On the subject of date rape (warning for potentially triggering content)

[Luís Henrique]

Date Rape's Other Victim (http://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/13/magazine/date-rape-s-other-victim.html), by Katie Roiphe.

For your comments.

Luís Henrique

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I had a problem with this passage:

One of the questions used to define rape was: "Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs." The phrasing raises the issue of agency. Why aren't college women responsible for their own intake of alcohol or drugs? A man may give her drugs, but she herself decides to take them. If we assume that women are not all helpless and naive, then they should be held responsible for their choice to drink or take drugs.If a woman's "judgment is impaired" and she has sex, it isn't necessarily always the man's fault; it isn't necessarily always rape.
Ms. Roiphe notes that not all women are helpless. While this is certainly true, she fails to look at the relationship between men and women in capitalist society and how the latter are continuously maligned and the former are favored. The patriarchal aspects of capitalism and their influence on our culture are not to be underestimated. Even if the woman accepts the drugs from the man and takes them, does that mean that she is necessarily accepting them on an equal footing with him? I would answer no. And even if she were, does it mean that a rape did not take place? Again, no. Her conception of "agency" is far too one-sided for my taste; if the woman accepts drugs, it means that her account of what happens afterward is suspect? Please.

She also implies at one point in the article that the propaganda of anti-rape advocates is actually playing into the hands of male stereotypes all over again by making sex a "Tower of Babel", thereby making a new "passive sexual role" for women. This could have been an interesting criticism if done correctly. Instead, she writes,

This is a central idea of the rape-crisis movement: that sex has become our tower of Babel. He doesn't know what she wants (not to have sex) and she doesn't know what he wants (to have sex) -- until it's too late. He speaks boyspeak and she speaks girlspeak and what comes out of all this verbal chaos is a lot of rapes. The theory of mixed signals and crossed stars has to do with more than gender politics. It comes in part, from the much-discussed diversity that has so radically shifted the social composition of the college class since the 50's.
She then goes on to say that when the Babel's "ivory tower" meets this cultural "melting pot", it has negative consequences. True, there would undoubtedly be class tensions as well as cultural ones in a college class. And Roiphe openly acknowledges that the problem lies deeper than the "multiculturalism" that she speaks of. But that's exactly where she stops. She barely gives the issue of class more than a passing remark. For the rest of the paper, she accuses the "rape-crisis feminists" of remaking love in "its old image" from the fifties. But love's debasement is still taking place, and it wasn't the feminists that took us there; in fact, as Marx once noted, capitalist social relations have a tendency to encourage "debasement" in love, turning it into a cash nexus. In other words, Roiphe is blaming the feminists not simply for a social problem, but a systemic social problem in class society. Blaming the feminists for this new "conservatism" is, in my opinion, way off the mark.

I do not believe that this article has much merit. In terms of any theoretical contribution it could make, it is worthless.

[Sam_b]

I'm sorry but this article is absolute garbage.

[The Jay]

I'm sorry but this article is absolute garbage.

I think that was the point.

[Sam_b]

It certainly isn't coming from Luis, who is currently pursuing an agenda of trying to trivilaise rape, along with other male members who should know better.

[Manic Impressive]

I'm sorry but this article is absolute garbage.
Easy for you to say. You're a man. The article is written by a woman. Perhaps you should try listening to what women have to say for a change instead of dismissing their views as absolute rubbish. Typical man

[Sam_b]

Why do you believe that women are a homogenous group? I see the sexism of the Revleft boys club backfires again.

[Manic Impressive]

Women are an oppressed group and you are not part of that group so you can never know what it is like to experience being a woman therefore your opinion on whether this is rubbish or not is invalid. Women are constantly bullied and told to STFU by male patriarchs like you. So fuck off with your White Male privilege

[Crux]

Women are an oppressed group and you are not part of that group so you can never know what it is like to experience being a woman therefore your opinion on whether this is rubbish or not is invalid. Women are constantly bullied and told to STFU by male patriarchs like you. So fuck off with your White Male privilege
Did you even read the article? Also one does wonder why Luís Henrique bothered to dig up an anti-feminist NYT piece from 1993.

[L.A.P.]

why do I feel like someone is going to get banned through the course of this thread

also, "white male privelege"? I thought such postmodern sociological terms were considered nonsense by Marxists.

[Igor]

also, "white male privelege"? I thought such postmodern sociological terms were considered nonsense by Marxists.

well you were wrong because white male privilege is a real fucking thing mate.

[cynicles]

Katie Roiphe has a history of writing this kind of anti-feminist garbage, women can write and diseminated this kind of stuff too. Many of them like Katie happened to be a part of the few privileged women from the uppermiddle class and up who went to ivy league institutions and get easy jobs writing as news publications token woman reinforcing all the mainstream discourse that perpetuates patriarchy.

[Luís Henrique]

It certainly isn't coming from Luis, who is currently pursuing an agenda of trying to trivilaise rape, along with other male members who should know better.

I am certainly not pursuing an "agenda" of trivialising rape. Where do you take such an idea from?

Rape is a horrible crime, one of the most violent and repulsive I can imagine.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Did you even read the article? Also one does wonder why Luís Henrique bothered to dig up an anti-feminist NYT piece from 1993.

Someone "digs" an article about a subject that should be of interest for leftists, and puts it up for discussion on a discussion board for leftists? Not possible, no; it must necessarily be something horrible.

With Trotskyists like you, who needs Stalinists?

Luís Henrique

[L.A.P.]

well you were wrong because white male privilege is a real fucking thing mate.

I'm pretty sure I saw a thread not to long ago talking about how white male privelege theory is a bunch of bullshit that obfuscates class relations, one post had a picture of a white homeless guy and Oprah Winfrey.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Women are an oppressed group and you are not part of that group so you can never know what it is like to experience being a woman therefore your opinion on whether this is rubbish or not is invalid. Women are constantly bullied and told to STFU by male patriarchs like you. So fuck off with your White Male privilege

The article in question, while written by a woman, is overtly anti-feminist.

By way of analogy, Ann Coulter can write all she wants about how equality for women is destroying America, but my having a penis doesn't mean I can't have a valid opinion on whether Ann Coulter is an absolute moron.

[Igor]

Women are an oppressed group and you are not part of that group so you can never know what it is like to experience being a woman therefore your opinion on whether this is rubbish or not is invalid. Women are constantly bullied and told to STFU by male patriarchs like you. So fuck off with your White Male privilege

yeah we're the REAL sexists here yeah

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

I'm pretty sure I saw a thread not to long ago talking about how white male privelege theory is a bunch of bullshit that obfuscates class relations, one post had a picture of a white homeless guy and Oprah Winfrey.
I disagree. Privilege theory does not "obfuscate" class relations, it reveals their very existence in capitalism with all of their contradictions. Its assimilation into the Marxist armory is of great importance, since the notion of unfair advantage or privilege is reflected in the minds of proletariat. If we hope to have any chance of reaching the workers and imbuing them with revolutionary class consciousness, we have to build a bridge that will lead them to us. Privilege theory must be a part of that bridge.

True, it is reactionary in the hands of a bourgeois ideologue when it is used to reduce everything to culture. That is why we must understand Privilege theory's merits and claim them for ourselves. If we do not, our abstention will constitute an apology for a form of social inequality.

[Luís Henrique]

I had a problem with this passage:

First of all, thank you for bothering to discuss the article, with quotations and reasoned argument. It seems much better than the ad hominems and attempts at censorship going on on much of the rest of this thread.


Ms. Roiphe notes that not all women are helpless. While this is certainly true, she fails to look at the relationship between men and women in capitalist society and how the latter are continuously maligned and the former are favored. The patriarchal aspects of capitalism and their influence on our culture are not to be underestimated.

So, is the kind of relation between men and women that we are used to see constitutive of capitalism? If so, is it really possible to be countered by legal reforms, within a capitalist society? If not, how are the problems that Ms. Roiphe points out arising within capitalism? (or are they not arising, perhaps?) Or, if they are arising within a capitalist society, and we can somehow explain them while at the same time maintaining that their opposite, ie, unbridled oppression of women, is constitutive of capitalism, shouldn't we conclude that those things, after all, are part of the generalised and oppressive relation between men and women?


Even if the woman accepts the drugs from the man and takes them, does that mean that she is necessarily accepting them on an equal footing with him?

There are of course cases in which men abuse women by giving them drugs, but they are usually related to cheating on what those drugs are and do (as in the classic Rohypnol in drinks rapes). I don't think anyone denies that.

But what would "accepting them on an equal footing" mean?


I would answer no. And even if she were, does it mean that a rape did not take place?

Of course not. Drunken women can be raped, of course. As in, though drunken, trying to repeal the assailant and being overwhelmed by force. Or as in passing out and being abused while unconscious. But drunken women can consent to sex, too, even if their consent, or choice of partners, is tainted by their alcoholic state. As in, actively inviting men to have sex with them.


Again, no. Her conception of "agency" is far too one-sided for my taste; if the woman accepts drugs, it means that her account of what happens afterward is suspect? Please.

No, I don't think that is the point. The point is, if her account is, "yes, I did consent to sex, but that was only because I was drunk, and I was drunk only because he gave me booze", is this still rape?


She also implies at one point in the article that the propaganda of anti-rape advocates is actually playing into the hands of male stereotypes all over again by making sex a "Tower of Babel", thereby making a new "passive sexual role" for women. This could have been an interesting criticism if done correctly.

Well, if indeed the "anti-rape advocates" are building new passive stereotypes for women, then they are probably doing something wrong, isn't it? The point then would be whether they are doing such or not.


She then goes on to say that when the Babel's "ivory tower" meets this cultural "melting pot", it has negative consequences.

I think you misunderstand here by mixing up two different towers, the ivory one and the one of Babel. I think she means that university has traditionally been a place of privilege, that that changed recently (thence "ivory tower", ie, the universities, meets "melting pot", ie, the not as much privileged populace that only recently gained entrance into campuses), and that universities have not yet adapted to the new situation, or that their attempts to adapt to the new situation are misguided.


True, there would undoubtedly be class tensions as well as cultural ones in a college class. And Roiphe openly acknowledges that the problem lies deeper than the "multiculturalism" that she speaks of. But that's exactly where she stops. She barely gives the issue of class more than a passing remark.

Given the usual level of the public discourse in the United State, this would seem to me already some advance. Isn't it?


For the rest of the paper, she accuses the "rape-crisis feminists" of remaking love in "its old image" from the fifties. But love's debasement is still taking place, and it wasn't the feminists that took us there; in fact, as Marx once noted, capitalist social relations have a tendency to encourage "debasement" in love, turning it into a cash nexus.

Indeed. But such debasement of everything sacred should be taken as a negative thing, that should be fought against?


In other words, Roiphe is blaming the feminists not simply for a social problem, but a systemic social problem in class society. Blaming the feminists for this new "conservatism" is, in my opinion, way off the mark.

Is there a "new conservatism", or not? And is this "new conservatism" in some way embraced or taken as granted without discussion by "radical (ie, non-Marxist, non class struggle) feminists", even if they cannot be blamed for it?


I do not believe that this article has much merit. In terms of any theoretical contribution it could make, it is worthless.

How about facts, or supposed facts, it mentions? Like the 25% figure? Or this quote by Catharine MacKinnon, "
Compare victims' reports of rape with women's reports of sex. They look a lot alike. . . . In this light, the major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it.

Luís Henrique

[Yuppie Grinder]

You should be able to get drunk and not get raped. Fuck anyone who says otherwise.

[Luís Henrique]

also, "white male privelege"?

I don't think there is something like "white male privilege". There is white privilege and there is male privilege; the later is quite obvious in any modern (or ancient, fwiw) society; the former is certainly rampant in any countries that have at any point of history been involved in slavery and its more recent consequences.


I thought such postmodern sociological terms were considered nonsense by Marxists.

"Marxists" obviously are a quite diverse group; perhaps there are some who think the only real thing is class struggle, and perhaps there are some who have encumbered class struggle with so much post-postism and political correctness that they don't have any place for class struggle in their world views any more. Heck, I bet there are some who manage to do both things simultaneously.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

If we hope to have any chance of reaching the workers

I don't have any hope to reach for the workers. I am a worker.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

You should be able to get drunk and not get raped. Fuck anyone who says otherwise.

Is there anyone saying otherwise?

Luís Henrique

[Veovis]

I thought that it was common sense that if someone appears intoxicated or under the influence it's not ok to have sex with them no matter what they say.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

@Luis: I don't mind that you had problems with a lot of my arguments, but next time please try to summarize your criticism in paragraphs instead of stopping after almost every sentence. It is irritating to the eye.

Anyway, just some general remarks.

1.) Perhaps “capitalism” was the wrong word. I should have said “class society”. As we both know, women have been subjugated as objects of lust before capitalism came into existence. It is also true that in some respects sexual attitudes were different and far more permissive in say, Ancient Greece as opposed (I’m speaking specifically of pederasty) to 21st century America. But in both societies, women were relegated as social property despite these differences. Therefore I think that legal reforms are generally inadequate though they should be fought for when possible.

Regarding that these instances are part of the “generalized oppressive relation” between men and women, I can’t agree. This view seems to imply that the interests of both men and women will forever be opposed to one another in some way. But men and women are both from earth, not from Mars and Venus respectively. If historical materialism is to have any relevance to dissecting this mystery, further investigation is required into the nature of gender roles and how they are bred into the consciousness of ordinary people. At the very least, it would be a good start of an investigation into the problem of gender inequality.

2.) When I say “equal footing”, I am referring to political and human equality, which women, trans people, gay people, blacks, and others do not have under American class society.

3.) As regards to your example, yes, I would generally regard it as rape. Taking advantage of their impaired status is inexcusable in any circumstance. I would think that this is fairly straightforward.

4.) Your argument seems to be that empowerment is a new form of gender oppression. If the anti-rape advocates are actually constructing a new “passive” role for women, that would be one thing. But in her article it comes off as a glib dismissal of greater legal protection of women from rape. I do not support the notion that giving women more rights will make them passive. If that is the case then the struggle of workers to acquire a decent living standard under capitalism should be looked at in the same vein, and workers would then be “passive” or “selfish” for this.

5.) I do not think we should look at her mention of “class” as an advance of any kind, especially because she does not go in depth into it at all. The significance of her mentioning this lies in what she does not say. The bourgeois media cannot be trusted to advance “public discourse” into a critique of capitalist social relations.

6.) The statistical “facts” are of no interest to me in that article. What concerned me is her approach to the problem, which is to my mind profoundly reactionary. And I am confused as to your stance here. Are you defending this writer’s ideas? I sincerely hope that you are not. As I said before, the article is worthless to the left and especially to Marxism. It is attempt to turn the struggle for women’s rights on its head, and it fails.

7.) Regarding your lack of hope of reaching workers, I do not share your pessimism. Furthermore, your argument is rather silly in that it is essentially “It is if I say it is.” I do not particularly care if you are a worker, it does not give you immediate authority to crush my argument with a snide dismissal. This is the equivalent of a black person insisting that institutional racism isn’t a problem; it is a poor method of argument. If you do not believe in the possibility of reaching the workers at all, and if you do not think that the idea of privilege has any basis, I don’t see why we’re even discussing this.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I thought that it was common sense that if someone appears intoxicated or under the influence it's not ok to have sex with them no matter what they say.

No, it's OK, depending on the circumstance.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I disagree. Privilege theory does not "obfuscate" class relations, it reveals their very existence in capitalism with all of their contradictions. Its assimilation into the Marxist armory is of great importance, since the notion of unfair advantage or privilege is reflected in the minds of proletariat.

And yet the Left made huge strides in undermining and challenging racism for many decades prior to "privilege theory" being gifted to it from academia.

People say that "privilege theory" applies to a general phenomena and isn't applicable to every individual circumstance, and if that were true I might subscribe to it, but in practice PT really is used as a kind of cudgel against any sort of opinion someone doesn't like, esp. if those opinions come from white left-wingers.

[Luís Henrique]

I thought that it was common sense that if someone appears intoxicated or under the influence it's not ok to have sex with them no matter what they say.

I don't think it is OK.

I also don't think these issues divide into two broad camps, "It's OK" and "It's rape".

Luís Henrique

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

And yet the Left made huge strides in undermining and challenging racism for many decades prior to "privilege theory" being gifted to it from academia.

People say that "privilege theory" applies to a general phenomena and isn't applicable to every individual circumstance, and if that were true I might subscribe to it, but in practice PT really is used as a kind of cudgel against any sort of opinion someone doesn't like, esp. if those opinions come from white left-wingers.
Unfortunately, undermining racism does not mean that the material conditions are ripe for its eradication, which I think a socialist society would aim for after the overthrow of class society. It is impossible to effectively fight racism and bigotry under capitalism. And for every step forward that the left has taken in this, those pluses are usually turned into minuses over time. The civil rights movement in the US is a prime example of this. While the movement was "successful" in acquiring civil rights for blacks, the socioeconomic oppression did not ultimately disappear. As much as we should defend the democratic gains of those laws, they are legally little more than a moldy bandages upon a festering wound in bourgeois society.

Some general remarks regarding Privilege theory. It was not a recent creation of "academia", its roots lie in the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School in the 1930s. I suggest that you try to read up on it at some point, because while it does have flaws, it can provide some effective critical tools to engage in a Marxist critique of culture and philosophy. That it has been used as a "cudgel" by snotty white liberal philistines does not mean it should be abandoned wholesale. The revelation of power dynamics and the challenging of our most basic assumptions is volatile ground because it is so personal, but it would be a mistake to completely ignore it.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Unfortunately, undermining racism does not mean that the material conditions are ripe for its eradication, which I think a socialist society would aim for after the overthrow of class society. It is impossible to effectively fight racism and bigotry under capitalism. And for every step forward that the left has taken in this, those pluses are usually turned into minuses over time. The civil rights movement in the US is a prime example of this. While the movement was "successful" in acquiring civil rights for blacks, the socioeconomic oppression did not ultimately disappear. As much as we should defend the democratic gains of those laws, they are legally little more than a moldy bandages upon a festering wound in bourgeois society.

Uh, OK, I never said that the Left vanquished racism, so...


Some general remarks regarding Privilege theory. It was not a recent creation of "academia", its roots lie in the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School in the 1930s. I suggest that you try to read up on it at some point, because while it does have flaws, it can provide some effective critical tools to engage in a Marxist critique of culture and philosophy. That it has been used as a "cudgel" by snotty white liberal philistines does not mean it should be abandoned wholesale. The revelation of power dynamics and the challenging of our most basic assumptions is volatile ground because it is so personal, but it would be a mistake to completely ignore it.

I think that the Frankfurt School definitely qualifies as "academia".

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Uh, OK, I never said that the Left vanquished racism, so...
No, but you seem to think we can get along without any further theoretical assistance. I believe Privilege theory can provide us with a way to help us win the workers to us. It can allow us to get into their heads, to engage with them on the everyday issues that confront them in life. Racism and special oppression by the police or others are certainly significant.

I think that the Frankfurt School definitely qualifies as "academia".
True, they are technically "academic". My point is that it wasn't recent, and it came from a group of thinkers who were not politically homogeneous in any sense, and very close to Marxism at one point. Though it is true they did fall to pessimism after the Second World War, I still think it is premature to dismiss it simply because you don't like how the bourgeois ideologues have been using it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Did you even read the article? Also one does wonder why Luís Henrique bothered to dig up an anti-feminist NYT piece from 1993.

1993, a time when this sort of date-rape rhetoric was high on campuses because of a series of high-profile fraternity-party scandles involving "peer-pressure rape". A time when there was still actually a feminist grassroots presence - more on campuses than in working class neighborhoods, so this is partly why the rhetoric was strong... but at the same time these feminist groups had long begun to loose any meaningful political power because the mainstream feminist organizations had all hitched themselves to Clinton and abandoned street-protests. So a lot of "being feminist" on a campus was on the one hand learing theory and ideas, two supporting the Democrats, three social-work. Since campuses don't have as much need of female-focused social work on things like povery or battered women or so on, the social aspects of campus feminism were focused on female business achievement and support for rape victims, awareness raising about rape.

It was also roughly the same time I went to college and in orientation we heard some of the same statistics questioned in the NYTimes editorial. Immediately everyone went back to their dorms and discussed it and then basically dismissed these figures - men and women students. But on a positive side at least it drove home the point that rape was less commonly the popular conception of a stranger jumping on you and having sex.

So it was a weak and liberal response, but to a real danger and real thing that's common and messes people up. This kind of rhetoric was also almost always accompanied by "self-defense" training for women and cultrually this was the time of "Riot-grrl" and pop-culture "girl-power" where women were portrayed as superheroes and female protagonists always got punches in... this situation has changed since the late 1990s in many ways and now rather than being the Superheroes now that the Superhero genre is on top in Hollywood, they are almost always 2-D love interested (even when the movie is projected as 3-D:p). Anyway, that's all superficial, but the point is that the focus on "date/pressure-rape" was not part of an idea of women being weak physically or unable to make decisions - the point is that in this time (and now) violent rape was treated as a crime often whereas unwanted sex or pressured sex was not.

Where "weakness" comes into play in this is not in women being physically or emotionally weaker, but socially in a weaker position in society where college rapes had and continue to be downplayed by University Admins for fear of scandles or loosing support or funding or for powerful frats to loose their charters or star players to get kicked out for raping people. Rape victims who don't come in all battered and bloody with a video of assault from a stranger are typically treated as somehow partially complicit.


Someone "digs" an article about a subject that should be of interest for leftists, and puts it up for discussion on a discussion board for leftists? Not possible, no; it must necessarily be something horrible.

Don't play it all naive and inncocent. You posted an article by an obscure liberal writer in the NYTimes from over 20 years ago (and is 16 pages long) without comment from yourself - this, in a context in which members on this board are dismissing possible rape charges against the WikiLeaks guy, and in a broader context in for those of us in the US where mainstream politicians are talking about how some things are "asking for it-rape" whereas then there's "legitimate rape"! What did you expect people to read this as or where'd you think this discussion would go? Frankly it's trollish behavior like some right-winger who comes on here and posts an article arguing that Obama is a socialist and then only commenting, "Hey guys what do you think?"

[Luís Henrique]

Perhaps “capitalism” was the wrong word. I should have said “class society”. As we both know, women have been subjugated as objects of lust before capitalism came into existence. It is also true that in some respects sexual attitudes were different and far more permissive in say, Ancient Greece as opposed (I’m speaking specifically of pederasty) to 21st century America. But in both societies, women were relegated as social property despite these differences. Therefore I think that legal reforms are generally inadequate though they should be fought for when possible.

I have argued before that female oppression predates class society.

But yes, I agree that legal reforms won't solve the problem, but we should still fight for them.


Regarding that these instances are part of the “generalized oppressive relation” between men and women, I can’t agree. This view seems to imply that the interests of both men and women will forever be opposed to one another in some way.

I don't follow. Under capitalism, there is no possibility that women oppression is eradicated.


When I say “equal footing”, I am referring to political and human equality, which women, trans people, gay people, blacks, and others do not have under American class society.

But this applies to any sexual relationship under capitalism. Which means we could always argue whether a woman "actually" consented to a sexual relationship, or merely conceded because of not being in an equal footing.


As regards to your example, yes, I would generally regard it as rape. Taking advantage of their impaired status is inexcusable in any circumstance. I would think that this is fairly straightforward.

Rape is always inexcusable... but not everything that is inexcusable is rape. Or is it?


Your argument seems to be that empowerment is a new form of gender oppression.

I very much doubt that it is "empowerment" first place.


If the anti-rape advocates are actually constructing a new “passive” role for women, that would be one thing. But in her article it comes off as a glib dismissal of greater legal protection of women from rape. I do not support the notion that giving women more rights will make them passive.

I object the notion of "giving" women more rights, but, no, more rights would not make them passive. But here we have to ask, is what she is criticising "more rights" for women? Frankly, reversing or atenuating the burden of proof in cases of rape doesn't seem to me to mean more rights for women; rather it means less rights for people accused of crimes.

Rape is a horrible crime; it should not be confused with other things that are naughty, disagreeable, or nasty - that would be trivialising rape.


I do not think we should look at her mention of “class” as an advance of any kind, especially because she does not go in depth into it at all. The significance of her mentioning this lies in what she does not say. The bourgeois media cannot be trusted to advance “public discourse” into a critique of capitalist social relations.

And yet the bourgeois media of most countries in the world openly talks about class.

There are non-class struggle feminists. That is not a secret, is it? Feminists who have no problem with the division of society in classes, or with the exploitation of workers, men and women, by the bourgeois men and women. Are they our allies? Should we defend them against any criticism?

