"Rape Culture"

... maybe, for the sake of Clarity, this should have a better title. To be more so indicative of what it is that I'm t...hinking to write about. But alas, I've forgotten what that was.

The thing is, it's kind of about a lot of stuff. The triggering thought being probably just one out of a bunch of possible things.


And so, our story actually begins with: Intrusive thoughts.
And the main idea here, to cut to the tail end of whatever has occurred to me, is that what we would or wouldn't describe as an intrusive thought does have a cultural component to it.

I mean, "what is an intrusive thought?". I figured that I have a hard time believing that it's ... not normal to have them. Of course that would just be my experience - but ... logically. It makes no sense to assume that they aren't.
Like - what 'natural' mechanism would the mind have to prevent them? Or not have them occur? I mean, if they occur and our minds defend against them, they're already there!

And to just not have a thought occur, like, "intentionally" ... is like ... an oxymoron.
Oof ... uhm, let's try this again ...


So - I think that intrusive thoughts occur as thoughts emerge into our consciousness that clearly defy certain societal norms we've more or less consciously - or maybe even instinctively - accepted as "the norm". A standard of moral, ethical, upright or however to put it ... behavior.

Conversely, a Savage would be a person that lacks such ... . Effectively a mind without inhibitions, acting on their intrusive thoughts - not recognizing them for such. Perhaps because it's even culturally permissive. Though there yet were a norm, it might just be something like ... trying to not get shot. At which point it isn't as much an intrusive thought as it just is a bad or suicidal idea.


And therein lies one critical problem with what we might classify as "conservative thought". I mean, labels are bad in that anyone who would remotely identify with that label is technically a part of it; Including whatever someone might associate with it. And I have a hard time making sense of the conservative bubble because I'm not really a fan of it. It could be that just as we on the left have each our own more or less favored flavors of it - the same goes for the right. I know whom I agree with on "my side" - and that works for me. Yet whenever I hear something from the other side, I have no choice but to assume that it's all ... one and the same thing somehow.
And to be fair ... it might not be so bad, would it not have been for ... lets call it a grand unifying voice that seems to have boiled conservatism down to something ... that I so far haven't felt ashamed for mocking!

Always a pleasure!


I mean, conservatives for once have ... well. They have a paradoxical relationship with in about anything it would seem. And that includes the concept of what is and isn't 'natural' - and what that is or isn't a good thing.

I mean, you know the type. If it's natural its a good thing. Unless it's "degenerate", even if its quite natural. But for this and in about anything else, most of the times the words they use are absolutely meaningless - in that they are only stand ins for "thing I like" and "thing I don't like".

And it ... yea, should be concerning that the general tendency is towards being OK with raping and enslaving women; Allthewhile taxes - a.k.a. "paying your fair share" is considered theft.
Like, and yet somehow they've gotten away with calling themselves Christian.


Of course: They 'don't like' being called things that make them look bad or stupid or silly, which is why it's ... any one of the negatively connotated words. Like, fake news, or slander. They don't be OK with Rape, but what they're OK with is ... just 'natural'. It's the way of things. And the nuclear family something.

I mean, here's the thing: If a woman is considered guilty of her getting raped, because she - let's say - wore red underwear; Although it'd be a stretch to assume that that was visible. It however turned out like after the fact that ... "she may have actually wanted it" - because ... red underwear?

So, anyway - that's called "Rape Culture". A culture whereby the raping of women is considered defensible - as based on the woman ... showing a little bit too much skin or whatever.
In more civilized conditions, this "Rape Culture" stuff is considered 'intrusive thought'. Because ... you're not supposed to act on it.


Personal Responsibility anyone?
Anyhow, what a strong man is and isn't supposed to do - is probably best explained but Chuck Chucklefuck - which is to say: Yea, Fuck you too!

I mean, here's the thing: If you happen to wear a fancy watch you'd like, or driving a car I'd fancy, or having a wife I'd love to have or ... God forbid ... a face I'd love to punch - would that give me the right to do as I'd please? Making you guilty ... because my natural urges aren't mine to control, apparently, but yours?

"Funny" thing is that in nations where women aren't allowed to show skin, like, at all - Rape still happens. So, apparently men are perfectly capable of working themselves up over literally anything. Such as walking blankets. Maybe all it takes is a little bit of curiosity of what if ... there were more skin. Where, yea, entertaining such thoughts may be fine at all - but ... only up to a point.


We would have thought that such things are understood ... and that they apparently weren't ... makes these days honestly scary. With all the savagery that's going on. As if like ... millennia of repressed emotions try to burst forth except ... it haven't really been millennia. It really just seems to be a natural conditions we at least thought to have left behind us not that long ago.


So yea, until ... whenever I feel like uploading this ...

---

2024.08.10: And on different news: Water is wet!

But yea, there's ... actually two things I could add to this.

The one is a deeper discussion, if I can find the mojo for it, on this whole label based group responsibility thing. Unrelated, perhaps, but ... maybe not. And the other, hmm ... it's the same thing, but ... . I was thinking about what happened in the UK recently (or, is still happening) - and that in combination with the whole January 6th thing ... and sure, what Israel and Russia have been doing as of late - and how that checks with my feelings on the George Floyd Riots, to focus on that part rather than the protests.

I mean, it seems like - all the voices who weren't like ... defensive about the GF stuff, are kind of ringing true a bit. I mean ... if we throw concepts such as justice or the deeper quest for it - like 'true justice' - out of the window, it's all the same thing. People getting violent over some reason given to them.

And that is, in general, why we don't like violence. Or why we should always pick the pacifist side. Well, because justice is a difficult topic. And I think that's sound reasoning. Maybe I should be cautious though - to not jump to the conclusion that when we take justice back into the picture ... violence of some form seems necessary. But ... it actually is; On a very fundamental level. Such as Law Enforcement.


We can also take the other route; Where ... say two groups - one right and one wrong - clash in a non-violent manner. So, they might be right and wrong in that they influence things; One causing good to happen and the other making everything worse. We could then call it 'violence' in the abstract - like taxes are violence, or how certain rules are violence - but; Given that they don't literally fight each other violently ... makes them both ... OK?


Well ... probably not; But the act of stepping in - to ... not leave it all up to some vague "invisible hand" - would then again be violence, even if only in the abstract; Which we couldn't do.

And yea. It seems like ... part of the game. Say, both sides are pacifist in their mannerisms; But one is clearly more provocative - and more easily invokes violence. Eventually theres a thing that gets the serious pacifist side to snap; Smartasses like myself go to defend it - even if only in the abstract - and yet so the boundaries were pushed - which sets new standards for how far the other side feels they can go.

And sadly it would seem that ... yea, Pandora's Box is already open.

Part ... uh ... 3 let's say

And ... I don't feel like "they" would let us close it again.
I mean, we can still categorize us into these two basic camps. But I feel like that when anyone on the left would argue against the violence, it always comes back to George Floyd. And sure - whether your violent protests are based on truth or fake news might not make a difference to you; But ... yea ... it still isn't the same in as far as true justice were concerned.

And it's strange. Like ... 10 or so years ago - it was like 'weird' to mention "them". Like, who are "they"? But today it's more like ... ubiquitous. I mean, looking at the UK protests its a real thing, basically right in your face. Or with the Olympic's "Trans Outrage" - we see there's Celebrities involved.


And so today it's more like: Who even cares about justice anymore? I suppose a lot. Or the majority. But ... based on some outlandish reasoning, enough people have been conditioned into a mindset where that doesn't matter anymore because they think they have to be the ones to create order.

I mean, the moment we'd like bring up 'righteous violence' - it's like, "everyone" wants to be the one saying what that is. Which things it'd have to defend. In the past this "nondescript" legal framework enforced by police has worked - mostly because generally speaking the pillars of justice have been ... more or less common sense. But then ... with corruption on one side and systemic incompetence on the other; Things have kind of gotten bad ... and while some try to focus on improving things; Others seem to see their shot at bringing about an age of savagery.

It's not like we can't look at the George Floyd Events neutrally. Learning from them. Seeing the underlying issues. And yea, if you thought that the issues were real before those events unfolded - it would be difficult to ... excuse yourself from them. But the same would be true for "the other side". Except ... there aren't any good catalysts for it. Because the whole thing is bullshit.
But as for how both sides are the same thing - yea. It would come down to a bunch of 'bad actors' igniting the spark. And in either case you'd then see people that have absolutely nothing to do with anything; Jump in and take a shot at being savage for a moment.


Overall I think that this shouldn't be so complicated. If your cause is unjust, whether your violent about it or not, it's still just that!


I mean, I recently read a story about a woman who took a cannister of Gasoline, went into a pub of some kind, poured it over some dude and lit him on fire. And the comments were all like: "Yes!". And I myself ... sympathized with that position. The background there is, that the dude was just released from prison - and upon meeting that woman he asked her how her daughter was doing, with a weird smile. The daughter being like 14 at the time (?) - and having raped her is what got him into prison.
I suppose it's like ... all in the delivery. I think one must have been there to understand the feelings and the tension. How one chooses to write the headline can also bias someone more into this or that direction.
But overall I think ... I'm with the majority of people when I say that I think that prison sentences for rapists, especially of underage people, are too lax!

But, before I righteously proclaim "Town Square Justice" to be the epitome of true justice, I feel like witch-hunts are a thing worth taking into consideration.
Where, on a side-note: I get that it's a movie/TV thing where the bad guys of a story always ... really look like bad guys. And as with ... oof ... dude who pl... Danny Trejo ... it's not always that simple, for sure. So, we could say it's just TV; But ... that then mostly comes down to the delivery. I mean, if you're supposed to play an asshole and you can't deliver that ... you're not gonna make a good on-screen villain! But as a random thug maybe.
Anyway ... in reality there are also assholes. Or 'real' assholes. And some of them might just ... rizz up a crowd also. Like ... Negan. Like seriously ... all the Negan Worship around the time where that Character was contemporary, ... nah! I probably should have lost hope back then already!

But so are there injustices done in the name of justice. The "innocent" bystanders might be innocent because they thought they did the right thing. Like ... if someone truly believes that witches are real and evil - why would they not want to get rid of them? For good measure, the writer should then write an enlightened pastor Character into the show to have some words of pacifism and all that - and then we got ourselves one of them Christian "the crowd condemns itself" moment. Probably. I mean - on screen it's usually just a handful of people that listen and snap out of it; While the majority is still under the spell of the death merchant. The thing is ... we live through times like that right now! RIGHT NOW! I mean, there's nothing but myself to suggest that this trend might stop anytime soon. And even ... ah, well ... whatever.

Part 4 I guess

[sigh] ... the end. Sort of