What the hell are 'women'?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

evilthecat:
snip

You've told me before that you're a lesbian sociologist. Now you're a bisexual man of undeclared vocation.

I don't care what you have to say, you're on ignore.

kurupt87:
You have the power to not be ruled by irrational fears, embrace it.

And you have the power not to behave aggressively or in a predatory manner towards people you want to fuck. Embrace it.

Sorry, but if you've made someone uncomfortable by coming onto them, regardless of whether you think it's reasonable, surely you can accept that you've done something wrong. You can still have the basic respect to apologize and/or leave them alone, just in basic recognition that you've made them uncomfortable. Accepting that responsibility does not hurt or impinge your right to come onto people, it just requires you to show some basic respect for people.

If you think this is a sex negative argument which is trying to limit your behaviour, I think you have a slightly fucked up view of sex positivity and indeed of men. If the only way you think you can get casual sex is by trying to coerce or sleaze your way into people's pants through predatory behaviour, then there's something wrong with you and the culture that made you so pathetic.

I can only imagine it's shit like this which makes people feel so disgusted by men who enjoy casual sex. There's a difference between making it obvious to someone that you want to fuck them and being a predatory dick, I'd hazard a guess that the first rule of that difference would be accepting that the person you're hitting on has the right to decide which of those things they think you are.

kurupt87:
You've told me before that you're a lesbian sociologist. Now you're a bisexual man of undeclared vocation.

Quote please.

Look, if you click on my name, you'll see a little mars sign. That sign has been there since I joined this site.

You're either getting me confused for someone else, or you somehow got the wrong end. Either way, I don't even remember talking to you before so I can hardly shed any light.

See Spot Run:

kurupt87:
Because you want to censor what men can and cannot do based on the unjustified fear of sexists.

I never said censor, and I never argued for a requirement. You pulled that out of your ass.

My position is that men who want to not make women uncomfortable should acknowledge their position with regard to the sexual politics of an approach take steps to not make women uncomfortable. That's it. You have the power within you not to be an asshat. Embrace that.

---

I'm out. I'm totally spent.

You know life's full of situations which make us feel uncomfortable. I've been in many situations where I wasn't comfortable. I've had guys proposition me in the gym Sauna my first reaction wasn't "oh my god he's going to rape me in the sauna because he want's to have sex with me!" No I handled the situation like an adult. "Uhhh, What? No" Then I'm certain I shook my head while I walked out of there.

By the way, what's all this sexual politics stuff. Should I do a jig and make a joke and then ask if they want to boomchickaboomboom? Everyone has different levels of social skills and some fellas are either confident or awkward enough to come right out with it.

Seeing as I am not that guy, nor do I know him I don't know which category he falls under but it seems like the adult way to handle the situation would have been to tell the guy no thanks, deal with the 60 seconds of awkward uncomfortable silence, and getting off on my floor. The world continues to spin.

evilthecat:

kurupt87:
snip

As I said. Absolutely none of this matters.

If he did rape her right there in the lift, or dragged her out with his hand over her mouth into his room, there is virtually nothing she could do to get him convicted. His lawyer would simply argue that it was a violent sex game which he reasonably believed she had consented to based on her conversation with him in the lift, which he could make up.

Nothing can prove that his version of events wasn't true. The likely result is no conviction. The only complicating factor is a lack of preexisting relationship, but he could claim that he met her earlier in the evening and unless an eyewitness could specifically verify her location for the entire evening, there's nothing to suggest that that's not true.

It might seem far fetched but it is not even the most extreme case I'm aware of.

In fact, as far as I'm aware, much of the US still allows the Morgan defence, so his belief in her consent doesn't even have to be "reasonable", he just has to make it sound sincere.

He also could have taken me out of the elevator at gun point and then shot me in the face and argued that he did so in self defense.

There's a whole lot of woulda-coulda in your hypothetical situation. If that is what she thought was going to happen I'd assume something awful must have happened to her in the past and I'd recommend she purchase a tazer or a small hand gun if she's really this worried about being hit on so she had the ability to control the situation in the future, and I'd recommend the same for any woman or man who also has irrational fears of men asking for casual sex.

Edit: Ah it seems I didn't get the entire story from the original story posted, didn't know the guy kept at it after he was told no. That's kind of creepy but I still think this is blown out of proportion.

aPod:
He also could have taken me out of the elevator at gun point and then shot me in the face and argued that he did so in self defense.

Yes, but that defence wouldn't work. The one I suggested probably would.

The definition of rape varies slightly by region, but generally goes along these lines. You have to penetrate someone and you have to believe (sometimes but not always with the requirement that the belief must be reasonable) that they did not consent. Because it is based on the victim's state of mind and the attacker's belief, both of which are impossible to empirically demonstrate, there is almost always going to be some potential for doubt.

If you've shot someone, then you've shot someone. Your belief that they were going to attack you must be demonstrably reasonable to count as self defence (assuming your country even allows for self defence in homicide, mine doesn't) for example if it can be demonstrated that they were armed or if there were forensic signs that the dead person might have initiated an attack. That evidence is then applied as mitigation to the accepted fact that you did shoot someone.

If you rape someone, then it's not rape at all until it can proved a) that the victim did not consent and b) that you knew it was rape. Those are very difficult things to prove.

As I've said, it's not the worst case I know of.

Whether her reaction was "rational" is quite another thing, I'm just pointing out that it's wrong to argue that it was unreasonable because he would have been punished for it had he done it in such a public setting. Adult rape is virtually impossible to convict, because it almost always comes down to one person's word against another. There is no "hard" evidence which will confirm absolutely whether someone was raped after the fact.

And maybe this is a cultural thing, but I'd say "irrational" people should probably be the last ones in the line to get guns.

evilthecat:
-snip-
Whether her reaction was "rational" is quite another thing, I'm just pointing out that it's wrong to argue that it was unreasonable because he would have been punished for it had he done it in such a public setting. Adult rape is virtually impossible to convict, because it almost always comes down to one person's word against another. There is no "hard" evidence which will confirm absolutely whether someone was raped after the fact.

And maybe this is a cultural thing, but I'd say "irrational" people should probably be the last ones in the line to get guns.

HAHAHA, good catch. It might be a cultural thing though, quite a few folks with guns here are irrational.

It's a tougher case to prove "without a doubt" I can see that now but the self-defense defense for murder certainly has worked quite a bit in the past even when it seems obvious that there was never a threat. There's plenty of examples of that as well and worse than the scenario I demonstrated. (not that it's relevant to this thread really)

Gethsemani:

Sylvine:

I'm a physically weak, absolutely peaceful individual, pretty much incapable of defending myself effectively from any assilant. Logically speaking, I'm as vulnerable in an enclosed space with someone else as it gets. Not to mention I can't know if the other person doesn't have a weapon, special training, or whatever.

There's this thing called presuming innocent until proven guilty. There's no "unless it's a man" attatched afterwards.

~Sylv

The difference between you and me is that I am raised within a gender role where my sexuality is something precious that I "give" to the man I am currently in a relationship with. My sexuality, according to society, exists for the pleasure of men, not because I myself can or should derive any pleasure from it. If a man propositions me for sex, that's not necessarily to be interpreted as a question, it could just aswell be a demand from him. This is especially true if that man is in a relationship with me.

This is the imperative difference between male and female sexuality today, that the female sexuality as shaped by society exists mostly as a tool for male pleasure. Not all men are rapists and those that aren't shouldn't be treated like they are (obviously). But by virtue of being a man you also hold a higher authority than me in matters regarding sex, even if these matters are directly tied to my sexuality or lust. That's why being asked if you want to have sex while in an enclosed space is so uncomfortable for us women: With no where to go and someone with a higher status and authority asking us if we want to have sex, it is quite common to feel an obligation to acquiese the man. Not because we want to, but because that's how we've been told that our sexuality works.

What Rebecca Watson talked about was not rape per se, it was the inherent social difference between male and female sexuality and how it can turn a seemingly innocent situation into something very uncomfortable for women. It is a very important difference to keep in mind. The higher status of the male sexuality does not make all men into rapists, but it can often put women in uncomfortable situations because of how we as a society treat the gender roles in a sexualized context.

Did I just step through a portal to the 1850's? I'm pretty certain that this concept of how men view women only exists in the minds of inbred hillbillies, chavs, and academic feminists.

This sort of thing really fucking enrages me, actually, this constant assumption by certain types of feminists that men are completely incapable of change, completely incapable of improvement, that the last 50 years have had no real effect on us or on society. Nobody is asserting that we're all done, society has achieved perfect zen-equality and ascended to a higher plane, so feminists should just shut up now, but progress has been made, significant progress, and a very substantial proportion of the female population would find your interpretation of society's view of their sexuality entirely alien.

How long are some feminists going to keep using "the patriarchy" to justify their increasing unreasonable and unequal demands?

And do you know what? Now I'm really fucking annoyed, preemptively, because I can already see the replies accusing me of being a sexist neanderthal man-pig rape-apologist, because that's the inevitable result of any discussion on this subject which isn't filled with complete and utter acquiescence to the idea that men are all barely-contained penises with a body attached.

See Spot Run:

Batou667:
Well, that's very honest of you, but I think that if we broaden the definition of rape to such an extent we make the word meaningless. You do realise that tonight, being a Friday, there will be literally hundreds of thousands of people around the world going out to bars and nightclubs with the express intention of getting drunk and/or finding somebody to have sex with?

You don't say?

Yes, this is obviously the case. A lot of those people are going to be rolling the dice on an act of rape.

In most cases, it won't be a problem, because the act is mutually agreeable, if not legally so, and neither party will object in the morning. But in the case of rape law it's better to err on the side of protecting victims, especially when it's already tremendously difficult to actually convict, even in clear cut cases. Restricting the definition just leaves a whole range of people who've been taken sexual advantage of out in the cold and without recourse.

If the cost is a few (and it really is just a few) false rape reports, I'm willing to accept that if it means providing protection to a much greater number of assault victims.

That is....monstrous, frankly.

I'm going to engage in hyperbole for a moment, I am warning you because you seem to have a substantial problem telling the difference between hyperbole(exaggerating for effect) and strawmanning;

If the cost is a few (and it really is just a few) innocent people put to death, I'm willing to accept that if it means we ensure that all the guilty die.

This is your logic, applied to another crime.

Frankly, this statement does more to reveal your view of men and "sexual politics" than anything else you've said; you consider one innocent person less worthy of the law's consideration than another, because the former is far more likely to be a man falsely accused of rape, while the latter is far more likely to be a woman made the victim of rape. Tell me, what ratio of innocent people having their lives destroyed/being imprisoned to increased percentage conviction rate would you consider acceptable?

You talk about "consideration", about "empathy", but your actual application of those concepts is every bit as sexist as those you deride.

aPod:
It's a tougher case to prove "without a doubt" I can see that now but the self-defense defense for murder certainly has worked quite a bit in the past even when it seems obvious that there was never a threat. There's plenty of examples of that as well and worse than the scenario I demonstrated. (not that it's relevant to this thread really)

I don't doubt it.

As I said, you can't claim self defence as a justification for homicide in my country so I don't hear about abuses of self defence law very much beyond people occasionally complaining that someone shouldn't have gone to prison for shooting an unarmed burglar with a shotgun. Obviously in a country where criminals routinely carry guns you need a slightly different system, but yeah, off topic.. anything that adds uncertainty to the law is always going to be difficult.

Personally, I think the whole thing needs to be carefully clarified. It's important that we account for the "attacker's" belief somehow, because it could be that someone is just very quiet during sex and then later claims they hated it and didn't consent even if the "attacker" never even noticed.

Ultimately, if it can be established that you took reasonable steps to confirm your belief that the sex was consensual, then I don't think you should ever be at risk of being convicted rape (which is pretty much how the law works here since 2003). Otherwise, much as it might be difficult, the "victim" needs to be considered more authoritative in establishing whether they gave consent. I think in some cases you should be able to add up the fact that someone claims they didn't consent with, for example, the presence of physical injury. I also think the victim's sexual history needs to stop being accounted for, because it's way too easy to discredit someone by implying they're a slut.

I think there's a terrible fear of people fabricating rape claims, and it puts a lot of suspicion on people bringing cases forward which doesn't necessarily need to be there. People don't really "make up" rape claims very often. There are a lot of "false claims" on record, but that doesn't imply that any of them are malicious, the vast majority don't even name a specific attacker. A false claim can cover all kinds of scenarios.

Of course, none of this means treating defendants as automatically guilty, but it means that they should have to say more than just "it was consensual" or "I thought it was consensual". It doesn't change the fact that it's still going to come down to one person against another, but it shifts the pressure slightly.

If the cost is a few (and it really is just a few) innocent people put to death, I'm willing to accept that if it means we ensure that all the guilty die.

This is your logic, applied to another crime.

Except, y'know, not, because what I said was Reports, not convictions. As in reporting, triggering an investigation, which may or may not trigger charges, but usually doesn't.

Dude, dude, dude.

Sex is not gender.

Man and woman is not female and male.
Men have a Y chromosome. Females have no Y chromosome. Even this isn't accurate, since the Y chromosome can be inactive.

Gender, however, is the socially constructed roles around the body. You can have more than two.

And the age of consent is VERY problematic.

Heh, Danyal didn't even have to stay involved in this one, and it's ended up much the same.

Well done to SeeSpotRun (and otherss, but mostly SeeSpotRun) for staying the course.

...

I've got nothing much to add but, even if having to consider what other people think in general (or just when they are women) before interacting with them is feminism gone mad or whatever, and people who are tired shouldn't object to being hit on by strangers while alone at 4 in the morning, surely even a totally somehow justified lack of consideration isn't going to help your chances?

Yes, it doesn't mean you, or all men, are evil rapists or whatever, but you've chosen to go out of your way to do something that makes someone uncomfortable, which was what I think the original complaint was.

thaluikhain:
Yes, it doesn't mean you, or all men, are evil rapists or whatever, but you've chosen to go out of your way to do something that makes someone uncomfortable, which was what I think the original complaint was.

Seriously? Seriously? You're suggesting the intent was to make this woman feel uncomfortable?

...

He went out of his way to do something that may or may not land him some casual sex. It didn't, it also unfortunately made this woman feel uncomfortable.

That

is

it.

Nobody is asserting that we're all done, society has achieved perfect zen-equality and ascended to a higher plane, so feminists should just shut up now, but progress has been made, significant progress, and a very substantial proportion of the female population would find your interpretation of society's view of their sexuality entirely alien.

How long are some feminists going to keep using "the patriarchy" to justify their increasing unreasonable and unequal demands?

And do you know what? Now I'm really fucking annoyed, preemptively, because I can already see the replies accusing me of being a sexist neanderthal man-pig rape-apologist, because that's the inevitable result of any discussion on this subject which isn't filled with complete and utter acquiescence to the idea that men are all barely-contained penises with a body attached. [/quote]

i'm not going to accuse you of any of things. i'm just going to accuse you of completely misunderstanding the feminist argument.

Magichead:
This sort of thing really fucking enrages me, actually, this constant assumption by certain types of feminists that men are completely incapable of change, completely incapable of improvement, that the last 50 years have had no real effect on us or on society.

This is not a feminist argument. (well some of the SCUMM nutjobs might try to claim it was, but i don't buy it.) The idea that men are "barely contained penises" is a patriarchal one, because it absolves men of responsibility for controlling their own sexuality and therefore the responsibility for rape prevention falls squarely onto women's shoulders. In order to fulfill this responsibility women are given a long list of rules to follow abouthow to act, how to dress, what places and behaviors to avoid, etc. Some of the rules may be effective, others certainly aren't, but women are expected to follow all of them or risk being blamed for any harm that might befall them. The reason women have all these "irrational fears" about rape is because that is how society has conditioned them to think.

Conversely, the mainstream feminist position is the demand that men change, that men improve, that they take responsibility for their own sexuality and respect the boundaries of others.

Magichead:

That is....monstrous, frankly.

I'm going to engage in hyperbole for a moment, I am warning you because you seem to have a substantial problem telling the difference between hyperbole(exaggerating for effect) and strawmanning;

If the cost is a few (and it really is just a few) innocent people put to death, I'm willing to accept that if it means we ensure that all the guilty die.

This is your logic, applied to another crime.

Frankly, this statement does more to reveal your view of men and "sexual politics" than anything else you've said; you consider one innocent person less worthy of the law's consideration than another, because the former is far more likely to be a man falsely accused of rape, while the latter is far more likely to be a woman made the victim of rape. Tell me, what ratio of innocent people having their lives destroyed/being imprisoned to increased percentage conviction rate would you consider acceptable?

You talk about "consideration", about "empathy", but your actual application of those concepts is every bit as sexist as those you deride.

Let me clarify this: it is better to err on the side protecting of victims, than preserving the promiscuous lifestyles of certain men. Don't want to be falsely accused of rape? Then don't go home with a stranger. Don't have sex with anyone you don't trust. (Good consent is based on trust anyway.)

All we are proposing is replacing the current standard, of expecting women to be on constant guard against rape, and instead assigning men the duty of avoiding rape by not creating situations where a rape could occur. The benefits (more effective rape prevention) far outweigh the negatives (guys might not get laid quite so often.) False accusations and false convictions are a problem that will exist regardless.

kurupt87:

thaluikhain:
Yes, it doesn't mean you, or all men, are evil rapists or whatever, but you've chosen to go out of your way to do something that makes someone uncomfortable, which was what I think the original complaint was.

Seriously? Seriously? You're suggesting the intent was to make this woman feel uncomfortable?

...

He went out of his way to do something that may or may not land him some casual sex. It didn't, it also unfortunately made this woman feel uncomfortable.

That

is

it.

That isn't a statement of intent. He chose a course of action. That action made the woman uncomfortable. Whether that was the intended effect or not is largely irrelevant from her perspective. The point is that the action made her uncomfortable, and therefore men should avoid approaching women that way, if for no other reason than creeping out women is counterproductive to the goal of later having sex with them.

Magichead:
This sort of thing really fucking enrages me, actually, this constant assumption by certain types of feminists that men are completely incapable of change, completely incapable of improvement, that the last 50 years have had no real effect on us or on society. Nobody is asserting that we're all done, society has achieved perfect zen-equality and ascended to a higher plane, so feminists should just shut up now, but progress has been made, significant progress, and a very substantial proportion of the female population would find your interpretation of society's view of their sexuality entirely alien.

Going by what little I know about Gethsemani from previous posts in which we tend to come out on the same side, I sincerely doubt this is her intention. The point of a social constructivist view of gender politics (in my view, the best thing that feminism gave us) is not having to treat anything about the way men and women are as permanent and unchanging, because that's where the real hope is.

You're right that huge amounts have changed in the last 50 years, a lot of it I would argue lead by the changing status of women, but yeah.. men are so much better now, I don't think anyone will deny that. It's easy to get caught up talking about how masculinity is in "crisis", but actually, men have gone a great way towards shrugging off traditional roles, with pretty awesome consequences.

And yet, if we take two fictional, generalized people, one male and one female. They both like to go out and get laid, in fact let's say they each sleep with 10 people in a month. We're not talking creeps here, just moderately attractive people who they like and want to fuck.

Which one gains the greater social reward?

See, the answer is still pretty obvious. It's the same reason why, when they both walk into a bar, the guy will probably have to work pretty hard to be approached. The girl just has to sit around and make eye contact (not always true, I know, but let's take it as a generalization). For the girl, the fact that she has slept with so many people is still likely to count against her, she'll be read as "easy", there will be a sense that she has failed at one of the primary tasks of being female, that is, withholding sex from men.

The guy, on the other hand, is likely to be congratulated or treated as a kind of role model by other men. He's a stud, he is admired for his capacity to persuade women to let him have sex with them. It doesn't matter if actually it was mind-blowingly good sex for his partners and they felt really good about it afterwards. It doesn't even matter if he occasionally punches below his weight and sleeps with someone he doesn't even like, he still wins socially.

I'll accept that this certainly doesn't apply in every situation any more, but generally speaking society is still set up on the assumption that male pleasure, achieved through conquest, is the important thing, and that the female's job is simply to be a passive vehicle of this pleasure. The entire dynamic is still often that it is men who initiate and women who withhold unless they can be "persuaded" otherwise. There's no definite sense that women gain anything from sex in this equation, society doesn't care whether they really enjoy it when writing them off as sluts.

There is change here, I know. We don't all just accept this any more, especially not women. Women are having much more sex, and to a certain extent the line between the "good girls" and "bad girls" which was so important in previous generations has broken down, and that's fucking awesome. Heck, we're much more open about female pleasure now too, I don't think there's ever been so much pressure on men to perform well sexually. But (perhaps because this new world in which women can actively judge you and use you and potentially be disappointed by you is actually quite frightening) traces of this old logic are still there, and I think the point is simply that we need to be careful of it, because some men do take it too far and end up being quite aggressive.

It's precisely because some men have changed, and because many women are no longer willing to go along with this "game", that it's now very obvious that far too many of us are still stuck with viewing sex as a kind of aggressive conquest in which women are just territory to be conquered. Not all, but many, and I think it's fair to say that society as a whole probably isn't helping. There is a heavily institutionalized inequality here, it's something practically all of us recognize about the society we live in, whether consciously or not. Even in rejecting it as defunct or outdated or pretty horrible, and I would do all of those things, we have to acknowledge that it exists.

While Gethsemani's point might seem extreme, I'm pretty sure I've seen these things happen. Not every woman, even amongst the smart and assertive women of this world, has infinite reserves of self-esteem, some respond to being pushed simply because they've learned that's what they should do or even because they've learned to interpret aggression as affection. Sometimes it's just easier to go along with it, it doesn't change the fact that it should never, never be like that.

oh, i forgot to mention something:

Magichead:
Nobody is asserting that we're all done, society has achieved perfect zen-equality and ascended to a higher plane, so feminists should just shut up now

Actually there are many, many people who will assert exactly that.

Wow this thread was woth a good laugh
@See Spot Run you do realize that your arguement is ridiculous. First you are saying men net to consider what when an where they say somthing because many men are rapist and may women are rape victims, by using obviously manipulated statistics. In order to get the in 6 women are rape or attempted rape survivors they include woman that had consumed enough alchool to be considered legaly drunk. Even if the woman had no regrets, enjoyed the encounter and wants to/ does continue having sex with the person in the future, it is still counted as rape. You than go on and talk about how the guy was in the wrong for asking about getting coffee and wanted sex because of the context of the situation which was they were in an elevator, with no escape for her. Your say her being uncomfortable in that situation is resonable because even with an emergency call botton he could have done somthing and help wold have been a few minuets away, not even realizing that he could have done somthing and never even brought up the whole he would like to have sex in the first place. In fact if he was going to do somthing like that in the first place the odds are he would not start by trying to ask her out for some casual sex. So by going by that logic she should have been just as uncomfortable being alone in the elevator in the first place, and should not have entered the elevator in the first place.

I am sorry but while I am not going to purposely make some one uncomfortable, I am not going to go out of my way trying to figure out whether or not when or somthing I say will make some person uncofortable. Every thing you say or do can make someone uncomfortable it's unreasonable to keep very one comfortable.

cobra_ky:
That isn't a statement of intent. He chose a course of action. That action made the woman uncomfortable. Whether that was the intended effect or not is largely irrelevant from her perspective. The point is that the action made her uncomfortable, and therefore men should avoid approaching women that way, if for no other reason than creeping out women is counterproductive to the goal of later having sex with them.

Exactly. Also, I agree what was said in the post before that as well.

JSF01:
In order to get the in 6 women are rape or attempted rape survivors they include woman that had consumed enough alchool to be considered legaly drunk.

Not in my country (we have no laws regarding alcohol and consent) and we have similar statistics, particularly if you factor in other forms of sexual assault, which is still a very serious crime and not something anyone wants to go through.

JSF01:
In fact if he was going to do something like that in the first place the odds are he would not start by trying to ask her out for some casual sex.

I disagree.

The idea that most people who sexually assault others set out with the intention to deliberately attack and molest people is kind of flawed. There are very few antisocial serial rapists who go out with the deliberate intention of raping someone.

The "average rapist" is a perfectly ordinary person who often doesn't realize that they're doing something wrong. They'll usually rape someone they know, most often a current or former sexual partner, but occasionally someone who they feel has "given the signals". It's very rare for a rapist to acknowledge that what they have done is rape, they tend to operate on the illusion that their victim consented at some point prior to the incident and that any subsequent impression to the contrary was a pretence. They also tend to be quite drunk at the time.

I'm not completely familiar with this situation, but I don't think that she ever suggested that she thought he was going to tear off her clothes in the lift. I've been indulging the concept to make a point, but I don't think it's remotely relevant to how she reacted or how she felt. He made quite a strong advance to her, and then persisted after she said no. Basically, not taking no for an answer. If she had given in to pressure and said yes, rationalizing that it was just a drink, she could have found herself in quite an unpleasant situation.

This actually tends to be how rape happens, not because bad people go out with the specific intention of finding victims, but because people, often while drunk, momentarily forget to accept the word 'no'.

Magichead:

Did I just step through a portal to the 1850's? I'm pretty certain that this concept of how men view women only exists in the minds of inbred hillbillies, chavs, and academic feminists.

This sort of thing really fucking enrages me, actually, this constant assumption by certain types of feminists that men are completely incapable of change, completely incapable of improvement, that the last 50 years have had no real effect on us or on society. Nobody is asserting that we're all done, society has achieved perfect zen-equality and ascended to a higher plane, so feminists should just shut up now, but progress has been made, significant progress, and a very substantial proportion of the female population would find your interpretation of society's view of their sexuality entirely alien.

How long are some feminists going to keep using "the patriarchy" to justify their increasing unreasonable and unequal demands?

And do you know what? Now I'm really fucking annoyed, preemptively, because I can already see the replies accusing me of being a sexist neanderthal man-pig rape-apologist, because that's the inevitable result of any discussion on this subject which isn't filled with complete and utter acquiescence to the idea that men are all barely-contained penises with a body attached.

I know my post came off as a bit extreme (I was tired and annoyed, I should have gone to bed instead... But yeah) and I'll be among the first to assert that society has indeed changed since 1950. It is not my intention to suggest that "men can't change" or that all men are just waiting for their chance to oppress women. What I wanted to point out however is that the male sexuality (as Evilthecat pointed out in his reply) still has a higher status than the female and that we as a society still cling to parts of the "male = dominant, female = passive" line of thinking in regards to how sex works.

There's a reason why few of my male friends can recall ever being stared at all night by a girl at the bar, being separated from their friends while dancing in a nightclub by someone that gets very intimate or being groped in a nightclub, while just about all of my female friends (me included) have been subjected to all three several times. Not all men act like thi (many don't, even) but enough men do that we as women are constantly reminded that our sexuality is still considered to be a vehicle of male pleasure first and foremost.

On top of that we have mainstream media that keeps up a steady barrage of sexualized women (pick any HBO series made after Rome and realize how many scenes include naked women for no apparent reason other then to offer T&A. I am not saying HBO series are bad, because I enjoy many of them, but rather that they use female nudity to increase the pull on male viewers), to a far higher degree than it sexualizes men.

I know we've made progress in the last 50 years, particularly up here in Sweden. But we are not in the spot yet where all genders and sexualities are equal yet. The male (heterosexual) sexuality is still the societal norm and has a far higher status than the female sexality, something that often puts women today in uncomfortable situations. Until we reach that spot, I do believe we ought to talk about it, don't you?

(And don't worry Magichead from what I've seen of your posts you tend to be reasonable. I certainly won't call you names or assume you are off your rocker.)

all im gonna say is if we work this question out we're really gonna hit the big time.

evilthecat:
I'm not completely familiar with this situation, but I don't think that she ever suggested that she thought he was going to tear off her clothes in the lift. I've been indulging the concept to make a point, but I don't think it's remotely relevant to how she reacted or how she felt. He made quite a strong advance to her, and then persisted after she said no. Basically, not taking no for an answer. If she had given in to pressure and said yes, rationalizing that it was just a drink, she could have found herself in quite an unpleasant situation.

I watched the video to see what people were talking about. Of an 8 minute video she mentions the incident once and only talks about it for about one minute. Apparently he wound up with her in the elevator and, a paraphrase of a paraphrase, he says "Don't take this the wrong way but I really liked what you said in there and I was hoping we could go back to my room and discuss it over some coffee." She does not say that he was particularly aggressive or that he would not leave her alone. She does say that he didn't seem to get what she had been talking about in her presentation and that she did not like being treated as a sex object. She actually seemed most taken aback by the fact that he did this after her presentation on sexism and women being treated as sex objects. She never even said that he wanted sex though she seems to have conflated his approach with her being treated as a sex object even though what she said he opened his approach with "Don't take this the wrong way..." should be a cue that he is not actually trying to bed her. I have no idea if she has made further comment on what happened though.

cobra_ky:

kurupt87:

thaluikhain:
Yes, it doesn't mean you, or all men, are evil rapists or whatever, but you've chosen to go out of your way to do something that makes someone uncomfortable, which was what I think the original complaint was.

Seriously? Seriously? You're suggesting the intent was to make this woman feel uncomfortable?

...

He went out of his way to do something that may or may not land him some casual sex. It didn't, it also unfortunately made this woman feel uncomfortable.

That

is

it.

That isn't a statement of intent. He chose a course of action. That action made the woman uncomfortable. Whether that was the intended effect or not is largely irrelevant from her perspective. The point is that the action made her uncomfortable, and therefore men should avoid approaching women that way, if for no other reason than creeping out women is counterproductive to the goal of later having sex with them.

What did he do wrong?

There are two possibilities, either the situation of the lift at 4am is wrong or a man asking a woman if she wants to have sex is wrong.

Which is it?

kurupt87:

What did he do wrong?

There are two possibilities, either the situation of the lift at 4am is wrong or a man asking a woman if she wants to have sex is wrong.

Which is it?

It should be pretty obvious that it is the "suggest sex at 4am in an elevator" part that is the largest wrong. On the other hand, asking someone if they want to have sex can also be wrong depending on how you go about it. Suggesting that it is an either or situation is trying to create a false dichotomy. It was the entire situation that made her uncomfortable and that's really all that matters.

There's an obvious difference between "Hey, I like you and I was hoping we could make love?" while handing over a bouqet of flowers and "I like your hot body and want to fuck you" while cornering the other person. To suggest that asking anyone if they want to sex is always a clear cut black and white moral decision is pretty naive. There are plenty of scenarios where the decision to proposition someone for sex and the way you go about it are morally grey.

As a side note, I believe it is in everyones best interest to always try and act in a way that won't inconvenience or make other people uncomfortable.

Gethsemani:

kurupt87:

What did he do wrong?

There are two possibilities, either the situation of the lift at 4am is wrong or a man asking a woman if she wants to have sex is wrong.

Which is it?

It should be pretty obvious that it is the "suggest sex at 4am in an elevator" part that is the largest wrong. On the other hand, asking someone if they want to have sex can also be wrong depending on how you go about it. Suggesting that it is an either or situation is trying to create a false dichotomy. It was the entire situation that made her uncomfortable and that's really all that matters.

Appreciated, a includes b. I know. But it's a, and I've said previously why I think that's unreasonable.

There's an obvious difference between "Hey, I like you and I was hoping we could make love?" while handing over a bouqet of flowers and "I like your hot body and want to fuck you" while cornering the other person. To suggest that asking anyone if they want to sex is always a clear cut black and white moral decision is pretty naive. There are plenty of scenarios where the decision to proposition someone for sex and the way you go about it are morally grey.

If I were to say, "Hey I like you and I was hoping we could make love?" I would feel uncomfortable and like a twat. I do not want to make love, I want to have sex. I do not love her. I do not know her. This is casual sex, not the beginning of a beautiful relationship that poets will write about for the next century. The reason I'd feel uncomfortable saying what you propose is because it's a lie, it implies I want to get into a relationship. I don't. I prefer to be honest rather than manipulative, I'd leave in the morning whatever happens. With one she knows I will, with the other she doesn't.

I must have missed the "I like your hot body and want to fuck you", I only got "Don't take this the wrong way, but would you like a drink of coffee in my room?"

kurupt87:

If I were to say, "Hey I like you and I was hoping we could make love?" I would feel uncomfortable and like a twat. I do not want to make love, I want to have sex. I do not love her. I do not know her. This is casual sex, not the beginning of a beautiful relationship that poets will write about for the next century. The reason I'd feel uncomfortable saying what you propose is because it's a lie, it implies I want to get into a relationship. I don't. I prefer to be honest rather than manipulative, I'd leave in the morning whatever happens. With one she knows I will, with the other she doesn't.

I must have missed the "I like your hot body and want to fuck you", I only got "Don't take this the wrong way, but would you like a drink of coffee in my room?"

It is about empathy and understanding what kind of reaction you might get depending on how you express and behave. My point is not that all sex is romantic, but that the former way of saying it is more diplomatic than the latter, which is a complete objectification of the person you are asking (man or woman). Being honest or manipulative doesn't count into the equation, only how you posture yourself and express your intentions.

In case it wasn't clear (but I think it was), I was not refering to the "elevatorgate" situation in particular. I would personally be really awkward if a guy asked me that at 4am while we rode an elevator together. In fact, one might even pose the question why he bothered to even ask her that at all. I've yet to meet anyone, man or woman, who would be fine with casual sex with complete strangers. In any other situation, such as if it was in a bar, out on the streets or at a party this kind of behaviour would be amusing at best and awkward at worst. But in a confined space late at night? Yeah, that's kind of where awkward passes over into creepy. Why would a random ask such a thing in that time and place? What happens if I say no? This is exactly the kind of situation that women are constantly told to avoid, because the police, NGOs against sexual violence and "common sense" have informed us that it is a prelude to sexual assault. This man was probably just drunk (or completely sober, but I am rooting for drunk) and didn't realize the implications of his actions, but they are most certainly there, even if he is completely harmless and didn't intend for them.

Gethsemani:

kurupt87:

If I were to say, "Hey I like you and I was hoping we could make love?" I would feel uncomfortable and like a twat. I do not want to make love, I want to have sex. I do not love her. I do not know her. This is casual sex, not the beginning of a beautiful relationship that poets will write about for the next century. The reason I'd feel uncomfortable saying what you propose is because it's a lie, it implies I want to get into a relationship. I don't. I prefer to be honest rather than manipulative, I'd leave in the morning whatever happens. With one she knows I will, with the other she doesn't.

I must have missed the "I like your hot body and want to fuck you", I only got "Don't take this the wrong way, but would you like a drink of coffee in my room?"

It is about empathy and understanding what kind of reaction you might get depending on how you express and behave. My point is not that all sex is romantic, but that the former way of saying it is more diplomatic than the latter, which is a complete objectification of the person you are asking (man or woman). Being honest or manipulative doesn't count into the equation, only how you posture yourself and express your intentions.

In case it wasn't clear (but I think it was), I was not refering to the "elevatorgate" situation in particular. I would personally be really awkward if a guy asked me that at 4am while we rode an elevator together. In fact, one might even pose the question why he bothered to even ask her that at all. I've yet to meet anyone, man or woman, who would be fine with casual sex with complete strangers. In any other situation, such as if it was in a bar, out on the streets or at a party this kind of behaviour would be amusing at best and awkward at worst. But in a confined space late at night? Yeah, that's kind of where awkward passes over into creepy. Why would a random ask such a thing in that time and place? What happens if I say no? This is exactly the kind of situation that women are constantly told to avoid, because the police, NGOs against sexual violence and "common sense" have informed us that it is a prelude to sexual assault. This man was probably just drunk (or completely sober, but I am rooting for drunk) and didn't realize the implications of his actions, but they are most certainly there, even if he is completely harmless and didn't intend for them.

That's pretty much what I was saying a page ago. The problem wasn't simply a man trying to score with a woman, it was a stranger in a closed elevator at four in the morning that started off asking if she wanted to come to his room. That's not intrinsically wrong or a setup to rape 100% of the time, but it's pretty damn creepy given the time and location, and he should have opened with a little tact even if his goal was to never see her again. Personally I know guys that never had a moral quandary about sleeping around and aiming low in every category, some of them did a good job of not giving mixed messages, some were assholes that would tell a girl anything if he could get her in the sack, and even the assholes knew better than to corner a girl in a closed space with no one else around and proposition them for sex right off the bat.

TheStatutoryApe:
snip

Fair enough.. everything I've heard about this incident seemed to suggest he persisted after being told no. That does change the situation a bit, maybe she overreacted. I don't really think it matters.

I haven't really bothered to look into this because it sounds like absolutely nothing. A trivial incident happened, someone involved made a passing comment on it in a way which might have exaggerated its importance, internet goes mental because "OH NOES! WIMMINZ WANT TO STOP ME HAVING SEX WITH THEM!".

To me, it seems to say more about the hysterical insecurity of some men on the internet than about any kind of active agenda or political position.

evilthecat:

JSF01:
In order to get the in 6 women are rape or attempted rape survivors they include woman that had consumed enough alchool to be considered legaly drunk.

Not in my country (we have no laws regarding alcohol and consent) and we have similar statistics, particularly if you factor in other forms of sexual assault, which is still a very serious crime and not something anyone wants to go through.

That's actually my point. I am not saying sexual assault is not a serious problem, but it is not rape. Sure it may lead to rape or attempted rape in some cases but not all cases or even most cases. In the US the exact same statistic 1 in 6 women are a victim of sexual assault so claiming 1 in 6 women is a rape or atempted rape suvivor is false unless you are using some very loose definitions of what is considered rape or attempted rape.

evilthecat:

JSF01:
In fact if he was going to do something like that in the first place the odds are he would not start by trying to ask her out for some casual sex.

I disagree.

The idea that most people who sexually assault others set out with the intention to deliberately attack and molest people is kind of flawed. There are very few antisocial serial rapists who go out with the deliberate intention of raping someone.

The "average rapist" is a perfectly ordinary person who often doesn't realize that they're doing something wrong. They'll usually rape someone they know, most often a current or former sexual partner, but occasionally someone who they feel has "given the signals". It's very rare for a rapist to acknowledge that what they have done is rape, they tend to operate on the illusion that their victim consented at some point prior to the incident and that any subsequent impression to the contrary was a pretence. They also tend to be quite drunk at the time.

I'm not completely familiar with this situation, but I don't think that she ever suggested that she thought he was going to tear off her clothes in the lift. I've been indulging the concept to make a point, but I don't think it's remotely relevant to how she reacted or how she felt. He made quite a strong advance to her, and then persisted after she said no. Basically, not taking no for an answer. If she had given in to pressure and said yes, rationalizing that it was just a drink, she could have found herself in quite an unpleasant situation.

This actually tends to be how rape happens, not because bad people go out with the specific intention of finding victims, but because people, often while drunk, momentarily forget to accept the word 'no'.

Again this was my basically my point. People here are saying that the guy was wrong for asking in an elevator because it made the woman uncomfortable since she had no where to "escape" if the guy decided to actually try to rape her. I was just pointing out that if the guy ws that type of rapist than it would be just as likly if not more so he would have done somthing without bringing up the lets go for a cup of coffee thing first.

Why has this become such a shitstorm? It was 4am and she obviously wanted to go to bed. All she said was "don't proposition people in an elevator at 4am because it's creepy and makes people feel uncomfortable". This is a given. Furthermore, they had just come from a bar where they had both presumably been drinking. Say you're a man, and another man larger than you who had been drinking asked you for anything in an enclosed space like that, would you not feel at least mildly uncomfortable? Imagine he asked you for money. Now imagine he asked you to go to his room. Remember, this is someone you have never met before in your life until he accosted you in an elevator late at night.

It's just common courtesy not to do such things. People saying "well he didn't realise he was being creepy" are being disengenuous. He absolutely did know he was being creepy. He said "Don't take this the wrong way but do you want to have some coffee in my room?" He predicted that it would come across as predatory but said it anyway. It's like when someone says "No offense but you look terrible today". They're basically inviting you to take offense but simultaneously covering themselves against it.

Dawkins' comments were way out of line, by the way.

He asked her to his room for coffee.

OH SWEET LORD CALL THE POLICE! THE FBI! THE MARINES!

TORCH THE PLACE! DESTROY THE EVIL THAT DWELLS WITHIN IT!

Seriously? He didn't do anything, he made a request. A suggestive request yes. A creepy request, possibly, though if it was George Clooney I doubt she'd have described it so. He didn't say GIVE ME YOUR PANTIES! Or come with me for fornication! Now love slave.

He asked for coffee. The woe is me level is way too high on this one.

manic_depressive13:
Why has this become such a shitstorm? It was 4am and she obviously wanted to go to bed. All she said was "don't proposition people in an elevator at 4am because it's creepy and makes people feel uncomfortable". This is a given. Furthermore, they had just come from a bar where they had both presumably been drinking. Say you're a man, and another man larger than you who had been drinking asked you for anything in an enclosed space like that, would you not feel at least mildly uncomfortable? Imagine he asked you for money. Now imagine he asked you to go to his room. Remember, this is someone you have never met before in your life until he accosted you in an elevator late at night.

It's just common courtesy not to do such things. People saying "well he didn't realise he was being creepy" are being disengenuous. He absolutely did know he was being creepy. He said "Don't take this the wrong way but do you want to have some coffee in my room?" He predicted that it would come across as predatory but said it anyway. It's like when someone says "No offense but you look terrible today". They're basically inviting you to take offense but simultaneously covering themselves against it.

Dawkins' comments were way out of line, by the way.

I think I mentioned getting propositioned in a Sauna at the gym in my earlier post. Two dudes, in a foggy sauna, with nothing but a towel on. I said it made me uncomfortable but I didn't tell the guy off for asking what he did. It wasn't courteous of him, but hey a squeaky wheel gets the grease.

aPod:
I think I mentioned getting propositioned in a Sauna at the gym in my earlier post. Two dudes, in a foggy sauna, with nothing but a towel on. I said it made me uncomfortable but I didn't tell the guy off for asking what he did. It wasn't courteous of him, but hey a squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I don't see why it's a big deal that she mentioned in her video blog that this made her uncomfortable. It wasn't even the main theme of her video. She just kind of mentioned it half way through. She essentially said "don't make advances on people you've never met in awkward situations because you'll probably make them feel incredibly uncomfortable". I'd say that's a pretty reasonable request. Then at some point Dawkins shows up and accuses her of trivialising the plight of muslim women because she complained about what she interpreted as a proposition for sex by a stranger in the early hours of the morning after she had been drinking.

The comment that I do take offense to is the one made by Phil Plait in the article that was linked in the OP.

Phil Plait:
Being alone in an elevator with a man late at night is uncomfortable for any woman, even if the man is silent.

Um, no, it isn't. Not every woman is a sexist paranoid schizophrenic who assumes every man going home late is a potential rapist. However, the moment that guy made that proposition he created an uncomfortable and, depending on his body language and how drunk he seemed (if at all), possibly a rather intimidating situation. That's not nice and people shouldn't make others feel like that. That's all. It's hardly a groundbreaking or controversial notion. At least not in my opinion. Clearly there are people here who feel they ought to be allowed to do what they like regardless of common courtesy. Bitches be too sensitive, after all.

Danyal:
[quote]

2. Women are the exact equals of men and should be treated exactly the same in all situations. They should run 50% of all companies, 50% of all soldiers should be female, 50% of all politicians should be female. They certainly aren't fragile beings who get panic attacks when they are asked something.

Oh for fuck's sake, here you go again.

Once again, you've completely missed the point. No one is arguing that men and women should be treated EXACTLY THE SAME. They are arguing that men and women should have equal opportunities. If a woman wants to become a construction worker, and she proves herself to be strong enough to do so - why can't she? If a man wants to stay at home and look after his children - why can't he? There should be no gender restrictions - only skill/merit restrictions. Just because 70% of females aren't strong enough to be a brick layer, that doesn't mean the other 30% shouldn't be allowed to.

That is our position. Equal opportunity.

Equal opportunity /=/ MAKE SURE WE GIVE FEMALES HALF OF EVERYTHING.

You don't listen. You time and time again make posts that completely miss the point.

SillyBear:

Oh for fuck's sake, here you go again.

Once again, you've completely missed the point. No one is arguing that men and women should be treated EXACTLY THE SAME. They are arguing that men and women should have equal opportunities. If a woman wants to become a construction worker, and she proves herself to be strong enough to do so - why can't she? If a man wants to stay at home and look after his children - why can't he? There should be no gender restrictions - only skill/merit restrictions. Just because 70% of females aren't strong enough to be a brick layer, that doesn't mean the other 30% shouldn't be allowed to.

That is our position. Equal opportunity.

Equal opportunity /=/ MAKE SURE WE GIVE FEMALES HALF OF EVERYTHING.

You don't listen. You time and time again make posts that completely miss the point.

I made a thread here arguing against the 40% quota for women in boards. I thought it was an extreme example, because, as you say, maybe it's not that the same amount of women as men is interested in and skilled enough for a job in those boards. A lot of people thought I was an evil sexist because of that idea.

Also, in the 14 year old boy - 20 year old girl, it was argued that men and women are exactly the same in the way they have and want sex, and we should treat a 14 year old boy f*cking a 20 year old girl the same as a 20 year old boy f*cking a 14 year old girl.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked