U of T Protest: Warren Farrell = Hate Speech

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

BreakfastMan:
Common sense dictates that having sex with a women who doesn't want to is rape.

What about sex with a woman who wants to? Because that's what we're talking about right? confusion about yes or no, in the form of ambigious communication, or none at all.
If it was all as simple as everyone ever accused of sex crimes having been given a clear and unambigious no beforehand, and then ignoring that from pure malign intent, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion because everybody would agree. It's the ambigious cases that divide the opinions.


In general:
By the way, I dug up a source for the example I used earlier, which also was a discussion on the News subforum a while back:
http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/9035/article/pax-attendee-is-sexually-assaulted-at-minecraft-party/

Good example where a girl doesn't say no at any point, and cries sexual abuse later on. I argued there that the worst you can accuse that guy of, is being socially clumsy. Didn't stop many posters in the topic from crying for his blood, and responding rather angrily and immaturely to anyone who disagreed with that either.

BreakfastMan:

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.

Your first sentence suggests you didn't really follow the topic. I'll repeat it once more, the crux is that in the majority of the cases sex is WANTED (and sometimes despite that it can lead to false rape accusations) and that as such it would be a very wild guess to say it is unwanted. NO ONE is arguing that having sex with a person who doesn't want to is wrong. However the point of debate here is that due to certain social constructs the communication of the lack of desire of sex often goes wrong. And as such it can happen that a man engages in intercourse while being lead to believe the women wants it too. And this based on a reasonable basis.

And arguing with common sense works perfectly well. Surely if you were a judge you wouldn't give the same punishment to someone who shot a guy pointing a gun at someone and a guy who just shot someone because he was an alien spy.

Those arguing the no can mean yes camp, there seems to be a conflation going on. That conflation is that desire is the same as consent. A person could very well physically desire sex and would thus display all the body language of assenting to sex, while at the same time genuinely NOT wanting to have sex on an emotional level. Are there women who genuinely want sex on all levels, but say no to preserve a sense of modesty? Absolutely. Are there women who say no because they enjoy being dominated and find it exciting for a man to have sex with her despite her protests? Of course. Mixed messages are no excuse to continue, though.

Now, I'm not saying that a man who does should legally be culpable for rape. To me, the legal standard for rape should be a willful disregard for the issue of consent not merely choosing to read more into body language than verbal cues. Does that mean he didn't rape her? Absolutely not.

On a side note I find it quite telling that this debate is being structured with man as perpetrator, woman as victim. Especially with the justification that being penetrated without consent is worse than penetrating without consent. Is the sex act for women somehow more intimate, and as such the violation is greater? If so, wouldn't that equally justify the slut/stud double standard? If not, why not?

Blablahb:
What about sex with a woman who wants to? Because that's what we're talking about right? confusion about yes or no, in the form of ambigious communication, or none at all.

Yes, but I have no idea what ambiguous communication has to do with it. Having sex with someone who does not want to have sex: rape. Therefore, in order to avoid raping someone, take no's to mean no. Otherwise, you run the risk of raping someone, because you mistook the "no" to mean "yes". Is that really that hard to understand?

generals3:
However the point of debate here is that due to certain social constructs the communication of the lack of desire of sex often goes wrong. And as such it can happen that a man engages in intercourse while being lead to believe the women wants it too.

Okay, so? He is still committing rape. He is still having sex with them against their will. They did not want to have sex, and he had sex with them anyway. He is still a rapist. Saying "oh, well, he didn't mean to! He just misinterpreted signals!" does matter; he still had sex with someone when that person did not want to. Hence, rape.

And arguing with common sense works perfectly well. Surely if you were a judge you wouldn't give the same punishment to someone who shot a guy pointing a gun at someone and a guy who just shot someone because he was an alien spy.

What common sense "says" is heavily subjective and culturally dependent. It is not an objective truth. Thus, to bring it up as a logical argument is fallacious; you are essentially using your own opinion as a logical argument.

BreakfastMan:

generals3:
However the point of debate here is that due to certain social constructs the communication of the lack of desire of sex often goes wrong. And as such it can happen that a man engages in intercourse while being lead to believe the women wants it too.

Okay, so? He is still committing rape. He is still having sex with them against their will. They did not want to have sex, and he had sex with them anyway. He is still a rapist. Saying "oh, well, he didn't mean to! He just misinterpreted signals!" does matter; he still had sex with someone when that person did not want to. Hence, rape.

