What I am finding very hard to digest is your opinion women should change their view of sexuality because you/whoever says so. Whether they know it or not, it should definitely change, because that is right. Smells a bit like rape.
Please, show me where I said that "people must change their view of sexuality."
What I did say is that women are no longer coerced into sexual relationships as a rule, which is to say that their parents no longer declare that they will marry Person X. Do you consider this a bad thing? Explain, please.
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.
Well. I am sorry if the following might feel offensive, it really is not intended to be. But your entire post gives away a very distinct feeling of something very typical, that proves a lot of my earlier posts, and the question that follows really is a genuine one.
In your mind, is a female sexual organ, a soap? Your give a very clear analogy, with a broken painting. It is used, therefore its broken. I don't know if you are female or male, but in this case it might not even make any difference you have with your analogy confirmed what I was saying. That is the reason why women having sex with lots of men is shunned upon, as it is a leverage resource.
Viewed in that way by man, and by women both. Your yourself, at least to some extent, have the same sentiments about this and this seems like a big discrepancy.
Uhmmm. What? I seriously am more then somewhat confused by what you're even saying here in the first place, but... something about the idea of women having sex = women is damaged? Because no, that's not at all what I was getting at. I was drawing a comparison between the two ACTIONS, as they are both irreversible. I was not comparing things. But it's kind of disturbing that you're thinking of sex and women in terms of them being "things", and not people.
Your post is follow up of a specific post of mine where I claimed women don't view of men who are "players" in a negative light, than saying the right thing to do is change that and that women should be given help in changing it. With which i actually wholeheartedly disagree. An it does imply women sexual preferences should be guided away from what they are presently.
No, I didn't.
You yourself are the one who first framed this as a problem: "If it were not, the problem would auto-correct itself." Your implication was that, if this were actually a problem, it would correct itself naturally through the free choices of women.
My point, which you seem to be willfully ignoring, is that historically women have not had the free choice which would allow them to "correct the problem", whether or not they would want to. The fact that I do believe it to be a problem is irrelevant.
Quote from TheLarch »
You seem to disregard the fact that in the case of parents declaring she will marry Person X, Person X's parents already decided he will marry her beforehand.
Not necessarily. Often the male in this case was an independent adult who made an offer for the girl's hand to her parents. The converse was true only in extremely rare and specific conditions (eg. with female rulers suo jure).
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.
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.
In the context of my posts I clearly mean "easier" in the sense of requiring less effort or skill. (i.e. it's "easier" to sit in an alley and shoot up heroin than it is to go work in an office, even though the former lifestyle is far riskier)
To re-phrase my point again, let's suppose two people each have $1 million. The first person started out broke and worked very hard to build a business and earn that money. The second person inherited it from rich auntie Edna. Our society will tend to have respect for the first person, given that he or she had to put forth effort and talent to make the money. Our society will not necessarily respect the second person, and may even think less of that person for becoming rich without working for it.
Let me put it this way: why is the "player" lifestyle glorified? Why is virginity prized in women, but looked down on in men? . . . It probably has something to do with some of the (incorrect) assumptions . . .
And my response is that these attitudes are based largely on accurate assumptions about the present state of sex in western society. That's the whole of my point. Men typically have to work harder for sex than women, ergo men typically receive more acclaim for promiscuity.
I wish I hadn't brought up the biology versus culture issue. It's an interesting discussion, but it's a sideshow. Whether the difference is because of culture, biology, or something else (a magical genie blessed women with the ability to get laid more easily), this is just totally irrelevant to my point.
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.
In the stealing hypothetical, liability would turn on what Bob actually believed. In other words, if the Jury accepts that Bob sincerely and reasonably believed that Stacy was gifting the artwork to him, he cannot be found criminally liable for theft. It doesn't matter if he threw the artwork in the dumpster. It doesn't matter if the artwork was irreplaceable. It doesn't matter what was in Stacy's mind. If Bob lacked a culpable mens rea because he thought he was receiving a gift and not committing theft, then he is not guilty of theft.
My problem with "enthusiastic consent" is that it turns this dynamic on its head. Now, it doesn't matter what Bob honestly believed, it only matters what was in Stacy's mind. Furthermore, it's not Stacy's responsibility to communicate what's in her mind to Bob, it's all on Bob to get 100% verification of the contents of Stacy's mind or risk decades in prison.
It's all well and good to say "obtaining explicit consent is a small price to pay to prevent rape," but that's not the point. The point is that you're invading people's lives and telling a couple that they ought to have sex in a certain way or risk jail. We could take it one step further and say "always sign a binding legal document before having sex, that's a small price to pay to evidence consent and prevent rape." But we don't require that because it's a ludicrous invasion of people's personal lives.
(Note: I'm not advocating for the opposite extreme, "it's not rape unless she explicitly says no." I am saying we need to investigate each rape on a case-by-case basis and not make hardline rules that require people to say certain magic words.)