It looks to me that Ms. Roiphe is attacking exactly that kind of "feminists" - radical feminists, gender feminists, sexist feminists, bourgeois feminists - and that she is not attacking them from an antifeminist perspective.


The statistical “facts” are of no interest to me in that article.

Pity. If indeed one in four women in American colleges is raped, then the situation there is not much better than in American jails, where a huge amount of prisoners is raped. It would probably the case of closing all American universities, or of establishing separate colleges for men and women. But it seems to be a factoid, totally unrelated to reality; if it were true, people, or at least women, would simply not engage in university. And the outcry would be a lot louder than it is.


Regarding your lack of hope of reaching workers, I do not share your pessimism.

I am not pessimist at all. I just don't have to hope to reach for workers, I am one of them.


Furthermore, your argument is rather silly in that it is essentially “It is if I say it is.” I do not particularly care if you are a worker, it does not give you immediate authority to crush my argument with a snide dismissal.

And I don't know (or care) whether you are or are not a worker, but frankly, the rhetorics of "reaching for the workers" is outlandish to me.


If you do not believe in the possibility of reaching the workers at all

I don't believe in the necessity of it. We engage in workers' class struggle - our class struggle -, we don't "reach" for it as if it was something alien to us.


and if you do not think that the idea of privilege has any basis

That's a strange idea. Here is what I said about it:


There is white privilege and there is male privilege; the later is quite obvious in any modern (or ancient, fwiw) society; the former is certainly rampant in any countries that have at any point of history been involved in slavery and its more recent consequences.

I don't know how this can be construed into "not thinking that the idea of privilege has any basis".

(for the records, there are many other privileges besides those two, and the fact that I am not in the mood to make a long - and necessarily incomplete - list of them doesn't mean that I deny or think there is no base for believing in their existence.)

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

Women are an oppressed group and you are not part of that group so you can never know what it is like to experience being a woman therefore your opinion on whether this is rubbish or not is invalid. Women are constantly bullied and told to STFU by male patriarchs like you. So fuck off with your White Male privilege

people who criticize black right-wingers are the real racists too you tell em stupid

edit; sorry for the shitposting but that was weak as hell and you're better than that

[Камо́ Зэд]

I have argued before that female oppression predates class society.

I think Engels would disagree.

[Luís Henrique]

Don't play it all naive and inncocent. You posted an article by an obscure liberal writer in the NYTimes from over 20 years ago (and is 16 pages long) without comment from yourself - this, in a context in which members on this board are dismissing possible rape charges against the WikiLeaks guy, and in a broader context in for those of us in the US where mainstream politicians are talking about how some things are "asking for it-rape" whereas then there's "legitimate rape"! What did you expect people to read this as or where'd you think this discussion would go? Frankly it's trollish behavior like some right-winger who comes on here and posts an article arguing that Obama is a socialist and then only commenting, "Hey guys what do you think?"

Also in a "context" where people apparently can be banned (and labeled rape apologists, which is far worse) from these boards for doubting the accusations against Assange, and the admin board, after promising to clear the issue of what is and what is not rape apologism, erased the thread that asked for that clarification, and otherwise kept silence. So I am not playing naive and innocent. I am bringing into discussion an article that questions what has to be questioned at this point: what is rape and what is not, and who benefits from trivialising rape to the point where it can become a synonym to "sex I would rather have not had".

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

I think Engels would disagree.

Weeelllllll ask a lot of anthropologists and they'd tell you that Engels would be generally right. There were gender-egalitarian societies (mainly) but there were also a share of patriarchal and matriarchal pre-agricultural societies. Very few, but yeah.

[Luís Henrique]

I think Engels would disagree.

I am pretty sure he would.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Weeelllllll ask a lot of anthropologists and they'd tell you that Engels would be generally right. There were gender-egalitarian societies (mainly) but there were also a share of patriarchal and matriarchal pre-agricultural societies. Very few, but yeah.

But pre-classist doesn't mean pre-agricultural; there were plenty of agricultural pre-classist societies.

Also, I think that "gender-egalitarian" in this context just means "not wildly more inegalitarian than modern society".

Luís Henrique

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Also in a "context" where people apparently can be banned (and labeled rape apologists, which is far worse) from these boards for doubting the accusations against Assange, and the admin board, after promising to clear the issue of what is and what is not rape apologism, erased the thread that asked for that clarification, and otherwise kept silence. So I am not playing naive and innocent. I am bringing into discussion an article that questions what has to be questioned at this point: what is rape and what is not, and who benefits from trivialising rape to the point where it can become a synonym to "sex I would rather have not had".

Luís Henrique

If this is your intention, I will have to leave the conversation. I do not have the time or energy to be drawn into something like this again. Furthermore, I asked you to stop replying by posting in the way you did last time, and you did not listen. Pithy remarks do not make a good counterargument. Do you have any idea how exasperating it is trying to respond to all of that?

Anyway, I'm out of here. Have fun trying to justify mansplaining as a tenet of Marxism.

[#FF0000]

Yo i feel like this thread is literally nothing but knee-jerk reactions a la "waaait a minute what are you trying to say here luis...."

[Os Cangaceiros]

No, but you seem to think we can get along without any further theoretical assistance. I believe Privilege theory can provide us with a way to help us win the workers to us. It can allow us to get into their heads, to engage with them on the everyday issues that confront them in life. Racism and special oppression by the police or others are certainly significant.

I think that the best offense against racism is through the illustrative power of action, not theory. The unity people share based upon their common economic circumstance. And like I said, that principle has been around the labor movement for a pretty long time, even in very racist societies, like South Africa (which had a fairly big racially-integrated revolutionary syndicalist movement at the beginning of the 20th century) or the American South.

I guess what I don't see is how PT has helped the Left at all. Although PT has it's roots in the Frankfurt School, I don't think it became popular until after the "New Left". That's why I think that the influence of PT is more contemporary than, say, the 1930's. The person I associate on the left with "privilege theory" is Noel Ignatiev.


Камо́ Зэд http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2510073#post2510073) I think Engels would disagree.

TBH Engels' view on anthropology should be taken with a really big boulder of salt. His interest in the subject was rather amateurish and was based off the work of Lewis Henry Morgan, who was as bourgeois as they come (Engels could relate to that a bit! ;)) and was primarily interested in the Iroquis because he supposedly wanted to create some kind of fraternal men's association with a few of his business buddies, and wanted to mimic the rituals or something. Not that the man's work should be discredited solely because of his economic background, but the interest of Engels was a little overenthusiastic and naive, and has been criticized by professional anthropologists. One such person was Peter Farb, who said that "Engels died before learning the truth about his American primitives, and later communists have chosen to ignore it."

[Камо́ Зэд]

Engels was hardly an anthropologist, but I'm very interested in his analysis of the origin of class as it relates to family and sex.

[Rottenfruit]

well you were wrong because white male privilege is a real fucking thing mate.
to in the last two decades it has changed , the middle class is pretty much gone now.
Now theres only a handful of ultra rich people and the rest tend to be poor and the trend seems to be that everybody is getting poorer expect the top 1% white male or not.

White male privilage was a giant factor 20-30 years ago but in todays socity almost everybody has been made "equal" in the way that means 99% poor 1% rich.

Hence fighting for workers rights far outweighs fighting white male privilege

I did read that rohypnol was not the main date rape drug by the way but another benzoprine drug called halicon number 2 is ghb, for some odd reason rophynol has receven the blame when most cases of date rapes involve halcion or ghb, and yeah there was a study done on this that showed that the most common drug used for daterape was Halcion then Ghb and then Rohypnol

[whocooksforyou]

I think its a very interesting article, and while I don't agree with everything in it, I definitely think there is a lot of truth in many of the points that it raises about campus feminism reducing women to passive victims without sexual agency. It is a shame that the culture on this place prevents any honest discussion of topics like this, though, and it is hilarious that sam b is screaming about male posters and a boys club, when he is a male poster, and this entire place is a boys club, moderated by a bunch of condescending males with shitty gender politics who believe they are the spokesmen for womankind.

[Luís Henrique]

I think its a very interesting article, and while I don't agree with everything in it, I definitely think there is a lot of truth in many of the points that it raises about campus feminism reducing women to passive victims without sexual agency.

And if the problem is that the article is from 1993, the directive on sexual violence, popularly called "Dear Colleague Letter", issued by the Office of Civil Rights of the U.S. Department of Education, is from April 2011, and it again seeks to reduce the burden of proof in cases of rape - besides requiring that college courts decide on criminal cases.


It is a shame that the culture on this place prevents any honest discussion of topics like this, though,

That's the point, I think. We need to change the culture of this place.

Luís Henrique

[Vanguard1917]

Pity. If indeed one in four women in American colleges is raped, then the situation there is not much better than in American jails, where a huge amount of prisoners is raped. It would probably the case of closing all American universities, or of establishing separate colleges for men and women. But it seems to be a factoid, totally unrelated to reality; if it were true, people, or at least women, would simply not engage in university. And the outcry would be a lot louder than it is.

Indeed. But i guess the assumption is that women are, in general, helpless victims. If rape is such a normal occurance in women's everyday existence, it is something which they are on the whole quietly submitting to. And if raping is so rife among men, women can't really be expected to have trust in any man at all.

[mew]

it's funny because this article and thread acts like "women's agency" is ignored in society when it comes to rape cases. hahaha. we focus on nothing but "women's agency" when it comes to rape. now, male agency???

and the article uses anecdotal evidence of basically "1/4 of women i know haven't told me they've been raped, so how can this number be correct?" Well, I know plenty of women and men who are shocked and disgusted by the amount of women they know who have been raped and/or molested. Not to mention that that number is based on you know, actual research.

The reason we don't hear about rape in society, it isn't always commonly discussed couldn't have to do with the focus on "women's agency" (victim blaming) and other misogynistic strains in society could it? #wow #whoa. Women often don't report cases of rape for various reasons (social stigma, the fact that only 2% of rapists will ever see jail time, blaming themselves etc.) Don't forget the various surveys like this. http://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/sa_rape_support.html

And I'm a woman by the way. find it disgusting that this trash is posted in 'women's struggle'

[#FF0000]

If rape is such a normal occurance in women's everyday existence, it is something which they are on the whole quietly submitting to.

uh


and if raping is so rife among men, women can't really be expected to have trust in any man at all.

yeah but when a woman is suspicious of strange men then y'all cry so hard about "but but ubt ubtubtubtubtu bsexims against men"

[Luís Henrique]

yeah but when a woman is suspicious of strange men then y'all cry so hard about "but but ubt ubtubtubtubtu bsexims against men"

"Sexism against men" doesn't exist. Sexism isn't an individual stance, it is a systemic trait of patriarchal societies - and as all modern societies are patriarchal, there cannot be sexism against men, even though evidently some women and some men harbour prejudiced views of men. But sexism (and I use this word as a translation of the Portuguese machismo) victimises all people, men and women, though of course more (and in far more serious ways) the latter than the former.

The issue is not "sexism" against men, the issue is the erosion of rights of the accused in certain crimes, which means "empowerment" not of women, but of the bourgeois State. That State that keeps Mumia abu Jamal jailed for decades, on the basis of a frame-up, remember?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

And so those types of psychological date rapes most always go unreported.

What you describe doesn't sound to me as "psychological" rape, but as rape sans phrase, adjectiveless rape.

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

"Sexism against men" doesn't exist. Sexism isn't an individual stance, it is a systemic trait of patriarchal societies - and as all modern societies are patriarchal, there cannot be sexism against men, even though evidently some women and some men harbour prejudiced views of men. But sexism (and I use this word as a translation of the Portuguese machismo) victimises all people, men and women, though of course more (and in far more serious ways) the latter than the former.

Right.


The issue is not "sexism" against men, the issue is the erosion of rights of the accused in certain crimes, which means "empowerment" not of women, but of the bourgeois State. That State that keeps Mumia abu Jamal jailed for decades, on the basis of a frame-up, remember?

Luís HenriqueI don't think this "erosion" is a real problem to be honest. Being accused of rape isn't an instant one way ticket to jail and men who do rape often get away with it even when there is plenty of evidence that ought to ensure they get locked up. And that's if the rape is even reported to police. And that's if the report leads to an investigation or arrest. And that's if it ever goes to court.

The danger of false rape accusations is extremely overstated and I think it's actually kind of fucked up to say "hey rape is bad but this is a huge problem we need to deal with too!!!!"

EDIT: looking at statistics from the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network, 97% of rapists will never spend a day in jail.

[Invader Zim]

I think another important issue to be aware of, regarding 'date rape', is how the term has been misappropriated by a chauvinistic male media from its original usage in feminist discourse in the 1980s and early 90s, which was about boyfriends (or would-be boyfriends) raping their dates. The term was rapidly appropriated by the media and redefined into something different, something that played into the existing prevalent media perception of rape - the stranger rape. So rather than otherwise respectable young men in the community taking women out and then raping them, the term date rape came to be associated with drug facilitated rape.


I read a really good article about this process within the media, I'll have to find it again.

Found it:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14680777.2011.555966

From the concluding paragraph:

"In short, the newly dominant meaning of “date rape” effaces the issue of sexual consent and all that is tied up with it, such as ideas about victim-culpability and the meaning of “normal” and “abnormal” intimacy. Sexual violence is thereby evacuated of any complexity: once again, it is made a simple matter of sick men attacking (in this case completely) passive women. Extraordinarily, “date rape” has been recast to reinforce the reigning ideology of patriarchal society and deny the possibility that rape is a social and political problem. In this respect, tracing the life of “date rape” as a crime category gives a valuable insight into the dynamics of cultural co-optation, the process whereby a dominant patriarchal culture translates concepts that otherwise threaten its very existence. At the very least, it should prompt us to ask how far we have come in re-framing the problem of rape."

[Vanguard1917]

yeah but when a woman is suspicious of strange men then y'all cry so hard about "but but ubt ubtubtubtubtu bsexims against men"


The problem i alluded to regards the notion that a large percentage of men are rapists or potential rapists, especially when this is not backed up with any evidence.

As LH said, the main issue here is not that men will be discriminated against, etc. But sensationally overstating the prevalence of rape will help to create a culture of irrational fear and suspicion in social relationships, which, for those of us who want to see greater social solidarity within the working class, would be a negative development - for both sexes.

[Luís Henrique]

strange men

But, here:

first, the overwhelming majority of date rape is (by definition, even) not "strange men rape", it is acquaintance rape, friend rape, and lover rape.

Second, if date rape = rape, then the majority of rape at large is acquaintance rape, friend rape, and lover rape - plus relative (as in intra-family, not as opposed to absolute) rape. Unless we are to believe that date rape is a lesser problem than violent rape.

Third, the political correct discourse implies that the majority of violent rape is committed by people who women know (lest it collapses into race-baiting), so it is possible that we are required to believe (and indeed even possible that it is an outright truth) that strangers are not to be feared any more than dear daddy, dear hubby, your best friend, or that cool guy you just met at the party, with impressive green eyes and an absurdly vast knowledge of Russian literature.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

What pisses me off is her brushing off being sexually objectified and borderline raped as if It's just part of being a woman. Society may see it as such but that doesn't mean it's right. I could say so much more but this article has no credibility and is 20 years old.

What do you mean by "sexual objectification"?

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

But, here:

first, the overwhelming majority of date rape is (by definition, even) not "strange men rape", it is acquaintance rape, friend rape, and lover rape.

Cool what about sexual harassment/street harassment

[#FF0000]

The problem i alluded to regards the notion that a large percentage of men are rapists or potential rapists, especially when this is not backed up with any evidence.

Haha this reminds me of that survey that showed more than half of college aged dudes said they'd commit rape if they thought they could get away with it and like 43% of them said they used some kind of coercion to get sex (but didn't identify it as rape somehow haha).

Plus you literally said "damn if it's that common there's no reason for women to trust men". And hey, sexual abuse definitely is that common. Sorry.


As LH said, the main issue here is not that men will be discriminated against, etc. But sensationally overstating the prevalence of rape will help to create a culture of irrational fear and suspicion in social relationships, which, for those of us who want to see greater social solidarity within the working class, would be a negative development - for both sexes.

I don't know how you can say this when we're talking about one of the most underreported crimes there is.

[whocooksforyou]

it's funny because this article and thread acts like "women's agency" is ignored in society when it comes to rape cases. hahaha. we focus on nothing but "women's agency" when it comes to rape. now, male agency???

It doesn't seem like you actually read very much of the article. Her criticism about denying women's sexual agency wasn't about society, it was aimed specifically at what she termed rape crisis feminism. The fact that victim blaming is prevalent in society (and it is ridiculous and offensive to equate victim blaming with recognizing women's sexual agency) doesn't mean that infantilizing women and reducing them to unconditional passive victims is in any way a justifiable reaction, or should somehow be immune from criticism.


and the article uses anecdotal evidence of basically "1/4 of women i know haven't told me they've been raped, so how can this number be correct?" Well, I know plenty of women and men who are shocked and disgusted by the amount of women they know who have been raped and/or molested. Not to mention that that number is based on you know, actual research.Which she, you know, actually addresses, if you'd actually read the actual article:

in a 1985 survey undertaken by Ms. magazine and financed by the National Institute of Mental Health, 73 percent of the women categorized as rape victims did not initially define their experience as rape; it was Mary Koss, the psychologist conducting the study, who did.

One of the questions used to define rape was: "Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs."
Her point was about the way rape was being defined in the survey.

By the way, editing this to note that both of the links provided by #FFOOO on the following page use data from this survey by Mary Koss.



And I'm a woman by the way. find it disgusting that this trash is posted in 'women's struggle'Yes, how dare someone subject you to opinions you don't agree with!!! :mad:

[Quail]

The article is garbage. I could probably say a lot about it but I don't have time to break it down point by point.


Indeed. But i guess the assumption is that women are, in general, helpless victims. If rape is such a normal occurance in women's everyday existence, it is something which they are on the whole quietly submitting to. And if raping is so rife among men, women can't really be expected to have trust in any man at all.
I don't think that women are "quietly submitting" to rape. I'm not sure what you really mean by that, but it could quite easily be interpreted as you blaming women for not doing enough to stop rape happening. I suggest that you think carefully about your phrasing in future if that's not what you meant, otherwise consider this a verbal warning for victim blaming. There are a variety of reasons why women don't come forward about rape, including the false distinction between "actual rape" and more accepted forms of rape (for example, buying a woman drinks until she is unable to consent can be seen as acceptable behaviour by a lot of young men). There is also the fear of not being taken seriously, the unpleasantness of reliving the experience when you tell someone and the fear of somehow being seen as at fault.

[Vanguard1917]

I don't think that women are "quietly submitting" to rape. I'm not sure what you really mean by that, but it could quite easily be interpreted as you blaming women for not doing enough to stop rape happening.

I think you need to re-read what i actually wrote.

[Vanguard1917]

Haha this reminds me of that survey that showed more than half of college aged dudes said they'd commit rape if they thought they could get away with it and like 43% of them said they used some kind of coercion to get sex (but didn't identify it as rape somehow haha).

I'm not sure what you're 'haha'-ing about. And if you want to put forward this survey as evidence that almost half of all men of student age are rapists, you could at least provide its source.

[#FF0000]

I think you need to re-read what i actually wrote.

I think you need to clarify if that's not what you meant, because I got out of it what Quail got out of it.


I'm not sure what you're 'haha'-ing about. And if you want to put forward this survey as evidence that almost half of all men of student age are rapists, you could at least provide its source.

http://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/sa_rape_support.html
http://www.justdatenow.org/dating-abuse-help/rape-resource-page/identifying-acknowleding-rape

for starters. Want me to find more?

[Crux]

It doesn't seem like you actually read very much of the article.[quote]
oh hi there mr 3 posts. What you've got to act all smug about?

[quote]Her criticism about denying women's sexual agency wasn't about society, it was aimed specifically at what she termed rape crisis feminism. The fact that victim blaming is prevalent in society (and it is ridiculous and offensive to equate victim blaming with recognizing women's sexual agency) doesn't mean that infantilizing women and reducing them to unconditional passive victims is in any way a justifiable reaction, or should somehow be immune from criticism.
Which she, you know, actually addresses, if you'd actually read the actual article:

Her point was about the way rape was being defined in the survey.

Yes, how dare someone subject you to opinions you don't agree with!!! :mad:
Yes her point was pretty transparent all the way through. We don't discuss racism or other discrimination based on "hey maybe this really reactionary piece actually is kind of right", as far as I can see. Why should sexism be treated differently?

[whocooksforyou]

No one has actually bothered to demonstrate that it is a really reactionary piece. But I suppose if white knight Male Feminist Majakovskij says so...

Also, I can't wait til you guys actually meet some women who aren't university students. Hilarity will ensue.

[#FF0000]

Also, I can't wait til you guys actually meet some women who aren't university students. Hilarity will ensue.

why


white knightlol i remember the last time someone who said this had anything worth listening to (no i dont)


...9 is that you

[Vanguard1917]

I think you need to clarify if that's not what you meant, because I got out of it what Quail got out of it.

This is what i wrote: "the assumption is that women are, in general, helpless victims.If rape is such a normal occurance in women's everyday existence, it is something which they are on the whole quietly submitting to."

I can't see what's controversial there. To rephrase: If 25% of women have been raped (that's around 30 million living women rape victims in America, if we define 'woman' as aged 18 and over), that means that the vast majority of rape victims have remained quiet.


http://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/sa_rape_support.html


(http://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/sa_rape_support.html)
The site uses multiple reports which give conflicting information. One says:

"43% of college-aged men admitted to using coercive behavior to have sex, including ignoring a woman's protest, using physical aggression, and forcing intercourse"

And another says:

"One in 12 [male college students] admitted to committing acts that met the legal definitions of rape..."

So which one is it? 43% or 8.3%? Two radically different set of figures.

But the fact that you chose to go with the higher percentage perhaps indicates that you're not that interested in finding an accurate estimate at all.

What is it that makes you so eager to establish that hundreds of millions of men are rapists?

[whocooksforyou]

Because you all seem to have an incredibly canned and academic understanding of women's experiences, and the fact that you refuse to even 'lower' yourselves to having an honest discussion about a view that doesn't match your own opinion speaks volumes. If you meet women in person who disagree with you about feminism, are you just going to yell sexist at them and shut down the discussion? Even if they have some wrong opinions about some things, at least their views are on the whole based on their own experiences, unlike the male feminists of revleft whose opinions are based on articles and university courses.

[#FF0000]

This is what i wrote: "the assumption is that women are, in general, helpless victims.If rape is such a normal occurance in women's everyday existence, it is something which they are on the whole quietly submitting to."

I can't see what's controversial there. To rephrase: If 25% of women have been raped (that's around 30 million living women rape victims in America, if we define 'woman' as aged 18 and over), that means that the vast majority of rape victims have remained quiet.

yeah rape is an incredibly underreported crime. you are the last to figure this out.


But the fact that you chose to go with the higher percentage perhaps indicates that you're not that interested in finding an accurate estimate at all.


Nah I went with the higher figure because that's the one I've heard more often and seen more often. I'm not really surprised that different studies in different places would come up with different numbers. I've heard them from as low as 8 to as high as 60. Would you like me to find more numbers?

[Crux]

No one has actually bothered to demonstrate that it is a really reactionary piece. But I suppose if white knight Male Feminist Majakovskij says so...

Also, I can't wait til you guys actually meet some women who aren't university students. Hilarity will ensue.
I didn't know that had to be done with a piece that uses anti-feminist arguments so worn out they've become clichés. Oh and if you looked around for a second you would see in fact several posters have bothered to directly address the article. Oh and I see you now have your rep hidden. I wonder who you're a sockpuppet of.

Vanguard1917: You're getting your statistics mixed up there. They do not reference the same paper.

[#FF0000]

The higher number also comes from a later study.

[Crux]

Because you all seem to have an incredibly canned and academic understanding of women's experiences, and the fact that you refuse to even 'lower' yourselves to having an honest discussion about a view that doesn't match your own opinion speaks volumes. If you meet women in person who disagree with you about feminism, are you just going to yell sexist at them and shut down the discussion? Even if they have some wrong opinions about some things, at least their views are on the whole based on their own experiences, unlike the male feminists of revleft whose opinions are based on articles and university courses.
Yes, being candid about how trash a rightwing piece from NYT from 1993 is totally the same as shutting down "all women". So who are you a sock of?
As for my understanding of rape statistics, yes I do know many women who have been raped. But you didn't want to hear that because you're the one out to shut down the discussion. So yeah, you smell of troll. your first few posts and choice of words are more than a little obvious.

[#FF0000]

these discussions are always so tiring. people complaing 'o ur silencing us u dumb mail feminst' and do the whole 'wat wud u no ur a student' and 'feminists rnt reel womens heheh' and it's pretty frustrating being told that i'm some ivory tower academic when i'm a blue collar guy whose view on the subject has been shaped by women in my life who come from all sorts of backgrounds with literally none of them coming from the whole 'student-feminist-activist' camp.

we haven't really gone down that trail yet with this discussion but lets try to avoid it since i see it sorta veering that way (whocooksforyou)

[Luís Henrique]

I don't think that women are "quietly submitting" to rape.

Well. If one in four college students are raped - which means one in sixteen, or about 600,000 women, being raped in American campuses each year, or almost 2,000 each day (or more than that if we consider the fact of college vacations) - then evidently women are "quietly submitting" to rape, because reports of rape in American university don't come even close to that (and if they were, colleges would be occupied by police now, or separate colleges for men and women would have been established long ago).


There are a variety of reasons why women don't come forward about rape, including the false distinction between "actual rape" and more accepted forms of rape (for example, buying a woman drinks until she is unable to consent can be seen as acceptable behaviour by a lot of young men). There is also the fear of not being taken seriously, the unpleasantness of reliving the experience when you tell someone and the fear of somehow being seen as at fault.

Which in other words may be reasons why women are "quietly submitting" to rape. But silence, even if silence motivated by earnest and understandable fear, cannot be misinterpreted into outcry, can it?

**********

Rape is a subject clouted into deep obscenity. But it is really a crime, like murder or robbery, more violent and horrible than the latter, and less so than the former. "Blaming the victim" should be put into the same perspective. "Guilt" is a word with different meanings in the juridical jargon or "ordinary language". If I park my car and leave the keys in it, and it gets stolen, nobody will confuse the issue: in ordinary language, at least partially it is my fault, I am to blame for it, I am guilty of it - how could I be so stupid as to leave the keys inside the car? Juridically, I am perfectly innocent, and only the thief is guilty, to blame for it, or at fault. Because forgetting the keys inside the car is not a crime, and stealing a car is, and, juridically, "guilt" only applies to juridically relevant actions.

The same is true of rape. It may be good advice to tell someone not to stroll in New York Central Park between midnight and blue hours in miniskirts and top, but so doing is not a crime, is a juridically irrelevant action, and consequently should be completely irrelevant to judges and juries. It is rape's relation to sex, and the obscene relation between sex and religion, that obfuscates the issue. While I can safely go to a police precinct and tell the detectives that my car was stolen, explain them that I made a stupid mistake in forgetting the keys inside, and be sure that, albeit that, they will consider me innocent, and the thief guilty, the way we (policemen and policewomen included) are socialised, especially on issues of sex, makes it unsafe for a woman to go to a police precinct and explain that she was raped while strolling at night in a dangerous place, especially if dressed in ways socially deemed "sexy".

One thing we can do is to try to discuss it openly and without prejudices; the more we discuss it, the more we help to remove the obscene shrouds in which the subject is wrapped. On the contrary, the more we treat it as taboo, the more we help obscenity to prevail. If statistics that seem obviously incompatible with what we experience as reality cannot be questioned, we are just making them taboo. Of course, it may well be that the problem is not in the statistics, but in "what we experience as reality". Maybe each day two thousand women are being raped in American colleges, and American society is so sick that it cannot see it happening, and so sick that something like 1,990 to 1,999 of these crimes are unreported. Which would put American campuses in a comparable situation to American jails, Saudi cities, or South African or Brazilian shanty towns. But then we should be calling for the immediate closing of such hellholes, or for their placement under martial law or something equivalent, until long term measures can be designed to effectively put an end to such situation.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Cool what about sexual harassment/street harassment

What about them?

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

Well. If one in four college students are raped - which means one in sixteen, or about 600,000 women, being raped in American campuses each year, or almost 2,000 each day (or more than that if we consider the fact of college vacations) - then evidently women are "quietly submitting" to rape, because reports of rape in American university don't come even close to that (and if they were, colleges would be occupied by police now, or separate colleges for men and women would have been established long ago).

why is the whole "rape is wildly underreported" being treated like a new thing here.


Which in other words may be reasons why women are "quietly submitting" to rape. But silence, even if silence motivated by earnest and understandable fear, cannot be misinterpreted into outcry, can it?

So, you're saying women don't really care about being raped, or...?

I mean I am really, really trying to read what you and vanguard are saying about this particular point in a way that isn't atrocious in its implications but I am struggling.


Rape is a subject clouted into deep obscenity. But it is really a crime, like murder or robbery, more violent and horrible than the latter, and less so than the former. "Blaming the victim" should be put into the same perspective. "Guilt" is a word with different meanings in the juridical jargon or "ordinary language". If I park my car and leave the keys in it, and it gets stolen, nobody will confuse the issue: in ordinary language, at least partially it is my fault, I am to blame for it, I am guilty of it - how could I be so stupid as to leave the keys inside the car? Juridically, I am perfectly innocent, and only the thief is guilty, to blame for it, or at fault. Because forgetting the keys inside the car is not a crime, and stealing a car is, and, juridically, "guilt" only applies to juridically relevant actions.

What does a woman do to invite rape that is equivalent to leaving keys in a car before it gets stolen? "Blaming the victim" goes beyond saying "well this person isn't guilty because she should have known better". It also reinforces rape myths like "rape happens especially when you wear revealing clothes late at night". The example you gave there does not represent the majority of rape cases and you must know that since you yourself thought you had to inform me that most women are raped by people known to them, only a few posts ago.



What about them?Women are sexually harassed by strangers on the street relatively often.

What I"m saying is that a lot of women definitely have a reason to be suspicious of dudes who approach them on the street. This is kind of a tangent.

[Luís Henrique]

why is the whole "rape is wildly underreported" being treated like a new thing here.

It certainly is underreported. This is one thing. A different thing is whether the underreporting is close to 99%, which is what such numbers imply.


Women are sexually harassed by strangers on the street relatively often.

So, if we include such events as "rape", then the idea that most rape occurs at home, by relatives, is false, and most "rape" is committed by strangers, in streets. Conversely, when we say that most rape is committed by relatives, at home, we are implying that harassment does not constitute rape. But either we keep the cake or we eat it.


So, you're saying women don't really care about being raped, or...?

I mean I am really, really trying to read what you and vanguard are saying about this particular point in a way that isn't atrocious in its implications but I am struggling.

No, I think that women care about being raped, and consequently that the figures of one in four, or one in five female college students being victims of rape are necessarily bogus. Because the converse, ie, believing in such figures, must have "atrocious implications": either that they don't care, or that they are so scared by male supremacy that they don't dare reporting. None of them seem credible to me (regarding the United States; the latter seems likely regarding Saudi Arabia, for instance).


What does a woman do to invite rape

I don't think women ever invite rape.


It also reinforces rape myths like "rape happens especially when you wear revealing clothes late at night".

Which is false; rape happens especially - if we may apply the word - at home, and involving relatives. One reason it doesn't happen more often when wearing revealing clothes late at night is that most women don't use revealing clothes late at night - or they don't do it unless taking earnest safety measures that lower the possibility.


The example you gave there does not represent the majority of rape cases and you must know that since you yourself thought you had to inform me that most women are raped by people known to them, only a few posts ago.

So? I am not saying or implying otherwise. And I am quite certain that the majority of car thefts doesn't involve forgetting the keys either. What I am pointing to is the cognitive disjunction that affects most people when rape is concerned. While no blunders, real or imaginary, by a victim of theft would be ever used to excuse the thief or to imply that the victim shares the blame, when it comes to rape the opposite is true, and many, probably most people - women included - believe that it is not rape, or that the victim is partially "guilty" if she happens to be drunk, or to work as a prostitute, or to have multiple sexual partners, etc. (which in some cases leads to the converse reasoning, that because someone was raped, s/he should have being doing something "wrong", ie, drinking too much, dating multiple partners, or generally being a "whore").

(By the way, the barbaric particularity of American law, in criminalising prostitution, is probably part of this problem.)


What I"m saying is that a lot of women definitely have a reason to be suspicious of dudes who approach them on the street.

As far as I know, women are safer in streets than in closed environments, and nowhere less safe than at home. But maybe this is just another factoid, and in fact most violence against women happens in the streets, and is perpetrated by strangers.

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

So, if we include such events as "rape"

Nope gonna stop you here we do not include sexual harassment as rape.


No, I think that women care about being raped, and consequently that the figures of one in four, or one in five female college students are necessarily bogus. Because the converse, ie, believing in such figures, must have "atrocious implications": either that they don't care, or that they are so scared by male supremacy that they don't dare reporting. None of them seem credible to me (regarding the United States; the latter seems likely regarding Saudi Arabia, for instance).

1) "This can't be true because that would be horrific if it was" doesn't mean something isn't true.
2) I think lack of education has at least something to do with it, with a good number of men and women not knowing what is rape and what isn't (somehow),
3) It's not because they fear "male supremacy". It's because they fear being blamed/shamed for what happened to them. Or because they deny it. Or for any number of reasons.

This is some incredibly weak thinking, Luis. You don't have to be in Saudi Arabia to have incredibly regressive views on sex, rape, female agency, etc. In my neighborhood, some army boy raped a woman at a party, and the response was a bunch of his scumbag friends (men and women) going out, making t-shirts for him, harassing the woman and her family, to the point where she was too scared to testify. This is also a country where a 14 year old girl can be gang-raped, and then the biggest newspaper in the country can still blame her for tempting her attackers.


As far as I know, women are safer in streets than in closed environments, and nowhere less safe than at home. But maybe this is just another factoid, and in fact most violence against women happens in the streets, and is perpetrated by strangers.It's pretty shitty to be a woman in a lot of places so

[black magick hustla]

idk girls drink wine with boys sometimes because they want to have sex with them and viceversa, otherwise virtually all one night stands would be rape. i imagine its a case by case basis thing and its ridiculous to say that having sex with drunk girls is universally rape. i imagine a lot of it is common sense and if you think it is a bad idea it is probably a bad idea

[Flying Purple People Eater]

idk girls drink wine with boys sometimes because they want to have sex with them and viceversa, otherwise virtually all one night stands would be rape. i imagine its a case by case basis thing and its ridiculous to say that having sex with drunk girls is universally rape. i imagine a lot of it is common sense and if you think it is a bad idea it is probably a bad idea

If you want to have a 'one night stand', then don't intoxicate yourself or your partner with a drug that slurs cognitive thinking and decision making. I find it ridiculous the amount of people on here that will openly attack rapists who've used drugs to coerce their victims, yet defend beer and wine (both coercive drugs) as a 'cultural thing'. Contrary to popular belief, the most commonly used date-rape drug is indeed alcohol, precisely because a drunk can not be expected to make rational decisions, and It's because of this very fact that many women will not complain as they don't see it as rape (e.g. "I made the decision to get drunk and had sex while I was under the influence. If I say that I was raped, then they'll say that I was lying or overexaggerating")

If you have sex with someone who was intoxicated, then they have every fucking right to accuse you of rape. Whether they'd like it or not under influence of alcohol, if they don't want to do it in their sober mind, they probably wouldn't have wanted it then either. If you find that they didn't want to have sex the following morning, then you have just raped them.

Got a problem with that? Don't fuck a drunk person then.

[Quail]

No, I think that women care about being raped, and consequently that the figures of one in four, or one in five female college students being victims of rape are necessarily bogus. Because the converse, ie, believing in such figures, must have "atrocious implications": either that they don't care, or that they are so scared by male supremacy that they don't dare reporting. None of them seem credible to me (regarding the United States; the latter seems likely regarding Saudi Arabia, for instance).

It's not "male supremacy" that stops people from reporting rape. It's the fear of being blamed, the fear of not being taken seriously, the fear of how the attacker might react, that it might be very difficult and traumatic to talk about it in detail. There are loads of more plausible reasons why people don't come forward about rape than either they don't care or they're scared of "male supremacy."



I don't think women ever invite rape.


Which is false; rape happens especially - if we may apply the word - at home, and involving relatives. One reason it doesn't happen more often when wearing revealing clothes late at night is that most women don't use revealing clothes late at night - or they don't do it unless taking earnest safety measures that lower the possibility.
Earnest safety measures that lower the possibility of someone raping them? What safety measures do women take while walking alone at night in revealing clothes that stop them from being raped? Claiming that women walking around in revealing clothes increases the chance of them being raped is for starters wrong, because there are plenty of rapes in countries where most women are muslims and cover up, and also reinforces the stereotype that men always want sex and are controlled by their sexual desire. It implies that men who see women in revealing clothes have no self control and can't help but rape them.


Well. If one in four college students are raped - which means one in sixteen, or about 600,000 women, being raped in American campuses each year, or almost 2,000 each day (or more than that if we consider the fact of college vacations) - then evidently women are "quietly submitting" to rape, because reports of rape in American university don't come even close to that (and if they were, colleges would be occupied by police now, or separate colleges for men and women would have been established long ago).

Which in other words may be reasons why women are "quietly submitting" to rape. But silence, even if silence motivated by earnest and understandable fear, cannot be misinterpreted into outcry, can it?
"Quietly submitting" implies that women are choosing to accept rape as a reality without doing anything to change that, which is not true. The word "submitting" suggests that women are passively accepting rape. Being scared of reporting rape doesn't mean that someone passively accepts it as just one of those shitty things, and doesn't stop someone from getting involved with groups who seek to educate people about consent. Someone might feel powerless to do anything about the problem of rape and so not do anything, but that doesn't imply "quiet submission."

[Quail]

If you want to have a 'one night stand', then don't intoxicate yourself or your partner with a drug that slurs cognitive thinking and decision making. I find it ridiculous the amount of people on here that will openly attack rapists who've used drugs to coerce their victims, yet defend beer and wine (both coercive drugs) as a 'cultural thing'. Contrary to popular belief, the most commonly used date-rape drug is indeed alcohol, precisely because a drunk can not be expected to make rational decisions, and It's because of this very fact that many women will not complain as they don't see it as rape (e.g. "I made the decision to get drunk and had sex while I was under the influence. If I say that I was raped, then they'll say that I was lying or overexaggerating")

If you have sex with someone who was intoxicated, then they have every fucking right to accuse you of rape. Whether they'd like it or not under influence of alcohol, if they don't want to do it in their sober mind, they probably wouldn't have wanted it then either. If you find that they didn't want to have sex the following morning, then you have just raped them.

Got a problem with that? Don't fuck a drunk person then.
I agree with what you're saying, although I do think that with alcohol and drugs there is a degree of common sense required. For example, if someone is clearly very drunk, confused or sleepy it's obvious that you shouldn't have sex with them. After a few drinks though, someone might only be slightly tipsy and still in a position to consent. Of course if you're not sure, the best thing to do is not to have sex with them. You could ask for their phone number and arrange to meet up again or wait until the next morning. It should just be common sense, but in practice it isn't that simple because of cultural ideas about acceptable behaviour.

[black magick hustla]

If you want to have a 'one night stand', then don't intoxicate yourself or your partner with a drug that slurs cognitive thinking and decision making. I find it ridiculous the amount of people on here that will openly attack rapists who've used drugs to coerce their victims, yet defend beer and wine (both coercive drugs) as a 'cultural thing'. Contrary to popular belief, the most commonly used date-rape drug is indeed alcohol, precisely because a drunk can not be expected to make rational decisions, and It's because of this very fact that many women will not complain as they don't see it as rape (e.g. "I made the decision to get drunk and had sex while I was under the influence. If I say that I was raped, then they'll say that I was lying or overexaggerating")

If you have sex with someone who was intoxicated, then they have every fucking right to accuse you of rape. Whether they'd like it or not under influence of alcohol, if they don't want to do it in their sober mind, they probably wouldn't have wanted it then either. If you find that they didn't want to have sex the following morning, then you have just raped them.

Got a problem with that? Don't fuck a drunk person then.

i dont know what you are you pontificating about. there are studies and stuff that show that women like to drink in order to facilitate sex etc. there is also a difference between sex you regret and rape, which is a difference the vast mayority of women do. jesus fucking christ, do you live under a rock? dont worry though the vast mayority of 20something people will keep engaging in irresponsable, drunken sex even if yoseph bananas disagrees with it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

i dont know what you are you pontificating about. there are studies and stuff that show that women like to drink in order to facilitate sex etc. there is also a difference between sex you regret and rape, which is a difference the vast mayority of women do. jesus fucking christ, do you live under a rock? dont worry though the vast mayority of 20something people will keep engaging in irresponsable, drunken sex even if yoseph bananas disagrees with it.
Well there's a pretty distinct difference between going to a bar and getting a little drunk and having causal drunken sex and, what I think was being implied here, trying to "get a girl drunk". Does that happen? I know for a fact that there is far too much acceptance among men of that notion - in fact whole scenes in sex-comedies are based on that.

I don't think there are many people who mistake date-rape and regrettable sex: in order for you to regret sex, you would have had to have wanted sex at the time. So I think this conflation of the two is a distraction from the main issue of non-directly cooersive sex which is social pressure or feeling like it is unacceptable to say no - which may also cause regret and may also seem consensual from the outside at the time. If someone gets drunk and hooks up then they think: "I wish I haddn't done that with them" but if someone goes to a frat party and feels social pressure from another person, then they might regret not being more assertive in getting out of that situation. I think this is what people generally talk about with unreported date-rape.

Personally I see it as bending to the sexist attitudes in our society to give an inch to the idea of cry-wolf rape being that common. Pressured-sex and the expectation of sex is much more the issue and much more common - anytime in the last 10 years you could turn on late night TV in the US and there were multiple infomercials of "Girls Gone Wild" which promotes itself as videos of women pressured or too intoxicated to mind taking their shirts off. The backlash against feminism in part contained the idea that all feminists are anti-male and anti-sex and so to not want to have sex for some reason or to not be particularly interested in showing off your body in bars indicates some kind of social problem: "being a prude".

But this kind of sex, the legitimization of "stripper-dancing" for workouts, the idea that for business women to be "down" they now have to join the "boys club" and go to strip clubs and laugh at sexist jokes, the idea that working class women are more sexual and willing... is not sexual liberation, it's just a kind of a way that sexism has tried to be reconstructed in the post-feminist era. It's the social-idea in the post-homemaker era that women's power is their bodies and their natural place is to produce babies or to seduce men: not their labor power or their individual talents or skills.

We shouldn't just automatically assume anyone accused of rape is guilty until proven innocent, because there have been cases like the day-care in LA that was accused of molesting children, had their lives destroyed and then it came out that the psychologists had accidentally planted the molestation stories by asking the kids a bunch of explicit questions causing them to make up stories about being touched because they believed that that's what the doctors wanted to hear. But we also can't make light of or ignore the social-relationships and pressures involved in sex today; the mixed messages and impossible contradictory standards that are expected of women. If men in general and the left specifically downplays this or brushes it off, then that's going to cause more distrust and a bigger wedge in the ability to fight sexism than if some men feel that instances of rape are exaggerated.

Sexual liberation, to me, necessitates smashing the material economic and social-relations entanglements from sex: so relationships are free from concerns over money or power-relationships and so on. I think that will produce a society where not only would it be nearly impossible to socially pressure someone into having sex, or to keep people in bad relationships because they don't have their own job or place to stay or are worried about loosing their children, but everyone would probably be having a lot more truly mutual causal sex of all kinds. So IMO tacit acceptance or the downplaying of rape when it's not some obvious violent attack, is a barrier to this project of sexual liberation and human liberation.

[Vanguard1917]

If you want to have a 'one night stand', then don't intoxicate yourself or your partner with a drug that slurs cognitive thinking and decision making. I find it ridiculous the amount of people on here that will openly attack rapists who've used drugs to coerce their victims, yet defend beer and wine (both coercive drugs) as a 'cultural thing'. Contrary to popular belief, the most commonly used date-rape drug is indeed alcohol, precisely because a drunk can not be expected to make rational decisions, and It's because of this very fact that many women will not complain as they don't see it as rape (e.g. "I made the decision to get drunk and had sex while I was under the influence. If I say that I was raped, then they'll say that I was lying or overexaggerating")

If you have sex with someone who was intoxicated, then they have every fucking right to accuse you of rape. Whether they'd like it or not under influence of alcohol, if they don't want to do it in their sober mind, they probably wouldn't have wanted it then either. If you find that they didn't want to have sex the following morning, then you have just raped them.

Got a problem with that? Don't fuck a drunk person then.

My god. I haven't read a post this stupid in a while. Where does one even start in addressing it?

[Vanguard1917]

Well there's a pretty distinct difference between going to a bar and getting a little drunk and having causal drunken sex and, what I think was being implied here, trying to "get a girl drunk". Does that happen? I know for a fact that there is far too much acceptance among men of that notion - in fact whole scenes in sex-comedies are based on that.

So women have some sort of mental peculiarity which prevents them from consenting to and enjoying sex while utterly drunk in the same way that men can?

What if a woman encouraged a man to drink a few pints too many in a pub in order to lower his inhibitions? She is trying to rape him, is she?

I appreciate that you consummate gents want to wrap your protective arms around the tiny shoulders of those delicate little flowers that we call the fairer sex, but i think that many women would find your patronising attempts at guardianship quite on the belittling side.

[Luís Henrique]

If you want to have a 'one night stand', then don't intoxicate yourself or your partner with a drug that slurs cognitive thinking and decision making.

That's very good advice, for people of all sexes and orientations - and one that I have been abiding by now for more time than most revlefters have of life.

You only have now to communicate that wisdom to the tens of millions of young men and women to whom alcohol is an icon of recently achieved adulthood and independence. Good luck with doing that, especially in revleft, which is a place where drug apologism is rampant.


I find it ridiculous the amount of people on here that will openly attack rapists who've used drugs to coerce their victims, yet defend beer and wine (both coercive drugs) as a 'cultural thing'.There is a difference between someone who puts rohypnol into your drink while you aren't watching, and someone who offers you dangerous drugs - cocaine, marijuana, ecstasy, heroin, and last but not least alcohol but allows you to accept or refuse it.


Contrary to popular belief, the most commonly used date-rape drug is indeed alcoholIndeed. It is also widely used by people of both sexes and all orientations to overcome their inhibitions when they are actively seeking sex.

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

So women have some sort of mental peculiarity which prevents them from consenting to and enjoying sex while utterly drunk in the same way that men can?

What if a woman encouraged a man to drink a few pints too many in a pub in order to lower his inhibitions? She is trying to rape him, is she?

I appreciate that you consummate gents want to wrap your protective arms around the tiny shoulders of those delicate little flowers that we call the fairer sex, but i think that many women would find your patronising attempts at guardianship quite on the belittling side.
Well, aside from what Jimmie Higgins pointed out, that it seems it's you, rather than Yoseph, that has a hard time distnguishing between drunken sex and rape, there's this thing called structures in society.

Statstics imply that over 90% of rape cases are pereptuated by men against women, most usually, or against other men.
And alcohol very often plays a role in this. these are verifiable statstical facts, don't brush it off as people "living on other planets". And keep your backslapping to guestbooks and PM if you're just going to make a useless one-liner out of it. And while it may seem outlandish to you, and indeed to many people, rape is far more common than you realize.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So women have some sort of mental peculiarity which prevents them from consenting to and enjoying sex while utterly drunk in the same way that men can?No drunk sex can be loads of fun - or just disappointingly uncoordinated and lazy. That's not the issue. Again, there's a difference between waking up after going out (probably already looking to hook up) and then regretting that you wanted to have sex with that person last night and going out and having people TRY and GET YOU DRUNK for the purpose of lowering either your decision-making ability (therefore making coercion much easier and more deniable in the morning). There's a difference between regretting something that you wanted at the time and regretting that something happened TO YOU or regretting that you didn't fight more.


What if a woman encouraged a man to drink a few pints too many in a pub in order to lower his inhibitions? She is trying to rape him, is she?I guess, but she won't be very successful.


I appreciate that you consummate gents want to wrap your protective arms around the tiny shoulders of those delicate little flowers that we call the fairer sex, but i think that many women would find your patronising attempts at guardianship quite on the belittling side.Men (including myself) did not "invent" the concept of date-rape as something to be opposed to. Just to destroy the idea that a husband could rape his wife legally took movements of women against sexist attitudes and structures in society. You're the one who apparently thinks that women can't tell the difference between being used and regretting a hook-up in the morning, so don't give me that bullshit about left-patrionizing.

[Luís Henrique]

It's not "male supremacy" that stops people from reporting rape. It's the fear of being blamed, the fear of not being taken seriously, the fear of how the attacker might react, that it might be very difficult and traumatic to talk about it in detail. There are loads of more plausible reasons why people don't come forward about rape than either they don't care or they're scared of "male supremacy."

Male supremacy isn't a platonic essence in the otherworld of pure ideas, it is what causes the fear of being blamed or not taken seriously, the fear of the reactions of rapists, the difficulty and trauma to talk about it.


Earnest safety measures that lower the possibility of someone raping them? What safety measures do women take while walking alone at night in revealing clothes that stop them from being raped?

Walking in groups, carrying a gun or pepper spray, carrying a cellphone, etc.


Claiming that women walking around in revealing clothes increases the chance of them being raped is for starters wrong,

No; what actually increases the chance of being raped is living with males that have authority positions and/or economic power over you. Husbands, fathers, and stepfathers mostly.


because there are plenty of rapes in countries where most women are muslims and cover up, and also reinforces the stereotype that men always want sex and are controlled by their sexual desire.

Indeed, and in such countries things like showing a forearm or an ankle will be seen as "inviting rape". While in Bali or the Amazon forest men live along naked or seminaked women, but rape isn't rampant. The problem is not that men are controlled by their sexual desire, but that their sexual desire is controlled by societal norms that aren't reasonable nor explicit.

****************

Back to the issue of home rape, most home rapes are committed by husbands, fathers or stepfathers, not by brothers or stepbrothers (and when committed by brothers, it is usually by older brothers playing a parental role in homes where there is no masculine parent).

What kind of people perform analogous roles in universities? Not senior students or frat boys, but college professors. Yet college professors rarely if ever appear involved in such issue; it is always or most always male students. If rape is about power, the opposite should be expected.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

You're the one who apparently thinks that women can't tell the difference between being used and regretting a hook-up in the morning, so don't give me that bullshit about left-patrionizing.

Women do tell the difference between being used and regretting a hook-up in the morning, which is the reason why 75% of the infamous 27% of college women who are reported as having been raped deny it. Which again means such figure is bogus.

Luís Henrique

[Rottenfruit]

If you want to have a 'one night stand', then don't intoxicate yourself or your partner with a drug that slurs cognitive thinking and decision making. I find it ridiculous the amount of people on here that will openly attack rapists who've used drugs to coerce their victims, yet defend beer and wine (both coercive drugs) as a 'cultural thing'. Contrary to popular belief, the most commonly used date-rape drug is indeed alcohol, precisely because a drunk can not be expected to make rational decisions, and It's because of this very fact that many women will not complain as they don't see it as rape (e.g. "I made the decision to get drunk and had sex while I was under the influence. If I say that I was raped, then they'll say that I was lying or overexaggerating")

If you have sex with someone who was intoxicated, then they have every fucking right to accuse you of rape. Whether they'd like it or not under influence of alcohol, if they don't want to do it in their sober mind, they probably wouldn't have wanted it then either. If you find that they didn't want to have sex the following morning, then you have just raped them.

Got a problem with that? Don't fuck a drunk person then.
Comparing alcohol to drugs like halcion,ghb or rophynol is absurd, the difference is between those and alcohol is removal of ALL deicion making, alas a zombie like state

Even a person in a alcohol blackout takes more rational decisons with less diffucility compared to halcion which is tne number one rape drug(been in alcohol blackout and used halcion for the sedative effect causes a very euphoric high that beats xanax, it's the same class of drugs as xanax and rophynol are but its the strongest benzoprine prescribed to public)

I once was starring at the same spot in the same room without moving a muscle dont think i even blinked for over an hour on a single pill of halcion that how potent that stuff is. If anybody has had alcohol blackout and benzoprine blackout you know damn well im talking about how fucked up you are in a benzorpine blackout compared to alcohol blackout

[Crux]

A recent swedish study though showed that, among 15-18 year olds, the large majority of rapists are the same age as their victims and often acquaintances, you know friend-of-a-friend and the like. And most of these rapes go unreported because of the social stigma associated, especially because, touching on a subject we've been discussing here, alcohol tends to be involved. And, as the study shows, a frightening amount of teens believe it's not real rape if the victim was drunk, or worse yet being flirtatious with the rapist beforehand. I don't remember the statistics off hand, but over 50% of guys and around 40% of girls.

You said before that you dismiss the statistics because you believe the outcry would be louder if they were true, and indeed the OP article makes a similar argument. It completely underestimates the power of prevailing attitudes. And those prevailing attitudes certainly affects the women and girls themselves in many ways. Victim-blaming is something people do to themselves as well.

[Luís Henrique]

Oh and I see you now have your rep hidden. I wonder who you're a sockpuppet of.

Is it forbidden to have rep hidden? If so, we shouldn't have the option first place. My own rep is hidden; does that mean that I am a sockpuppet of someone else?

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

Is it forbidden to have rep hidden? If so, we shouldn't have the option first place. My own rep is hidden; does that mean that I am a sockpuppet of someone else?

Luís Henrique
The user in question already got banned as a sock of a banned user. So you know...

[Luís Henrique]

The user in question already got banned as a sock of a banned user. So you know...

So whose sockpuppet am I?

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

So whose sockpuppet am I?

Luís Henrique
You joined in 2005, not last week and you have several thousand posts, so I would assume you're not one. If you are that's someone extremely persistent.
So how about adressing this? It's directed at you, rottenfruit just managed to post before I had time to refresh:
"A recent swedish study though showed that, among 15-18 year olds, the large majority of rapists are the same age as their victims and often acquaintances, you know friend-of-a-friend and the like. And most of these rapes go unreported because of the social stigma associated, especially because, touching on a subject we've been discussing here, alcohol tends to be involved. And, as the study shows, a frightening amount of teens believe it's not real rape if the victim was drunk, or worse yet being flirtatious with the rapist beforehand. I don't remember the statistics off hand, but over 50% of guys and around 40% of girls.

You said before that you dismiss the statistics because you believe the outcry would be louder if they were true, and indeed the OP article makes a similar argument. It completely underestimates the power of prevailing attitudes. And those prevailing attitudes certainly affects the women and girls themselves in many ways. Victim-blaming is something people do to themselves as well. "

[Jimmie Higgins]

There was no outcry about women being grabbed on the street in Egypt, so I guess it's not actually bothering anyone. That is until there's a large social upheaval which weakens assumptions about society and opens a space for women to talk about that kind of treatment and try to figure out ways to defend themselves. Most workers don't talk about revolution, so I guess they must enjoy being exploited. Most poor black males in the US put their hands up and assume the position when a cop car pulls up even when the cops have no real legal reason to search... the police call this consent.

Date/pressure-rapes happen and are probably vastly more frequent than stranger-rapes - partially because of a level of acceptance of these attitudes like there's "real rape" and then there's "she's imagining it rape". I don't know if these specific figures are correct or not because they are an estimate of UNREPORTED rapes. To know for sure would require the reporting of these rapes, so really this "where's the statistics" argument is making an impossible demand. If a racist said, "where's the statistics about slave-owners raping slaves" would radicals have to throw our hands up in the air and say, I guess slave-rape estimates could be overblown and this causes undue animosity between whites and blacks in the US? No, that doesn't make sense and neither does the argument being put forward in this thread. Rape-claims aren't a primary cause of sexism or distrust between men and women - this is an obfuscation of issues of sexism and rape.

[#FF0000]

*someone says "BUT DRUNK SEX ISN'T ALWAYS RAPE" aprospros of nothing*
*everyone in the threads loses their fucking minds*

clockwork

[Luís Henrique]

You joined in 2005, not last week and you have several thousand posts, so I would assume you're not one. If you are that's someone extremely persistent.

So what was the relation between his or her hidden reputation and the fact he or she was a sockpuppet?


So how about adressing this?Why would I have any problem except naturally of time?


A recent swedish study though showed that, among 15-18 year olds, the large majority of rapists are the same age as their victims and often acquaintances, you know friend-of-a-friend and the like.So they would be an exception to the generally accepted idea that most rape is committed by males in position of authority.

Sweden has the highest rape rates in Europe (and indeed in the rich North), but this is related to their particular legislation about rape, that includes actions that other countries tipify as different and less serious crimes, or deem juridically irrelevant. So perhaps this explains the contradiction: while what is called rape in most of other countries is committed by adult males in relation to their power, the several different actions that Sweden criminalises as rape are indeed committed by young males not in a power relation with the victim.


And most of these rapes go unreported because of the social stigma associated, especially because, touching on a subject we've been discussing here, alcohol tends to be involved. And, as the study shows, a frightening amount of teens believe it's not real rape if the victim was drunk, or worse yet being flirtatious with the rapist beforehand.Do these teens who believe it is not "real rape" in such cases includes the victims?

Ah, here:


I don't remember the statistics off hand, but over 50% of guys and around 40% of girls.So we are back to the initial problem: those actions labeled as rape in the Swedish study aren't considered rape by the supposed victims. Maybe the victims are mistaken, and there is a correct definition of rape that supercedes the fact that they don't think they were raped. Or maybe the Swedish State just considers rape things that its citizens don't think are so.

Or more probably there are issues considering wording, that make people imagine different things when informed of situations where a person is fucked while being drunk or after flirting.


You said before that you dismiss the statistics because you believe the outcry would be louder if they were true, and indeed the OP article makes a similar argument. It completely underestimates the power of prevailing attitudes. And those prevailing attitudes certainly affects the women and girls themselves in many ways. Victim-blaming is something people do to themselves as well. "Nobody denies that rape is certainly underreported. And nobody denies that male supremacy has to do with such underreporting. What is to be seen is the extent to which rape is underreported. Shortly put, those statistics seem uncompatible with the fact that people, and particularly women, keep enrolling in universities, keep going to classes, and keep telling their children that they should be the same.

Of course, part of the problem is not in the statistics, but in the way they are generally used. "One in four female college students get raped" suggests that 25% (27%, to be accurate) of female college students are raped in university or in events directly linked to it. And that is the interpretation that results in budgetary allocations to colleges to fight rape. But a closer look to what the study claims reveals it is very different: first, the number is actually 15%, plus 12% of attempted rape. Second, it includes rapes occurring in the lives of female college students since their 14th birthday. And for such circumstance, quite certainly, rape that happened in different places than college.

But even making for such considerations, the figure remains far-fetched, not only when compared to the usual attitudes of common American citizens concerning universities, but also when compared with general crime statistics.

For instance, the FBI reports (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl09.xls/view), for the year of 2010, 485 forcible rapes in American universities (for a total enrollment of 7,501,172 students), giving us one occurrence of forcible rape for every 15,466 students. Considering half of those are women, that would be one female college student forcibly raped in 7,733.

The same source (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl02.xls) tells us that in 2010, in the whole country, there were 84,767 forcible rapes, or one for every 3,642 inhabitants. Again considering that half of the population is female, that would mean that one American female inhabitant forcibly raped in 1,821.

That is a much higher rape - more than four times higher! - rate than that of universities (and indeed, even more than it looks at first glance, since the general population includes women of all ages, and the college students are concentrated around 18-25 years old, or the time women are more likely to be raped).

Now consider, where is it going to be more underreporting, among college students or among the general population?

See, the university is relatively safer in comparison with American society at large. If the one-in-four statistics were true - even if corrected to reflect what the research actually says, instead of what they misrepresent - what would the situation in American society at large?

So the figure is a myth, it doesn't reflect reality or anything even close to reality. Which doesn't mean that there isn't a serious problem, just that we don't need tailing the Democratic party and its mistaken policies.

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

So they would be an exception to the generally accepted idea that most rape is committed by males in position of authority.
Yes, just as the generally accepted notion that rapists are violent strangers hiding in bushes.


Sweden has the highest rape rates in Europe (and indeed in the rich North), but this is related to their particular legislation about rape, that includes actions that other countries tipify as different and less serious crimes, or deem juridically irrelevant. So perhaps this explains the contradiction: while what is called rape in most of other countries is committed by adult males in relation to their power, the several different actions that Sweden criminalises as rape are indeed committed by young males not in a power relation with the victim.
Or perhaps you are clutching for straws. If I can find the documentary with english subs, I assure you the actions described will fill your definition of rape. As for sweden having the highest rape rates in Europe, this is strictly speaking not true. However there is a higher number of reported rapes, which is actually a good thing, given how under-reported rape is.


Do these teens who believe it is not "real rape" in such cases includes the victims? Yeah, again blame-the-victim is something someone can do to themselfes. I e many believe it's their own fault.




So we are back to the initial problem: those actions labeled as rape in the Swedish study aren't considered rape by the supposed victims. Maybe the victims are mistaken, and there is a correct definition of rape that supercedes the fact that they don't think they were raped. Or maybe the Swedish State just considers rape things that its citizens don't think are so.
Are you sure this is a line of argument you want to go down?


Or more probably there are issues considering wording, that make people imagine different things when informed of situations where a person is fucked while being drunk or after flirting.
Mhm. Yes, imagining what it's like to be raped is something most people do not want to do. But no the answers are terrifyingly clear, if you get drunk with someone whom you've been flirting with and they then rape you it's kind of your own fault.



Nobody denies that rape is certainly underreported. And nobody denies that male supremacy has to do with such underreporting. What is to be seen is the extent to which rape is underreported. Shortly put, those statistics seem uncompatible with the fact that people, and particularly women, keep enrolling in universities, keep going to classes, and keep telling their children that they should be the same.
Why?


Of course, part of the problem is not in the statistics, but in the way they are generally used. "One in four female college students get raped" suggests that 25% (27%, to be accurate) of female college students are raped in university or in events directly linked to it. And that is the interpretation that results in budgetary allocations to colleges to fight rape. But a closer look to what the study claims reveals it is very different: first, the number is actually 15%, plus 12% of attempted rape. Second, it includes rapes occurring in the lives of female college students since their 14th birthday. And for such circumstance, quite certainly, rape that happened in different places than college.
Yes, it tells you something about the situation for women in general and less about university itself. So the rest of your argument is basically a diversion.




So the figure is a myth, it doesn't reflect reality or anything even close to reality. Which doesn't mean that there isn't a serious problem, just that we don't need tailing the Democratic party and its mistaken policies.

Luís Henrique
And that's why you post a right wing NYT piece from 1993? Please do expand how anyone here is "tailing the Democratic Party".

[black magick hustla]

words

I don't know if all of these is directed at me. I simply pointed out how asinine and divorced from reality yoseph banana's post was. of course there is date rape, and of course some sober blue eyed frat boy fucking some woman that is so shitfaced she can't stand up is rape. I was simply pointing out that people, from both sexes, like to get drunk to facilitate the rituals before sex. A simple point that gets obfuscated with all this legalistic and manischean view of sexual relationships. I also don't like the condescending attitude of that "she is too dumb to know if she is raped or not."

[#FF0000]

See, the university is relatively safer in comparison with American society at large. If the one-in-four statistics were true - even if corrected to reflect what the research actually says, instead of what they misrepresent - what would the situation in American society at large?

I don't think anyone is saying rape happens particularly often in colleges though. "College" is only even brought up because the people asked in these surveys and studies are college students and "college age".

[Luís Henrique]

Why?

I have been to university. I don't think there was a high rape rate there in such time. Anyway, certainly not higher than in Brazilian society at large.

My daughter is in university now. I assure you, if I thought it likely that she had a 25% chance of getting raped while there, I simply wouldn't allow her going there. Or, considering that she has the age to decide for herself, I would do my best to convince her it wasn't a good idea.

Instead, I am quite tranquil about the issue.


Yes, it tells you something about the situation for women in general and less about university itself. So the rest of your argument is basically a diversion.Not so.

The factoid is that one in four college students are raped; this is instrumental to build a considerable bureaucracy of college offices and centres to counter the problem. However, rape is four times more prevalent in society at large than in universities. Four times 25% is 100%; so unless the underreporting is bigger in universities than in society at large, this would mean the overwhelming majority, close to 100% of American women would be raped... before their 25th birthday. Do you really believe it true?

Or perhaps the underreporting is more of an issue among college students - the more educated, the more aware, the ones that have a better infrastructure to report rape, the ones with more access to information and to juridical services? Perhaps the slum dwellers or the trailer trash people have a better understanding of what is rape, and how to report it, and more access to police and juridical services?

I bet not.


Please do expand how anyone here is "tailing the Democratic Party".By supporting policies that essentialy divert funds from where they are really necessary - slums, degraded inner cities, the impoverished areas around the country - to places where they are rather superfluous, in order to keep around a bureaucracy that supports the Democratic Party or is part of it?

Not to say, of course, that the Republicans would do any better; they would instead uproot such bureaucracy to favour the super-rich to see if they trickle down something unto the unwashed masses, while at the same time destroying or degrading whatever infrastructure for similar purposes still exists in the poorer areas of the country.

But that is a different problem.

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

I have been to university. I don't think there was a high rape rate there in such time. Anyway, certainly not higher than in Brazilian society at large.

My daughter is in university now. I assure you, if I thought it likely that she had a 25% chance of getting raped while there, I simply wouldn't allow her going there. Or, considering that she has the age to decide for herself, I would do my best to convince her it wasn't a good idea.

Instead, I am quite tranquil about the issue.

Not so.

The factoid is that one in four college students are raped; this is instrumental to build a considerable bureaucracy of college offices and centres to counter the problem. However, rape is four times more prevalent in society at large than in universities. Four times 25% is 100%; so unless the underreporting is bigger in universities than in society at large, this would mean the overwhelming majority, close to 100% of American women would be raped... before their 25th birthday. Do you really believe it true?

Or perhaps the underreporting is more of an issue among college students - the more educated, the more aware, the ones that have a better infrastructure to report rape, the ones with more access to information and to juridical services? Perhaps the slum dwellers or the trailer trash people have a better understanding of what is rape, and how to report it, and more access to police and juridical services?

I bet not.

By supporting policies that essentialy divert funds from where they are really necessary - slums, degraded inner cities, the impoverished areas around the country - to places where they are rather superfluous, in order to keep around a bureaucracy that supports the Democratic Party or is part of it?

Not to say, of course, that the Republicans would do any better; they would instead uproot such bureaucracy to favour the super-rich to see if they trickle down something unto the unwashed masses, while at the same time destroying or degrading whatever infrastructure for similar purposes still exists in the poorer areas of the country.

But that is a different problem.

Luís Henrique
You're contradicting yourself and missing the point.As you yourself said, while the study was on university students both went back further in time and did not restrict itself to things happening in or around university itself. Ergo, it says more about society in general than universities specifically.
Also, you're using some seriously fuzzy math to build some kind of strawman here.

Just stick to the actual statistics, okay? I know you don't like what they say, neither do I. But just because you don't like it doesn't mean you should start jumbling with the numbers. And yes I do believe 25%+ of women in the US being subject to rape or attempted rape in USA is quite likely.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't know if all of these is directed at me.No it wasn't.



By supporting policies that essentialy divert funds from where they are really necessary - slums, degraded inner cities, the impoverished areas around the country - to places where they are rather superfluous, in order to keep around a bureaucracy that supports the Democratic Party or is part of it?What bureaucracy are you talking about? A few councilors? A self-defense class instructor?

Considering that when he was the head of Harvard, a former Clinton admin hack and current Obama Admin hack, Larry Summers said that women aren't as smart as men... well I don't think the bulwark of support for the Democrats on campuses is whatever female-oriented counseling services exist.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Doesn't Add Up: 1 In 5 College Women Raped, 0 Assaults Reported (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/youth-radio-youth-media-international/doesnt-add-up-1-in-5-coll_b_1875546.html)

^Here's a more recent article to discuss.



According to CIR, one in five women who attend college will be victims of rape or attempted rape during their college career. But when Haavik and Dill looked at their own campus (http://umdstatesman.com/2012/08/29/surveys-reveal-big-gap-in-sexual-assault-reporting-at-umd/), they found zero incidents reported in 2008, one reported in 2009, and two reported in 2010. And in 14 years (http://umdstatesman.com/2012/08/29/no-sanctions-in-14-years/), the university had not issued disciplinary actions against any sexual perpetrators.
So why is this the case? Hysterical and overblown numbers? Or fear or confusion...


And they put out calls for victims to tell their stories via Facebook. Eventually, four people came forward.
“The first person we talked to who had been sexually assaulted hit me really hard...The whole time she talked about it, she wasn’t very emotional. But at the end, she talked about telling her parents and she said her dad didn’t believe her ... And she started crying... That can be one of the most painful things -- friends and family think you’re crying wolf, or you’re overreacting,” said Haavik.


Dill said being part of this investigation gave him a new perspective on freshman activities. “We have a semi-tradition of having parties on move-in weekend. But we also have students that will put up sexist signs, and make billboards that they hold up [in front of off-campus housing]... Doing this research made me question all that activity. I didn’t think it was right in the first place, but I see it as a reinforcement of an environment where people aren’t able to come forward and report sexual assaults,” he said.


Then there's this too:
http://umdstatesman.com/2012/08/29/sexual-assault-victims-feel-pressured-to-drop-charges/


Two University of Minnesota Duluth students say that when they reported they were sexually assaulted to campus police, they felt that police discouraged them from pressing charges.


In a February 2010 case, the investigator wrote in his report that he doubted the woman reporting a rape was telling the truth. After he emphasized to her the negative effect the charges would have on the man she was accusing, she recanted her story. Later, she told a different officer that her original account was the truth.
In the other case, from fall 2011, the woman reporting sexual assault said the officer told her “he doesn’t think the case would go very far because I didn’t say no forcefully.”



In my view colleges only talk about date-rape at all because of some push-back after high-profile cases of fraternity and sports-team related rape that was covered up by the schools. If people think that frats are dangerous, that campuses are dangerous - specific ones with "reputations" then schools will have some problems with funding and enrollment - so they have to do something. But I think the case of the coach molesting children shows that campuses are much more concerned with covering their asses than preventing sexual assault or abuse - so this means covering-up as much as it means posters in dorms about rape.


In fact, when I did a google news search "rape, college" most were incident reports of an off-campus (usually homeless) man jumping out from some bushes and I found nearly no stories about frats or sports teams or date-rapes. Many colleges probably just have a councilor or two for these things, but many have a service of student patrols that walk students back to their dorms if they feel threatened. What this all says to me is that the only fear-mongering going on for the most part is with "stranger-rape" which reinforces the idea that it will be some deranged poor person attacking in a parking lot or bushes... not the drunk football star or teaching assistant or frat-boy that you know. But I think the real common occurrence is the date-rape situation - playing up the "outsider" angle by the media and so on covers up the dynamics of rape and sexual attitudes in most of our societies and plays into "law and order" narratives rather than challenging the broader sexist attitudes in society.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

No means no. Rape is wrong. No further discussion should be necessary. I'm away for a month, and come back to find yet another thread where some men are eager to demonstrate how reactionary they can be when it comes to women.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Also from that second article I quoted in the last post:


As Amber described the alleged assault, Brostrom noted in his report that she wouldn’t look at him. She was playing with something on the table, her hair was covering her face, and she spoke softly, he wrote.
“I have been to a specialized training course (http://umdstatesman.com/2012/08/29/sexual-assault-victims-feel-pressured-to-drop-charges/#) on interview and interrogation,” Brostrom wrote. “Based on her body language and the things she was telling me, I felt her statements specifically about the time when she was having sex with (the alleged perpetrator) to be un-truthful.”
Brostrom wrote that he told Amber that because of her testimony, he would likely charge the suspect with a crime.
“I told her that if he was convicted, a crime like this would follow him around for the rest of his life,” Brostrom wrote. “I added that the serious nature of this crime would affect his day-to-day life on nearly every level. I said that I knew she was a good person and she wouldn’t want something like this to happen to someone who didn’t do a bad thing. I told her again that we are all human and we make mistakes. I assured her that no one would pass judgment on her for changing her statements … At about 35:10 minutes into the interview, (Amber) came out and said ‘It was consensual.’ ”
Brostrom wrote that at this point Amber became even more “emotionally upset.”
“Her head hung even lower and she began to sob harder,” Brostrom wrote. “She could not speak some of the time, only nod her head yes and no to my questions.”
Brostrom wrote that the next day, he met with the man Amber had accused of assaulting her and told him “about the new information I had learned from (Amber). He was very relieved and thanked me for helping him in this situation.”
So apparently both rapists and cops can tell when a woman's words say "no" but her body says "yes".:cursing:


After Amber reported her alleged assault, she said her friends didn’t believe her.
According to the police report, she said that her mutual friends with the alleged perpetrator “all said that it wasn’t something that he would do, and that they didn’t believe her. (Amber) said she didn’t want these friends to hate her.”
Marissa said the same thing happened to her. The alleged perpetrator told her friends he had been questioned by police, she said.
“All of my old friends hate me now,” Marissa said. “They all think that I just ran around crying wolf.”
Marissa said she felt conflicted – both relieved and disappointed – when she dropped the charges.
“This kind of screwed me up a little bit, and he shouldn’t just get to get away with that,” she said. “But I guess it doesn’t really matter what I want at this point.”
Again I think we see here that the University is more interested in covering up actual date-rapes than it is in creating a hysteria around them. And we see how the logic of sexism comes into play: you don't want to ruin the life of a male student just because he fucked up your life do you? In another anecdote from the story the use of alcohol and marijuana by the victim caused authorities to view the assault as consensual. And again we see the popular conception of "rape" as only a forceful attack by strange "bad people" causes rape-victims to face alienation from friends and family by reporting this.

[Luís Henrique]

You're contradicting yourself and missing the point.As you yourself said, while the study was on university students both went back further in time and did not restrict itself to things happening in or around university itself.

So you have acknowledged a very basic point. The study does not actually state that 1 in 4 female college students are raped in college.

Which is probably something you did not know before the discussion in this thread.

A further point is that the study is used, disnhonestly (for what reasons? mere sensationalism? to justificate the existence of a net of college anti-rape resources? I don't know) by exactly implying what we both now know is false.


Ergo, it says more about society in general than universities specifically.

It does, but as it says something about the relation between rape in society in general and rape in university, it probably says something about universities too.


Also, you're using some seriously fuzzy math to build some kind of strawman here.

It is difficult not to do fuzzy math when the figures you have to deal with are themselves fuzzy to start with.


But just because you don't like it doesn't mean you should start jumbling with the numbers. And yes I do believe 25%+ of women in the US being subject to rape or attempted rape in USA is quite likely.

Possibly. It is difficult to assert anything about figures, since the basic problem is underreporting. However, the reported cases show the prevalence of rape is four times higher in society in general than in universities. Since the total number of rapes is necessarily the sum of reported rapes and unreported rapes, it follows that:


if the rate of underreporting is similar in university and society at large, them the total rape rate is four times higher in society in general than in university;
if the rate of underreporting is higher in society at large, then the total rape rate is more than four times higher in society than in university;
if the the total rape rate is less than four times higher in society in general than in university, then the rate of underreporting must be higher in university than in society at large;
and if the total rape rate in universities is actually higher than in society at large, then the rate of underreporting in universities must be considerably higher than in society in general.

But if the rape rate in universities isn't higher than in society in general, then university is not the focus of a rape crisis (which means the focus must be elsewhere).

Now, what seems more probable - that underreporting is higher in universities than in society at large, or the other way round? There are a few reasons why I would expect it is the other way round. College students are usually among the most informed and most educated members of society. And if I correctly understand, American colleges have their own law enforcement means, which means that college students are doubly protected - they could go to the police department, as other people could, or they could go to the university system. So why would they underreport more than women outside university? Maybe there is some reason that I don't grasp; perhaps it has to do with fraternities, or with colleges being isolated from society at large (do American college students typically live campuses? how much aditional time they would have to spend to go to an ordinary police precinct than a woman outside university). Perhaps some of our American fellow posters can explain us.

From an earlier post,


Or perhaps you are clutching for straws. If I can find the documentary with english subs, I assure you the actions described will fill your definition of rape.

Quite probably, but then the matter is not my own definition of rape, but the legal definition of rape in other countries, which is what is counted in statistics.


As for sweden having the highest rape rates in Europe, this is strictly speaking not true.

Indeed, you are exactly correct here. I should have said "highest reported rapes in Europe".


However there is a higher number of reported rapes, which is actually a good thing, given how under-reported rape is.

Well, unless Sweden actually has a higher rape rate, or unless the problem is with legal definitions of rape, then it follows that rape is less underreported in Sweden than in the rest of Europe.

Tell me, to what extent is the public discussion of rape and rape legislation tied to discussion about immigration (ie, how much of the rape rate in Sweden is attributed to the existence of foreign - and possibly non-White - immigrants in the country? And how much of such speculation would be supported by Polis statistics?)

Also, what is the perception about the link - if any - between the rise in rape statistics and the (almost) prohibition of prostitution in Sweden?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

No means no.

And it is always men who ask, and always women who answer? And is this how it should be?

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

So you have acknowledged a very basic point. The study does not actually state that 1 in 4 female college students are raped in college.

Which is probably something you did not know before the discussion in this thread.
This is a bit of a strawman though isn't it?
Because uh yes I was aware of the scope of the several several studies done where the respondents have been college students. In fact as far as I can tell you're the only one that's been claiming that the study would only concern on-campus rapes.


A further point is that the study is used, disnhonestly (for what reasons? mere sensationalism? to justificate the existence of a net of college anti-rape resources? I don't know) by exactly implying what we both now know is false.
I don't think anti-rape resources in colleges need your straw-man argument to be justified.




It does, but as it says something about the relation between rape in society in general and rape in university, it probably says something about universities too.
I suppose the strata of the female population that go to universities might be less at risk of rape than the female population in general, but that's neither her nor there really as for the argument you seem to be making.




It is difficult not to do fuzzy math when the figures you have to deal with are themselves fuzzy to start with.
No, it's not. Now I know you started this with a fairly shoddy anti-feminist piece from 1993, but nothing is stopping you from actually looking into more recent numbers, and you know not mix up the numbers in a weak attempt to discredit the studies and by extention the participants as well.




Possibly. It is difficult to assert anything about figures, since the basic problem is underreporting. However, the reported cases show the prevalence of rape is four times higher in society in general than in universities. Since the total number of rapes is necessarily the sum of reported rapes and unreported rapes, it follows that:


if the rate of underreporting is similar in university and society at large, them the total rape rate is four times higher in society in general than in university;
if the rate of underreporting is higher in society at large, then the total rape rate is more than four times higher in society than in university;
if the the total rape rate is less than four times higher in society in general than in university, then the rate of underreporting must be higher in university than in society at large;

and if the total rape rate in universities is actually higher than in society at large, then the rate of underreporting in universities must be considerably higher than in society in general.
Here you go mixing up the numbers again. The 1 in 4 is not a reference to rape that has necessarily occurred at university. Something which you acknowledged. Therefore your argument doesn't work.


But if the rape rate in universities isn't higher than in society in general, then university is not the focus of a rape crisis (which means the focus must be elsewhere).
Indeed rape isn't a university-only problem.


Now, what seems more probable - that underreporting is higher in universities than in society at large, or the other way round? There are a few reasons why I would expect it is the other way round. College students are usually among the most informed and most educated members of society.
Yes...


And if I correctly understand, American colleges have their own law enforcement means, which means that college students are doubly protected - they could go to the police department, as other people could, or they could go to the university system. So why would they underreport more than women outside university? Maybe there is some reason that I don't grasp; perhaps it has to do with fraternities, or with colleges being isolated from society at large (do American college students typically live campuses? how much aditional time they would have to spend to go to an ordinary police precinct than a woman outside university). Perhaps some of our American fellow posters can explain us.
Jimmie Higgins did make a post going into it quite a bit. You should check it out.


Quite probably, but then the matter is not my own definition of rape, but the legal definition of rape in other countries, which is what is counted in statistics.


Indeed, you are exactly correct here. I should have said "highest reported rapes in Europe".



Well, unless Sweden actually has a higher rape rate, or unless the problem is with legal definitions of rape, then it follows that rape is less underreported in Sweden than in the rest of Europe.
Indeed, Swedish legislation is, contrary to popular rumour due to the whole Assange case, not that different from most other western countries.


Tell me, to what extent is the public discussion of rape and rape legislation tied to discussion about immigration (ie, how much of the rape rate in Sweden is attributed to the existence of foreign - and possibly non-White - immigrants in the country? And how much of such speculation would be supported by Polis statistics?)
Indeed there is an issue of racism in the law-enforcement, in as so far that swedes that are first or second generation immigrants are more likely to both get reported and sentenced for crimes in general. But thankfully the discussion has not been taken over by the far right elements that want to make rape, or indeed crime in general, an issue of immigration or immigrants. Those voices are there, to be sure, but even with the Sweden Democrats in parliament these are still opinions on the far right fringes of the debate and not so much in the mainstream.


Also, what is the perception about the link - if any - between the rise in rape statistics and the (almost) prohibition of prostitution in Sweden?

Luís Henrique
Aside from a few super-liberals (that would be libertarians in the U.S) in the youth orgs of the People's Party and the Center Party, no not so much.
A note of clarification though prostitution is in fact not illegal in sweden, buying a prostitute is. So being a john or being a pimp is illegal, but being a prostitute is not. As far as I can tell there is very little public support for changing this law, and those who want to legalize pimping and buying prostitutes in the youth orgs are frequently an embarrassment for the mother parties, when it's brought up.

[Igor]

Got a problem with that? Don't fuck a drunk person then.

If a drunk person fucks a drunk person are they raping each other?

The whole drunken issue is kinda weird imo, because people get drunk and have sex a lot. And they wanna do that, and alcohol plays a big role in it. Of course I'm not talking about situations where someone is clearly utterly wasted and the other one has a much clearer head: that's rape ok but two persons having consensual drunk sex has absolutely nothing to do with rape, even if you regretted it later on. How the fuck would you even define which one is the rapist there?

[#FF0000]

And it is always men who ask, and always women who answer? And is this how it should be?

Luís Henrique

No. And nobody suggested that, either.


The whole drunken issue is kinda weird imo, because people get drunk and have sex a lot. And they wanna do that, and alcohol plays a big role in it. Of course I'm not talking about situations where someone is clearly utterly wasted and the other one has a much clearer head: that's rape ok but two persons having consensual drunk sex has absolutely nothing to do with rape, even if you regretted it later on. How the fuck would you even define which one is the rapist there?

there is a difference between drunk sex and rape though.

[doesn't even make sense]

I don't know if all of these is directed at me. I simply pointed out how asinine and divorced from reality yoseph banana's post was. of course there is date rape, and of course some sober blue eyed frat boy fucking some woman that is so shitfaced she can't stand up is rape. I was simply pointing out that people, from both sexes, like to get drunk to facilitate the rituals before sex. A simple point that gets obfuscated with all this legalistic and manischean view of sexual relationships. I also don't like the condescending attitude of that "she is too dumb to know if she is raped or not."

Yeah, I feel like I'm somehow going to get shit on for saying this but honestly based on my experiences as a man it just doesn't seem so horribly ambiguous as some people make it sound. If you're not sure what you're doing is a good idea then I dunno maybe you just shouldn't do it or bear with me if this sounds crazy, you could even ask. And if you can't get a good enough answer then don't act like you fucking did. I feel like its rape apologists that try to complicate shit with their whining about things like "mixed signals". I've driven around after hurricanes and when its street lights giving out "mixed signals" pretty much everybody stops until they can figure out what exactly is going on.


And it is always men who ask, and always women who answer? And is this how it should be?

Luís Henrique

How society structures sex, dating, etc. has absolutely nothing to do with the moral importance of consent. Obviously you have women 'asking' men and men 'asking' men and eunuchs 'asking' trans people etc. etc. and in each one of those cases no still means no, and I haven't seen anybody using that phrase implying otherwise.

[Luís Henrique]

In fact as far as I can tell you're the only one that's been claiming that the study would only concern on-campus rapes.

Unless the article in the OP was directly lying, then no. It indeed starts by describing a poster that claimed exactly that - or gave the impression of claiming exactly that, through sloppy language.


I suppose the strata of the female population that go to universities might be less at risk of rape than the female population in generalSeems a reasonable conclusion.


Here you go mixing up the numbers again. The 1 in 4 is not a reference to rape that has necessarily occurred at university. Something which you acknowledged. Therefore your argument doesn't work.
I think you are confusing things here. "1 women in 4" is a claim based in a purposeful misinterpretation of the Koss study; "four" plays a different role in what I am stating here, which is that the rate of reported rape among the general population is four times higher than the rate of reported rape in universities/colleges, based in completely different data (those of the FBI for rape in 2010).


Jimmie Higgins did make a post going into it quite a bit. You should check it out.Yes, I intend to do so, as soon as I have read the links he posted there.


Indeed, Swedish legislation is, contrary to popular rumour due to the whole Assange case, not that different from most other western countries.What would the differences be?


Indeed there is an issue of racism in the law-enforcement, in as so far that swedes that are first or second generation immigrants are more likely to both get reported and sentenced for crimes in general.Indeed. I have seen figures that go from 50% of "perpetrators" being "immigrants" to 85% of "convicted rapists" being "foreign born or born to foreigners". It is true that I have seen those figures in far-right sites, but they point to two sources, "a study from the Crime Prevention Council - Brå", and "lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm". The links are either missing or point to pages in Swedish, that I can't read. Most probably those allegations are distortions or outright lies, but if the Swedish police and courts are indeed reporting anything similar, then the case is that law enforcement is highly unreliable, and might be using loopholes in legislation to charge immigrants disproportionately in matters of rape, or even framing them up. Would you be able to clear that up for us?


A note of clarification though prostitution is in fact not illegal in sweden, buying a prostitute is. So being a john or being a pimp is illegal, but being a prostitute is not.Or, in other words, prostitutes won't be sentenced to jail, but the attempt is to starve them by jailing their clients. Wonderful progressist legislation, that certainly doesn't make Sweden laws as regressive and reactionary as those in the United States and Saudi Arabia, but still make them a whole lot more reactionary and regressive than that of most of the world.


As far as I can tell there is very little public support for changing this law, and those who want to legalize pimping and buying prostitutes in the youth orgs are frequently an embarrassment for the mother parties, when it's brought up.Which tells a lot about the mother parties, and about the mainstream public discourse in Sweden. Law in practice forbids women to make a living by selling sexual services directly to consumers, thus forcing them to sell other services to capitalists, and there is no one to oppose such "Poor Law" measures...

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

Unless the article in the OP was directly lying, then no. It indeed starts by describing a poster that claimed exactly that - or gave the impression of claiming exactly that, through sloppy language.
And why wouldn't it?


I think you are confusing things here. "1 women in 4" is a claim based in a purposeful misinterpretation of the Koss study; "four" plays a different role in what I am stating here, which is that the rate of reported rape among the general population is four times higher than the rate of reported rape in universities/colleges, based in completely different data (those of the FBI for rape in 2010).Ok. Then I fail to see your point.


What would the differences be?Sweden was the first country outside the Eastern Bloc to criminalize spousal rape. Differences compared to which country?


Indeed. I have seen figures that go from 50% of "perpetrators" being "immigrants" to 85% of "convicted rapists" being "foreign born or born to foreigners". It is true that I have seen those figures in far-right sites, but they point to two sources, "a study from the Crime Prevention Council - Brå", and "lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm". The links are either missing or point to pages in Swedish, that I can't read. Most probably those allegations are distortions or outright lies, but if the Swedish police and courts are indeed reporting anything similar, then the case is that law enforcement is highly unreliable, and might be using loopholes in legislation to charge immigrants disproportionately in matters of rape, or even framing them up. Would you be able to clear that up for us?Oh this one is simple, the far-right is lying and misrepresenting. Curiously I've never seen any of them, when they want to discuss these statistics, that the single most overrepresented group compared to the majority population are finns. I'd hazard to guess they choose to ignore this because it gives far more credence to the idea that social background is the defining trait for whether one gets incarcerated or not. Not that there aren't certain stereotypes and racism against finns, but you know...
Doing a search for Ann Christine Hjelm all I can find are two DN pieces from 2005 who both, while acknowledging that the study does not give any clear answers (and was only made with a basis of 93 cases, and not just rape cases) tries to use it to either say "we need to talk about integration" or "rapists aren't ordinary men but immigrant alcoholist monsters". Kind of. But yes this is where the 85% number comes from, out of the 27 of those cases that were rape charges 85% were not born in sweden or had parents that were born outside of sweden. However looking at BRÅ's stastics more generally this doesn't hold up nor is Ann Christine Hjelm arguing, as far as I can tell, that these 27 cases from Halland, from 2001, could somehow be extrapolated to represent rape statistics in general.


Or, in other words, prostitutes won't be sentenced to jail, but the attempt is to starve them by jailing their clients. Wonderful progressist legislation, that certainly doesn't make Sweden laws as regressive and reactionary as those in the United States and Saudi Arabia, but still make them a whole lot more reactionary and regressive than that of most of the world.Most of the world, really? Although I do think a discussion on swedish prostitution legislation is beyond the scope of this thread. But you were implying legal prostitution would mean less rape...?

[happy little boozer]

Wow, maybe I should have waited until my posts were unmoderated to post here. Whatever insight I have to offer is going to be crazy slow. Not that our mods are crazy slow, just...you know...

[Vanguard1917]

Yeah, I feel like I'm somehow going to get shit on for saying this but honestly based on my experiences as a man it just doesn't seem so horribly ambiguous as some people make it sound. If you're not sure what you're doing is a good idea then I dunno maybe you just shouldn't do it or bear with me if this sounds crazy, you could even ask. And if you can't get a good enough answer then don't act like you fucking did.

That sounds like a good approach to me. The problem is that some people in this debate seem to be under the impression that a drunk woman lacks the mental capacity to consent to sex in the same way that a drunk man can. The woman is always assumed to be a potential victim, regardless of the realities of the situation, and negative stereotypes around women-and-alcohol underlie much of the discussion. Women can't handle their drink or their social lives, and need the considerate and paternalistic arm of gentlemen to protect them and guide them in the right direction. Unlike men, women are rather on the mentally and emotionally feeble side, and can only be expected to make valid and rational decisions for themselves while fully or mostly sober. So, men - don't misuse your natural superiority over the ladies. And so on.

[Igor]

there is a difference between drunk sex and rape though.

yeah that was kinda my point exactly, the guy who i was quoting was saying pretty much there isn't, saying if you've had sex with someone while drunk you have every right to call the other involved person a rapist. i mean, that was pretty much an exact quote from yoseph and just really a fucking absurd claim.

e: of course, again, assuming they're both drunk or the other one is only a bit drunk etc, because alcohol can be used as a date rape drug that's not at all what i'm saying

[doesn't even make sense]

That sounds like a good approach to me. The problem is that some people in this debate seem to be under the impression that a drunk woman lacks the mental capacity to consent to sex in the same way that a drunk man can. The woman is always assumed to be a potential victim, regardless of the realities of the situation, and negative stereotypes around women-and-alcohol underlie much of the discussion. Women can't handle their drink or their social lives, and need the considerate and paternalistic arm of gentlemen to protect them and guide them in the right direction. Unlike men, women are rather on the mentally and emotionally feeble side, and can only be expected to make valid and rational decisions for themselves while fully or mostly sober. So, men - don't misuse your natural superiority over the ladies. And so on.

I understand where you are coming from but I don't see how you got that from my post, which is after all premised on the assumption that people are still responsible for themselves if they are intoxicated.

[wax]

No means no. Rape is wrong. No further discussion should be necessary. I'm away for a month, and come back to find yet another thread where some men are eager to demonstrate how reactionary they can be when it comes to women.
What do the two no's mean? Does first no mean a spoken "no", or a simple lack of consent? Does the second "no" mean a lack of consent? Or do they mean something else? I'm genuinely confused about what this phrase is supposed to mean.

[Quail]

What do the two no's mean? Does first no mean a spoken "no", or a simple lack of consent? Does the second "no" mean a lack of consent? Or do they mean something else? I'm genuinely confused about what this phrase is supposed to mean.
I assume it means "no consent means no sex" or "no consent means no consent" - lack of a verbal "no" doesn't imply consent.

[#FF0000]

What do the two no's mean? Does first no mean a spoken "no", or a simple lack of consent? Does the second "no" mean a lack of consent? Or do they mean something else? I'm genuinely confused about what this phrase is supposed to mean.


I assume it means "no consent means no sex" or "no consent means no consent" - lack of a verbal "no" doesn't imply consent.

tbh i think 'yes means yes' works too or maybe even better.

A solid answer either way is important and it is, honestly, pretty easy to tell when people are into something or not. like another person said earlier, 'mixed messages' is p. much bullshit and if one is getting 'mixed messages' then it's a good time to stop.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What do the two no's mean? Does first no mean a spoken "no", or a simple lack of consent? Does the second "no" mean a lack of consent? Or do they mean something else? I'm genuinely confused about what this phrase is supposed to mean.
It means if someone says no or otherwise doesn't give consent, it's not consensual sex, it's rape.

[Vanguard1917]

tbh i think 'yes means yes' works too or maybe even better.

A solid answer either way is important and it is, honestly, pretty easy to tell when people are into something or not. like another person said earlier, 'mixed messages' is p. much bullshit and if one is getting 'mixed messages' then it's a good time to stop.

Yes - rape is not a very ambiguous act. A rapist will be conscious of the fact that he has committed rape.

However, some 'ambiguity' is common in consensual sexual relations, especially those of the more casual kind. If a woman says something like 'I shouldn't be doing this', but in the heat of the moment has sex anyway, could that be interpreted as a 'mixed message' that did not make the sex wholly consensual?

[Quail]

Yes - rape is not a very ambiguous act. A rapist will be conscious of the fact that he has committed rape.

See, I'm not really sure that this is always the case. I can't think of the right search terms to find the statistics I was looking for, but a study of young men found that a surprisingly high percentage had had coercive sex, and would admit to having raped women if it wasn't referred to as rape. I think a lot of people think along the lines of "rapists are bad - I'm not bad - therefore I can't be a rapist" and so they don't feel the need to look at their behaviour and change it if necessary. Plus I think that ideas like getting women drunk in order to have sex with them are so ingrained in our culture that people don't really stop to question the implications.


However, some 'ambiguity' is common in consensual sexual relations, especially those of the more casual kind. If a woman says something like 'I shouldn't be doing this', but in the heat of the moment has sex anyway, could that be interpreted as a 'mixed message' that did not make the sex wholly consensual?
"I shouldn't be doing this" is a different sentence to "I don't want to be doing this." If someone has sex that they know they might regret, but chooses to do so anyway then they have not been raped. People do things that they know they shouldn't do all the time. However if a woman said, "I shouldn't be doing this," but then the man is so persistent that she feels she has no option but to give in and have sex anyway, then she has been coerced into sex, which is a different situation.

How do you tell the difference between someone doing something that they know they shouldn't but want to, and someone feeling pressured into doing something they don't want to do? Your behaviour towards them could be what makes the difference. If someone you're about to have sex with says, "I shouldn't be doing this," then you should really take the time to find out whether they actually want to do anything and if not, accept that without trying to pressure them. Before you have sex, make sure that your partner is happy to participate, but in a way that won't make them feel bad or pressured.

A lot of this stuff is just common sense and I really don't understand why some people try to claim that there are these huge grey areas where you might not know whether or not you have consent. If you're not sure whether or not you have consent, fucking ask! I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

[Vanguard1917]

"I shouldn't be doing this" is a different sentence to "I don't want to be doing this." If someone has sex that they know they might regret, but chooses to do so anyway then they have not been raped. People do things that they know they shouldn't do all the time. However if a woman said, "I shouldn't be doing this," but then the man is so persistent that she feels she has no option but to give in and have sex anyway, then she has been coerced into sex, which is a different situation.

Interesting. So persisting (no physical force present) to the point where the woman agrees to sex is rape? What if it were the other way round - a woman used her seductive powers to get a man into bed against his best intentions? Rape, too?

[#FF0000]

Interesting. So persisting (no physical force present) to the point where the woman agrees to sex is rape? What if it were the other way round - a woman used her seductive powers to get a man into bed against his best intentions? Rape, too?

"Seducing" someone isn't the same as badgering/harassing them until they give in, though. Why does this even need explaining to you?

Also yeah, if a woman persisted like that until a man gave it, then it would be rape.

You are a lot like that Manic Expression dummy in that I think "nah vanguard isn't stupid" but then you go and say things as stupid as this and don't seem to understand how wrong you are when you are literally a supernova of wrong exploding in the warp of space for all to see

[#FF0000]

Yes - rape is not a very ambiguous act. A rapist will be conscious of the fact that he has committed rape.

No, this is not true. People rationalize their actions. People have flat out incorrect ideas of what constitutes and does not constitute rape. See, for example, the false dichotomy between "legitimate/forcible" rape and other kinds of rape. See those people who think a man forcing his wife to have sex isn't rape. See those who think it's okay to have sex with someone who is too drunk to walk or speak clearly, let alone consent. I think there's a good chunk of rapists out there who don't realize that they've committed rape. I'm sure there's a good chunk who deny it to themselves. And I am very sure that most of them think "everybody does this" when thinking about what they've done.

There's been studies about this. I think the links I gave you earlier mentioned them, and how a lot of the men surveyed who said they have sex via coercion said and insisted it wasn't rape. If not, I have this piece from CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/28/opinion/etzioni-akin-rape-comment/index.html) that includes some of the same numbers.

Off the top of my head I also have a paper on a study of police officers in particular, and how many of them could not correctly define rape.

So, yeah. Rape might not be an ambiguous act -- either sex is consensual or it is rape. But people will not always be conscious (or allow themselves to be conscious) of the fact that they raped someone.



However, some 'ambiguity' is common in consensual sexual relations, especially those of the more casual kind. If a woman says something like 'I shouldn't be doing this', but in the heat of the moment has sex anyway, could that be interpreted as a 'mixed message' that did not make the sex wholly consensual?Stop and say "uh do you want to do this, then?". It is not hard.

I'm not saying you have to get anything in writing or stop and bring out some jilted "ARE YOU A WILLING PARTICIPANT IN THIS PARTICULAR SEXUAL ACTIVITY" thing. I am saying, though, that's it's a lot easier to get a clear 'yes' or 'no' than people make it seem sometimes.

[Quail]

I'm not saying you have to get anything in writing or stop and bring out some jilted "ARE YOU A WILLING PARTICIPANT IN THIS PARTICULAR SEXUAL ACTIVITY" thing. I am saying, though, that's it's a lot easier to get a clear 'yes' or 'no' than people make it seem sometimes.
I have noticed that often when consent is discussed on this forum people try to make out that actively seeking consent is this horrible, awkward mood killer, but it doesn't have to be at all. All it needs is, "Would you like me to (insert something sexy)?" or something along those lines and hey presto, you have consent. You could also tell your partner what you'd like them to do to you.

[Vanguard1917]

"Seducing" someone isn't the same as badgering/harassing them until they give in, though. Why does this even need explaining to you?

Also yeah, if a woman persisted like that until a man gave it, then it would be rape.

You are a lot like that Manic Expression dummy in that I think "nah vanguard isn't stupid" but then you go and say things as stupid as this and don't seem to understand how wrong you are when you are literally a supernova of wrong exploding in the warp of space for all to see

Thanks for the kind words, but you're obviously working by a your own unique definition of rape. If the receipt of consent through verbal persistence qualifies as rape, and if this makes millions of women rapists, then, as i stressed in the CU thread, the crime of rape has been trivialised beyond recognition.

[#FF0000]

Thanks for the kind words, but you're obviously working by a your own unique definition of rape. If the receipt of consent through verbal persistence qualifies as rape, and if this makes millions of women rapists, then, as i stressed in the CU thread, the crime of rape has been trivialised beyond recognition.

But there is a difference between seducing someone and harassing someone until they give in. I'm not really sure why this needs to be explained to you. There is obviously a difference between being hella charming and just going "come oooonnnn i'm your boyfriend/girlfriennnnd(usually boyfrieeennnnd) pleaaaaaaaaaase".

It should practically go without saying that persisting after someone says "No" until they have sex with you so you leave them alone is more than a little bit fucked up.

[Vanguard1917]

But there is a difference between seducing someone and harassing someone until they give in. I'm not really sure why this needs to be explained to you. There is obviously a difference between being hella charming and just going "come oooonnnn i'm your boyfriend/girlfriennnnd(usually boyfrieeennnnd) pleaaaaaaaaaase".

It should practically go without saying that persisting after someone says "No" until they have sex with you so you leave them alone is more than a little bit fucked up.

'More than a little bit fucked up' is not necessarily the same thing as rape. If the definition of rape has been widened to such an extent that millions of women become actual and potential rapists under it, there is something wrong with the definition.

[#FF0000]

'More than a little bit fucked up' is not necessarily the same thing as rape. If the definition of rape has been widened to such an extent that millions of women become actual and potential rapists under it, there is something wrong with the definition.

Is harassing someone until they acquiesce not coercion?

[officer nugz]

you all seem to attribute views to eachother based on next to nothing and then argue against the viewpoints which you attribute to one another. this is very funny behavior given the context of an internet left wing forum.

[#FF0000]

you all seem to attribute views to eachother based on next to nothing and then argue against the viewpoints which you attribute to one another. this is very funny behavior given the context of an internet left wing forum.

I don't think I've done that.

It is vanguard1917's shtick, though.

[officer nugz]

If you want to have a 'one night stand', then don't intoxicate yourself or your partner with a drug that slurs cognitive thinking and decision making. I find it ridiculous the amount of people on here that will openly attack rapists who've used drugs to coerce their victims, yet defend beer and wine (both coercive drugs) as a 'cultural thing'.except using date rape drugs to rape people is wildly different from having sex after consuming alcohol together.


Contrary to popular belief, the most commonly used date-rape drug is indeed alcohol, precisely because a drunk can not be expected to make rational decisions, and It's because of this very fact that many women will not complain as they don't see it as rape (e.g. "I made the decision to get drunk and had sex while I was under the influence. If I say that I was raped, then they'll say that I was lying or overexaggerating")the actual reason why most women don't claim they were raped after having sex while drunk is because they authentically do not believe themselves to have been raped, because two people under the influence of alcohol having mutually consensual sex is not rape. they had what is commonly referred to as "consensual sex", in the majority of cases.


If you have sex with someone who was intoxicated, then they have every fucking right to accuse you of rape.so if two people are drunk and have sex, they are both raping eachother?

[officer nugz]

majakovskij I do not see why you gave me a downgrade on my reputation points as opposed to actually responding to what I said. just because you wish you were every womans dad holding a shotgun to boys that they come home with drunk doesn't mean you can give me bad reputation instead of talking to me.

[Crux]

majakovskij I do not see why you gave me a downgrade on my reputation points as opposed to actually responding to what I said. just because you wish you were every womans dad holding a shotgun to boys that they come home with drunk doesn't mean you can give me bad reputation instead of talking to me.
You've got another negrep coming up. You'll find that your argument, well the part of it that isn't just plain ad hominem nonsense, has already been countered in this thread. Oh drunk people can have sex? What a fucking revelation! You genius, please tell me more! Or learn what rape is, I find it pretty worrying that you and a few others apparently are unable to tell the difference between rape and drunk sex. And get reeeeally upset when it's insinuated that alcohol and rape might be connected quite often, nevermind those scary actual statstics that exist. Now, so as to not build a strawman, I have no idea wheter you subscribe to the "I don't like these stastics therefore they must be false" that some others do, you may simply be unaware of them. So, like I said in my negrep, but this time with less nice words, at least fucking read the thread you're supposedly responding to. Ok?

Oh and sorry let me be a bit more specific:

the actual reason why most women don't claim they were raped after having sex while drunk is because they authentically do not believe themselves to have been raped, because two people under the influence of alcohol having mutually consensual sex is not rape. they had what is commonly referred to as "consensual sex", in the majority of cases.


So all those women who respond that they do not report being raped for fear of not being believed, or not reporting it to the police because even their friends and family do not believe them, are really lying and was just having what you call "consensual drunk sex"? Really? I see you haven't even the first inkling of understanding how rape works. Which is quite possibly why you're acting so smug. A bit tragic really.

[officer nugz]

You've got another negrep coming up.gr8


You'll find that your argument, well the part of it that isn't just plain ad hominem nonsense, has already been countered in this thread. Oh drunk people can have sex? What a fucking revelation! You genius, please tell me more!I know, isn't it weird that that was being argued against?


Or learn what rape is, I find it pretty worrying that you and a few others apparently are unable to tell the difference between rape and drunk sex.the whole point of my post was that there is a difference. the post I responded to made no distinction.


And get reeeeally upset when it's insinuated that alcohol and rape might be connected quite oftenconsidering that I did not come close to denying that rape happens under the influence of alcohol it's not very necessary for me to read the rest of this paragraph, since it is based on trying to make it seem like I said something I didn't say whatsoever. if you are saying I denied that rape happens under the influence of alcohol you are factually incorrect, because it is a fact that I never said what you are claiming.

[Crux]

So now you don't even know what you yourself is saying? Either you said yoseph's example of women not telling people they have been raped, especially if they were drunk, for fear of not being believed is not true, and given the context this is the most likely or you are making a completely meaningless statement about drunken sex not being rape.

[Vanguard1917]

Is harassing someone until they acquiesce not coercion?

A woman nagging a man until he agrees to sex might be a lot of things, but it definitely is not rape.

And you have the nerve to accuse me of being stupid? :)

[Quail]

Thanks for the kind words, but you're obviously working by a your own unique definition of rape. If the receipt of consent through verbal persistence qualifies as rape, and if this makes millions of women rapists, then, as i stressed in the CU thread, the crime of rape has been trivialised beyond recognition.
Women can rape men. I don't know why you refuse to accept this. Granted, it is nowhere near as common as men raping women, but especially regarding this thread (about date rape) it's not inconceivable for a woman to rape a man.

You also seem confused about the difference between seducing them and coercing them into sex. There is an obvious difference between someone seducing someone else and someone being emotionally manipulative to get sex. The former is normal, healthy behaviour and the latter is abuse.

[Vanguard1917]

Women can rape men. I don't know why you refuse to accept this. Granted, it is nowhere near as common as men raping women, but especially regarding this thread (about date rape) it's not inconceivable for a woman to rape a man.

It might not be 'inconceivable', but that does not mean that, in practice, it is anything beyond being extremely rare.

The point is that you have triviliased rape to such a degree that it no longer refers first and foremost to an act of violence in patriarchal society by a man against a woman.

Instead, going by your definition, it can be a crime committed just as easily by a woman against a man, as by a man against a woman.



You also seem confused (http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2513114#) about the difference between seducing them and coercing them into sex. There is an obvious difference between someone seducing someone else and someone being emotionally manipulative to get sex. The former is normal, healthy behaviour and the latter is abuse.


So we've gone from 'rape' to the looser term 'abuse'.

[Nox]

I can see where it would be a problem:

>Girl drinks too much
>Says guy can have sex with her
>Sexy time
>Later she regrets it
>Man jailed 10 years for rape because girl was drunk therefore unable to give consent

Who's the real victim here?

[Nox]

No means no. Rape is wrong. No further discussion should be necessary. I'm away for a month, and come back to find yet another thread where some men are eager to demonstrate how reactionary they can be when it comes to women.

No means no.

But yes means yes. Even while drunk.

[#FF0000]

I can see where it would be a problem:

>Girl drinks too much
>Says guy can have sex with her
>Sexy time
>Later she regrets it
>Man jailed 10 years for rape because girl was drunk therefore unable to give consent

Who's the real victim here?

That is a neat hypothetical, I wonder how often it happens irl? (the answer is almost never)

I am pretty disheartened that I'm seeing one of the oldest, dumbest rape-apologizing myths being trotted out on a website for purported leftists. Then again I'm seeing it from Nox so no surprise I guess.


But yes means yes. Even while drunk.

Depends on how drunk.


It might not be 'inconceivable', but that does not mean that, in practice, it is anything beyond being extremely rare.

The point is that you have triviliased rape to such a degree that it no longer refers first and foremost to an act of violence in patriarchal society by a man against a woman.

Instead, going by your definition, it can be a crime committed just as easily by a woman against a man, as by a man against a woman.

Our definition of rape is sex without consent. Consent attained through coercion is not consent. It's very simple, dude.

[#FF0000]

"WHO IS THE REAL VICTIM HERE"

*300,000 women are raped a year with nowhere near as many convictions*

[Quail]

It might not be 'inconceivable', but that does not mean that, in practice, it is anything beyond being extremely rare.

The point is that you have triviliased rape to such a degree that it no longer refers first and foremost to an act of violence in patriarchal society by a man against a woman.

Instead, going by your definition, it can be a crime committed just as easily by a woman against a man, as by a man against a woman.

Nowhere has anyone said it is just as easy for a woman to rape a man. There are quite a few factors going against women, including physical strength and size and a power structure and culture which encourages men to rape and allows them to get away with it. It doesn't trivialise rape to concede that it does happen to men (albeit far less often). However, since we've already had this debate in another thread, I don't think it would be constructive to derail this thread into a discussion of whether or not women can rape men.

I don't see the problem with the definition of rape as sex without consent. Regardless of whether or not physical violence is involved, the victim is going to feel violated because someone has forced them to have sex however that coercion occurs. I think that you're trivialising some rapes by saying they're not "real rape" - honestly, your kind of attitude is one of the things that prevents people from coming forward. "Oh, well it wasn't real rape so people won't take me seriously/it doesn't matter/etc."


So we've gone from 'rape' to the looser term 'abuse'.
If date rape isn't real rape, if being coerced into sex by emotional manipulation isn't rape, what are they? They're forms of sexual assault/abuse involving being penetrated against your will, which is surely rape?

[Vanguard1917]

Nowhere has anyone said it is just as easy for a woman to rape a man. There are quite a few factors going against women, including physical strength and size and a power structure and culture which encourages men to rape and allows them to get away with it. It doesn't trivialise rape to concede that it does happen to men (albeit far less often). However, since we've already had this debate in another thread, I don't think it would be constructive to derail this thread into a discussion of whether or not women can rape men.

But it's a key problem with your argument. The fact is that women on the whole don't rape men. It doesn't happen, at least not to a socially significant degree. Under the definition of rape used by you and others, however, literally millions of women can now be classed as having raped or likely to rape in the future.



I don't see the problem with the definition of rape as sex without consent. Regardless of whether or not physical violence is involved, the victim is going to feel violated because someone has forced them to have sex however that coercion occurs


But that is not your definition of rape at all. You believe that there are a number of examples of consensual sex that fall under the category of rape.

[#FF0000]

But it's a key problem with your argument. The fact is that women on the whole don't rape men. It doesn't happen, at least not to a socially significant degree. Under the definition of rape used by you and others, however, literally millions of women can now be classed as having raped or likely to rape in the future.

Our definition is sex without consent. You are welcome to explain to everyone how this is a radical new definition for rape.


But that is not your definition of rape at all. You believe that there are a number of examples of consensual sex that fall under the category of rape.

Feel free to quote and list, please.

[Quail]

But it's a key problem with your argument. The fact is that women on the whole don't rape men. It doesn't happen, at least not to a socially significant degree. Under the definition of rape used by you and others, however, literally millions of women can now be classed as having raped or likely to rape in the future.

But that is not your definition of rape at all. You believe that there are a number of examples of consensual sex that fall under the category of rape.
How do you figure that? :confused:
The definition of rape we've been using all along has been "non-consensual sex." Yes, that definition does mean that women can rape men, but why does that make it invalid?

[Vanguard1917]

How do you figure that? :confused:
The definition of rape we've been using all along has been "non-consensual sex." Yes, that definition does mean that women can rape men, but why does that make it invalid?

Two examples of 'rape' in your book:

1. An extremely drunk man says yes to sex with a sober woman.

2. A woman verbally pesters her uninterested boyfriend for sex to the extent that he gives in and has sex with her.

Do you now dispute that these are cases of rape?

[Igor]

Two examples of 'rape' in your book:

1. An extremely drunk man says yes to sex with a sober woman.

2. A woman verbally pesters her uninterested boyfriend for sex to the extent that he gives in and has sex with her.

Do you now dispute that these are cases of rape?

it's kinda worrying to me that you wouldn't find 1 rape, especially when you have chosen to highlight that it's an extremely drunk man. why the fuck couldn't alcohol be used as a date rape drug?

the 2 kinda depends onhe extent and nature of pestering, but seriously, how can you not see any problem with pestering your SO about sex to an extent where the other one feels no other option but to have sex?

i know you're trying to be clever with the HEY WHAT IF WOMAN DID IT but i don't think anyone here is going to be falling for that. women can rape people too i know it's shocking

[#FF0000]

Two examples of 'rape' in your book:

1. An extremely drunk man says yes to sex with a sober woman.

2. A woman verbally pesters her uninterested boyfriend for sex to the extent that he gives in and has sex with her.

Do you now dispute that these are cases of rape?

Let me check the "Is This Checklist".

Is the sex had after freely given consent from a person capable of consent?
No.

Yeah it's rape.

[Vanguard1917]

Let me check the "Is This Checklist".

Is the sex had after freely given consent from a person capable of consent?
No.

Yeah it's rape.

So in your world, sex while drunk is banned, as is trying to convince your partner to have sex, and women rape men all the time?

[#FF0000]

So in your world, sex while drunk is banned

Nope, I never said this. Drunk sex is one thing. But one someone is (in your words here) "extremely" drunk, then that to me is at a point where they cannot give consent. If someone's had a couple to drink, then it's a different story, especially when both parties have been drinking.



as is trying to convince your partner to have sexIf someone says "No", you don't press the issue until they acquiesce. That isn't "trying to convince". That is coercion. And that is rape.


and women rape men all the time?Hey, this is your claim, not mine. If you want to produce those statistics, then go ahead (and good luck). I'm using the textbook definition here, which includes and has always included these scenarios. This isn't something new that people here are just making up.

[Igor]

So in your world, sex while drunk is banned, as is trying to convince your partner to have sex, and women rape men all the time?

your own words were mentioned an "extremely drunk man" having sex with a sober woman. don't you think there's a difference between average drunk sex and that? i kinda think there is.

also, constant pestering about sex creates pressure to give in. if the other partner actually doesn't want to do that yet to keep on pressuring, how in fuck is that not rape? how in hell is that in any way consensual?

also yes women might not rape "all the time" but it's not the kind of barely existing thing some people like to pretend. it happens, and it's marginalized like pretty much every single form of rape ever

[Rugged Collectivist]

it's kinda worrying to me that you wouldn't find 1 rape, especially when you have chosen to highlight that it's an extremely drunk man. why the fuck couldn't alcohol be used as a date rape drug?

I believe vanguard's thinking, and I'm not saying I agree with it, goes like this.

A date rape drug is something that someone puts in your drink without your knowledge. Alcohol on the other hand is something that you consume willingly. So if you get super drunk and fall off of a building or something, people would blame you because you chose to get drunk which led to you doing something stupid. So I think he thinks that getting drunk in the first place makes you responsible for whatever happens while drunk.

Now here's my criticism. Let's apply this to another situation. Let's say you climbed a tall tree, fell, and broke your legs. That is your fault for being dumb and climbing trees for no reason. Now let's say someone comes along and rapes you. While you put yourself in the predicament of being helpless, what the other person is doing is taking advantage of your misfortune. This is despicable and the other person should be held fully responsible.

[#FF0000]

Nah vanguard's thinking is more like this

"This person just said x. They clearly meant y. I will engage point y"

[Vanguard1917]

Nope, I never said this. Drunk sex is one thing. But one someone is (in your words here) "extremely" drunk, then that to me is at a point where they cannot give consent. If someone's had a couple to drink, then it's a different story, especially when both parties have been drinking.

OK, so sex while extremely drunk is banned. A woman can't get rat arsed with her boyfriend and have sex with him.



If someone says "No", you don't press the issue until they acquiesce. That isn't "trying to convince". That is coercion. And that is rape.


So the scenario below is rape (excuse my poor literary-dialogue skills)?

Woman: So how about it?
Man: Not tonight.
Woman: Come on, why not?
Man: I'm tired.
Woman: Please.
Man: No.
Woman: Pretty please.
Man: No.
Woman: With a cherry on top.
Man: No.
Woman: You're so boring!
Man: Come on then.

[#FF0000]

OK, so sex while extremely drunk is banned. A woman can't get rat arsed with her boyfriend and have sex with him.

lemme just copy-paste what I just posted:

"Nope, I never said this. Drunk sex is one thing. But one someone is (in your words here) "extremely" drunk, then that to me is at a point where they cannot give consent. If someone's had a couple to drink, then it's a different story, especially when both parties have been drinking."

And then of course there's a difference where two people are drinking and plan on having sex later. Other users said earlier that people do drink and plan on having sex. That's fine. But a sober person having sex with someone who is too drunk to be able to consent? Yes, that's rape, without question.


So the scenario below is rape (excuse my poor literary-dialogue skills)?

Woman: So how about it?
Man: Not tonight.
Woman: Come on, why not?
Man: I'm tired.
Woman: Please.
Man: No.
Woman: Pretty please.
Man: No.
Woman: With a cherry on top.
Man: No.
Woman: You're so boring!
Man: Come on then.

Yes. The woman is pressuring the man into having sex. He explicitly says "No" three times.

[Vanguard1917]

I believe vanguard's thinking, and I'm not saying I agree with it, goes like this.

A date rape drug is something that someone puts in your drink without your knowledge. Alcohol on the other hand is something that you consume willingly. So if you get super drunk and fall off of a building or something, people would blame you because you chose to get drunk which led to you doing something stupid. So I think he thinks that getting drunk in the first place makes you responsible for whatever happens while drunk.

Now here's my criticism. Let's apply this to another situation. Let's say you climbed a tall tree, fell, and broke your legs. That is your fault for being dumb and climbing trees for no reason. Now let's say someone comes along and rapes you. While you put yourself in the predicament of being helpless, what the other person is doing is taking advantage of your misfortune. This is despicable and the other person should be held fully responsible.

That's not my 'line of thinking'. I, together with most people i know, believe that men and women can be very drunk and still consent to and enjoy sex. It happens in the millions every weekend throughout the world.

[Vanguard1917]

lemme just copy-paste what I just posted:

"Nope, I never said this. Drunk sex is one thing. But one someone is (in your words here) "extremely" drunk, then that to me is at a point where they cannot give consent. If someone's had a couple to drink, then it's a different story, especially when both parties have been drinking."

I'm not talking about 'a couple to drink'. I'm talking about drinking a lot and consenting to sex.



Yes. The woman is pressuring the man into having sex. He explicitly says "No" three times.


Well, i find your position ridiculous. As i see it, the man clearly consented to sex and there was no coercion whatsoever.

[Rugged Collectivist]

That's not my 'line of thinking'. I, together with most people i know, believe that men and women can be very drunk and still consent to and enjoy sex. It happens in the millions every weekend throughout the world.

Okay, let me put this a different way. I once convinced my dad to give me a hundred dollars when he was "very drunk". Was I taking advantage of him?

[Rugged Collectivist]

Well, i find your position ridiculous. As i see it, the man clearly consented to sex and there was no coercion whatsoever.

What if someone said "I'll break up with you if you don't have sex with me."?

[Rugged Collectivist]

Actually, think of it this way. would you recognize a contract that was signed after someone got the signer drunk?

[#FF0000]

I'm not talking about 'a couple to drink'. I'm talking about drinking a lot and consenting to sex.

And I said it depends. It's a very context-sensitive thing. But where the line is clear is when the person is incoherent, stumbling, extremely drunk. But even then it depends. If it's two people who are drinking tons and are fine with having sex later, then cool. In any situation with alcohol and sex, one had better be sure that there is enthusiastic and affirmative consent. That is the only constant and sure guideline in this discussion. Like we've been saying, no one here is saying all drunk sex is rape.


Well, i find your position ridiculous. As i see it, the man clearly consented to sex and there was no coercion whatsoever.

Five negatives and an affirmative is not consent. Badgering someone until they give in is coercion. It is textbook, dogg. I am sorry but you are clearly in the wrong here.

[Vanguard1917]

What if someone said "I'll break up with you if you don't have sex with me."?

It's quite common to break up with a partner that won't have sex with you. Ending a relationship due to an unsatisfying sex life is fairly normal. Is it a crime?



Actually, think of it this way. would you recognize a contract that was signed after someone got the signer drunk?


Sex and contract law are two different things. There are many things that you shouldn't do while drunk. Sex is not always one of them.

[#FF0000]

It's quite common to break up with a partner that won't have sex with you. Ending a relationship due to an unsatisfying sex life is fairly normal. Is it a crime?

No but using emotional blackmail to pressure someone into sex is.

I will let you guess what crime it is!

[ed miliband]

from a very personal perspective here, but i have to say it -- a male friend was recently raped by a woman he met whilst working a very precarious job (i.e., little chance of seeing each other again).

so basically they got drunk together and she told him not to go home but to sleep in her bed; he did and, and she was, in his words "forceful".

now, for us (his friends) it was initially a humorous anecdote, but one we didn't know - and still don't - how to react to; it was an incident that could cause considerable mental and physical damage to him.

now (again), having lived and socialised with many females over the past few years (god, can't believe i had to type that out, sounds so ridiculous) i know that the reverse situation -- a woman drinking too much and sleeping in the bed of a man who she met whilst out, or at work, or whatever, and then being forced into a vulnerable position by the man, is not that outlandish. and i know it's rape.

a person considerably under the influence of alcohol cannot give consent in the same way a sober person can. anyone who has been properly drunk knows the way the mind works under the influence of alcohol, knows that rash, stupid decisions are made. really, when somebody is properly drunk "yes" may as well mean "no" -- there is no rationality or logic to it, especially when the other party appreciates this fact.

last year two of the girls i was living with invited an older man back to out house because he promised to pay for the cab and buy them pizza. once back, he made his way to their room and imagined he was going to have a threesome. now of course, one can argue about the stupidity of them taking him up on his offer, but the reality is he saw two drunk young women and saw an opportunity to have sexual intercourse. and i saw the creep first hand, because i had to kick him out of the house.

i'm rambling now, the point is: a drunken person, like a child, cannot give consent in the same way a sober adult can. if a person has sex with a drunk male or female knowing they are in a more vulnerable position than they are, it's rape.

