Sadism in sex? What the hell is this shit?!
I read a few -- sigh; for lack of a better term, we shall call them "opinion articles" defending this sick, violent crime. This is the exact same abuse, torture, violence inflicted on women since the beginning of the human species.
Now it is simply dressed up, couched in some willfully elusive, purposely misleading language, repackaged in a whip and chain and dog collar, and sold to the public. But upon applying some critical thinking, one will find that it is the same sickening mind games that r--ists have been forcing onto women since time eternity.
You see the type of vehement fervor with which they insist that the victims are fully consenting and agreeing one hundred percent. This is sickening. It is also baffling at first, until you begin to recognize patterns wherein this parallels the verbiage of r--sits. Date r--ists also usually insist that they did nothing wrong. They insist that the victim was fully willing and enthusiastic.
[[[[[[ You see the type of vehement fervor with which they insist that the victims are fully consenting, agreeing "adults." refuted. And as far as being considered adults, these are kids that merely had their 18th birthdays in recent days. And this is the first experience being away from their parents for an extended length of time.]]]]]]
psychological warfare
It is also sickening psychological warfare. They are masters of manipulation and [[[ defeating someone's self-preservation instincts. Systematically, methodically breaking down a person's subconscious alarm bells.
They resort to accusing someone who does not want to participate in this gruesome psychological torture of being a prude, of being "not comfortable in their own skin," of being "not comfortable with their body," of being not "truly able to let go of religious shackles of their repressive upbringing,"
frighteningly similar rhetoric to that which is used by [[[
The proponents of this are manipulative psychopaths. One sicko tried to use the argument, and this is a direct quote, "they should not be denied sesual fulfillment just because the need from that fulfillment originated from a bad place."
What the hell...?? That is so twisted and illogical I don't even know where to begin to refute that argument. But I will try. Erm, if it originates from a negative place and is fueled by that negative connotation, then it is probably not fulfillment.
The psychosocial, emotional responses in the females that are coerced into this -- are very similar to that which has been seen for years in r-- victims and victims of domestic violence. A variation of this is Stockholm syndrome.
Often, r-- victims will also try to convince themselves that nothing is wrong. They will avoid thinking about the trauma that happened to them.
This is not just blind opinion, folks. This is gathered from sixty years of research on the psychiatry of victims of violence and r--.
This also sounds eerily similar to things that victims of domestic try to tell themselves so they can rationalize the situation. They often tell themselves this is not a big deal as a coping method to survive the traumatic experience. It is like Stockholm syndrome, in which the victim might try to convince herself that what is happening is okay. She will try to tell herself that if she in any way felt hurt or angry, it was probably because SHE is in the wrong. How dare she feel hurt or angry at the way her male partner treated her? If she had just not bothered him, then he would not have thrown her against a wall and punched her in the face. She should not have bothered her male partner, why was she nagging him or bothering him? She deserved to be slapped or punched.
Sadistic subhumans blame the victim for not being happy with their abuse. "If you don't agree to do it, you're not modern sexually liberated woman." "Why can't you be fulfilled this way? Why can't you be pleased this way?"
Like most liberal extremist nonsense, it sounds very similar to abusive, extremist conservative rhetoric nonsense. This sadomasochist stuff tells women that if they are not fulfilled by this, then they are prudes and sex-haters. Just like how in the notorious 1950s, women that did not serve and depend on a man, by being sexually submissive, bringing him martinis, were seen as less womanly than other women that did that. Women were told they were less worthy of love and respect if they were not subservient to men with housework and cleaning and forgetting their own professional careers.
Much like that, now the sadomasochist pimpers are trying to tell these young vulnerable female students that if they do not force themselves into this, they are less womanly than females who do acquiesce to this subjugation.
That is what they are saying, is it not? That if women do not engage in this, they are prudish, puritan, Christian fundamentalist. In other words, less womanly.
This is the same sort of twisted sick logic that r--ists use against their victims.
--
Of course the abusers deny it; that is not really surprising. All abusers and criminals deny being abusive or criminal. All abusers think they are healthy normal individuals that contribute positively to society.
Therefore we can see, conclusively, that their opinions of themselves are meaningless. People are not good at assessing themselves. Sexual sadists are not exempt from this. Sadists are probably more susceptible to having skewed inaccurate perceptions of themselves, just like serial r--ists and serial killers. Pathological, antisocial.
Observing all of it altogether, this is really no different from the way that some males throughout all of human history viewed females. They thought females were there solely for the purpose of pleasuring males.
It's just that now, they are frighteningly sneaky and underhanded in their public relations.
-----
We are supposed to be about preventing violence against women. Humanity is supposed to be increasing empathy, compassion, respect for fellow humans. Yet somehow remarkably, these sickos found a way around that. They managed to convince some people that women _desire_ violence and abuse. And specifically, they are saying that women desire sexual violence and abuse.
Let us pose a question to them. Why are you sadists so against women seeking counseling? What's wrong with encouraging people that do this, to seek psychological treatment if they wish? What possible good reason is there for angrily denouncing psychological guidance?
They are livid, they are rabid foaming at the mouth at any suggestion that people that engage in this might seek counseling. Why is this? Are they afraid that some counseling will help people think more clearly and become a bit more focused? And then, perhaps the victim will be able to see that they are in fact being abused, and worse, that they are consenting to that abuse?