To be nitpicky, this problem was firstly brought up by Lady Luck, not identifying it as a problem but clearly implying it is.
Are we really to this point? Let's move on.
Quote from TheLarch »
An it is a very well known "problem" people very often return to as some kind of point. Myself, I don't find it to be a problem at all, and there is no need to solve it, as it is not a problem, but that kind of view is clearly not a common thing but on the contrary, it is supposed to show some "inequality" that really doesn't exist - not towards women anyway.
Well, that's an opinion to have. Still, I think the fact that so many women have identified it as a problem, and are working to reverse it now that they have the tools, suggests that your argument earlier (ie. that it would have been resolved if it were a problem) isn't really thinking it through clearly.
Quote from TheLarch »
Yes you are right. But you do disregard another matter, if those parents weren't there she most likely wouldn't have been approached in the first place, as their status in society is what made her an eligible wife.
Maybe irrelevant. The point is love and marriage today are far different from what they were. How bad, or how not good that was might be more than one-dimensional.
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to argue here.
In the context of my posts I clearly mean "easier" in the sense of requiring less effort or skill. (i.e. it's "easier" to sit in an alley and shoot up heroin than it is to go work in an office, even though the former lifestyle is far riskier)
Sure, if you want to define a term to mean exactly what you want and nothing more, then you can say that. I don't think most women would agree with you, however, for the reasons stated above.
Quote from bitterroot »
To re-phrase my point again, let's suppose two people each have $1 million. The first person started out broke and worked very hard to build a business and earn that money. The second person inherited it from rich auntie Edna. Our society will tend to have respect for the first person, given that he or she had to put forth effort and talent to make the money. Our society will not necessarily respect the second person, and may even think less of that person for becoming rich without working for it.
Are you saying we should respect men more for having had sex than women?
Quote from bitterroot »
And my response is that these attitudes are based largely on accurate assumptions about the present state of sex in western society. That's the whole of my point. Men typically have to work harder for sex than women, ergo men typically receive more acclaim for promiscuity.
I don't think that's actually accurate, and I can go into why if you'd like, but I don't think it's relevant to the larger topic here.
Quote from bitterroot »
My problem with "enthusiastic consent" is that it turns this dynamic on its head. Now, it doesn't matter what Bob honestly believed, it only matters what was in Stacy's mind. Furthermore, it's not Stacy's responsibility to communicate what's in her mind to Bob, it's all on Bob to get 100% verification of the contents of Stacy's mind or risk decades in prison.
Let's grant this for a moment. What's the alternative way to criminalize rape? Make it illegal only when the man knows for sure he's forcing a woman to have sex with him?
Quote from bitterroot »
(Note: I'm not advocating for the opposite extreme, "it's not rape unless she explicitly says no." I am saying we need to investigate each rape on a case-by-case basis and not make hardline rules that require people to say certain magic words.)
But that's exactly what we do now.
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.
Let's grant this for a moment. What's the alternative way to criminalize rape? Make it illegal only when the man knows for sure he's forcing a woman to have sex with him?
Isn't that how most crimes work? If someone hands me a brownie that is laced with drugs and I get caught with it, unless someone can prove that I new that brownie was special... I'm not guilty. If I am out shooting and my bullet travels through a target and kills someone... I am not a murderer I committed negligent homicide.
Maybe there needs to be a separate crime with lower penalty for sex when one of the parties really regrets it later or doesnt remember saying yes... But there is a big difference between a dude forcing himself on someone and that person getting the wrong idea.
My problem with "enthusiastic consent" is that it turns this dynamic on its head. Now, it doesn't matter what Bob honestly believed, it only matters what was in Stacy's mind. Furthermore, it's not Stacy's responsibility to communicate what's in her mind to Bob, it's all on Bob to get 100% verification of the contents of Stacy's mind or risk decades in prison.
Let's grant this for a moment. What's the alternative way to criminalize rape? Make it illegal only when the man knows for sure he's forcing a woman to have sex with him?
The alternative is the status quo, which is in line with the theft example.
An example that was mentioned earlier in the thread was along the lines: Guy and girl are having a great date, girl invites guy up to apartment. They fool around and make out, everybody's happy. They take off their clothes and get into bed to "cuddle." Guy starts to initiate sex with girl. Girl decides she doesn't like it but "freezes up" and is too scared to say or do anything to indicate this. Guy has no idea that girl doesn't want to have sex.
Obviously this is an unfortunate situation. But proponents of "enthusiastic consent" would go one step further and say that this is rape because the guy failed to obtain explicit verbal permission. Under current law, this would probably not be considered rape. All signs pointed to consent, the guy had no way to know that the girl changed her mind, and he did not use force, threats, drugs, or coercion.
(Note: I'm not advocating for the opposite extreme, "it's not rape unless she explicitly says no." I am saying we need to investigate each rape on a case-by-case basis and not make hardline rules that require people to say certain magic words.)
But that's exactly what we do now.
I am arguing in favor of the status quo. I am arguing against LadyLuck's proposed "enthusiastic consent" requirement.
Isn't that how most crimes work? If someone hands me a brownie that is laced with drugs and I get caught with it, unless someone can prove that I new that brownie was special... I'm not guilty. If I am out shooting and my bullet travels through a target and kills someone... I am not a murderer I committed negligent homicide.
Maybe there needs to be a separate crime with lower penalty for sex when one of the parties really regrets it later or doesnt remember saying yes... But there is a big difference between a dude forcing himself on someone and that person getting the wrong idea.
If that's the case, though, you've effectively decriminalized rape; there's almost never rock-solid evidence that the sex was completely non-consensual.
With murder, you're right that intent does matter--but only to a point, because even without intent it's still manslaughter or negligent homicide. But there's no such thing as "consensual homicide" outside of Oregon, and there only heavily regulated. Ditto for larceny/burglary; "consensual theft" is extremely rare. But consensual sex happens all the time. How do you distinguish that from nonconsensual sex, if not by the testimony of the victim?
If the standard of evidence is too high, every rapist could claim they had consent, regardless of the words of the victim. "I approached her in that alley and asked her if she wanted to ****, then we did it. Yeah, she liked it rough." If the accused saying that he believed the sex was consensual is sufficient evidence to acquit, then rape is no longer a crime.
The alternative is the status quo, which is in line with the theft example.
An example that was mentioned earlier in the thread was along the lines: Guy and girl are having a great date, girl invites guy up to apartment. They fool around and make out, everybody's happy. They take off their clothes and get into bed to "cuddle." Guy starts to initiate sex with girl. Girl decides she doesn't like it but "freezes up" and is too scared to say or do anything to indicate this. Guy has no idea that girl doesn't want to have sex.
Obviously this is an unfortunate situation. But proponents of "enthusiastic consent" would go one step further and say that this is rape because the guy failed to obtain explicit verbal permission. Under current law, this would probably not be considered rape. All signs pointed to consent, the guy had no way to know that the girl changed her mind, and he did not use force, threats, drugs, or coercion.
Okay, so what if we change that example slightly; he asks for sex, she demurs, then he initiates it and she starts crying, but he continues? Is that rape?
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.
Well, that's an opinion to have. Still, I think the fact that so many women have identified it as a problem, and are working to reverse it now that they have the tools, suggests that your argument earlier (ie. that it would have been resolved if it were a problem) isn't really thinking it through clearly.
Of course. And many men identifying women going out of the kitchen as a problem must mean that is true as well, obv. We are in an inferior position however since we have no legitimate tools of accomplishing our goals as of yet, but that is just more the reason to fight for it. Someday. Someday.
Look, if you want to have a serious conversation about this we can, but if you want to be a sarcastic ass about it then that's fine, too.
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.
The alternative is the status quo, which is in line with the theft example.
An example that was mentioned earlier in the thread was along the lines: Guy and girl are having a great date, girl invites guy up to apartment. They fool around and make out, everybody's happy. They take off their clothes and get into bed to "cuddle." Guy starts to initiate sex with girl. Girl decides she doesn't like it but "freezes up" and is too scared to say or do anything to indicate this. Guy has no idea that girl doesn't want to have sex.
Obviously this is an unfortunate situation. But proponents of "enthusiastic consent" would go one step further and say that this is rape because the guy failed to obtain explicit verbal permission. Under current law, this would probably not be considered rape. All signs pointed to consent, the guy had no way to know that the girl changed her mind, and he did not use force, threats, drugs, or coercion.
Okay, so what if we change that example slightly; he asks for sex, she demurs, then he initiates it and she starts crying, but he continues? Is that rape?
What factual findings are reached by the jury about his state of mind?
Isn't that how most crimes work? If someone hands me a brownie that is laced with drugs and I get caught with it, unless someone can prove that I new that brownie was special... I'm not guilty. If I am out shooting and my bullet travels through a target and kills someone... I am not a murderer I committed negligent homicide.
Maybe there needs to be a separate crime with lower penalty for sex when one of the parties really regrets it later or doesnt remember saying yes... But there is a big difference between a dude forcing himself on someone and that person getting the wrong idea.
If that's the case, though, you've effectively decriminalized rape; there's almost never rock-solid evidence that the sex was completely non-consensual.
With murder, you're right that intent does matter--but only to a point, because even without intent it's still manslaughter or negligent homicide. But there's no such thing as "consensual homicide" outside of Oregon, and there only heavily regulated. Ditto for larceny/burglary; "consensual theft" is extremely rare. But consensual sex happens all the time. How do you distinguish that from nonconsensual sex, if not by the testimony of the victim?
If the standard of evidence is too high, every rapist could claim they had consent, regardless of the words of the victim. "I approached her in that alley and asked her if she wanted to ****, then we did it. Yeah, she liked it rough." If the accused saying that he believed the sex was consensual is sufficient evidence to acquit, then rape is no longer a crime.
Within reason yes. That's the whole point of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" clause we have in our legal system. But... the reasonable part is a key word there. How reasonable is to for complete strangers to start having rough sex in a bush at 11pm?
We use the same reasoning in crimes like theft... if my friend suddenly has my iPad and I try to press charges for theft and he says I gave it to him as a gift... Chances are he's not going to jail. I'd have to prove that he stole it because it's not unreasonable to believe that a friend might give another friend an iPad. If however a complete stranger ends up with my iPad it's not reasonable to think it was a gift. Or if my friend ended up with my $10,000 car... because it's not reasonable for a middle class person to give a friend a fairly expensive car as a gift.
Within reason yes. That's the whole point of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" clause we have in our legal system. But... the reasonable part is a key word there. How reasonable is to for complete strangers to start having rough sex in a bush at 11pm?
The vast majority of instances of rape are NOT stranger rape in the bushes at 11pm. But rather close friends, acquaintances at parties, and family members. So try again.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
Irrational projecting of your problems on a person or a group of people, perceiving your problems are someone else's fault and so forth.
The funny thing is when you state that your experience/belief/etc. differs from theirs the first thing they do is try to dismiss you as projecting your problems onto them.
Originally Posted by bitterroot (Note: I'm not advocating for the opposite extreme, "it's not rape unless she explicitly says no." I am saying we need to investigate each rape on a case-by-case basis and not make hardline rules that require people to say certain magic words.)
But that's exactly what we do now.
What the first or second thing. Her not saying "no" is still considered rape in most states and at the same time I doubt you meant we have "magic words".
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
This whole line of thinking strikes me as "If you disagree with feminism your secretly a terrible person". Shocker MOST people dislike feminism, even most women (only 19% identify as feminists in the US), and plenty of people recognize how absurd the climate on college campuses concerning rape is;men, women, young, and old. Including the women who encouraged young men to call the women they sleep with to get a message to use later as proof. Personally it seems like a less then optimal strategy, getting proof ahead of time is really the best strategy.
Originally Posted by bitterroot (Note: I'm not advocating for the opposite extreme, "it's not rape unless she explicitly says no." I am saying we need to investigate each rape on a case-by-case basis and not make hardline rules that require people to say certain magic words.)
But that's exactly what we do now.
What the first or second thing. Her not saying "no" is still considered rape in most states and at the same time I doubt you meant we have "magic words".
I'm saying that rape can still occur even if she never says the word "no." We need to look at the specific circumstances. A simple example of this is: girl invites guy up to her apartment, and when they get there he pulls out a gun and points it at her. He then proceeds to have sex with her and she puts up no resistance or protest. This is clearly rape.
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
This whole line of thinking strikes me as "If you disagree with feminism your secretly a terrible person". Shocker MOST people dislike feminism, even most women (only 19% identify as feminists in the US), and plenty of people recognize how absurd the climate on college campuses concerning rape is;men, women, young, and old. Including the women who encouraged young men to call the women they sleep with to get a message to use later as proof. Personally it seems like a less then optimal strategy, getting proof ahead of time is really the best strategy.
I don't know whether I agree with the point about feminism, but I do agree that "if you're not guilty, why are you worried?" is a very problematic line of reasoning. "If you're not planning to blow up the plane, why do you care whether these officers strip search you?" "If you're not doing anything illegal, why do you care if these police search your house?"
I also think the point about false accusations is relevant. I have no doubt that false rape accusations are rare, but surely no one denies that they do occur. I have been falsely accused of a crime in the past (thank god not rape or anything sexual), and even with the evidence on my side it took me over a year and thousands of dollars in attorney's fees to clear my name. There was still a residual social stigma from friends-of-friends who had heard I was accused and thus automatically assumed I was guilty. My accuser was never charged with any crime. The crime I was accused of was nowhere near as serious as rape (just a misdemeanor) but it still turned my life completely upside down for over a year.
We need to be careful not to create a standard (like "enthusiastic consent") that facilitates false accusations. There is an old maxim in law that "it's better to let ten guilty people free than to convict one innocent person." I see this as sort of similar to to the doctor's oath to "do no harm." A doctor shouldn't harm healthy tissue. Likewise, the legal system shouldn't be a threat to the innocent.
Within reason yes. That's the whole point of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" clause we have in our legal system. But... the reasonable part is a key word there. How reasonable is to for complete strangers to start having rough sex in a bush at 11pm?
The vast majority of instances of rape are NOT stranger rape in the bushes at 11pm. But rather close friends, acquaintances at parties, and family members. So try again.
So since it might be harder to prove rape we should make that crime have a lower burden of proof?
So since it might be harder to prove rape we should make that crime have a lower burden of proof?
What frightening is that its also much harder to prove you got consent then it is to prove other things, it will almost always literally be a he said/she said. The current screwrapeculture movements solution of making men official second class citizens via the "statistically women NEVER lie about rape" logic is terrifying from a civil rights perspective.
There is an old maxim in law that "it's better to let ten guilty people free than to convict one innocent person."
Blackstone's formulation is supposed to be the basis of the American justice system but sadly has been increasing ignored and is completely disregarded (with outright hatred) in feminist jurisprudence.
So since it might be harder to prove rape we should make that crime have a lower burden of proof?
I don't think that's what he was getting at. It was more that people need to seriously re-calibrate their standards of reasonable if they think being friends with a person makes it reasonable for you to consent to have sex with them. This becomes all the more face-palm inducing when you realize women are often in the habit of pretending to be friends with men who desperately want to have sex with them just so they don't have to deal with said men's incessant whining about the matter when the answer is no. It also reinforces the harmful stereotype that men and women can't have platonic friendships, that there's always something sexual going on when you're friendly with anyone of your preferred gender.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joande This whole line of thinking strikes me as "If you disagree with feminism your secretly a terrible person".
That don't seem like much of a secret. It's kind of straightforward, like disagreeing with worker's liberation or anti-racist movements.
Workers movements (aka as unions) come with very real consequences and is a far more nuanced idea. Antiracists are some of the biggest racists out there, the basic tenent of their belief being that racism is a white thing which is itself racist. Having read the works of early CRT thinkers they absolutely believed a child inherits debts a parent accrues an idea so profoundly ass backwards I cant even express in words how repulsive and evil a society based on their beliefs would be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joande (only 19% identify as feminists in the US)
This is a very dishonest thing to say. There has been a large-scale effort of right-wing media to smear feminism and huge amounts of hatred is aimed at women who say they are feminists (presenting a physical danger to the people who dare to be outspoken). The term has been dragged through the mud, despite the actual idea still being popular.
So that only 19% of women say they identify as feminists when asked doesn't mean that all of the rest disagree with women's liberation.
Your viewpoint would be like a christian going through life claiming christianity alone bestows any moral sense whatsoever (yes such people exist). It's a patently absurd claim and one that the statistics show DOES NOT pan out in real life. Feminism is not women's liberation nor is it "The belief that men and women are equal" anymore then christianity=morals. One can entirely believe in gender equality and reject nonsense like feminism.
Also feminism is not unpopular because of the right that is patently absurd.
So since it might be harder to prove rape we should make that crime have a lower burden of proof?
I don't think that's what he was getting at. It was more that people need to seriously re-calibrate their standards of reasonable if they think being friends with a person makes it reasonable for you to consent to have sex with them. This becomes all the more face-palm inducing when you realize women are often in the habit of pretending to be friends with men who desperately want to have sex with them just so they don't have to deal with said men's incessant whining about the matter when the answer is no. It also reinforces the harmful stereotype that men and women can't have platonic friendships, that there's always something sexual going on when you're friendly with anyone of your preferred gender.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Absolutely, I think this thread has done a good job of showing that people have very distorted views on when it is appropriate to have sex with someone.
This whole line of thinking strikes me as "If you disagree with feminism your secretly a terrible person".
No, its a pretty classic type of reaction in groups that see themselves as under attack (see: everyone). Actually it is the exact same reason that the shrieking idiots who have unfortunately appropriated the concept of "men's rights" react to feminism as inherently evil. People are very poor at theory of mind, there's an implicit belief in most of people that one's opponents don't really disagree with you but intentionally promote a harmful belief or behavior (see: Religion, Politics).
The place where it becomes an issue (see: Jezebel) is when disagreeing with a feminist makes one a bad person.
Well. I think MLK would be very amused to hear that
I was talking about the individuals who identify as anti-racists in academia not a vague concept of anyone working against racism. You seem to do that a lot Tuss pretending the labels you choose for people have near magical power. It's like claiming the suffragists who rejected the title feminist were really feminists and just didn't know it. If someone goes through the trouble of saying "I'm not one of that group" theres a reason!
I have read the works of modern "anti-racists" and many argue MLK was a shill and that only Malcolm X was really worth taking seriously.
Vorthospike-Your argument suffers from the same critical flaw as Tuss's feminism=/=women. Feminism has intrinsic beliefs such as rapeculture and patriarchy that one can outright reject and still believe in equality between the sexes. Most women DO reject those beliefs as evidenced by their decision to not identify as feminist to conclude that women are just a bunch of idiots who don't get how awesome feminism is really shows just how ass backward feminist thinking on this issue is. Feminism represents a group of men and women who share it's beliefs not the population defined as "women".
Those aren't beliefs, those are theoretical models explaining the current state of society. Yes, you can be of the conviction that people should be equal while also rejecting the models used to analyse inequality but that doesn't mean you are correct in doing so. Someone who believes in economic equality but rejects everything but a liberal framework of analysis would be making a very big mistake.
Seriously this argument is just nah-ah there facts, seriously WTF? Theoretical models have useful and defined parameters and the beliefs of patriarchy and rapeculture have intentionally vague definitions and parameters. Theoretical models can be falsified and rely on facts those beliefs were designed to be unfalsifiable by relying on well belief.
So women get no say. If they want to work for their own betterment they have to align with a group of man hating cultists. No, dream on.
No, women can be something other than feminist they are merely required to not hold feminist beliefs. Feminism is a rather wide field of philosophies, though, and defining a core it fairly difficult. Identifying feminism as a "man hating cult" is kind of like identifying "Christianity" as "the Reformed Russian Orthodox Church".
I identify as a feminist and a men's rights activist, for exampe. I don't see the two philosophies as being in opposition simply on the basis that people on the internet are easily riled up.
Please, show me where I said that "people must change their view of sexuality."
What I did say is that women are no longer coerced into sexual relationships as a rule, which is to say that their parents no longer declare that they will marry Person X. Do you consider this a bad thing? Explain, please.
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.
Uhmmm. What? I seriously am more then somewhat confused by what you're even saying here in the first place, but... something about the idea of women having sex = women is damaged? Because no, that's not at all what I was getting at. I was drawing a comparison between the two ACTIONS, as they are both irreversible. I was not comparing things. But it's kind of disturbing that you're thinking of sex and women in terms of them being "things", and not people.
No, I didn't.
You yourself are the one who first framed this as a problem: "If it were not, the problem would auto-correct itself." Your implication was that, if this were actually a problem, it would correct itself naturally through the free choices of women.
My point, which you seem to be willfully ignoring, is that historically women have not had the free choice which would allow them to "correct the problem", whether or not they would want to. The fact that I do believe it to be a problem is irrelevant.
Not necessarily. Often the male in this case was an independent adult who made an offer for the girl's hand to her parents. The converse was true only in extremely rare and specific conditions (eg. with female rulers suo jure).
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 the context of my posts I clearly mean "easier" in the sense of requiring less effort or skill. (i.e. it's "easier" to sit in an alley and shoot up heroin than it is to go work in an office, even though the former lifestyle is far riskier)
To re-phrase my point again, let's suppose two people each have $1 million. The first person started out broke and worked very hard to build a business and earn that money. The second person inherited it from rich auntie Edna. Our society will tend to have respect for the first person, given that he or she had to put forth effort and talent to make the money. Our society will not necessarily respect the second person, and may even think less of that person for becoming rich without working for it.
Now, LadyLuck originally said:
And my response is that these attitudes are based largely on accurate assumptions about the present state of sex in western society. That's the whole of my point. Men typically have to work harder for sex than women, ergo men typically receive more acclaim for promiscuity.
I wish I hadn't brought up the biology versus culture issue. It's an interesting discussion, but it's a sideshow. Whether the difference is because of culture, biology, or something else (a magical genie blessed women with the ability to get laid more easily), this is just totally irrelevant to my point.
In the stealing hypothetical, liability would turn on what Bob actually believed. In other words, if the Jury accepts that Bob sincerely and reasonably believed that Stacy was gifting the artwork to him, he cannot be found criminally liable for theft. It doesn't matter if he threw the artwork in the dumpster. It doesn't matter if the artwork was irreplaceable. It doesn't matter what was in Stacy's mind. If Bob lacked a culpable mens rea because he thought he was receiving a gift and not committing theft, then he is not guilty of theft.
My problem with "enthusiastic consent" is that it turns this dynamic on its head. Now, it doesn't matter what Bob honestly believed, it only matters what was in Stacy's mind. Furthermore, it's not Stacy's responsibility to communicate what's in her mind to Bob, it's all on Bob to get 100% verification of the contents of Stacy's mind or risk decades in prison.
It's all well and good to say "obtaining explicit consent is a small price to pay to prevent rape," but that's not the point. The point is that you're invading people's lives and telling a couple that they ought to have sex in a certain way or risk jail. We could take it one step further and say "always sign a binding legal document before having sex, that's a small price to pay to evidence consent and prevent rape." But we don't require that because it's a ludicrous invasion of people's personal lives.
(Note: I'm not advocating for the opposite extreme, "it's not rape unless she explicitly says no." I am saying we need to investigate each rape on a case-by-case basis and not make hardline rules that require people to say certain magic words.)
Are we really to this point? Let's move on.
Well, that's an opinion to have. Still, I think the fact that so many women have identified it as a problem, and are working to reverse it now that they have the tools, suggests that your argument earlier (ie. that it would have been resolved if it were a problem) isn't really thinking it through clearly.
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to argue here.
Sure, if you want to define a term to mean exactly what you want and nothing more, then you can say that. I don't think most women would agree with you, however, for the reasons stated above.
Are you saying we should respect men more for having had sex than women?
I don't think that's actually accurate, and I can go into why if you'd like, but I don't think it's relevant to the larger topic here.
Let's grant this for a moment. What's the alternative way to criminalize rape? Make it illegal only when the man knows for sure he's forcing a woman to have sex with him?
But that's exactly what we do now.
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.
Isn't that how most crimes work? If someone hands me a brownie that is laced with drugs and I get caught with it, unless someone can prove that I new that brownie was special... I'm not guilty. If I am out shooting and my bullet travels through a target and kills someone... I am not a murderer I committed negligent homicide.
Maybe there needs to be a separate crime with lower penalty for sex when one of the parties really regrets it later or doesnt remember saying yes... But there is a big difference between a dude forcing himself on someone and that person getting the wrong idea.
The alternative is the status quo, which is in line with the theft example.
An example that was mentioned earlier in the thread was along the lines: Guy and girl are having a great date, girl invites guy up to apartment. They fool around and make out, everybody's happy. They take off their clothes and get into bed to "cuddle." Guy starts to initiate sex with girl. Girl decides she doesn't like it but "freezes up" and is too scared to say or do anything to indicate this. Guy has no idea that girl doesn't want to have sex.
Obviously this is an unfortunate situation. But proponents of "enthusiastic consent" would go one step further and say that this is rape because the guy failed to obtain explicit verbal permission. Under current law, this would probably not be considered rape. All signs pointed to consent, the guy had no way to know that the girl changed her mind, and he did not use force, threats, drugs, or coercion.
I am arguing in favor of the status quo. I am arguing against LadyLuck's proposed "enthusiastic consent" requirement.
If that's the case, though, you've effectively decriminalized rape; there's almost never rock-solid evidence that the sex was completely non-consensual.
With murder, you're right that intent does matter--but only to a point, because even without intent it's still manslaughter or negligent homicide. But there's no such thing as "consensual homicide" outside of Oregon, and there only heavily regulated. Ditto for larceny/burglary; "consensual theft" is extremely rare. But consensual sex happens all the time. How do you distinguish that from nonconsensual sex, if not by the testimony of the victim?
If the standard of evidence is too high, every rapist could claim they had consent, regardless of the words of the victim. "I approached her in that alley and asked her if she wanted to ****, then we did it. Yeah, she liked it rough." If the accused saying that he believed the sex was consensual is sufficient evidence to acquit, then rape is no longer a crime.
Okay, so what if we change that example slightly; he asks for sex, she demurs, then he initiates it and she starts crying, but he continues? Is that rape?
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.
Look, if you want to have a serious conversation about this we can, but if you want to be a sarcastic ass about it then that's fine, too.
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.
What factual findings are reached by the jury about his state of mind?
Within reason yes. That's the whole point of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" clause we have in our legal system. But... the reasonable part is a key word there. How reasonable is to for complete strangers to start having rough sex in a bush at 11pm?
We use the same reasoning in crimes like theft... if my friend suddenly has my iPad and I try to press charges for theft and he says I gave it to him as a gift... Chances are he's not going to jail. I'd have to prove that he stole it because it's not unreasonable to believe that a friend might give another friend an iPad. If however a complete stranger ends up with my iPad it's not reasonable to think it was a gift. Or if my friend ended up with my $10,000 car... because it's not reasonable for a middle class person to give a friend a fairly expensive car as a gift.
The vast majority of instances of rape are NOT stranger rape in the bushes at 11pm. But rather close friends, acquaintances at parties, and family members. So try again.
The funny thing is when you state that your experience/belief/etc. differs from theirs the first thing they do is try to dismiss you as projecting your problems onto them.
What the first or second thing. Her not saying "no" is still considered rape in most states and at the same time I doubt you meant we have "magic words".
This whole line of thinking strikes me as "If you disagree with feminism your secretly a terrible person". Shocker MOST people dislike feminism, even most women (only 19% identify as feminists in the US), and plenty of people recognize how absurd the climate on college campuses concerning rape is;men, women, young, and old. Including the women who encouraged young men to call the women they sleep with to get a message to use later as proof. Personally it seems like a less then optimal strategy, getting proof ahead of time is really the best strategy.
Source for the 19%...http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/gregor-smith/feminism-men_b_4592448.html
I'm saying that rape can still occur even if she never says the word "no." We need to look at the specific circumstances. A simple example of this is: girl invites guy up to her apartment, and when they get there he pulls out a gun and points it at her. He then proceeds to have sex with her and she puts up no resistance or protest. This is clearly rape.
I don't know whether I agree with the point about feminism, but I do agree that "if you're not guilty, why are you worried?" is a very problematic line of reasoning. "If you're not planning to blow up the plane, why do you care whether these officers strip search you?" "If you're not doing anything illegal, why do you care if these police search your house?"
I also think the point about false accusations is relevant. I have no doubt that false rape accusations are rare, but surely no one denies that they do occur. I have been falsely accused of a crime in the past (thank god not rape or anything sexual), and even with the evidence on my side it took me over a year and thousands of dollars in attorney's fees to clear my name. There was still a residual social stigma from friends-of-friends who had heard I was accused and thus automatically assumed I was guilty. My accuser was never charged with any crime. The crime I was accused of was nowhere near as serious as rape (just a misdemeanor) but it still turned my life completely upside down for over a year.
We need to be careful not to create a standard (like "enthusiastic consent") that facilitates false accusations. There is an old maxim in law that "it's better to let ten guilty people free than to convict one innocent person." I see this as sort of similar to to the doctor's oath to "do no harm." A doctor shouldn't harm healthy tissue. Likewise, the legal system shouldn't be a threat to the innocent.
So since it might be harder to prove rape we should make that crime have a lower burden of proof?
What frightening is that its also much harder to prove you got consent then it is to prove other things, it will almost always literally be a he said/she said. The current screwrapeculture movements solution of making men official second class citizens via the "statistically women NEVER lie about rape" logic is terrifying from a civil rights perspective.
Blackstone's formulation is supposed to be the basis of the American justice system but sadly has been increasing ignored and is completely disregarded (with outright hatred) in feminist jurisprudence.
I don't think that's what he was getting at. It was more that people need to seriously re-calibrate their standards of reasonable if they think being friends with a person makes it reasonable for you to consent to have sex with them. This becomes all the more face-palm inducing when you realize women are often in the habit of pretending to be friends with men who desperately want to have sex with them just so they don't have to deal with said men's incessant whining about the matter when the answer is no. It also reinforces the harmful stereotype that men and women can't have platonic friendships, that there's always something sexual going on when you're friendly with anyone of your preferred gender.
Workers movements (aka as unions) come with very real consequences and is a far more nuanced idea. Antiracists are some of the biggest racists out there, the basic tenent of their belief being that racism is a white thing which is itself racist. Having read the works of early CRT thinkers they absolutely believed a child inherits debts a parent accrues an idea so profoundly ass backwards I cant even express in words how repulsive and evil a society based on their beliefs would be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joande
(only 19% identify as feminists in the US)
Your viewpoint would be like a christian going through life claiming christianity alone bestows any moral sense whatsoever (yes such people exist). It's a patently absurd claim and one that the statistics show DOES NOT pan out in real life. Feminism is not women's liberation nor is it "The belief that men and women are equal" anymore then christianity=morals. One can entirely believe in gender equality and reject nonsense like feminism.
Also feminism is not unpopular because of the right that is patently absurd.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Absolutely, I think this thread has done a good job of showing that people have very distorted views on when it is appropriate to have sex with someone.
No, its a pretty classic type of reaction in groups that see themselves as under attack (see: everyone). Actually it is the exact same reason that the shrieking idiots who have unfortunately appropriated the concept of "men's rights" react to feminism as inherently evil. People are very poor at theory of mind, there's an implicit belief in most of people that one's opponents don't really disagree with you but intentionally promote a harmful belief or behavior (see: Religion, Politics).
The place where it becomes an issue (see: Jezebel) is when disagreeing with a feminist makes one a bad person.
I was talking about the individuals who identify as anti-racists in academia not a vague concept of anyone working against racism. You seem to do that a lot Tuss pretending the labels you choose for people have near magical power. It's like claiming the suffragists who rejected the title feminist were really feminists and just didn't know it. If someone goes through the trouble of saying "I'm not one of that group" theres a reason!
I have read the works of modern "anti-racists" and many argue MLK was a shill and that only Malcolm X was really worth taking seriously.
Vorthospike-Your argument suffers from the same critical flaw as Tuss's feminism=/=women. Feminism has intrinsic beliefs such as rapeculture and patriarchy that one can outright reject and still believe in equality between the sexes. Most women DO reject those beliefs as evidenced by their decision to not identify as feminist to conclude that women are just a bunch of idiots who don't get how awesome feminism is really shows just how ass backward feminist thinking on this issue is. Feminism represents a group of men and women who share it's beliefs not the population defined as "women".
Often an irrelevant reason.
Rand was very clear about her dislike of Libertarianism but that's clearly something of an inside-out "No True Scotsman".
So women get no say. If they want to work for their own betterment they have to align with a group of man hating cultists. No, dream on.
Seriously this argument is just nah-ah there facts, seriously WTF? Theoretical models have useful and defined parameters and the beliefs of patriarchy and rapeculture have intentionally vague definitions and parameters. Theoretical models can be falsified and rely on facts those beliefs were designed to be unfalsifiable by relying on well belief.
No, women can be something other than feminist they are merely required to not hold feminist beliefs. Feminism is a rather wide field of philosophies, though, and defining a core it fairly difficult. Identifying feminism as a "man hating cult" is kind of like identifying "Christianity" as "the Reformed Russian Orthodox Church".
I identify as a feminist and a men's rights activist, for exampe. I don't see the two philosophies as being in opposition simply on the basis that people on the internet are easily riled up.