[#FF0000]

i'm rambling now, the point is: a drunken person, like a child, cannot give consent in the same way a sober adult can. if a person has sex with a drunk male or female knowing they are in a more vulnerable position than they are, it's rape.

Yeah, I agree to a point. But I don't think alcohol (unless one has been doing a lot of drinking) doesn't really cloud things that much. If someone is very enthusiastic in giving consent and is an active participant, then I don't think one could call that rape.

It's a gray area, no matter what, but it's not that gray. There is a difference between someone who is enthusiastically consenting and someone who is just not saying "no".

[Vanguard1917]

And I said it depends. It's a very context-sensitive thing. But where the line is clear is when the person is incoherent, stumbling, extremely drunk. But even then it depends. If it's two people who are drinking tons and are fine with having sex later, then cool. In any situation with alcohol and sex, one had better be sure that there is enthusiastic and affirmative consent. That is the only constant and sure guideline in this discussion. Like we've been saying, no one here is saying all drunk sex is rape.

You said 'a couple of drinks' is fine. I'm saying that in the real world, people get very drunk and have consensual sex - with a partner that they may or may not know well. This happens literally millions of times every weekend throughout all the major cities in the world. Are all these incidents rape?



Five negatives and an affirmative is not consent. Badgering someone until they give in is coercion. It is textbook, dogg. I am sorry but you are clearly in the wrong here.


It's not coercion. Coercion is forcing someone do something against their will.

Again, there probably aren't too many sexually active people around who haven't experienced a scenario similar to the one that i gave. That means that hundreds of millions of people are either rapists or victims of rape, and most likely both.

Can't you see the negative implications of this monumental trivialising of rape?

[ed miliband]

Yeah, I agree to a point. But I don't think alcohol (unless one has been doing a lot of drinking) doesn't really cloud things that much. If someone is very enthusiastic in giving consent and is an active participant, then I don't think one could call that rape.

It's a gray area, no matter what, but it's not that gray. There is a difference between someone who is enthusiastically consenting and someone who is just not saying "no".

of course, you're right: it's very hard to explain properly (for me, anyway).

[#FF0000]

You said 'a couple of drinks' is fine. I'm saying that in the real world, people get very drunk and have consensual sex - with a partner that they may or may not know well. This happens literally millions of times every weekend throughout all the major cities in the world. Are all these incidents rape?


Can't possibly know! I'm sure some are. I'm sure some are not. It depends on the sitaution and I've covered this time and time and time and time again.


It's not coercion. Coercion is forcing someone do something against their will.
Pressuring people into doing something via harassment and badgering is coercion. The "Have sex with me or it's over" example is blatant coercion via emotional blackmail. Do you seriously think coercion is only a physical thing? That is isn't emotional or psychological?


Again, there probably aren't too many sexually active people around who haven't experienced a scenario similar to the one that i gave.Yeah. I know.


Can't you see the negative implications of this monumental trivialising of rape?Correctly identifying rape isn't trivializing it, silly. You're the one sitting here telling me that attaining consent through coercion isn't rape, or that, (bizarrely), coercion isn't coercion.

[Vanguard1917]

Pressuring people into doing something via harassment and badgering is coercion. The "Have sex with me or it's over" example is blatant coercion via emotional blackmail. Do you seriously think coercion is only a physical thing? That is isn't emotional or psychological?

Deliberately or not, you're misusing the word coercion.



co·er·cion
noun 1. the act of coercing (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coerce); use of force (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/force) or intimidation to obtain compliance.

2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.





Encouragement or pestering is not the same thing as coercion, which implies force. If a charity worker on the street pesters me into giving money to their organisation, they have not used coercion. If a mugger holds me down or threatens me with physical harm, they have.

[#FF0000]

Deliberately or not, you're misusing the word coercion.


I'm so glad you did this!

From merriam-webster:


co·erce

transitive verb \kō-ˈərs\
co·ercedco·erc·ing
Definition of COERCE

1
: to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious — W. R. Inge>

2
: to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>

3
: to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>
And from TheFreeDictionary.com


co·erce (khttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/omacr.gif-ûrshttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gif)tr.v. co·erced, co·erc·ing, co·erc·es
1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/force).
3. To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.

And, hey! From Dictionary.com!


verb (used with object), co·erced, co·erc·ing.
1.to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.

2.to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.

3.to dominate or control (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/control), especially by exploiting fear (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fear), anxiety, etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.


So no, coercion does not, and never has, implied the use of physical force. Nobody but you thinks that.

I could also point you to the wikipedia article for "coercion" that explicitly talks about pyschological coercion including emotional blackmail.

[Quail]

You said 'a couple of drinks' is fine. I'm saying that in the real world, people get very drunk and have consensual sex - with a partner that they may or may not know well. This happens literally millions of times every weekend throughout all the major cities in the world. Are all these incidents rape?

No. Not every instance of drunk people having sex is rape. Nobody is saying that. In fact pretty much everyone has explicitly said that there are times when people can have drunken, consensual sex and times when people are too drunk to consent. The easiest way of making sure you don't rape a drunk person is to use common sense and if you're not sure whether or not someone is sober enough to make a rational decision, don't have sex with them.


It's not coercion. Coercion is forcing someone do something against their will.
What the fuck, how is using emotional blackmail to force someone to do something against their will not forcing someone to do something against their will?


Again, there probably aren't too many sexually active people around who haven't experienced a scenario similar to the one that i gave. That means that hundreds of millions of people are either rapists or victims of rape, and most likely both.
The scenario you gave is not necessarily the kind of coercion I had in mind (I was thinking more along the lines of using put-downs or emotional threats to get someone to have sex), but still five "no"s and one "yes" is a pretty dodgy idea of "consent." I haven't been in that situation with anyone who respected me (and understood the idea of consent).


Can't you see the negative implications of this monumental trivialising of rape?
We're not trivialising rape; you're denying the experiences of millions of victims of rape because they were drunk, or their assault wasn't violent.

Also, you never responded to this:

If date rape isn't real rape, if being coerced into sex by emotional manipulation isn't rape, what are they? They're forms of sexual assault/abuse involving being penetrated against your will, which is surely rape?

[Nox]

Depends on how drunk.

If she says yes, the guy is innocent. Period. That's my point. Doesn't matter how drunk she is, if she says YES, the guy has done nothing wrong.

Although I generally do agree with the core concepts of your arguments, you are spouting out so much illogical bullshit and hypocrisy. False rape accusations are very common. The word "rape" covers way too much. By your own indirect admission, virtually every male on the planet whose ever had sex is a rapist, including yourself.

[Vanguard1917]

Yeah. I know.

Correctly identifying rape isn't trivializing it, silly. You're the one sitting here telling me that attaining consent through coercion isn't rape, or that, (bizarrely), coercion isn't coercion.

You've identified rape in such a way that almost everyone is a rapist, a rape victim, or both.

[Vanguard1917]

I'm so glad you did this!

From merriam-webster:

And from TheFreeDictionary.com

And, hey! From Dictionary.com!

So no, coercion does not, and never has, implied the use of physical force. Nobody but you thinks that.

I said force. And all of those definitions you give state force. So what is your point? Are you really going to try to claim that the man in the scenario i gave was forced to have sex with his girlfriend?

[#FF0000]

You've identified rape in such a way that almost everyone is a rapist, a rape victim, or both.

Nah, only in your bizarre imagination where you think I say that all drunk sex is rape.


I said force. And all of those definitions you give state force. So what is your point? Are you really going to try to claim that the man in the scenario i gave was forced to have sex with his girlfriend?

They don't state force alone, dummy. They say force, intimidation, pressure, authority, etc. etc. etc.

[Quail]

If she says yes, the guy is innocent. Period. That's my point. Doesn't matter how drunk she is, if she says YES, the guy has done nothing wrong.
What if the person in question is so drunk that they're not going to remember consenting to or having sex?

What if the person is drunk and emotional and the other person notices this and uses that as a way to manipulate them?

When people get to a point, they don't really know what they're doing and they're not capable of thinking things through in the same way that a sober person might. If one person is sober and the other is wasted, there is a huge power difference in that the drunk person is mentally impaired, vulnerable to doing things they wouldn't do sober and more suggestible and easier to manipulate.

[#FF0000]

Although I generally do agree with the core concepts of your arguments, you are spouting out so much illogical bullshit and hypocrisy.

Feel free to point them out specifically.

[Vanguard1917]

Nah, only in your bizarre imagination where you think I say that all drunk sex is rape.


Didn't you agree that 'there probably aren't too many sexually active people around who haven't experienced a scenario similar to the one that i gave'?



They don't state force alone, stupid. They say force, intimidation, pressure, authority, etc. etc. etc.


So the woman in my scenario was using so much intimidation, force, authority and pressure in trying to have sex with her boyfriend that it could have been nothing other than rape?

[Nox]

What if the person in question is so drunk that they're not going to remember consenting to or having sex?

What if the person is drunk and emotional and the other person notices this and uses that as a way to manipulate them?

When people get to a point, they don't really know what they're doing and they're not capable of thinking things through in the same way that a sober person might. If one person is sober and the other is wasted, there is a huge power difference in that the drunk person is mentally impaired, vulnerable to doing things they wouldn't do sober and more suggestible and easier to manipulate.

From an outside perspective, it may seem like rape.

But from the male's perspective, he has done nothing wrong. He has had sex with a girl who wanted to have sex with him and made it clear by saying yes.

[Quail]

From an outside perspective, it may seem like rape.

But from the male's perspective, he has done nothing wrong. He has had sex with a girl who wanted to have sex with him and made it clear by saying yes.
No, he had sex with a woman who he should really have been able to tell was too drunk to consent. It's not too difficult to tell when people are wasted. They tend to stumble around, slur their speech, talk loudly, perhaps vomit, etc., and chances are you'll probably see them necking shots or whatever. If you don't see them drinking and don't know how much they've had to drink or whether they've taken any other drugs it's probably a good idea not to have sex with them.

[#FF0000]

Didn't you agree that 'there probably aren't too many sexually active people around who haven't experienced a scenario similar to the one that i gave'?

Yes, and I thought that was in reference to the "HAVE SEX W/ ME OR WE BREAK UP" thing, which is unfortunately common.


So the woman in my scenario was using so much intimidation, force, authority and pressure in trying to have sex with her boyfriend that it could have been nothing other than rape?Hahah oh wow you really are that stupid. I can't believe this is a thing I'm reading.

One doesn't need to use everything listed under the definition for it to qualify as coercion. That's why it said "or" and not "and".

And yeah, dude. Pressuring someone into having sex after they have said "No" is rape.

[Nox]

Feel free to point them out specifically.

You are overanalysing everything way too much.

If a girl says yes, it's not rape.

If a girl is drunk and says yes, it's not rape.

If a girl is high on weed and says yes, it's not rape.

If a girl is only having sex because her boyfriend will break up with her otherwise, it's not rape.

Your pathetic definition of rape puts real rape victims to shame. There is a whole world of difference between a girl having regrettable drunken sex and a girl being raped.

You also aren't looking at anything from the male perspective. If a girl says yes, the male has done nothing wrong. Of course there are rare circumstances (such as intentional drugging) where this rule wouldn't apply, but in the extreme majority of cases if a girl says yes she can't rightfully accuse him of rape, because he has not committed an act of rape.

[Nox]

No, he had sex with a woman who he should really have been able to tell was too drunk to consent. It's not too difficult to tell when people are wasted. They tend to stumble around, slur their speech, talk loudly, perhaps vomit, etc., and chances are you'll probably see them necking shots or whatever. If you don't see them drinking and don't know how much they've had to drink or whether they've taken any other drugs it's probably a good idea not to have sex with them.

I agree with you in cases where the male was aware that she genuinely could not give consent. If the male believes the consent to be genuine, it is not rape.

[#FF0000]

You are overanalysing everything way too much.

I think I'm the only one not doing that. Sex without consent is rape. People in certain situations cannot give consent. Consent given under duress and via coercion is not consent.


If a girl says yes, it's not rape.If she's freely giving her consent and isn't just "not saying no", then yes you are right!


If a girl is drunk and says yes, it's not rape.

If a girl is high on weed and says yes, it's not rape.Depends on the situation. I never said all drunk or high sex is rape and I would really appreciate if you read my posts before talking to me about things I say.


If a girl is only having sex to try because her boyfriend will break up with her otherwise, it's not rape.Yo this is flat out wrong. If the dude tries to pressure her into sex by threatening to end the relationship, then yeah, that's coercion, and that is rape.

So anyway, when I said specifically, I meant quote a post of mine instead of sitting here and arguing with broad, vague attitudes and ideas that you imagine I'm holding up here.



Your pathetic definition of rape puts real rape victims to shame. There is a whole world of difference between a girl having regrettable drunken sex and a girl being raped.What is pathetic about the textbook definition of rape?

EDIT:
You also aren't looking at anything from the male perspective. If a girl says yes, the male has done nothing wrong. Of course there are rare circumstances (such as drugging) where this rule wouldn't apply, but in the extreme majority of cases if a girl says yes she can't rightfully accuse him of rape, because he has not committed an act of rape.

Also don't give me anything about the "male" perspective. Nothing in this discussion's even been gendered. Most of the examples in the past few pages have been using women as the person committing the act.

[Nox]

By the way, if I was in a relationship where I wasn't having enough sex, I would make it clear to my girlfriend that I want to have more sex with her or I will break up with her.

Would that make me a rapist?

If you believe that is rape, you really are out of touch with reality.

[#FF0000]

By the way, if I was in a relationship where I wasn't having enough sex, I would make it clear to my girlfriend that I want to have more sex with her or I will break up with her.

Would that make me a rapist?

If you believe that is rape, you really are out of touch with reality.

It would depend on how you went about it. Having a discussion about it is one thing. Trying to pressure someone into having sex and then springing the ultimatum on them, or doing it when you know they are particularly vulnerable, would certainly make you a rapist, yeah.

Sorry to tell you this.

[Quail]

By the way, if I was in a relationship where I wasn't having enough sex, I would make it clear to my girlfriend that I want to have more sex with her or I will break up with her.

Would that make me a rapist?

If you believe that is rape, you really are out of touch with reality.
If you coerced her into having sex with you by threatening to break up with her then yes, you would be having sex without her consent which would be rape. However, if you just told her in a non-sexual situation that you didn't find your sex life fulfilling so she decided to try to have sex with you more often of her own accord, then that would be different. She would also have the option of deciding that she didn't want to be with you if you wanted her to have more sex and walk away if you brought it up in a non-sexual, neutral situation. If you were to tell her in bed that unless she had sex with you right there and then you'd break up with her, she might not feel as though there is any option but to have sex with you. Doing something because it is the only option available to you is not a choice.

It seems as though people are intentionally trying to make fairly simple situations seem confusing.

[Nox]

I think I have misunderstood some things you've been saying. Let me just state my overall view and see if you agree with it.

I'm using male and female roles to make the situation easier to explain.

If a girl says yes, it's not rape. There are rare exceptions such as if a guy intentionally drugs her or intentionally gets her extremely drunk so that she will say yes, but there is a whole world of difference between doing that, and buying a girl a few drinks to "loosen her up". I do not believe that coercion is rape, at least not in most circumstances, e.g. threatening to break up with my girlfriend if we don't have sex more often. You have to stay realistic when you're talking about rape. A guy communicating his feelings to his girlfriend is not a rapist.

I probably won't post in this thread any more tonight, going to bed soon.

[Vanguard1917]

Yes, and I thought that was in reference to the "HAVE SEX W/ ME OR WE BREAK UP" thing, which is unfortunately common.

Hahah oh wow you really are that stupid. I can't believe this is a thing I'm reading.

One doesn't need to use everything listed under the definition for it to qualify as coercion. That's why it said "or" and not "and".

And yeah, dude. Pressuring someone into having sex after they have said "No" is rape.

Yeah, i guess me and virtually everyone else in the world is stupid. I don't think many people other than you and Quail would seriously argue that that woman was a rapist. Let's just assume we're living on separate galaxies.

[Nox]

It would depend on how you went about it. Having a discussion about it is one thing. Trying to pressure someone into having sex and then springing the ultimatum on them, or doing it when you know they are particularly vulnerable, would certainly make you a rapist, yeah.

Sorry to tell you this.

Here's a script. Tell me if you think this would make me a rapist by coercion.

Me: Hey, can we have a talk about something important?
Her: Sure baby, what is it?
Me: I'm really unhappy with our sex life. We aren't having sex enough. It really bothers and upsets me and it's very damaging to our relationship. I doubt I can stay in this relationship if it doesn't change.
Her: Ok baby that's fine, we will have sex more often.

If you really believe that this makes me a rapist, you are out of touch with reality.

[#FF0000]

If a girl says yes, it's not rape.

It depends. Sometimes people aren't in a state where they can give consent.


There are rare exceptions such as if a guy intentionally drugs her or intentionally gets her extremely drunk so that she will say yes, but there is a whole world of difference between doing that, and buying a girl a few drinks to "loosen her up"

Having sex with someone who is drugged or extremely drunk and cannot consent, whether you put them in that state or not, is rape. And buying someone drinks and having sex with them is alright.


I do not believe that coercion is rape, at least not in most circumstances,e.g. threatening to break up with my girlfriend if we don't have sex more often.

No, dude. That is rape. Getting 'consent' through coercion = rape. End of.


A guy communicating his feelings to his girlfriend is not a rapist.


That is very different from threatening someone with the end of a relationship, though. Again, read my post and Quail's post. Especially Quail's. hers is better.

But a word of advice, unrelated to this thread: stop hanging out with those MRA/PUA losers, dude. For real.

[#FF0000]

Here's a script. Tell me if you think this would make me a rapist by coercion.

Me: Hey, can we have a talk about something important?
Her: Sure baby, what is it?
Me: I'm really unhappy with our sex life. We aren't having sex enough. It really bothers and upsets me and it's very damaging to our relationship. I doubt I can stay in this relationship if it doesn't change.
Her: Ok baby that's fine, we will have sex more often.


Nope. That's a-okay.


If you really believe that this makes me a rapist, you are out of touch with reality.

If you really believe this is what I was talking about, then you have shitty reading comprehension. Seriously, read my posts if you're going to respond to them.

[Quail]

If a girl says yes, it's not rape. There are rare exceptions such as if a guy intentionally drugs her or intentionally gets her extremely drunk so that she will say yes, but there is a whole world of difference between doing that, and buying a girl a few drinks to "loosen her up".
"Loosen her up"? What exactly do you mean by that? Isn't that intentionally getting someone drunk so that they'll have sex with you?


I do not believe that coercion is rape, at least not in most circumstances, e.g. threatening to break up with my girlfriend if we don't have sex more often. You have to stay realistic when you're talking about rape. A guy communicating his feelings to his girlfriend is not a rapist.

We're not talking about a guy explaining his feelings. I responded to this here:

If you coerced her into having sex with you by threatening to break up with her then yes, you would be having sex without her consent which would be rape. However, if you just told her in a non-sexual situation that you didn't find your sex life fulfilling so she decided to try to have sex with you more often of her own accord, then that would be different. She would also have the option of deciding that she didn't want to be with you if you wanted her to have more sex and walk away if you brought it up in a non-sexual, neutral situation. If you were to tell her in bed that unless she had sex with you right there and then you'd break up with her, she might not feel as though there is any option but to have sex with you. Doing something because it is the only option available to you is not a choice.


Yeah, i guess me and virtually everyone else in the world is stupid. I don't think many people other than you and Quail would seriously argue that that woman was a rapist. Let's just assume we're living on separate galaxies
I'm rather glad I don't live on your galaxy where it's okay for someone to emotionally manipulate me and coerce me into sex.

[#FF0000]

Yeah, i guess me and virtually everyone else in the world is stupid. I don't think many people other than you and Quail would seriously argue that that woman was a rapist. Let's just assume we're living on separate galaxies.

Since I'm a loser and take internet arguments seriously I actually asked some people what they thought about what constituted coercion. Pretty much every single person I asked (about eight people) said that badgering someone into having sex until they reluctantly agreed is rape.

[Nox]

Having sex with someone who is drugged or extremely drunk and cannot consent, whether you put them in that state or not, is rape. And buying someone drinks and having sex with them is alright.

If the guy is aware that her consent is invalid, it's rape. Of course in most cases it's obvious if a girl is unable to give consent, but there are exceptions that need to be taken in to account. Many innocent people will end up becoming "rapists".


That is very different from threatening someone with the end of a relationship, though. Again, read my post and Quail's post. Especially Quail's. hers is better.

Check my other post and respond to it. The one with the script. That's what I'm talking about.

[#FF0000]

Many innocent people will end up becoming "rapists".

But this literally isn't even a problem. This is the farthest thing from a problem. This is one of the biggest non-issues in the world. Hardly anyone, guilty or innocent, goes to jail for rape.

And no, it is nowhere near as difficult to figure out when someone is drugged or too drunk to give consent.

[Nox]

Nope. That's a-okay.


But that makes you a hypocrite, because it's coercion, because I made it clear that I would break up with her unless we started having sex more often. So the extra times we had sex, she would only be doing it so I don't break up with her...

I'm not trying to be a dickhead and pick small holes in your argument, I'm just showing you that so many innocent people will get labelled as rapists if you class coercion as rape.

By the way, I do agree that coercion in rape in many circumstances, just not all. Like I said, you have to stay realistic. A boss threatening to fire a worker unless she has sex with him is a situation incomparable to a boyfriend threatening to break up with a girl unless she starts having sex with him more often.

[#FF0000]

hey i'm kind of feeling alone batting back this tide of unbelievable ignorance, but real quick, am i the only one that is blown away by some of the stuff being posted here? e.g. "coercion doesn't make it rape" etc. etc.? (Not directed at you in particular, Nox)

[Nox]

And no, it is nowhere near as difficult to figure out when someone is drugged or too drunk to give consent.

Yes, but there are times when it's unclear whether a woman is just drunk, or too drunk to give proper consent. That's what I'm trying to say.

If a guy genuinely believes a woman's consent to be valid, he cannot be labelled as a rapist.

[#FF0000]

But that makes you a hypocrite, because it's coercion, because I made it clear that I would break up with her unless we started having sex more often. So the extra times we had sex, she would only be doing it so I don't break up with her...

That is not coercion, though. That is not a "threat". That is a discussion about a relationship in a non-sexual situation. Please, refer back to Quail's post on this. She covered it better than I did.


I'm not trying to be a dickhead and pick small holes in your argument, I'm just showing you that so many innocent people will get labelled as rapists if you class coercion as rape.No one is going to "start" doing that, though. Because coercion is already part of the definition, dude.


Yes, but there are times when it's unclear whether a woman is just drunk, or too drunk to give proper consent. That's what I'm trying to say.Man.

No. It is hardly ever unclear when someone is so drunk that they cannot give consent. But figuring out where the "too drunk" point is exactly is very difficult. Like I said, if someone is vomiting, falling over, passing out, then it's clear. In all other cases, one has to use their judgement. In every case, there must be enthusastic, affirmative consent (I said this before). If there is not, and there is even a question of whether someone is capable of consenting, then just back the fuck off. It's very, very simple.

[Nox]

hey i'm kind of feeling alone batting back this tide of unbelievable ignorance, but real quick, am i the only one that is blown away by some of the stuff being posted here? e.g. "coercion doesn't make it rape" etc. etc.? (Not directed at you in particular, Nox)

Look mate, overall I do agree with you. I've said it and made it clear several times. I am just showing you that there are situations where the same logic simply can't be applied.

[#FF0000]

Look mate, overall I do agree with you. I've said it and made it clear several times. I am just showing you that there are situations where the same logic simply can't be applied.

Well you're failing, because you're bringing up situations that I already addressed.

[Quail]

But that makes you a hypocrite, because it's coercion, because I made it clear that I would break up with her unless we started having sex more often. So the extra times we had sex, she would only be doing it so I don't break up with her...
Well, no, because if you'd talked about your sex life like adults, you'd both be trying to figure out a compromise to make it work. Healthy relationships don't involve one partner forcing the other to do stuff by threatening to break up with them. Besides, if you liked someone enough, I don't know why you would give them such an ultimatum because you'd respect that person and you'd try to find a way of making things work so that you didn't have to break up with them. As I said, having a talk about how you don't feel satisfied with your sex life is completely different to being in bed with someone and demanding sex with the threat of breaking up with the person if they don't comply.

[Nox]

That is not coercion, though. That is not a "threat". That is a discussion about a relationship in a non-sexual situation. Please, refer back to Quail's post on this. She covered it better than I did.

The base principle is "have more sex with me or I will break up with you". How is that anything but coercion?

[Quail]

Yes, but there are times when it's unclear whether a woman is just drunk, or too drunk to give proper consent. That's what I'm trying to say.

If a guy genuinely believes a woman's consent to be valid, he cannot be labelled as a rapist.
If you're in any kind of doubt, just don't do it. I don't know why that's so hard to grasp. It's better just not to have sex than to potentially rape someone.

[#FF0000]

The base principle is "have more sex with me or I will break up with you". How is that anything but coercion?
Lemme just quote the operative thing here from Quail's post.

"As I said, having a talk about how you don't feel satisfied with your sex life is completely different to being in bed with someone and demanding sex with the threat of breaking up with the person if they don't comply."

[Nox]

Well you're failing, because you're bringing up situations that I already addressed.

If a guy has sex with someone who is clearly unable to give consent, it's rape. We agree on that? Good.

If a guy has sex with someone who is unable to give proper consent, but he is not aware of that (for example if she's drunk enough to be unable to give proper consent but not drunk enough to visibly look unable to give proper consent), it's not rape. Why don't you agree with that?

If a boss threatens to fire an employee unless she has sex with him (not on the spot, just in general), that's coercion therefore rape. Agreed? Good.

If a guy threatens to break up with his girlfriend unless she has more sex with him, that's coercion therefore rape. Why don't you agree with that?


Please do correct me if I have misunderstood any of your viewpoints, and show me what you actually meant in such cases. I am just trying to show you the incredible hypocrisy and lack of logic you are portraying in some of your arguments.

Anyway I'm off for the night, I look forward to your answers.

[Nox]

If you're in any kind of doubt, just don't do it. I don't know why that's so hard to grasp. It's better just not to have sex than to potentially rape someone.

I totally agree. I wouldn't have sex with a girl if I was unclear whether or not she was able to give proper consent. It isn't hard to grasp at all, but realistically there are exceptions, there are times when someones consent may appear to be genuine when in fact it isn't. I am saying that it's unfair to label someone as a rapist under such circumstances.

[#FF0000]

If a guy has sex with someone who is unable to give proper consent, but he is not aware of that (for example if she's drunk enough to be unable to give proper consent but not drunk enough to visibly look unable to give proper consent), it's not rape. Why don't you agree with that?

I don't understand how this hypothetical situation could ever come to pass, though. It's just not that "gray" in real life. You know when people are drunk. If you aren't sure if they are "too drunk" then either err on the side of caution and don't do it, unless they are very enthusiastic with their consent, maybe. I said this before.


If a guy threatens to break up with his girlfriend unless she has more sex with him, that's coercion therefore rape. Why don't you agree with that?
I don't know how many more times we can say this, dude.
I am just trying to show you the incredible hypocrisy and lack of logic you are portraying.The problem is on your end, unfortunately.

[Nox]

I don't understand how this hypothetical situation could ever come to pass, though. It's just not that "gray" in real life. You know when people are drunk. If you aren't sure if they are "too drunk" then either err on the side of caution and don't do it, unless they are very enthusiastic with their consent, maybe. I said this before.

It comes to pass very frequently. When it's clear that a girl is drunk, but unclear whether she is drunk enough to be unable to give consent. By your logic, I am a rapist if I have sex with any girl who is unable to give proper consent, regardless of whether or not I am aware of that fact.

That's the main thing I disagree with. If I am unaware that a girl is unable to give consent, I am not a rapist. Period. Let's assume 18 is the age of consent and that people below that age are unable to give proper consent, if I have sex with a 17 year old girl without knowing her age, does that make me a rapist? Different situation, same concept.

[#FF0000]

It comes to pass very frequently. When it's clear that a girl is drunk, but unclear whether she is drunk enough to be unable to give consent. By your logic, I am a rapist if I have sex with any girl who is unable to give proper consent, regardless of whether or not I am aware of that fact.

Again, if whether she is capable of consent or not is in question, then you just don't do it. It's very, very simple

[Quail]

It comes to pass very frequently. When it's clear that a girl is drunk, but unclear whether she is drunk enough to be unable to give consent. By your logic, I am a rapist if I have sex with any girl who is unable to give proper consent, regardless of whether or not I am aware of that fact.
Isn't it up to the victim to decide whether or not they were raped? The victim knows better than anyone whether their boundaries were violated. Plus for various reasons men might not realise that they're raping women because it's scarily socially acceptable in some circles for men to get women drunk to sleep with them, or men feel entitled to sex with their partner whether they want it or not. Denying that date rape is "real" rape plays right into this culture that makes it so easy for men to get away with rape.


That's the main thing I disagree with. If I am unaware that a girl is unable to give consent, I am not a rapist. Period. Let's assume 18 is the age of consent and that people below that age are unable to give proper consent, if I have sex with a 17 year old girl without knowing her age, does that make me a rapist?
I don't think that your analogy works. There isn't an age at which people suddenly become able to give consent and lying about your age requires deliberate deception. You can't lie about not being too drunk to consent.

[Quail]

I'm going to go to bed now. I suggest that Nox and Vanguard1917 go and read up on consent. There should be some stuff floating around on the internet. At the moment you are apologising for rapists, especially when you say things like:
When it's clear that a girl is drunk, but unclear whether she is drunk enough to be unable to give consent. By your logic, I am a rapist if I have sex with any girl who is unable to give proper consent, regardless of whether or not I am aware of that fact.
If you don't know whether someone is too drunk to consent, don't have sex. Simple as. Claiming that you didn't know whether someone was too drunk to consent when you knew that they were drunk and using that as an excuse means that you knew there was a chance that you were raping someone, but you chose to do it anyway.

[Rugged Collectivist]

It's quite common to break up with a partner that won't have sex with you. Ending a relationship due to an unsatisfying sex life is fairly normal. Is it a crime?

No. It's perfectly okay to break up with someone who won't have sex with you. It's not okay to use this as leverage when trying to convince them to.



Sex and contract law are two different things.

How exactly?

[officer nugz]

So all those women who respond that they do not report being raped for fear of not being believed, or not reporting it to the police because even their friends and family do not believe them, are really lying and was just having what you call "consensual drunk sex"?no, because that is not remotely what I was referring to. the word "authentically believe" means just that. believe it or not, when most women have sex while drunk, the morning after, they authentically believe themselves to have had consensual sex. because in most cases, it was. because sex under the influence of alcohol is not necessarily rape. women certainly are raped under the influence of alcohol. but it is not necessarily so. which is why I argued against a post stating that it is necessarily so. because the post that you were defending was stating that sex under the influence of alcohol is necessarily rape. which is false, and I have shown why I think it is false, and unluckily for you, women agree.


Really? I see you haven't even the first inkling of understanding how rape works. Which is quite possibly why you're acting so smug. A bit tragic really.when I say something, interpret it literally. I mean what I directly say. when I say most women do not believe themselves to have been raped, I mean exactly that. I do not mean women who report rape are liars. the fact that you could come to that conclusion based on what I said is baffling. rape is rape. drunk sex is not necessarily, certainly can be, but nonetheless is not necessarily, rape. this has been so clearly what I've been writing and the fact that you haven't been able to understand this shows either a massive inability to comprehend english, or a willful ignorance. which I suspect is for the purpose of making yourself out as a hero among rape apologists.

[officer nugz]

the idea that a drunk male and an equally drunk female agreeing to have sex with one another constitutes the rape of a woman is rooted in the idea that women are less mentally able to consent than men are. which seems to suggest women have weaker minds than men.

[#FF0000]

the idea that a drunk male and an equally drunk female agreeing to have sex with one another constitutes the rape of a woman

who said this

[Nox]

Again, if whether she is capable of consent or not is in question, then you just don't do it. It's very, very simple

My point is that if the rapist is unaware of her inability to give consent, he shouldn't be punished because from his perspective he has done nothing wrong. You still haven't given a clear answer as to whether or not you agree with this statement, that's what I'm looking for.

My other main disagreement with you is on coercion:

I agree that some circumstances of coercion are rape, but you can't say that about every situation that involves elements of coercion. Pretty much every male on the planet has had sex with a female with some coercion involved.

If your girlfriend/wife relies on your income, that puts a lot of pressure on her to have sex with you, therefore, by your logic, it's rape. If you pay a prostitute for sex, that's bribery therefore coercion therefore rape.

[#FF0000]

My point is that if the rapist is unaware of her inability to give consent, he shouldn't be punished because from his perspective he has done nothing wrong. You still haven't given a clear answer as to whether or not you agree with this statement, that's what I'm looking for.

I can't agree or disagree because I honestly do not understand how one could be unaware of their inability to consent. When someone has had a few to drink, you can tell. When someone is drunk to the point that trying anything would clearly be taking advantage of them, you can tell.

And I'm not really sure why you think that if something is okay from someone's perspective that it's okay. A lot of people who do things that hurt other people don't think they are doing anything wrong.


I agree that some circumstances of coercion are rape, but you can't say that about every situation that involves elements of coercion. Pretty much every male on the planet has had sex with a female with some coercion involved.Haha, nope.


If your girlfriend/wife relies on your income, that puts a lot of pressure on her to have sex with you, therefore, by your logic, it's rape. If you pay a prostitute for sex, that's bribery therefore coercion therefore rape.That is not my logic, though. I don't know why what I said is so hard for you to understand. If you are trying to have sex with someone, as in presently, trying to make it happen at that moment and you say "Oh well if you don't have sex with me, I'll break up with you", then that is rape. I really don't know how I can make it any simpler for you.

EDIT: If you say "If you don't have sex with me, then I will X or won't do Y", then that is coercion and that is rape. Is that better?

[Igor]

the idea that a drunk male and an equally drunk female agreeing to have sex with one another constitutes the rape of a woman is rooted in the idea that women are less mentally able to consent than men are. which seems to suggest women have weaker minds than men.

literally no one neither believes in or has said anything about your strawman idea that what we've said about rape in this thread is true only for men

literally no one, but we keep getting these posts. why

[Nox]

presently at that moment

EDIT: If you say "If you don't have sex with me, then I will X or won't do Y", then that is coercion and that is rape. Is that better?

Ok fair enough that's a little more clear. I guess I agree with that.

As for the previous part of your post, I do agree with you, but there are exceptions and in cases where the male was not aware of the victims inability to give proper consent, I still firmly believe that even though that's rape, the "rapist" has done nothing wrong. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. It's a situation that happens a lot more often than you'd think (people unknowingly having sex with people who aren't able to give proper consent). I certainly wouldn't want to get caught up in a situation like that and instantly be labelled as a rapist even though I'd done nothing wrong.

[#FF0000]

(people unknowingly having sex with people who aren't able to give proper consent).

Can you give me a specific example of how this would even happen?

[Manic Impressive]

I think the only thing to conclude from this thread is that Dworkin was right and All Sex Is Rape

[officer nugz]

literally no one neither believes in or has said anything about your strawman idea that what we've said about rape in this thread is true only for men

literally no one, but we keep getting these posts. why
who said thisyoseph banana did.


If you want to have a 'one night stand', then don't intoxicate yourself or your partner with a drug that slurs cognitive thinking and decision making. I find it ridiculous the amount of people on here that will openly attack rapists who've used drugs to coerce their victims, yet defend beer and wine (both coercive drugs) as a 'cultural thing'. Contrary to popular belief, the most commonly used date-rape drug is indeed alcohol, precisely because a drunk can not be expected to make rational decisions, and It's because of this very fact that many women will not complain as they don't see it as rape (e.g. "I made the decision to get drunk and had sex while I was under the influence. If I say that I was raped, then they'll say that I was lying or overexaggerating")

If you have sex with someone who was intoxicated, then they have every fucking right to accuse you of rape. Whether they'd like it or not under influence of alcohol, if they don't want to do it in their sober mind, they probably wouldn't have wanted it then either. If you find that they didn't want to have sex the following morning, then you have just raped them.

Got a problem with that? Don't fuck a drunk person then.
the claim being made is that any amount of alcohol in a person who you have sex withs body constitutes rape, and because he singles out women as the ones being raped, its assumed that he means women are raped in instances of drunk sex. there is no indicator in what he says of how much alcohol he is referring to and it seems apparent that he is referring to any amount. every post I've made in this thread is either directly addressing this post or addressing majokovskijs defense of it.

[Nox]

Can you give me a specific example of how this would even happen?

If someone is unaware that the person they are having sex with is too young to give proper consent. E.g. if she's an under-the-age-of-consent year old who looks older.

If someone is unaware that the person they are having sex with is too drunk to give proper consent. Being "too drunk to give consent" varies (sometimes significantly) from person to person and, despite what you keep saying, it isn't always clear whether or not the person is "too drunk", especially when there's alcohol involved on both sides.

If someone unintentionally/unknowingly coerces/pressures someone in to having sex with them. I'm sure you can think of some examples of this.

All of those situations happen, some of them quite frequently, and if the "rapists"/males in those situations were tried as rapists, a lot of innocent people would be getting punished for having what they believed to be fully consensual sex.

[Rottenfruit]

It might not be 'inconceivable', but that does not mean that, in practice, it is anything beyond being extremely rare.

The point is that you have triviliased rape to such a degree that it no longer refers first and foremost to an act of violence in patriarchal society by a man against a woman.

Instead, going by your definition, it can be a crime committed just as easily by a woman against a man, as by a man against a woman.



So we've gone from 'rape' to the looser term 'abuse'.
Female on men rape does exist i think it's mostly sexual child abuse a mother who molest her son,a mother who has abussued his son sexualy for so long that even in his adult he is still sumbivisie to sexual abuse from her (it does not take a penis to rape,there are objects lets stop at that point)

[Rottenfruit]

it's kinda worrying to me that you wouldn't find 1 rape, especially when you have chosen to highlight that it's an extremely drunk man. why the fuck couldn't alcohol be used as a date rape drug?

the 2 kinda depends onhe extent and nature of pestering, but seriously, how can you not see any problem with pestering your SO about sex to an extent where the other one feels no other option but to have sex?

i know you're trying to be clever with the HEY WHAT IF WOMAN DID IT but i don't think anyone here is going to be falling for that. women can rape people too i know it's shocking

Igor by itself alcohol is not a very effective "rape drug", the person has still mobile movements even in blackout and can scream and such,for example Pcp would make the worst date rape drug ever(the rape victim would probaly rip the rapist eyes out)but it's extremly similar hallugenic cousin ketamin would be effective in high doses because the person will be paralyzed and open eyed halluctions have compltely taken over(the person does not see anything but is havin halluctions on such a massive scale the brain has pretty much stopped seeing)

Halcion,rohypnol and ghb it would be like having sex with a corpse, no response to any touching zombie like state, a person can wake up from a drunken stubor

On a drug in high doses such as halcion or ghb the person is awake but does and does not care and/or does not notice that he/she is being raped , on extreme doses the person is ltieraly not there so the person cannot even see that he/she is being raped.

That drug state cannot be achieved by alcohol, is zombie state fun? Tried it myself on halcion and the answer is yes you feel awesome, like you are not there and you dont notice anything,perfect peace,and i was not even on that high doses, higher doses lead to total

How do i know this? Personal usage of drugs and im projecting the effects that they had on me

A date rape drug needs to have dissociative(ketamine) and or hypnotic effects(skolpamine) , alcohol has neither

ANd no you cant ban rophynol that would be extremely cruel, it's a life saving drug for some people suffering from severe epeilisy ,

[Quail]

If someone is unaware that the person they are having sex with is too young to give proper consent. E.g. if she's an under-the-age-of-consent year old who looks older.

Refer to my earlier post.


If someone is unaware that the person they are having sex with is too drunk to give proper consent. Being "too drunk to give consent" varies (sometimes significantly) from person to person and, despite what you keep saying, it isn't always clear whether or not the person is "too drunk", especially when there's alcohol involved on both sides.
As has been said several times, if you're in any doubt just don't do it. If you really like the person you can exchange numbers, or if you're in bed together you can wait until the morning to have sex.


If someone unintentionally/unknowingly coerces/pressures someone in to having sex with them. I'm sure you can think of some examples of this.
Give an example. Perhaps some people don't realise they're being manipulative or coercive, but does that really matter to the victim? I don't think so. the victim is the one who should define whether or not their boundaries have been violated, not the perpetrator. People are surprisingly good at rationalising the things they have done so it wouldn't surprise me if most rapists have managed to rationalise their behaviour so that they don't consider themselves rapists. Besides, come on, coercion is nowhere near as grey as you claim it is. People know when they have been coerced. Yet again, you are apologising for rapists by assuming that they can't tell whether or not they have consent. If you don;t know whether or not you have consent, don't fucking have sex. I don't understand why I've had to say this so many times.


All of those situations happen, some of them quite frequently, and if the "rapists"/males in those situations were tried as rapists, a lot of innocent people would be getting punished for having what they believed to be fully consensual sex.
So if a woman thinks she was raped but the man who raped her thought he had consent, then it isn't rape? Sorry, but that's bullshit. There are a lot of circumstances where men might think they have consent due to rape culture - for example, a significant amount of men think it's okay to get a woman drunk in order to have sex with her, boyfriends think they're entitiled to have sex with their girlfriends, it's only seen as "bad sexual etiquette" for a man to have sex with a woman he had sex with earlier in the night without her consent. Think about what you're writing, Nox. This is a verbal warning for rape apologism.

[Luís Henrique]

Igor by itself alcohol is not a very effective "rape drug", the person has still mobile movements even in blackout and can scream and such,

It is much more complicated than that. Yes, a drunken person can still put up a fight, or cry for help. But while it is possible to rape a person who has passed out due to alcohol ingestion, this isn't the most typical scenario.

Problem is, alcohol is a depressant, but one that depresses controls first. So you have that characteristically cyclic pattern in alcohol intoxication, that, for most people, goes from normality to euphoria to depression to pathological sleep. And the problem is, alcoholic euphoria can lead people to do things they wouldn't do when sober. People know this and take advantage of it in many forms.

One of them is to induce other people to do things they wouldn't normally do. As in, John knows that Mary would never bang him when sober, so he induces her to drink too much. With some "luck", Mary may change her mind about that and explicitly consent - perhaps even enthusiastically - to something she wouldn't normally do.

Another way people use alcohol is to elude one's own inhibitions. As in, Mary wants to have sex, but cannot allow herself to do it when sober, so she drinks too much in order to be able to say "yes". Additional problem, though, is that alcohol also interferes with our ability to judge people and situations, so it is possible that Mary wants to bang Justin, and gets drunk to that effect, but then when drunk finds John not as much distasteful as when sober - and ends in bed with him, which she might regret when alcoholic euphoria vanishes away. Or that she would normally want to bang John, yes, but not over the party table with a dozen people watching and cheering.

A further problem is that some people have some degree of amnesia regarding what they did when drunk. I once dated a lady who woke in the middle of the night, complaining bitterly that I hadn't fucked her - but that was not true, she simply - and I fear completely - forgot the sexual relation, due to her intoxication. There I was lucky, she could as well have forgotten that she gave consent.

Luís Henrique

[Art Vandelay]

Refer to my earlier post.


As has been said several times, if you're in any doubt just don't do it. If you really like the person you can exchange numbers, or if you're in bed together you can wait until the morning to have sex.


Give an example. Perhaps some people don't realise they're being manipulative or coercive, but does that really matter to the victim? I don't think so. the victim is the one who should define whether or not their boundaries have been violated, not the perpetrator. People are surprisingly good at rationalising the things they have done so it wouldn't surprise me if most rapists have managed to rationalise their behaviour so that they don't consider themselves rapists. Besides, come on, coercion is nowhere near as grey as you claim it is. People know when they have been coerced. Yet again, you are apologising for rapists by assuming that they can't tell whether or not they have consent. If you don;t know whether or not you have consent, don't fucking have sex. I don't understand why I've had to say this so many times.


So if a woman thinks she was raped but the man who raped her thought he had consent, then it isn't rape? Sorry, but that's bullshit. There are a lot of circumstances where men might think they have consent due to rape culture - for example, a significant amount of men think it's okay to get a woman drunk in order to have sex with her, boyfriends think they're entitiled to have sex with their girlfriends, it's only seen as "bad sexual etiquette" for a man to have sex with a woman he had sex with earlier in the night without her consent. Think about what you're writing, Nox. This is a verbal warning for rape apologism.

I think your a little too close to this one quail; I'd suggest alerting another mod not involved in the discussion to see if they would hand out a verbal warning in this case.

[Nox]

So if a woman thinks she was raped but the man who raped her thought he had consent, then it isn't rape? Sorry, but that's bullshit. There are a lot of circumstances where men might think they have consent due to rape culture - for example, a significant amount of men think it's okay to get a woman drunk in order to have sex with her, boyfriends think they're entitiled to have sex with their girlfriends, it's only seen as "bad sexual etiquette" for a man to have sex with a woman he had sex with earlier in the night without her consent. Think about what you're writing, Nox. This is a verbal warning for rape apologism.

I'm not denying that rape has taken place, what I'm saying is that the "rapist" in that situation has done nothing wrong (from his perspective), therefore he should not be punished.

People shouldn't be punished for crimes unless they've intentionally committed that crime.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm not denying that rape has taken place, what I'm saying is that the "rapist" in that situation has done nothing wrong (from his perspective), therefore he should not be punished.

That's evidently absurd. Rape is wrong, so there is no possibility that rape happened and the alleged rapist did nothing wrong. You can argue whether something constitutes rape or not; but if it is, it absolutely must be punished.


People shouldn't be punished for crimes unless they've intentionally committed that crime.That's wrong also. Recklessness or negligence shouldn't be punished as harshly as direct intent, but in the cases of serious and violent crimes they should be criminally tried too.

Luís Henrique

[Manic Impressive]

Nice to know so many comrades are into retribution rather than rehabilitation.

[Quail]

I'm not denying that rape has taken place, what I'm saying is that the "rapist" in that situation has done nothing wrong (from his perspective), therefore he should not be punished.

People shouldn't be punished for crimes unless they've intentionally committed that crime.
If someone is raping people because they can't tell whether or not they have consent, something needs to be done. That person needs to learn about consent so that they don't go on to rape anyone else and I don't think someone who can't tell whether or not they're raping someone is a safe person to be around so for the protection of other people they might have to be removed from society until they understand the idea of consent.

I find the implications of your point of view rather disturbing. It is your responsibility to learn and practice good consent. Ignorance is not an excuse. If, as you say, someone who rapes another person without realising has done nothing wrong, then the implication is that they shouldn't reflect on what happened, why it happened and what they should have done instead. That's dangerous. People should actively question themselves and their behaviour anyway since we've grown up in a patriarchal society, not just because they've assaulted someone.

[Crux]

Nice to know so many comrades are into retribution rather than rehabilitation.
And you're getting this from where exactly?

[Manic Impressive]

the post directly above mine

[Crux]

the post directly above mine
Then your post should have been nice to know Luís Henrique does. Something which I don't think is all that evident from his post either. But you said "so many", apparently another attempt for one of your oh-so-clever one-liners (the one about "no *you're* the sexists" still cracks me up). Please do them elsewhere.

[Manic Impressive]

second time you've neg repped me in this thread majakockstain. Leaving the comment "reaally?" would you care to elucidate on that point. Or will you continue to keep your ever so convincing arguments to yourself?

[Manic Impressive]

Then your post should have been nice to know Luís Henrique does. Something which I don't think is all that evident from his post either. But you said "so many", apparently another attempt for one of your oh-so-clever one-liners (the one about "no *you're* the sexists" still cracks me up). Please do them elsewhere.
fuck you prick you are a fucking sexist as far as I'm concerned.

[Crux]

second time you've neg repped me in this thread majakockstain. Leaving the comment "reaally?" would you care to elucidate on that point. Or will you continue to keep your ever so convincing arguments to yourself?

fuck you prick you are a fucking sexist as far as I'm concerned.


Come back (or don't) when you sober up. Yeah, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're drunk posting. Nothing you've said so far is worthy of a response, save perhaps deletion.

[Manic Impressive]

Actually I've been stupid in reacting to you. I should have done what I will now be doing and taking this to the admins because you are straight up trolling.

should have remembered the golden rule don't feed the trolls

[#FF0000]

Nice to know so many comrades are into retribution rather than rehabilitation.

one person = so many

i'm really disappointed because I just realized your "all sex is rape" joke might not have been stated all that jokingly.

I am actually kind of getting frustrated with people reading posts and misconstruing them, and (worse) people not responding to posts directly but vague characterizations of attitudes and positions that nobody in particular really even put forward as opposed to direct responses to things people actually say. I've seen it a lot in this thread and in the various "WHY CAN'T WE CALL MUSLIMS SAVAGES?" threads.

Manic, you're not stupid. You're not Vanguard1917 or Manic Expression. You can read things and comprehend them without twisting them into fucking ridiculous nonsense. You know that nobody said anything that could be even remotely construed as "all sex is rape" and you know that nobody's making any points about how criminal justice ought to work. You're not adding anything this way, dogg. c'mon.