“You’re too ugly to rape” only works as an insult on the presumption that the target of the insult should be at least sexually attractive enough to be raped.*
So the insult does, indeed, imply** that a woman’s value is tied to her sexual attractiveness.
*(Which, of course, in turn presumes that being sexually attractive invites rape… It’s a double whammy of offensiveness.)
**In the common usage of the word “imply” that includes presuming.
No, the insult works primarily based on the (accurate) premise that most women prefer to be attractive and would be insulted at being called unattractive. Not more needed.
But it’s possible that there’s also a premise that rapists probably have very low standards in attractiveness requirements, so that a woman who is too ugly to rape has to be really really ugly.
This would mean that “you’re too ugly” is equivalent to “you’re too ugly to rape.” But they aren’t, are they?
Every time someone utters an insult, by that act they intend to imply that the target of the insult has failed to meet some standard or other. Do you agree with that?
“You’re too ugly to rape.” What standard is one being implied to have failed to meet here? Isn’t it obvious that the standard is one of sexual attractiveness?
They might be, subject to the second paragraph of my prior post.
Of course. But that doesn’t imply that this is a woman’s entire value.
Sorry, I didn’t see where your interlocutor had mentioned women’s “entire” value. My bad.
My “interlocutor” is you yourself, and you didn’t say “entire” but I assumed this is what you meant when you called the notion misogynistic.
If all you meant is that attractiveness is a plus quality in a woman, then it’s implicit in the insult but not misogynistic.
Probably because I didn’t.
I’m wary of wading into this one, but 'You’re too ugly to rape" is something of a straw…person. The original remark in-thread implied that the other poster wouldn’t be deemed ‘rapeable’, but there was no indication that the judgement was based on looks. My first thought on reading it was that it was based on personality or posting style (since I see no picture of the insulted poster).
That’s not to support the original remark, you understand, but I’m interested in how readily the assumption in the response was both made and picked up on.
Oh, good grief! If you’re whinging about the insult I hurled faithfool’s way, it was intended merely to imply she was a flatline when it came to sex appeal and rape never entered the picture.
Same with the notion that the cardboard tubes were intended as a stand in for children’s anuses when its real intent was to ensure that the experimenter indulged in the proper degree of motion and exertion as opposed to merely squatting and calling it good.
And then there’s Hector the Librarian’s continued attempts to attach salaciousness to the comment I made about lining up 100 young boys, when in reality it was a rebuttal to some moron who claimed a naked hug in the shower was the same as anal rape. My response was "Oh, yeah? Tell ya what, let’s line up a 100 ten year old boys and ask them which would be worse, a naked hug from a grown man or anal rape? And I proposed that my opponent should take a dollar from every kid who chose the hug and I’d take a dollar from every one who chose anal rape, and at the end of the day I’d have $100 and he’d have zero. So Hector apparently found the idea of lining up 100 boys to be more than a little titillating and has therefore tried (again and again) to gain some sort of traction by pretending the salaciousness in his own mind existed in mine as well.
I really have to wonder about the type of mentality some of you people have.
Come on in, the water’s fine! Boiling as per usual.
[QUOTE=Jack of Words]
but 'You’re too ugly to rape" is something of a straw…person. The original remark in-thread implied that the other poster wouldn’t be deemed ‘rapeable’, but there was no indication that the judgement was based on looks. My first thought on reading it was that it was based on personality or posting style (since I see no picture of the insulted poster).
That’s not to support the original remark, you understand, but I’m interested in how readily the assumption in the response was both made and picked up on.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I might be able to see your point, if a woman’s winning personality was of any consideration to a prospective rapist.
‘‘You’re ugly’’ is about as grade school as it gets, and of course SA probably has no idea what **faithfool **actually looks like, but in this context was in really poor taste.
FTR I think it’s really fucking low to imply someone is a pedophile, too.
Unless you’re Cesario. That guy was a pedophile.
Exactly!
QFT! 
ETA: I’d add “rapist” to your observation as well.
Well, I’m about to leave for dinner and drinks with a friend. So would someone please let everyone in the other threads know that I’ll be back to answer more falsehoods and deliberate or mistaken misinterpretations later tonight.
Thanks ever so much. 
And it totally failed, because as you admitted at one point, it’s entirely possible for a tall person to have sex from behind with a short person. There are thousands of examples available for free perusal on the interwebz.
You’ve been on about this silly comment from the very beginning, and you know perfectly well that my contention was never that a tall person couldn’t have sex with a short person from behind.
But thanks for reminding me what a dishonest git you really are.
Your contention changed multiple times – at one point it was about the definition of “standing”, as if someone can’t bend their knees and still be standing. Whatever it was, it was always ridiculous. It’s absolutely possible for a tall person and a short person to have sex in the alleged position that the witness saw Sandusky engage in in the shower.
No, we have been talking about a conversation you had with someone else. And though the idea of misogyny is in the air here, I have not used the term, nor said anything with direct implications in terms of misogyny.
I don’t have the energy to argue with you about what counts as misogynistic or not. The insult presumes that women are to be judged to some degree on their sexual attractiveness. That a woman who is not sexually attractive has ipso facto failed at her job of being a woman. You seemed to disagree with this assessment at first, but it seems to have come to light that you’d misunderstood the scope of the claim somehow, and it now appears you agree with the assessment.
I’m sorry but if you pop in to the middle of a conversation with your opinions, then what you say will be interpreted in context of that conversation unless you clarify otherwise.
The idea of misogyny is not “in the air”. In post #419, iiandyiiii said the insult was misogynistic. In post #420, I quoted those words and said “this is not logical”. In post #421, you quoted my words and commented on them. I assumed you were disputing my assertion that “this is not logical” and claiming that it was logical to say it was misogynistic, and my subsequent comments were based on that premise.
If you didn’t mean to back up the claim that it was misogynistic, then you shouldn’t have based yourself on my words on that exact subject and/or should have made clear that this was not your intention.
I don’t know what “failed at her job of being a woman” means, and suspect you’re using this phrase to make it seem an insult of women in general as opposed to this one woman. So let’s leave it as I put it.
Being attractive is a plus quality in a woman. Being unattractive is a negative quality. Therefore saying a woman is unattractive is an insult. But it’s an insult to that woman only.
This is nonsense. If this were the case, we’d expect to see rapists going after whomever is most vulnerable, the easier to exert their will. In reality, women are at their highest risk for rape between ages 12-34, males are victimized much less often, and girls ages 16-19 are four times more likely than the general population to be victims of sexual assault.
Is is some kind of coincidence that rapists just happen to go after women who are in their prime fertility years (Or, if you prefer, in the age range that multiple studies across cultures pretty much universily describe as the apex of female physical sexual attractiveness)? This despite the fact that girls aged 16-19 are much more capable of physically fighting back than a prepubescent child, a feeble old man, etc.
No doubt some do get off on the power, per se, since rapes of feeble old men do indeed happen. But it seems obvious that much of it is misdirected/repressed/deformed sexual desire.