Lot, the Incestuous Rapist

[linwood]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular][SIZE=-1]Myth: Erection or ejaculation during a sexual assault means you "really wanted it" or consented to it. Reality: Erection and ejaculation are physiological responses that may result from mere physical contact or even extreme stress. [/SIZE][/FONT]

Obviously written by a woman.
Ejaculation is possible without erection and erection is possible without any stimulation whatsoever.
However, erection is simply not possible if the mental state of the man is disgust or distaste for the sexual act about to take place, putting aside the possibility of chemical enhancement.

I`m not saying sexual assault on men isn`t possible because it obviously is.
I`m saying penetration is not possible if the man has no desire for it.

Thats how my anatomy works anyway.

 

[jeffrey]

Sorry, I'm sure where I"m changing my tune? In one thread I just said you can't prove Sodom and Gommorah didn't exist. In another thread, I pointed out that this thread is not about homosexuality. Yes, I changed my tune, but I didn't flip-flop, because we're on two seperate subjects.

So when yo made the comment "Yep, that's right. Can you prove that Sodom and Gomorrah did not exist? No. Then how can your premise which you work off of (that they did not exist, and that god does not destroy gay people) be any more valid than he premise that they did and he does?" You meant gay as being happy?

 

[evearael]

Excuse me, I got to sneeze...! Sorry about that.

This is precisely the reason that male victims of sexual assault get ridiculously substandard care and treatment compared to female victims. This attitude also ensures that they do not come forward and put the perpetrators behind bars. Thanks for perpetuating the silence that permits the epidemic to continue.

 

[Aqualung]

So when yo made the comment "Yep, that's right. Can you prove that Sodom and Gomorrah did not exist? No. Then how can your premise which you work off of (that they did not exist, and that god does not destroy gay people) be any more valid than he premise that they did and he does?" You meant gay as being happy?

I'm still failing to see when gay was ever a part of this thread, something that I addressed in this thread, and then something that I addressed differently in this thread than in that thread that you are quoting.

Are you asking me to continue debating that thread in this one, instead? Because you have again failed to show the connection between that thread and this one, especially in light of the fact that Orleander was NOT talking about homosexuality.

 

[Bishka]

:no:
Because those girls were probably 12-13 yrs. Yes, I'm sure they got him drunk, got him excited, knew how to have sex with him, and had his children.That poor poor man. whatever

So all daughters in the Bible were 12-13? I highly doubt it. They were probably not married and spinsters.

 

[jeffrey]

This is precisely the reason that male victims of sexual assault get ridiculously substandard care and treatment compared to female victims. This attitude also ensures that they do not come forward and put the perpetrators behind bars. Thanks for perpetuating the silence that permits the epidemic to continue.

I'm sorry, but a woman cannot rape me by making "Little Dude" stand up at attention. Stick a gun to my head, threaten me with mass murder and pilaging,... it ain't happening! You really need to be a man to understand this..

 

[Bishka]

Excuse me, I got to sneeze...! Sorry about that.

You know what Jeffery, you are being an *** about this. Women can rape men and men can rape women. What the hell reason do you have to call this bs? I really don't care if I get a warning. This is ridiculous.

 

[evearael]

I'm sorry, but a woman cannot rape me by making "Little Dude" stand up at attention. Stick a gun to my head, threaten me with mass murder and pilaging,... it ain't happening! You really need to be a man to understand this..

If that is the case, then congratulations! You are officially the first guy I have ever met who has never had an involuntary erection.

 

[jeffrey]

I'm still failing to see when gay was ever a part of this thread, something that I addressed in this thread, and then something that I addressed differently in this thread than in that thread that you are quoting.

Are you asking me to continue debating that thread in this one, instead? Because you have again failed to show the connection between that thread and this one, especially in light of the fact that Orleander was NOT talking about homosexuality.

Just showing how you state complete opposite stances. Wait! The wind just changed directions!

 

[Bishka]

Just showing how you state complete opposite stances. Wait! The wind just changed directions!

You aren't proving anything Jeff. All you are contributing to the thread is pointing out peoples supposed flaws. How about a little meat, a little substance to your posts instead of teases and insults?

I for one, think the Lot did not rape his daughters, and that they got their father extremley drunk and either did it to him while he was asleep or plastered as a dodo bird.

 

[Aqualung]

Just showing how you state complete opposite stances. Wait! The wind just changed directions!

No, you haven't been "showing" me anything. There have been no opposite stances. You have not shown me the opposite stance.

 

[jeffrey]

If that is the case, then congratulations! You are officially the first guy I have ever met who has never had an involuntary erection.

Please read Linwood's post #61. It says it quite well.

 

[Aqualung]

All you are contributing to the thread is pointing out peoples supposed flaws.

Except it wasn't even that. He just made up a flaw, threw it at me, and then failed to show what that flaw was and where I demonstrated it. This behaviour is quite strange and inexplicable!

 

[Bishka]

Except it wasn't even that. He just made up a flaw, threw it at me, and then failed to show what that flaw was and where I demonstrated it. This behaviour is quite strange and inexplicable!

That's what I was thinking, but then again................:run:

 

[jeffrey]

You know what Jeffery, you are being an *** about this. Women can rape men and men can rape women. What the hell reason do you have to call this bs? I really don't care if I get a warning. This is ridiculous.

Please refer to Linwood's post #61

 

[Aqualung]

Um, Jeffrey? You still haven't pointed out the flip-flop. Please, place a quote of each post side by side, because I'm truly that dense that I won't get it otherwise, master.

 

[Bishka]

Please refer to Linwood's post #61

Aren't you the sassy one.

Obviously written by a woman.
Ejaculation is possible without erection and erection is possible without any stimulation whatsoever.
However, erection is simply not possible if the mental state of the man is disgust or distaste for the sexual act about to take place, putting aside the possibility of chemical enhancement.

I`m not saying sexual assault on men isn`t possible because it obviously is.
I`m saying penetration is not possible if the man has no desire for it.
Thats how my anatomy works anyway.

It's called a wet dream, ever had one of those? It's called he's so drunk that he has no clue what is going on and is still stimulated. It's quite possible.

 

[jeffrey]

No, you haven't been "showing" me anything. There have been no opposite stances. You have not shown me the opposite stance. Are you high right now?

One thread you state that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed by the people being gay. This thread you state is was because of cultural differences. And as far as your personal attack, it's to be expected. You do it every time you get the obvious pointed out to you.

 

[jeffrey]

Aren't you the sassy one.


It's called a wet dream, ever had one of those? It's called he's so drunk that he has no clue what is going on and is still stimulated. It's quite possible.

How many wet dreams have you had, becky?

 

[Bishka]

One thread you state that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed by the people being gay. This thread you state is was because of cultural differences. And as far as your personal attack, it's to be expected. You do it every time you get the obvious pointed out to you.

And you don't? Seriously Jeff, show us where she said that. It's obvious that you have nothing to say and don't like her so you are attacking her for supposed flaws. Tis to be expected I guess.

Why don't we get back on the original subject Jeff? Hmm...I've tried to pull it back, but you keep trying to point out flaws.

Lot's supposed rape of his daughters. One cannot even know if Lot ever raped his daughters, 1 - It does not say he raped them, 2 - how old were they? 3 - There are so many different versions of the bible, the only real version I would trust would be a commentary from a Rabbi or another Jewish commentary