So apparently some people have called out Game of Thrones for it's use of rape. Anyone hear about it?
I'm one of those people. Also I hate it because it's bad.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“A man's at odds to know his mind cause his mind is aught he has to know it with. He can know his heart, but he dont want to. Rightly so. Best not to look in there. It aint the heart of a creature that is bound in the way that God has set for it. You can find meanness in the least of creatures, but when God made man the devil was at his elbow. A creature that can do anything. Make a machine. And a machine to make the machine. And evil that can run itself a thousand years, no need to tend it.”
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
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?
....Sure this is true if you shut off the entire queer culture (not intentionally, you just said that in general to take out the culture aspect which I find ludicrous). Male promiscuity (even those who identify as straight receiving favors) is extremely present in queer culture. And anyone who went to a 4 year college in the 2000s like me can attest promiscuity knows no gender boundaries. Plus online dating for singles, is it really a bunch of men and women looking for a) love or b) sex....choose best answer.
On topic:
Basically the rape culture my feminist friends are trying to combat that we teach our young women how to prevent rape instead of teaching our sons when they are young to respect a woman and when an appropriate age to engage in mutual physical relationships.
In short, it has to be both ends but parents who are behind the times of progressive and forward thinking social objectives will never address this with their sons.
Ladyluck-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.
Funny, How the majority of rape victims in our society are male but all discussions about rape revolve around women victim, male rapist. (female privilege blah blah). Funny how when a man can't get a smoking hot girlfriend it's treated as a sign of a defect on his part but when women are unsatisfied it's a national crisis see "Where have all the good men gone". (female privilege blah blah).
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.
Ummm, this is feminism with the other group being men.
Ultimately the most productive thing we could do would be to move beyond the traditional/feminist views on rape and treat it as a genderless crime. Start punishing female rapists and start advocating for male victims, this would do a hell of a lot more to reduce rape then more of the same.
Based on his comments in previous threads, I'm guessing that he's referring to prison rape. That problem is just egregious as the rampant date rape others have talked about upthread. However, from what I know of it, that seems to be primarily a male rapist, male victim dynamic. The common factor between that, and what we were already talking about, is the male perpetrator. This tends to reinforce the idea that we're doing something wrong in what we're teaching men, culturally speaking. I still maintain that more comprehensive sex ed would help with these problems.
I could go on about the UN report that states that more men are raped in the the US prison system then women in 65 countries combined.
Theres also the fact that a gender neutral definition of rape puts males outside the prisons at 50% of the victims and women at 40% of the perpetrators.
Heres a question for you, since the rate of rape has gone down but no more then the rate of all other violent crimes why stick with an approach that may be accomplishing next to nothing, erases victims and perpetrators, and is quite frankly anti-male?
Ladyluck-The common factor between that, and what we were already talking about, is the male perpetrator. This tends to reinforce the idea that we're doing something wrong in what we're teaching men, culturally speaking. I still maintain that more comprehensive sex ed would help with these problems.
Perhaps more comprehensive sex education could help but ultimately focusing on the gender of the "perpetrator" is merely a strategy to reinforce the female victim/male perpetrator dynamic of feminism. Bringing up that the villains sharing the same gender as the victim is simply a means of erasing the victims and a pretty sick one at that. The majority of Americans who are victimized are victimized by Americans, should we therefore devote all our law enforcement resources to protecting non-Americans?
Comparisons were made between self-reports from 382 men and 51 women who had experienced sexual coercion while incarcerated. Victim data were obtained from a sample of 1,788 male inmates and 263 female inmates who responded to an anonymous written survey distributed in 10 midwestern prisons. Men reported that their perpetrators in worst-case incidents were inmates (72%), staff (8%), or inmates and staff collaborating (12%). Women reported that their perpetrators were inmates (47%) and staff (41%). Greater percentages of men (70%) than women (29%) reported that their incident resulted in oral, vaginal, or anal sex. More men (54%) than women (28%) reported an incident that was classified as rape. Men and women were similar in feeling depression; however, more men (37%) than women (11%) reported suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts (19% for men, 4% for women). Implications of results for prevention of sexual coercion in prison are discussed.
Izuki-I certainly agree that it is probably underreported but changing our laws (including forced to penetrate for example in the definition of rape) and cultural views on rape to de-gender it would surely help.
Of course it is only women's fault. If it were not, the problem would auto-correct itself. If a man's player lifestyle were to be shunned by women, if a man's sexual attraction were to lower with every women he had sex with - then men would start counting the number more carefully (something like what let's say women do) and lie if it happened to cross a certain number limit. But it doesn't. Not only does it not detter women it attractes them more, in the best case scenario has no effect. But is not shunned.
>Implying women are never forced to have sex with men they don't like.
Oh wait. That was the whole rampant problem the thread was talking about.
This also ignores that these stereotypes aren't actually promoted by "men" or "women". They're promoted in popular media as a vehicle to convince people to buy stuff. So the real problem is whomever is empowered to decide how stuff is marketed. And as it turns out, there are both male and female marketing execs, so, surprise, its not something that's exclusively on the shoulders of "men" or on "women".
How does this relate to you? Well, you can start by recognizing the imagery of these stereotypes, and avoid spending money on products that market themselves using sexist imagery. Someone with more time/money could instead protest/picket and such just like you suggested. But by no means should you just assume that because you're a man its just 'not your problem'.
Last question:
some of the stuff about not using nonverbal communication is very worrying.
Why is it worrying? What is so bad about being explicit about your wants, needs, and desires? I mean, nevermind the whole avoiding rape thing, most women don't like guys who aren't willing to communicate their attractions in a direct and socially appropriate fashion. If you can't be upfront about wanting sex in a way that doesn't sound whiny or off-putting, then how can you possibly expect to ever get any of it?
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.
You seem to imply that that opposite (and the converse) is not true.
If someone asks me out and I accept then I will make them happy.
If someone asks me out and I decline then I will make them sad.
If I ask someone out and they accept then they will make me happy.
If I ask someone out and they decline then they will make me sad.
Unless you want to take the unbelievably toxic Buddhist point of view where people choose to make themselves feel things and sadness becomes a kind of moral failing.
You seem to imply that that opposite (and the converse) is not true.
You may read such an implication, but that's not what I was talking about. Yes, people will say and do things that make you happy/sad. You may also do things that make other people happy/sad. But you aren't unilaterally responsible for the emotions of someone else, nor are other people responsible for yours. Trying to dump all responsibility for your emotions on someone else I would generally consider to be emotionally abusive.
As it applies to your example - you can accept/decline and thus make someone happy/sad, but you don't OWE them any particular reply, regardless of how they might react to it. Likewise, when you ask someone out, and they reject you...yeah you might feel bad about it, but that doesn't automatically make them the scum of the earth, since you were never owed an acceptance in the first place.
For the most part, our views are Classical Liberal...
So huge red flags right there.
Since it's talking about sexual assault inside the prison system, a more rational person would deduce that it's a flaw of the prison system, not some weird anti-women thing like you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“A man's at odds to know his mind cause his mind is aught he has to know it with. He can know his heart, but he dont want to. Rightly so. Best not to look in there. It aint the heart of a creature that is bound in the way that God has set for it. You can find meanness in the least of creatures, but when God made man the devil was at his elbow. A creature that can do anything. Make a machine. And a machine to make the machine. And evil that can run itself a thousand years, no need to tend it.”
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
For the most part, our views are Classical Liberal...
So huge red flags right there.
Since it's talking about sexual assault inside the prison system, a more rational person would deduce that it's a flaw of the prison system, not some weird anti-women thing like you.
It doesn't matter if it is the flaw of the prison system. It is still rape, and it is still a fact. Explain how that makes us "anti-women things."
EDIT: Oh, and some advice for men:
If you have a one night stand, be sure to text her the morning after and say something like "Did you have fun last night?" or something similar. When she texts back "Yes, :)" save/record the text in some way to avoid a false rape accusation.
So if we coerce her into sex, we should pressure her to say she liked it?
That's quite a leap. A person who's paranoid about false rape accusations will probably be more comfortable with evidence that their sex life is consensual.
Elvish Piper-So if we coerce her into sex, we should pressure her to say she liked it?
At first I was like "Wow that is one hell of a leap" but then I realized when one internalizes feminism one views every situation between the sexes as man=actor and women=acted upon this is just one of the problems with feminism and why it cannot truly fight sexism. That would be like the swine flu "ending the flu".
It doesn't matter if it is the flaw of the prison system. It is still rape, and it is still a fact. Explain how that makes us "anti-women things."
Hahaha. Oh, wow. You say this, and then you go on to say this:
EDIT: Oh, and some advice for men:
If you have a one night stand, be sure to text her the morning after and say something like "Did you have fun last night?" or something similar. When she texts back "Yes, :)" save/record the text in some way to avoid a false rape accusation.
And you wonder why I think you say anti-woman things. I don't even need tomake a point, you have done so for me admirably.
Elvish Piper-So if we coerce her into sex, we should pressure her to say she liked it?
At first I was like "Wow that is one hell of a leap" but then I realized when one internalizes feminism one views every situation between the sexes as man=actor and women=acted upon this is just one of the problems with feminism and why it cannot truly fight sexism. That would be like the swine flu "ending the flu".
Thanks joande, now we know we can safely just ignore everything you say.
“A man's at odds to know his mind cause his mind is aught he has to know it with. He can know his heart, but he dont want to. Rightly so. Best not to look in there. It aint the heart of a creature that is bound in the way that God has set for it. You can find meanness in the least of creatures, but when God made man the devil was at his elbow. A creature that can do anything. Make a machine. And a machine to make the machine. And evil that can run itself a thousand years, no need to tend it.”
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
This thread is moving into very dangerous territory. Watch yourselves.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
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.
But this is a problem with all sorts of crime, not just sexual offenses.
Imagine Bob is Stacy's friend, and says he likes, I don't know, some piece of art in her room. She makes some vague comment about how she doesn't like it very much and is thinking about getting rid of it, and Bob interprets this to mean he's free to take it, which later (without Stacy's direct knowledge) he does. Stacy then reports it stolen. When they find out the full story, Stacy might be willing to drop the charges--but if she isn't, is it still theft?
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.
Yes. The Mosuo culture is a classic example (the one you'll usually find in textbooks) but there are others. They tend to be rare, for the same reason matrilineal cultures tend to be rare; they were usually conquered by patrilineal ones.
Quote from bitterroot »
the fact remains that it's easier for women to be promiscuous than it is for men.
How? Women have to worry about pregnancy, and have a higher risk of getting an STD from any particular encounter with a diseased individual than the corresponding man does.
Why is the "player" lifestyle glorified? I am a male. I don't glorify players, as a have no benefit from it. I don't care how many women a guy slept with, men I know don't care how many women I slept with, I don't find a woman more attractive if men I know slept with her, just the opposite. And men don't want other men to sleep with lots of women, but they themselves want to sleep with lots of women. A man with a "player" lifestyle is by no means effect or reason glorified by other men.
So whom are we referring to here? Women. Women give credit to a man who slept with more women. Men don't and not need to, that information is redundant since another man is not their potential partner. Women do, since he is, and that is one of the criteria the value him by.
Of course it's men who glorify players, even if you don't. Women (in the West) live in a culture where men value themselves largely based on the number of sexual partners they have, where a sexually inactive man is considered (by other men!) to be weak or effeminate, and where men are expected to be constantly seeking out sex ("boys will be boys"). Is it any wonder that women should adapt to some of that value system?
Your belief, that the system will correct itself, is only true if women have the power to correct it themselves, which is historically completely untrue; it's only in the 20th century, and especially the late 20th century, that women have been able to make sexual and relationship choices without societal (and especially familial) coercion. The system is beginning to right itself, but it's not just flipping a switch.
Quote from TheLarch »
And ample instances where females of the pack procreate exclusively with an alpha male of the pack, on whom they would cheat with the younger male if they believe the younger male will in perceivable future overthrow the alpha male and take his position.
We are neither bonobos nor wolves. We are humans. Examples from the animal kingdom are only relevant if you can cite studies showing them to be, which has not been done to any real degree.
That's quite a leap. A person who's paranoid about false rape accusations will probably be more comfortable with evidence that their sex life is consensual.
People only tend to be paranoid about false rape accusations when they have sex in situations where consent was not obvious in the first place.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
I have read just read through most of the posts ITT. Whoa, disturbing. I can't add anything at this hour and now, but whoa. Frankly, I feel disgusted by some of the posts here and I am shocked by how anyone could suggest or say some things.
Sex and carnal things complicate everything, don't they, huh?
Ok, so I recently have been reading a lot of feminist stuff for reasons I won't go into, and something that's been bugging me recently is the idea of "rape culture", in particular because of a letter Patton Oswalt wrote. Specifically, one thing that's been bugging me is the complaint (cited here on wikipedia) that we focus on "how not to be raped" instead of "how not to rape".
On first glance, this does seem sort of offensive - obviously no one is "asking to be raped".
Obviously if someone is raped, it's 100% the perpetrator's fault. THAT SAID, we take the "how not to have X happen to you" approach to a LOT of crimes and no one gets offended about it. For example, identity theft. Is it fair that, because there are jerks (pardon my language) who steal your stuff, you should have to go to a lot of trouble (changing passwords, keeping information secure, firewalls, download paranoia, etc) to avoid having it happen to you? No, in my opinion. And same is (in my opinion) true of rape. Is it your RESPONSIBILITY to avoid being raped? No, the burden shouldn't be on you. HOWEVER, whether or not it's my fault, I really don't want to have my identity stolen, so I jump through certain hoops, modify my behavior, go out of my way to avoid having it happen. And I don't see why it would be different for rape - of course it's not your fault if it happened to you, but I don't see what the harm would be in suggesting some tips to avoid it happening, even though you're not obligated to follow through on them, and shouldn't be. But I think conflating "how not to be raped" with victim blaming is way off-base.
Another thing about this that I think is sort of odd is the idea that people should campaign for "how not to rape". Mostly I'm confused by this. Generally-speaking, I feel like it's difficult to have ANY campaign against committing a crime based on appealing to the perpetrator, because usually the perpetrator of the crime KNOWS they're wrong but is doing it anyway. It's a lot easier to appeal to the victims because they've got a lot more interest in preventing it, even though it shouldn't be their responsibility. And if you're worried about X happening to you, it's a lot faster to decrease its chances of happening by doing something yourself, even if it's not fair, than to wait for the slow shifting of culture.
And culture-wise, I don't think justifiably-demonizing rape is necessarily the way that's going to actually make an impact.
Currently I feel like, and maybe I'm off-base, that rape is really, really demonized. It's sort of a tired argument, but I've seen a bazillion murders on tv/movies/vgs and very few rapes, and usually they have a way more serious impact - I've never seen an equivalent of "Shoot 'Em Up" (the clive owen movie) or "Kill Bill" with murder replaced by rape and played for laughs or glorified or stylized in any way. Which is good and fine, but I guess my point is that I don't think anyone who still thinks rape is ok is reasonably going to have their mind changed by anything short of clockwork oranging them at this point. I think it may actually have gone too far, to where people don't want to report rape because they know it's going to generate such a firestorm because of how reviled it is. But that's (mostly) just speculation on my part. Actually most of this is, but whatever. As mentioned, I'm probably wrong.
Interesting. I need to re-read this and process it.
Could someone please distill what Dirk is trying to say here and what really has been going on ITT? I hope I am only misreading some things...
But this is a problem with all sorts of crime, not just sexual offenses.
Imagine Bob is Stacy's friend, and says he likes, I don't know, some piece of art in her room. She makes some vague comment about how she doesn't like it very much and is thinking about getting rid of it, and Bob interprets this to mean he's free to take it, which later (without Stacy's direct knowledge) he does. Stacy then reports it stolen. When they find out the full story, Stacy might be willing to drop the charges--but if she isn't, is it still theft?
There is a key difference here though. In the case of a theft, Stacy can just tell Bob no, she didn't want him to take it, have him return it, and the problem is solved. But you can't undo having sex with someone. Suppose Bob had actually thrown the artwork in the dumpster - do you think she's going to blow it off? Most likely she'll instead demand that he pay her for it. But what if the artwork had sentimental value, and was essentially irreplaceable? Stacy would be outraged at Bob, and may be inclined to press charges. Much as she might be in the original scenario presented, in which Bob also presumptuously takes certain actions that can't be undone.
Moral to the story?
1. People need to be more careful with their actions when said actions obviously can have irreversible consequences. This is pretty much always has and always will be how the world works.
2. Having sex with someone is irreversible. Ergo it is inherently worthwhile to put in extra effort to make sure it doesn't go wrong, regardless of however inconvenient it might be to do so.
There is a key difference here though. In the case of a theft, Stacy can just tell Bob no, she didn't want him to take it, have him return it, and the problem is solved. But you can't undo having sex with someone. Suppose Bob had actually thrown the artwork in the dumpster - do you think she's going to blow it off? Most likely she'll instead demand that he pay her for it. But what if the artwork had sentimental value, and was essentially irreplaceable? Stacy would be outraged at Bob, and may be inclined to press charges. Much as she might be in the original scenario presented, in which Bob also presumptuously takes certain actions that can't be undone.
Moral to the story?
1. People need to be more careful with their actions when said actions obviously can have irreversible consequences. This is pretty much always has and always will be how the world works.
2. Having sex with someone is irreversible. Ergo it is inherently worthwhile to put in extra effort to make sure it doesn't go wrong, regardless of however inconvenient it might be to do so.
I don't think I disagree with you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sing lustily and with good courage.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
But this is a problem with all sorts of crime, not just sexual offenses.
Imagine Bob is Stacy's friend, and says he likes, I don't know, some piece of art in her room. She makes some vague comment about how she doesn't like it very much and is thinking about getting rid of it, and Bob interprets this to mean he's free to take it, which later (without Stacy's direct knowledge) he does. Stacy then reports it stolen. When they find out the full story, Stacy might be willing to drop the charges--but if she isn't, is it still theft?
There is a key difference here though. In the case of a theft, Stacy can just tell Bob no, she didn't want him to take it, have him return it, and the problem is solved. But you can't undo having sex with someone. Suppose Bob had actually thrown the artwork in the dumpster - do you think she's going to blow it off? Most likely she'll instead demand that he pay her for it. But what if the artwork had sentimental value, and was essentially irreplaceable? Stacy would be outraged at Bob, and may be inclined to press charges. Much as she might be in the original scenario presented, in which Bob also presumptuously takes certain actions that can't be undone.
Moral to the story?
1. People need to be more careful with their actions when said actions obviously can have irreversible consequences. This is pretty much always has and always will be how the world works.
2. Having sex with someone is irreversible. Ergo it is inherently worthwhile to put in extra effort to make sure it doesn't go wrong, regardless of however inconvenient it might be to do so.
In principle, I wholeheartedly agree with the morals of the story and this attitude could potentially preclude the carrying out of transgressions and offences.
Unfortunately, to expect that the world takes up on these morals is to be naive.
I think this simply speaks to my traditional conservatism and the value I place on sex and all that. In truth, some people aren't obsessed with what will go awry or can go awry and aren't transfixed with responsibly considering the consequences of their thoughts and actions.
No, I don't expect all the irresponsible people in the world to magically grow up overnight. That doesn't mean that we should contort our laws around trying to protect said irresponsible people. We should instead be focusing on who was affected by the actions taken, and how.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm one of those people. Also I hate it because it's bad.
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
....Sure this is true if you shut off the entire queer culture (not intentionally, you just said that in general to take out the culture aspect which I find ludicrous). Male promiscuity (even those who identify as straight receiving favors) is extremely present in queer culture. And anyone who went to a 4 year college in the 2000s like me can attest promiscuity knows no gender boundaries. Plus online dating for singles, is it really a bunch of men and women looking for a) love or b) sex....choose best answer.
On topic:
Basically the rape culture my feminist friends are trying to combat that we teach our young women how to prevent rape instead of teaching our sons when they are young to respect a woman and when an appropriate age to engage in mutual physical relationships.
In short, it has to be both ends but parents who are behind the times of progressive and forward thinking social objectives will never address this with their sons.
Grassroots, protection. I'm out.
Funny, How the majority of rape victims in our society are male but all discussions about rape revolve around women victim, male rapist. (female privilege blah blah). Funny how when a man can't get a smoking hot girlfriend it's treated as a sign of a defect on his part but when women are unsatisfied it's a national crisis see "Where have all the good men gone". (female privilege blah blah).
Ummm, this is feminism with the other group being men.
Ultimately the most productive thing we could do would be to move beyond the traditional/feminist views on rape and treat it as a genderless crime. Start punishing female rapists and start advocating for male victims, this would do a hell of a lot more to reduce rape then more of the same.
Art is life itself.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/men-outnumber-women-among-american-rape-victims/
I could go on about the UN report that states that more men are raped in the the US prison system then women in 65 countries combined.
Theres also the fact that a gender neutral definition of rape puts males outside the prisons at 50% of the victims and women at 40% of the perpetrators.
Heres a question for you, since the rate of rape has gone down but no more then the rate of all other violent crimes why stick with an approach that may be accomplishing next to nothing, erases victims and perpetrators, and is quite frankly anti-male?
Perhaps more comprehensive sex education could help but ultimately focusing on the gender of the "perpetrator" is merely a strategy to reinforce the female victim/male perpetrator dynamic of feminism. Bringing up that the villains sharing the same gender as the victim is simply a means of erasing the victims and a pretty sick one at that. The majority of Americans who are victimized are victimized by Americans, should we therefore devote all our law enforcement resources to protecting non-Americans?
Add to that the victim blaming concept (particularly because men aren't supposed to be victims in macho culture), and you've got a underreported crime.
Re Prison rape: A Comparison of Sexual Coercion Experiences Reported by Men and Women in Prison
No free download though.
Art is life itself.
Modern: Storm, Jund, Ghast Blaster, Elf Warriors
Legacy: RUG Cascade, Imperial Painter, Affinity, Dredge, Elves, Merfolk, Pox, Dragon Stompie, Goblins, ANT, Belcher
Classic: Delver, Dredge, Jacerater
Draft: I will draft basically any format online (other than Masques)
Pauper: MTGO's #1 most handsome Pauper Storm player
>Implying women are never forced to have sex with men they don't like.
Oh wait. That was the whole rampant problem the thread was talking about.
This also ignores that these stereotypes aren't actually promoted by "men" or "women". They're promoted in popular media as a vehicle to convince people to buy stuff. So the real problem is whomever is empowered to decide how stuff is marketed. And as it turns out, there are both male and female marketing execs, so, surprise, its not something that's exclusively on the shoulders of "men" or on "women".
How does this relate to you? Well, you can start by recognizing the imagery of these stereotypes, and avoid spending money on products that market themselves using sexist imagery. Someone with more time/money could instead protest/picket and such just like you suggested. But by no means should you just assume that because you're a man its just 'not your problem'.
Last question:
Why is it worrying? What is so bad about being explicit about your wants, needs, and desires? I mean, nevermind the whole avoiding rape thing, most women don't like guys who aren't willing to communicate their attractions in a direct and socially appropriate fashion. If you can't be upfront about wanting sex in a way that doesn't sound whiny or off-putting, then how can you possibly expect to ever get any of it?
You seem to imply that that opposite (and the converse) is not true.
If someone asks me out and I accept then I will make them happy.
If someone asks me out and I decline then I will make them sad.
If I ask someone out and they accept then they will make me happy.
If I ask someone out and they decline then they will make me sad.
Unless you want to take the unbelievably toxic Buddhist point of view where people choose to make themselves feel things and sadness becomes a kind of moral failing.
You may read such an implication, but that's not what I was talking about. Yes, people will say and do things that make you happy/sad. You may also do things that make other people happy/sad. But you aren't unilaterally responsible for the emotions of someone else, nor are other people responsible for yours. Trying to dump all responsibility for your emotions on someone else I would generally consider to be emotionally abusive.
As it applies to your example - you can accept/decline and thus make someone happy/sad, but you don't OWE them any particular reply, regardless of how they might react to it. Likewise, when you ask someone out, and they reject you...yeah you might feel bad about it, but that doesn't automatically make them the scum of the earth, since you were never owed an acceptance in the first place.
From that site's "about" section:
So huge red flags right there.
Since it's talking about sexual assault inside the prison system, a more rational person would deduce that it's a flaw of the prison system, not some weird anti-women thing like you.
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
It doesn't matter if it is the flaw of the prison system. It is still rape, and it is still a fact. Explain how that makes us "anti-women things."
EDIT: Oh, and some advice for men:
If you have a one night stand, be sure to text her the morning after and say something like "Did you have fun last night?" or something similar. When she texts back "Yes, :)" save/record the text in some way to avoid a false rape accusation.
But I also propose even distribution of number of cards in each rarity: Large set: 60 c, 60 u, 60 r, 60 m.
Probabilities of particular cards: Common 7/60, Uncommon 1/12, Rare 1/20, Mythic 1/60.
That's quite a leap. A person who's paranoid about false rape accusations will probably be more comfortable with evidence that their sex life is consensual.
At first I was like "Wow that is one hell of a leap" but then I realized when one internalizes feminism one views every situation between the sexes as man=actor and women=acted upon this is just one of the problems with feminism and why it cannot truly fight sexism. That would be like the swine flu "ending the flu".
Infraction for trolling
Hahaha. Oh, wow. You say this, and then you go on to say this:
And you wonder why I think you say anti-woman things. I don't even need tomake a point, you have done so for me admirably.
Thanks joande, now we know we can safely just ignore everything you say.
Warning for trolling
― Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian, or the Evening Redness in the West
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
But this is a problem with all sorts of crime, not just sexual offenses.
Imagine Bob is Stacy's friend, and says he likes, I don't know, some piece of art in her room. She makes some vague comment about how she doesn't like it very much and is thinking about getting rid of it, and Bob interprets this to mean he's free to take it, which later (without Stacy's direct knowledge) he does. Stacy then reports it stolen. When they find out the full story, Stacy might be willing to drop the charges--but if she isn't, is it still theft?
Yes. The Mosuo culture is a classic example (the one you'll usually find in textbooks) but there are others. They tend to be rare, for the same reason matrilineal cultures tend to be rare; they were usually conquered by patrilineal ones.
How? Women have to worry about pregnancy, and have a higher risk of getting an STD from any particular encounter with a diseased individual than the corresponding man does.
Of course it's men who glorify players, even if you don't. Women (in the West) live in a culture where men value themselves largely based on the number of sexual partners they have, where a sexually inactive man is considered (by other men!) to be weak or effeminate, and where men are expected to be constantly seeking out sex ("boys will be boys"). Is it any wonder that women should adapt to some of that value system?
Your belief, that the system will correct itself, is only true if women have the power to correct it themselves, which is historically completely untrue; it's only in the 20th century, and especially the late 20th century, that women have been able to make sexual and relationship choices without societal (and especially familial) coercion. The system is beginning to right itself, but it's not just flipping a switch.
We are neither bonobos nor wolves. We are humans. Examples from the animal kingdom are only relevant if you can cite studies showing them to be, which has not been done to any real degree.
People only tend to be paranoid about false rape accusations when they have sex in situations where consent was not obvious in the first place.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
Sex and carnal things complicate everything, don't they, huh?
Interesting. I need to re-read this and process it.
Could someone please distill what Dirk is trying to say here and what really has been going on ITT? I hope I am only misreading some things...
There is a key difference here though. In the case of a theft, Stacy can just tell Bob no, she didn't want him to take it, have him return it, and the problem is solved. But you can't undo having sex with someone. Suppose Bob had actually thrown the artwork in the dumpster - do you think she's going to blow it off? Most likely she'll instead demand that he pay her for it. But what if the artwork had sentimental value, and was essentially irreplaceable? Stacy would be outraged at Bob, and may be inclined to press charges. Much as she might be in the original scenario presented, in which Bob also presumptuously takes certain actions that can't be undone.
Moral to the story?
1. People need to be more careful with their actions when said actions obviously can have irreversible consequences. This is pretty much always has and always will be how the world works.
2. Having sex with someone is irreversible. Ergo it is inherently worthwhile to put in extra effort to make sure it doesn't go wrong, regardless of however inconvenient it might be to do so.
I don't think I disagree with you.
Be aware of singing as if you were half dead,
or half asleep:
but lift your voice with strength.
Be no more afraid of your voice now,
nor more ashamed of its being heard,
than when you sang the songs of Satan.
In principle, I wholeheartedly agree with the morals of the story and this attitude could potentially preclude the carrying out of transgressions and offences.
Unfortunately, to expect that the world takes up on these morals is to be naive.
I think this simply speaks to my traditional conservatism and the value I place on sex and all that. In truth, some people aren't obsessed with what will go awry or can go awry and aren't transfixed with responsibly considering the consequences of their thoughts and actions.