U of T Protest: Warren Farrell = Hate Speech

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

ratzofftoya:

generals3:

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.

Awwww aren't you a cutiepie? Well if you're so good at telling by peoples' eyes, then you have nothing to worry about. You're 100% sure every time from that single loving gaze. So you'll never be raping anyone.

Sometimes putting on a condom feels inappropriate. It's really fucking awkward, right? Other times, making sure your kids are asleep feeling inappropriate. But both of those choices have potential consequences. So does not asking someone whether they want to have sex.

Again, I'm not sure how tenuous your sexual encounters are. Are you dating some Downton Abbey ladies who would bristle at the mention of sex as they're about to give you some bomb head, so you gotta keep that shit on the DL for realz? Are your hook-ups some kind of Zero Dark Thirty shit where one wrong step will blow your cover and send you helicoptering off into the sexless night? Just fucking ask you prick! Or live with the consequences of being wrong about your guess.

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".

Sorry to inconvenience you. Are you too drunk to ask but not too drunk to "see it in her lustful gaze," Casanova?

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")

Yeah. That's why I'm suggesting that people go through the step of obtaining consent. So that you don't make a mistake and aren't labeled a racist. I'm trying to help you out. If you choose to forego my advice and fuck away, then you should accept the fact that you might have raped someone if you read her eyes wrong.

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.

How's that?

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.

I would hope that you obtain consent prior to sex, as opposed to after. You can control that, homie.

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.

Why, how would it be abused any more than the current system?

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)

No, my system is "innocent until proven guilty." If someone shows you had sex with them and shows that you didn't obtain consent (i.e., that it was forced), you are guilty of rape. As to how severe the punishment, that's subject to the judge's discretion based on the circumstances.

Your first raging comment was beyond absurdly hilarious. And let's wait a second, if i'm a prick what about all those women. Because they sure as hell didn't ask either! Or what, is consent only something we men should give a shit about? If you're going to use personal attacks you better do it right. I would also like to note that the next time you feel too angry to post in a civil manner take a deep breath. While i'm not the kind of guy who reports, if done with someone else this kind of posts could easily award you a warning or suspension.

And i don't see how your examples are relevant. If putting a condom feels too awkward for you than what? You might get an STD and that's your problem. And if the girl doesn't mind you not using protection and gets pregnant, again, her problem. It's not as if there are any rules/laws regarding the use of condoms.

And no i don't know how they would have reacted. Heck in my case it simply didn't even frigging cross my mind. But than again in my cases it was pretty damn clear. (there are points where the context and body language don't even need verbal confirmation to be unambiguous)

And tell me, how do you show someone did not get your consent? (because the only ways i can think of are ones which would only apply in unambiguous situations)

EDIT: i would also like to note that i referred to the State checking whether you gained consent or not prior to intercourse not yourself. (Though i may have been more clear on that. But the analogy with limiting speed to prevent accidents is that the State can check your speed by using speeding cameras and as such the cause (high speeds) can be checked (by the State) without the problem occurring (an accident) unlike sexual consent prior to rape. )

ratzofftoya:

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?

Rioting college kids does nothing to help the stereotype that we are all just brainwashed yuppy liberals who just hop onto issues because they are trendy or because we heard them in some sociology class, and that when we do decide to ecome politically active it's just an excuse to party and do drugs and fuck.

It doesn't help the cause.

chaosord:

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?

So according to you Nicole Simpson's death shouldn't count as a murder. Nor any other death where someone isn't convicted. Brilliant. Or maybe completely retarded. Take your pick.

Seriously have you never heard of an unsolved crime? Or do you have some special love for rape that it can't count as one?

ratzofftoya:

chaosord:

Gethsemani:

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.

I said confirmed rape. So if there is proof of a rape, beyond one person's word, then I will take that figure. That is all I am asking for, proof of rape to be used as the basis of rape statistics. Going to the Wikipedia page that Geth linked to; I have three problems with that. 1) There is a part of it which states, this type of crime is under-reported. 2) Another part which says it is over-reported. 3) The UN. data is based on local laws which vary. You know what that screams to me? These numbers can not be trusted. And the study Geth cited gave a different number that the study I cited. Both were taken from the same sentence from the same Wikipedia page.

Dijkstra:

chaosord:

Gethsemani:

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.

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?

So according to you Nicole Simpson's death shouldn't count as a murder. Nor any other death where someone isn't convicted. Brilliant. Or maybe completely retarded. Take your pick.

Seriously have you never heard of an unsolved crime? Or do you have some special love for rape that it can't count as one?

Was there a body found? Was there proof of murder? What proof was there to determine it as murder? A crime can go unsolved and still be a crime. If you can't understand that you need more that a person's word for something to be a crime, sorry you are just "not all there."

In that case it's Habeus Corpus isn't it?

You have to prove that an actual crime has taken place before you are allowed to go to trial for it.

chaosord:

Was there a body found? Was there proof of murder? What proof was there to determine it as murder? A crime can go unsolved and still be a crime. If you can't understand that you need more that a person's word for something to be a crime, sorry you are just "not all there."

You do realize that there can be more evidence for rape then "the victim says so", right? Your problem is that you are holding rape up to a completely different standard then any other crime in terms of how we should register it as a crime statistically. Which is a really nasty form of cherry picking.

Gethsemani:

chaosord:

Was there a body found? Was there proof of murder? What proof was there to determine it as murder? A crime can go unsolved and still be a crime. If you can't understand that you need more that a person's word for something to be a crime, sorry you are just "not all there."

You do realize that there can be more evidence for rape then "the victim says so", right? Your problem is that you are holding rape up to a completely different standard then any other crime in terms of how we should register it as a crime statistically. Which is a really nasty form of cherry picking.

Yes I do. And I am asking for those numbers as I do for all other crime stats and stats in general. Without that proof, all the stats (in regards to crimes) are of people who claim to have been a victim or witness to a crime. Keyword, claim.

And I fell like this thread has been hijacked enough. If you wish to talk about this further PM me.

On the subject of the OP; those protesters were wrong. I am going to go out on a limb here and guess most of them were feminists. And I sick of the believe that feminism and feminists are the only who can talk about gender issues. It was pretty clear that they did not want to hear or have anyone else hear what a non-feminist had to say.

ratzofftoya:
A protest takes place because you disagree with a policy someone has created, or because he's morally objectionable to the extreme, or a less clear protest can be a statement at an occasion not aimed at a person.

Protesting Farrel because he speaks inconvenient truths which oppose the feminist dogma is an act of intolerance and closedmindedness.

Which is ironic because I know for a fact that the University of Toronto offers gender studies and sexual diversity studies. Their David Rayside wrote a (rather good) article on that for our geography students assocation a few years back. And here some of those students are, protesting the same gender studies they read about, when the conclusions oppose a political dogma they subscribe to.

ratzofftoya:
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.

So there we have it then, right? Your actual point was to make sex offenders out of perfectly innocent honest people, because you don't believe that normal human communication can count as consent.

I can't agree with that however. Normal human communication like body language and speech is exactly that: Communication. If someone has consensual sex after that, and later on his partner decides she didn't want it anymore, and cries rape, then that's rubbish. Consensual sex is not rape. You can't first consent, do it, later regret it and then claim it was rape.

That's like asking someone if he'd like a gift of money, he says yes, you give him money, and an hour later you report being robbed by him.

generals3:
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.

Sorry, but humans are not telepathic.

The only clue we have as to whether someone is "bad" is their actions. If you're saying we should account for mitigating circumstances, or that a reasonable belief in consent should be grounds for aquittal, then I agree and so does the law. But if you have sex with someone based on a belief in consent which isn't reasonable, or which you only possess because you were negligent or ignorant, then what obligation does the law have to treat you like a "nice guy"?

generals3:
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).

However, you could be sent to jail for if you were drunk, or on drugs, or driving recklessly.

In those circumstances, you still wouldn't have intended to kill the child or do any harm to anyone, and yet your actions would be considered irresponsible enough to make you criminally responsible for the death. In fact, you would be looking at a pretty meaty obligatory prison sentence, and noone would be asking the question of whether you were actually a "nice guy".

Recklessness shows less culpability than intention, and I think it's silly to imagine that this is not already reflected in sentencing. However, recklessness can certainly be criminal and can have serious criminal consequences for you.

generals3:
Actually i'm fairly certain that if the good guy is made clear he actually made that huge mistake he'll feel quite bad.

I don't see how this is remotely likely, but I don't want to speculate about the inner workings of people I've never met.

Suffice to say, it strikes me as a mitigating factor at best, and not particularly relevant as to whether a crime has actually been committed, though a display of remorse is likely to be relevant to sentencing in the event that someone is actually convicted.

generals3:
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).

So long as you were not behaving recklessly and doing everything reasonable to ensure the safety of others, then no.

Of course, if you were chugging vodka and smoking five joints while talking on your cellphone and driving at 150, then I don't believe we should necessarily have to send you home like the lovable scamp you are because hey, everyone makes a few mistakes and you didn't mean to hurt anyone!

chaosord:
Rape common? Please back that up with proof. Not a survey which assumes guilty until proven innocent.

1) I don't know what your standard of "common" is, but what I actually said was "more common", as in "more common than assault rape". Do you disagree?

2) It's pretty silly to dismiss victimization studies and then insist that conviction rates are a genuine measure of crime prevalence.

Modern victimization studies generally don't just straight out ask women if they have been raped. You know why? Because doing so results in lower prevalence rates than actually obtaining specific details and measuring them against the legal definition of the crime. This is because many people still believe, for example, that you cannot be raped by an intimate partner or a spouse, when in fact the law says that you can.

The numbers are on the internet, as is the methodological criteria under which those numbers were obtained. If the only criticism you can come up with is "women are making it all up" then I've lost the will to spend any time on this, because it's not going to help you.

chaosord:
Also, implying that Generals3 is a rapist is just fucked up.

Conditional tense.

evilthecat:

chaosord:
Rape common? Please back that up with proof. Not a survey which assumes guilty until proven innocent.

1) I don't know what your standard of "common" is, but what I actually said was "more common", as in "more common than assault rape". Do you disagree?

2) It's pretty silly to dismiss victimization studies and then insist that conviction rates are a genuine measure of crime prevalence.

Modern victimization studies generally don't just straight out ask women if they have been raped. You know why? Because doing so results in lower prevalence rates than actually obtaining specific details and measuring them against the legal definition of the crime. This is because many people still believe, for example, that you cannot be raped by an intimate partner or a spouse, when in fact the law says that you can.

The numbers are on the internet, as is the methodological criteria under which those numbers were obtained. If the only criticism you can come up with is "women are making it all up" then I've lost the will to spend any time on this, because it's not going to help you.

chaosord:
Also, implying that Generals3 is a rapist is just fucked up.

Conditional tense.

When did I say to use conviction rates? Please do not put words in my mouth. My issue with the numbers provided is that they are unreliable. Too much variation of criteria and problems with over and under reporting. So I am asking for something with a little more evidence to back it up.
You and I both know what you did with that post. You tried to discredit what generals3 was saying by launching a really condescending attack.

evilthecat:
Now you're misrepresenting Farrell's words yourself.

Ok, so we disagree about what Farrell meant and thus you were wrong in concluding we all were on the same page but just used different wording? Thanks for finally admitting that.

evilthecat:
There's nothing about intent.

You do realize his statement is still available for all to double-check, right? That it's not isolated in some mystical source accessible only to those with gender-studies (or women's-studies) degrees?

"If a man ignoring a woman's verbal 'no' is committing date rape, then a woman who says `no' with her verbal language but 'yes' with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says 'no' is committing date lying."

First, here, he does not use the word "intent" because he doesn't need to: he's using the terms "fraud" and lying," both of which NECESSARILY imply an intent to deceive. Further, he writes that the woman is "SAYING yes with her body language," which implies an intent to communicate a message of yes. The hypothetical women is not, according to Farrell, merely "INTERPRETED as saying yes." Therefore, Farrell is assuming, without expressly stating, that the women in question are intentionally sending mixed signals.

But even more to the point, here is his next paragraph:

"Do women still do this? Two feminists found the answer is yes. Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said "no" to sex even "when they meant yes." In my own work with over 150,000 men and women - about half of whom are single - the answer is also yes."

Did you catch that? I mean, all of that (this is a two-for-one special)? First, 40% of the subjects of the studies admitted they "MEANT yes." That is, they intended to say yes and no at the same time, using two different modes of communication. They thus intended to create a situation that would give rise to uncertainty on the part of the man as to whether she wanted sex.

Second, did you notice the part where he wrote that his figures came from "two feminists"? Yes, he also performed his own survey, which you conveniently focus on exclusively, but it appears he primarily relied on data provided by apparently misogynistic feminists who endeavored to create out of thin air some essentialist notion that ALL women are like X. What's equally strange is that their study results state that 40% of women engaged in this behavior, which means that Farrell MUST be using that number to state that "all women do X," because Farrell certainly does not know the difference between 100% and 40%. Nice analysis there, Evil! Science!

evilthecat:
There's a vague reference to studies . . . 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.

I know I already beat this dead horse above, but I can't help it. "All women at all times ever"? Really? Remember when you re-entered this discussion to stand up for Geth and used my words "hamfisted and crude" against me, as if to try to give me a taste of my own medicine? This line is one of many examples of the irony of this. I'm not sure whether it's a conscious debate strategy, or whether you really are so simplistic in your thinking that you insist on shoving everything you read that you disagree with toward some distant increment of "essentialist" absurdity. Yeah, that's another two-for-one special: essentialism and simplisticness.

evilthecat:
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.

Oh, I "fucking looked at it" again and it does not say what you claim, "clearly" or unclearly.

evilthecat:
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,

His exact words are important: "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." He's not implying that a kiss itself constitutes implicit consent, all other contextual details aside. The phrase "but were nevertheless" is implying a contradiction. This as an example of these women either being dishonest in stating "just to talk," or changing their minds. Either way, the women are sending confusing signals via this contradiction. This does not mean that he is saying a contradiction automatically means a "yes," especially given his emphasis in the rest of the passage on women "meaning" yes with their body language, and the overarching notion of "date fraud" and "date lying" (which again necessarily mean an intent to confuse/deceive). Rather, I see this as background support for the more general notion that many women's sending of mixed signals creates an unnecessary bind for men, which in turn supports, though does not prove, the overarching "date fraud" premise.

Farrell's point begs a key question. If a very large proportion of women admit they play these games, which contributes to a cultural understanding of "how women can be," should men be found guilty of rape in every instance when a woman says "no" even if in some of those instances the women are very sexually assertive as if to say "yes"? The answer, I posit, is no they should not so long as the woman's sexual assertiveness is of a certain threshold intensity and quality. And, no, passing out on my sofa or kissing me does not satisfy that threshold. That the standard I argue should apply creates line-drawing problems is just a red herring; I am advocating for a certain conception of fairness in this context, not attempting to establish some infinitely detailed rubric for how that conception would operate in every conceivable circumstance, with every conceivable permutation of factual context.

evilthecat:
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?

Well, I will agree to stop arguing about HM and patriarchy theory, but only reluctantly. It's tough to stop arguing when someone is wrong, but it's even more difficult to turn the other cheek when someone is wrong with arrogant certitude. I will just note that while you claim to know so much about these things, it is not difficult to discover with references to reliable sources that your posture of authoritative condescension is mostly just pretentious territorialism. But, yes, I will not argue further with you over matters in which you must maintain an air of expertise at all costs. That is indeed a waste of time.

evilthecat:
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

How not to prove a point
1) Make a point that you don't back up, then
2) When your opponent provides evidence that undermines the point, pretend you never made the point being undermined, but rather coyly suggest, without explanation, that your opponent is just confused (don't explain why, though, as this risks showing how full of shit you are).

If women's studies has "pretty much died" and has been "replaced by gender studies," why do so many universities still offer courses/degree in "women's studies"? Are you saying that the these universities were enlightened enough to revise their substantive curriculum, but forgot the change the name of the curriculum to reflect the revision in perspective? Perhaps you were sloppy with your language and you're trying to project fault onto me for that; if so, just admit you didn't use the correct wording.

evilthecat:
Well, cough up an alternative hypothesis.

Why would I do that? I don't feel the need to have an alternative theory simply because a popular one appears suspect. If I reject Christianity, does it follow I must choose some other religion?

evilthecat:
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?

Oh, a deeply instilled belief, nurtured by society, that being sexually assertive is unfeminine, and thus disapproved? Is that what you're looking for? If so, there you go; and it's completely consistent with what I've written all along. Problem is, IT'S IRRELEVANT. Remember this?:

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

As I suggested before, you are attempting to make the discussion one which is better suited to your analytical tools, because doing so enables you to assert brashly that Farrell is being "simplistic." Of course a person's behavior in a particular situation is largely rooted in influences that pre-date the situation. But when it comes to determining when the mens rea of a crime should be deemed satisfied, courts do not plunge the depths of sociological root causes of perceptions in examining a defendant's state of mind. Rather, the law expects people to manage their prior influences so that their conduct can be judged by influences that are relatively immediate to the situation in question. So, in the murder context, we don't ask "was the defendant poor as a child?" We ask, "did the defendant sense an immediate threat to his safety such that his act of killing was not malicious, but rather in self defense"? Similarly, a man must manage his preconceptions about women so as not to assume consent based on ANYTHING a woman does that might suggest consent. But the legally operative "cause" of his belief in consent will be the immediate conduct of the parties, and if that immediate conduct includes sexual assertiveness on the part of a woman, that matters.

That this type of causation is what is relevant to the context Farrell and I have discussed is obvious to everyone on this board but you.

So, remember this is how you attempted to (finally) explicate how Farrell was being simplistic in not addressing "homosocial relationships," remember?:

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."

You will recall that I argued you were confused regarding what Farrell was arguing (a different alleged confusion than that discussed above), and that confusion revealed why exactly your "homosocial relationships" argument is irrelevant. What say you now, especially in light of the last point?

evilthecat:
Do the police come and knock down your door . . . .

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel, aren't you?

evilthecat:
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.

Not as stupid as suggesting that I was arguing either one (see above).

evilthecat:
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"?

A jury, that's what. You write "I know I'm taking it to extremes to prove a point," but what you don't realize is that the more you take it to extremes the more the point you're making becomes irrelevant. Nothing is stopping a defendant from "saying" anything; however, a fact-finder in court would stop the defendant from successfully asserting the claim of reasonableness as a legal defense. Do you think the standard I am proposing is that a conviction should turn only on whether a defendant CLAIMS or THINKS his conclusion was reasonable? No, the very provision you invoke notes that his state of mind must BE reasonable.

evilthecat:
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.

No, it would not be just as reasonable or legitimate. There's nothing to argue here except to assert that this is a false equivalence argument that exploits the indeterminate nature of the concept of "reasonableness" and I don't agree with it; more importantly, I don't think a court or jury would either.

Regarding the provision you invoked before, I will clarify what I claimed you were "wrong" about in my last post. Geth argued this:

"If she truly wants to have sex, then no he isn't obviously [committing rape]. But if she doesn't want to and he's misinterpreting her non-verbal communication? Then yes, he most certainly are [sic] [committing rape.]"

That is, she suggested that a defendant's frame of mind is irrelevant in determining whether a rape occurred.

You challenged this, and eventually I wrote:

"So while rape may not "imply a will to commit a specific crime," it does imply a will to commit the actus reus of rape with a violative or hostile frame of mind."

You responded with "No, that's not necessary" and provided the link.

The fact that the law requires that the defendant act "unreasonably" demonstrates a very real mens rea requirement. In this case, the "violative" state of mind (that is, a state of mind necessary to "violate" the law) would be unreasonableness in concluding consent existed. Thus, some MENTAL culpability on the part of the defendant is required.

So I was correct under English law (even though I was referring to US law, but nevermind that).

evilthecat:
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.

First, Geth and others here have implicitly (or expressly) disputed that, so no need for straw feminists. Second, I agree with this standard stated in the abstract, but the rub all along has been what "reasonable" MEANS, not only under current legal code, but what it SHOULD mean under the law. Surely you must understand that this has been the nature of the discussion.

evilthecat:
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.

Yes, but again, this statement is just chocked full of question begging terms that take us back to square one: when a woman says no, but also strongly appears to say yes with her conduct, is it always sufficiently "irresponsible" for the man to conclude he has consent such that a rape conviction is always justified when a woman says no?

Anyway, I'll await your response regarding how Farrell and I are being "simplistic." Remember, THAT accusation is what is driving our exchange, and I feel your last response dodged that issue for the most part.

ManUpManDown:

You do realize his statement is still available for all to double-check, right? That it's not isolated in some mystical source accessible only to those with gender-studies (or women's-studies) degrees?

"If a man ignoring a woman's verbal 'no' is committing date rape, then a woman who says `no' with her verbal language but 'yes' with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says 'no' is committing date lying."

First, here, he does not use the word "intent" because he doesn't need to: he's using the terms "fraud" and lying," both of which NECESSARILY imply an intent to deceive. Further, he writes that the woman is "SAYING yes with her body language," which implies an intent to communicate a message of yes. The hypothetical women is not, according to Farrell, merely "INTERPRETED as saying yes." Therefore, Farrell is assuming, without expressly stating, that the women in question are intentionally sending mixed signals.

Farrell's use of loaded words to drive home a flawed point does not make his argument any better. Farrell is using a cause of confounding the situations to drive home his point. In his example the woman obviously wants to have sex in that situation and, as I've pointed out earlier, that means no crime will be committed. He then goes on to suggest that if the woman reports a rape (unlikely if she really wanted to have sex), the man should not be held responsible for going with what he thought were mixed signals. The elephant in the room is that if a rape is reported the victim was obviously not "lying" or "committing date fraud" but really didn't want to have sex and the rapist did not take those messages with the gravity they required, instead opting for using selective perception to focus on what the rapist perceived to be non-verbal communication to the contrary.

ManUpManDown:

But even more to the point, here is his next paragraph:

"Do women still do this? Two feminists found the answer is yes. Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said "no" to sex even "when they meant yes." In my own work with over 150,000 men and women - about half of whom are single - the answer is also yes."

Did you catch that? I mean, all of that (this is a two-for-one special)? First, 40% of the subjects of the studies admitted they "MEANT yes." That is, they intended to say yes and no at the same time, using two different modes of communication. They thus intended to create a situation that would give rise to uncertainty on the part of the man as to whether she wanted sex.

The problem here is the lack of context in the first source. In what situation did these 40% of college women say no to sex even if they wanted it? In case the situation wasn't exactly like Farrell's imaginary situation, this figure has no relevance to the topic at hand. In the second example Farrell doesn't even bother to provide any solid numbers, only ascertain that he worked with 150k people and that "the answer is also yes" (whatever that means).

ManUpManDown:

Second, did you notice the part where he wrote that his figures came from "two feminists"? Yes, he also performed his own survey, which you conveniently focus on exclusively, but it appears he primarily relied on data provided by apparently misogynistic feminists who endeavored to create out of thin air some essentialist notion that ALL women are like X. What's equally strange is that their study results state that 40% of women engaged in this behavior, which means that Farrell MUST be using that number to state that "all women do X," because Farrell certainly does not know the difference between 100% and 40%. Nice analysis there, Evil! Science!

Once again Farrell is going about with loaded terminology for no real reason. What does it matter that these researchers self-identify as "feminists"? Nothing really unless his intent is to use the reaction you had: That his audience will realize that "even the enemy thinks this". Once again, he's provided no context to the numbers and that the researchers are feminists is about as pertinent to the discussion as saying "two right handers found that..." in regards to Neuropsychiatric researchers.

ManUpManDown:

Oh, I "fucking looked at it" again and it does not say what you claim, "clearly" or unclearly.

Then we can at best conclude that his statement is very ambiguous. Seeing as how there's at least half a dozen people in this thread alone who've take issue with his statement. At any rate, it isn't hard to interpret his quote (and all its' context) in the way that Evil, I and several others have.

ManUpManDown:

His exact words are important: "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." He's not implying that a kiss itself constitutes implicit consent, all other contextual details aside. The phrase "but were nevertheless" is implying a contradiction. This as an example of these women either being dishonest in stating "just to talk," or changing their minds. Either way, the women are sending confusing signals via this contradiction. This does not mean that he is saying a contradiction automatically means a "yes," especially given his emphasis in the rest of the passage on women "meaning" yes with their body language, and the overarching notion of "date fraud" and "date lying" (which again necessarily mean an intent to confuse/deceive). Rather, I see this as background support for the more general notion that many women's sending of mixed signals creates an unnecessary bind for men, which in turn supports, though does not prove, the overarching "date fraud" premise.

So, if I say that I don't want a glass of water now I can't ever want another glass of water? Because, really, that's exactly what you are implying, that women can not change their mind or that women are unable to adapt to changing situations. It has nothing to do with "fraud" or intent to deceive, but is rather an expression of both parties continual adaptation to the situation they are in. Maybe the woman only wanted to talk, decided she wanted to do some macking when the opportunity presented itself and that was that? I could also go into the whole "arousal is not consent" bit, but someone else covered that very aptly a few pages back.

Do we have to assume that there's some nefarious motive to this kind of interaction coming from either party?

ManUpManDown:

Farrell's point begs a key question. If a very large proportion of women admit they play these games, which contributes to a cultural understanding of "how women can be," should men be found guilty of rape in every instance when a woman says "no" even if in some of those instances the women are very sexually assertive as if to say "yes"? The answer, I posit, is no they should not so long as the woman's sexual assertiveness is of a certain threshold intensity and quality. And, no, passing out on my sofa or kissing me does not satisfy that threshold. That the standard I argue should apply creates line-drawing problems is just a red herring; I am advocating for a certain conception of fairness in this context, not attempting to establish some infinitely detailed rubric for how that conception would operate in every conceivable circumstance, with every conceivable permutation of factual context.

Only, the point is built on the entirely implicit idea that women are "playing games" and there's nothing to support that notion apart from some loaded terminology on Farrell's part. The statistics only show that women have agreed to make out after initially only agreeing to follow someone home to talk, that's all. They fail to establish any other over-arcing motive or intent.

Also, as I've said before: If the woman wants to have sex it isn't rape and it won't be reported as such. We must assume, unless very solid evidence can be found to assert that women regularly report consensual sex as rape (that's your job, not mine), that any report of rape is serious and that the victim wasn't consenting to sexual interaction. Once again: Farrell is offering up one scenario and then he confounds its' outcome with another scenario.

ManUpManDown:

First, Geth and others here have implicitly (or expressly) disputed that, so no need for straw feminists. Second, I agree with this standard stated in the abstract, but the rub all along has been what "reasonable" MEANS, not only under current legal code, but what it SHOULD mean under the law. Surely you must understand that this has been the nature of the discussion.

No I haven't, but thanks for straw manning me. The only stance I've taken on this is that if someone expresses verbal objections to continued sexual interaction that should be treated with the utmost gravity and makes any appeal to ambiguity quite weak. If clear consent seemed to exist (such as, no verbal objection and eager non-verbal communication) that's beyond the scope of the scenario I've been discussing.

ManUpManDown:

Yes, but again, this statement is just chocked full of question begging terms that take us back to square one: when a woman says no, but also strongly appears to say yes with her conduct, is it always sufficiently "irresponsible" for the man to conclude he has consent such that a rape conviction is always justified when a woman says no?

In an over-generalized, Warren Farrell kind of way? Yes, totally. In a less bipartisan way? Mostly yes. If you are about to engage in sexual intercourse with a person you've only recently met or don't know very well discretion is the better part of valor because you obviously aren't well acquainted with each others' ways of communication and slips in communication can easily happen. In the case of long-term couples or other people who knows each others communication well, both parties might be able to discern the actual message even if the signals are ambiguous.

ManUpManDown:

Anyway, I'll await your response regarding how Farrell and I are being "simplistic." Remember, THAT accusation is what is driving our exchange, and I feel your last response dodged that issue for the most part.

You mean apart from Farrell driving some old "women are devious and are out to trick men"-kind of argument and suggesting that men aren't really culpable if they decide they wish to disregard major parts of a woman's communication because it doesn't agree with what they want to happen?

Gethsemani:
In his example the woman obviously wants to have sex in that situation and, as I've pointed out earlier, that means no crime will be committed. He then goes on to suggest that if the woman reports a rape (unlikely if she really wanted to have sex), the man should not be held responsible for going with what he thought were mixed signals.

But he does not suggest that ANY perception of mixed signals will suffice. This is why he uses what you call his "loaded words," lying and fraud. And his use of those terms makes all the difference in the world, despite your insistence on ignoring them because they interfere with your seeming need to assume the worst intentions. Indeed, this tendency was the basis of my original critique of your position.

Gethsemani:
The elephant in the room is that if a rape is reported the victim was obviously not "lying" or "committing date fraud" but really didn't want to have sex and the rapist did not take those messages with the gravity they required, instead opting for using selective perception to focus on what the rapist perceived to be non-verbal communication to the contrary.

So, in these situations the men were not guilty of rape because they were lucky enough to interpret the women's mixed signals correctly, even though at the time they could have been wrong? But, if another woman engages in the same exact behavior, but intends to send a different message, the guy is shit out of luck? You're saying that whether the guy is a rapist does not depend on the reasonableness of his perceptions in light of cultural context, but rather solely on whether the woman actually wanted to have sex?

Do you mean to tell me you don't see the problem with this? Or is it that you see it, but you don't care? THIS is the "elephant in the room."

Gethsemani:
The problem here is the lack of context in the first source. In what situation did these 40% of college women say no to sex even if they wanted it? In case the situation wasn't exactly like Farrell's imaginary situation, this figure has no relevance to the topic at hand. In the second example Farrell doesn't even bother to provide any solid numbers, only ascertain that he worked with 150k people and that "the answer is also yes" (whatever that means).

Wow. No relevance to the topic, eh? Forget the second figure. Regarding the first, what are your talking about? What gymnastics are you trying to do here to deny the relevance of what is probably the most relevant fact asserted in this entire discussion? Please elaborate, as I don't see even any INTERNAL logic to the sentences: "In case the situation wasn't exactly like Farrell's imaginary situation, this figure has no relevance to the topic at hand."

Gethsemani:
Once again Farrell is going about with loaded terminology for no real reason. What does it matter that these researchers self-identify as "feminists"? Nothing really unless his intent is to use the reaction you had: That his audience will realize that "even the enemy thinks this". Once again, he's provided no context to the numbers and that the researchers are feminists is about as pertinent to the discussion as saying "two right handers found that..." in regards to Neuropsychiatric researchers.

Your willingness to be willfully obtuse in order to avoid concluding that perhaps your position is not as "cut and dry" correct as you thought it was never ceases to amaze me. Assuming Farrell is not lying and the researchers were feminists, don't you think it's fair to assume the following?:

(1) being feminists, they were acutely aware of the problem of rape and the effects it has on women;
(2) they were feminists who were particularly concerned about and/or interested in the problem of rape given that they were conducting research relevant to the subject;
(3) being feminists concerned with rape, the last thing they would want to do is to apply a methodology that risked yielding unreliable conclusions that, if propagated, could help exacerbate the alleged problem of "victim blaming"?

In light of these fair assumptions, don't you think that the researches being feminists is, not proof, but still circumstantial evidence that their work was not, for example, biased in favor of pre-ordained conclusions about a highly sensitive, political and socially salient issue as rape, that would hurt women? Do you really think that the assumptions we could make about neuropsychiatric researchers who are right handed are just as relevant as the fact that rape researchers are feminists? What if the result of the neuropsychiatric research was a conclusion that left handers are generally more intelligent?

Gethsemani:
At any rate, it isn't hard to interpret his quote (and all its' context) in the way that Evil, I and several others have.

Of course it's not hard. All terms are ambiguous, so all language allows the most tendentious and ideologically committed among us to claim that it's possible that the speaker meant X. I think the problem here is that feminism has been quite successful in conditioning those who consider themselves conscientious and progressive to view statements about these topics as pregnant with misogyny unless they express nothing but unequivocal sympathy for women. We're seeing that in action here. Nuance goes out the window, if that nuance is so bold as to suggest that women might sometimes be somewhat responsible for the bad things that happen to them, especially rape.

Gethsemani:
Only, the point is built on the entirely implicit idea that women are "playing games" and there's nothing to support that notion apart from some loaded terminology on Farrell's part. The statistics only show that women have agreed to make out after initially only agreeing to follow someone home to talk, that's all.

See, Geth, this is your problem. This is not about the terms being sufficiently ambiguous such as to allow for reasonable disagreement. What you've said here is just flat out indisputably incorrect. The statistics quoted in Farrell's passage indicate that 40% of the women studied "meant yes" to SEX. SEX, Geth, not "making out." SEX! For gigitty fuck's sake, SEX!

Gethsemani:
So, if I say that I don't want a glass of water now I can't ever want another glass of water? Because, really, that's exactly what you are implying, that women can not change their mind or that women are unable to adapt to changing situations. . . .

Please reread the passage you quoted.

Gethsemani:
No I haven't, but thanks for straw manning me. The only stance I've taken on this is that if someone expresses verbal objections to continued sexual interaction that should be treated with the utmost gravity and makes any appeal to ambiguity quite weak.

Geth, did you not write this?:

"Whatever or not someone feels like a rapist or didn't believe they committed rape doesn't mean a thing. That's something you can learn from a whole host of court verdicts on rape."

And:

"[W]omen will continue to be the victims of rape caused by men who misinterpreted non-verbal communication. But is a rape, no matter how well-meaning the man might be when he penetrates a woman who doesn't want him to."[/quote]

You're implying in both of these quotes that if a woman does not want to have sex, and thus does not actually consent, it's rape. Period. Neither of these quotes are tied to the scenario whereby a woman verbally asserts a no. You are therefore suggesting that it is not, and should not be, an adequate defense to a rape charge that the man, in light of culture, reasonably believed he had the woman's consent. Of course, under the reasonableness standard, the defendant's belief does "mean a thing" if it is reasonable in light of cultural and circumstantial details.

Gethsemani:
You mean apart from Farrell driving some old "women are devious and are out to trick men"-kind of argument and suggesting that men aren't really culpable if they decide they wish to disregard major parts of a woman's communication because it doesn't agree with what they want to happen?

Yeah, apart from that. : /

I will remind you, and Evil for that matter, what the question is regarding being "simplistic." If Farrell was seeking to explore the greater sociological question of why a man thinks the way he does in a particular sexual situation, certainly a discussion of culture, and the dynamics that shape it, would be obligatory, and Farrell would indeed fairly be open to the charge of being "simplistic" in examining only the woman's conduct in isolation of cultural dynamics.

But Farrell was addressing a narrower question: when is it fair to convict men of the crime of rape? And Farrell understands what most people understand about western legal systems: in applying concepts like "reasonableness," the concept is defined in specific cases relative to cultural context. The law takes culture AS IT IS, NOT AS IT SHOULD BE.

Thus, even if we assume that homosocial relationships explain ALL of why men enter into specific sexual situations with their given perspectives, it does not change the fact that those perspectives are a part of the culture against which reasonableness will be measured. Thus, the DEGREE to which homosocial relationships, specifically, determine a man's situational perspective is utterly irrelevant when determining whether the man acted "reasonably" for purposes of mens rea. The only thing that matters is that there is a culture, and we must know WHAT that culture teaches, not WHY or HOW the culture teaches it.

In light of this reality, I would like to know: why are Farrell and I are being "simplistic" in failing to discuss "homosocial relationships"?

ManUpManDown:

But he does not suggest that ANY perception of mixed signals will suffice. This is why he uses what you call his "loaded words," lying and fraud. And his use of those terms makes all the difference in the world, despite your insistence on ignoring them because they interfere with your seeming need to assume the worst intentions. Indeed, this tendency was the basis of my original critique of your position.

Care to tell me how they make "all the difference in the world"? Why the are even relevant? I made a case against the use of them, you do not make a case for them. Also, where do you find my "seeming need to assume the worst intentions"? See, this entire paragraph is so vague that I am not even sure what you are trying to say, other then leveling some broad, generalized critique against my position without ever telling me what you think wrong with my position or why yours is better.

ManUpManDown:

So, in these situations the men were not guilty of rape because they were lucky enough to interpret the women's mixed signals correctly, even though at the time they could have been wrong? But, if another woman engages in the same exact behavior, but intends to send a different message, the guy is shit out of luck? You're saying that whether the guy is a rapist does not depend on the reasonableness of his perceptions in light of cultural context, but rather solely on whether the woman actually wanted to have sex?

Do you mean to tell me you don't see the problem with this? Or is it that you see it, but you don't care? THIS is the "elephant in the room."

Pretty much. Keep in mind that Farrell is giving us an example where there is a clear communication of non-consent and the man chooses to disregard it. It is pretty much a roll of the die. As I think I've made amply clear at this point, I still think "no means no" is a very reasonable standard for people to go by as a means to avoid "accidentally" ending up in a situation were you are raping a non-consenting sexual partner.

By the way, address my statement instead of using tu quoque-fallacies. I know this entire post of yours is more rhetoric then actual argumentation, but please try.

ManUpManDown:

Wow. No relevance to the topic, eh? Forget the second figure. Regarding the first, what are your talking about? What gymnastics are you trying to do here to deny the relevance of what is probably the most relevant fact asserted in this entire discussion? Please elaborate, as I don't see even any INTERNAL logic to the sentences: "In case the situation wasn't exactly like Farrell's imaginary situation, this figure has no relevance to the topic at hand."

Wow. No understanding of what I said, eh? All Farrell has told us is that 40% of the participants in a study acknowledged that they had said no to sex when they actually wanted to have sex. That's it. Farrell ties this back to his hypothetical situation and tries to connect the two. But we do not know how the study was conducted, what questions were asked and, even more importantly, in which situation the participants turned down sex. Unless all 40% of these participants said "No" while meaning "yes" in the specific situation of petting/foreplay with a stranger then the relevance to Farrell's hypothetical situation is pretty thin. This is basic scientific method, if you can't grasp it this discussion is pointless.

Just to give you an idea here: I've turned down sex, even when I really wanted to do it, because of such varied things as having my period, having to go to work the next morning, wanting sex but not with the person who offered and simply being too tired despite being aroused just to name a few.

ManUpManDown:

Your willingness to be willfully obtuse in order to avoid concluding that perhaps your position is not as "cut and dry" correct as you thought it was never ceases to amaze me. Assuming Farrell is not lying and the researchers were feminists, don't you think it's fair to assume the following?:

(1) being feminists, they were acutely aware of the problem of rape and the effects it has on women;
(2) they were feminists who were particularly concerned about and/or interested in the problem of rape given that they were conducting research relevant to the subject;
(3) being feminists concerned with rape, the last thing they would want to do is to apply a methodology that risked yielding unreliable conclusions that, if propagated, could help exacerbate the alleged problem of "victim blaming"?

In light of these fair assumptions, don't you think that the researches being feminists is, not proof, but still circumstantial evidence that their work was not, for example, biased in favor of pre-ordained conclusions about a highly sensitive, political and socially salient issue as rape, that would hurt women? Do you really think that the assumptions we could make about neuropsychiatric researchers who are right handed are just as relevant as the fact that rape researchers are feminists? What if the result of the neuropsychiatric research was a conclusion that left handers are generally more intelligent?

Assumptions are bad. Especially when it comes to scientific studies. And as I've pointed out in my prior paragraph, we don't know under which circumstances their study was conducted, hence we can't use their 40%-number in any meaningful way. If we are to assume, I think it is just as likely to assume that Farrell wanted to highlight their feminist leaning as a way to "prove the other side agrees with this". But it doesn't take away the problem of the number not telling us anything out of the context of the study in which it was found.

ManUpManDown:

Of course it's not hard. All terms are ambiguous, so all language allows the most tendentious and ideologically committed among us to claim that it's possible that the speaker meant X. I think the problem here is that feminism has been quite successful in conditioning those who consider themselves conscientious and progressive to view statements about these topics as pregnant with misogyny unless they express nothing but unequivocal sympathy for women. We're seeing that in action here. Nuance goes out the window, if that nuance is so bold as to suggest that women might sometimes be somewhat responsible for the bad things that happen to them, especially rape.

This is pot calling kettle black. I think I'll leave it at that since it is a discussion without any merit to the topic at hand.

ManUpManDown:

See, Geth, this is your problem. This is not about the terms being sufficiently ambiguous such as to allow for reasonable disagreement. What you've said here is just flat out indisputably incorrect. The statistics quoted in Farrell's passage indicate that 40% of the women studied "meant yes" to SEX. SEX, Geth, not "making out." SEX! For gigitty fuck's sake, SEX!

See above on the statistics. Also, let me point out that there were two examples involved the 40%-one and the one that suggested that women had gone home with men without any intention of intimacy and then had reciprocated to kissing. Really, at least try to keep up with what I am saying instead of just looking for ways to shoot it down.

ManUpManDown:

"Whatever or not someone feels like a rapist or didn't believe they committed rape doesn't mean a thing. That's something you can learn from a whole host of court verdicts on rape."

And:

"[W]omen will continue to be the victims of rape caused by men who misinterpreted non-verbal communication. But is a rape, no matter how well-meaning the man might be when he penetrates a woman who doesn't want him to."

You're implying in both of these quotes that if a woman does not want to have sex, and thus does not actually consent, it's rape. Period. Neither of these quotes are tied to the scenario whereby a woman verbally asserts a no. You are therefore suggesting that it is not, and should not be, an adequate defense to a rape charge that the man, in light of culture, reasonably believed he had the woman's consent. Of course, under the reasonableness standard, the defendant's belief does "mean a thing" if it is reasonable in light of cultural and circumstantial details. [/quote]

Dictionary.com suggests:
rape1 [reyp] noun, verb, raped, rap·ing.
noun
1.
the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2.
any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
[...]
verb (used with object)
6.
to force to have sexual intercourse.

Whatever it is rape under the legal code is not up to me to decide, since I am neither a judge or a jury and it is mostly Evilthecat that has been driving that line. But by the very definition of the word rape my definition is correct. Take offense with it all you like.

ManUpManDown:

Gethsemani:
You mean apart from Farrell driving some old "women are devious and are out to trick men"-kind of argument and suggesting that men aren't really culpable if they decide they wish to disregard major parts of a woman's communication because it doesn't agree with what they want to happen?

Yeah, apart from that. : /

I will remind you, and Evil for that matter, what the question is regarding being "simplistic." [...]

In light of this reality, I would like to know: why are Farrell and I are being "simplistic" in failing to discuss "homosocial relationships"?

Re-read what I wrote until you get it. That's the gist of what I (and I believe most others who have spoken out against Farrell in this thread) take objection with. You can try to change the focus or move it onto another topic entirely all you'd like, but the sentence you quoted from my previous post really sums it all up.

Gethsemani:

ManUpManDown:

But he does not suggest that ANY perception of mixed signals will suffice. This is why he uses what you call his "loaded words," lying and fraud. And his use of those terms makes all the difference in the world, despite your insistence on ignoring them because they interfere with your seeming need to assume the worst intentions. Indeed, this tendency was the basis of my original critique of your position.

Care to tell me how they make "all the difference in the world"? Why the are even relevant? I made a case against the use of them, you do not make a case for them. Also, where do you find my "seeming need to assume the worst intentions"? See, this entire paragraph is so vague that I am not even sure what you are trying to say, other then leveling some broad, generalized critique against my position without ever telling me what you think wrong with my position or why yours is better.

ManUpManDown:

So, in these situations the men were not guilty of rape because they were lucky enough to interpret the women's mixed signals correctly, even though at the time they could have been wrong? But, if another woman engages in the same exact behavior, but intends to send a different message, the guy is shit out of luck? You're saying that whether the guy is a rapist does not depend on the reasonableness of his perceptions in light of cultural context, but rather solely on whether the woman actually wanted to have sex?

Do you mean to tell me you don't see the problem with this? Or is it that you see it, but you don't care? THIS is the "elephant in the room."

Pretty much. Keep in mind that Farrell is giving us an example where there is a clear communication of non-consent and the man chooses to disregard it. It is pretty much a roll of the die. As I think I've made amply clear at this point, I still think "no means no" is a very reasonable standard for people to go by as a means to avoid "accidentally" ending up in a situation were you are raping a non-consenting sexual partner.

By the way, address my statement instead of using tu quoque-fallacies. I know this entire post of yours is more rhetoric then actual argumentation, but please try.

ManUpManDown:

Wow. No relevance to the topic, eh? Forget the second figure. Regarding the first, what are your talking about? What gymnastics are you trying to do here to deny the relevance of what is probably the most relevant fact asserted in this entire discussion? Please elaborate, as I don't see even any INTERNAL logic to the sentences: "In case the situation wasn't exactly like Farrell's imaginary situation, this figure has no relevance to the topic at hand."

Wow. No understanding of what I said, eh? All Farrell has told us is that 40% of the participants in a study acknowledged that they had said no to sex when they actually wanted to have sex. That's it. Farrell ties this back to his hypothetical situation and tries to connect the two. But we do not know how the study was conducted, what questions were asked and, even more importantly, in which situation the participants turned down sex. Unless all 40% of these participants said "No" while meaning "yes" in the specific situation of petting/foreplay with a stranger then the relevance to Farrell's hypothetical situation is pretty thin. This is basic scientific method, if you can't grasp it this discussion is pointless.

Just to give you an idea here: I've turned down sex, even when I really wanted to do it, because of such varied things as having my period, having to go to work the next morning, wanting sex but not with the person who offered and simply being too tired despite being aroused just to name a few.

ManUpManDown:

Your willingness to be willfully obtuse in order to avoid concluding that perhaps your position is not as "cut and dry" correct as you thought it was never ceases to amaze me. Assuming Farrell is not lying and the researchers were feminists, don't you think it's fair to assume the following?:

(1) being feminists, they were acutely aware of the problem of rape and the effects it has on women;
(2) they were feminists who were particularly concerned about and/or interested in the problem of rape given that they were conducting research relevant to the subject;
(3) being feminists concerned with rape, the last thing they would want to do is to apply a methodology that risked yielding unreliable conclusions that, if propagated, could help exacerbate the alleged problem of "victim blaming"?

In light of these fair assumptions, don't you think that the researches being feminists is, not proof, but still circumstantial evidence that their work was not, for example, biased in favor of pre-ordained conclusions about a highly sensitive, political and socially salient issue as rape, that would hurt women? Do you really think that the assumptions we could make about neuropsychiatric researchers who are right handed are just as relevant as the fact that rape researchers are feminists? What if the result of the neuropsychiatric research was a conclusion that left handers are generally more intelligent?

Assumptions are bad. Especially when it comes to scientific studies. And as I've pointed out in my prior paragraph, we don't know under which circumstances their study was conducted, hence we can't use their 40%-number in any meaningful way. If we are to assume, I think it is just as likely to assume that Farrell wanted to highlight their feminist leaning as a way to "prove the other side agrees with this". But it doesn't take away the problem of the number not telling us anything out of the context of the study in which it was found.

ManUpManDown:

Of course it's not hard. All terms are ambiguous, so all language allows the most tendentious and ideologically committed among us to claim that it's possible that the speaker meant X. I think the problem here is that feminism has been quite successful in conditioning those who consider themselves conscientious and progressive to view statements about these topics as pregnant with misogyny unless they express nothing but unequivocal sympathy for women. We're seeing that in action here. Nuance goes out the window, if that nuance is so bold as to suggest that women might sometimes be somewhat responsible for the bad things that happen to them, especially rape.

This is pot calling kettle black. I think I'll leave it at that since it is a discussion without any merit to the topic at hand.

ManUpManDown:

See, Geth, this is your problem. This is not about the terms being sufficiently ambiguous such as to allow for reasonable disagreement. What you've said here is just flat out indisputably incorrect. The statistics quoted in Farrell's passage indicate that 40% of the women studied "meant yes" to SEX. SEX, Geth, not "making out." SEX! For gigitty fuck's sake, SEX!

See above on the statistics. Also, let me point out that there were two examples involved the 40%-one and the one that suggested that women had gone home with men without any intention of intimacy and then had reciprocated to kissing. Really, at least try to keep up with what I am saying instead of just looking for ways to shoot it down.

ManUpManDown:

"Whatever or not someone feels like a rapist or didn't believe they committed rape doesn't mean a thing. That's something you can learn from a whole host of court verdicts on rape."

And:

"[W]omen will continue to be the victims of rape caused by men who misinterpreted non-verbal communication. But is a rape, no matter how well-meaning the man might be when he penetrates a woman who doesn't want him to."

You're implying in both of these quotes that if a woman does not want to have sex, and thus does not actually consent, it's rape. Period. Neither of these quotes are tied to the scenario whereby a woman verbally asserts a no. You are therefore suggesting that it is not, and should not be, an adequate defense to a rape charge that the man, in light of culture, reasonably believed he had the woman's consent. Of course, under the reasonableness standard, the defendant's belief does "mean a thing" if it is reasonable in light of cultural and circumstantial details.

Dictionary.com suggests:
rape1 [reyp] noun, verb, raped, rap·ing.
noun
1.
the unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2.
any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
[...]
verb (used with object)
6.
to force to have sexual intercourse.

Whatever it is rape under the legal code is not up to me to decide, since I am neither a judge or a jury and it is mostly Evilthecat that has been driving that line. But by the very definition of the word rape my definition is correct. Take offense with it all you like.

ManUpManDown:

Gethsemani:
You mean apart from Farrell driving some old "women are devious and are out to trick men"-kind of argument and suggesting that men aren't really culpable if they decide they wish to disregard major parts of a woman's communication because it doesn't agree with what they want to happen?

Yeah, apart from that. : /

I will remind you, and Evil for that matter, what the question is regarding being "simplistic." [...]

In light of this reality, I would like to know: why are Farrell and I are being "simplistic" in failing to discuss "homosocial relationships"?

Re-read what I wrote until you get it. That's the gist of what I (and I believe most others who have spoken out against Farrell in this thread) take objection with. You can try to change the focus or move it onto another topic entirely all you'd like, but the sentence you quoted from my previous post really sums it all up.[/quote]

I love the strawman you have made out of Warren Farrell. And how you are taking potshots at it and yelling out, "SEE HOW RIGHT I AM!!!." And how you do not answer ManUpManDown's question.

evilthecat:

generals3:
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.

Sorry, but humans are not telepathic.

The only clue we have as to whether someone is "bad" is their actions. If you're saying we should account for mitigating circumstances, or that a reasonable belief in consent should be grounds for aquittal, then I agree and so does the law. But if you have sex with someone based on a belief in consent which isn't reasonable, or which you only possess because you were negligent or ignorant, then what obligation does the law have to treat you like a "nice guy"?

You're correct on that one. However we can assume that if the person did not intoxicate or use force against the other odds are that the intentions weren't bad. Sure the person may have ended up using such methods if it were necessary but that would be a guess. Personally i think that malicious intents have to be proven, not assumed.

generals3:
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).

However, you could be sent to jail for if you were drunk, or on drugs, or driving recklessly.

In those circumstances, you still wouldn't have intended to kill the child or do any harm to anyone, and yet your actions would be considered irresponsible enough to make you criminally responsible for the death. In fact, you would be looking at a pretty meaty obligatory prison sentence, and noone would be asking the question of whether you were actually a "nice guy".

Recklessness shows less culpability than intention, and I think it's silly to imagine that this is not already reflected in sentencing. However, recklessness can certainly be criminal and can have serious criminal consequences for you.

The analogy would work more if we were talking about people purposely intoxicating people who they are going to have intercourse with. Driving while drunk is illegal, and going behind the wheel while drunk is known as being very dangerous and thus you are culpable of purposely maximizing the chances of causing an accident. However unless i'm mistaken it isn't illegal to have sex without explicit consent neither is it commonly known not having paperwork or asking for explicit consent maximizes the chances of "rape" (intoxicating someone on purpose however...).
And even than, i have never heard of cases where drunken folks hit people they were charged with murder (at least in Belgium) it's still considered to be a different category.

generals3:
Actually i'm fairly certain that if the good guy is made clear he actually made that huge mistake he'll feel quite bad.

I don't see how this is remotely likely, but I don't want to speculate about the inner workings of people I've never met.

Suffice to say, it strikes me as a mitigating factor at best, and not particularly relevant as to whether a crime has actually been committed, though a display of remorse is likely to be relevant to sentencing in the event that someone is actually convicted.

Well usually someone who actually did what he wanted to do is less likely to regret his actions than someone who didn't intend to do it. Just look at Brevik, he wanted to kill people and doesn't show a shred of remorse, regardless of his conviction. (unless i'm mistaken the initial point i was addressing is that a legal conviction was necessary to make people regret their actions. Which i beg to differ, well they may regret the action because of the penalty involved but not necessarily for the action they did itself)

generals3:
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).

So long as you were not behaving recklessly and doing everything reasonable to ensure the safety of others, then no.

Of course, if you were chugging vodka and smoking five joints while talking on your cellphone and driving at 150, then I don't believe we should necessarily have to send you home like the lovable scamp you are because hey, everyone makes a few mistakes and you didn't mean to hurt anyone!

Addressed above.

Driving across the country (US) for the holidays does not allow for a quick response, but a response I offer nonetheless.

Gethsemani:
Care to tell me how they make "all the difference in the world"?

See, I already have. But you either don't remember, weren't paying attention, or you're simply trying to prolong the inevitable by getting me to repeat arguments I've already made. You will recall that you responded to the post I wrote IN RESPONSE TO EVIL, NOT YOU. Thus, if you are going to reply to me, you should brush up on what I asserted to him in prior posts.

Gethsemani:
Pretty much. Keep in mind that Farrell is giving us an example where there is a clear communication of non-consent and the man chooses to disregard it. It is pretty much a roll of the die. As I think I've made amply clear at this point, I still think "no means no" is a very reasonable standard for people to go by as a means to avoid "accidentally" ending up in a situation were you are raping a non-consenting sexual partner.

There are so many problems with this paragraph. Let's unpack it.

Gethsemani:
Keep in mind that Farrell is giving us an example where there is a clear communication of non-consent

No. There is a clear VERBAL NO. What the overall message is regarding consent is very fact dependant and, given that 40% of these women "meant yes," it is FAR from clear that the overall message was not muddled with sexually assertive conduct.

Gethsemani:
and the man chooses to disregard it

If a man thinks the woman is holistically saying "yes," despite her verbal no, what is he disregarding? Her lack of consent or her verbal no? The latter, because, to him, there is no lack of consent.

Gethsemani:
It is pretty much a roll of the die. As I think I've made amply clear at this point, I still think "no means no" is a very reasonable standard for people to go by as a means to avoid "accidentally" ending up in a situation were you are raping a non-consenting sexual partner.

So, just to be clear, it's a "roll of the die," regardless of whether the man's perspective, informed by cultural realities, has led him to correctly conclude that he had consent, while in the same exact scenario with another women, he would be wrong regarding consent?

If this is so, how can you then claim that I was "straw manning" you when I asserted that you did not support a culturally contingent reasonable belief standard? The standard you espouse here, "no means no," is not the same standard. This standard is a prophylactic/prudence standard. Here, the question is not whether, given the specific factual circumstances, the man was unreasonable (reasonableness defined by cultural context) in concluding he had actual consent. Rather, the standard is lower: whether the man, even if he could consistent with cultural context reasonably conclude that the woman was holistically consenting to sex, took the safest and most conservative route possible. This is closer (though not quite the same) as a "strict liability" standard.

Gethsemani:
By the way, address my statement instead of using tu quoque-fallacies.

Please look up the phrase "tu quoque fallacy." You don't seem to know what it means. There are none in my argument, at least not the portion you quoted.

Gethsemani:
I know this entire post of yours is more rhetoric then actual argumentation

Ironic, given that you just invoked a rhetorical device with little regard for whether you were using it correctly.

Gethsemani:
All Farrell has told us is that 40% of the participants in a study acknowledged that they had said no to sex when they actually wanted to have sex. That's it. Farrell ties this back to his hypothetical situation and tries to connect the two. But we do not know how the study was conducted, what questions were asked and, even more importantly, in which situation the participants turned down sex. Unless all 40% of these participants said "No" while meaning "yes" in the specific situation of petting/foreplay with a stranger then the relevance to Farrell's hypothetical situation is pretty thin. This is basic scientific method, if you can't grasp it this discussion is pointless.

So, the point as I read you is that we don't know whether the 40% of women in question engaged in sexually asserive conduct consistent with the unspoken "yes," and therefore we don't know whether these women were actually sending mixed signals to the respective men.

Here is the relevant passage:

"If a man ignoring a woman's verbal 'no' is committing date rape, then a woman who says `no' with her verbal language but 'yes' with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says 'no' is committing date lying.

"Do women still do this? Two feminists found the answer is yes. Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said "no" to sex even "when they meant yes."

First, I find it very hard to believe that women who want to have sex in these situations would not engage is conduct meant to signal "yes" if the man thinks her consent is lacking due to a prior verbal "no." And your hypo of "turning down sex even when I really wanted to do it" is not implicated here, because the women according to the researches actually "meant yes." They were not seeking to "turn it down" if they "meant yes." If I am offered a beer and I "mean yes" with my response, I don't "mean to turn it down." If I seek to turn an offer down, I say AND MEAN "no."
Second, your original remark was:

"In case the situation wasn't exactly like Farrell's imaginary situation, this figure has no relevance to the topic at hand."

By "topic at hand," I take it you mean our discussion? If so, you're wrong for reasons I've already explained. The 40% who "meant yes" necessarily imply that they wanted the respective men to advance through their verbal nos (for reasons already stated, I don't buy the idea that by "yes," these women could have meant only "I would like to have sex with you under more ideal circumstances than these"; that's not "meaning yes" at all). Why? Because the "no" was really a "yes." They "MEANT" yes. (Notice that Farrell uses quotes around "when they meant yes," indicating that was the exact language the researchers used).

Regardless of what specific physical conduct (if any) the 40% of women did or did not engage in, if 40% of women admit to consenting to sex ("meaning yes" is the same as consent, no matter how hard you try to pretend otherwise) while saying "no," how then can we say that in any situation where a man concluded there was consent based on some sexual assertiveness on the part of the woman following a verbal no, the man's conclusion was unreasonable so long as the woman did not actually want to have sex? That is, we're throwing cultural context out the window when determining whether the man's belief in consent was reasonable, even though reasonableness is supposed to be defined relative to that cultural context. And we're throwing men under the bus in the process. Why? So we can, at all costs, vindicate a woman's feeling of being violated.

Third, here's another huge problem. Let's assume that NONE of the 40% of women engaged in any sexually assertive conduct following a verbal "no." Does that not just send the culteral signal that if a woman says no and DOES engage in sexually assertive conduct, the chance that she "really means yes" is even greater? Ie, does this not give men even further cultural grounds for doubting that a woman means no when she says it if she is indeed being sexually assertive as well?

Gethsemani:
And as I've pointed out in my prior paragraph, we don't know under which circumstances their study was conducted, hence we can't use their 40%-number in any meaningful way.

Yes we can. See my previous point.

Gethsemani:
If we are to assume, I think it is just as likely to assume that Farrell wanted to highlight their feminist leaning as a way to "prove the other side agrees with this"

Yes, I agree. So what? Farrell was completely reasonable in using their identity as feminists this way. This assumption compliments mine perfectly.

Gethsemani:
See above on the statistics. Also, let me point out that there were two examples involved the 40%-one and the one that suggested that women had gone home with men without any intention of intimacy and then had reciprocated to kissing. Really, at least try to keep up with what I am saying instead of just looking for ways to shoot it down.

Geth, if you're going to attempt this sort of rhetorical smackdown, at least double check the statistic you claim I'm not "keeping up" with before doing so. Here's the passage:

"Do women still do this? Two feminists found the answer is yes. Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said "no" to sex even "when they meant yes." In my own work with over 150,000 men and women - about half of whom are single - the answer is also yes. 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. Almost all acknowledge they've recently said something like "That's far enough for now," even as her lips are still kissing and her tongue is still touching his."

The 40% figure is only for the "meant yes" line.

Gethsemani:
Whatever it is rape under the legal code is not up to me to decide, since I am neither a judge or a jury and it is mostly Evilthecat that has been driving that line. But by the very definition of the word rape my definition is correct. Take offense with it all you like.

And way to dodge the point. Or, as you might say, fail to "keep up." You originally claimed I was strawmanning you in asserting that the legal standard you supported is not the same as Evil's. I have provided evidence that this is in fact true. You respond with a dictionary.com definition of rape, claiming your definition is "correct," and you fail to see that not only are you not correct, your correctness, if you enjoyed it, would be irrelevant to the point.

Gethsemani:
Re-read what I wrote until you get it. That's the gist of what I (and I believe most others who have spoken out against Farrell in this thread) take objection with. You can try to change the focus or move it onto another topic entirely all you'd like, but the sentence you quoted from my previous post really sums it all up.

Jesus. Talk about a response being "more rhetoric then actual argumentation."

Do you recall that Evil, not I, was the one who claimed that "homosocial relationships" were crucial to this discussion? The exchange between him and I, the one you jumped into, centered on his claim that Farrell and I are being "simplistic" in failing to emphasize "homosocial relationships."

Gethsemani:
Re-read what I wrote until you get it.

I don't think that will do, since you have not addressed homosocial relationships. Re-read the posts between Evil and I until you get it.

ManUpManDown:
"If a man ignoring a woman's verbal 'no' is committing date rape, then a woman who says `no' with her verbal language but 'yes' with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says 'no' is committing date lying."p

..has nothing whatsoever to do with intent.

Received communication is not intent. If it was then it would be impossible to make a mistake regarding someone's consent at all.

ManUpManDown:
He's using the terms "fraud" and lying," both of which NECESSARILY imply an intent to deceive.

Normally we might consider that true. However, when he's suggesting that "being sexual" indicates intentional deception, I'm inclined to disregard that because it's not true. Thus, my assumption (which I presumed we were all operating on) that he's talking entirely about received communication and how actions are interpreted.

Now, he may be deliberately seeking to present a scenario in which "being sexual" always signifies full cognitive consent to penetration and that this is thus a principle on which our legal system should operate. However, it's not true. It doesn't reflect reality in the slightest.

If indeed this statement only applies wherein a woman is deliberately lying, why the authoritative statement "A woman who continues to be sexual even after she says 'no' is committing date lying". Why should I take this to mean "occasionally" or "sometimes" when it doesn't say that? If the indicator of whether a woman is intentionally lying can be reduced purely to specific external actions, particularly general actions like "being sexual", on what level can it be assumed that we're talking about intent.

ManUpManDown:
Did you catch that? I mean, all of that (this is a two-for-one special)? First, 40% of the subjects of the studies admitted they "MEANT yes."

What is the study he's talking about here?

Seriously, this coming from someone who doesn't accept the basic statistical evidence for any form of systemic gender inequality from countless "feminist studies" is kind of ironic. Suddenly you're willing to leap to the defence of a nameless "feminist study" which likely had nothing to do with this point because a single quoted statistic from it superficially supports an idea you'd like to believe is true?

Sorry, I'm not just accepting this without actually seeing how that data was gathered, the date in which the study was published (because for all we know it was published in the 60s) and how it was originally presented before being taken out of context. Until then, I'm not particularly interested in discussing the persuasive merits of quoting these studies, because they really could be about anything. Heck, I have no idea what Farrell considers "feminist", so we only have his word for it there as well.

If someone can produce the study in question, I'd be grateful. I'm getting nowhere with finding clear references myself, though, so this is all about as meaningful to me as a whole lot of nothing.

You're also being extremely generous to him with the suggestion that he "did his own survey". An anecdote is not a survey, hence why I'm ignoring it.

ManUpManDown:
That is, they intended to say yes and no at the same time, using two different modes of communication. They thus intended to create a situation that would give rise to uncertainty on the part of the man as to whether she wanted sex.

That's not what Farrell says about the studies he's quoting. It may be what he's attempting to imply, but simply saying that they "said no when they meant yes" does not imply a wilful attempt to deceive or create uncertainty at all. The latter, in fact, is a ludicrous thing to assume. Why would anyone in that situation wish to create uncertainty in someone else regarding their own consent when it is actually clear to them?

This, and the fact that every single indication of "consent" Farrell mentions is a passive or receptive action, is part of what sets off alarm bells for me that the study Farrell is talking about is probably not actually agreeing with him at all. I have a vague intuition that it is probably talking about situations in which women say no but nonetheless relent or go along when pressured. That's just a feeling, but it's another reason I'm not taking these out of context references to studies seriously.

ManUpManDown:
His exact words are important: "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." He's not implying that a kiss itself constitutes implicit consent, all other contextual details aside. The phrase "but were nevertheless" is implying a contradiction. This as an example of these women either being dishonest in stating "just to talk," or changing their minds.

But it implies neither of those things.

"Being responsive to a kiss" does not mean you have changed your mind. You can be responsive to a kiss and yet not want it. I've kissed a good number of people who I had absolutely no desire to kiss simply because it was easier than rejecting or upsetting them or because the attention was nice. It's not "changing your mind" about anything, you can still be sitting there thinking "when the fuck is this going to be over so we can talk some more?"

If you're sexually assertive to someone, or even more so if you're outright aggressive, they may well respond just because they think it will be easier or they are confused and don't know what to do. If you lunge for someone's lips, they will often receive your kiss even though they don't want to simply because they were suddenly put on the spot and had to make a snap decision. This doesn't indicate an intentional desire to be kissed, it indicates confusion.

Now, someone may be in the position where part of them wants to kiss someone, or sleep with them, but a more conscious part of them does not. Again, this isn't "being dishonest", it's confusion. Women are not either on or off, their feelings can be just as complicated and confusing as yours. The fact remains that unless someone actually wants to have sex with you and is not just going along with it because you've put them on the spot, you're taking the risk that they might justifiably look back on their actions and come to the conclusion that they didn't actually consent.

This is why I simply cannot believe that what Farrell is talking about here is intent. I can understand that it might be what you are talking about. Although to me (if that were true) it would suggest a rather bad and misleading attitude to women. I don't mean that to be malicious, you're hardly alone in that regard, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) if you genuinely believe that deliberately deceiving men about their intentions is somehow rewarding to women, I think you're going to have to justify that.. or certainly to explain it.

ManUpManDown:
I will just note that while you claim to know so much about these things, it is not difficult to discover with references to reliable sources that your posture of authoritative condescension is mostly just pretentious territorialism.

I find your bizarre arrogance in this case strangely provocative. Perhaps it's because I'm currently holding the book which popularized the term in my hands. In fact, it is without a doubt the most influential book I have ever read in the sense that it has completely defined and shaped my research interests over the last three years or so now. It will certainly continue to do so for the next four and probably for a long time after that.

I suspect the reason why I'm not consumed by a desire to prove you wrong is because I don't actually feel that I have to care what you've googled or read on wikipedia. In fact, I think if there is one single thing I have earned in my life so far, it is the ability not to care what some anonymous person on the internet thinks about my interpretation of a book which I have read many times and which you have never even picked up.

ManUpManDown:
If women's studies has "pretty much died" and has been "replaced by gender studies," why do so many universities still offer courses/degree in "women's studies"?

Compared to 30 years ago, they don't.

I'll admit, I'm speaking from a slightly Eurocentric perspective, being European and thus having very little exposure to American academia. It may be that the Women's Studies approach remains somewhat influential over there at the teaching level. However, I doubt it, firstly because the most influential critics of that approach have all been Americans, and secondly because, as far as I can see there really isn't a whole lot of research coming out which still uses a "women's studies" perspective or is published in "women's studies" journals, certainly not when compared to the sheer number of journals devoted to subjects like gender studies and queer studies.

I know a women's studies graduate, so I know that departments still exist somewhere. However, for something which was so ubiquitous in the 1980s it is a pretty insignificant discipline today, and wherein it still exists has little resemblance to the way it was previously, the guy I know who did it was actually the most knowledgeable gender studies postgraduate I've ever met. My point was a sweeping statement about overall trends, and I don't know why you've attempted to take it as a precise or measurable claim. You've been decrying what you clearly see as my attempts at point scoring, how am I meant to interpret this except as an attempt at point scoring?

Incidentally, if you're going to post a list of women's studies department to illustrate how prevalent women's studies still is in relation to gender studies, posting the titles of gender studies courses in that list doesn't help your case.

ManUpManDown:
Why would I do that? I don't feel the need to have an alternative theory simply because a popular one appears suspect. If I reject Christianity, does it follow I must choose some other religion?

If your reasons for rejecting Christianity are that "it's biased" or "it focuses too much on the role of Jesus", then yes. You do need to have at least an idea of what would be an "less biased" position, or you do need to have a hypothesis which can explain how your beliefs still work without Jesus.

If you don't have some idea of what is "outside" of Christianity, then how are you meant to reject Christianity in the first place? From what position can you do that except from the position of believing something which is not Christianity, whether that something is another religion, some form of atheism or even just a position of doubt and uncertainty.

So yeah, you could say that you don't think we should be theorizing in this area at all and should go right back to square one, but surely you'd still need to explain why that's a better or less biased position. Otherwise what are you saying?

ManUpManDown:
But when it comes to determining when the mens rea of a crime should be deemed satisfied, courts do not plunge the depths of sociological root causes of perceptions in examining a defendant's state of mind.

Maybe my inflection here wasn't very clear, because I totally, totally agree..

Which is exactly why I maintain that simply "causing" someone to misinterpret your status as regards consent does not make you legally complicit or responsible for your own rape. The court should not have to consider whether or not someone was "equipped" to recognize consent, or whether or not they might feel a socialized "obligation" to live up to whatever expectations someone else might have of them. The court should only have to consider whether the belief in consent is reasonable given the circumstances. That's it.

If someone was saying "no" and you went ahead because they were still receptive to kisses, that's not reasonable. If someone was saying "no" while ripping your clothes off and pulling you inside them, that is still reasonable. If someone explains to you that they like to roleplay coercion, then it might be reasonable to look for other clues as to whether they have consented as that's now part of the situation. But the fact remains that you should know that your partner has consented, and if you don't know or have no reason to know you must take whatever steps are reasonable within that situation to find out. I don't see how that's a particularly difficult thing to follow. It's already incredibly broad. However, it doesn't automatically cover you fucking someone simply because they respond to being kissed or petted or were insufficiently resistant to the act itself.

ManUpManDown:
So, remember this is how you attempted to (finally) explicate how Farrell was being simplistic in not addressing "homosocial relationships," remember?

Yes, and it was in response to a point which I have not failed to notice you have silently backed down from. Namely this one:

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

Do not forget, it was you who introduced the concept of socialization to this discussion as if it was relevant. It was you who appeared to be equating the causation of sociological trends with that of individual rape cases. How would a court feel about that?

To your credit, your recent argument has been much better, certainly much tighter and more convincing, and I'd suggest that you don't undermine that by constantly reminding me how broad and meaningless your original point was for the sake of whatever points you think you can score by mentioning that I brought up homosocial interaction in response to a post where you specifically claimed that male behaviour in these cases is largely down to women's expectations. My argument was a response to that post. Just because you've changed your argument (for the better) does not mean that you can now critique my post for being irrelevant.

It remains entirely relevant to the post it was referring to. If there was a fault on my part, it was actually believing that your initial portrayal of Farrell's argument was in any way accurate. I guess that does highlight my ignorance, but hardly in the way you seem to imagine it does.

ManUpManDown:
A jury, that's what.

Trial by jury is actually very rare, particularly for rape. It's almost always legal professionals who decide these cases, and they will do so on the basis of what the legislation actually says. You are appealing to "community standards" when a) they are almost never used and b) I would hazard a guess that wherein they are they are considerably less favourable to your position than you imagine they are.

But yeah, a popular opinion or even a majority opinion doesn't necessarily have any bearing on what is reasonable. We can assume knowledge on the part of a reasonable person which an average person might not have, indeed sometimes it's necessary to do so.

ManUpManDown:
Thus, some MENTAL culpability on the part of the defendant is required.

I disagree. I believe that actions can be criminally negligent even if the person is entirely blind to or unaware of the unlawful consequences, and the law in my country agrees with me.

In sentencing terms, negligence does imply less severity than intention. However, both can be crimes. There is no reason whatsoever why having sex with someone who has said "no" without having some clear reason to believe in consent beyond "how their body language came across to me" or "we continued kissing after that" should not be regarded as criminally negligent, even if that belief is sincere.

It's clear we have a lot of agreement here. The disagreement, I think, comes from my particular resistance to the idea that a victim's "body language" in response to actions initiated by someone else, or willing participation in sex acts other than penetration should ever qualify as reasonable evidence of consent to penetration wherein someone has specifically said no to it, particularly when the the only reason to do so is some vague assertion that "women" (in general) sometimes say no when they don't mean it, or that romance novels often have coercive themes. It strikes me as entirely unreasonable in that case to simply assume that a person's request not to be penetrated is a "deception" because they took part in other, entirely unrelated, acts, and since all the acts Farrell mentions are entirely unrelated to penetration I don't see what other conclusion I'm meant to reach.

Again, a lack of resistance, or even willing participation, are not always evidence of consent. Both can be obtained through coercion.

generals3:
You're correct on that one. However we can assume that if the person did not intoxicate or use force against the other odds are that the intentions weren't bad.

If someone specifically says they don't want to be fucked and you climb on top of them anyway, that is force. It's force whether or not the person "responds", it force whether or not their "body language" can be interpreted as indicating a desire for penetration. If you explicitly overrule someone's wishes not to be physically penetrated, then the penetration is forced. I don't see how this is controversial.

Whether or not something is rape should not be contingent on whether the victim resisted violently. That's insane.

generals3:
However unless i'm mistaken it isn't illegal to have sex without explicit consent neither is it commonly known not having paperwork or asking for explicit consent maximizes the chances of "rape" (intoxicating someone on purpose however...).

Are you genuinely arguing that having sex with someone without actually knowing whether they've consented, or indeed when they've actually told you not to, is not likely to result in rape as a forseeable consequence? Jesus..

It's only not illegal to have sex with someone without their consent if:

a) You have (reasonable) belief that they did consent.
b) They do not subsequently feel that a crime has been committed.

If someone has taken it to the police, then we have likely ruled out the second option barring exceptional circumstances. If you didn't actually know whether your partner had consented or were overruling their express wishes on the basis of something as nebulous as "body language" or "response", then I don't see any reason not to rule out the first option unless, again, there are some kind of circumstances which make that outcome likely.

But really.. I don't see how this can be hard to understand. If someone outright tells you not to penetrate them and you do it, you are taking the risk that they don't actually mean it. That is entirely your choice, noone has compelled you to do it, and it should be incredibly forseeable that doing so might potentially result in negative consequences. Why would you do that unless you knew that your partner consented? And if you did know surely you should be able to provide a more substantive account than "she was still responsive to kisses".

generals3:
Well usually someone who actually did what he wanted to do is less likely to regret his actions than someone who didn't intend to do it.

Not necessarily.

The person who had intent is at least aware that they have committed a crime. If someone is wilfully blind enough to have sex with someone after being asked not to do so on the assumption that it was a "deception", I wouldn't personally place much faith in their ability to realize after the fact that they made a mistake. It strikes me that a reasonable person would have considered that before going in.

evilthecat:

If someone specifically says they don't want to be fucked and you climb on top of them anyway, that is force. It's force whether or not the person "responds", it force whether or not their "body language" can be interpreted as indicating a desire for penetration. If you explicitly overrule someone's wishes not to be physically penetrated, then the penetration is forced. I don't see how this is controversial.

Whether or not something is rape should not be contingent on whether the victim resisted violently. That's insane.

First of all i'm not so keen of the word "specifically" because the whole point of debate are ambiguous situations. There are various ways of saying "no". (like: "no, not a chance in hell" (which is quite strong and clear) or "euhm, no, i'm not sure" (which is already less clear))
And i wouldn't say the penetration would be forced. Forcing something involves the use of some sort of coercion or force.

Are you genuinely arguing that having sex with someone without actually knowing whether they've consented, or indeed when they've actually told you not to, is not likely to result in rape as a forseeable consequence? Jesus..

It's only not illegal to have sex with someone without their consent if:

a) You have (reasonable) belief that they did consent.
b) They do not subsequently feel that a crime has been committed.

If someone has taken it to the police, then we have likely ruled out the second option barring exceptional circumstances. If you didn't actually know whether your partner had consented or were overruling their express wishes on the basis of something as nebulous as "body language" or "response", then I don't see any reason not to rule out the first option unless, again, there are some kind of circumstances which make that outcome likely.

But really.. I don't see how this can be hard to understand. If someone outright tells you not to penetrate them and you do it, you are taking the risk that they don't actually mean it. That is entirely your choice, noone has compelled you to do it, and it should be incredibly forseeable that doing so might potentially result in negative consequences. Why would you do that unless you knew that your partner consented? And if you did know surely you should be able to provide a more substantive account than "she was still responsive to kisses".

Correct, since clear and precise verbal communication is not omnipresent in that context and that many games which involve saying the opposite of your desires are used it is quite arguable "rape" is not expected without clear verbal consent.
And your point "a" is exactly the issue. We are talking about cases where people believed that they did consent, an issue which can arise because communication is often unclear in those contexts and it is as such also difficult to determine what is reasonable. That's why in Belgian Law rape has been defined as penetration without permission, with "without permission" being defined as: against the will and obtained through the use of violence, threats, a ruse, etc. What you can clearly see is that rape is defined by the use of negative actions, not the lack of positive ones (like obtaining verbal consent). I personally believe that's much more realistic in this context because of the mess which is communication during intimate encounters.

And you're correct, you're taking the risk. But than again, you may be taking the risk even if they say "yes" (they might have felt pressured, or whatever). The thing is that usually the risks are weighed unconsciously while taking all the messages into account (verbal and body). I mean, did you ever ponder the potentiality of committing rape when you were about to have intercourse? Did you ever think "Maybe i need to ask just to be sure i won't rape her".

Now maybe that is a social problem in itself.

Not necessarily.

The person who had intent is at least aware that they have committed a crime. If someone is wilfully blind enough to have sex with someone after being asked not to do so on the assumption that it was a "deception", I wouldn't personally place much faith in their ability to realize after the fact that they made a mistake. It strikes me that a reasonable person would have considered that before going in.

Well obviously i was thinking of the case where the person was made aware of his mistake afterwards. And i'd say a reasonable person wouldn't really ponder the issue of rape unless he feels quite clearly the other person doesn't want it. Again, do you ever ponder the fact you may commit rape if you feel the other person wants it?

generals3:
First of all i'm not so keen of the word "specifically" because the whole point of debate are ambiguous situations. There are various ways of saying "no". (like: "no, not a chance in hell" (which is quite strong and clear) or "euhm, no, i'm not sure" (which is already less clear))

We're talking about Warren Farrell. What Warren Farrel said was that men should not be held responsible for disregarding a verbal "no" wherein a person's "body language" suggests they would like to be penetrated. He gave specific examples, none of which would qualify under the law as consent because they all relate to acts which have nothing to do with penetration. So yes, we are talking about situations in which someone outright says "no" or "stop" and is ignored.

Moreover, if you stick your penis in someone who "isn't sure" they want it there, they have every right to turn around later and claim they had not consented to you doing so. This is how consent to sexual activity works, it does not simply denote a lack of complaint, it is something which must be actively present in order to exist at all. You should not be penetrating someone who does not wish you to do so, simply offering no complaint or being insufficiently firm in saying "no" is not necessarily an excuse.

generals3:
And i wouldn't say the penetration would be forced. Forcing something involves the use of some sort of coercion or force.

If someone tells you not to penetrate them, or even that they aren't sure about being penetrated and you ignore them and do it anyway, that is force. They have attempted to stop you, and you have gone ahead and done it anyway.

The fact that they did not use physical violence to try and stop you does not suddenly stop the act from being forcible. The law must account for the fact that they may have felt unable to use physical violence, it does not change the fact that they did not consent.

If rape can only be prosecuted wherein it involves violence, then you are no longer judging the behaviour of the alleged rapist, you are judging the reaction of the alleged victim. Victims require the ability not to have to use violence against their attackers if they fear it may endanger their lives or lead to other unpleasant consequences, or if they are confused, shocked or intoxicated. Frequently, the best response to someone trying to have sex with you without your consent is going to be to play along, it doesn't change the fact that you did not consent and the attack that took place is no less "serious" than if you had fought back.

generals3:
Correct, since clear and precise verbal communication is not omnipresent in that context and that many games which involve saying the opposite of your desires are used it is quite arguable "rape" is not expected without clear verbal consent.

However, verbal consent remains the most reliable indication of consent. If you are choosing to ignore it, you had better have a concrete reason to believe that your partner consented. As repeatedly mentioned "she said no, but was still responsive to kisses" is not such an indication.

Also, how often do you think women act out rape fantasies on one-night-stands without telling their prospective partners beforehand? Because I'm betting the number is considerably smaller than the number of guys who honestly believe that it's okay to ignore a woman telling you to stop as long as she's not physically trying to fight you off.

generals3:
That's why in Belgian Law rape has been defined as penetration without permission, with "without permission" being defined as: against the will and obtained through the use of violence, threats, a ruse, etc.

This is what I would call a "regressive" definition. The problem is that, again, it puts the emphasis on the victim to "proove" she is being raped by fighting back and potentially risking physical injury, and that's absolutely ridiculous.

generals3:
But than again, you may be taking the risk even if they say "yes" (they might have felt pressured, or whatever).

Not really. The "risk" in that case is not foreseeable, which is not the case if you leap on someone who is actually telling you to stop.

generals3:
I mean, did you ever ponder the potentiality of committing rape when you were about to have intercourse?

Yes. It is a routine equation.

For years now, I have operated on the principle that I will not have sex with someone unless I am completely willing to accept the risks of potentially misjudging them, just as I would accept the risks of STI transmission or pregnancy where applicable. As a result, I have not had a sexual encounter which I would not be willing to defend my belief in consent to a court.

Now, there are actually several cases I can think of in which I know this defence would not work under the law in my country. In those cases I was certainly aware of taking the risk that I could end up in court, and I would not have taken that decision had I not been willing to quite literally bet my life, or certainly the next few years of it, on the trust between myself and my partner. Had that failed, I would be under no illusion about having committed a crime.

This belief amongst certain men that consent is something you just shouldn't have to think about, like you have some God-given right not to give a fuck because you happen to have a penis is entirely alien to me.

just wanted to post this video of Louis CK telling a story/joke about date rape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU3IM5pWTcc

evilthecat:

generals3:
That's why in Belgian Law rape has been defined as penetration without permission, with "without permission" being defined as: against the will and obtained through the use of violence, threats, a ruse, etc.

This is what I would call a "regressive" definition. The problem is that, again, it puts the emphasis on the victim to "proove" she is being raped by fighting back and potentially risking physical injury, and that's absolutely ridiculous.

I'll just leave the rest simply because i have the impression we're just repeating the same things over and over and the argument can go ad infinitum.

But this is a point i need address. Isn't this the whole point of our "innocent until proven guilty" system? To force the victims to prove they are victims? I guess in a world where we'd have bulletproof lie detectors usable in courts this kind of approach might appear "ridiculous". But in our world where it is impossible to determine whether someone is lying just like that we need to have such a "regressive" approach to ensure wild accusations don't get people in jail. And the fact the "intimate" world is a very complex and ambiguous one where things are often not laid out as precisely as in many other contexts make things even more difficult. Hence why it is key to define things which are clear and unambiguous signs of abuse as key criteria.

Okay Evilthecat, quick question before I get started, if a man sleeps with a woman who is wearing a padded bra and ton of make-up, which is what attracted the man to this woman, was it rape? Remember the woman used coercion, the bra and make-up, to get the man to sleep with her.
First off, this thread has been so fucking hijacked its almost funny. The full talk that was the source of this protest is online. Give it a watch and ask yourself, "Were the mob tactics and thuggery used justified?".

Now, you make a big deal out of a lot of "rapes" not making it to trial. Are you aware that in order for something to make it to trial it must first meet a standard of evidence? Which brings us to the real problem with dealing with rape claims. They are largely feeling based. A person can feel "raped" and still not have been raped. Having consensual sex, then regretting it later feeling "raped". That is not rape. Consent was present before and during, then removed after having sex.
Or
People are having sex and one person feels like they are being "raped"(consent present before and removed during) and does not let their partner know. Now this one is a gray-area. Because there is really no way to tell if the "rapist" would have kept going if it had been known, to them, that their partner did not want it. Remember in this case the "rapist" had no way of knowing that they were "raping" someone. Intent would have to be a factor here.

My point is this, a person can feel "raped" but, without a "rapist", someone who knowingly removes and/or ignores a person's right to consent, there is no rape.

Now before you go off on your, "Be it would have been clear"s or "No means no" both Dr. Warren Farrel and other people on this thread have shown that is not always clear and no doesn't always mean no.

ManUpManDown:

"If a man ignoring a woman's verbal 'no' is committing date rape, then a woman who says `no' with her verbal language but 'yes' with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says 'no' is committing date lying.

"Do women still do this? Two feminists found the answer is yes. Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said "no" to sex even "when they meant yes."

First, I find it very hard to believe that women who want to have sex in these situations would not engage is conduct meant to signal "yes" if the man thinks her consent is lacking due to a prior verbal "no." And your hypo of "turning down sex even when I really wanted to do it" is not implicated here, because the women according to the researches actually "meant yes."

This fundamentally does not address a problem that Gethsemani brought up: in what circumstances did the poll respondents say no when they meant yes.

As that study is reported (by Farrell and through you), it is impossible for anyone here to tell what is actually being described: "no meaning yes" could actually apply at any point in a hypothetical evening from start of date to the actual act. Thus for instance a poll respondent might be thinking she had said a 'no means yes' at the point she agreed to go back to his for coffee, although she had made her eventual consent clear at some point between her saying "no means yes" and when penetration became an immediate concern.

generals3:
But this is a point i need address. Isn't this the whole point of our "innocent until proven guilty" system? To force the victims to prove they are victims?

That doesn't mean we should assume that someone is lying simply because they come forward with an accusation.

And no, certainly in my country that is not the point of the system, because judging rape in those terms makes it virtually impossible to prosecute any rape except on adherence to rape myths. It means that, effectively, the defendant does not have to answer the case at all. They can sit there throughout the whole trial in dead silence with a huge smile on their face watching as the entire court focuses on questioning whether or not the alleged victim behaved sufficiently "like a rape victim".

Firstly, that doesn't work. It's not an accurate measure of whether any crime has been committed. It's also an absolutely vile thing to do to someone who has demonstrated incredible bravery in even coming forth with an accusation. Sadly, coming forward with a rape accusation still means running a gauntlet of incredulity on the part of the authorities and the emotional trauma of having to relive the experience. Heck, under that system, prosecuting someone for raping you is an incredibly stupid thing to do. Are you happy with that?

The correct measure of whether a crime has taken place is not whether the victim demonstrated that they did not consent, particularly not when doing so may have resulted in serious injury or death. The correct measure, as you've been trying to claim right up until this point when it suddenly doesn't matter, is whether the defendant believed in their victim's consent, and if they did not whether they were negligent in finding out whether their victim consented. That is not "presuming guilt" any more than asking the defendant to give a police interview about the incident is "presuming guilt".

chaosord:
Okay Evilthecat, quick question before I get started, if a man sleeps with a woman who is wearing a padded bra and ton of make-up, which is what attracted the man to this woman, was it rape? Remember the woman used coercion, the bra and make-up, to get the man to sleep with her.

Easy answer: Not unless the woman had a strap-on. Remember, rape is the crime of penetrating someone else's body without their consent. If you don't understand why this is, try being penetrated.

But to answer the wider point, which is about rape by deception. No, I don't believe there is such a thing barring a small number of cases where a person was subject to considerable risk which they would not have consented to with knowledge (such as an HIV positive person knowingly having unprotected sex with someone else who is HIV negative without disclosing their status, and I only support the inclusion of that because there is no specific crime to deal with it yet).

A good example would be the case in Israel where an arab man was found guilty of rape for having sex with a Jewish woman after pretending to have a Jewish name. I don't consider that to be coercion, there is still no pressure or compulsion on the part of the alleged victim to consent to sexual activity. The law in Israel apparently disagrees, but I understand there may have been other elements of that case which didn't get reported in foreign media.

The same is not true if I am knowingly disregarding the fact that someone is reluctant, confused or unsure by simply not listening to them or not giving them a chance to leave the situation. That would be coercion.

chaosord:
Now, you make a big deal out of a lot of "rapes" not making it to trial. Are you aware that in order for something to make it to trial it must first meet a standard of evidence? Which brings us to the real problem with dealing with rape claims. They are largely feeling based. A person can feel "raped" and still not have been raped. Having consensual sex, then regretting it later feeling "raped". That is not rape.

Gee, really!

I don't know who you think you're arguing with, but it's certainly not me. I'm well aware of all these things, and I haven't contradicted a single one of them.

chaosord:
People are having sex and one person feels like they are being "raped"(consent present before and removed during) and does not let their partner know. Now this one is a gray-area. Because there is really no way to tell if the "rapist" would have kept going if it had been known, to them, that their partner did not want it. Remember in this case the "rapist" had no way of knowing that they were "raping" someone. Intent would have to be a factor here.

Of course.

It's an incredibly simple equation.

"Did they know their partner had not consented?"

If yes, then guilty. If no, read on.

"Was their belief that their partner had consented reasonable under the circumstances?"

If yes, then the only option is to acquit.

Noone is even suggesting that the only measure of whether any crime has occurred is whether someone "feels" raped. It's perfectly possible for someone not to consent and yet for no crime to have occurred. It's tragic and unfortunate and I think we could stand to tighten up support procedures to ensure that the alleged victims of acquitted guys can at least have some help extricating themselves from the situation in which the alleged rape took place and maybe don't feel like they've gone through the whole harrowing process for nothing, but we all agree that an honest mistake which does not involve criminal negligence is not a crime.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether "no means no".

evilthecat:

generals3:
But this is a point i need address. Isn't this the whole point of our "innocent until proven guilty" system? To force the victims to prove they are victims?

That doesn't mean we should assume that someone is lying simply because they come forward with an accusation.

And no, certainly in my country that is not the point of the system, because judging rape in those terms makes it virtually impossible to prosecute any rape except on adherence to rape myths. It means that, effectively, the defendant does not have to answer the case at all. They can sit there throughout the whole trial in dead silence with a huge smile on their face watching as the entire court focuses on questioning whether or not the alleged victim behaved sufficiently "like a rape victim".

Firstly, that doesn't work. It's not an accurate measure of whether any crime has been committed. It's also an absolutely vile thing to do to someone who has demonstrated incredible bravery in even coming forth with an accusation. Sadly, coming forward with a rape accusation still means running a gauntlet of incredulity on the part of the authorities and the emotional trauma of having to relive the experience. Heck, under that system, prosecuting someone for raping you is an incredibly stupid thing to do. Are you happy with that?

The correct measure of whether a crime has taken place is not whether the victim demonstrated that they did not consent, particularly not when doing so may have resulted in serious injury or death. The correct measure, as you've been trying to claim right up until this point when it suddenly doesn't matter, is whether the defendant believed in their victim's consent, and if they did not whether they were negligent in finding out whether their victim consented. That is not "presuming guilt" any more than asking the defendant to give a police interview about the incident is "presuming guilt".

You seem to look at it backwards. The defendant will be sitting through the case listening to the accuser's case to see whether the accuser can tangibly prove he/she was a malicious rapist. Saying "he penetrated me and i didn't want it" proves NOTHING. Anyone can go in court and claim such things. Meanwhile the use of threats, violence or ruses proves there was a lack of consent and malicious intent. There is nothing wrong to have a system based on evidence of a crime and malicious intent.

And sure it does work, i can't go to court claiming someone committed a crime without evidence of it other than "i said so". And prosecuting people without tangible and clear evidence is always stupid. The State won't prosecute you for hitting someone while driving drunk if it cannot prove you were actually drunk either.

But you're doing it all wrong now. The system exactly looks at what was required to commit the rape and it takes into account clear and unambiguous evidence. The system in itself takes into account the intent of the accused person, if he/she had to use threats, violence or ruses than the intent and crime are 100% clear. I never said it was up to the accused to present evidence of his/her intents it is up to the accuser to do so. You seem to be putting the whole burden of the judicial procedure on the accused and that sounds a lot like "guilty until proven innocent". (and i'm not sure how requiring the accused to prove there was consent is not guilty until proven innocent. If you're required to prove there was consent than the assumption is there was rape (guilty) until you can prove there wasn't (innocent))

evilthecat:

generals3:
But this is a point i need address. Isn't this the whole point of our "innocent until proven guilty" system? To force the victims to prove they are victims?

That doesn't mean we should assume that someone is lying simply because they come forward with an accusation.

And no, certainly in my country that is not the point of the system, because judging rape in those terms makes it virtually impossible to prosecute any rape except on adherence to rape myths. It means that, effectively, the defendant does not have to answer the case at all. They can sit there throughout the whole trial in dead silence with a huge smile on their face watching as the entire court focuses on questioning whether or not the alleged victim behaved sufficiently "like a rape victim".

Firstly, that doesn't work. It's not an accurate measure of whether any crime has been committed. It's also an absolutely vile thing to do to someone who has demonstrated incredible bravery in even coming forth with an accusation. Sadly, coming forward with a rape accusation still means running a gauntlet of incredulity on the part of the authorities and the emotional trauma of having to relive the experience. Heck, under that system, prosecuting someone for raping you is an incredibly stupid thing to do. Are you happy with that?

The correct measure of whether a crime has taken place is not whether the victim demonstrated that they did not consent, particularly not when doing so may have resulted in serious injury or death. The correct measure, as you've been trying to claim right up until this point when it suddenly doesn't matter, is whether the defendant believed in their victim's consent, and if they did not whether they were negligent in finding out whether their victim consented. That is not "presuming guilt" any more than asking the defendant to give a police interview about the incident is "presuming guilt".

chaosord:
Okay Evilthecat, quick question before I get started, if a man sleeps with a woman who is wearing a padded bra and ton of make-up, which is what attracted the man to this woman, was it rape? Remember the woman used coercion, the bra and make-up, to get the man to sleep with her.

Easy answer: Not unless the woman had a strap-on. Remember, rape is the crime of penetrating someone else's body without their consent. If you don't understand why this is, try being penetrated.

But to answer the wider point, which is about rape by deception. No, I don't believe there is such a thing barring a small number of cases where a person was subject to considerable risk which they would not have consented to with knowledge (such as an HIV positive person knowingly having unprotected sex with someone else who is HIV negative without disclosing their status, and I only support the inclusion of that because there is no specific crime to deal with it yet).

A good example would be the case in Israel where an arab man was found guilty of rape for having sex with a Jewish woman after pretending to have a Jewish name. I don't consider that to be coercion, there is still no pressure or compulsion on the part of the alleged victim to consent to sexual activity. The law in Israel apparently disagrees, but I understand there may have been other elements of that case which didn't get reported in foreign media.

The same is not true if I am knowingly disregarding the fact that someone is reluctant, confused or unsure by simply not listening to them or not giving them a chance to leave the situation. That would be coercion.

chaosord:
Now, you make a big deal out of a lot of "rapes" not making it to trial. Are you aware that in order for something to make it to trial it must first meet a standard of evidence? Which brings us to the real problem with dealing with rape claims. They are largely feeling based. A person can feel "raped" and still not have been raped. Having consensual sex, then regretting it later feeling "raped". That is not rape.

Gee, really!

I don't know who you think you're arguing with, but it's certainly not me. I'm well aware of all these things, and I haven't contradicted a single one of them.

chaosord:
People are having sex and one person feels like they are being "raped"(consent present before and removed during) and does not let their partner know. Now this one is a gray-area. Because there is really no way to tell if the "rapist" would have kept going if it had been known, to them, that their partner did not want it. Remember in this case the "rapist" had no way of knowing that they were "raping" someone. Intent would have to be a factor here.

Of course.

It's an incredibly simple equation.

"Did they know their partner had not consented?"

If yes, then guilty. If no, read on.

"Was their belief that their partner had consented reasonable under the circumstances?"

If yes, then the only option is to acquit.

Noone is even suggesting that the only measure of whether any crime has occurred is whether someone "feels" raped. It's perfectly possible for someone not to consent and yet for no crime to have occurred. It's tragic and unfortunate and I think we could stand to tighten up support procedures to ensure that the alleged victims of acquitted guys can at least have some help extricating themselves from the situation in which the alleged rape took place and maybe don't feel like they've gone through the whole harrowing process for nothing, but we all agree that an honest mistake which does not involve criminal negligence is not a crime.

This has absolutely nothing to do with whether "no means no".

So we can agree on the terms I used in my post? For this post I am going to assume we do.

1) Your strap-on comment; Nice anti-male bias there. So if a woman forces a man to fuck her and as long she doesn't stick anything in the man, its not rape. I'm sorry but that is just fucked up. And morally wrong. Didn't your "gender studies" class show that men feel pain, shame, and self loathing when that happens to them? Its the same fucking trauma. Or is it something you just don't care about?

2) Did you watch the talk?

generals3:
snip

I don't get how you can honestly believe that asking someone to explain their actions is somehow irrelevent to proving intent. I don't get how you can put the entire judicial procedure for whether a crime has been committed onto how much the victim struggled against it. In what other crime do we do this? In what other crime does procedure specifically exclude using the testimony of the defendant as an indication of their actions, particularly when we're claiming their motives are important.

What you're asking for is completely unworkable. You want a system which is entirely contingent on establishing intent, and yet is also entirely on the behaviour of the person who is not actually committing the crime, and in which any indication by the victim that they have not consented short of using physical violence to defend themselves is ignored because they might have been lying. Can you stop for a moment and consider how batshit that is?

Imagine if you woke up to find someone breaking into your house and yet the law said that if you simply told them to leave rather than immediately taking a baseball bat to them regardless of whether they were armed or stronger than you, a court would decide that you'd given them no reason to believe they weren't welcome in your house so they didn't even have to ask your burglar why he was breaking into your house, they didn't even need to bother to get his testimony because it's not considered relevant to whether he actually meant to break into your house, only your actions matter. That's fucking insane.

I'm getting really sick of this. You can keep doing mental gymnastics all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that what you're defending is not the rights of the accused, because the rights of the accused never apply like you're suggesting they do. Not in any other crime you can think of. What you're defending is the bizarre idea that only "bad men" should ever be able to be prosecuted for rape, and I'm starting to feel that you will jump through whatever hoops are required to sustain that assertion or to conceal the fact that it has no basis in the reality of the crime. We don't need rapists to be "bad men" in order to convict them, we just need them to be rapists.

chaosord:
1) Your strap-on comment; Nice anti-male bias there.

Not really. Unless you're claiming that men can't be penetrated.

chaosord:
So if a woman forces a man to fuck her and as long she doesn't stick anything in the man, its not rape. I'm sorry but that is just fucked up. And morally wrong. Didn't your "gender studies" class show that men feel pain, shame, and self loathing when that happens to them? Its the same fucking trauma. Or is it something you just don't care about?

It's not the same trauma. You can't die from it. There's no chance you'll have to take painkillers in order to go to the toilet for the rest of your life, or to suffer permanent prostate injury. You can move while it's going on without putting yourself at risk of internal damage. You won't get pregnant. You're far less likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease. You are extremely unlikely to orgasm involuntarily. I know on some level I shouldn't be surprised when straight guys don't get this, but I refuse to believe that on some level you don't understand. If I was attacking you in the street and wanted to hurt and humiliate you, would you rather I sucked your dick or that I shoved a bottle into your arse?

It is a completely different physical experience which is likely to produce an entirely different cognitive outcome. Yes, some men would feel very violated by such an experience or develop PTSD, just as some women can get through rape without being deeply affected by it. But being mugged can cause a person to feel violated or to develop PTSD, and that doesn't change the fact that mugging is a separate crime. The emotional consequences of any crime always deserve to be taken seriously, but that doesn't mean every crime needs to be the same.

Rape is a form of sexual assault involving penetration, because the likely consequences of penetration are different to the likely consequences of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent which. incidentally, is also a serious crime. Don't pretend I "don't care" because I don't see two acts as the same when they're blatantly not.

You posed me a question. I have answered it. My response to you was not a response to "the talk" (I'm not sure if you mean the interview in the opening post, or the general progression of this thread), it was a response to you.

Evil, the most important aspect of your post was your purported agreement with a crucial premise of mine, one I'm glad we can agree on. But I want to get this out of the way first:

evilthecat:
Do not forget, it was you who introduced the concept of socialization to this discussion as if it was relevant. It was you who appeared to be equating the causation of sociological trends with that of individual rape cases. To your credit, your recent argument has been much better, certainly much tighter and more convincing, and I'd suggest that you don't undermine that by constantly reminding me how broad and meaningless your original point was for the sake of whatever points you think you can score by mentioning that I brought up homosocial interaction in response to a post where you specifically claimed that male behaviour in these cases is largely down to women's expectations.

Here is what you claimed was my "simplistic" assertion:

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

It is becoming increasingly obvious, I think including to you, that this "simplistic" charge arises out of several problems on your part: (1) you were very sloppy in your initial reading of this passage, and thus you attributed assertions to it that clearly are not there; (2) in deciding to jump into an exchange between Geth and I, you did not do your homework and read my prior post to her that fleshes out this position, and thus you irresponsibly read the passage in isolation of my other assertions directly relevant to it; and (3) although, immediately after your simplistic claim, I very quickly and clearly conceded that men's perspectives are influenced by HRs, you simply ignored that concession, seemingly so as to avoid having to back off from the "simplistic" charge. NOW you try to brush all of this aside with a slippery accusation that I am attempting counterproductive "point scoring" by expecting you to either back up, or back off of, the simplistic charge.

I'll try to go through these quickly, as these posts are getting way too long.

As to (1), here is how you originally responded to my paragraph:

evilthecat:
You've simply assumed, quite randomly, that any sexual behaviour men engage in or view as normal must be [solely (you suggest this is what you mean in later posts)] a product of interaction with women. That is crude and hamfisted.

You will recall there was a huge problem with this response, one that I pointed out repeatedly and clearly: it's not what I wrote. Note I used the phrase "women MORE THAN MEN impose on them" and "a misunderstanding nurtured by women." Not "women only" or "created by women." This is why in subsequent posts I readily admitted (prong (3)) that homosocial relationships obviously affect men's sexual behavior, an admission you continued to ignore so that you could continue to characterize my argument as being "essentialist" when it wasn't; remember that? The fact that I was willing to admit such an obvious fact is because it made so little difference to what was the ULTIMATE point of the paragraph quoted above.

As to problem (2), you assert this:

evilthecat:
It was you who appeared to be equating the causation of sociological trends with that of individual rape cases.

And I was not doing that. However, re-reading the paragraph, I can see why you read it that way. As such, taking the original paragraph above in isolation, this reading is perhaps understandable. Two problems, however.

First, again, I made clear in subsequent posts that such was not was I was arguing, and you nevertheless did not back off the "simplistic" charge. This led me to rationally believe that you were continuing to accuse Farrell and I of being simplistic for not emphasizing HRs, and I still wanted to know why.

Second, you had no excuse to take my words in isolation, for you were jumping into an exchange I was having with Geth and thus you should have read my prior post to her, which would have informed the meaning of my quoted assertion. Here's what I argued:

"Farrell's point, a perfectly logical and reasonable one, is that rape often happens due to the sexes getting their communication wires crossed. Communication between the sexes is very complicated; so, for example, the idea that as a descriptive matter "no means no" is just preposterous. We know from studies that it's simply not true. So, when a woman does say "no," and a man advances nonetheless based on what appears to him to be a holistic message of "please advance even though I'm feigning a disinclination to have sex," is he a rapist?"

Here, the holistic "please advance" must mean situation-specific sexual assertiveness, as a woman can't send that message by just saying "no." That's not holistic messaging, that's just a verbal message. Here, socialization is not enough; there must also be some catalytic conduct on the part of the woman ("holistic message of please advance") to justify acquittal. BTW, note this is true, in MY view, regardless of whether the woman intended to send a mixed message (no, there's no contradiction here via our other discussion of intent, though I can just see your eyes getting wide in anticipation of the pounce). Thus, you simply didn't do your homework in characterizing my position to be that "the causation of sociological trends" is the only cause of "individual rape cases."

How about we throw in a (4) now that I think of it.

After I repeatedly admitted that HRs influence male sexual behavior, I AGAIN asked you to explain with precision how I and Farrell were being simplistic, and thus implicitly inviting you to back off the charge if you had changed your mind; you didn't take the invitation. Rather, you asserted this:

evilthecat:
I can't agree with what Farrell is saying, and why I regard it as incredibly simplistic to simply assume that in any case where a man did not know his partner did not consented was automatically down to women deliberately sending "mixed signals."

I explained that you were misinterpreting Farrell, and that misinterpretation demonstrates why your simplistic charge was unfounded. To your credit, you then seemed to realize that you were misinterpreting Farrell and I, but with that realization you did not back off of, or alternatively fortify, your "simplistic" charge in light of the alleged confusion. You just ignored it so I had to ask you about it again. Now you back off from the charge (though passive-aggressively by claiming that I am making too much of it and thus trying to score points).

So you agree now that, despite how my words have varied in describing both my and Farrell's points, that, given that the nature of both ultimate points, that we were not being simplistic in failing to discuss HRs, correct?

evilthecat:
To your credit, your recent argument has been much better, certainly much tighter and more convincing, and I'd suggest that you don't undermine that by constantly reminding me how broad and meaningless your original point was for the sake of whatever points you think you can score by mentioning that I brought up homosocial interaction in response to a post where you specifically claimed that male behaviour in these cases is largely down to women's expectations.

Thanks for the credit, but my argument has not changed. I've only come to unpack it more so you can understand it better, which appears to have worked somewhat, but you have a ways to go; we'll get to that in a minute.

evilthecat:
My argument was a response to that post. Just because you've changed your argument (for the better) does not mean that you can now critique my post for being irrelevant.

And you failed to recognize that my argument has been ultimately a LEGAL one since the start, and thus the relevance of your point has not decreased as the exchange has progressed, but rather was low all along. It has just taken time to bring that into relief.

evilthecat:
It remains entirely relevant to the post it was referring to. If there was a fault on my part, it was actually believing that your initial portrayal of Farrell's argument was in any way accurate. I guess that does highlight my ignorance, but hardly in the way you seem to imagine it does.

Actually, in light of the sloppiness that I've detailed above and in other posts, I imagine your argument being ignorant in more ways than one. So perhaps there's some overlap. Indeed, this takes us to what is probably the most important issue:

I asserted this:

evilthecat:
But when it comes to determining when the mens rea of a crime should be deemed satisfied, courts do not plunge the depths of sociological root causes of perceptions in examining a defendant's state of mind.

You respond:

evilthecat:
Maybe my inflection here wasn't very clear, because I totally, totally agree..

Fantastic! So we can both move on to . . . oh shit, wait:

evilthecat:
Which is exactly why I maintain that simply "causing" someone to misinterpret your status as regards consent does not make you legally complicit or responsible for your own rape.

You seem to really struggle with the fact that the context here is ultimately a legal one; this isn't a contextual free for all wherein we can, at will, oscillate between legal, moral, sociological and philosophical contexts and expect our comments to be accepted as relevant or forceful. This problem is reflected in some of your responses to other posters as well, and they have rightly called you out on it.

The woman causing a man to misinterpret her through her catalytic behavior does not, in this context anyway, make her "complicit" or "reasonable" in any legal or moral sense. It DOES, however, bear on the DEFENDANT's complicity and responsibility. Noone is asserting that a women who partly "causes" an alleged rape in a narrow legal sense is somehow a slut who deserves what she got. Sometimes it is the case that bad things happen to people and there are justifiably no legal remedies for their trauma. Indeed, it HAS to be that way.

evilthecat:
The court should not have to consider whether or not someone was "equipped" to recognize consent, or whether or not they might feel a socialized "obligation" to live up to whatever expectations someone else might have of them. The court should only have to consider whether the belief in consent is reasonable given the circumstances. That's it.

And you still don't seem to realize that in order for the court to do the second, it must do the first. The being "equipped" argument is just another way of describing the social context relative to which reasonableness is defined. If society widely teaches (and it does) that women often say no but mean yes, yadda yadda (it doesn't matter HOW or WHY society teaches this) then the reasonableness of his conclusion regarding consent will turn on the degree to which society has "equipped" him to recognize that "no means no." Society does not teach that "no always means yes," and therefore the court, regardless of what the man claims he was taught, should reject that defense because the man should be expected to have managed his preconceived notions so as not to penetrate without some catalytic behavior by the woman. But society DOES (accurately, though I agree it's not healthy) teach that "no does not always mean no, particularly when a woman is being sexually assertive" such that a woman's catalytic behavior can become the immediate "cause" of his reaction.

evilthecat:
If someone was saying "no" and you went ahead because they were still receptive to kisses, that's not reasonable.

In many cases I'd agree, though I think it depends on what "receptive" means. BTW, I don't agree that Farrell, by invoking the "receptive to kisses" example, is saying that this is always enough for an acquittal.

evilthecat:
But the fact remains that you should know that your partner has consented, and if you don't know or have no reason to know you must take whatever steps are reasonable within that situation to find out. I don't see how that's a particularly difficult thing to follow.

Again, "know or have reason to know" just rebegs the entire question. What that means is defined relative to what culture teaches.

evilthecat:
Trial by jury is actually very rare, particularly for rape. It's almost always legal professionals who decide these cases, and they will do so on the basis of what the legislation actually says. You are appealing to "community standards" when a) they are almost never used and b) I would hazard a guess that wherein they are they are considerably less favourable to your position than you imagine they are.

Several problems: (1) trials may be rare, but the legal professionals you refer to are bound to apply the same standard that juries are: the legislation; (2) in your stomping grounds, that includes a reasonableness standard. How do you think they determine reasonableness? There is nowhere else to look but cultural relativeness. If "community standards" are "almost never used," from where, then, are these legal professionals whipping out their conceptions of reasonableness? A special lock-box?

evilthecat:
I would hazard a guess that wherein they are they are considerably less favourable to your position than you imagine they are.

Yeah. About this. We can argue ad naus. about this but it will go nowhere because we obviously have very different perspectives. I think the reason for that is that you appear determined to construe culture to be what it SHOULD be rather than what it is. You seem to think it appropriate to, in individual rape cases, apply a conception of reasonableness that, if applied consistently, will yield social results that are healthier for everyone: men will take the safe route and assume "no means no," and women will not suffer from "rape" as much. It's a win win!
But we're not talking normative social policy here; we're talking about due process for individual defendants. Given your apparent background, it is no surprise that you, with little discipline or self-awareness, glide at will between implicitly espousing using law in individual cases to nurture a wider social change you think beneficial, and applying law to mean what it actually says, supplemented by traditional constraints the law imposes on the prosecution and courts via due process. This problem is noted in other critiques on your position by other posters, in the form of "wait, Evil, we don't assume a defendant guilty but rather innocent . . . ."

Anyway, I do not approach the world as tendentiously as you seem to (an example of the latter would be your "intent" argument via Farrell's words, a response to which I wrote a long dissecting response, but then asked myself, "why the fuck am I writing this?").

I take it you're familiar with the popular saying, at least here in the US, that "feminism is the radical notion that women are people too." MRAs have their own version: "anti-feminism is the radical notion that women are adults too."

That is, I do not infantilize women by assuming they have less control over their experiences than they do (I mean, what IS a delicate woman to do when a kiss is "lunged" at her?! I do believe I'm getting the vapors, I do declare! Someone get me a fainting couch!). I do not idealize them by assuming they have the innocence of children (yes, I know you think I'm strawmanning you, but some strain of this sentiment does seem to drive your thinking, though perhaps you're not conscious of it). I do not ignore statistics that appear to confirm something about women I don't want to believe is true, or grope for reasons to reject their invocation under the pretense of critical thinking (yes, the stat might be wrong or taken out of context, but that's true with any stat., and Farrell's invocation of the quote does not facially provide a reason for assuming these problems unless one is looking for an excause to reject their relevance. In any event, I, too, would think it worthwhile to see the details of the study).

And regarding your suggestion that I have "bad" attitude toward women: I do not assume that women do not suffer from the same faults and human weaknesses men do. Rather, I take women, men and culture as I see them, not as I wish they were. Case in point, you assert this:

evilthecat:
If you genuinely believe that deliberately deceiving men about their intentions is somehow rewarding to women, I think you're going to have to justify that.. or certainly to explain it.

And:

evilthecat:
Why would anyone in that situation wish to create uncertainty in someone else regarding their own consent when it is actually clear to them?

You remind me of President Bush who, upon leaving office, was shocked to find these "scanner things" at grocery stores.

Here is an answer I quote from Farrell:

"The purpose of the fraud? To have sexual pleasure without sexual responsibility, and therefore without guilt or shame; to reinforce the belief that he is getting a sexual favor while she is giving a sexual favor, thus that he "owes" her the 5 D's before sex or some measure of commitment, protection, or respect after sex . . . ."

I might be able to get my hands on the study, which included REASONS why the respective women said no in meaning yes, which is where I think Farrell is getting these from; perhaps more to come on that later.

I wrote out responses to your "Farrell does not mean intent" and "point scoring with the gender/women's studies argument" assertions but I will spare everyone this stuff as this post is already ridiculously long. Suffice it to say that, with regard to the former, while intellectual dishonesty may to too strong an accusation, you're approaching it. Regarding the latter, you're being intellectually dishonest, as you're recharacterizing what you originally asserted. Another problem: not wanting to do something and not consenting to it are two different things . . . must. stop. typing.

evilthecat:

I don't get how you can honestly believe that asking someone to explain their actions is somehow irrelevent to proving intent. I don't get how you can put the entire judicial procedure for whether a crime has been committed onto how much the victim struggled against it. In what other crime do we do this? In what other crime does procedure specifically exclude using the testimony of the defendant as an indication of their actions, particularly when we're claiming their motives are important.

I never said it was irrelevant. I merely stated it was up to the accuser to prove the intent. Now off course if the alleged rapist wants to come out and say he had bad intents, so be it. But it's not up to the accused to to prove he isn't a rapist. Seems rather reasonable.
His testimony can be used, however, unless the defendant is going to call himself a rapist it wouldn't be of that much use. The reason for that is what i've stated numerous times: during intimate moments communication is often a mess and very ambiguous. This makes proving you were "innocent" very very hard. As such it us up to the accuser to prove the defendant was guilty, which is probably equally hard but this at least prevents false accusations to get people in jail.

What you're asking for is completely unworkable. You want a system which is entirely contingent on establishing intent, and yet is also entirely on the behaviour of the person who is not actually committing the crime, and in which any indication by the victim that they have not consented short of using physical violence to defend themselves is ignored because they might have been lying. Can you stop for a moment and consider how batshit that is?

Are you doing this on purpose? I said "use of threats, violence, a ruse,..." and you transform that in "violence" only?! Never have I nor the law indicated that one has to resort to violence to defend themselves to prove there was rape. However it is required there were signs that the lack of consent was clear and intentions malicious (which are both proven by the perpetrator resulting to such methods).

Imagine if you woke up to find someone breaking into your house and yet the law said that if you simply told them to leave rather than immediately taking a baseball bat to them regardless of whether they were armed or stronger than you, a court would decide that you'd given them no reason to believe they weren't welcome in your house so they didn't even have to ask your burglar why he was breaking into your house, they didn't even need to bother to get his testimony because it's not considered relevant to whether he actually meant to break into your house, only your actions matter. That's fucking insane.

But that isn't how it works now is it. Unlike sexual intercourse breaking into someone's property is considered a crime and with malicious intents. If you prove someone broke in you're good, up to the criminal to counter-prove that.With sexual intercourse however it is up to accuser to prove it was with malicious intent and was actually rape. Just like you have to prove someone broke in he/she has to prove the sexual intercourse was rape.

I'm getting really sick of this. You can keep doing mental gymnastics all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that what you're defending is not the rights of the accused, because the rights of the accused never apply like you're suggesting they do. Not in any other crime you can think of. What you're defending is the bizarre idea that only "bad men" should ever be able to be prosecuted for rape, and I'm starting to feel that you will jump through whatever hoops are required to sustain that assertion or to conceal the fact that it has no basis in the reality of the crime. We don't need rapists to be "bad men" in order to convict them, we just need them to be rapists.

As far as i know accused people are deemed innocent until proven guilty and it is up to the accuser(s) to bring evidence of guilt (now ok, a testimony from the accused could be evidence of guilt, eg: a confession. But in itself a testimony usually leads to little and cannot possibly serve as sufficient evidence). I wouldn't want to live where you do if that's not how it works. And luckily our legal system doesn't think like you and isn't willing to destroy good people's lives for a mistake by branding them with rape unless clear evidence of rape and malicious intent are presented.

evilthecat:

Easy answer: Not unless the woman had a strap-on. Remember, rape is the crime of penetrating someone else's body without their consent. If you don't understand why this is, try being penetrated.

Quick question: if I were to hold a women down and give her head without her consent, being careful not to penetrate, it would not be what you consider "rape"? And neither would be forcing her to give me a titty-fuck or forcing her to give me a hand-job?

evilthecat:

chaosord:
So if a woman forces a man to fuck her and as long she doesn't stick anything in the man, its not rape. I'm sorry but that is just fucked up. And morally wrong. Didn't your "gender studies" class show that men feel pain, shame, and self loathing when that happens to them? Its the same fucking trauma. Or is it something you just don't care about?

It's not the same trauma. You can't die from it. There's no chance you'll have to take painkillers in order to go to the toilet for the rest of your life, or to suffer permanent prostate injury. You can move while it's going on without putting yourself at risk of internal damage. You won't get pregnant. You're far less likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease. You are extremely unlikely to orgasm involuntarily. I know on some level I shouldn't be surprised when straight guys don't get this, but I refuse to believe that on some level you don't understand. If I was attacking you in the street and wanted to hurt and humiliate you, would you rather I sucked your dick or that I shoved a bottle into your arse?

It is a completely different physical experience which is likely to produce an entirely different cognitive outcome. Yes, some men would feel very violated by such an experience or develop PTSD, just as some women can get through rape without being deeply affected by it. But being mugged can cause a person to feel violated or to develop PTSD, and that doesn't change the fact that mugging is a separate crime. The emotional consequences of any crime always deserve to be taken seriously, but that doesn't mean every crime needs to be the same.

Rape is a form of sexual assault involving penetration, because the likely consequences of penetration are different to the likely consequences of causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent which. incidentally, is also a serious crime. Don't pretend I "don't care" because I don't see two acts as the same when they're blatantly not.

You posed me a question. I have answered it. My response to you was not a response to "the talk" (I'm not sure if you mean the interview in the opening post, or the general progression of this thread), it was a response to you.

What? So it is ok for a woman to rape man because they are not penetrating the man. But not ok for a man to rape a woman because there is penetration, and the rape of a man is not a serious crime? Now remember you cannot have it both ways either rape is a crime not matter the sex or it is not a crime. Which is it?

Does anyone else see why this is hilarious but me?

Also Ill leave some GirlWritesWhat here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdOFSvD0b94

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked