we have sexual roles to fill here people, lets not fight over who has to be bottom…because both of sexes are on top at one point during the only act that really matters (evolutionarily speaking)

there, I hope somebody found that offensive.

love…I mean…desire for copulation

I don’t think i follow you. How can a crime be committed against someone who has already broken God’s commands? If someone rapes a child then that person loses all privileges/rights. The question is how does one deal with such a person? send them to crime education? It’s a difficult issue, because on the one hand we don’t want to be too harsh (because we fear we might become harsh) and on the other road we don’t want to be too lenient i.e., lock someone away for a short period of time knowing they might re-offend.

Gender equality? What does that entail and why is it universally desirable? As long as man needs woman and woman needs man, there will be inequality to some degree. Inequality in the workplace and such is an unneccessary inequality, one that serves no purpose and can be eradicated. Pay, employment oppertunities, etc should be based on ability not gender.

Floyds attitude towards women can be taken two ways: that he believes women to be emotionally inferior, or that he is being polite. I subscribe to the latter.

When it elicits emotionally reactionary responses involving corporal punishment and castration from people who claim to be engaging in rational philosophical discourse, it is apparently too limited a scope for the discussion. I explicitly said that the issue was serious. So what is the purpose of this rhetorical one-up-manship (or one-up-womanship)? It could be interpreted as quite an offensive implication (that I am so uncompassionate and cold as to feel that sex crimes are trivial). Instead, I will assume that it is either a desire to keep the discussion based on emotional rather than rational appeals, or a desire to obtain social prestige by one-upping someone.

” Has my definition been heard? It is the only one worthy of a philosopher. Love – in its means, war; at bottom, the deadly hatred of the sexes.”

“Emancipation of women” = that is the instinctive hatred of the abortive woman, who is incapable of giving birth, against the woman who is turned out well……….they want to lower the general rank of woman; and there is no surer means for that than higher education, slacks, and political voting-cattle rights. At bottom, the emancipated are anarchists in the world of the ‘eternally feminine,’ the underprivileged whose most fundamental instinct is revenge.”

It astonishes me that people don’t recognise a problem that can be clearly empirically demonstrated.