And that is a grave mistake because you're branding a man with no malevolent intents with a name that will destroy his life. While technically it may be rape it shouldn't be. Just like killing a guy by running over him on the highway because he jumped in front of your car doesn't make you a murderer. Why is it that in the case of rape the intent and context suddenly do not matter anymore while in many other crimes it is paramount.

What common sense "says" is heavily subjective and culturally dependent. It is not an objective truth. Thus, to bring it up as a logical argument is fallacious; you are essentially using your own opinion as a logical argument.

Correct. However every country has a commonly accepted "common sense". People who deviate from it severely are often lying, crazy or "new". (the latter being inexcusable as someone is expected to integrate)
We all accept that shooting someone who was pointing a gun at someone might be considered as a justifiable action (and even if the law doesn't tolerate it judges will usually not give the maximum sentence that can be given for such a crime) meanwhile killing someone because he was brown and as such should be expected to end up killing someone is not considered justifiable in any way. While common sense can be tricky in certain cases it is very often used when determining the gravity of actions. It may not sound as pretty and fancy as some meta-physical or philosophical argumentation but it would preposterous to claim it doesn't matter.

AmarantTile:
On a side note I find it quite telling that this debate is being structured with man as perpetrator, woman as victim. Especially with the justification that being penetrated without consent is worse than penetrating without consent. Is the sex act for women somehow more intimate, and as such the violation is greater? If so, wouldn't that equally justify the slut/stud double standard? If not, why not?

I have not seen anyone discuss the severity of either sex being the perpetrator VS the victim. The discussion is occurring based on the premise Warren Farrell built for his argument, which assumes the man(perpetrator) and female(victim).

This has nothing to do with penetration vs penetrated, it has everything to do with consent.

Given the sudden appearance of several new members sharing their thoughts on this issue with what I would perceive as MRA tokenism, I would advise against polluting the discussion with unnecessary complications. If you would like to address this issue specifically, I suggest you start you're own thread on it.

BreakfastMan:

generals3:
However the point of debate here is that due to certain social constructs the communication of the lack of desire of sex often goes wrong. And as such it can happen that a man engages in intercourse while being lead to believe the women wants it too.

Okay, so? He is still committing rape. He is still having sex with them against their will. They did not want to have sex, and he had sex with them anyway. He is still a rapist. Saying "oh, well, he didn't mean to! He just misinterpreted signals!" does matter; he still had sex with someone when that person did not want to. Hence, rape.

Against their will =! did not want to. I can recall many instances where I was involved in intercourse where either myself or the other party did not want to, but it happened anyway. It would be atrocious to consider either one of us rapists for the act given the circumstances involved. Unless you'd like to call every one of my exes rapists? Admittedly my situation is rather unique, but it just shows that the discussion isn't nearly as black and white as some would like to believe.

BreakfastMan:
Yes, but I have no idea what ambiguous communication has to do with it.

Everything? It's a bit of a cop out to just say; "don't do anything unless you're sure". Is it sound advice? Sure, I wouldn't argue against it. The reason I call it a cop out is because you're assuming the people involved are of sound mind and capable of determining consent. I don't know about you, but I've had sex with women without an expressed "yes". Is the absence of "no" consent? I'm not sure, but some people might think differently depending on what side of the argument they approach the subject.

But, if you'd like, I can support this with a little humor; http://m.collegehumor.com/article/1555128/guy-who-is-very-afraid-of-a-false-date-rape-accusation

generals3:

And that is a grave mistake because you're branding a man with no malevolent intents with a name that will destroy his life.

That does not matter. The person still raped someone. Societies reaction to that is a different problem entirely.

Just like killing a guy by running over him on the highway because he jumped in front of your car doesn't make you a murderer.

Not comparable. Women just don't jump in front of men's penises while you accidentally start thrust back and forth.

Why is it that in the case of rape the intent and context suddenly do not matter anymore while in many other crimes it is paramount.

Um, because rape is different than some other crimes? Unlike killing someone, rape requires a conscious decision, like theft. I consciously decide that I am going to have sex with someone.

BreakfastMan:

Um, because rape is different than some other crimes? Unlike killing someone, rape requires a conscious decision, like theft. I consciously decide that I am going to have sex with someone.

Alrighty than. So in case of self defense where i consciously kill someone who tried to kill me i should be branded as a murderer?

DevilWithaHalo:

BreakfastMan:

Okay, so? He is still committing rape. He is still having sex with them against their will. They did not want to have sex, and he had sex with them anyway. He is still a rapist. Saying "oh, well, he didn't mean to! He just misinterpreted signals!" does matter; he still had sex with someone when that person did not want to. Hence, rape.

Against their will =! did not want to.

Well, that is incredibly misogynist. "It isn't rape if they orgasm!" -_-

And yes, I would consider your situation rape. You should never have sex with someone else if they don't want to, full-stop.

The reason I call it a cop out is because you're assuming the people involved are of sound mind and capable of determining consent.

"It isn't rape if you or they are drunk!" -_-

generals3:

BreakfastMan:

Um, because rape is different than some other crimes? Unlike killing someone, rape requires a conscious decision, like theft. I consciously decide that I am going to have sex with someone.

Alrighty than. So in case of self defense where i consciously kill someone who tried to kill me i should be branded as a murderer?

Depends on who you ask. Some would say yes, some would say no. It doesn't really matter, because it is not comparable anyway. If I don't kill someone who is trying to kill me, I run the very real risk of death. If I don't have sex with someone, I run the risk of not ejaculating.

Jesus tap dancing Christ, you guys are really going at it, huh?

BreakfastMan:
"It isn't rape if you or they are drunk!" -_-

More true than you think. If both sides are drunk off their feet, have at it, and the woman later regrets it and presses charges, that's not rape.

By bringing it so black&white as you were, you'd argue that you're a rapist if you wake up next to someone, not remembering what happened, after being seduced by said stranger, except she regretted it somewhere halfway or afterwards. And that's 'after the fact' lawmaking. That doesn't work as it's banned in pretty much any country; you can't retroactively turn an action into a crime.

BreakfastMan:
Yes, but I have no idea what ambiguous communication has to do with it.

It's crucial, because we're talking about situations where there was no clear yes or no. I'm arguing it's therefore extremely harsh and unfair to go after people as sex offenders; if rape is sex despite a clear no, than cases without a clear no are not rape.

Like I said: Cases with a clear no are not part of this discussion. As a result 'no means no' is not a valid point of view as it's inapplicable here.

Blablahb:

BreakfastMan:
"It isn't rape if you or they are drunk!" -_-

More true than you think. If both sides are drunk off their feet, have at it, and the woman later regrets it and presses charges, that's not rape.

I actually agree with this; in this situation, neither side can give informed consent or has complete control of their actions.

BreakfastMan:
Yes, but I have no idea what ambiguous communication has to do with it.

It's crucial, because we're talking about situations where there was no clear yes or no. I'm arguing it's therefore extremely harsh and unfair to go after people as sex offenders; if rape is sex despite a clear no, than cases without a clear no are not rape.

Like I said: Cases with a clear no are not part of this discussion. As a result 'no means no' is not a valid point of view as it's inapplicable here.

And I am arguing that rape isn't just a case where there was a clear "no". Rape is a case where the person being raped did not want to have sex. It doesn't really matter if communication was "ambiguous" or not; the offender in question still made that choice to go ahead, despite the fact that the communication was "ambiguous", so the fault still lies with them.

BreakfastMan:
And I am arguing that rape isn't just a case where there was a clear "no". Rape is a case where the person being raped did not want to have sex. It doesn't really matter if communication was "ambiguous" or not; the offender in question still made that choice to go ahead, despite the fact that the communication was "ambiguous", so the fault still lies with them.

Then we get into the situation that if there's an idea in someone's mind which says 'no', but it's not said nor communicated in any other way, that would turn their sexual partner into a rapist.

That's not right...

Not only that, but sex and rape are two different things. Someone is not a rapist because they had sex. Someone becomes a rapist if they had non-consensual sex. So if there's signs of consent, how can it be seen as rape?


What do you think for instance of the example situation I quoted earlier? Boy and girl flirt at gaming convention. Boy is clearly not very handy socially. Girl feels a little uncomfortable after a while but says nothing and continues flirting. Boy eventually is convinced it's alright and takes girls hand and puts it in his crotch. Girl again says nothing. Girl goes away, and half an hour later, suddenly cries sexual abuse.

