U of T Protest: Warren Farrell = Hate Speech

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

chaosord:

ratzofftoya:

chaosord:

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?

Nope. The third party would likely be tried for any combination of six or seven different crimes.

Well, this turned into another sexual assault thread alarmingly quickly.

DevilWithaHalo:

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

The crux of the debate in my mind. I suppose at this point the only way forward is to attempt to tentatively assess whether the man "recklessly"(in quotes because recklessness is defined differently in different law systems/individuals) went into what he thought was sex or not.

However, I certainly feel for the other side. Some, if not a worryingly sizable proportion, of what some call "victim blaming" and I'll call "dual responsibility-ists" are not giving a rational assessment of the convoluted and difficult situation that is sexual assault cases.

We on the dual-responsibility side do have to acknowledge that some of the people on our side are, to put it bluntly, pathetic children who relentlessly attempt to find ways that victims of rape are at fault, so as to keep a fairy-tale idealistic view about the role of themselves and their own gender as surely incapable of rape; instead substituting a fantasy about women mischievously leading men on so as to excuse what some of their own gender do and continue this rose tinted fallacy.

That said, it must be acknowledged that to claim that in some cases both parties have responsibility is not equivalent to the previous view. The dark and disturbing reality that is attraction between the sexes naturally breeds sexual assault and rape, I suppose because naturally (meaning in our distant past, think cavemen) rape obviously had a vastly different meaning and reaction. A commonly perceived sexual characteristic of men is to be aggressive. To some, a commonly perceived sexual characteristic of women is to be submissive. (neither of these are in terms of BDSM). Its an unfortunate situation that both men and women play off these characteristics in their mannerisms, they've been brought up to believe this is what their respective genders are supposed to do and brought up to believe that these aspects are attractive to the opposite sex. Not only this, but I'd argue a large proportion of the population, both male and female, actually do find this opposite characteristic sexually attractive.

This isn't even the tip of the iceberg in how utterly convoluted the entire mess that is our socially and biologically constructed sexual psyche is.

Those who call "victim blaming" to those who are simply trying to understand these vast complexities are in my opinion vastly misinformed about just how complicated this is.

Yes it is regrettable that sometimes lawyers use this to get guilty people acquitted or with reduced sentences.

But that does not justify reducing a complex problem to a black and white zero-sum game.

edit edited in guilty to replace innocent, must learn to proof-read.

Bentusi16:

See, this pisses me off to no end.

I did not say that the rapist was also NOT RESPONSIBLE.

And I did not say that you said the victim was SOLELY RESPONSIBLE. Not once.

I believe you're taking offense to me saying that you were victim blaming. I said that, not because I felt you were saying that the rapists are NOT also RESPONSIBLE, I said it because even shared blame in this case is victim blaming. I mean, that's what it is. You are saying the victim has some blame, i.e. "victim blaming."

Or, maybe I'm misunderstanding what I specifically said that pissed you off to no end.

Bentusi16:

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?

Well, in your cases, there isn't more than one person with responsibility. We don't hold victims of crime legally responsible for stupid ass choices, and being stupid certainly doesn't mitigated the culpability of the people who perpetrated crimes against them. It's not against the law to be stupid. It's against the law to rape people, though.

I also don't recall whining. Sorry if it seemed like I was.

Bentusi16:
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.

Correct.

Bentusi16:
That being said, my point about the 'failure' thing is from a social perspective and the normal mindset of men.

I don't think that's the normal mindset of men. It isn't, for instance, my mindset. It might be yours, it might be others as well. Because this seems like a bit of a generalization, I wouldn't rely on it to make your argument.

Bentusi16:
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. 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.

The example you've laid out is correct.

I addressed this in that same reply, further down.

Uszi:

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 Result 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.

Regarding blame, culpability, responsiblity, etc. You said, "It's not binary," my response is, it is binary.

I just finished a reply where I gave an example of a grandma falling into a tiger pit that I made:

Uszi:

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?

No one thinks that someone's stupidity when they fall into a clearly marked tiger pit makes me less culpable for digging it and killing the person, even though I didn't intend to kill that person. I'm still charged with manslaughter, even though it isn't a predetermined act. If the grandma survived the tiger pit, she doesn't get a talking down to for being so stupid.

Or maybe she does from social commentators and such, but the talking down is not like, some official part of the legal process that mitigates my actions in digging the trap in the first place.

chaosord:

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.

I didn't forget that. And I would say, yeah, if you retract consent, and the other party doesn't stop, then rape.

For the Family Guy scenario, then the culpable party is the messed up person who is drugging people and misleading others. Again, much like responding to a strangers request for a rape fantasy, I don't think it'd be advisable to sleep with a stranger for the first time who is going to pretend to be asleep. I'm also sure that you're probably still on the hook for the sex act, since you didn't really acquire informed consent from the person. And I also don't think it's an example you can generalize to broader debate.

Neither of these examples detracts from "no means no," in my opinion.

ratzofftoya:

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

You'd have to be stupid, I suspect.

Uszi:

chaosord:

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.

I didn't forget that. And I would say, yeah, if you retract consent, and the other party doesn't stop, then rape.

For the Family Guy scenario, then the culpable party is the messed up person who is drugging people and misleading others. Again, much like responding to a strangers request for a rape fantasy, I don't think it'd be advisable to sleep with a stranger for the first time who is going to pretend to be asleep. I'm also sure that you're probably still on the hook for the sex act, since you didn't really acquire informed consent from the person. And I also don't think it's an example you can generalize to broader debate.

Neither of these examples detracts from "no means no," in my opinion.

ratzofftoya:

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

You'd have to be stupid, I suspect.

But the consent is removed after they had sex.

Uszi:
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.

Nah, it's not you, it's just the notion that someone accidentally raped someone I find laughable. I would mind it being called something else, even just sexual assault, but there are many varieties of that too. The notion that intentionally raping someone in a dark alley and misinterpreting a woman's sign are the same thing are at least questionable to me if not outright absurd. I just disagree with anyone that says rape = rape.

Uszi:
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?

Statutory rape can be charged even if the "victim" consented. Is rape fucking someone without their consent? It's certainly not the case with statutory rape.

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

I consider that a separate issue. Suffice to say, it happens. Some might want to discuss that considering it harks back to the issue of whether or not the man feels the woman at the time consented, but I'm willing to avoid the conversation if you'd like to avoid it.

Uszi:
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.

Has a crime occurred? Sure. Do the courts sentence you the same based on accident VS intent? Not that I am aware of.

There are some circumstances where killing someone doesn't come with penalties. Conveniently, you could use the 'stand your ground' law to kill a rapist proving you have reasonable cause to fear for your safety.

Uszi:
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.

Hence why you're not found guilty of murder one.

Uszi:
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?

Perhaps if there was some "lesser" rape in the cases of confusion, I might lean toward that as an option. Probation, community service, lesser jail time, avoiding the sex offenders registration (or a reduction in grievousness), I don't know. Do you think any of the women in the video would be open to negotiations? Yah... neither did I. For them, rape = rape.

Assuming of course there is reasonable cause to pursue the matter. And I wouldn't mind exploring that farther; do you think people would be willing to undergo some thorough testing to potentially explore methods we can use to determine whether or not rape has occurred? The scientist is me is utterly curious what physiological differences we could identify in victims. The goal being of course to aid victims in proving the accuracy of their accusations with credible evidence (which would solve the false accusation issue as well). What do you think people would say to that?

Uszi:
No. It does not

Depends on whether or not we consider negligence as a factor. It actually can make a difference in a criminal prosecution.

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

If we're talking about communication and intent, I will fully hold someone accountable if they do not make their position perfectly clear and then accuse someone of overstepping their bounds. We can swap analogies on this till the cows come home; people have the responsibility to be personal accountable for their own safety of their possessions and their own body.

Do I blame the victim for the crime committed against them? Depends on the crime and the specific set of circumstances. I'll still prosecute if a crime has been committed, but I'm still going to hold them accountable for their hand in it if they were negligent.

YES, rape is a tragedy. Rape should be punished. Rape IS a crime. But I don't buy into the rape = rape narrative, and sometimes victims aren't.

Uszi:
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?

Actually, yes. Since you mentioned tigers (high five on that by the way)...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/21/us/new-york-tiger-pit/index.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/09/man-mauled-by-tiger-will-be-arrested.html
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/S-F-Zoo-visitor-saw-2-victims-of-tiger-attack-3233323.php
...that had lions in it. Might as well at bears to the mix...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229998/The-horrifying-moment-bear-mauls-man-climbed-zoo-enclosure.html

Now granted, those were all Zoo examples. But if you built a pit on your own property and take all the necessary actions to protect humans from it, including the 4 arguments you raised in your example, you cannot be held personally responsible for her actions, which included ignoring safety precautions.

I work a gig that takes me a lot of places, many of which have specific safety regulations that *everyone* must follow. If you violate them; you are held responsible, not the company. And what happens to you because you violated the safety procedures is entirely your own fault; the company cannot be held responsible for your negligence.

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

I don't think anyone is arguing that; unless you can point it out? In my work gig, my negligence wouldn't excuse someone taking advantage of my situation and dropping something on my head when I should be wearing a hard hat. But I still choose not to wear a hard hat, so the courts may adjust their verdict based on my actions. In the case of, questionable rape, as opposed to deliberate rape, the actions and/or inactions of the victim would consequentially adjust the verdict accordingly.

I think I have a solution that should make everyone happy; always film your sexual encounters. That way you can provide the video to the courts to prove you reasonably had consent. I would have said a written consent form, but they could have signed that under duress. Or you could have forged their signature. ;)

Blablahb:
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.

Again with this shit. It is not weird at all.

If, for instance, you sign a contract, misunderstand what it says and without intent break its terms, you can be held legally liable. If you accidentally drive your car into someone else's, you are liable for the insurance claim. If you accidentally kill someone, you are liable for manslaughter. If you rape someone without intent, you have committed rape.

DevilWithaHalo:
I just disagree with anyone that says rape = rape.

Why? Rape is rape. Just like murder is murder, men are men, women are women, and the planet Earth is the planet Earth.

What you really mean is that you don't think what some people define as rape is rape in your opinion. Inevitably in a means highly excusatory to men who have sex with women who don't want it.

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

Because not everybody is limited to your idea about sexuality.

I know, it's shocking.

Agema:
If, for instance, you sign a contract, misunderstand what it says and without intent break its terms, you can be held legally liable.

Bad comparison. It was written down for all to see, so you could've known. People unfairly accused of sexual assault due to conflicting or lacking communication couldn't have known. I've said that eight or nine times now.
An accurate comparison would've been if the contract explicitly stated that what you did is correct, and later you're accused of breaking your contract. Think of your contract saying your work starts at 9.00 every day, and a week later someone tells you they wanted you to start at 8.00

Agema:
If you accidentally drive your car into someone else's, you are liable for the insurance claim. If you accidentally kill someone, you are liable for manslaughter. If you rape someone without intent, you have committed rape.

Surely you see how those comparisons are also flawed? Killing people is always a crime. Having sex or flirting is not a crime. There's no legal killing (okay, putting aside legalised murder in the US in stuff like castle doctrine for the sake of the argument) so all killing is always wrong.

An accurate comparison would be doing something which you could never have known would kill someone, and it does. For instance if you clicking the post button somehow killed somebody, you're not guilty of manslaughter; you couldn't possibly have been aware that clicking a button on an internet forum would cause death.

ratzofftoya:
Yeah, I read her post, and saw nothing indicating it was consensual in the least.

So flirting with someone is no indication of any sort of affections? Our definitions of human communication must be very different, but I'd insist yours is wrong. If you get intimate with someone, that shows you wanted to get intimate with someone.

Getting intimate with someone, and then running away crying 'ohnoes, he got intimate with me!' like she did is a major dickmove, and shows she has some serious assertiveness issues as well as a tendency to blame others for her problems.

If someone doesn't open their mouth, they're the only one responsible for there being no communication. She never expressed any form of changing her mind not being okay with it, so her accusations are rubbish.

ratzofftoya:
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.

You're wrong. She said nothing from which he could've deduced that. If she keeps her mouth tightly shut outside of flirting, how can he be expected to know?

Blablahb:

Bad comparison. It was written down for all to see, so you could've known. People unfairly accused of sexual assault due to conflicting or lacking communication couldn't have known. I've said that eight or nine times now.
An accurate comparison would've been if the contract explicitly stated that what you did is correct, and later you're accused of breaking your contract. Think of your contract saying your work starts at 9.00 every day, and a week later someone tells you they wanted you to start at 8.00

Wrong. If I read a contract, think I understand it and then does something that breaks the contract, I am still liable for breaking the contract. That situation is very much similar to raping a woman you think wants to have sex. No matter what I thought the contract said or the man thought the woman was non-verbally communication, we still both did the wrong thing and can be held legally responsible.

You can try to use any kind of logical or mental gymnastics you want in this case, but misunderstanding something (non-verbal communication, written information or the huge "no photography" signs the ArmA3 devs in Greece apparently missed) is not a legally valid way of getting out of guilt. Whatever the ArmA 3 developer intended to conduct espionage or the man intended to rape the woman is a matter of intent, not culpability.

Blablahb:
Surely you see how those comparisons are also flawed? Killing people is always a crime. Having sex or flirting is not a crime. There's no legal killing (okay, putting aside legalised murder in the US in stuff like castle doctrine for the sake of the argument) so all killing is always wrong.

An accurate comparison would be doing something which you could never have known would kill someone, and it does. For instance if you clicking the post button somehow killed somebody, you're not guilty of manslaughter; you couldn't possibly have been aware that clicking a button on an internet forum would cause death.

Can you stop this now? Because your false equivalency is getting really annoying. No one in this thread has suggested that flirting, kissing or consensual sex are crimes. That is you trying to confound what we are talking about so that you don't have to own up to the point we are making:

Having sex with someone who doesn't consent is a crime, rape. It doesn't matter if I think the other person consents, it is still a crime. This is especially true when the victim has communicated their lack of consent (by saying "no"). This is not the same as killing someone by clicking the post-button, because in Warren Farrell's original example the man is willingly disregarding the expression of non-consent because he thinks it isn't valid. The difference is massive and I'd kindly ask you to stop with the inane (and irrelevant) comparisons.

Agema:

Blablahb:
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.

Again with this shit. It is not weird at all.

