Female Condom Unveiled For World Cup

[Miss Chicken]

Female Condom Designed to Avoid Rape

OK, I have changed the title - as far as I am concerned at least.

 

[Zulu Romeo]

Anyone who posts to this thread can edit the title to their liking. (unless they use Quick Reply) And then anyone who replies to that message will perpetuate the new thread title.

It's still not changed on the forum thread view as the OP's post including title remains unchanged - unless the moderator of that forum sees fit to do so (see above AND below, thanks S).

 

[SPOCKED]

Anyone who posts to this thread can edit the title to their liking. (unless they use Quick Reply) And then anyone who replies to that message will perpetuate the new thread title.

Sure; I'm talking about the forum thread title, however

 

[thestrangequark]

Luther, provide one quotation of mine using "colorful language." Here's the post in question:

I've read everyone's posts in this thread very thoroughly, but I have to say I completely disagree with Luther Sloan. In fact, I think he had not one single "good point" in his post. His post gives the impression of a man who has no concept of the reality these women face. They don't "believe they are in constant danger of being raped," they are in constant danger of being raped. They are not ruining their "happy lives" be "allowing fear" into them. They are being realistic about the society in which they live. A society where not only the rape of women is a constant threat, but the rape of children and babies -- yes, babies, like these babies, 5 and 9 months old, who were GANG RAPED by groups of men -- is a constant threat. 67,000 cases of child rape were reported in South Africa in the year 2000. And there is nothing any more "unnatural" about this device than there is any other weapon designed and wielded by man. Luther Sloan's intentions might be good, but his reasoning is deeply misinformed and flawed.

If there was a God and he was actually concerned about what's going into the vaginas of women, don't you think he'd be a bit more concerned about the violent, forced insertion of penises into little baby girls to the point where they require "extensive reconstructive surgery" a bit more than the insertion of an anti-rape condom?

...and, no colorful language. Did you read the BBC news article? Because I used basically the same language as them. Heck, I even quoted the news article!

Some women do provoke unwanted advances and comments/catcalls but it's not the same thing as saying they provoke a rape. The two are not the same. A woman has no right to complain she is oggled and leered at if she's wearing clothing that invites it. That doesn't make it acceptable for anyone to touch, let alone rape them.

I have every right to complain, thank you very much. I should be able to dress however I please without being harassed. But, frankly, it makes no difference. A woman can walk down the street in a giant down coat and rain boots and be catcalled and yelled at. I was wearing my grey parka and rubber boots the time I was asked, "Why don't you walk that sweet pussy over here?!" So, two points -- one, I'm going to wear whatever I please, because no one has the right to dictate my fashion choices! And two, I'm going to complain and complain and complain about the inappropriate comments, gestures, stares (and, just to be clear, a guy can check a lady out without being rude and boorish, I'm talking about the over-the-top leering), until our society changes.

I'm talking about when a woman wears revealing clothing, leaving little hidden or intentionally gives off signals or an attitude to tease. You can't say "I'm going to dress or act sexual and have a right to complain when men respond to it." It doesn't work that way.

You lose a right to complain when you intentionally provoke a response of that nature. Dressing conservatively or attempting to dress in a way not to draw unwanted attention to yourself is a different matter entirely. If someone remarks to you while you're not trying to draw that kind of attention, you do have a right to complain but I suspect you're just trying to make an arguement where none exists.

The problem is people like you (women and men) who think they have a right not to be offended and yet do things that might draw offensive comments, remarks or looks. If a man were to walk down the road in a speedo and look severely unattractive in it, he would have no right to tell people not to make comments on his physique. When you go into public, you should go out knowing what your dress choices are going to cause.

But I've already told you that it does not make a difference. I get no less harassment in and oversize coat an boots than I do in heels and a skirt. What you are doing is blaming the victim, and that's wrong.

Walking down the street in a barely covering outfit is going to draw remarks. Learn to live with it or learn to dress more appropriately in public. Despite your logic, society does not have to conform to your personal choices, you must bend to its. Maybe in a few decades things will change to your liking but I severely doubt that human nature (women are far from innocent in this btw) is going to change that much.

Our disagreement might be based on part in miscommunication, so let me clarify. If I dress in my sexiest clothes and walk down the street I expect that men will look at me. I expect attention, and the attention is fine. I do argue that I dress for myself and no one else, but catching a boy's eye can certainly be icing on the cake. What I shouldn't be subjected to is harassment. No matter what I am wearing, I shouldn't be yelled at, catcalled, touched, followed, or have my path blocked. That is a completely different kind of behavior, and it is unacceptable. And things do need to change, it's not about "conforming to [my] wishes," it's about women (and men, because you are completely right about men being harassed too -- though it is far less common), being safe and respected.

 

[Amaris]

^ Right on the money. It's all about respect.

 

[thestrangequark]

Gee, I don't know, when I see a woman dressed provocatively, I might think some dirty thoughts, but I have enough fucking manners to keep it to myself. Since when does a woman being scantily clad give everyone around her license to act like a pig?

In a word, yes. It's not like everyone follows the same moral code you do. While most men would stop at looking, some would comment. If you can't take the comments, you should not be dressing to gain them. It's dressing to attract that kind of attention that will get you that kind of attention. Some men are just vocal about it, in inappropriate ways but no less so than the person who dresses inappropriately is suggesting it's acceptable.

That doesn't make it right. Do I expect harassment? Of course, because in my experience one can't walk to the grocery store without receiving it. Is the harassment justified? NO! That's like saying a bully beating up a nerd in school is justified because the nerd was reading a Star Trek comic or something.

 

[Luther Sloan]

If there was a God and he was actually concerned about what's going into the vaginas of women, don't you think he'd be a bit more concerned about the violent, forced insertion of penises into little baby girls to the point where they require "extensive reconstructive surgery" a bit more than the insertion of an anti-rape condom?

Strange Quark:

It wasn't just the mention of insertion involving children, but also about putting God in an unfavorable light in regards to this topic that rubbed me the wrong way, too. It is just the respect and love I have for the Lord is really high. And I don't like ugly words being attached to my Creator. He knows these horrible things go on. He knows of all the suffering and sin that happens here on this Earth. But He has a plan to change all that if people are willing to accept that. But His plan or path is not always easy to see, though.

 

[Amaris]

If there was a God and he was actually concerned about what's going into the vaginas of women, don't you think he'd be a bit more concerned about the violent, forced insertion of penises into little baby girls to the point where they require "extensive reconstructive surgery" a bit more than the insertion of an anti-rape condom?

Strange Quark:

It wasn't just the mention of insertion involving children, but also about putting God in an unfavorable light in regards to this topic that rubbed me the wrong way, too. It is just the respect and love I have for the Lord is really high. And I don't like ugly words being attached to my Creator. He knows these horrible things go on. He knows of all the suffering and sin that happens here on this Earth. But He has a plan to change all that if people are willing to accept that. But His plan or path is not always easy to see, though.

Then you are free to leave the thread. We're having an adult discussion here, and if you feel you cannot handle the content of that discussion, you are welcome to leave anytime. No one is forcing you to stay and put up with things that you find ugly. It is foolish to continue posting in a thread where you don't feel comfortable with the subject matter being discussed. This has been said to you many times by several different people, and you continue to ignore it, instead posting in this thread that makes you uncomfortable and continuing to complain about it. Only you can solve the problem, and that is to walk away if you don't like it.

 

[Miss Chicken]

You should try to accept that not everyone has your high opinion of God, in fact some of us do not believe there is a God at all. It is hard to be all that respectful towards an entity who we believe is fictional (and who cames across, at the very least, as a bit of a prat).

 

[Luther Sloan]

[

This is [a] fucking disgusting [opinion.] "Most" cases victims are blameless? So by your logic there does remains a percentage of rape victims who aren't blameless, and thus can be at least partially blamed for non consensual violent crimes committed against them. The only victims of violent crime I can think of who are partially deserving of blame are organized criminals who get shot or something. Are we equating wearing a tank top from Target when a woman goes out with rolling with the Crips?

How dare you suggest that any actual victim of rape is ever "playing with fire." You can thank whatever bullshit deity you choose (or choose not) to worship that something like this has never happened to you and move the fuck on and up out of here, because you clearly do not understand the realities or manifestations of this particular crime.

Green Guy:

You did not read all of what I wrote. I never said that the rapist should ever get a free pass card because of what women do. They are ultimately at fault each and every time. Again, please folks. Stop it with the overly huge insults. It's not nice. I never attacked the character of anyone in this thread. I would appreciate it if you shared the same respect.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Then you are free to leave the thread. We're having an adult discussion here, and if you feel you cannot handle the content of that discussion, you are welcome to leave anytime. No one is forcing you to stay and put up with things that you find ugly. It is foolish to continue posting in a thread where you don't feel comfortable with the subject matter being discussed. This has been said to you many times by several different people, and you continue to ignore it, instead posting in this thread that makes you uncomfortable and continuing to complain about it. Only you can solve the problem, and that is to walk away if you don't like it.

SOV:

Do unto others as you would want done unto yourself. How would you feel if someone told you to get the heck out if you don't like what they are talking about? Well, I would never tell someone to leave a thread if they are upset with my words or the topic of conversation. I would try and be kind and communicative with them on the topic. I would try to make peace and resolve it as best as I could. I would try and change my tactics. Make peace.

 

[thestrangequark]

If there was a God and he was actually concerned about what's going into the vaginas of women, don't you think he'd be a bit more concerned about the violent, forced insertion of penises into little baby girls to the point where they require "extensive reconstructive surgery" a bit more than the insertion of an anti-rape condom?

Strange Quark:

It wasn't just the mention of insertion involving children, but also about putting God in an unfavorable light in regards to this topic that rubbed me the wrong way, too. It is just the respect and love I have for the Lord is really high. And I don't like ugly words being attached to my Creator. He knows these horrible things go on. He knows of all the suffering and sin that happens here on this Earth. But He has a plan to change all that if people are willing to accept that. But His plan or path is not always easy to see, though.

I'm still not seeing the "ugly" language. It is an ugly topic, yes, but my language was appropriate. And you are the one who brought God into the conversation in the first place. Personally, I found your religious platitudes insulting. However, I recognized that there was no maliciousness on your part and not only did I refrain attacking you as a person, I acknowledged that you seemed to have good intentions that were clouded by poor logic. If it is my Atheism that offends you, there's nothing to be done. But don't insult me or my earnest and staid attitude about the subject at hand by saying that I use "colorful" and "tasteless" language to discuss it.

There is a reason I am focusing so much on this, and it's not spite or hurt feelings or anything of that nature. It is the fact that for far too long people refused to talk about these things in the open out of some twisted sense of decorum, usually informed by chauvinist religious morality. For far too long people have determined subjects like rape to be too ugly to speak of, and have, like Luther, cried, "Oh my virgin ears," and refused to listen. If you don't like it, that's fine, but do not try to stop people from talking about it in the name of protecting your sensibilities. If it is not discussed, things will never change. I've lived too much to believe in God; I know it is up to mankind to change ourselves. And the only way we can progress is by openly addressing our problems.

 

[sidious618]

How would you feel if someone told you to get the heck out if you don't like what they are talking about? Well, I would never tell someone to leave a thread if they are upset with my words or the topic of conversation. I would try and be kind and communicative with them on the topic. I would try to make peace and resolve it as best as I could. I would try and change my tactics. Make peace.

Sarek of Vulcan is correct. People are discussing this in a normal fashion, without using excessive vulgarities. If that's too much for you then, yes, you should leave because it's obviously upsetting you and not everyone is going to change the way they're talking just for you.

I think we've got an extraordinary sampling of people, not all of them male, afflicted with an unfortunate madonna-whore attitude. They can be recognized by the use of terms such as 'sleaze' and 'slut'.

I hope you're not referring it to my earlier usage. I used quotes around the words which, I hoped, showed I was mocking their usage.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Iguana:

If that's not insulting of my character than I don't know what is (which falls under the guidelines of flaming someone). Of which I have never done to anyone here on this forum. I may disagreed with a person's use of language or their opinions. But I never attacked or insulted a person's character.

This actually convinced me more than ever that your attitude here is nothing but a facade. Posting inflammatory statements that are bound to offend people but pulling back just right before stepping on the line, and then running around to cry foul at the expected replies is typical of peculiar species of Internet denizens, often found wandering around in discussion boards and fora.

^tsq enflames the menfolk here too. The important factor is only how you express it.

If, however, the menfolk are not meant to be enflamed then we've just solved Earth's population crisis. Decent men do not degrade women or themselves by wanting to have sex with them.

I'm not sure how to interpret you statement.

Strange Quark:

It wasn't just the mention of insertion involving children, but also about putting God in an unfavorable light in regards to this topic that rubbed me the wrong way, too.

Ah, it's clear now. Who cares about child abuse and raped women. It's all about people not badmouthing your God.

It is just the respect and love I have for the Lord is really high. And I don't like ugly words being attached to my Creator. He knows these horrible things go on. He knows of all the suffering and sin that happens here on this Earth. But He has a plan to change all that if people are willing to accept that. But His plan or path is not always easy to see, though.

I have respect for people, and it rubs me the definitively wrong way when you suggest that women that were raped somehow brought it on themselves or do share the blame for what happened. So welcome in the flock of the offended. Again, whatchagonnado?

 

[Scout101]

It wasn't just the mention of insertion involving children, but also about putting God in an unfavorable light in regards to this topic that rubbed me the wrong way, too. It is just the respect and love I have for the Lord is really high. And I don't like ugly words being attached to my Creator. He knows these horrible things go on. He knows of all the suffering and sin that happens here on this Earth. But He has a plan to change all that if people are willing to accept that.

Not to drag this off topic even more, but this argument, as stated, makes zero sense to me. You want to explain God as all powerful, all knowing, Creator of the universe, etc. To the point where he's got a plan for everyone, etc. Why create these bad people to begin with? Surely he knew that would happen, right? He knows the future, how it's going to work out? He's not just guessing and flinging shit against the wall, right? Either he knew what he was doing when he created these people, or he's an idiot and believes everyone's going to be ok in the end, and the Devil just KEEPS one-upping this guy. Give credit to God for anything good that happens, but let him skate by whenever anything bad goes down. If he's responsible for some of it, he gets it all, right? Or is he powerless to stop it?

As for your bad mood being a function of 'badmouthing God' rather than the 'horrific rape' thing, that's pretty disappointing. Doesn't speak to strength of faith if it can't stand up to some criticism or introspect/review. TSQ's comment shouldn't have any impact on YOUR standing with God, so why go after them for it? How does that change anything?

 

[Luther Sloan]

You should try to accept that not everyone has your high opinion of God, in fact some of us do not believe there is a God at all. It is hard to be all that respectful towards an entity who we believe is fictional (and who cames across, at the very least, as a bit of a prat).

Miss Chicken:

Well, whether people believe or not: what if their view of Him isn't exactly what they think it is? What if I am right? How would that make God feel to know that He isn't held in high regard at all when it comes to such things?

Anyways, to answer your other post in regards to your horrible incident at the beach: I would have to say that you are NOT to blame in any way for what has happened to you. You were not in a shady part of town grinding on men or running through dark alley ways late at night drunk half naked. You were at the beach (with other people). It was not your fault at all. And in all cases of rape it is always the rapist who is the majority at fault, anyways.

Anyways, lets say that a woman was letting men feel her up at night clubs in a bad part of town and she did get taking advantage of. The rapist is still the major person to blame for the crime (obviously). However, if she were to use common sense in not doing such questionable things, she wouldn't have put herself in that position to being attacked in the first place (in that instance). If she partially blames herself for being dumb about her actions in that case. She wouldn't be far from the truth. This does not give the rapist a free pass card or the excuse that it is okay (that he did it). This doesn't mean that she should beat herself up over it or change her attractiveness to men. It simply means that she didn't use her head in that situation. Granted (as you know first hand), these horrible things can still happen no matter what a person does. And in those cases (like yours) it is not at all (your) their fault.

 

[Luther Sloan]

This actually convinced me more than ever that your attitude here is nothing but a facade. Posting inflammatory statements that are bound to offend people but pulling back just right before stepping on the line, and then running around to cry foul at the expected replies is typical of peculiar species of Internet denizens, often found wandering around in discussion boards and fora.

Iguana:

Here we go again.... More attack on my character.

How does that change anything?

Because there is a God and He has a plan that you obviously can't see. Just because you can't see or understand it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

 

[sidious618]

Iguana:

Here we go again.... More attack on my character.

Just saying that doesn't make it true.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Iguana:

Here we go again.... More attack on my character.

Uh, no. Please re-read carefully what he wrote to me. He just said in his recent post that my communication here was a facade. He even said one of my posts was a corny preacher routine, too. That's an attack on my character, my friend. And not an opinion or a disagreement on a topic.

 

[sidious618]

He just said in his recent post that my communication here was a facade. He even said one of my posts was a corny preacher routine, too. That's an attack on my character, my friend. And not an opinion or a disagreement on a topic.

But you are doing a preacher routine. And for someone who has claimed they're going to leave at least three times now, you sure do a lot of sticking around.