According to your line of reasoning so far he'd be guilty of sexual assault right? While he at no time has been able to tell she may not have wanted that. So you'd end up punishing him for something he couldn't have known.

Blablahb:

BreakfastMan:
And I am arguing that rape isn't just a case where there was a clear "no". Rape is a case where the person being raped did not want to have sex. It doesn't really matter if communication was "ambiguous" or not; the offender in question still made that choice to go ahead, despite the fact that the communication was "ambiguous", so the fault still lies with them.

Then we get into the situation that if there's an idea in someone's mind which says 'no', but it's not said nor communicated in any other way, that would turn their sexual partner into a rapist.

Yes. And that is why you always get consent before hand.

Not only that, but sex and rape are two different things. Someone is not a rapist because they had sex. Someone becomes a rapist if they had non-consensual sex. So if there's signs of consent, how can it be seen as rape?

Because they had sex with someone who didn't want to, perhaps? "Signs of consent" is incredibly vague and very subjective. It doesn't really mean a damn thing.

BreakfastMan:

generals3:

BreakfastMan:

Um, because rape is different than some other crimes? Unlike killing someone, rape requires a conscious decision, like theft. I consciously decide that I am going to have sex with someone.

Alrighty than. So in case of self defense where i consciously kill someone who tried to kill me i should be branded as a murderer?

Depends on who you ask. Some would say yes, some would say no. It doesn't really matter, because it is not comparable anyway. If I don't kill someone who is trying to kill me, I run the very real risk of death. If I don't have sex with someone, I run the risk of not ejaculating.

Actually i would like to go back a bit. It was 2am and i noticed i missed an important part of one of your previous posts i'd like to address. You said it required a conscious decision. You're correct, but the question is, what was the conscious decision? He didn't decide to rape that person, he decided to have sexual intercourse because he thought she wanted it. And that's key here. I mean, driving on the highway also requires a conscious decision. It's the fact that the negative action wasn't the conscious decision, but rather the unpleasant consequence of the conscious decision, that is key. You also referred to theft. Well it once happened to my grandma she went away from a restaurant without paying because she thought she already did! Is she a thief ? I'd say she ain't despite she made the conscious decision to leave prior to paying.

SO you see, intent and context are always key on determining the gravity of certain actions. And i'm actually worried by your attempt to give rape a special status on that aspect.

generals3:

Actually i would like to go back a bit. It was 2am and i noticed i missed an important part of one of your previous posts i'd like to address. You said it required a conscious decision. You're correct, but the question is, what was the conscious decision? He didn't decide to rape that person, he decided to have sexual intercourse because he thought she wanted it.

No, he decided to have sex with her even though he did not know for sure whether she wants it. He makes a choice based on ambiguous communication, knowing full well he might be wrong.

I mean, driving on the highway also requires a conscious decision. It's the fact that the negative action wasn't the conscious decision, but rather the unpleasant consequence of the conscious decision, that is key.

Still not comparable. If I go for a drive on the highway, I can safely assume people will not fling themselves in front of my car. If I have sex with someone who has not expressed consent, I cannot safely assume that I am not committing rape.

You also referred to theft. Well it once happened to my grandma she went away from a restaurant without paying because she thought she already did! Is she a thief ? I'd say she ain't despite she made the conscious decision to leave prior to paying.

I would say she was, because she took something that did not belong to her without the consent of the other person. Y'know, the definition of theft.

Gethsemani:

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?

Depends on on how she says no. If she says no while pushing you away and trying to leave. Then hell yes. If she says no into your ear, while giving you and handjob and taking off her panties it then becomes a grey area. Also I resent the clear gender bias here. Women rape too. So if a man says no and women then fucks him is it rape?

BreakfastMan:

I would say she was, because she took something that did not belong to her without the consent of the other person. Y'know, the definition of theft.

So if i put an object in one of your pockets while in a store and you end up walking out of it with an object you didn't pay for are you a thief? Because that's the crux here, since she thought she had payed already (i would also like to note that later on when she realized that she didn't pay she want back to pay the bill) she didn't know what was going on. Just like you wouldn't know you are walking away with an unpaid object. There is a difference between a thief and someone with memory issues just like there is a difference between a thief and someone being framed. You can't just go and judge people based solely on actions. That would be a very messed up world. And that goes for everything, theft, rape, murder, etc.

generals3:

You can't just go and judge people based solely on actions.

I agree (sort of, anyway). But you can convict on them in a court of law based on the actions they committed.

BreakfastMan:

generals3:

You can't just go and judge people based solely on actions.

I agree (sort of, anyway). But you can convict on them in a court of law based on the actions they committed.

I beg to differ. Judges always take context and intent into account. The reason for that is because our justice system serves many purposes. The only scenario in which only actions matter would be one where justice = retribution.

generals3:

BreakfastMan:

generals3:

You can't just go and judge people based solely on actions.

I agree (sort of, anyway). But you can convict on them in a court of law based on the actions they committed.

I beg to differ. Judges always take context and intent into account. The reason for that is because our justice system serves many purposes. The only scenario in which only actions matter would be one where justice = retribution.

So? I didn't say that they do not matter. I just disagree with the idea that it excuses conviction, especially in this case.

Blablahb:

Not only that, but sex and rape are two different things. Someone is not a rapist because they had sex. Someone becomes a rapist if they had non-consensual sex. So if there's signs of consent, how can it be seen as rape?

Because "signs of consent" are not enough where signs of non-consent also exist.

This is what mutual agreements are about. It's not difficult.

If you ask a man whether you can have his bike and he says "Yes... no... I'm not sure" and you take the bike, a claim you could take the bike because you had "signs of consent" is insufficient. Or many other permutations of how he responded. "He said no, but I thought he looked like he wanted me to take it" doesn't wash either. Nor does "He said no but left it in a convenient place for me to take". And so on.

You only have good reason to take the bike if he unambiguously signals his agreement. Anything less leaves you wide open to the risk of a justifiable charge.

Uszi:

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.

"Much" means a significant portion. The feminist movement means literally that, those who are actively campaigning under the banner of feminism.
It's certainly not "much of the people who advocate gender equality and a rejection of gender norms?" As I don't find they tend to be exclusive to the feminist camp at all.
I wouldn't call that strong language, I'd call it exaggerated, dramatic language, vague and nonspecific in nature, but specific and descriptive in sentiment.

In all honesty I wasn't expecting my comment to be taken 100% seriously. It was supposed to be tongue in cheek, a caricature of sorts. The point I was trying to make was that a number of feminists (it would probably be more accurate to call them feminist extremists) seem to have this us vs. them mentality where feminists are friends and everyone else is either misogynist or ignorant. Those who support gender equality movements or male rights movements are condemned or demonised for believing we should value the rights of all individuals, not just females.
They perceive anything that isn't a declaration of support for their "version" of feminism, to be a direct challenge that must be met with action, this applies to other "versions" of feminism they might disagree with.
The same way a political party will refuse to adopt a policy an opposition party has created/popularised so as not to seem weak, out of touch or unsuitable for running the country, even if that policy is the best practical option for the country and all those within it.

I know some of the media would have us believe this is the mainstream feminist view but I'm informed enough to be skeptical of that.

I can't believe I just spent that much time and effort explaining a jokey statement, I could have just said I have a very subtle sense of humour.

Smeatza:

I can't believe I just spent that much time and effort explaining a jokey statement, I could have just said I have a very subtle sense of humour.

Sad to say, the internet is a very difficult environment for subtle sarcasm. Text-only communication to people who frequently don't know you and are regularly exposed to all manner of apparently genuine outrageous views.

Phrase of the day: "Jesus tap dancing Christ."

BreakfastMan:
Yes. And that is why you always get consent before hand.

Doesn't matter. By your logic it's literally impossible to avoid being a rapist, because as we can never forget, consent can be revoked at any time, and per you not expressing a lack of consent doesn't make it any less rape. Literally, it's rape if the victim decides it is, unless she is continuously repeating clear and unambiguous consent for the entire duration of the act, and perhaps even then (because she may not have meant the continuous stream of "yes" necessary to assure you are not a rapist at any given point).

BreakfastMan:
Well, that is incredibly misogynist. "It isn't rape if they orgasm!" -_-

Not what I said, don't put words in my mouth.

BreakfastMan:
And yes, I would consider your situation rape. You should never have sex with someone else if they don't want to, full-stop.

Cool, you just called every one of my ex girlfriends rapists.