If, for instance, you sign a contract, misunderstand what it says and without intent break its terms, you can be held legally liable. If you accidentally drive your car into someone else's, you are liable for the insurance claim. If you accidentally kill someone, you are liable for manslaughter. If you rape someone without intent, you have committed rape.

Since we're talking about cases where there is ambiguity i don't think so. Do you honestly think that if you breached a part of a contract that was really ambiguous it would be that clear cut? Don't you think the judge would look at how the contract was written to see if confusion may have arisen? I think there is a reason why contracts are usually extremely precise/clear.

also: "Courts frequently interpret an ambiguous contract term against the interests of the party who prepared the contract and created the ambiguity. " So basically your analogy just came back at you.

And i would also like to note that the insurance example is quite broken because in cases where insurances have to intervene there must be one or more guilty. You'll never have an accident where no one is responsible or liable, that's the nature of the whole contract. That's not like with sexual intercourse where in most cases no one is liable of anything.

Blablahb:
Bad comparison. It was written down for all to see, so you could've known. People unfairly accused of sexual assault due to conflicting or lacking communication couldn't have known. I've said that eight or nine times now.

Yes, you have said that eight or nine times. That means you have been disturbingly wrong eight or nine times, and you're not getting any better.

Comparisons exist to illustrate a point, and necessarily involve some differences. That you refuse to observe the relevant parallel in favour of tangential fluff merely indicates you are not intellectually honest. But you know, I'm not surprised, I've seen people trying to dodge points that way for decades: as feeble as it is, it's a common way to weasel out.

Do you know what the standard of law is? The standard of law says that if you commit a crime, the only excuse is to have no good reason to think you might be committing a crime.

It is the simplest reasoning in the world to realise that "mixed messages", which means that to some extent someone is saying NO, gives you good reason to believe that person might be saying no. Lack of communication is not a good excuse either: what reason do you have to assume consent or agreement when it is not given? Do you think you can hand someone a contract and act on it without waiting for them to accept and sign it? The law disagrees with you. Very clearly.

ManUpManDown:
No, evil, you utterly missed the point.

This..

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

..is a correct interpretation of what Farrell said.

However, it does not change a anything because it is still the same point which I, and I'm guessing anyone who can read, already took from Farrell's statement. It's the same point which some of us have been objecting to in this thread. Exactly the same point. All you have done is to rephrase the point so that it sounds more reasonable to you. However, it does not sound more reasonable to me because you are saying the same thing Warren Farrell did. You have not changed my perception, and I doubt you have the changed the perception of anyone who has been objecting to what Farrell said, you have simply repeated his point as if doing so will suddenly make it okay. It hasn't worked, it means exactly the same thing which we've all assumed it did from the original text.

I'm getting slightly tired of having this crap repeated over and over again as if the only barrier to my agreeing with it is not having basic reading comprehension. I understand it, I agree with your interpretation, it's still a terrible and deeply offensive point with no merit, therefore I don't agree with it. Sorry. You're going to have to do better than that.

ManUpManDown:
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.

You really shouldn't try to explain my own area of expertise to me, particularly if your sources are going to be limited to wikipedia and common sense.

First and foremost, there's no such thing as "patriarchy theory" because patriarchy has never been a unified theory. It's a term used by some feminist academics (actually, a distinct minority of them) which has very different meanings depending on context. When you think of it, you are doubtless thinking of the adoption of the term by radical feminists in the 1970s, but it was by no means universal.

However, there has been a basic problem which all feminist theory has had to deal with, that in terms of productivity, social value, personal autonomy, wealth, security and freedom, male socialization has historically (and arguably still is) enormously advantageous. In history, this is absolutely explicit, it's not even something which has to be interpreted from social trends, not that it was particularly difficult to do that in the 1970s. It may be more difficult today, but I'll get to that in a minute.

Contrary to what you believe "patriarchy" (in this broader, colloquial sense, not the academic sense which was actually pretty confined to the work of a small number of people) means, this has always been accompanied by an acknowledgement that, despite these seeming advantages, males are still harmed by their own sex role, particularly in terms of their emotional development, personal happiness and life expectations. All throughout this century men we have had male liberationists groups forming around the suffragette (and later the feminist) movements to promote the idea that breaking down these traditional sex roles will be of personal benefit to men. It's only really a very small number of feminist separatists or "difference feminists", primarily confined to the 1980s who have ever really explicitly challenged this notion.

The thing you need to understand is that academic feminism really, really changed in the 1990s (as did wider cultural feminism). In fact, to be a bit dramatic, you could say that the entire foundation of what had, up until that point, been academic feminism (the belief in "women" as a valid object of inquiry) was completely blown out of the water. The ideas here are pretty complicated so I won't go into them unless you want, but suffice to say, do you ever wonder why "Women's Studies" has pretty much died and been replaced by "Gender Studies"? Well, this is why. Traditional Women's Studies perspectives generally don't fit the environment we find ourselves in as well as contemporary Gender Studies perspectives, and this is why you will pretty much never hear anyone in academia today talking uncritically about "patriarchy". HM is a better theoretical perspective because it is currently the only one which offers a convincing explanation for the world we live in. It's not really an explicitly "feminist" idea, it's not confined to "academic feminism". Indeed, it's pretty hard to talk about what "academic feminism" has actually been over the last 20 years or so. HM certainly owes a debt to wider gender theory, which itself owes a debt to academic feminism, but it originated in sociological research and is not reliant on any particular "assumptions" which are not well grounded within wider sociological theory, not just some "fringe" group of feminist academics.

Incidentally, the "hegemony" in this case comes from Gramsci, not from Marx, and refers to specifically to one point Gramsci made, which is that "hegemony" is not the same thing as "oppression". Hegemony doesn't have to be coerced, it manifests as "common sense" understandings of the world. The actual term used by Connell and the other Australian researchers who popularized it is not Marxist at all, if you were going to slap an arbitrary "school" on it, it would be structuralist, but it is not Marxist except in the broadest possible sense of being a conflict-oriented socioligical perspective.

The term is ubiquitous across a wide range of disciplines today because it works. Not perfectly, people have criticized it extensively and in some cases suggested improvements which might be made, but it's still the best theory we have at the present time.

ManUpManDown:
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).

No, it doesn't. This has been right there since the very first use of the term.

But the way you've expressed it is a chicken and egg argument. If women "have a tremendous impact" on men's sexual behaviour, then where does women's sexual behaviour actually come from in the first place? Do women just spontaneously generate sexual behaviour from nothing? No, they don't. The sexual behaviour of both sexes is based on situational norms which are socialized by society as a whole, not just randomly created during the actual sex act, but born of a huge amount of prior socialization including large ammounts of homosocial interaction. Men do talk about sex with each other, men do learn about how to behave from watching other men.

The fucking hilarious thing here is that we agree on almost all of the important things. The only point I disagree with you on is this weird idea that women somehow autonomously generate sexual norms which men simply have to follow. Now, could you stop pretending that I'm not agreeing with you on everything else, because HM actually describes what you're saying pretty perfectly in that regard. Again, just because I'm not being sympathetic doesn't mean I've failed to understand your point.

ManUpManDown:
That is, how does it tip the scales in your favor when it comes to defining and punishing rape?

It doesn't. I didn't use it to make a point, I used it as a descriptive term to explain a point and for some reason you seem to have taken more issue with the terminology than the actual point. I'll get to the point in a minute when you're ready to stop talking about the terminology.

You made the claim, in explaing Farrell, that women are responsible for creating men's sexual behaviour. I pointed out that this is untrue, and that homosocial interaction is extremely important in creating cultural norms. Again, men do talk to each other about sex. Do you disagree? Because what you have said seems imply that you do not think it happens, or at least that it isn't important in how men will react to particular types of behaviour. Do you see the problem with that yet?

ManUpManDown:
The essentialism is in your imagination, as you're reading way too much into my choice of words.

There's a certain irony here which I probably shouldn't have to explain.

Sorry, but you did say "women do this" like it should matter in all interactions. I know damn well that you were talking about a tiny number of women in a study which Farrell is taking out of context to make a point, but you (and he) made an essential claim based on that, and you have yet to explain to me how it has any reason to be considered an essential or universal feature of heterosexual intercourse given that I've certainly never encountered such a thing.

ManUpManDown:
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.

It's not a straw man, it's still the logical implication of what you are saying. If men's understanding of what is "reasonable" behaviour in a given situation is only a product of that particular situation, then what you're actually saying is that anyone who is raped and whose attacker displays any belief in consent must have been sending overt mixed signals.

That's not true. If someone stays over at my house and they pass out and I decide that it's acceptable to have sex with them because surely they wouldn't have come to my house if that wasn't what they wanted, that's not them deliberately sending me mixed signals (they are unconscious). The man who does that is not reacting like that because the woman (or man, let's not be narrow minded) in question was a tease, he's reacting to a (highly unreasonable) understanding of "normal" behaviour which pre-dates the current encounter.

The logical outcome of what you are saying is that any contact with a man at all should be able to be legally interpreted as consent if the man in question believes it to be such, i.e. the Morgan Defence. That is a terrible way to look at this issue, there is no reason why we should not expect a basic standard of reasonable behaviour from men despite the fact that they may not be personally responsible for their incorrect understanding of consent, and there's no reason why this has to be incompatible with the idea (which I really don't think anyone knowledgeable is advocating getting rid of) that a person who has significant reason to believe that reasonable belief in consent means that no crime has been committed. Rape law reform is a much more nuanced issue than you seem to be trying to pretend.

There. That is the point about rape, irrelevant terminological arguments aside. That is why I can't agree with what Farrell is saying, and why I regard it as incredibly simplistic to simply assume that in any case where a man did not know his partner did not consented was automatically down to women deliberately sending "mixed signals".

I mean, how the fuck would that even work? Are you suggesting that women actually always want to be penetrated even if they say they don't, so whenever they claim to have been raped they are lying to themselves? How is this meant to work?

ManUpManDown:
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."

Except when they actually are simplistic.

I've been keeping my mouth shut about the generic anti-intellectualism in your posts so far, but really.. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that it doesn't help you or your cause, no matter how many genetic fallacies you slap onto it.

If your theoretical approach is so self-evident that it doesn't have to engage with any existing ideas then you should be able to prove that. Show your theory addresses specific flaws in prevailing understanding, not through empty polemic and appealing to self-interest, but by actually making a serious case.

Don't just pretend you don't have to engage with something because it comes from a "biased" source, particularly when your only evidence for that source being biased is that it doesn't share your conclusions. "Feminist theory" did not become a mainstream body of academic theory (and certainly did not become the basis for our current understanding of gender theory) because it made a claim to self-evidence which it couldn't back up.

generals3:
snip

Oh lordy.

Firstly, a comparison or allegory works within the parameters set. If you rework the comparison to instead identify a different comparison, you may do so, but you cannot then use that to say the original one is wrong. It is, like I said to Blahlblahb above, indicative of not wanting to deal with the actual issue presented; essentially a straw man.

I shouldn't really need to explain the driving allegory, but as you're having so much trouble think of it this way: the equivalent to having sex would be driving. The equivalent to consensual sex is driving without having an accident. The equivalent to rape is driving and having an accident.

None of that really matters a damn. The point of the examples is to demonstrate very simple principles of how breaking the law unintentionally (which includes ignorance) does not actually excuse you from the legal repercussions of breaking the law.

There are a handful of exceptions to this rule (e.g. an insanity plea).

Only one really might apply - which is where someone has very good reason to believe they were not committing a crime. However, (in UK law at least) it is attendant on the accused to show a legal burden of proof (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt) that they should be excused. It is obvious that "ambiguity" does not at all meet the criteria of having good reason at all: ambiguous means you don't really know.

Agema:

Oh lordy.

Firstly, a comparison or allegory works within the parameters set. If you rework the comparison to instead identify a different comparison, you may do so, but you cannot then use that to say the original one is wrong. It is, like I said to Blahlblahb above, indicative of not wanting to deal with the actual issue presented; essentially a straw man.

I shouldn't really need to explain the driving allegory, but as you're having so much trouble think of it this way: the equivalent to having sex would be driving. The equivalent to consensual sex is driving without having an accident. The equivalent to rape is driving and having an accident.

None of that really matters a damn. The point of the examples is to demonstrate very simple principles of how breaking the law unintentionally (which includes ignorance) does not actually excuse you from the legal repercussions of breaking the law.

There are a handful of exceptions to this rule (e.g. an insanity plea).

Only one really might apply - which is where someone has very good reason to believe they were not committing a crime. However, (in UK law at least) it is attendant on the accused to show a legal burden of proof (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt) that they should be excused. It is obvious that "ambiguity" does not at all meet the criteria of having good reason at all: ambiguous means you don't really know.

Intention may not always (mind that in certain cases it will, if someone jumps in front of my car and i hit him and he dies i'll probably go off free) excuse from any legal repercussions but intention does very often determine what the repercussions will be. Killing someone for instance can go from getting away with it to getting charged with murder. The problem me and many have is that some want to put all the situations in the "rape" category and punish people accordingly. Surely the UK doesn't treat cases of Involuntary manslaughter the same as plain murder?

generals3:
The problem me and many have is that some want to put all the situations in the "rape" category and punish people accordingly. Surely the UK doesn't treat cases of Involuntary manslaughter the same as plain murder?

Neither does the UK treat or sentence all cases of "rape" in exactly the same way.

Possible sentences for rape range from about a year in prison to life without parole. The idea that everyone is treated the same irrespective of the specifics of their crime simply because it has the same name is just not true and doesn't hold up. Similarly, the idea that simply having a different crime would lead to different treatment is also not true.. We have a separate offence called "Assault By Penetration" which is functionally identical to rape in its conditions and sentencing guidelines.

But yeah.. If you penetrate someone with your dick without having reasonable belief in consent (i.e. an affirmative and justifiable belief, not "don't know" or "just guessed" or "because three weeks ago she smiled at me") then it is rape, as laid down in the sexual offences act 2003. You can actually read the text of the act online.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents

evilthecat:

generals3:
The problem me and many have is that some want to put all the situations in the "rape" category and punish people accordingly. Surely the UK doesn't treat cases of Involuntary manslaughter the same as plain murder?

Neither does the UK treat or sentence all cases of "rape" in exactly the same way.

Possible sentences for rape range from about a year in prison to life without parole. The idea that everyone is treated the same irrespective of the specifics of their crime simply because it has the same name is just not true and doesn't hold up. Similarly, the idea that simply having a different crime would lead to different treatment is also not true.. We have a separate offence called "Assault By Penetration" which is functionally identical to rape in its conditions and sentencing guidelines.

But yeah.. If you penetrate someone with your dick without having reasonable belief in consent (i.e. an affirmative and justifiable belief, not "don't know" or "just guessed" or "because three weeks ago she smiled at me") then it is rape, as laid down in the sexual offences act 2003. You can actually read the text of the act online.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents

But you still have the social sentence. Being branded as a rapist is not something that you can just shrug away, hence the importance to make a clear distinction between those with malicious intents and those without. Why that desire to destroy one's life for making a communication mistake? That someone like Marc Dutroux gets cast away by society seems fair but a random dude who didn't want to hurt anyone?

generals3:
That someone like Marc Dutroux gets cast away by society seems fair but a random dude who didn't want to hurt anyone?

But they did hurt someone, through their own negligence no less.. and if they were convicted then it's pretty clear that they were negligent in some way, because reasonable belief is an acceptable defence. But in this case someone else still has to suffer the consequences of their actions because they did not act in a reasonable manner, and that in itself is a crime. It's a crime which does enormous harm to people, and it's not necessarily easier for the victim to deal with than the generic "jumped on by a stranger in a dark alleyway" narrative.

Moreover, at present, you don't have to tell anyone (outside of the normal obligation to provide data regarding previous convictions) you have been convicted of rape or served time for it. Accessing your police records outside of very particular circumstances is a crime. You certainly don't have to tell anyone you have been acquitted of rape. If you choose to do so, it is at your discretion.

As mentioned repeatedly, these kinds of rape cases are not high profile events unless the people involved are extremely famous. They are not going to be widely publicized. While the effect on your immediate friends and family may be unpredictable, so are the effects of taking someone else to court for having raped you. Regardless, there's no significant chance for most of us that anyone is going to seriously remember us even in the unlikely event of a conviction.

Your life can very easily be "ruined" by mistakes, especially if those mistakes have serious consequences for other people. The law can't really account for that in its entirety. Perhaps it could do more to protect the privacy of people in these positions, but I think that's a wider discussion we need to have about the entire criminal justice system, it's not something specific to rape.

Blablahb:

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

Because not everybody is limited to your idea about sexuality.

I know, it's shocking.

ratzofftoya:
Yeah, I read her post, and saw nothing indicating it was consensual in the least.

So flirting with someone is no indication of any sort of affections? Our definitions of human communication must be very different, but I'd insist yours is wrong. If you get intimate with someone, that shows you wanted to get intimate with someone.

Getting intimate with someone, and then running away crying 'ohnoes, he got intimate with me!' like she did is a major dickmove, and shows she has some serious assertiveness issues as well as a tendency to blame others for her problems.

If someone doesn't open their mouth, they're the only one responsible for there being no communication. She never expressed any form of changing her mind not being okay with it, so her accusations are rubbish.

ratzofftoya:
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.

You're wrong. She said nothing from which he could've deduced that. If she keeps her mouth tightly shut outside of flirting, how can he be expected to know?

How about this...If you are the type of person who

a.)agrees to fake-rape people without ever meeting them face-to-face
or
b.)takes flirting to be a sign that you ought to whip your cock out in a bar and put the flirter's hand on it

you agree that you're gonna possibly rape someone. Me, I try to live my life the old-fashioned way. You know, I don't agree to violently fuck someone from anonymous internet posts, and I keep my penis safely in my pants while I'm at a bar.

The world isn't built to facilitate maximum pleasure for your dick. If you think it is, then you just may (without actually wanting to, perhaps) rape someone.

generals3:

evilthecat:

generals3:
The problem me and many have is that some want to put all the situations in the "rape" category and punish people accordingly. Surely the UK doesn't treat cases of Involuntary manslaughter the same as plain murder?

Neither does the UK treat or sentence all cases of "rape" in exactly the same way.

Possible sentences for rape range from about a year in prison to life without parole. The idea that everyone is treated the same irrespective of the specifics of their crime simply because it has the same name is just not true and doesn't hold up. Similarly, the idea that simply having a different crime would lead to different treatment is also not true.. We have a separate offence called "Assault By Penetration" which is functionally identical to rape in its conditions and sentencing guidelines.

But yeah.. If you penetrate someone with your dick without having reasonable belief in consent (i.e. an affirmative and justifiable belief, not "don't know" or "just guessed" or "because three weeks ago she smiled at me") then it is rape, as laid down in the sexual offences act 2003. You can actually read the text of the act online.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/contents

But you still have the social sentence. Being branded as a rapist is not something that you can just shrug away, hence the importance to make a clear distinction between those with malicious intents and those without. Why that desire to destroy one's life for making a communication mistake? That someone like Marc Dutroux gets cast away by society seems fair but a random dude who didn't want to hurt anyone?

I haven't seen one single case yet where someone is told "yes, let's have sex, I'm soooooo ready and enthusiastic about having sex with you," and is then branded a rapist for following up with that. Anything short of that, and you're risking a communication mistake. And any such mistake may very well lead to you being branded a rapist because you decided to have sex in a case of ambiguous consent. If you want to roll the dice, you've got to accept the seven, mate.

ratzofftoya:

I haven't seen one single case yet where someone is told "yes, let's have sex, I'm soooooo ready and enthusiastic about having sex with you," and is then branded a rapist for following up with that. Anything short of that, and you're risking a communication mistake. And any such mistake may very well lead to you being branded a rapist because you decided to have sex in a case of ambiguous consent. If you want to roll the dice, you've got to accept the seven, mate.

Funny thing is that i had 0 sexual encounters where such words were used at all. To think of it consent was never explicitly verbally acknowledged. I guess that puts me and all those women at a risk of being rapists. Oh-oh.

Let's be real for a while. consent is actually rarely acknowledged verbally to begin with. Usually it's the context and body language that make the consent quite clear. But since interpretations can vary problems can arise.

But why limit ourselves to demanding everyone to use verbal confirmation. I say we roll out the paperwork. Having to ask everything to be 100% sure about what can and cannot is a mood killer already, we might as well finish it off with some 50 page long agreements with what can and cannot.

generals3:

But you still have the social sentence. Being branded as a rapist is not something that you can just shrug away, hence the importance to make a clear distinction between those with malicious intents and those without. Why that desire to destroy one's life for making a communication mistake? That someone like Marc Dutroux gets cast away by society seems fair but a random dude who didn't want to hurt anyone?

So, I work as a Registered Nurse. Just in case you are unaware of it, I have a license to work as a Registered Nurse in Sweden. This license can get suspended or even revoked if I show gross negligence at my job, whatever it is because I overdosed medication, broke confidentiality (compare to the RN who commited suicide in the UK last week after she disclosed confidential patient information during a prank call from a radio station) or in some other way broke the legal or ethical codes regulating my line of work.

It took me three years of college education to get my license. If I screw up I could lose it in just a few days, potentially ruining my life both economically and socially as well as ruining my chances of a career (do you want to hire a nurse who's negligence killed a patient or who has a tendency to divulge confidential information?). All this because I wanted to dedicate my working life to helping people, not hurt them. Is it fair? I don't know. But I do know that what I think doesn't matter, because if one of my patients dies or suffers serious harm because I messed up then "I didn't mean to" isn't much of a consolation for the patient or the patients relatives. Same thing with rape victims. It doesn't matter if a rapist didn't mean to rape someone, because that's what happened and the victim will most likely be traumatized irregardless of the perpetrators intent.

Ironically, studies in Sweden shows that most convicted rapists do not face severe social repercussions when accused or convicted of rape. In fact, it is more likely that the victim will end up facing severe social problems then the rapists. Yet the point you and most others on your side of the discussion seems to be making is that the women who get raped this way are responsible for their own predicament...

EDIT:

generals3:

Funny thing is that i had 0 sexual encounters where such words were used at all. To think of it consent was never explicitly verbally acknowledged. I guess that puts me and all those women at a risk of being rapists. Oh-oh.

Let's be real for a while. consent is actually rarely acknowledged verbally to begin with. Usually it's the context and body language that make the consent quite clear. But since interpretations can vary problems can arise.

But why limit ourselves to demanding everyone to use verbal confirmation. I say we roll out the paperwork. Having to ask everything to be 100% sure about what can and cannot is a mood killer already, we might as well finish it off with some 50 page long agreements with what can and cannot.

Don't change the permutations of the discussion. The discussion is about a situation where there is a verbalized non-consent going on (a "no"), not a situation where the "conflicting" message of being unwilling to engage in intercourse is absent. I don't think anyone so far has argued that verbal consent is imperative all of the time, but that if a verbal denial is present then it should be treated as very serious.

Also, ridicule is unbecoming. If that's the best you've got to reply with at this point then you really ought to step away from the discussion and find some proper argument or just concede.

Gethsemani:

generals3:

Funny thing is that i had 0 sexual encounters where such words were used at all. To think of it consent was never explicitly verbally acknowledged. I guess that puts me and all those women at a risk of being rapists. Oh-oh.

Let's be real for a while. consent is actually rarely acknowledged verbally to begin with. Usually it's the context and body language that make the consent quite clear. But since interpretations can vary problems can arise.

But why limit ourselves to demanding everyone to use verbal confirmation. I say we roll out the paperwork. Having to ask everything to be 100% sure about what can and cannot is a mood killer already, we might as well finish it off with some 50 page long agreements with what can and cannot.

Don't change the permutations of the discussion. The discussion is about a situation where there is a verbalized non-consent going on (a "no"), not a situation where the "conflicting" message of being unwilling to engage in intercourse is absent. I don't think anyone so far has argued that verbal consent is imperative all of the time, but that if a verbal denial is present then it should be treated as very serious.

Also, ridicule is unbecoming. If that's the best you've got to reply with at this point then you really ought to step away from the discussion and find some proper argument or just concede.

If you'd read what we discussed (me and him) you'd realize the discussion has shifted a bit. (that tends to happen)

I suggest you particularly re-read this: "I haven't seen one single case yet where someone is told "yes, let's have sex, I'm soooooo ready and enthusiastic about having sex with you," and is then branded a rapist for following up with that. Anything short of that, and you're risking a communication mistake"

And you say ridicule is unbecoming. Well i'm sorry but i found his statement just as ridiculous as my suggestion to roll out the paperwork. Because yes, based on my experience suggesting that you require such explicit verbal consent is ridiculous to say the least.

If anything my statement is helpful for him to understand my perspective because he will most definitely consider it as ridiculous as i consider his suggestion to require explicit verbal consent.

Gethsemani:

generals3:

But you still have the social sentence. Being branded as a rapist is not something that you can just shrug away, hence the importance to make a clear distinction between those with malicious intents and those without. Why that desire to destroy one's life for making a communication mistake? That someone like Marc Dutroux gets cast away by society seems fair but a random dude who didn't want to hurt anyone?

So, I work as a Registered Nurse. Just in case you are unaware of it, I have a license to work as a Registered Nurse in Sweden. This license can get suspended or even revoked if I show gross negligence at my job, whatever it is because I overdosed medication, broke confidentiality (compare to the RN who commited suicide in the UK last week after she disclosed confidential patient information during a prank call from a radio station) or in some other way broke the legal or ethical codes regulating my line of work.

It took me three years of college education to get my license. If I screw up I could lose it in just a few days, potentially ruining my life both economically and socially as well as ruining my chances of a career (do you want to hire a nurse who's negligence killed a patient or who has a tendency to divulge confidential information?). All this because I wanted to dedicate my working life to helping people, not hurt them. Is it fair? I don't know. But I do know that what I think doesn't matter, because if one of my patients dies or suffers serious harm because I messed up then "I didn't mean to" isn't much of a consolation for the patient or the patients relatives. Same thing with rape victims. It doesn't matter if a rapist didn't mean to rape someone, because that's what happened and the victim will most likely be traumatized irregardless of the perpetrators intent.

Ironically, studies in Sweden shows that most convicted rapists do not face severe social repercussions when accused or convicted of rape. In fact, it is more likely that the victim will end up facing severe social problems then the rapists. Yet the point you and most others on your side of the discussion seems to be making is that the women who get raped this way are responsible for their own predicament...

I'm not really sure what your job has to do with it. But since you're basically in a position to bring people's lives into danger it seems quite normal strict rules are required to ensure no mistakes are done.

Also i would like to note i never said the women themselves were solely responsible. To refresh the memory, at the beginning of this long discussion i stated that the problem was that due to constant use of "no" to mean "yes" the word "no" lost a lot of meaning in such a context. Which ultimately resulted in some "no's" (which were meant to be no's) to be misinterpreted as yes's. And my suggestion was to stop bastardizing the word no so that it would regain its original meaning to avoid confusion. So the individual who got "abused" isn't the one responsible it's everyone who bastardized the word "no". And since we were talking about when men made the mistake "everyone who..." became "all the women who...".

generals3:

ratzofftoya:

I haven't seen one single case yet where someone is told "yes, let's have sex, I'm soooooo ready and enthusiastic about having sex with you," and is then branded a rapist for following up with that. Anything short of that, and you're risking a communication mistake. And any such mistake may very well lead to you being branded a rapist because you decided to have sex in a case of ambiguous consent. If you want to roll the dice, you've got to accept the seven, mate.

Funny thing is that i had 0 sexual encounters where such words were used at all. To think of it consent was never explicitly verbally acknowledged. I guess that puts me and all those women at a risk of being rapists. Oh-oh.

Let's be real for a while. consent is actually rarely acknowledged verbally to begin with. Usually it's the context and body language that make the consent quite clear. But since interpretations can vary problems can arise.

But why limit ourselves to demanding everyone to use verbal confirmation. I say we roll out the paperwork. Having to ask everything to be 100% sure about what can and cannot is a mood killer already, we might as well finish it off with some 50 page long agreements with what can and cannot.

If you choose to proceed based on anything less than express verbal or written consent, you might be raping the person. If you ain't down with that, don't fuck. What is so hard about this concept?

generals3:

I'm not really sure what your job has to do with it. But since you're basically in a position to bring people's lives into danger it seems quite normal strict rules are required to ensure no mistakes are done.

Also i would like to note i never said the women themselves were solely responsible. To refresh the memory, at the beginning of this long discussion i stated that the problem was that due to constant use of "no" to mean "yes" the word "no" lost a lot of meaning in such a context. Which ultimately resulted in some "no's" (which were meant to be no's) to be misinterpreted as yes's. And my suggestion was to stop bastardizing the word no so that it would regain its original meaning to avoid confusion. So the individual who got "abused" isn't the one responsible it's everyone who bastardized the word "no". And since we were talking about when men made the mistake "everyone who..." became "all the women who...".

Similar concept as you propose (No intention to harm, end result is harm to the victim/patient and a potentially disastrous social situation for the rapist/nurse), I was merely bringing it into perspective. If you will, I was affirming that I understand exactly what you say as I go to work with a similar situation hanging over me every day, yet I still don't think it is cause enough to let the perpetrator of a rape get off on "lacking intent".

And as I've pointed out in several posts, which you've consequently failed to address, your idea of what the "reasons" are or solution is so simplistic as to lack value. I've explained the problematic social structures around it and you've never replied to that. I've also not gotten a satisfactory reply as to why a man should be allowed to disregard the "no" irregardless of whatever the woman means it or not. Are men just that desperate to fuck that they can't back off and wait until they find a woman who isn't sending "mixed signals" or is it some sort of entitlement; "I've gotten this far with her, so now I deserve to score"?

ratzofftoya:

If you choose to proceed based on anything less than express verbal or written consent, you might be raping the person. If you ain't down with that, don't fuck. What is so hard about this concept?

I never said your concept is hard. It's just ridiculous to expect people to go by it considering how average Joe and Jeanine act. Usually people don't ask for explicit verbal consent, it's either something that feels awkward to ask, redundant or doesn't cross their mind. (And this goes both ways btw)

generals3:

Intention may not always (mind that in certain cases it will, if someone jumps in front of my car and i hit him and he dies i'll probably go off free) excuse from any legal repercussions but intention does very often determine what the repercussions will be. Killing someone for instance can go from getting away with it to getting charged with murder. The problem me and many have is that some want to put all the situations in the "rape" category and punish people accordingly. Surely the UK doesn't treat cases of Involuntary manslaughter the same as plain murder?

Well, sure. It there are a lot of mitigating factors, you'll get a very small sentence. I'm not totally sure, but to the best of my memory you can rape someone in the UK and potentially not even get jail time if the judge takes a liking to your case. For the most part, however, we cannot create an "accidental crime" version of every crime on the books because it is impractical. Murder/manslaughter is an exception not a rule.

Realistically, however, we're talking about something that barely, if ever, happens.

What do you think usually happens when a woman wanders into a police station and reports she was raped, but there are no witnesses, and frequently no clear physical sign? It goes onto crime report statistics, and nothing more. In some cases, they might, I guess, interview the suspect (who will deny it, naturally) before wrapping it up because the case won't go anywhere. Once you've got to the point where two people went to a home together, got in bed together and got steamy together, there's virtually nothing that can be done if one ended up raped without having given consent.

Even in those incredibly few cases it does get to trial, nary a suspect in the land, particularly with extensive coaching from his lawyer, would concede ambiguity such as we've been discussing above whilst in the dock. Not unless, perhaps, his conscience drove him to own up. He'd walk free on the grounds that rape could not be proven.

This is the ground reality. The odds are massively, massively stacked against a victim getting justice in such a case. In the UK, 50,000 (estimated) are raped every year. Under 15,000 report it. Just over 1000 suspects go to trial. About half of those are convicted. Like I said, these are ones with compelling supporting evidence: witnesses, assault, etc.

Consequently, let's face it, something approximating fuck all men whatsoever are at serious risk of being brought to trial, never mind being convicted over the sorts of situation we've been discussing. A miniscule few are prominent enough to make the investigation embarrassing on the way. And you know what: even if we all agreed ambiguity counted as no, for the reasons above there still would be negligibly more trials or convictions.

generals3:

ratzofftoya:

If you choose to proceed based on anything less than express verbal or written consent, you might be raping the person. If you ain't down with that, don't fuck. What is so hard about this concept?

I never said your concept is hard. It's just ridiculous to expect people to go by it considering how average Joe and Jeanine act. Usually people don't ask for explicit verbal consent, it's either something that feels awkward to ask, redundant or doesn't cross their mind. (And this goes both ways btw)

Uhm, no. It's not ridiculous to "go by it." It may be ridiculous to require that people obtain express consent. But there's no such requirement. You are not required to do anything. It's just that if you don't, the consequence is that you may be mistaken in your judgment that the other person wants sex. Then you are a rapist. It's a perfect system. It works. It benefits all parties. That's why we have it.

Gethsemani:

And as I've pointed out in several posts, which you've consequently failed to address, your idea of what the "reasons" are or solution is so simplistic as to lack value. I've explained the problematic social structures around it and you've never replied to that. I've also not gotten a satisfactory reply as to why a man should be allowed to disregard the "no" irregardless of whatever the woman means it or not. Are men just that desperate to fuck that they can't back off and wait until they find a woman who isn't sending "mixed signals" or is it some sort of entitlement; "I've gotten this far with her, so now I deserve to score"?

That last sentence made me go "lolwut?" because i really don't know where that came from. This is not about entitlement this about a social problematic and the potential consequences of faulty communication. And you seem to claim that certain social constructs prevent women from stopping to use the word "no" when actually meaning "yes". I could easily make such an argument to defend the male position of not just giving up upon getting a no because it can be a sign of weakness, cowardice and what not. However since we're talking about a social problem it is obvious that certain social structures have to be changed if we were to want to fix it. What i suggest is to stop bastardizing a word to such a point its meaning becomes unclear in certain situations. Meanwhile you ask that the receiver of the message disregards everything but the dictionary meaning of the word. Personally, I think it is much more useful to make the senders of the messages to stop encrypting the messages. Mainly because cases where the message were wrongly decrypted are most certainly in a minority and that your method as such would punish a vast majority (forcing men to stop decrypting and just gtfo (so to speak)), both men and women. Meanwhile if we stop encrypting messages decryption would become irrelevant by default. Let's fix the action, not the reaction.

ratzofftoya:

generals3:

ratzofftoya:

If you choose to proceed based on anything less than express verbal or written consent, you might be raping the person. If you ain't down with that, don't fuck. What is so hard about this concept?

I never said your concept is hard. It's just ridiculous to expect people to go by it considering how average Joe and Jeanine act. Usually people don't ask for explicit verbal consent, it's either something that feels awkward to ask, redundant or doesn't cross their mind. (And this goes both ways btw)

Uhm, no. It's not ridiculous to "go by it." It may be ridiculous to require that people obtain express consent. But there's no such requirement. You are not required to do anything. It's just that if you don't, the consequence is that you may be mistaken in your judgment that the other person wants sex. Then you are a rapist. It's a perfect system. It works. It benefits all parties. That's why we have it.

But it's not perfect. That's the whole issue. What if in a drunken night you forgot to ask for that express consent and shit hits back the next day. Surely you wouldn't feel it's fair to be associated with rapists, you know you're not that kind of guy who doesn't give a shit about the willingness to have intercourse of others, yet that's with whom you'll get associated.

generals3:

ratzofftoya:

generals3:

I never said your concept is hard. It's just ridiculous to expect people to go by it considering how average Joe and Jeanine act. Usually people don't ask for explicit verbal consent, it's either something that feels awkward to ask, redundant or doesn't cross their mind. (And this goes both ways btw)

Uhm, no. It's not ridiculous to "go by it." It may be ridiculous to require that people obtain express consent. But there's no such requirement. You are not required to do anything. It's just that if you don't, the consequence is that you may be mistaken in your judgment that the other person wants sex. Then you are a rapist. It's a perfect system. It works. It benefits all parties. That's why we have it.

But it's not perfect. That's the whole issue. What if in a drunken night you forgot to ask for that express consent and shit hits back the next day. Surely you wouldn't feel it's fair to be associated with rapists.

Yeah. The person to whom it happens hardly ever feels fair. But from an objective point of view? I don't want to be associated with murderers either, but if I get behind the wheel when I'm drunk and run someone over, I'm a murderer. If you don't want to risk it, don't have sex when drunk. The consequences are that severe.

generals3:

ratzofftoya:

If you choose to proceed based on anything less than express verbal or written consent, you might be raping the person. If you ain't down with that, don't fuck. What is so hard about this concept?

I never said your concept is hard. It's just ridiculous to expect people to go by it considering how average Joe and Jeanine act. Usually people don't ask for explicit verbal consent, it's either something that feels awkward to ask, redundant or doesn't cross their mind. (And this goes both ways btw)

Negligence and/or incompetence is not an excuse for a lack of responsibility if it can be shown that a person was, at the very least, capable of recognizing the possible consequences of their actions. We do not let people get away with murder despite their sense of reason being potentially blinded by emotion and stress. The variations in the degree of punishment reflect the contingencies of the situation; however, just as a murder is still treated as a murder, a rape is still treated as a rape.

ratzofftoya:
Uhm, no. It's not ridiculous to "go by it." It may be ridiculous to require that people obtain express consent. But there's no such requirement. You are not required to do anything. It's just that if you don't, the consequence is that you may be mistaken in your judgment that the other person wants sex. Then you are a rapist. It's a perfect system. It works. It benefits all parties. That's why we have it.

You describe a system where a small miscommunication may land a man in prison for years, and in some countries then also destroy the rest of his life because his personal details are published, and you call that 'a perfect system'?

Merely the fact that there's false charges and misunderstandings should be sufficient to show that what you describe can never work. If we do as you describe, people would be thrown in prison if their partner regretted it later. Or like in the example I showed earlier, doesn't say anything at all.

If we do as you describe, such a situation where someone clearly consents with getting intimate, goes along with it, at no points says or indicates no, and falsely accuses someone later on, an innocent man would go to prison.


Also I'd like to point out something which some people may not have noticed clearly enough thus far, so it really needs to be stressed: Women have mouths. Really, they do. They can also speak. Women are capable of communication.

So a woman not communicating is not a valid excuse to throw an innocent person in jail. If that's the case, the accuser should've opened her mouth, plain and simple. Don't open your mouth, and you can't accuse anyone of ignoring what you said.

There's nothing far fetched or unfair about it: If you said nothing, you can't claim someone ignored what you said.

generals3:

But it's not perfect. That's the whole issue. What if in a drunken night you forgot to ask for that express consent and shit hits back the next day. Surely you wouldn't feel it's fair to be associated with rapists, you know you're not that kind of guy who doesn't give a shit about the willingness to have intercourse of others, yet that's with whom you'll get associated.

I am sure that the woman in question doesn't feel it is fair that she went out to have a good time and ended up being sexually assaulted and violated either. I am sorry, but as a whole host of us have already said: Don't want to take the chance of being associated with assault rapists? Don't have sex with women whom you can't be 100% certain want to sleep with you. But as Agema said, the chances of actually being convicted or even getting charged with rape is very, very slim and the chances of being stigmatized even less.

I honestly take offence from the fact that you are ready to dismiss a lot of rape victims and their trauma on the grounds that the perpetrator might not like being labeled a rapist. Don't feed me some bullshit about caring for the victims but me needing to see the plight of the perpetrator, because honestly he's getting away fucking lightly compared to the woman he raped.

Blablahb:

ratzofftoya:
Uhm, no. It's not ridiculous to "go by it." It may be ridiculous to require that people obtain express consent. But there's no such requirement. You are not required to do anything. It's just that if you don't, the consequence is that you may be mistaken in your judgment that the other person wants sex. Then you are a rapist. It's a perfect system. It works. It benefits all parties. That's why we have it.

You describe a system where a small miscommunication may land a man in prison for years, and in some countries then also destroy the rest of his life because his personal details are published, and you call that 'a perfect system'?

Yes. Because there's a perfectly easy to way to avoid ANY POSSIBILITY OF MISCOMMUNICATION. If you choose to forego a request for express consent, then you're putting opening yourself up to miscommunication. No one's forcing you to have sex (unless you're being raped, of course). No one's forcing you not to ask for consent. Your own laziness or awkwardness or whatever is stopping you from asking for consent is not something that should be recognized by the law.

Merely the fact that there's false charges and misunderstandings should be sufficient to show that what you describe can never work. If we do as you describe, people would be thrown in prison if their partner regretted it later. Or like in the example I showed earlier, doesn't say anything at all.

Yeah. That's why you ask before you shove your fucking dick in something. If they did provide consent and then lie about it in a courtroom, and the man goes to jail anyway, that's a flaw in our judicial system, not in the rape laws.

If we do as you describe, such a situation where someone clearly consents with getting intimate, goes along with it, at no points says or indicates no, and falsely accuses someone later on, an innocent man would go to prison.

So by "clearly consents," you mean says "yes, it's alright with you to have sex with me?" A false accusation can happen in any context. Our courts are supposed to recognize false accusations and deal with them accordingly. This is entirely irrelevant.

Also I'd like to point out something which some people may not have noticed clearly enough thus far, so it really needs to be stressed: Women have mouths. Really, they do. They can also speak. Women are capable of communication.

I don't see the point of you saying this. I didn't use gender in any of my posts or imply at all that women can't speak. Saying "please don't have sex with me" is a perfectly valid way of refusing sex.

So a woman not communicating is not a valid excuse to throw an innocent person in jail. If that's the case, the accuser should've opened her mouth, plain and simple. Don't open your mouth, and you can't accuse anyone of ignoring what you said.

There's nothing far fetched or unfair about it: If you said nothing, you can't claim someone ignored what you said.

OK. So you propose an "opt-out" fuck society. You'd like to put the burden ON THE VICTIM to stop the rape while it's happening by speaking up. Do you assume that everyone reads fucking Emily Post and has the acute social awareness of an Edwardian courtier, able to pick up on non-verbal hints and cues as though they were written decrees of DTFitude? Under your proposed plan, in which the onus is placed squarely on the shoulders OF THE VICTIM, he or she must overcome pervasive social pressure, possible physical pressure, fear, inebriation, or other obstacles to stop a rape.

Your (presumably white) male privilege is so fucking apparent, it's made me change the contrast on my monitor over here.

It sounds like what you're really trying to do here is to allow for more opportunities in which people can get away with having sex with other people who don't really want it but are unable (for physical or societal reasons) to say "no." Not sure if you're doing this out of self-interest or because you think it's better for society, but both reasons are equally gross.

What other reason could this possibly serve? What? Why? Why do you want to consciously make nonconsensual sex easier for people to execute?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked