Rape Culture

Meaning that, every time one is going to bed with a woman that either they have dated for a short time or been married to for 30 years, they should obtain clear verbal consent from said woman. Right?

 

The original argument of this thread - i.e. men are all responsible for rape culture - IS a great example indeed. A great example of how modern feminism's aim is to simply lay the blame squarely on men's shoulders because...penis. Some fairness movement.

 

Yes, but did we need and do we need a separate ideology all of its own for that topic? We currently have a campaign in football for example to kick racism out - where it can still rear it's ugly head. No problem right?

But where is the equivalent separate ideology for that like feminism. I can't see one, can you?

I don't see anti racism as an ideological construct that feminism is/ has become. And yes, I think it's unnecessary to be honest. Not that I would or could do anything about it, but I can certainly voice the opinion. There isn't an objective right and wrong about it as such as I support free thinking and choice when it's not harmful - of course - but I think it's a real case of diminishing values and a real potential for being an ultimately divisive instrument.

If something like that can't simply become part of the mainstream like anti racism, the only place it really has left to go is further into extremism and silliness.

As things stand I think for most ordinary people it's neither here nor there, we care about sexism in our society today and most people will recognise it as unfair and can get behind anti sexism laws (I certainly can), but feminism as a stand alone ideology, today, seems outdated, superfluous and besides the point in many ways to me. These different examples of which sexism is one have, as I stated earlier, been pretty much soundly absorbed in mainstream political and social life.

People waving feminist banners these days I think would be seen largely as a bit nutty and extreme. The broader feminist movement is dead and buried basically, in that guise it is nothing significant in our society at all from where I am sitting.

 

I get what you're saying (and the sentiment is fair) but I have to say I also think that is an absolutely ridiculous argument.

I also think we should probably continue this in the feminism thread instead of here

In the meantime, a happy link for the feminists of MAP:

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/20...ts-at-temple-univ-walk-a-mile-in-their-shoes/

Also in the sad world of actual rape cultures (rather than perceived):

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/us-idaho-l...male-teens-juvenile-detention-centers-1494582

 

And to one of the original posts that claimed that it's just a wording issue. No it's not. The author is not just saying that men are part of this alleged rape culture “in that they exist within it”. It’s even bolded for you in the article in case the point isn't clear enough:

…

Hurray for 6th grade reasoning skills and heedless thumbupping.

 

Rape is committed by men in 99% of the case.
Therefore all men are potential rapists.
Nevermind that more than 99% of all men would not even think about raping someone. Yep, it's all our fault. Damn our penises! Damn it I say!

 

Or even that 99% is a massively gross over-estimate of the actual figures and doesn't fairly represent the experiences of many people from the other half of the population. And even then over estimates it from the experiences of the half of the population claiming to be worse off.

But don't you know your history? That the world was 100% female and everything was perfect. Life, mathematics, history, science, relationships, they were all perfect. Then alien penises came down one day and a vicious battle happened between those vaginas and penises! Fully half of the population was infected! With them, those penises brought death, destruction, workers unions and sex! And within but a few months the whole world had been set back millions of years. And with those penises came man-flu, indigestion and worst of all, blame.

So say the tale of the Sloth and penises.

And there was much lamenting.

 

Please explain why. Saying that someone's argument is 'absolutely ridiculous' and not offering any explaination is just plain cruel.

The feminism thread has disappeared so far up it's own fundament that you'd need a university degree just to follow it. It seems to have turned into an exchange of hyperlinks to acedemic studies. At least this thread is still a discussion.

 

Sorry, I don't see that in the methods - the questionnaire looks like it asks women and men to self report victimization. It asks if they had unwanted sexual contact when they were unable to consent due to drugs or alcohol, whether it was forced on them or imbibed/taken from their own volition.

Do you trust people to be able to accurately gauge whether they could consent or not?

Again, the study asks folks to self report whether they were able or unable to give consent. I don't see where the lumping is occurring in the stats.

What sort of demonstration of non-consent would you like? Do women need to fight back to prove non-consent? If someone consented to something, truly consented mind you, then clearly they were able to consent.

Yup, that sounds like a bad case. Still, when a man is executed in Texas for killing his family, then it turns out that it was based on a spurious case and active denial of evidence, we don't turn that into a critique of prosecuting murderers. I agree that college boards should keep out of criminal matters, and think the idea that it can be dealt with in the same way as say, recreational drug usage is deeply, deeply disturbing. I think you would agree that this minimizes the magnitude of the crime.

Nope, if she says she had a sexual encounter in which she was unable to consent then we should take her at her word, unless you think that there's a substantial number of women who would claim that they can't consent after a cup of coffee.

Nope, not in terms of a study on public health. We study self reports on all kinds of crime without saying "Yeah, but some of them are probably faking."

I don't see this speaking to the 2% figure or how it was obtained. Again, Sommers attributed it to Brownmiller, the attribution was erroneous, Brownmiller was discussing a different study with different methodology; one that did not attempt to quantify the amount of false rape allegations overall, but the difference between reports made to male and female police officers.

It depends on what their methodologies are. Some of the studies that Sommers cites as false rape allegations are in actuality studies on say, how many rape allegations were perceived by police as false. It's not that this study is invalid, it's that it's asking a different question than "how many rape allegations are false?" This is why the devil is in the details and you can't just say "Well, all papers start with assumptions!" That's an empty critique.

I was referring to Lisak's study on false rape allegations, as far as I know the largest sample size and most robust methodology. He arrived at ~2% figure if I remember correctly.

I think it's just south park-y 'the truth is somewhere in the middle' minimization. She can claim that these are dodgy statistics, but she has offered no substantiation of that claim; in fact the people she cites as having more accurate reports agree with the ones she attempts to take down.

Oh yes, she's spoken quite frequently on the subject:

"The date rape thing has become propaganda and hysteria. We cannot legislate what happens on a date. Sex is a dangerous sport."

"Listen, my generation of women said we wanted sexual freedom, but we accepted the risks. Sex is combat. Gay men understand this. Every gay man I know has had rough encounters - why aren't they running for protection from the police? I'm saying to women, 'Grow up.' If you go to a man's apartment, you are signalling that you want sex. If you don't, then carry a knife. I carry a knife. This is street-smart feminism. Not weeping back to the authorities when things go wrong."

"If things get out of hand and you have an unpalatable sexual encounter - so what? B-i-i-g deal. You played Russian roulette and you lost."

Her argument is that it's the expression of an innate biological drive. Which, fine, whatever. It's still filtered through culture and an urge that people can control, unless you think biology is this weird absolutist thing. Relevant:

"College men are at their hormonal peak. They have just left their mothers and are questing for their male identity. In groups, they are dangerous. A woman going to a fraternity party is walking into Testosterone Flats, full of *****ly cacti and blazing guns. If she goes, she should be armed with resolute alertness. She should arrive with girlfriends and leave with them."

Apparently all men at their hormonal peak are dangerous. If that's not misandrist, well, I don't know what is.

"I'd love to molest young boys the way gay men can. You know what I mean. Like, get at them. These 16- and 17-year-olds with their beautiful bodies . . . hire them and molest them."

"Feminism with its solemn Carrie Nation repressiveness cannot see what is for men the eroticism or fun element in rape, especially the wild, infectious delirium of gang rape."

Quotes taken from here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...nt-here-or-is-she-all-motormouth-1479082.html

Worth noting that I have changed the last quote - in that article it says 'rage' but tracking down the original quote it looks like Paglia said 'rape.' To be honest, I doubt she believes all of this, I think she's basically a professional troll.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19910217&slug=1266788

 

Note to mods - I have not abbreviated a curse word, the filter caught a perfectly acceptable word that has a curse word in it. It is synonymous with 'pointy'.

 

Ok guys, esp Fusen and aardia...

I was just having breakfast with my wife and daughters and my wife mentioned that you can't trust a woman who doesn't like chocolate because something is wrong with them. I replied 'yes. And with the ones who do like chocolate as well'. And then she said 'I'll kick you for that'.



I am being threatened with physical violence in my own house, in front of my children! Should I call the police to report threat of bodily harm? Perhaps I should divorce her in order to not stay in an abusive relationship?

Or... can we admit that words should be taken in context, and don't always mean what the word literally means? She was smiling at the time she said it, could that possibly mean that she meant the OPPOSITE of what she said? Oh my...

 

You just cannot admit that words should be taken in context instead of always literally, can you? You misinterpreted my original posts, dug a hole for yourself, and pride doesn't allow you to admit it. And now you keep bringing up other things that really have no bearing on the discussion.

I want my daughters to be smart enough and learn that sex is something for in a committed relationship where both parties learn to trust each other and understand each other so that they build a relationship with respect for each other. How you communicate on your first date is different than how you communicate after years of being together. That is also why bringing up my daughters is pointless, because I would expect that when they date and communicate with someone they just met, their modus of verbal communication is more objective than when they are together with someone for years.

Contrary to you, I don't care about what your 'no' means with 100 random sex partners because the question doesn't come up. What I would glean from the words of a random woman is irrelevant. It is only important what I understand from my wife of near 15 years because she's the only one I have sex with. In the context of my relationship, no can mean no, and sometimes no can mean yes. The understanding of the difference grew out of a total of 20 years of being with the same woman. But perhaps you've never been long enough with someone to add the non verbal body language to your vocabulary?

The world is not black and white, and being pedantic that something can only mean 1 thing, for ever ever unchanging without any room for context is a position that is impossible to hold. I hold the right to refusal absolute, but that doesn't mean that 'no' is always 'no' with someone you've gotten to know in depth over half a lifetime shared together.

 

But in your definition of "no doesnt mean no" your daughter doesnt get to decide that.

And the question does come up in everyday life, in your example it would be a 100 different people vs your 1 person.

So you can see statistically why its important that no means no.

 

I guess the main problem I have with the 'no means yes' thing, absent previous negotiation, is that it places the assessment for whether a person has consented in the hands of someone else. Inevitably that can lead to errors. Perhaps some husbands and wives have 100% success rates, very clear, open communication. Many don't.

I think this is again a confusion of the personal and political. Telling your daughter "Take martial arts and learn to defend yourself" is all well and good. Proposing it as a solution to rape at large is heinous. Between individuals, fine, maybe you guys are into playing games. Whatever, it sounds like you guys have negotiated that in some fashion or another and it works for you. God knows that there's even kinkier weirder stuff out there that people engage in and LOVE. Ms. Raptor would probably kill me if I told you some of the stuff we got into.

But proposing it as a political and social solution takes it into a horrible place. You've said that you hope your daughters had close, healthy, zesty sex lives with people who respect them. That's good, I think it's great even. Too many dads act like their daughters should be less than human and locked away. But rape happens in close relationships as well, in fact it happens very often. If we have a society in which other people are deciding whether or not a woman has consented, well, we're going to see it happen a lot more often.

 

I sympathize with you - but let's take your point and, instead of making it personal, let's make it political. What do you think happens to our culture as a whole if it is up to person A if person B is consenting or not? If person A sets the line for whether or not person B is serious?

 

True, it happens in close relationships as well. However, in a healthy relationship, things evolve. Not only understanding, but sex itself, and how it starts. In the beginning of a relationship, communication is usually very overt because there is no basis for non verbal communication. That grows over time, after which consent or refusal can be both verbal or non verbal.

I am still assuming a healthy relationship where people respect one another. Sure, mistakes happen. I've made mistakes as well, and then my wife said 'look I said NO', I knew I had it wrong, give her a kiss and do something else.

As long as there is communication and respect, it will all work out.
I expect my future sons in law to be polite, courteous, and respectful. And no doubt initially whatever happens between them will go from explicit communication to non verbal communication. As long as they respect each other and can communicate in a healthy manner, everything will turn out just fine.

 

We're not signing a contract here people. It's happened that I mistook a no for a yes while we were apparently just cuddling. And then she says 'look I said no ok' and then we go back to just cuddling. I really don't see the problem here.

In your example, how about person A and B talk about things so that they know the boundaries of the sandbox in which they play? My wife and I probably have tame sex lives compared to some of you, but suppose you are into S&M to give a more extreme example: you talk about those things as the relationship develops, no?

And as the relationship develops, so do the boundaries of the sandbox in which both people feel safe.