U of T Protest: Warren Farrell = Hate Speech

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

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

Because filling out paperwork in triplicate and mailing it to a notary each time before having sex is a serious moodkiller.

For the rest, as DevilWithaHalo described. Basically we're quite capable of communication. People who can't comprehend it or won't bother to communicate clearly are the exceptions.

evilthecat:
What the fuck.

You have no idea how accurate that is in the circumstances. ^_^

It's true however, pretty much by definition. Humans communicate, humans includes women. In communication there will always be misunderstandings. Obviously I can't but repeat my earlier point that it strikes me as weird to turn a miscommunication into a severe crime when no malign intent was present.

That's not typically the kind of case that demands harsh punishment either.

Bentusi16:

BreakfastMan:

DevilWithaHalo:

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.

Um, yes? Because he did it? He choose to have sex with her, when he knew that there existed ambiguity? He knew there was a chance that he could be committing rape, he weighed the odds, and he pressed on anyway?

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.

No, he is a responsible adult, and any sane women would understand him not wanting to press on when ambiguity exists.

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

Except you have been arguing that even that doesn't matter, defending the "no but I actually mean yes" thing...

BreakfastMan:

Bentusi16:

BreakfastMan:

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.

Um, yes? Because he did it? He choose to have sex with her, when he knew that there existed ambiguity? He knew there was a chance that he could be committing rape, he weighed the odds, and he pressed on anyway?

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.

No, he is a responsible adult, and any sane women would understand him not wanting to press on when ambiguity exists.

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

Except you have been arguing that even that doesn't matter, defending the "no but I actually mean yes" thing...

Stop. Pretending. It's. Not. A. Thing.

No but yes is a REAL THING that actually DOES happen. It is a documented thing. I am not talking about a man saying 'Her eyes said no but her body said yes', I am talking about women who want their male partner to push a bit, to take CONTROL but not in a BDSM or domination scenario. Just taking a little control within the sphere of sexuality.

According to you this scenario is impossible. According to you any NO has to mean EXACTLY NO and no woman has and ever will use NO as a way to entice her partner into taking a more dominating position. This is how it SHOULD BE. It should be that when a women says no, she absolutely means no. However, in reality this is not the case. In reality, see above.

People are not sane. They are irrational, greedy, selfish, and paranoid. A man who fails to meet the requirements or needs of his partner is seen as less then a man, and that includes taking positions of authority within the sphere of sexuality, if he fails to interpret her right.

When, at any point, in any sexual relations, does the woman take responsibility for anything? Because from everything I've read and heard and had screamed at me, the answer is It's the mans fault, the mans duty, the mans responsibility, and if he f*cks up either way he's an idiot.

Bentusi16:

Stop. Pretending. It's. Not. A. Thing.

It is a thing. What it is not, is an excuse. You are trying to take the fact that this happens and use it as an excuse for date rape. I cannot accept that.

When, at any point, in any sexual relations, does the woman take responsibility for anything? Because from everything I've read and heard and had screamed at me, the answer is It's the mans fault, the mans duty, the mans responsibility, and if he f*cks up either way he's an idiot.

That is because we are talking about stuff from the mans side of things. We are talking about men initiating sex when there is ambiguity to the partners consent. Women can rape men. A women should not have sex with a man if it is unclear whether or not he wants to have sex with her. The reason we are not talking about that scenario right now is because that is not the scenario that was presented and discussed.

Bentusi16:

BreakfastMan:

DevilWithaHalo:

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?

Yo, this sounds like a very personal problem, dude. There've been plenty of times I've not pressed on in an abundance of caution, but no one ever complained about me being an inadequate lover or whatever. Again, the the assumption you guys are all talking about is "sex will happen." "If women were better communicators, they would say no if they don't want it." Is making "yes" the baseline so inconceivable?

BreakfastMan:

Bentusi16:

Stop. Pretending. It's. Not. A. Thing.

It is a thing. What it is not, is an excuse. You are trying to take the fact that this happens and use it as an excuse for date rape. I cannot accept that.

When, at any point, in any sexual relations, does the woman take responsibility for anything? Because from everything I've read and heard and had screamed at me, the answer is It's the mans fault, the mans duty, the mans responsibility, and if he f*cks up either way he's an idiot.

That is because we are talking about stuff from the mans side of things. We are talking about men initiating sex when there is ambiguity to the partners consent. Women can rape men. A women should not have sex with a man if it is unclear whether or not he wants to have sex with her. The reason we are not talking about that scenario right now is because that is not the scenario that was presented and discussed.

AN excuse would be me saying they shouldn't be TRIED and CONVICTED for date rape. I have never suggested that. It is abhorrent because a crime has been committed, and the law has to be fulfilled.

What I am saying is that responsibility is not a one sided thing. But according to everyone in here, it is. In EVERY scenario. It is 100% the mans fault if he fails at ANY POINT. The woman has no responsibility at all. That is what has been made abundantly clear here.

Note that I did not say punishment for the responsibility on her part, just the responsibility for her actions.Nor does her taking any responsibility lessen the crime nor the consequences of the crime.

BreakfastMan:
No, he is a responsible adult, and any sane women would understand him not wanting to press on when ambiguity exists.

Are you saying all women are insane? Because it's definately something that's going to be counted against you if you're behaving passively and wait for them to explicitly say something.

The point you're arguing is nice and stuff, but such a black&white approach can't survive contact with reality, where typically, women expect men to take the initiative.

Bentusi16:
No but yes is a REAL THING that actually DOES happen. It is a documented thing. I am not talking about a man saying 'Her eyes said no but her body said yes', I am talking about women who want their male partner to push a bit, to take CONTROL but not in a BDSM or domination scenario. Just taking a little control within the sphere of sexuality.

Yeah, it's a THING. The consequence of not recognizing that THING is NOT FUCKING. The consequence of misinterpreting that thing is RAPING. Do you think that "NOT FUCKING" and "RAPING" are equally bad outcomes? Yes, you do. Logically, that's what you're saying.

There are ways to facilitate your rape fantasies with willing partners without potentially actually raping them, man. Talk about it before. Safe words, all that.

Jesus. You guys are all really obsessed with the idea that you might potentially not capitalize on a sex-portunity because you got "mixed signals" and chose to forego. That indicates a degree of sex-deprived desperation the likes of which would make George RR Martin blush.

Blablahb:

BreakfastMan:
No, he is a responsible adult, and any sane women would understand him not wanting to press on when ambiguity exists.

Are you saying all women are insane? Because it's definately something that's going to be counted against you if you're behaving passively and wait for them to explicitly say something.

The point you're arguing is nice and stuff, but such a black&white approach can't survive contact with reality, where typically, women expect men to take the initiative.

Yeah, and then you won't be able to have sex with them that time :( Better just risk the rape, right?

Bentusi16:

AN excuse would be me saying they shouldn't be TRIED and CONVICTED for date rape. I have never suggested that. It is abhorrent because a crime has been committed, and the law has to be fulfilled.

Well, I seem to have misinterpreted the point of your arguments. I apologize.

What I am saying is that responsibility is not a one sided thing. But according to everyone in here, it is. In EVERY scenario. It is 100% the mans fault if he fails at ANY POINT. The woman has no responsibility at all. That is what has been made abundantly clear here.

Note that I did not say punishment for the responsibility on her part, just the responsibility for her actions.Nor does her taking any responsibility lessen the crime nor the consequences of the crime.

Yes, I believe that the victim has no responsibility. Why? Because body language is, by and large, an unconscious thing that most cannot control or are even consciously aware of. How someone else interprets their body language is also something they cannot control. Why blame the victim for something they could not control? It is ridiculous. Having sex with someone, on the other hand, IS something one can control, so they receive the blame.

Now, that doesn't mean you cannot promote greater control or awareness of ones body language. In fact, I would encourage it. But that is not a reason to blame people for something that they cannot control.

BreakfastMan:
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?

ratzofftoya:
So don't have sex with them. Problem?

Because you're putting the sole responsibility of the problem on a singular individual. I can understand why you did it, I just don't agree with it. I think it's entirely unrealistic to ask everyone sign a waiver before engaging in sexual proclivities. Should you do your best to make sure? Certainly. But as I've said before, someone saying at one point in the night they aren't interested in having sex and then later that night sticking their tongue down your throat tends to confuse the situation.

Speaking of confusing communication problems...

BreakfastMan:
It is a thing. What it is not, is an excuse. You are trying to take the fact that this happens and use it as an excuse for date rape. I cannot accept that.

Ok, let's hold on here for a second folks. The problem is the perceptions of the situation as being described by both parties. And that's probably where the confusion lies for a lot of people caught up in this scenario in the real world.

Only the woman knows for sure whether or not she consents; we can't dispute that. What is in dispute, is whether or not the woman was both honest with herself and her partner AND whether or not the man acted appropriately based on the information he had available at the time.

Using your examples...

BreakfastMan:
He choose to have sex with her, when he knew that there existed ambiguity? He knew there was a chance that he could be committing rape, he weighed the odds, and he pressed on anyway?

You're assuming his actions were fully coherent and he assessed the situation appropriately. I doubt many men consider whether or not they're about to commit rape. They either know they are, and don't give a shit, or don't think they are, because they wouldn't do that kind of thing.

I'm simply failing to consider a situation where any man would risk raping a woman if he wasn't fully prepared to rape her from the start. I find it both questionable from a rational standpoint, and ridiculously insulting to suggest that men are capable of just randomly raping women because they don't consider the possibility they are rapist. Quite frankly, that's fucking absurd.

BreakfastMan:
No, he is a responsible adult, and any sane women would understand him not wanting to press on when ambiguity exists.

Indeed, the man must be responsible, because woman are only sane... yep... after this and the suggestion above; we're done talking.

Blablahb:

BreakfastMan:
No, he is a responsible adult, and any sane women would understand him not wanting to press on when ambiguity exists.

Are you saying all women are insane?

No?

Because it's definately something that's going to be counted against you if you're behaving passively and wait for them to explicitly say something.

They don't have to explicitly say something. If they start unzipping your pants and giving you a blowjob, I think you have the go ahead. That really isn't an ambiguous situation, right there.

The point you're arguing is nice and stuff, but such a black&white approach can't survive contact with reality, where typically, women expect men to take the initiative.

And you know that most women want this how?

I am a huge believer in personal responsibility. It's the only way we can improve ourselves. By admitting we messed up, we take responsibility for it and the unspoken word is 'we will not do it again'. We have learned from our mistake. By removing all responsibility for an action, deserved responsibility mind, we undermine this message and the lessons we get from our mistakes.

I am not suggesting that a woman is always responsible for what happens to her, but what you are suggesting is that in scenarios where her actions directly led to the bad things that happened to her, her choices to pursue those actions, she should not be held responsible for her decisions? That's madness, and it can lead to even more tragic situations or repeated ones. And it is an utter double standard. If a man can rape 'without meaning too', he is still responsible for the choices and actions that led up to that point; that is why he will be tried under the law as a rapist.

Also, again, are we talking about purely rape, as in the penetrative act, or sexual assault? A man who gropes a woman after misreading a sign is guilty of sexual assault, even if he thought he was just doing what she wanted, and can be tried as such, after all.

DevilWithaHalo:

BreakfastMan:
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?

ratzofftoya:
So don't have sex with them. Problem?

Because you're putting the sole responsibility of the problem on a singular individual. I can understand why you did it, I just don't agree with it. I think it's entirely unrealistic to ask everyone sign a waiver before engaging in sexual proclivities. Should you do your best to make sure? Certainly. But as I've said before, someone saying at one point in the night they aren't interested in having sex and then later that night sticking their tongue down your throat tends to confuse the situation.

See response to Blablahb above.

BreakfastMan:
He choose to have sex with her, when he knew that there existed ambiguity? He knew there was a chance that he could be committing rape, he weighed the odds, and he pressed on anyway?

You're assuming his actions were fully coherent and he assessed the situation appropriately. I doubt many men consider whether or not they're about to commit rape. They either know they are, and don't give a shit, or don't think they are, because they wouldn't do that kind of thing.

And that is a problem with their thinking.

I'm simply failing to consider a situation where any man would risk raping a woman if he wasn't fully prepared to rape her from the start. I find it both questionable from a rational standpoint, and ridiculously insulting to suggest that men are capable of just randomly raping women because they don't consider the possibility they are rapist. Quite frankly, that's fucking absurd.

Strawman. Just... Just strawman.

BreakfastMan:
No, he is a responsible adult, and any sane women would understand him not wanting to press on when ambiguity exists.

Indeed, the man must be responsible, because woman are only sane... yep... after this and the suggestion above; we're done talking.

You misinterpreted my statement to an insane degree, but whatevs. Should probably get back to studying for finals anyway.

Bentusi16:

I am not suggesting that a woman is always responsible for what happens to her, but what you are suggesting is that in scenarios where her actions directly led to the bad things that happened to her, her choices to pursue those actions, she should not be held responsible for her decisions?

I do not believe it was her actions that directly led to bad things happening to her. It was the mans fault; he was the one that raped her. It was his actions that led to the rape.

That's madness, and it can lead to even more tragic situations or repeated ones. And it is an utter double standard.

No, it isn't; I hold women accountable too if they date rape someone. I just don't put blame on the victim for the crime, in any circumstance. I encourage learning how to avoid the same situation in the future, but I do not blame the victim for what happened to them.

BreakfastMan:

Um, yes? Because he did it? He choose to have sex with her, when he knew that there existed ambiguity? He knew there was a chance that he could be committing rape, he weighed the odds, and he pressed on anyway?

Seriously? You honestly think even a slight minority of people (men and women included) are thinking "maybe i might be committing rape" while trying to decrypt communication and deciding to give it a shot? If there is one thing your statements make quite clear is that you either live in a place with a very very different culture or are just heavily distorting reality for whatever reason. I'd say that thinking about the possibility of rape during such encounters would be a mood breaker by itself.

Oh and you're correct that the action is 100% the man's responsibility. However as I have stated multiple times the actions itself are not the only things that should be taken account. Just like killing someone =/= killing someone. Having sexual intercourse with someone =/= having sexual intercourse with someone.

I'm still to this point baffled by the desire of so many to refuse to acknowledge that a grey area scenario should be treated as such instead of being put in the black area because "rape!".

generals3:

BreakfastMan:

Um, yes? Because he did it? He choose to have sex with her, when he knew that there existed ambiguity? He knew there was a chance that he could be committing rape, he weighed the odds, and he pressed on anyway?

Seriously? You honestly think even a slight minority of people (men and women included) are thinking "maybe i might be committing rape" while trying to decrypt communication and deciding to give it a shot? If there is one thing your statements make quite clear is that you either live in a place with a very very different culture or are just heavily distorting reality for whatever reason. I'd say that thinking about the possibility of rape during such encounters would be a mood breaker by itself.

Oh and you're correct that the action is 100% the man's responsibility. However as I have stated multiple times the actions itself are not the only things that should be taken account. Just like killing someone =/= killing someone. Having sexual intercourse with someone =/= having sexual intercourse with someone.

I'm still to this point baffled by the desire of so many to refuse to acknowledge that a grey area scenario should be treated as such instead of being put in the black area because "rape!".

What is your example of a gray area scenario?

BreakfastMan:
They don't have to explicitly say something. If they start unzipping your pants and giving you a blowjob, I think you have the go ahead. That really isn't an ambiguous situation, right there.

And then you get a slight push as you continue, but proceed as normal.

Only three days later you hear, from a police officer, that that push indicated she didn't want to have sex, and you are now a rapist.

That's the sort of scenario we're talking about when it's about ambigious communication of yes or no. Such things actually happen. Not always to such extremes, but often enough that you can't just pretend that any sort of explicit lack of a yes means that anyone who doesn't stop instantly then, is a filthy rapist.

On top of that there's people with a serious handicap when it comes to interpretation of communication. Think for instance of people with autism-related disorders. In such a scenario, being an autist would mean they could ignore some ambigious communication because they're not capable of understanding that, and then get thrown in jail for being a horrible rapist.

Jailtime because someone is born with a disorder.... I doubt we as a society want to go anywhere near that, right?


And that's what I've been arguing all along: This matter is too complicated to approach it in a simplified manner. If it was all just a matter of a clear yes/no, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

BreakfastMan:
And you know that most women want this how?

It's what's normal when it comes to making contact.

ratzofftoya:

What is your example of a gray area scenario?

The scenario which is currently debated? You know, the one where communication is unclear and body language doesn't say no and a man thinking she thought "yes" decided to go forth? Basically a case of "accidental rape" if you will, where a person with no malicious intent ended up "raping" someone due to some misinterpretation.

ratzofftoya:
What is your example of a gray area scenario?

A few posts back I brought up a case that appeared on the forum a while back, where some people called sexual abuse, and many others correctly observed that the supposed victim at no point ever, said no, and only whined about how bad it was afterwards. Note: that was after they'd been flirting and talking about intimate subjects for more than 15 minutes.

Socially awkward. Definately. Uncalled for? Totally. Sexual assault? No, not at all, because there's no sign of it being unconsensual, and signs of it being consensual, or the only logical explanation being that it was consensual.

Here's the link again:
http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/9035/article/pax-attendee-is-sexually-assaulted-at-minecraft-party/

You just don't get drunk off your feet, flirt with and talk about sex for a long time, and then raise the alarm when someone takes that one logical step further. That's extremely dishonest, since the girl in the story totally failed to communicate anything other than wanting to get intimate.

generals3:

ratzofftoya:

What is your example of a gray area scenario?

The scenario which is currently debated? You know, the one where communication is unclear and body language doesn't say no and a man thinking she thought "yes" decided to go forth? Basically a case of "accidental rape" if you will, where a person with no malicious intent ended up "raping" someone due to some misinterpretation.

Why is that a gray area? Why don't you just ask her "do you want to have sex?" and let that determine what area it is? Is sex such a tenuous proposition for you that it's like a fucking house of cards that will topple if you try to gain explicit consent? What's with you people?

Blablahb:
A few posts back I brought up a case that appeared on the forum a while back, where some people called sexual abuse, and many others correctly observed that the supposed victim at no point ever, said no, and only whined about how bad it was afterwards. Note: that was after they'd been flirting and talking about intimate subjects for more than 15 minutes.

Socially awkward. Definately. Uncalled for? Totally. Sexual assault? No, not at all, because there's no sign of it being unconsensual, and signs of it being consensual, or the only logical explanation being that it was consensual.

Here's the link again:
http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/9035/article/pax-attendee-is-sexually-assaulted-at-minecraft-party/

You just don't get drunk off your feet, flirt with and talk about sex for a long time, and then raise the alarm when someone takes that one logical step further. That's extremely dishonest, since the girl in the story totally failed to communicate anything other than wanting to get intimate.

Yeah, I read her post, and saw nothing indicating it was consensual in the least. This girl was not into him and he kept talking to her and put her hand on his dick. That's not a gray area. Ask "yo baby, is it cool if you touch my weiner?" Then you'll figure out which area it is. Short of that, if you're worried that asking will make her realize what a gross fucking weirdo you are, then you're stuck with being not sure whether you're sexually assaulting her or not. Sorry.

generals3:

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.

Except that your analogy fails in an important way. In the inadvertent rape scenario, you're talking about two parties, party A and party B. Party A gives unclear communication X, and this results in party B performing action Y.

So a more appropriate analogy is:

1. I ask you for your stereo/bike (those are the two examples floating around).
2. You tell me, "jhjpn bahneknawxjh."
3. I take your stereo or bike based on my understanding "jhjpn bahneknawxjh" to mean, "Please take my stereo/bike."

Can you fault me for taking your stereo from you when all you said was "jhjpn bahneknawxjh?" I think any reasonable person would say yes, I am responsible for the greivance I caused you even though you are guilty of poor communication. Your poor communication does not make it Okay for me to keep your property.

generals3:

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?

We should opt for the less "optimal" option, because in that option no one gets raped.

I don't think the additional sexual gratification received for advancing on a partner who one may or may think is playing "hard to get" based on one's interpretation, in the moment, of their partner's body language somehow justifies a possible, inadvertent sexual assault on the partner.

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.

Also, a more trivial issue than, of course, rape. I don't think you can use additional sexual gratification and hurt pride to justify cases of collateral rape. The safer option is to err on the side of not raping someone.

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....

That's a pretty forced analogy. An aside, you seem to use a lot of arguments from analogy, which can get you in trouble, as it is a weak form of argumentation. And it gets weaker when your analogies are hardly reasonable, like comparing men who take "no" to mean "no" when soliciting sex to people who refuse to leave their basements because of the fear of violent crime. How are those two situations even remotely related?

chaosord:

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?

Again, if someone is fucking you back, I think you can reasonably infer consent.

I think most of the debate in the thread has centered on ambiguous cases, where there is a verbal, "no," but nonverbal cues are unclear. What is ambiguous about someone bludgeoning your beef stick and taking off their underpants?

And yes, if a man says no and a woman fucks, him it's rape.

As far as the gender bias, it was introduced by the "it's not rape if you were confused" camp, because they maintain positions like, "women play hard to get," etc, and the discussion has centered on specifically cases in which women are sending mix signals to men. Not that there isn't a gender bias, but I don't think anyone, at any point in this thread, has said that men can't be victims of rape.

Also, presumably men can also play hard to get to force women to jump on top of them. But again, we've centered on the reverse situation for the most part.

ratzofftoya:
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.

Agree!

Bentusi16:

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.

Right. It's a form of victim blaming to say its the responsibility of the rape-ee to avoid being raped, as opposed to it being the responsibility of the rapist to do no raping.

I think when you put things in terms of, "Sometimes rape is not the fault of the rapists, because they had good intentions and they were just confused," this position becomes a lot less defensible.

Bentusi16:
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.

Well, this sounds like a bit of a false dilemma, to me. Is it really either the person in question rapes someone, or they are a failure as a lover?

It seems to me that there are plenty of other possibilities, like, say, someone acquires clear consent and is not considered a failed lover.

And anyway, I think it's worth the hurt pride of some actors to prevent other actors from becoming rape victims.

Bentusi16:

Again, mixed signals are bad.

Correct.

Bentusi16:
Just say 'no we're not going to have sex' and any man who still attempts is a rapist.

Correct.

Bentusi16:

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?

Well, again, you've offered a false dilemma. This is not an Either A or B situation.

In your example, the woman has said no. When the man takes this seriously and doesn't act, it is the woman's fault she didn't get what she wanted. Maybe if she was a better communicator, she'd get laid more often. Again, I refer the entire thread to the esteemed wisdom of Louis CK.

Blablahb:

BreakfastMan:
No, he is a responsible adult, and any sane women would understand him not wanting to press on when ambiguity exists.

Are you saying all women are insane? Because it's definately something that's going to be counted against you if you're behaving passively and wait for them to explicitly say something.

The point you're arguing is nice and stuff, but such a black&white approach can't survive contact with reality, where typically, women expect men to take the initiative.

Let me put the argument thusly:

You have Partner A and Partner B. We'll leave them nameless/genderless, because rape is a problem for everyone, k?

Partner A is interested in sex with Partner B.

Situation 1: Both partners are mutually interested in sex. Sex occurs, insert smiley face.
Situation 2: Partner B states verbally, "No," to sex, but gives "mixed" non-verbal cues. No sex occurs.
Situation 3: Partner B states verbally, "No," to sex, but gives "mixed" non-verbal cues. Sex happens anyway.
-->Result 3.1: Partner B, despite mixed communication, wanted sex and is satisfied Partner A acted anyway.
-->Result 3.2: Partner B did not want sex, and has now been raped by Partner A, who acted against a verbal no.

Now, I would say:

In Situation 2, you could, with merit, blame Partner B for there being no sex. Even if Partner B is a crazy person and then tries to argue that they wanted Partner Ato just go for it and be an alpha, that still makes it Partner B's fault for poor communication. What would be best, now would be for Partner A and Partner B to have a nice chat about trust, sexual preferences, and a clear system of communication for communicating intentions that does not result in craziness. Then, when the same situation arises later, the signals are less ambiguous and Partner A can proceed without ambiguity.

In Situation 3, a rape may or may not have occurred, as I have outlined in as Result 3.1 and Result 3.2. It may be, as members have argued here, that B wants A to just "go for it," and that B would consider A to be a failure of a lover for pussy-footing about this. This would be Result 3.1. Or, it might be that B didn't want to have sex, and that Partner A, misunderstanding the cues, initiated unwelcome sex, and thus perpetuated rape. This would be Situation 3.2.

Now are we really, as a community, going to argue that Result 3.2 does not constitute "real" rape, or "as much" rape as when Partner A just rapes Partner B in an alley? Are we really going to argue that Partner B has complacency in this rape, even though they are the victim of the rape?

And just how common is Result 3.1 compared to Result 3.2? My experience would lead me to believe that situation 3.2 is the more common result of sex initiated with ambiguous consent. And even if it isn't more common, I argue that Situation 3 is not the appropriate response given that some of the results will be rape. Situation 3 is not justified by arguing that it is really going to hurt Partner A's feelings if Partner B says mean things to them afterwards. Nor is it justified by the increased sexually benefit to Partner A given the additional level of risk to Partner B.

evilthecat:
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.

No, evil, you utterly missed the point. If people are arguing over what he meant, that means people have different interpretations. Unless Farrell meant contradictory things, it follows that some interpreters must be incorrect. Unless they're intentionally incorrect, they are reflecting a "inability" to "understand" what Farrell was saying. Hence your original remark was wrong. That you remark was wrong does not depend on which interpretation is actually correct.

evilthecat:
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."

I was attempting to avoid this theory argument in my previous post because it is a big distraction, but let's go through the motions due to your insistence on repeatedly invoking hegemonic masculinity as if it is (1) widely-accepted; and (2) even if legitimate, relevant here.

Just because Farrell did not emphasize the nuances you have been taught to believe are important because they arise out of the prevailing academic constructs, does not mean he failed to be nuanced or "comprehensive." He probably just rejects, as I and most MRAs do, the sacred premise of feminist intellectualism: patriarchy theory.

HM, like most products of feminist intellectualism, is a construct so glaringly designed to explain social phenomena within the constraints the sacred premise imposes. It's like an intelligence test that invites the testee to "make a house using only the 7 pieces in the box . . . ready? Go!" It is little more than a too-clever-by-half exercise in rational reconstruction using the preferred ideological interpretive tool (indeed, the use of the term "hegemonic" in this context is derived from its use in Marxist writings to describe the unilateral power of the ruling class over others; and we all know the degree to which Marxism has influenced feminist thinking). That interpretive tool, patriarchy theory, has become so precarious for its tendentiousness that many thinkers no longer feel the need to entertain it, or its offshoots like HM, in attempting to dexterously approach issues like rape.

Your repeated implication that HM is a non-controversial descriptive theory, like the theory of evolution, is absurd, which makes your resulting brashness about Farrell's failure to discuss it equally absurd. One primary reason why HM is controversial is due to its failure to recognize the degree of power, or agency, women have (hence my repeated implication that attitudes like yours deny women the agency that a more rich, but less chivalrous, accounting of social reality would assign to them). That translates here into ignoring the reality that women's behavior has a tremendous impact on men's sexual behavior, that women know this, and that this is a form of power that gives rise to responsibilities. HM's derivation from patriarchy theory demands that I accept your seeming insistence that men shoulder the burden of women's problematic behavior, because some systemic cultural misogyny (the feminine being at the bottom of the HM "hierarchy") is at the root, and thus the cause, of the man's decision to penetrate. I think not.

Thus, your argument that, by not addressing HM, one is being "simplistic" for "ignoring an enormous chuck of human experience" is ironic in that, by relying on the theory, you are relying on a construct that purposively "ignores an enormous chunk of human experience" that, to use your words, "should be obvious [from] the most cursory, non-academic examination of human culture."

Another problem with your argument is seeming irrelevance. If we assume that HM is accurately descriptive, what work does it do here? You still have not even attempted to explain this. That is, how does it tip the scales in your favor when it comes to defining and punishing rape? Neither Farrell nor I were attempting to explain the deep roots of female and male behavior in explaining that, such deep roots aside, we are all responsible for our own conduct and law should reflect this. I don't see how HM theory gets you anywhere here, and thus I don't see why, even with the generous assumption, Farrell would waste any ink on it.

evilthecat:
Which women?

The group of women who were asked; which other women would I be referring to, Evil?

evilthecat:
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?

The essentialism is in your imagination, as you're reading way too much into my choice of words. Anyway, if you think you need to "observe" something like this in order for it to be true, you will shortly receive your "simplistic" membership card in the mail. Revisit Farrell's full quote which will answer the "which women" question.

evilthecat:
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 is quite the crude strawmanning. I never suggested that one man's notion of ideal masculinity is not influenced by other men's respective notions. I am arguing that, in this specific context (remember there is a specific scenario involved), there is no reason for me to conclude that such influence is what is primarily driving the man's reaction toward the woman intentionally sending mixed sexual signals.

evilthecat:
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.

All of this misses the point. As noted above, I never suggested that men's conduct arises in utter isolation from a conception of masculinity idealized by other men. I agree that both men's and women's behavior is hugely influenced by normative reference points provided by culture. You, very simplistically, seem to think that it follows that the construct dictating normative masculinity and femininity is "hegemonic masculinity." Thus you're misguided conclusion: "What you are describing is hegemonic masculinity."

Again, the other problem this point illuminates is your failure to hint as to why this is ultimately relevant to the discussion. The discussion is not a sociological one, notwithstanding your impressive persistence in trying to make it such. It may be true that murderers disproportionally come from poor backgrounds; such is irrelevant, however, in a discussion of what should be the requisite state of mind to find one guilty of murder because ultimate conclusions about personal responsibility in the criminal context do not normally turn on such things.

evilthecat:
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.

Well, no shit, really?! It's strange that you characterize my thinking as "essentialist" above (though I'm still not sure why) then superimpose such essentialism over my comments. I am making no such "assumptions."

evilthecat:
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.

You know evil, I know a lot of academics. One thing about them is that they often, whether they are economists, moral philosophers, etc, are inclined to insist that what people "should" be focusing on in approaching a particular problem are those concerns that implicate their expertise. I get the distinct impression you are attempting (with some success) to pull this discussion toward what you want it to be about, rather than what it really is about, so that the analytical tools you have available will be more relevant to the task. One's failure to play along does not make one's arguments "simplistic."

I won't respond to the rest of what you wrote because this post is getting way too long.

Uszi:
Now are we really, as a community, going to argue that Result 3.2 does not constitute "real" rape, or "as much" rape as when Partner A just rapes Partner B in an alley? Are we really going to argue that Partner B has complacency in this rape, even though they are the victim of the rape?

As a community? Probably not; we're fairly polarized on certain subjects. Individually? Yes, I would argue they are different for the sole reason of intent. I find the suggestion of "accidental rape" utterly hysterical (I actually did bust a gut when I said it out loud today).

Did a rape actually occur? Yes and no. Did the man intentionally rape the female? No. Did the female feel raped? Yes.

Rape, as far as a legal sense, isn't quite and a binary issue as some people make it out to me. I have only to point out statutory rape to support that statement.

Do you honestly expect me to judge someone for comitting a crime by pure chance the same way as someone who does it intentionally? Our justice system does not function that way; nor should it.

Does the victim have some complacency? That depends entirely on the situation now doesn't it? Was it something she could have prevented? Did she make her intentions to refuse sex absolutely clear? Did she willfully participate in sex after she made a statement to the contrary?

Never as simple as people think.

LOL at ManUpManDown's whole existence.

Uszi:

generals3:

[quote="chaosord" post="528.395205.16095071"]
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?

Again, if someone is fucking you back, I think you can reasonably infer consent.

I think most of the debate in the thread has centered on ambiguous cases, where there is a verbal, "no," but nonverbal cues are unclear. What is ambiguous about someone bludgeoning your beef stick and taking off their underpants?

And yes, if a man says no and a woman fucks, him it's rape.

As far as the gender bias, it was introduced by the "it's not rape if you were confused" camp, because they maintain positions like, "women play hard to get," etc, and the discussion has centered on specifically cases in which women are sending mix signals to men. Not that there isn't a gender bias, but I don't think anyone, at any point in this thread, has said that men can't be victims of rape.

Up until this year, legally speaking, a woman couldn't rape a man.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/January/12-ag-018.html
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-06/fbi-rape-definition-adds-men/52398350/1
And this is where I apologize. It was a leading question. My point rape is a difficult subject to deal with. Emotions run high and people get really hostile really fast. And the axiom, "No means no," really doesn't help matters. For instance (thank Law And Order, SVU for thise example) if a man ignores the no means no and the woman fighting back while having sex with her and she cries rape. There is still a chance he did not rape her. In this case the man had been lead to believe that she wanted that way (a la craigslist). The post, turned out to have been posted by someone else as a means of getting back at the woman.
What I am trying to say is intent must be factored in, as with all other crimes.

Awesome post by the way. It was a great read.

chaosord:

Uszi:

generals3:

[quote="chaosord" post="528.395205.16095071"]
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?

Again, if someone is fucking you back, I think you can reasonably infer consent.

I think most of the debate in the thread has centered on ambiguous cases, where there is a verbal, "no," but nonverbal cues are unclear. What is ambiguous about someone bludgeoning your beef stick and taking off their underpants?

And yes, if a man says no and a woman fucks, him it's rape.

As far as the gender bias, it was introduced by the "it's not rape if you were confused" camp, because they maintain positions like, "women play hard to get," etc, and the discussion has centered on specifically cases in which women are sending mix signals to men. Not that there isn't a gender bias, but I don't think anyone, at any point in this thread, has said that men can't be victims of rape.

Up until this year, legally speaking, a woman couldn't rape a man.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/January/12-ag-018.html
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-06/fbi-rape-definition-adds-men/52398350/1
And this is where I apologize. It was a leading question. My point rape is a difficult subject to deal with. Emotions run high and people get really hostile really fast. And the axiom, "No means no," really doesn't help matters. For instance (thank Law And Order, SVU for thise example) if a man ignores the no means no and the woman fighting back while having sex with her and she cries rape. There is still a chance he did not rape her. In this case the man had been lead to believe that she wanted that way (a la craigslist). The post, turned out to have been posted by someone else as a means of getting back at the woman.
What I am trying to say is intent must be factored in, as with all other crimes.

Awesome post by the way. It was a great read.

State law controls most criminal rape statutes, so that FBI definition has nothing to do with anything. As for the rest of your post...that's the rapiest shit I ever heard. Not ambiguous at all.

chaosord:

Up until this year, legally speaking, a woman couldn't rape a man.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/January/12-ag-018.html
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-06/fbi-rape-definition-adds-men/52398350/1
And this is where I apologize. It was a leading question. My point rape is a difficult subject to deal with. Emotions run high and people get really hostile really fast. And the axiom, "No means no," really doesn't help matters. For instance (thank Law And Order, SVU for thise example) if a man ignores the no means no and the woman fighting back while having sex with her and she cries rape. There is still a chance he did not rape her. In this case the man had been lead to believe that she wanted that way (a la craigslist). The post, turned out to have been posted by someone else as a means of getting back at the woman.
What I am trying to say is intent must be factored in, as with all other crimes.

Awesome post by the way. It was a great read.

I think I've seen that one!

Anyway, claiming men can't be victims of rape is, well, wrong. It's an indefensible position, because men can certainly find themselves being coerced or cajoled into having sex they don't want to have. I'm glad the definitions have changed.

As we try to attempt this contextualizing rape claims when intent is unclear, to find examples where we want to exonerate someone who initiated unwanted sex, i.e. the craigslist rape fantasy ad, we need some pretty unlikely scenarios. This one is from a TV script, for instance. I'm not convinced that the problem exists in the real world to the extent that we need legal reform or advocacy groups to defend men from being accused of rape when they didn't intend to commit it.

With this craigslist example... I'm going to argue that the dude has a pretty good argument for there being clear consent. I'm assuming that, if you were going to do this in real life with someone, you would have to agree to a time and place and, however real the "victim" wanted it to be, the fact that it would need to be brokered in advance seems like it would indicate consent. As it is, in that SVU episode, I believe the ex-boyfriend who posted the advertisement to cause harm to the victim is the one who ultimately gets sentenced, right? Not the guy who responded to it? The synopsis doesn't really make this clear, but that's what I remember, anyway.

On the other hand, the victim got all bruised and cut up. I'm thinking if someone actually got hurt in one of these rendezvous, and then accused their rape fantasy person of actually raping them, they probably have a case. Again, just because you agree to engage in a rape fantasy, doesn't mean that you couldn't actually get... raped, in that situation.

So I don't really see this as being an exception to my stated rule that you always need clear consent for it to not be rape. And if you don't have clear consent, i.e. you're meeting up with a stranger to fulfill a rape fantasy and you have to actually hurt the person to complete the act, then maybe you no longer have clear consent and you need to stop.

And, as an aside, this seems like extremely foolish behavior to me, on all accounts.

I don't think there are a lot of people making or responding to rape fantasy ads with strangers anyway, and to the extent that there are, I don't think those examples could be generalized to the wider populace. But who knows, maybe I'm doing contortions to avoid making special exceptions? You tell me.

EDIT: Sorry, lots of edits after I posted this...

ratzofftoya:

chaosord:

Uszi:

Again, if someone is fucking you back, I think you can reasonably infer consent.

I think most of the debate in the thread has centered on ambiguous cases, where there is a verbal, "no," but nonverbal cues are unclear. What is ambiguous about someone bludgeoning your beef stick and taking off their underpants?

And yes, if a man says no and a woman fucks, him it's rape.

As far as the gender bias, it was introduced by the "it's not rape if you were confused" camp, because they maintain positions like, "women play hard to get," etc, and the discussion has centered on specifically cases in which women are sending mix signals to men. Not that there isn't a gender bias, but I don't think anyone, at any point in this thread, has said that men can't be victims of rape.

Up until this year, legally speaking, a woman couldn't rape a man.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/January/12-ag-018.html
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-06/fbi-rape-definition-adds-men/52398350/1
And this is where I apologize. It was a leading question. My point rape is a difficult subject to deal with. Emotions run high and people get really hostile really fast. And the axiom, "No means no," really doesn't help matters. For instance (thank Law And Order, SVU for thise example) if a man ignores the no means no and the woman fighting back while having sex with her and she cries rape. There is still a chance he did not rape her. In this case the man had been lead to believe that she wanted that way (a la craigslist). The post, turned out to have been posted by someone else as a means of getting back at the woman.
What I am trying to say is intent must be factored in, as with all other crimes.

Awesome post by the way. It was a great read.

State law controls most criminal rape statutes, so that FBI definition has nothing to do with anything. As for the rest of your post...that's the rapiest shit I ever heard. Not ambiguous at all.

Let me clarify

1) A man goes onto a dating/hook-up site.
2) Said man gets in contact with a woman, he thinks, on the site.
3) Said woman tells the man she has a rape fantasy and tells the man the code to her door. And gives him a time and her personal address.
4)She then tells him she will fight back and to keep going until he hears a safe word.
5)Man goes to woman place and has rough sex with her. he never hears the safe word.
6)Woman says it rape and presses charges.
7)Man is arrested and shows the police the emails from her.
8)Police learn the profile on the site was not made by the woman. But by a third party.
The question is, is that man a rapist or a victim?

Uszi:

chaosord:

Up until this year, legally speaking, a woman couldn't rape a man.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/January/12-ag-018.html
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-06/fbi-rape-definition-adds-men/52398350/1
And this is where I apologize. It was a leading question. My point rape is a difficult subject to deal with. Emotions run high and people get really hostile really fast. And the axiom, "No means no," really doesn't help matters. For instance (thank Law And Order, SVU for thise example) if a man ignores the no means no and the woman fighting back while having sex with her and she cries rape. There is still a chance he did not rape her. In this case the man had been lead to believe that she wanted that way (a la craigslist). The post, turned out to have been posted by someone else as a means of getting back at the woman.
What I am trying to say is intent must be factored in, as with all other crimes.

Awesome post by the way. It was a great read.

I think I've seen that one!

Anyway, claiming men can't be victims of rape is, well, wrong. It's an indefensible position, because men can certainly find themselves being coerced or cajoled into having sex they don't want to have. I'm glad the definitions have changed.

As we try to attempt this contextualizing rape claims when intent is unclear, to find examples where we want to exonerate someone who initiated unwanted sex, i.e. the craigslist rape fantasy ad, we need some pretty unlikely scenarios. This one is from a TV script, for instance. I'm not convinced that the problem exists in the real world to the extent that we need legal reform or advocacy groups to defend men from being accused of rape when they didn't intend to commit it.

With this craigslist example... I'm going to argue that the dude has a pretty good argument for there being clear consent. I'm assuming that, if you were going to do this in real life with someone, you would have to agree to a time and place and, however real the "victim" wanted it to be, the fact that it would need to be brokered in advance seems like it would indicate consent. As it is, in that SVU episode, I believe the ex-boyfriend who posted the advertisement to cause harm to the victim is the one who ultimately gets sentenced, right? Not the guy who responded to it? The synopsis doesn't really make this clear, but that's what I remember, anyway.

On the other hand, the victim got all bruised and cut up. I'm thinking if someone actually got hurt in one of these rendezvous, and then accused their rape fantasy person of actually raping them, they probably have a case. Again, just because you agree to engage in a rape fantasy, doesn't mean that you couldn't actually get... raped, in that situation.

So I don't really see this as being an exception to my stated rule that you always need clear consent for it to not be rape. And if you don't have clear consent, i.e. you're meeting up with a stranger to fulfill a rape fantasy and you have to actually hurt the person to complete the act, then maybe you no longer have clear consent and you need to stop.

And, as an aside, this seems like extremely foolish behavior to me, on all accounts.

I don't think there are a lot of people making or responding to rape fantasy ads with strangers anyway, and to the extent that there are, I don't think those examples could be generalized to the wider populace. But who knows, maybe I'm doing contortions to avoid making special exceptions? You tell me.

EDIT: Sorry, lots of edits after I posted this...

Its a good show.

But don't forget the man in that case had been lead to believe that is what she wanted. Further more, what if consent was present at the time of the act, (both agree to have sex and do) but then one party retracts consent after the act takes place; did rape happen? Or, (this is from Family Guy, Friends Without Benefits.) someone roofies someone and then leads a third person to believe the roofied person wants sex but will fake being asleep. Who is the true rapist in that case?
While both of those are from tv shows they do bring up an interesting line of thought. All crimes should be on a case by case basis and all factors must be considered. The axiom, "No means no." is not and should not be used as the sole determining factor in rape.

DevilWithaHalo:

As a community? Probably not; we're fairly polarized on certain subjects. Individually? Yes, I would argue they are different for the sole reason of intent. I find the suggestion of "accidental rape" utterly hysterical (I actually did bust a gut when I said it out loud today).

Look, I'm not really trying to say some rape is accidental either. But since people are arguing that rape in cases of unclear consent isn't rape at all, I'm trying to find words for that. If you find it funny to the point where it's distracting, I'll stop making the effort.

DevilWithaHalo:

Did a rape actually occur? Yes and no. Did the man intentionally rape the female? No. Did the female feel raped? Yes

Rape, as far as a legal sense, isn't quite and a binary issue as some people make it out to me. I have only to point out statutory rape to support that statement.

I'm not sure even your example of statutory rape makes this not a binary issue. If the victim of a crime feels a crime was committed against them then are they not a victim of a crime?

Unless, I guess, there's a false accusation.

DevilWithaHalo:

Do you honestly expect me to judge someone for comitting a crime by pure chance the same way as someone who does it intentionally? Our justice system does not function that way; nor should it.

I'm pretty sure it does function that way. I think when it comes down to sentencing, courts may show leniency based on intent, but I'm certainly still responsible for my actions, regardless of my intentions. I don't get off the hook because I had the best of intentions when I raped you, killed you or stole from you.

For example: manslaughter. I still committed a crime, I still do the time, even though I can maybe show that I'm less culpable than someone who plotted a murder out for weeks.

Now, up till now I have not seen you advocating for a criminal charge less than rape but on par with manslaughter for your specific cases of rape with unclear consent (I won't say accidental rape so we keep the giggles under control). Is this what you are arguing for?

DevilWithaHalo:

Does the victim have some complacency?

No.

DevilWithaHalo:
That depends entirely on the situation now doesn't it?

It does not.

DevilWithaHalo:
Was it something she could have prevented? Did she make her intentions to refuse sex absolutely clear? Did she willfully participate in sex after she made a statement to the contrary?

Never as simple as people think.

This is called victim blaming, and it's wrong.

Here's an analogy:

I go out to the sidewalk, and I dig a 12 foot deep tiger pit. I line the bottom with deadly, poison tipped punji sticks. Lets say I did this with the best of intentions: I only want to trap criminals. A grandmother then falls in my trap and dies. When the victims family attempts to bring charges against me, I make the following arguments in court:

1. Your honor, the trap was clearly visible, she should have seen it and avoided it.
2. Your honor, I placed caution tape around the trap. She walked under it, ignoring the tape, and fell into the hole.
3. Your honor, I screamed and shouted at her that there was a trap, and she ignored me, and fell into the the hole.
4. Your honor, when I told the grandmother there was a deadly tiger pit in front of her, she did nothing to avoid walking onto it.

Etc, etc.

Is there really some circumstance where I can construct a deadly tiger trap that kills a grandmother where the victim is entirely responsible for her own death in the court of law?

If not, then why would it be that in a rape trial, the victim is entirely responsible for the rape they suffered?

Uszi:
-

See, this pisses me off to no end.

I did not say that the rapist was also NOT RESPONSIBLE. I do not understand why we have this idea that if more then one person has responsibility for an action it must ALL fall on one or the other. I would see the rapist charged fully, and the woman reminded (if she was responsible for any stupid-ass choice that got her into the situation) of her own responsibility. You whine at me about binary decisions and then turn around and proclaim that it must either be all on the victim or none on the victim? Guess what: If you do stupid shit, bad stuff can happen to you. If I stick my dick in an anthill, chances are it's going to hurt. I invite the ants to eat me by their actions. If I wander down a dark alley flashing my gold watch, it's my dumb ass that caused me to get robbed; the criminal should still be hunted down and arrested and tried under the full extent of the law, but if I had been smart enough to not do something I knew was stupid, I probably would've avoided being robbed. That does not mean I was not 'punished' for my stupidity. After all, I was robbed. But it was still MY CHOICES that led to that point.

I am not saying that it is ALWAYS the choices of a woman that can lead to these situations, but there are situations in which women make stupid choices and it ends up badly for them but we hold 0 responsibility to them for making those stupid decisions. Individuals of sound mind are responsible for their own choices and actions, and that's it, period. You may make those choices in reaction to something, but no one FORCES you to make those choices. You make those choices fully by yourself. That's why rape and murder are such terrible crimes. It is the conscious decision to violate someone else.

As has been pointed out, rape is a willing and predetermined act. You cannot accidentally rape anything. It is IMPOSSIBLE to do. Now you can argue state of mind, drunkeness, whatever, but no matter what you consciously took the steps to penetrate. Period. There is no such thing as accidental rape. You may have not thought it was rape when you did it, but it was rape.

That being said, my point about the 'failure' thing is from a social perspective and the normal mindset of men. I know there are dozens of different scenarios that can play about but I am talking about TWO scenarios, not the dozens. I am talking about A: She sends mixed signals, you push, she's welcoming. or B: She sends mixed signals, you push, she's rejecting. A is a 'success', B is sexual assault. Other things don't pertain to the discussion. I could work out allll these different scenarios but they add nothing.

Do you know why I only bought up those two scenarios? Because they're the only ones that matter for my argument. I'm not saying they are the ONLY scenarios, only that they're the only scenarios I"m going to bother caring about in this discussion.

And you see, from what I can tell, from a social, cultural, individual standpoint? It's never the woman's fault in the sphere of sexuality. All failures fall on the man. All of them. If he cannot read her right, it is HIS fault for not being able to understand what she desires, not her fault.

chaosord:

ratzofftoya:

chaosord:

Up until this year, legally speaking, a woman couldn't rape a man.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/January/12-ag-018.html
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-06/fbi-rape-definition-adds-men/52398350/1
And this is where I apologize. It was a leading question. My point rape is a difficult subject to deal with. Emotions run high and people get really hostile really fast. And the axiom, "No means no," really doesn't help matters. For instance (thank Law And Order, SVU for thise example) if a man ignores the no means no and the woman fighting back while having sex with her and she cries rape. There is still a chance he did not rape her. In this case the man had been lead to believe that she wanted that way (a la craigslist). The post, turned out to have been posted by someone else as a means of getting back at the woman.
What I am trying to say is intent must be factored in, as with all other crimes.

Awesome post by the way. It was a great read.

State law controls most criminal rape statutes, so that FBI definition has nothing to do with anything. As for the rest of your post...that's the rapiest shit I ever heard. Not ambiguous at all.

Let me clarify

1) A man goes onto a dating/hook-up site.
2) Said man gets in contact with a woman, he thinks, on the site.
3) Said woman tells the man she has a rape fantasy and tells the man the code to her door. And gives him a time and her personal address.
4)She then tells him she will fight back and to keep going until he hears a safe word.
5)Man goes to woman place and has rough sex with her. he never hears the safe word.
6)Woman says it rape and presses charges.
7)Man is arrested and shows the police the emails from her.
8)Police learn the profile on the site was not made by the woman. But by a third party.
The question is, is that man a rapist or a victim?

That man is a rapist. Why would you agree to fake-rape someone over Craigslist?

ratzofftoya:

chaosord:

ratzofftoya:

State law controls most criminal rape statutes, so that FBI definition has nothing to do with anything. As for the rest of your post...that's the rapiest shit I ever heard. Not ambiguous at all.

Let me clarify

1) A man goes onto a dating/hook-up site.
2) Said man gets in contact with a woman, he thinks, on the site.
3) Said woman tells the man she has a rape fantasy and tells the man the code to her door. And gives him a time and her personal address.
4)She then tells him she will fight back and to keep going until he hears a safe word.
5)Man goes to woman place and has rough sex with her. he never hears the safe word.
6)Woman says it rape and presses charges.
7)Man is arrested and shows the police the emails from her.
8)Police learn the profile on the site was not made by the woman. But by a third party.
The question is, is that man a rapist or a victim?

That man is a rapist. Why would you agree to fake-rape someone over Craigslist?

For teh sex, duh.
So the third party, who is at fault, gets away with committing rape by proxy?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked