"Sex is violence, all the time."

You lost me on that line. Stopped reading your post and moved on. Maybe you had something important to say but after a line like that, most people will just write you off as a nut-ball and move on.

Whether with the purpose of experimentation, titillation, stimulation, submission, domination, or procreation, sexual intercourse is a violent physical act. Despite the sweet-nothings. Anything involving penetration with a member, tongue, finger, or toe - corporal invasion occurs.

Sex is always violent. Without consent, sex is a crime, precisley because it is violent. Not because it was for experimentation, titillation, stimulation, submission, domination, or procreation. Those cannont be proved. Only the violence can be proved, either through blood or semen or other direct evidence of the violent act. The absence of consent and the presence of this violence in the form of a sex act is a crime.

Anything involving penetration with a member, tongue, finger, or toe - corporal invasion occurs.

So is eating violence too, because that is a corporal invasion. Is kissing violence? All sex is violence is nonsense, I've been the victim of ACTUAL violence and you know what it doesn't result in pleasurable feelings that create a bond strengthing a relationship.

Sure, eating is violence if the object of consumption is an animal and still alive. That includes oysters at a minimum. I will grant you that. I draw the line at the animal kingdom. Some might say cutting down a tree or eating a stick of celery is violent, but these people most likely have terrible priorities, and their opinions most likely issue from the same insular social stratosphere that produces Duke lacrosse players.

I'm sorry for whatever trauma you have gone through personally. I make no judgments and would be among the last to contend that sex has any necessary correlation with pleasure. Obligation is more like it.

I've already laid out the physical justification for the violence of the sex act. Now an etymology: the word for 'scabbard' - the sheath for a sword - in Latin, is the same root for vagina in Latin.

If the relationship between a sword and a vagina is anything but sexual or military, then I will grant you that there is no basis for the conclusion that sex is always violent in any tongue remotely descended from Latin, including English.

Is response to MurphyMalone.

You are correct, being called a Honky does not hurt my feelings. It is totally out of date, and not at all analogous to the N word. Scurrilous charges of rascism will be spoken hundreds of times before I would be called a honky. And, yes being called a rascist would hurt my feelings.

Once a disadvantaged person calls you a rascist, then the conversation is over. There is no defence, nor is there any suitable response. It is one of the highly charged words that exist almost above our language, and a word that is only effective when used by a black man against a white man. It is very analogous to the N word.

Scurrilous charges of rascism, which can be extremely toxic to ones career, are why I chose to post anonymously. It is just one example of the vast social power that blacks now weild in our society.

Blacks stand for black power, and whites are all rascists unless they give in, and give ever increasing reperation payments. Backs do not yet have disproportionate power in society, on average they are poorer and less well educated. But to deny that they have power is wrong. The power is real and it takes a very specific form.

Black power as it exists today is a gift from white society. Affirmative action, welfare payments, and PC laguage policing are all atempts by white society to correct the imbalance of power. But, these gifts are predicated on victim status for the blacks that they benefit. Therefore, an entire industry of victimization is required in order to keep the benefits flowing. Hence my use of the term "Victimization Choir" to describe the black leadership that attemts to use events like the alleged Duke rape to their advantage. It does not mattter what the facts are, they all sing the same song of victimization in order to cash in.

It's one thing to rebel against a PC culture. It's one thing to be suspicious of the thought police. It's one thing to be a WASP and to say these things. It's one thing to have never considered the military as an option to get your upward mobility. It's one thing to want to go to college to get out of the neighborhood to escape a way of life.

It's another thing to get delivered to college to get stationed on Wall Street to continue a way of life. It's another thing to support a war that you can't imagine. It's another thing to drive a car you never paid for. It's another thing to have an imagination that's dominated by fear when you have no real grievances.

Rich white boys have their speech subsidized. Rich white boys have their own trust funds. Rich white boys never have to enlist a public defender.

Rich white boys never have to enlist. Period.

It's another thing to lose your imagination to real grievances and to live in fear. In fear of the next standardized test. In fear of the next job application. In fear of the next cop you cross paths with. In fear of the next poster-boy with a lacrosse stick.

Rich white boys are not individuals. Rich white boys do not have individual rights. Rich white boys are a symptom of a sick society. Rich white boys, have no fear - the meek shall inherit the earth. Rich white boys, you shall inhabit the Left Hand of the Father.

Nemo me lacessit impuni

1. It is Impune, not Impuni.

The full phrase Nemo Me Impune Lacessit translates to "No one provokes me with impunity."

2. Rich black boys have trust funds too.

you're boring me. seriously. i mean i'm literally dying over here...from the sheer tedium of your 'arguments'.