way I can make you understand that, unless you are reborn a woman, and face the same day to day vulnerabilities a woman faces all the time she lives, and eats, and attempts to breed with who she wants to breed with, and not have stuff forced on her, that she does not care for by men that may be able to physically dominate them.

Fortunately, we as humans beings for the most part have enough empathy not to abuse other folks like this, no matter how much stronger and bigger we are as a potential dominating force.

But unfortunately some of us do not have empathy for others.

And that is at least a source of many sexual assaults that you describe above.

Humans without empathy for others, who only care about their own selfish needs.

And yes, some of the girls at the dance hall I frequent may have this issue too.

And no I am no prude.

I do fully nude renaissance style male nude art in the flesh.

But all my work on the Internet is behind a restricted link.

A person doesn't get to flash their penis around where it's not wanted or rub off on a women, without going to jail and getting a
permanent record as a sexual offender to follow them around for decades, publicly identified for everyone to see.

And that's a good thing in my opinion that these laws are on the book where I live.

I have zero tolerance for sexual assault, except for when it happens to me, by the fairer and so called weaker sex, if you will, that yes does play into
the equation of the true nature of what we are as human beings in the social animal kingdom, as is, no matter what culture says.

So to summarize, as I do get rather wordy; your premise of nature is your answer already that no, the act you describe, is not acceptable at just the level of a bullying offense and should be regulated as the crime of sexual assault even when the laws of nature are fully taken into account, with culture and existing laws.

Last edited by aghogday on 29 Aug 2014, 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Its a two way street. It would help us readers if you could convey what ( if any) point it is you are making.

I have read the responses to my original post carefully, and I would try to expand upon the point which I am trying to make as follows:-

1. Kraichgauer more or less admitted that he/she saw the words 'sex', 'abuse' and 'children' in the first part of my post and immediately leapt to a total misunderstanding of what followed. This kind of response is not at all unusual.
2. At least a couple of replies are very cautiously and reluctantly willing to concede that sexual behaviour cannot be evaluated in simple black and white terms.
3. There was a suggestion that prostitution should be legalised, but the conventional wisdom (politically correct?) is that women are forced into prostitution by drug addiction, cruel pimps, and by gangs of international traffickers. But I can tell you from my own experience that most UK escort agencies would not touch such women with a disinfected barge-pole. Many of the hookers I have met entered the industry in order to satisfy their own sexual cravings. Many of them have said to me that they entered the industry because they realised that they were routinely taking nightly risks with unknown strangers for no real reward, and with no real protection. Many of them do not stay.
4. There was a veiled reference to the possibility of a difference between minor sexual offences and major sexual offences. I can see no similarity between the male office-worker who slaps the arse of a mini-skirted 18-year-old leaning over the photocopier, and the crazed idiot who hides in the bushes at night in the hope of finding some tasty prey.
5. At least one poster repeated his/her opinion that discussions such as this should be immediately locked by the moderators. This is not a helpful response.

Nature is civilization. There is no nature vs. civilization. Everything is nature including technology.

I take you point about being variability I moral compass, but is does average out. You premise isn't really an argument, unless you are completely anarchist. Civilizations have laws and rules, and democratic countries consensus is the driving force. Before civilizations there were proto-civilisations and groups, and even those have rules.

The point about legal principles, it they they have little room for subjectivity. They have to be exacting. So regardless of relative experience they have to use the same standard. That doesn't mean that severity isn't taken into account in sentencing.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 30 Aug 2014, 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.