Again, apply critical thinking.
I read a few -- sigh; for lack of a better term, we shall call them "opinion articles" defending this sick, violent crime. This is the exact same abuse, torture, violence inflicted on women since the beginning of the human species.
Now it is simply dressed up, couched in some willfully elusive, purposely misleading language, repackaged in a whip and chain and dog collar, and sold to the public. But upon applying some critical thinking, one will find that it is the same sickening mind games that r--ists have been forcing onto women since time eternity.
You see the type of vehement fervor with which they insist that the victims are fully consenting and agreeing one hundred percent. This is sickening. It is also baffling at first, until you begin to recognize patterns wherein this parallels the verbiage of r--sits. Date r--ists also usually insist that they did nothing wrong. They insist that the victim was fully willing and enthusiastic.
[[[[[[ You see the type of vehement fervor with which they insist that the victims are fully consenting, agreeing "adults." refuted. And as far as being considered adults, these are kids that merely had their 18th birthdays in recent days. And this is the first experience being away from their parents for an extended length of time.]]]]]]
psychological warfare
It is also sickening psychological warfare. They are masters of manipulation and [[[ defeating someone's self-preservation instincts. Systematically, methodically breaking down a person's subconscious alarm bells.
They resort to accusing someone who does not want to participate in this gruesome psychological torture of being a prude, of being "not comfortable in their own skin," of being "not comfortable with their body," of being not "truly able to let go of religious shackles of their repressive upbringing,"
frighteningly similar rhetoric to that which is used by [[[
The proponents of this are manipulative psychopaths. One sicko tried to use the argument, and this is a direct quote, "they should not be denied sesual fulfillment just because the need from that fulfillment originated from a bad place."
What the hell...?? That is so twisted and illogical I don't even know where to begin to refute that argument. But I will try. Erm, if it originates from a negative place and is fueled by that negative connotation, then it is probably not fulfillment.
The psychosocial, emotional responses in the females that are coerced into this -- are very similar to that which has been seen for years in r-- victims and victims of domestic violence. A variation of this is Stockholm syndrome.
Often, r-- victims will also try to convince themselves that nothing is wrong. They will avoid thinking about the trauma that happened to them.
This is not just blind opinion, folks. This is gathered from sixty years of research on the psychiatry of victims of violence and r--.
This also sounds eerily similar to things that victims of domestic try to tell themselves so they can rationalize the situation. They often tell themselves this is not a big deal as a coping method to survive the traumatic experience. It is like Stockholm syndrome, in which the victim might try to convince herself that what is happening is okay. She will try to tell herself that if she in any way felt hurt or angry, it was probably because SHE is in the wrong. How dare she feel hurt or angry at the way her male partner treated her? If she had just not bothered him, then he would not have thrown her against a wall and punched her in the face. She should not have bothered her male partner, why was she nagging him or bothering him? She deserved to be slapped or punched.
Sadistic subhumans blame the victim for not being happy with their abuse. "If you don't agree to do it, you're not modern sexually liberated woman." "Why can't you be fulfilled this way? Why can't you be pleased this way?"
Like most liberal extremist nonsense, it sounds very similar to abusive, extremist conservative rhetoric nonsense. This sadomasochist stuff tells women that if they are not fulfilled by this, then they are prudes and sex-haters. Just like how in the notorious 1950s, women that did not serve and depend on a man, by being sexually submissive, bringing him martinis, were seen as less womanly than other women that did that. Women were told they were less worthy of love and respect if they were not subservient to men with housework and cleaning and forgetting their own professional careers.
Much like that, now the sadomasochist pimpers are trying to tell these young vulnerable female students that if they do not force themselves into this, they are less womanly than females who do acquiesce to this subjugation.
That is what they are saying, is it not? That if women do not engage in this, they are prudish, puritan, Christian fundamentalist. In other words, less womanly.
This is the same sort of twisted sick logic that r--ists use against their victims.
--
Of course the abusers deny it; that is not really surprising. All abusers and criminals deny being abusive or criminal. All abusers think they are healthy normal individuals that contribute positively to society.
Therefore we can see, conclusively, that their opinions of themselves are meaningless. People are not good at assessing themselves. Sexual sadists are not exempt from this. Sadists are probably more susceptible to having skewed inaccurate perceptions of themselves, just like serial r--ists and serial killers. Pathological, antisocial.
Observing all of it altogether, this is really no different from the way that some males throughout all of human history viewed females. They thought females were there solely for the purpose of pleasuring males.
It's just that now, they are frighteningly sneaky and underhanded in their public relations.
-----
We are supposed to be about preventing violence against women. Humanity is supposed to be increasing empathy, compassion, respect for fellow humans. Yet somehow remarkably, these sickos found a way around that. They managed to convince some people that women _desire_ violence and abuse. And specifically, they are saying that women desire sexual violence and abuse.
Let us pose a question to them. Why are you sadists so against women seeking counseling? What's wrong with encouraging people that do this, to seek psychological treatment if they wish? What possible good reason is there for angrily denouncing psychological guidance?
They are livid, they are rabid foaming at the mouth at any suggestion that people that engage in this might seek counseling. Why is this? Are they afraid that some counseling will help people think more clearly and become a bit more focused? And then, perhaps the victim will be able to see that they are in fact being abused, and worse, that they are consenting to that abuse?
Again, apply critical thinking.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment