Hofstra Gang Rape Hoax

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

This thread is kinky and titillating.

haha, you said "tit"

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

You sure about the bold part?

in the sense that we are using the term "biological" in this context, yes quite sure.

Biology means study of life, so everything from genetics to taking a poop could be "biological" but there is nothing that will be passed down biologically if it isn't genetic. Genes carry the information for biological things to happen. Unless you subscibe to the "jesus made everyone the way they are" theory.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

UGA, here's the thing ... not too long ago (as late as the '50s, even, in some places) folks were placed into mental institutions (or, even worse, the seminary) for being gay. It was viewed as a possibly-curable mental imbalance, a sort of psychosis, and the "societal/moral repercussions" were drastic and real. Yet, today, nobody would claim that there "must be something wrong with that boy" if he likes other boys, at least not in polite and educated company.

The fact of the matter is ethics, and especially morals, are temporal. It's the most natural and beautiful thing in the world to marry the person you love, right? Unless it's your brother. Or you have power of attorney over a disputed estate that they are involved with. Or whatever - we could go down the line with similar examples.

You can argue that the societal repercussions are so real and so drastic that this individual SIMPLY MUST have some issues in order to cultivate or subject herself to those repercussions - but that's a value assumption based entirely on your experiences and value set, your own desires (both sexual desires, and desire not to subject yourself to society's disapproval), without any regard for the thought that maybe, perhaps, you're viewing it through a narrow (and, as I stated before, egocentric) lens. Before we judge these people for bringing down the wrath of polite, gentile society upon themselves with their perverted sexual proclivities, I think there are three elements that sort of go against your logic in this discussion:

1 - We don't know, and have little to no right to know, what happens behind closed doors for 99% of people - hence, lines like "in my experience" ring hollow.
2 - We don't know, and have absolutely no right to know, what drives individuals to engage in acts we deem callous, deviant, disgusting, or we otherwise disapprove of.
3 - Our response to (1) and (2) say as much about ourselves as the individuals involved.

I don't get where you're going with lines like "...except she might face more serious consequences from the encounter in terms of pregnancy and even sexually transmitted diseases, many of which are usually more easily transmitted from male to female than the reverse. Biology may represent another area where the encounter is higher risk for her than the guys", either - it seems like a pseudo-scientific rationale for an otherwise-opinion-based argument. You certainly have the right to judge, if you'd like, but I simply can't go along with your reasoning in doing so - the logic simply doesn't extend, especially if it's based on societal or moral/ethical bases without the concomitant and tacit understanding that these things are both not set in stone and are wholly and completely temporal.

My points about biology were to note that some of our typical social gender expectations or desires may be rooted in differences in biology, rather than merely being sort of arbitrary limits places on women or being purely socially derived. I didn't intend to carry that out to suggest that being partially biological made them permanent or especially desirable.

I think it's kind of odd that you think the temporal nature of social norms has some effect on whether a behavior in the present is regarded in the present as normal and healthy (for the woman in question) and/or ethically good ( for the guys).

I don't claim to judge for all time that a women who has an encounter like this is risking so much that her mental health is suspect; I simply think it was true right now when she did it. I have a hard time imagining that it will ever seem entirely ethical to have sex with someone whose ability to fully consent is compromised, but it certainly seems to be the case right now.

As far as the numbered list, this particular case didn't happen behind closed doors. I also don't know that I agree that "we don't and have no right to know what drives behavior that we deem callous, deviant, disgusting, or we otherwise disapprove of." I agree that we shouldn't try to compel people engaging in private, harmless acts to disclose their own behavior simply to pass judgment or restrict it, but I think human behavior is worth knowing about, and the motivations behind callous, deviant, disgusting behavior are as interesting and important as the motivation behind loving, normal, healthy and admirable behavior. We shouldn't force people to present themselves for study, but it it worth studying. And 3, so?

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

I'm midway between UGAAlum and DrPhil on this. I do think that, descriptively, the women who choose to engage in bathroom gangbangs in 2009 are very likely on a course of self-destruction, often due to past sexual abuse. There are a few Annie Sprinkles out there who truly find it joyous and empowering to have sex with strangers in public. I'd bet a lot of money that this accuser is a self-hater, not an Annie Sprinkle. However, I don't think this self-destruction vitiates consent. A self-destructive adult is still an adult and capable of understand the consequences of saying yes or no. She's just making bad choices.

That being said, I don't think consent is the end of the moral analysis the way it's the end of the legal analysis. I think it's morally wrong to assist others with their self-destruction, no matter how much they may want you to. What these men did was akin to giving Twinkies to a guy with severe diabetes because it's fun to watch him pass out. It's legal, and they have the diabetic guy's enthusiastic consent to do it, but it's cruel and immoral to take advantage of someone else's vulnerability for your own benefit.

On a slightly different note, I think filing a false report is an extremely serious crime, and I hope she is prosecuted.

Annie Sprinkles sounds like a porn name.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

in the sense that we are using the term "biological" in this context, yes quite sure.

Biology means study of life, so everything from genetics to taking a poop could be "biological" but there is nothing that will be passed down biologically if it isn't genetic. Genes carry the information for biological things to happen. Unless you subscibe to the "jesus made everyone the way they are" theory.

Explain to me how I was using biological at that time.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

My points about biology were to note that some of our typical social gender expectations or desires may be rooted in differences in biology, rather than merely being sort of arbitrary limits places on women or being purely socially derived. I didn't intend to carry that out to suggest that being partially biological made them permanent or especially desirable.

I think it's kind of odd that you think the temporal nature of social norms has some effect on whether a behavior in the present is regarded in the present as normal and healthy (for the woman in question) and/or ethically good ( for the guys).

I don't claim to judge for all time that a women who has an encounter like this is risking so much that her mental health is suspect; I simply think it was true right now when she did it. I have a hard time imagining that it will ever seem entirely ethical to have sex with someone whose ability to fully consent is compromised, but it certainly seems to be the case right now.

As far as the numbered list, this particular case didn't happen behind closed doors. I also don't know that I agree that "we don't and have no right to know what drives behavior that we deem callous, deviant, disgusting, or we otherwise disapprove of." I agree that we shouldn't try to compel people engaging in private, harmless acts to disclose their own behavior simply to pass judgment or restrict it, but I think human behavior is worth knowing about, and the motivations behind callous, deviant, disgusting behavior are as interesting and important as the motivation behind loving, normal, healthy and admirable behavior. We shouldn't force people to present themselves for study, but it it worth studying. And 3, so?

I really, truly think you're mistaking causation for correlation here - I guess that's my main point.

[DrPhil]

Correlation is not causation and, more than that, UGA is positing a stronger correlation than can be substantiated.

And she started off with a discussion of social norms and then went into biological explanations for these social norms. It's a classic case of trying to make a point using "everything but the kitchen sink."

[srmom]

All psychobabble aside - Having sex with a group of guys, or girls-if it works out for you (in parlance - pulling a train) in a public bathroom is gross!

Think of the germs!!!

[Low C Sharp]

Annie Sprinkle IS a porn name -- she's an example of that (in my opinion) rare woman who is out there having sex with strangers in public for all the right reasons.

there is nothing that will be passed down biologically if it isn't genetic

That isn't true. Just as one example, if a woman is exposed to tons of mercury, and ten years later she gets pregnant and has a baby, her mercury buildup can not only affect the child's development, but the child may be born with an excess of mercury, too. There are all kinds of non-genetic problems that can be passed on to offspring down the line.
________
LIVE SEX WEBSHOWS

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by srmom

All psychobabble aside - Having sex with a group of guys, or girls-if it works out for you (in parlance - pulling a train) in a public bathroom is gross!

Think of the germs!!!

On so many different levels. Haven't they heard about the flu epidemic?

ETA: in terms of thread substance, I feel like things have conversationally run their course. I enjoyed talking about this with you all though. Thanks.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by srmom

All psychobabble aside - Having sex with a group of guys, or girls-if it works out for you (in parlance - pulling a train) in a public bathroom is gross!

Think of the germs!!!

Well, all juvenile characterization aside ("OMG sex in public places is gross!"), it's interesting to see the issue discussed intelligently. I may have my own opinions, but it's interesting to see another perspective intelligently discussed.

Also...is it a new thing around here to officially declare a thread discussion finished? There have been a couple of threads where that's happened lately.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Well, all juvenile characterization aside ("OMG sex in public places is gross!"), it's interesting to see the issue discussed intelligently. I may have my own opinions, but it's interesting to see another perspective intelligently discussed.

Also...is it a new thing around here to officially declare a thread discussion finished? There have been a couple of threads where that's happened lately.

I didn't mean to do that so much as to let people know I personally was retiring from this particular discussion.

Sorry if it it came off as if I was trying to rule it dead.

[srmom]

Well, all juvenile characterization aside ("OMG sex in public places is gross!"),

Considering we teach our children from an early age to wash their hands after using the potty, I would think they'd know that germs abound in the bathroom - and a public one is just teeming with germs.

I wasn't trying to close the discussion - just adding my (juvenile at 45) viewpoint.

BTW, having sex in public places - whatever. Having sex in a public bathroom GROSS!

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by srmom

Considering we teach our children from an early age to wash their hands after using the potty, I would think they'd know that germs abound in the bathroom - and a public one is just teeming with germs.

I wasn't trying to close the discussion - just adding my (juvenile at 45) viewpoint.

BTW, having sex in public places - whatever. Having sex in a public bathroom GROSS!

Yeah I got you to mean that it was unsanitary, which it definitely is.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by srmom

Considering we teach our children from an early age to wash their hands after using the potty, I would think they'd know that germs abound in the bathroom - and a public one is just teeming with germs.

I wasn't trying to close the discussion - just adding my (juvenile at 45) viewpoint.

BTW, having sex in public places - whatever. Having sex in a public bathroom GROSS!

Considering you sought fit to dismiss the other opinions as "psychobabble," I thought we had reached the point in the discussion where we were using derogatory terms to refer to other people's viewpoints.

I get your point, though.