The doctrine of "enthusiastic consent" is a awful one that accomplishes little more than making people feel like victims because they don't share a particular view of sex.
How?
Under enthusiastic consent the only way I can have sex is to be raped because I don't share the inventor's belief that sex is magical thing that you need to obsess over and passionately enjoy in order to be a proper human being. Reducing sex to "scene out of a romance novel" and "rape" is outrageously offensive to me. I am a sentient being capable of knowing when I have given consent and when I have not. If I go to see Nebraska with friends when I'd rather go see Her that does not mean I've been kidnapped either.
Obviously no means no, and so does any kind of pushing away, hesitation, etc. Obviously when alcohol or drugs enter into it things get more difficult to determine on both sides, which is why I avoid them for early dating (or one-time dating, as it were). But I still think (and I could be wrong) that the people perpetrating the crimes are well aware that what they're doing is wrong, and any "she was asking for it", "she was giving me mixed messages" etc is crap they came up with after the fact to justify it to other people. I mean, if the woman is unconscious or terrified and you're going for it...I don't think your health class teacher saying "remember, only yes means yes!" is going to be the thing that stopped you.
Some stats I've found (who knows how accurate) say that a pretty high (I saw 57%) of rapes occur on dates, and most of them involved alcohol. I'm just saying, if I were a woman, I would avoid a first date that involved heavy drinking. It doesn't make it their fault, but it's something I think should be avoided. It's just a bad idea.
How many women do you honestly think get drunk on a first date? For the intoxication aspect, we're looking at more of a social gathering scenario, like a party. 'Date' rape can mean acquaintance rape at a party just as much as a one on one dinner.
It's frightening how much rapists don't even think they did anything wrong. Not just in a 'she was asking for it kind of way', but not even realizing they didn't have consent. Reddit had a huge thread about this sometime last year, and the responses from guys was frightening in just how banal their stories were.
Reason I take issue with that scenario is it sound so much like a prototype teenage movie from the eighties. All that is missing is Marty Mcfly saving the girl from evil jocks with his hoverboard. Here overseas the jock-culture was never so widespread but the universal truth that has cheerleaders dating jocks is still valid only known as the -models dating soccer players- subject.
Have you considered that small town America isn't just a piece of fiction on your TV and movie screen? BatterysRevenge description is pretty accurate for small town America.
And its true. Girls go for money and status. Football/soccer players have that and girls fight over them. It is silly identifying that as a rape-enabling factor.
However it is logical, as it was pointed out earlier rape occurs more frequently as date rape, meaning ones who get dates are more likely to rape, nurds that can't get a girl to go out with them in that case will be less likely to commit rape but where does that leave us then? Should we identify the "more attractive" of the male gender and target them with workshops meant to decrease their ego that was blown up from the fact all women want to be with them? The notion is sickening.
I think you're misunderstanding the point here pretty drastically.
I'm not saying 'target attractive men'. I'm not really sure how you made that connection. I'm saying that we shouldn't encourage the consequence free acting out of athletes, which already has a rather large problem of peer pressure to be masculine, which leads on occasion to the variety of high profile cases we see around the country. The fact that sports players get so much attention when their cases aren't any different from dozens of others shows just how pervasive the sports fetishism/hero worship in the country is. It's far from a primary factor, but it seems to be a major factor in every case involving athletes.
This thread has a big smattering of sexism about it. What is worrying to me is that it is geared towards men. Let me explain. It propagates this myth that all men are just a bunch of raving sex lunatics.
Let me tell you something ladies there are a lot of men who can look at a woman (no matter how she is dressed) admire her beauty and go about there day with not the slightest desire to rape anyone.
To think that a man cannot resist his desire is a really bad gender stereotype. One we should all resist.
I don't think anyone here is insinuating that all men are rapists or even capable of rape
It's said in coded language, to borrow a feminist phrase.
I think you're both misunderstanding. No one (here) thinks men are rape-hungry monsters. We're talking about the perpetrators and the culture surrounding them. We're trying to identify where the problem is with the perpetrators and potential perpetrators is and how to fix it.
Kind of like how a discussion of sexism in online dating doesn't apply to all men, just the vocal and active minority.
2. The concept of rape culture, from my perspective, is less about rape per se then it is about boundaries, and a lack of respect thereof. This stems a great deal from the atrociously ****ty sex ed in our country. Most of it consists of "here's what sex is, and you should next have it til marriage, the end." Nowhere does it include what is legally considered consent. Boys are left to fill in the blanks, and while you may think it would be common sense, young boys still get it very, very wrong on a regular basis. And why wouldn't they? Teenagers get all sorts of stuff wrong all time when they're unguided and unsupervised, why would this be any different?
That's a good way to put it. The lack of clear boundaries, combined with alcohol and peer pressure to be 'masculine' make an environment where it's not that difficult for boys to go wrong.
Of course you can't prevent anything 100% of the time - locks example, identity thief example, etc. But a certain amount of common sense on the first few dates - stay in public places, don't get overly inebriated - shouldn't be very intrusive and could definitely protect you. You're probably better off avoiding a lot of drinks for the first few dates anyway, but that's just my opinion. I'm not saying it's your fault if you want to get drunk, but I'm saying if your goal is to avoid getting raped, not getting drunk is probably a good idea with someone you don't know well.
This quote here just really makes it seem that you don't understand the problem. There needs to be a change in culture so that guys are told 'You're probably better off avoiding a lot of drinks for the first few dates. If your goal is to avoid raping, not getting drunk is probably a good idea with someone you don't know well.' Sure you can continue to educate girls in the way you mentioned, but no one even suggests educating guys. That's the sort of culture change that is being looked for.
As far as the whole verbal consent thing and it being a mood-killer, that's another sort of cultural change that needs to happen. Know what else can turn down the heat of the moment? A guy fumbling around for a condom and putting it on. Does that mean that condoms are dumb and shouldn't be used? Hardly. Same thing with getting verbal consent. A quick "Babe, are you sure you want to do this?" and nod with accompanying "Yeah" takes all of like two seconds and hardly kills the mood. Hell, just ask while your getting out your condom and kill two birds with one stone! If it became the cultural norm to ask before sex it would be expected and it would help to reduce the rate of rape. Again, as Jay13x said, it isn't strangers jumping out of bushes committing the majority of rapes.
And as far as "No means no" vs. "Only yes means yes" imagine the following situation: a girl gets barely-able-to-walk, practically-passed-out drunk at a party and a drunk guy shuttles her off to a bedroom.
In a "No means no" culture, the guy doesn't hear "no" and has sex with her. He never got consent from her, despite following the cultural norm.
In an "Only yes means yes" culture, the guy doesn't hear "yes" and realizes that he doesn't have her consent.
And as for the "well she shouldn't have been getting so damn drunk in that environment, it's too risky" train of thought, that's part of the culture that needs to change. Rarely in our culture would anyone fault the guy, or advise the guy not to get so damn drunk in that situation. But think about that scenario if only the guy were sober and the girl was still completely ****faced drunk. He probably wouldn't have wound up raping her, right? That's part of the cultural change that is being looked for: emphasize to both sexes this advice on how to avoid the occurrence of rape. People don't get drunk and commit identity theft without realizing it, but people do get drunk and commit rape without realizing it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
I am a sentient being capable of knowing when I have given consent and when I have not.
Here is the problem with your argument, using the previous 'crime' arguments.
A man walks toward you on the street holding a knife, and asks you for your money. You, terrified of the man with the knife, stay silent and comply. He walks away.
Were you just robbed? Because in the conceptual model you imply here, you weren't. You freely gave that man your money. You're a consenting adult, you should have said no. You should have run away, known martial arts, not dressed so rich. For all you know, that man was an off-duty butcher looking for cab fair home, so it's your fault all your money is gone.
It's the same thing with rape, which is why 'enthusiastic' consent is required. Men, in general, are bigger and stronger than women. When confronted with someone bigger and stronger than you doing something to you that you don't want them to do, terrified silence is a pretty human reaction.
And as far as "No means no" vs. "Only yes means yes" imagine the following situation: a girl gets barely-able-to-walk, practically-passed-out drunk at a party and a drunk guy shuttles her off to a bedroom.
In a "No means no" culture, the guy doesn't hear "no" and has sex with her. He never got consent from her, despite following the cultural norm.
In an "Only yes means yes" culture, the guy doesn't hear "yes" and realizes that he doesn't have her consent.
And as for the "well she shouldn't have been getting so damn drunk in that environment, it's too risky" train of thought, that's part of the culture that needs to change. Rarely in our culture would anyone fault the guy, or advise the guy not to get so damn drunk in that situation. But think about that scenario if only the guy were sober and the girl was still completely ****faced drunk. He probably wouldn't have wound up raping her, right? That's part of the cultural change that is being looked for: emphasize to both sexes this advice on how to avoid the occurrence of rape. People don't get drunk and commit identity theft without realizing it, but people do get drunk and commit rape without realizing it.
Honest (perhaps ignorant) question: If both people are falling down drunk, and they have sex, how do you determine if rape occurred? And further, who raped who? If neither person was sober enough to give consent, then are they both guilty of raping each other?
I did my best to make this gender neutral, but inferences can be drawn about the genders of the parties based on the cultural influences they are experiencing.
Let's say you are in a situation where there has been no verbal consent and you are sober (for the record, I think verbal consent is a good idea), and there is some "heavy petting" going on between you (the first party) and a second party, which has been fine with both parties. Without becoming too graphic, let's say things escalate to an act of sexual intercourse, which is initiated by you. The second party is uncomfortable with it, but based on cultural influences the second party believes that it is their role to now have sex with you, they physically reciprocate without giving any sign of discomfort.
Obviously, this situation could be avoided with verbal consent, but do we blame the first party or culture more? Part of me wants to give equal parts blame, to the first party (for not receiving verbal consent before initiating sexual intercourse) and to the culture that makes this scenario plausible. The first party should err on the side of caution and receive verbal consent and culture should not repress the second party's right to break off physical contact if it becomes uncomfortable or unwanted.
I am a sentient being capable of knowing when I have given consent and when I have not.
Here is the problem with your argument, using the previous 'crime' arguments.
A man walks toward you on the street holding a knife, and asks you for your money. You, terrified of the man with the knife, stay silent and comply. He walks away.
Were you just robbed? Because in the conceptual model you imply here, you weren't. You freely gave that man your money.
Why do you assume I [edit]don't know[edit] when I am being coerced? I'm happy to take offense to being infantalized on top of having my sexuality denigrated, if you like.
I am a sentient being capable of knowing when I have given consent and when I have not.
Here is the problem with your argument, using the previous 'crime' arguments.
A man walks toward you on the street holding a knife, and asks you for your money. You, terrified of the man with the knife, stay silent and comply. He walks away.
Were you just robbed? Because in the conceptual model you imply here, you weren't. You freely gave that man your money.
Why do you assume I do know when I am being coerced? I'm happy to take offense to being infantalized on top of having my sexuality denigrated, if you like.
I am a sentient being capable of knowing when I have given consent and when I have not.
Here is the problem with your argument, using the previous 'crime' arguments.
A man walks toward you on the street holding a knife, and asks you for your money. You, terrified of the man with the knife, stay silent and comply. He walks away.
Were you just robbed? Because in the conceptual model you imply here, you weren't. You freely gave that man your money.
Why do you assume I do know when I am being coerced? I'm happy to take offense to being infantalized on top of having my sexuality denigrated, if you like.
Can you clarify what you're trying to say here?
[edit]That post you quoted was supposed to say "don't know"
Are you not familiar with the concept of coercion? I know perfectly well when someone forces me to do something, because I am an adult human being not a newborn.
If a person holds a gun to my head and I comply out of fear of being harmed I know that I've been coerced.
If a person asks me for a few bucks and I feel it would be nice to give them the money I have not been coerced.
Enthusiastic consent is a person coming over and telling me that I was robbed at gunpoint the second time because I didn't smile properly and condescendingly explaining that I just don't understand. They're assuming that I'm some kind of child with no understanding of the world. I find that outrageously offensive.
Am I not allowed to be generous? Am I not allowed to be introverted? Am I not allowed to have a low sex drive?
Asking for and ensuring that you receive consent is important, a much clearer expression of the goals of "No means no," but enthusiastic consent is just a way to police my sex life not to tell me not to rape people but to tell me not to get raped. If I consent to sex without duress I have not been raped no matter how much some woman on tumblr might feel she is entitled to tell me otherwise.
If a person holds a gun to my head and I comply out of fear of being harmed I know that I've been coerced.
If a person asks me for a few bucks and I feel it would be nice to give them the money I have not been coerced.
And what happens when the coercer doesn't realize he is coercing? I think that is where we are at cross purposes here. In my example, you were explicitly too scared to do anything but comply, but the off-duty butcher didn't realize you weren't just trying to helpful. It only matters in scenarios where you feel coerced. Maybe 'enthusiastic' consent is the wrong term, but I do believe in affirmation.
Here is another example: Bob is having a nice time with Stacy at the party, they've been dancing very close and Stacy has given him little kisses throughout the night. Stacy is tired and somewhat drunk and ready to go home. Bob offers to walk her, and Stacy accepts.
They get to Stacy's dorm and she gives Bob a kiss goodnight. Bob offers to tuck her in. Thinking it sweet, Stacy accepts, and gets into bed, telling Bob goodnight. Then she feels someone get into bed next to her, and freezes up scared. Bob, thinking all the signals from the night have led up to this, proceeds to engage in sex acts with her, which Stacy doesn't fight because she's scared, she didn't expect it, didn't invite it and can't react.
The exact details could be any one of a dozen different things, but the issue here is that if Bob had actually gotten consent instead of thinking he did (she never said no and was affectionate all night), the whole incident could have been avoided.
Can you elaborate on this? This statement is a very popular go-to phrase but I have no idea what it means.
Let me put it this way: why is the "player" lifestyle glorified? Why is virginity prized in women, but looked down on in men? Why is the word for a woman who has lots of sex negative, but there is no accompanying negative term for a man who has lots of sex? Having lots of sex (preferably with lots of different women) is generally taken as a sign of status for men. It probably has something to do with some of the (incorrect) assumptions you referred to before: its perceived that women only go after rich/good-looking/high-status men, so if you get lots of women to sleep with you, clearly you're rich/good-looking/high-status. It's obviously not true, otherwise you wouldn't see a ton of not-rich/ugly/low-status men married with kids...but we do see plenty of such men. It also should be self-evident that we wouldn't be surviving as a species if only a tiny fraction of men were able to reproduce.
On "Enthusiastic Consent"... it doesn't have to literally mean that you're bouncing off the walls enthusiastic about sex. What it means is that you should be looking for a clear unambiguous sign that your partner wants sex, as opposed to a sign that they DON'T want sex. It means that when there is gray area, and you haven't seen an obvious sign one way or the other, you should not assume they have consented. And yes, if you're shy to the point that you can't just straight ask directly, then yeah, you're going to have problems getting sex, just like every other person who has difficulties communicating. It may seem unfair, but it turns out, when what you do involves other people, you have to communicate. You can't expect other people to help you get what you want if you can't communicate with them effectively. This isn't a problem with how sex works per se, as pretty much every other social activity works the exact same way.
Honest (perhaps ignorant) question: If both people are falling down drunk, and they have sex, how do you determine if rape occurred? And further, who raped who? If neither person was sober enough to give consent, then are they both guilty of raping each other?
Obviously, this situation could be avoided with verbal consent, but do we blame the first party or culture more?
Blame each to the extent that they're capable of influencing the situation I guess? I'm not quite sure how to quantify "blame" to answer which should get more blame.
I'd rather just say "What can be done to prevent this from happening again?" then try to figure out who/what to blame the most.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
And what happens when the coercer doesn't realize he is coercing? I think that is where we are at cross purposes here. In my example, you were explicitly too scared to do anything but comply, but the off-duty butcher didn't realize you weren't just trying to helpful. It only matters in scenarios where you feel coerced. Maybe 'enthusiastic' consent is the wrong term, but I do believe in affirmation.
Yes, affirmation is important (I even said as much) but enthusiastic consent is not the same thing, as you can tell from the name. I am not obligated to feel like a victim because I don't act the way someone else would like me to. There is an enormous degree of privilege involved in not seeing how the term is a problem.
Affirmation also puts the focus back on the person initiating the encounter.
So apparently some people have called out Game of Thrones for it's use of rape. Anyone hear about it?
I've heard about it but I don't think anything in Game of Thrones condones rape. If anything, it's a condemnation of the culture that leads to rapes, especially in times of war.
Let me put it this way: why is the "player" lifestyle glorified? Why is virginity prized in women, but looked down on in men? Why is the word for a woman who has lots of sex negative, but there is no accompanying negative term for a man who has lots of sex? Having lots of sex (preferably with lots of different women) is generally taken as a sign of status for men.
There is a very simple explanation for this: it is typically much easier for a woman to have sex with many men than it is for a man to have sex with many women (assuming our hypothetical man and woman are equally attractive).
