Search results

NO!!!! You've missed my point too. If all sex is rape then "the threat of rape" includes the threat of actually having sex at all, so removing the threat of rape (if all sex is rape) has to involve removing the threat of actually having sex at all.

You've missed my point. If all sex is rape until women are free from the threat of rape, then sex will never stop being rape until women stop having sex entirely. In other words you cannot say that all sex is rape and then use the word rape in its more specific, normal sense.

OK, that is not what is at issue. I agree that rape, patriarchal inequality, sexual violence and discrimination are disgusting. But Dworkin is saying that SEX is disgusting too, (because she is saying that all sex is rape and rape is disgusting). THAT is what we are disputing, and I think...

I've read a lot of bollocks on this forum but DHarry's argument nearly made me fall off my chair! In what sense is that compelling? Being members of a society in which they are not treated equally does not place women on a par with children and mentally deficient people in terms of not being...

Oh yeah got you.

dHarry, I'm curious, why is claiming falsely to have invented Pete Doherty an example of a logical positivist pseudo paradox?