Jump to content






Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Peikoff on date rape


  • Please log in to reply
179 replies to this topic

#161 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 8,053 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:08 PM

Doris Troy did the original...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFd2DYOB0E0&feature=fvwrel


Oh, oh, oh. WKBW in transistor ear, smoking illicitly out the bedroom window, watching the skunks pull up worms from the moonlit lawn,
Doris Troy. Happy and I knew it,

The Hollies also did it gorgeously.

#162 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 27 February 2012 - 10:44 PM

Really?

You think the Hollies did it also...WINNER


"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#163 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 8,053 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 27 February 2012 - 11:00 PM

Really?

You think the Hollies did it also...WINNER

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCJc-J7edks


Winner. Was there ever a greater time to be adolescent?

#164 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,975 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 27 February 2012 - 11:22 PM

Nope. With all the upheaval, I would not have wanted to be a teenager in any other decade...

except maybe in 2160
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#165 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,005 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 05 March 2012 - 05:48 AM

Peikoff’s reply is out, and guess what? It’s a retraction. A pretty good one too; I would prefer something closer to Henry II under the lash, but you can’t have everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcfkUokMGIc
It’s 15 minutes long, the entire podcast is dedicated to it.
http://www.peikoff.c...ity-and-to-law/
He acknowledges that he didn’t know anything about the Kobe Bryant case, beyond that some people he hates were on one side of it. He went “by feeling”.

He does seem to leave open, by implication, that there are contexts were a man can force himself on a woman, but the examples he gives are all to the contrary. Then, near the end, he says once you have “penile penetration”, “I do not regard that ‘no’ as valid”. He then talks about some code at Dartmouth requiring written permission for sexual activities, in detail to the point of absurdity. It gets pretty confusing, it sounds like he means ‘no’ when he says ‘yes’ in this section, and that in itself is quite ironic. His view on withdrawal of consent is still not entirely clear, or it’s still wrong, I’m not sure which. I need to listen again. There was a phrase or two where I literally couldn't understand what he was saying. There was the case of the 5 second delay resulting in a rape conviction, and everyone I’ve read agrees that sounds ridiculous (of course I wasn't on the jury, and, further, can't say whether 5, 10, or 60 seconds is the right figure). If he used that example, I think we’d be ok. But he doesn’t and I’m left wondering if he thinks it’s ok to keep pounding away for 30 minutes while the woman is saying ‘no’ and ‘stop’. But I doubt he means that, and doubt we'll be hearing further clarifications.
Prandium gratis non est

#166 whYNOT

whYNOT

    tony garland

  • Members
  • 3,346 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Republic of South Africa

Posted 05 March 2012 - 09:50 AM

Ninth,

Only going by your synopsis so far, it bears out that Peikoff caught himself between
the two stools of morality and legality - and ended up nowhere, losing all common
sense, too.
It's what happens when you try to squeeze the facts (or simple humanity) of a situation into rights and moral principles, losing contact with reality - dontcha think?
Obviously the heat got to him, and I wonder how, and who turned it up.
"To know that we know what we know, and to know that we do not know what we do not know, that is true knowledge". Nicolaus Copernicus (An original objectivist) 1473-1543 ***No man may be smaller than his philosophy...***

#167 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,333 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 05 March 2012 - 10:59 AM

Thank you Ninth Doctor for the link.

Peikoff correctly splits the moral from the legal and admits his original error was emotional and partially based on his distrust and disagreement with leftist feminists. He did not know the whole story in the Kobe Bryant case.

He agrees that any reasonable “no” is permissible legally if not always morally. But the moral issue is “he said, she said.” She expected this, he expected that, but they did not receive the expected, almost like a business arrangement. He thinks age is a factor as is a girl saying yes but chickening out because of virginity. A woman can back out at any time because of something she disagrees with like whips and chains on a guy’s apartment walls. I was reminded of teenage romance. At a certain point a younger unattached “me” would have expected “release,” but if she says no after going most of the way, that is the girl’s legal right. A person cannot force themselves upon another person.

Leonard then goes into too much detail about marriage. Marriage is a commitment to sleep with your spouse, so in that context it is not rape without corroborating evidence. If a spouse says no too often then divorce them. Penile penetration is the threshold. If it has begun then a “no” cannot be associated with rape. That is ridiculous, per Leonard.

whNOT wrote:
Only going by your synopsis so far, it bears out that Peikoff caught himself between the two stools of morality and legality - and ended up nowhere, losing all common sense, too. It's what happens when you try to squeeze the facts (or simple humanity) of a situation into rights and moral principles, losing contact with reality - dontcha think?
Obviously the heat got to him, and I wonder how, and who turned it up.

end quote

A young girl named “Amy.” Her letter convinced him he was wrong. I don’t think Leonard can be browbeaten but he can be convinced. I am OK with his explanation, but it does show he is advancing in years and losing his edge.
Peter Taylor
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#168 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,005 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 05 March 2012 - 11:17 AM

The Doctor is taking some heat over on OO. After 900+ years in time and space, people are still telling me to "grow up". Here's my latest:

Alrightee, I did some transcribing. Start at 12:40 on the mp3 download version (the one without the standard introduction).

[T]hen the question becomes: what does she have to say ‘no’ to in order to make it rape? If she says yes, kisses, but that’s all. If she then says ‘no’ when he says ‘French kiss’, and he gives her a French kiss, is that rape? Or she agrees to take off the shirt, and he goes to touch her breast and she says ‘no’. Is that ok, is that rape? Is that a case where he’s wrong? Maybe he just thinks she’s shy at the moment, maybe she wants something else, maybe he knows they have a loving relationship and many times she’s felt skittish at the beginning and then fallen into it? If you go by the way some of these people on the internet talk, if ‘Aunt O’ (????) comes out of the woman’s mouth then it’s a monstrous evil, is positively ridiculous.

I mean, I think that the rational line should be genital connection. If there’s a relationship involving the genitals by choice that is the point at which the woman no longer can say ‘yes’ (??????). I mean otherwise it amounts to, in the midst of penile penetration, and before the climax she says ‘no, I don’t want this I’ve changed my mind’. I do not regard that ‘no’ as valid. So, in this sense I do not agree that every time a woman says ‘no’, in any context, no matter whether her husband, no matter what the minor nature of the change, that must be respected. That is simply ridiculous, and can’t be enforced.

At this point he begins to talk about Dartmouth. The material immediately preceding has him advising that in the case of a married couple, where there’s too many ‘no’s’ in bed, that the person being refused ought to get out of the marriage. I think the quoted material contains enough context to analyze on it’s own.

This is pretty messy, but I think I’m on firm footing when I say he’s still wrong, and it’s particularly the phrase “I do not regard that ‘no’ as valid” that tips the scales. How is the man to know that a particular ‘no’ is not valid? What’s strange is that much earlier in the podcast he acknowledged that “cramps” are among the moral reasons a woman can say no before the sex starts, you’d think he would allow that something like that can happen in the middle of coitus too. Or, as I suggested may have happened in the Kobe case*, the “parts don’t fit”, though I note that at this point he has established, fairly well, that he’s no longer talking about a first-time encounter.

I’ve had the experience of a partner telling me, during the hot and heavy bit, that she wants me to finish. Not to stop, but to, y’know, take a shortcut to the homestretch, as in, let’s not run the full marathon this time. Then, there have been cases of a clear ‘stop’, and indeed it takes some number of seconds for that to register with the rational faculty; however, reason having returned to it’s throne, alas the business must cease.

Now, I’m trying to apply Peikoff’s formulation to my own experience, and it’s still not working. He sets up the “loving relationship” context, and ok, I’ve been there and done that, and it’s either she says ‘hurry up and finish’ (which, BTW, can be such a turnoff), or she says ‘stop’. If she says ‘stop’, that’s it, thou shalt stop. If you’ve set up that ‘stop’ doesn’t mean stop, then we’re back to S&M and safe words, so for now let’s assume ‘stop’ means stop.

Can a woman unambiguously say ‘stop’ in the middle of coitus and expect it to be respected, whether she communicates a sufficient (according to whom?) reason, or no reason at all? I say yes, morally speaking. On the legal side, it’s still going to be ‘he says she says’, and whether a prosecutor ought to get involved is going to play out on a case by case basis. Is Peikoff saying that if the woman acknowledges that genital contact began consensually, then the prosecution can’t pursue a case on that basis? I don’t hear him offering any such strictly legal opinion here, but if he were, I completely disagree with that view also.


*BTW, another possibility the evidence suggested in the Kobe case is that the sex started consensually, then she was turned off by his trash talk during the act, and he kept going over her protests. If so, it bears on Peikoff’s new position, his “rational line” of “genital connection”.
Prandium gratis non est

#169 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,005 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 05 March 2012 - 11:22 AM

Obviously the heat got to him, and I wonder how, and who turned it up.

Not heat, sound. I borrowed Captain Jack Harkness's Sonic Cannon; no way my Sonic Screwdriver was going to get the job done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BPsk1xbevc
Prandium gratis non est

#170 PDS

PDS

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,594 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 March 2012 - 11:38 AM

I look forward to the climb down from all of the people defending his original position.

#171 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,333 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 05 March 2012 - 11:59 AM

PDS wrote:
I look forward to the climb down from all of the people defending his original position.
end quote

A brilliant thought, P. They defended Leonardo out of religious devotion, but will they now say he is right because of his reasoned explanation or because Pope Leo said it?
Peter
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#172 william.scherk

william.scherk

    William Scott Scherk

  • Members
  • 2,070 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Interests:Fringe beliefs, pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, fringe psychology, moral panics, cognitive neuroscience, Dusty Springfield, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, satanic ritual abuse/recovered memory therapy controversy, True Believers, cult dynamics, urban planning, 80s music, urban transportation, Grand Guignol, snarkiness . . .

Posted 05 March 2012 - 12:04 PM

I mean, I think that the rational line should be genital connection. If there’s a relationship involving the genitals by choice that is the point at which the woman no longer can say ‘yes’ (??????). I mean otherwise it amounts to, in the midst of penile penetration, and before the climax she says ‘no, I don’t want this I’ve changed my mind’. I do not regard that ‘no’ as valid. So, in this sense I do not agree that every time a woman says ‘no’, in any context, no matter whether her husband, no matter what the minor nature of the change, that must be respected. That is simply ridiculous, and can’t be enforced.

At this point he begins to talk about Dartmouth. The material immediately preceding has him advising that in the case of a married couple, where there’s too many ‘no’s’ in bed, that the person being refused ought to get out of the marriage. I think the quoted material contains enough context to analyze on it’s own.

This is pretty messy, but I think I’m on firm footing when I say he’s still wrong, and it’s particularly the phrase “I do not regard that ‘no’ as valid” that tips the scales.

Wow. Thanks for the transcription and cutting to the bone. As with his first blunder, Peikoff does not appreciate the woman's point of view, and he has certainly never trained himself to put his own notions to severe empirical test.

On the face of it, an assault occurs when the woman says "get off me" and the man does not, but continues to jam his penis in and out of the woman. Distinctions come after, findings of law come after. Peikoff has leapt to the conclusion and reasoned backwards. Sexual assault is basic, not difficult to understand or instantiate as principle. Lay your hands on my body with my permission, enter my mont of venus and penetrate my portal of paradise with my permission, and when I tell you to pull out your throbbing manhood and get off me, get off me, okay?

It seems to me that it has been a long long time since the good doctor P last had full-contact sex, and he is in no particular position to have his opinions sealed as correct.

In a nutshell, Peikoff cannot imagine the situation that calls for the man to withdraw and stop what he is doing once he is "In" ... and since Peikoff cannot imagine it, has not sought just such a situation to test his conclusions, he is self-blinding himself, and refusing to calculate the perceptions of the subject most at issue: the woman.

His disempathic responses indicate Manswers: Lord Penis to me. It is just so disappointing that he cannot cross the bubble line of Self to consult the Other.

Damn shame that Objective-ish people have to deal with a nutty old uncle who retains the throne and scepter and royal jewels of Rand. In his earlier uninformed answers on sexual reassignment surgery he fell victim to the same self-limiting confirmatory deception, avoided challenge to his assumptions: missed consideration of borderline conditions where plastic surgery is performed to help settle a gender identity on folks with ambiguous genitals; failed to note difficult conditions like adrenal hyperplasia or XXY women/other ambiguities that concern parents, patients, and ethicists in surgical medicine. Peikoff not only failed to include these in his moral calculus but appears to be unaware and thus ignorant).

Here he fails to include in his rational calculations a live female, a person like his wives and daughter, like his mother, with a vagina ostensibly under her control. Again his moral calculus is incomplete.

In a situation that Peikoff cannot imagine, himself as the penetrated, he feels discomfort, disquiet, a hint of repulsion, disgust, a smidge of fear, a slackening of desire, and a persistent and unpleasant grinding and bumping tending to painful scraping ... his partner plunging away aggressively has forgotten the supine Leonard's pleasure and so cannot recognize his groans and shrieks and whimpers and banging on the headboard.

Someone says, get off me, Nathan, but Nathan does not stop. Not until Nathan is fully satisfied. Sometimes get off me means keep going, Leonard my sweet ...

Pound pound pound, shriek shriek shriek

Edited by william.scherk, 05 March 2012 - 12:55 PM.

WSS on OL: Friends and Foes(blog) "The Google People"(video) Emotion BOFF: Jonathan
I haunt Twitter @wsscherk see also Facebook Youtube Soundcloud Syria Comment; Banned on SOLO
2013 Wikipedia pick Cognitive Biases | Dream Wet Lunch with Carol & Brant Phil Coates & Christopher Hitchens | Mood low to mid 50s | Weather Dire | Meyers-Briggs Indicator: Priestess

Book of the Year: A Tale of Two Metropolitan Statistical Areas


#173 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,005 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 05 March 2012 - 12:13 PM

They defended Leonardo out of religious devotion, but will they now say he is right because of his reasoned explanation or because Pope Leo said it?
Peter

By way of rebuttal of the thesis of Peikoff's talk A Picture is Not an Argument, here's a little something that provides the answer.

Posted Image

Credit where due: the original idea was mine and Jonathan executed it, though in this case he substantially improved on the idea, so, the credit's about 99% his. I call it Pope Peikoff Preens with Parrots. The one at the top is supposed to be a "Norwegian Blue", for all you fellow Python fans out there. Beautiful plumage!
Prandium gratis non est

#174 william.scherk

william.scherk

    William Scott Scherk

  • Members
  • 2,070 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Interests:Fringe beliefs, pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, fringe psychology, moral panics, cognitive neuroscience, Dusty Springfield, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, satanic ritual abuse/recovered memory therapy controversy, True Believers, cult dynamics, urban planning, 80s music, urban transportation, Grand Guignol, snarkiness . . .

Posted 05 March 2012 - 02:35 PM

Transvaginal Express podcast with WSS, 9th, and Peikoff ... via audioboo http://audioboo.fm/boos/698387-transvaginal-express-with-peikoff-wss-and-9th.

height="129" id="boo_embed_698387" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="400"> />Transvaginal Express, with Peikoff, WSS, and 9th (mp3)

Edited by william.scherk, 05 March 2012 - 02:38 PM.

WSS on OL: Friends and Foes(blog) "The Google People"(video) Emotion BOFF: Jonathan
I haunt Twitter @wsscherk see also Facebook Youtube Soundcloud Syria Comment; Banned on SOLO
2013 Wikipedia pick Cognitive Biases | Dream Wet Lunch with Carol & Brant Phil Coates & Christopher Hitchens | Mood low to mid 50s | Weather Dire | Meyers-Briggs Indicator: Priestess

Book of the Year: A Tale of Two Metropolitan Statistical Areas


#175 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 8,053 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 06 March 2012 - 12:55 PM


They defended Leonardo out of religious devotion, but will they now say he is right because of his reasoned explanation or because Pope Leo said it?
Peter

By way of rebuttal of the thesis of Peikoff's talk A Picture is Not an Argument, here's a little something that provides the answer.

Posted Image

Credit where due: the original idea was mine and Jonathan executed it, though in this case he substantially improved on the idea, so, the credit's about 99% his. I call it Pope Peikoff Preens with Parrots. The one at the top is supposed to be a "Norwegian Blue", for all you fellow Python fans out there. Beautiful plumage!


Would the Norwegian Blue be nailed to its perch by any chance? Kudos to J and you for a masterwork. You keep making me get pleasure* out of visual art where I never previously knew there was any to be had,

The most striking thing to me about LP's comedown on rape, was his explanation that his whole original spiel was based entirely on his feelings. He hated the people whoever they were who criticized Kobe, a rich successful person, so knowing zero about the rape case, he expressed those feelings as we saw.

Words fail me.
Rush Limbaugh could take lessons from him. or maybe he has.

*Consensually!

#176 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,005 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 06 March 2012 - 01:19 PM

Would the Norwegian Blue be nailed to its perch by any chance?

If you look really closely I think you can see the nails.

So far his new statement doesn't have any defenders. It's really good until the last couple minutes. None of the previous defenders has offered a mea culpa, either.
Prandium gratis non est

#177 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,005 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 06 March 2012 - 01:48 PM


Would the Norwegian Blue be nailed to its perch by any chance?

If you look really closely I think you can see the nails.

In the off-chance that some poor deprived OLer doesn't know what we're talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj8RIEQH7zA
Prandium gratis non est

#178 Dennis Hardin

Dennis Hardin

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,494 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Pedro, California
  • Interests:Philosophy, psychology (Ph. D., licensed therapist)

Posted 07 March 2012 - 03:01 AM

From Peikoff’s “correction”. . .

I was concerned to defend Bryant against people that I loathe who go after people in the public eye who are successful because they are successful.. I saw this as another example of that—so right away I went out to try to find a basis to justify this—but I went by feeling. I hated these people. I wanted to defend the victim, so I simply jumped at it. ‘Well, she was there, what would you expect’--without thinking what that implied. I simply went with—ah, confused a feeling of justice with a knowledge of what is really proper. That’s an example of going by emotion, and not clearly understanding what the issue is—not attempting to understand, because you just go by the emotion and think: ‘well, that’s self-evident.’


Peikoff repeats the words “moral” and “immoral” over and over throughout his retraction, ad nauseum. Every conceivable sexual movement and gesture is analyzed as “moral” or “immoral.” But oddly he does not say anything about the immorality of being guided by emotions instead of clear thinking in a public statement. His act of poor judgment was an “error,” apparently, not anything immoral. And here I thought that letting your emotions take precedence over thinking was the most basic act of immorality, according to the Objectivist Ethics.

Papal infallibility, I suppose.

#179 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,005 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 09 March 2012 - 04:45 PM

Here's my latest from over yonder.

The premise that I think is what bothers me and most here, is the gender-centric one: that the male has the right to perform and conclude the act of sex, regardless of the female's late (even extremely late) objections.
Reverse this. To any man who has not experienced it - it will happen, sometime.


I’ve had the experience of a woman forcibly (or let’s say ‘vigorously’) locking my head between her legs while demanding oral sex. I think that’s a better parallel, but still not quite right. BTW I don’t look back on it in a positive way, but no charges were filed and the relationship even carried on for some time after.

Fact is, women can just lie there and "submit", even when they’re not enjoying it. I don’t think there’s a male equivalent for that, unless you want to bring up something weird like pegging. Here’s something I know has happened to me: GF has something on her mind, something’s bothering her, a problem at work, whatever. With a little consoling caress, a smooch on the back of the neck, she says yeah, let’s do it, thinking that’ll take her mind off the problem. She might even initiate it. A minute (or ten) into the proceedings, the problem has reemerged in her mind, and now she’s not into the sex. This being what Peikoff might call a “loving relationship”, she doesn’t say ‘stop’, but signals that she wants you to finish up. Otherwise, in addition to her work problem, she knows she’s going to have a grumpy partner sleeping next to her. Before long her experience is going to go from ‘not really enjoying it’ to ‘this is starting to hurt, time for him to get the hell off me’, so hopefully you’re done within a couple minutes, before she finally does say ‘stop’. To complicate matters, I’ve had the experience of the GF’s desire soon reigniting, a second wind in the category five hurricane eye-wall gust class, requiring a rematch delayed only by that inconvenient refractory period my fellow males should know all about. Sex can get damn complicated. Unpredictable. When Peikoff talked about the woman being “skittish then falling into it”, that resonated well enough with my experience.

A point I’ve been trying to formulate since the new podcast came out is an ‘altered state of consciousness’ defense. I’ve already established that I disagree with Peikoff’s new formulation, and hold that a woman (or man) can withdraw consent at any time and expect that to be respected. So, now I’m testing out an opposing argument, and maybe someone else can put it on firmer footing. The main point is that passionate sex puts one into what amounts to an altered state of consciousness, kind of like when you’re drifting awake in the morning, and can’t yet will yourself to full consciousness. Or, being very drunk, or high on say, marijuana. Earlier I wrote about how it takes some number of seconds for a ‘stop’ to reach the rational faculty, well, can the sex get so passionate that no stimulus is going to put reason back on her throne? That is, besides ejaculation, followed by a few minutes of refractory period bliss? I’m open to that argument, but it still doesn’t completely line up with my experience. It’s just that you need the equivalent of a blaring alarm clock that snaps you awake. So, imagine the male is going at it full throttle, and the woman, out of the blue, calmly whispers ‘stop’. That’s just not going to register. Did she say something a minute ago? But the same calm whisper would be sufficient to end foreplay, that’s the difference. I’m trying to come up with the best case for what Peikoff’s talking about when he says sometimes a ‘no’ is not valid, and that’s all I’ve got so far. And it's never happened to me. What has happened is she cooed 'I love you', it didn't register so I gave no reply, then I got a talking-to about it later.
Prandium gratis non est

#180 Ninth Doctor

Ninth Doctor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 4,005 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Fiction authors: Umberto Eco, P.G. Wodehouse, Thomas Pynchon, Douglas Adams, Robert Heinlein

Posted 10 March 2012 - 09:44 AM

The OO thread has taken a turn in the direction of a flame war, and there's some really entertaining stuff flying back and forth. I'm afraid it'll all get deleted, apparently the opening salvo was originally put under moderation, then restored, so go see it while you can.

http://forum.objecti...ndpost&p=290019

"Well, I am a pontiff, and I did say something to the effect that those who defended LP's first date-rape podcast ought either to recant or to disagree with Peikoff's reversal. I am now hereby threatening any such person who does not take one of those two actions with excommunication from the Church of Either/Or.

Pope John Peter LIII
(fallen-away Catholic)"
Prandium gratis non est




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users