Magical Sailor Fuku

When's America going to hit the bottom and arouse the ire, and thus action, of the whole world? If it's not one thing it's many after another, contradicting itself left and right and being a hypocrite. America might as well be an axis of evil. I'm sure it's a finalist in all of the seven deadly sins.

Article that inspired this post.

I mean, seriously. Who have we not offended, or made enemies of, lately? What's left? Britain and France? Who the Hell knows why...

I think any rational person looking at this incident could conlude that it's not america in it's entirety. It really is tragic that this makes a third notable offence, but honestly, if the situation were reversed, and a small batallion of japanese troops were over here, I have no doubt that similer reports would arise (we'd probly declair war though =p). It's just a vile side of human nature, and particularly a masculine need of sex that turns me away from the gender.

I doubt America would defend the offending troop, and i'm sure if you follow the story someone important will have something to say on the american militia's behalf.

The better question is why do we still have troops in Japan which allows this to happen? Bring 'em home, save money, prevent events like this and have soldiers for when we really need 'em.

And I'm highly offended by your characterization of men as needing sex. Never had it, so I obviously don't need it!

Dracos wrote:And I'm highly offended by your characterization of men as needing sex. Never had it, so I obviously don't need it!

You're just trying to get on my better side =p XD I'm kidding.

I'm not necissarily pointing to all men, but the greater majority do. I've only come to this conclusion through working graveyard shifts in Taco Bell's drive thru on many busy nights (a third of them are drunk, but that better solidifies my statement)

I'm with Stellar on this.... It's a horrible thing, but that's not exactly restricted to a nationality or a country. One crazy Marine does not an evil nation make. As for the whole sex thing, even if you make the assumption that the vast majority of men desire sex constantly, well, an only slightly smaller part of that vast majority can generally control themselves (or at least keep themselves restrained to stupid comments, anyway). This is just one guy who isn't representative of anything but himself and his own little twisted world.

But I think it does reflect on the country. A soldier is supposed to be responsible. There are codes of conduct. And in this instance there is a diplomatic issue. When you get right down to it our country has a policy with Japan, and a peaceful one, so the number of people and incidents is not important. Each and every American inherits these policies, and their actions reflect upon their country. These soldiers aren't your average Americans, though. They aren't tourists. They are supposed to be trained, to know how to conduct themselves, and follow protocol. Soldiers, above all, should reflect the best of one's country. The fact that this sort of thing happened at all is very bad, which is why Japan has reacted as it has. Let's face it: Americans, in general, are barely-controlled chaos, and we're making more of a mess all over than we can clean up.

But, yeah, I don't see why we have soldiers stationed in Japan. Well, I know the initial reason for why, but I don't think it's really relevant anymore. In general, though, I think America should take some purposeful steps toward stopping and reversing the militaristic way it has been operating for a while.

I can hardly see why the perpetrator being American is important. Really any sufficiently large concentration of people will experience rape sooner or later, it is pretty much impossible to avoid and any sufficiently large concentration of men will invariably include a rapist sooner or later. It is basic statistic really even if the training of American soldiers reduces the likelihood of them ever committing rape to one percent of the general population, something i sincerely doubt is anything resembling likely, there are still thousands upon thousands of American soldiers in the world so it is next to impossible that none of them would commit rape sooner or later.

True, but I'm only relating a fact. The vast majority will not see it as an isolated issue with one man, but as a redundantly convoluted one. At the very least it will effect the base, which is still more than the perpetrator and may lead to other things related to the base.

What I will say about rape, is that it seems to be a normal thing for a male to do. It's the right moral compass that can deter that sort of behavior, which is an outside development that doesn't occur "naturally." It is a learned restraint, not an attributed one. And its use throughout history, throughout many cultures, says a lot about that. Which is to say that it's inherently possible, not inherently guaranteed, so long as we have ideas floating around that characterizes rape as being "wrong/bad."

Personally I have very mixed feelings about it. On one hand I can understand the imperative, but on the other hand I condemn its affectations. For instance, one thing that I consider worse than death is a significant blow to the integrity of someone's identity, and rape can certainly do that.

Actually i think the reason men are more likely to commit rape is the simple one that it is much easier for a man than for a woman. A man just needs to be sexually aroused whereas a woman will need to find some way to approximate the effect of the man being aroused to pull it off and i wouldn't even know how a woman would rape another woman, at least if she wanted physical gratification herself and that is probably more common among rapists than a desire to just do something sexual to somebody else. Well at least i think this is the primary reason for the huge difference between the statistical probability of a man raping someone and of a woman performing the same act.

I suppose so. I'm sure females are as capable of doing what males do, all things said. They both have muscles, for instance, but it's more likely that it only takes one man to lift something that may take two or more women. It's just a matter of someone deciding whether to perceive that it's more important that it took one man as opposed to two women to do the job, or that the job got done. The means and the end sort of deal. You can be bitten either way, though, depending on this or that. Either way the catalyst shouldn't be ignored. The reason behind something is almost always the bud of the flower.

Humans do tend to take the well-worn and/or easy paths, though... And rape has been a well-worn, easy path for a long time throughout much of our history. In wars/battles/fights especially, which we humans have a lot of.

Christina Anikari wrote: at least if she wanted physical gratification herself and that is probably more common among rapists than a desire to just do something sexual to somebody else.

It's often about anger and control issues, rather than wanting sexual gratification. A woman can definitely rape someone. But especially when a male is the victim, it most often goes unreported because it's considered embarrassing, or no one will believe them.

"What I will say about rape, is that it seems to be a normal thing for a male to do. It's the right moral compass that can deter that sort of behavior, which is an outside development that doesn't occur "naturally.""

Wait... what? o_O Er, so all men naturally want to rape, but are restraining themselves from doing so? o_o;; I dunno about that. >_>;;
And all the talk about men being the ones who desire/need sex... women do too. Women can be plenty sex-crazed. They just don't necessarily express it the same way a lot of men do.

I know that it is often, but by no means always, about anger and control issues. Also even when it is about anger and control the sexual aspects of the deed are essential, after all that is the definition of rape. And as such when it is about anger and control it is about either using the intimacy of sex to hurt someone or to get what you want despite the desires of the victim. Simply put the latter is harder for women to do, unless they have a way of forcing their victim to participate rather than the more common drugging or using physical force to subdue the victim. It is not about being physically weaker, it is about having sex organs that are less suited for achieving this without considerable effort. It can be done, if it couldn't there would be no registered cases ever, it is just much harder to do and the way to go about it is less obvious than it is for a man. Crime statistics get further skewered by men being less willing to report being raped by a woman, but even so i have never heard there being estimated as many cases of women raping as there is of men performing said act and that the rapes performed by women just go unreported. It is more that without being armed or having another way of threatening instead of just restraining the victim it is just harder for a woman to rape than for a man so women tend to find other ways of displaying control and venting anger than this specific means, simply because it is easier.

Christina Anikari wrote:but even so i have never heard there being estimated as many cases of women raping as there is of men performing said act and that the rapes performed by women just go unreported.

I know, I never said that. :P It is easier for men to do it. Just sayin', women definitely do it too, and it's often unreported.

Wow, so it went from men needing sex to men wanting to rape people, I got offended way too early.

Seriously though, you could make a case for rape being natural, but it really isn't relevant because it is not part of common human courting practices in any civilization. It's about the same as saying killing opposition is natural; it's mostly true, but that doesn't mean that it is in any way acceptable. And not just because of society, either, but because of the social nature of our species.

As to women raping men, I think that goes back to what Musa said; it's usually about control issues. Merely the way that our society treats women tends to have them take a more subordinate role to men, so you would expect that women wouldn't commit rape as often because of cultural tendancy. We might well find that in the few societies where men take a subordinate role women commit rape more often, but even then they would have to overcome the issue of strength. I guess my point is that it is entirely unfair to assume that men naturally tend towards rape any more than women do.

We could go a lot deeper into this one, but I have a class soon.

Wait... what? o_O Er, so all men naturally want to rape, but are restraining themselves from doing so? o_o;; I dunno about that. >_>;;

I kind of figured I wouldn't be understood, so it looks like I must put more effort to clear up my meaning. For you, too, Dracos. ;/

What I mean by "normal," (not "natural"; there is a difference) is the inclination to desire and/or have sex. As it was mentioned before, there are countless other ways to express control, anger, and whatever else that could harm someone else and/or gratify one's self. The idea behind rape is that it's non-consensual. Obviously you can have sex without resorting to rape. So if a man desires sex, but has no moral compass, what's going to stop him from deciding to rape? Of course, even with a personality, people can still decide to do what they know is wrong, because they reason that it's worth doing it. The drive doesn't have to be sex, or the pleasure of it, but rape inevitably involves sex.

For a long time rape was a behavior considered tolerable and allowable in a lot of circumstances, one of the best examples being the sacking of cities and towns. How wonderful it was for them to get their rocks off after a life-threatening battle. The fact is that, for many men, their sex life is a fundamental part of their lives. It's normal to want sex. Without a mind to keep that, and possibly other things, in check, it'd thus be normal to rape. Not that rape hasn't been a normal occurrence already, mind you.

I'd probably try to explore women who rape, but I'm not female and, at least to me, their position seems a bit more complex. Whenever I think about a woman raping a man, I end up wondering how often it's actually seduction. Because I imagine that a man, so long as he wasn't injured, would just consider it a surprising (if perhaps disturbing) sexual encounter or something. Although I can see them claiming rape if he's afraid the woman will have a child and try to dig into his finances that way. *Shrugs*