The reason for this fact is also very simple. In western culture, men are usually expected to initiate flirting by showing overt interest. There are exceptions to this, of course, but an attractive woman will frequently be solicited for sex by many men while an attractive man will rarely encounter a woman who shows overt interest ("hey sexy").
I don't have an opinion as to whether this state of affairs is good or bad, but that's the way things are. For what it's worth, most mammals exhibit a similar mating dynamic. For a man, having sex frequently requires active effort in seeking out willing partners. For a woman, it requires passive acceptance of sexual invitations. Our culture regards the more difficult of these as more praiseworthy.
So apparently some people have called out Game of Thrones for it's use of rape. Anyone hear about it?
I've heard about it but I don't think anything in Game of Thrones condones rape. If anything, it's a condemnation of the culture that leads to rapes, especially in times of war.
My impression as well. In the fifth book, it is used to condemn the idea of treating people as chattel. Still, its presence in the narrative has drawn the critique that "it didn't happen that often in the middle ages/dark ages." This is more apparent in the show, where a certain character, gelded, is written off as damaged goods.
So apparently some people have called out Game of Thrones for it's use of rape. Anyone hear about it?
I've heard about it but I don't think anything in Game of Thrones condones rape. If anything, it's a condemnation of the culture that leads to rapes, especially in times of war.
Yeah, those sorts of critics seem to have missed the point (or of the bizarre mindset that any depiction of rape is wrong, no matter the context). A more cogent criticism (which the showrunners have listened to and changed post-Season 1, I think) was that sex workers were depicted as more... enthusiastic than might be expected from how most sex workers come into that profession, especially in a Euro-medieval setting.
Re: rape-prevention messaging, we should also (in addition to reforming sex-ed away from abstinence-only) impress upon everyone the need to look after their friends. Since most of the grey-area sexual situations occur at parties and clubs and such, there is probably a bystander effect that could be averted. For example: if you look over and happen to see someone aggressively pursuing your friend (who is clearly uncomfortable with it), help guide them out of the situation. Conversely, it's great social insurance to have some people you trust to get you out of bad situations (no matter which side you're on).
There is a very simple explanation for this: it is typically much easier for a woman to have sex with many men than it is for a man to have sex with many women (assuming our hypothetical man and woman are equally attractive).
Yet as you say, this is mostly cultural. Biologically I don't know that it's easier for one than the other.
My impression as well. In the fifth book, it is used to condemn the idea of treating people as chattel. Still, its presence in the narrative has drawn the critique that "it didn't happen that often in the middle ages/dark ages." This is more apparent in the show, where a certain character, gelded, is written off as damaged goods.
What most people don't seem to realize is that it's a time of war for all parties involved, where it most certainly did happen on regular enough basis to be concerning.
There is a very simple explanation for this: it is typically much easier for a woman to have sex with many men than it is for a man to have sex with many women (assuming our hypothetical man and woman are equally attractive).
Yet as you say, this is mostly cultural. Biologically I don't know that it's easier for one than the other.
Has there ever been a culture anywhere, past or present, in which males were expected to be sexually passive while females were expected to seek out and actively pursue sex with the male(s) they desired? For that matter, is there any species of mammal in which we observe this kind of behavior? I am genuinely curious, but I am not aware of any.
But let's put the whole biology/culture thing aside. Whether it's 100% biology or 100% culture, the fact remains that it's easier for women to be promiscuous than it is for men. Given this fact, is it hard to understand why our society would value the behavior in one instance and not the other?
But let's put the whole biology/culture thing aside. Whether it's 100% biology or 100% culture, the fact remains that it's easier for women to be promiscuous than it is for men. Given this fact, is it hard to understand why our society would value the behavior in one instance and not the other?
This is a pretty bold statement and I don't think it's actually what you're trying to say.
Are you trying to say that, when males in most species have to compete for a mate (and not vice-versa), why we don't value that behavior in reverse?
I don't think any (non-sexist) person thinks a woman should hold herself to a different standard. Lamenting it and trying to fix those attitudes are two different things, however. I don't think it's worth the time lamenting the problem rather than just trying to solve them.
But let's put the whole biology/culture thing aside. Whether it's 100% biology or 100% culture, the fact remains that it's easier for women to be promiscuous than it is for men. Given this fact, is it hard to understand why our society would value the behavior in one instance and not the other?
This is a pretty bold statement and I don't think it's actually what you're trying to say.
Are you trying to say that, when males in most species have to compete for a mate (and not vice-versa), why we don't value that behavior in reverse?
I'm somewhat confused by what you're saying, but let me spell this out very clearly:
(1) It is difficult for entity A to achieve goal X. A can only achieve X through active persistence or skill.
(2) It is easy for entity B to achieve goal X. Entity B can achieve X without putting forth much effort or skill.
Therefore it makes logical sense that people would be impressed or congratulatory when A achieves X, but indifferent when B achieves X.
I don't think any (non-sexist) person thinks a woman should hold herself to a different standard. Lamenting it and trying to fix those attitudes are two different things, however. I don't think it's worth the time lamenting the problem rather than just trying to solve them.
I'm trying to explain and describe a phenomenon. I have not made any "good" or "bad" value judgments. I'm not putting forth any position about how things should be.
Has there ever been a culture anywhere, past or present, in which males were expected to be sexually passive while females were expected to seek out and actively pursue sex with the male(s) they desired? For that matter, is there any species of mammal in which we observe this kind of behavior? I am genuinely curious, but I am not aware of any.
Both male and female Bonobos are promiscuous so everybody is initiating sex with everybody. There are a few mammals that form leks during mating season (the males gather then females approach the gathering and pick mates).
...but an attractive woman will frequently be solicited for sex by many men while an attractive man will rarely encounter a woman who shows overt interest ("hey sexy").
Conventionally, yes, this is true. But it leaves out a key element: the quality of the people who propositioning the woman. When a man goes out to find a woman to sleep with, he will generally only proposition those he deems to be attractive. Presumably, a woman is also only going to want to say yes to men she finds attractive. When you apply that filter to the propositions a woman receives, you'll discover that women get propositions *from men they'd actually want to sleep with* just as rarely as attractive men get the same. Yes men have to do the initiating work, but that means their interactions are automatically filtered; women must then do that filtering work that men don't have to do.
Now, you're correct that women could just not filter at all if they really, really want sex - and I'm sure women do just that. But men also have the exact same option. And just like with women, you'll find that some do take it. But a hell of a lot more people will refuse to "lower their standards" and subsequently whine their asses off on the internet how unfair it is that they can't get a smoking hot 9/10 (boy/girl)friend. You hear a lot more from the male end of it simply because there are more male-oriented spaces on the internet (male privilege blah blah), sure. Granted though, there's a ton of other issues going on down the mate-filtering rabbit-hole...
Why is the "player" lifestyle shunned if it is a woman? Lets see by whom.
By men? Check. Men don't want their women to have slept with the entire neighborhood.
By women? Check. Competition reasons.
For the record, as a woman, I believe its none of my damn business who the people around me have slept with. I'm not going to think more highly of a man who sleeps around for "competition reasons". But you're right, people DO meddle in individual women's sexuality. We have a negative word for women who have too much sex - ****. There are a lot of people who seem to think there is something fundamentally "wrong" with a woman who wants sex, while it is natural for a man to want it. They aren't exclusively one gender, there are both men and women who are guilty of this thinking.
Where does this lead us? Women are framed as the gatekeepers who are supposed to turn away the "unworthy" and men as the takers who try to get past the gatekeepers to get what they want. Except that it holds women responsible for the self-esteem of men, as it frames them being the ones who dole out worthiness. But it is not reasonable to hold someone else more accountable for your own worthiness then you hold yourself. It also disregards the desires of the individual women involved. Women don't reject men solely because they think they are worthless piles of ****. A woman rejects a man because she thinks that man wouldn't be a suitable sex partner *for her*. This may be because the man in question is a jerk, but it also could be for a whole host of other reasons that this whole "gatekeeper" model just pretends don't exist.
Also, the way you present it, if a man is rejected by a woman and feels bad about it, it is HER fault for MAKING him feel that way. All WOMEN's fault for a certain life-style being glorified. All WOMEN's fault for certain kind of men being powerful. Interesting how that absolves you yourself of any possible responsibility in the matter, isn't it? You present it as always the woman's fault, never the man's. But such a view is obviously just plain wrong. I am not going to deny that there are definitely women who contribute to these problems. But they aren't the only ones causing problems, and they aren't even necessarily the majority of the problem-causers. I seek to understand how I as a woman can potentially help or hurt the situation, and consciously choose to do the better of the two. For instance, I have made the choice to date someone who isn't mainstream attractive, and not give positive encouragement to ****ty behavior in either gender. It is NEVER useful, nor productive, to frame an issue as "Other group X, which I am not part of, is the entire problem and needs to do all the work fixing it". Because it's seriously not going to happen.
I'm somewhat confused by what you're saying, but let me spell this out very clearly:
(1) It is difficult for entity A to achieve goal X. A can only achieve X through active persistence or skill.
(2) It is easy for entity B to achieve goal X. Entity B can achieve X without putting forth much effort or skill.
Therefore it makes logical sense that people would be impressed or congratulatory when A achieves X, but indifferent when B achieves X.
Right. But analysis of why it's hard for A and easy for B reveals that other conditions are generally amenable to B and less so for A. No evidence suggests that all other things being equal A should have a harder time than B.
So in this case: men have a "harder time" having sex with women not because women have lower sex drive (at least not necessarily; there's growing evidence that it's at least on par) but that women tend to say no, whereas men tend to say yes. In the short term* a woman can have sex with as many guys, as a guy can have sex with women, provided he and she are meeting willing partners at equal rates.
But you can see that most of these parameters are social/behavioral and rather self-reinforcing.
*i.e. before she actually gets pregnant
So when you say that a woman can "easily" have sex with many men, whereas it's "more difficult" for a man to have sex with many women... do you mean that social environment? Because that could quite conceivably change. (I feel like it is changing, thanks Internet.) Or do you mean something else?
If you are interested in a reason why, take a step back and first answer the question: By whom.
You bring up a lot of interesting things re: female perception of gender roles, but I think there's some more obvious cross-gender stuff too. At the risk of trading anecdotes again it seems like a common reaction to a long-unwedded man was something like "what, don't you like women?" whereas a common reaction to a long-unwedded woman was something like "what, nobody wants you?" This is changing but it's a relatively common theme historically.*
*That I'm aware of. IAmNotA scholar in that regard. But anyway it's not inconceivable that there's something to the "cultural forces" argument.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Under enthusiastic consent the only way I can have sex is to be raped because I don't share the inventor's belief that sex is magical thing that you need to obsess over and passionately enjoy in order to be a proper human being. Reducing sex to "scene out of a romance novel" and "rape" is outrageously offensive to me. I am a sentient being capable of knowing when I have given consent and when I have not. If I go to see Nebraska with friends when I'd rather go see Her that does not mean I've been kidnapped either.
How many women do you honestly think get drunk on a first date? For the intoxication aspect, we're looking at more of a social gathering scenario, like a party. 'Date' rape can mean acquaintance rape at a party just as much as a one on one dinner.
It's frightening how much rapists don't even think they did anything wrong. Not just in a 'she was asking for it kind of way', but not even realizing they didn't have consent. Reddit had a huge thread about this sometime last year, and the responses from guys was frightening in just how banal their stories were.
Have you considered that small town America isn't just a piece of fiction on your TV and movie screen? BatterysRevenge description is pretty accurate for small town America.
I think you're misunderstanding the point here pretty drastically.
I'm not saying 'target attractive men'. I'm not really sure how you made that connection. I'm saying that we shouldn't encourage the consequence free acting out of athletes, which already has a rather large problem of peer pressure to be masculine, which leads on occasion to the variety of high profile cases we see around the country. The fact that sports players get so much attention when their cases aren't any different from dozens of others shows just how pervasive the sports fetishism/hero worship in the country is. It's far from a primary factor, but it seems to be a major factor in every case involving athletes.
I think you're both misunderstanding. No one (here) thinks men are rape-hungry monsters. We're talking about the perpetrators and the culture surrounding them. We're trying to identify where the problem is with the perpetrators and potential perpetrators is and how to fix it.
Kind of like how a discussion of sexism in online dating doesn't apply to all men, just the vocal and active minority.
That's a good way to put it. The lack of clear boundaries, combined with alcohol and peer pressure to be 'masculine' make an environment where it's not that difficult for boys to go wrong.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
This quote here just really makes it seem that you don't understand the problem. There needs to be a change in culture so that guys are told 'You're probably better off avoiding a lot of drinks for the first few dates. If your goal is to avoid raping, not getting drunk is probably a good idea with someone you don't know well.' Sure you can continue to educate girls in the way you mentioned, but no one even suggests educating guys. That's the sort of culture change that is being looked for.
As far as the whole verbal consent thing and it being a mood-killer, that's another sort of cultural change that needs to happen. Know what else can turn down the heat of the moment? A guy fumbling around for a condom and putting it on. Does that mean that condoms are dumb and shouldn't be used? Hardly. Same thing with getting verbal consent. A quick "Babe, are you sure you want to do this?" and nod with accompanying "Yeah" takes all of like two seconds and hardly kills the mood. Hell, just ask while your getting out your condom and kill two birds with one stone! If it became the cultural norm to ask before sex it would be expected and it would help to reduce the rate of rape. Again, as Jay13x said, it isn't strangers jumping out of bushes committing the majority of rapes.
And as far as "No means no" vs. "Only yes means yes" imagine the following situation: a girl gets barely-able-to-walk, practically-passed-out drunk at a party and a drunk guy shuttles her off to a bedroom.
And as for the "well she shouldn't have been getting so damn drunk in that environment, it's too risky" train of thought, that's part of the culture that needs to change. Rarely in our culture would anyone fault the guy, or advise the guy not to get so damn drunk in that situation. But think about that scenario if only the guy were sober and the girl was still completely ****faced drunk. He probably wouldn't have wound up raping her, right? That's part of the cultural change that is being looked for: emphasize to both sexes this advice on how to avoid the occurrence of rape. People don't get drunk and commit identity theft without realizing it, but people do get drunk and commit rape without realizing it.
Here is the problem with your argument, using the previous 'crime' arguments.
A man walks toward you on the street holding a knife, and asks you for your money. You, terrified of the man with the knife, stay silent and comply. He walks away.
Were you just robbed? Because in the conceptual model you imply here, you weren't. You freely gave that man your money. You're a consenting adult, you should have said no. You should have run away, known martial arts, not dressed so rich. For all you know, that man was an off-duty butcher looking for cab fair home, so it's your fault all your money is gone.
It's the same thing with rape, which is why 'enthusiastic' consent is required. Men, in general, are bigger and stronger than women. When confronted with someone bigger and stronger than you doing something to you that you don't want them to do, terrified silence is a pretty human reaction.
Edit: See also InfinityAlarm's post.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Honest (perhaps ignorant) question: If both people are falling down drunk, and they have sex, how do you determine if rape occurred? And further, who raped who? If neither person was sober enough to give consent, then are they both guilty of raping each other?
Let's say you are in a situation where there has been no verbal consent and you are sober (for the record, I think verbal consent is a good idea), and there is some "heavy petting" going on between you (the first party) and a second party, which has been fine with both parties. Without becoming too graphic, let's say things escalate to an act of sexual intercourse, which is initiated by you. The second party is uncomfortable with it, but based on cultural influences the second party believes that it is their role to now have sex with you, they physically reciprocate without giving any sign of discomfort.
Obviously, this situation could be avoided with verbal consent, but do we blame the first party or culture more? Part of me wants to give equal parts blame, to the first party (for not receiving verbal consent before initiating sexual intercourse) and to the culture that makes this scenario plausible. The first party should err on the side of caution and receive verbal consent and culture should not repress the second party's right to break off physical contact if it becomes uncomfortable or unwanted.
Why do you assume I [edit]don't know[edit] when I am being coerced? I'm happy to take offense to being infantalized on top of having my sexuality denigrated, if you like.
Can you clarify what you're trying to say here?
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
[edit]That post you quoted was supposed to say "don't know"
Are you not familiar with the concept of coercion? I know perfectly well when someone forces me to do something, because I am an adult human being not a newborn.
If a person holds a gun to my head and I comply out of fear of being harmed I know that I've been coerced.
If a person asks me for a few bucks and I feel it would be nice to give them the money I have not been coerced.
Enthusiastic consent is a person coming over and telling me that I was robbed at gunpoint the second time because I didn't smile properly and condescendingly explaining that I just don't understand. They're assuming that I'm some kind of child with no understanding of the world. I find that outrageously offensive.
Am I not allowed to be generous? Am I not allowed to be introverted? Am I not allowed to have a low sex drive?
Asking for and ensuring that you receive consent is important, a much clearer expression of the goals of "No means no," but enthusiastic consent is just a way to police my sex life not to tell me not to rape people but to tell me not to get raped. If I consent to sex without duress I have not been raped no matter how much some woman on tumblr might feel she is entitled to tell me otherwise.
And what happens when the coercer doesn't realize he is coercing? I think that is where we are at cross purposes here. In my example, you were explicitly too scared to do anything but comply, but the off-duty butcher didn't realize you weren't just trying to helpful. It only matters in scenarios where you feel coerced. Maybe 'enthusiastic' consent is the wrong term, but I do believe in affirmation.
Here is another example: Bob is having a nice time with Stacy at the party, they've been dancing very close and Stacy has given him little kisses throughout the night. Stacy is tired and somewhat drunk and ready to go home. Bob offers to walk her, and Stacy accepts.
They get to Stacy's dorm and she gives Bob a kiss goodnight. Bob offers to tuck her in. Thinking it sweet, Stacy accepts, and gets into bed, telling Bob goodnight. Then she feels someone get into bed next to her, and freezes up scared. Bob, thinking all the signals from the night have led up to this, proceeds to engage in sex acts with her, which Stacy doesn't fight because she's scared, she didn't expect it, didn't invite it and can't react.
The exact details could be any one of a dozen different things, but the issue here is that if Bob had actually gotten consent instead of thinking he did (she never said no and was affectionate all night), the whole incident could have been avoided.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Let me put it this way: why is the "player" lifestyle glorified? Why is virginity prized in women, but looked down on in men? Why is the word for a woman who has lots of sex negative, but there is no accompanying negative term for a man who has lots of sex? Having lots of sex (preferably with lots of different women) is generally taken as a sign of status for men. It probably has something to do with some of the (incorrect) assumptions you referred to before: its perceived that women only go after rich/good-looking/high-status men, so if you get lots of women to sleep with you, clearly you're rich/good-looking/high-status. It's obviously not true, otherwise you wouldn't see a ton of not-rich/ugly/low-status men married with kids...but we do see plenty of such men. It also should be self-evident that we wouldn't be surviving as a species if only a tiny fraction of men were able to reproduce.
On "Enthusiastic Consent"... it doesn't have to literally mean that you're bouncing off the walls enthusiastic about sex. What it means is that you should be looking for a clear unambiguous sign that your partner wants sex, as opposed to a sign that they DON'T want sex. It means that when there is gray area, and you haven't seen an obvious sign one way or the other, you should not assume they have consented. And yes, if you're shy to the point that you can't just straight ask directly, then yeah, you're going to have problems getting sex, just like every other person who has difficulties communicating. It may seem unfair, but it turns out, when what you do involves other people, you have to communicate. You can't expect other people to help you get what you want if you can't communicate with them effectively. This isn't a problem with how sex works per se, as pretty much every other social activity works the exact same way.
That's a good question. I don't really know.
Blame each to the extent that they're capable of influencing the situation I guess? I'm not quite sure how to quantify "blame" to answer which should get more blame.
I'd rather just say "What can be done to prevent this from happening again?" then try to figure out who/what to blame the most.
If "enthusiastic consent" isn't about enthusiastic consent you may wish to consider dropping the name.
Yes, affirmation is important (I even said as much) but enthusiastic consent is not the same thing, as you can tell from the name. I am not obligated to feel like a victim because I don't act the way someone else would like me to. There is an enormous degree of privilege involved in not seeing how the term is a problem.
Affirmation also puts the focus back on the person initiating the encounter.
My mistake.
I've heard about it but I don't think anything in Game of Thrones condones rape. If anything, it's a condemnation of the culture that leads to rapes, especially in times of war.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
There is a very simple explanation for this: it is typically much easier for a woman to have sex with many men than it is for a man to have sex with many women (assuming our hypothetical man and woman are equally attractive).
The reason for this fact is also very simple. In western culture, men are usually expected to initiate flirting by showing overt interest. There are exceptions to this, of course, but an attractive woman will frequently be solicited for sex by many men while an attractive man will rarely encounter a woman who shows overt interest ("hey sexy").
I don't have an opinion as to whether this state of affairs is good or bad, but that's the way things are. For what it's worth, most mammals exhibit a similar mating dynamic. For a man, having sex frequently requires active effort in seeking out willing partners. For a woman, it requires passive acceptance of sexual invitations. Our culture regards the more difficult of these as more praiseworthy.
My impression as well. In the fifth book, it is used to condemn the idea of treating people as chattel. Still, its presence in the narrative has drawn the critique that "it didn't happen that often in the middle ages/dark ages." This is more apparent in the show, where a certain character, gelded, is written off as damaged goods.
Yeah, those sorts of critics seem to have missed the point (or of the bizarre mindset that any depiction of rape is wrong, no matter the context). A more cogent criticism (which the showrunners have listened to and changed post-Season 1, I think) was that sex workers were depicted as more... enthusiastic than might be expected from how most sex workers come into that profession, especially in a Euro-medieval setting.
Re: rape-prevention messaging, we should also (in addition to reforming sex-ed away from abstinence-only) impress upon everyone the need to look after their friends. Since most of the grey-area sexual situations occur at parties and clubs and such, there is probably a bystander effect that could be averted. For example: if you look over and happen to see someone aggressively pursuing your friend (who is clearly uncomfortable with it), help guide them out of the situation. Conversely, it's great social insurance to have some people you trust to get you out of bad situations (no matter which side you're on).
EDIT:
Yet as you say, this is mostly cultural. Biologically I don't know that it's easier for one than the other.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
What most people don't seem to realize is that it's a time of war for all parties involved, where it most certainly did happen on regular enough basis to be concerning.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Has there ever been a culture anywhere, past or present, in which males were expected to be sexually passive while females were expected to seek out and actively pursue sex with the male(s) they desired? For that matter, is there any species of mammal in which we observe this kind of behavior? I am genuinely curious, but I am not aware of any.
But let's put the whole biology/culture thing aside. Whether it's 100% biology or 100% culture, the fact remains that it's easier for women to be promiscuous than it is for men. Given this fact, is it hard to understand why our society would value the behavior in one instance and not the other?
This is a pretty bold statement and I don't think it's actually what you're trying to say.
Are you trying to say that, when males in most species have to compete for a mate (and not vice-versa), why we don't value that behavior in reverse?
I don't think any (non-sexist) person thinks a woman should hold herself to a different standard. Lamenting it and trying to fix those attitudes are two different things, however. I don't think it's worth the time lamenting the problem rather than just trying to solve them.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
I'm somewhat confused by what you're saying, but let me spell this out very clearly:
(1) It is difficult for entity A to achieve goal X. A can only achieve X through active persistence or skill.
(2) It is easy for entity B to achieve goal X. Entity B can achieve X without putting forth much effort or skill.
Therefore it makes logical sense that people would be impressed or congratulatory when A achieves X, but indifferent when B achieves X.
I'm trying to explain and describe a phenomenon. I have not made any "good" or "bad" value judgments. I'm not putting forth any position about how things should be.
Both male and female Bonobos are promiscuous so everybody is initiating sex with everybody. There are a few mammals that form leks during mating season (the males gather then females approach the gathering and pick mates).
Conventionally, yes, this is true. But it leaves out a key element: the quality of the people who propositioning the woman. When a man goes out to find a woman to sleep with, he will generally only proposition those he deems to be attractive. Presumably, a woman is also only going to want to say yes to men she finds attractive. When you apply that filter to the propositions a woman receives, you'll discover that women get propositions *from men they'd actually want to sleep with* just as rarely as attractive men get the same. Yes men have to do the initiating work, but that means their interactions are automatically filtered; women must then do that filtering work that men don't have to do.
Now, you're correct that women could just not filter at all if they really, really want sex - and I'm sure women do just that. But men also have the exact same option. And just like with women, you'll find that some do take it. But a hell of a lot more people will refuse to "lower their standards" and subsequently whine their asses off on the internet how unfair it is that they can't get a smoking hot 9/10 (boy/girl)friend. You hear a lot more from the male end of it simply because there are more male-oriented spaces on the internet (male privilege blah blah), sure. Granted though, there's a ton of other issues going on down the mate-filtering rabbit-hole...
For the record, as a woman, I believe its none of my damn business who the people around me have slept with. I'm not going to think more highly of a man who sleeps around for "competition reasons". But you're right, people DO meddle in individual women's sexuality. We have a negative word for women who have too much sex - ****. There are a lot of people who seem to think there is something fundamentally "wrong" with a woman who wants sex, while it is natural for a man to want it. They aren't exclusively one gender, there are both men and women who are guilty of this thinking.
Where does this lead us? Women are framed as the gatekeepers who are supposed to turn away the "unworthy" and men as the takers who try to get past the gatekeepers to get what they want. Except that it holds women responsible for the self-esteem of men, as it frames them being the ones who dole out worthiness. But it is not reasonable to hold someone else more accountable for your own worthiness then you hold yourself. It also disregards the desires of the individual women involved. Women don't reject men solely because they think they are worthless piles of ****. A woman rejects a man because she thinks that man wouldn't be a suitable sex partner *for her*. This may be because the man in question is a jerk, but it also could be for a whole host of other reasons that this whole "gatekeeper" model just pretends don't exist.
Also, the way you present it, if a man is rejected by a woman and feels bad about it, it is HER fault for MAKING him feel that way. All WOMEN's fault for a certain life-style being glorified. All WOMEN's fault for certain kind of men being powerful. Interesting how that absolves you yourself of any possible responsibility in the matter, isn't it? You present it as always the woman's fault, never the man's. But such a view is obviously just plain wrong. I am not going to deny that there are definitely women who contribute to these problems. But they aren't the only ones causing problems, and they aren't even necessarily the majority of the problem-causers. I seek to understand how I as a woman can potentially help or hurt the situation, and consciously choose to do the better of the two. For instance, I have made the choice to date someone who isn't mainstream attractive, and not give positive encouragement to ****ty behavior in either gender. It is NEVER useful, nor productive, to frame an issue as "Other group X, which I am not part of, is the entire problem and needs to do all the work fixing it". Because it's seriously not going to happen.
Right. But analysis of why it's hard for A and easy for B reveals that other conditions are generally amenable to B and less so for A. No evidence suggests that all other things being equal A should have a harder time than B.
So in this case: men have a "harder time" having sex with women not because women have lower sex drive (at least not necessarily; there's growing evidence that it's at least on par) but that women tend to say no, whereas men tend to say yes. In the short term* a woman can have sex with as many guys, as a guy can have sex with women, provided he and she are meeting willing partners at equal rates.
But you can see that most of these parameters are social/behavioral and rather self-reinforcing.
*i.e. before she actually gets pregnant
So when you say that a woman can "easily" have sex with many men, whereas it's "more difficult" for a man to have sex with many women... do you mean that social environment? Because that could quite conceivably change. (I feel like it is changing, thanks Internet.) Or do you mean something else?
You bring up a lot of interesting things re: female perception of gender roles, but I think there's some more obvious cross-gender stuff too. At the risk of trading anecdotes again it seems like a common reaction to a long-unwedded man was something like "what, don't you like women?" whereas a common reaction to a long-unwedded woman was something like "what, nobody wants you?" This is changing but it's a relatively common theme historically.*
*That I'm aware of. IAmNotA scholar in that regard. But anyway it's not inconceivable that there's something to the "cultural forces" argument.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.