BreakfastMan:
"It isn't rape if you or they are drunk!" -_-

Seems like you actually agree with that...

BreakfastMan:
I actually agree with this; in this situation, neither side can give informed consent or has complete control of their actions.

...thanks for responding on my behalf.

BreakfastMan:
And I am arguing that rape isn't just a case where there was a clear "no". Rape is a case where the person being raped did not want to have sex. It doesn't really matter if communication was "ambiguous" or not; the offender in question still made that choice to go ahead, despite the fact that the communication was "ambiguous", so the fault still lies with them.

I'm going to suggest again it's not that simple. You can do something without wanting to do it without being forced to do it; does everyone enjoy their job? Do people like visiting their in laws? Do people like going to the dentist? I've had sex with a few women when I really didn't want to, but I'm not calling them rapists because I begrudgingly did it. Unless you can fathom the difference, the discussion is rather moo. You know, like a cows opinion.

DevilWithaHalo:

BreakfastMan:
Well, that is incredibly misogynist. "It isn't rape if they orgasm!" -_-

Not what I said, don't put words in my mouth.

What exactly was I supposed to get from the statement "Against their will =! did not want to."? It sounds like you are implying they wanted the rape.

BreakfastMan:
"It isn't rape if you or they are drunk!" -_-

Seems like you actually agree with that...

BreakfastMan:
I actually agree with this; in this situation, neither side can give informed consent or has complete control of their actions.

...thanks for responding on my behalf.

The situation Blabahb described is different from the one you were talking about. Blabahb was talking about two consenting people having sex while drunk. You are talking about having sex with someone else while drunk. There is a difference.

BreakfastMan:
And I am arguing that rape isn't just a case where there was a clear "no". Rape is a case where the person being raped did not want to have sex. It doesn't really matter if communication was "ambiguous" or not; the offender in question still made that choice to go ahead, despite the fact that the communication was "ambiguous", so the fault still lies with them.

I'm going to suggest again it's not that simple. You can do something without wanting to do it without being forced to do it; does everyone enjoy their job? Do people like visiting their in laws? Do people like going to the dentist? I've had sex with a few women when I really didn't want to, but I'm not calling them rapists because I begrudgingly did it.

Sorry, but sex is not the same as "visiting your in-laws" or whatever BS comparison you make. And you are still forcing someone to do something they don't want to do, anyway. Is it really that hard for people to understand "don't have sex with them if they don't want to?" I mean, masturbation exists for a reason.

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

If you simply assume that anyone who correctly understood Farrell's point would agree with it, then I suppose it might look like that. To be honest though, it just feels at this point like people are repeating the same basic idea over and over again on the assumption that the people who disagree with it simply didn't "get it", when in fact the explanation doesn't make it any better.

ManUpManDown:
I think you're confusing "simplistic" with "not sufficiently academic."

To a certain extent, they're the same thing.

But to the extent that they aren't, then no. If the point it was making was comprehensive and nuanced enough, it would not make a great deal of difference to me whether it was correctly referenced or employed specific terminology. However, if you're ignoring an enormous chunk of human experience which should be obvious at the most cursory, non-academic examination of human culture in order to make a clear point, then you're being simplistic. That's the only word for it.

ManUpManDown:
Hegemonic masculinity, to the extent it is actually descriptive of something important, is not what drives male behavior in this specific context.

What you are describing is hegemonic masculinity.

Hegemonic masculinity refers to the hierarchical organization of different types of male behaviour. Unless you're trying to claim that there is a sociobiological imperative for men to behave in this way, and it's not actually the product of socialization or "expectatation" at all, then it is an example of hegemonic masculinity.

It's not a term I'm using to convince you of a particular political position. It's a term I'm using because it's the most specific and accurate term for what you're actually describing, the way in which certain types of male behaviour are expected or rewarded (i.e. hegemonic) at the expense of others.

ManUpManDown:
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?

Which women?

How do you expect me not to write this off as a simplistic point when you're speaking in such broadly essential terms about something which, certainly, I've never observed in my entire life?

ManUpManDown:
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.

So men don't talk about sex with other men?

So men never have any exposure to ideas about sex until a woman strips naked in front of them and they suddenly have to figure out what to do?

Come on.. don't contradict your own point. If male sexual behaviour is a product of socialization, as Warren Farrell claims, then who is involved in that socialization? Who teaches a man how to behave like a man? It's not some magic process which occurs five minutes before sex is due to start and during which the poor terrified boy must suddenly figure out everything there is to know about his female partner, who is of course instinctively knowledgeable to the point where she is capable of highly complex and deliberate deceptions simply to confuse her partner.

It doesn't work like that, does it? Women do not solely create male sexual behaviour for their own benefit, certainly no more so than they themselves react to or "buy into" it. Men's conception of how they should act and behave is fully formed a long time before they start having sex, because there are other ways to learn about or talk about sex in our culture besides actually doing it.

This does not strike me as a particularly difficult or academic point. In fact, it's incredibly obvious.

ManUpManDown:
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.

I'm personally very surprised you see that line of reasoning as a problem, since it's effectively what you yourself are proposing happens to men. You're arguing that men's conduct is purely the result of emphasized femininity.

Your mistake, I would argue, is viewing these things as somehow separate, as if they aren't formed through exactly the same process of being socialized to a culture in which certain forms of sexually dimorphic behaviour are normalized. For women to come to an understanding of how they will behave during sex generally requires them to have an understanding (or an impression) of how an 'idealized' male partner is likely to react. The same is true for male behaviour.

The other weird thing you're doing, based on this, is assuming that there is no deviation or variety amongst these behaviours. There are numerous types and "tropes" of male behaviour at varying degrees of acceptability and which may or may not be "normal" in particular situations, there isn't just this one script which everyone has to follow all the time.
Again, this is not just abstract theory. It's a very obvious point born when we look at the differing behaviours of, for example, working class men in traditional manufacturing jobs and white collar finance workers. There is no universal "language" of masculinity, or femininity for that matter.

Male and female behaviours are not predetermined to fixed models by socialization, they're merely organized in relation to an imaginary "normality", which even then is often quite broad and allows for considerable diversity of behaviour. It's kind of insulting, actually, to keep coming out with "men do X, women do Y" arguments, what we should actually be talking about is how acceptable, rewarding, normal or valued certain behaviours are in relation to others. That isn't going to require you to be academic, but it does require you not to be simplistic.

ManUpManDown:
And, as a factual matter, women do sometimes provoke men's behavior here.

What the fuck.

If someone doesn't want you to penetrate them, then they don't want you to penetrate them. They may want to do other things with you, they may want to kiss you, or engage in foreplay. They may even want you to penetrate them at a later time, or under different circumstances. However, they don't want you to penetrate them. Unless you are arguing that women occasionally do things against their own will, nothing a woman does has any legitimate claim to "provoke" someone to penetrate her. Misinterpreting consent does not mean you have been "provoked", it means you have failed to understand what someone else wanted.

You're effectively claiming here that how I view someone else's wishes is more accurate than how they view their own, that if I view someone as provoking me even when that is not their intention then they are in fact intending to do so and just don't know it. That is not how it works, it's certainly not how it works in assault cases.

ManUpManDown:
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.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1

No, that's not necessary.

We don't have to let people walk out of a trial because they assumed that the girl who smiled at them 3 weeks ago was actually giving consent. In fact, I fail to see any way that doing so would not be a basic violation of community standards.

ManUpManDown:
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.

Am I to assume, going by this, that you lack sympathy (which is the thing you're talking about, empathy is not the same thing) for someone who gets fucked against their will because the person doing it believed that they consented based on unreasonable circumstances?

Do you believe that if a woman gets in a car with a man she is obligated to have sex with him?

Do you believe that if a woman enters a man's home she is obligated to have sex with him?

Heck, do you believe that if a woman sleeps in the same bed as a man, or marries one, she is obligated to have sex with them?

Do you believe that having sex with someone on one particular occasion means you are obligated to have sex with that person whenever they want?

Because what you are saying here is that all these things do indicate legal consent if the person initiating sex believes that they do, and I have to say.. That is one fucked up attitude for someone who is lecturing me about a supposed lack of "empathy".

Understanding why someone would believe that does not make it a reasonable position.

Having read this, one thing that really comes out is that we NEED to be fucking everything unless we are told specifically to not fuck. Why is "Don't have sex with someone unless they, explicitly, 'Please have sex with me right now!'" not the standard? Sure, you might end up banging less. But you'll also severely, severely decrease the chance that you will scar someone/be scarred for life because the sex was not entirely consensual. That PAX example was ridiculous. Social awkwardness? He showed his penis to a girl while they were talking at a bar.

BreakfastMan:
What exactly was I supposed to get from the statement "Against their will =! did not want to."? It sounds like you are implying they wanted the rape.

No (unless you encounter a woman who has those desires, I have), I'm merely pointed out that doing something because you don't want to is different than being forced to do something. Hence the use of examples I provided...

BreakfastMan:
Sorry, but sex is not the same as "visiting your in-laws" or whatever BS comparison you make. And you are still forcing someone to do something they don't want to do, anyway.

...which weren't actually trying to draw equivelance to forcible rape. They merely illustrate the point. I've visited my exes parents before, her knowing full well I would have preferred against it. Did she force me to attend? Hardly. I merely didn't want to.

There are things people do, often for the direct benefit of others, that they might otherwise not have, because of the benefit the other person receives. Many times these things can be sexual; I can point toward the "Awkward male/female questions" thread which provides some examples.

BreakfastMan:
Is it really that hard for people to understand "don't have sex with them if they don't want to?" I mean, masturbation exists for a reason.

The difficulty arises from whether or not someone is clear on if they want to have sex with you. Having dated many various women, I can personally attest to their inconsistency when it comes to communication.

BreakfastMan:
The situation Blabahb described is different from the one you were talking about. Blabahb was talking about two consenting people having sex while drunk. You are talking about having sex with someone else while drunk. There is a difference.

Depending on the perspective, you cannot provide consent while intoxicated, so the two drunkards would have raped each other. If you claim that they could have indeed provided consent to each other, then what difference does it make when one person consents while sober and the other consents while intoxicated? (Having myself been in situations where women I have slept with express their confusion and irritation to the fact I will not touch a drunk woman, even if they are my girlfriend) Do you really expect men to turn women down who proposition them at a bar? The women could be drunk, and the men unaware they are about to commit rape. Or adversely, the female could be poaching drunk men for the explicit purpose of using them for a night. Perhaps I should ask when you determine the breaking point in an individuals level of alcoholism impairs their judgment enough to not being able to consent?

ratzofftoya:
Why is "Don't have sex with someone unless they, explicitly, 'Please have sex with me right now!'" not the standard?

Because people don't actually say; "Please have sex with me right now!"?

DevilWithaHalo:

BreakfastMan:
Is it really that hard for people to understand "don't have sex with them if they don't want to?" I mean, masturbation exists for a reason.

The difficulty arises from whether or not someone is clear on if they want to have sex with you. Having dated many various women, I can personally attest to their inconsistency when it comes to communication.

Then... Don't have sex with them if you are not 100% sure? If there is any ambiguity, don't do it? Otherwise you might be committing rape? Is that so hard to understand?

DevilWithaHalo:

ratzofftoya:
Why is "Don't have sex with someone unless they, explicitly, 'Please have sex with me right now!'" not the standard?

Because people don't actually say; "Please have sex with me right now!"?

So don't have sex with them. Problem?

BreakfastMan:

DevilWithaHalo:

BreakfastMan:
Is it really that hard for people to understand "don't have sex with them if they don't want to?" I mean, masturbation exists for a reason.

The difficulty arises from whether or not someone is clear on if they want to have sex with you. Having dated many various women, I can personally attest to their inconsistency when it comes to communication.

Then... Don't have sex with them if you are not 100% sure? If there is any ambiguity, don't do it? Otherwise you might be committing rape? Is that so hard to understand?

See, I think the issue here is that 100% of the responsiblity for anything is being set purely on the man. Even if rape does not occur, even if rape was never on the mans mind. Oh, he didn't catch her signals she kind wants him to press? It's his fault and he's a failure as a lover, type deal.

Again, mixed signals are bad. Just say 'no we're not going to have sex' and any man who still attempts is a rapist.

It's been clearly established that sometimes women DO want the man to press more. It's also been clearly established that all responsibility falls on the male to interpret whether or not she actually wants him to press more or if she really means it.

So under the rules of courtship or whatever, if a man fails at the interpretation he's either A: A rapist or B: A failure as a lover.

is there any point in any sexual relations where any failure of action or misinterpretation or anything is on the womans side and not the mans?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked