U of T Protest: Warren Farrell = Hate Speech

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 

evilthecat:
-

Did you seriously just suggest it is impossible for a man to be raped without some sort of device?

What's your views on female-on-male abuse in a relationship?

evilthecat:
That doesn't mean we should assume that someone is lying simply because they come forward with an accusation.

Actually you should, always should. Any complaint must be checked for signs of falsehood, because otherwise you risk persecution, and very importantly, scrutinising a complaint also strengthens a genuine case.
The majority of rape or sexual abuse cases take place within the family, and you have no direct witnesses, or they keep their mouths shut (you'd be amazed and apalled in equal measure at how many mothers choose against their children and for their husband if sexual abuse is uncovered for instance). So you often get a word vs word situation and only indicators that can't really be brought into a court to go on. I've been close to a few such cases, but in one we had pretty much nothing other than that neighbours had heard the perpetrator made really strange sexually tined remarks towards children in the neighbourhood.

No trial happened due to Christian child protection services wanting to protect child rapists (I really wish I was shitting you on this one, but it's true) in order to keep the family together, but initial inquiries were made by the police. The procedure is to call on 'character witnesses' to determine if the victim could be lying. I was the one who discovered it, so I for instance was called on to take a detailed statement on the situation when I first heard of it. The shock and disgust she showed, deep trauma and sudden triggers of dissociation caused by trauma can not be faked, and since I and other witnesses that it was taken as proof that sexual abuse had happened.
When the charges went away, he confessed pretty quickly during a meeting with so-called 'social workers'. Smug bastard knew he was safe and among friends when they were present.

Such scrutinising doesn't have to be hostile or hurting for a potential victim really. All it takes is the regular fact-checking being done with the back of the mind remembering that faked charges exist. Fake ones ussually fall through on a lack of details or plausibility. With a genuine case you can walk someone through it and recover small details like 'his hand went exactly here' or 'he said this, quote, unquote'.

So basically, being sceptical about sex crimes being filed is not just a good thing, but crucial to the possibility of a fair trial, and justice being served.

evilthecat:
It means that, effectively, the defendant does not have to answer the case at all. They can sit there throughout the whole trial in dead silence with a huge smile on their face watching as the entire court focuses on questioning whether or not the alleged victim behaved sufficiently "like a rape victim".

That's pretty much how it goes right now in cases without forensic evidence or direct witnesses, and it works. You have to realise that reliving and redestining (I don't know if that's an accurate translation, but basically you drag a traumatic experience back up, label it apriopriately, conclude that you have no shame or guilt, and give it a place in your memory) is a large part of dealing with traumatic experiences, so if done professionally, that actually helps a genuine victim process trauma from rape.

Also there's no alternative to that really, unless one wants to abandon the principle of innocent untill proven guilty. Many such cases don't have conventional evidence like you see it on tv.

evilthecat:
Easy answer: Not unless the woman had a strap-on. Remember, rape is the crime of penetrating someone else's body without their consent. If you don't understand why this is, try being penetrated.

That is both legally and factually speaking, completely incorrect. The example you were responding to isn't rape, but the idea that men can't be raped is entirely incorrect on so many levels.

evilthecat:
A good example would be the case in Israel where an arab man was found guilty of rape for having sex with a Jewish woman after pretending to have a Jewish name. I don't consider that to be coercion, there is still no pressure or compulsion on the part of the alleged victim to consent to sexual activity. The law in Israel apparently disagrees, but I understand there may have been other elements of that case which didn't get reported in foreign media.

Chances are the impact on the 'victim' counts. If you're from a conservative family and that happens to you, you'd pretty much be foresworn by everyone you ever knew. It may not be coercion to modern standards because ethnic bias has no place in that, but it doesn't mean that no crime was committed in the sense of harm being done to the victim. Depending on if it's an ethnic Palestinian or not I can really understand where it comes from even if I disagree with the methods, I mean, nobody has anything quite like the animosity of Palestinians against Isrealis going on in their country, we shouldn't pretend it's no big deal.

I've seen the same happen in conservative reformist circles too. Girl gets raped, she gets foresworn, banished forever. The law really should take stuff like that into consideration when the perpetrator(s) stand trial, because in the case I saw, they got a few months each, while her life is destroyed forever.

At the same time that environment spawned many cases of consensual sex being discovered, and the girl decides that claiming it was rape is preferably to facing the scorn of her family, and an innocent man who's done no wrong gets fed to the dogs, untill police crack the supposed 'victim' anyway and the case falls apart.

evilthecat:

generals3:
snip

I don't get how you can honestly believe that asking someone to explain their actions is somehow irrelevent to proving intent. I don't get how you can put the entire judicial procedure for whether a crime has been committed onto how much the victim struggled against it. In what other crime do we do this? In what other crime does procedure specifically exclude using the testimony of the defendant as an indication of their actions, particularly when we're claiming their motives are important.

What you're asking for is completely unworkable. You want a system which is entirely contingent on establishing intent, and yet is also entirely on the behaviour of the person who is not actually committing the crime, and in which any indication by the victim that they have not consented short of using physical violence to defend themselves is ignored because they might have been lying. Can you stop for a moment and consider how batshit that is?

Imagine if you woke up to find someone breaking into your house and yet the law said that if you simply told them to leave rather than immediately taking a baseball bat to them regardless of whether they were armed or stronger than you, a court would decide that you'd given them no reason to believe they weren't welcome in your house so they didn't even have to ask your burglar why he was breaking into your house, they didn't even need to bother to get his testimony because it's not considered relevant to whether he actually meant to break into your house, only your actions matter. That's fucking insane.

I'm getting really sick of this. You can keep doing mental gymnastics all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that what you're defending is not the rights of the accused, because the rights of the accused never apply like you're suggesting they do. Not in any other crime you can think of. What you're defending is the bizarre idea that only "bad men" should ever be able to be prosecuted for rape, and I'm starting to feel that you will jump through whatever hoops are required to sustain that assertion or to conceal the fact that it has no basis in the reality of the crime. We don't need rapists to be "bad men" in order to convict them, we just need them to be rapists.

chaosord:
1) Your strap-on comment; Nice anti-male bias there.

Not really. Unless you're claiming that men can't be penetrated.

chaosord:
So if a woman forces a man to fuck her and as long she doesn't stick anything in the man, its not rape. I'm sorry but that is just fucked up. And morally wrong. Didn't your "gender studies" class show that men feel pain, shame, and self loathing when that happens to them? Its the same fucking trauma. Or is it something you just don't care about?

It's not the same trauma. You can't die from it. There's no chance you'll have to take painkillers in order to go to the toilet for the rest of your life, or to suffer permanent prostate injury. You can move while it's going on without putting yourself at risk of internal damage. You won't get pregnant. You're far less likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease. You are extremely unlikely to orgasm involuntarily. I know on some level I shouldn't be surprised when straight guys don't get this, but I refuse to believe that on some level you don't understand. If I was attacking you in the street and wanted to hurt and humiliate you, would you rather I sucked your dick or that I shoved a bottle into your arse?

It is a completely different physical experience which is likely to produce an entirely different cognitive outcome. Yes, some men would feel very violated by such an experience or develop PTSD, just as some women can get through rape without being deeply affected by it. But being mugged can cause a person to feel violated or to develop PTSD, and that doesn't change the fact that mugging is a separate crime. The emotional consequences of any crime always deserve to be taken seriously, but that doesn't mean every crime needs to be the same.

Rape is a form of sexual assault involving penetration, because the likely consequences of penetration are different to the likely consequences of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent which. incidentally, is also a serious crime. Don't pretend I "don't care" because I don't see two acts as the same when they're blatantly not.

You posed me a question. I have answered it. My response to you was not a response to "the talk" (I'm not sure if you mean the interview in the opening post, or the general progression of this thread), it was a response to you.

Warren Farrel's talk. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6w1S8yrFz4 once again I must ask you, "Were the tactics and thuggery used to try and censor this man, justified?"

This is going to be my last post, directed at you, on this subject. You are adding murder and assault crimes to rape. All three of which happen to men as well, however, two of those three happen to men at much higher rates. It has become very clear that you cleave to an ideological viewpoint that places women above the rest of humanity.

The study!

"Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women's token resistance to sex."
Muehlenhard, Charlene L.; Hollabaugh, Lisa C.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 54(5), May 1988.

You can find the abstract here:

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/54/5/872/

You will need to pay for the article. I will not just paste the entire study here, as that might give rise to copyright issues (since they charge for it after all). If you don't trust my excerpting, buy the article using the link I helpfully provided.

Here is how the authors introduced the study:

"This study investigated women's token resistance to sex, which we defined as a woman's indicating that she did not want to have sex even though she had every intention to and was willing to engage in sexual intercourse."

Some relevant methodology details: 610 female introductory psychology students from Texas A&M University. Mean age: 19 years.

Questionnaires were administered "asking how often they had indicated to a man that they did not want to have sex even though they 'had every intention to and were willing to engage in sexual intercourse.'"

Subjects asked how many times they were in each of 3 situations:

(1) Situations wherein the men wanted sex, "and, in a way, the women wanted to also," but said and meant no.
(2) Said no but meant "maybe."
(3) Said no, but "had every intention to and were willing to engage in sexual intercourse. In other words, you indicated "no" and you meant "yes."

Researchers: "We were primarily interested in the third situation."

Results: 39.3 % (Farrell: "nearly 40%") of women answered yes to (3). Again, this 40% excludes those who said no but meant "maybe," and also excluded those who "wanted, in a way, to have sex" (Geth's hypo) but ultimately meant no. 22% of the women reported doing this on 6 different occasions or more.

The 40% were asked whether their reasons for displaying what the researches called this "token resistance," were reasons that could be characterized as "manipulative," defined thusly: either Game Playing, Anger with Partner, or Desire to be in Control.

75% of the 40% stated that one of these reasons were anywhere from being "somewhat important" to their reason for offering TR, to being "very important."

The researchers concluded, using the data (not all of it provided here) that women who engaged in TR for manipulative reasons wanted, among other things, to "make him beg" and wanted the men to be "more physically aggressive."

The researchers found a heavy correlation between these women and their belief that women like it when men use force during sex, and that being "roughed up" during sex is "stimulating" to women.

The authors conclude by voicing their extreme concern for the implications of the study, and a discussion of how women's behavior and beliefs likely add to the problem of rape.

I couldn't find much info on one researcher, but Muehlenhard is a professor of clinical phsychology. According to her profile, her "research areas include rape and other forms of sexual coercion, sexual consent, communication and miscommunication about sex."

http://psych.ku.edu/people/faculty/muhlenhard_charlene.shtml

Sooooooooo. . . .

ManUpManDown:
snip

I think I've probably had my fill of this thread and I don't think I have the patience or time to give you a proper answer, but I just wanted to say that while I disagree with you and have been at various points infuriated and insulted by what you've actually said, I appreciate that you've attempted to provide deep answers and, in most cases, have actually managed to read what I have said in response, which is more than most of the other people I'm about to respond to.

Kudos on finding the study. However, doing so has also raised some problems for me.

Firstly, it strikes me that Farrell is effectively doing precisely what the study warns us not to do with its findings, in that rather than viewing token resistance a move which makes sense to some women as a way of obtaining some degree of "power" in the face of a sexual politics which results in greater sexual agency and allows greater assertiveness in men, he seems to be presenting it simply as evidence that women (in general) fantasize about rape and thus that the male behaviours responsible for rape cannot be criticised or prosecuted because they are responses to "what women want".

Furthermore, I think stripping that study of context like that means it doesn't show up, for example, that token resistance is not specifically a female thing at all. A quick google search around that study showed that it had a whole host of follow ups, a couple of which looked at men. I'd suggest looking at the findings there, because they're quite surprising. Clearly, if there is an issue here it isn't the fact that "women say no when they mean yes" but the way they do it and the conditions under which they do so.

I was also going to make a point about self reporting and some of the methodological niggles, but that's nitpicking and I'm worn out.

Look, you've done what I asked for and in return I'll accept that Farrell was probably trying to make a legitimate point. However, it didn't come out that way, the way he expressed it was not in keeping at all with the aims of the study he's referencing and it was also completely abhorrent. Personally I can forgive that, but then I've never been raped or been at any significant risk of being raped. I don't have to live with that reality, and I can't blame those who do for being incredibly angry about what he said.

generals3:
His testimony can be used, however, unless the defendant is going to call himself a rapist it wouldn't be of that much use.

It doesn't matter if he calls himself a rapist if his account of the events includes acts which qualify as rape, does it? If I admit that I stabbed someone in the face with a knife because they pissed me off, a court isn't going to care that I don't consider myself to be a murderer.

This is still absurd.

generals3:
I said "use of threats, violence, a ruse,..." and you transform that in "violence" only?! Never have I nor the law indicated that one has to resort to violence to defend themselves to prove there was rape.

Irrelevant. I'm describing how it might apply to particular cases in order to demonstrate that, in those cases, what you are suggesting forces people to directly endanger themselves in order to demonstrate that a crime has been committed against them. Are you okay with that? Is it fair?

generals3:
Unlike sexual intercourse breaking into someone's property is considered a crime and with malicious intents.

"Breaking in" refers to entering someone's property without their consent. If I invite someone onto my property, it is not a crime.

The example is exactly the same as what you are describing. How do we know you did not invite someone onto your property and then subsequently accuse them of breaking in? After all we only have your word for it that you didn't invite this person onto your property, or deliberately mislead them into thinking you had done so. When you them told them to leave, it might be that they didn't think you were serious, maybe they legitimately believed you were joking or that if they stuck around you would change your mind. Obviously the only way for you to prove that you genuinely wanted this person off your property would be for you to take a baseball bat to them.

It's exactly the same thing. You're judging whether someone has committed a crime by reference to how their victim behaved, and you're doing so in a way which is entirely unreasonable and has no grounding in how real people behave.

This is nothing to do with the burden of proof, because what you're describing is not how the burden of proof works in any other crime.

BreakfastMan:
Quick question: if I were to hold a women down and give her head without her consent, being careful not to penetrate, it would not be what you consider "rape"? And neither would be forcing her to give me a titty-fuck or forcing her to give me a hand-job?

Nope. None of those things would be rape.

JJMUG:
What? So it is ok for a woman to rape man because they are not penetrating the man. But not ok for a man to rape a woman because there is penetration, and the rape of a man is not a serious crime? Now remember you cannot have it both ways either rape is a crime not matter the sex or it is not a crime. Which is it?

1) You cannot rape someone without penetrating them. This is not just me, it's the fucking law. Go and look it up.

2) I already explicitly stated that the "rape" of a man (causing them to engage in sexual activity without consent) is still a serious criminal offence which can warrant a hefty prison sentence. Stop directly contradicting things I have said.

3) Of course rape is a crime no matter what the sex. If you don't believe me, perhaps you can explain where I would find a woman's prostate, since you managed to read this from a post in which I specifically mentioned the risk of prostate injury during penetration.

The issue here is not that I don't recognize male rape. The issue is that you have an incorrect understanding of what rape is.

Bentusi16:
Did you seriously just suggest it is impossible for a man to be raped without some sort of device?

Nope. A man can be raped by another man's penis, and in most jurisdictions by any other part of someone's body (such as a finger or a fist). The strap-on comment was not a literal description of the law, in fact in my country that would not be considered rape anyway.

What I "suggested", because it is true, is that in order to be raped you must be penetrated by something. The colloquial definition that rape is "sex without consent" is not reflected in law.

As for female-on-male abuse in relationships. In any given case I view it in exactly the same way as I view male-on-female abuse. However, I don't see how this compels me to treat two entirely different acts as if they're the same thing because one of them is perpetrated more frequently by men.

Blablahb:
snip

I'm going to cut this right down.

There's a difference between "fact checking", as you put it, and skepticism. "Fact checking" is a normal part of police procedure, it's why they ask you to give a statement as soon as you report the crime and which will then form part of the evidence used throughout the case. Wherein there is no evidence to suggest that someone is lying, however, we don't have to sit there and countenance the possibility "just in case". That doesn't strengthen any case, it's simply an unwarranted suspicion.

You should not assume that anyone is lying, even if there conflicting accounts, unless there is some reason to do so. "Well, we all know women lie about rape" is not a reason to do so.

I honestly had to stop and double take at your suggestion that a rape trial is an emotionally healthy experience, because the experience is absolutely nothing like you describe. No shame or guilt? Fucking hell man, you're advocating for a system that examines every detail of your actions, and every detail of your wider personal life, in order to judge whether or not you are responsible for what happened to you. It is literally assigning shame and guilt based on your adherence to a model of rape encounters which almost never happens, so almost everyone is going to come up short. Lack of conviction under such a system is not a reflection on the quality of evidence, it's an assessment of whether you "deserved" what happened to you.

How the fuck is that an emotionally healthy experience?

chaosord:
This is going to be my last post, directed at you, on this subject. You are adding murder and assault crimes to rape.

No. I am adding rape to rape.

In almost every juristiction around the world, rape requires penetration. If you don't believe me, look it up. It's the fucking law (unless you're in Sweden or Canada, both of whom I totally support in the implementation of their respective definitions and neither of which compels its judges to treat penetration the same as non-penetrative sex acts).

I'm out, guys.

evilthecat:

You cannot rape someone without penetrating them. This is not just me, it's the fucking law. Go and look it up.

Um, no. That is the law in Britain, but not in every country. What constitutes rape can vary significantly from country to country. In the US, for instance, this is the legal definition of rape:

(a) Rape.- Any person subject to this chapter who causes another person of any age to engage in a sexual act by-
(1) using force against that other person;
(2) causing grievous bodily harm to any person;
(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping;
(4) rendering another person unconscious; or
(5) administering to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;

source

Those are just the ways to initiate the rape. The way they define "sexual act" seems to denote penetration with a penis, body part, or with an object.

evilthecat:

generals3:
His testimony can be used, however, unless the defendant is going to call himself a rapist it wouldn't be of that much use.

It doesn't matter if he calls himself a rapist if his account of the events includes acts which qualify as rape, does it? If I admit that I stabbed someone in the face with a knife because they pissed me off, a court isn't going to care that I don't consider myself to be a murderer.

This is still absurd.

Oh come on. Describing events which fit the legal definition of a certain crime is pretty much the same as saying you committed that crime specifically. If you say "well i beaten up her good first so she couldn't struggle anymore and than penetrated her" you might as well say "i'm a rapist and raped her".

Irrelevant. I'm describing how it might apply to particular cases in order to demonstrate that, in those cases, what you are suggesting forces people to directly endanger themselves in order to demonstrate that a crime has been committed against them. Are you okay with that? Is it fair?

And would it be fair for potential innocents to be jailed because the law doesn't require firm evidence?
There is no such thing as a perfect legal system and i'd rather have one that doesn't disadvantages the defendants which could just lead to an obnoxious amount of false accusations.

"Breaking in" refers to entering someone's property without their consent. If I invite someone onto my property, it is not a crime.

The example is exactly the same as what you are describing. How do we know you did not invite someone onto your property and then subsequently accuse them of breaking in? After all we only have your word for it that you didn't invite this person onto your property, or deliberately mislead them into thinking you had done so. When you them told them to leave, it might be that they didn't think you were serious, maybe they legitimately believed you were joking or that if they stuck around you would change your mind. Obviously the only way for you to prove that you genuinely wanted this person off your property would be for you to take a baseball bat to them.

It's exactly the same thing. You're judging whether someone has committed a crime by reference to how their victim behaved, and you're doing so in a way which is entirely unreasonable and has no grounding in how real people behave.

This is nothing to do with the burden of proof, because what you're describing is not how the burden of proof works in any other crime.

Firstly: context is key, i have used it very often as an argument. Communication when giving consent to entry is very different and MUCH clearer than when it comes to intimate situations. As such taking "could you please not enter" as a joke or whatever becomes much less credible by default. The Law and judges aren't stupid, they live in the same world as you and me.
But on top of that due to the nature of breaking in it is IMPOSSIBLE to rationally defend the same standards as for rape. Eg.: you can break into someone's home without the person being present, that doesn't work with rape now does it. As such only looking at negative actions done towards the victim itself would destroy the ability to sentence all those who break in when the owner(s) is not present.

Secondly: If someone enters your property after you telling them not to enter and at no point was there violence being used, nothing stolen, no threats, nothing destroyed, etc. and you didn't bother calling help or the police during the events, when you finally do involve the police they'll most likely look at you with big eyes saying "wtf?". No but can you imagine that ludicrous scenario? Over here the police would most likely not even bother. Actually, they'd probably be looking around to find that hidden camera.

evilthecat:
I honestly had to stop and double take at your suggestion that a rape trial is an emotionally healthy experience, because the experience is absolutely nothing like you describe. No shame or guilt? Fucking hell man, you're advocating for a system that examines every detail of your actions, and every detail of your wider personal life, in order to judge whether or not you are responsible for what happened to you. It is literally assigning shame and guilt based on your adherence to a model of rape encounters which almost never happens, so almost everyone is going to come up short. Lack of conviction under such a system is not a reflection on the quality of evidence, it's an assessment of whether you "deserved" what happened to you.

I don't know where you get that from. It's not only not how it goes, but neither did I wrote anything about that. I merely observed that revisiting and processing it is part of the healing procedure, so having it brought up in a trial, and then seeing a perpetrator being convicted proves towards victims there's no guilt, thus processing the trauma, and making a fair trial a healthy experience in regards to coping with trauma.

For instance someone could have a trigger from being touched in a specific spot or way, and start to dissociate immediatly when touched like that. Watching described in a trial and then being condemned in a court as sexual assault is an 'official' statement that that touch was bad, thus helping redestine the feel and overcoming the trigger.


Opposed to that was the viewpoint set forth by some others, who stated that accusers should be blindly believed and any man unfortunate enough to be accused should be subjected to things that equal destroying his life, before any form of trial has even taken place. I am showing thus that their point of view is a lose-lose situation, because it deprives actual rape victims of a chance to redestine (that's the most literal translation of the word the psychiatrist used at the time) the memories and thus reduce the trauma.

Therefore, to reiterate my previous points of this discussion, accusations of rape or sexual abuse should never be taken for granted just like that, and guilt should be determined realistically, and not be reduced to the question if a proverbial written statement of consent in triplicate was found.

Balvale:
Those are just the ways to initiate the rape. The way they define "sexual act" seems to denote penetration with a penis, body part, or with an object.

Which seems to be a flaw in the law in my opinion.

evilthecat:

ManUpManDown:
snip

I think I've probably had my fill of this thread and I don't think I have the patience or time to give you a proper answer, but I just wanted to say that while I disagree with you and have been at various points infuriated and insulted by what you've actually said, I appreciate that you've attempted to provide deep answers and, in most cases, have actually managed to read what I have said in response, which is more than most of the other people I'm about to respond to.

Kudos on finding the study. However, doing so has also raised some problems for me.

Firstly, it strikes me that Farrell is effectively doing precisely what the study warns us not to do with its findings, in that rather than viewing token resistance a move which makes sense to some women as a way of obtaining some degree of "power" in the face of a sexual politics which results in greater sexual agency and allows greater assertiveness in men, he seems to be presenting it simply as evidence that women (in general) fantasize about rape and thus that the male behaviours responsible for rape cannot be criticised or prosecuted because they are responses to "what women want".

Furthermore, I think stripping that study of context like that means it doesn't show up, for example, that token resistance is not specifically a female thing at all. A quick google search around that study showed that it had a whole host of follow ups, a couple of which looked at men. I'd suggest looking at the findings there, because they're quite surprising. Clearly, if there is an issue here it isn't the fact that "women say no when they mean yes" but the way they do it and the conditions under which they do so.

I was also going to make a point about self reporting and some of the methodological niggles, but that's nitpicking and I'm worn out.

Look, you've done what I asked for and in return I'll accept that Farrell was probably trying to make a legitimate point. However, it didn't come out that way, the way he expressed it was not in keeping at all with the aims of the study he's referencing and it was also completely abhorrent. Personally I can forgive that, but then I've never been raped or been at any significant risk of being raped. I don't have to live with that reality, and I can't blame those who do for being incredibly angry about what he said.

generals3:
His testimony can be used, however, unless the defendant is going to call himself a rapist it wouldn't be of that much use.

It doesn't matter if he calls himself a rapist if his account of the events includes acts which qualify as rape, does it? If I admit that I stabbed someone in the face with a knife because they pissed me off, a court isn't going to care that I don't consider myself to be a murderer.

This is still absurd.

generals3:
I said "use of threats, violence, a ruse,..." and you transform that in "violence" only?! Never have I nor the law indicated that one has to resort to violence to defend themselves to prove there was rape.

Irrelevant. I'm describing how it might apply to particular cases in order to demonstrate that, in those cases, what you are suggesting forces people to directly endanger themselves in order to demonstrate that a crime has been committed against them. Are you okay with that? Is it fair?

generals3:
Unlike sexual intercourse breaking into someone's property is considered a crime and with malicious intents.

"Breaking in" refers to entering someone's property without their consent. If I invite someone onto my property, it is not a crime.

The example is exactly the same as what you are describing. How do we know you did not invite someone onto your property and then subsequently accuse them of breaking in? After all we only have your word for it that you didn't invite this person onto your property, or deliberately mislead them into thinking you had done so. When you them told them to leave, it might be that they didn't think you were serious, maybe they legitimately believed you were joking or that if they stuck around you would change your mind. Obviously the only way for you to prove that you genuinely wanted this person off your property would be for you to take a baseball bat to them.

It's exactly the same thing. You're judging whether someone has committed a crime by reference to how their victim behaved, and you're doing so in a way which is entirely unreasonable and has no grounding in how real people behave.

This is nothing to do with the burden of proof, because what you're describing is not how the burden of proof works in any other crime.

BreakfastMan:
Quick question: if I were to hold a women down and give her head without her consent, being careful not to penetrate, it would not be what you consider "rape"? And neither would be forcing her to give me a titty-fuck or forcing her to give me a hand-job?

Nope. None of those things would be rape.

JJMUG:
What? So it is ok for a woman to rape man because they are not penetrating the man. But not ok for a man to rape a woman because there is penetration, and the rape of a man is not a serious crime? Now remember you cannot have it both ways either rape is a crime not matter the sex or it is not a crime. Which is it?

1) You cannot rape someone without penetrating them. This is not just me, it's the fucking law. Go and look it up.

2) I already explicitly stated that the "rape" of a man (causing them to engage in sexual activity without consent) is still a serious criminal offence which can warrant a hefty prison sentence. Stop directly contradicting things I have said.

3) Of course rape is a crime no matter what the sex. If you don't believe me, perhaps you can explain where I would find a woman's prostate, since you managed to read this from a post in which I specifically mentioned the risk of prostate injury during penetration.

The issue here is not that I don't recognize male rape. The issue is that you have an incorrect understanding of what rape is.

Bentusi16:
Did you seriously just suggest it is impossible for a man to be raped without some sort of device?

Nope. A man can be raped by another man's penis, and in most jurisdictions by any other part of someone's body (such as a finger or a fist). The strap-on comment was not a literal description of the law, in fact in my country that would not be considered rape anyway.

What I "suggested", because it is true, is that in order to be raped you must be penetrated by something. The colloquial definition that rape is "sex without consent" is not reflected in law.

As for female-on-male abuse in relationships. In any given case I view it in exactly the same way as I view male-on-female abuse. However, I don't see how this compels me to treat two entirely different acts as if they're the same thing because one of them is perpetrated more frequently by men.

Blablahb:
snip

I'm going to cut this right down.

There's a difference between "fact checking", as you put it, and skepticism. "Fact checking" is a normal part of police procedure, it's why they ask you to give a statement as soon as you report the crime and which will then form part of the evidence used throughout the case. Wherein there is no evidence to suggest that someone is lying, however, we don't have to sit there and countenance the possibility "just in case". That doesn't strengthen any case, it's simply an unwarranted suspicion.

You should not assume that anyone is lying, even if there conflicting accounts, unless there is some reason to do so. "Well, we all know women lie about rape" is not a reason to do so.

I honestly had to stop and double take at your suggestion that a rape trial is an emotionally healthy experience, because the experience is absolutely nothing like you describe. No shame or guilt? Fucking hell man, you're advocating for a system that examines every detail of your actions, and every detail of your wider personal life, in order to judge whether or not you are responsible for what happened to you. It is literally assigning shame and guilt based on your adherence to a model of rape encounters which almost never happens, so almost everyone is going to come up short. Lack of conviction under such a system is not a reflection on the quality of evidence, it's an assessment of whether you "deserved" what happened to you.

How the fuck is that an emotionally healthy experience?

chaosord:
This is going to be my last post, directed at you, on this subject. You are adding murder and assault crimes to rape.

No. I am adding rape to rape.

In almost every juristiction around the world, rape requires penetration. If you don't believe me, look it up. It's the fucking law (unless you're in Sweden or Canada, both of whom I totally support in the implementation of their respective definitions and neither of which compels its judges to treat penetration the same as non-penetrative sex acts).

I'm out, guys.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-06/fbi-rape-definition-adds-men/52398350/1

http://gothamist.com/2012/01/06/fbi_decides_to_recognize_that_men_c.php

that doe not apply to the Untied States anymore, good try. Maybe your country should change the law too.

I really don't want to be drawn into this, but I can't stand misinformation.

BreakfastMan:
Um, no. That is the law in Britain, but not in every country. What constitutes rape can vary significantly from country to country. In the US, for instance, this is the legal definition of rape:

Read down, it's actually in your link.

(1) Sexual act.- The term "sexual act" means-
(A) contact between the penis and the vulva or anus or mouth, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; or
(B) the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or anus or mouth, of another by any part of the body or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

generals3:
And would it be fair for potential innocents to be jailed because the law doesn't require firm evidence?

What we're describing makes no difference to the standard of evidence. I'm genuinely confused as to how you've got the impression that it does.

Furthermore, if I was being tried for rape, I would feel much safer if I was being tried on the basis of my own actions and motivations, if my side of the story was actually being taken into account and not dismissed in favour of some character assessment of my victim. As I said in the very first response to this, the behaviour of the victim in the circumstances has no real bearing on whether rape was committed. Therefore, I don't see how suddenly predicating the entire crime on that makes people less likely to be wrongfully convicted. It makes them less likely to be convicted, sure, but that's not the same thing.

Blablahb:
I don't know where you get that from.

I got it from the part where you said that judging whether something was rape based on the character and behaviour of the alleged victim in the situation "worked", and then launched into a rant about how emotionally healthy rape trials are and how it shouldn't carry any kind of judgement. You just contradicted yourself.

Telling someone who has been fucked without their consent that they have no legitimate grievance and should learn to redefine what happened them into something benign and harmless is not an appropriate way of dealing with or "accepting" emotional trauma, for the basic reason that it's not accepting it. In fact, given the context I think that's one of the most hateful things I think I've ever heard on this subject.

Also, noone is saying what you suggested they have done. Unfortunately, being accused of a crime can have an effect on your personal life, but that is no reason that someone else should not have their case answered before the law. We all have the right to have crimes we feel have been committed against us answered in that way, it's a basic human right. Being protected from having anyone ever imagine you might be a rapist is not such a right.

JJMUG:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-06/fbi-rape-definition-adds-men/52398350/1

http://gothamist.com/2012/01/06/fbi_decides_to_recognize_that_men_c.php

Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

Yes, it does apply. Read your own sources!

I explained that rape generally describes penetration and the reasons why that is the case. You have somehow taken this to mean that men can't get raped. Again, where is a woman's prostate and how can it be damaged during forced penetration?

Well, I don't want to wade into this kind of a debate, but I will say that I think there are inbuilt prejudices between men and women, for better or for worse, and that for the time being at least they are applicable to these phenomena.

evilthecat:
Snip

Note that the primary reason why I've gone back and forth with you is because of your background; that's not an insult. I mean 2 things by that: (1) you have likely thought about these things, or matters relevant to them, before and to a degree that most people who would made your arguments have not; and (2) because of (1), the views that you carry out into whatever future endeavors you may have in store will likely be more consequential than most other people's.

My impression just as a person living in the western world is that when we talk about these things, one side gives a certain moral deference to the other. This is the situationally easy thing to do. Even in contexts that are ostensibly academic and "intellectual," this happens for all sorts of reasons: some don't want to be denied tenure, some have become assimilated to an academic culture that provides that if one is enlightened, compassionate and progressive, hyper-empathizing with women and minorities is a must, and uncovering truth takes the back burner; many unconsciously "feel dirty" (due to an semi-conscious emotional chivalry) disagreeing so directly and dispassionately with feminist perspectives on issues like rape, even if they are otherwise conservative.

This is a trend that, in my view, must end, not only for the sake of men who suffer at the hands of a political/social systemic urge to be "sensitive" to the (often but not always) legitimate concerns of women, but also for women, for reasons that should be obvious and that were made clear by the researchers at the end of their article. On this note, I recognize that I probably have not changed your mind on much, if anything. However, I find value in the very process of haggling these things out in a manner uncorrupted by extraneous dynamics (neo-chivalry, "political correctness," disapproval by women [a powerful force when used against men, though we rarely talk about it]). After all, solutions cannot yield from a process until the process is allowed to proceed unimpeded by various world-view commitments. The discussion in this thread I think generally represents an early step in the gradual dismantling of the unhealthy trend I describe, even if we all must agree to disagree as to substantive conclusions.

I don't agree that Farrell's way of making his point was "abhorrent." In fact, one could argue that it was necessary; that the vehicle for his point helps address a background dynamic that corrupts thoughtful discussion on these issues. I do think, however, that it was stupid for Farrell to use phrases like "we called it exciting," as such are obvious invitations for quote mining. And don't get me started on his remarks about incest.

evilthecat:
Clearly, if there is an issue here it isn't the fact that "women say no when they mean yes" but the way they do it and the conditions under which they do so.

Well, I will agree that there is more than one issue here.

evilthecat:
I got it from the part where you said that judging whether something was rape based on the character and behaviour of the alleged victim in the situation "worked"

I never said anything like that, please re-read my previous post, and quit trying to put words in my mouth.

My point of view is:
-to not turn sex crime allegations into a witch hunt
-maintain the right to fair trial
-not ruin lives of innocent people because of an accusation
-not to allow people to express regret about having had consensual sex by filing false charges
-to separate between boundary crossing behaviour and crime

If you have something to say in regards to those you're welcome.

(a) Rape.- Any person subject to this chapter who causes another person of any age to engage in a sexual act by-
(1) using force against that other person;
(2) causing grievous bodily harm to any person;
(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping;
(4) rendering another person unconscious; or
(5) administering to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;

evilthecat:

(1) Sexual act.- The term "sexual act" means-
(A) contact between the penis and the vulva or anus or mouth, and for purposes of this subparagraph contact involving the penis occurs upon penetration, however slight; or
(B) the penetration, however slight, of the vulva or anus or mouth, of another by any part of the body or by any object, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade any person or to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.

Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.

Interestingly, merely being unconscious renders the act to be not-rape, if the perpetrator did not render you unconscious, neither does being intoxicated unless the perpetrator forced or deceived you into intoxication. I don't think that distinction is made when they survey to try to count rape victims in studies, though is it? Seems like there's some juggling of definitions everywhere.

Something that's worth noting is that nothing in either definition that defines the penetrated as the victim. In the example of a woman forcing herself on a man sexually, the "contact" required to be a "sexual act" by the first definition certainly occurs and whether it was rape or not would come down to conditions 1-5 on that sexual act. For the second definition (the FBI stats-keeping definition) explain how it wouldn't apply -- penetration would have certainly occurred, and it would have been without the consent of the victim, and nothing stated requires the victim to be the penetrator, only that penetration occurred.

evilthecat:

ManUpManDown:
snip

I think I've probably had my fill of this thread and I don't think I have the patience or time to give you a proper answer, but I just wanted to say that while I disagree with you and have been at various points infuriated and insulted by what you've actually said, I appreciate that you've attempted to provide deep answers and, in most cases, have actually managed to read what I have said in response, which is more than most of the other people I'm about to respond to.

Kudos on finding the study. However, doing so has also raised some problems for me.

Firstly, it strikes me that Farrell is effectively doing precisely what the study warns us not to do with its findings, in that rather than viewing token resistance a move which makes sense to some women as a way of obtaining some degree of "power" in the face of a sexual politics which results in greater sexual agency and allows greater assertiveness in men, he seems to be presenting it simply as evidence that women (in general) fantasize about rape and thus that the male behaviours responsible for rape cannot be criticised or prosecuted because they are responses to "what women want".

Furthermore, I think stripping that study of context like that means it doesn't show up, for example, that token resistance is not specifically a female thing at all. A quick google search around that study showed that it had a whole host of follow ups, a couple of which looked at men. I'd suggest looking at the findings there, because they're quite surprising. Clearly, if there is an issue here it isn't the fact that "women say no when they mean yes" but the way they do it and the conditions under which they do so.

I was also going to make a point about self reporting and some of the methodological niggles, but that's nitpicking and I'm worn out.

Look, you've done what I asked for and in return I'll accept that Farrell was probably trying to make a legitimate point. However, it didn't come out that way, the way he expressed it was not in keeping at all with the aims of the study he's referencing and it was also completely abhorrent. Personally I can forgive that, but then I've never been raped or been at any significant risk of being raped. I don't have to live with that reality, and I can't blame those who do for being incredibly angry about what he said.

generals3:
His testimony can be used, however, unless the defendant is going to call himself a rapist it wouldn't be of that much use.

It doesn't matter if he calls himself a rapist if his account of the events includes acts which qualify as rape, does it? If I admit that I stabbed someone in the face with a knife because they pissed me off, a court isn't going to care that I don't consider myself to be a murderer.

This is still absurd.

generals3:
I said "use of threats, violence, a ruse,..." and you transform that in "violence" only?! Never have I nor the law indicated that one has to resort to violence to defend themselves to prove there was rape.

Irrelevant. I'm describing how it might apply to particular cases in order to demonstrate that, in those cases, what you are suggesting forces people to directly endanger themselves in order to demonstrate that a crime has been committed against them. Are you okay with that? Is it fair?

generals3:
Unlike sexual intercourse breaking into someone's property is considered a crime and with malicious intents.

"Breaking in" refers to entering someone's property without their consent. If I invite someone onto my property, it is not a crime.

The example is exactly the same as what you are describing. How do we know you did not invite someone onto your property and then subsequently accuse them of breaking in? After all we only have your word for it that you didn't invite this person onto your property, or deliberately mislead them into thinking you had done so. When you them told them to leave, it might be that they didn't think you were serious, maybe they legitimately believed you were joking or that if they stuck around you would change your mind. Obviously the only way for you to prove that you genuinely wanted this person off your property would be for you to take a baseball bat to them.

It's exactly the same thing. You're judging whether someone has committed a crime by reference to how their victim behaved, and you're doing so in a way which is entirely unreasonable and has no grounding in how real people behave.

This is nothing to do with the burden of proof, because what you're describing is not how the burden of proof works in any other crime.

BreakfastMan:
Quick question: if I were to hold a women down and give her head without her consent, being careful not to penetrate, it would not be what you consider "rape"? And neither would be forcing her to give me a titty-fuck or forcing her to give me a hand-job?

Nope. None of those things would be rape.

JJMUG:
What? So it is ok for a woman to rape man because they are not penetrating the man. But not ok for a man to rape a woman because there is penetration, and the rape of a man is not a serious crime? Now remember you cannot have it both ways either rape is a crime not matter the sex or it is not a crime. Which is it?

1) You cannot rape someone without penetrating them. This is not just me, it's the fucking law. Go and look it up.

2) I already explicitly stated that the "rape" of a man (causing them to engage in sexual activity without consent) is still a serious criminal offence which can warrant a hefty prison sentence. Stop directly contradicting things I have said.

3) Of course rape is a crime no matter what the sex. If you don't believe me, perhaps you can explain where I would find a woman's prostate, since you managed to read this from a post in which I specifically mentioned the risk of prostate injury during penetration.

The issue here is not that I don't recognize male rape. The issue is that you have an incorrect understanding of what rape is.

Bentusi16:
Did you seriously just suggest it is impossible for a man to be raped without some sort of device?

Nope. A man can be raped by another man's penis, and in most jurisdictions by any other part of someone's body (such as a finger or a fist). The strap-on comment was not a literal description of the law, in fact in my country that would not be considered rape anyway.

What I "suggested", because it is true, is that in order to be raped you must be penetrated by something. The colloquial definition that rape is "sex without consent" is not reflected in law.

As for female-on-male abuse in relationships. In any given case I view it in exactly the same way as I view male-on-female abuse. However, I don't see how this compels me to treat two entirely different acts as if they're the same thing because one of them is perpetrated more frequently by men.

Blablahb:
snip

I'm going to cut this right down.

There's a difference between "fact checking", as you put it, and skepticism. "Fact checking" is a normal part of police procedure, it's why they ask you to give a statement as soon as you report the crime and which will then form part of the evidence used throughout the case. Wherein there is no evidence to suggest that someone is lying, however, we don't have to sit there and countenance the possibility "just in case". That doesn't strengthen any case, it's simply an unwarranted suspicion.

You should not assume that anyone is lying, even if there conflicting accounts, unless there is some reason to do so. "Well, we all know women lie about rape" is not a reason to do so.

I honestly had to stop and double take at your suggestion that a rape trial is an emotionally healthy experience, because the experience is absolutely nothing like you describe. No shame or guilt? Fucking hell man, you're advocating for a system that examines every detail of your actions, and every detail of your wider personal life, in order to judge whether or not you are responsible for what happened to you. It is literally assigning shame and guilt based on your adherence to a model of rape encounters which almost never happens, so almost everyone is going to come up short. Lack of conviction under such a system is not a reflection on the quality of evidence, it's an assessment of whether you "deserved" what happened to you.

How the fuck is that an emotionally healthy experience?

chaosord:
This is going to be my last post, directed at you, on this subject. You are adding murder and assault crimes to rape.

No. I am adding rape to rape.

In almost every juristiction around the world, rape requires penetration. If you don't believe me, look it up. It's the fucking law (unless you're in Sweden or Canada, both of whom I totally support in the implementation of their respective definitions and neither of which compels its judges to treat penetration the same as non-penetrative sex acts).

I'm out, guys.

Before you go, can you answer if the actions taken to censor Warren Farrell were justified?

Evil, Geth, and Breakfast STILL haven't addressed the main issue, which is what has been debated for so long. They haven't addressed why it is "perfect" for women to play games, and for men to adapt to it.

Statement : Women should be educated to be clear about consent issues, and stop playing games unless already in a relationship with the said man, i.e. say "yes" to mean yes, and "no" to mean no. So that if the guy persists, its clearly, unambiguously rape.

What is WRONG with this statement?

If I understood you guys correctly,

1) We agree that women sometimes play games
2) We agree its sometimes difficult to interpret them.

So it is suggested that

3) Men simply never take the chance ("What's so hard to understand about that?")
4) It's okay for the man to be blamed for being an unassertive pussy. "Better than being blamed for rape".
5) Men don't have to be that desperate for sex. It's not that important. (But it's important enough to be able to get a divorce purely on grounds of sexual dissatisfaction)

There is an implied right here:

A woman has a right to be unclear about her communication about her consent. It is the job of the man to decipher her true intentions.

Why? Why is it important for her to have a multitude of reasons to not be sure of it? Obviously, if she's comfortable enough to be unsure of it, its not going to be just as traumatic as the completely non-consensual one. But the guy, IN CASE he deciphers wrongly, will, currently, get his reputation and life screwed over.

See it doesn't, truly, matter what she *thought*, since thought can never be known truly. What does matter in a rape accusation is,

1) Does the woman claim that she did not indicate consent?
2) Does the man claim that the woman indicated consent?
3) Does the court deem that the above indication was a "reasonable expression of consent"?

if
(1): no => * ; yes => (2)
* : that means she did indicate consent, NO RAPE, case closed.

(2): no => RAPE, convict ; yes => (3)

(3): no => RAPE, convict ; yes => NO RAPE, case closed.

This might be simplistic, but this is in essence how the prosecution should proceed. I do not see why Evil, Breakfast, and Geth don't agree to this.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked