Conquer Club

I don't see how a 14 year old can freely consent, especially not to a 46 year old man. I don't see how a slave could freely consent. A 14 year old slave?

I have very little respect for the "as long as it's not against the law, it's acceptable" line of thinking.

Symmetry wrote:Nonsense. An atypical rapist is still a rapist.

Nope. It's not rape if she would've said yes without having to call him "Massah"

stahrgazer wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Nonsense. An atypical rapist is still a rapist.

Nope. It's not rape if she would've said yes without having to call him "Massah"

Perhaps the worst excuse for rape I've ever seen.

Symmetry wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Nonsense. An atypical rapist is still a rapist.

Nope. It's not rape if she would've said yes without having to call him "Massah"

Perhaps the worst excuse for rape I've ever seen.

And this is about the worst excuse for a debate thread around. You asked a question of whether or not someone was a rapist by your definition, and then when they disagree with your reasoning, you consider them the worst people on the planet for supporting what you had already decided was rape. This thread has become the definition of a troll thread solely because of the actions of the OP and should be locked. It's sad too because I actually thought it was a decent premise for debate/discussion.

can you rape a possession?

if someone had sex with a teddy bear would that be rape? the teddy bear cant give consent.

if someone had sex with a cow would that be rape? sure those big brown eyes seem to be saying 'give it to me hard' but will that really pass as consenting?

a slave is a possession. a possession that performs the duties of a kitchen hand, a maid, and/or breeding stock.

Not caring about consent is in my DNA!

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Nonsense. An atypical rapist is still a rapist.

Nope. It's not rape if she would've said yes without having to call him "Massah"

Perhaps the worst excuse for rape I've ever seen.

And this is about the worst excuse for a debate thread around. You asked a question of whether or not someone was a rapist by your definition, and then when they disagree with your reasoning, you consider them the worst people on the planet for supporting what you had already decided was rape. This thread has become the definition of a troll thread solely because of the actions of the OP and should be locked. It's sad too because I actually thought it was a decent premise for debate/discussion.

Have you already decided that a man in his forties having sex with his 14 year old sex slave can't be rape?

Symmetry wrote:I don't see how a 14 year old can freely consent, especially not to a 46 year old man. I don't see how a slave could freely consent. A 14 year old slave?

I have very little respect for the "as long as it's not against the law, it's acceptable" line of thinking.

That is not the question, but to judge the past by our times using terms that were not considered the same back then is wrong.

Would it be acceptable today, 50 years ago? Absolutely not! A hundred years ago? More debatable.

But go back to Jefferson and the real issue is how she was treated versus how other women of the day were treated, and the answer to that is not badly, by comparison.

To claim that you have the right to judge Jefferson is to claim that, given HIS circumstances, you would have acted differently. AND, to say that acting differently would have created a better result. In this case, the idea of taking a 14 year old black girl and treating her as a girl today would be.... was just not thinkable. To pretend that you would do differently means you think you can live then as we do today. No one has that luxury.

It is good to examine the past, to celebrate our advances. However to go back and claim that anyone who did anything good must be ignored if they did not live fully by our standards today is hypocritical at best, at worst plain ignorant (lacking knowledge) becuase you are claiming you would act differently and, in truth you almost certainly would not have, could not have.

Symmetry wrote:
Have you already decided that a man in his forties having sex with his 14 year old sex slave can't be rape?

What gives you the right to judge people in the past, who lived under very different standards and morals?

Symmetry wrote:Have you already decided that a man in his forties having sex with his 14 year old sex slave can't be rape?

No, but apparently you've decided that NO MATTER WHAT!!!!

a 40 year old having sex with a 14 year old MUST BE rape, regardless of society's decision on what the age of consent is.

Given your perspective, probably most kings and queens were rapists as well as born of rapists, as well as most lords and ladies must have been rapists/born of rapists (because it was NOT uncommon to LEGALLY betroth/wed as early as 12 years of age "back then.")

Or are you saying that NO MATTER WHAT!!! - if she is "black" and he is "white" it HAD TO BE rape?

If so, you're more racist than the supposedly perverted sex slave owner you're accusing.

I repeat: IF she would have said "yes" without having to call him "Massah," then it WAS NOT RAPE. It would have made her his "mistress" and that was perfectly acceptable to have back then.

What does it matter. He is dead and been dead for a long time too. Like asking, should I have not taken the shit this morning? It already happened so what the frack does it matter?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:I don't see how a 14 year old can freely consent, especially not to a 46 year old man. I don't see how a slave could freely consent. A 14 year old slave?

I have very little respect for the "as long as it's not against the law, it's acceptable" line of thinking.

That is not the question, but to judge the past by our times using terms that were not considered the same back then is wrong.

Would it be acceptable today, 50 years ago? Absolutely not! A hundred years ago? More debatable.

But go back to Jefferson and the real issue is how she was treated versus how other women of the day were treated, and the answer to that is not badly, by comparison.

To claim that you have the right to judge Jefferson is to claim that, given HIS circumstances, you would have acted differently. AND, to say that acting differently would have created a better result. In this case, the idea of taking a 14 year old black girl and treating her as a girl today would be.... was just not thinkable. To pretend that you would do differently means you think you can live then as we do today. No one has that luxury.

It is good to examine the past, to celebrate our advances. However to go back and claim that anyone who did anything good must be ignored if they did not live fully by our standards today is hypocritical at best, at worst plain ignorant (lacking knowledge) becuase you are claiming you would act differently and, in truth you almost certainly would not have, could not have.

I have never claimed he should be ignored. If anything, this thread shows that I want more attention paid.

A counter claim, of course, would be that you seem to be ignoring Sally Hemings, and of course the children who Jefferson enslaved.

stahrgazer wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Have you already decided that a man in his forties having sex with his 14 year old sex slave can't be rape?

No, but apparently you've decided that NO MATTER WHAT!!!!

a 40 year old having sex with a 14 year old MUST BE rape, regardless of society's decision on what the age of consent is.

Given your perspective, probably most kings and queens were rapists as well as born of rapists, as well as most lords and ladies must have been rapists/born of rapists (because it was NOT uncommon to LEGALLY betroth/wed as early as 12 years of age "back then.")

Or are you saying that NO MATTER WHAT!!! - if she is "black" and he is "white" it HAD TO BE rape?

If so, you're more racist than the supposedly perverted sex slave owner you're accusing.

I repeat: IF she would have said "yes" without having to call him "Massah," then it WAS NOT RAPE. It would have made her his "mistress" and that was perfectly acceptable to have back then.

This is not an argument I made, however. Still, I agree that rape was common, and indeed legal in the past, as it still is now in some countries. Race has little to do with it. If a 46 year old man in Pol Pots Cambodia had enslaved a child, had sex with her, and made the children slaves, I'd still call it rape.

Symmetry wrote:This is not an argument I made, however. Still, I agree that rape was common, and indeed legal in the past, as it still is now in some countries. Race has little to do with it. If a 46 year old man in Pol Pots Cambodia had enslaved a child, had sex with her, and made the children slaves, I'd still call it rape.

rape has never been legal.

greenoaks wrote:

Symmetry wrote:This is not an argument I made, however. Still, I agree that rape was common, and indeed legal in the past, as it still is now in some countries. Race has little to do with it. If a 46 year old man in Pol Pots Cambodia had enslaved a child, had sex with her, and made the children slaves, I'd still call it rape.

rape has never been legal.

Huh?

greenoaks wrote:

Symmetry wrote:This is not an argument I made, however. Still, I agree that rape was common, and indeed legal in the past, as it still is now in some countries. Race has little to do with it. If a 46 year old man in Pol Pots Cambodia had enslaved a child, had sex with her, and made the children slaves, I'd still call it rape.

rape has never been legal.

Not even before there were any rape laws?

greenoaks wrote:

Symmetry wrote:This is not an argument I made, however. Still, I agree that rape was common, and indeed legal in the past, as it still is now in some countries. Race has little to do with it. If a 46 year old man in Pol Pots Cambodia had enslaved a child, had sex with her, and made the children slaves, I'd still call it rape.

rape has never been legal.

there you go.

rape has never been legal. you seem to be attributing the term 'rape' to forms of sex you or your society do not currently agree with.

greenoaks wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

Symmetry wrote:This is not an argument I made, however. Still, I agree that rape was common, and indeed legal in the past, as it still is now in some countries. Race has little to do with it. If a 46 year old man in Pol Pots Cambodia had enslaved a child, had sex with her, and made the children slaves, I'd still call it rape.

rape has never been legal.

there you go.

rape has never been legal. you seem to be attributing the term 'rape' to forms of sex you or your society do not currently agree with.

I attribute it to non-consensual sex. Do you seriously think that rape ain't rape if you can't be prosecuted?

Sym, to be clear, do you agree that if someone is enslaved, then he/she cannot legitimately engage in any voluntary exchange (e.g. sex, trade of goods, etc.)?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Sym, to be clear, do you agree that if someone is enslaved, then he/she cannot legitimately engage in any voluntary exchange (e.g. sex, trade of goods, etc.)?

A person enslaved is considered as "goods" by the owner, no?

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Sym, to be clear, do you agree that if someone is enslaved, then he/she cannot legitimately engage in any voluntary exchange (e.g. sex, trade of goods, etc.)?

A person enslaved is considered as "goods" by the owner, no?

Well, a "good" in economics is "something (and by implication someone) that you want more of (e.g. dildos, or your loved one)."
A "bad" is "something/someone that you want less of (e.g. pollution)."

So, a person enslaved is considered as "goods" by the owner; however,
that good is still a conscious, decision-making entity, so
how does that change the circumstances for you?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Sym, to be clear, do you agree that if someone is enslaved, then he/she cannot legitimately engage in any voluntary exchange (e.g. sex, trade of goods, etc.)?

A person enslaved is considered as "goods" by the owner, no?

Well, a "good" in economics is "something (and by implication someone) that you want more of (e.g. dildos, or your loved one)."
A "bad" is "something/someone that you want less of (e.g. pollution)."

So, a person enslaved is considered as "goods" by the owner; however,
that good is still a conscious, decision-making entity, so
how does that change the circumstances for you?

He considered his own children as "goods".

I'm glad he wanted more of the good, children, but how about a clear and relevant answer?

So, a person enslaved is considered as "goods" by the owner; however,
that good is still a conscious, decision-making entity, so
how does that change the circumstances for you?

BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm glad he wanted more of the good, children, but how about a clear and relevant answer?

So, a person enslaved is considered as "goods" by the owner; however,
that good is still a conscious, decision-making entity, so
how does that change the circumstances for you?

You'll have to tell me what circumstances you mean.

While the age of consent is now set between 16 and 18 in all U.S. states, the age of consent has widely varied across the country in the past. In 1880, the age of consent was 10 in most states but ranged from 7 in Delaware to 12 across nine states and the District of Columbia.]

I'm guessing that anyone in Delaware, the Nine States, and the District of Columbia were all rapists to Symmetry, since by default, in any one of those places a 40 y.o. man very well COULD have had sex with girls as young as 7 to 12 (OMG, 2 years YOUNGER than Jefferson's black mistress.)

And the argument that he considered his children by his black mistress, "goods" does not hold water.
Just because "society" considered them "goods" does not mean HE considered them goods.
After all, he freed him as soon as it was viable to do so (when they had attained an age that it mattered.)
If he'd truly sired them because he wanted more "goods" then surely he'd have made sure to profit by them by selling them or keeping them for labor on his own estates, rather than free them like he did when they became of age.