Is this what sexual repression creates?

[BerberElla]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6106500.stm


Egyptians are horrified by the news that women have been assaulted by hordes of young men in the centre of the capital, Cairo.


It all happened over the Eid al-Fitr period starting on 23 October, as thousands of young men thronged the streets of central Cairo to celebrate the end of the fasting month of Ramadan.


"We saw one girl being chased by a man, her blouse torn off, she ran inside a restaurant," one eyewitness reported.

"Seconds later young boys were shouting that there was another one by the Miami cinema. We went there and saw another girl surrounded by a crowd trying to assault her. She managed to run inside a nearby building.

"A third girl jumped into a cab as she was being chased. But the taxi couldn't move because of the crowd. Then they tried to pull the driver out of the car then the girl herself," the witness told Dream TV.

One eyewitness was too embarrassed to recount what he saw: "There were youths harassing the young women. What a shame! I really can not say any more about it."


We took the girl inside and locked the door. There were four or five of us. But there were hundreds of young men outside trying to break down the door
Cairo shop owner

Hoardes of boys and men, molesting and attempting to rape girls freely on the streets?

Having read the blogs they even ripped the veils off some girls in their desperation.:mad:

So sexual repression or something else, any thoughts?:mad:

For anyone who can understand Arabic, here is the mainstream news report on it:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAFtE9ozk_0

[Stoned_Rider]

Coincidence? (http://www.google.com/trends?q=sex) :rofl:

[BerberElla]

This is really disgusting, usually the girl is blamed, but in this they even grabbed 2 girls in abbayas, I have seen some of the pictures that witnesses took. It really was like a mad sexual frenzy.:mellow:

[Geoff]

Sounds more like problems inherent in the culture/society - lack of control over the youth, respect for public order than anything particularly driven by sexual repression.

Rather depressingly, most cultures probably deteriorate like that relatively easily. Witness the goings on in the New Orleans Dome (whatever it is called!) after the Hurricane...

[charred_heart]

Sounds more like problems inherent in the culture/society - lack of control over the youth, respect for public order than anything particularly driven by sexual repression.

Rather depressingly, most cultures probably deteriorate like that relatively easily. Witness the goings on in the New Orleans Dome (whatever it is called!) after the Hurricane...if anything Egypt has too much control over their population. Sexual repression mixed with the herd mentality, a dangerous mix.

[Lee]

50s America was pretty sexually repressed, or so we are reminded by the media on a regular basis. Note the distinct lack of desperate packs of males hunting down females.

[Geoff]

Apart from in that dome, after the hurricane, when public order broke down...

[Lee]

Apart from in that dome, after the hurricane, when public order broke down...That was in the sexually repressed 50s?

[Geoff]

In a deeply southern state, so yes?

[charred_heart]

50s America was pretty sexually repressed, or so we are reminded by the media on a regular basis. Note the distinct lack of desperate packs of males hunting down females.50s? They rebeled, and the sixties were born. Hence the lack of desperate males.

[Stoned_Rider]

50s? They rebeled, and the sixties were born. Hence the lack of desperate males.
The 60's ain't no 50's. And there were no desperate packs of males hunting down females in the 50's. That's the point. Surely the Egyptians can find better ways to rebel than hunting down females and harassing them in the streets?

[charred_heart]

The 60's ain't no 50's. And there were no desperate packs of males hunting down females in the 50's. That's the point. Surely the Egyptians can find better ways to rebel than hunting down females and harassing them in the streets?when you don't rebel, you're just a shell... :joft:

ok, they don't like the repression but they don't do anything about it. Pent up desires explode in a random situation and grows, like an avalanche. These youth are likely to start protests or riot if the right trigger occurs. They are poor, have to compromise and concede a lot to society, don't have the chance to build a future for themeselves. On top of it all, there's no hope for change.

[Stoned_Rider]

On top of it all, there's no hope for change.
There's always hope for change (and I mean that in a T, not F way, dammit!).
Anyway, quit using the joft smiley so much already! What does it even mean? :confused:

[charred_heart]

There's always hope for change (and I mean that in a T, not F way, dammit!).
Anyway, quit using the joft smiley so much already! What does it even mean? :confused:you can never understand :joft:

hope for change eh? Husni Mubarak is still sitting in power, and he's setting his son up to be "democratically elected" in case he croaks. That's considering it's better than having real elections where the Muslim Brotherhood come to power, embezzel the country and impose sharia law. Either way, it's a lose lose situation for the Egyptians.

[Stoned_Rider]

you can never understand :joft:

hope for change eh? Husni Mubarak is still sitting in power, and he's setting his son up to be "democratically elected" in case he croaks. That's considering it's better than having real elections where the Muslim Brotherhood come to power, embezzel the country and impose sharia law. Either way, it's a lose lose situation for the Egyptians.

Eh? In real elections, it's the Egyptians who will be voting, no? If they choose to dig their own hole, they will have nothing but themselves to blame.

[charred_heart]

Eh? In real elections, it's the Egyptians who will be voting, no? If they choose to dig their own hole, they will have nothing but themselves to blame. the majority think that the brotherhood will deliver on whatever dreams they are selling them now. Considering what happened to Sudan from the Muslim Brotherhood there, that is unlikely. So they will have their hopes up for a year or two, then they will return to their regular programming.

[Stoned_Rider]

the majority think that the brotherhood will deliver on whatever dreams they are selling them now. Considering what happened to Sudan from the Muslim Brotherhood there, that is unlikely. So they will have their hopes up for a year or two, then they will return to their regular programming.
Again, it's still strictly their choice. I have no doubt that the majority of Egyptians know exactly what to expect from the Brotherhood - freedom from sexual repression definitely ain't one of the dreams it is selling! But voting for the Brotherhood AND attempting to institute one hell of a mega-orgy in Cairo's streets in order to "rebel" against sexual oppression surely is hypocritical.

[charred_heart]

Again, it's still strictly their choice. I have no doubt that the majority of Egyptians know exactly what to expect from the Brotherhood - freedom from sexual repression definitely ain't one of the dreams it is selling! But voting for the Brotherhood AND attempting to institute one hell of a mega-orgy in Cairo's streets in order to "rebel" against sexual oppression surely is hypocritical.you don't rebel against sexual repression by mass raping. Doesn't sound like activism to me.

[Stoned_Rider]

you don't rebel against sexual repression by mass raping. Doesn't sound like activism to me.
Exactly Lee's point, which you were disputing in the first place :confused:

[intpgolfer]

Nature or Nurture - Again?

1. IS IT NATURE?: Mother nature wants us to make love anytime, anywhere, and as often as possible. Aids, STDs, famine, infant mortality are OK - because Mother Nature will replace any losses with 5 minutes of pleasure - the strong will survive - and diseases will be overwhelmed.

2. IS IT NURTURE?: Freud argued that civilization is founded on the repression of instincts. "A strong case can even be made that we are never so human as when we behave contrary to our natural inclinations."

So does sexual repression create society?

Deflating the myth of monogomy (http://www.trinity.edu/rnadeau/FYS/Barash%20on%20monogamy.htm)

[BerberElla]

Deflating the myth of monogomy (http://www.trinity.edu/rnadeau/FYS/Barash%20on%20monogamy.htm)

No, ploygamy (which is the alternative) doesn't fit well with the female psyche. Jealousy runs rampant, and always has done way before monogomous societies developed.

We are not animals.

[cafe]

Sounds more complex than sexual repression alone. Men usually only act like that in war or similar times of very high stress.

[sbw]

usually, yea. but once the war ends...rape and domestic violence go up on the home front.*

Scott

* citations: The Sorrows of Empire, chalmers johnson...also nighthawk, too, I think, talked about this at some point.

[sbw]

We are not animals.

do you mean 'we women' or 'we humans'?

Scott

[BerberElla]

usually, yea. but once the war ends...rape and domestic violence go up on the home front.*

Scott

* citations: The Sorrows of Empire, chalmers johnson...also nighthawk, too, I think, talked about this at some point.

Good point.

[BerberElla]

do you mean 'we women' or 'we humans'?

Scott

I meant we humans, I know we are animals to some extent, I just mean that just because animals do something doesn't mean those standards apply to us too.

[cafe]

usually, yea. but once the war ends...rape and domestic violence go up on the home front.*

Scott

* citations: The Sorrows of Empire, chalmers johnson...also nighthawk, too, I think, talked about this at some point.

That's not surprising. I wonder what would precipitate similar behavior in a peace-time setting?

[PonderBee]

Most likely a rebellion by a poor struggling class against the privileged minority. You reap what you sow. Disgusting that the media would buy into the sex maniac theory.

[sbw]

That's not surprising. I wonder what would precipitate similar behavior in a peace-time setting?


Most likely a rebellion by a poor struggling class against the privileged minority. You reap what you sow. Disgusting that the media would buy into the sex maniac theory.

I'm not familiar with the existing culture there--does this shit happen at the end of ramadan EVERY year? if not...the something else is rotten in denmark.

Scott

[BerberElla]

Most likely a rebellion by a poor struggling class against the privileged minority. You reap what you sow. Disgusting that the media would buy into the sex maniac theory.

So are the females who got molested the "privileged minority"?:mellow:

[Lee]

No, ploygamy (which is the alternative) doesn't fit well with the female psyche. Jealousy runs rampant, and always has done way before monogomous societies developed.

We are not animals.Well, we are actually.

That isn't really important though. Ignore intpgolfer's little nature-nurture comments, because they implicitly subscribe to a misunderstanding of how genes work. People implicitly approach the problem like this:

If monogamy is natural then polygamy is unnatural or If polygamy is natural then monogamy is unnatural.

This is a false dilemma, since both are untrue. that is:

Mongamy and polygamy are natural and neither monogamy or polygamy are unnatural.

As long as we are appraoching this problem with a naturalistic metaphysic, then unnatural occurences are impossible. I myself don't believe in such an naturalistic mataphysic to be true, but nonetheless believe sexual behaviour in homo sapiens to be explainable purely on naturalistic terms.

After people pose this false dilemma, they go on to imply that if polygamy or monogamy are unnatural, then it must be unethical of us to punish polygamists or encourage monogamy or vice versa (this is while providing only naturalistic explanations!).

Unfortunately, this entire line of faulty reasoning leads people toward a moral nihlism, where all natural occurences (which is all occurences, at least in regard to human sexuality) are morally right. By implicitly discarding the distinction between right and wrong they are adopting moral nihilism i.e. rejecting morality in the process of making a moral argument. You may as well say, 'It is morally true that there are no moral truths.'

[omnirook]

50s America was pretty sexually repressed, or so we are reminded by the media on a regular basis. Note the distinct lack of desperate packs of males hunting down females.

No, they were too busy hunting down and lynching blacks.

50's America is not an example of anything good, Lee. 50's America was a puss-filled boil that errupted into 60's America. If America in the 50's was good for anybody, it was good for lily-white, staunchly Protestant men who believed that a perfect world meant a world where everyone else was down and out w/no hope of getting up. It was not "Happy Days" - it was Hell on Earth.

[Capitu]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6106500.stm

Hoardes of boys and men, molesting and attempting to rape girls freely on the streets?

Having read the blogs they even ripped the veils off some girls in their desperation.:mad:

So sexual repression or something else, any thoughts?:mad:

For anyone who can understand Arabic, here is the mainstream news report on it:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAFtE9ozk_0

How do they treat women normally? In my country, due to the macho mentality that still exist over there (although things are changing), some men feel free to harass women on public transportation. The woman is torn between making a scene (not good for her) or enduring the assault (also not good for her). For example, I would never go inside a bus where there were a lot o men together, like going to a soccer game for example.

In my opinion, when things like that happen is a mix of culture, ignorance and absence of consequences. Are they looking for the young gentlemen that assaulted the girls?

[BerberElla]

How do they treat women normally? In my country, due to the macho mentality that still exist over there (although things are changing), some men feel free to harass women on public transportation. The woman is torn between making a scene (not good for her) or enduring the assault (also not good for her). For example, I would never go inside a bus where there were a lot o men together, like going to a soccer game for example.

In my opinion, when things like that happen is a mix of culture, ignorance and absence of consequences. Are they looking for the young gentlemen that assaulted the girls?

That used to happen to me in Morocco as a young girl. Getting on the bus was horrible, being groped was horrible.:mellow:

My aunt left the bus once with sperm on her jilab, thanks to some sick man.

It is quite a macho society in the Middle East anyway, yet I thought that at least the abbaya (full veil) would be protection since that is what it is sold to the rest of the world as.

Take the australian cleric last week who said that women who didn't wear hijab were to blame if they were raped, doesn't this scenario put paid to that theory?

[Lee]

No, they were too busy hunting down and lynching blacks.

50's America is not an example of anything good, Lee. 50's America was a puss-filled boil that errupted into 60's America. If America in the 50's was good for anybody, it was good for lily-white, staunchly Protestant men who believed that a perfect world meant a world where everyone else was down and out w/no hope of getting up. It was not "Happy Days" - it was Hell on Earth.omnirook, you're an ignorant fool.

Where did I say that the 50s were all wonderful? Where did I endorse sexual repession? How are the 60s comparable to a pack of sexually starved young men raping and molesting young girls? Were the sexually repressed racially liberal northen states also hunting down and lynching blacks? Have you ever actually bothered to check the homelessness, crime and unemployment rates of the 50s? Are you really as stupid as you seem?

My comment was simply to point out that such predatory sexuality and lawlessness are not an inevitable consequence sexual repression. I have no doubt that sexual repression may have been a causal factor, but is not enough in itself to be an explanation. Even moreso because similar behaviour has on occasion occured in sexually liberated societies, as Geoff pointed out.

[Capitu]

That used to happen to me in Morocco as a young girl. Getting on the bus was horrible, being groped was horrible.:mellow:

Yep, it happened to me too. No wonder I turned into a feminist (to my dad's horror) when I was 15.


My aunt left the bus once with sperm on her jilab, thanks to some sick man.

It still happens over there. I'm starting to get angry again.


It is quite a macho society in the Middle East anyway, yet I thought that at least the abbaya (full veil) would be protection since that is what it is sold to the rest of the world as.

Take the australian cleric last week who said that women who didn't wear hijab were to blame if they were raped, doesn't this scenario put paid to that theory?

That is what some of them still say isn't it? The woman was not dressed decently or something... well, this article just proved how wrong they are.

[Stoned_Rider]

Where you from, Capitu?

Sahara, that's.. absolutely disgusting :shock: I'd like to think that things are relatively better in Morocco now than when you were last here. There are many more women in the streets and on the buses anyway, so you're less likely to be singled out.

[BerberElla]

Where you from, Capitu?

Sahara, that's.. absolutely disgusting :shock: I'd like to think that things are relatively better in Morocco now than when you were last here. There are many more women in the streets and on the buses anyway, so you're less likely to be singled out.


I hope so, because I got tired of being groped in the sea by boys swimming underwater, or having my costume messed with.:rant:

When I was 11 a man just grabbed my private part in the market, on purpose.

I only ever went out with a chaperone in the end, and even that didn't protect me in the end, when someone succeeded in cornering and raping me.

I hope Morocco has improved alot.

[omnirook]

omnirook, you're an ignorant fool.

Where did I say that the 50s were all wonderful? Where did I endorse sexual repession? How are the 60s comparable to a pack of sexually starved young men raping and molesting young girls? Were the sexually repressed racially liberal northen states also hunting down and lynching blacks? Have you ever actually bothered to check the homelessness, crime and unemployment rates of the 50s? Are you really as stupid as you seem?

My comment was simply to point out that such predatory sexuality and lawlessness are not an inevitable consequence sexual repression. I have no doubt that sexual repression may have been a causal factor, but is not enough in itself to be an explanation. Even moreso because similar behaviour has on occasion occured in sexually liberated societies, as Geoff pointed out.

I understood your comment.

You did not understand mine.

If you had understood my comment, you would not have had such a reaction.

I'll try to explain.

Please be patient.

OK. Repression in one direction always leads to an outbreak in another direction. That theory is fundamental to most schools of thought in psychology. Repression in Egypt led to the behavior that got this thread started. Repression in America led to the behavior that took place in the United States in the 1950's. Both behaviors were reprehensible; neither behavior can be said to be better than the other. You implied that the apparently non-sexual behavior of 1950's America was somehow better - or at least that it represented some sort of cultural superiority that prohibited Americans from doing anything as nasty as the Egyptians did recently - like it or not, the way that you structured your paragraph does give that impression. It may not have been what you meant. But, then, when communicating, the best that anyone can hope for is - translation. Which is always inaccurate. If I got you wrong, I got you wrong. Why not correct me - politely? I didn't call you names, did I?

[Lee]

I understood your comment.

You did not understand mine.

If you had understood my comment, you would not have had such a reaction.

I'll try to explain.

Please be patient.

OK. Repression in one direction always leads to an outbreak in another direction. That theory is fundamental to most schools of thought in psychology. Repression in Egypt led to the behavior that got this thread started. Repression in America led to the behavior that took place in the United States in the 1950's. Both behaviors were reprehensible; neither behavior can be said to be better than the other. You implied that the apparently non-sexual behavior of 1950's America was somehow better - or at least that it represented some sort of cultural superiority that prohibited Americans from doing anything as nasty as the Egyptians did recently - like it or not, the way that you structured your paragraph does give that impression. It may not have been what you meant. But, then, when communicating, the best that anyone can hope for is - translation. Which is always inaccurate. If I got you wrong, I got you wrong. Why not correct me - politely? I didn't call you names, did I?Because you're an idiot. I call a spade a spade.

What is more, you aren't giving me much of a reason to change my mind. As it happens, I do think 1950s America was superior to modern day Egypt. I am not sure how you can seriously equate the sexual liberation of the 60s with gangs of men chasing down, molesting and raping young girls. Of course I can say that one it better than the other you ignoramous.

For all the real problems with 1950s America, it represented a period in the history of America when crime, unemployment, unwanted pregnancies and poverty were very low. America in the 1950s also represented a time of almost unmatched economic growth and technological improvement. Furthermore, even the racial inequality was declining rapidly during that period, with black men earning more each year, in some cases earning more on average than after the liberation of the 60s! In fact, I 'd suggest that the liberation of the 60s would have been impossible if it were not for the progress made during the 50s.

None of this detracts from the problems that existed and persisted during the decade, but your moral equivocation is just patently bullshit. Like everything else you post.

[Stoned_Rider]

I hope so, because I got tired of being groped in the sea by boys swimming underwater, or having my costume messed with.:rant:

When I was 11 a man just grabbed my private part in the market, on purpose.

I only ever went out with a chaperone in the end, and even that didn't protect me in the end, when someone succeeded in cornering and raping me.

I hope Morocco has improved alot.

:huh: ... fuck.. sorry to hear about that.. If I were you I'd never want to set foot in Morocco ever again, that's understandable. Unfortunately we hear these sort of stories all the time over here.. but it makes a world of a difference which areas you go to and when. If you're with someone who knows what they're doing then you're pretty much safe.

What's even more annoying is that most of the time the police know who the perpetrators are, they know where they live, they just don't give a fuck. Unless the victim is a western tourist, in which case they hunt the fuckers down and arrest them in a matter of seconds!

[Rhu]

Since no one seems to have made the smartassed comment:

This (http://forums.intpcentral.com) is what sexual repression creates.

[BerberElla]

What's even more annoying is that most of the time the police know who the perpetrators are, they know where they live, they just don't give a fuck. Unless the victim is a western tourist, in which case they hunt the fuckers down and arrest them in a matter of seconds!


I was too scared to tell the police or anyone, i was warned often by my female family members that the police routinely raped any women who reported rape, simply because she was sullied already.

Anyway i never told anyone, not until I was alot older and they reacted like I thought they would, and place the blame solely on me.:mad:

[BerberElla]

Since no one seems to have made the smartassed comment:

This (http://forums.intpcentral.com) is what sexual repression creates.

:rofl:

[omnirook]

Because you're an idiot. I call a spade a spade.

What is more, you aren't giving me much of a reason to change my mind. As it happens, I do think 1950s America was superior to modern day Egypt. I am not sure how you can seriously equate the sexual liberation of the 60s with gangs of men chasing down, molesting and raping young girls. Of course I can say that one it better than the other you ignoramous.

For all the real problems with 1950s America, it represented a period in the history of America when crime, unemployment, unwanted pregnancies and poverty were very low. America in the 1950s also represented a time of almost unmatched economic growth and technological improvement. Furthermore, even the racial inequality was declining rapidly during that period, with black men earning more each year, in some cases earning more on average than after the liberation of the 60s! In fact, I 'd suggest that the liberation of the 60s would have been impossible if it were not for the progress made during the 50s.

None of this detracts from the problems that existed and persisted during the decade, but your moral equivocation is just patently bullshit. Like everything else you post.

You're a nasty little bastard, aren't you?

Ah, yes, now I remember ... I got a PM that mentioned you some months back. Yes - now what did it say? I could be wrong, but I think it said that you lean right - is that right? That would account for equating technology w/progress and money w/love and happiness. Ah, well ...

Fine. That's your position. We can leave it at that - or you can get "nasty" w/me again, so that I will then have no choice but to show you what nasty really is ... There's quite a bit of posted stuff about your own fucked up sexuality to work with. Still a virgin? Still pretending that you do not masturbate? Still denying that you are not sexually confused as to whether you are gay, straight or bisexual? I can have lots of fun w/the right wing and fucked up sexuality. Lots. Should I arm myself? - Or would you prefer to debate this issue in a way that allows grown ups who differ in politics to speak w/o being insulted? It's up to you.

[Lee]

You're a nasty little bastard, aren't you?No, you're just a spade. We've been through this. Pay attention in future.


Ah, yes, now I remember ... I got a PM that mentioned you some months back. Yes - now what did it say? I could be wrong, but I think it said that you lean right - is that right? That would account for equating technology w/progress and money w/love and happiness. Ah, well ...Statements like this support my previous accusations of your idiocy. I don't 'lean right,' I am not a conservative. That isn't important anyway, because even if I did 'lean right,' it wouldn't make any of my claims false you moron.


Fine. That's your position. We can leave it at that - or you can get "nasty" w/me again, so that I will then have no choice but to show you what nasty really is ... There's quite a bit of posted stuff about your own fucked up sexuality to work with. Still a virgin? Still pretending that you do not masturbate? Still denying that you are not sexually confused as to whether you are gay, straight or bisexual? I can have lots of fun w/the right wing and fucked up sexuality. Lots. Should I arm myself? - Or would you prefer to debate this issue in a way that allows grown ups who differ in politics to speak w/o being insulted? It's up to you.Oh no! omnirook is getting "nasty." That's "nasty," as in "pitifully unfunny." The idea that you could use my sexuality as a angle of attack is actually genuinely amusing, not because you are saying anything remotely clever, insightful or relevent, but because it gives everyone a chance to pity or ridicule you.

Perhaps now you'd like to explain exactly why 1950s America was so bad, that you believe the entire decade to be morally equivalent to a pack of sex-starved men chasing, molesting and raping young girls, or any of the other sickening and similar acts shared in this thread.

[omnirook]

No, you're just a spade. We've been through this. Pay attention in future.

Statements like this support my previous accusations of your idiocy. I don't 'lean right,' I am not a conservative. That isn't important anyway, because even if I did 'lean right,' it wouldn't make any of my claims false you moron.

Oh no! omnirook is getting "nasty." That's "nasty," as in "pitifully unfunny." The idea that you could use my sexuality as a angle of attack is actually genuinely amusing, not because you are saying anything remotely clever, insightful or relevent, but because it gives everyone a chance to pity or ridicule you.

Perhaps now you'd like to explain exactly why 1950s America was so bad, that you believe the entire decade to be morally equivalent to a pack of sex-starved men chasing, molesting and raping young girls, or any of the other sickening and similar acts shared in this thread.

I was not trying to be funny. Were you?

Really? Why would a sexually repressed young man find a pack of sexually repressed young men acting out against women more reprehensible than the Ku Klux Klan torturing and murdering blacks in the American South, where the law always took their side? Why would a sexually repressed young man find a pack of sexually repressed young men acting out against women more reprehensible than the McCarthy hearings? Why would a sexually repressed young man find a pack of sexually repressed young men acting out against women more reprehensible than the apartheid that was legal and practiced in the United States of the 1950's, not just in the south but in the north, as well, where it extended to Jews and Catholics? Why would a sexually repressed young man find a pack of sexually repressed young men acting out against women more reprehensible than the legal employment policies and practices of 1950's America, which allowed employers to pay blacks less, pay women less, fire women for becoming pregnant, and sexually molest women on the job w/o fear of repercussions? Could it be that the sexually repressed young man resents that these Egyptian youths went further than he himself dare go? Is there some jealousy mixed into your feelings?

[NoahFence]

they reacted like I thought they would, and place the blame solely on me.:mad:

For what it's worth, I don't blame you, either for the event, or for not speaking up. The guy was a fucking animal and should be treated like one, thrown in a cage and fed dogfood until his body gives out from malnutrition. Whether or not you could have avoided it by cowering in your home until you died of old age is irrelevant, HE could have avoided it by not being a fucking rapist.

[omnirook]

Why was 1950's America so bad?

The Fonz and Richie and Al and Potsie and Joanie and Chachi aside, 1950's America was a hell-hole to anyone who was not white, was not Protestant, was not middle class, was not "an upstanding member of the community" - who went to church, attended PTA meetings, and participated in "community events" - which dis-allowed people who were not white, not Protestant, and not middle class. (Poor whites were treated fractionally better than blacks, unless, of course, they were Catholic or Jewish.) Failure to have the house, the wifey, the 2 kiddies, the doggie, and the white picket fence meant - the police could (and did) do what they wanted to you, whatever they felt like, the government could (and did) spy on you, blacklist you, and imprison you - oh, the southern states were just awash in cheap convict laborers who spent years sweating to cut down forests and put through roads - under the jackboot and the lash. Black, Asian, hispanic Americans - forget "land of the free and home of the brave." It was jail and there was nobody who would stop the warders from beating, cheating, and humiliating you. It was not a nice place. My father could tell you stories of being locked up in places like Delaware and Maryland. Why? "I'm going to get you, you greasy dago, bastard!" - that was "Hello" from the town cop in Berlin, Maryland. The why was being a "dirty, stinking, Catholic guinea fuck from New York." And that was from a cop who never lost his job for it or even got in trouble over it. No, he retired from the force and lived nastily ever after.

[charred_heart]

Exactly Lee's point, which you were disputing in the first place :confused:you were not following me. I said that the youth of the late 50s in the US rebelled against their society and got the changes that they wanted, while the youth of Egypt never rebelled against their society. So what happens when you don't call for change? You are forced to live a lifestyle you don't accept, never being comfortable and never having to live life the way you want to. So now, whenever these repressed people are in large groups and something triggers them off, they lose control.

[Lee]

I was not trying to be funny. Were you?

Really? Why would a sexually repressed young man find a pack of sexually repressed young men acting out against women more reprehensible than the Ku Klux Klan torturing and murdering blacks in the American South, where the law always took their side? Why would a sexually repressed young man find a pack of sexually repressed young men acting out against women more reprehensible than the McCarthy hearings? Why would a sexually repressed young man find a pack of sexually repressed young men acting out against women more reprehensible than the apartheid that was legal and practiced in the United States of the 1950's, not just in the south but in the north, as well, where it extended to Jews and Catholics? Why would a sexually repressed young man find a pack of sexually repressed young men acting out against women more reprehensible than the legal employment policies and practices of 1950's America, which allowed employers to pay blacks less, pay women less, fire women for becoming pregnant, and sexually molest women on the job w/o fear of repercussions? Could it be that the sexually repressed young man resents that these Egyptian youths went further than he himself dare go? Is there some jealousy mixed into your feelings?Aww.. it's like watching a puppy trying to open a door. Only it's omnirook trying to be clever.

[Stoned_Rider]

you were not following me. I said that the youth of the late 50s in the US rebelled against their society and got the changes that they wanted, while the youth of Egypt never rebelled against their society. So what happens when you don't call for change? You are forced to live a lifestyle you don't accept, never being comfortable and never having to live life the way you want to. So now, whenever these repressed people are in large groups and something triggers them off, they lose control.
Yes, I follow now. But you implied that the Egyptians have no choice whatsoever and are not to blame. "A lose-lose situation".

[omnirook]

This whole thread astonishes me. A pack of young men went wild in Cairo and molested women. Yes, that's awful. I do not approve of it. But, really - who's to talk? Not 5 years ago, the same happened in New York. Women at a parade were molested by roving gangs of young men and boys - and the police did nothing about it. And before the Europeans get sanctimonious about that, let's not leave out the soccer riots where many have been maimed and killed. This stuff goes on all over the world in every sort of culture. It has nothing to do w/being Christian or Muslim.

[omnirook]

Aww.. it's like watching a puppy trying to open a door. Only it's omnirook trying to be clever.

Up against a wall, are we? Don't bullshit a bullshitter. I'm hitting close to home, and you don't know what to say, so you have switched to pooh-pooh mode. I know all the tricks, boy. I've got 2 decades on you, and I've played w/people who would put your ass on toast and have you for breakfast. Try again. That isn't good enough.

[MacGuffin]

Up against a wall, are we? Don't bullshit a bullshitter. I'm hitting close to home, and you don't know what to say, so you have switched to pooh-pooh mode. I know all the tricks, boy. I've got 2 decades on you, and I've played w/people who would put your ass on toast and have you for breakfast. Try again. That isn't good enough.
How about this? (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?p=455906#post455906)

[omnirook]

How about this? (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?p=455906#post455906)

That's very good! You've some Photoshop talent. I like that.

[Lee]

Up against a wall, are we? Don't bullshit a bullshitter. I'm hitting close to home, and you don't know what to say, so you have switched to pooh-pooh mode. I know all the tricks, boy. I've got 2 decades on you, and I've played w/people who would put your ass on toast and have you for breakfast. Try again. That isn't good enough.I am not answering you seriously because I don't take you seriously, you are a caricature, a joke. Honestly, your "criticisms" vary from redundant to pointless, betraying a gross deficit of intelligence. I don't have the time or inclination to explain fully why you're an idiot, and since I doubt you'd be capable or inclined to pay attention (a skill you have demonstrated a spectacular lack of so far), I simply can't be bothered. Go back to purgatory where you fit in, it's like the special class.

[MacGuffin]

That's very good! You've some Photoshop talent. I like that.
That's just MS Paint.

[omnirook]

I am not answering you seriously because I don't take you seriously, you are a caricature, a joke. Honestly, your "criticisms" vary from redundant to pointless, betraying a gross deficit of intelligence. I don't have the time or inclination to explain fully why you're an idiot, and since I doubt you'd be capable or inclined to pay attention (a skill you have demonstrated a spectacular lack of so far), I simply can't be bothered. Go back to purgatory where you fit in, it's like the special class.

See, wasn't that better? - pathetic joke, stupid, insensitive, inarticulate - all that nicely put. You show promise. You even ended by dismissing me. Too bad for you that I am stupid, insensitive, and inarticulate: now I can play Marquess of Queensberry to your Oscar Wilde. We all know how that wound up, don't we? ... It could have been so different. We could have had a nice back-and-forth, going over the positives (your side) and the negatives (my side) of 1950's America and why 1950's America can or cannot stand as a model of moral rectitude. Tisk, tisk ... Ah, well ... Oh, by the by, if you want to hide the fact that you've got a hard on for arguing w/me - it would be a good idea not to better yourself in a subsequent reply. That's showing your hand ;) . That's all right. I'll make a "card sharper" out of you yet.

[omnirook]

That's just MS Paint.

Oh. Well, I'm not a graphics person. I just tossed in the name of an artsy program to make a point - that you have skill at graphics, doesn't matter the program.

[charred_heart]

Yes, I follow now. But you implied that the Egyptians have no choice whatsoever and are not to blame. "A lose-lose situation".they are in a lose lose situation, but they are certainly responsible for their actions. I was giving an explanation for the behaviour of the mob in that incident.

[Holly Martins]

This probably comes off as a terribly ignorant and offensive post, but anyways: could it be that these events are not created by generic religious, political, economical or social factors, but something uniquely Egyptian?

I visited Egypt a few years ago, and it was probably the most appalling experience of my life. I try to be a liberal, open minded fellow, but there simply was no liking these people. Everywhere I went, I was harassed in the most aggressive manner by beggars, hustlers, street peddlers etc. The general feeling of the place was downright hostile.

The contrast couldn't have been bigger when I went to Lebanon. Despite the facts that 20 years of civil war had left every building riddled with bullet holes, the Syrian army still controlled parts of Beirut, and the Israelis harassed them on a regular basis, people were genuinely polite and civilized. Granted, this was back when Rafik Hariri was alive and there was some hope of economic rebirth, but the country was still worse off than Egypt in materialistic terms.

Also, some friends of mine in the merchant marine who've frequently passed through the Suez Canal say it's a surreal experience. The official Canal workers, which you are required to take onboard, will steal anything that isn't bolted down. They'd even steal the toilet seats if you didn't watch them constantly. This behaviour, they say, is unlike any other port or waterway, however primitive.

So is there something particularly rotten in the state of Egypt, or am I way off here?

[charred_heart]

This probably comes off as a terribly ignorant and offensive post, but anyways: could it be that these events are not created by generic religious, political, economical or social factors, but something uniquely Egyptian?

I visited Egypt a few years ago, and it was probably the most appalling experience of my life. I try to be a liberal, open minded fellow, but there simply was no liking these people. Everywhere I went, I was harassed in the most aggressive manner by beggars, hustlers, street peddlers etc. The general feeling of the place was downright hostile.

The contrast couldn't have been bigger when I went to Lebanon. Despite the facts that 20 years of civil war had left every building riddled with bullet holes, the Syrian army still controlled parts of Beirut, and the Israelis harassed them on a regular basis, people were genuinely polite and civilized. Granted, this was back when Rafik Hariri was alive and there was some hope of economic rebirth, but the country was still worse off than Egypt in materialistic terms.

Also, some friends of mine in the merchant marine who've frequently passed through the Suez Canal say it's a surreal experience. The official Canal workers, which you are required to take onboard, will steal anything that isn't bolted down. They'd even steal the toilet seats if you didn't watch them constantly. This behaviour, they say, is unlike any other port or waterway, however primitive.

So is there something particularly rotten in the state of Egypt, or am I way off here?the poor in Egypt are... unique to say the least. A man with a $2 salary ends up having 15 kids, all living in a one room construction on the roof a decrepit building. A relative of mine was stopped by a gang of teens in Cairo, they wanted the botle of coke he was drinking from. Don't know what hat meant, maybe they were doing a test run. The theft thing I can understand, but mass rape.. that's strange even for the Egyptian poor.

[Ivy]

In a deeply southern state, so yes?

I don't think anyone has ever accused New Orleans of being sexually repressed.

[NoahFence]

I don't think anyone has ever accused New Orleans of being sexually repressed.

:rofl: Damn, that was surgical

[BerberElla]

For what it's worth, I don't blame you, either for the event, or for not speaking up. The guy was a fucking animal and should be treated like one, thrown in a cage and fed dogfood until his body gives out from malnutrition. Whether or not you could have avoided it by cowering in your home until you died of old age is irrelevant, HE could have avoided it by not being a fucking rapist.


:)

[LongSilence]

My god... this thread shows that there's perhaps nothing that sexual repression won't produce. That said, arguably there's nothing that sexual liberation won't produce either. No matter what, they seem to both combine to inspire a plethora of heavy arguments.

Back to Egypt- one wonders whether the igniting spark was perhaqs the atmosphere of release after the fast coupled with a dangerous level of mass male bravado.

[Ferrus]

50s America was pretty sexually repressed, or so we are reminded by the media on a regular basis. Note the distinct lack of desperate packs of males hunting down females.
Most geeks (read male NTs) are sexual repressed, although, to be fair, they probably lack the muscle to form desperate packs and/or commit acts of rape.

[MacGuffin]

Most geeks (read male NTs) are sexual repressed, although, to be fair, they probably lack the muscle to form desperate packs and/or commit acts of rape.
You've obviously never been to a Comic-Con.

[NoahFence]

Sexually repressed? :huh: I would say "Sexually starved", maybe...

[Ferrus]

Sexually repressed? :huh: I would say "Sexually starved", maybe...
Well one is merely a necessary cause of the other.

[Ivy]

Well one is merely a necessary cause of the other.

I don't think sexual starvation always implies repression. Comic-con nerds, to my knowledge, feel free to look at naked ladies (even if they are animated ladies) and pull the pud. I wouldn't say they are repressed, they just lack opportunity.

[NoahFence]

Exactly. Repression implies "artificially induced lack of outlet". Dorks have outlets, and use them...they're just not "real".

[CreativeChaos]

This probably comes off as a terribly ignorant and offensive post, but anyways: could it be that these events are not created by generic religious, political, economical or social factors, but something uniquely Egyptian?

I visited Egypt a few years ago, and it was probably the most appalling experience of my life. I try to be a liberal, open minded fellow, but there simply was no liking these people. Everywhere I went, I was harassed in the most aggressive manner by beggars, hustlers, street peddlers etc. The general feeling of the place was downright hostile.

The contrast couldn't have been bigger when I went to Lebanon. Despite the facts that 20 years of civil war had left every building riddled with bullet holes, the Syrian army still controlled parts of Beirut, and the Israelis harassed them on a regular basis, people were genuinely polite and civilized. Granted, this was back when Rafik Hariri was alive and there was some hope of economic rebirth, but the country was still worse off than Egypt in materialistic terms.

Also, some friends of mine in the merchant marine who've frequently passed through the Suez Canal say it's a surreal experience. The official Canal workers, which you are required to take onboard, will steal anything that isn't bolted down. They'd even steal the toilet seats if you didn't watch them constantly. This behaviour, they say, is unlike any other port or waterway, however primitive.

So is there something particularly rotten in the state of Egypt, or am I way off here?

Wow! This is really interesting. I think it is culture and cultural attitudes towards women. I recall reports of women being raped if they accidentally showed their ankles in Afghanistan during the time of the Taliban.

It's the dehuminization of women. And why was there mass beatings of blacks in the 50's? They were considered less than human. Why the genocide in Sudan, again, dehumanization.

Sexual desire has nothing to do with rape. Period.

[ptGatsby]

Sexual desire has nothing to do with rape. Period.


I should point out this isn't really true. There was a thread about this, I think... In this case, I agree its not, however.

In any case, this kind rape is different than general violence. However, this is still the standard 'stress->outlet' with a rather specific trained trigger, and not sexual (outside of the overtones).

[omnirook]

Sexual desire has nothing to do with rape. Period.

I've heard that before. I'm not saying that you are wrong. However, I do not understand the assertion. If, somehow - however sick it may be - there were no form of warped sexual impulse involved, say it were entirely a hatred of and fear of and desire to degrade and humiliate women, would not assaulting the woman w/o raping her be enough? (sorry - what other word would do?) Rape - whatever its root - does manifest sexually - at least the sexual organs are involved. Does that not say that sexuality is at least involved, perhaps in a secondary way - as another indication of the root of the pathology that leads to the violence? ... I've never understood what seems a politically motivated drive to separate sex from violence. Please explain. Thank you.

[Gel]

Remember, this isn't sexual repression in just one person. This is just one huge mass of people. If one person succumbs to their inadequacies, then there's a good chance that someone else will do the same. Before you know it, you've got nearly everyone doing the same thing.

That's just how riots go.

[The Ninth Ninja]

Sexual desire has nothing to do with rape. Period.

Perhaps and perhaps not. :)
Rape in all likelihood has more to do with power than sexual desire, although I'm sure desire plays a role.
IMHO, the more the masculine/feminine divide plays itself out in societies and individuals the more likely it is that an unbalanced attitude towards sex and sexuality will manifest itself... and vice versa.
But hey, I haven't done any rigorous scientific testing of said theory so it's probably all wrong.. :)