Twitter suspends David Bullard

[STS]

Why the obsessive misogynism, MDC and rwenzori? You two really seem to have some kind of a chip on your shoulders. You seem to be of the opinion that rape is something dreamt up by "feminazis"?
No decent women condones false rape allegations and anyone who makes a false claim should suffer the full consequences of the law.
However, this does not mean women are not raped every single day, "for real".

Bullard is a twit, don't get me wrong, but the issue is bigger than this.

Regardless of race, age and gender, people deserve equal and fair judgment, because you get evil little ****s of any race, age and gender too.

the issue is not that women do not get raped and that rape is not a scary reality, it is that society has given certain people privileges based on characteristics. if you are white and set off your brother's home alarm, you don't have security guards treating you like you a criminal, but be black and it's a different story. children are generally treated as liars, as not clever enough and making up stories no matter what an adult does wrong. in regards to gender, both sexes have certain cultural advantages.

women do not condone false rape allegations but women who HAVE been raped are quick to believe that another rape has taken place, and it becomes an emotional issue rather than a logical and fair one. imagine you part ways with a guy and never see him again, only for weeks later for him to be saying that you're nuts and threatened him, when you knew nothing about this and departed on friendly terms

 

[satanboy]

IMO Bullard was suspended mainly for his uncouth rape jokes.

I would be surprised if Twitter lets him back, partly based on their age policy of 13 years old. His posts are just not appropriate.
.

.

He behaves like a 12 year old, so they shouldn't allow him back.

 

[Space_Chief]

women do not condone false rape allegations but women who HAVE been raped are quick to believe that another rape has taken place, and it becomes an emotional issue rather than a logical and fair one. imagine you part ways with a guy and never see him again, only for weeks later for him to be saying that you're nuts and threatened him, when you knew nothing about this and departed on friendly terms

That's why traditionally sex was meant to occur after marriage. That way both parties knew where they stood in terms of commitment and expectations. Refusing sex was grounds for divorce or annulment, as was dereliction of duty. Now sex is only about consent but what is consent. Is it informed consent? What if one person lies to the other and they agree to sex under false pretenses? Well then some will claim it's rape. It's not violent rape, but sexual intercourse without permission occurred. It's the same with a Telkom guy coming to check your telephone line at home. You let him in because he wears a Telkom badge, but if the badge is fake, the guy is actually a trespasser.

In terms of previous rape, and subsequent rape claims, I don't see why that's an issue. If you claim rape the cops should investigate. Of course false accusations should carry charges too. Lying under oath should be an offense. Never mind that police resources are tied up. And someone's life is ruined. Civil and criminal charges may need to follow.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

That's why traditionally sex was meant to occur after marriage. That way both parties knew where they stood in terms of commitment and expectations. Refusing sex was grounds for divorce or annulment, as was dereliction of duty. Now sex is only about consent but what is consent. Is it informed consent? What if one person lies to the other and they agree to sex under false pretenses? Well then some will claim it's rape. It's not violent rape, but sexual intercourse without permission occurred. It's the same with a Telkom guy coming to check your telephone line at home. You let him in because he wears a Telkom badge, but if the badge is fake, the guy is actually a trespasser.

In terms of previous rape, and subsequent rape claims, I don't see why that's an issue. If you claim rape the cops should investigate. Of course false accusations should carry charges too. Lying under oath should be an offense. Never mind that police resources are tied up. And someone's life is ruined. Civil and criminal charges may need to follow.

You know rape within marriages is also a huge problem, right? And consent doesn't go away if two people get married.

 

[STS]

That's why traditionally sex was meant to occur after marriage. That way both parties knew where they stood in terms of commitment and expectations. Refusing sex was grounds for divorce or annulment, as was dereliction of duty. Now sex is only about consent but what is consent. Is it informed consent? What if one person lies to the other and they agree to sex under false pretenses? Well then some will claim it's rape. It's not violent rape, but sexual intercourse without permission occurred. It's the same with a Telkom guy coming to check your telephone line at home. You let him in because he wears a Telkom badge, but if the badge is fake, the guy is actually a trespasser.

In terms of previous rape, and subsequent rape claims, I don't see why that's an issue. If you claim rape the cops should investigate. Of course false accusations should carry charges too. Lying under oath should be an offense. Never mind that police resources are tied up. And someone's life is ruined. Civil and criminal charges may need to follow.

The issue is she didn't WANT the cops to investigate, she wanted to out her rapist on a public platform.

traditionally marriage is stupid

 

[Space_Chief]

You know rape within marriages is also a huge problem, right? And consent doesn't go away if two people get married.

Did you comprehend what was written, because that's why I brought up the issue of annulment and divorce. If one party refuses sex to the other for invalid reasons the recourse is not rape (i.e. sex without consent), but annulment or divorce.

And no-one said that issue of rape would go away but at least two parties know where they stand and are formally committed to each other. With free and easy sex, as you want it Mister Progressive, it can be one night stands over "I love you baby, just do it for me" and you have no way to tell if someone is really committed OR not and is merely trying to have sex under false pretenses.

One solution is to make sex despite the intimacy less intimate and less of a big deal. Make it like shaking hands or a kiss on the cheek. Although some would even call those examples, assault. And I doubt most women, who are usually the ones burdened with the consequences - not just pregnancy - but also STIs which are far more dangerous in women and impact them more than men, would probably not be too happy with that.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Did you comprehend what was written, because that's why I brought up the issue of annulment and divorce. If one party refuses sex to the other for invalid reasons the recourse is not rape (i.e. sex without consent), but annulment or divorce.

And no-one said that issue of rape would go away but at least two parties know where they stand and are formally committed to each other. With free and easy sex, as you want it Mister Progressive, it can be one night stands over "I love you baby, just do it for me" and you have no way to tell if someone is really committed OR not and is merely trying to have sex under false pretenses.

One solution is to make sex despite the intimacy less intimate and less of a big deal. Make it like shaking hands or a kiss on the cheek. Although some would even call those examples, assault. And I doubt most women, who are usually the ones burdened with the consequences - not just pregnancy - but also STIs which are far more dangerous in women and impact them more than men, would probably not be too happy with that.

Funny that you didn't consider mentioning consent in the context of "traditional" marriage, but only when discussing what you think marriage has now become. "Now it's all about consent..."

And what an absolutely preposterous idea that if one partner "refuses" sex the recourse is annulment or divorce. Marriage does not entitle anyone to sex on demand.

This is the kind of thinking behind spousal rape. "I'm married to her so she has to have sex with me when I want it."

 

[Space_Chief]

Funny that you didn't consider mentioning consent in the context of "traditional" marriage, but only when discussing what you think marriage has now become. "Now it's all about consent..."

I said traditionally. But I can't recall any marriages I've known where sex occurred without some form of consent. I look at Catholic marriages here from the 1920s of people I've known who were very frank. My understanding and experience of marriage differs from your caricatured and hostile view.

And what an absolutely preposterous idea that if one partner "refuses" sex the recourse is annulment or divorce. Marriage does not entitle anyone to sex on demand.

Refuses sex for invalid reasons. But that can be worked out. A partnership of two people can certainly set the terms. And if no sex occurs from one party there is reason to think the marriage does not work or is invalid and could be considered for annulment. Divorce for the protestants. Maybe it's preposterous for you, but you're not exactly a valid judge of anything, are you.

And it need not be sex on demand as you like to strawman the position. You're not very charitable.

This is the kind of thinking behind spousal rape. "I'm married to her so she has to have sex with me when I want it."

No. That's you just being uncharitable and strawmanning the position. Instead we have easy sex under false pretenses as one reason some feminists are up at arms. Informed consent? Whatever for. No reason to even show it. Yes, I love you baby, you're the best.

And annulment or divorce again, because you missed it repeatedly, does not imply rape or sex without consent. If the marriage is called off because one party is no longer willing to live up to its terms and obligations, that's perfectly acceptable given the starting terms which have been entered into as a form of contract by two equal adults. After all marriage has freaking to do with sex.

 

[Nick333]

Funny that you didn't consider mentioning consent in the context of "traditional" marriage, but only when discussing what you think marriage has now become. "Now it's all about consent..."

And what an absolutely preposterous idea that if one partner "refuses" sex the recourse is annulment or divorce. Marriage does not entitle anyone to sex on demand.

This is the kind of thinking behind spousal rape. "I'm married to her so she has to have sex with me when I want it."

I'm not trying to argue SC's point but lack of sexual intimacy is as valid a reason for divorce as any other and doesn't equate to "sex on demand".

You're falling into the modern feminist trap of looking for and assuming victimisation where there is none.

As an aside I was reading a piece on cracked.com about how Puritan women could and did get divorced if their husbands refused them sex. The tone of the article was "how cool is that?". This coming from a site that more or less embraced the feminazi bandwagon like a downs syndrome kid with a giant Teddy bear.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I said traditionally. But I can't recall any marriages I've known where sex occurred without some form of consent. I look at Catholic marriages here from the 1920s of people I've known who were very frank. My understanding and experience of marriage differs from your caricatured and hostile view.

Doesn't matter if you've never known a marriage where sex occurred without some form of consent. It's real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape

Refuses sex for invalid reasons. But that can be worked out. A partnership of two people can certainly set the terms. And if no sex occurs from one party there is reason to think the marriage does not work or is invalid and could be considered for annulment. Divorce for the protestants. Maybe it's preposterous for you, but you're not exactly a valid judge of anything, are you.

And it need not be sex on demand as you like to strawman the position. You're not very charitable.

What reasons would be valid in your view?

No. That's you just being uncharitable and strawmanning the position. Instead we have easy sex under false pretenses as one reason some feminists are up at arms. Informed consent? Whatever for. No reason to even show it. Yes, I love you baby, you're the best.

And annulment or divorce again, because you missed it repeatedly, does not imply rape or sex without consent. If the marriage is called off because one party is no longer willing to live up to its terms and obligations, that's perfectly acceptable given the starting terms which have been entered into as a form of contract by two equal adults. After all marriage has freaking to do with sex.

Since you brought up Catholic marriages. What grounds is there in Catholicism for dissolving a marriage where one (or both) partners ceased engaging in sex?

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I'm not trying to argue SC's point but lack of sexual intimacy is as valid a reason for divorce as any other and doesn't equate to "sex on demand".

You're falling into the modern feminist trap of looking for and assuming victimisation where there is none.

As an aside I was reading a piece on cracked.com about how Puritan women could and did get divorced if their husbands refused them sex. The tone of the article was "how cool is that?". This coming from a site that more or less embraced the feminazi bandwagon like a downs syndrome kid with a giant Teddy bear.

It could be, yes. But he didn't say it's a lack of sexual intimacy in general, he just said "refusing sex is dereliction of duty". Refusing when and why? No nuance, no time frame, no context.

 

[Nick333]

It could be, yes. But he didn't say it's a lack of sexual intimacy in general, he just said "refusing sex is dereliction of duty". Refusing when and why? No nuance, no time frame, no context.

I see no reason to assume the worst possible interpretation.

 

[Ninja'd]

...
View attachment 168027

What? I've seen a couple of pornstar's twitter and they let it all hang out and they're still going.

 

[Dubes]

What? I've seen a couple of pornstar's twitter and they let it all hang out and they're still going.

I've heard from a friend of a friend who knows someone that they often get suspensions too.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I see no reason to assume the worst possible interpretation.

Why do you think he specifically spoke about "traditional" marriage on the one hand and how marriage is now all about consent and the intricacies about what constitutes consent on the other?

 

[Space_Chief]

Doesn't matter if you've never known a marriage where sex occurred without some form of consent. It's real.

Oh My Gosh. Because where did I say it NEVER occurred? Again shows how uncharitable you are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape

What reasons would be valid in your view?

Where one party is sick for example. Or where such would be immoral. Such as when one party is sick, physically or mentally or not able to engage sexually. There can be other reasons. But a flat out refusal to have sex when the other party is capable of it and would be willing otherwise is ground to get annulment or divorce. There is of course no right to force one party to have sex, such as what occurs in rape, whether they're married or not.

Since you brought up Catholic marriages. What grounds is there in Catholicism for dissolving a marriage where one (or both) partners ceased engaging in sex?

It becomes an issue of invalid consent given. That's why marriage is also not something rushed into but carefully considered, including the duties and obligations.

In order to obtain a declaration of nullity, the parties must approach a Catholic diocesan tribunal. Most applications for nullity that are heard by the tribunal are granted because one or both of the parties are judged to have given invalid consent. In order to give valid consent, the parties must give it freely. They must have a basic understanding of what they are doing and have given some thought and evaluation to their decision to enter marriage (1983 CIC, canon 1095). They must be capable of fulfilling the promises they make on the wedding day; that is, not suffer from any psychological infirmity (canon 1095) that will prevent them from giving themselves in a partnership of the whole of life that has as its ends the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of children (canon 1055). They must intend the words that they speak on the wedding day; that is, intend to form a permanent and faithful partnership, open to sexual acts that are procreative (canon 1101). Serious failures in these areas can allow a possible successful application for marriage nullity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment_(Catholic_Church)

Since you said refusing sex and maintaining validity of marriage is preposterous, would you say that infidelity is valid ground for refusing validity of marriage? Or is that also preposterous because it's not right that a married person can't get p*ssy somewhere else?

And if the right to have sex is a basic human right, do you think that if one party in a marriage refuses to always sleep with the other party, do you then think that's right? And are not one party's human rights breached?

Your lack of charity when discussing issues, strawmanning and caricatures are duly noted.

A person is uncharitable when they assume someone will post all details in a freaking combox discussion too. You provide lame excuses, Orbital. Arguing with you is fruitless because I don't think you want to engage in a proper debate.

 

[Space_Chief]

Why do you think he specifically spoke about "traditional" marriage on the one hand and how marriage is now all about consent and the intricacies about what constitutes consent on the other?

I actually spoke NOT of traditional marriage but traditionally. There is a difference. I was speaking of what was considered marriage by mainstream West before. Not just the Catholic Church marriage. Protestants also consider withholding of sex as a valid reason for divorce.

And of course withholding of sex is not just one instance but a pervasive, long term conduct. Of course if both parties don't mind, the marriage can be sexless duh!

It at least ties people together and spells out commitment and responsibility. It becomes more difficult to later say "I married you and gave my live to you but did not love you, I just did it to sleep with you." If someone is willing to forsake others, devote their life to their spouse and work with them, that translates as pretty much an expression of love, far ahead of a movie, dinner and sex on the third or fourth date.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Oh My Gosh. Because where did I say it NEVER occurred? Again shows how uncharitable you are.

Right. So when I bring up the topic of marital rape what is the relevance of saying "But I can't recall any marriages I've known where sex occurred without some form of consent."?

Where one party is sick for example. Or where such would be immoral. Such as when one party is sick, physically or mentally or not able to engage sexually. There can be other reasons. But a flat out refusal to have sex when the other party is capable of it and would be willing otherwise is ground to get annulment or divorce. There is of course no right to force one party to have sex, such as what occurs in rape, whether they're married or not.

So if one partner says they don't feel like it? Grounds for annulment or divorce? How many times would this have to happen?

It becomes an issue of invalid consent given. That's why marriage is also not something rushed into but carefully considered, including the duties and obligations.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment_(Catholic_Church)

Hmm. I don't see how a couple losing sexual intimacy is grounds for saying they have given invalid consent.

Seems convenient, though. People could really mean it on their wedding day, but lose the intimacy along the way. It happens. This basically allows them to hit control+z in the eyes of the Church and still save face, who will get to say, retrospectively: "Oh they didn't really mean it so it wasn't valid in the first place."

Since you said refusing sex and maintaining validity of marriage is preposterous, would you say that infidelity is valid ground for refusing validity of marriage? Or is that also preposterous because it's not right that a married person can't get p*ssy somewhere else?

What is, and is not, grounds for the validity of a marriage is up to the individuals involved in the marriage.

And if the right to have sex is a basic human right, do you think that if one party in a marriage refuses to always sleep with the other party, do you then think that's right? And are not one party's human rights breached?

Hmm, no. Don't think I can agree with that. Person A's wanting to have sex doesn't confer an obligation onto person B to have sex with that person A.

Naturally expectations and relationship dynamics will determine how the couple approaches the issue, but I can't agree that there's ever an automatic obligation on anyone to have sex. If person B always refuses then something's obviously not working (barring medical/psychological reasons) in the relationship, meaning person A has grounds to seek a divorce if he/she wants.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I actually spoke NOT of traditional marriage but traditionally. There is a difference. I was speaking of what was considered marriage by mainstream West before. Not just the Catholic Church marriage. Protestants also consider withholding of sex as a valid reason for divorce.

And of course withholding of sex is not just one instance but a pervasive, long term conduct. Of course if both parties don't mind, the marriage can be sexless duh!

It at least ties people together and spells out commitment and responsibility. It becomes more difficult to later say "I married you and gave my live to you but did not love you, I just did it to sleep with you." If someone is willing to forsake others, devote their life to their spouse and work with them, that translates as pretty much an expression of love, far ahead of a movie, dinner and sex on the third or fourth date.

Okay, let me see if I understand your position. You're advocating for sex after marriage because the likelihood of someone 'faking it' is lower if the barrier they have to cross is marriage and all it entails, as opposed to someone lying to someone just to be able to sleep with them?

What about a situation where both people (or more) don't lie to each other about the nature of their dalliance?

 

[Space_Chief]

Right. So when I bring up the topic of marital rape what is the relevance of saying "But I can't recall any marriages I've known where sex occurred without some form of consent."?

For the freaking reason that not every marriage is like that. If you bring up the issue of premarital sex maybe also bring up the issue of premarital rape and women who were deceived into having sex.

Because YES if a guy pays for dinner and sleeps with a woman by telling her that she's beautiful and he loves her, when he does not really mean it, he is raping her in effect. It's not a violent rape but sex without freaking consent has occurred, because the consent is invalid. I agree with feminists here. If you ply her with booze on top of it so she's stoned, of course it's also rape. To add, the woman has some responsibility if she's a mature adult to recognise that guys who ply them with booze may not be thinking of their interests - if she recognised it and went ahead with the frat boy anyway - she is not guilty of his actions but she definitely made serious and stupid mistakes. Hang out with stupid people and you may end up in trouble.

So if one partner says they don't feel like it? Grounds for annulment or divorce? How many times would this have to happen?

You want to discuss the details of that. Go read up on it. But I would think when it becomes significant. The way your doctor may tell you to come back if your headache gets too bad or if your chest becomes too tight. When this is a significant problem for their marriage and life.

Hmm. I don't see how a couple losing sexual intimacy is grounds for saying they have given invalid consent.

Not automatically. If sexual intimacy is lost it may be worked on. If one party is unwilling to work on it, I would definitely say they are not taking their marriage contract seriously. Often there are reasons why intimacy is lost. Such as mental and physical conditions.

Seems convenient, though. People could really mean it on their wedding day, but lose the intimacy along the way. It happens. This basically allows them to hit control+z in the eyes of the Church and still save face, who will get to say, retrospectively: "Oh they didn't really mean it so it wasn't valid in the first place."

No because it's more than meaning it's a long term commitment. When you sign contract you can't just change your mind after a few weeks. The contract will be terminated and you may pay penalties. That's how this works. In addition the couples get education in this.

What is, and is not, grounds for the validity of a marriage is up to the individuals involved in the marriage.

Per your definition of marriage. Do you think it's valid then that an agreed upon arrangement ahead of time, such as "we'll stay faithful" when breached later by one party is a valid reason for divorce? Or do you think a marriage should still continue even if one party's terms were broken then?

Hmm, no. Don't think I can agree with that. Person A's wanting to have sex doesn't confer an obligation onto person B to have sex with that person A.

Person A and B are married and they have sworn to remain faithful. Person A (always) refuses sex. Person B suffers for lack of sex. Do you think it's fair to ask for divorce in this case, or should person B just cheat on person A, even though they themeselves think this is immoral? Of course a divorce or annulment follows.

Naturally expectations and relationship dynamics will determine how the couple approaches the issue, but I can't agree that there's ever an automatic obligation on anyone to have sex. If person B always refuses then something's obviously not working (barring medical/psychological reasons) in the relationship, meaning person A has grounds to seek a divorce if he/she wants.

There is an obligation in terms of marriage. It need not be on demand. And if the person refuses continuously to reciprocate on their obligations i.e. expression of love, then there is no reason for the marriage to continue. Of course not everyone has the same requirements and people may forego the sex. They may let the other party get away with it. They may wish to keep the marriage for the sake of the children or because they still find fulfillment with the other party.