U of T Protest: Warren Farrell = Hate Speech

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

Agema:
Why? Rape is rape.

Sexual Assault, Violent Rape, Date Rape, Statutory Rape. Is rape rape? Well... what kind of rape was it? I refuse to believe a narrative where every "rape" is the same thing.

Agema:
Just like murder is murder,

Murder in the 1st degree. Murder in the 2nd degree. Manslaughter. Self defense. Death row. Assisted suicide. A cop shooting a criminal. War. Is murder always murder? Hardly.

Agema:
men are men, women are women,

Are you some kind of transphobe or something? And are we talking about from a biological sense or a gender sense? Because that's a whole can of worms I'm just not going to fuck with today.

Agema:
and the planet Earth is the planet Earth.

Love the false equivalence; because giving a celestial body a proper noun is 'totally' similar to giving an action an adjective. You may has well start calling the moon Earth because it's totally a celestial body too!

Agema:
What you really mean is that you don't think what some people define as rape is rape in your opinion.

Correct.

Agema:
Inevitably in a means highly excusatory to men who have sex with women who don't want it.

Look, I'm not sure how I can make this any more clear; I do not excuse rapists, I merely disagree that they are rapists. I have personally had sex with others when I did not want to; I refuse to call them rapists. Think long and hard on that before you start chomping at the bit again.

Gethsemani:

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.

The fact you equate the lack of willingness to put good folks in jail with a willingness to dismiss the trauma of rape victims is despicable. And heck how would putting a good person with no malicious intentions in jail help the victim?

Unlike you i do not wish to cause even more harm than was initially caused by the situation. Branding a person with no malicious intents as a rapist and treating him as such would just cause more harm than good.

This said i wouldn't mind a certain kind of legal action against those "accidental rapists" (can't find any other words at the moment) which would be much less severe and more appropriate to the situation. And also a different word than "rape" to describe the infraction. Just like people who commit involuntary manslaughter don't get charged with murder.

ratzofftoya:
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. 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.

I don't think we can come to any sort of agreement here. By now I'm under the strong impression you don't know how human communication, especially the intimate part, works. If this was a simple issue, there'd be no issue. It is not a simple issue, it's complicated, and you can't fix it by shutting down mentally and demanding people as a manner of speaking ask someone to fill out a consent form every time they flirt with someone.
But you're really not going to convince me that we need to destroy lives over a small miscommunication, which may even be wholly the fault of the accuser. Not only is that extremely unjust, but it is also a slap in the face of actual rape victims, who see dramaqueens who regret what they did and file fake charges, or awkward drunks who flirt along don't say no and then cry foul afterwards, compared to what they went through.

Maybe another example can show you what I mean though: I have a cousin who's far from being an intellectual superpower. His IQ has been tested at 56 and 54. The limit below which a person is considered retarded (or fill in whatever politically correct term applies) is set at an IQ score 70. He's 14-16 points below that. I really wished it were different since I know how liberating being highly intelligent is, but he's not. He's turning 19 soon and still on a school that's the level of schooling halfway through primary school, and he's still struggling with reading and writing. To illustrate, he can not comprehend numbers. Give him three objects, ask him how many there are, and he has to count them one by one and tell you "There are one... two... three objects". Ask again ten seconds later and he has to do it again.

I've had to throw him out of a birtday celebration because he kept touching and squeezing the breasts of a girl there. Started out as a poking game, turned nasty, then that happened. He wouldn't stop despite the disapproval and outrage of his father, mother and all around. He threw off his father who tried to stop him, so in the end I had to drag him outside. We tried to get through to him just what he did, why it was more wrong than regular wrong, but I could tell nobody was getting through to him. He was 15 back then if I remember it right, so getting him off her was little trouble, but imagine if he's grown up...

You're arguing that if someone like that fails to notice a subtle signal, he's clearly of malicious intent and deserves to spend most of his life in prison?

That's kind of like arresting blind people for not watching out, or being angry at deaf people because they didn't hear what you said. Surely that's not what you're arguing?

ratzofftoya:
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.

It's a flaw you seem to want to create in the first place, because it would become a direct consequence of your point of view being put into practise.

ratzofftoya:
Yeah. That's why you ask before you shove your fucking dick in something.

We're talking about situations where people did ask, got yes, and it later either turned out she changed her mind and falsely accuses him to get out of own guilt, or it turns out to be misunderstanding where someone really couldn't have known better.

You can't hide behind 'you should ask'. Fifth time I'm repeating this, but if it was that simple, this discussion wouldn't have happened at all.

generals3:

The fact you equate the lack of willingness to put good folks in jail with a willingness to dismiss the trauma of rape victims is despicable. And heck how would putting a good person with no malicious intentions in jail help the victim?

Unlike you i do not wish to cause even more harm than was initially caused by the situation. Branding a person with no malicious intents as a rapist and treating him as such would just cause more harm than good.

This said i wouldn't mind a certain kind of legal action against those "accidental rapists" (can't find any other words at the moment) which would be much less severe and more appropriate to the situation. And also a different word than "rape" to describe the infraction. Just like people who commit involuntary manslaughter don't get charged with murder.

Giving the victim some sense that justice has been served and the violation of their right has been dealt with. Let me be frank here: Just recently a new twitter/facebook group was started in Sweden by a group of journalists, encouraging women that have been raped to report it to the police. Not because it is likely that anyone will be charged or convicted, but because it is a way of letting the victims move on, to acknowledge to themselves that they are victims of a crime and that they are not to blame (which is a very, very common occurrence among rape victims). I can only speak from my personal experience here and say that it was a great relief to report the crime to the police, even if the investigation was promptly closed due to a lack of evidence. By saying that you feel sorry for these men, that have "accidentally" raped someone, you are also implicitly saying that what they did wasn't so bad (not bad enough that they should have to face up to it, anyway). You are doing this in regards to a crime where an overwhelming majority of victims harbor deep feelings of guilt and self-resentment because of what happened. How do you think that makes us feel? To be told that the men who, potentially, ruined our lives and scarred us emotionally aren't really to blame for violating our bodies against our will? That we should be lenient and careful with what we call them? I feel it is deeply inconsiderate to the victims to try and diminish the guilt of the man who violated them sexually.

Blablahb:

ratzofftoya:
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. 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.

I don't think we can come to any sort of agreement here. By now I'm under the strong impression you don't know how human communication, especially the intimate part, works. If this was a simple issue, there'd be no issue. It is not a simple issue, it's complicated, and you can't fix it by shutting down mentally and demanding people as a manner of speaking ask someone to fill out a consent form every time they flirt with someone.
But you're really not going to convince me that we need to destroy lives over a small miscommunication, which may even be wholly the fault of the accuser. Not only is that extremely unjust, but it is also a slap in the face of actual rape victims, who see dramaqueens who regret what they did and file fake charges, or awkward drunks who flirt along don't say no and then cry foul afterwards, compared to what they went through.

Maybe another example can show you what I mean though: I have a cousin who's far from being an intellectual superpower. His IQ has been tested at 56 and 54. The limit below which a person is considered retarded (or fill in whatever politically correct term applies) is set at an IQ score 70. He's 14-16 points below that. I really wished it were different since I know how liberating being highly intelligent is, but he's not. He's turning 19 soon and still on a school that's the level of schooling halfway through primary school, and he's still struggling with reading and writing. To illustrate, he can not comprehend numbers. Give him three objects, ask him how many there are, and he has to count them one by one and tell you "There are one... two... three objects". Ask again ten seconds later and he has to do it again.

I've had to throw him out of a birtday celebration because he kept touching and squeezing the breasts of a girl there. Started out as a poking game, turned nasty, then that happened. He wouldn't stop despite the disapproval and outrage of his father, mother and all around. He threw off his father who tried to stop him, so in the end I had to drag him outside. We tried to get through to him just what he did, why it was more wrong than regular wrong, but I could tell nobody was getting through to him. He was 15 back then if I remember it right, so getting him off her was little trouble, but imagine if he's grown up...

You're arguing that if someone like that fails to notice a subtle signal, he's clearly of malicious intent and deserves to spend most of his life in prison?

That's kind of like arresting blind people for not watching out, or being angry at deaf people because they didn't hear what you said. Surely that's not what you're arguing?

There are already provisions in law for people who are mentally incompetent and cannot tell right from wrong. They are not held criminally responsible for their actions due to mental defect and placed where they cannot harm other people because of this.

Blablahb:

ratzofftoya:
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. 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.

I don't think we can come to any sort of agreement here. By now I'm under the strong impression you don't know how human communication, especially the intimate part, works. If this was a simple issue, there'd be no issue.

Oh really, Dr. Ruth? Why don't you enlighten us in the ways of love.

It is not a simple issue, it's complicated, and you can't fix it by shutting down mentally and demanding people as a manner of speaking ask someone to fill out a consent form every time they flirt with someone.

Nope. You just have to ask, "Hey, are you sure you want to do this?" before you have sex. Again, if your sexual relations are such a house of cards that it's like a NASA command center on tenterhooks every time you're about to go for it, that's on you.

But you're really not going to convince me that we need to destroy lives over a small miscommunication,

I don't see how there could be a miscommunication in "Do you want to have sex?" Miscommunication is precisely what I seek to avoid.

which may even be wholly the fault of the accuser.

Did she say "yes" when she meant "no?" I'm sure that would be recognized at trial, right? I don't see how such false accusations aren't already an issue.

Not only is that extremely unjust, but it is also a slap in the face of actual rape victims,

Or, right. Legitimate rape.

who see dramaqueens who regret what they did and file fake charges,

Yeah, I see plenty of women who've suffered legitimate rape get incredibly pissed off at all those dramaqueens faking their rape. Happens all the time.

or awkward drunks who flirt along don't say no and then cry foul afterwards, compared to what they went through.

Man, you have some serious problems.

Maybe another example can show you what I mean though: I have a cousin who's far from being an intellectual superpower. His IQ has been tested at 56 and 54. The limit below which a person is considered retarded (or fill in whatever politically correct term applies) is set at an IQ score 70. He's 14-16 points below that. I really wished it were different since I know how liberating being highly intelligent is, but he's not. He's turning 19 soon and still on a school that's the level of schooling halfway through primary school, and he's still struggling with reading and writing. To illustrate, he can not comprehend numbers. Give him three objects, ask him how many there are, and he has to count them one by one and tell you "There are one... two... three objects". Ask again ten seconds later and he has to do it again.

I've had to throw him out of a birtday celebration because he kept touching and squeezing the breasts of a girl there. Started out as a poking game, turned nasty, then that happened. He wouldn't stop despite the disapproval and outrage of his father, mother and all around. He threw off his father who tried to stop him, so in the end I had to drag him outside. We tried to get through to him just what he did, why it was more wrong than regular wrong, but I could tell nobody was getting through to him. He was 15 back then if I remember it right, so getting him off her was little trouble, but imagine if he's grown up...

You're arguing that if someone like that fails to notice a subtle signal, he's clearly of malicious intent and deserves to spend most of his life in prison?

That's kind of like arresting blind people for not watching out, or being angry at deaf people because they didn't hear what you said. Surely that's not what you're arguing?

Blind people shouldn't get behind the wheel of a moving vehicle, right? Listen man, that example is stupid. Should we let your cousin off the hook? He won't spend "most of his life in jail." (At least for one conviction.) He would be punished for sexual assault for repeatedly touching and squeezing someone's breasts. The law would take his mental handicap into account. Again, silly example.

ratzofftoya:
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.

It's a flaw you seem to want to create in the first place, because it would become a direct consequence of your point of view being put into practise.

No, lying about facts is an existing flaw in the way an accusatory criminal process works. In your system, where the victim has to say "no, please quite raping me right now," she could always say she said so even though she didn't. So, fail.

ratzofftoya:
Yeah. That's why you ask before you shove your fucking dick in something.

We're talking about situations where people did ask, got yes, and it later either turned out she changed her mind and falsely accuses him

Yeah, that's called false accusation. It's a flaw of any system. The person asked and got a "yes." When I said it was perfect, I didn't mean that it stops people from lying. It doesn't do your taxes or shine your shoes, either.

to get out of own guilt,

Whoah there, Sigmund.

or it turns out to be misunderstanding where someone really couldn't have known better.

Don't see much room for misunderstanding in "yes, I want to have sex with you right now." If there is, it's far less than the room left by your "just read her signals, maaaan" system.

You can't hide behind 'you should ask'. Fifth time I'm repeating this, but if it was that simple, this discussion wouldn't have happened at all.

It is that simple, you're just refusing to acknowledge that. Ask. Why is that so difficult?

Gethsemani:

generals3:

The fact you equate the lack of willingness to put good folks in jail with a willingness to dismiss the trauma of rape victims is despicable. And heck how would putting a good person with no malicious intentions in jail help the victim?

Unlike you i do not wish to cause even more harm than was initially caused by the situation. Branding a person with no malicious intents as a rapist and treating him as such would just cause more harm than good.

This said i wouldn't mind a certain kind of legal action against those "accidental rapists" (can't find any other words at the moment) which would be much less severe and more appropriate to the situation. And also a different word than "rape" to describe the infraction. Just like people who commit involuntary manslaughter don't get charged with murder.

Giving the victim some sense that justice has been served and the violation of their right has been dealt with. Let me be frank here: Just recently a new twitter/facebook group was started in Sweden by a group of journalists, encouraging women that have been raped to report it to the police. Not because it is likely that anyone will be charged or convicted, but because it is a way of letting the victims move on, to acknowledge to themselves that they are victims of a crime and that they are not to blame (which is a very, very common occurrence among rape victims). I can only speak from my personal experience here and say that it was a great relief to report the crime to the police, even if the investigation was promptly closed due to a lack of evidence. By saying that you feel sorry for these men, that have "accidentally" raped someone, you are also implicitly saying that what they did wasn't so bad (not bad enough that they should have to face up to it, anyway). You are doing this in regards to a crime where an overwhelming majority of victims harbor deep feelings of guilt and self-resentment because of what happened. How do you think that makes us feel? To be told that the men who, potentially, ruined our lives and scarred us emotionally aren't really to blame for violating our bodies against our will? That we should be lenient and careful with what we call them? I feel it is deeply inconsiderate to the victims to try and diminish the guilt of the man who violated them sexually.

According to blablahb, you should be feeling disrespected because you were legitimately raped while all these dramaqueens just file fake charges. Doesn't it just chap your hide? Can you believe those dramaqueens?

Blablahb:
snip

Oh, come on Blab, surely all of this stuff has been pretty comprehensively covered at this point.

Noone is suggesting you need a consent form. Noone is even particularly suggesting that you must have verbal confirmation, although really, is it too much to ask that if you're actually unsure whether your partner has consented that you stop and ask rather than proceeding? I would say that is a basic standard of reasonable behaviour, wouldn't you?

In my current job, I work work with adults with learning difficulties. The law is perfectly capable of recognizing any problems they might have understanding consent, which is why they are subject to all kinds of legal protections, but also certain legal requirements. There are far less severe ways to deal with someone with learning difficulties who poses a risk to the public than prison. Putting people in residential care is not always very nice for them, but it's enormously better than simply saying we can't do anything about it because they don't understand what they're doing. As someone who openly scoffs at the concept of "political correctness" in one line, it seems very weird to hear this kind of argument.

If you're saying that we need to treat all men like we treat people with learning difficulties, then you're getting into Valerie Solanas or Mary Daly territory, and I don't want to give that route any credit by following you down it.

Blablahb:
We're talking about situations where people did ask, got yes, and it later either turned out she changed her mind and falsely accuses him to get out of own guilt, or it turns out to be misunderstanding where someone really couldn't have known better.

In both those cases any legal system currently in existence would return a not guilty verdict, so that is clearly not what anyone else is talking about, least of all Warren Farrell because it's not what he said.

ratzofftoya:

According to blablahb, you should be feeling disrespected because you were legitimately raped while all these dramaqueens just file fake charges. Doesn't it just chap your hide? Can you believe those dramaqueens?

And how do we know these women are just "drama queens" looking for attention and not women who have legitimate experiences of being in the grey zone where they were forced into a sexual situation they did not wish to be in? What really chaps my hide is that there actually are people who thinks women come out and talk about being raped to get attention. Considering the massive stigma many rape victims face, it is an inane line of thought and only shows a complete disconnect and lack of understanding with the victims of rape.

Gethsemani:

generals3:

The fact you equate the lack of willingness to put good folks in jail with a willingness to dismiss the trauma of rape victims is despicable. And heck how would putting a good person with no malicious intentions in jail help the victim?

Unlike you i do not wish to cause even more harm than was initially caused by the situation. Branding a person with no malicious intents as a rapist and treating him as such would just cause more harm than good.

This said i wouldn't mind a certain kind of legal action against those "accidental rapists" (can't find any other words at the moment) which would be much less severe and more appropriate to the situation. And also a different word than "rape" to describe the infraction. Just like people who commit involuntary manslaughter don't get charged with murder.

Giving the victim some sense that justice has been served and the violation of their right has been dealt with. Let me be frank here: Just recently a new twitter/facebook group was started in Sweden by a group of journalists, encouraging women that have been raped to report it to the police. Not because it is likely that anyone will be charged or convicted, but because it is a way of letting the victims move on, to acknowledge to themselves that they are victims of a crime and that they are not to blame (which is a very, very common occurrence among rape victims). I can only speak from my personal experience here and say that it was a great relief to report the crime to the police, even if the investigation was promptly closed due to a lack of evidence. By saying that you feel sorry for these men, that have "accidentally" raped someone, you are also implicitly saying that what they did wasn't so bad (not bad enough that they should have to face up to it, anyway). You are doing this in regards to a crime where an overwhelming majority of victims harbor deep feelings of guilt and self-resentment because of what happened. How do you think that makes us feel? To be told that the men who, potentially, ruined our lives and scarred us emotionally aren't really to blame for violating our bodies against our will? That we should be lenient and careful with what we call them? I feel it is deeply inconsiderate to the victims to try and diminish the guilt of the man who violated them sexually.

I truly don't get your logic. So if someone gets his hand cut off because he stole something and you feel sorry for him does that mean you imply that what he did wasn't so bad? Not agreeing with a certain way of handling certain situations does not necessarily imply the action wasn't (so) bad.

I would also like to add that most justice systems do not only judge the actions but mainly the person. Actions are used as a way to determine what the person is and it is usually the person that gets judged. And that's something which is found all across the system, circumstances are taken into account, intent, whether or not the person is a repeated offender, etc. You however would like a system where the action is what gets judged, regardless of the person. And not granting some revenge to people is hardly "inconsiderate".

Also i suggest that seeking psychiatric help is much more productive rather than harboring desires of revenge. If you have internal issue go on therapy, that profession exists for a reason, ruining a good guy's life to feel better about yourself seems rather primitive.

Gethsemani:
And how do we know these women are just "drama queens" looking for attention and not women who have legitimate experiences of being in the grey zone where they were forced into a sexual situation they did not wish to be in? What really chaps my hide is that there actually are people who thinks women come out and talk about being raped to get attention. Considering the massive stigma many rape victims face, it is an inane line of thought and only shows a complete disconnect and lack of understanding with the victims of rape.

To be fair, I think many people think that because they've been the victims of that circumstance (or something similar). It doesn't help actual victims when people fabricate their victimhood.

While I haven't been falsely accused... at least in court, I have many personal experiences where... "questionable" accusations have created conflicts in my relationships with various people.

It's just a poor thing all around.

generals3:
[

I would also like to add that most justice systems do not only judge the actions but mainly the person. Actions are used as a way to determine what the person is and it is usually the person that gets judged. And that's something which is found all across the system, circumstances are taken into account, intent, whether or not the person is a repeated offender, etc. You however would like a system where the action is what gets judged, regardless of the person. And not granting some revenge to people is hardly "inconsiderate".

Those things are generally used to determine punishment and not guilt. Intent is the only one that actually matters to determine guilt. Even then lack of intent to commit the crime is not enough when there is intent to commit other crimes or a criminal level of recklessness. Many of the scenarios described here seem to me to be examples of 'criminally reckless' rape which makes the perpetrators guilty even if they did not think that they were committing rape. Whether that should be punished as severely as 'pre-meditated' rape is another issue.

generals3:
I truly don't get your logic. So if someone gets his hand cut off because he stole something and you feel sorry for him does that mean you imply that what he did wasn't so bad?

Your analogy assumes that we all accept that the "correct" punishment for "legitimate theft" is to cut someone's hand off. After all, I hope we all accept that people who commit rape should receive a sentence reflecting the fact that it's a severe crime.

..And since I'm assuming you don't actually believe thieves should have their hands cut off, your example denotes sympathy for someone who, in your opinion, has received an excessive or needless punishment (or indeed any punishment at all, since that seems to be what you're taking objection to). So yes, it does imply in this case that you see the crime you're describing as less serious than "proper rape".

What Gethsemani has attempted to provide you with, if you could stop patronizing her for a second, is a victim's perspective on why the crime you're describing is in fact a very serious one. It may be a very different experience from the "violently attacked by a stranger" narrative which characterizes myths about "legitimate rape", yet the harm caused is very real and measurable, and in actual social terms is much, much, much more serious because it is so common.

Telling someone in that position to "seek psychiatric help" is not good enough, I'm afraid. It is not someone else's responsibility to fix themselves for injuries sustained during your failure to behave like a reasonable human being. It is not someone else's responsibility to just take the hits caused by your failure to take basic precautions to establish a reasonable belief in your consent, which is all you will ever be asked to do. If you cannot do that, or more importantly if you don't feel you should have to do that, then sorry but you are not a "good guy" any more, you are someone who views abusive behaviour as normal, and society is perfectly within its rights to remove you from the general public until such a time as you are no longer a danger to them.

If you cannot get through life without ruining other people's lives in the process, then there is something wrong with you. If you then turn around and say it's the fault of the people whose lives you're ruining for being upset about it and it would all be fine if they saw a psychiatrist, then you're not a "good guy", you're a fucking horrible guy and you should probably come to terms with that.

evilthecat:
This 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."

Here is what Geth claimed Farrell was arguing; that:

"Men shouldn't be held fully accountable for not listening to the victim of their sexual assault if they were dating or she went along initially."

This is not just a less forgiving version of what Farrell wrote. It does not follow that just because Farrell believes women commit "date fraud" when they intentionally confuse men with mixed signals, that he was arguing that men should not legally be held accountable for "rape" in situations where the woman "goes along initially," and the male disregards all subsequent manifestations of a lack of consent. Thus, Geth was attributing a substantively different statement to Farrell, not just using different words.

evilthecat:
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."

Why do you keep hanging your hat on assertions that even if true, are nevertheless irrelevant? It seems most of your arguments serve primarily as vehicles for showing what you know rather than what you can contribute to the discussion. Stop clinging to low-hanging fruit like the "no true Scotsman" angle.

Yes, patriarchy is a "term." Like all terms, it's a symbol for something: in this case, it is used generally as a descriptive proposition about the relative power of men and women historically and/or in the present. Because there are so many permutations of it, it cannot be said to comprise a closed, definitive and comprehensive construct. But such is not necessary to consider its thrust theoretical in nature. No, it's not "unified," but that does not change the fact that underlying the contemporary use of the term lies SOME fundamental theoretical assumption of male power gained and held at the expense of women. Indeed, you allude to it yourself:

evilthecat:
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."

evilthecat:
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."

When do I voice this alleged belief that the harms of what is called patriarchy are suffered only by women? Again, it's very easy to label another "simplistic" when you re-characterize their arguments to make them so. In fact, you do this repeatedly (see below).

evilthecat:
Do you ever wonder why "Women's Studies" has pretty much died and been replaced by "Gender Studies"?

No because it's not true. I did a random search of 6 different U.S. universities that popped into my head: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, U. of Texas, UC San Diego; and Cal. State Sacramento. The very first search showed that Harvard offers a degree in "Women's Studies." Yale: Women's, Gender, & Sexuality Studies. Princeton: Gender and Sexuality Studies; Texas: Women's and Gender Studies; San Diego: Critical Gender Studies; Sacramento: Women's Studies. And oh so deliciously, a fuller version of the Farrell protest video purportedly contains a snippet of a protester explaining to the camera that she was "there with her women's studies class."

evilthecat:
It's not really an explicitly "feminist" idea, it's not confined to "academic feminism". . . . 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."

I agree that HM did not ORIGINATE as an exclusively and "explicitly" feminist idea, but, like many of your arguments, it begs the question: so what? Contemporarily, in the context of discussions like this, the concept's use is generally predicated on the assumption/conclusion of an oppressive relationship between men and women, and feminist/gender scholars often use it to refer to a strategy of subordination of women and less "ideal" forms of masculinity. Those who are greater "experts" than you or I acknowledge this; like Connell.

evilthecat:
Incidentally, the "hegemony" in this case comes from Gramsci, not from Marx.

Again, you misread me. I didn't argue that contemporary gender thinkers received the concept directly "from Marx." I stated that it is "derived from its use in Marxist writings." Gramsci was a Marxist. That writers like Connell were not using it to propagate Marxism does not mean that its use by feminist/gender academics has not been meaningfully influenced by Marxist thinking, especially by the inclination to view things through an oppression/subordination prism.

evilthecat:
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.

evilthecat:
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."

evilthecat:
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?"

Evil, you're like a hamster that loves to just spin the wheel without realizing you're going nowhere fast. Please pay attention; I wrote this in my previous post:

"I agree that both men's and women's behavior is hugely influenced by normative reference points provided by culture. . . . I never suggested that one man's notion of ideal masculinity is not influenced by other men's respective notions. . . . As noted above, I never suggested that men's conduct arises in utter isolation from a conception of masculinity idealized by other men."

Yes, men influence other men's behavior. By talking, twitter, sign-language, pig-Latin, what-the-fuck-ever you like. In the context we're discussing, where a woman initially says no, but then sends strong non-verbal signals that she is only saying "no" perfunctorily so as not to appear promiscuous, the woman is PARTLY responsible for penetration because she through her dishonest behavior has led the man to believe he had her consent (assuming he does actually believe this), and her conduct is more the cause of his actions than other men's notions of ideal masculinity.

evilthecat:
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.

No, it does not. You really should avoid referring to this as your "area of expertise" if you insist on being so sloppy with these concepts. HM is NOT just the idea that men and women's gender-specific identities and behaviors are influenced by idealized notions of masculinity. Or that men "talk to each other about sex." The use of the concept usually reflects the notion of a hierarchy of masculinities that serves to systemically subordinate others. I don't believe that, especially in this context. It follows that HM is not what I'm describing, and you're confused in thinking otherwise.

evilthecat:
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."

This paragraph contains a curious admission of something that is somewhat obvious from your posts: that you're at times more interested in seizing upon matters that are irrelevant because you feel you're scoring points by doing so, rather than getting to the heart of the matter. It is thus particularly ironic that you accuse me of anti-intellectualism (more on that in a bit). If you knew that I meant "some women," or a "sample of women" (don't all studies rely on samples of a demographic?), why make the "essentialism" claim? That is, when you know I was not actually making an essentialist assertion? And why would I "explain . . . how it has any reason to be considered an essential or universal feature of heterosexual intercourse" when that's not what I'm asserting?

Ok, so now you finally try to make the case for why Farrell was being "simplistic" in not addressing "the role of homosocial relationships in the production of male behavioral norms."

evilthecat:
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, . . . ."

It's not.

evilthecat:
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."

Ok, despite your claims that you (and everybody else) gets it, I still don't think you do. I agree with this paragraph 100%, but the scenario is utterly inapplicable. Obviously her conduct cannot be a significant cause of penetration because she has done nothing but come to the man's home and fall asleep on the sofa; here there is no direct intimate assertiveness following a verbal "no." That's why neither Farrell nor I are focusing on these types of scenarios.
In those circumstances where it would be obviously unreasonable in light of cultural context to assume consent, and where the woman did not send "mixed signals," Farrell would not conclude that "date fraud" has occurred. He is clearly describing affirmative conduct on the part of the woman strongly indicating an inclination toward sex ("continuing to be sexual") such that a man could reasonably interpret her "no" to have been disingenuous. Your hypo does not introduce that problem. And the fact that there may be gray areas when it comes to whether a man can plausibly interpret behavior as implicit consent does nothing to defeat Farrell's point. All of this is fact sensitive and no definitive line can be drawn; such does not change the fact that the line exists.

evilthecat:
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."

No, it's not the "logical outcome." Again, I really do think you're confused, and I don't mean that as a rhetorical jab. In the legal context, a jury would have to determine a defendant's knowledge and intent based on circumstantial evidence, using their own sense of reasonableness, which is in turn determined by their experiences in roughly the same culture the defendant is from (usually anyway). Were I on that jury, I would not, given the facts you presented in the scenario above, BELIEVE that the defendant genuinely believed that he had the woman's consent based on her conduct. As such, the factual finding would be that the mens rea is satisfied, and therefore the legal finding would be that he is guilty of rape. I seriously doubt that another jury would reach a different conclusion. And if they did, they would be wrong in doing so.

evilthecat:
Rape law reform is a much more nuanced issue than you seem to be trying to pretend."

Noone is pretending about anything . . . unless we count you pretending that you understand Farrell and I, as well as the rape law you refer to. (As to the latter, incidentally, the link you provided in a prior post only proves my point about a mens rea requirement and you didn't seem to realize this in pasting into your post. But that's not worth haggling over; or, as you might say, "I've been keeping my mouth shut about it.").

evilthecat:
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."

And here we have it. Once I ask you to flesh out why exactly Farrell was being "simplistic," we come home to the realization that you simply are confused. Again, neither I nor Farrell (based on his text) would argue that in ANY CONCEIVABLE scenario where a man assumes consent, it's because the woman is sending mixed signals. Rather, the argument is that WHEN a woman is sending mixed signals, signals of a certain threshold intensity and quality that are highly suggestive of an interest in sex, a man's assumption of consent is (1) not PRIMARILY (or even significantly) the result of prior "homosocial relationships" with men or of masculine "identity"; and (2) should be considered adequate to preclude a rape conviction.

You may disagree with the second conclusion. As to the first, well, I would be interested to know whether you, in light of our misunderstanding, stand by your assertion that Farrell and I (remember you accused both of us of being "simplistic") are simplistic in not emphasizing "homosocial relationships" is making conclusions about "date fraud" and a women's fault in the contexts we describe.

evilthecat:
I've been keeping my mouth shut about the generic anti-intellectualism in your posts so far."

I find this interesting. I am very much pro-intellectualism. What I am against is intellectual-masturbation. Intellectualism is a great tool so long as the subject of that intellectualism is relevant to the problem being addressed. Due to your misunderstanding of Farrell and I, it appears that relevance problem remains, and thus my resistence is not anti-intellectualism, but rather quite a pure form of intellectualism: one reluctant to dive into a conceptual and academic soup when the result will be drowning in a bowl of deliciously irrelevant minutiae rather than honing in on the core of an important issue.

evilthecat:

generals3:
I truly don't get your logic. So if someone gets his hand cut off because he stole something and you feel sorry for him does that mean you imply that what he did wasn't so bad?

Your analogy assumes that we all accept that the "correct" punishment for "legitimate theft" is to cut someone's hand off. After all, I hope we all accept that people who commit rape should receive a sentence reflecting the fact that it's a severe crime.

..And since I'm assuming you don't actually believe thieves should have their hands cut off, your example denotes sympathy for someone who, in your opinion, has received an excessive or needless punishment (or indeed any punishment at all, since that seems to be what you're taking objection to). So yes, it does imply in this case that you see the crime you're describing as less serious than "proper rape".

What Gethsemani has attempted to provide you with, if you could stop patronizing her for a second, is a victim's perspective on why the crime you're describing is in fact a very serious one. It may be a very different experience from the "violently attacked by a stranger" narrative which characterizes myths about "legitimate rape", yet the harm caused is very real and measurable, and in actual social terms is much, much, much more serious because it is so common.

Telling someone in that position to "seek psychiatric help" is not good enough, I'm afraid. It is not someone else's responsibility to fix themselves for injuries sustained during your failure to behave like a reasonable human being. It is not someone else's responsibility to just take the hits caused by your failure to take basic precautions to establish a reasonable belief in your consent, which is all you will ever be asked to do. If you cannot do that, or more importantly if you don't feel you should have to do that, then sorry but you are not a "good guy" any more, you are someone who views abusive behaviour as normal, and society is perfectly within its rights to remove you from the general public until such a time as you are no longer a danger to them.

If you cannot get through life without ruining other people's lives in the process, then there is something wrong with you. If you then turn around and say it's the fault of the people whose lives you're ruining for being upset about it and it would all be fine if they saw a psychiatrist, then you're not a "good guy", you're a fucking horrible guy and you should probably come to terms with that.

Rape common? Please back that up with proof. Not a survey which assumes guilty until proven innocent. Also, implying that Generals3 is a rapist is just fucked up. I get that you don't like where generals3 is coming from and you disagree with what he is trying to say. I really fraking do. But you are just coming off as a self-righteous asshole.

generals3:

Also i suggest that seeking psychiatric help is much more productive rather than harboring desires of revenge. If you have internal issue go on therapy, that profession exists for a reason, ruining a good guy's life to feel better about yourself seems rather primitive.

Evilthecat covered most of your post in his reply, so I won't waste either of our time by rehashing it. I will discuss this paragraph briefly though.

See, I work in psychiatry (uh oh, awkward) and I've worked with several rape victims, both in the direct aftermath of the rape (the shock phase) and patients whom were raped years ago. A common part of the treatment of rape victims psychological trauma is to make a police report of the crime, not because the victim wants revenge or there's any chance of charging the rapist with the crime. But because it is a way of letting the victim assert that it was, in fact, the victim of a crime and that the guilt and blame of what happened does not rest with the victim but with the rapist.

It is not a question about revenge (not anymore then reporting any other crime is anyway, and I doubt you'd suggest we let murderers go free because "we shouldn't let people harbor desires of revenge") but a question about, at least, seeking justice.

chaosord:

Rape common? Please back that up with proof. Not a survey which assumes guilty until proven innocent. Also, implying that Generals3 is a rapist is just fucked up. I get that you don't like where generals3 is coming from and you disagree with what he is trying to say. I really fraking do. But you are just coming off as a self-righteous asshole.

Wikipedia has your back. Highlights include: 1 in 6 women in the US have experienced attempted or completed rape. An estimated 230 rapes in the UK every day. Yeah, it is a pretty common crime.

Gethsemani:

generals3:

Also i suggest that seeking psychiatric help is much more productive rather than harboring desires of revenge. If you have internal issue go on therapy, that profession exists for a reason, ruining a good guy's life to feel better about yourself seems rather primitive.

Evilthecat covered most of your post in his reply, so I won't waste either of our time by rehashing it. I will discuss this paragraph briefly though.

See, I work in psychiatry (uh oh, awkward) and I've worked with several rape victims, both in the direct aftermath of the rape (the shock phase) and patients whom were raped years ago. A common part of the treatment of rape victims psychological trauma is to make a police report of the crime, not because the victim wants revenge or there's any chance of charging the rapist with the crime. But because it is a way of letting the victim assert that it was, in fact, the victim of a crime and that the guilt and blame of what happened does not rest with the victim but with the rapist.

It is not a question about revenge (not anymore then reporting any other crime is anyway, and I doubt you'd suggest we let murderers go free because "we shouldn't let people harbor desires of revenge") but a question about, at least, seeking justice.

chaosord:

Rape common? Please back that up with proof. Not a survey which assumes guilty until proven innocent. Also, implying that Generals3 is a rapist is just fucked up. I get that you don't like where generals3 is coming from and you disagree with what he is trying to say. I really fraking do. But you are just coming off as a self-righteous asshole.

Wikipedia has your back. Highlights include: 1 in 6 women in the US claim to (fixed) have experienced attempted or completed rape. An estimated 230 rapes in the UK every day. Yeah, it is a pretty common crime.

1 in 200 was also the reported rate of rape in the UK during the same year as the 230 per day. As for the 1 in 6 USA figure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P91QJWIT8DI . That figure was based on a study done where results were over-reported. IN both of those countries I do believe it is innocent until proven guilty. So until you have a rapist (someone proven guilty of rape)you don't have rape. That entire Wiki page shows reported rape, not confirmed rape. So can you show me the numbers on confirmed rapes?

chaosord:

1 in 200 was also the reported rate of rape in the UK during the same year as the 230 per day. As for the 1 in 6 USA figure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P91QJWIT8DI . That figure was based on a study done where results were over-reported. IN both of those countries I do believe it is innocent until proven guilty. So until you have a rapist (someone proven guilty of rape)you don't have rape. That entire Wiki page shows reported rape, not confirmed rape. So can you show me the numbers on confirmed rapes?

The best way to get a rough estimate of crime statistics is to go on reported crimes, not solved crimes. By your logic we don't have a crime until we have a perpetrator. So we don't have a murder until we can find the murderer, it is not a burglary until we can find the thief etc.. Do I really need to point out to you how incredibly stupid such a system is?

What you are asking for is also missing the point, since all serious studies conducted on rape shows that it is a very under reported crime. This is why Sweden lands with the second highest number in the list on Wikipedia: not because we have staggering amounts of rape going on, but because Swedes are more likely to report being raped then people in other countries. Just look at the numbers Agema posted on the previous page, the reporting rate of rape might be as low a just a third of victims and about 1% of perpetrators get convicted.

Honestly, I'd be happy to discuss statistics. But I don't think there's a point since you are obviously looking to cherry pick the numbers that will best suit your argument (by going on convicted rapists instead of reported rapes). It is intellectually dishonest and not conducive for a good discussion.

evilthecat:

Your analogy assumes that we all accept that the "correct" punishment for "legitimate theft" is to cut someone's hand off. After all, I hope we all accept that people who commit rape should receive a sentence reflecting the fact that it's a severe crime.

But that's actually exactly the point, by using an example where most people would agree that the punishment is out of proportion i'm trying to make quite clear how i feel about the punishment a person would get in the case of a totally involuntary rape. And like i said previously when you judge someone it's not only the actions but also the person.

..And since I'm assuming you don't actually believe thieves should have their hands cut off, your example denotes sympathy for someone who, in your opinion, has received an excessive or needless punishment (or indeed any punishment at all, since that seems to be what you're taking objection to). So yes, it does imply in this case that you see the crime you're describing as less serious than "proper rape".

Like i have said previously, while the action may have been as bad the person is not and since it's a frigging person's life you'll ruin that's as relevant as it can be. I have throughout this discussion provided examples where people get away easier or even scots free while doing things that are horrible due to the lack of intent or the context. If i hit a child who suddenly crossed the street while i didn't have time to hit the breaks a kid died. Yet i won't be sent to jail (unless we could prove i could have stopped the car in time but instead hit the accelerator and had a very sadistic smile on my face). The action is quite horrible, i killed a child. Doesn't mean i should go to jail because otherwise we'd be marginalizing the pain the family of the dead kid is going through. So for the 1000th of time, the action alone is not enough to determine the punishment a person has to receive.

What Gethsemani has attempted to provide you with, if you could stop patronizing her for a second, is a victim's perspective on why the crime you're describing is in fact a very serious one. It may be a very different experience from the "violently attacked by a stranger" narrative which characterizes myths about "legitimate rape", yet the harm caused is very real and measurable, and in actual social terms is much, much, much more serious because it is so common.

I would like to refer to my above statement here.

Telling someone in that position to "seek psychiatric help" is not good enough, I'm afraid. It is not someone else's responsibility to fix themselves for injuries sustained during your failure to behave like a reasonable human being. It is not someone else's responsibility to just take the hits caused by your failure to take basic precautions to establish a reasonable belief in your consent, which is all you will ever be asked to do. If you cannot do that, or more importantly if you don't feel you should have to do that, then sorry but you are not a "good guy" any more, you are someone who views abusive behaviour as normal, and society is perfectly within its rights to remove you from the general public until such a time as you are no longer a danger to them.

Actually i'm fairly certain that if the good guy is made clear he actually made that huge mistake he'll feel quite bad. Just like if i'd hit a child in my car i'd probably be depressed for some time. Doesn't mean i'll go to the cops and tell them to put me in jail for killing the kid.

If you cannot get through life without ruining other people's lives in the process, then there is something wrong with you. If you then turn around and say it's the fault of the people whose lives you're ruining for being upset about it and it would all be fine if they saw a psychiatrist, then you're not a "good guy", you're a fucking horrible guy and you should probably come to terms with that.

So if i someday accidentally hit a kid in my car something is wrong with me (because i'd ruin some lives in that scenario). Mistakes and accidents happen. Being involved in one doesn't make you some kind of misfit. No human is perfect and never makes any mistakes. And i've NEVER said it was the "victims" fault for being upset, where did you even get that?! And i'm not saying all would be fine if they saw a shrink but these folks help people's mental state for a living. For me it's like telling someone to call a plumber if there are problems with the plumbing in his house.

Gethsemani:

chaosord:

1 in 200 was also the reported rate of rape in the UK during the same year as the 230 per day. As for the 1 in 6 USA figure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P91QJWIT8DI . That figure was based on a study done where results were over-reported. IN both of those countries I do believe it is innocent until proven guilty. So until you have a rapist (someone proven guilty of rape)you don't have rape. That entire Wiki page shows reported rape, not confirmed rape. So can you show me the numbers on confirmed rapes?

The best way to get a rough estimate of crime statistics is to go on reported crimes, not solved crimes. By your logic we don't have a crime until we have a perpetrator. So we don't have a murder until we can find the murderer, it is not a burglary until we can find the thief etc.. Do I really need to point out to you how incredibly stupid such a system is?

What you are asking for is also missing the point, since all serious studies conducted on rape shows that it is a very under reported crime. This is why Sweden lands with the second highest number in the list on Wikipedia: not because we have staggering amounts of rape going on, but because Swedes are more likely to report being raped then people in other countries. Just look at the numbers Agema posted on the previous page, the reporting rate of rape might be as low a just a third of victims and about 1% of perpetrators get convicted.

Honestly, I'd be happy to discuss statistics. But I don't think there's a point since you are obviously looking to cherry pick the numbers that will best suit your argument (by going on convicted rapists instead of reported rapes). It is intellectually dishonest and not conducive for a good discussion.

Not it is not. And the stupid system? Works. The whole innocent while proven guilty thing. And yes there is no crime unless someone does it. Unless you believe crime just happens all on it own. To be perfectly blunt, if it was not reported, legally speaking, it did not happen. When a rape is reported a person is making a claim. All I am asking is that there is more than just a person's word to back them up. People lie and people can be wrong.

So yes I am cherry picking. I am going to go with the stats that have more than a person's word to back it up. You know that wonderful thing called evidence. I know I am putting the burden of proof on the victim/state but they are the ones making a claim and must be able to prove it.

DevilWithaHalo:
snip

Rape is rape. Or not-rape is not-rape, or not-rape is not rape. Statutory rape, date rape, etc. are all types of rape. They might not all be "equal", but they are still rape.

Who cares whether it is an action or a physical object? Where a concept is defined by a word, what fits the concept can be described by that word. Differences are differences in concept/definition.

Look, I'm not sure how I can make this any more clear; I do not excuse rapists, I merely disagree that they are rapists. I have personally had sex with others when I did not want to; I refuse to call them rapists. Think long and hard on that before you start chomping at the bit again.

Oh, I very much suspect that you did want to have sex with them in the comparative terms that apply: which is that the alternative of not having sex that you could have freely chosen was for whatever reason a worse option. I don't want to give people my money, but I find the prospect of being given goods and services by them in return preferable to keeping it.

Edit: Oh wait, that's not true, I just remembered you're that guy with the sleep condition: that doesn't really count, for other reasons. I am not writing an exhaustive series of conditional exceptions otherwise it would be mightily tedious.

ratzofftoya:
Nope. You just have to ask, "Hey, are you sure you want to do this?" before you have sex.

And this is precisely why I say I think you don't know how it works. People communicate in other ways than saying something directly to your face as well. I have never ever in my life asked anyone that and never ran into any trouble. Rigidly demanding people change their way of communication to avoid someone who doesn't know what she want potentially having a negative experience is a strange way of looking at things.

And it's bound to result in the incarceration of completely innocent people, because you start treating simple miscommunications like they were serious sex crimes.

ratzofftoya:
Did she say "yes" when she meant "no?" I'm sure that would be recognized at trial, right? I don't see how such false accusations aren't already an issue.

Maybe because arresting someone, putting them in jail for months, destroying their life by making them lose their job, friends and potentially family, and then half a year later "Oh, sorry, it wasn't rape, it was a misunderstanding" is an extremely poor way of dealing with things.

It is what you're proposing right now though. Better ten innocent people in prison than one guilty person possibly walking free eh?

ratzofftoya:
Man, you have some serious problems.

Apparently I'm driving your point into a corner so badly that you've run out of things to say and make it personal. I gave you a literal example of such a drunkard faking sexual assault had happened because she was too far gone and stupid to even say anything, and you just grab that, pretend it never happens, and try to insult me.

evilthecat:
Noone is suggesting you need a consent form. Noone is even particularly suggesting that you must have verbal confirmation, although really, is it too much to ask that if you're actually unsure whether your partner has consented that you stop and ask rather than proceeding? I would say that is a basic standard of reasonable behaviour, wouldn't you?

So far I've seen people totally ignoring the fact that there can be genuine confusion, or cases of 'changed my mind later, decided to blame you', or even worse, false charges.

If they don't acknowledge the existance of these circumstances and just keep repeating the same mantra, I'm not wrong in assuming they want an even more rigid system than we have now, which already involves consent absolutely being necessary? To be honest I don't know how to describe something more rigid than that without resorting to sarcasm.

To be honest I can't even imagine what sort of a system they want, if they're dissatisfied with the normal way it works now.

evilthecat:
In my current job, I work work with adults with learning difficulties. The law is perfectly capable of recognizing any problems they might have understanding consent, which is why they are subject to all kinds of legal protections, but also certain legal requirements. There are far less severe ways to deal with someone with learning difficulties who poses a risk to the public than prison. Putting people in residential care is not always very nice for them, but it's enormously better than simply saying we can't do anything about it because they don't understand what they're doing. As someone who openly scoffs at the concept of "political correctness" in one line, it seems very weird to hear this kind of argument.

I'm not arguing here should be no consequences. Just not in case of someone who for whatever reason can't understand subtle communication and as a result of that does wrong. I'm opposed to the black&white mentality that goes "There was a very subtle no after a clear yes. HE'S A RAPIST! TOSS HIS ASS IN JAIL!". Because, like you said, some people have learning difficulties and what not. And also; what's sexual assault? what's rape? If someone's utterly clumsy and misses a subtle no after a clear yes, and needs to be pushed away, and then gets it and stops, strictly legally speaking that's already sexual assault. Still it strikes me as silly to call in the law for cases like that. That's why professionals prefer the term of boundary crossing behaviour, because sexual assault is much worse than that, and requires a criminal intent.

I guess my point could be summarized as resistance against the tendency to regard all sex crimes as being without context, and lumping all accused onto a big pile and regarding them as all being the same 'sex offender'.

evilthecat:
In both those cases any legal system currently in existence would return a not guilty verdict, so that is clearly not what anyone else is talking about, least of all Warren Farrell because it's not what he said.

While that's true for most countries, it still causes someone to go through hell prior to that. Also, aid to the supposed 'victim' can serve to create a trauma that wasn't there. By setting that track in motion, you grant legitimacy to a rather vague negative experience and can actually create a trauma out of thin air.

That's why I argue against immediatly treating such ambigious occasions like they were sex crimes.

It's happened on occasions with quackery, I remember two cases in 2009 and 2010. Someone had taken their child to a 'reincarnation therapist'. Using whatever bullshit those con artists pull, they helped the children 'discover' that their father had abused them. Basically the con artist posed highly leading questions under severe psychological stress, the children then talk along to get out of that situation. The result were divorces, fathers being banned from seeing their children (because the allegation's existance counts in a divorce case, even if not proven guilty!) and a court case that dragged on for months untill police managed to uncover the truth. Even after it was discovered that 'alternative medicine' was to blame, and no abuse had ever taken place, the relationship of those couples was still broken, the guys still got put through hell and were still barred of ever seeing their children again, while being forced to pay heavy amounts of child support.

All these things should count as a reason why before anything rash is done, allegations should first be examined, instead of immediatly treating every allegation like it was an actual crime. It would save everyone a whole lot of grief.

Things like this make me glad I go to a small school: no stupid protests. I mean there was that pro-life/anti contraception 'rally' (the school's health department provides free condoms, which they apparently associate with abortion) but that was like 10 people and it kinda fell apart because it was cold out.

Agema:
Snip

The fact that you can admit their are conditional exceptions is good enough for me. It's when people start blanketing their terminology and don't consider circumstance that I take offense.

renegade7:
Things like this make me glad I go to a small school: no stupid protests. I mean there was that pro-life/anti contraception 'rally' (the school's health department provides free condoms, which they apparently associate with abortion) but that was like 10 people and it kinda fell apart because it was cold out.

Yeah protests are stupid I mean whogivesafuck amirite?

generals3:

evilthecat:

Your analogy assumes that we all accept that the "correct" punishment for "legitimate theft" is to cut someone's hand off. After all, I hope we all accept that people who commit rape should receive a sentence reflecting the fact that it's a severe crime.

But that's actually exactly the point, by using an example where most people would agree that the punishment is out of proportion i'm trying to make quite clear how i feel about the punishment a person would get in the case of a totally involuntary rape. And like i said previously when you judge someone it's not only the actions but also the person.

Punishment is not discussed in any of these posts. What we're discussing is guilt concerning the crime of rape. Is that clear enough? Also, there's no such thing as "involuntary rape." The voluntariness (in legal terms, actus reus and mens reus) refer only to the ACT OF HAVING SEX. Not to HAVING SEX WITH AN UNWILLING PERSON. The proper way to phrase the crime is to have two separate elements: 1.)Did you voluntarily/willingly have sex?; 2.)Was the sex with a person who had consented?

Like i have said previously, while the action may have been as bad the person is not and since it's a frigging person's life you'll ruin that's as relevant as it can be. I have throughout this discussion provided examples where people get away easier or even scots free while doing things that are horrible due to the lack of intent or the context. If i hit a child who suddenly crossed the street while i didn't have time to hit the breaks a kid died. Yet i won't be sent to jail (unless we could prove i could have stopped the car in time but instead hit the accelerator and had a very sadistic smile on my face). The action is quite horrible, i killed a child. Doesn't mean i should go to jail because otherwise we'd be marginalizing the pain the family of the dead kid is going through. So for the 1000th of time, the action alone is not enough to determine the punishment a person has to receive.

We aren't discussing punishment here, only guilt of the crime of rape. Punishments are determined after conviction based on a variety of criteria.

Actually i'm fairly certain that if the good guy is made clear he actually made that huge mistake he'll feel quite bad. Just like if i'd hit a child in my car i'd probably be depressed for some time. Doesn't mean i'll go to the cops and tell them to put me in jail for killing the kid.

The perpetrator's guilt is not enough if they didn't actually receive verbal (or written) confirmation of consent to have sex. They ought to be convicted of rape, and punished according to the mitigating or aggravating factors attendant to the crime.

So if i someday accidentally hit a kid in my car something is wrong with me (because i'd ruin some lives in that scenario). Mistakes and accidents happen. Being involved in one doesn't make you some kind of misfit. No human is perfect and never makes any mistakes.

That's true. Which is why I am prescribing a system wherein the amount of mistakes will be minimized. Ask if the person is down to fuck right then and there. If they say yes, proceed. In some cases, even that yes could be a misinterpretation or something--it could even be coerced. But you are saying that we should live in a system where there are no stop signs and no requirement to check an intersection before driving through it--it's up to the kids to make sure the car complies with some sort of unspoken rules of the road.

chaosord:

Gethsemani:

chaosord:

1 in 200 was also the reported rate of rape in the UK during the same year as the 230 per day. As for the 1 in 6 USA figure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P91QJWIT8DI . That figure was based on a study done where results were over-reported. IN both of those countries I do believe it is innocent until proven guilty. So until you have a rapist (someone proven guilty of rape)you don't have rape. That entire Wiki page shows reported rape, not confirmed rape. So can you show me the numbers on confirmed rapes?

The best way to get a rough estimate of crime statistics is to go on reported crimes, not solved crimes. By your logic we don't have a crime until we have a perpetrator. So we don't have a murder until we can find the murderer, it is not a burglary until we can find the thief etc.. Do I really need to point out to you how incredibly stupid such a system is?

What you are asking for is also missing the point, since all serious studies conducted on rape shows that it is a very under reported crime. This is why Sweden lands with the second highest number in the list on Wikipedia: not because we have staggering amounts of rape going on, but because Swedes are more likely to report being raped then people in other countries. Just look at the numbers Agema posted on the previous page, the reporting rate of rape might be as low a just a third of victims and about 1% of perpetrators get convicted.

Honestly, I'd be happy to discuss statistics. But I don't think there's a point since you are obviously looking to cherry pick the numbers that will best suit your argument (by going on convicted rapists instead of reported rapes). It is intellectually dishonest and not conducive for a good discussion.

Not it is not. And the stupid system? Works. The whole innocent while proven guilty thing. And yes there is no crime unless someone does it. Unless you believe crime just happens all on it own. To be perfectly blunt, if it was not reported, legally speaking, it did not happen. When a rape is reported a person is making a claim. All I am asking is that there is more than just a person's word to back them up. People lie and people can be wrong.

So yes I am cherry picking. I am going to go with the stats that have more than a person's word to back it up. You know that wonderful thing called evidence. I know I am putting the burden of proof on the victim/state but they are the ones making a claim and must be able to prove it.

What the fuck are you talking about? We're trying to figure out a good heuristic for determining the number of crimes that occur within a given jurisdiction. Not for trying and convicting people. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a judicial concept, not a statistical one. It would be supremely stupid, as Geth suggested, to only tally up those muggings for which there has been a conviction. You count burglaries, for purposes of expressing a statistic, by the number of houses from whence shit was stolen, not by the number of thieves caught and subsequently convicted.

Blablahb:

ratzofftoya:
Nope. You just have to ask, "Hey, are you sure you want to do this?" before you have sex.

And this is precisely why I say I think you don't know how it works. People communicate in other ways than saying something directly to your face as well.

I know that there are multiple modes of communicating that you're ready to fuck someone. But they're not all equally good at letting your potential partner know your intent. That's the fundamental issue here--misunderstandings, right? In order of precision, the ways we can communicate willingness to bone are:

1.)Passive acceptance
2.)Gestures
3.)Noises
4.)Language
5.)Specific language (i.e., I want to have sex with you now)
6.)A formal written contract
7.)Witnessed and notarized consent

Just because #1 works doesn't mean we should rely on it as the baseline for obtaining consent--it is highly unreliable. Again, the point here is avoiding miscommunication so that people are not falsely branded rapists, right? I'm trying to keep you safe, homie.

I have never ever in my life asked anyone that and never ran into any trouble.

Oh, OK then. Well, it's settled. Your own perception of your own experience is obviously how we should set up all of our rules for society.

Rigidly demanding people change their way of communication to avoid someone who doesn't know what she want potentially having a negative experience is a strange way of looking at things.

Whoa. Uhh..."Doesn't know what she wants?" Besides being unnecessarily gendered, that statement is some trademark rapist shit right there, my friend. That's like Chapter 1 of the rapist manual. I'm telling you, please take some classes or something.

I'm not demanding anything of anyone. What I'm saying is that asking someone if they want to have sex is a good way of obtaining consent. If you don't do that and proceed, and it turns out later that the sex was unwelcome, that's on you, brotha.

..."Doesn't know what she wants." Jesus.

And it's bound to result in the incarceration of completely innocent people, because you start treating simple miscommunications like they were serious sex crimes.

What I am trying to do is AVOID miscommunication by introducing clarity. How can yes or no be miscommunicated? Also, if you have sex with someone who didn't want it, you're not completely innocent, man. I suppose if you were just trying to help her figure out what she wants...

ratzofftoya:
Did she say "yes" when she meant "no?" I'm sure that would be recognized at trial, right? I don't see how such false accusations aren't already an issue.

Maybe because arresting someone, putting them in jail for months, destroying their life by making them lose their job, friends and potentially family, and then half a year later "Oh, sorry, it wasn't rape, it was a misunderstanding" is an extremely poor way of dealing with things.

I agree. That's the way we deal with things now. Because people don't ask.

Indeed, you could be falsely accused of anything. Murder, even. You could be falsely accused of rape by someone you never met.

1.)I don't understand how suggesting that express consent is the baseline will increase the number of false accusations.
2.)I can't think of any other law in the criminal context that is premised on your fear of being falsely accused. That's not how it works.

ratzofftoya:
Man, you have some serious problems.

Apparently I'm driving your point into a corner so badly that you've run out of things to say and make it personal. I gave you a literal example of such a drunkard faking sexual assault had happened because she was too far gone and stupid to even say anything, and you just grab that, pretend it never happens, and try to insult me.

I believe the person in the corner is the one bringing up the example of his or her handicapped cousin or someone with a sleep disorder. I'm taking your words at face value--such as women not knowing what they want and being unable to give meaningful consent. And your fear of false accusation.

So far I've seen people totally ignoring the fact that there can be genuine confusion, or cases of 'changed my mind later, decided to blame you', or even worse, false charges.

If they don't acknowledge the existance of these circumstances and just keep repeating the same mantra, I'm not wrong in assuming they want an even more rigid system than we have now, which already involves consent absolutely being necessary? To be honest I don't know how to describe something more rigid than that without resorting to sarcasm.

To be honest I can't even imagine what sort of a system they want, if they're dissatisfied with the normal way it works now.

I don't see how any of these things would be exacerbated by my proposed plan of making verbal assent a baseline.

ManUpManDown:
This is not just a less forgiving version of what Farrell wrote. It does not follow that just because Farrell believes women commit "date fraud" when they intentionally confuse men with mixed signals, that he was arguing that men should not legally be held accountable for "rape" in situations where the woman "goes along initially," and the male disregards all subsequent manifestations of a lack of consent.

Now you're misrepresenting Farrell's words yourself.

There's nothing about intent. There's a vague reference to studies which apparently suggest that some women "admit" to saying no when they mean yes, but there's nothing to suggest that this can be taken as a general point, unless you assume that this one example is indicative of the state of mind of all women at all times ever.

And look at it. Fucking look at it. What it says very clearly is that it should be okay to ignore signs of resistance provided you feel there are nonverbal or situational signs of consent. Even that wouldn't necessarily be a problem if the implication wasn't that "kissing" or "going back to a guy's place" could be said to constitute nonverbal consent, because when women do these things it always means sex, because apparently some women "admitted" it. Science!

ManUpManDown:
Why do you keep hanging your hat on assertions that even if true, are nevertheless irrelevant? It seems most of your arguments serve primarily as vehicles for showing what you know rather than what you can contribute to the discussion. Stop clinging to low-hanging fruit like the "no true Scotsman" angle.

I'll make a deal with you. You stop throwing out propositions which are just straight-up wrong about things you know nothing about, and I'll stop correcting you. Deal?

ManUpManDown:
No, it's not "unified," but that does not change the fact that underlying the contemporary use of the term lies SOME fundamental theoretical assumption of male power gained and held at the expense of women. Indeed, you allude to it yourself:

Do you actually wish to dispute that?

ManUpManDown:
No because it's not true.

How not to disprove a point.

1) Disprove an entirely different point which you've made up.
2) Include evidence to the contrary in your answer because you clearly didn't read the statement properly.

ManUpManDown:
Contemporarily, in the context of discussions like this, the concept's use is generally predicated on the assumption/conclusion of an oppressive relationship between men and women, and feminist/gender scholars often use it to refer to a strategy of subordination of women and less "ideal" forms of masculinity.

Again. What the fuck.

The whole point of "hegemonic masculinity/emphasized feminity" is to explain the discrepancies between the ability of individual men and women to reap social rewards like wealth, personal freedom, autonomy and so forth, and in particular the failure of previous theories which imagined these things as general rules rather than situational access to benefit. It's very clear, as it actually was in most ideas about "patriarchy" for that matter, that there are countless situations in which women can wield power over men, or in which men might experience a lack of personal autonomy. It also acknowledges, just like Warren Farrell, the considerable harms done to men by the lack of personal freedom inherent in the male role. It can explain everything you, and Warren Farrell for that matter, are describing.

As for the basic existence of of structural gender inequality. If you want to present an alternative hypothesis, bring it and we'll see if it works. But seriously, at this point you're not attacking some fringe "patriarchy theory", you're attacking an observation about the world which has been upheld and sustained thousands of times. If you want to shoot it down, I'll be waiting for the big guns.

ManUpManDown:
That writers like Connell were not using it to propagate Marxism does not mean that its use by feminist/gender academics has not been meaningfully influenced by Marxist thinking, especially by the inclination to view things through an oppression/subordination prism.

Well, cough up an alternative hypothesis. Until you've done so, this is just a genetic fallacy. I'm not going to accept the notion of "bias" without a clear alternative position which actually works.

ManUpManDown:
In the context we're discussing, where a woman initially says no, but then sends strong non-verbal signals that she is only saying "no" perfunctorily so as not to appear promiscuous, the woman is PARTLY responsible for penetration because she through her dishonest behavior has led the man to believe he had her consent (assuming he does actually believe this), and her conduct is more the cause of his actions than other men's notions of ideal masculinity.

Oh fuck yes! This is so much better than:

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.

More of this please!

1) If we're talking about the "cause" of actions as entailing a share of responsibility, what "causes" a woman to say "no" perfunctorily so as not to appear promiscuous? Who is she attempting not to appear promiscuous for (speaking hypothetically, because I'm not convinced the reasoning really goes like this).

Moreover, why would a man ever assume that a woman who says no actually means yes and is merely attempting not to appear "promiscuous"? What "causes" a man to believe that this is a routine and normal part of female behaviour?

2) On a slightly more immediate note, are you suggesting that in every case, or indeed in a significant number of cases whereby men are accused of rape charges which they deny on the grounds of having a reasonable belief in consent, the woman in question actually did want to have sex and is merely accusing them of rape because women are vindictive like that? Are you suggesting that this is prevalant enough to constitute a standard legal assumption about any case in which a man believes that a woman has given him "non-verbal consent".

ManUpManDown:
The use of the concept usually reflects the notion of a hierarchy of masculinities that serves to systemically subordinate others.

I don't know if it's funny or sad watching you try and explain books you've never read at this point, but I'll bite.

..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"..

..it's their obligation to be sexually assertive..

..OBLIGATION..

What is that obligation? How is it enforced? Do the police come and knock down your door if you pause to ask if your partner is okay before doing the deed? Are you thrown in prison for crimes against your penis?

Why do men feel that sense of obligation to behave in a particular way? What happens to men who don't behave in that way?

ManUpManDown:
If you knew that I meant "some women," or a "sample of women" (don't all studies rely on samples of a demographic?), why make the "essentialism" claim?

Because believe it or not, the alternative, which would be to present a minority of participants in an out-of-context citation as indicative of all sexual behaviour just seemed stupider.

My mistake.

ManUpManDown:
I agree with this paragraph 100%, but the scenario is utterly inapplicable.

If this is true, then you have yet to demonstrate that the "scenario" which you're describing has ever actually happened.

Almost all single women acknowledge they have agreed to go back to a guy's place "just to talk" but were nevertheless responsive to his first kiss.

..the implication being, therefore, that whether someone agrees to "go back to your place" is an indication of whether or not they have consented, regardless of whether they are doing so with the overt expectation of having sex with you.

Regardless, it was an extreme example and it's possible I'm just confusing you with all the other people on this thread I'm arguing with, so if you would like to replace "..came back to my place and fell asleep" with "..was kissing me" or "..was touching my junk" you can do so, it doesn't change the outcome for me one tiny bit.

ManUpManDown:
He is clearly describing affirmative conduct on the part of the woman strongly indicating an inclination toward sex ("continuing to be sexual") such that a man could reasonably interpret her "no" to have been disingenuous.

Jesus..

Is it "reasonable" to assume that kissing or petting someone implies a desire to have penetrative sex with them. No it doesn't. It's not a fucking contract which you have to go through with because you did other things which might be interpreted as "sexual", and by making it so you do open it up to the above example.

ManUpManDown:
In the legal context, a jury would have to determine a defendant's knowledge and intent based on circumstantial evidence, using their own sense of reasonableness.

Yes, but that is subject to legal guidelines to ensure the definition of "reasonable" behaviour is fair and consistent, guidelines like this one:

Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

I'm sorry, I don't believe I'm actually wrong here. You're suggesting that we can judge a person's consent to a particular act based on their participation in entirely unrelated acts because your belief is that those acts signal a willingness to be penetrated. If that is true, what the hell is to stop someone from simply saying "well, I think it's reasonable to conclude that anyone who comes back to a guy's house has consented to be penetrated by them"? It's just as reasonable a thing to believe, and it would be just as legitimate for someone to go into court and be acquitted on the basis of that belief as on the basis of a belief that kissing implied consent.

I know I'm taking it to extremes to prove a point, but it's not any better when you don't.

ManUpManDown:
As to the latter, incidentally, the link you provided in a prior post only proves my point about a mens rea requirement and you didn't seem to realize this in pasting into your post. But that's not worth haggling over; or, as you might say, "I've been keeping my mouth shut about it."

Fucking hell..

I've posted countless times on this thread that reasonable belief in consent should be grounds for acquital. Noone is disputing this, and if you think someone is then I'm done with you and will happily leave you to argue with the straw feminists in your head.

However, and this is the point you seem to have a problem with, we can convict someone for sincere yet unreasonable belief in consent, it is not inconsistent with the idea of mens rea any more than convicting someone for murder if they shot someone in the head with the sincere but unreasonable belief that the bullet wouldn't kill them. A lack of understanding wherein you have made no effort to understand and have behaved irresponsibly does not automatically protect you from having committed a crime.

ratzofftoya:
Yeah protests are stupid I mean whogivesafuck amirite?

Trying to shut someone up because you don't tolerate his criticism of a real actual problem, is something else entirely, and that's what happened at that university of Toronto.

Which is kind of ironic, because they have gender studies and sexual diversity studies there. It's sad to see such rabbid intolerance in such a place.

I mean, if that happens at the Reformist University of Rednecktown, then okay, could expect that I guess. But this was just ridiculous. They just hate on Farrel because he disturbs the feminist mythology with many inconvenient facts. You see similar pavlov-responses if you bring up that nobody's ever proven that the gender wage gap is due to discrimination, and several studies found that if you compensate for lifecourse factors, the wage gap disappears entirely or almost entirely, suggesting that no discrimination exists.

ratzofftoya:
I know that there are multiple modes of communicating that you're ready to fuck someone. But they're not all equally good at letting your potential partner know your intent. That's the fundamental issue here--misunderstandings, right? In order of precision, the ways we can communicate willingness to bone are:

1.)Passive acceptance
2.)Gestures
3.)Noises
4.)Language
5.)Specific language (i.e., I want to have sex with you now)
6.)A formal written contract
7.)Witnessed and notarized consent

Just because #1 works doesn't mean we should rely on it as the baseline for obtaining consent--it is highly unreliable. Again, the point here is avoiding miscommunication so that people are not falsely branded rapists, right? I'm trying to keep you safe, homie.

It looked more as if you were trying to state that number 1 thorugh 4 mean absolutely nothing in terms of communication, and anyone having sex after receiving consent through 1-4 is a dirty rapist, or should be labelled a rapist if he can't show 6 or 7 after he's falsely accused.

I was quite sure it was heading that direction even, but is that all a miscommunication? (haha, how ironic would that be?)

ratzofftoya:

Punishment is not discussed in any of these posts. What we're discussing is guilt concerning the crime of rape. Is that clear enough? Also, there's no such thing as "involuntary rape." The voluntariness (in legal terms, actus reus and mens reus) refer only to the ACT OF HAVING SEX. Not to HAVING SEX WITH AN UNWILLING PERSON. The proper way to phrase the crime is to have two separate elements: 1.)Did you voluntarily/willingly have sex?; 2.)Was the sex with a person who had consented?

Punishment sure is discussed. Being branded as a rapist is by default a punishment. Unless you consider being a rapist some kind of neutral thing. And i beg to differ with your two steps, there lacks a third step to determine the person's knowledge of the lack of consent. This is key to determine whether the person has malicious intents or not which is probably the most important thing to determine with what kind of situation we're dealing with.

We aren't discussing punishment here, only guilt of the crime of rape. Punishments are determined after conviction based on a variety of criteria.

Since the punishment is very dependent on the type of infraction committed i'd argue both are intertwined.

The perpetrator's guilt is not enough if they didn't actually receive verbal (or written) confirmation of consent to have sex. They ought to be convicted of rape, and punished according to the mitigating or aggravating factors attendant to the crime.

Why should they? What is it actually you are trying to accomplish on a societal level?

That's true. Which is why I am prescribing a system wherein the amount of mistakes will be minimized. Ask if the person is down to fuck right then and there. If they say yes, proceed. In some cases, even that yes could be a misinterpretation or something--it could even be coerced. But you are saying that we should live in a system where there are no stop signs and no requirement to check an intersection before driving through it--it's up to the kids to make sure the car complies with some sort of unspoken rules of the road.

Not true, what I'm advocating is a system where when there is doubt and there was no malicious intent the perpetrator is not branded the same as someone acting with malicious intent. And I'm also stating that your suggestion of demanding constant explicit consent is naively idealistic to say the least.

generals3:

ratzofftoya:

Punishment is not discussed in any of these posts. What we're discussing is guilt concerning the crime of rape. Is that clear enough? Also, there's no such thing as "involuntary rape." The voluntariness (in legal terms, actus reus and mens reus) refer only to the ACT OF HAVING SEX. Not to HAVING SEX WITH AN UNWILLING PERSON. The proper way to phrase the crime is to have two separate elements: 1.)Did you voluntarily/willingly have sex?; 2.)Was the sex with a person who had consented?

Punishment sure is discussed. Being branded as a rapist is by default a punishment. Unless you consider being a rapist some kind of neutral thing. And i beg to differ with your two steps, there lacks a third step to determine the person's knowledge of the lack of consent. This is key to determine whether the person has malicious intents or not which is probably the most important thing to determine with what kind of situation we're dealing with.

Why is that important? It's pretty fucking easy to find out if you want to. You just have to ask, right?

We aren't discussing punishment here, only guilt of the crime of rape. Punishments are determined after conviction based on a variety of criteria.

Since the punishment is very dependent on the type of infraction committed i'd argue both are intertwined.

No. Punishment is punishment. The type of "infraction" (funny you'd use that word to refer to rape) is "rape," i.e., willful sex with a person who did not consent.

The perpetrator's guilt is not enough if they didn't actually receive verbal (or written) confirmation of consent to have sex. They ought to be convicted of rape, and punished according to the mitigating or aggravating factors attendant to the crime.

Why should they? What is it actually you are trying to accomplish on a societal level?

Get people to make sure that the person they are trying to have sex with is into it.

That's true. Which is why I am prescribing a system wherein the amount of mistakes will be minimized. Ask if the person is down to fuck right then and there. If they say yes, proceed. In some cases, even that yes could be a misinterpretation or something--it could even be coerced. But you are saying that we should live in a system where there are no stop signs and no requirement to check an intersection before driving through it--it's up to the kids to make sure the car complies with some sort of unspoken rules of the road.

Not true, what I'm advocating is a system where when there is doubt and there was no malicious intent the perpetrator is not branded the same as someone acting with malicious intent. And I'm also stating that your suggestion of demanding constant explicit consent is naively idealistic to say the least.

Why is my system idealistic? How is that not simply the best way to determine your two little hang-ups, "doubt" and "malicious intent?"

Blablahb:

ratzofftoya:
Yeah protests are stupid I mean whogivesafuck amirite?

Trying to shut someone up because you don't tolerate his criticism of a real actual problem, is something else entirely, and that's what happened at that university of Toronto.

Which is kind of ironic, because they have gender studies and sexual diversity studies there. It's sad to see such rabbid intolerance in such a place.

I mean, if that happens at the Reformist University of Rednecktown, then okay, could expect that I guess. But this was just ridiculous. They just hate on Farrel because he disturbs the feminist mythology with many inconvenient facts. You see similar pavlov-responses if you bring up that nobody's ever proven that the gender wage gap is due to discrimination, and several studies found that if you compensate for lifecourse factors, the wage gap disappears entirely or almost entirely, suggesting that no discrimination exists.

Leaving aside the merits (or lack thereof of your argument), what exactly is the different between protest and "trying to shut someone up because you don't tolerate his criticism of a real actual problem?" Also, if you think that discrimination against men is a real actual problem, well...I don't know what to say.

It looked more as if you were trying to state that number 1 thorugh 4 mean absolutely nothing in terms of communication, and anyone having sex after receiving consent through 1-4 is a dirty rapist, or should be labelled a rapist if he can't show 6 or 7 after he's falsely accused.

I was quite sure it was heading that direction even, but is that all a miscommunication? (haha, how ironic would that be?)

1-4 don't mean nothing in terms of "communication." They mean nothing in terms of obtaining meaningful consent because there is a much better way that is not overly burdensome: 5. Also, people having sex after they think they've received consent from 1-4 aren't rapists. They're only rapists if it turns out that they were mistaken.

ratzofftoya:
Snippage of Doom

1) No it's not that easy to just ask. As i've mentioned earlier in most cases "asking" is something that either feels totally inappropriate at the moment or doesn't even cross people's mind because the context is in their eyes more than clear enough on the willingness of the other person to have intercourse. And if you take into account many people also have intercourse after taking in alcohol you can be quite certain people won't start thinking "oh wait, maybe i need to ask just to be sure".

2) Again, no it's not. Being branded as a rapist is a punishment in itself as well. As such the determination of guilt itself already works as a punishment. Unless you argue society doesn't give a rats ass about you being a rapist or not. (and let's also not forget the whole concept of a "criminal record")

3) But than shouldn't we simply outlaw intercourse without explicit verbal or written consent? This reminds me of the whole speed limit approach to prevent accidents where you go straight at the core of the issue. Because the problem with only attacking the cases where no verbal/written consent was acquired after someone complained is that it is very much open to substantial abuse. And I think you also see the problem with my initial suggestion, unlike speeding which you can control prior to accidents happening it's not something you can do with explicit consent and sex. Your system where explicit consent is required and when it is not you're subject to being trialed for rape if the person just decides to take the matter to the court is open to way too many abuses. While from a philosophical point of view the system may work from a practical point of view it is doomed to fail. That is why nowadays the justice system bases itself on evidence of sexual intercourse and evidence it was forced and not the opposite.
What you basically suggest is a guilty until proven innocent system. Where you're guilty of rape unless you can prove there was consent. (unless i misunderstood you)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked