or, "that which must never be spoken..."

Like Stem Cell research to Republican's - this discussion is liable to get some emotions running high; what I'm looking for is cold, hard discussion of human behavior.

Put your emotions aside and please, if you don't feel able to do this, please don't contribute.

Elephant 1

David Starkey's remarks on the BBC the other night: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/13/david-starkey-claims-white... have provoked a storm.

Starkey put his point badly; excruciatingly so - but was he wrong? Was he even being racist?

Oddly enough, when a coloured woman (Dreda Say Mitchell, who appeared with Starkey) makes an off-the-cuff comment about whites "It's just a couple of white guys running around London" - when evaluating the then still to be broadcast BBC Drama Sherlock - it goes unnoticed and overlooked.

Why is it acceptable for coloured commentators to make remarks such as this (which I found offensive in context) but when a white makes a completely valid point (even putting it so badly) that raises a storm of controversy?

Elephant 2

Why is it acceptable for children - note that it's primarily pre-teen girls - to be dressed up "sexually" for the delight of god only knows who when we have a laws against paedophillia?

Elephant 3

The remark that caused the "slutwalks" seems similar to point 2.

In all three examples, there is good, ice-cold evidence to support the statements - yet this bizarre political posturing when we hear things like "I have the right to [insert here]" seems to be running amok.

It strikes me that with great freedom, comes great responsibility.

We seem to have forgotten the latter half of this.

From the sexual point of view, for example, women wear make up (lipstick for example) to indicate their readiness to breed - at least, that was the original intention. Flushed lips are supposed to represent good health and are even analogous to the female genetallia.

Foundation, lotions and potions give the appearance of skin which is healthier and more youthful than it really is and so it goes on: and that's just basic cosmetics.

The slutwalk protests of a few months ago demanded that it was OK for women to dress provocatively without accepting some responsibility if some alcohol-fueled grunt tries to take advantage.

I even find the very thought uncomfortable.

We are still animals even though we like to think that we are not.

It's crazy to think that we readily accept that a domestic dog can turn on a child - "because it's just a dog" yet politicians, the press, and popular opinion can't accept that we're really not that different.

Views: 520

Replies to This Discussion

And this is why they call it a stiff breeze... Lol.

I'll get me coat.

"It's crazy to think that we readily accept that a domestic dog can turn on a child - "because it's just a dog""

Not sure I understand (or agree) with that. Just the opposite in fact. We immediately put down dogs for that. In fact, I've known a few cases (including my own father) who put down a dog who protects itself from a child pulling his tail or hurts the animal.

Sorry, just thought that may not have been a good analogy. In fact it may show the opposite of what you're trying to get across.

Some excellent responses here (and the reason I posted this later) but to answer Rudy's question and Wanderer's too, I think.


We accept that a dog might turn - because it's an animal; but we forget that we are animals too largely I think because for millennia, religions have told us we're special.


We are not.


Any pissed up, horny half-witted asshole on high "roids" of a Saturday night is highly likely to revert to type (ape instinct) and rape the first "slut" he comes across - particularly if she's wearing provocative clothing - yet popular opinion says that it's OK for her to dress that way.


This also alludes to my point that with great freedom, we must balance great responsibility. The slutwalks were popular with great volume given over to "We have the right to dress how we want..." ya de ya.


Indeed, they have - but they have to accept that if attacked they must bear some responsibility (as Rudy puts it here) for "pulling the dog by the tail".


This is the very thing the slutwalkers forgot (or chose to ignore).


Furthermore, such dress may also be responsible for entirely innocent women getting dragged into a hedge while walking home from work in the early evening by a similar ignorant asshole.


The point is, generally (an obviously my friends here are proving otherwise - which is the point of the experiment) it's impossible to have these discussions without being shouted down by popular opinion.


With that, I thank everyone who has had the courage to contribute without emotion and invite and more sober comments - all three of these "elephants" may warrant full discussion in separate threads, so I'd appreciate if we keep this one general if that's OK with everyone?

Interesting observation - but our social rules are dictated by our peers and society at large. Take that mechanism away (alcohol is great for this) and we most certainly do revert to "instinct" of a sort, becoming aggressive and self-centered.
Very well put!
To bad that even women who dress sensibly get raped as well.  If only women who dressed prvactavly got raped then your logic would hold.

Indeed they do. But as Fil observes, this is just part of it.

I have no wish to demonise women, no matter how they dress (and I should point out that by going into detail, we're a bit off topic) but we have to remember that we're animals: first and foremost.


I was hoping we'd look at each "elephant" in turn but as we're on it, I find that most women I ask have no real idea why they dress "provocatively" or even wear makeup - the most common response I have to date is "Too look good'.


Ach! Sorry, we're getting way OT here - I really wanted to have this discussion in its own thread.


My observation is that women/men who dress provocatively do so to attract the opposite sex - it's not rocket science.


The beer-fueled breed of casual/date rapist seems different from the serial rapist who picks random victims by convenience/security.

Of course, I could be wrong and I'm certainly trying to keep it simple.

Not quite what I was getting at Marc. You talk about turning back to our original animal instincts? Well we'd all be naked then. Where does that put the dressing provocatively theory? I love to have a few drinks. I've never had the urge to "rape" a woman. Turned on? Hell yeah! But don't need drinks for that. Has it occurred to you it's more of a learned response as opposed to a natural one? Going back to  a dog analogy...a dog that is trained to attack is just that...it's TRAINED to. It's not it's "natural instinct". Yes it might guard it's territory, pups, or fight over food, but it can be trained to do many "unnatural" things. I'd put forward, raping a scantily clad woman is NOT natural or going back to our "ape days". It's a taught behavior (the lack of respect and empathy), possibly subconsciously in many instances and therefor why it is more common with drunks. In fact, I'd go as far to say empathy IS our natural instinct being social creatures...even when drunk. And being a "social animal", it's something that should and can be "unlearned". If dogs can do it (and bears, and monkeys, and parrots, and crows, and......), I'm sure we can. Btw, I've bred dogs and male dogs don't breed til the bitch lets them.


And I'd like to add, I'm very much in favor of the max penalty for guys who do that, because, well...I like girls who are scantly clad and if they can't do it safely, they're less likely to do it (^_-).

Of course I simplified it and there's more factors behind it. I did that on purpose. Sometimes...well most of the time, when you over think things, one can cloud the issue. Like your definition of "natural". The way you state it, EVERYTHING anything does is natural. Fancy houses, cars, computers...all built by an animal (us) and is therefor natural. In a way that is correct. Not the "definition" I was referring to.


And for the record, just about everything you mentioned about the dog applies to humans. Humans can be trained and our personalities are affected by things like abuse, how they are treated, whether they have enough food, where they stand in the "pack", etc. And if you were to purposely do genetic breeding with humans, even our "breeding" would affect our behavior. For the most part though, human races (oriental, African, white) are so large and diverse it's not a factor. Again, purposeful genetic PLANNED breeding is needed for that.


So if we want to go back to "my definition" of natural, in nature, if you get deviants like murderers and rapists (whether that be human, chimps or wolves), they are generally eliminated from a social group. No matter the reason. It's simply a matter of survival of the group.

OK, I've been thinking about it more. You asked if "he was wrong". The answer is yes. I'm a man of science and logic and because of that I know the actions of a black person or any other race has more to do with the lifestyle, condition, situation they happen to be in at the time. Has nothing to do with race. Religion and belief system? Sure, but again, that's independent.

Is he racist? Most likely...not much more to say than that.


As far as the other points? Don't take any offense, but the whole premise is plain silly. As in let's take it further. Let's say your opinion pissed me off to the point I track you down and kill you out of anger. Or my neighbour gets a nicer car and I steal it out of jealousy. Does that mean you shouldn't be allowed to express your opinion? Or my neighbour isn't allowed to make more or own nicer things than me because we "are just animals"? No, makes no sense. If a women wants to walk around topless here or a woman wants to expose her face (while wearing a turtle neck) in the Middle East, men should be able to control themselves and their "urges" no matter the circumstance...or suffer the consequences. The only exception is not our "animal urges", because again...they're not. It's simply what we're used to...not nature. Of course there is religious/beliefs reasons, but well, I'm atheist and don't accept that as an excuse. (^_^)

Elephant 1: It seems to me he is saying that the repression felt by blacks is bleeding over into the poor communities. The reason blacks have historically mobbed and rioted is that there was such a suppressed rage from their day to day lives that given the spark it overflowed. I think his point is good and valid. The overclass has treated blacks like a different form of life for a long time and few non-blacks really understand this. I grew up in a black neighborhood and am always so surprised by my white friends who do not see the thousands of tiny slights blacks are subject to on a daily basis. I think Starkey may have been saying that there are now non-blacks who are feeling the same kind of thing and are acting in kind.

Elephant 2: My right to stretch my arm ends where the other person's nose begins. You may think children dressed all slutty is bad and I would agree. That has no baring on the actions of those around them. Perhaps some social shunning to move away from the behavior you feel is inappropriate, but that is all you can do. There are drawbacks to living in a semi-free society. As an explanation we can say that a person put themselves in a bad situation. There is a difference between an explanation and an excuse. Dressing like a slut may make you more likely to be sexually abused, but in no way excuses the behavior of a person acting like a fucking savage!!!

Why is it that every time I try to find explanations people see excuse making? Should you allow the sexualization of your children? NO! Seems like a bad idea. But if you do that does not give some asshole the right to take advantage of a child.

Elephant 3: See Elephant 2
If women want to over sexualize themselves to point out that it does not make it right to abuse them, rock on!


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service