Siege will just have to mark this band off his list.
http://arts.nationalpost.com/2014/06/02/singer-of-rock-group-staind-stops-concert-to-demand-audience-members-stop-molesting-teen-crowd-surfer/
QuoteStaind singer stops concert to demand audience members stop 'molesting' teen crowd-surfer
Aaron Lewis, the lead singer of Staind, stopped performing and berated several concertgoers for allegedly groping an underage girl while she surfed the crowd.
"Ok, listen up, you a–holes," Lewis began, interrupting the song Something to Remind You during the group's performance at the Rockfest festival in Kansas City. "That f–king girl right there is like 15 f–king years old, and you f–king pieces of s–t are molesting her while she's on the f–king crowd."
The singer, who suggested that the individuals who were apparently touching the young concertgoer inappropriately should all be "beaten down by everyone around you for being f–king pieces of s–t."
"If I f–king see that s–t again, I swear to god I will point you out in the crowd and have everyone around you beat your f–king ass," he said, cuing up guitarist Mike Mushok. "Now, girls, feel free to crowd-surf safely."
Staind, which formed in 1994, attained widespread success in 2000 with the release of their album Break The Cycle, whose single, It's Been Awhile, debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard charts.
Watch Lewis' May 31 rant below
pics? :ph34r:
Why did you remove your post, Ed?
I thought it crossed a line I shouldn't cross.
Fair enough, for I had a fitting reply lined up and ready to launch. :P
It must be quite difficult to not accidentally touch a young woman inappropriately in such a melee.
I think it would be best to ban underage, if not all women from the activity, if there's the risk of anonymous intentional sexual molestation or just accidental touching they're not happy with.
Classic Ed.
Quote from: Syt on June 03, 2014, 08:18:59 AM
Why did you remove your post, Ed?
Staind is the kind of faggit rock Ed listens to, no wonder he's ashamed, left his purity ring at the last Silverchair show.
Pedos go to Staind concerts. I'm shocked.
Quote from: mongers on June 03, 2014, 08:27:33 AM
It must be quite difficult to not accidentally touch a young woman inappropriately in such a melee.
I was thinking that as well. I guess the safest thing to do is not touch her at all and let her fall on the floor when she is headed your way.
That's true, but one would assume he's seen lots of crowd surfing in the years he's been performing, yet this time whatever happened was different enough from what he's seen before to make him react.
For all we know the girls was cursing him for wrecking her fun.
I'll stay out of it.
Good for him.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 03, 2014, 10:02:15 AM
For all we know the girls was cursing him for wrecking her fun.
I'll stay out of it.
Doesn't matter. Underage.
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 09:37:39 AM
Quote from: mongers on June 03, 2014, 08:27:33 AM
It must be quite difficult to not accidentally touch a young woman inappropriately in such a melee.
I was thinking that as well. I guess the safest thing to do is not touch her at all and let her fall on the floor when she is headed your way.
There is a pretty dramatic difference between accidentally touching somebody and groping them.
Why was he looking at an underage girl?
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2014, 10:09:58 AM
There is a pretty dramatic difference between accidentally touching somebody and groping them.
And there is a pretty dramatic difference between being smart and indulging in crowd surfing. I especially loved the fact that Lewis moronically told the crowd, "Now, girls, feel free to crowd-surf safely." That's like telling them to "feel free to play Russian Roulette safely."
I am not necessarily against crowd surfing, but I am opposed to the pretense that it can be done safely. It is by its nature somewhat dangerous (both to dignity and physical well-being)..
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2014, 10:09:58 AM
There is a pretty dramatic difference between accidentally touching somebody and groping them.
In the context of crowd surfing? Would it really be that noticeable?
Noticable enough that the lead singer from Stained apparently saw it from stage. :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 12:09:09 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2014, 10:09:58 AM
There is a pretty dramatic difference between accidentally touching somebody and groping them.
In the context of crowd surfing? Would it really be that noticeable?
I crowd surfed back when I was younger and lighter and people grabbing and squeezing my junk was pretty noticeable compared to just grazing it :lol:
Stern was talking about this this morning and claimed people were 'fingering' her... not sure how he got that information.
That's that Blonde Rapper from Australia's fault. Lizzy, Izzy.
Girls shouldn't crowd surf.
Quote from: mongers on June 03, 2014, 08:27:33 AM
It must be quite difficult to not accidentally touch a young woman inappropriately in such a melee.
I think it would be best to ban underage, if not all women from the activity, if there's the risk of anonymous intentional sexual molestation or just accidental touching they're not happy with.
:huh:
Crowd surfing happens usually face up. If someone is groping, it's intentional.
And yes, rather than telling the men to stop acting like assholes, instead let's just tell women they can't do it. :rolleyes:
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 01:08:53 PM
:huh:
Crowd surfing happens usually face up. If someone is groping, it's intentional.
Even groping the butt? That seems almost unavoidable.
QuoteAnd yes, rather than telling the men to stop acting like assholes, instead let's just tell women they can't do it. :rolleyes:
Maybe you can do both? Tell the guys to stop copping a feel, and tell the girls the most effective way to avoid being groped while crowd-surfing is not to crowd surf.
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 03, 2014, 12:23:52 PM
That's that Blonde Rapper from Australia's fault. Lizzy, Izzy.
Girls shouldn't crowd surf.
Iggy Azalea?
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 01:17:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 01:08:53 PM
:huh:
Crowd surfing happens usually face up. If someone is groping, it's intentional.
Even groping the butt? That seems almost unavoidable.
QuoteAnd yes, rather than telling the men to stop acting like assholes, instead let's just tell women they can't do it. :rolleyes:
Maybe you can do both? Tell the guys to stop copping a feel, and tell the girls the most effective way to avoid being groped while crowd-surfing is not to crowd surf.
Where do we draw the line? Should girls also not attended crowded concerts as they could be grouped while standing in a crowd?
Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2014, 01:28:18 PM
Where do we draw the line? Should girls also not attended crowded concerts as they could be grouped while standing in a crowd?
Let's draw the line at "don't undertake activities which will force strangers to deliberately handle your body." Seems easy enough. :smarty:
Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2014, 01:26:55 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on June 03, 2014, 12:23:52 PM
That's that Blonde Rapper from Australia's fault. Lizzy, Izzy.
Girls shouldn't crowd surf.
Iggy Azalea?
Right!
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 01:17:09 PM
Maybe you can do both? Tell the guys to stop copping a feel, and tell the girls the most effective way to avoid being groped while crowd-surfing is not to crowd surf.
That is different than saying they shouldn't crowd surf. Just, you know, crowd surfing with all those drunk and stoned people that generally are at concerts with crowd surfing carries with it certain risks.
However once you go down that road then suddenly the criminal is not responsible but the victim for some stupid reason. I prefer to keep the responsibility on the people who do the dirty deed no matter how much the victims put themselves in a position to be preyed upon. Besides going to a concert and not being able to crowd surf for fear you are going to be groped is sort of fucked up when you think about it.
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2014, 01:34:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2014, 01:28:18 PM
Where do we draw the line? Should girls also not attended crowded concerts as they could be grouped while standing in a crowd?
Let's draw the line at "don't undertake activities which will force strangers to deliberately handle your body." Seems easy enough. :smarty:
So we are saying it is the child's fault for being illegally molested and not the adults? That strikes me as where one would go with this.
"Don't dress like a slut and you won't be raped."
"Don't walk alone at night and you won't be harassed."
"Don't body surf at a concert and you won't be groped."
*shrugs*
Or, you know, teach people that there is never a justification for rape, harassment, or groping. That's an option, too.
It's just like Twister. If you choose to play, you've essentially consented to someone sticking a cock in your ass. The more you know.
Also contact sports. Cock, ass, and irrevocable consent.
Now, I've never crowd surfed because I'm sure those fuckers would drop me and I'm not a big fan of my skull hitting those hard venue floors.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 03, 2014, 01:44:07 PM
It's just like Twister. If you choose to play, you've essentially consented to someone sticking a cock in your ass. The more you know.
Also contact sports. Cock, ass, and irrevocable consent.
I don't wanna play your version of football. :(
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 01:43:50 PM
"Don't dress like a slut and you won't be raped."
"Don't walk alone at night and you won't be harassed."
"Don't body surf at a concert and you won't be groped."
*shrugs*
Or, you know, teach people that there is never a justification for rape, harassment, or groping. That's an option, too.
Those options are not mutually exclusive.
Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2014, 01:47:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 03, 2014, 01:44:07 PM
It's just like Twister. If you choose to play, you've essentially consented to someone sticking a cock in your ass. The more you know.
Also contact sports. Cock, ass, and irrevocable consent.
I don't wanna play your version of football. :(
:lol:
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2014, 01:34:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2014, 01:28:18 PM
Where do we draw the line? Should girls also not attended crowded concerts as they could be grouped while standing in a crowd?
Let's draw the line at "don't undertake activities which will force strangers to deliberately handle your body." Seems easy enough. :smarty:
So no crowded concerts, no crowded subways?
BTW, MTA's policy is that a crowded subway is no excuse for groping.
Quote from: Malthus on June 03, 2014, 01:47:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 03, 2014, 01:44:07 PM
It's just like Twister. If you choose to play, you've essentially consented to someone sticking a cock in your ass. The more you know.
Also contact sports. Cock, ass, and irrevocable consent.
I don't wanna play your version of football. :(
:D
Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2014, 01:52:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2014, 01:34:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2014, 01:28:18 PM
Where do we draw the line? Should girls also not attended crowded concerts as they could be grouped while standing in a crowd?
Let's draw the line at "don't undertake activities which will force strangers to deliberately handle your body." Seems easy enough. :smarty:
So no crowded concerts, no crowded subways?
BTW, MTA's policy is that a crowded subway is no excuse for groping.
A brave stance. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on June 03, 2014, 01:52:38 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2014, 01:52:09 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2014, 01:34:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2014, 01:28:18 PM
Where do we draw the line? Should girls also not attended crowded concerts as they could be grouped while standing in a crowd?
Let's draw the line at "don't undertake activities which will force strangers to deliberately handle your body." Seems easy enough. :smarty:
So no crowded concerts, no crowded subways?
BTW, MTA's policy is that a crowded subway is no excuse for groping.
A brave stance. :P
It is sad that they have to put placards up to claim that. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2014, 01:48:53 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 01:43:50 PM
"Don't dress like a slut and you won't be raped."
"Don't walk alone at night and you won't be harassed."
"Don't body surf at a concert and you won't be groped."
*shrugs*
Or, you know, teach people that there is never a justification for rape, harassment, or groping. That's an option, too.
Those options are not mutually exclusive.
Except that I often and regularly see the top, and almost never see the bottom. Seems a bit... unbalanced in approach.
The first one isn't even true. The second one is good advice for anybody at any time of the day, but it's mainly applicable to hellholes.
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 01:53:10 PM
Except that I often and regularly see the top, and almost never see the bottom. Seems a bit... unbalanced in approach.
Yeah me to. It seems to go into territory that somehow rapists have no control and it is everybody else's job to accommodate them. I have no idea why that might be but it is bizarre. Rape is just one of those things that confound me.
That is not to say one shouldn't show common sense in your actions but, you know, it is weird that the response is often 'well women should not o do this or that' or whatever.
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 01:43:50 PM
"Don't dress like a slut and you won't be raped."
"Don't walk alone at night and you won't be harassed."
"Don't body surf at a concert and you won't be groped."
*shrugs*
Or, you know, teach people that there is never a justification for rape, harassment, or groping. That's an option, too.
:lol: You went Full Meri. I sort of expected that.
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2014, 01:37:10 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2014, 01:34:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2014, 01:28:18 PM
Where do we draw the line? Should girls also not attended crowded concerts as they could be grouped while standing in a crowd?
Let's draw the line at "don't undertake activities which will force strangers to deliberately handle your body." Seems easy enough. :smarty:
So we are saying it is the child's fault for being illegally molested and not the adults? That strikes me as where one would go with this.
How do you get that out of it? Crowd surfing is a very voluntary activity. Being a child is not.
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 02:01:23 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 01:43:50 PM
"Don't dress like a slut and you won't be raped."
"Don't walk alone at night and you won't be harassed."
"Don't body surf at a concert and you won't be groped."
*shrugs*
Or, you know, teach people that there is never a justification for rape, harassment, or groping. That's an option, too.
:lol: You went Full Meri. I sort of expected that.
And you went full derspeiss.
Valmy and garbon are saying the same things, but you pulled my comment out to mock.
It's okay. One day, you'll get to watch your little girl be in an "awkward" situation and get to say the same things to her. :)
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 02:07:20 PM
It's okay. One day, you'll get to watch your little girl be in an "awkward" situation and get to say the same things to her. :)
Hopefully she won't get in that situation in the first place. I'll do my best to teach her to exercise common sense and to minimize risks to herself, just as I will with Tommy.
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 02:12:14 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 02:07:20 PM
It's okay. One day, you'll get to watch your little girl be in an "awkward" situation and get to say the same things to her. :)
Hopefully she won't get in that situation in the first place. I'll do my best to teach her to exercise common sense and to minimize risks to herself, just as I will with Tommy.
Might also help to teach Tommy that it's not okay to grope just because a girl is in an "awkward" position. 'Cause, you know, that's an option, too.
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 02:12:14 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 02:07:20 PM
It's okay. One day, you'll get to watch your little girl be in an "awkward" situation and get to say the same things to her. :)
Hopefully she won't get in that situation in the first place. I'll do my best to teach her to exercise common sense and to minimize risks to herself, just as I will with Tommy.
Well of course. I am just saying if she does get molested because she got excited and crowd surfed in a concert, it is the molester who is 100% responsible. People who crowd surf are not asking to be molested nor are responsible for being molested. Granted common sense would suggest it is not a very safe thing to do, people may drop you on your head and shit.
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 02:13:55 PM
Might also help to teach Tommy that it's not okay to grope just because a girl is in an "awkward" position. 'Cause, you know, that's an option, too.
Uh, okay Meri. What makes you think I'd raise him any differently than that?
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2014, 02:21:53 PM
Well of course. I am just saying if she does get molested because she got excited and crowd surfed in a concert, it is the molester who is 100% responsible. People who crowd surf are not asking to be molested nor are responsible for being molested. Granted common sense would suggest it is not a very safe thing to do, people may drop you on your head and shit.
In terms of who is at fault, I agree with you entirely.
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2014, 01:37:10 PM
So we are saying it is the child's fault for being illegally molested and not the adults? That strikes me as where one would go with this.
I don;'t see why you excuse the adult here. That seems retarded. However, it is also dumb to allow children to interact with adults in ways which force the adults to physically handle strange children. Even under the best of circumstances, that seems like a thing to avoid. Children can be taught this, like they are taught not to take candy from strangers or not to cross the street without looking both ways.
So my policy would be to blame criminals, and also teach children to avoid putting themselves at risk. Your policy seems to avoid both.
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 02:32:30 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 02:13:55 PM
Might also help to teach Tommy that it's not okay to grope just because a girl is in an "awkward" position. 'Cause, you know, that's an option, too.
Uh, okay Meri. What makes you think I'd raise him any differently than that?
I don't know if you are or aren't. It seems to be rarely brought up to boys at all, but maybe your household is different. I hope so.
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 02:35:43 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2014, 02:21:53 PM
Well of course. I am just saying if she does get molested because she got excited and crowd surfed in a concert, it is the molester who is 100% responsible. People who crowd surf are not asking to be molested nor are responsible for being molested. Granted common sense would suggest it is not a very safe thing to do, people may drop you on your head and shit.
In terms of who is at fault, I agree with you entirely.
When you say, "well, if they didn't want to get groped, maybe they shouldn't have crowd surfed", you are blaming the person who was groped. You are putting the "fault" on them.
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2014, 02:38:24 PM
I don;'t see why you excuse the adult here. That seems retarded. However, it is also dumb to allow children to interact with adults in ways which force the adults to physically handle strange children. Even under the best of circumstances, that seems like a thing to avoid. Children can be taught this, like they are taught not to take candy from strangers or not to cross the street without looking both ways.
So my policy would be to blame criminals, and also teach children to avoid putting themselves at risk. Your policy seems to avoid both.
I agree. However, when a child does get molested, few people say, "Well, that child should have known better than to be there in the first place." Or "well, that mother should have known her boyfriend would do something like that." No, the blame falls directly where it belongs, on the person who did the molesting.
However, when it comes to women - and men - the blame is often shared between the person who did the molesting and the person who was molested. "Wow, sucks she was raped, but why the hell was she drinking at a party??"
Quote from: garbon on June 03, 2014, 01:52:09 PM
So no crowded concerts, no crowded subways?
:huh: Um, okay.
How are you going to manage that? :hmm:
QuoteBTW, MTA's policy is that a crowded subway is no excuse for groping.
Sounds reasonable. What's their policy on crowd surfing in a crowded subway?
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 02:38:31 PM
I don't know if you are or aren't. It seems to be rarely brought up to boys at all, but maybe your household is different. I hope so.
Your assumption seemed to be that I'm not. And "keep your hands to yourself" is something people tell boys (and girls) all the time.
Quote
When you say, "well, if they didn't want to get groped, maybe they shouldn't have crowd surfed", you are blaming the person who was groped. You are putting the "fault" on them.
When did I say that? :unsure:
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 02:41:11 PM
However, when it comes to women - and men - the blame is often shared between the person who did the molesting and the person who was molested. "Wow, sucks she was raped, but why the hell was she drinking at a party??"
Who says that?
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 02:45:14 PM
Who says that?
I hear that shit all the time. Even in court settings. Makes me so freaking frustrated.
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 02:44:02 PM
Your assumption seemed to be that I'm not. And "keep your hands to yourself" is something people tell boys (and girls) all the time.
As I said, it's rarely taught to boys that it's not okay to touch a girl when she doesn't expressly tell him that it's okay. That's a bit different than "keep your hands to yourself".
Quote
When did I say that? :unsure:
"You" in the global sense. :P
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 02:45:14 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 02:41:11 PM
However, when it comes to women - and men - the blame is often shared between the person who did the molesting and the person who was molested. "Wow, sucks she was raped, but why the hell was she drinking at a party??"
Who says that?
Everyone?
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 02:41:11 PM
I agree. However, when a child does get molested, few people say, "Well, that child should have known better than to be there in the first place." Or "well, that mother should have known her boyfriend would do something like that." No, the blame falls directly where it belongs, on the person who did the molesting.
However, when it comes to women - and men - the blame is often shared between the person who did the molesting and the person who was molested. "Wow, sucks she was raped, but why the hell was she drinking at a party??"
Actually, the person
I was blaming was the musician who told the girls in the crowd to crowd surf because it was safe.
Frankly, teens are going to do some dumb things. Being dumb isn't blameworthy, so long as you learn from it. It's a natural state for teens.
I had to teach my daughter never to accept a drink from a man that she didn't see the bartender pour. That if she gets up and goes to the bathroom at a party or a bar and leaves her drink behind, get a new one when she gets back. That if she wants to get drunk, do it with a group of girlfriends in a friend's apartment; never in public or alone with a man she doesn't already trust with her life. I've had to teach my daughter that how she dresses directly affects how others see her, and she should take that into account when she wears heels, make-up, or a short skirt.
I taught my sons that when a girl is passed out, that's a time to sit with them to protect them, not to touch them. I taught my sons that the only consent is "yes". The word "no", even during the action, is NO! and *must* be acknowledged and respected.
See any discrepancies?
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2014, 02:50:35 PM
Actually, the person I was blaming was the musician who told the girls in the crowd to crowd surf because it was safe.
Frankly, teens are going to do some dumb things. Being dumb isn't blameworthy, so long as you learn from it. It's a natural state for teens.
Well, yeah, because that shit is
never safe.
(Not being sarcastic. It really isn't safe.)
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 02:47:40 PM
As I said, it's rarely taught to boys that it's not okay to touch a girl when she doesn't expressly tell him that it's okay. That's a bit different than "keep your hands to yourself".
I think that covers it pretty well, actually.
Hmm, I don't recall my parents specifically telling me "it's not okay to touch a girl when she doesn't expressly tell him that it's okay" so it must have been a huge stroke of luck that I didn't go around groping women against their will. Or maybe they raised me the right way, taught me to be respectful to others (particularly when it comes to personal space), and didn't need to spell it out so specifically.
Quote
"You" in the global sense. :P
So that includes you, then. YOU MONSTER :angry:
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 01:43:50 PM
"Don't dress like a slut and you won't be raped."
"Don't walk alone at night and you won't be harassed."
"Don't body surf at a concert and you won't be groped."
*shrugs*
Or, you know, teach people that there is never a justification for rape, harassment, or groping. That's an option, too.
This is Languish. Many posters feel that Austria-Hungary dressed like a slut.
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 02:57:13 PM
Hmm, I don't recall my parents specifically telling me "it's not okay to touch a girl when she doesn't expressly tell him that it's okay" so it must have been a huge stroke of luck that I didn't go around groping women against their will. Or maybe they raised me the right way, taught me to be respectful to others (particularly when it comes to personal space), and didn't need to spell it out so specifically.
Superior parenting = vagueness?
Obviously most men do not go around groping women against their will Spicey, even ones with shitty parents. It is, frankly, beneath my dignity to grope somebody unless they beg.
I don't remember my parents telling me that it's not OK to rape. If only they had! :(
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2014, 03:00:50 PM
I don't remember my parents telling me that it's not OK to rape. If only they had! :(
:console: It is too late for you but maybe others might yet be saved.
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 02:57:13 PM
I think that covers it pretty well, actually.
Hmm, I don't recall my parents specifically telling me "it's not okay to touch a girl when she doesn't expressly tell him that it's okay" so it must have been a huge stroke of luck that I didn't go around groping women against their will. Or maybe they raised me the right way, taught me to be respectful to others (particularly when it comes to personal space), and didn't need to spell it out so specifically.
Clearly not everyone got that memo, or the girl at the concert wouldn't have been groped.
Quote
So that includes you, then. YOU MONSTER :angry:
I admit that I've said things like that in the past, because I was stupid. It's what I was taught. If I were careful, if I were smart, then I could protect myself. Only, that's not how it worked. I was careful, and I was smart, and I was raped. *shrugs*
And it wasn't because of what I was wearing, or because of what I drank, or of where I was. I was raped because a guy thought that it was okay to do what he wanted with me because he was stronger. So he did.
Then it became much harder to blame the victim no matter what they did or didn't do to protect themselves.
Seems to me that we're putting an awful lot of trust in depressing (not in the good way) one-hit-havebeens Staind.
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2014, 03:00:05 PM
Superior parenting = vagueness?
No, there's some specificity to it at times.
QuoteObviously most men do not go around groping women against their will Spicey, even ones with shitty parents. It is, frankly, beneath my dignity to grope somebody unless they beg.
I grope my wife. But not when the kids are around. Which is almost all the time these days.
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2014, 03:04:54 PM
Seems to me that we're putting an awful lot of trust in depressing (not in the good way) one-hit-havebeens Staind.
It's been a while since I've heard or seen them mentioned. :yes:
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2014, 03:04:54 PM
Seems to me that we're putting an awful lot of trust in depressing (not in the good way) one-hit-havebeens Staind.
Oh, I'd just assumed the thread was started by Timmay and it was a typo. :blush:
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 03:06:52 PM
I grope my wife. But not when the kids are around. Which is almost all the time these days.
Same but she begs with her eyes. And she gropes me to. :wub:
But yeah not when the kids are around which is like 99.9% of the time we are together.
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2014, 03:10:46 PM
Same but she begs with her eyes. And she gropes me to. :wub:
Sounds like she thinks she's entitled to sex.
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 03:03:11 PM
Clearly not everyone got that memo, or the girl at the concert wouldn't have been groped.
Don't get me started on how kids are being raised these days. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the alleged gropers had been taught not to do that. Some guys just turn out to be assholes despite their parents' best efforts.
Quote
I admit that I've said things like that in the past, because I was stupid.
Well, honestly I have never said that. I can vaguely remember being upset with someone who got victimized (non-sexually) and could have prevented it from happening by exercising a little bit of caution and common sense, but that's about it.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 03, 2014, 03:16:52 PM
Sounds like she thinks she's entitled to sex.
Once you are preggy for 18 months and have my babies you pretty much are for life. Just FYI if interested.
I'm very interested. You have a STEM education.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 03, 2014, 03:21:52 PM
I'm very interested. You have a STEM education.
:lol:
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 03:18:12 PM
Don't get me started on how kids are being raised these days. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the alleged gropers had been taught not to do that. Some guys just turn out to be assholes despite their parents' best efforts.
:yes:
Agreed on all counts.
Quote
Well, honestly I have never said that. I can vaguely remember being upset with someone who got victimized (non-sexually) and could have prevented it from happening by exercising a little bit of caution and common sense, but that's about it.
I think you're in the minority on this one. Even the most enlightened of individuals have been known to say something like that, thinking they were helping, oddly enough.
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 03:25:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 03:18:12 PM
Don't get me started on how kids are being raised these days. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the alleged gropers had been taught not to do that. Some guys just turn out to be assholes despite their parents' best efforts.
:yes:
Agreed on all counts.
Quote
Well, honestly I have never said that. I can vaguely remember being upset with someone who got victimized (non-sexually) and could have prevented it from happening by exercising a little bit of caution and common sense, but that's about it.
I think you're in the minority on this one. Even the most enlightened of individuals have been known to say something like that, thinking they were helping, oddly enough.
It was always kind of frustrating dealing with sex assault victims who put themselves in incredibly vulnerable situations thus leading to their victimization. You know, someone who got blindingly drunk and passed out at someone else's house. The temptation is strong to say "you know, in future..." but of course that helps no one.
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2014, 03:36:59 PM
It was always kind of frustrating dealing with sex assault victims who put themselves in incredibly vulnerable situations thus leading to their victimization. You know, someone who got blindingly drunk and passed out at someone else's house. The temptation is strong to say "you know, in future..." but of course that helps no one.
No. What led to their victimization was a person believing that it was their right to take what they wanted, and did so.
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2014, 03:36:59 PM
It was always kind of frustrating dealing with sex assault victims who put themselves in incredibly vulnerable situations thus leading to their victimization.
Well at least it makes it easy to find the people who need to go to gaol. Though, from what you are telling me, it is really hard to send preds to gaol.
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 03:40:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2014, 03:36:59 PM
It was always kind of frustrating dealing with sex assault victims who put themselves in incredibly vulnerable situations thus leading to their victimization. You know, someone who got blindingly drunk and passed out at someone else's house. The temptation is strong to say "you know, in future..." but of course that helps no one.
No. What led to their victimization was a person believing that it was their right to take what they wanted, and did so.
You seem confused. I wasn't prosecuting the victim - I was prosecuting the perpetrator.
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 01:53:10 PM
Except that I often and regularly see the top, and almost never see the bottom. Seems a bit... unbalanced in approach.
Really? Your position is that people are almost never told that rape is wrong? By parents, the courts, no one?
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2014, 03:52:58 PM
You seem confused. I wasn't prosecuting the victim - I was prosecuting the perpetrator.
I misread what you wrote. Sorry.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2014, 04:10:15 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 01:53:10 PM
Except that I often and regularly see the top, and almost never see the bottom. Seems a bit... unbalanced in approach.
Really? Your position is that people are almost never told that rape is wrong? By parents, the courts, no one?
What constitutes rape is somewhat ambiguous to many. Same with harassment and acceptable touching.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2014, 04:10:15 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 01:53:10 PM
Except that I often and regularly see the top, and almost never see the bottom. Seems a bit... unbalanced in approach.
Really? Your position is that people are almost never told that rape is wrong? By parents, the courts, no one?
My experience is that rape is always abhorred theoretically. But once an actual rape occurs out come all the excuses and nonsense.
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 04:15:26 PM
What constitutes rape is somewhat ambiguous to many. Same with harassment and acceptable touching.
This is very different from the post I responded to.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2014, 04:18:15 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 04:15:26 PM
What constitutes rape is somewhat ambiguous to many. Same with harassment and acceptable touching.
This is very different from the post I responded to.
Really? The post you responded to said that we should be concentrating on teaching people that rape, harassment and unwanted groping is unacceptable. If people can't define those things, how can we teach that it's bad?
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2014, 04:16:44 PM
My experience is that rape is always abhorred theoretically. But once an actual rape occurs out come all the excuses and nonsense.
Are you talking about a proven case of rape or a reported case of rape?
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 04:24:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2014, 04:18:15 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 04:15:26 PM
What constitutes rape is somewhat ambiguous to many. Same with harassment and acceptable touching.
This is very different from the post I responded to.
Really? The post you responded to said that we should be concentrating on teaching people that rape, harassment and unwanted groping is unacceptable. If people can't define those things, how can we teach that it's bad?
Why can't we both teach that sexual assault is bad, but also teach people that certain things will put you in a vulnerable situation?
FWIW, I'm not talking about "wearing a short skirt", but mostly about consuming intoxicants in unsafe environments.
Teaching people to lock their car doors doesn't absolve the guilt of people to go around stealing cars.
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 04:27:30 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2014, 04:16:44 PM
My experience is that rape is always abhorred theoretically. But once an actual rape occurs out come all the excuses and nonsense.
Are you talking about a proven case of rape or a reported case of rape?
Both. Though proving rape is, as we discussed before, almost absurdly difficult.
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2014, 04:30:58 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 04:24:04 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 03, 2014, 04:18:15 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 04:15:26 PM
What constitutes rape is somewhat ambiguous to many. Same with harassment and acceptable touching.
This is very different from the post I responded to.
Really? The post you responded to said that we should be concentrating on teaching people that rape, harassment and unwanted groping is unacceptable. If people can't define those things, how can we teach that it's bad?
Why can't we both teach that sexual assault is bad, but also teach people that certain things will put you in a vulnerable situation?
FWIW, I'm not talking about "wearing a short skirt", but mostly about consuming intoxicants in unsafe environments.
Teaching people to lock their car doors doesn't absolve the guilt of people to go around stealing cars.
Oh Ms. Paglia! :hug:
What does the insurance company say if you left the car unlocked?
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2014, 04:34:58 PM
What does the insurance company say if you left the car unlocked?
Snitches get stitches. :angry:
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2014, 04:30:58 PM
Why can't we both teach that sexual assault is bad, but also teach people that certain things will put you in a vulnerable situation?
Well we can. I have stated my concern with the social dynamics involved.
QuoteTeaching people to lock their car doors doesn't absolve the guilt of people to go around stealing cars.
True but nobody publicly says the person who left their car door open by accident actually consented in some way to having her car stolen. Rape is a weird crime with weird social dynamics, for the obvious reasons that people consent to having sex all the time while people rarely consent to handing over their car in such a way as one confuse it with stealing.
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2014, 04:34:11 PM
Both. Though proving rape is, as we discussed before, almost absurdly difficult.
have we established that? :unsure:
We certainly have discussed a number of cases where it was difficult to prove/know who was telling the truth, but we certainly haven't discussed enough of the total number of cases to make our conclusions statistically significant.
The real problem with rape cases is that the percentage of cases that we believe are occurring that actually get reported is so low, because of the psychological trauma the victim endures along with the physical trauma. If reported, there is a non-trivial conviction rate.
Good point grumbler. Maybe we should take a look at some actual stats, there are certain assumptions I have that may not be true or may be outdated. Any recommendations?
katmai molestered me. I demand he be banned.
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2014, 04:30:58 PM
Why can't we both teach that sexual assault is bad, but also teach people that certain things will put you in a vulnerable situation?
FWIW, I'm not talking about "wearing a short skirt", but mostly about consuming intoxicants in unsafe environments.
Teaching people to lock their car doors doesn't absolve the guilt of people to go around stealing cars.
I didn't say we couldn't. I said that the balance right now is on teaching girls how to avoid rape rather than on teaching boys (and girls) what rape, harassment, and unwanted assault is.
And while you may not be talking about wearing a short skirt, plenty of others are. Though, thankfully, I think most people anymore know better than to go there. I'm of the mind that most people no longer blame clothing for assault. At least, I hope that's the case.
Quote from: grumbler on June 03, 2014, 04:39:20 PM
have we established that? :unsure:
We certainly have discussed a number of cases where it was difficult to prove/know who was telling the truth, but we certainly haven't discussed enough of the total number of cases to make our conclusions statistically significant.
The real problem with rape cases is that the percentage of cases that we believe are occurring that actually get reported is so low, because of the psychological trauma the victim endures along with the physical trauma. If reported, there is a non-trivial conviction rate.
Yeah, I think that's a good point. There are plenty of cases that hit the news where rapists get off despite overwhelming evidence against them, but they seem fairly few and far between.
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2014, 04:44:28 PM
Good point grumbler. Maybe we should take a look at some actual stats, there are certain assumptions I have that may not be true or may be outdated. Any recommendations?
Very hard to get actual stats though. How do you measure "how many rapes happen"?
You can do surveys to do estimates, but that's purely self-reported.
You can measure the number of charges laid, or number of convictions, but that misses matters not reported.
I can tell you, anecdotally but with some considerable experience, that "rape" is one of the hardest crimes to prove. Typically unless someone catches the offender in the act, or the offender is abusing someone who is completely incapable of giving consent (either due to age or lack of consciousness), or the offender is caught in an obvious lie (denies having sex, but there's a DNA match) it's pretty much impossible to get a conviction.
All an offender has to do is get on the stand and say "she consented. She said yes, not no". How can you disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt?
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2014, 04:59:07 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2014, 04:44:28 PM
Good point grumbler. Maybe we should take a look at some actual stats, there are certain assumptions I have that may not be true or may be outdated. Any recommendations?
Very hard to get actual stats though. How do you measure "how many rapes happen"?
You can do surveys to do estimates, but that's purely self-reported.
You can measure the number of charges laid, or number of convictions, but that misses matters not reported.
I can tell you, anecdotally but with some considerable experience, that "rape" is one of the hardest crimes to prove. Typically unless someone catches the offender in the act, or the offender is abusing someone who is completely incapable of giving consent (either due to age or lack of consciousness), or the offender is caught in an obvious lie (denies having sex, but there's a DNA match) it's pretty much impossible to get a conviction.
All an offender has to do is get on the stand and say "she consented. She said yes, not no". How can you disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt?
Which race is the offender?
Quote from: The Brain on June 03, 2014, 05:00:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 03, 2014, 04:59:07 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 03, 2014, 04:44:28 PM
Good point grumbler. Maybe we should take a look at some actual stats, there are certain assumptions I have that may not be true or may be outdated. Any recommendations?
Very hard to get actual stats though. How do you measure "how many rapes happen"?
You can do surveys to do estimates, but that's purely self-reported.
You can measure the number of charges laid, or number of convictions, but that misses matters not reported.
I can tell you, anecdotally but with some considerable experience, that "rape" is one of the hardest crimes to prove. Typically unless someone catches the offender in the act, or the offender is abusing someone who is completely incapable of giving consent (either due to age or lack of consciousness), or the offender is caught in an obvious lie (denies having sex, but there's a DNA match) it's pretty much impossible to get a conviction.
All an offender has to do is get on the stand and say "she consented. She said yes, not no". How can you disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt?
Which race is the offender?
We don't have time to indulge your bestiality rape fantasies Brain. :rolleyes:
Brown sugar, how come you taste so good?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 03, 2014, 09:19:06 AM
Quote from: Syt on June 03, 2014, 08:18:59 AM
Why did you remove your post, Ed?
Staind is the kind of faggit rock Ed listens to, no wonder he's ashamed, left his purity ring at the last Silverchair show.
Why do you hurt the ones you love? :cry:
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 02:57:13 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 02:47:40 PM
As I said, it's rarely taught to boys that it's not okay to touch a girl when she doesn't expressly tell him that it's okay. That's a bit different than "keep your hands to yourself".
I think that covers it pretty well, actually.
Hmm, I don't recall my parents specifically telling me "it's not okay to touch a girl when she doesn't expressly tell him that it's okay"
FWIW, I can recall my parents telling me, "Never lay your hands on a girl without her OK".
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 03, 2014, 06:03:46 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 03, 2014, 09:19:06 AM
Quote from: Syt on June 03, 2014, 08:18:59 AM
Why did you remove your post, Ed?
Staind is the kind of faggit rock Ed listens to, no wonder he's ashamed, left his purity ring at the last Silverchair show.
Why do you hurt the ones you love? :cry:
Don't worry, I give Mom shit, too.
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 04:54:12 PM
I didn't say we couldn't. I said that the balance right now is on teaching girls how to avoid rape rather than on teaching boys (and girls) what rape, harassment, and unwanted assault is.
That would definitely be worrisome if that were the case. What evidence gives you the impression that it is?
Quote from: Camerus on June 03, 2014, 09:32:20 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 04:54:12 PM
I didn't say we couldn't. I said that the balance right now is on teaching girls how to avoid rape rather than on teaching boys (and girls) what rape, harassment, and unwanted assault is.
That would definitely be worrisome if that were the case. What evidence gives you the impression that it is?
Well, having had discussions with my children going through the public school systems, the topic of what constitutes rape is barely touched on in Health and Sex Ed classes. However, how girls should avoid being raped is a common discussion throughout school Health classes starting in the 8th grade. Dress codes exist only for girls (shorts fingertip length, straps two-finger width, etc) to avoid "distracting" boys in the classroom. (That is the exact reason given for the dress codes. As if boys are incapable of controlling their urges when a girl in a short skirt walks into the room, therefore it's the girl's responsibility.)
This is a common discussion among many of my friends from around the US. The lessons learned are that a girl's job is to do everything in her power to avoid being raped, because boys will be boys and you can't count on them to do the right thing. That is the focus.
There are worldwide movements meant to bring on these kinds of discussions. Movements like #YesAllWoman, which means that yes, all women have been harassed or sexually demeaned at some point in their lives because of their gender. There is not a single woman that I have met who hasn't had to adjust something she's done to protect herself simply because she's female. Something that a man wouldn't even think about, but all women have to, like never walking away from a drink at the bar and then coming back to it.
Do I have statistics to back this up? No, I'm sorry; I don't.
LOL, too funny, watching Meri mix it up with "little-girls-should-be-nurses-and-little-boys-should-be-doctors" derfoetus.
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 09:58:04 PM
Quote from: Camerus on June 03, 2014, 09:32:20 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 04:54:12 PM
I didn't say we couldn't. I said that the balance right now is on teaching girls how to avoid rape rather than on teaching boys (and girls) what rape, harassment, and unwanted assault is.
That would definitely be worrisome if that were the case. What evidence gives you the impression that it is?
Well, having had discussions with my children going through the public school systems, the topic of what constitutes rape is barely touched on in Health and Sex Ed classes. However, how girls should avoid being raped is a common discussion throughout school Health classes starting in the 8th grade. Dress codes exist only for girls (shorts fingertip length, straps two-finger width, etc) to avoid "distracting" boys in the classroom. (That is the exact reason given for the dress codes. As if boys are incapable of controlling their urges when a girl in a short skirt walks into the room, therefore it's the girl's responsibility.)
OK, in fairness, those are two different things. There are valid reasons why women (and men) should wear clothing appropriate to their activity.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 03, 2014, 10:05:06 PM
LOL, too funny, watching Meri mix it up with "little-girls-should-be-nurses-and-little-boys-should-be-doctors" derfoetus.
I came too late to the party to play. :(
Quote from: Ideologue on June 03, 2014, 10:06:50 PMOK, in fairness, those are two different things. There are valid reasons why women (and men) should wear clothing appropriate to their activity.
There may be "valid reasons to wear appropriate clothing" as you say; that doesn't counter Meri's point that the message being sent to girls is that they are responsible for the boys' actions and reactions.
Quote from: Jacob on June 03, 2014, 10:15:06 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 03, 2014, 10:06:50 PMOK, in fairness, those are two different things. There are valid reasons why women (and men) should wear clothing appropriate to their activity.
There may be "valid reasons to wear appropriate clothing" as you say; that does counter Meri's point that the message being sent to girls is that they are responsible for the boys' actions and reactions.
I'm hoping you meant "doesn't counter". ;)
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 10:18:42 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 03, 2014, 10:15:06 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 03, 2014, 10:06:50 PMOK, in fairness, those are two different things. There are valid reasons why women (and men) should wear clothing appropriate to their activity.
There may be "valid reasons to wear appropriate clothing" as you say; that does counter Meri's point that the message being sent to girls is that they are responsible for the boys' actions and reactions.
I'm hoping you meant "doesn't counter". ;)
:lol:
Yes
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 03, 2014, 10:05:06 PM
LOL, too funny, watching Meri mix it up with "little-girls-should-be-nurses-and-little-boys-should-be-doctors" derfoetus.
It's been relatively hostile-free. :P
And been a great distraction for me today. Thanks, all! :D
Quote from: Jacob on June 03, 2014, 10:15:06 PM
Meri's point that the message being sent to girls is that they are responsible for the boys' actions and reactions.
Meri's point is overstated. Way overstated.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 03, 2014, 10:11:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 03, 2014, 10:05:06 PM
LOL, too funny, watching Meri mix it up with "little-girls-should-be-nurses-and-little-boys-should-be-doctors" derfoetus.
I came too late to the party to play. :(
You started to play, but then deleted your post. :P
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 10:22:39 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 03, 2014, 10:15:06 PM
Meri's point that the message being sent to girls is that they are responsible for the boys' actions and reactions.
Meri's point is overstated. Way overstated.
:huh:
How so? The girls' are told by administrators (ie Principal and Vice-Principal) that the reason they have the dresscode they have is to "avoid distractions in the classroom." I'm pretty sure the administrators aren't too concerned about the girls distracting one another, and there is no dress code for the boys at all.
Quote from: Jacob on June 03, 2014, 10:15:06 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 03, 2014, 10:06:50 PMOK, in fairness, those are two different things. There are valid reasons why women (and men) should wear clothing appropriate to their activity.
There may be "valid reasons to wear appropriate clothing" as you say; that doesn't counter Meri's point that the message being sent to girls is that they are responsible for the boys' actions and reactions.
How are we defining "reaction"?
I don't see how school dress codes send any sort of "it's your fault you got raped" message. That's very different from "yes, wearing that top is going to draw attention."
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 10:25:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 10:22:39 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 03, 2014, 10:15:06 PM
Meri's point that the message being sent to girls is that they are responsible for the boys' actions and reactions.
Meri's point is overstated. Way overstated.
:huh:
How so? The girls' are told by administrators (ie Principal and Vice-Principal) that the reason they have the dresscode they have is to "avoid distractions in the classroom." I'm pretty sure the administrators aren't too concerned about the girls distracting one another, and there is no dress code for the boys at all.
Well, not to speak for derspiess, but that's the situation at one particular school. Your posts could be seen as claiming that it's universal. It's certainly not. Granted, there is an underlying attitude that's pretty widespeard, but it's not universal.
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 10:25:35 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 10:22:39 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 03, 2014, 10:15:06 PM
Meri's point that the message being sent to girls is that they are responsible for the boys' actions and reactions.
Meri's point is overstated. Way overstated.
:huh:
How so? The girls' are told by administrators (ie Principal and Vice-Principal) that the reason they have the dresscode they have is to "avoid distractions in the classroom." I'm pretty sure the administrators aren't too concerned about the girls distracting one another, and there is no dress code for the boys at all.
I just think you're exaggerating. The dress codes are meant to cut down on distractions. I don't see how it's telling girls they're to blame for boys' actions or reactions.
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 10:23:13 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 03, 2014, 10:11:09 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 03, 2014, 10:05:06 PM
LOL, too funny, watching Meri mix it up with "little-girls-should-be-nurses-and-little-boys-should-be-doctors" derfoetus.
I came too late to the party to play. :(
You started to play, but then deleted your post. :P
WE WERE BUSY
Quote from: dps on June 03, 2014, 10:35:01 PM
Well, not to speak for derspiess, but that's the situation at one particular school. Your posts could be seen as claiming that it's universal. It's certainly not. Granted, there is an underlying attitude that's pretty widespeard, but it's not universal.
According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, 57% of all schools have a "strict" dresscode, with another 19% made to wear uniforms. Dress codes are pretty standard anymore. And the standard rhetoric is that it's to "alleviate distractions".
LINK (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/crimeindicators2012/tables/table_20_1.asp)
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 10:35:58 PM
I just think you're exaggerating. The dress codes are meant to cut down on distractions. I don't see how it's telling girls they're to blame for boys' actions or reactions.
So... what kind of "distraction" is a spaghetti strap on a top? Or a pair of shorts that are shorter than fingertip length? Help me understand your point of view.
I'm sure you heard about the recent uproar in Utah where a school photoshopped pictures of students that had violated their dress code. The real sweetness of the story wasn't in the school or the photoshops, but in the local populace agreeing with the decision on the basis of removing temptation from their children. ^_^
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 10:45:45 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 10:35:58 PM
I just think you're exaggerating. The dress codes are meant to cut down on distractions. I don't see how it's telling girls they're to blame for boys' actions or reactions.
So... what kind of "distraction" is a spaghetti strap on a top? Or a pair of shorts that are shorter than fingertip length? Help me understand your point of view.
if a coworker wore that to work would you find it acceptable?
I went to catholic high school so both genders had a dress code, so I'm not aware of public schools codes. You say boys don't have a code, so could I guy go to class wife a wife beater or something if he wanted?
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 10:45:45 PM
Help me understand your point of view.
I don't think I can. I'm honestly fascinated by yours, though.
Quote from: HVC on June 03, 2014, 10:49:15 PM
if a coworker wore that to work would you find it acceptable?
Spaghetti straps are fine at my office. Shorts, however, of any length, are not. Not due to "distractions", but rather because we adhere to a business casual dress code. Tennis shoes are out, too. For everyone.
QuoteI went to catholic high school so both genders had a dress code, so I'm not aware of public schools codes. You say boys don't have a code, so could I guy go to class wife a wife beater or something if he wanted?
No t-shirts with rude statements (ie cuss words) or pictures (depicting excessive violence like blood), which is true for both genders. Wife beaters are fine.
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 10:51:27 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 10:45:45 PM
Help me understand your point of view.
I don't think I can. I'm honestly fascinated by yours, though.
Not really helping your case. Ah well. I'll take my distracting boobies and go away so you can think a little more clearly. :)
Meri, without discussing the details of any particular dress code, are there limits where a person of ordinary constitution is relieved of the responsibility of being one hundred percent in control of their thoughts, feelings, and inner life, as distinct from their actions, due to what other humans are or are not wearing?
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 10:57:14 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 10:51:27 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 10:45:45 PM
Help me understand your point of view.
I don't think I can. I'm honestly fascinated by yours, though.
Not really helping your case. Ah well. I'll take my distracting boobies and go away so you can think a little more clearly. :)
Meh-- we're just worlds apart on this issue. I'm almost too sleepy to be distracted by boobs anyway.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 03, 2014, 11:03:53 PM
Meri, without discussing the details of any particular dress code, are there limits where a person of ordinary constitution is relieved of the responsibility of being one hundred percent in control of their thoughts, feelings, and inner life, as distinct from their actions, due to other humans?
Sure...? I guess if someone was waving a loaded gun in your face, I'd wager you wouldn't be 100% in control of your thoughts, feelings, and inner life?
Quote from: Ideologue on June 03, 2014, 11:03:53 PM
Meri, without discussing the details of any particular dress code, are there limits where a person of ordinary constitution is relieved of the responsibility of being one hundred percent in control of their thoughts, feelings, and inner life, as distinct from their actions, due to what other humans are or are not wearing?
For some reason this reminds me of the old Beavis & Butthead episode where they sue some girl for sexual harassment because she keeps giving them erections :D
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 11:07:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 03, 2014, 11:03:53 PM
Meri, without discussing the details of any particular dress code, are there limits where a person of ordinary constitution is relieved of the responsibility of being one hundred percent in control of their thoughts, feelings, and inner life, as distinct from their actions, due to other humans?
Sure...? I guess if someone was waving a loaded gun in your face, I'd wager you wouldn't be 100% in control of your thoughts, feelings, and inner life?
I edited to be slightly more clear. I mean clothing.
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 10:44:35 PM
Quote from: dps on June 03, 2014, 10:35:01 PM
Well, not to speak for derspiess, but that's the situation at one particular school. Your posts could be seen as claiming that it's universal. It's certainly not. Granted, there is an underlying attitude that's pretty widespeard, but it's not universal.
According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, 57% of all schools have a "strict" dresscode, with another 19% made to wear uniforms. Dress codes are pretty standard anymore. And the standard rhetoric is that it's to "alleviate distractions".
LINK (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/crimeindicators2012/tables/table_20_1.asp)
I wonder what that (a "strict" dress code) actually means.
I thought my high school didn't have a dress code, but I later (after I graduated from college) found out that we did, apparantly. I never have found out what it was. Considering how we dressed sometimes, it either had to be a
very broad dress code, or else it was completely unenforced (given that none of the students were aware of it, I'd have to think the latter).
I kind of wished that chart went back further; I'd like to see if my high school was unusual, or if things have just changed that much over time.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 03, 2014, 11:14:20 PM
I edited to be slightly more clear. I mean clothing.
I suppose if you're a prude, nudity might do that for you. Of course, the dress code doesn't really make much sense in the grand scheme of things. If everyone is so concerned with boys' hormones getting the better of them, the dresscode as stated is kind of a joke.
This dress is to code:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.shefinds.com%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F11%2FHerve-Leger-Maxi.jpg&hash=2c7a0b5530c55bf2d3d313cb7d79d8528ffbcace)
This one is not:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boohoo.com%2Fcontent%2Febiz%2Fboohoo%2Finvt%2Fazz35322%2Fazz35322_black_default_xl.jpg&hash=4d1af3add16ad20b66e815f2aa8f478c8fcbb3ab)
QuoteIf everyone is so concerned with boys' hormones getting the better of them
Y'know, I get the impulse, but I'm not sure it's necessary to deride men as sexual beings. It's about as useful and conducive to dialogue as saying someone's dressed like a slut.
Anyway, I don't think either dress is really inappropriate for school, though the black one could be pushing it, but not for the straps (which I expect is why it doesn't pass muster).
....Aaaagh
IMPURE THOUGHTS COVER IT UP
Ooh, I like the purple one, that's nice.
Actually, I was gonna say that's inappropriate for school--unless the dress code is black fucking tie. :lol:
Fappity.
Thanks, Meri!:hug:
Quite the nice little package there in purple. :wub:
Is the issue that there is a dress code, or that the dress code is poorly written?
Quote from: frunk on June 04, 2014, 12:52:28 AM
Is the issue that there is a dress code, or that the dress code is poorly written?
I think the unnecessary conflation of the two issues is the source of the confusion.
It's been awhile...
Quote from: frunk on June 04, 2014, 12:52:28 AM
Is the issue that there is a dress code, or that the dress code is poorly written?
It's that boys are apparently allowed to wear tiny shorts or bare shoulders. Discrimination.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2014, 12:47:46 AM
Quite the nice little package there in purple. :wub:
No shit, right?
But for all the fashion
faux pas women accuse men of committing, it never ceases to amaze me how many manatees think they could actually fit into something like that, think it looks good, and wear it out in public.
THATS NO MOON THATS A MUFFINTOP
Now you did it :ph34r:
Good thing there was a man around to protect her. :thumbsup:
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 08:24:15 AM
Now you did it :ph34r:
You need to come back and visit East Baltimore, and see what the Jerry Springer audiences are wearing for the summer line-up. It's a tube top, not an innertube, lady:bleeding:
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 02:01:23 PM:lol: You went Full Meri. I sort of expected that.
Why do I have to lock my house and car. People should just not steal. :mad:
Quote from: Legbiter on June 04, 2014, 08:59:19 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 03, 2014, 02:01:23 PM:lol: You went Full Meri. I sort of expected that.
Why do I have to lock my house and car. People should just not steal. :mad:
No matter how many times I explain how this comparison completely fails it just keeps being made. Just FYI: the Saudis use this exact same argument to justify all their woman-hating laws so consider the company you are keeping.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2014, 09:02:15 AMNo matter how many times I explain how this comparison completely fails it just keeps being made. Just FYI: the Saudis use this exact same argument to justify all their woman-hating laws so consider the company you are keeping.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.fjcdn.com%2Fpictures%2FChildism_42ea08_4985149.png&hash=c3baefdaa4da95cbeb95dbbfd533bb12a316bd15)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2014, 08:49:56 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 08:24:15 AM
Now you did it :ph34r:
You need to come back and visit East Baltimore, and see what the Jerry Springer audiences are wearing for the summer line-up. It's a tube top, not an innertube, lady:bleeding:
I went to Kings Island this weekend (including the water park area), so I'm up to speed on that :mellow:
Quote from: frunk on June 04, 2014, 12:52:28 AM
Is the issue that there is a dress code, or that the dress code is poorly written?
The justification for the dress code.
I talked to my daughter about the dress code a few weeks ago. She walked up to me and said, "Do you think schools should have a dress code?"
I said, "Yes, because school is kind of like your job. There's a particular way that you are supposed to conduct yourself in certain places, and that includes dress and manners. Having a dress code helps teach you those manners and how best to conduct yourself. Why?"
She said, "Well your answer is better than Mr. Williams'." (Mr. Williams is the principal.) That's when I heard about the "distractions" justification. She said, "So, basically, the principal has said that it's my fault if a boy can't concentrate on his school work because I wore a shirt that's too tight, or a skirt that's too short. And that's bullsh-- er.. crap."
That's a problem.
Yeah, that is a problem. She shouldn't be using that language. It's unladylike :angry:
:P
Quote from: Legbiter on June 04, 2014, 08:59:19 AM
Why do I have to lock my house and car. People should just not steal. :mad:
Even assuming this is a reasonable equivalency, I don't see how it should make a significant difference. I'd still expect the police to prosecute the thief, and the penalties should be just as harsh as if they broke into the house/car. Theft is still theft.
Quote from: frunk on June 04, 2014, 10:01:23 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 04, 2014, 08:59:19 AM
Why do I have to lock my house and car. People should just not steal. :mad:
Even assuming this is a reasonable equivalency, I don't see how it should make a significant difference. I'd still expect the police to prosecute the thief, and the penalties should be just as harsh as if they broke into the house/car. Theft is still theft.
I suspect both sides in this argument are all for punishing rapists.
I think the unstated assuption against the analogy is that, if only men were properly educated, they would not sexually assault women - that it is basically a cultural thing ("rape culture") that can be cured/prevented by changing the culture.
In contrast, those using the analogy are more of the view that rapists are bad people who like to rape, just as theives are bad people who like to steal, and that changing the culture isn't going to do anything to prevent them.
The difference here is that, for those who believe this is basically a cultural issue, imposing dress codes on women indirectly supports the very culture that encourages rape in the first place. For those who see rape as a crime akin to stealing, i.e. something everyone realizes is bad, but that some do anyway because they like to, dress codes and the like are merely sensible precautions, to avoid attracting attention from the bad guys.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 03, 2014, 11:03:53 PM
Meri, without discussing the details of any particular dress code, are there limits where a person of ordinary constitution is relieved of the responsibility of being one hundred percent in control of their thoughts, feelings, and inner life, as distinct from their actions, due to what other humans are or are not wearing?
No.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2014, 10:20:33 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 03, 2014, 11:03:53 PM
Meri, without discussing the details of any particular dress code, are there limits where a person of ordinary constitution is relieved of the responsibility of being one hundred percent in control of their thoughts, feelings, and inner life, as distinct from their actions, due to what other humans are or are not wearing?
No.
Correct. But why?
Quote from: frunk on June 04, 2014, 10:01:23 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 04, 2014, 08:59:19 AM
Why do I have to lock my house and car. People should just not steal. :mad:
Even assuming this is a reasonable equivalency, I don't see how it should make a significant difference. I'd still expect the police to prosecute the thief, and the penalties should be just as harsh as if they broke into the house/car. Theft is still theft.
QuoteThese girls say, "Well, I should be able to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy's room without anything happening." And I say, "Oh, really? And when you drive your car into New York City, do you leave your keys on the hood?" My point is that if your car is stolen after you do something like that, yes, the police should pursue the thief and he should be punished. But at the same time, the police – and I – have the right to say to you, "You stupid idiot, what the hell were you thinking?"
Quote from: frunk on June 04, 2014, 10:01:23 AMEven assuming this is a reasonable equivalency, I don't see how it should make a significant difference. I'd still expect the police to prosecute the thief, and the penalties should be just as harsh as if they broke into the house/car. Theft is still theft.
Nothing I disagree with here.
I find this notion that you can just wag a finger, go tut-tut and tell a rapist not to rape laughable. It's just such a delusional naive white American college chick burgeois way of seeing the world. Or it's a doctrinaire feminist's peevish, grudging rancor against men. Either way, it's stupid, it's a dangerous world out there and it's up to you to protect yourself. The lack of imagination for criminality amazes even me, and I live in a pretty docile place.
I guess I must have a very criminal mind. :hmm:
I am unconvinced that we should send young women into a minefield just because the minefield really shouldn't be there.
Quote from: Malthus on June 04, 2014, 10:12:23 AM
The difference here is that, for those who believe this is basically a cultural issue, imposing dress codes on women indirectly supports the very culture that encourages rape in the first place. For those who see rape as a crime akin to stealing, i.e. something everyone realizes is bad, but that some do anyway because they like to, dress codes and the like are merely sensible precautions, to avoid attracting attention from the bad guys.
Well I guess to me the culture is putting restrictions on the freedom of women, as if somehow it is their responsibility to protect the rapists. The only people who should have restrictions on their freedom is rapists.
And the problem is that the rapists are often flawed human beings who fucked up and not necessarily bad guys. Then there is this weird cultural dynamic where somehow they get seen as the victims here. That is fucked. But that is not the only thing.
The other part is making these sensible precautions rules and laws and putting social pressure on women to do these precautions. Sure I want to lock up my shit but how fucked would it be if I got punished for not doing so or was scolded for tempting the goddamn thieves? I mean how could the poor criminally minded stay on the straight and narrow with all those unlocked houses around to steal from?
Obviously going over to the frat party with just a thong and pasties on after consuming a bottle of vodka is a stupid life choice. However the expectation is still that should somebody do that, no horrible crimes will be committed against her. And if there are then somebody's ass should be locked up.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 04, 2014, 10:27:37 AM
I find this notion that you can just wag a finger, go tut-tut and tell a rapist not to rape laughable. It's just such a delusional naive white American college chick burgeois way of seeing the world. Or it's a doctrinaire feminist's peevish, grudging rancor against men. Either way, it's stupid, it's a dangerous world out there and it's up to you to protect yourself. The lack of imagination for criminality amazes even me, and I live in a pretty docile place.
I guess I must have a very criminal mind. :hmm:
I would think that teaching women to take common sense measures to avoid dangerous situations and to defend themselves if they get in a bad situation would be empowering and therefore a good thing from a feminist point of view. But it seems patriarchal, to use their term, to ignore that and encourage women to think of themselves as helpless victims.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 04, 2014, 10:27:37 AM
I find this notion that you can just wag a finger, go tut-tut and tell a rapist not to rape laughable. It's just such a delusional naive white American college chick burgeois way of seeing the world. Or it's a doctrinaire feminist's peevish, grudging rancor against men. Either way, it's stupid, it's a dangerous world out there and it's up to you to protect yourself. The lack of imagination for criminality amazes even me, and I live in a pretty docile place.
I guess I must have a very criminal mind. :hmm:
I guess I like to think we are not subhuman monstrous scum by and large. I think people should expect that if a woman wears a tight skirt dudes can act appropriately. If he does not than that is on him.
But maybe I just have a grudging rancor against men for thinking we are human beings and not animals.
I find this notion people should be forced to accommodate criminals laughable as well.
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 10:42:02 AM
I would think that teaching women to take common sense measures to avoid dangerous situations and to defend themselves if they get in a bad situation would be empowering and therefore a good thing from a feminist point of view. But it seems patriarchal, to use their term, to ignore that and encourage women to think of themselves as helpless victims.
Teaching? Sure. Forcing? No. The force and social pressure should be on criminals not law abiding citizens.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2014, 10:38:25 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 04, 2014, 10:12:23 AM
The difference here is that, for those who believe this is basically a cultural issue, imposing dress codes on women indirectly supports the very culture that encourages rape in the first place. For those who see rape as a crime akin to stealing, i.e. something everyone realizes is bad, but that some do anyway because they like to, dress codes and the like are merely sensible precautions, to avoid attracting attention from the bad guys.
Well I guess to me the culture is putting restrictions on the freedom of women, as if somehow it is their responsibility to protect the rapists. The only people who should have restrictions on their freedom is rapists.
Agreed - but I think a more accurate description is "...it is theor responsibility to protect themselves
from the rapists".
Quote
And the problem is that the rapists are often flawed human beings who fucked up and not necessarily bad guys. Then there is this weird cultural dynamic where somehow they get seen as the victims here. That is fucked. But that is not the only thing.
This is, in a nutshell, the "culture" theory: that it isn't simply an immoral choice, but a product of a culture that pushes men to be rapists. The other side sees them as bad guys, pure and simple. Isn't though seeing them as "often flawed human beings who fucked up and not necessarily bad guys" in a way seeing
them as, in a way, the victims? Of a flawed culture?
QuoteThe other part is making these sensible precautions rules and laws and putting social pressure on women to do these precautions. Sure I want to lock up my shit but how fucked would it be if I got punished for not doing so or was scolded for tempting the goddamn thieves? I mean how could the poor criminally minded stay on the straight and narrow with all those unlocked houses around to steal from?
I agree that punishing women for not taking precautions makes no sense. How often does that happen, though?
QuoteObviously going over to the frat party with just a thong and pasties on after consuming a bottle of vodka is a stupid life choice. However the expectation is still that should somebody do that, no horrible crimes will be committed against her. And if there are then somebody's ass should be locked up.
Agreed - in fact, looking back on it, in HS we had parties that had mostly-naked women in them, plus copious drug and alcohol use by everyone, and no rapes ... but then, the guest list was carefully selected. :) In fact, that's where I met my best friend - I was called on to paint her costume on at such a party. :D That was one crazy night.
Quote from: Malthus on June 04, 2014, 10:51:13 AM
I agree that punishing women for not taking precautions makes no sense. How often does that happen, though?
Probably about 80-90% of the time. Do people just not read about rape trials?
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2014, 10:25:10 AM
QuoteThese girls say, "Well, I should be able to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy's room without anything happening." And I say, "Oh, really? And when you drive your car into New York City, do you leave your keys on the hood?" My point is that if your car is stolen after you do something like that, yes, the police should pursue the thief and he should be punished. But at the same time, the police – and I – have the right to say to you, "You stupid idiot, what the hell were you thinking?"
No question, there are people who act like idiots and are surprised when it goes wrong. I'd never defend such behavior as being smart, or wise, or unrisky. To me there's a big difference between passing out at a frat party and "dressing provocatively" being considered "leaving the car unlocked with the keys on the hood".
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2014, 10:54:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 04, 2014, 10:51:13 AM
I agree that punishing women for not taking precautions makes no sense. How often does that happen, though?
Probably about 80-90% of the time. Do people just not read about rape trials?
Uh, what exactly do you mean? That rapists are found not guilty 80-90% of the time because the victim failed to take precautions?
That sounds nuts to me.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2014, 10:54:58 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 04, 2014, 10:51:13 AM
I agree that punishing women for not taking precautions makes no sense. How often does that happen, though?
Probably about 80-90% of the time. Do people just not read about rape trials?
This statistic pulled freshly from Tim's ass.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2014, 10:43:08 AMI find this notion people should be forced to accommodate criminals laughable as well.
:huh:
Quote from: frunk on June 04, 2014, 10:57:59 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 04, 2014, 10:25:10 AM
QuoteThese girls say, "Well, I should be able to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy's room without anything happening." And I say, "Oh, really? And when you drive your car into New York City, do you leave your keys on the hood?" My point is that if your car is stolen after you do something like that, yes, the police should pursue the thief and he should be punished. But at the same time, the police – and I – have the right to say to you, "You stupid idiot, what the hell were you thinking?"
No question, there are people who act like idiots and are surprised when it goes wrong. I'd never defend such behavior as being smart, or wise, or unrisky. To me there's a big difference between passing out at a frat party and "dressing provocatively" being considered "leaving the car unlocked with the keys on the hood".
Agreed.
I fingerbanged a total stranger chick at the Chemlab/White Zombie show in '94. Just had to throw that out there.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2014, 10:38:25 AM
Obviously going over to the frat party with just a thong and pasties on after consuming a bottle of vodka is a stupid life choice. However the expectation is still that should somebody do that, no horrible crimes will be committed against her. And if there are then somebody's ass should be locked up.
Actually I think that gets murky. Then we can run into the issue of whether a crime was committed vs. someone regrets decisions they made.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2014, 11:14:50 AM
I fingerbanged a total stranger chick at the Chemlab/White Zombie show in '94. Just had to throw that out there.
Did you ask for and receive explicit permission first? And did you have her sign a release or anything?
Anyway that was a fun year, back when Rob Zombie was still cool.
What is the difference in likelihood between a woman passed out at a frat house being raped and a man passed out in a frat house being robbed?
Quote from: frunk on June 04, 2014, 11:32:22 AM
and a man passed out in a frat house being robbed?
Or have hilarious and embarrassing pictures taken of him. Not that I have any knowledge of such incidents.
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 11:40:54 AM
Or have hilarious and embarrassing pictures taken of him. Not that I have any knowledge of such incidents.
I'm assuming that's almost guaranteed, and not criminal.
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 11:21:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2014, 11:14:50 AM
I fingerbanged a total stranger chick at the Chemlab/White Zombie show in '94. Just had to throw that out there.
Did you ask for and receive explicit permission first? And did you have her sign a release or anything?
Anyway that was a fun year, back when Rob Zombie was still cool.
Sinking her teeth into my shoulder to muffle her orgasm while trying to stay upright implied consent. There's actual legal precedent for that, you know.
But yeah, Zombie went all fucking Gwar with the horror schtick after that. Bor-ring.
Quote from: frunk on June 04, 2014, 11:32:22 AM
What is the difference in likelihood between a woman passed out at a frat house being raped and a man passed out in a frat house being robbed?
Well taking money from a passed out individual is theft, not robbery.
And the difference between rape and theft should be pretty obvious.
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2014, 12:24:16 PM
Quote from: frunk on June 04, 2014, 11:32:22 AM
What is the difference in likelihood between a woman passed out at a frat house being raped and a man passed out in a frat house being robbed?
Well taking money from a passed out individual is theft, not robbery.
And the difference between rape and theft should be pretty obvious.
"difference
in the likelihood" :contract:
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2014, 12:24:16 PM
Well taking money from a passed out individual is theft, not robbery.
I didn't fully understand the distinction, thanks.
Quote
And the difference between rape and theft should be pretty obvious.
As Meri said, which one is more likely to happen, not that I can't tell the difference between the two.
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 11:21:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2014, 11:14:50 AM
I fingerbanged a total stranger chick at the Chemlab/White Zombie show in '94. Just had to throw that out there.
Did you ask for and receive explicit permission first? And did you have her sign a release or anything?
Anyway that was a fun year, back when Rob Zombie was still cool.
Well that settles it. If we get a time machine we set it back to 1994.
1994 was a shitty year.
1991 would be better, and then we can ramp up accordingly.
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2014, 12:24:16 PM
Quote from: frunk on June 04, 2014, 11:32:22 AM
What is the difference in likelihood between a woman passed out at a frat house being raped and a man passed out in a frat house being robbed?
Well taking money from a passed out individual is theft, not robbery.
Is that correct? My recollection is that robbery doesn't require an assault and battery, only a battery. Then again, you're the one who prosecutes such things.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 04, 2014, 12:53:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2014, 12:24:16 PM
Quote from: frunk on June 04, 2014, 11:32:22 AM
What is the difference in likelihood between a woman passed out at a frat house being raped and a man passed out in a frat house being robbed?
Well taking money from a passed out individual is theft, not robbery.
Is that correct? My recollection is that robbery doesn't require an assault and battery, only a battery. Then again, you're the one who prosecutes such things.
May be difference useage in the US, but a quick googling seems to indicate I am right.
Robbery is taking property by violence or threats of violence. I was actually just dealing with a file where the Accuseds were charged with one count of theft (for rummaging through a passed out drunk's belongings at a LRT stop) and one count of robbery (for threatening someone to give them their cell phone and money).
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2014, 12:49:24 PM
1991 would be better, and then we can ramp up accordingly.
1991 was fun. I graduated high school and started college that year. But then I was still in West Virginia. Started at Delaware in 1994, so 1994 still wins in my book. But there was not a bad year in the 90s.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2014, 12:49:24 PM
1991 would be better, and then we can ramp up accordingly.
Okay, I'm cool with that.
1991. High school. Blech. No thanks.
Plus having to re-live the Meech Lake / Charlottetown Accords drama? Yech.
1991 :wub:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdesigncrave.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F01%2FDC0111SB-26.jpg&hash=2dec22c354693b01706be7538285c32ca2d72f51)
Enjoy it, Foreskins. It'll be 2051 before you see one again.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2014, 01:24:06 PM
Enjoy it, Foreskins. It'll be 2051 before you see one again.
I hope so. I would have a chance to live long enough to see it.
In that case, 2081. Cant give you the satisfaction:p
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2014, 12:58:47 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 04, 2014, 12:53:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 04, 2014, 12:24:16 PM
Quote from: frunk on June 04, 2014, 11:32:22 AM
What is the difference in likelihood between a woman passed out at a frat house being raped and a man passed out in a frat house being robbed?
Well taking money from a passed out individual is theft, not robbery.
Is that correct? My recollection is that robbery doesn't require an assault and battery, only a battery. Then again, you're the one who prosecutes such things.
May be difference useage in the US, but a quick googling seems to indicate I am right.
Robbery is taking property by violence or threats of violence. I was actually just dealing with a file where the Accuseds were charged with one count of theft (for rummaging through a passed out drunk's belongings at a LRT stop) and one count of robbery (for threatening someone to give them their cell phone and money).
Looking at SC and NC, statutes tend to leave it defined as under the common law, and my understanding of that is that it requires force
or threat of force. Rifling through someone's pockets is force.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2014, 08:16:55 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 04, 2014, 12:47:46 AM
Quite the nice little package there in purple. :wub:
No shit, right?
But for all the fashion faux pas women accuse men of committing, it never ceases to amaze me how many manatees think they could actually fit into something like that, think it looks good, and wear it out in public.
THATS NO MOON THATS A MUFFINTOP
#YesAllWomen
:lol: What the hell was the #yesallwomen thing anyway? It was all over twitter a week or so ago.
Oh, Lord.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2014, 02:00:32 PM
:lol: What the hell was the #yesallwomen thing anyway? It was all over twitter a week or so ago.
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 09:58:04 PM
There are worldwide movements meant to bring on these kinds of discussions. Movements like #YesAllWoman, which means that yes, all women have been harassed or sexually demeaned at some point in their lives because of their gender. There is not a single woman that I have met who hasn't had to adjust something she's done to protect herself simply because she's female. Something that a man wouldn't even think about, but all women have to, like never walking away from a drink at the bar and then coming back to it.
And there it is.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2014, 02:00:32 PM
:lol: What the hell was the #yesallwomen thing anyway? It was all over twitter a week or so ago.
Chicks making the Elliot Rodger rampage all about themselves because 2 of his six victims were women. Resulted in quite a bit of attention-whoring on social media as you'd expect.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 04, 2014, 03:07:50 PM
Chicks making the Elliot Rodger rampage all about themselves because 2 of his six victims were women. Resulted in quite a bit of attention-whoring on social media as you'd expect.
Have they at least realized that there were 4 guys killed? When it all happened, it seemed to be mis-reported and then repeated over & over on Twitter, Facebook, etc. that all 6 victims were women.
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 04:33:48 PM
Have they at least realized that there were 4 guys killed?
Well he did declare he was going to shoot women for not giving him the sex he was entitled to and then he shot down four men. I can only assume his mental illness made it difficult to determine gender at a distance.
This isn't about a lone madperson.
Meri: THIS IS WHAT SPAGHETTI STRAPS LEAD TO
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/sex-on-school-bus-guilty-plea-576324
Queefing is caused by spaghetti straps?
See this is what the sad state of American Sex education has reduced us to :(
Quote from: merithyn on June 04, 2014, 02:52:27 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2014, 02:00:32 PM
:lol: What the hell was the #yesallwomen thing anyway? It was all over twitter a week or so ago.
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 09:58:04 PM
There are worldwide movements meant to bring on these kinds of discussions. Movements like #YesAllWoman, which means that yes, all women have been harassed or sexually demeaned at some point in their lives because of their gender. There is not a single woman that I have met who hasn't had to adjust something she's done to protect herself simply because she's female. Something that a man wouldn't even think about, but all women have to, like never walking away from a drink at the bar and then coming back to it.
That is not terribly surprising. I have had obscene stuff yelled at me by women, been randomly propositioned, and grabbed before. But, you know, drunk people. Also not really very scary for men....well scary but not in a fear for my safety sort of way. Now the fear about being drugged thing, that is pretty fucked.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2014, 04:58:01 PM
Queefing is caused by spaghetti straps?
See this is what the sad state of American Sex education has reduced us to :(
No, bus sex you goof.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2014, 04:42:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 04:33:48 PM
Have they at least realized that there were 4 guys killed?
Well he did declare he was going to shoot women for not giving him the sex he was entitled to and then he shot down four men. I can only assume his mental illness made it difficult to determine gender at a distance.
Yeah, I think given his stated motives, it's a pretty poor platform to stand on.
Quote from: ValThat is not terribly surprising. I have had obscene stuff yelled at me by women, been randomly propositioned, and grabbed before. But, you know, drunk people. Also not really very scary for men....well scary but not in a fear for my safety sort of way.
I've been sexually harassed semi-seriously at the gay bar in Columbia. I found it more obnoxious than anything, though if it hadn't been a dude smaller than me and a bit grabbier, it would've generated a meaner response, despite the fact you don't really want to be the straight guy berating (or hitting) a gay guy in a crowd of gay men.
Overall, I got a real sense of what I'd be like if were a woman--it's actually tremendously validating for a few minutes but from someone you don't have any interest in, it becomes almost immediately tiresome.
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 04:43:38 PM
Meri: THIS IS WHAT SPAGHETTI STRAPS LEAD TO
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/sex-on-school-bus-guilty-plea-576324
#Misandry
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 09:58:04 PM
Quote from: Camerus on June 03, 2014, 09:32:20 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 03, 2014, 04:54:12 PM
I didn't say we couldn't. I said that the balance right now is on teaching girls how to avoid rape rather than on teaching boys (and girls) what rape, harassment, and unwanted assault is.
That would definitely be worrisome if that were the case. What evidence gives you the impression that it is?
Well, having had discussions with my children going through the public school systems, the topic of what constitutes rape is barely touched on in Health and Sex Ed classes. However, how girls should avoid being raped is a common discussion throughout school Health classes starting in the 8th grade. Dress codes exist only for girls (shorts fingertip length, straps two-finger width, etc) to avoid "distracting" boys in the classroom. (That is the exact reason given for the dress codes. As if boys are incapable of controlling their urges when a girl in a short skirt walks into the room, therefore it's the girl's responsibility.)
This is a common discussion among many of my friends from around the US. The lessons learned are that a girl's job is to do everything in her power to avoid being raped, because boys will be boys and you can't count on them to do the right thing. That is the focus.
There are worldwide movements meant to bring on these kinds of discussions. Movements like #YesAllWoman, which means that yes, all women have been harassed or sexually demeaned at some point in their lives because of their gender. There is not a single woman that I have met who hasn't had to adjust something she's done to protect herself simply because she's female. Something that a man wouldn't even think about, but all women have to, like never walking away from a drink at the bar and then coming back to it.
Do I have statistics to back this up? No, I'm sorry; I don't.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing your perspective. :)
#Yesallmen #SaveOurTesticles
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2014, 05:00:31 PM
That is not terribly surprising. I have had obscene stuff yelled at me by women, been randomly propositioned, and grabbed before. But, you know, drunk people. Also not really very scary for men....well scary but not in a fear for my safety sort of way. Now the fear about being drugged thing, that is pretty fucked.
Let me state this better. This is not surprising since even I have had those things happen to me. But for me they were bizarre anecdotes. It is a little unusual for women to cat call men. So, given that, it would be surprising for any woman to have gone through her entire life and never had something like that happen. The protect yourself thing is more scary and that is the part that is more female only unless you are in an environment like prison where men prey on men.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2014, 10:38:25 AM
And the problem is that the rapists are often flawed human beings who fucked up and not necessarily bad guys. Then there is this weird cultural dynamic where somehow they get seen as the victims here. That is fucked.
If you're going to look at them as flawed human being who fucked up and not as bad guys, then then of course there's going to be a tendency to see them as, well, maybe not victims, but in a somewhat sympathetic light. And I say fuck that. I don't have any sympathy for rapists and other sexual predators.
All of us have made mistakes and done stupid and sometimes even awful things. God knows I have. But most of us have never raped anybody. I hope most of us haven't, anyway. At least, I know I haven't.
Quote
I guess I like to think we are not subhuman monstrous scum by and large.
By and large, no, we're not. But some men are. Why is it so horrible to explain to young women that they should take reasonable measures to protect themselves against the monsters?
QuoteI think people should expect that if a woman wears a tight skirt dudes can act appropriately. If he does not than that is on him.
Well, yeah. Most guys will act appropriately, and those that don't deserve to be punished by the legal system. Is it unfortunate that women have reason to worry that some men won't behave appropriately? Sure. Should women who make poor decisions and get victimized be punished by the legal system? Of course not. Or should the fact that a woman who was victimized had made poor decisions be a mitigating circumstance in the sentence given to the man who victimized her. Absolutely not.
Quote from: Valmy on June 04, 2014, 04:42:31 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 04, 2014, 04:33:48 PM
Have they at least realized that there were 4 guys killed?
Well he did declare he was going to shoot women for not giving him the sex he was entitled to and then he shot down four men. I can only assume his mental illness made it difficult to determine gender at a distance.
Actually ... if you read his "manifesto", his announced intention was to kill
everyone, men and women alike. He also announced he was, in essence, a god, and that his killing spree would make him even more god-like.
In short ... nuttier than squirrel shit.
BUT BUT BUT.... misyogny!
#WomenNeedToShutUp
Quote from: dps on June 05, 2014, 01:12:08 AM
If you're going to look at them as flawed human being who fucked up and not as bad guys, then then of course there's going to be a tendency to see them as, well, maybe not victims, but in a somewhat sympathetic light. And I say fuck that. I don't have any sympathy for rapists and other sexual predators.
All of us have made mistakes and done stupid and sometimes even awful things. God knows I have. But most of us have never raped anybody. I hope most of us haven't, anyway. At least, I know I haven't.
By and large, no, we're not. But some men are. Why is it so horrible to explain to young women that they should take reasonable measures to protect themselves against the monsters?
Well, yeah. Most guys will act appropriately, and those that don't deserve to be punished by the legal system. Is it unfortunate that women have reason to worry that some men won't behave appropriately? Sure. Should women who make poor decisions and get victimized be punished by the legal system? Of course not. Or should the fact that a woman who was victimized had made poor decisions be a mitigating circumstance in the sentence given to the man who victimized her. Absolutely not.
Given that 18.3%* of adult women (1 in 5) have been raped at some point in their lives, either there are some very active monsters out there, or more men rape than you think.
CDC says this about perpetrators:
QuoteIn a nationally representative survey:1
• Among female rape victims, perpetrators were reported to be intimate partners (51.1%), family
members (12.5%), acquaintances (40.8%) and strangers (13.8%).
• Among male rape victims, perpetrators were reported to be acquaintances (52.4%) and strangers 15.1%).
• Among male victims who were made to penetrate someone else, perpetrators were reported to be intimate partners (44.8%), acquaintances (44.7%) and strangers (8.2%).
*According to the CDC at this link (http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-datasheet-a.pdf)
I notice Meri is not particularly outraged by the adult female hitting the male child in his genital area and getting away with a slap on the wrist in the link I posted.
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 08:55:43 AM
Quote from: dps on June 05, 2014, 01:12:08 AM
If you're going to look at them as flawed human being who fucked up and not as bad guys, then then of course there's going to be a tendency to see them as, well, maybe not victims, but in a somewhat sympathetic light. And I say fuck that. I don't have any sympathy for rapists and other sexual predators.
All of us have made mistakes and done stupid and sometimes even awful things. God knows I have. But most of us have never raped anybody. I hope most of us haven't, anyway. At least, I know I haven't.
By and large, no, we're not. But some men are. Why is it so horrible to explain to young women that they should take reasonable measures to protect themselves against the monsters?
Well, yeah. Most guys will act appropriately, and those that don't deserve to be punished by the legal system. Is it unfortunate that women have reason to worry that some men won't behave appropriately? Sure. Should women who make poor decisions and get victimized be punished by the legal system? Of course not. Or should the fact that a woman who was victimized had made poor decisions be a mitigating circumstance in the sentence given to the man who victimized her. Absolutely not.
Given that 18.3%* of adult women (1 in 5) have been raped at some point in their lives, either there are some very active monsters out there, or more men rape than you think.
CDC says this about perpetrators:
QuoteIn a nationally representative survey:1
• Among female rape victims, perpetrators were reported to be intimate partners (51.1%), family
members (12.5%), acquaintances (40.8%) and strangers (13.8%).
• Among male rape victims, perpetrators were reported to be acquaintances (52.4%) and strangers 15.1%).
• Among male victims who were made to penetrate someone else, perpetrators were reported to be intimate partners (44.8%), acquaintances (44.7%) and strangers (8.2%).
*According to the CDC at this link (http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-datasheet-a.pdf)
According to the same survey, 1 in 20 men were "made to penetrate someone else". This was really surprising to me. Seems there are monsters on both sides of the equation. :hmm:
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 09:01:32 AM
I notice Meri is not particularly outraged by the adult female hitting the male child in his genital area and getting away with a slap on the wrist in the link I posted.
White males. :rolleyes:
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 09:01:32 AM
I notice Meri is not particularly outraged by the adult female hitting the male child in his genital area and getting away with a slap on the wrist in the link I posted.
I personally am unclear why a 13 year old is on a bus with 18 year olds in the first place. Maybe he skipped a grade. What would be an appropriate punishment for a fight between students in a school? Death?
The Congolese war zone rape statistics cooked up by hystericals are amusing. It would mean that millions upon millions of American women were forcibly raped every year. If 1 in 4 or 5 of women were raped there is no way in hell that women could even go to the grocery store without risking a major assault. Male guardians would be essential for every female social interaction with the outside world, no matter how brief or innocuous.
It's a bald-faced preposterous lie and a calumny against men
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 09:01:32 AM
I notice Meri is not particularly outraged by the adult female hitting the male child in his genital area and getting away with a slap on the wrist in the link I posted.
I haven't been "particularly outraged" by any of this. If I were "particularly outraged" by all of it, I would never not be "particularly outraged".
What, exactly, would you have liked my response to that to be? "Put the girl in the clink for 20 years, goddamn it! She has clearly sexually assaulted a child!"?
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 09:03:56 AM
According to the same survey, 1 in 20 men were "made to penetrate someone else". This was really surprising to me. Seems there are monsters on both sides of the equation. :hmm:
Dude I knew a kid whose mother made him have sex with her on a regular basis and would guilt him into it. Weird shit.
But also keep in mind male-on-male rape is absurdly high in the US, I think largely because of our prison system and its culture.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 09:07:19 AM
I personally am unclear why a 13 year old is on a bus with 18 year olds in the first place. Maybe he skipped a grade.
Beats the hell out of me.
QuoteWhat would be an appropriate punishment for a fight between students in a school? Death?
It wasn't a fight. But turn the tables & let's say an 18 year old male punched a 13 year old female in the genital area-- after he had sex in front of her on a school bus. There'd be hell to pay.
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 09:13:24 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 09:01:32 AM
I notice Meri is not particularly outraged by the adult female hitting the male child in his genital area and getting away with a slap on the wrist in the link I posted.
I haven't been "particularly outraged" by any of this. If I were "particularly outraged" by all of it, I would never not be "particularly outraged".
What, exactly, would you have liked my response to that to be? "Put the girl in the clink for 20 years, goddamn it! She has clearly sexually assaulted a child!"?
I was just yanking your chain. Mostly.
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 09:17:56 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 09:13:24 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 09:01:32 AM
I notice Meri is not particularly outraged by the adult female hitting the male child in his genital area and getting away with a slap on the wrist in the link I posted.
I haven't been "particularly outraged" by any of this. If I were "particularly outraged" by all of it, I would never not be "particularly outraged".
What, exactly, would you have liked my response to that to be? "Put the girl in the clink for 20 years, goddamn it! She has clearly sexually assaulted a child!"?
I was just yanking your chain. Mostly.
Sounds like Misogyny to me, white male.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 09:07:19 AM
I personally am unclear why a 13 year old is on a bus with 18 year olds in the first place. Maybe he skipped a grade. What would be an appropriate punishment for a fight between students in a school? Death?
Our Junior High/High School (7-12, ages 13-18) was effectively one building. Technically it was two buildings but they were attached and had shared cafeteria/auditorium/music room etc. The same school bus would take all of us.
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 09:03:56 AM
According to the same survey, 1 in 20 men were "made to penetrate someone else". This was really surprising to me. Seems there are monsters on both sides of the equation. :hmm:
Assuming their partners were women.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 05, 2014, 09:09:30 AM
The Congolese war zone rape statistics cooked up by hystericals are amusing. It would mean that millions upon millions of American women were forcibly raped every year. If 1 in 4 or 5 of women were raped there is no way in hell that women could even go to the grocery store without risking a major assault. Male guardians would be essential for every female social interaction with the outside world, no matter how brief or innocuous.
It's a bald-faced preposterous lie and a calumny against men
Interesting stats on that doc for a "bald-face preposterous lie":
Quote• During 2004-2006, an estimated 105,187 females and 6,526 males aged 10-24 years received medical care in U.S. emergency departments as a result of nonfatal injuries sustained from a sexual assault.
• Rape results in about 32,000 pregnancies each year.
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 09:17:11 AM
It wasn't a fight. But turn the tables & let's say an 18 year old male punched a 13 year old female in the genital area-- after he had sex in front of her on a school bus. There'd be hell to pay.
Would there be? I mean this girl is basically the whore of the century according to the comment section of that article and this thing did go to trial. Sounds like she is pretty fucked to me.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 05, 2014, 09:09:30 AM
The Congolese war zone rape statistics cooked up by hystericals are amusing. It would mean that millions upon millions of American women were forcibly raped every year. If 1 in 4 or 5 of women were raped there is no way in hell that women could even go to the grocery store without risking a major assault. Male guardians would be essential for every female social interaction with the outside world, no matter how brief or innocuous.
It's a bald-faced preposterous lie and a calumny against men
It does seem a bit high. Makes me feel almost like I've lived in a bubble since I'm very unfamiliar personally with any cases of rape.
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 09:20:40 AM
Assuming their partners were women.
Well 1% (and rising! Wahoo!) of all rapists are women. But some of those would surely be woman-on-woman. The also have prison as well naturally.
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 09:17:11 AM
It wasn't a fight. But turn the tables & let's say an 18 year old male punched a 13 year old female in the genital area-- after he had sex in front of her on a school bus. There'd be hell to pay.
Not from me, if the circumstances were the same. I'd probably be put out that an 18-year-old boy would hit a 13-year-old anyone, but especially a girl, because of the difference in strength. That's probably not the case for an 18-year-old girl and a 13-year old boy, however. (I could be wrong on this individual, but in general that's probably the case.)
But under the circumstances, I'd do the exact same thing as I did when I read the article the first time: roll my eyes and grumble about "kids these days".
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 09:21:40 AMIt does seem a bit high. Makes me feel almost like I've lived in a bubble since I'm very unfamiliar personally with any cases of rape.
It dosen't pass the smell test.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 09:20:50 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 09:17:11 AM
It wasn't a fight. But turn the tables & let's say an 18 year old male punched a 13 year old female in the genital area-- after he had sex in front of her on a school bus. There'd be hell to pay.
Would there be? I mean this girl is basically the whore of the century according to the comment section of that article and this thing did go to trial. Sounds like she is pretty fucked to me.
No. She worked out a plea bargain where the charges were reduced to physical harassment or somesuch, all fines waived, plus apparently they aren't releasing her name.
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 09:21:40 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 05, 2014, 09:09:30 AM
The Congolese war zone rape statistics cooked up by hystericals are amusing. It would mean that millions upon millions of American women were forcibly raped every year. If 1 in 4 or 5 of women were raped there is no way in hell that women could even go to the grocery store without risking a major assault. Male guardians would be essential for every female social interaction with the outside world, no matter how brief or innocuous.
It's a bald-faced preposterous lie and a calumny against men
It does seem a bit high. Makes me feel almost like I've lived in a bubble since I'm very unfamiliar personally with any cases of rape.
Not entirely true. You know me, and I'm a victim of rape (twice, actually).
And given the way women are treated after a rape - especially date-rape - you think women trot that out as a topic of conversation? I was well into my 30s before I admitted that I'd been raped when I was 16 and 20. It took me that long to realize that it wasn't actually my fault that it had happened.
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 09:21:40 AM
It does seem a bit high. Makes me feel almost like I've lived in a bubble since I'm very unfamiliar personally with any cases of rape.
Rape has a history in my family. My Great-Aunt was raped at the University of Oklahoma in the 20s, an event that devastated the family for decades (she died shortly afterwards due to other reasons, Bright's disease that great killer of young women in the good old days, but the death and the rape were always connected in the mind of my poor Great-Grandmother who took it as God's judgement). My wife was raped by Zoomies in Colorado. The Air Force of course heroically rose to the occasion and did jack and shit about it. For the most part though the women have just had to put up with occasional harassment and nonsense, but nothing serious....as far as I know I have not gone around quizzing them all about it. So...cousin Anna...been raped before?
Shit, I feel like a heel now after trying my weak trolls.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 09:14:11 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 09:03:56 AM
According to the same survey, 1 in 20 men were "made to penetrate someone else". This was really surprising to me. Seems there are monsters on both sides of the equation. :hmm:
Dude I knew a kid whose mother made him have sex with her on a regular basis and would guilt him into it. Weird shit.
But also keep in mind male-on-male rape is absurdly high in the US, I think largely because of our prison system and its culture.
There is a seperate - and much lower - statistic for men who claimed to have
been raped. That would I think account for the vast majority of male-on-male rape.
This statistic is for men who were forced to do the "penetrating".
Most prision rape, or even male-on-male rape, would not I imagine take the form of "penetrate me now, or else".
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 05, 2014, 09:28:44 AM
Shit, I feel like a heel now after trying my weak trolls.
I've shared my stories before, Ed., and given that your trolls were so weak, it's not a big deal. ;) :hug:
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 09:27:07 AM
No. She worked out a plea bargain where the charges were reduced to physical harassment or somesuch, all fines waived, plus apparently they aren't releasing her name.
Everybody in that community knows who she is.
I don't keep dossiers on people.
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 09:29:19 AM
There is a seperate - and much lower - statistic for men who claimed to have been raped. That would I think account for the vast majority of male-on-male rape.
This statistic is for men who were forced to do the "penetrating".
Most prision rape, or even male-on-male rape, would not I imagine take the form of "penetrate me now, or else".
I don't know enough about male rape to have an opinion on this, despite having tried to look into it before. Rape of men is the most under-reported crime out there, as I recall.
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 09:27:29 AM
Not entirely true. You know me, and I'm a victim of rape (twice, actually).
Yeah, but I only really know you through here and Facebook and you're the only one. So I'd still say I'm personally very unfamiliar.
QuoteAnd given the way women are treated after a rape - especially date-rape - you think women trot that out as a topic of conversation? I was well into my 30s before I admitted that I'd been raped when I was 16 and 20. It took me that long to realize that it wasn't actually my fault that it had happened.
Well obviously it's not something most people throw out there. But on the other hand when things like that happen, there's usually some gossip & whatnot. And Lord knows from having mostly female co-workers my entire career I've heard a shit-ton of gossip on all sorts of topics.
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 09:33:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 09:29:19 AM
There is a seperate - and much lower - statistic for men who claimed to have been raped. That would I think account for the vast majority of male-on-male rape.
This statistic is for men who were forced to do the "penetrating".
Most prision rape, or even male-on-male rape, would not I imagine take the form of "penetrate me now, or else".
I don't know enough about male rape to have an opinion on this, despite having tried to look into it before. Rape of men is the most under-reported crime out there, as I recall.
I'd have to read the full survey. It strikes me as odd that they have different categories for "rape" (aprox. 1.4%) and "being made to penetrate someone else" (Aprox. 5%). Is the latter a rape or not? I have no idea. It sounds like it, though. So for men, there is 'rape-rape' (which I assume means being penetrated against one's will) and this other category.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 05, 2014, 09:09:30 AM
The Congolese war zone rape statistics cooked up by hystericals are amusing. It would mean that millions upon millions of American women were forcibly raped every year. If 1 in 4 or 5 of women were raped there is no way in hell that women could even go to the grocery store without risking a major assault. Male guardians would be essential for every female social interaction with the outside world, no matter how brief or innocuous.
It's a bald-faced preposterous lie and a calumny against men
So lets see - the CDC does a comprehensive study, but going by gut feel alone you can tell it's a "bald-faced preposterous lie".
Remember those stats are over a lifetime.
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 09:39:21 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 09:27:29 AM
Not entirely true. You know me, and I'm a victim of rape (twice, actually).
Yeah, but I only really know you through here and Facebook and you're the only one. So I'd still say I'm personally very unfamiliar.
QuoteAnd given the way women are treated after a rape - especially date-rape - you think women trot that out as a topic of conversation? I was well into my 30s before I admitted that I'd been raped when I was 16 and 20. It took me that long to realize that it wasn't actually my fault that it had happened.
Well obviously it's not something most people throw out there. But on the other hand when things like that happen, there's usually some gossip & whatnot. And Lord knows from having mostly female co-workers my entire career I've heard a shit-ton of gossip on all sorts of topics.
No, being raped is not something people typically gossip about. If they don't report it to the police they certainly aren't going to tell their neighbour in the next cubicle.
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 09:43:19 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 09:33:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 09:29:19 AM
There is a seperate - and much lower - statistic for men who claimed to have been raped. That would I think account for the vast majority of male-on-male rape.
This statistic is for men who were forced to do the "penetrating".
Most prision rape, or even male-on-male rape, would not I imagine take the form of "penetrate me now, or else".
I don't know enough about male rape to have an opinion on this, despite having tried to look into it before. Rape of men is the most under-reported crime out there, as I recall.
I'd have to read the full survey. It strikes me as odd that they have different categories for "rape" (aprox. 1.4%) and "being made to penetrate someone else" (Aprox. 5%). Is the latter a rape or not? I have no idea. It sounds like it, though. So for men, there is 'rape-rape' (which I assume means being penetrated against one's will) and this other category.
Probably if every catcall on the street, every drunk grope, every morning after regret was classified as sexual assault they're able to massage the statistics up to 1 in 5.
But to suggest 1 in every 5 women is dragged into the bushes, jesus give me a break.
Right supposedly we have, what, 90,000 rapes a year? Over 80 years that is 7.2 million and fall disproportionally on the female side of the population. So no surprise then that 18% to 20% of women have been raped. I mean that still means 80% haven't. Not exactly a rape every time somebody goes to the convenient store.
Another stat I found very surprising is that, allegedly, men and women were very nearly
equal in receiving "non-rape" sexual violence over the past year:
QuoteApproximately 1 in 20 women and men (5.6% and 5.3%, respectively) experienced sexual violence other than rape, such as being made to penetrate someone else, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, or non-contact unwanted sexual experiences, in the 12 months prior to the survey.
I would have expected women to have received more, by a large margin. Apparently not.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 09:48:23 AM
No, being raped is not something people typically gossip about.
I was thinking more of second-hand gossip.
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 09:54:54 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 09:48:23 AM
No, being raped is not something people typically gossip about.
I was thinking more of second-hand gossip.
From whom? If a woman has been raped and there are no witnesses, either she has to talk about it ... or he does, for anyone to know about it.
Again due to both our prison culture and the large number of men who cycle through it, this does not surprise me at all.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 09:56:33 AM
Again due to both our prison culture and the large number of men who cycle through it, this does not surprise me at all.
I can't agree - the prison population simply cannot be so large, that sexual violence to men in prision =
all sexual violence experienced by women in society, whether in prison or not.
Again, it seems odd to me that "being made to penetrate someone else" is classified as non-rape "sexual violence".
Quote from: Legbiter on June 05, 2014, 09:50:05 AM
Probably if every catcall on the street, every drunk grope, every morning after regret was classified as sexual assault they're able to massage the statistics up to 1 in 5.
But to suggest 1 in every 5 women is dragged into the bushes, jesus give me a break.
You have a very narrow view of rape if you think it requires being "dragged into the bushes".
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 10:06:30 AMYou have a very narrow view of rape if you think it requires being "dragged into the bushes".
Regret is not rape.
Sorry meri.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 05, 2014, 10:07:10 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 10:06:30 AMYou have a very narrow view of rape if you think it requires being "dragged into the bushes".
Regret is not rape.
Sorry meri.
Gentlemen, I give you The Problem.
False rape accusations are also part of The Problem.
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 10:14:09 AM
False rape accusations are also part of The Problem.
That strikes me as a separate, if related, issue.
Rape is a weird crime for all kinds of reasons.
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 10:14:09 AM
False rape accusations are also part of The Problem.
Agreed.
I'd love to see some stats on how often that happens. Given the stigma toward women who are victims of rape, I'd guess not nearly as often as you might think. There's a specific downside to crying rape when it really happens, hence the significant lack of reporting.
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 09:56:28 AM
From whom? If a woman has been raped and there are no witnesses, either she has to talk about it ... or he does, for anyone to know about it.
Never mind.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 09:50:20 AM
Right supposedly we have, what, 90,000 rapes a year? Over 80 years that is 7.2 million and fall disproportionally on the female side of the population. So no surprise then that 18% to 20% of women have been raped. I mean that still means 80% haven't. Not exactly a rape every time somebody goes to the convenient store.
With ~150 million women that gives 4.8% of women raped over 80 years if every single rape is a different woman. That still sounds way off. To get to 20% you need 30 million different women raped (not incidences of rape, women raped who haven't been raped before), which is 5 times higher. That would require 375,000 newly victimized women every year over the 80 year span. Rape statistics might be underreported, but I don't think they are that far underreported.
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 10:16:22 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 09:56:28 AM
From whom? If a woman has been raped and there are no witnesses, either she has to talk about it ... or he does, for anyone to know about it.
Never mind.
For what it's worth, when I was raped at 16, he told all his buddies that he'd "had" me in his sister's bed, and that I was a "wild animal" in the sheets. I said nothing, because what is there to say at that? By the way, fighting off an attack is apparently being a "wild animal" in the sheets. Who knew?
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 10:15:48 AM
I'd love to see some stats on how often that happens.
Feminists claim it is extremely low. It might be but I am not sure how one would be able to get accurate stats. I guess you could ask people 'have you ever falsely accused somebody of rape or sexual assault'. But, you know, even in an anonymous poll that is some pretty hard core self awareness and honesty.
Quote from: frunk on June 05, 2014, 10:17:52 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 09:50:20 AM
Right supposedly we have, what, 90,000 rapes a year? Over 80 years that is 7.2 million and fall disproportionally on the female side of the population. So no surprise then that 18% to 20% of women have been raped. I mean that still means 80% haven't. Not exactly a rape every time somebody goes to the convenient store.
With ~150 million women that gives 4.8% of women raped over 80 years if every single rape is a different woman. That still sounds way off. To get to 20% you need 30 million different women raped (not incidences of rape, women raped who haven't been raped before), which is 5 times higher. That would require 375,000 newly victimized women every year over the 80 year span. Rape statistics might be underreported, but I don't think they are that far underreported.
You are right. My brain missed a decimal place there. How embarrassing.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 10:19:09 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 10:15:48 AM
I'd love to see some stats on how often that happens.
Feminists claim it is extremely low. It might be but I am not sure how one would be able to get accurate stats. I guess you could ask people 'have you ever falsely accused somebody of rape or sexual assault'.
I think it happens more often than most women want to believe, but still far lower than most men believe.
Again, the cost can be very high with the rewards being very low.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 09:50:20 AM
Right supposedly we have, what, 90,000 rapes a year? Over 80 years that is 7.2 million and fall disproportionally on the female side of the population. So no surprise then that 18% to 20% of women have been raped. I mean that still means 80% haven't. Not exactly a rape every time somebody goes to the convenient store.
:huh:
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 10:15:48 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 10:14:09 AM
False rape accusations are also part of The Problem.
Agreed.
I'd love to see some stats on how often that happens.
I guess your insinuation is that it doesn't happen very often. Anyway, I also wish there were reliable statistics on false accusations. Just like how it would be nice to have reliable statistics on the % of true accusations.
Anecdotally, there have been several high profile cases. First one that springs to mind is the Ohio U student who was drunk during their homecoming weekend and had a guy going down on her on the sidewalk of a somewhat busy street in town. Several people recorded video of the event and she was so embarrassed about it she reported it as rape. It was pretty obvious from the video that it was not rape, but people were coming out of the woodwork to try & explain how it was. IIRC the accused guy ended up getting beaten up a couple times.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 05, 2014, 10:24:47 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 09:50:20 AM
Right supposedly we have, what, 90,000 rapes a year? Over 80 years that is 7.2 million and fall disproportionally on the female side of the population. So no surprise then that 18% to 20% of women have been raped. I mean that still means 80% haven't. Not exactly a rape every time somebody goes to the convenient store.
:huh:
Oh sure wait until after I admitted I fucked it up to call me out :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 10:19:09 AMFeminists claim it is extremely low. It might be but I am not sure how one would be able to get accurate stats. I guess you could ask people 'have you ever falsely accused somebody of rape or sexual assault'. But, you know, even in an anonymous poll that is some pretty hard core self awareness and honesty.
Two recent cases here from Iceland where men were aquitted of rape charges because they produced smartphone recordings of the proceedings in court. :wacko:
Gotta love those Millennial smartphone zombies. :rolleyes:
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 10:26:25 AM
I guess your insinuation is that it doesn't happen very often. Anyway, I also wish there were reliable statistics on false accusations. Just like how it would be nice to have reliable statistics on the % of true accusations.
Yep. It is so hard to get a grip on everything related to rape.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 10:27:08 AM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 05, 2014, 10:24:47 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 09:50:20 AM
Right supposedly we have, what, 90,000 rapes a year? Over 80 years that is 7.2 million and fall disproportionally on the female side of the population. So no surprise then that 18% to 20% of women have been raped. I mean that still means 80% haven't. Not exactly a rape every time somebody goes to the convenient store.
:huh:
Oh sure wait until after I admitted I fucked it up to call me out :lol:
Sorry! :o
Didn't see that. :sleep:
Quote from: Legbiter on June 05, 2014, 10:28:49 AM
Two recent cases here from Iceland where men were aquitted of rape charges because they produced smartphone recordings of the proceedings in court. :wacko:
Gotta love those Millennial smartphone zombies. :rolleyes:
That is exactly what I am thinking of recommending my kids do. With the obvious caveat they do not do it secretly.
Quote from: frunk on June 05, 2014, 10:17:52 AMWith ~150 million women that gives 4.8% of women raped over 80 years if every single rape is a different woman. That still sounds way off. To get to 20% you need 30 million different women raped (not incidences of rape, women raped who haven't been raped before), which is 5 times higher. That would require 375,000 newly victimized women every year over the 80 year span. Rape statistics might be underreported, but I don't think they are that far underreported.
Yes, this is the "Congolese war zone" problem with feminist/fantasy rape statistics.
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 10:26:25 AM
I guess your insinuation is that it doesn't happen very often. Anyway, I also wish there were reliable statistics on false accusations. Just like how it would be nice to have reliable statistics on the % of true accusations.
Anecdotally, there have been several high profile cases. First one that springs to mind is the Ohio U student who was drunk during their homecoming weekend and had a guy going down on her on the sidewalk of a somewhat busy street in town. Several people recorded video of the event and she was so embarrassed about it she reported it as rape. It was pretty obvious from the video that it was not rape, but people were coming out of the woodwork to try & explain how it was. IIRC the accused guy ended up getting beaten up a couple times.
No, my insinuation was that I really would like to see some stats on that. I believe that the number of false accusations are far more than women would like to believe.
The whole drunk thing is really weird. I mean, if one person is drunk and the other isn't, that makes it a lot more clear-cut. Unless the drunk is the one forcing the sober one, which definitely muddies the water. But when both are drunk, who's raping whom?
I think everyone agrees that a relatively sober person taking advantage of a passed-out or highly intoxicated person is rape. (And I've known women who have raped men that way and saw nothing wrong with it, which made me sick.) But outside that very obvious transgression, it's just too damn hard to really define what makes it rape when drinking. And I do believe that too many rape-advocates are using these situations inappropriately to "pad the numbers".
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 10:38:20 AM
But when both are drunk, who's raping whom?
This question is the one I am too scared to ask the activists about. Alot of them claim that unequal power arrangements (and not officially but say...a fan having sex with a rock star) are also rape. I guess if you are a big star you can only have consensual sex with other big stars? I don't know unless you are officially over somebody I find that one tough to accept.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 10:46:07 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 10:38:20 AM
But when both are drunk, who's raping whom?
This question is the one I am too scared to ask the activists about. Alot of them claim that unequal power arrangements (and not officially but say...a fan having sex with a rock star) are also rape. I guess if you are a big star you can only have consensual sex with other big stars? I don't know unless you are officially over somebody I find that one tough to accept.
Same here. There's this dynamic with activists that it's all or nothing, but like you've said repeatedly in this thread, there's a lot that isn't black or white about rape. And the concept of false accusations really drives that home. What's even worse is when an activist tells a woman (and that's almost always how that works) that she was raped when she never felt she was.
I believe that rape is a very serious problem in our culture, but I don't believe that crying rape for every questionable decision is the answer to fixing it.
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 09:53:00 AM
Another stat I found very surprising is that, allegedly, men and women were very nearly equal in receiving "non-rape" sexual violence over the past year:
QuoteApproximately 1 in 20 women and men (5.6% and 5.3%, respectively) experienced sexual violence other than rape, such as being made to penetrate someone else, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, or non-contact unwanted sexual experiences, in the 12 months prior to the survey.
I would have expected women to have received more, by a large margin. Apparently not.
Great, more language trying to tell me that I've been the victim of sexual assault.
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 10:38:20 AM
I think everyone agrees that a relatively sober person taking advantage of a passed-out or highly intoxicated person is rape. (And I've known women who have raped men that way and saw nothing wrong with it, which made me sick.) But outside that very obvious transgression, it's just too damn hard to really define what makes it rape when drinking. And I do believe that too many rape-advocates are using these situations inappropriately to "pad the numbers".
I don't know. Let's say one person is somewhat intoxicated and the other is very intoxicated yet the latter initiates the sexual activity. Is it rape if the latter person decides in the morning that they didn't "really" want to have done that?
Quote from: Legbiter on June 05, 2014, 09:50:05 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 09:43:19 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 09:33:27 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 09:29:19 AM
There is a seperate - and much lower - statistic for men who claimed to have been raped. That would I think account for the vast majority of male-on-male rape.
This statistic is for men who were forced to do the "penetrating".
Most prision rape, or even male-on-male rape, would not I imagine take the form of "penetrate me now, or else".
I don't know enough about male rape to have an opinion on this, despite having tried to look into it before. Rape of men is the most under-reported crime out there, as I recall.
I'd have to read the full survey. It strikes me as odd that they have different categories for "rape" (aprox. 1.4%) and "being made to penetrate someone else" (Aprox. 5%). Is the latter a rape or not? I have no idea. It sounds like it, though. So for men, there is 'rape-rape' (which I assume means being penetrated against one's will) and this other category.
Probably if every catcall on the street, every drunk grope, every morning after regret was classified as sexual assault they're able to massage the statistics up to 1 in 5.
But to suggest 1 in every 5 women is dragged into the bushes, jesus give me a break.
There's one hell of a middle ground between "every catcall and every drunk grope" and "dragged into the bushes".
Very few rapes are strangers grabbing a woman into the bushes. Most rape victims know their attacker.
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 09:03:56 AM
According to the same survey, 1 in 20 men were "made to penetrate someone else". This was really surprising to me. Seems there are monsters on both sides of the equation. :hmm:
It depends on your definition of "made." Wheedling, pleading, wearing-down, c'mon-just-do-it "rape" probably accounts for a sizeable percentage of sexual activity. It should really be taken out of the ambit and simply sneered at as pathetic rather than demonized, because for one thing it's not 1% as traumatic. There's so much difference between the woman who let a regular sexual partner sleep next to her and wound up essentially consenting to having sex with him, even though she didn't "want" to (a situation close to every person alive has been in, including males), and what happened to say, for example, my ex, that they don't seem to fit the same category.
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 10:14:09 AM
False rape accusations are also part of The Problem.
No.
Not that false accusations never, ever happen, but they are by no means a problem, never mind part of The Problem (whatever the hell that is).
The thing is - there's very little upside to falsely reporting rape. If you're a woman you're going to be disbelieved by certain people in any event. Your sexual history is going to be dragged through the mud. You're going to be forced to testify and re-live the experience.
Look, in my anecdotal but, you know actual first hand and professional experience, "false accusations" only came up in a few very limited situations. First we had someone of very diminished capacity to begin with so when she said she didn't want sex it was hard to tell if she was honestly remembering what happened. And second in dealing with young girls and high levels of parental disapproval.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 01:04:42 PM
There's one hell of a middle ground between "every catcall and every drunk grope" and "dragged into the bushes".
Very few rapes are strangers grabbing a woman into the bushes. Most rape victims know their attacker.
For example, the statistics in the survey quoted upthread.
QuoteAmong female rape victims, perpetrators were reported to be intimate partners (51.1%), family members (12.5%), acquaintances (40.8%) and strangers (13.8%).
Only 14% were stranger-rapers. Just over half were one's partners.
And I know my post was kind of rape cultury. Maybe that incident wasn't the best example; she did say "no," which I guess is good enough.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 01:09:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 09:03:56 AM
According to the same survey, 1 in 20 men were "made to penetrate someone else". This was really surprising to me. Seems there are monsters on both sides of the equation. :hmm:
It depends on your definition of "made." Wheedling, pleading, wearing-down, c'mon-just-do-it "rape" probably accounts for a sizeable percentage of sexual activity. It should really be taken out of the ambit and simply sneered at as pathetic rather than demonized, because for one thing it's not 1% as traumatic. There's so much difference between the woman who let a regular sexual partner sleep next to her and wound up essentially consenting to having sex with him, even though she didn't "want" to (a situation close to every person alive has been in, including males), and what happened to say, for example, my ex, that they don't seem to fit the same category.
The problem is how to deal with this statistically.
Putting that sort of "rape" into a different category would give a significantly different outcome than lumping it in with, to use the current meme, "rape-rape".
In this survey, they appear to have put male "rape" into two different categories (that is "rape" on the one hand, and "being made to penetrate another" on the other). There is no similar division for rape of females ... meaning, that the statistics look a lot different, depending on how you define them.
Erasing this division gives you this:
Women raped, lifetime: 18.3%
Men raped, lifetime: 6.2%
= Women are almost three times as likely to be raped as men
Keeing this division gives you this:
Women raped, lifetime: 18.3%
Men raped, lifetime: 1.4%
= Women are more than thirteen times as likely to raped than men.
In short, radically different conclusions, each defensible with the same data.
Quote from: garbon on June 05, 2014, 12:53:28 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 10:38:20 AM
I think everyone agrees that a relatively sober person taking advantage of a passed-out or highly intoxicated person is rape. (And I've known women who have raped men that way and saw nothing wrong with it, which made me sick.) But outside that very obvious transgression, it's just too damn hard to really define what makes it rape when drinking. And I do believe that too many rape-advocates are using these situations inappropriately to "pad the numbers".
I don't know. Let's say one person is somewhat intoxicated and the other is very intoxicated yet the latter initiates the sexual activity. Is it rape if the latter person decides in the morning that they didn't "really" want to have done that?
That's my point. It's a very gray area.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 01:10:39 PM
No.
Yes. :contract:
QuoteNot that false accusations never, ever happen, but they are by no means a problem, never mind part of The Problem (whatever the hell that is).
They absolutely are a problem and part of The Problem. I think Meri sort of agreed with me on that point. Every well-publicized rape case that turns out to be a false accusation damages not just the falsely accused, but more significantly all actual rape victims. It plants a seed of doubt in people's minds when they hear of future rape accusations.
QuoteThe thing is - there's very little upside to falsely reporting rape. If you're a woman you're going to be disbelieved by certain people in any event. Your sexual history is going to be dragged through the mud. You're going to be forced to testify and re-live the experience.
From a rational perspective, you're right. But you know not everyone thinks rationally all the time. It can be done to try & cover up or excuse them from an embarrassing consensual encounter. It can be done out of pure spite. Or it can be done for publicity. Which again, to a rational person sounds insane but there are famous examples (Tawana Brawley, the Duke Lacrosse incident).
QuoteLook, in my anecdotal but, you know actual first hand and professional experience, "false accusations" only came up in a few very limited situations. First we had someone of very diminished capacity to begin with so when she said she didn't want sex it was hard to tell if she was honestly remembering what happened. And second in dealing with young girls and high levels of parental disapproval.
It doesn't have to happen often to be a problem.
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 01:39:33 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 05, 2014, 12:53:28 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 10:38:20 AM
I think everyone agrees that a relatively sober person taking advantage of a passed-out or highly intoxicated person is rape. (And I've known women who have raped men that way and saw nothing wrong with it, which made me sick.) But outside that very obvious transgression, it's just too damn hard to really define what makes it rape when drinking. And I do believe that too many rape-advocates are using these situations inappropriately to "pad the numbers".
I don't know. Let's say one person is somewhat intoxicated and the other is very intoxicated yet the latter initiates the sexual activity. Is it rape if the latter person decides in the morning that they didn't "really" want to have done that?
That's my point. It's a very gray area.
:huh:
It's not grey at all (at least in the legal analysis - actually proving it can be different).
No means no. If at any point either arty indicated they did not want sexual contact, then any further contact would be sexual assault.
Regret after the fact though has nothing to do with it - it's all in what happened during the act.
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 02:15:20 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 01:10:39 PM
No.
Yes. :contract:
QuoteNot that false accusations never, ever happen, but they are by no means a problem, never mind part of The Problem (whatever the hell that is).
They absolutely are a problem and part of The Problem. I think Meri sort of agreed with me on that point. Every well-publicized rape case that turns out to be a false accusation damages not just the falsely accused, but more significantly all actual rape victims. It plants a seed of doubt in people's minds when they hear of future rape accusations.
QuoteThe thing is - there's very little upside to falsely reporting rape. If you're a woman you're going to be disbelieved by certain people in any event. Your sexual history is going to be dragged through the mud. You're going to be forced to testify and re-live the experience.
From a rational perspective, you're right. But you know not everyone thinks rationally all the time. It can be done to try & cover up or excuse them from an embarrassing consensual encounter. It can be done out of pure spite. Or it can be done for publicity. Which again, to a rational person sounds insane but there are famous examples (Tawana Brawley, the Duke Lacrosse incident).
QuoteLook, in my anecdotal but, you know actual first hand and professional experience, "false accusations" only came up in a few very limited situations. First we had someone of very diminished capacity to begin with so when she said she didn't want sex it was hard to tell if she was honestly remembering what happened. And second in dealing with young girls and high levels of parental disapproval.
It doesn't have to happen often to be a problem.
I agree with every point derspeiss says here.
One very public false accusation can undo a decade of forward progress for all those victims to come. That's a major issue.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 02:24:16 PM
:huh:
It's not grey at all (at least in the legal analysis - actually proving it can be different).
No means no. If at any point either arty indicated they did not want sexual contact, then any further contact would be sexual assault.
Regret after the fact though has nothing to do with it - it's all in what happened during the act.
The bolded part is kind of important in this discussion.
By my understanding of the law in the US, if a person is drunk, they do not have the capacity to give consent, so it's implied no, even if the person says yes. But what happens if both are drunk and both say yes? Neither had the ability to give consent, and yet they had sex. So, who's to blame? Is it rape?
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 02:31:09 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 02:24:16 PM
:huh:
It's not grey at all (at least in the legal analysis - actually proving it can be different).
No means no. If at any point either arty indicated they did not want sexual contact, then any further contact would be sexual assault.
Regret after the fact though has nothing to do with it - it's all in what happened during the act.
The bolded part is kind of important in this discussion.
By my understanding of the law in the US, if a person is drunk, they do not have the capacity to give consent, so it's implied no, even if the person says yes. But what happens if both are drunk and both say yes? Neither had the ability to give consent, and yet they had sex. So, who's to blame? Is it rape?
You have to be drunk the point where you're incapable of giving consent - i.e. you're unconscious or no longer capable of speaking comprehensibly.
Having sex while drunk is still perfectly legal, to the relief of university students everywhere.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 02:34:30 PM
You have to be drunk the point where you're incapable of giving consent - i.e. you're unconscious or no longer capable of speaking comprehensibly.
Having sex while drunk is still perfectly legal, to the relief of university students everywhere.
Oh. Well, that makes it much less gray, as it's usually kind of hard for two unconscious people to engage in coitus. Not impossible, but definitely harder.
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 02:27:47 PM
I agree with every point derspeiss says here.
One very public false accusation can undo a decade of forward progress for all those victims to come. That's a major issue.
Well then, I didn't think I'd see the day.
I have found an issue where I'm more feminist than merithyn.
:mellow:
If Merithyn was a Feminist blogger she would have ripped to shreds to left to die by the internet Feminist purity patrol long ago.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 02:37:37 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 02:27:47 PM
I agree with every point derspeiss says here.
One very public false accusation can undo a decade of forward progress for all those victims to come. That's a major issue.
Well then, I didn't think I'd see the day.
I have found an issue where I'm more feminist than merithyn.
:mellow:
:hug:
It's okay. I still think you're manly. :wub:
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 02:39:17 PM
If Merithyn was a Feminist blogger she would have ripped to shreds to left to die by the internet Feminist purity patrol long ago.
Not to hear Legbiter and derspeiss tell it. :P
I've always kind of considered myself a moderate when it comes to feminism, at least compared to the bra-burners. But apparently to Languishites, I make the bra-burners look positively June Cleaverish. ;)
Only rarely have I seen Meri engage in what we'd pejoratively call identity politics. Usually because of something I did.
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 02:42:23 PM
Not to hear Legbiter and derspeiss tell it. :P
I've always kind of considered myself a moderate when it comes to feminism, at least compared to the bra-burners. But apparently to Languishites, I make the bra-burners look positively June Cleaverish. ;)
You throw me off sometimes by making radical-sounding statements and then later sounding more moderate. Kinda frustrating for me because I'm usually able to get a good read on people early on :P
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 02:47:37 PM
Only rarely have I seen Meri engage in what we'd pejoratively call identity politics. Usually because of something I did.
I think I've set her off more times than you have.
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 02:37:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 02:34:30 PM
You have to be drunk the point where you're incapable of giving consent - i.e. you're unconscious or no longer capable of speaking comprehensibly.
Having sex while drunk is still perfectly legal, to the relief of university students everywhere.
Oh. Well, that makes it much less gray, as it's usually kind of hard for two unconscious people to engage in coitus. Not impossible, but definitely harder.
Yeah though I think bit in bold seems in play. It isn't like you need a lot of communication to have sex / can still have (even if not full penetrative) some sort of sexual contact while that intoxicated. Seems like it could be hard to determine if someone consented especially if he comes down to he said/she said (and other gender permutations).
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 03:10:13 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 02:47:37 PM
Only rarely have I seen Meri engage in what we'd pejoratively call identity politics. Usually because of something I did.
I think I've set her off more times than you have.
No, she's surprisingly patient with you. :P
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 03:09:09 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 02:42:23 PM
Not to hear Legbiter and derspeiss tell it. :P
I've always kind of considered myself a moderate when it comes to feminism, at least compared to the bra-burners. But apparently to Languishites, I make the bra-burners look positively June Cleaverish. ;)
You throw me off sometimes by making radical-sounding statements and then later sounding more moderate. Kinda frustrating for me because I'm usually able to get a good read on people early on :P
That's because you assume that if I feel one way about a topic, I follow the entire political bent for that topic, which I rarely do.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 03:32:02 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 03:10:13 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 02:47:37 PM
Only rarely have I seen Meri engage in what we'd pejoratively call identity politics. Usually because of something I did.
I think I've set her off more times than you have.
No, she's surprisingly patient with you. :P
I'm patient with both of you. :P
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 04:03:43 PM
That's because you assume that if I feel one way about a topic, I follow the entire political bent for that topic, which I rarely do.
Then tone down your opening statements :P
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 04:04:21 PM
I'm patient with both of you. :P
Oh, there are some days where that's not the case :D
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 04:06:01 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 04:03:43 PM
That's because you assume that if I feel one way about a topic, I follow the entire political bent for that topic, which I rarely do.
Then tone down your opening statements :P
Dude, after 10 years, you'd think you'd know me well enough by now to know that I probably have a far more moderate view than it seems at first blush. :P
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 02:47:37 PM
Only rarely have I seen Meri engage in what we'd pejoratively call identity politics. Usually because of something I did.
Your identity sucks ass balls.
Staind sucks and is gay.
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 03:10:13 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 02:47:37 PM
Only rarely have I seen Meri engage in what we'd pejoratively call identity politics. Usually because of something I did.
I think I've set her off more times than you have.
Are you guys competing on that? :)
Quote from: dps on June 05, 2014, 11:51:27 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 03:10:13 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 02:47:37 PM
Only rarely have I seen Meri engage in what we'd pejoratively call identity politics. Usually because of something I did.
I think I've set her off more times than you have.
Are you guys competing on that? :)
We are now. Ed would like to compete, but he's way behind both of us.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 05, 2014, 10:33:37 PM
Staind sucks and is gay.
If he is gay it would just be impolite not to.
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2014, 08:14:58 AM
Quote from: dps on June 05, 2014, 11:51:27 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2014, 03:10:13 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 02:47:37 PM
Only rarely have I seen Meri engage in what we'd pejoratively call identity politics. Usually because of something I did.
I think I've set her off more times than you have.
Are you guys competing on that? :)
We are now. Ed would like to compete, but he's way behind both of us.
:yeahright:
Now?
As in, before he didn't realize he needed to beat Ide.
LEAVE MERI ALONE
Quote from: Jaron on June 06, 2014, 10:14:24 AM
LEAVE MERI ALONE
You are lucky she even posts for you bastards!
This seemed pretty appropriate for this topic.
TLDR; version: Women always feel on alert and/or frightened when in public, so do your best to alleviate that for them whenever possible, and don't let men demean women (or other races, or LGBT) without saying something.
LINK (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zaron-burnett/guide-to-rape-culture_b_5440553.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063)
QuoteIf you are a man, you are part of rape culture. I know ... that sounds rough. You're not a rapist, necessarily. But you do perpetuate the attitudes and behaviors commonly referred to as rape culture.
You may be thinking, "Now, hold up, Zaron! You don't know me, homey! I'll be damned if I'm gonna let you say I'm some sorta fan of rape. That's not me, man!"
I totally know how you feel. That was pretty much exactly my response when someone told me I was a part of rape culture. It sounds horrible. But just imagine moving through the world, always afraid you could be raped. That's even worse! Rape culture sucks for everyone involved. But don't get hung up on the terminology. Don't concentrate on the words that offend you and ignore what they're pointing to -- the words "rape culture" aren't the problem. The reality they describe is the problem.
Men are the primary agents and sustainers of rape culture.
Rape isn't exclusively committed by men. Women aren't the only victims -- men rape men, women rape men -- but what makes rape a men's problem, our problem, is the fact that men commit 99 percent of reported rapes.
How are you part of rape culture? Well, I hate to say it, but it's because you're a man.
When I cross a parking lot at night and see a woman ahead of me, I do whatever I feel is appropriate to make her aware of me so that a) I don't startle her b) she has time to make herself feel safe/comfortable and c) if it's possible, I can approach in a way that's clearly friendly, in order to let her know I'm not a threat. I do this because I'm a man.
Basically, I acknowledge every woman I meet on the street, or in an elevator, or in a stairway, or wherever, in a way that indicates she's safe. I want her to feel just as comfortable as if I weren't there. I accept that any woman I encounter in public doesn't know me, and thus, all she sees is a man -- one who is suddenly near her. I have to keep in mind her sense of space and that my presence might make her feel vulnerable. That's the key factor -- vulnerability.
I don't know about you, but I don't spend much of my life feeling vulnerable. I've come to learn that women spend most of their social lives with ever-present, unavoidable feelings of vulnerability. Stop and think about that. Imagine always feeling like you could be at risk, like you were living with glass skin.
As modern men we must seek out danger. We choose adventures and extreme sports in order to feel like we're in jeopardy. We make games of our vulnerability. That's how differently men see the world from women. (Obviously, stated with full acknowledgment that there's a vibrant community of extreme athletes that are women, who regularly risk their safety as well. However, women don't need to engage in adrenalin sports to feel at-risk.)
Now, I stand about a finger of tequila under six feet. I work out and would say I'm in decent shape, which means when I'm out alone at night, I rarely ever fear for my safety. Many men know exactly what I mean. Most women have no idea what that feels like -- to go wherever you want in the world, at any time of day or night, and feel you won't have a problem. In fact, many women have the exact opposite experience.
A woman must consider where she is going, what time of day it is, what time she will arrive at her destination and what time she will leave her destination, what day of the week is it, if she will be left alone at any point ... the considerations go on and on because they are far more numerous than you or I can imagine. Honestly, I can't conceive of having to think that much about what I need to do to protect myself at any given moment in my life. I relish the freedom of getting up and going, day or night, rain or shine, Westside or downtown. As men we can enjoy this particular extreme luxury of movement and freedom of choice. In order to understand rape culture, remember this is a freedom that at least half the population doesn't enjoy.
That's why I go out of my way to use clear body language and act in a way that helps minimize a woman's fear and any related feelings. I recommend you do the same. It's seriously, like, the least any man can do in public to make women feel more comfortable in the world we share. Just be considerate of her and her space.
You may think it's unfair that we have to counteract and adjust ourselves for the ill behavior of other men. You know what? You're right. It is unfair. Is that the fault of women? Or is it the fault of the men who act abysmally and make the rest of us look bad? If issues of fairness bother you, get mad at the men who make you and your actions appear questionable.
Because when it comes to assessing a man, whatever one man is capable of, a woman must presume you are capable of. Unfortunately, that means all men must be judged by our worst example. If you think that sort of stereotyping is bullshit, how do you treat a snake you come across in the wild?
...You treat it like a snake, right? Well, that's not stereotyping, that's acknowledging an animal for what it's capable of doing and the harm it can inflict. Simple rules of the jungle, man. Since you are a man, women must treat you as such.
The completely reasonable and understandable fear of men is your responsibility. You didn't create it. But you also didn't build the freeways either. Some of the things you inherit from society are cool and some of them are rape culture.
Since no woman can accurately judge you or your intentions on sight, you are assumed to be like all other men. 73% of the time a woman knows her rapist. Now, if she can't trust and accurately assess the intentions of men she knows, how can you expect her to ever feel that she can accurately assess you, a complete stranger? Rape prevention is not just about women teaching women how not to get raped -- it's about men not committing rape.
Rape prevention is about the fact that a man must understand that saying "no" doesn't mean "yes," that when a woman is too drunk/drugged to respond that doesn't mean "yes," that being in a relationship doesn't mean "yes." Rather than focus on how women can avoid rape, or how rape culture makes an innocent man feel suspect, our focus should be: how do we, as men, stop rapes from occurring, and how do we dismantle the structures that dismiss it and change the attitudes that tolerate it?
Since you are a part of it, you ought to know what rape culture is.
According to Marshall University's Women's Center website:
Rape Culture is an environment in which rape is prevalent and in which sexual violence against women is normalized and excused in the media and popular culture. Rape culture is perpetuated through the use of misogynistic language, the objectification of women's bodies, and the glamorization of sexual violence, thereby creating a society that disregards women's rights and safety.
When a woman first told me I was part of rape culture, I wanted to disagree for obvious reasons. Like many of you I wanted to say, "Whoa, that ain't me." Instead, I listened. Later, I approached a writer I respect. I asked her to write an article with me, wherein she'd explain rape culture to me and to male readers. She stopped returning my emails.
At first, I was annoyed. Then as it became clear she wasn't going to respond at all, I actually got mad. Luckily, I've learned one shouldn't immediately respond when they feel flashes of anger. Thunder is impressive but it's the rain that nourishes life. So I let that storm pass and thought about it. I took a walk. They seem to jangle my best thoughts loose.
Blocks from my house, in front of a car wash it dawned on me. If rape culture is so important to me I needed to find out for my self what it is. No woman owes me her time just because I want to know about something she inherently understands. No woman should feel she has to explain rape culture to me just because I want to know what it is. No woman owes me shit. I saw how my desire for a woman to satisfy me ran deep. Even my curiosity, a trait that always made me proud, was marred with the same sort of male-centric presumption that fuels rape culture. I expected to be satisfied. That attitude is the problem. I started reading and kept reading until I understood rape culture and my part in it.
Here's a bullet-point list of examples of rape culture.
Blaming the victim ("She asked for it!")
Trivializing sexual assault ("Boys will be boys!")
Sexually explicit jokes
Tolerance of sexual harassment
Inflating false rape report statistics
Publicly scrutinizing a victim's dress, mental state, motives, and history
Gratuitous gendered violence in movies and television
Defining "manhood" as dominant and sexually aggressive
Defining "womanhood" as submissive and sexually passive
Pressure on men to "score"
Pressure on women to not appear "cold"
Assuming only promiscuous women get raped
Assuming that men don't get raped or that only "weak" men get raped
Refusing to take rape accusations seriously
Teaching women to avoid getting raped instead of teaching men not to rape
You'll quickly find that rape culture plays a central role in all the social dynamics of our time. It's at the heart of all our personal interactions. It's part of all our social, societal and environmental struggles. Rape culture is not just about sex. It is the product of a generalized attitude of male supremacy. Sexual violence is one expression of that attitude. Again, don't let the terminology spook you. Don't get hung up on the term "male supremacy." The term isn't the problem. The problem is that rape culture hurts everyone involved. Antiquated patriarchal notions of society make it difficult for men to come forward as rape victims just as much as they foster a desire for a man to be seen as powerful and sexually aggressive. Men shouldn't feel threatened or attacked when women point out rape culture -- they're telling us about our common enemy. We ought to listen.
Now that you know what it is, what can you do about rape culture?
· Avoid using language that objectifies or degrades women
· Speak out if you hear someone else making an offensive joke or trivializing rape
· If a friend says she has been raped, take her seriously and be supportive
· Think critically about the media's messages about women, men, relationships, and violence
· Be respectful of others' physical space even in casual situations
· Always communicate with sexual partners and do not assume consent
· Define your own manhood or womanhood. Do not let stereotypes shape your actions.
What else can you do about rape culture when you experience it IRL?
1. Men can confront men.
No one is suggesting violence. In fact, that's what we're looking to avoid. But sometimes, a man needs to confront another man or a group of men in a situation. When I'm out in public and I see a man hassling a woman, I stop for a moment. I make sure the woman sees me. I want her to know I'm fully aware of what's happening. I wait for a moment for a clear indication from her of whether she needs help. Sometimes, the couple will continue right on fighting like I'm just a hickory tree. Other times, the woman will make it clear she'd like backup and I approach the situation. I've never had to get violent. Usually, my presence alone makes the guy leave if he's a stranger, or explain himself if they're familiar. It changes the dynamic. That's why I always stop when I see a woman getting hassled in public. For any reason. I make sure any woman, in what could become a violent situation, one I may or may not be correctly assessing, feels that she has the opportunity to signal to me if she needs assistance. I'm a big brother to a sister so that response is practically instinctual.
But, I don't limit this to women. I've also done this for two men who were clearly in a lovers' spat. Whenever you see a situation spiraling out of control, and especially if someone is crying for help or being attacked, you should confront the situation. You don't need to "break it up." But engage, get involved, take down pertinent information, alert authorities, call the police. Do something.
2. Men can correct men.
If you hear a guy say some jacked-up slurs in front of you and there's no one from that particular community around to be offended, you can still say something. This is also true when you hear misogynistic language. Speak up. Tell your friend or co-worker that rape jokes are bullshit and you won't tolerate them.
Trust me you won't lose your "man card." If you're older than nineteen and you're still worried about your man card, you don't understand what respectable masculinity is about, anyway. It's not about cultish approval from others -- it's about being "your own man" and doing the right thing. You might be surprised by how many other men will respect you for doing what they wanted to but didn't. I've heard it plenty. I'm not some social justice cop, but I have and will argue with whole roomfuls of men. Later on, some dudes will approach me and say how much they respected what I did. I always tell them it gets easier to speak up every time you do it. I promise you that's true.
No one is suggesting you go around policing everybody. I don't make it my business to make sure everyone live by my yardstick. No one needs you telling them what you think about every little thing they say and whether it meets your criteria for social awareness. But when some dude says some foul shit, and you know it -- we all hear those jokes -- you can let the dude know his rape joke or his "she's a whore" analogy didn't play.
3. Men can make other men STFU.
Let's say, you're in a group of men, and one of your friends starts hollering at a girl -- tell him to knock it the fuck off. You won't be a punk for speaking up for the woman. As long as you don't try to score points with her for "defending her," you won't be white-knighting it either. You're just doing the right thing. No one needs some sexist clown hollering at her because the dude popped a mental woody. Cat-calling is one of the worst advertisements for male sexuality there is. Those assholes make us all look like complete tools. You get that, right? We need to cut that shit out.
Working construction is when I learned to speak up to a group of men. You have to do it. Mostly, you do it because you want to respect yourself. Otherwise, you're another pathetic man that allows a guy to mistreat a woman in your presence. When a guy cat-calls a woman and you don't say something, he just treated her like a cheaply degraded sex object for his satisfaction and he turned you into the punk-ass that's willing to allow him to mistreat a woman in your presence ... while you say nothing.
What would your grandfather think if he saw you in that moment? Would he be proud of you? Are you proud of yourself? Male pride is good for something -- use it to be your better self. Don't be that silent punk that goes along with the crowd to get along with the crowd. Speak up when someone cat-calls a woman in front of you. Tell them to shut the fuck up. As a man, you have power. Use it. Men respect conviction.
4. It's our job to have standards for ourselves, and thus, for all men.
You may think, "Zaron, man, lighten up, brother. Cat-calling is not that big a deal. Aren't we making a mountain out of a molehill? Some women like it." You may be right. Maybe some women do like it. That doesn't matter. I like to speed. My cousin likes to smoke pot in public. Neither of us gets to do what we like. That's just how it goes sometimes when you're a member of a society. If you find that woman who likes to be cat-called, go for it, just do it behind closed doors. When you're in public, respect the physical and mental space of others.
Don't limit yourself to being a man. Be a mensch. Be a human being.
When something like #YesAllWomen occurs in our cultural conversation and women the world over are out there sharing their experiences, their trauma, their stories and their personal views, as men, we don't need to enter that conversation. In that moment, all we need to do is listen, and reflect, and let their words change our perspective. Our job is to ask ourselves how we can do better.
After reading that I feel like I am actually doing a decent job combatting 'rape culture'. Damn go me. The internet Feminists may not put me up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Well except:
QuoteDefine your own manhood or womanhood. Do not let stereotypes shape your actions.
I define this entirely by yards per carry on 4th down.
QuoteWhen something like #YesAllWomen occurs in our cultural conversation and women the world over are out there sharing their experiences, their trauma, their stories and their personal views, as men, we don't need to enter that conversation.
Seriously though. Never talk to feministing Feminists. It just never goes well. They have probably heard it all by now anyway.
Does sackless wonder faggot mojo work on chicks?
Pffft, yards after contact is the true measure of manhood.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 06, 2014, 03:17:25 PM
Pffft, yards after contact is the true measure of manhood.
:yes:
Preferably with at least two DBs hanging off you.
Woah. "Teaching women to avoid getting raped instead of teaching men not to rape" is an example of "rape culture"?
This is a perfect example of the culture/crime divide. Most men, I suspect, do not think that other men rape because they don't know how
not to, but because they are criminal assholes.
You can't "teach" somebody how not to be a criminal asshole - they are that way because they enjoy being that way.
I don't believe that, say, teaching a woman self-defence rather that tut-tutting over men raping makes you a part of The Problem(tm).
QuoteYou'll quickly find that rape culture plays a central role in all the social dynamics of our time. It's at the heart of all our personal interactions.
I suppose denying this absurdity would be another example of "rape culture". :hmm:
Stopped reading after it told me I was a part of rape culture. As I was scrolling down, I noticed it quoted Marshall University as a source, which validated my decision not to read.
From Valmy's post I'm guessing it was chiding men for not being chivalrous enough when women are being harassed or something. I don't see that happening much these days wherever I am, but I guess I'm in my bubble.
I've led a very boring life in many ways.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2014, 10:16:12 AM
Quote from: Jaron on June 06, 2014, 10:14:24 AM
LEAVE MERI ALONE
You are lucky she even posts for you bastards!
And to think he went on to porn.
Good old HuffPo.
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2014, 03:29:15 PM
As I was scrolling down, I noticed it quoted Marshall University as a source, which validated my decision not to read.
:lol:
Quote from: Malthus on June 06, 2014, 03:27:33 PM
Woah. "Teaching women to avoid getting raped instead of teaching men not to rape" is an example of "rape culture"?
This is a perfect example of the culture/crime divide. Most men, I suspect, do not think that other men rape because they don't know how not to, but because they are criminal assholes.
You can't "teach" somebody how not to be a criminal asshole - they are that way because they enjoy being that way.
I don't believe that, say, teaching a woman self-defence rather that tut-tutting over men raping makes you a part of The Problem(tm).
I actually think it is important to teach boys about acceptable standards of consent and all that. I mean nobody does so that just sets them up for doing something stupid like kissing a passed out woman.
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2014, 03:32:13 PM
And to think he went on to porn.
:lol: He did? I guess maybe that was the only way he could figure out how to cash in on his 15 minutes?
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2014, 03:46:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2014, 03:32:13 PM
And to think he went on to porn.
:lol: He did? I guess maybe that was the only way he could figure out how to cash in on his 15 minutes?
Yeah, I know he has at least one vid and then also has a very NSFW twitter feed of himself.
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2014, 03:29:15 PM
From Valmy's post I'm guessing it was chiding men for not being chivalrous enough when women are being harassed or something. I don't see that happening much these days wherever I am, but I guess I'm in my bubble.
YOUR PRIVILEGE BUBBLE!!!111
But seriously it was more like if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem type stuff.
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2014, 03:48:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2014, 03:46:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2014, 03:32:13 PM
And to think he went on to porn.
:lol: He did? I guess maybe that was the only way he could figure out how to cash in on his 15 minutes?
Yeah, I know he has at least one vid and then also has a very NSFW twitter feed of himself.
Does one make money off a twitter feed? Or is it just amateur porn he does?
According to this RadFem blog... all PIV sex is rape: http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2014, 03:51:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2014, 03:48:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2014, 03:46:47 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2014, 03:32:13 PM
And to think he went on to porn.
:lol: He did? I guess maybe that was the only way he could figure out how to cash in on his 15 minutes?
Yeah, I know he has at least one vid and then also has a very NSFW twitter feed of himself.
Does one make money off a twitter feed? Or is it just amateur porn he does?
Probably the latter. I didn't spend that much time looking into it. :P
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2014, 03:37:14 PM
I actually think it is important to teach boys about acceptable standards of consent and all that. I mean nobody does so that just sets them up for doing something stupid like kissing a passed out woman.
To me it's kind of sad if you have to sit a boy down and spell all that out. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, and I'm not saying I won't with my kid. But with the values I was raised with, harassment/groping/rape always just seemed unthinkable. My personality type may also have something to do with that, I guess.
Quote from: PRC on June 06, 2014, 03:53:15 PM
According to this RadFem blog... all PIV sex is rape: http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/
Yes, but this writer is quite clearly nuts. ;)
Quote from: PRC on June 06, 2014, 03:53:15 PM
According to this RadFem blog... all PIV sex is rape: http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/
QuotePIV is a man mounting on a woman to thrust a large member of himself into her most intimate parts, often forcing her to be entirely naked, banging himself against her with the whole weight of his body and hips, shaking her like he would stuff a corpse, then using her insides as a receptacle for his penile dejection.
:huh:
Also, large?
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2014, 03:54:52 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2014, 03:37:14 PM
I actually think it is important to teach boys about acceptable standards of consent and all that. I mean nobody does so that just sets them up for doing something stupid like kissing a passed out woman.
To me it's kind of sad if you have to sit a boy down and spell all that out. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, and I'm not saying I won't with my kid. But with the values I was raised with, harassment/groping/rape always just seemed unthinkable. My personality type may also have something to do with that, I guess.
I was put through aversion therapy to make sure I would never touch a woman.
Quote from: PRC on June 06, 2014, 03:53:15 PM
According to this RadFem blog... all PIV sex is rape: http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/
QuoteIntercourse is the very means through which men oppress us, from which we are not allowed to escape, yet some instances of or PIV and intercourse may be chosen and free?
She is like the Saint Augustine of Feminists. Sure the human race may go extinct but it will go extinct righteously.
Quote from: PRC on June 06, 2014, 03:53:15 PM
According to this RadFem blog... all PIV sex is rape: http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/
Bleh. I've been hearing that line since my freshman political science class in 1991.
Quote from: garbon on June 06, 2014, 03:56:51 PM
Quote from: PRC on June 06, 2014, 03:53:15 PM
According to this RadFem blog... all PIV sex is rape: http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/
QuotePIV is a man mounting on a woman to thrust a large member of himself into her most intimate parts, often forcing her to be entirely naked, banging himself against her with the whole weight of his body and hips, shaking her like he would stuff a corpse, then using her insides as a receptacle for his penile dejection.
:huh:
Also, large?
I'm get the distinct feeling this is some kind of strange erotic literature. :unsure:
Anyway, if I pass a big black dude on the street and tense up, that's still racist right? Not that I'm saying women
don't have right and reason to be leery of strange men. Only that, as far as I can tell, they're exactly analogous situations.
Why would you tense up? I love the blacks.
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2014, 04:00:37 PM
Quote from: PRC on June 06, 2014, 03:53:15 PM
According to this RadFem blog... all PIV sex is rape: http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/
Bleh. I've been hearing that line since my freshman political science class in 1991.
Yeah this is pretty old school stuff. I admit I had not heard it in a long time.
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings....and that a penis going into a vagina is always rape....depending on who you talk to.
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2014, 03:29:15 PM
From Valmy's post I'm guessing it was chiding men for not being chivalrous enough when women are being harassed or something. I don't see that happening much these days wherever I am, but I guess I'm in my bubble.
He's saying men have an obligation to make women who are out in public feel unthreatened.
Sounds to me like a carefully considered attempt to fit a rationale to the premise that all men are guilty of being men.
And, simultaneously, tryiing to nail a lot of feminist tail.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2014, 04:12:42 PM
And, simultaneously, tryiing to nail a lot of feminist tail.
Ah the old White Knight thingy. Well he is going to be disappointed, all PIV sex is rape.
QuoteHe's saying men have an obligation to make women who are out in public feel unthreatened.
Sounds to me like a carefully considered attempt to fit a rationale to the premise that all men are guilty of being men.
I didn't really get that. Just that here are some things you should do socially to help with sexual violence and shit in our society.
Actually, on reflection, I can see the intellectual framework. Her word choice and focus on fucking and specifically internal cumshots indicates a certain perversity, but we all have our kinks, but there's sort of a defensible idea, if you assume the can opener--that is the threat or perception of the threat of force is inherent in any male-female sexual coupling.
Of course, if you assume that, any male-female relationship is appeasement (and probably prostitution), all male-male relationships must also be based on force, and perhaps all female-female relationships likewise. It's a pretty nihilistic wordview. It's also easily disproved by most relationships except employer-employee relationships, which are transactional and leveraged, and not dissimilar to rape when you think about it.
Quote from: Caliga on June 06, 2014, 04:09:55 PM
Why would you tense up? I love the blacks.
I actually tense up a bit whenever I pass anyone on the street, black, white, male, female. I'm very mildly agoraphobic.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2014, 04:12:42 PM
He's saying men have an obligation to make women who are out in public feel unthreatened.
Sounds like a neo-Patriarchal notion.
QuoteSounds to me like a carefully considered attempt to fit a rationale to the premise that all men are guilty of being men.
And, simultaneously, tryiing to nail a lot of feminist tail.
Yeah, I get the feeling most guys who try that route end up getting friendzoned.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2014, 04:14:33 PM
Actually, on reflection, I can see the intellectual framework. Her word choice and focus on fucking and specifically internal cumshots indicates a certain perversity, but we all have our kinks, but there's sort of a defensible idea, if you assume the can opener--that is the threat or perception of the threat of force is inherent in any male-female sexual coupling.
Of course, if you assume that, any male-female relationship is appeasement (and probably prostitution), all male-male relationships must also be based on force, and perhaps all female-female relationships likewise. It's a pretty nihilistic wordview.
... or, everything is permitted. Do as thou wilt be the whole of the law.
Hell, if all sex is rape, and maybe everything else is too, the only possible conclusion is that rape isn't actually wrong.
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2014, 04:16:31 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2014, 04:12:42 PM
He's saying men have an obligation to make women who are out in public feel unthreatened.
Sounds like a neo-Patriarchal notion.
QuoteSounds to me like a carefully considered attempt to fit a rationale to the premise that all men are guilty of being men.
And, simultaneously, tryiing to nail a lot of feminist tail.
Yeah, I get the feeling most guys who try that route end up getting friendzoned.
Anyone who tries to pretend sympathy with another to somehow fool them into sex deserves to be.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2014, 04:13:27 PM
Ah the old White Knight thingy. Well he is going to be disappointed, all PIV sex is rape.
What about PIM or PIA?
Friend zone is a misogynist term now. Also I don't think it's a real thing. I do think women, having the same cognitive abilities as men, are capable of determining whether they would fuck someone within seconds, it's only that most of the time people don't change their minds on that, and having a preexisting relationship (and web of relationships, including other friends) and the potential for disintegrating that web with romance makes the prospect less appealing. These combine to give the illusion of some kind of fuck ladder and friend ladder. But anyway I've fucked people I've known for years. I assume this is the case for many, if not most, people?
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2014, 04:19:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2014, 04:13:27 PM
Ah the old White Knight thingy. Well he is going to be disappointed, all PIV sex is rape.
What about PIM or PIA?
That's really the most confusing thing about it.
Quote from: Malthus on June 06, 2014, 04:18:49 PMAnyone who tries to pretend sympathy with another to somehow fool them into sex deserves to be.
I did not get that from the article. The "white knight trying to get laid" charge seems more of a cheap ad hominem to me, in this case and more generally.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2014, 04:21:31 PM
Friend zone is a misogynist term now. Also I don't think it's a real thing. I do think women, having the same cognitive abilities as men, are capable of determining whether they would fuck someone within seconds, it's only that most of the time people don't change their minds on that, and having a preexisting relationship (and web of relationships, including other friends) and the potential for disintegrating that web with romance makes the prospect less appealing. These combine to give the illusion of some kind of fuck ladder and friend ladder. But anyway I've fucked people I've known for years. I assume this is the case for many, if not most, people?
Maybe I don't understand the term, then. And you totally lost me about 2/3 the way through.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2014, 04:21:31 PM
Friend zone is a misogynist term now.
I think this is a result of misogynists having used the term prolifically to expound on and justify their world views. Tainted by association, basically.
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2014, 04:23:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 06, 2014, 04:18:49 PMAnyone who tries to pretend sympathy with another to somehow fool them into sex deserves to be.
I did not get that from the article. The "white knight trying to get laid" charge seems more of a cheap ad hominem to me, in this case and more generally.
I don't get that from the article, either. Just a general comment on the post. I don't really think folks holding such views as those in the article, while I disagree with them, truly do so to pretend sympathy to get laid. But in general, those who pretend sympathy to get laid deserve not to be.
If someone didn't want to fuck you last year, odds are you're just older and fatter now, and they still don't want to fuck you unless something has changed to make them feel less valuable (or perceive you as more valuable). Can happen, isn't typical.
If you've been friends with someone for the last year, odds are you've become embedded in each other's social circle (I hear tell, I haven't had a friend I haven't been sleeping with since right out of law school). This places a potential high cost on the failure of a sexual relationship, and most sexual relationships, for whatever reason, it places a higher psychological barrier on engaging in any romance with them.
This is maybe not universally true, but I feel it's a good framework for understanding why the girl (or boy) you've had a crush on for half a decade doesn't want to have sex with you--either they never wanted to in the first place, or it's not worth trying now.
Quote from: Malthus on June 06, 2014, 04:29:46 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2014, 04:23:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 06, 2014, 04:18:49 PMAnyone who tries to pretend sympathy with another to somehow fool them into sex deserves to be.
I did not get that from the article. The "white knight trying to get laid" charge seems more of a cheap ad hominem to me, in this case and more generally.
I don't get that from the article, either. Just a general comment on the post. I don't really think folks holding such views as those in the article, while I disagree with them, truly do so to pretend sympathy to get laid. But in general, those who pretend sympathy to get laid deserve not to be.
Like when you pretended to be a Trotskiest to impress some dingbat?
Quote from: Malthus on June 06, 2014, 04:18:49 PM
Anyone who tries to pretend sympathy with another to somehow fool them into sex deserves to be.
Yep. The only appropriate way to get sex is to be straightforward. If you find yourself being sneaky, it means you probably know what the answer will be.
Damn I should tell my kids that someday *takes notes*
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2014, 04:25:06 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2014, 04:21:31 PM
Friend zone is a misogynist term now.
I think this is a result of misogynists having used the term prolifically to expound on and justify their world views. Tainted by association, basically.
It seems inoffensive enough to me. Has the term been overused by whiny dudes who can't get laid or something?
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2014, 04:25:06 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2014, 04:21:31 PM
Friend zone is a misogynist term now.
I think this is a result of misogynists having used the term prolifically to expound on and justify their world views. Tainted by association, basically.
I think that's true. It certainly wasn't intentionally coined as such, though I've seen it argued that it's a manifestation of entitlement to sex. I would counter, if I felt like being flamed by 10,000 left-wing maniacs (who
don't even believe in collectivization, so what good are they?), that women (and men) aren't entitled to friendship either, and being approached solely because you have something the other wants isn't denying your humanity, it's simply the dominant mode of social interaction and reflects our nature as self-interested individuals.
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2014, 04:34:13 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2014, 04:25:06 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2014, 04:21:31 PM
Friend zone is a misogynist term now.
I think this is a result of misogynists having used the term prolifically to expound on and justify their world views. Tainted by association, basically.
It seems inoffensive enough to me. Has the term been overused by whiny dudes who can't get laid or something?
That's my impression. Ladder theory, Seduction community etc
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2014, 04:31:37 PM
If someone didn't want to fuck you last year, odds are you're just older and fatter now, and they still don't want to fuck you unless something has changed to make them feel less valuable (or perceive you as more valuable). Can happen, isn't typical.
If you've been friends with someone for the last year, odds are you've become embedded in each other's social circle (I hear tell, I haven't had a friend I haven't been sleeping with since right out of law school). This places a potential high cost on the failure of a sexual relationship, and most sexual relationships, for whatever reason, it places a higher psychological barrier on engaging in any romance with them.
This is maybe not universally true, but I feel it's a good framework for understanding why the girl (or boy) you've had a crush on for half a decade doesn't want to have sex with you--either they never wanted to in the first place, or it's not worth trying now.
Short form - you can't substitute sympathy for sexy (and attempting to do so usually means the sympathy was fake in the first place).
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2014, 04:19:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2014, 04:13:27 PM
Ah the old White Knight thingy. Well he is going to be disappointed, all PIV sex is rape.
What about PIM or PIA?
Think the Feminist covered that:
Quote(or anything else replacing and symbolising the female orifice)
What's the Ladder Theory?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2014, 04:38:43 PM
What's the Ladder Theory?
http://www.laddertheory.com/
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2014, 04:40:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2014, 04:38:43 PM
What's the Ladder Theory?
http://www.laddertheory.com/
It is complete bullshit. Recognizing that a woman is attractive and that, under other circumstances, you would be glad to have sex with her doesn't doom a friendship, and I should know - my best friend is a woman, I find her attractive, and we have been friends for my entire adult life - now 29 years.
Mal: I think that's a little different, but if by "sympathy" you mean, as said above, "feigning friendship," I largely agree--although I think it's irresponsibly reductivist to assume any particular person is "feigning" friendship to try to generate romantic interest. The feeling of friendship is probably genuine, although not necessarily healthy.
If the friendship ends over the attempt, I'm not sure you can say in retrospect it wasn't genuine, either. I reckon that a lot of people underestimate how crushing it is to be told by the object of your romantic affections that they like you but not that way--it can be taken to mean, and often it does in fact mean, that you're in some way absolutely deficient. I've seen this with the genders swapped, and it is really universal and it is shattering. It's easier in many ways just to be disliked--you can simply dislike them back--than it is to be liked and judged inadequate. And trying to maintain a friendship in the face of that is being reminded that you suck. It can be unpleasant, though it can be overcome, usually via external sources of support and romantic/sexual satisfaction.
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2014, 04:34:13 PMIt seems inoffensive enough to me. Has the term been overused by whiny dudes who can't get laid or something?
Yup, that's basically my understanding.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2014, 04:46:24 PM
Mal: I think that's a little different, but if by "sympathy" you mean, as said above, "feigning friendship," I largely agree--although I think it's irresponsibly reductivist to assume any particular person is "feigning" friendship to try to generate romantic interest. The feeling of friendship is probably genuine, although not necessarily healthy. I reckon that a lot of people underestimate how crushing it is to be told by the object of your romantic affections that they like you but not that way--it can be taken to mean, and often it does in fact mean, that you're in some way absolutely deficient. I've seen this with the genders swapped, and it is really universal and it is shattering. It's easier in many ways just to be disliked--you can simply dislike them back--than it is to be liked and judged inadequate.
Not sure what the shatterimg feeling of being judged unsexy has to do with it. I suspect some guys hang around women hoping that, if they display enough friendly qualities, the woman will eventually have sex with them.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2014, 04:40:45 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 06, 2014, 04:38:43 PM
What's the Ladder Theory?
http://www.laddertheory.com/
Wow, that's a lot of detail. Some of it is BS, but not all of it.
Quote from: Malthus on June 06, 2014, 04:51:50 PM
Not sure what the shatterimg feeling of being judged unsexy has to do with it. I suspect some guys hang around women hoping that, if they display enough friendly qualities, the woman will eventually have sex with them.
Yep. Because they are too scared to make a pass so they are playing it safe.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2014, 04:38:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2014, 04:19:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2014, 04:13:27 PM
Ah the old White Knight thingy. Well he is going to be disappointed, all PIV sex is rape.
What about PIM or PIA?
Think the Feminist covered that:
Quote(or anything else replacing and symbolising the female orifice)
So, like, if a dude is masturbating and he closes his eyes and imagines his fist is really a vagina, that qualifies? That seems a bit out there.
Quote from: derspiess on June 06, 2014, 04:52:09 PM
Wow, that's a lot of detail. Some of it is BS, but not all of it.
Well yeah. If it was total BS it would be so long lived and internet famous.
Mal: I was describing how it might be easy to come to conclusion that they never had any genuine feelings of friendship in the first place, which I find an unacceptably manichaean view of "sex" and "friendship," respectively.
People are capable of a lot of self-deception, and people are often incapable of maintaining friendships in the event of a rejection like that. It doesn't mean their intentions were bad or deceitful. It just means they're cowards; but the world's full of cowards, and isn't likely to be empty of them any time soon.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2014, 04:56:45 PM
Mal: I was describing how it might be easy to come to conclusion that they never had any genuine feelings of friendship in the first place, which I find an unacceptably manichaean view of "sex" and "friendship," respectively.
People are capable of a lot of self-deception, and people are often incapable of maintaining friendships in the event of a rejection like that. It doesn't mean their intentions were bad or deceitful. It just means they're cowards; but the world's full of cowards, and isn't likely to be empty of them any time soon.
Fair enough. For myself, I would be very dissapointed if I had a person I thought was a good friend, only to discover that their friendship was conditional on my having sex with them.
Though it might be outweighed by sadness and guilt, on some level I'd be flattered and pleased. But this is because being sexually desired is the only thing I've ever known for sure that I truly wanted.
Quote from: Malthus on June 06, 2014, 04:59:28 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2014, 04:56:45 PM
Mal: I was describing how it might be easy to come to conclusion that they never had any genuine feelings of friendship in the first place, which I find an unacceptably manichaean view of "sex" and "friendship," respectively.
People are capable of a lot of self-deception, and people are often incapable of maintaining friendships in the event of a rejection like that. It doesn't mean their intentions were bad or deceitful. It just means they're cowards; but the world's full of cowards, and isn't likely to be empty of them any time soon.
Fair enough. For myself, I would be very dissapointed if I had a person I thought was a good friend, only to discover that their friendship was conditional on my having sex with them.
Yep. It is a friendship based on lies. That is the definition of the 'friendzone' to me.
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2014, 04:54:05 PM
So, like, if a dude is masturbating and he closes his eyes and imagines his fist is really a vagina, that qualifies? That seems a bit out there.
Well she gave a definition of rape that has nothing to do with consenting adults since women are incapable of giving consent to being penetrated. All of it is pretty out there. She does not really regard men as human beings but rather oppression machines anyway.
That's the kind of manichaean viewpoint I was talking about. Wanting to have sex with somebody but not telling them about it is a lie? Jesus, I've lied to almost all of the women I've ever met.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2014, 05:05:50 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2014, 04:54:05 PM
So, like, if a dude is masturbating and he closes his eyes and imagines his fist is really a vagina, that qualifies? That seems a bit out there.
Well she gave a definition of rape that has nothing to do with consenting adults since women are incapable of giving consent to being penetrated. All of it is pretty out there. She does not really regard men as human beings but rather oppression machines anyway.
Like I said, I think it makes a kind of warped sense. It's essentially the same framework you'd analyze labor-capital relations in--the latter is so powerful that the consent of the former can often not be said to be meaningful. And, in any event, a body's got to eat--all labor is done under conditions of duress.
Of course, the power relations between a man and a woman are so radically different and so much more radically equitable, it cannot be taken seriously. (Even if you view human beings as nothing but amoral machines for expressing the basest possible desires, you have to at least take into consideration that each does have the power to grant or withhold things the other wants, which almost universally includes
enthusiastic consent. It's also impossible to square with the obvious fact that women do enjoy having sex and seek it out. I know it sounds crazy, but I can prove it!)
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2014, 05:08:01 PM
That's the kind of manichaean viewpoint I was talking about. Wanting to have sex with somebody but not telling them about it is a lie? Jesus, I've lied to almost all of the women I've ever met.
its not the lie that makes it wrong, it's the motivation for the friendship. Being a friend only you want sex is dishonest and creepy. Which is different than having a friend who you want to have sex with but don't act on it for, say, fear that'll ruin the friendship.
Girls get friend zoned on equal regularity as men, though, I think. It just follows a different trajectory. Men become friends because they want sex, women are friends first and than want sex somewhere along. Both pine for what they can't have and act dishonestly in hopes of getting sex. If you have a female friend who hates all the girlfriends you've had, you've friend zoned her
I find it difficult to imagine the kind of monomaniac who harbors only sexual thoughts about somebody and no others. I don't think crushing on somebody who is either unattainable or you're too afraid to approach directly is healthy--I don't think anyone disagrees on that--but on the other hand you can go too far with judging someone's motivations, which they might not even be completely aware of. Who puts into motion the kind of diabolical plot you're assuming that has almost no chance of working? We're talking about normal humans, not Republic serial villains.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2014, 05:23:14 PM
I find it difficult to imagine the kind of monomaniac who harbors only sexual thoughts about somebody and no others. I don't think crushing on somebody who is either unattainable or you're too afraid to approach directly is healthy--I don't think anyone disagrees on that--but on the other hand you can go too far with judging someone's motivations, which they might not even be completely aware of. Who puts into motion the kind of diabolical plot you're assuming that has almost no chance of working? We're talking about normal humans, not Republic serial villains.
Certain corners of the internet seems full of dudes talking about putting that kind of diabolical plot into motion - either because they're frustrated it didn't, because they're crowing that it did, or because they want to figure out different diabolical plot that delivers the result they want.
They seem to use "friendzone" as a non-ironic description in their discourse, and that's how it became tainted with misogyny.
Quote from: HVC on June 06, 2014, 05:15:35 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2014, 05:08:01 PM
That's the kind of manichaean viewpoint I was talking about. Wanting to have sex with somebody but not telling them about it is a lie? Jesus, I've lied to almost all of the women I've ever met.
its not the lie that makes it wrong, it's the motivation for the friendship. Being a friend only you want sex is dishonest and creepy. Which is different than having a friend who you want to have sex with but don't act on it for, say, fear that'll ruin the friendship.
Girls get friend zoned on equal regularity as men, though, I think. It just follows a different trajectory. Men become friends because they want sex, women are friends first and than want sex somewhere along. Both pine for what they can't have and act dishonestly in hopes of getting sex. If you have a female friend who hates all the girlfriends you've had, you've friend zoned her
What about not wanting to be friends with a woman, because you don't want to have sex with her? :bowler:
Quote from: Jacob on June 06, 2014, 06:15:40 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2014, 05:23:14 PM
I find it difficult to imagine the kind of monomaniac who harbors only sexual thoughts about somebody and no others. I don't think crushing on somebody who is either unattainable or you're too afraid to approach directly is healthy--I don't think anyone disagrees on that--but on the other hand you can go too far with judging someone's motivations, which they might not even be completely aware of. Who puts into motion the kind of diabolical plot you're assuming that has almost no chance of working? We're talking about normal humans, not Republic serial villains.
Certain corners of the internet seems full of dudes talking about putting that kind of diabolical plot into motion - either because they're frustrated it didn't, because they're crowing that it did, or because they want to figure out different diabolical plot that delivers the result they want.
They seem to use "friendzone" as a non-ironic description in their discourse, and that's how it became tainted with misogyny.
This is correct.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2014, 04:14:33 PM
Actually, on reflection, I can see the intellectual framework. Her word choice and focus on fucking and specifically internal cumshots indicates a certain perversity, but we all have our kinks, but there's sort of a defensible idea, if you assume the can opener--that is the threat or perception of the threat of force is inherent in any male-female sexual coupling.
Of course, if you assume that, any male-female relationship is appeasement (and probably prostitution), all male-male relationships must also be based on force, and perhaps all female-female relationships likewise. It's a pretty nihilistic wordview. It's also easily disproved by most relationships except employer-employee relationships, which are transactional and leveraged, and not dissimilar to rape when you think about it.
Actually, if you want to look at things in those terms, since no 2 people, even identical twins, are
exactly the same, then in every interpersonal relationship 1 person has some degree of a "power" advantage, then all interpersonal relationships are rape. It's bullshit. And in applying it to heterosexual sex, it overlooks the fact that while, on average, men have more physical strength than women, not every man is physically stronger than every woman.
Well, women exist, right? So it's not total bullshit. Q.E.D.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2014, 05:08:01 PM
That's the kind of manichaean viewpoint I was talking about. Wanting to have sex with somebody but not telling them about it is a lie? Jesus, I've lied to almost all of the women I've ever met.
No trying to have sex with them while pretending to have totally different intentions is a lie. Because, you know, it is. It is not evil or anything, lots of people lie about trying to get sex. It just generally doesn't work and tends to result in both a doomed conquest attempt and a doomed friendship. I knew several guys when I was younger where becoming a girls friend was their game.
If you are friends with somebody and later realize you have sexual feelings, or maybe had mixed feelings going in and you have to deal with it now...well that is different but those people rarely complain about being 'friend zoned' they generally worry about the relationship and how their feelings might jeopardize it.
Quote from: Valmy on June 06, 2014, 09:31:23 PM
If you are friends with somebody and later realize you have sexual feelings, or maybe had mixed feelings going in and you have to deal with it now...well that is different but those people rarely complain about being 'friend zoned' they generally worry about the relationship and how their feelings might jeopardize it.
:yes:
That's fair. I was thinking more about the last case. I've never known anybody that tried to be "just friends" with somebody to get them to have sex with them--as opposed to being friendly to someone they want to have sex with, which seems common sensical--but if you say it exists, I believe you.
Anyway, after reading through it, despite the heavily misogynist bent (I don't really care if "bitch" is a term of art :lol: ), The Spice is right about it not being entirely wrong--I think the idea that women desire men with power/status is not that controversial.
I'm curious if there are any feminists who teach away from that aspect of our culture (infer a really awkwardly high-pitched upward inflection on "culture," but feminism does generally deny biological essentialism). Namely, that part of the reason men lock themselves into potentially destructive hierarchical systems is that it's rewarded, or, at least, seems like the only game in town. Of course, that's probably as doomed to failure as trying to get men to stop being attracted to younger/fitter/hotter women.
(That said, I think ladder theory and similar systems are flawed in that, like bad economic models, they overemphasize human rationality. This is especially likely to fail in the sexual market, which is about as close as you can get to a scenario of equal participants, simply because no one entity can accrue more than a millionth's worth of market share for even an hour--and that would take one epic gangbang--but is not populated by rational utility maximizers any more than any other market truly is and is demonstrably even more irrational.
In the end, they're efforts to impose predictability on human behavior in order to delude themselves into believing they have control over their environments and their own fates. Ultimately, it's possibly not unhealthy in small doses, since the alternative is to recognize the actual meaningless, random, usually horrible state of existence. However, in large doses, you get doctrinaire idiots who think love, friendship, and tenderness cannot logically exist.)
I just wanted to say I think this thread is Languish at its best. :cheers:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 07, 2014, 01:55:22 AM
I just wanted to say I think this thread is Languish at its best. :cheers:
I would friend zone you so quickly your head would spin. :lol:
Actually I wonder if I accidentally did this to a chick. Some gal had become friends with some of my friends of mine. I didn't know her, so I took her out to have some fun and get to know her (as I was the only person in the group that didn't know her, I felt it natural). She mistook it for desire for romantic relations which I wasn't interested in. I simply wanted to create a rapport and become friends. I'm not good at making friends (big fucking surprise), so I guess it's no surprise it didn't work out the way I hoped.
Normally I'm fairly upfront with chicks, which means I get rejected a lot. It doesn't bother me so much anymore.
I always fuck on the first date.
Quote from: The Brain on June 07, 2014, 05:42:53 AM
I always fuck on the first date.
I'll take you to see Bockscar.
:wub:
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2014, 10:21:33 PM
Anyway, after reading through it, despite the heavily misogynist bent (I don't really care if "bitch" is a term of art :lol: ), The Spice is right about it not being entirely wrong--I think the idea that women desire men with power/status is not that controversial.
Given that women are economically able to care for themselves now - for the first time in, oh, forever - I'm not so sure that's as important as it used to be. I'm also fairly sure that "biology" doesn't play a part.
Quote from: The Brain on June 07, 2014, 05:42:53 AM
I always fuck on the first date.
I always fuck up on the first date.
Which isn't as bad as it sounds, because I don't have any first dates, anyways. ^_^
Quote from: merithyn on June 07, 2014, 09:38:05 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 06, 2014, 10:21:33 PM
Anyway, after reading through it, despite the heavily misogynist bent (I don't really care if "bitch" is a term of art :lol: ), The Spice is right about it not being entirely wrong--I think the idea that women desire men with power/status is not that controversial.
Given that women are economically able to care for themselves now - for the first time in, oh, forever - I'm not so sure that's as important as it used to be.
How many women are able to independently achieve the kind of lifestyle they want? If it's as high a percentage as men--which is to say, increasingly few--I wouldn't discount social climbing as a factor.
QuoteI'm also fairly sure that "biology" doesn't play a part.
I'm not sure it doesn't play any part, that there are
no differences between the mean woman and mean man in this regard.
Although I'll admit my ex-girlfriend standing to inherit about a third of a million dollars in the next ten years didn't make her less attractive. :(
$300k isn't enough money to even register in terms of making someone more/less attractive.
Nice thread by the way, I had to skip through some boring parts but it had a great mixture of outrage and nonsense and Valmy milquetoastism to really work for me.
Can we at least all agree that Ed Anger's a Staind faggit fanboi?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 08, 2014, 06:41:19 PM
Can we at least all agree that Ed Anger's a Staind faggit fanboi?
Can we agree that Seedy is a damned pussy for having a bedtime?
Sleep > Staind
I think we can all agree that at your ages both are equally sad :console:
I'm telling on Seedy. You are SO grounded.
I bet Seedy is a Fred Durst fan.
Or worse yet, Kip Winger. Seedy is such a homo.
What's wrong with being a homo? :angry:
I bet he cries listening to Gin Blossoms every night.
Break out the Cure albums. Seedy has a sad.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 08, 2014, 09:09:39 PM
I bet he cries listening to Gin Blossoms every night.
HEY NOW
The correct response was "Hey jealousy."
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 08, 2014, 05:47:38 PM
$300k isn't enough money to even register in terms of making someone more/less attractive.
Nice thread by the way, I had to skip through some boring parts but it had a great mixture of outrage and nonsense and Valmy milquetoastism to really work for me.
It is nice to see my contributions appreciated :)
Valmy = Languish's ORIGINAL BAMF
TOTALLY SHRIMPED
Quote from: merithyn on June 07, 2014, 09:38:05 AMI'm also fairly sure that "biology" doesn't play a part.
A pretty huge claim.
Biology still plays a huge part for me, even though the evolutionary pressures that created the biological impulses are gone. I'd say it's the same for nearly everyone.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 08, 2014, 11:05:35 PM
The correct response was "Hey jealousy."
I was exhausted emptying my SMG into an empty room.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 09, 2014, 02:21:35 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 07, 2014, 09:38:05 AMI'm also fairly sure that "biology" doesn't play a part.
A pretty huge claim.
Biology still plays a huge part for me, even though the evolutionary pressures that created the biological impulses are gone. I'd say it's the same for nearly everyone.
I was a bit curious how she could be so certain.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 09, 2014, 06:45:32 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 08, 2014, 11:05:35 PM
The correct response was "Hey jealousy."
I was exhausted emptying my SMG into an empty room.
Here, have a Goo Goo Doll. :hug:
Great, one of their songs popped into my head.
They did some good stuff.
I liked Creed's first album.
SHUT UP
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 09, 2014, 02:21:35 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 07, 2014, 09:38:05 AMI'm also fairly sure that "biology" doesn't play a part.
A pretty huge claim.
Biology still plays a huge part for me, even though the evolutionary pressures that created the biological impulses are gone. I'd say it's the same for nearly everyone.
I'm sure she overstretched, but a huge part? :hmm:
Why not? Unless I'm misunderstanding how the term is being used here, doesn't biology drive pretty much everything?
You know I am a believer in the enormous impact of genetics :contract:
But in the end it doesn't really matter. I mean sure it makes sense if you are a super hot sexpot to try to cash that in with a rich partner, you just don't want to have a class (or gender or whatever) of people where that is their primary path to fame and riches. If people are not incentivized to use their own gene-given talents to better society than the system doesn't work.
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 08:56:10 AM
Why not? Unless I'm misunderstanding how the term is being used here, doesn't biology drive pretty much everything?
In some abstract sense sure but then so do chemistry and physics.
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 08:56:10 AM
Why not? Unless I'm misunderstanding how the term is being used here, doesn't biology drive pretty much everything?
Who the hell knows? Being social and having so much of ourselves defined by culture is how humans are constructed. The only way to test it would be highly unethical experiments.
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2014, 08:58:48 AM
The only way to test it would be highly unethical experiments.
Go on.
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 09:24:16 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2014, 08:58:48 AM
The only way to test it would be highly unethical experiments.
Go on.
Isolating humans from social contact and comparing behavior with socialized humans.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 09, 2014, 08:47:38 AM
I liked Creed's first album.
SHUT UP
And yet, you wonder why you catch shit.
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2014, 09:37:10 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 09, 2014, 09:24:16 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2014, 08:58:48 AM
The only way to test it would be highly unethical experiments.
Go on.
Isolating humans from social contact and comparing behavior with socialized humans.
I don't think he was wanting you to elaborate; he was wanting you to get started on the testing, ethics be damned.
Quote from: dps on June 09, 2014, 04:59:15 PM
I don't think he was wanting you to elaborate; he was wanting you to get started on the testing, ethics be damned.
Both, actually.
Confession time: I'm a bit ashamed of myself.
The more I read about what's going on with women in India, Syria, etc., the more I realize what a whiney little bitch I must sound like. So I'm a bit uncomfortable walking through a park. So a guy may not take me as seriously. So I can't get shit-faced in a bar and necessarily walk out unscathed. So I have to teach my daughter to be a little more on the alert than her brothers. Big deal.
At least I don't have to worry about her being gang-raped then slaughtered.
Yes, we as a country can do better, but we're far from the worst. :(
Dont feel like a "whiny bitch", Meri. This is America; we're different than the rest of the fucked up world. We're supposed to be.
Yeah, there's only room for one whiny bitch here, and that's Seedy.
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 09:47:55 AM
Yeah, there's only room for one whiny bitch here, and that's Seedy.
BURN! You gonna take that, Seedy? :o
Quote from: Caliga on June 10, 2014, 10:16:38 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 09:47:55 AM
Yeah, there's only room for one whiny bitch here, and that's Seedy.
BURN! You gonna take that, Seedy? :o
Does taking that enhance shareholder value? :hmm:
Quote from: Caliga on June 10, 2014, 10:16:38 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 09:47:55 AM
Yeah, there's only room for one whiny bitch here, and that's Seedy.
BURN! You gonna take that, Seedy? :o
Probably have to wait for his next cigarette break for a response :ph34r:
Quote from: merithyn on June 10, 2014, 09:26:50 AM
Confession time: I'm a bit ashamed of myself.
The more I read about what's going on with women in India, Syria, etc., the more I realize what a whiney little bitch I must sound like. So I'm a bit uncomfortable walking through a park. So a guy may not take me as seriously. So I can't get shit-faced in a bar and necessarily walk out unscathed. So I have to teach my daughter to be a little more on the alert than her brothers. Big deal.
At least I don't have to worry about her being gang-raped then slaughtered.
Yes, we as a country can do better, but we're far from the worst. :(
Meri, while it's always a valid and useful idea to realize that you're dealing with "first world problems", that doesn't mean your complaints are without merit. :hug:
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 11:25:27 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 10, 2014, 10:16:38 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 09:47:55 AM
Yeah, there's only room for one whiny bitch here, and that's Seedy.
BURN! You gonna take that, Seedy? :o
Probably have to wait for his next cigarette break for a response :ph34r:
Havent smoked since September.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 11:34:08 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 11:25:27 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 10, 2014, 10:16:38 AM
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 09:47:55 AM
Yeah, there's only room for one whiny bitch here, and that's Seedy.
BURN! You gonna take that, Seedy? :o
Probably have to wait for his next cigarette break for a response :ph34r:
Havent smoked since September.
:yeah:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 11:34:08 AM
Havent smoked since September.
Your mom won't allow it eh?
J/k congrats man that is great :hug:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 11:34:08 AM
Havent smoked since September.
Knew that would draw you out :)
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 11:36:03 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 11:34:08 AM
Havent smoked since September.
Your mom won't allow it eh?
J/k congrats man that is great :hug:
Although he didn't say anything about e-cigs... :ph34r:
Edited, shithead. Even you dont deserve shot, derfetus. Only Ed would deserve that shot. :P
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 11:38:51 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 11:36:03 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 11:34:08 AM
Havent smoked since September.
Your mom won't allow it eh?
J/k congrats man that is great :hug:
Although he didn't say anything about e-cigs... :ph34r:
Pfft, they suck too.
No, no nicotine products. I just punch things instead.:(
Quote from: Valmy on June 10, 2014, 11:36:03 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 11:34:08 AM
Havent smoked since September.
Your mom won't allow it eh?
Considering she thinks I quit in 2012, it wouldwreck havoc with plausible deniability. And had the nose of a bloodhound.
Quote from: Barrister on June 10, 2014, 11:28:52 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 10, 2014, 09:26:50 AM
Confession time: I'm a bit ashamed of myself.
The more I read about what's going on with women in India, Syria, etc., the more I realize what a whiney little bitch I must sound like. So I'm a bit uncomfortable walking through a park. So a guy may not take me as seriously. So I can't get shit-faced in a bar and necessarily walk out unscathed. So I have to teach my daughter to be a little more on the alert than her brothers. Big deal.
At least I don't have to worry about her being gang-raped then slaughtered.
Yes, we as a country can do better, but we're far from the worst. :(
Meri, while it's always a valid and useful idea to realize that you're dealing with "first world problems", that doesn't mean your complaints are without merit. :hug:
Yep!
So you quit alcohol a long time ago, now you've quit nicotine. Caffeine must be getting pretty nervous.
Back on topic, I just read that Egypt criminalized sexual harassment a few days ago. How about that.
Islamin' ain't easy.
Quote from: derspiess on June 10, 2014, 12:09:41 PM
Back on topic, I just read that Egypt criminalized sexual harassment a few days ago. How about that.
So a woman who gets harrassed there gets stoned now?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 10, 2014, 11:39:51 AM
Edited, shithead. Even you dont deserve shot, derfetus. Only Ed would deserve that shot. :P
HEY NOW