[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1234567[8]910 ]
Subject: Re: Valid reasons for double standard

John to Observer (Mad)
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 09:52:13 04/25/20 Sat
In reply to: Observer to Mirage and John 's message, "Re: Valid reasons for double standard" on 11:55:07 04/24/20 Fri

Those of us who have posted for a while have made arguments that are repeated and not acknowledged by others who do not agree with us. So you should not feel uniquely offended if your points are not specifically addressed and seemingly ignored.

Yes men sometimes rape women. But it has been proven that rape is a crime of violence, not sex. So a nude female is not likely to trigger a violent response from a male. So it is not dangerous for females to be naked in front of males.

And it has been documented repeatedly on this site that some women take great joy in sexually abusing boys. They enjoy forcing them to be naked and enjoying their embarrassment and humiliation.

I think if the genders were treated equally by authorities, sexual abuse of both genders would be greatly reduced, as it should be. No one has a moral right or justification to hurt another. Don’t care if they are doing it because they are curious or just really enjoy their sadism. It is wrong. And just because it was common doesn’t make it right.

Like you, I have made these points before. So acknowledge them or not.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Good point regarding rape

[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 23:51:26 04/25/20 Sat

People often forget that rape isn't about sex per se, but about power and control. Men who rape women tend to feel hatred for women, not love or affection. They want to inflict suffering on the woman, and they use sex to do it. So ultimately, sex is just the tool, not the main objective. The same thing goes for rape/sexual abuse of kids. It's about power and control.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Good point regarding rape

John (Mad)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 11:29:08 04/28/20 Tue

Agree that rape is about power and control. Also think this is a large part of the forced nudity of boys by their Moms or Aunts or Female authorities. Don’t get me wrong - they love seeing naked boys too.

But that pleasure is magnified for many when they can force it upon the boy and increase his humiliation by displaying him to others, force him to keep his hands to his side and away from covering his penis, and ridicule his desire for modesty.

This is about as close to rape as a female can inflict on a male.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Here's something will find interesting

[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 01:03:32 04/29/20 Wed


This link is regarding Bradley manning and forced nudity. Here's an excerpt:
Is there anyone who doubts that these measures -- and especially this prolonged forced nudity -- are punitive and designed to further erode his mental health, physical health and will? As The Guardian reported last year, forced nudity is almost certainly a breach of the Geneva Conventions; the Conventions do not technically apply to Manning, as he is not a prisoner of war, but they certainly establish the minimal protections to which all detainees -- let alone citizens convicted of nothing -- are entitled.

Here's another link regarding forced nudity:


An excerpt:
In addition to degradation of the detainee, stripping can be used to demonstrate the omnipotence of the captor or to debilitate the detainee.

Another: https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/In_Brief_Torture_by_any_other_name

And an excerpt:
The questions covered more than 40 kinds of abuse, including beatings, forced nudity and standing, isolation, rope bondage, sexual humiliation, and deprivation of sleep, water, and food.

Notice how forced nudity is included as a form of abuse. They didn't ask if they thought it was abusive. It went without saying that it IS abusive.

Another site: https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/irrc-867-reyes.pdf

Excerpt from page 7:
The US Department of State, in its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 2004,25quotes a report by the US Committee for Human Rights listing various psychological methods which it describes as torture:Methods of torture included ... prolonged periods of exposure; humiliations such as public nakedness; confinement to small ‘‘punishment cells,’’ in which prisoners were unable to stand upright or lie down, where they could beheld for several weeks; being forced to kneel or sit immobilized for long periods

More: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11313-psychological-torture-as-bad-as-physical-torture/#ixzz6KxIWMmhj

Interesting excerpt:
In 2005, US president George W Bush signed the bill outlawing the torture of detainees. And officials later revised the Army Field Manual to explicitly ban certain treatments of detainees, such as forced nudity and sex acts, hoods or duct tape on the eyes, and electric shock.

One more: https://www.cvt.org/blog/healing-and-human-rights/why-torture-wrong-0

And the excerpt:
They (and in the case of Rahman, his family) were not forced to revisit, personally and in the global media, the excruciating details of the torture they endured: suspension, stress positions, being slammed into walls, crammed and confined in small locked boxes, dietary manipulation, prolonged sleep deprivation, forced nudity, water dousing in freezing temperatures, being strapped to waterboards, death threats and more.

In all these cases, forced nudity is labeled as cruel and as torture. Some countries have banned it, even for criminals. And yet, there are people who think that something that can cause psychological trauma to adults is totally ok to inflict on kids. If even adults are mentally scarred by forced to the point where it has been banned as a form of punishment for hardened criminals, then what kind of sick person would say it's ok to inflict it on kids? If it screws up adults, imagine what it does to kids.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Here's something will find interesting

John (Mad)
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 13:21:59 12/13/20 Sun

Mirage - excellent rebuttal. Don’t see how anyone can disagree with your post.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.