U of T Protest: Warren Farrell = Hate Speech

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Gethsemani:

generals3:

The problem with rape allegations is ambiguity. take murder for instance (one of the few crimes even more despised), to accuse someone you need a body (unlike rape where you could even accuse someone without him/her touching you) or someone who disappeared. And in many cases if the accusations was false it ends with justice finding an other culprit (removing the possibility you being the culprit in people's mind). Meanwhile with rape if the allegation ends nowhere it's usually because there wasn't enough evidence, which isn't enough to convince many people that the accused actually didn't do it.

Do you honestly think the justice system in any western country is this bad? If I were to walk into a police station tomorrow and claim a co-worker/friend/random stranger raped me, they'd ask for more than just "my word". That's why there are "rape kits" in ERs and one of the reasons that rape victims undergo a medical and forensic examination: To not only make sure the victim is unharmed but to gather evidence. If I have no evidence besides "I say so", then the charges will likely be dropped faster then a bad habit.

In fact, without any evidence the chances of any prosecutor taking the case to court is pretty much non-existent. That's how the legal system works in all criminal cases. Which, in turn, means that you are very unlikely to end up as the accused party of a rape trial simply because a woman was angry with you.

There was a case in America a few years ago, where a woman with a previous false rape accusation, accused some frat boys of rape, in spite of there being clear evidence from an ATM camera that one of the alleged rapists was not present at the time of the alleged rape(which is a serious blow to the credibility of the accuser), and the DA still chose to pursue the case and turn it into a national witch hunt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_rape_case

It took months and a hell of a lot of money for the accused to clear their names, how exactly do you think things turn out for Average Joe in similar circumstances? The sensible solution would be to treat false rape accusations with the same severity as an attempt to frame someone for another crime, and attach some prison time to anyone convicted of it, but that would be patriarchal misogyny or some such.

lowhat:
There was a case in America a few years ago, where a woman with a previous false rape accusation, accused some frat boys of rape, in spite of there being clear evidence from an ATM camera that one of the alleged rapists was not present at the time of the alleged rape(which is a serious blow to the credibility of the accuser), and the DA still chose to pursue the case and turn it into a national witch hunt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_rape_case

It took months and a hell of a lot of money for the accused to clear their names, how exactly do you think things turn out for Average Joe in similar circumstances? The sensible solution would be to treat false rape accusations with the same severity as an attempt to frame someone for another crime, and attach some prison time to anyone convicted of it, but that would be patriarchal misogyny or some such.

The DA in that case was using the accusation as a political tool (and it probably worked for a while). It doesn't excuse the false rape report, but it shouldn't be used as an example for all false rape reports, seeing as it also included widespread police and prosecutorial misconduct.

It's worth noting that the prosecutor was disbarred and convicted.

lowhat:

There was a case in America a few years ago, where a woman with a previous false rape accusation, accused some frat boys of rape, in spite of there being clear evidence from an ATM camera that one of the alleged rapists was not present at the time of the alleged rape(which is a serious blow to the credibility of the accuser), and the DA still chose to pursue the case and turn it into a national witch hunt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_rape_case

It took months and a hell of a lot of money for the accused to clear their names, how exactly do you think things turn out for Average Joe in similar circumstances? The sensible solution would be to treat false rape accusations with the same severity as an attempt to frame someone for another crime, and attach some prison time to anyone convicted of it, but that would be patriarchal misogyny or some such.

What Dags said. Also, obviously, false rape reporting should be treated like the crime that it actually is and that's usually what happens. I doubt you'll find many people who disagree with the idea that false rape accusations should be prosecuted, if for no other reason then the fact that it hurts the credibility of actual rape victims.

Also, "a case". There are always going to be the odd cases, that doesn't mean there is a widespread systemic problem.

False rape allegations are of course, terrible crimes, but there are comparatively very rare, much rarer than actual rapes. IIRC, men are more likely to be raped, than be falsely accused of rapes...not including prison rapes, but including sexual abuse as children, which is when most male victims are raped.

thaluikhain:
Also, "a case". There are always going to be the odd cases, that doesn't mean there is a widespread systemic problem.

False rape allegations are of course, terrible crimes, but there are comparatively very rare, much rarer than actual rapes. IIRC, men are more likely to be raped, than be falsely accused of rapes...not including prison rapes, but including sexual abuse as children, which is when most male victims are raped.

The Air Force performed a study to determine the incidence of false rape accusations within the branch, using the strictest possible measure of fraudulent claims(only recanted accusations counted towards the total, not even cases where the evidence clearly exonerated the accusee), and came up with 21% IIRC. Now you can argue that the military is not representative of the population as a whole(where else does the rape accusation rate spike whenever there are company reorganizations imminent?), but a rate of 1 in 5 is still clear evidence that rape accusations are being used with regularity for ulterior motives. A system that protects these people from having to face their accusers, and rarely hands out jail time for attempts to ruin another person's life, is a very broken system.

lowhat:

The Air Force performed a study to determine the incidence of false rape accusations within the branch, using the strictest possible measure of fraudulent claims(only recanted accusations counted towards the total, not even cases where the evidence clearly exonerated the accusee), and came up with 21% IIRC. Now you can argue that the military is not representative of the population as a whole

The military assuredly is not representative of the wider population.

Withdrawn accusations will actually be a poor measure of false reports: people will withdraw accusations for real offences because they think the consquences of pursuing it may be worse than living with the injustice. For similar sorts of reasons, victims of organised crime won't testify, battered spouses retract domestic abuse claims, and people in communities and organisations will often try to suppress misdeeds within out of loyalty to the greater whole.

This discussion about false rape accusations comes up a lot, and what occurs to me every time is that there's a yawning gulf between the perception and actual procedure.

1) Prevalence

As Gethsemani already mentioned. The actual rate of false accusations in rape (which is to say, accusations where the police were able to determine that no crime occurred) is about average when compared to other crimes. There's actually some research in the UK which suggests that even those figures might be being significantly overstated by failures in police procedure, and the actual result is more likely to be about half that number. On top of that, as Agema just pointed out some of those will be based on retractions, as retraction is the largest single reason for an report being "unfounded", and retracting an accusation does not mean we can be sure that nothing happened, merely that we have to assume as much.

Regardless, we're talking about a small fraction of reports (generally somewhere between about 8 and 3 percent before adjusting for any of the factors mentioned) some of which won't even involved a named assailant. You also have to bear in mind that going by victimization studies only somewhere between 1 in 4 and 1 in 20 rapes are estimated to even be reported (depending very much on where you live). It's a very small number, and yet the perception of that number is completely out of line. Estimates of 50% or more are not uncommon even in the police force.

You might look at this and say "well, it's good to be skeptical". No, it's not. If someone reports a crime, you cannot assume that the crime did not occur unless there is some evidence that it actually didn't. An investigation can be dismissed for lack of evidence, and they routinely are, but that's not the same thing as saying or believing that the reported crime was "false" or that no crime occurred. No other crime has this culture of incredulity and suspicion around it, in no other crime do people assume randomly that enormous numbers of people are fabricating accounts, despite the fact that in many cases it would be easy to do so. In no other crime is there the automatic presumption of a motive for false accusation, because everyone knows sluts gonna' hate, right?

Anyone who thinks the "feminist" argument here is about giving special treatment to rape, go away and think about that for a second.

2) The Media

Traditional media often have very strict rules about how they cover criminal cases. Sometimes, these rules are not sufficient, but this is not just true with rape. As a recent example, see the case of Christopher Jefferies who was arrested (but never charged) in connection with the high-profile murder of Joanna Yates, but who was subject to huge amounts of very damaging and offensive media speculation. However, this is not a problem with the police. Police are allowed arrest people as part of an investigation, and with very good reason. In this case they acted properly and publicly made a statement upon his release that Jefferies was no longer a suspect in the case. The issue is not with the police investigation, the issue is with the media response and speculation around a case which had not even been brought to trial. I refuse to accept that the procedure for dealing with a rape allegation should be structured around the ways in which the media might report the story.

This kind of abuse, however, is only likely to occur in extremely high profile cases, and rape cases (particularly adult acquaintance rape cases, which is really what we're talking about) are unlikely to be high profile. Public opinion regarding the damage done in false rape cases often centres on an extremely small number of high profile cases, ironically, because those are the only ones any of us have heard about.

Now, with the rise of the internet this is probably changing. News media, through blogging and social media, has become a much more conversational affair and it's much easier for ordinary people who aren't held to journalistic standards to speculate about events. But really, how supportive do you imagine opinion in the general public is towards women who accuse men, particularly famous or high-profile men, of rape? How supportive would you be? If you genuinely think that those accused have more to lose in this case, consider how you would react.

In the few cases where a person has been subject to actual media attention on the basis of an accusation which turned out to be false, yeah.. it's pretty awful. But the idea that "this could happen to anyone" is just bullshit.

3) The Standard of Evidence

This idea that rape is the only crime where you can be convicted on the basis of testimony comes up quite a lot, generally in conjunction with an argument about "reasonable doubt". On the contrary, I'd say that rape is the only crime where people are genuinely arguing that "reasonable doubt" should be taken specifically to exclude testimony. In legal terms, reasonable doubt is actually very subjective. If the person responsible for determining guilt (the judge, or the jury) is just over 90 percent sure that a crime occurred and the accused was responsible, then it's been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is not some scientific inquiry whereby all alternatives must be ruled out, it is a subjective assessment of the likelihood of guilt.

So no, it's not about the "type" of evidence used to convict you, it's about the quality of evidence and how much it convinces the person who is judging you of your guilt. I'm going to say it now, the idea that you can be convicted and jailed purely on the basis that you have been accused is actually bullshit.. there are numerous procedures designed to ensure that judges cannot operate like that, not least of which is the right of appeal.

Because this is how the judgement is made, though, the claim that judges are somehow predisposed or more likely to find rape cases guilty when compared to other crimes rests on the idea that judges as a class of people are somehow particularly inclined to believe alleged victims and view their accounts as hugely more convincing, because they're all rabid "feminists" or they just hate men and want them all to be in prison, or because they think women are too sweet and pure to ever lie. That's not true, in fact it's so ironically untrue that I don't even feel I should have to explain the demographics into which judges have traditionally fallen and to the point out the weird correlation between this fact and the historical reality that rape conviction rates have traditionally been staggeringly low when compared to other crimes.

So guys.. stop it. Seriously, I know you have no appreciation of the risk of rape, you've managed to live past the age where it's actually likely to happen to you and can now live your lives without ever having to think or worry about it, but a huge number of people don't have that luxury and those people, at the very least, deserve to be able to bring their grievances before society without facing a whole bunch of weird baggage from people who are more terrified of a crime which almost never happens but which might happen to them than one which, by almost all accounts, is staggeringly common in our society but which only ever happens to other people.

If I bet 100 to each of you that you personally know someone who has been raped at some point in their life, and the same amount that you would never meet anyone who has been wrongfully arrested for rape, that would probably be the safest bet I ever made.

I don't think the guy is hateful. I just think he's a moron. There's a big difference there and I don't think we should lose sight of that.

So...

Why ARE those books so popular with the housewife crowd? Or I should say, is he right in his initial point that they are popular? If they are popular, why are they popular?

I don't have a degree in women's studies so I wouldn't know. But I'm curious. since apparently everything he said is HATE FILLED AND WRONG AND STUPID I'd like to know why it is those books are so popular from experts who aren't hate filled and wrong and stupid, you know, assuming they are popular.

Bentusi16:
So...

Why ARE those books so popular with the housewife crowd? Or I should say, is he right in his initial point that they are popular? If they are popular, why are they popular?

Some people find sexual submission erotic. Potentially most people (including men) have some form of submission fantasy in the recesses of their imagination, even if submission is not a general sexual preference.

But there's a large gap between imagination and reality. I imagine many men watch James Bond or read martially inclined literature and fantasise about being a great warrior. They do so without also wanting to be lying in a foxhole being shot at real life.

Bentusi16:
So...

Why ARE those books so popular with the housewife crowd? Or I should say, is he right in his initial point that they are popular? If they are popular, why are they popular?

Because they have a good understanding of the disconnect between fantasy and reality, and want to indulge a fantasy without wanting it to become reality? You know, one of the same reasons why so many of our favorite games are so popular and beloved? That might be it...

BreakfastMan:

Bentusi16:
So...

Why ARE those books so popular with the housewife crowd? Or I should say, is he right in his initial point that they are popular? If they are popular, why are they popular?

Because they have a good understanding of the disconnect between fantasy and reality, and want to indulge a fantasy without wanting it to become reality? You know, one of the same reasons why so many of our favorite games are so popular and beloved? That might be it...

So why is it ok to fantasize about this?

I mean, my whole point is that i any of what he is saying actually, you know, true? Political vitriol and message mongering aside, is any of what he said in the full quote actually true? If so, what does that mean?

Bentusi16:

BreakfastMan:

Bentusi16:
So...

Why ARE those books so popular with the housewife crowd? Or I should say, is he right in his initial point that they are popular? If they are popular, why are they popular?

Because they have a good understanding of the disconnect between fantasy and reality, and want to indulge a fantasy without wanting it to become reality? You know, one of the same reasons why so many of our favorite games are so popular and beloved? That might be it...

So why is it ok to fantasize about this?

Why is it ok to fantasize about killing massive amounts of people in a combat situation?

BreakfastMan:

Bentusi16:

BreakfastMan:

Because they have a good understanding of the disconnect between fantasy and reality, and want to indulge a fantasy without wanting it to become reality? You know, one of the same reasons why so many of our favorite games are so popular and beloved? That might be it...

So why is it ok to fantasize about this?

Why is it ok to fantasize about killing massive amounts of people in a combat situation?

Is it ok?

To expand: What makes one fantasy ok but another fantasy not ok? Is it merely the acting out of said fantasy in reality, or do fantasies themselves have taboos that you aren't allowed to even think about.

Also I edited my post up above sorry.

evilthecat:
If I bet 100 to each of you that you personally know someone who has been raped at some point in their life, and the same amount that you would never meet anyone who has been wrongfully arrested for rape, that would probably be the safest bet I ever made.

To be fair, you usually have to be pretty close for someone to open up about sexual assault. They may know someone but not know that they do.

I fall into both categories. I know two women who've been raped and a man who even went to trial before being found innocent. Unsurprisingly, police misconduct was suggested but ultimately never proven in the latter case. Neither of the women I know opted to pursue their cases after dealing with the police, because they didn't feel it'd be worth it.

Bentusi16:

BreakfastMan:

Bentusi16:

So why is it ok to fantasize about this?

Why is it ok to fantasize about killing massive amounts of people in a combat situation?

Is it ok?

I don't know, you tell me: what do you think? I just don't give a crap what people fantasize about, so long as they don't act on those fantasies (which most people don't, since they understand the disconnect between their fantasies and reality). I really think what people fantasize about does not matter.

BreakfastMan:

Bentusi16:

BreakfastMan:

Why is it ok to fantasize about killing massive amounts of people in a combat situation?

Is it ok?

I don't know, you tell me: what do you think? I just don't give a crap what people fantasize about, so long as they don't act on those fantasies (which most people don't, since they understand the disconnect between their fantasies and reality).

Let us consider fantasies as a deeply buried but natural part of the self; an individual fantasizing something is doing so because part of their being, mind, soul, whatever, wishes to act out those fantasies in reality. However, let us consider that another part of the human being, mind, soul, whatever, counters this with reasoning. The reasoning can be varied; perhaps their fantasy is a crime, perhaps they have some moral issue with it, perhaps they are disgusted by their own fantasy.

However, the fantasy is still there. Let us consider someone who has violent fantasies about hurting those around him or her in realistic manners, out of anger at those individuals, or in retribution for perceived crimes or fault. He or she chooses actively to combat these violent thoughts and repress them; however, even if he or she has not actually acted on these, they are still there. They are part of the individual.

Would it not heavily influence those around this individual if they became aware of these fantasies?

How would society, as it is now, judge a woman who openly confesses to having fantasies of submission and being dominated by a male?

How would society, as it is now, judge a man who openly confesses to having fantasies of domination and control over a woman?

Bentusi16:

How would society, as it is now, judge a woman who openly confesses to having fantasies of submission and being dominated by a male?

She is into BDSM.

How would society, as it is now, judge a man who openly confesses to having fantasies of domination and control over a woman?

He is into BDSM. And if they both consent, it is totally cool for them to act upon those fantasies.

BreakfastMan:

Bentusi16:

How would society, as it is now, judge a woman who openly confesses to having fantasies of submission and being dominated by a male?

She is into BDSM.

How would society, as it is now, judge a man who openly confesses to having fantasies of domination and control over a woman?

He is into BDSM. And if they both consent, it is totally cool for them to act upon those fantasies.

Actually I'm not talking about BDSM, as that requires pain or at least special tools. I'm just talking about domination. Telling a person what they can and cannot do. Taking, as it were, what they want when they want. I'm also not suggesting it's consensual. I am talking about fantasies of unconsensual sexual actions.

If someone openly admitted to this, they'd be declared a rapist and probably shunned, though perhaps not outright arrested, in spite of the fact that they have not yet acted out these fantasies and theirs no guarantee they will.

The mere fact that the fantasies exist within the individual is enough to condemn them in most societies, or some other taboo fantasy.

Bentusi16:

BreakfastMan:

Bentusi16:

How would society, as it is now, judge a woman who openly confesses to having fantasies of submission and being dominated by a male?

She is into BDSM.

How would society, as it is now, judge a man who openly confesses to having fantasies of domination and control over a woman?

He is into BDSM. And if they both consent, it is totally cool for them to act upon those fantasies.

Actually I'm not talking about BDSM, as that requires pain or at least special tools. I'm just talking about domination. Telling a person what they can and cannot do. Taking, as it were, what they want when they want.

Domination is a part of BDSM. BDSM is not only masochism/sadism. Look at wikipedia if you don't believe me.

I'm also not suggesting it's consensual. I am talking about fantasies of unconsensual sexual actions.

That is what roleplay is for. So people can act out their fantasies in a healthy manner, without harming others.

EDIT:

in spite of the fact that they have not yet acted out these fantasies and theirs no guarantee they will.

So... You agree with me? :\

BreakfastMan:

Bentusi16:

BreakfastMan:

She is into BDSM.

He is into BDSM. And if they both consent, it is totally cool for them to act upon those fantasies.

Actually I'm not talking about BDSM, as that requires pain or at least special tools. I'm just talking about domination. Telling a person what they can and cannot do. Taking, as it were, what they want when they want.

Domination is a part of BDSM. BDSM is not only masochism/sadism. Look at wikipedia if you don't believe me.

I'm also not suggesting it's consensual. I am talking about fantasies of unconsensual sexual actions.

That is what roleplay is for. So people can act out their fantasies in a healthy manner, without harming others.

EDIT:

in spite of the fact that they have not yet acted out these fantasies and theirs no guarantee they will.

So... You agree with me? :\

Yes. However I'm trying to look at it from a societal perspective, and also the Socratic method is a thing.

I'm also tangentially trying to see if there's any truth to the quoted statement that has people crying 'he likes rape!' and 'rape forgiver!' against the man; I think his statement was rather well thought out, but I want to know if it's TRUE. Not the bit about false accusations, that is blatantly true, that is to say, it happens; arguing over amount is mind boggling to me. If bad things happen they need to stop, whether they happen a thousand times a day or one time a year. A better argument would be A; how to stop it, B: Which could be stopped more easily, and C: would addressing one problem help or hinder the other problems?

As I pointed out in an earlier post, I don't really care about the politics involved here, only that we not dismiss facts because they disagree with us, and that individual be allowed to voice their opinions and individuals be allowed to hear that voice if they so choose; my main issue with the protest is not that they're calling him a woman hating rape-forgiver (I have issues with this but they are unrelated). It's that they were preventing people from both expressing and listening to opinions. That shit is unforgivable to me. It's HOW they protested, not that they protested. They should protest it if they feel the need to but they shouldn't be stopping people from walking through the door.

Bentusi16:

Yes. However I'm trying to look at it from a societal perspective, and also the Socratic method is a thing.

I'm also tangentially trying to see if there's any truth to the quoted statement that has people crying 'he likes rape!' and 'rape forgiver!' against the man; I think his statement was rather well thought out, but I want to know if it's TRUE.

No, there isn't. A "no" should always be respected. If the women means "yes" she should say that. One should never, EVER have sex with ANYONE who has not given consent, full-stop.

BreakfastMan:

Bentusi16:

Yes. However I'm trying to look at it from a societal perspective, and also the Socratic method is a thing.

I'm also tangentially trying to see if there's any truth to the quoted statement that has people crying 'he likes rape!' and 'rape forgiver!' against the man; I think his statement was rather well thought out, but I want to know if it's TRUE.

No, there isn't. A "no" should always be respected. If the women means "yes" she should say that. One should never, EVER have sex with ANYONE who has not given consent, full-stop.

I agree. However, the quote seems to be suggesting that sometimes women say no when they mean yes; are you saying that this never happens? That it has never happened? That it cannot happen? That it happens so little it is a statistical inconsistency, not a thing? And more importantly, can you back that statement up with some sort of study?

He also goes on to blatantly say that when a woman really says no, you respect it. The whole issue is, when does a woman mean no and when does she mean yes? Unless of course this isn't a thing that happens in courting rituals.

I'll admit the ignorance isn't entirely feigned...I've only ever been with one woman and it was not a happy relationship. I don't really know how it works except as seen through media and cultural osmosis. So yeah.

Bentusi16:

BreakfastMan:

Bentusi16:

Yes. However I'm trying to look at it from a societal perspective, and also the Socratic method is a thing.

I'm also tangentially trying to see if there's any truth to the quoted statement that has people crying 'he likes rape!' and 'rape forgiver!' against the man; I think his statement was rather well thought out, but I want to know if it's TRUE.

No, there isn't. A "no" should always be respected. If the women means "yes" she should say that. One should never, EVER have sex with ANYONE who has not given consent, full-stop.

I agree. However, the quote seems to be suggesting that sometimes women say no when they mean yes; are you saying that this never happens? That it has never happened? That it cannot happen? That it happens so little it is a statistical inconsistency, not a thing? And more importantly, can you back that statement up with some sort of study?

He also goes on to blatantly say that when a woman really says no, you respect it. The whole issue is, when does a woman mean no and when does she mean yes? Unless of course this isn't a thing that happens in courting rituals.

No, I don't deny that (I even addressed that in my previous post, albiet briefly); the problem is, he goes on to paint that fact as a justification for date rape (hell, he even comes pretty close to endorsing), which makes the whole thing a pretty a damn horrific statement.

BreakfastMan:

Bentusi16:

BreakfastMan:

No, there isn't. A "no" should always be respected. If the women means "yes" she should say that. One should never, EVER have sex with ANYONE who has not given consent, full-stop.

I agree. However, the quote seems to be suggesting that sometimes women say no when they mean yes; are you saying that this never happens? That it has never happened? That it cannot happen? That it happens so little it is a statistical inconsistency, not a thing? And more importantly, can you back that statement up with some sort of study?

He also goes on to blatantly say that when a woman really says no, you respect it. The whole issue is, when does a woman mean no and when does she mean yes? Unless of course this isn't a thing that happens in courting rituals.

No, I don't deny that (I even addressed that in my previous post, albiet briefly); the problem is, he goes on to paint that fact as a justification for date rape (hell, he even comes pretty close to endorsing), which makes the whole thing a pretty a damn horrific statement.

See, this to me is a matter of interpretation. I don't see that in his statement. And I don't know what his original intent was. Everyone seems to want to interpret as endorsing date rape but he could just be saying that part of the male side of courting is knowing the difference between no no and yes no and no yes.

After all, all the above conditions exist and each are part of the womans desires, whether it's refusal refusal, cockteasing, or refusal because she wants the man to push a bit.

Date rape is a thing. It's a terrible thing. But is rape spontaneous or is it malice aforethought? or can it be both/ We have laws regarding the accidental killing of someone versus setting out to kill someone. If a man presses to hard, goes past the point where he was told to STOP in no uncertain terms, it is rape, period. However, if a man is pressing to test the edge, because he doesn't know what the edge is and wants to satisfy his partner, he can still be accused of date rape despite lack of intent on his part.

If a man gets 'to handsy' he is committing sexual assault. But the woman defines to handsy, and the man only has intuition on what is to handsy up until the woman says it isnt; even if he didn't set out to 'cross the line', he did because he isn't a mind reader and isn't sure what to far is.

Bentusi16:

See, this to me is a matter of interpretation.

I don't see it as such; the blatant use of terms like "date fraud" (placing the blame for the incident on the one who committed the fraud, i.e. the women) and saying that date rape used to be called "exciting" seem to convey otherwise/

I don't see that in his statement. And I don't know what his original intent was. Everyone seems to want to interpret as endorsing date rape but he could just be saying that part of the male side of courting is knowing the difference between no no and yes no and no yes.

Those are all the same, sorry. In each one, the women has expressed she doesn't want to have sex. Such a statement should be respected.

BreakfastMan:

Bentusi16:

See, this to me is a matter of interpretation.

I don't see it as such; the blatant use of terms like "date fraud" (placing the blame for the incident on the one who committed the fraud, i.e. the women) and saying that date rape used to be called "exciting" seem to convey otherwise/

I don't see that in his statement. And I don't know what his original intent was. Everyone seems to want to interpret as endorsing date rape but he could just be saying that part of the male side of courting is knowing the difference between no no and yes no and no yes.

Those are all the same, sorry. In each one, the women has expressed she doesn't want to have sex. Such a statement should be respected.

No they aren't.

If a womans sexual desire is to be pushed a little bit, to have the male partner take a position of authority over her, then it is CONSENSUAL. If the man is incapable of reading this or her mind or otherwise not picking up what he's doing, has he not failed his side of the relationship? Did he not fail to fulfill the desires of his partner?

There are also women out there who do get their jollies off on bringing men to a certain point and then leaving them hanging. This is a thing that happens.

And there are women who just want to talk.

There are men out there who set out with the intention of rape; those men are rapist. This is a tautology but for some reason I feel it is necessary to state this. But what about men who confuse one and two/ Or one and three? Or two and three? They did not set out to rape or sexually assault someone, but they misread the signals and went to far and the important thing is even if they stopped what they were doing, they are still more then capable of being accused of sexual assault.

Now the easiest way to get around all this would just be if everyone on both sides were open and honest up front about their intentions and desires, but that's not going to happen. So instead of pretending they don't happen shouldn't we be figuring out how to work it out so that everyone's happier?

And I've heard date fraud used before, specifically in reference to a man who lied about being jewish to sleep with a non-jew. Or a jewish woman. One of the two.

Dags90:
To be fair, you usually have to be pretty close for someone to open up about sexual assault.

I know.

The person in question also has to be fairly sure that you're not going to judge or doubt them, which likely means that the people who most need to realize just how common rape victims are in our society probably aren't ever going to notice.

But I still suspect it would be a very, very lucrative bet.

Bentusi16:
I'm also not suggesting it's consensual. I am talking about fantasies of unconsensual sexual actions.

When you fantasize about being dominated, or being made to do something, it's because you actually want to do it. If I fantasize about being made to lick someone's boots, it's because I want to do that. That's not to say I would necessarily want to lick every boot I saw, but if I'm sitting here getting chubbed over someone telling me to do it then that scenario is something I would want.

A person cannot "fantasize" about a situation which is out of their control. By definition, a person has complete control over their fantasies. Thus, fantasies about "unconsented" sexual actions aren't really what they appear to be, because you're not fantasizing about something you don't want, you're denying that you do want something.

People who have dominant fantasies towards others and who don't wish to become sexual predators or abusive partners must learn to filter their fantasies through a relationship based on mutual consent by meeting the needs of someone who wants to be dominated in that kind of relationship. While having highly dominant fantasies, or even rape fantasies, may not be acceptable to talk about in polite company, it's implicit (or sometimes pretty explicit) in a huge amount of porn and other sexual material designed for men. It's not nearly as forbidden or taboo as you're pretending.

Also, since you asked.

Bentusi16:
Why ARE those books so popular with the housewife crowd? Or I should say, is he right in his initial point that they are popular? If they are popular, why are they popular?

Women, historically, were seen to lack a fully developed sex drive, while men have generally been seen to have an almost uncontrollable sex drive. The historical view of men and women's sexual behaviour is that women are naturally passive, they don't want sex in the same way men do (and those who did display an active desire for sex were vulnerable to being labelled as sexual deviants) but they were seen to be very susceptible to male advances. Thus, the role of a "good woman" was essentially to protect herself from men who wanted to have sex with her. If she couldn't do that, rather than being an agent in her own right, she became simply a "failed woman".

These kinds of attitudes (or at least the legacy of them) still exist today. While we now understand that women have a fully developed sex drive and do experience sexual desire and pleasure in a very similar way to men, they are still more likely to be encouraged to repress this desire.

Submissive sexual fantasies provide a way for women (in particular, although many men have submissive sexual fantasies too) to express sexual desire in a way which denies any responsibility for it, and thus doesn't feel so dirty/slutty/bad/unfeminine/whatever as simply admitting that you really want to fuck someone's brains out, hence why these fantasies are concentrated in women. However, anything that encourages or leads to a person wishing to deny their own sexual desire can produce the same outcome, hence it not confined to women.

There's also a point Freud made (which you can take or leave, most of his ideas about female sexuality were pretty awful) about the fact that the default "normal" sex act in our society is really not very pleasurable for women, and thus he argued that (heterosexual) women spend their lives repressing the kind of sexuality which actually give them the most pleasure, but again, this ultimately leads to the same point. Women are more likely to have unacknowledged negative feelings about their own sexual desire.

Gethsemani:
Farrell's entire argument hinges on the idea that women will report men for rape even if they wanted to have sex, which is an utterly bullshit argument and fallacious in the extreme.

Sorry for the delay, I kind of had to step back for a moment. If I had never read a case where a situation you decry as fallacious and extreme bullshit actually happen, I would have agreed with you. Sadly, you don't have to look very far to find documented cases where consensual sex was later brought to court as a rape case (which I can take the time to provide if you'd like).

I know some people will tell me the statistics are quite miniscule (and in the grand scheme of things, they are), or that it is a problem that should be addressed. So if we agree it's a problem, and that it should be dealt with, why the hostility toward those that bring it up for discussion? Because the guy didn't phrase it they right way? Or because people merely respond to the discussion (and often do), with the idea that we should concentrate on prosecuting rape, rather than understand the situation and dealing out appropriate cases, with the knowledge that there is a possibility something didn't actually happen?

I recall a story about a researcher that wanted to interview rapists to better understand the situation, and others decried it as pointless and unnecessary; that we should simply look them up and throw away the key. It merely makes it difficult to have any discussion about the subject if people can't maintain some emotional rationale during the conversation.

Now, I do agree with Cat that a reported crime should always be treated seriously and should be thoroughly investigated. But if it's found baseless, it should be dropped. If it's found to be fabricated perjury, then the accuser should be prosecuted accordingly. After all, we have evidence and testimony that proves a crime. There are several cases I'm aware of where this did not happen.

My perceptions of Warren Farrell's work is that we should take the time to properly understand the crime prior to the judgment. I don't see a problem.

If you would like to read some cases, I can provide some. But I'm not about to if the response is simply going to be one of excusing away the severity of the situation merely because the females involved would be considered bat shit crazy or that rape is still a bigger issue than false accusations. I could easily concede both, but that's not the point I'm making, nor was Warren Farrell.

Bentusi16:
There are men out there who set out with the intention of rape; those men are rapist. This is a tautology but for some reason I feel it is necessary to state this. But what about men who confuse one and two/ Or one and three? Or two and three? They did not set out to rape or sexually assault someone, but they misread the signals and went to far and the important thing is even if they stopped what they were doing, they are still more then capable of being accused of sexual assault.

Until 2003 in the UK, it was impossible to find those men guilty. It still is in some places. Turns out that wasn't a good thing..

However, generally speaking in countries which don't still use a violence-based definition of rape, if you did not know your partner had not consented, and if your belief cannot be deemed to be unreasonable (the amendment added in 2003 in the UK) you still can't be convicted. What this does is to shift some of the scrutiny away from the purely theoretical matter of whether the victim consented (which might not be obvious anyway) towards the beliefs and actions of the accused. If they did believe their partner consented, then why did they believe that? Was this belief based on actual evidence, or was it merely assumed from the situation?

I don't see the problem with convicting someone who never intended to commit a crime provided they failed to meet a reasonable expectation that they would avoid doing so.

And incidentally, provided the person in question stopped once they realized their partner had not consented, and provided they were not completely negligent in trying to determine whether their partner had consented before they did anything, then they haven't committed any crime. You can't be convicted of a crime you didn't mean to do, unless you were so negligent that can't be deemed reasonable for you to believe that you weren't doing it.

Bentusi16:

No they aren't.

If a womans sexual desire is to be pushed a little bit, to have the male partner take a position of authority over her, then it is CONSENSUAL. If the man is incapable of reading this or her mind or otherwise not picking up what he's doing, has he not failed his side of the relationship? Did he not fail to fulfill the desires of his partner?

There is a difference between "a man not wanting to engage in BDSM with his partner" and "a man ignoring his partners no's and having sex with them anyway". There is NO safe, sure way to do something like what you are describing without roleplay, full-stop.

There are men out there who set out with the intention of rape; those men are rapist. This is a tautology but for some reason I feel it is necessary to state this. But what about men who confuse one and two/ Or one and three? Or two and three? They did not set out to rape or sexually assault someone, but they misread the signals and went to far and the important thing is even if they stopped what they were doing, they are still more then capable of being accused of sexual assault.

You want to know the reason why they are accused of sexual assault? Because they sexually assaulted someone and had sex with them against their will. Not that hard to figure out.

And I've heard date fraud used before, specifically in reference to a man who lied about being jewish to sleep with a non-jew. Or a jewish woman. One of the two.

That is not the same thing as what he said, so it doesn't really count.

DevilWithaHalo:

Gethsemani:
Farrell's entire argument hinges on the idea that women will report men for rape even if they wanted to have sex, which is an utterly bullshit argument and fallacious in the extreme.

Sorry for the delay, I kind of had to step back for a moment. If I had never read a case where a situation you decry as fallacious and extreme bullshit actually happen, I would have agreed with you. Sadly, you don't have to look very far to find documented cases where consensual sex was later brought to court as a rape case (which I can take the time to provide if you'd like).

I know some people will tell me the statistics are quite miniscule (and in the grand scheme of things, they are), or that it is a problem that should be addressed. So if we agree it's a problem, and that it should be dealt with, why the hostility toward those that bring it up for discussion? Because the guy didn't phrase it they right way? Or because people merely respond to the discussion (and often do), with the idea that we should concentrate on prosecuting rape, rather than understand the situation and dealing out appropriate cases, with the knowledge that there is a possibility something didn't actually happen?

I recall a story about a researcher that wanted to interview rapists to better understand the situation, and others decried it as pointless and unnecessary; that we should simply look them up and throw away the key. It merely makes it difficult to have any discussion about the subject if people can't maintain some emotional rationale during the conversation.

Now, I do agree with Cat that a reported crime should always be treated seriously and should be thoroughly investigated. But if it's found baseless, it should be dropped. If it's found to be fabricated perjury, then the accuser should be prosecuted accordingly. After all, we have evidence and testimony that proves a crime. There are several cases I'm aware of where this did not happen.

My perceptions of Warren Farrell's work is that we should take the time to properly understand the crime prior to the judgment. I don't see a problem.

If you would like to read some cases, I can provide some. But I'm not about to if the response is simply going to be one of excusing away the severity of the situation merely because the females involved would be considered bat shit crazy or that rape is still a bigger issue than false accusations. I could easily concede both, but that's not the point I'm making, nor was Warren Farrell.

I think you and I are pretty much on the same page here. I've never said that rape should get some special legal status where it doesn't require evidence for a conviction, but rather that we need to take women and men who report rape seriously. The problem isn't that we don't agree on the legal implications of what should happen to people who fabricate rape charges.

The problem is that Warren Farrell expressed himself in such a manner as to make it seem as if it is really the woman's fault if she ends up getting raped because she was "sending mixed signals" and that men should not have to accept legal responsibility for their actions if the woman was doing such. Is it a wrongful interpretation of what he said? Maybe. But as this thread has shown quite clearly I am not the only one who made that kind of interpretation of his statement.

I am getting kind of tired of constantly being treated as if I am the kind of radical feminist that wants all men to be labeled as "potential rapists" and wants convictions in rape cases without any evidence, because that's not what I am arguing.

"The problem is that Warren Farrell expressed himself in such a manner as to make it seem as if it is really the woman's fault if she ends up getting raped because she was "sending mixed signals" and that men should not have to accept legal responsibility for their actions if the woman was doing such. Is it a wrongful interpretation of what he said? Maybe. But as this thread has shown quite clearly I am not the only one who made that kind of interpretation of his statement.

I am getting kind of tired of constantly being treated as if I am the kind of radical feminist that wants all men to be labeled as "potential rapists" and wants convictions in rape cases without any evidence, because that's not what I am arguing."

No you are not arguing that, but you're coming close. I see your comments as a reflection of the reality, one that MRAs emphasize repeatedly, that feminism has so controlled the gender discussion such that feminist premises are seen as just common-sense to people such as yourself who see themselves as having a relatively acute gender-issue consciousness. As such, your perspective on this issue does seem to be less comprehensive and exploratory, and more inspired by the instilled premise that those who do not agree with feminists' perspectives on rape are guilty of being either rape apologists, victim-blamers, or at least inexusably insensitive.

Farrell's point, a perfectly logical and reasonable one, is that rape often happens due to the sexes getting their communication wires crossed. Communication between the sexes is very complicated; so, for example, the idea that as a descriptive matter "no means no" is just preposterous. We know from studies that it's simply not true. So, when a woman does say "no," and a man advances nonetheless based on what appears to him to be a holistic message of "please advance even though I'm feigning a disinclination to have sex," is he a rapist?

I say no, he's not. He's irresponsible, and perhaps stupid. But he's not a rapist because he believed that the totality of her behavior was manifestly communicating consent. And that conclusion was not necessarily unreasonable due to his socialization in a society where women send men mixed signals and often hope that men will interpret those signals holistically, rather than just literally.

Problem is, this miscommunication leads some women feeling utterly violated and not having a legal remedy so long as rape laws, as they should, continue to turn on traditional notions of mental culpability. What to do?

There are 2 parts to the answer. First, SOCIALIZE men to always interpret "no" to mean no, regardless of whatever games they think women may be playing. Second, SOCIALIZE women to not play games.

The first part feminists agree with. Why? Because it puts all the responsibility on men, consistent with how feminists approach almost everything else. But they hate part two. Why? Because it means woman are partly at-fault (yes, I said party AT FAULT) for a problem that effects them; it assumes women have more agency than feminists like to attribute to them in discussing gendered problems. Thus, we get charges of "victim blaming" and "rape apologia" when Farrell confronts unavoidable aspects of the problem of rape, aspects that are too disruptive to the simplistic power paradigm that feminists generally adhere to in one form or another.

evilthecat:
Beautiful snip

Thank you, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for actually bringing some actual legal insight into this whole idiotic "controversy".

And this is coming from someone who's just fine with treating false allegations of rape equal to false reports of any other criminal act.

evilthecat:

Bentusi16:
There are men out there who set out with the intention of rape; those men are rapist. This is a tautology but for some reason I feel it is necessary to state this. But what about men who confuse one and two/ Or one and three? Or two and three? They did not set out to rape or sexually assault someone, but they misread the signals and went to far and the important thing is even if they stopped what they were doing, they are still more then capable of being accused of sexual assault.

Until 2003 in the UK, it was impossible to find those men guilty. It still is in some places. Turns out that wasn't a good thing..

However, generally speaking in countries which don't still use a violence-based definition of rape, if you did not know your partner had not consented, and if your belief cannot be deemed to be unreasonable (the amendment added in 2003 in the UK) you still can't be convicted. What this does is to shift some of the scrutiny away from the purely theoretical matter of whether the victim consented (which might not be obvious anyway) towards the beliefs and actions of the accused. If they did believe their partner consented, then why did they believe that? Was this belief based on actual evidence, or was it merely assumed from the situation?

I don't see the problem with convicting someone who never intended to commit a crime provided they failed to meet a reasonable expectation that they would avoid doing so.

And incidentally, provided the person in question stopped once they realized their partner had not consented, and provided they were not completely negligent in trying to determine whether their partner had consented before they did anything, then they haven't committed any crime. You can't be convicted of a crime you didn't mean to do, unless you were so negligent that can't be deemed reasonable for you to believe that you weren't doing it.

I actually meant accusation rather then conviction. If a person is convicted it means they were found guilty of the crime under the justice system, and we accept it as proof of guilt, and that is reasonable and a basis of civilization; but if a person is accused and found not guilty, they are still likely to find themselves accused by others (with less legal consequences) and living with that shadow over them tehir whole life; so while we accept that a persons guilt is true (most of the time) when found guilty in a court of law, we often do not accept proof of innocence if found not guilty under the conditions that A: The crime is 'heinous' (murder, rape, sexual abuse, domestic violence, et al.) and/or B: The criminal proceedings receive a large amount of news coverage and/or C: They were found not guilty due to reasonable doubt.

An accusation of rape, much like an accusation of pedophilia, can pretty much ruin a persons life whether or not they are found guilty of a crime. In fact, an accusation of any major crime can ruin a persons life even if they are not convicted of said crime. So if an accusation is thrown at someone it should be treated seriously, with scrutiny on both parties.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked