U of T Protest: Warren Farrell = Hate Speech

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

If anyone is interested. Here's an interview with Warren Farrell regarding the incident; http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/mens-rights-speech-stifled-only-on-a-canadian-campus/2017271843001 He starts speaking at about the 5min mark

DevilWithaHalo:
If anyone is interested. Here's an interview with Warren Farrell regarding the incident; http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/mens-rights-speech-stifled-only-on-a-canadian-campus/2017271843001 He starts speaking at about the 5min mark

The host was a little annoying but mister Farrel seems like a soft spoken intellectual and nothing he said sounded wrong to me.

ManUpManDown:

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.

Got any evidence that this is my actual position or is this just some broad generalization you wanted to spew on the feminist movement? I think I've already established on this particular board that I agree with some MRA's on a lot of issues, but I also disagree with a lot of MRA's because they are just as reactionary, extreme and silly as many radical feminists are and I frankly find that neither extreme contribute much good to the discussion.

ManUpManDown:

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?

Potentially yes. If she truly wants too have sex, then no he isn't obviously. But if she doesn't want to and he's misinterpreting her non-verbal communication? Then yes, he most certainly are. There's little else to discuss here because it is pretty cut and dry. Every time a potential sexual partner says no and you decide to "press on" (regardless of genders involved) because you believe the non-verbal communication means yes then you are putting yourself at risk of committing sexual abuse or rape.

Want to be on the safe side? Back off.

ManUpManDown:

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.

Whatever or not someone feels like a rapist or didn't believe they committed rape doesn't mean a thing. That's something you can learn from a whole host of court verdicts on rape. In fact, in a majority of rape cases the perpetrator doesn't consider themselves to have committed rape even if they agree to all the circumstances regarding the sexual encounter in question (apart from the consent of the victim, obviously).

Once again, the remedy here is quite easy: If a woman says no, back off. Sure, you might not get laid but you also avoid committing a serious crime. Incidentally, in the long run it will also solve your second problem of women "playing games". If "playing games" means not getting any sex (if that's what you want), then you'll eventually have to drop the "games" if you want to get some.

ManUpManDown:

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.

No, I kind of like part two and I know many other feminists who do too. In fact, a majority of the feminists I've talked to agrees with point two. The thing is, we'd probably phrase it as something like "promote women to use more direct communication and work towards creating a view on female sexuality that didn't penalize women who embrace their sexuality and their sexual urges". This isn't as easy as women willfully "playing games" just as it isn't as easy as men wanting to rape women who say no. Both are the product of complex social structures regarding sexuality and gender roles and the only way to get rid of them is to change the way we perceive gender differences in sexuality. It is not about finding culprits or casting blame but rather about finding solutions and sustainable views on sexuality. Until we do, however, women will continue to be the victims of rape caused by men who misinterpreted non-verbal communication. Because it is a rape, no matter how well-meaning the man might be when he penetrates a woman who doesn't want him to.

On the matter of "what feminists think": no matter what this paragraph indicates and many MRA's like to say about feminists (that it is all man-blaming and victimization of women) a wide majority of mainstream feminists are such because they believe in female agency just as much as they believe in male agency. The entire idea of feminism is, arguably, that women are just as capable as men and that together we can affect lasting changes on social gender structures.

But more importantly, this last paragraph just tells me what I expected all along: That you didn't understand my initial point and haven't understood the position I occupy on this issue. Instead you've opted for building a straw feminist that you could violently tear down. Sadly, like most strawmen, it doesn't really hold up to meeting reality.

Smeatza:
Much of the feminist movement is now a political movement and so is no longer concerned with what's morally right and wrong but with gaining power and asserting it's agenda.

This is just another example of that.

Geek culture is getting the shit end of the stick. Fucking radicals damage the entire feminist movement, and people can't stand their dumbasses, and ignore them, so now they come to our circles to get a win by shifting their viewpoints as the predominate one. Doesn't help that gaming journalism is shit, and cares about views so most of us is now starting to give out their talking points, and don't seem to recognize it. Fucking creepy.

Dags90:
People like to point to "Dr. Somebody" as an authority or "study X at the University of Y that shows talking point Z". The Men's Rights movement mostly has Warren Farrell, whereas feminism is a whole branch of scholarship at some universities.

And you'll note a sharp divide between those feminist studies in between those that observe the influence of gender, and those who make ridiculous pseudo-scientific pamphlets about it. The latter type gets way too much credibility, but is nothing short of abuse of academic titles.

For example: observing the gender wage gap, and abusing that to jump to completely unfounded conclusions that gender discrimination exists on the labour market, and that that (fully) explains the wage gap.

I don't really see feminism as a recognized academic thing. Gender studies is, feminism however is just bullshit from an academic point of view. Gender studies also underwrites many points from the men's rights movement by the way. Like for instance observing the discriminatory policies against men on the labour market these days. It exists and is gender-specific, and therefore a topic at gender studies.

Gethsemani:

Whatever or not someone feels like a rapist or didn't believe they committed rape doesn't mean a thing. That's something you can learn from a whole host of court verdicts on rape. In fact, in a majority of rape cases the perpetrator doesn't consider themselves to have committed rape even if they agree to all the circumstances regarding the sexual encounter in question (apart from the consent of the victim, obviously).

Once again, the remedy here is quite easy: If a woman says no, back off. Sure, you might not get laid but you also avoid committing a serious crime. Incidentally, in the long run it will also solve your second problem of women "playing games". If "playing games" means not getting any sex (if that's what you want), then you'll eventually have to drop the "games" if you want to get some.

I hope you realize this comment is an example of why more men are getting seriously tired of "feminism"? The discussed situation is one where the fault clearly lies with the behavior of women and yet somehow it's the men that should adapt?
Let me elaborate. The problematic situation discussed (unless i missed something) is the one where a mixed message is being sent which can be misinterpreted and lead to "accidental rape" (never thought i'd ever say something like that). Wouldn't you agree that the real solution would be to stop sending mixed messages? (after all that IS the initial action that leads to the unfortunate reaction) Because if the message isn't mixed (body and mouth say "no") than if the person still engages in sexual interactions the person is an obvious rapist and your "tip" wouldn't even matter either (rapists won't back off anyway). So if women would stop sending mixed messages non-rapists would back off and accidental rapes would be avoided. Everyone wins. Women don't get "violated" by men with "good" intentions and men with "good" intentions don't get their life ruined with rape charges.

Now let's see how long it takes before i get flamed into ashes for daring not to put the blame on men.

generals3:
I hope you realize this comment is an example of why more men are getting seriously tired of "feminism"? The discussed situation is one where the fault clearly lies with the behavior of women and yet somehow it's the men that should adapt?
Let me elaborate. The problematic situation discussed (unless i missed something) is the one where a mixed message is being sent which can be misinterpreted and lead to "accidental rape" (never thought i'd ever say something like that). Wouldn't you agree that the real solution would be to stop sending mixed messages? (after all that IS the initial action that leads to the unfortunate reaction) Because if the message isn't mixed (body and mouth say "no") than if the person still engages in sexual interactions the person is an obvious rapist and your "tip" wouldn't even matter either (rapists won't back off anyway). So if women would stop sending mixed messages non-rapists would back off and accidental rapes would be avoided. Everyone wins. Women don't get "violated" by men with "good" intentions and men with "good" intentions don't get their life ruined with rape charges.

Now let's see how long it takes before i get flamed into ashes for daring not to put the blame on men.

So, if a woman says "no" and means "no", it's her fault if she gets raped?

thaluikhain:

So, if a woman says "no" and means "no", it's her fault if she gets raped?

In this particular case yes. 90% of communication is non-verbal and as has been mentioned often in such cases the verbal part is often purposely not correct. Is it so much asked to ensure that your body says no if you don't want it? You know if the women in question would say no and push the guy away (if he were to persevere) than obviously the case is pretty clear and than the guy is 100% at fault because it's not like there is any ambiguity left. But if you have a case where Ms. Y says no but still dances very erotically with guy and upon advances made doesn't really reject him physically for whatever reason i'd say it's her fault. (Edit: Well to be more precise, it's the fault of the fact that many don't say what they think/want and as such ensure that men "know" that in order to decrypt the message they also have to take body language into account which is something that can go wrong. If women would stop saying the opposite they want or think for whatever reason men wouldn't be wired this way and verbal communication would become sufficient)

Do mind we're talking about the situation where the words say no but body doesn't. So in no stage of the encounter the guy would ever end up using force as it is not needed. So if you have a picture in your mind where a guy is getting a lap dance and than tries to have sex and despite her saying no starts using force to restrain her so he can put his dick in her vagina take that picture away right now because that's not what i'm discussing.

If the problem is that encrypted messages don't get decrypted well maybe you should stop encrypting the damn messages.

PS: I also find your question disgustingly misleading as you left out important parts of the discussed scenarios.

thaluikhain:
So, if a woman says "no" and means "no", it's her fault if she gets raped?

Perhaps it's not so constructive to ignore everything he wrote, and bring it back to a completely irrelevant black/white question.

The question of miscommunication leading to accusations of rape is entirely legitimate, and you can't just ignore that by pressing a very extremist view. I can remember at least one such case here on the forum.

Two people met on a gaming convention. Got chatting. It got somewhat intimate, the girl stayed and talked along with the flirting, guy touches, girl doesn't say a thing, leaves a bit later, only half an hour later goes to security "Help, I've been raped!!!"

Guess what? So many people were calling for that guys blood in that topic, in total ignorance of both them not knowing what went down, and in total ignorance of the fact that her accusation is bullshit, since she at no time seems to have communicated anything suggesting not being okay with the flirting. Worse yet, the bullshit accusation, born out of a sense of shame which now needs a scapegoat, wasn't even recognized as such.
Feminist dogma at work: Those posters totally sided with the girl without thinking for even a moment.

This is why sexual or intimate acts where consensuality is called into question is often referred to as 'boundary crossing behaviour' among professionals rather than sexual assault, because someone crossing a 'no' may have done so out of confusion, ignorance, or another cause that lacks the malign intent of sexual assault.
You'd be amazed at the amount of cases where people who have experience with such boundary crossing behaviour just froze up, said nothing, did nothing, and later on realise they didn't want it. Whoever did it is not guilty of sexual assault, unless a malign intent can be proven. Hate to say it, but I've seen that some people really are too socially dumb to realise their advances may be unwanted, and if they don't get a no at all, then how can they be blamed?


To ignore all that and pretend it's a simple yes/no would be purposely obtuse.

generals3:

I hope you realize this comment is an example of why more men are getting seriously tired of "feminism"? The discussed situation is one where the fault clearly lies with the behavior of women and yet somehow it's the men that should adapt?
Let me elaborate. The problematic situation discussed (unless i missed something) is the one where a mixed message is being sent which can be misinterpreted and lead to "accidental rape" (never thought i'd ever say something like that). Wouldn't you agree that the real solution would be to stop sending mixed messages? (after all that IS the initial action that leads to the unfortunate reaction) Because if the message isn't mixed (body and mouth say "no") than if the person still engages in sexual interactions the person is an obvious rapist and your "tip" wouldn't even matter either (rapists won't back off anyway). So if women would stop sending mixed messages non-rapists would back off and accidental rapes would be avoided. Everyone wins. Women don't get "violated" by men with "good" intentions and men with "good" intentions don't get their life ruined with rape charges.

Now let's see how long it takes before i get flamed into ashes for daring not to put the blame on men.

Should men adapt? Yes. Should we strive towards making women comfortable with more direct sexual communication? Yes. I already covered this later in the same post you quoted, had you read it in its' entirety.

Arguably, if a man has sex with a woman who says no verbally but he believes is giving non-verbal communication meaning yes and later gets reported for rape then he probably misinterpreted her non-verbal communication. Right? If he correctly interprets her non-verbal communication, then nothing illegal is going on and there will be no legal repercussions of their sexual encounter. But we must assume that every time such an encounter ends up with rape being reported the victim really didn't want to have sex.

I mean, let us be perfectly honest here: This isn't just a failure of women to communicate. This is also a failure of men to understand what women are trying to communicate. The entire situation is usually further complicated by the use of alcohol which impairs the judgement of both parties and inhibits thinking as well as social and motor skills. It is a situation where both parties might have a very hard time telling what the other wants. The fault for the failing communication lies with both people equally, but the fault for penetrating the woman's body without her consent is fully upon the man.

Really, the single most important thing you must understand about rape is what you quoted: That many rapists do not consider themselves such because what they did and the situation they did it in is not the same as their mental image of an assault rape. Most rapes happen because communications fail in one way or another and the man fails to properly understand the woman's lack of consent. In the grand scheme of things it is a much less nefarious crime then pre-meditated assault rape, but it is no less a rape. I do not believe that all rapists are evil man-pigs, in fact I believe many rapists are pretty nice guys who made some stupid decisions, usually while under influence of alcohol or other drugs. But you can't lay the fault for their stupid decisions entirely on the victim, because in the end it was still the man who performed the physical action of penetration.

The entire idea that she says no, means yes and will push rape charges is preposterous. Why not just address the elephant in the fucking room (pardon my french)? If she reports a rape and had said no she wasn't sending mixed signals. It was the man who misinterpreted her non-verbal communication. Is it really that hard to understand?

Gethsemani:
Really, the single most important thing you must understand about rape is what you quoted: That many rapists do not consider themselves such because what they did and the situation they did it in is not the same as their mental image of an assault rape. Most rapes happen because communications fail in one way or another and the man fails to properly understand the woman's lack of consent. In the grand scheme of things it is a much less nefarious crime then pre-meditated assault rape, but it is no less a rape.

You're undermining your own point here. First you acknowledge that not all boundary crossing behaviour is nefarious in intent, and then you ignore your own point by basically saying 'doesn't matter, it's always rape, because... dunno'. Those two things can't be true at the same time. If you're going to acknowledge the complex nature of this, one can't at the same time cling to an unrealistic and simplistic definition of rape that basically goes 'woman thinks it is, then always rape'.

Also there's yet another complicating factor with keeping this simplistic definition around: It would be an exception made for women only.

The norm is that if a woman intimately touches a man, that's cool and stuff, nobody would consider that sexual assault or rape. It's therefore completely indefensible to use such a definition for unwanted or contested sexual advances of men towards women.

Blablahb:
You're undermining your own point here. First you acknowledge that not all boundary crossing behaviour is nefarious in intent, and then you ignore your own point by basically saying 'doesn't matter, it's always rape, because... dunno'. Those two things can't be true at the same time. If you're going to acknowledge the complex nature of this, one can't at the same time cling to an unrealistic and simplistic definition of rape that basically goes 'woman thinks it is, then always rape'.

Also there's yet another complicating factor with keeping this simplistic definition around: It would be an exception made for women only.

The norm is that if a woman intimately touches a man, that's cool and stuff, nobody would consider that sexual assault or rape. It's therefore completely indefensible to use such a definition for unwanted or contested sexual advances of men towards women.

It really doesn't matter whatever it is intentional or not, because the harm to the victim is the same. Just like it might not be your intention to blow your brains out in Russian Roulette, but you'd be just as dead if you pull the trigger with a loaded revolver. I am merely saying that as far as severity of crime goes the lack of intent is a mitigating factor, but it doesn't change the reality of what happened.

I also disagree with your last paragraph in that I dislike that kind of double standard. A woman who performs unwanted sexual advances on a man is just as guilty of sexual harassment, abuse or rape as a man is and making men aware of the boundaries of their own sexuality is one of those things we should be doing more of.

Gethsemani:
It really doesn't matter whatever it is intentional or not, because the harm to the victim is the same. Just like it might not be your intention to blow your brains out in Russian Roulette, but you'd be just as dead if you pull the trigger with a loaded revolver. I am merely saying that as far as severity of crime goes the lack of intent is a mitigating factor, but it doesn't change the reality of what happened.

So we should punish people for 'crimes' they weren't even aware of, and they had no intention of ever committing?

Or perhaps a better wording: punish people who have done nothing wrong?

That's not permissable anywhere in legal traditions now outside of things people really should've known (for a which case can't be made here because neither flirting nor having sex is a criminal offense) and are common knowledge. Outside of that the consensus is that people can't be punished for things that aren't a crime or aren't known to be a crime.

And I approve of your opposition against double standards, but the reality is one exists, and arranging things regarding accusations of rape like you proposed, would worsen that double standard considerably.

Blablahb:

Gethsemani:
It really doesn't matter whatever it is intentional or not, because the harm to the victim is the same. Just like it might not be your intention to blow your brains out in Russian Roulette, but you'd be just as dead if you pull the trigger with a loaded revolver. I am merely saying that as far as severity of crime goes the lack of intent is a mitigating factor, but it doesn't change the reality of what happened.

So we should punish people for 'crimes' they weren't even aware of, and they had no intention of ever committing?

Or perhaps a better wording: punish people who have done nothing wrong?

That's not permissable anywhere in legal traditions now outside of things people really should've known (for a which case can't be made here because neither flirting nor having sex is a criminal offense) and are common knowledge. Outside of that the consensus is that people can't be punished for things that aren't a crime or aren't known to be a crime.

And I approve of your opposition against double standards, but the reality is one exists, and arranging things regarding accusations of rape like you proposed, would worsen that double standard considerably.

I am fairly certain that most legal systems does not have a "you can not be guilty of crimes you don't know of"-clause. The truth is that many people commit crimes every year without realizing it (though most tend to be in economical matters and other similar victimless crimes) and quite a lot of them end up getting sentenced for it.

See, I think we could discuss this forever. In the end the problem is that we have very different definitions on what constitutes rape and how it should be dealt with in a legal fashion. I do take issue with the fact that you think someone who has performed sexual actions on someone against that other persons will "have done nothing wrong", but I also realize that if that's really what you think there's no way I can make you see this from the victims perspective. Which renders all further discussion pretty pointless.

Blablahb:

Gethsemani:
It really doesn't matter whatever it is intentional or not, because the harm to the victim is the same. Just like it might not be your intention to blow your brains out in Russian Roulette, but you'd be just as dead if you pull the trigger with a loaded revolver. I am merely saying that as far as severity of crime goes the lack of intent is a mitigating factor, but it doesn't change the reality of what happened.

So we should punish people for 'crimes' they weren't even aware of, and they had no intention of ever committing?

Well, this is how it works... So yes. Having no intentions to commit a crime does not mean that no crime was commited.

Gethsemani:

Should men adapt? Yes. Should we strive towards making women comfortable with more direct sexual communication? Yes. I already covered this later in the same post you quoted, had you read it in its' entirety.

Arguably, if a man has sex with a woman who says no verbally but he believes is giving non-verbal communication meaning yes and later gets reported for rape then he probably misinterpreted her non-verbal communication. Right? If he correctly interprets her non-verbal communication, then nothing illegal is going on and there will be no legal repercussions of their sexual encounter. But we must assume that every time such an encounter ends up with rape being reported the victim really didn't want to have sex.

I mean, let us be perfectly honest here: This isn't just a failure of women to communicate. This is also a failure of men to understand what women are trying to communicate. The entire situation is usually further complicated by the use of alcohol which impairs the judgement of both parties and inhibits thinking as well as social and motor skills. It is a situation where both parties might have a very hard time telling what the other wants. The fault for the failing communication lies with both people equally, but the fault for penetrating the woman's body without her consent is fully upon the man.

Really, the single most important thing you must understand about rape is what you quoted: That many rapists do not consider themselves such because what they did and the situation they did it in is not the same as their mental image of an assault rape. Most rapes happen because communications fail in one way or another and the man fails to properly understand the woman's lack of consent. In the grand scheme of things it is a much less nefarious crime then pre-meditated assault rape, but it is no less a rape. I do not believe that all rapists are evil man-pigs, in fact I believe many rapists are pretty nice guys who made some stupid decisions, usually while under influence of alcohol or other drugs. But you can't lay the fault for their stupid decisions entirely on the victim, because in the end it was still the man who performed the physical action of penetration.

The entire idea that she says no, means yes and will push rape charges is preposterous. Why not just address the elephant in the fucking room (pardon my french)? If she reports a rape and had said no she wasn't sending mixed signals. It was the man who misinterpreted her non-verbal communication. Is it really that hard to understand?

I know you said it further down the post but i found it quite "fishy" that at one point in your post you'd just go and point fingers to men only.

And again you go around and point to the failure of men to understand a crypted communication. What i say is quite simple: quit the games and stop being cryptic. This way no misunderstandings can happen. Everyone communicates and interprets things differently and as such when it's the social norm to "play games" than misunderstandings will always happen. You can't just go and say "stop misunderstanding!" however it is perfectly possible to say "stop playing little games of saying no while meaning yes" (which will lead to true "no's" being interpreted as yes's).

And your last paragraph seems rather irrelevant. My point was that due to the common usage of "no" while meaning yes leads to misunderstanding meant "no's". And who says she wasn't sending mixed signals? I'm fairly certain that it happens quite often. For instance if someone makes an advance and you don't physically reject him that's usually seen as a sign the person wants it to happen. (unless the person is drugged beyond consciousness)

Gethsemani:
I am fairly certain that most legal systems does not have a "you can not be guilty of crimes you don't know of"-clause. The truth is that many people commit crimes every year without realizing it (though most tend to be in economical matters and other similar victimless crimes) and quite a lot of them end up getting sentenced for it.

And do they get the heavyhanded sentences and cries for blood from the mob that you ussually see around sex offenses?

And that situation is different in that accused people could've known it was a crime. Someone guilty of accidental tax evasion could've studied what taxes were in place better and could've known.

However, since neither flirting nor having sex are a crime, those accused of sexual assault without any indication or ambigious communication, can't be accused of anything.

Gethsemani:
See, I think we could discuss this forever. In the end the problem is that we have very different definitions on what constitutes rape and how it should be dealt with in a legal fashion. I do take issue with the fact that you think someone who has performed sexual actions on someone against that other persons will "have done nothing wrong", but I also realize that if that's really what you think there's no way I can make you see this from the victims perspective. Which renders all further discussion pretty pointless.

I resent your slanderous and grieving accusation that I don't care about rape victims, and will report any future posts containing such sad personal attacks.

If there is a problem, it's your closedmindedness. I've given several situations where in your point of view, innocent people should be punished as sex offenders, namely when it's unclear if an intimate situation is wanted or not, or appears wanted but turns out afterwards to not be.
One thing in that paragraph is correct though: You could never convince me that innocent people need to be punished for crimes they didn't commit.

TheKasp:
Well, this is how it works... So yes. Having no intentions to commit a crime does not mean that no crime was commited.

How about a crime not being committed at all? Because punishing people in retrospect is what's called ex post facto law application, or 'after the fact'. Most countries have explicit constitutional bans on that, and it's not a standing legal principle in any country that I'm aware of, it's mostly the stuff of carefully picked exceptions.

From that follows that you can't punish someone if his partner later on decides that she said nothing, but it was still rape. Clear communication is necessary for sexual contact to become a crime, and it can't be done later on. This is also backed by normal definitions of sexual assault and rape, which typically stipulate that there must not have been consent.

That's the whole issue: Scenario's being discussed here revolve around there being consent, but it getting withdrawn later, or appearing to be with consent, but turning out to be a miscommunication later on.

Gethsemani:
Got any evidence that this is my actual position . . . . ?

Yes. Good evidence would be the very quote I invoked before:

Gethsemani:
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. . . . I am not the only one who made that kind of interpretation of his statement."

To you, as you've written before, rape is really "cut and dry"; and so are feminists' attitudes on whether a man's statement on rape is misogynistic or not. Thus we get the protest at UT. Consistent with this, here you take a quote from Farrell and interpret it as least forgivingly as possible, not letting nuance stand in your way. What Ferrell is saying is that it is unfair to males, given the way they've been socialized to think it's their obligation to be sexually assertive and "figure women out" (a burden women more than men impose on them: "we're complicated, don't you know!?"), to put all the onus on them to prevent or, after the fact, punish "rape" when what leads to it is often a misunderstanding nurtured by women. It's a cultural catch-22 to many men who, quite reasonably, think of "consent" as communicated not just literally/verbally but holistically.

In short, your words above are a great example of taking something quite nuanced and interpreting it in a very ham-fisted way. Why do you do this? I suspect it's because feminists are taught that they are entitled to approach the subject with an attitude of stridence and righteousness.

Gethsemani:
But if she doesn't want to and he's misinterpreting her non-verbal communication? Then yes, he most certainly are. There's little else to discuss here because it is pretty cut and dry. . . .

Gethsemani:
Whatever or not someone feels like a rapist or didn't believe they committed rape doesn't mean a thing. That's something you can learn from a whole host of court verdicts on rape. In fact, in a majority of rape cases the perpetrator doesn't consider themselves to have committed rape even if they agree to all the circumstances regarding the sexual encounter in question (apart from the consent of the victim, obviously). Want to be on the safe side? Back off.

And with these quotes we come back to the crux of the problem from an MRA perspective. First, as a legal matter, you're simply wrong. At least in the US (I don't know where you are) rape is an intent crime. Roughly speaking, a defendant must have the intent to penetrate the victim while knowing he does not have her consent. I would welcome your reference to a "whole host of court verdicts on rape" to prove me otherwise.

As such, it appears you're bootstrapping your definition of rape into relevance when it has none. It only has relevance if we assume that "rape" means not the legal definition but rather the perhaps "moral" or "political" definition so often relied-upon by feminists: rape happens whenever a woman FEELS she has been raped. So long as she genuinely FEELS she has been raped, because she did not consent, she's been raped. Of course, no other major crime (that I can think of anyway) in western legal systems is defined with such an exclusive focus on the effects suffered by an alleged victim without a focus on the defendant's state of mind.

Gethsemani:
A wide majority of mainstream feminists are such because they believe in female agency just as much as they believe in male agency. The entire idea of feminism is, arguably, that women are just as capable as men and that together we can affect lasting changes on social gender structures.

Yes, I get what the "idea" of feminism is. But the idea is not MRAs' concern (we actually LOVE the "idea"). Our concern is with what feminism does when the rubber hits the road in specific tough circumstances where denying women agency is convenient. A good example would be your seemingly ideologically rooted definition of "rape" that focuses on protecting women from traumatic SITUATIONS (rather than predatory ACTS) at all costs (chivalry), even if it means tinkering with the meaning of rape and throwing men under the bus in the process ("male disposability"). This is apparent in your statements:

Gethsemani:
The fault for the failing communication lies with both people equally, but the fault for penetrating the woman's body without her consent is fully upon the man.

Yeah, there's female agency for ya'. In this scenario, the female is at least partly at fault for CAUSING the penetration; but only the man should be held accountable for causing the penetration because he was the one actively performing penetration. She is partly at "fault" (your term) for causing the penetration, but when it comes time to dole out "fault" legally, that feminist agency goes right out the window. I understand your position makes a lot of intuitive sense to you because of the degree to which your intuition on this matter is driven by an tunnel-empathy for women (essentially the practical essence of feminism). But the goal of the MRM is to try to get others to see that this intution is perverted by hereto unchallenged background assumptions in feminist thinking.

Gethsemani:
But more importantly, this last paragraph just tells me what I expected all along: That you didn't understand my initial point and haven't understood the position I occupy on this issue. Instead you've opted for building a straw feminist that you could violently tear down. Sadly, like most strawmen, it doesn't really hold up to meeting reality.

It's so ironic that your strawman point is itself a strawman. I don't believe you hate men. I don't believe you are consciously biased against them. I don't think you're a radical separatist. I do think that, like most who take an intellectual feminist angle, your unfairness toward men comes via a very twisted and one-sided norm among those who think of themselves as "moderate" feminists: an "enlightened" and "progressive" sense of intuitive justice that puts empathy toward men on the back-burner. I do understand your position; indeed, I might understand it better than you.

Gethsemani:
Because it is a rape, no matter how well-meaning the man might be when he penetrates a woman who doesn't want him to.

I rest my case.

Is there a difference, legally speaking, between sexual assault and rape?

When I think rape, other then being uncomfortable, I also think of a penetrative sexual act. When I think sexual assault I think of someone grabbing a boob or something. While one can certainly lead to the other, it seems like they'd be different levels of the same crime.

Bentusi16:
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.

Oh, I see what you mean now..

1) No, there is no separation between "innocent" and "not guilty" because that's not how the law works. Actually, it's set up like that precisely to protect defendants, because if "not guilty" actually meant "not innocent" then it would result in a system where people had to prove their innocence, and we don't want that. The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our legal system.

But at the same time we do have to live in the real world, and in the real world just because you've been acquitted of a crime doesn't mean you didn't commit it. In the real world, acquaintance rapists will almost always go through many, many victims before being caught. Often they will be accused several times before being convicted. If someone is being repeatedly accused of rape, then I don't see why that shouldn't factor into the investigation. People who rape are very likely to get away with it, people who are convicted are very unlikely to have been convicted for their first offence. Even if we could magically get reporting to 100% (which is not going to happen) it would still take several reports in order to catch most rapists because the rate of conviction from those reports will still be very low.

It should not mean they are presumed guilty, nothing should mean that, but the job of the police force is to investigate crimes, and if someone is routinely being accused of rape, that's a pretty clear warning sign which I don't think police should be forced to ignore.

2) Acquittance rapes really aren't covered in the media at all.

If you're accused of raping a stranger in a dark alley, it's possible the case will appear in local media (although it's unlikely to include your name). If the crime is particularly horrific and violent takes place under unusual circumstances or fits some kind of pre-existing media "narrative" (a Muslim man raping a Norwegian woman in Oslo), it might even make some kind of wider news impact. But really.. if you're just an ordinary white non-celebrity and a current or former sexual partner accuses you of rape, noone gives a shit. National newspapers will not be beating down your door to get the story. Your name is extremely unlikely to appear anywhere in the media, even if you are actually convicted.

Acquaintance rape cases receive virtually no coverage, and to a certain extent that's probably a good thing because the people involved generally don't want any coverage. If you wanted to slander someone's name in the media, you wouldn't accuse them of rape.. You'd be much better off naming them anonymously in relation to an existing high-profile crime. It probably still wouldn't get them in the newspapers, but it would be infinitely more likely to work than accusing them of acquaintance rape.

3) Scrutiny is already placed on both parties. In fact, until very recently you could go to prison for some decidedly understandable behaviour, like retracting your accusation in the middle of a trial.

Pressing charges for rape is already like sticking your head into a woodchipper, to the point where I know a lot of women knowledgable about rape law who have privately stated that if they ever get raped they don't see the point in even trying. Horrible as that is, I have to say I kind of see where they're coming from. It's a horrific ordeal with very little chance of producing anything positive and during which every aspect of your character, integrity and life will be scrutinized and attacked.

What we absolutely don't need, having spent years and years trying to dismantle it, is a system whereby you can suffer serious legal consequences for being traumatized, or for not being cooperative with a system which is already going to pummel you to shit because you were stupid enough to want to do the right thing.

If there is clear evidence that someone has fabricated charges against someone maliciously, fine. But if there is not then it seems deeply callous and unfeeling to want that same punishment applied to anyone who makes an unfounded accusation.

Blablahb:
I resent your slanderous and grieving accusation that I don't care about rape victims, and will report any future posts containing such sad personal attacks.

Yes... and then...

If there is a problem, it's your closedmindedness.

Wow - the irony! Just two presses of the return key later. Better hope Gethsemani doesn't practice what you preach.

* * *

I think people are perhaps a little confused here.

This actually has nothing to do with male and female agency in the matter of coitus. It's the standard of criminality or legal responsibility in any area. If someone hands you a gun, tells you it isn't loaded, invites you to point it at their forehead and pull the trigger, it is absolutely your responsibility whether you do so. If you happen to blow their brains out, tough shit: you have just committed manslaughter. If you walk down Mugger Alley shouting "I'm carrying 20,000 in cash, mug me and you'll be rich", it does not constitute a legal defence for a guy who mugs you.

There is actually no good reason whatsoever to hand preferential exceptions to this principle purely for men who want to fuck someone.

evilthecat:

Bentusi16:
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.

Oh, I see what you mean now..

1) No, there is no separation between "innocent" and "not guilty" because that's not how the law works. Actually, it's set up like that precisely to protect defendants, because if "not guilty" actually meant "not innocent" then it would result in a system where people had to prove their innocence, and we don't want that. The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our legal system.

But at the same time we do have to live in the real world, and in the real world just because you've been acquitted of a crime doesn't mean you didn't commit it. In the real world, acquaintance rapists will almost always go through many, many victims before being caught. Often they will be accused several times before being convicted. If someone is being repeatedly accused of rape, then I don't see why that shouldn't factor into the investigation. People who rape are very likely to get away with it, people who are convicted are very unlikely to have been convicted for their first offence. Even if we could magically get reporting to 100% (which is not going to happen) it would still take several reports in order to catch most rapists because the rate of conviction from those reports will still be very low.

It should not mean they are presumed guilty, nothing should mean that, but the job of the police force is to investigate crimes, and if someone is routinely being accused of rape, that's a pretty clear warning sign which I don't think police should be forced to ignore.

2) Acquittance rapes really aren't covered in the media at all.

If you're accused of raping a stranger in a dark alley, it's possible the case will appear in local media (although it's unlikely to include your name). If the crime is particularly horrific and violent takes place under unusual circumstances or fits some kind of pre-existing media "narrative" (a Muslim man raping a Norwegian woman in Oslo), it might even make some kind of wider news impact. But really.. if you're just an ordinary white non-celebrity and a current or former sexual partner accuses you of rape, noone gives a shit. National newspapers will not be beating down your door to get the story. Your name is extremely unlikely to appear anywhere in the media, even if you are actually convicted.

Acquaintance rape cases receive virtually no coverage, and to a certain extent that's probably a good thing because the people involved generally don't want any coverage. If you wanted to slander someone's name in the media, you wouldn't accuse them of rape.. You'd be much better off naming them anonymously in relation to an existing high-profile crime. It probably still wouldn't get them in the newspapers, but it would be infinitely more likely to work than accusing them of acquaintance rape.

3) Scrutiny is already placed on both parties. In fact, until very recently you could go to prison for some decidedly understandable behaviour, like retracting your accusation in the middle of a trial.

Pressing charges for rape is already like sticking your head into a woodchipper, to the point where I know a lot of women knowledgable about rape law who have privately stated that if they ever get raped they don't see the point in even trying. Horrible as that is, I have to say I kind of see where they're coming from. It's a horrific ordeal with very little chance of producing anything positive and during which every aspect of your character, integrity and life will be scrutinized and attacked.

What we absolutely don't need, having spent years and years trying to dismantle it, is a system whereby you can suffer serious legal consequences for being traumatized, or for not being cooperative with a system which is already going to pummel you to shit because you were stupid enough to want to do the right thing.

If there is clear evidence that someone has fabricated charges against someone maliciously, fine. But if there is not then it seems deeply callous and unfeeling to want that same punishment applied to anyone who makes an unfounded
accusation.

I agree with you.

This is going to sound bad but yes, when it comes to the law I am deeply callous and unfeeling. All I care about is justice being done. Justice HAS to be blind. It should not and cannot care if a victim is male or female, an asshole or a saint. It should not care if the perpetrator is white, black, asian, hispanic, male, female, christian, muslim, jew, or atheist.

Justice is hard to define however, and for everyone it's different. It's why we still have debates over the death penalty, treatment of prisoners, what kind of death is allowable and what isn't.

We cannot blame the victim for being attacked, but we can blame the victim for being stupid, can we not? Stupidity is not a crime, it is not punishable as a crime, but it is often punished by criminals. A woman who wanders into an area with a crowd KNOWN for being rough in an outfit designed to intentionally enhance physical beauty and inflame passions isn't committing a crime. She is a victim, a tragic one. But that doesn't mean she wasn't being stupid. She paid for that stupidity in a tragic and horrifying manner, and the perpetrator of that punishment should in turn be punished for his or her cruelty and callousness and disregard for human decency. To the full extent of the law. Even if the victim was being stupid, it doesn't lessen the impact nor need to punish the criminal for their actions. And we should still feel sorry for the victim, offer what aid we can in the pursuit of justice and normalization, but by pretending the victim hadn't acted in a stupid manner, we just make the overall situation worse.

We need to do everything we can to prevent it in the future, which takes so many things but to try and narrow it down: Punishment of the guilty and education of the innocent.

Oh I know what's going to happen now. I'm going to get accused of being a rape-apologizer or something, that I think it's the womans fault for dressing in a certain manner and all that, and how dare I try to stop them from expressing themselves.

Well if we lived in a perfect world I would agree with you but we live in this reality, and as much as we would like it to, we cannot change the nature of people. We build laws and societies and civilizations to guide those natures along productive paths, but the nature of humanity is never really going to change. Angels and demons, as the old saying goes.

As far as mens rights and feminism goes: The suffering of one victim does not lessen the suffering of another. Both sides have equally valid points, and invalid points; both have done things in the name of their cause that crosses a line of decency. Both have extremist that pollute the rest of the conversation.

Even as I say it I feel I've not said enough or I've said it in a way that doesn't really show how I feel on the issues, top to bottom of the post, but I'm constrained by my own abilities.

No, Agema, no confusion here.

Implicit in definitions of rape that disregard the intent of the defendant in determining his guilt is a normative assertion of what the law SHOULD be. This is especially true here, where Geth appears to be arguing not only that the law IS that a defendant's knowledge matters not, but also that such is what the law should be. Once we go do down that alley, the problem becomes how do we determine how to manifest fairness/reasonableness/good-consequences in law? That, in turn, is informed by one's perspective on the relative positions and responsibilities of the individuals involved. Hence agency.

Agema:
If someone hands you a gun, tells you it isn't loaded, invites you to point it at their forehead and pull the trigger, it is absolutely your responsibility whether you do so. If you happen to blow their brains out, tough shit: you have just committed manslaughter."

Interesting. What one has NOT committed in this scenario is murder. Why? No malice. The reason why this analogy does not work for you is because there is no "second-degree rape" (at least not in US jurisdictions). So this example actually proves the point you're disagreeing with because the proper analogue here is murder. And by the way, even manslaughter turns on a defendant's culpability. It's just a lower culpability threshold that's applicable.

Agema:
"If you walk down Mugger Alley shouting "I'm carrying 20,000 in cash, mug me and you'll be rich", it does not constitute a legal defence for a guy who mugs you.

Actually, if circumstances were such that a jury could determine that the "mugger" actually thought he was welcome to take my stuff, then yes it would be a defense. But that of course, as a practical matter, is not a defense only because the possibility of that being the defendant's actual state of mind is infinitely low. How often do people walk down the street genuinely hoping that another will take all of their belongings? Contrast that with an infinitely more strange and complicated context of courtship and sexual communication. How often do women send mixed signals regarding consent? It is much more likely that a jury would find that a defendant lacked the requisite culpability, which makes it, as a practical matter, a more realistic defense in that context. But state of mind is technically equally relevant to both crimes.

Agema:

I think people are perhaps a little confused here.

This actually has nothing to do with male and female agency in the matter of coitus. It's the standard of criminality or legal responsibility in any area. If someone hands you a gun, tells you it isn't loaded, invites you to point it at their forehead and pull the trigger, it is absolutely your responsibility whether you do so. If you happen to blow their brains out, tough shit: you have just committed manslaughter. If you walk down Mugger Alley shouting "I'm carrying 20,000 in cash, mug me and you'll be rich", it does not constitute a legal defence for a guy who mugs you.

There is actually no good reason whatsoever to hand preferential exceptions to this principle purely for men who want to fuck someone.

Actually i think you're confused based on your analogies. Assisted Suicide (killing someone with his or her consent) is illegal as such determining whether there was consent or not or if it was unclear is irrelevant (to a certain degree). Meanwhile consensual sex is pretty much legal and that's why whether the situation is white, black or grey becomes very very relevant.

ManUpManDown:
What Ferrell is saying is that it is unfair to males, given the way they've been socialized to think it's their obligation to be sexually assertive and "figure women out" (a burden women more than men impose on them: "we're complicated, don't you know!?"), to put all the onus on them to prevent or, after the fact, punish "rape" when what leads to it is often a misunderstanding nurtured by women. It's a cultural catch-22 to many men who, quite reasonably, think of "consent" as communicated not just literally/verbally but holistically.

We're all capable of understanding Farrell's point. It isn't a difficult point, in fact 90% of the problem with it is that it's so incredibly simplistic in comparison to its "feminist" (or at least feminist inspired) counterparts.

For one, you and Farrell have utterly ignored the role of homosocial relationships in the production of male behavioural norms, when in fact they are hugely important. Hegemonic masculinity identity is not formed in the heterosexual romantic relationship between men and women, it pre-dates that relationship by a very long time. You've simply assumed, quite randomly, that any sexual behaviour men engage in or view as normal must be a product of interaction with women. That is crude and hamfisted.

The biggest thing though, is that you've completely missed the point. It doesn't matter. It's not like we just didn't understand men and now we do we're completely okay with it. It's not okay, and I don't think it's acceptable to keep wheeling out the endless excuse that somehow women provoke this behaviour when the vast majority of men manage not to do it. It isn't difficult to go through life without being at any risk of raping someone.

ManUpManDown:
At least in the US (I don't know where you are) rape is an intent crime.

Gethsemani is describing ignorance. What you're describing is Mens Rea.

If I take my friend's stereo because I believe I have a legal right to own it, then I intended to do that of my own free will. I may not have intended to commit a crime, but I intended to take the stereo which under the circumstances was a crime. My ignorance of the law does not necessarily mitigate my guilt.

It's very rare (nowadays at least) for belief in consent to be unconditionally accepted. I think it's generally agreed nowadays that Mens Rea doesn't necessarily imply a will to commit a specific crime. If your wilful ignorance or negligence leads to a crime being committed, then you can be convicted for it.

If you can still use the Morgan Defence in the US, then fine. However, most other countries have got rid of it because it leads to all kinds of situations which any reasonable person would find atrocious. If you're genuinely arguing for it as the correct definition of rape, I don't see it a terribly big leap to describe your position as being just as atrocious.

ManUpManDown:
Yeah, there's female agency for ya'.

No, it applies to anyone who for whatever reason penetrates someone else's body.

If you don't understand why, try being penetrated. You'll notice it greatly restricts your movement and can potentially be very painful. This is why we structure rape (and in some cases a number of other crimes) around it, because the act of receiving penetration is completely different to the act of giving it. This applies whether the victim is a man or a woman, and while in this thread we've generally been discussing rape is it occurs to women, the actual crime can happen to people of both sexes.

ManUpManDown:
I do think that, like most who take an intellectual feminist angle, your unfairness toward men comes via a very twisted and one-sided norm among those who think of themselves as "moderate" feminists: an "enlightened" and "progressive" sense of intuitive justice that puts empathy toward men on the back-burner. I do understand your position; indeed, I might understand it better than you.

I doubt it.

Your use of the term "empathy" is very weird here. It assumes that understanding why someone inadvertently rapes someone else should entail some form of legitimation of their actions which should be reflected in law.

Did understanding why women would join anti-suffragette movements compel the suffragettes to accept that they had a point and actually women should just get back to the kitchen?

As a man, I'm perfectly capable of understanding why men would inadvertently commit rape. I'm perfectly capable of understanding how those men would feel when accused. I can empathize pretty easily, but that doesn't entail any sympathy, because at the end of the day we should expect better. Being male is not a disability, we should not view rape as an inevitable consequence of maleness or even of male socialization, because the vast majority of men who go through that socialization manage to avoid it.

If you think that feminist "empathy" towards women somehow means feminists are obliged to love all women just as they are, then you've missed one of the most basic and fundamental points, a point which Farrell himself still claims to agree with even while still coming out with this shit.

So, some of this stuff is from a while ago, but I'm replying to the whole thread. I don't think I'm double treading on anything, if I'm bringing it up I think I have something specifically to add to the conversation which I did not see entered before now.

First, response to the OP:

First, regarding the video the protestors obviously don't come out looking good. In fact, they come off looking ridiculous. But they're also clearly supposed to look bad from the way the video is edited.

Other people here have commented that they're really doing more to hurt their cause than help it, and I'd agree with that. Other people have commented here that they shouldn't block the doors, and I agree with that as well.

I take the presentation of the protestors and the people attempting to attend the event with a grain of salt, given how the video is edited. I'm not saying this as a defense of the feminists: they're clearly blocking the door, hurling insults, shaming attendees and clashing with police.

But it does impact the degree to which I will generalize the attitudes of some of the protestors to all of the protestors and the people trying to get in to everyone else. Especially when they show only the most angry and most ridiculous protestors, and the only person they show trying to get into the event is the guy crying about his friends' suicides. How long were they filming? How many interviews did they do initially? How much footage was cut to give us this presentation? How many people were actually protesting? etc, etc, etc.

As it is, we get a portrait of extreme individuals being douches.

DevilWithaHalo:

...I honestly don't think this guy has a hateful bone in his body.

So what drove these protesters to so adamantly against his speaking about the "Boy Crisis"? What do you think about this?

Eh, I still don't know enough about Warren Farrell to say whether or not he has hateful bones in his body. He certainly seems like a soft spoken dude who attempts to cite studies and polls to back his stuff up, but that doesn't make him not hateful. People who make a "it's common sense but also numbers!" without directly citing them, as he does many many times in the later interview causes my inner skeptic to puff up a bit, but at this point I'm not super interested in reading his research right now. I am not coming to any conclusion at this point.

As for the protestors shown in the video, what drove them was personally politics and ideology. Same as anywhere else.

On to the rest of the thread:

Schadrach:

Feminism Is Not A Monolith is always a fun argument, it's essentially No True Scotsman turned inward to deflect criticism. Amusingly, groups that various feminists don't like are of course, in fact actually monoliths. Like conservatives, or MRAs.

This is not valid. No true Scotsman usually deals with an ad hoc defense of a universal claim:

All A are B.
A is not B.

All true A are B

or

All A, except A which are not B, are B.

Saying, for instance, "Not all feminists are 'Femonazis,'" is not an example of a no true Scotsman. Saying that not all feminists share the same ideals is simply an accurate statement about demographics.

If someone was going around saying that the "femonazis" are not feminists, after making a universal claim about what a feminist was, then you'd have your case. But "Feminism is Not A Monolith," is a failed example of "No True Scotsman."

Schadrach:
LOL. Would it have been better, more reasonable, or even, well, possible to go through and request the specific flavor of feminist thought each and every person in that protest ascribes to who was describing Warren Farrell's talk as "Hate Speech" just to refer to it a "a crowd of X% X Feminists, Y% Y feminists, Z% Z feminists, and A% non feminists" as opposed to using a blanket term to describe a crowd of people the majority of whom ascribe to some branch of a philosophy that falls under the banner of "feminism"? That seems...unrealistic.

Given that you just argued earlier in the same post that "Feminism is not a Monolith", it seems like you may actually are arguing against, "the FEMINISM," as @evilthecat said.

No one is saying that you should know the demographics of the crowd, just that you should not support generalizations made elsewhere.

Smeatza:
Much of the feminist movement is now a political movement and so is no longer concerned with what's morally right and wrong but with gaining power and asserting it's agenda.

This is just another example of that.

What does "much" of the feminist movement mean? Is it "much" of the people who describe as feminists, or "much" of the feminists you hear about in news stories? Or is it really "much" of the people who advocate gender equality and a rejection of gender norms? You used strong language (i.e. being "no longer concerned with what's morally right," and "gaining power and asserting its agenda") to express a vague, nonspecific sentiment.

DevilWithaHalo:

Actually, the debate I tried to begin was why people perceive what Warren Farrell has to say as hate speech and why people were so opposed to the discussion about helping boys.

I don't think there's anything to debate on this issue. I don't know how many of us here in R&P would classify Warren Farrell's talks as hate speech (I wouldn't). I also don't know how broadly "people" are attempting to classify Farrell's talks as hate speech (this is the first I've heard of it). And I'm not sure that anyone is opposed to "helping boys," but it might be that I don't understand what you mean there. So all of those seem like non-starters as discussion items: either they aren't happening, or they're happening on such a small scale as to be unimportant.

What people have wanted to discuss is whether Warren Farrell has anything of substance or value to say on the issue. And some other members here have objected to how people use the broad brush of "the FEMINISM" to argue that "mens' rights" activists are somehow victims. And, as I increasingly read the thread, I'm finding that Warren has said extremely controversial things---whether you agree with them or not---about sex and rape, which is always interesting to talk about.

DevilWithaHalo:

Actually it does. The narrative we are to believe "no means no" isn't nearly as cut and dry as some might think it is. If women economically support a narrative which is contrary to the political women's movement narrative, it confuses the severity of a crime men are accused of committing. It trivializes a real trauma to confuse it with a misunderstanding. Why do women enjoy reading about sexual assault when they oppose it?

No still means no, it does not matter how much some subset of women fantasize about sexual assault. Rape fantasy does not make real life rape somehow more legitimate. If you're actually interested in this phenomena, there is a ton of stuff written on rape fantasy, and none of it concludes that sometimes its okay to rape someone who says no. Plenty of other explanations exist (i.e. resolving guilt over wanting to fantasize about sex because of puritanical societal values holding that women shouldn't want sex or fantasize about it). I would suggest you actually look into it, since there are answers to what you seem to think are rhetorical questions, i.e. "Why do women enjoy reading about sexual assault when they oppose it?"

It's one thing to fantasize about something, it's another thing to have it actually happen to you. For instance, I've fantasized about fighting fucking dragons with an axe. I would probably shit my shorts if I found myself, in real life, holding a goddamn axe and standing in front of a fire breathing reptile.

Top all of that off with the fact that there is no possible way for any man to know that in any specific situation whether they're dealing with someone who is saying no but means yes, and someone who is saying no and means no, then you're still left with the conclusion that no means no. It is cut and dry. You must always assume no means no, lest you mistakenly rape someone.

DevilWithaHalo:

There are clear differences in these situations ...

Man asks woman for sex, she says no. They don't have sex.
Man asks woman for sex, she says no. She has sex with him anyway.
Man asks woman for sex, she says no. He rapes her.

The mere suggestion that Warren Farrell is suggesting we not criminalize men for rape would be fucking laughable if it weren't so absurd. What Warren Farrell is suggesting is that we don't throw men in jail for having consensual sex with a woman after she verbalizes no, but then mounts him.

The difference between example 2 and example 3 are certainly not general, categorical or universal. They are contextual. Sometimes she says no and she has sex with him anyway, and sometimes she says no and he rapes her, and sometimes these are both examples of rape. Saying that there is a hard difference between example 2 and example 3 starts to sound a lot like the classic misogynistic argument that if women don't fight their rapists enough then they somehow wanted it.

Your example of, "she verbalizes no, but then mounts him," is unrelated to the rest of the discussion thus far.

Has any man gone to jail for this?
If so, how often does it actually happen?
How is this related to fantasies of sexual assault if she is doing the mounting?
In what circumstance would there even be a question of intentions when someone is mounting someone else?

The discussion on this point, in Farrell's writing and here, dealt with a supposedly ambiguous situation in which a woman verbalized no, but wanted sex. If she mounts you, it is no longer ambiguous, and is not an example of that situation where you're unsure if you're raping someone. If she starts having sex with you, you can reasonably assume she has given you her consent to have sex.

DevilWithaHalo:

If they share your opinion, then it's quite clear that the lot of you did not understand his position at all. Warren Farrell is NOT pro-rape. Criticizing the like of "rape culture", does not make one a rapist. Suggesting that we not jail men for consensual sex, is not rape-apology. Besides that the actions of the protesters were far and above a little "disagreement".

I agree, it is certainly true that criticizing "rape culture" doesn't make you a rapist (or pro-rape). And suggesting that we not jail people for consensual sex isn't rape apology either.

But Farrel has argued that some cases of rape aren't rape: in the cases where men aren't sure if women are just being coy, but the men are pretty sure that the women fantasize about sexual assault, he thinks its not that bad (or maybe, as bad) if the men rape the women by accident.

I mean, this is literally rape apologetics:

And it is also important when her nonverbal "yeses" (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal "noes" that the man not be put in jail for choosing the "yes" over the "no."

Maybe the protestor's aren't saying he's pro-rape because of his criticisms of rape culture. Maybe they're saying it because he says shit about no not always meaning no.

DevilWithaHalo:

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?

...

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.

Well, look. If Farrell is simply advocating against the false reporting of crimes, then yeah, the hostility is because he didn't phrase it the right way. But this isn't because he made a poor turn of phrase or two. I've read a couple of passages now, in context, where he essentially makes an argument that there is a grey area that makes some rapes okay because consent is ambiguous. This is not the same as saying, "The false reporting of rape is a small but important issue."

How one phrases things is not a non-trivial issue. For instance, from what I've read now, I have not seen evidence that Farrell is as toned down as what you are now defending. My initial impression from what I've read is reflected in my reply, and it's shared by quite a few other here. It may be that you're reading between the lines more than us, but it might also be that you're seeing things between the lines that Farrell isn't actually saying. He might just be someone who's trying to argue that certain instances of rape aren't really rape, because women fantasies about submissive sex. This is going to rightfully upset a lot of people, because it is a factually errant statement, and it's insensitive to rape victims.

Balvale:
Sure, but you can't impose rules on what turns people on or off. They're going to feel the way they feel.

Doesn't detract from the point though. No meant yes, in that instance.

Can you generalize what takes place between you and your girlfriend, who have established a bond of trust and who are aware of each others sexual habits and quirks to the broader population?

Does your example even apply to the example Farrell specifically uses, of someone going home with someone else for the first time, "just to talk." If a stranger says no, and you have sex with them anyway, and they report you for rape, is that not then rape? Farrell is trying to argue that it somehow isn't.

Rardless, your statement "in that instance," is an anecdotal argument and it cannot be generalized outside of the instance.

I do agree with the first partt, though. You can't impose rules on what turns people on, and they're going to feel what they're going to feel. Certainly.

...

Ug, and that is pages 1-3. There's more stuff under discussion, but I'm spent.

Anyway, kudos everyone. Usually discussions of rape and feminism on the internet get really ugly really quickly. Things are surprisingly civil here.

Also, a moment of zen so things aren't as serious, Louis CK has famously touched on the current subject of debate:

Blablahb:

Gethsemani:
It really doesn't matter whatever it is intentional or not, because the harm to the victim is the same. Just like it might not be your intention to blow your brains out in Russian Roulette, but you'd be just as dead if you pull the trigger with a loaded revolver. I am merely saying that as far as severity of crime goes the lack of intent is a mitigating factor, but it doesn't change the reality of what happened.

So we should punish people for 'crimes' they weren't even aware of, and they had no intention of ever committing?

Wasn't it you who argued in favor for convicting a couple for murder a while back because they let their child die from their belief in faith healings? How is that any different from here? They didn't mean to commit the crime; they weren't even aware they were committing it. :\

Agema:
This actually has nothing to do with male and female agency in the matter of coitus. It's the standard of criminality or legal responsibility in any area. If someone hands you a gun, tells you it isn't loaded, invites you to point it at their forehead and pull the trigger, it is absolutely your responsibility whether you do so. If you happen to blow their brains out, tough shit: you have just committed manslaughter. If you walk down Mugger Alley shouting "I'm carrying 20,000 in cash, mug me and you'll be rich", it does not constitute a legal defence for a guy who mugs you.

Bad comparisons. Shooting guns at people is a crime, robbing people is a crime. Having sex and flirting both are not crimes.

If you want to make a valid comparison, it would have to be finding a bicycle in the street with the owner next to it. The owner tells you he doesn't want the bicycle anymore and gives it to you. One street further on, a policemen stops you and arrests you for stealing the bicycle. And then it turns out that either the guy didn't own the cycle and just had the keys, or he changed his mind and didn't want you to have it after you drove off.

That wording does justice to the circumstances of confusion about consent, or it changing later on, which is the topic of discussion.

Now tell me, would what I described be theft, and the circumstances such that people should be prosecuted for it?

BreakfastMan:
Wasn't it you who argued in favor for convicting a couple for murder a while back because they let their child die from their belief in faith healings? How is that any different from here? They didn't mean to commit the crime; they weren't even aware they were committing it. :\

That couple knew how their child could be saved, and instead opted conciously to do something which killed him. They knew, and choose wrong. My whole point thus far is that in cases of boundary crossing behaviour, you often can't claim that whomever was being accused knew, or could've known. It's the punishing people for what they don't know and couldn't have known which I object to.

That, and blindly taking sides (read: the woman's side) without even examining the circumstances.

generals3:

I know you said it further down the post but i found it quite "fishy" that at one point in your post you'd just go and point fingers to men only.

And again you go around and point to the failure of men to understand a crypted communication. What i say is quite simple: quit the games and stop being cryptic. This way no misunderstandings can happen. Everyone communicates and interprets things differently and as such when it's the social norm to "play games" than misunderstandings will always happen. You can't just go and say "stop misunderstanding!" however it is perfectly possible to say "stop playing little games of saying no while meaning yes" (which will lead to true "no's" being interpreted as yes's).

And your last paragraph seems rather irrelevant. My point was that due to the common usage of "no" while meaning yes leads to misunderstanding meant "no's". And who says she wasn't sending mixed signals? I'm fairly certain that it happens quite often. For instance if someone makes an advance and you don't physically reject him that's usually seen as a sign the person wants it to happen. (unless the person is drugged beyond consciousness)

I did not point fingers to men. If that's what you think, re-read the post again. My point on the communication issue is the most basic of all basics in communication: Communication always involves (at least) two parties and a failure to communicate is never the sole responsibility of just one party. You are the one of us who is trying to pin this down on one party (the woman "playing games") while alleviating the other party of any guilt (the men being played). It is not that simple, both parties are partially at fault for the failure to communicate. But the final decision to not comply with the verbal communication lies with the man and is, in itself a separate problem from the communications failure. Ergo, the man is responsible for the act of continuing his sexual actions in face of the woman using verbal communication to express her wish to stop.

As I said in my earlier post, it isn't as easy as saying "stop playing games". Both genders are heavy socialized in how they go about expressing their sexuality and deal with their sexual urges. Most women do not "play games" on a conscious level, they do it because the messages they have internalized about their own sexuality are so conflicted. On one hand sex is fun and full of pleasure, on the other any woman who enjoys it too much or is too eager to get sexual is also a slut and a whore. The "game playing" arises from this attempt to merge the fun with the need to keep a socially acceptable level of chastity and modesty. Telling men to "stop failing to understand women" is preposterous, but telling women to "just stop playing games" is equally preposterous.

And my last paragraph is very much relevant. Because, once again, a no should always be treated as a no. No matter if you think the woman is sending mixed signals. No matter if you are certain she really wants it. Because if you respect the No, you don't run the risk of involuntarily raping a woman because you misunderstood her non-verbal communication. Also, as a fun trivia: Swedish rape laws state that the victim remaining passive should not be considered a sign of consent. It is also quite a common reaction to freeze up when someone starts physical sexual advances (or you experience any other form of shock), which also suggests that "she didn't resist" isn't a viable excuse. It is a pretty common theme in the testimonies of rape victims: That at first they were too shocked to resist when the perpetrator started coming onto them and once they regained their ability to act they didn't resist in order to "get it over with" and not risk getting hurt even more.

evilthecat:
We're all capable of understanding Farrell's point."

Really? Because I remember that much of what folks were debating earlier was what Farrell meant.

evilthecat:
It isn't a difficult point, in fact 90% of the problem with it is that it's so incredibly simplistic in comparison to its "feminist" (or at least feminist inspired) counterparts. For one, you and Farrell have utterly ignored the role of homosocial relationships in the production of male behavioural norms, when in fact they are hugely important. . . .

I think you're confusing "simplistic" with "not sufficiently academic." Regarding Farrell, do you think it's possible, given his expertise, that he has not "utterly ignored" hegemonic masculinity, but has rather simply not bought into it? That he does not consider it cutting edge to think about gender problems in terms of prepackaged intellectual formulas garnished with eloquent flashes like "homosocial relationships"? You sling this theoretical jargon from the hip as if it's indisputable truth. It's not; and even it is, it does little work for you here.

Hegemonic masculinity, to the extent it is actually descriptive of something important, is not what drives male behavior in this specific context. How is it that "homosocial relationships" are "hugely important" here when Farrell's argument and mine center on what women have admitted they do when interacting with men? That is, if we know empirically that women intentionally send mixed sexual signals toward men, including when it comes to desire/consent, how can you argue with a straight face that men's corresponding behavior is not "the product of interaction with women"? No theoretical approach can cancel out the reality that men, at the end of the day, have and always will conform their sexual conduct to the behavior of women. We see this across nature. The incentive to do so is obvious. To think this reasoning is "random" is rather silly.

And if the argument is that WOMEN'S conduct is the result of hegemonic masculinity, well . . . please don't go there, as I hope you can see the problems with that line of argument.

evilthecat:
The biggest thing though, is that you've completely missed the point. . . . I don't think it's acceptable to keep wheeling out the endless excuse that somehow women provoke this behaviour when the vast majority of men manage not to do it. It isn't difficult to go through life without being at any risk of raping someone.

I'm not sure whose point I am supposed to have "completely missed." The point of the thread? Of the numerous posters who see things very differently than you do? And these sentences don't represent thoughts that logically follow. Most people don't violently strike others; does that mean that provocation is never an "excuse" for some who do when they are indeed severely provoked (if your answer is "yes," the law would disagree with you)? And, as a factual matter, women do sometimes provoke men's behavior here. Ignoring that elephant in the room reflects the primary problem I've already emphasized of denying women agency. This quoted paragraph is not only trite, it's rather meaningless.

evilthecat:
Gethsemani is describing ignorance. What you're describing is Mens Rea.
If I take my friend's stereo because I believe I have a legal right to own it, then I intended to do that of my own free will. I may not have intended to commit a crime, but I intended to take the stereo which under the circumstances was a crime. My ignorance of the law does not necessarily mitigate my guilt.

Mens rea simply means the culpable state of mind necessary to satisfy the elements of an offense. If we assume that rape is a "general intent" crime, it is still the case that culpability on the part of the defendant is required. Your stereo example; when I say ignorance, I don't mean ignorance that some hostile/adversarial/violative act is not technically a crime. I mean ignorance as to whether one's conduct aligns with the elements of the offense. So while rape may not "imply a will to commit a specific crime," it does imply a will to commit the actus reus of rape with a violative or hostile frame of mind.

Illustration: to use your hypo, if I fail to understand that my friend also claims a right to the stereo, and thus that he wouldn't mind me taking it, yes that indeed would be a defense. It has nothing do with whether I know that theft is a crime. It has everything to do with whether I understand the effect my conduct has on another; my understanding of context.

evilthecat:
Your use of the term "empathy" is very weird here. It assumes that understanding why someone inadvertently rapes someone else should entail some form of legitimation of their actions which should be reflected in law.

Well, if you buy the idea that one can "inadvertently commit rape," then I can see how you think my conception of empathy is "weird." The horse is already out of the gate for you: he's a rapist, and if he's that, any empathy is just "legitimation" of "rape." But, of course, I and many others don't accept the premise that it's rape at all if the "rape" is inadvertent. That's the point.

evilthecat:
Being male is not a disability, we should not view rape as an inevitable consequence of maleness or even of male socialization, because the vast majority of men who go through that socialization manage to avoid it.

Again, you're arguing in circles here: that what you think is rape is actually rape by arguing that my definition of rape is problematic because it excuses rape or implies that rape is an "inevitable consequence of maleness." But the entire argument here is over what rape IS. In any event, apparently you think being female IS a disability, since you believe the law should chivalrously ignore a woman's responsibility in causing her own trauma; that is, that it shouldn't treat her like a grown adult but rather throw men under the bus for not single-handedly preventing the fruition of a problem she largely caused.

Blablahb:

BreakfastMan:
Wasn't it you who argued in favor for convicting a couple for murder a while back because they let their child die from their belief in faith healings? How is that any different from here? They didn't mean to commit the crime; they weren't even aware they were committing it. :\

That couple knew how their child could be saved, and instead opted conciously to do something which killed him. They knew, and choose wrong. My whole point thus far is that in cases of boundary crossing behaviour, you often can't claim that whomever was being accused knew, or could've known. It's the punishing people for what they don't know and couldn't have known which I object to.

That, and blindly taking sides (read: the woman's side) without even examining the circumstances.

Yes, the couple thought they knew how their child could be saved, and that was what killed him. They thought they were in the right. They thought he could be saved by faith healing; it turns out they were wrong. Yet, this is murder, while having sex with a women who said "no" is not rape because you misinterpreted signals. Why? What is the difference?

BreakfastMan:

Yes, the couple thought they knew how their child could be saved, and that was what killed him. They thought they were in the right. They thought he could be saved by faith healing; it turns out they were wrong. Yet, this is murder, while having sex with a women who said "no" is not rape because you misinterpreted signals. Why? What is the difference?

Common sense is. It is well established by common sense faith healing doesn't work and that if someone is in peril he should be treated by our modern healthcare system. Meanwhile common sense doesn't dictate that when a women says no it means no. (Which is the crux of the issue) It often means things like "yes, but i'd want you to try more" or "I want to play hard to get" or whatever. (I'm talking about situations where verbal communication says no while body language doesn't say no)

It's like comparing shooting someone who had a gun pointed at someone with someone shooting people because otherwise the apocalypse would be upon us.

generals3:

BreakfastMan:

Yes, the couple thought they knew how their child could be saved, and that was what killed him. They thought they were in the right. They thought he could be saved by faith healing; it turns out they were wrong. Yet, this is murder, while having sex with a women who said "no" is not rape because you misinterpreted signals. Why? What is the difference?

Common sense is. It is well established by common sense faith healing doesn't work and that if someone is in peril he should be treated by our modern healthcare system. Meanwhile common sense doesn't dictate that when a women says no it means no. (Which is the crux of the issue) It often means things like "yes, but i'd want you to try more" or "I want to play hard to get" or whatever. (I'm talking about situations where verbal communication says no while body language doesn't say no)

Common sense dictates that having sex with a women who doesn't want to is rape. It also dictates that you have no sure way of knowing whether or not it her "no" does in fact mean "no". Because of this, it is common sense to think that if one wants to avoid raping someone, one should always take a "no" to mean "no".

EDIT: Also, arguing what common sense does and does not say is freaking ridiculous, useless, and doesn't prove a damn thing considering how often it can be wrong and that what is common sense is usually subjective.

Gethsemani:

I did not point fingers to men. If that's what you think, re-read the post again. My point on the communication issue is the most basic of all basics in communication: Communication always involves (at least) two parties and a failure to communicate is never the sole responsibility of just one party. You are the one of us who is trying to pin this down on one party (the woman "playing games") while alleviating the other party of any guilt (the men being played). It is not that simple, both parties are partially at fault for the failure to communicate. But the final decision to not comply with the verbal communication lies with the man and is, in itself a separate problem from the communications failure. Ergo, the man is responsible for the act of continuing his sexual actions in face of the woman using verbal communication to express her wish to stop.

Actually failure to communicate can easily be the sole responsibility of one party. If i told you " jhjpn bahneknawxjh" surely it's only my fault you don't get the message. I can't reasonably expect you to be able to understand that. The problem here is that you can hardly point the finger to both party since the core of the issue is that in most cases where words say no but the body doesn't the mind thinks "yes". It is reasonable to expect that people will thus look for more information than merely the verbal expression. Some stay on the safer side and disregard all body language, some look for obvious signs and some take a bit more risk and interpret even vague bodily expressions of yes as a yes. However it seems rather obvious that if we were to want to avoid mistakes in these situations with the lowest cost communication has to be fixed. Because you see, if men were to decide to take every verbal no as no's than many (men and women) would miss on opportunities for happy times. And this just because communication fails. On the other hand if you fix the communication the problem is solved with little to no cost. Why should we opt for the less optimal option just because than we can put some blame on the one's with the penis?

As I said in my earlier post, it isn't as easy as saying "stop playing games". Both genders are heavy socialized in how they go about expressing their sexuality and deal with their sexual urges. Most women do not "play games" on a conscious level, they do it because the messages they have internalized about their own sexuality are so conflicted. On one hand sex is fun and full of pleasure, on the other any woman who enjoys it too much or is too eager to get sexual is also a slut and a whore. The "game playing" arises from this attempt to merge the fun with the need to keep a socially acceptable level of chastity and modesty. Telling men to "stop failing to understand women" is preposterous, but telling women to "just stop playing games" is equally preposterous.

No it isn't. And if it were. What about your solution of telling men to take a no as a no? Because yes a men who just abandons at the first sign of adversity (a verbal no) is not seen as very manly either. If we're going into social judgements to argue solutions are preposterous this problem will never be solved.

And my last paragraph is very much relevant. Because, once again, a no should always be treated as a no. No matter if you think the woman is sending mixed signals. No matter if you are certain she really wants it. Because if you respect the No, you don't run the risk of involuntarily raping a woman because you misunderstood her non-verbal communication. Also, as a fun trivia: Swedish rape laws state that the victim remaining passive should not be considered a sign of consent. It is also quite a common reaction to freeze up when someone starts physical sexual advances (or you experience any other form of shock), which also suggests that "she didn't resist" isn't a viable excuse. It is a pretty common theme in the testimonies of rape victims: That at first they were too shocked to resist when the perpetrator started coming onto them and once they regained their ability to act they didn't resist in order to "get it over with" and not risk getting hurt even more.

It is true you don't run the risk. But than again if you hide in your basement you don't run the risk to get mugged on the streets. My point would be is that in our current society the odds you happen to end up in that peculiar case where you got it all wrong is lower than when you get it right. Often people who think no say no on every level. Those who send mixed signal often think "yes, but...". By reducing the amount of women who send mixed signals and think "yes, but..." you increase the risk/reward ratio and as such less men would take the risk. (just like the unsafer a street the more it would be avoided. But right now you're asking to avoid streets with very low crime rates)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked