A Man Is a Rape-Supporter If...

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

This is getting passed around, and is being used by the anti-feminists.

http://evebitfirst.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/a-man-is-a-rape-supporter-if/

Some of it is completely non-sensical, but I get other parts.

[Tim Cornelis]

The Amazing Atheist made a video about it, hence its popularity. While he's an annoying liberal anti-feminist, his conclusion "is there anyone with a penis who isn't a rape supporter?" is accurate. Except maybe the implicit assumption penis equals man. Much of it doesn't even have anything to do with rape at all (e.g. men liking lesbianism).

[vizzek]

nothing men's rights activists say is ever correct. it's a universal rule of life.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Yeah, some of the antiporn/antiprostitution/antibdsm stuff is a bit of a weird secondwave throwback. Also, there seems to be a weird implication that only men do these things, that women are not complicit in these things (especially when we consider patriarchy in terms of cis-heteropatriarchy), and that trans/gendervarient people just don't exist.
I mean, I strongly agree with 4/5ths of this - but it would benefit from, y'know, the last several decades of queer and materialist feminisms.

[Zostrianos]

He has procured a prostitute.
He has gone to a strip club.
He watches pornography in which women are depicted.

Errr...what? :laugh:
I've done the last 2 on that list (as most men probably have), so that makes me a rape supporter? And for the first one, if a man couldn't attract women for a reason or other, and his only recourse would be to get an escort, that would make him a rape supporter?!
Ffs...

[Deity]

A man is a rape-supporter if…

He has ever sexually engaged with any woman while she was underage, drunk, high, physically restrained, unconscious, or subjected to psychological, physical, economic, or emotional coercion.
He defends the current legal definition of rape and/or opposes making consent a defense.
He has accused a rape victim of having “buyer’s remorse” or wanting to get money from the man.
He has blamed a woman for “putting herself in a situation” where she “could be” attacked.
He has procured a prostitute.
He characterizes prostitution as a “legitimate” “job” “choice” or defends men who purchase prostitutes.
He has ever revealed he conceives of sex as fundamentally transactional.
He has gone to a strip club.
He is anti-abortion.
He is pro-”choice” because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available.
He frames discussions of pornography in terms of “freedom of speech.”
He watches pornography in which women are depicted.
He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present.
He characterizes the self-sexualizing behavior of some women, such as wearing make-up or high heels, as evidence of women’s desire to “get” a man.
He tells or laughs at jokes involving women being attacked, sexually “hoodwinked,” or sexually harassed.
He expresses enjoyment of movies/musicals/TV shows/plays in which women are sexually demeaned or presented as sexual objects
He mocks women who complain about sexual attacks, sexual harassment, street cat-calls, media depictions of women, or other forms of sexual objectification.
He supports sexual “liberation” and claims women would have more sex with (more) men if society did not “inhibit” them.
He states or implies that women who do not want to have sex with men are “inhibited,” “prudes,” “stuck-up,” “man-haters,” or psychologically ill.
He argues that certain male behaviors towards women are “cultural” and therefore not legitimate subjects of feminist attention.
He ever subordinates the interests of women in a given population to the interests of the men in that population, or proceeds in discussions as if the interests of the women are the same as the interests of the men.
He promotes religious or philosophical views in which a woman’s physical/psychological/emotional/sexual well-being is subordinated to a man’s.
He describes female anatomy in terms of penetration, or uses terms referencing the supposed “emptiness” of female anatomy when describing women.
He defends the physical abuse of women on the grounds of “consent.”
He defends the sexualization or sexual abuse of minor females on the grounds of “consent” or “willingness.”
He promotes the idea that women as a class are happier or more fulfilled if they have children, or that they “should” have children.
He argues that people (or just “men”) have sexual “needs.”
He discusses the “types” of women he finds sexually appealing and/or attempts to demean women by telling them he does not find them sexually appealing.
He sexually objectifies lesbians or lesbian sexual activity.
He defends these actions by saying that some women also engage in them."

What the hell? This is why feminists get so much shit...

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Dammit I'm a rape-supporter now too? Fuuuuuuuck.


Well, according to that list I'm a rape supporter.

See, the thing is - you probably are. Almost everyone is, since we live in a patriarchal society where rape is normalized. We need to confront this and deal with it.

To use a woefully imperfect analogy - we are all supporters of capitalism insofar as we reproduce it by our everyday activity. To end capitalism, we have to confront it in this light.

A materialist critique of rape culture ought to begin from a similar point.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

The Amazing Atheist made a video about it, hence its popularity. While he's an annoying liberal anti-feminist, his conclusion "is there anyone with a penis who isn't a rape supporter?" is accurate. Except maybe the implicit assumption penis equals man. Much of it doesn't even have anything to do with rape at all (e.g. men liking lesbianism).

That's what brought it to my attention. My sister was watching it, we were both too angry to finish it.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

I thought the one about talking about women you find sexually attractive was especially strange? How can that possibly be concieved as rape? Doesn't everyone have a type they like?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I esp. like the


He defends these actions by saying that some women also engage in them.

point, as it not only heads a possible defense off at the pass, but it also adds another demerit to you as a rape supporter! :cool:

[Taters]

I really don't understand radfems sometimes. This is one of those times. By this list, though not all of it is disagreeable, all men indirectly support rape...

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

What the hell? This is why feminists get so much shit...

No. Seriously, fuck you. Feminists get so much shit because we live in a society where misogyny and rape are normalized, and not because of the problematic lack of nuance in a minority of feminists' analysis.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I thought the one about talking about women you find sexually attractive was especially strange? How can that possibly be concieved as rape? Doesn't everyone have a type they like?

Again, this is one of those things where some nuance is called for. That said, as long as discourse vis-sex is rooted in heteropatriachy and rape culture, talking about women as objects of male sexuality is probably mostly fucked up.

Case in point, the notion of a "type" - what informs that "type"? How does the constructions of certain "types" in these conversations shape sexuality and discourses of sexuality? How does having a type erase the specificity of subjects by conceiving of them in relation to categories constructed by heteropatriarchy? Maybe your "types" would prefer if you wanted to have sex with them as individuals, and not as they approach some external categorization.

[Os Cangaceiros]

See, the thing is - you probably are. Almost everyone is, since we live in a patriarchal society where rape is normalized. We need to confront this and deal with it.

To use a woefully imperfect analogy - we are all supporters of capitalism insofar as we reproduce it by our everyday activity. To end capitalism, we have to confront it in this light.

A materialist critique of rape culture ought to begin from a similar point.

Some of those points are just stupid, though. Like discussing your sexual interests. Who hasn't done that at some point in their lives? If you discuss these interests in a particularly offensive or demeaning way, then yeah, I can see how that could venture into what the article is trying to address, but merely the discussion itself doesn't constitute "rape support" in any way, shape or form.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Again, this is one of those things where some nuance is called for. That said, as long as discourse vis-sex is rooted in heteropatriachy and rape culture, talking about women as objects of male sexuality is probably mostly fucked up.

Vis-Sex? I looked it up, but it didn't come up with anything.

And yeah, talking about women as objects is definitely sexist, I'm sure we all agree with that.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Here you know what, I'll add a few to the list just for kicks:
- If a man is sexually aroused by looking at a woman he's a rape supporter
- If he's single and he fantasizes about having sex with women he's a rape supporter. Especially if he masturbates while doing it.
-If he's had a one night stand with a woman, he's a rape supporter
- If he has any kind of sexual attraction toward women, he's a rape supporter

How about this one - IF HE ENGAGES WITH SINCERE ATTEMPTS TO UNDERSTAND AND CRITIQUE RAPE CULTURE, HOWEVER IMPERFECT, WITH FLIPPANT REMARKS, AND WITH ASSERTIONS THAT THERE CAN BE NO HETEROSEXUALITY THAT IS NOT RAPE, HE'S PROBABLY UNINTENTIONALLY PRESENTING SOMETHING OF WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT WHEN HE'S SEXUALY AROUSED, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN HE HAS A ONE NIGHT STAND, AND THE CHARACTER OF HIS SEXUAL ATTRACTION TOWARD WOMEN.

I can not say, "Fuck you" emphatically enough.

[Deity]

No. Seriously, fuck you. Feminists get so much shit because we live in a society where misogyny and rape are normalized, and not because of the problematic lack of nuance in a minority of feminists' analysis.

I try to avoid feminists because the ones I've been around have demonized my every behavior as being "sick". I don't support rape, but sometimes I want to hook up with a female, watch porn, or discuss my sexual preferences.
NOT because I live in a society that accepts rape.

[Slippers]

Quote from The Amazing Atheist and his book "Scumbag: Musings of a Subhuman".


Rape isn't fatal. So imagine my indignation when I saw a chatroom called "Rape Survivors." Is this supposed to impress me? Someone fucked you when you didn't want to be fucked and you're amazed that you survived? Unless he used a chainsaw instead of his dick, what's the big deal? ... The word survivor applies to people who are alive after being stabbed 73 times with an ice pick or mauled by rabid wolverines, not to a woman who gets dick when she doesn't want it. Just because you got raped, you have to rape the English language? You vindictive *****! Also, don't you ever get tired of being the victim? How many failed relationships are you going to blame on a single violation of your personal space?


I told her, "You’re lucky it wasn't me. I’d have busted your fucking nose and raped you.

This is the sort of person we're dealing with. This is how far the evil shit they say goes. Lately I've seen more and more of him and his neckbeard fans online. It's unbelievable.

On-topic: I don't think everything on that list makes someone a "rape supporter". I watch porn for example, I won't lie. I don't think that makes me a rape supporter, even if the criteria is expanded to include woman.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Vis-Sex? I looked it up, but it didn't come up with anything.

And yeah, talking about women as objects is definitely sexist, I'm sure we all agree with that.

Sorry shorthanded "vis-a-vis sex", as in "in relation to sex".

[zoot_allures]

Attitudes like the one in that post are simply evil in my opinion. Thankfully, supporting feminism should, as far as I can tell, in no way require that somebody have such horrible beliefs.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Quote from The Amazing Atheist and his book "Scumbag: Musings of a Subhuman".





This is the sort of person we're dealing with. This is how far the evil shit they say goes. Lately I've seen more and more of him and his neckbeard fans online. It's unbelievable.

On-topic: I don't think everything on that list makes someone a "rape supporter". I watch porn for example, I won't lie. I don't think that makes me a rape supporter, even if the criteria is expanded to include woman.

Seriously? I'm fucking sick of this guy. I used to like what he said, and put up with the occasional stupid shit, but I don't think I can listen to that piece of shit anymore.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Sorry shorthanded "vis-a-vis sex", as in "in relation to sex".

No problem, thanks!

[Slippers]

Seriously? I'm fucking sick of this guy. I used to like what he said, and put up with the occasional stupid shit, but I don't think I can listen to that piece of shit anymore.

I'm serious.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/27500455/Scumbag-Musings-of-a-Subhuman

Page 89.

[l'Enfermé]

See, the thing is - you probably are. Almost everyone is, since we live in a patriarchal society where rape is normalized. We need to confront this and deal with it.

To use a woefully imperfect analogy - we are all supporters of capitalism insofar as we reproduce it by our everyday activity. To end capitalism, we have to confront it in this light.

A materialist critique of rape culture ought to begin from a similar point.
Nope, fuck off VMC, you don't get to call me a rape supporter. You can be one if you want to, I'm not gonna stop you, not that I could even if I wanted to, but I'll just stick to my opposition to rape, mkay?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Denying being a rape supporter...a classic sign of rape support! :huh:

[#FF0000]

"some of the things on this list are dumb"

cool what an enlightening discussion

[bcbm]

'well i do some of these things but i am an okay guy, so i should probably just feign shock or mild amusement at these zany feminists, rather than consider why they would say that and have to analyze my own behaviors, desires, etc in the context of a patriarchal society'

i think yall should stop and reflect a while before saying anything, especially if your response is just going to be laughing at and dismissal


And for the first one, if a man couldn't attract women for a reason or other, and his only recourse would be to get an escort, that would make him a rape supporter?!

if a man has money, a woman's body should always be available to him?

[Deity]

So BCBM, explain to me why I can't sleep with a high/drunk female so long as we both consent.

[Os Cangaceiros]

"some of the things on this list are dumb"

cool what an enlightening discussion

But you see, I don't really feel like I need to take someone's opinions seriously, simply because they start their analysis with some assumptions that I hold as well (such-and-such thing exists in society, etc) when I think that opinion is ridiculous. Not everything on that list is ridiculous by any means, but a number of things are.

And yes, my opinion has been molded by my environment. As have all of our opinions. That doesn't necessarily mean that I'm wrong on this, though.

[#FF0000]

But you see, I don't really feel like I need to take someone's opinions seriously, simply because they start their analysis with some assumptions that I hold as well (such-and-such thing exists in society, etc) when I think that opinion is ridiculous. Not everything on that list is ridiculous by any means, but a number of things are.

Nah this is just a useless thread (like a lot of these are) because it's just gonna be people jumping over each other to say pretty much the same thing, with certain folks coming out and saying something hella dumb and stirring shit up forever.

[Os Cangaceiros]

But maybe I'm wrong.

In any case I don't know if you can really fault people for getting defensive about it, as people are told from childhood what a horrible thing rape is...denial shouldn't be unexpected when you say to random people, hey, guess what, you're a supporter of horrific acts! Of course people are going to defend themselves against that level of accusation.

[#FF0000]

So BCBM, explain to me why I can't sleep with a high/drunk female so long as we both consent.

Because someone who is high or drunk is compromised and can't consent?

It's, in most circumstances, a grey area at best. If someone's so drunk/high that they're incoherent and falling over themselves or blacking out, there is no way in hell they can consent. Someone who's "buzzed" probably can. The thing is you ought to have enthusiastic, affirmative consent.

I really hope this doesn't turn into one of "those" threads.

[Deity]

Because someone who is high or drunk is compromised and can't consent?

It's, in most circumstances, a grey area at best. If someone's so drunk/high that they're incoherent and falling over themselves or blacking out, there is no way in hell they can consent. Someone who's "buzzed" probably can. The thing is you ought to have enthusiastic, affirmative consent.

But even then, grey area at best.

I really hope this doesn't turn into one of "those" threads.

I've been high and had sex with a female (also high), and you are telling me that supports rape culture?

[VDS]

Because someone who is high or drunk is compromised and can't consent?

It's, in most circumstances, a grey area at best. If someone's so drunk/high that they're incoherent and falling over themselves or blacking out, there is no way in hell they can consent. Someone who's "buzzed" probably can. The thing is you ought to have enthusiastic, affirmative consent.

I really hope this doesn't turn into one of "those" threads.

While I agree for the most part, what then is the case if we're BOTH EXTREMELY drunk?

[#FF0000]

I've been high and had sex with a female (also high), and you are telling me that supports rape culture?

Yo lemme get some tea leaves and I'll divine you up an answer based on the no details I have about your personal life, dude.

All I know is that if someone's compromised by drugs or alcohol, I'm not gonna risk doing something that might hurt them.

[Deity]

Yo lemme get some tea leaves and I'll divine you up an answer based on the no details I have about your personal life, dude.

All I know is that if someone's compromised by drugs or alcohol, I'm not gonna risk doing something that might hurt them.

Thats the thing is these scenarios of "no having sex with a high/drunk person or you support rape culture"(paraphrased haha) don't take into account a situation or what you do/ don't know about my personal life.

Saying they cannot consent is also a bit impossible to actually determine, and who is to say there wasn't consent before said female got high/drunk?

Defending a general statement such as "no having sex with high/drunk women because they can't consent" is nearly impossible given every situation has factors you must consider.

[#FF0000]

words

Yeah, I don't disagree. As a general rule, the "leave drunk people alone" one is solid, but of course everything comes down to the situation. The most important thing in any situation, though, is communication and being aware of what's up w/ the other person.

[black magick hustla]

See, the thing is - you probably are. Almost everyone is, since we live in a patriarchal society where rape is normalized. We need to confront this and deal with it.
.

um, this is a very moonbatty definition of "support". what's with crit-theory moonbats just stretching words to the point that they are pretty much meaningless.

[black magick hustla]

i'm kinda bored with a lot of this linguistical, extremist posturing. it was fun when i was an undergrad but now it just makes me think of sect nutters engaging in self-criticism sessions to cleanse themselves of naughty thoughts/behaviors

[Slippers]

i'm kinda bored with a lot of this linguistical, extremist posturing. it was fun when i was an undergrad but now it just makes me think of sect nutters engaging in self-criticism sessions to cleanse themselves of naughty thoughts/behaviors

I don't think I've seen many people here overtly support what the article says.

I don't see anything wrong with asking "in what ways might I be sexist/supporting the oppression of somebody else?". Let me tell you, my life has been something of a story of that. I mean, my feminism is part of the reason I became a socialist because I extrapolated my support for the ending of the oppression for woman to the ending of the oppression for EVERYONE.

I don't agree with all the article says; I mentioned that I don't think that say, viewing pornography is necessarily supporting rape. I don't agree with a lot in the article. That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with introspection and trying to rid yourself of what our sexist, racist, ignorant, hateful things our society might have taught you.

[black magick hustla]

I don't think I've seen many people here overtly support what the article says.

I don't see anything wrong with asking "in what ways might I be sexist/supporting the oppression of somebody else?". Let me tell you, my life has been something of a story of that. I mean, my feminism is part of the reason I became a socialist because I extrapolated my support for the ending of the oppression for woman to the ending of the oppression for EVERYONE.

I don't agree with all the article says; I mentioned that I don't think that say, viewing pornography is necessarily supporting rape. I don't agree with a lot in the article. That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with introspection and trying to rid yourself of what our sexist, racist, ignorant, hateful things our society might have taught you.

i'm not really talking shit about feminism (or even the article) or whatever. it's just the way vmc implied that os cangeiros is a rape supporter cuz paitrarchy. it's just one step below the "all sex is rape" nonsense. it's mostly extremist posturing and frankly it gets a bit boring.

i think ridding yourself of "sexist, racist, etc" stuff in the sense of being a better human being is a good thing for your personal growth. however, in my experience, a lot of moonbat circles become witchunts cuz someone said/did something allegedy racist/sexist and then people ruin the life of that guy/gal. it's really unhealthy, especially cuz this questions are very complicated and a tiny subculture of left wing extremists don't have the monopoly of saying what exactly is racist/sexist/whatever. it's a really toxic enviroment of self-guilt, guilt tripping someone. people need to chill the fuck down.

[Sidagma]

honestly this list is fucking accurate. some things on it need more nuance but 1) activists are young a lot of the time, 2) activists who organize around our own oppression are allowed to make minor semantic mistakes, and criticism is different from massive public humiliation 3) fundamentally it's okay and if you take serious objection to it you probably actually are a rape supporter, and 4) the massive negative reaction to it among the internet's dudebros is because of misogyny.

some of the arguments in here are just fucking stupid. yes women can be rapists but that isn't what the article is about and shouldn't be expected to be because it's talking about the epidemic of women by men as a fundamental structural problem oh my god.

the porn industry is fucking appalling if you do even cursory research into the actual practices of the porn industry (and honestly this reseach can include "looking at porn for five fucking minutes and seeing how women are treated"). why is it that when workers are forced into having their labor alienated and exploited that's something that it's worth overthrowing all of capitalism over but for women when that labor is their own bodies that's awesome? it's because you're a fucking misogynist, that's why.

i want everyone in this thread to take a good hard look at themselves and ask themselves if they've done as much to combat misogyny today as they have to criticize this woman for doing so in ways they don't agree with. then i want them to ask themselves if they could have put this much energy into finding something actually sexist (in this very thread for instance!) and fucking addressed it. then i want them to ask themselves if participating in a public humiliation campaign against a woman calling them out is really what they want to be doing with their lives.

you're all gross.

the analysis might be incomplete but that's why there's centuries of feminist thought for you to read and complement it with.


How about this one - IF HE ENGAGES WITH SINCERE ATTEMPTS TO UNDERSTAND AND CRITIQUE RAPE CULTURE, HOWEVER IMPERFECT, WITH FLIPPANT REMARKS, AND WITH ASSERTIONS THAT THERE CAN BE NO HETEROSEXUALITY THAT IS NOT RAPE, HE'S PROBABLY UNINTENTIONALLY PRESENTING SOMETHING OF WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT WHEN HE'S SEXUALY AROUSED, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN HE HAS A ONE NIGHT STAND, AND THE CHARACTER OF HIS SEXUAL ATTRACTION TOWARD WOMEN.

I can not say, "Fuck you" emphatically enough.

"unintentionally"
ha


I try to avoid feminists because the ones I've been around have demonized my every behavior as being "sick". I don't support rape, but sometimes I want to hook up with a female, watch porn, or discuss my sexual preferences.
NOT because I live in a society that accepts rape.

maybe try to not engage in behavior that feminists find appalling.


In any case I don't know if you can really fault people for getting defensive about it, as people are told from childhood what a horrible thing rape is...denial shouldn't be unexpected when you say to random people, hey, guess what, you're a supporter of horrific acts! Of course people are going to defend themselves against that level of accusation.

just because it's understandable doesn't make it ok or acceptable and least of all conducive to the revolutionary anti-oppressive fervor this board is supposed to be all about

maybe they should just shut the fuck up and listen to people who actually have something to contribute to the discussion

[#FF0000]

Some of the points on this list are contentious even within feminist circles so I think a discussion (specifically, an actual defense of) the more controversial points would be really cool, without people on one side getting dumb and defensive, and self-righteous on the other.

[Sidagma]

Some of the points on this list are contentious even within feminist circles so I think a discussion (specifically, an actual defense of) the more controversial points would be really cool, without people on one side getting dumb and defensive, and self-righteous on the other.

man i'd be first in line for that discussion if revleft was at all an environment conducive to conversations between people who actually know what they're talking about

ie if blatant dudebro misogyny was actually moderated or even discouraged.

[#FF0000]

man i'd be first in line for that discussion if revleft was at all an environment conducive to conversations between people who actually know what they're talking about

ie if blatant dudebro misogyny was actually moderated or even discouraged.

Well try anyway though

~~**<<[[((Be the change you want to see on Revleft))]]>>**~~

[Deity]

@Sidagma "maybe try not to engage in behavior that feminists find appalling"

I don't live to please feminists. I will do what I deem appropriate, and if a feminist gets offended by me engaging in a sexual activity/conversation then that's an unfortunate situation.

[#FF0000]

i really want to see some actual moderation
like an active, female moderator who will not put up with that kind of shit
like i volunteer i have a near infinite amount of spare time. i'm on welfare, who wants to mess.

who i talk to bout bein that change

well i mean like

start by engaging in discussion i mean.

[black magick hustla]

the porn industry is fucking appalling if you do even cursory research into the actual practices of the porn industry (and honestly this reseach can include "looking at porn for five fucking minutes and seeing how women are treated"). why is it that when workers are forced into having their labor alienated and exploited that's something that it's worth overthrowing all of capitalism over but for women when that labor is their own bodies that's awesome? it's because you're a fucking misogynist, that's why.


um, nobody said this?

[Raúl Duke]

He watches pornography in which women are depicted.Eh, I don't support or advocate rape...

The rest of the list is more or less spot on.

I'm more or less in agreement with BMH:


i'm not really talking shit about feminism (or even the article) or whatever. it's just the way vmc implied that os cangeiros is a rape supporter cuz paitrarchy. it's just one step below the "all sex is rape" nonsense. it's mostly extremist posturing and frankly it gets a bit boring.

i think ridding yourself of "sexist, racist, etc" stuff in the sense of being a better human being is a good thing for your personal growth. however, in my experience, a lot of moonbat circles become witchunts cuz someone said/did something allegedy racist/sexist and then people ruin the life of that guy/gal. it's really unhealthy, especially cuz this questions are very complicated and a tiny subculture of left wing extremists don't have the monopoly of saying what exactly is racist/sexist/whatever. it's a really toxic enviroment of self-guilt, guilt tripping someone. people need to chill the fuck down.

This argument reminds me of the whole tumblr "social justice" trend...

I just feel that certain strands of privilege theorists/whatever and its fellow travelers are going down the path of navel-gazing, stand-offish guilt-tripping, self-guilt/self-shaming, et.al. which I think is just a dead end really; it's a bit pathetic (particularly in its tumblr incarnation) and in a kinda morbidly amusing way its like they view themselves as "changing the world" while really just cozying up into a little milieu in which some will probably be ineffective at changing anything or challenging misogyny, et.al because they rather be "preaching to the choir" rather then practically deal with the world.

[Sidagma]

well i mean like

start by engaging in discussion i mean.

yeah i dunno

i think the tone of a discussion is going to be markedly different if it's between people who are interested in talking to each other than it is if it's between like two women and 432894 dudebros who are only interested in defending their abhorrent behavior as if we have any actual power to oppress them based on it and it isn't ultimately their call anyway no matter what we do

which like is why that list is written the way it is, because it's written for that many dudebros instead of being written as a topic that's up for discussion between feminists and other people who don't hate women.

[Os Cangaceiros]

i really want to see some actual moderation
like an active, female moderator who will not put up with that kind of shit
like i volunteer i have a near infinite amount of spare time. i'm on welfare, who wants to mess.

who i talk to bout bein that change

Some of the women who have posted a bunch of stuff on discrimination in this forum would be labeled reactionaries by the standards of that list (case in point (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1412104&postcount=2))

[Sidagma]

Yeah. I mean, as questions about sexism go, and ones posed in the thread, it's a pretty inconsequential one and it's about what women are doing, again, and definitely has no intentions to analyze his own behavior. And then going ahead and assuming the answer just takes it to a whole new level of cocksmudgery.

So overall I give the post a 1.3/5 because at least he didn't directly attack anyone.

[slum]

you know honestly if i wanted to have a circle-jerky language discussion with big F feminists who dont acknowledge any other kind of oppression or who dogpile on people for invading safe space i can actually do that in other places

but here it seems like while there's a few dedicated feminist posters, some of whom are women who try to carve out a space for discussion, the majority of posts are this baiting 'look what this radfem tumblr social justice crazy posted on jezebel or w/e' and alllll the 'allies' pile in to talk about how feminism has gone TOO FAR

like i would actually like to have a discussion about how the 'patriarchy' framework is not helpful for a multi-front marxist struggle against oppression in class society, but can i do that here without male posters taking that as feminist approval for them to say as much sexist BS as they want?

the atmosphere here might not be causing me intense distress or w/e but it certainly makes it hard to suss out who exactly is interested in talking about feminism in the revolutionary left, and who is just going to turn it into how much their feelings are hurt for maybe-almost-kinda being called sexist by the big mean feminists.

[Taters]

the atmosphere here might not be causing me intense distress or w/e but it certainly makes it hard to suss out who exactly is interested in talking about feminism in the revolutionary left, and who is just going to turn it into how much their feelings are hurt for maybe-almost-kinda being called sexist by the big mean feminists.

It's mainly the phrasing of 'supporting rape' that's got a lot of people here riled up. Other than one poster mentioning paying for an 'escort' ( :rolleyes: ), I wasn't seeing much in the way of sexism, tbh. That accusation seems to fly around quite a bit here.

Also, I'd be interested in more discussions on feminism, particularly of the Marxist variey. I can't say I'm well-versed on the subject.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Having sex with underaged people is perfectly fine if you yourself are underaged.
Other than that I'd say I agree with everything on the list.

[Art Vandelay]

Having sex with underaged people is perfectly fine if you yourself are underaged.
Other than that I'd say I agree with everything on the list.

This has some grey area as well though (I'm not a consent of age reformer) but I've been with the same girl for over 4 years now and we met when I was in grade 11 and her grade 9. I have a late birthday and her a relatively early one and there was a point in our relationship (after we had started having sex) where I turned 18 while she was still a minor. Now while I understand the traditional viewpoint on the matter, I resent the idea that I did anything wrong and our continued relationship is a testament to that in my opinion.

[Rugged Collectivist]

This has some grey area as well though (I'm not a consent of age reformer) but I've been with the same girl for over 4 years now and we met when I was in grade 11 and her grade 9. I have a late birthday and her a relatively early one and there was a point in our relationship (after we had started having sex) where I turned 18 while she was still a minor. Now while I understand the traditional viewpoint on the matter, I resent the idea that I did anything wrong and our continued relationship is a testament to that in my opinion.

Sometimes there are exceptions for that sort of thing. For example, in the state of Delaware you can have sex with a sixteen year old as long as you're under thirty.

[Art Vandelay]

Sometimes there are exceptions for that sort of thing. For example, in the state of Delaware you can have sex with a sixteen year old as long as you're under thirty.

But at the same time I don't like being lumped in with those sorts of people.

[Rugged Collectivist]

'well i do some of these things but i am an okay guy, so i should probably just feign shock or mild amusement at these zany feminists, rather than consider why they would say that and have to analyze my own behaviors, desires, etc in the context of a patriarchal society'

i think yall should stop and reflect a while before saying anything, especially if your response is just going to be laughing at and dismissal

Yes, because my dismissal obviously means I haven't considered what she had to say. It couldn't be because I carefully read the blog post, thought about it, and decided she was full of shit.

If you agree with every single point on this list, maybe you're the one who should reflect for a while.

[#FF0000]

Yes, because my dismissal obviously means I haven't considered what she had to say. It couldn't be because I carefully read the blog post, thought about it, and decided she was full of shit.

That whole inner dialogue would probably make for a better post than the dismissal part.

[Sasha]

That list is very sex negative and in fact is counter productive as its deeply seeped in heterosexist liberal bourgeois normative shit.
That said, the flippant dissmissal by some boys here is just the flipside that gives birth to this stuff.

Repeat all after me, you are a rapesupporter if you can't understand and respect 2 things; consent and equality, the rest is just exposition...

[Rugged Collectivist]

That whole inner dialogue would probably make for a better post than the dismissal part.

A fair point. There's no reason for me to go over the points I agree with so I'll just highlight some I take issue with.



He is anti-abortion.

A sexist position to be sure, but I don't see why that necessarily makes someone a rape supporter.


He watches pornography in which women are depicted.

Implies that all women who do porn are forced into it against their will out of economic necessity.


He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present.

I don't see a problem with this. There are people who genuinely want to be dominated sexually and as long as this is done with the clear consent of everyone involved I don't think it's an issue. Especially if you're just watching it.


He ever subordinates the interests of women in a given population to the interests of the men in that population, or proceeds in discussions as if the interests of the women are the same as the interests of the men.

I don't fully understand what she's trying to say here. Is she saying that men and women can never have group interests independent of their respective gender groups? That's ridiculous.


He describes female anatomy in terms of penetration, or uses terms referencing the supposed “emptiness” of female anatomy when describing women.

I get where she's coming from but it's hard not to considering the mechanics of heterosexual sex.


He defends the physical abuse of women on the grounds of “consent."


Again, what does this even mean? If someone consents to abuse (assuming they aren't coerced into it) can it even be considered abuse?


He discusses the “types” of women he finds sexually appealing and/or attempts to demean women by telling them he does not find them sexually appealing.

Don't all people find certain physical features more appealing than others?

I don't know why someone would straight up tell someone they don't find them sexually attractive unless the person asked. At any rate, what does this have to do with rape?


He sexually objectifies lesbians or lesbian sexual activity.

Again, what does this have to do with rape?

and then she ends with this


So, let’s see how many women reading this know at least one male over the age of 18 who does not fit this list. Anybody?

By basically saying that all men fit at least one of her criteria she's explicitly saying that all men are rape supporters. This is obviously false. And then, in one of her replies to a comment she says


Most radical feminists are simply done with trying to help all of you

Admitting that she's a radical feminist. Since when did we start taking rad-fems seriously? I mean, look at this gem.


But men as a class are dangerous people

That's from the same reply. Why are we giving this person the time of day?

[#FF0000]

Since when did we start taking rad-fems seriously?Some rad-fems are p. alright imo.

[Doflamingo]

So basically, doing anything ever makes you a rape supporter?

"He discusses the “types” of women he finds sexually appealing and/or attempts to demean women by telling them he does not find them sexually appealing."

Wait, does this mean I'm not allowed to find women sexually attractive, but I can't tell them that? I thought everyone had their turn ons/turn offs. Of course, I wouldn't demean anyone for their looks, but everyone has something that makes the opposite (or same) sex seem attractive to them. Be it something small like brown eyes or short hair.

[rylasasin]

This is part of why I don't usually pay as much attention to these sorts of threads as I could (or probably should), while still supporting women's equality.

PS: Yeah A.A. Sucks. Every once in a blue moon he has something good, but for the most part... meh. I much prefer Cult of Dusty. Hell, even MRN is better.

[l'Enfermé]

i really want to see some actual moderation
like an active, female moderator who will not put up with that kind of shit
like i volunteer i have a near infinite amount of spare time. i'm on welfare, who wants to mess.

who i talk to bout bein that change
The main admin of revleft is a woman, and this particular forum(discrimination) is modded by a female mod also.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I think the author of that blog makes some reasonable points ("He mocks women who complain about sexual attacks, sexual harassment, street cat-calls, media depictions of women, or other forms of sexual objectification," which I've personally experienced in this very forum) and some unreasonable ones. I think she's generally correct about the ones that involve the objectification and commodification of women's bodies.

Here are some I have an issue with:


He has ever sexually engaged with any woman while she was underage, drunk, high, physically restrained, unconscious, or subjected to psychological, physical, economic, or emotional coercion.
Several very different things are being conflated here. A man and a woman smoking pot and then having sex, for example, shouldn't be in the same category as a man physically coercing a woman into having sex. By placing them in the same category, she is, in a sense, trivializing rape. That's problematic for someone who identifies as a feminist.


He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present.
So, in her world, gay male BDSM porn in some way enables rape culture that victimizes women.


He defends the physical abuse of women on the grounds of “consent.”
I have a feeling this also includes consensual BDSM between a man and a woman. By removing the concept of consent, she's deliberately blurring the lines between consensual sex (especially of the heterosexual variety) and rape, again trivializing the latter.

Having said all that, I do find the responses by some of the male posters in this thread to be troubling, once again spotlighting that some men on the left have some issues where women are concerned.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Some rad-fems are p. alright imo.
Agreed. Some are pro-sex and pro-trans, even.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Quote from The Amazing Atheist and his book "Scumbag: Musings of a Subhuman".
"Musings of a Sociopath" would be more accurate based on those quotes.

[l'Enfermé]

#FF0000, by the way, what exactly did you mean by those comments about there being no consent if the woman is drunk or high? Does this apply, in your opinion, if both parties are drunk or high? Does it apply to couples?(since I assume you were talking about random hook-ups and such, not drunk sex between 2 people in a relationship). Cause I think it would be really odd if you never had sex with your drunk girlfriend, like the rest of us, or if you did, and feel guilty about it(exploiting some really drunk girl at a party is an entirely different matter, obviously).

Also, I saw someone mentioning the age of consent or whatever. Just make sure that the discussion doesn't end up debating the age of consent in this thread, advocating lowering the age of consent on RevLeft is completely prohibited.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

See, the thing is - you probably are. Almost everyone is, since we live in a patriarchal society where rape is normalized. We need to confront this and deal with it.

To use a woefully imperfect analogy - we are all supporters of capitalism insofar as we reproduce it by our everyday activity. To end capitalism, we have to confront it in this light.

A materialist critique of rape culture ought to begin from a similar point.

I don't think you should say we support capitalism because we live in it, we are part of it. Supporting it and being part is something else. We can't place ourselves outside of society, so we are still part, but we still criticize it, as in don't support it.

[Luís Henrique]

A man is a rape-supporter if…

He has ever sexually engaged with any woman while she was underage, drunk, high, physically restrained, unconscious, or subjected to psychological, physical, economic, or emotional coercion.

What the hell does "engaged" mean? Are we forbidden from talking to drunk women? Or by "engaged" does she mean "made sexual ouvertures"?

And what is "coercion"? Most of us are under coercion from capitalist social relations - does this mean that I cannot "engage" - whatever "engage" means - with a woman who is an employee? Even though I am not her employer? Even though I am not an employer at all?


He defends the current legal definition of rape and/or opposes making consent a defense.What farting "legal definition"? That of California? That of Saudi Arabia? That of Sweden? Is one a "rape supporter" if he (or she, I don't think it makes a big difference) defends the legal definition of rape in, say, France, as being better than the legal definition of rape in Kuwait?

And if a man is a rape supporter if he defends "the legal definition of rape", is a woman also a rape suppoerter if she defends "the legal definition of rape", too?

And explain me, how does one seek to investigate, arrest, prosecute, and convict a rapist without "defending" some "legal definition of rape"?


He has procured a prostitute.Really? Why?


He characterizes prostitution as a “legitimate” “job” “choice” or defends men who purchase prostitutes.There are no "legitimate" jobs - which makes prostitution as legitimate or illegitimate as engineering, garbage collection, or cab driving. But, of course, our pseudo-feminist genius wants us to demonise prostitution, and enshrine all other forms of capitalist exploitation as "honest", "legitimate", even "nobilitating" labour...


He has ever revealed he conceives of sex as fundamentally transactional.And what does this mean?


He has gone to a strip club.Really? Why?


He is anti-abortion.As much as I despise anti-abortionists, what is the farting logical link between those two reactionary positions, opposition to abortion rights and support for rapists?

If a female opposes abortion rights - and yes, outside the fantasies of pseudo-feminists, there are lots of them who do - is she a rape supporter?


He is pro-”choice” because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available.Like some young males in revleft?

And if a woman supports abortion rights because she wants to have sex with any man she fancies, without having to take an unwanted pregnancy to term, is she a rape supporter?


He watches pornography in which women are depicted.And this because of?


He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present.Ah, that is very interesting. So a man who watches gay male pornography is not a rape supporter, as long as the sexual acts there are not depicted as a struggle for power or domination, but a man who watches porn involving women is a rape supporter, even if the sexual acts there are not depicted as a struggle for power or domination? And why that?


He characterizes the self-sexualizing behavior of some women, such as wearing make-up or high heels, as evidence of women’s desire to “get” a man.And what if some women, either wearing make-up or high heels or not, want to "get" a man? Or many men, for what it worth? What is the problem?


He supports sexual “liberation” and claims women would have more sex with (more) men if society did not “inhibit” them.And would they not? Isn't, on the contrary, the very idea that "normal" women do not like sex, and consequently sexual acts have to be bought or stolen from them, a mainstay of "rape culture"?


He argues that people (or just “men”) have sexual “needs.”
Don't we?


He discusses the “types” of women he finds sexually appealingReally?


He sexually objectifies lesbians or lesbian sexual activity.That meaning...? That he watches lesbian porn, or that he fancies threesomes?

Some of these are extremely ill-thought.

But the main problem is that "patriarchy", or "rape culture", or just "sexism" are considered through a quite obvious double standard. On one hand, every expression of the overwhelming hegemony of patriarchal is deemed "support for rape"; on the other hand, this systemic state of affairs is deemed an individual responsibility of each individual man (but not of each individual woman, of course).

Bourgeois shit, as usual.

Luís Henrique

[homegrown terror]

He has procured a prostitute.
He characterizes prostitution as a “legitimate” “job” “choice” or defends men who purchase prostitutes.
He has gone to a strip club.



so in an oppressively capitalist AND sexist world, some women who have nowhere else to turn to support themselves and their children/families should be fed to the wolves until a sweeping revolution "frees" them? i agree that things such as pimping or the abuse of sex workers should be combatted, but in the world as it currently exists, prostitution is a needed "last resort" for some of the most marginalised women (and men) out there.




He frames discussions of pornography in terms of “freedom of speech.”
He watches pornography in which women are depicted.
He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present.



see above


He defends the physical abuse of women on the grounds of “consent.”

i'm assuming this is a call-out at the BDSM community. while i don't know the hard numbers, i think it's worthy of note that there are many, many women in that scene who take on the dominant role as opposed to submissive roles. should only one form of sexual expression be allowed?





He argues that people (or just “men”) have sexual “needs.”



this is pure hogshit. other than those who identify as "asexual," adult humans beings, as animals living in a postnatural world, do have a "need" or biological imperative when it comes to sex. it's not a "primary" need such as oxygen, water or food, or a "secondary" need like shelter or community, but the complex is an important part of the biological makeup of human behavior. i do not, however, support anyone who rapes or coerces sex out of another simply to fulfill this need.




He discusses the “types” of women he finds sexually appealing and/or attempts to demean women by telling them he does not find them sexually appealing.



while such discussions should not be done publicly or in the faces of the women (or men) invoked by the discussion, there is nothing at all wrong with finding one person more sexually appealing than another. also, just because a man is not interested sexually in a particular woman does not mean he is "demeaning" her. taken to its logical extension, this would put every man in the world at the sexual beck and call of every woman in the world, out of fear for her reaction should he rebuff her advances (i.e. the same spot patriarchy places a lot of women today)

overall i agree with a LOT of what that list says, but the above points are contentious at best, and utterly divisive and counterproductive at worst.

[Rurkel]

And what is "coercion"? Most of us are under coercion from capitalist social relations - does this mean that I cannot "engage" - whatever "engage" means - with a woman who is an employee? Even though I am not her employer? Even though I am not an employer at all?
To be fair, it's clear that the piece talks about coercion from the "engager", so it's sort of nitpicking.

Also, not to LH, but to the piece itself: what it means by "opposing making consent a defense"? Insisting that there're "consensual rapes"? I guess there're age of consent issues - but I don't think that the author meant them, especially since lowering the age of consent would decrease the category of actions defined as rape, which seems to be opposed to the author's intentions...

[Quail]

First, I'm going to give a general warning to people posting in this thread. If the only reason you're posting is to make some shitty one-liner, don't post.

Now, I'm going to go through each of these statements and explain why I agree/disagree with it.


He has ever sexually engaged with any woman while she was underage, drunk, high, physically restrained, unconscious, or subjected to psychological, physical, economic, or emotional coercion.

I think underage, drunk and high can be grey areas, but really the "common sense" approach would be to seek enthusiastic consent, and if in doubt just don't do anything. I don't know why people always try to make such a big issue about the idea of consent when people are under the influence. It shouldn't be that hard to tell if someone is too wasted to consent, and if you're not sure just don't do it.


He defends the current legal definition of rape and/or opposes making consent a defense.I'm not sure about this one in that legal definitions of rape vary from place to place, and the author doesn't suggest an appropriate alternative definition of rape so this is quite vague.


He has accused a rape victim of having “buyer’s remorse” or wanting to get money from the man.
He has blamed a woman for “putting herself in a situation” where she “could be” attacked.
Agree with these for obvious reasons.


He has procured a prostitute.I think there is something questionable about thinking that you should be able to get sex if you want it and can pay for it.


He characterizes prostitution as a “legitimate” “job” “choice” or defends men who purchase prostitutes.I disagree with this statement because it implies a kind of feminism which doesn't support and stand in solidarity with sex workers. But defending men who purchase prostitutes could be part of the above belief, which is related to the idea that women should always be sexually available.


He has ever revealed he conceives of sex as fundamentally transactional.Not really sure what this means. Two consenting adults can have sex that they both agree is nothing more than sex and won't go any further.


He has gone to a strip club.I personally find the idea of strip clubs pretty weird and unappealing, and I suppose going to a strip club supports the idea that women should always be available and encourages people to look at the strippers as bodies and body parts rather than people.



He is anti-abortion.
He is pro-”choice” because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available.
Two obviously sexist positions. Being anti-abortion, while not obviously supporting rape, does support controlling women and their bodies. A society which doesn't respect a woman's right to bodily autonomy and seeks to control her is a society which is more likely to allow or excuse violence against women, including rape.


He frames discussions of pornography in terms of “freedom of speech.”
He watches pornography in which women are depicted.
He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present.
I think this all really depends on how the pornography is made. I think the porn industry in a capitalist society is exploitative, and a lot of porn is aimed at men and reflects the patriarchal values of our society. So there's nothing inherently wrong with porn, but in all likelihood professional porn will be made in an exploitative fashion and include questionable content.


He characterizes the self-sexualizing behavior of some women, such as wearing make-up or high heels, as evidence of women’s desire to “get” a man.
He tells or laughs at jokes involving women being attacked, sexually “hoodwinked,” or sexually harassed.Okay.


He expresses enjoyment of movies/musicals/TV shows/plays in which women are sexually demeaned or presented as sexual objectsIt depends really. Most movies/tv shows/etc are going to reflect to patriarchal nature of our current society. It's okay to like a tv show and at the same time criticise certain aspects of it.


He mocks women who complain about sexual attacks, sexual harassment, street cat-calls, media depictions of women, or other forms of sexual objectification.
He supports sexual “liberation” and claims women would have more sex with (more) men if society did not “inhibit” them.
He states or implies that women who do not want to have sex with men are “inhibited,” “prudes,” “stuck-up,” “man-haters,” or psychologically ill.
He argues that certain male behaviors towards women are “cultural” and therefore not legitimate subjects of feminist attention.
Okay.


He ever subordinates the interests of women in a given population to the interests of the men in that population, or proceeds in discussions as if the interests of the women are the same as the interests of the men.
He promotes religious or philosophical views in which a woman’s physical/psychological/emotional/sexual well-being is subordinated to a man’s.
I think many men do these things without realising (the former to a greater extent). When you're not experiencing discrimination yourself, it can take a bit of effort to get to understand the needs of a marginalised group. Also, we are all products of the patriarchal society we grew up in, so people have to be willing to examine their own attitudes and beliefs and "unlearn" the negative ones.


He describes female anatomy in terms of penetration, or uses terms referencing the supposed “emptiness” of female anatomy when describing women.
Reducing women to walking body parts generally isn't good.


He defends the physical abuse of women on the grounds of “consent.”
He defends the sexualization or sexual abuse of minor females on the grounds of “consent” or “willingness.”
Okay, unless the "sexualisation" of minors refers to young people healthily and consensually experimenting with their sexuality.


He promotes the idea that women as a class are happier or more fulfilled if they have children, or that they “should” have children.
Women aren't a class. But telling women they should have children is out of order because it's a woman's choice whether or not she wants to bear children. Pregnancy/childbirth isn't a walk in the park, and neither is having to do a larger proportion of childcare and other domestic labour.


He argues that people (or just “men”) have sexual “needs.”Okay.


He discusses the “types” of women he finds sexually appealing and/or attempts to demean women by telling them he does not find them sexually appealing.I think this is kind of demeaning, and reduces people to just their appearance. Women especially are often reduced to their appearance in professional situations, so that for example attractive women are assumed to be unintelligent so they aren't taken seriously.


He sexually objectifies lesbians or lesbian sexual activity.This is something I really dislike. It's reducing two women to objects and treating them as some kind of show. When women kiss or have sex with other women, they're not doing it for the pleasure of men. The implication here is that women exist to please men.


He defends these actions by saying that some women also engage in them.Women can hold patriarchal, sexist beliefs too.

[Dear Leader]

A lot of the attitudes I read here, particularly when it comes to drugs and alcohol, are:


- Female's, unlike men, cannot make decisions AT ALL whilst under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. They are fragile, weak minded, and unable to comprehend sex when drunk or high - unlike Males. (i'm not talking falling over, slurring, on the verge of vomiting drunk - or just took some MDMA high).

If you can drink, and make clearly the decision that you do not want to have sex with a drunk female... don't you think a female who is at the same level as you can determine whether or not she wants to have sex with someone? Or, is your male brainpower just that superior?

Does anyone here disagree with the patriarchal nature of capitalism? Do you argue that there can be (and we should strive for) a non-patriarchal capitalism?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Nope, fuck off VMC, you don't get to call me a rape supporter. You can be one if you want to, I'm not gonna stop you, not that I could even if I wanted to, but I'll just stick to my opposition to rape, mkay?

But here's the thing, as long as you live in a capitalist, patriarchal society, it's not your choice. Anyone can say they are opposed to rape but that's not the heart of the issue. The real issue is that there is a culture that supports rape and that culture consists of various elements that reinforce it's hegemony. The point then is to understand what these elements are and honestly try to combat the patriarchal ideology within us. Because at the end of the day, we all live in this world, we are all rapists in one way or another.

Though that being said, I don't like how all of these things are being framed through rape. Rape is merely a reinforcement mechanism for patriarchy, much like how the police are the reinforcement mechanism for capitalism, they aren't the primary evil of patriarchy, just that evil expressed in it's highest disciplinary form. Also I disagree with some of the things on this list, I think Freudo-Marxism is probably one of the most scientifically rigorous branches of Marxism and I do think that sexuality should be allowed and encouraged in all ages to the extent that sexuality manifests it's self in that age as a primary tool to fight the patriarchal family which is the first, most basic unit of fascism.

[Quail]

If you can drink, and make clearly the decision that you do not want to have sex with a drunk female... don't you think a female who is at the same level as you can determine whether or not she wants to have sex with someone? Or, is your male brainpower just that superior?
My thoughts go both ways. I'm female, and I can consent to sex at varying stages of intoxication, but also there are times when I'm too wasted. I'm assuming the same goes for men. Thus, if I was with someone (male or female) who seemed a bit wasted and wasn't sure if they were able to consent then it would make sense not to do anything with them.

[Hermes]

He defends the physical abuse of women on the grounds of “consent.”Okay...

I'm really sorry if this isn't the correct thread to ask about this, so apologies in advance.

I kind of have to agree with homegrown terror and Danielle Ni Dhighe that this seems to be a jab at BDSM between a man and a woman. Could you explain whether or not you think this is true, and if so, explain why you think it's justified?

Apologies again if I've misconstrued either the article, yourself, or homegrown or Danielle.

[Tim Cornelis]

But here's the thing, as long as you live in a capitalist, patriarchal society, it's not your choice. Anyone can say they are opposed to rape but that's not the heart of the issue. The real issue is that there is a culture that supports rape and that culture consists of various elements that reinforce it's hegemony. The point then is to understand what these elements are and honestly try to combat the patriarchal ideology within us. Because at the end of the day, we all live in this world, we are all rapists in one way or another.

Even virgins?

And why is that we have to combat internal patriarchy to overcome rape culture, etc, but apparently we are simultaneously unable to win this and we are all rapists because of it? That seems contradictory.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Even virgins?

And why is that we have to combat internal patriarchy to overcome rape culture, etc, but apparently we are simultaneously unable to win this and we are all rapists because of it? That seems contradictory.

Well, I was employing hyperbole and dialectics there so let me explain what I mean. But in essence we can never complete the final victory over patriarchy until capitalism is abolished and we have the dictatorship of the proletariat to combat patriarchy. But that doesn't mean that we should resign fighting rape until "after the revolution" because we can still make real progress towards woman's liberation under capitalism and alternatively, unless you are fighting for a revolution in superstructure then you won't effectively be able to combat patriarchy in the base, and ultimately the effort will inevitably lead to the restoration of patriarchy and capitalism.

And as a side note, I know some people have been offended in this thread and I in no way have that intention in mind, I simply want to explain my opinion on the matter and I hope we can have a fruitful discussion on the matter

[Quail]

I'm really sorry if this isn't the correct thread to ask about this, so apologies in advance.

I kind of have to agree with homegrown terror and Danielle Ni Dhighe that this seems to be a jab at BDSM between a man and a woman. Could you explain whether or not you think this is true, and if so, explain why you think it's justified?

Apologies again if I've misconstrued either the article, yourself, or homegrown or Danielle.
It's okay, I'm a bit frazzled today so I think I misread that. I don't think there's anything wrong with BDSM (or other sexual fetishes) between consenting adults within reason. I suppose you could question where certain fetishes come from and whether they reflect questionable values, but in general I think that consenting adults should do whatever they want to in the bedroom.

[Luís Henrique]

It's okay, I'm a bit frazzled today so I think I misread that. I don't think there's anything wrong with BDSM (or other sexual fetishes) between consenting adults within reason. I suppose you could question where certain fetishes come from and whether they reflect questionable values, but in general I think that consenting adults should do whatever they want to in the bedroom.

Whether there is something wrong with BDSM or not, the point is whether its practice, or the simple defence of the legality of its practice, does amount to "rape support".

There are throngs of things that are wrong and yet are not supportive of rape.

Luís Henrique

[Quail]

Whether there is something wrong with BDSM or not, the point is whether its practice, or the simple defence of the legality of its practice, does amount to "rape support".

There are throngs of things that are wrong and yet are not supportive of rape.

Luís Henrique
Well if I don't think there's anything wrong with it, I obviously don't think it is "rape support" to defend BDSM. If a man likes to dominate women because that is a reflection of other sexist beliefs he has then that would be problematic, but the fetish for dominating women would just be the manifestation of deeper issues.

[RHIZOMES]

Quote from The Amazing Atheist and his book "Scumbag: Musings of a Subhuman".





This is the sort of person we're dealing with. This is how far the evil shit they say goes. Lately I've seen more and more of him and his neckbeard fans online. It's unbelievable.

On-topic: I don't think everything on that list makes someone a "rape supporter". I watch porn for example, I won't lie. I don't think that makes me a rape supporter, even if the criteria is expanded to include woman.

I remember thinking the_amazing_atheist was a huge douchebag during the heyday of his e-fame (around 2006-2008) - so this doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

[Luís Henrique]

Rape isn't fatal. So imagine my indignation when I saw a chatroom called "Rape Survivors." Is this supposed to impress me? Someone fucked you when you didn't want to be fucked and you're amazed that you survived? Unless he used a chainsaw instead of his dick, what's the big deal? ... The word survivor applies to people who are alive after being stabbed 73 times with an ice pick or mauled by rabid wolverines, not to a woman who gets dick when she doesn't want it. Just because you got raped, you have to rape the English language? You vindictive *****! Also, don't you ever get tired of being the victim? How many failed relationships are you going to blame on a single violation of your personal space?


I told her, "You’re lucky it wasn't me. I’d have busted your fucking nose and raped you.


I remember thinking the_amazing_atheist was a huge douchebag during the heyday of his e-fame (around 2006-2008) - so this doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Come on, that's far beneath the level of the average douchebag. Can we get an injunction forbidding this scoundrel cum imbecile from using the name "atheist"?

Luís Henrique

[RHIZOMES]

Come on, that's far beneath the level of the average douchebag. Can we get an injunction forbidding this scoundrel cum imbecile from using the name "atheist"?

Luís Henrique

He's a 'New' Atheist (emphasis on capitalisation), which basically means he's a privileged first-world white male who can't tell the difference between genuine religious critique and your run-of-the-mill classism, racism and sexism.

Further examples: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.

[Sasha]

Yeah, sadly there is a persistent problem of sexism in the atheist/skeptic "community"; http://jezebel.com/5954945/woman-writes-about-sexism-in-the-skeptic-community-men-get-violently-upset-about-their-own-feelings

Entitled patriarchal douchebags are found in every religion, the church of atheism, spreading the gospel of Dawkins and Hitchens is no exception.

[Luís Henrique]

Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.

Ha. That's what I had in mind when I wrote "far beneath the average douchebag"...

But that is it; we are atheists, we don't have to support every imbecile atheist or "atheist" that pops in the internet, or in real life, when they get the deserved scorn for their absurds. On the contrary, when they are scumbags, we should disown them, not nitpick for eventual "good points" or "insights" they may eventually make.

Should hold for every position we support - atheism, socialism, Marxism (anarchism for those so inclined), etc.

Luís Henrique

[bcbm]

If you agree with every single point on this list, maybe you're the one who should reflect for a while.

never said that, because i don't but i do think all of the items, even the ones i disagree with, deserve a good thinking through and a consideration of my own behavior (and mens generally). i also have a problem with the tone and content of a lot of the dismissals

[slum]

Other posters have gone through some of the items on this list and covered that very well so here's my attempt to analyze what's going on when this author uses the term 'rape supporter' when she talks about men in the context of 'rape culture', or a 'culture that supports rape'. i think we need to use the new term 'rape culture' carefully and be explicit about what we are referring to when we say it. i apologize that my politics on this issue are US-centric; that's where my involvement is.

rape has always been and will continue to be a part of class society, in particular capitalist class society that relies on the nuclear family unit to "privatize" care of the working class and to reproduce the next generation of workers.

this system, which views women as instruments of production, objectifies women- i would argue that this results inevitably in sexism; the ruling class then reinforces by any variety of sexist truisms- from "women are biologically predisposed to care for children and remain passive 'receptors' of active male sexuality, women secretly enjoy being raped, women's bodies are contaminating, women are sexually dangerous (i.e. women who have extramarital sex are whores because uncertain paternity is anathema to a society based on inheritable private property)" to "men are naturally aggressive and competitive, men are unable to overcome their biological drive to rape and dominate women".

but i think the term 'rape culture' can be best understood if we don't use it interchangeably with 'sexism' or 'patriarchy' (the latter being a concept i also find unhelpful). i am uncertain of the original use of the term but it seems to have emerged recently as a way to describe how people in power i.e. the ruling class have made a decision lately to shape the public discourse around rape in such a way that women who speak out are ruthlessly attacked by all layers of organized society, and essentially forced out of public space and back into the home so that they can again perform the nuclear family caretaker role that capital demands of them. i see this new rise of 'rape culture' in the mainstream press as a side effect of the current capitalist crisis. capital is struggling in two fields- the productive, where it is enacting a brutal austerity regime, union busting, and generally waging good old fashioned class war, and the reproductive, where it is again attempting to consolidate the 'nuclear family unit' by attacking women and rolling back as many of the gains of the women's liberation movement as it possibly can- accessible birth control, sex education, anti-rape movements, legal abortion, etc.

the resurgence of anti-woman discussions about 'avoiding rape', the closure of abortion clinics and proliferation of 'life-starts-in-utero' type laws at the same time we see 'right to work' and public school privatization is not a coincidence. for this reason alone male leftists ought to be paying attention!

'rape culture' draws on sexist tropes to explain itself- women are 'sluts', women 'really' want it, men can't contain themselves and therefore it is women's responsibility not to "get raped", women should be careful about engaging in public life, drinking, etc- but i don't think we should equate it with sexism. sexism, like racism, divides the working class against itself- but 'rape culture' is another, related bourgeois ideology (like all bourgeois ideologies, it may shared by the working class unless we make a conscious effort to rid ourselves of it) specifically designed to force women back into the home during capitalist crisis.

so i'd argue, when we're looking at lists like this one, we can provide a different, more politically useful approach than other feminists who lay all responsibility for women's inequality at the feet of 'culture' and the individuals who participate in it. at the same time, there are elements of this list that clearly reflect both sexist ideas and the related ideology of pro-rape culture and if men (and women, who have also internalized this bullshit) want to fight back against capital and its reliance on the subjugation of women it behooves us to ignore what some of us see as the unnecessarily incendiary tone of feminist discourse and actually reflect on whether or not our behaviour is challenging or assisting the reactionary tidal wave the bourgeoisie and its latest capitalist crisis has unleashed on us.

[Il Medico]

I agree with a lot of the points in the list, but I disagree with some points. Following the thread tradition, I'll address them.



He has ever sexually engaged with any woman while she was underage, drunk, high, physically restrained, unconscious, or subjected to psychological, physical, economic, or emotional coercion.
I think this part is pretty much dead on, though the bolded part is firmly stuck in the 'depends' category. Every situation is different. If a man and a woman share a bowl, or a few drinks, or something like that and then have sex I don't see how it is or supports rape. But if someone is wasted they most likely aren't fit to consent. If you have sex with a wasted person the most generous descriptor of your behavior is 'taking advantage of their increased willingness to fuck you'. A phrase, which honestly, just sounds like rape hired a PR team. So, yeah, generally speaking you should avoid that type of situation, since it's really hard to tell if someone that is heavily inebriated is capable of giving consent.


He watches pornography in which women are depicted.I don't think there's really anything wrong with porn, per say.The porn industry is certainly exploitative, but not all porn is pumped out via exploitative means and I don't quite bite on the idea that simply watching porn means you support the exploitative methods of an industry that creates some of it. No more so than using products made by factories means you support the exploitation of labor. The idea that simply existing within a exploitative structure means you intrinsically support said structure and the only way to be against it is to drop out of it seems to be to be lifestylist posturing, though I'm sure some will disagree with me.

The only other reason that I could think of for their reasoning would be the anti-sex stances some feminist take (and judging by some of the other entries it seems like the writer of the list seems to take this position). As far as I can tell the position seems to imply that viewing women sexually in anyway is inherently objectifying them, thus making any person who does so a sexist (or in this case, rape supporter). Personally, I think the 'all sexual attraction/feelings from men towards women = objectifaction' stance is kinda bizarre.


He has gone to a strip club.Is this because a lot of clubs are staffed by trafficked sex workers or is it the anti-sex thing again? If it the former it's place on the list is understandable, even if they're painting with too broad a brush.


He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present.I'm really struggling to see how watching gay bdsm has anything to do with supporting rape.


He defends the physical abuse of women on the grounds of “consent.” What do they mean here? I don't think anyone consents to spousal abuse. Are they talking about sexual pain fetishes? Two consenting adults can do whatever the fuck they want in the bedroom, imo, and if that happens to be bdsm or what not I'm really seeing how that makes them rape supporters.


He discusses the “types” of women he finds sexually appealing.I thought about this one for a long ass time and honestly can't see any way talking about your sexual preferences on occasion, which from my experience seems like a normal behavior for both men and women, makes you a rape supporter. Outside of course, the anti-sex stance that thinking about women sexually makes you a sexist/rape supporter.

[slum]

Those kinds of feminists will only be happy when all men are castrated.

what a helpful contribution to the discussion. truly your insight has rendered me speechless.

[vizzek]

Those kinds of feminists will only be happy when all men are castrated.

what kinds of feminists? the article was just some men's rights activists's made up list of things they think are part of feminism. no actual 'tendency' within feminism actually holds those views.

[Paul Pott]

what a helpful contribution to the discussion. truly your insight has rendered me speechless.

What else is there to say? This is a good example of how degenerate some parts of the feminist movement have become. They have gone full circle from wanting to abolish patriarchy to wanting what amounts to a matriarchy where only the female can initiate relations, ever, or you're a rapist sex criminal.

If this remotely approaches anyone's idea of feminism, then we need to wash our hands of feminism, and get a new one.

[Zostrianos]

Those kinds of feminists will only be happy when all men are castrated.

Thankfully most feminists are not like that.

[slum]

yes, we will all soon cower beneath the bloody tyranny of our great mothers, small and cold in the shadows of their pendulous breasts, shuddering at the stink of their breath from fanged mouths as they point and cry "sexist, sexist!" at which point the amazonian PC police will come and carry us off to the gulag where women will at long last watch men walk through the muddy streets and make disparaging comments about their genitalia.

now you know our true agenda, comrade. only vengeance will do.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Those kinds of feminists will only be happy when all men are castrated.
While that's quite an exaggeration, it's true that the radical feminist tendency often has problematic positions re: XY gonosomes, which is why they can be transphobic against trans women.

[slum]

Wait, that sounds familiar.

yes, it's remarkably reminiscent of the harassment women are often subject to should they dare to move about in public space without a male escort.

[Raúl Duke]

yes, it's remarkably reminiscent of the harassment women are often subject to should they dare to move about in public space without a male escort.

hell, even if a man is present they'll still do this.

I remember walking to the gas station to buy alcohol with a woman and randomly people cat-called her. People are so disappointing.

[blake 3:17]

The blog post which started this thread is stupid and really ugly and destructive. The second point is "defends the current legal definition of rape" --- W T F ???

[Luís Henrique]

what kinds of feminists? the article was just some men's rights activists's made up list of things they think are part of feminism. no actual 'tendency' within feminism actually holds those views.

Disappointing as it is, the article in the OP is from a "feminist" blog, and the infamous list is not a list of misapprehensions by MRAs, but actually a list of things the pseudofeminist blogger thinks makes men (but not women, even if they engage in the same behaviour or hold the same ideas) "rape supporters".

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

The blog post which started this thread is stupid and really ugly and destructive. The second point is "defends the current legal definition of rape" --- W T F ???

The "F" in question is that the "definition of rape" should be kept open, so that people can redefine it as they see fit. I can't see any other rationale for such an outlandish claim.

Luís Henrique

[Vanilla]

The blog post which started this thread is stupid and really ugly and destructive. The second point is "defends the current legal definition of rape" --- W T F ???

I'm not quite sure what the legal definition of rape is, but according to legal-dictionary, it says that it is "forcible sexual relations with a person against that person's will." Many feminists will argue that the definition is not broad enough, as it doesn't specify lack of consent or if a person is raped while unconscious or something. Although, I don't see how defending the current definition of rape would make a person a rape supporter.

[Quail]

I'm not quite sure what the legal definition of rape is, but according to legal-dictionary, it says that it is "forcible sexual relations with a person against that person's will." Many feminists will argue that the definition is not broad enough, as it doesn't specify lack of consent or if a person is raped while unconscious or something. Although, I don't see how defending the current definition of rape would make a person a rape supporter.
I would assume that doing something to someone while they're unconscious is "against their will" but I suppose not everyone would so perhaps it would be better to expand the definition to explicitly include cases where someone is unable to say whether sexual contact is against their will or not.

[Vanguard1917]

See, the thing is - you probably are. Almost everyone is, since we live in a patriarchal society where rape is normalized. We need to confront this and deal with it.

This is clearly a load of rubbish. The average person sees rape as a vicious, abhorrent crime. It's far from 'normalised' or viewed as normal behaviour. You need to 'confront' and 'deal with' your own lack of a rational argument - not to mention your degraded view of human beings.

[Quail]

This is clearly a load of rubbish. The average person sees rape as a vicious, abhorrent crime. It's far from 'normalised' or viewed as normal behaviour. You need to 'confront' and 'deal with' your own lack of a rational argument - not to mention your degraded view of human beings.
I think this depends really. I imagine most people would think of dragging someone down a dark alley and physically restraining them while sexually assaulting them as a vicious, abhorrent crime. But what about date rape, or when someone is voluntarily under the influence of drugs (incl alcohol)? I think that in those cases it is somewhat normalised. For example, the case in Steubenville where the assault was filmed and sent around to their friends - if those kids thought that rape was a vicious, abhorrent crime they wouldn't have done that.

[Vanilla]

I think this depends really. I imagine most people would think of dragging someone down a dark alley and physically restraining them while sexually assaulting them as a vicious, abhorrent crime. But what about date rape, or when someone is voluntarily under the influence of drugs (incl alcohol)? I think that in those cases it is somewhat normalised. For example, the case in Steubenville where the assault was filmed and sent around to their friends - if those kids thought that rape was a vicious, abhorrent crime they wouldn't have done that.

Not to mention after the Steubenville case, there were those people who were sympathizing with the rapists. I saw some commentary regarding the case on CNN and other places where people felt sorry that the boys ruined their lives while blaming the victim. Rape is rape, but some people don't see it that way.

[#FF0000]

This is clearly a load of rubbish. The average person sees rape as a vicious, abhorrent crime. It's far from 'normalised' or viewed as normal behaviour. You need to 'confront' and 'deal with' your own lack of a rational argument - not to mention your degraded view of human beings.

Man, I just don't think that's true. As an abstract thing, yeah, people are all about stringing up rapists and this and that, but when it actually happens, there's always excuses and people willing to look the other way. If one's been watching the news in the US over the past year or so, it's kind of obvious I think. There was the Penn State child abuse case, where the administration and football program circled the wagons and tried to cover up the abuse of multiple children at the hands of Jerry Sandusky (the students actually rioted over the dismissal of head coach Joe Paterno, who certainly knew what was going on, yet declined to do anything more than take away the locker room keys from Sandusky).

And surely you heard of Steubenville, where the exact same thing happened when members of the football team were accused of raping a girl. Most of the town circled the wagons, shamed the victim, and regarded the people who were outraged over it as troublemakers. The police even looked the other way and were meeting with the kids' parents and powerful people in the town behind closed doors while carrying out no investigation.

Then there's the case in Canada of Rehteaha Parsons, in which the police could find "no evidence" despite the perpetrators bragging openly around other kids and adults. Apparently, it took "Anonymous" two hours to "solve" the case, which has prompted the police to re-open the case to look at the evidence Anonymous gathered.

I could point to local stories in my own neighborhood too, where some local army boy and some paint-huffing yokel raped an unconscious woman at a christmas party and nearly got away with it because of the threats and harassment the victim and her family were facing over it.

So uh, yeah, call it a "degraded view" if you want, but the fact is that people are as likely to look the other way and do nothing about something they would normally find morally abhorrent as anything else. You can insist all day long that people give a shit enough to turn in rapists rather than make excuses for them, but there's a soul-crushing amount of evidence to the contrary.

[Comrade Nasser]

I just skimmed that article and pretty much all of it seemed like bull :sleep:

[#FF0000]

I just skimmed that article and pretty much all of it seemed like bull :sleep:

don't post

[Quail]

I just skimmed that article and pretty much all of it seemed like bull :sleep:
Instead of posting one-liners, why don't you explain which points you think are bull and why? Or respond to another poster's explanation of why they don't think particular points are bull?

[Vanilla]

I just skimmed that article and pretty much all of it seemed like bull :sleep:

I don't know how you can say that, especially after all the users here, especially women, have explained how most of it is relevant. I think it would be best if you stayed out of the Women's Struggle subforum.

[#FF0000]

Instead of posting one-liners, why don't you explain which points you think are bull and why? Or respond to another poster's explanation of why they don't think particular points are bull?

Do this but also read the thread first pls pls pls pls

[slum]

The blog post which started this thread is stupid and really ugly and destructive. The second point is "defends the current legal definition of rape" --- W T F ???

current legal definitions of rape differ depending on area, but some states still have laws that restrict "rape" to PIV/vaginal penetration only, for example, which rules out many other acts of rape, and completely ignores the fact that men can also be raped. until fairly recently (and i am sure this is still true in other parts of the world) marital rape was also not considered rape.

[blake 3:17]

I have been the victim of sexual assault twice. Once as a child, once as an adult. On another occasion, my partner was sexually assaulted by an acquaintance in my bed while I was in the next room. None of these sexual assaults meet the legal definition of rape. I have referred to the people who've committed these acts as rapists and been attacked for it.

I haven't campaigned to change the legal definition of rape. Does this make me a 'rape supporter'?

[Comrade Nasser]

Do this but also read the thread first pls pls pls pls

Rape is fucking rape ok. There's no fucking debating this shit. I don't care what the person was wearing, how they acted, blah blah. If you force someone to have sexual intercourse with you against their will, that's rape. Rape is NEVER ok. I think rape should carry a life sentence.

[Quail]

I have been the victim of sexual assault twice. Once as a child, once as an adult. On another occasion, my partner was sexually assaulted by an acquaintance in my bed while I was in the next room. None of these sexual assaults meet the legal definition of rape. I have referred to the people who've committed these acts as rapists and been attacked for it.

I haven't campaigned to change the legal definition of rape. Does this make me a 'rape supporter'?
Did you defend calling the assaults rape or explain why they should be classed as rape? I think restricting the definition of rape to PIV penetration means that people who are assaulted in other ways (in the UK, rape is PIV penetration and anything else is called "assault by penetration" which may carry a lower sentence although I'm not sure) can feel that they're undeserving of support because it wasn't "real" rape, which is harmful. I don't think it's supporting rape necessarily not to campaign for a better definition of rape; it just depends, really. It would be supporting sex offenders to claim, for example, that the only form of rape is PIV penetration in that you'd be excusing other forms of rape.


But it's loooong and i'm lazy.
Then don't post.

[Sean]

I'm pretty sure this is "biting beaver" who is actually batshit insane. If its not, then the person has copied her list from about 7 years ago and reuploaded it.

And yes. Yes I do know of every single lunatic on the internet by name.

[Il Medico]

I think this depends really. I imagine most people would think of dragging someone down a dark alley and physically restraining them while sexually assaulting them as a vicious, abhorrent crime. But what about date rape, or when someone is voluntarily under the influence of drugs (incl alcohol)? I think that in those cases it is somewhat normalised. For example, the case in Steubenville where the assault was filmed and sent around to their friends - if those kids thought that rape was a vicious, abhorrent crime they wouldn't have done that.
Yeah, I grew up with the mental image of rapist being shadowy mustachioed criminal types who stalk women until they find a nice dark alley to drag them down and rape them. I'd be willing to bet most other men have grown up thinking about rapist in a similar fashion; they're the monstrous other. This lets men absolve themselves of responsibility for rape because it's not men raping women but barbaric monsters. This view of rape and rapist also narrows the idea of what a lot of men consider to be rape. A lot of men might not even consider date rape or taking advantage of an intoxicated/passed out woman to be rape, simply because it's not the violent back ally type of affair.


current legal definitions of rape differ depending on area, but some states still have laws that restrict "rape" to PIV/vaginal penetration only, for example, which rules out many other acts of rape, and completely ignores the fact that men can also be raped. until fairly recently (and i am sure this is still true in other parts of the world) marital rape was also not considered rape
I'm not a 100% on what the current law for rape is here in the US, but I remember hearing fairly recently that they changed the law to include oral and anal penetration, as well as adding men to the list of potential victims.

[Luís Henrique]

I'm not quite sure what the legal definition of rape is, but according to legal-dictionary, it says that it is "forcible sexual relations with a person against that person's will." Many feminists will argue that the definition is not broad enough, as it doesn't specify lack of consent or if a person is raped while unconscious or something. Although, I don't see how defending the current definition of rape would make a person a rape supporter.

Here is one legal definition of rape:


261. (a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a
person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following
circumstances:
(1) Where a person is incapable, because of a mental disorder or
developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and
this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing
the act. Notwithstanding the existence of a conservatorship pursuant
to the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1
(commencing with Section 5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code), the prosecuting attorney shall prove, as an
element of the crime, that a mental disorder or developmental or
physical disability rendered the alleged victim incapable of giving
consent.
(2) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of
force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful
bodily injury on the person or another.
(3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating
or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this
condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the
accused.
(4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the
act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph,
"unconscious of the nature of the act" means incapable of resisting
because the victim meets one of the following conditions:
(A) Was unconscious or asleep.
(B) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act
occurred.
(C) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the
essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraud
in fact.
(D) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the
essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's
fraudulent representation that the sexual penetration served a
professional purpose when it served no professional purpose.
(5) Where a person submits under the belief that the person
committing the act is the victim's spouse, and this belief is induced
by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused,
with intent to induce the belief.
(6) Where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by
threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any
other person, and there is a reasonable possibility that the
perpetrator will execute the threat. As used in this paragraph,
"threatening to retaliate" means a threat to kidnap or falsely
imprison, or to inflict extreme pain, serious bodily injury, or
death.
(7) Where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by
threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate,
arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a
reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official. As used
in this paragraph, "public official" means a person employed by a
governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position,
to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not
actually have to be a public official.
(b) As used in this section, "duress" means a direct or implied
threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to
coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an
act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in
an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total
circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her
relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising
the existence of duress.
(c) As used in this section, "menace" means any threat,
declaration, or act which shows an intention to inflict an injury
upon another.

As usual with the California Penal Code, it is a convoluted definition, and it probably could be much improved. But I don't see exactly how picking this definition as a starting point for the discussion - either legal, courtroom discussion, or merely theoretical discussion - of what constitutes rape would make the person doing so a "rape supporter".

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

This is clearly a load of rubbish. The average person sees rape as a vicious, abhorrent crime. It's far from 'normalised' or viewed as normal behaviour. You need to 'confront' and 'deal with' your own lack of a rational argument - not to mention your degraded view of human beings.

Most people see rape as a vicious and abhorrent crime, no doubt. The problem is that they often don't see quite obvious rape as rape, as in the Steubenville case.

Luís Henrique

[Crixus]

See, the thing is - you probably are. Almost everyone is, since we live in a patriarchal society where rape is normalized. We need to confront this and deal with it.

To use a woefully imperfect analogy - we are all supporters of capitalism insofar as we reproduce it by our everyday activity. To end capitalism, we have to confront it in this light.

.
No.

[Crixus]

No. Seriously, fuck you. Feminists get so much shit because we live in a society where misogyny and rape are normalized, and not because of the problematic lack of nuance in a minority of feminists' analysis.
Cop out. A rude one at that. Certain RadFem theory does indeed work as a sort of 'feminism repellant' and it's being sprayed all over the internet which has been causing more and more backlash as time passes. I'll go ahead and call you out for regurgitating nonsense by implying people in this theread support rape. That sort of nonintellectual broad brush claim is absurd. The sort of absurdity that pushes people away from feminism.

[#FF0000]

1) I think people use "radfem" as a stand in for "feminists i don't like". I don't think Radical Feminists can be totally dismissed and make some good points, for all that they're lacking.
2) To blame "backlash" against feminism on feminism for being too radical or whatever is itself a cop-out. Let's try to actually go after content instead of saying dumb shit like "OH THIS IS WHY PPL DONT' LIKE FEMINISM".

[Slippers]

If there are individual things in the list you don't like, it'll probably be more productive to actually discuss them. I've already mentioned that I don't agree with the whole list.

Besides, I'm tired of hearing about how evil feminists are because their primary concern isn't being accommodating to men. How feminism needs an overhaul or (more often) needs to be done away with because it's not nice towards the men. Poor, poor men. :rolleyes:

[Luís Henrique]

1) I think people use "radfem" as a stand in for "feminists i don't like".

I don't think so. RadFem is a quite definable movement, and while it certainly has a big overlap with "feminists I don't like", it is certainly far from being the same thing. Liberal feminists are not RadFems, and I certainly dislike liberals - or rather their political positions - even if they happen to be "feminist liberals".


I don't think Radical Feminists can be totally dismissed and make some good points, for all that they're lacking.

As with any political position, I don't think the problem is whether they make good points, be them some or many, but the whole gist of their ideas. Good points lost among a mass of reactionary nonsence usually loose their "good" quality rather than rehabilitate the surrounding BS.

And these supposed "good points" are famous, but I have never seen them pointed out.


2) To blame "backlash" against feminism on feminism for being too radical or whatever is itself a cop-out.

I don't think it is reasonable to blame RadFems for being "too radical"; they are on the contrary extremely superficial. Unhappily, their name is "Radical Feminism", but this doesn't make them radical at all. Or even feminist, if we think it thoroughly.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

If there are individual things in the list you don't like, it'll probably be more productive to actually discuss them. I've already mentioned that I don't agree with the whole list.

The point, to me, isn't the list or the items in it. Some are very ill-thought, others seem reasonable. But the real problem is that the reasoning is fallacious. It points out that there is a systemic culture that is supportive of rape, and hints that this happens regardless of individual subjective attitudes of people. Then it makes a U-turn, and blames such systemic culture individually on people who uphold a few myths that are part of the systemic culture (while curiously ignoring a few other of those myths, probably because the listmaker agrees with them).

Luís Henrique

[Crixus]

1) I think people use "radfem" as a stand in for "feminists i don't like". I don't think Radical Feminists can be totally dismissed and make some good points, for all that they're lacking.
2) To blame "backlash" against feminism on feminism for being too radical or whatever is itself a cop-out. Let's try to actually go after content instead of saying dumb shit like "OH THIS IS WHY PPL DONT' LIKE FEMINISM".
I've seen you post on this site that you don't consider yourself a feminist and you have also said you're not well versed in feminist theory so save the moral posturing as I actually pay attention to what people say. Radical feminism has a lot of theory I don't agree with and when I don't agree with certain theory it's not 'code' for I don't like feminists. Nothing can be "too radical" the problems arise when these sort of universal broad claims are made that have no basis in reality. I can say capitalism is bad and you'd agree with me but if I then went on to say it should be replaced by a system of pink ponies you'd question if my claim that pink ponies could somehow be an economic system had any basis in reality. If I was on this site advocating the pink pony economic system people would indeed have good reason to criticize my theory that a pink pony can replace capitalism. The claim is so absurd it wouldn't be worth serious discussion as is the claim that we all support rape. Yes, it's statements like that (which have a base in RadFem theory) that drive a lot of people away from feminism. This isnt a universal rule of course as many people simply want nothing to do with fighting for equality but I'm speaking of people who are generally interested in building an equal society being turned away from feminism because of the RadFems broad brush bullhorn tactics.

The mind frame that some RadFem theory nurtures is reactionary but that's what happens when men and women are seen as being in two separate classes where all men at all times are the oppressor class and all women at all times are the oppressed class and this oppression is at all times everywhere universally experienced by women and perpetuated by all men. Gems like this "Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." With Dwrokin I choose to throw the baby out with the bathwater as I also do with Sheila Jeffrys, Roxanne Dundar, Sally Gearhart etc sand so on. Basically radical feminist theory as a whole is tainted with so much nonsense it's not even worth defending. The source for much of the bunk theory is lesbian and separatist feminism within the radical feminist tradition. Women who become isolated from the broader world and in turn theories begin to be formulated which have no basis in reality and are also not open to debate, discussion or criticism and in turn books are written, papers published and ideas are pushed on the broader feminist tradition which have no basis in reality and many theorists intentionally tell half truths, manipulate data, exaggerate and outright lie but they see the cause as being noble and doing such things is to further the cause but what this does is take away from scientific credibility. If we did this in our analysis of capitalism even less people would take socialism seriously.

[Skyhilist]

The list is discriminatory in and of itself because they act like its application is strictly to men, when in fact by their standards the vast majority of women also perpetuate rape culture, which they fail to mention.

[#FF0000]

I've seen you post on this site that you don't consider yourself a feminist and you have also said you're not well versed in feminist theory so save the moral posturing as I actually pay attention to what people say.

Ya that's something I kind of keep saying so kudos on pointing out something I say all the time well done.

Don't know what "moral posturing" you're talking about, though. People post in here all the time to complain about radical feminists all the time and it gets old so, so fast. And to be honest, I don't think most people are doing it in good faith, and are just doing it to complain about feminists they don't like, whether they're "radical feminists" or not, whether the points at hand have anything to do with "radical feminism" or not. I think people just use "radical feminists" as an acceptable target for their knee-jerk reactions about feminists, because I honestly see no other reason for them to be brought up as often as they are. Nobody but the people who complain about radical feminists ever bring them up.

[RHIZOMES]

1) I think people use "radfem" as a stand in for "feminists i don't like". I don't think Radical Feminists can be totally dismissed and make some good points, for all that they're lacking.
2) To blame "backlash" against feminism on feminism for being too radical or whatever is itself a cop-out. Let's try to actually go after content instead of saying dumb shit like "OH THIS IS WHY PPL DONT' LIKE FEMINISM".

Usually, when I hear a bunch of women say "hey guys, can you all please stop doing this its kinda oppressive" - i'm usually more inclined to take their side, since they're the ones actually experiencing it, rather than take the side of the hordes of angry men all indignant that a lot of women are telling them to stop being creepy.

This doesn't mean I would uncritically support every position labeled as 'feminist' - indeed, it would be impossible due to all the different strains of thought. I don't think all heterosexual sex is rape, or that all pornography is oppressive, or that prostitution should be outlawed.

But I do recognise that heterosexual sex can often have an oppressive dimension, as we live in a patriarchal society (which is why consent is such an important concept in modern feminism). I do recognise that the pillars of the mainstream porn industry is fundamentally oppressive, and generally prefer not to consume that particular form of erotica because it creeps me out. And I don't think outlawing prostitution would actually make things better for sex workers, or completely obliterate what is fundamentally a socially-produced problem.

But see what I did there? I actually backed up my disagreements with strains of feminism with clearly defined reasons, rather than the poor argumentative tactics that #FF0000 just described.

Rather than being backed up by clearly defined reasons, these tactics are argued by an emotional appeal to amorphous, ill-defined and inordinately monolithic concepts like 'radical feminism' (pls define further, also pls argue more clearly why you disagree) or 'this is why "people" (which people, who are they) don't like "feminism" (WHAT TYPE OF FEMINISM)'.

[VirgJans12]

He is anti-abortion.
He is pro-”choice” because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available.


Looks like you're a pro-rapist if you're either for or against an abortion. Better not have an opinion about that.

[#FF0000]

quality thread n quality posts oh man.

[VDS]

I'm wondering if someone can clear one thing up. What if a person is anti-abortion personally, but not politically, is he then still a rape-supporter?

To explain, what if a man is against abortion personally, but doesn't attempt to tell a woman what to do with her body, and opposes legislation that does so, is he still a "rape supporter" according to the article in this case?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

To explain, what if a man is against abortion personally, but doesn't attempt to tell a woman what to do with her body, and opposes legislation that does so, is he still a "rape supporter" according to the article in this case?
That man is taking a pro-choice position, isn't he?

[VDS]

That man is taking a pro-choice position, isn't he?

Just trying get used to the semantics and all that you know. I know plenty of people who are anti-abortion personally, but pro-choice. I was just wondering if the language applied to the personal belief as well as the political.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I think some of y'all are taking radfems and that particular blog as more representative of feminism than they actually are.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Just trying get used to the semantics and all that you know. I know plenty of people who are anti-abortion personally, but pro-choice. I was just wondering if the language applied to the personal belief as well as the political.
For me, if you think each woman is the only one who can decide what reproductive choices she makes, that's pro-choice.

[#FF0000]

I think the term "rape-supporter" is, uh, a little ill-defined to say the least.

[RHIZOMES]

He is anti-abortion.
He is pro-”choice” because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available.


Looks like you're a pro-rapist if you're either for or against an abortion. Better not have an opinion about that.

Looks like you can only interpret those two points that way if you lack a certain level of basic reading comprehension.

Let me help you:
He is anti-abortion. <-- FULL-STOP, therefore, you're pro-rapist if you don't support women having autonomy over their own bodies, no matter what the reason is.

While:
He is pro-”choice”... because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available. <-- this bold part is important, because it is qualifying in what circumstances you would still be pro-rape even if you supported abortion rights in the abstract

Both connotate a patriarchal sense of ownership over a woman's body, and is thus pro-rape.

It's like saying "I support desegregation in schools because there'd be easier access to blacks for white people to lynch" - in that you're supporting something ostensibly anti-oppressive for oppressive reasons.

So therefore, your interpretation of these two points - that you're damned if you do, damned if you don't, demonstrates an obnoxious refusal to actually engage with what these two points are getting at.

Hope this helps.

[Zostrianos]

He is pro-”choice”... because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available. <-- this bold part is important, because it is qualifying in what circumstances you would still be pro-rape even if you supported abortion rights in the abstract

That sounds so outlandish; are there really men out there who think like that?

[#FF0000]

That sounds so outlandish; are there really men out there who think like that?

If I had to guess I'd probably say not many but hey people have been able to surprise the shit out of me when it comes to things like this.

[RHIZOMES]

If I had to guess I'd probably say not many but hey people have been able to surprise the shit out of me when it comes to things like this.
Yeah this list is just trying to be comprehensive.

[Il Medico]

or 'this is why "people" (which people, who are they)
I think they mean the vast majority of men and women (but especially men) who aren't particularly familiar with feminism and main basis of knowledge about it is the silly stuff reactionary media outlets make a big deal of for propaganda purposes.


don't like "feminism" (WHAT TYPE OF FEMINISM)'.I don't think most people who aren't at the very least on the fringes of feminist circles realize that there even is more than one type and thus tend to associate some of the more zany stuff with feminism as a whole. This happens with communism and pretty much all other anti-oppression movements as well.

So yeah, I get where people are coming from with this. An activist's main job is to raise awareness of the oppressive power structures within the larger population to weaken it's grip on society. So it's hella annoying when certain segments say something stupid, or offensive, or just stretch out a line of logic to it's absurdest conclusions because it's off putting to the average Joes and Janes and is generally just not helpful at all.

On the other hand, it is pretty much a certainty within any movement that stupid off putting shit will be said and complaining about it isn't gonna change anything. This also is no reason to try to shut down discussion of said things within activist circles because often there's an interesting discussion to be had behind the silly exterior.

[Luís Henrique]

That sounds so outlandish; are there really men out there who think like that?

Nothing is so outlandish that some leftist doesn't defend it.

Luís Henrique

[Jimmie Higgins]

Just trying get used to the semantics and all that you know. I know plenty of people who are anti-abortion personally, but pro-choice. I was just wondering if the language applied to the personal belief as well as the political.Yeah I think this is some of the ground lost in terms of general thinking about abortion. Someone can be, say, catholic and be against abortion for themselves or support religious people not having abortions, while also supporting the legal right of people who don't believe that to have abortions legally obtained. Maybe that wouldn't happen - though many American Catholics pick-and-choose and tend to be more liberal than mainstream US politics on some social issues - but the point is, someone could be totally against having an abortion themselves, while still being pro-choice. US catholics are like this about contraception - they say that they don't use it (though many do) but they don't try and stop others from getting it like some on the far right today or religious groups back in the 60s or in Ireland. Today, a measure of the ground gained by the right is that many people who are just personally against abortion, see themselves as "pro-life" even if they don't support legal restrictions.

[Luís Henrique]

Nothing is so outlandish that some leftist doesn't defend it.

This isn't exactly the same thing (http://www.revleft.com/vb/male-abortion-t165112/index.html?highlight=abortion) but it gets quite close.

Luís Henrique

[blake 3:17]

Did you defend calling the assaults rape or explain why they should be classed as rape? I think restricting the definition of rape to PIV penetration means that people who are assaulted in other ways (in the UK, rape is PIV penetration and anything else is called "assault by penetration" which may carry a lower sentence although I'm not sure) can feel that they're undeserving of support because it wasn't "real" rape, which is harmful. I don't think it's supporting rape necessarily not to campaign for a better definition of rape; it just depends, really. It would be supporting sex offenders to claim, for example, that the only form of rape is PIV penetration in that you'd be excusing other forms of rape.

I don't have a vagina. When I was kid a bunch of boys forced their cocks down my throat, and when I was an adult a dude I was crashing with fucked me in the ass.

My girl got her asshole licked by a serial rapist. Motherfucker Tim Doucette. Least he's fucking dead, fucking drunk suicide.

I'm too sick of this shit.

No disrespect to you Quail -- I think we're in full agreement.

Here's the obituary for the fucker who raped Judy: http://www.xtra.ca/public/viewstory.aspx?AFF_TYPE=3&STORY_ID=5098&PUB_TEMPLATE_ID=2

Fucking freak Free East Timor bull shit.

[Invader Zim]

That list, which trivialises actual rape and rape apologism makes my head hurt. It is also deeply misogynistic. It implies that women have no, and are incapable of, their own agency, wants, desires and choices.

[Crixus]

That list, which trivialises actual rape and rape apologism makes my head hurt. It is also deeply misogynistic. It implies that women have no, and are incapable of, their own agency, wants, desires and choices.
You think that's bad read this:

http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/bad-sense/

[Crixus]

That list, which trivialises actual rape and rape apologism makes my head hurt. It is also deeply misogynistic. It implies that women have no, and are incapable of, their own agency, wants, desires and choices.
And if you think the other one is bad read this one:

http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/more-separatism-by-default/

[#FF0000]

You think that's bad read this:

http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/bad-sense/

Don't really see anything wrong with this.

[Crixus]

This one is rich (PIV stands for penis in vagina):



Just to take on the discussion again on PIV as rape continuum, and sex and rape being the same thing for men, whereas for women PIV is never sex.
I would say all PIV is laways rape, plain and simple. first, from a purely structural point of view, as a class oppressed by men, we are not in a position of freedom to negotiate what men do to us collectively and individually to maintain our oppressed state. The hierarchy that exists between men and us makes it impossible to exchange on equal and free terms. We as oppressed class are never the agents and organisers of PIV, being possessed, colonised and held captive by men. If men inflict and enforce PIV because it is their caste right as oppressors and because it is at the same time the primary means for them to subordinate us, then it follows that all PIV in this context of oppression is rape.
The only reason we may desire or initiate PIV when it is not directly enforced by the man through manipulation, installed fear, captivity, threat or violence, is because of decades of violence prior to this (sex role grooming, hatred propaganda through 24/7 porn culture, climate of terror, sexual violence, rape, harassment, mutilation and myriad other forms of means of destruction of women that men organise), which lead to such a high degree of dissociation and self-hatred that we come to completely identify to what our oppressor wants from us and to what he feels when he inflicts harm on us (sexual excitement). Far from being a sign of absence of violence, to embrace one’s own destruction is on the contrary an evidence of an extremely high level of psychic destruction and dissocation.
If you add to this the fact that PIV is inherently harmful to us given the dangerous reproductive risks (which are intended), that PIV is not even necessary for reproduction (re Lucky’s comment), and that penetration/violation of body areas that are inside and only meant for expulsion (vagina, anus, uretra…) are otherwise torture techniques meant to disintegrate a person’s sense of self and destroy the soul and physical boundaries, then i think it is safe to say that PIV is always rape.

http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/hate-song/

[Crixus]

Don't really see anything wrong with this.
You're ugh....blind? Seriously. Quit the shit man. It's getting old. Read it. Understand what she's saying.

[#FF0000]

You're ugh....blind? Seriously. Quit the shit man. It's getting old. Read it. Understand what she's saying.

Yeah I'm not really seeing what's so disagreeable here tbh. Go ahead and explain it (which is what you probs should be doing instead of linking to other blogs with no context or contribution otherwise)

[Zostrianos]

This one is rich (PIV stands for penis in vagina):
http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2012/12/03/hate-song/

I think she's taking her own preferences, dislikes and above all, insecurities, and essentially projecting them onto women in general. Not only is this completely irrational (intercourse is not sex it's rape, really?!), it's also profoundly sexist as it implies that women are weaker and have no free will and so must submit to male degradation, and that whatever desire for intercourse or pleasure they experience stems from psychological self-hatred on the woman's part. It's ridiculous, and an insult to feminism.

[#FF0000]

I think she's taking her own preferences, dislikes and above all, insecurities, and essentially projecting them onto women in general. Not only is this completely irrational it's also profoundly sexist as it implies that women are weaker and have no free will and so must submit to male degradation, and that whatever desire for intercourse or pleasure they experience stems from psychological self-hatred on the woman's part. It's ridiculous, and an insult to feminism.

I don't think that's what she says at all (EDIT: she actually literally addresses what you said in the fourth paragraph. I think your pretty spirited reaction to a thing you haven't read would say a lot about your insecurities, wouldn't it?) -- in that post she says that women enjoy PIV sex to varying degrees and that some women even enjoy it a lot (which is itself pathologized).

I think she's just pointing out that PIV sex puts women in a precarious place, and can cause her difficulties and harm. Whiiiiiich if you think about it, is pretty much true, isn't it?


(intercourse is not sex it's rape, really?!),Where'd she say this?

[Zostrianos]

Where'd she say this?


I would say all PIV is laways rape, plain and simple.

for women PIV is never sex.

Thankfully these ideas are bound to remain in the minority.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Don't really see anything wrong with this.

Well the author does conflate the individual choices of women with pathology. Hardly empowering.

[#FF0000]

Thankfully these ideas are bound to remain in the minority.

Oh neat. Well yeah I'd have to say that's obviously wrong. I can get behind the idea that PIV is against a woman's best interests, maybe. That particular line, not so much (unless they have a really, really incredible argument for it)


Well the author does conflate the individual choices of women with pathology. Hardly empowering.

Er, I read it as women have their choices pathologized either way.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Sorta read it as women have their choices pathologized either way. v:mellow:v

The behavior can (and is) described in all sorts of ways by men. But what she essentially says there is that there's almost some sort of rush associated with (what the author considers to be) the self-destructive act of sexual intercourse. She muses near the end about whether putting women in mortal danger & making them fear for their lives is perhaps the real source of men's sexual desire & pleasure. This is the kind of stuff that crawls out of only the most wingnutty sociology petri dish.

[Zostrianos]

Oh neat. Well yeah I'd have to say that's obviously wrong. I can get behind the idea that PIV is against a woman's best interests, maybe. That particular line, not so much (unless they have a really, really incredible argument for it)

Well that's up for women to decide on their own, not for these feminists to try and tell them what they can and can't do with their bodies, or what's in their best interest, or whether what they're willingly engaging in constitutes rape or 'self-hatred' or whatever.

[#FF0000]

The behavior can (and is) described in all sorts of ways by men. But what she essentially says there is that there's almost some sort of rush associated with (what the author considers to be) the self-destructive act of sexual intercourse. She muses near the end about whether putting women in mortal danger & making them fear for their lives is perhaps the real source of men's sexual desire & pleasure. This is the kind of stuff that crawls out of only the most wingnutty sociology petri dish.

Yeah, I agree, but I still think there's something to the idea that PIV puts women at a distinct disadvantage and is/can be harmful.


Well that's up for women to decide on their own, not for these feminists to try and tell them what they can and can't do with their bodies, or what's in their best interest, or whether what they're willingly engaging in constitutes rape or 'self-hatred' or whatever.

I don't think someone deciding something is true on their own makes it true. I know people who work and don't think they're exploited, but I don't think you'd stop me from saying "yo work is exploitation".

So yeah saying "well some women like this" isn't really saying anything. If you could argue that PIV isn't harmful or doesn't put women in a precarious position, then that'd be way more relevant.

[Zostrianos]

So yeah saying "well some women like this" isn't really saying anything. If you could argue that PIV isn't harmful or doesn't put women in a precarious position, then that'd be way more relevant.

Well firstly, it's the most basic and common heterosexual act. As for it being harmful or putting women in a precarious position, anything can. Engaging in anal intercourse is actually much more harmful physically, and can damage the colon and sphincter, but people still do it, and willingly. As a non sexual example, if I walk across the street I put myself in a precarious position because a car might run me over, but that's not going to prevent me from crossing the street if I need to.
In the end, like someone mentioned earlier in the thread, it all boils down to equality and consent. Do you and your partner both agree? Do you both want to do it? Does it give you both pleasure? Then do it

[Crixus]

Don't really see anything wrong with this.




because men know that theres something very wrong with women who actually want intercourse. you know, considering how dangerous it is for women, and how much it is clearly against womens best interests. men know this, and they are naming their reality constantly: women would have to be literally insane to want PIV. of course, since no women are free to opt-out of PIV completely, this also implies, doesnt it, that engaging in unwanted intercourse (as opposed to intercourse thats wanted) is actually the sane thing to do, and is what passes as sanity for women. rape and rapeability as sanity, and evidence of good mental health, for women. omg. but i digress.All penis in vagina sex is rape. I spelled it out for you. Women who want sex are insane.





there are apparently some women who like it (sex). looooove it, even. and i am sick of hearing about it, but its not because i dont understand it, and its not because it challenges my position and i dont like being challenged.She then obfuscates her position that sex is rape by introducing some real concerns women have surrounding unwanted pregnancies, introduces some lame charts and graphs as some sort of proof of a point and goes on to say men enjoy the terror women feel when they have sex in what all ends up as some idealist diatribe against sex which would be no different if patriarchy didn't exist. It's banter employed to justify her position that all PIV sex is rape and harmful to women.

Do you think all sex is harmful to women? Do you enjoy the "terror" you cause women when you have sex? This blog is pure junk.

[#FF0000]

Well firstly, it's the most basic and common heterosexual act.

So?


As for it being harmful or putting women in a precarious position, anything can. Engaging in anal intercourse is actually much more harmful physically, and can damage the colon and sphincter, but people still do it, and willingly.

That doesn't mean that PIV isn't harmful, though.


As a non sexual example, if I walk across the street I put myself in a precarious position because a car might run me over, but that's not going to prevent me from crossing the street if I need to.


Hahaha in a city built around the combustion engine I think you could definitely say that pedestrians and cyclists are put at risk, though!


In the end, like someone mentioned earlier in the thread, it all boils down to equality and consent. Do you and your partner both agree? Do you both want to do it? Does it give you both pleasure? Then do it

I don't think "choice" is all that there is to liberation, though, in any case. In the case of feminism, pretty much anything a woman does can be considered "EMPOWERING" from picking what shirt to wear to what radio station to turn on to whatever. I think things have to go beyond "choice".

[#FF0000]

Do you think all sex is harmful to women?

I don't think it's all rape, but I do think that there is something to the idea that PIV at the very least puts women in a disadvantageous position. It certainly can be harmful to women.

[Crixus]

I don't think it's all rape, but I do think that there is something to the idea that PIV at the very least puts women in a disadvantageous position. It certainly can be harmful to women.
No shit. Women can die in childbirth, pregnancy itself is something women have to deal with (and men don't). The idea of a thing growing inside me freaks me out. To act as if men are completely oblivious to these things while also acting as if women have no agency is absurd but not as absurd as your knee jerk defense of anything 'feminism'. And she's not just talking about her experience once again the broad brush universality of every woman having her experience is toted as some sort of 'science' (hence the charts). Women who enjoy sex are brainwashed, they know no better. Sex is harmful to them because of "the" patriarchy. No no and no. It's all rooted in Dworkin's theory to reject penis in vagina sex. You'd know this if you actually knew what you were defending.

[#FF0000]

No shit. Women can die in childbirth, pregnancy itself is something women have to deal with (and men don't). The idea of a thing growing inside me freaks me out. To act as if men are completely oblivious to these thingswhile also acting as if women have no agency

Whether men are oblivious to the problems or not is irrelevant to the point, though isn't it? And I don't think she ever said or did anything to act like women have no agency. Even so, I'm not defending that.


is absurd but not as absurd as your knee jerk defense of anything 'feminism'.I said I didn't agree with some of the things that were said. I don't think there's anything wrong about the idea that PIV can be harmful to women, though. Apparently you don't, either.


And she's not just talking about her experience once again the broad brush universality of every woman having her experience is toted as some sort of 'science' (hence the charts). Women who enjoy sex are brainwashed, they know no better. Sex is harmful to them because of "the" patriarchy. No no and no.It wasn't ever argued that sex is harmful because of the patriarchy. And whether or not other women share her exact experience or even agree with her is irrelevant to that point as well. The charts are silly and don't do anything but add a facade of scientific objectivity, but ignoring them, I think the basic idea that PIV is harmful to women (which you apparently agree with as well?) stands well enough on its own.

[Orange Juche]

All this "my ego is fucking awesome and I'm right, you're wrong fuckface!" posturing is great and whatnot... but to me, it seems rape-supporter is a fairly straightforward term. You either support rape through ideology, which most people don't, or you support things that create situations of rape (or seek to justify them) and are indifferent (which there is more of).

Going into abstract bullshit beyond that, to me, seems fucking ridiculous and is just fuel to the fire for all the reprehensibly misogynistic bullshit that passes in our culture on a thin line (like "men's rights" stuff).

[Crixus]

It wasn't ever argued that sex is harmful because of the patriarchy.
Read the first paragraph and get back to me.

If you can't understand the first paragraph read her own words what her main point is from comments below the 'article'


all my PIV posts are about cost-benefit analyses, really, and how PIV is never worth the risk, for women. and how mens active desire to harm women, and the ways men actively and passively benefit from harming women fits into all of this for men


once I started seeing men for what they really are, I mostly stopped being attracted to them, as a class. In general, they are repulsive to me now. But any way you get there is the right way, isn’t it?


http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2012/02/24/bad-sense/

[#FF0000]

Read the first paragraph and get back to me.

If you can't understand the first paragraph read her own words what her main point is from comments below the 'article'

"all my PIV posts are about cost-benefit analyses, really, and how PIV is never worth the risk, for women. and how mens active desire to harm women, and the ways men actively and passively benefit from harming women fits into all of this for men "

The "Men's active desire to harm women" bit is probably the only thing I have a problem with here. I have to wonder what sort of social arrangement could do away with the issues around PIV, tho (certainly the patriarchy isn't all that makes it dangerous).

[Crixus]

The "Men's active desire to harm women" bit is probably the only thing I have a problem with here. I have to wonder what sort of social arrangement could do away with the issues around PIV, tho (certainly the patriarchy isn't all that makes it dangerous).
There's nothing to wonder. This sort of subjective idealist banter has nothing to do with anything we should even remotely associate ourselves with. Men as a separate class. Men are repulsive (she's entitled to her opinion but it's nice to know where her views are coming from and also the mindframe Radical Feminism fosters on many occasion). Heterosexual sex is rape (as in, there is no voluntary PIV sex). Subjective charts and graphs to 'prove' women experience terror just by the act of sex alone (which were employed to simply try to frame her subjective opinion as material fact, a lot of Radical Feminists do this to give the guise of scientific analysis). All sex under 'the' patriarchy is oppressive etc. She even went on to say men are all necrophiliacs in another post. It's all too much and it's becoming all too common and it's creating all too big of a backlash against feminism in general.

[#FF0000]

There's nothing to wonder. This sort of subjective idealist banter has nothing to do with anything we should even remotely associate ourselves with. Men as a separate class. Men are repulsive (she's entitled to her opinion but it's nice to know where her views are coming from and also the mindframe Radical Feminism fosters on many occasion). Heterosexual sex is rape (as in, there is no voluntary PIV sex). Subjective charts and graphs to 'prove' women experience terror just by the act of sex alone (which were employed to simply try to frame her subjective opinion as material fact, a lot of Radical Feminists do this to give the guise of scientific analysis). All sex under 'the' patriarchy is oppressive etc. She even went on to say men are all necrophiliacs in another post.

That's all awesome but literally none of that I defended. Like I said, the idea that the current state of things as well as PIV puts women at a disadvantage rings true enough, and I don't think there's anything subjective about that.


. It's all too much and it's becoming all too common and it's creating all too big of a backlash against feminism in general.

No it's not becoming common, though. Radical Feminists are hella rare these days. And if someone sees a radical feminist critique on a thing, and then goes on to think "ALL FEMINISTS THINK THIS WAY", then that's a them problem, not a problem with feminism. I think that gives most anti-feminists way too much credit, though. I don't think there's any sort of backlash against feminism because anyone is reacting negatively towards anything a feminist ever wrote. It's more about what the straw-feminist in their heads wrote or say.

[bcbm]

It's all too much and it's becoming all too common and it's creating all too big of a backlash against feminism in general.

for someone who talks about materialist analysis this seems like the antithesis of that.

[Luís Henrique]

Don't really see anything wrong with this.

There is the glaring fallacy of the "two forms of sex fight".

According to her, women who do not want sex are pathologised as "frigid", and women who want too much sex are pathologised as "nymphomaniacs". I am far from sure that those are the actual definitions of "frigidity" and "nymphomania" in medical discourse (rather than the inability to achieve sexual pleasure in one case, and the inability to satiate sexual desire in the other). But let's ignore that for the moment.

Further, she tells us that the pathologisation of nymphomaniacs proves that men know (not "think", but "know") that for women to like and want sex is insane - which, since women do have to have sex for reasons of reproducing and pleasing men, means that "unwanted intercourse is actually the sane thing to do", and consequently, that being available for rape is the benchmark of sanity for women under patriarchy.

And why is that wrong, and why have I called it a "fallacy"?

Because it is a fallacy of excluded middle. In between "not wanting sex at all" and "wanting too much sex" there is a continuum. True, under patriarchal relations, it is the sex drive of the man that is normative - a woman "is", or can be, if necessary, construed as "frigid" if she wants sex in a way that is disturbingly infrequent in the opinion of her male partner; a woman "is", or can be, if necessary, construed as "nymphomaniac" if she wants sex in a way that is disturbingly too frequent in the opinion of her male partner - though the very fact that there is a "sex fight" around such an issue shows that women can and do have agency on the issue - rejecting their partners advances if they think they are excessive, or demanding more sex, or going for alternative sources of sexual pleasure, if they rate their partner insufficiently motivated.

But even with such caveats, it stands to reason that there is a wide range of sexual drive levels, between "frigidity" and "nymphomania", that is generally accepted - within modern secularised societies at least - as "normal", and that does not necessarily - and quite certainly not even frequently - equates with accepting unwanted sex.

So, look at it again. Do you still maintain that there is "nothing wrong" with the article? Perhaps you don't see a fallacy there, or perhaps you don't think there is anything wrong with logical fallacies?

Luís Henrique

[Invader Zim]

Trans people are also males, invading women's spaces, and thus also rapists.

http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/the-purpose-of-transgenderism/

That blog is a gem, as reactionary as nearly anything you are likely to see on the internet.


Like I said, the idea that the current state of things as well as PIV puts women at a disadvantage rings true enough, and I don't think there's anything subjective about that.

How does 'PIV' (lulwut?) place women 'at a disadvantage'? Or do you buy into the blogger's spirit-crushingly, condescending and misogynistic views of other women? That women are incapable of reaching an informed decision to do what they like with their bodies and act on their own desires? Oh wait, I remember now, they only want to have sex because of the patriarchal programming they have received from birth. Biology, and their own wants and desires, apparently have nothing to do with it - and that, unlike the blogger (and other 'real feminists', unlike all those other pseudo-feminists (no true Scotsman fallacy, anybody?)), women are just to fucking dumb to see it, poor little airheads.

As I noted in an earlier post, these kinds of assumptions actually trivialize rape and they are a gross insult to the intelligence of all women who don't share these assumptions. The very notion is dis-empowering to its very core.

I get social construction theory, really I do. I'm sold on it in fact, most of my professional life has been dedicated to writing gender history with it as an underlying assumption. But the arguments and assumptions of this blog utterly eliminate agency (except when it comes to men, apparently, we know that every-time we have sex we are committing a rape apparently) and biology. The whole blog is utterly contemptuous of women, and the only group that the blogger seems to hate more than women are men. Oh, and transgendered people.

[#FF0000]

How does 'PIV' (lulwut?) place women 'at a disadvantage'?

From what I understand, it's pregnancy, mainly. Even using contraception (which itself can be a pain for women to use), A woman still risks pregnancy and all the complications that come along with that, even if they have access to things like the morning-after pill and abortions.


Or do you buy into the blogger's spirit-crushingly, condescending and misogynistic views of other women? That women are incapable of reaching an informed decision to do what they like with their bodies and act on their own desires?

I want to point out that nothing else you posted has anything to do with the point of PIV being harmful. Women can willingly and enthusiastically engage in PIV sex and it wouldn't change whether or not it's harmful -- so I'm not sure why everyone keeps going on about that.

[#FF0000]

So, look at it again. Do you still maintain that there is "nothing wrong" with the article? Perhaps you don't see a fallacy there, or perhaps you don't think there is anything wrong with logical fallacies?

Nah I went back on "there's nothing wrong with the article" real quick when people started pointing out things I missed while skimming it. I'm pretty much just defending the idea that PIV is or can be harmful.

[Luís Henrique]

Nah I went back on "there's nothing wrong with the article" real quick when people started pointing out things I missed while skimming it. I'm pretty much just defending the idea that PIV is or can be harmful.

Is there anyone disagreeing that it can be harmful?

I mean, who has yet said that genital heterosexual sex cannot possible cause unwanted pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases?

But thanks for admitting that the article does get a few things quite wrong (the one I pointed, by the way, is far from being the worst).

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

Is there anyone disagreeing that it can be harmful?

Apparently not, so I'm not sure what the raging over the past page and a half has been about

[Crixus]

for someone who talks about materialist analysis this seems like the antithesis of that.
LOL. I think I mentioned that some feminists are idealists but, ugh, ya, as Marxists we should all be materialists. This should be no secret on this forum? With the MRA types a lot of the push back originally came out of family law. Fathers not being able to see their kids etc. I would think there are some cases where fathers are unfairly penalized by the system but as we talked about in the other thread a woman's independence can be measured by her ability to be independent of the nuclear family and to be financially independent. Anyhow, here's a lot of abusive husbands out there that women need to have nothing to do with. I'm sure a few 'good guys' get caught up and I'm sure a few 'bad women' use the family court system to make decent fathers suffer. There's bad people, both male and female but by in large women are in need of the family law system to come down in their favor as to set the foundation for the womans independence from the man. That's the source of some of the backlash.

Another source is abortion and religion. No need to go there.

The source of backlash I was referring is the more theoretical aspects of Radical Feminism. Notably the divide between antisex and pro sex feminism. in this divide, with the anti sex feminists, there's a certain way they see all men and it's rather abhorrent and this view of men FEEDS both men and women's dislike of feminism (outside of the people who oppose it because of the family law issues and abortions issues). In turn these MRA types who oppose just about everything concerning feminism use some Radical Feminist theory and countless blog posts showing the mind frame this theory creates to "win people over" to their side and many people, on their own, run across theory in practice (Donglegate?) and become, lets say, unsupportive of feminism.

To the point, I can give a lot of examples of people being turned off or away from feminism because of some loud in your face batshit Radical Feminist theory which is really what you're asking for but I would think it's all rather obvious yes?

[#FF0000]

words

You can't blame radical feminists for people being so dumb as to take something they disagree with and thinking "oh all of feminism thinks this". That is the fault of the person being dumb.

And further I think it's really silly to blame radical feminists at all because, like I said, they're not especially common or influential these days. Even things like Donglegate are exceedingly minor (and, like was said in that thread, wasn't even the fault of feminists -- the company that fired anyone involved was the party that should have been criticized). I think there's such a reaction to things like this because I think a lot of folks who get outraged on the internet at these things just don't like women -- and that's an observation coming from an entire young life spent on 4chan.

[Crixus]

You can't blame radical feminists for people being so dumb as to take something they disagree with and thinking "oh all of feminism thinks this". That is the fault of the person being dumb.

I dont think it's a matter of people being so dumb as I explained in another post many Radical Feminists use broad brush bullhorn tactic's to gain attention and much of the stuff they're putting out is garbage. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and their wheel is quite squeeky on the internet these days. I think it's more of a matter of time and inclination. I have the time and inclination to separate factual analysis from subjective opinion but even some of us who do have the time and inclination still don't have the ability to separate subjective opinion from factual analysis I kinda touched on with this post:




My quick two cents. I have a problem when people advocate 'the' patriarchy as being the historical source of class, men being the oppressor class and women the oppressed. Also in doing so many times this oppression is painted as universal, all men benefiting from it, all men perpetuating it either consciously or subconsciously- taken to it's conclusion, (one example only) in a thread on this site, a person went as far as to say we all support rape. This will no doubt have it's roots in rape culture theory, rape culture does indeed exist but not as the universal homogenous force experienced at all times by all people. I'd say with youth it's much more prevalent. To say we all support rape is, well, no.



Organizing along the lines with people who need their own spaces to feel safe, ends up being intellectual spaces so as to not have theory challenged (which is always framed as mens "oppressive resubstantiation of patriarchal relations) gets a tad complicated. When men become one class, the oppressor class, and women the oppressed class which needs liberating from the oppressor class (men) it's comparable to asking workers to organize with capitalists. I certainly wouldn't do it but such is the mindframe some feminist theory (mostly Radical Feminism) creates. Women are in danger at all times in every situation. There is no escape from patriarchal relations. EVERYTHING is lain at the feet of 'the' patriarchy.

On the other hand Materialist and Socialist Feminism is attacked as nonsense by Radical Feminists and Materialist and Socialist feminists cave in all too much ground and end up adopting much of the questionable RadFem theory. Historical materialism shows us most of the source of woman's subordination to man is found in her relation to the means of production/sustenance. This is behind the major push to get women in the work force under capitalism now but in the end most of us are still subordinate to a capitalist. This sort of "reformism" has indeed helped women liberate themselves from abusive situations, mostly domestic. This struggle is by far not over though and needs to expand beyond women in the work force and it has/is. Where we get into some problems is when, as I said, the universal conception of the patriarchy is pushed as the basis of theory and the reason Radical Feminists attack Materialist Feminists is because much of the Radical Feminist theory will have no material basis. In the end we end up with a hodgepodge of Radical Feminist theory mixed with Materialist/Marxist/Socialist feminist theory and a lot of ideas, when taken to their conclusion, become rather absurd.

Contention is the end result. Take the sex negative position for instance. Some people on this site may be sex negative, some may be sex positive. What's the theoretical foundation for the sex negative position? I think discussing this will highlight why there's problems with a lot of Radical Feminist theory bleeding into the overall feminist tradition but then again we have people like Ellen Willis within the Radical Feminst tradition who came to different conclusions than, lets say, Andrea Dworkin.

It becomes a large cluster of arguments and theories and factions and tendencies much like the overall Marxist and Anarchist traditions. Feminism as a whole shouldn't be avoided, thrown out or ignored much in the same light that we would obviously not ignore Marxist or Anarchist theory. Sifting through it all is something the average person has not the time or inclination to do which means just as North Korea is paraded around as "Marxism" a lot of batshit feminist theory is paraded around as representative of feminism which in turn manufactures knee jerk reactions. Even us on the left who are paying half way attention can't agree on what's correct theory and what isn't. It's a mess but it's a mess not limited to feminism.

[#FF0000]

I dont think it's a matter of people being so dumb as

All the people who cry huge baby tears about feminism on the internet literally has access to the closest thing to the sum of all human knowledge and instead of taking a second to google what this whole "feminism" thing is about, decide to make a snap judgement based on what someone on tumblr said that hurt their feewings. At best, that's people being dumb. At worst it's people making up excuses to justify their vague dislike of women.

Don't get me wrong though, there's plenty to criticize in all branches and shapes and forms of feminism. But I'm not going to blame people coming to ill-informed conclusions on a group of people just because I don't agree with them.

(And that's another thing -- whether or not people "react" to them is irrelevant to whether or not radical feminists are correct or not. I'm more interested in that than how people react to them)

[Crixus]

All the people who cry huge baby tears about feminism on the internet literally has access to the closest thing to the sum of all human knowledge and instead of taking a second to google what this whole "feminism" thing is about, decide to make a snap judgement based on what someone on tumblr said that hurt their feewings. At best, that's people being dumb. At worst it's people making up excuses to justify their vague dislike of women.

Don't get me wrong though, there's plenty to criticize in all branches and shapes and forms of feminism. But I'm not going to blame people coming to ill-informed conclusions on a group of people just because I don't agree with them.

(And that's another thing -- whether or not people "react" to them is irrelevant to whether or not radical feminists are correct or not. I'm more interested in that than how people react to them)
It may be a little of both. You don't think there's been Marxists who have given Marxism a bad name?

[#FF0000]

It may be a little of both. You don't think there's been Marxists who have given Marxism a bad name?

Maoist Rebel News is basically worse than Stalin, but even then I wouldn't blame him for people trying to criticize marxism without knowing anything about it.

[Crixus]

Maoist Rebel News is basically worse than Stalin, but even then I wouldn't blame him for people trying to criticize marxism without knowing anything about it.
Marxist theorists, leaders and nations. Theory in practice. It's been a big obstacle to many people accepting communism. Explaining away all of the stuff that happened in Russia, China, Cambodia, North Korea, East Germany etc is something pivotal to westerners accepting communism as a viable system. We need to convince people that's not what communism would look like. Maoist Rebel News highlights places like North Korea in a positive light. Yes I'd say people like him hurt our cause. Why does this site ban Maoist Third Worldists? Because to propagate their ideas is a thorn in communism's side.

[#FF0000]

I'd say they hurt our cause because they're wrong, though, not because people strongly disagree with them.

And we restrict third worldists because they go against the party line we say doesn't exist. I don't agree with Third Worldists at all but I don't believe they ought to be restricted. v:mellow:v

[Crixus]

I'd say they hurt our cause because they're wrong, though, not because people strongly disagree with them.


Check out that book I posted in the other thread. At this point I'm not even sure you understand the big picture. Starting with the sex pos/neg divide is a good place to start in order to grasp the mind frame that the sex neg position creates. This mind frame pushes a lot of people away from feminism in general. Did it happen with me? No, but here I am on a site with the ability to talk about long dead obscure Marxists, anarchists, capitalists, philosophers etc. The average person isn't like us you know. I wouldn't call them dumb, just preoccupied with other things. If they're all dumb then the working class we're trying to reach is dumb.

edit- I mean, look at the first post in this thread "this is being passed around and is being used by anti-feminists".

[Ele'ill]

what exactly is this thread about at this point

[Crixus]

what exactly is this thread about at this point

The source of shifty theory.

[Invader Zim]

From what I understand, it's pregnancy, mainly. Even using contraception (which itself can be a pain for women to use), A woman still risks pregnancy and all the complications that come along with that, even if they have access to things like the morning-after pill and abortions.



I want to point out that nothing else you posted has anything to do with the point of PIV being harmful. Women can willingly and enthusiastically engage in PIV sex and it wouldn't change whether or not it's harmful -- so I'm not sure why everyone keeps going on about that.

You clearly misunderstand what the blogger and her commenters are actually saying.

"PIV" (seriously, the most ludicrous acronym I've ever come across) is inherently an act of rape - that is what they are saying. The 'disadvantage' (your word, not theirs incidentally) refers to, besides the obvious issue of STDs and pregnancy (the former which can, of course, be shared), is the fact that a woman has had sex with a man. In the mind of this blogger, that is, in-of-it-self an act of rape. That the man, knowingly and deliberately, has helped to create and/or perpetuate a social system that relegates all hetrosexual activity to 'rape' because women are at a, to use your word, 'disadvantage' or, to use their's, 'pathologized' into agreeing to sexual intercourse. This is the problem, and this is what women are allegedly subjected to in each and every act of sexual intercourse. Read the blog - That is what these people are saying.

If they were talking about pregnancy, STDs, and indeed actual materially grounded, and observable, patriarchy then I would agree with them. And indeed I do agree that what you suggest, that sex does place women at a "disadvantage" (if that is the right word), which is why the onus on choice when it comes to reproduction must squarely rest with the individual doing the heavy lifting (to employ a crude analogy). But that isn't what these radical "feminists" are saying. Not at all. They are saying that men have willingly and knowingly constructed and created a society in which their partners are invariably 'pathologized' into having sex with them and therefore: - 'PIV' = 'rape'. In other words, a more eloquent paraphrase of their words to be exact, sex is the product of an imbalanced "class" system, in which males and females represent distinct social classes. And that men are invariably aware of this, exploit it and are comfortable with it.

I'm not going to explain why this is an utter misapplication of the term class and why each of its assumptions are entirely incompatible with a materially, evidence based, analysis of society. If you don't get that you are well beyond my powers of persuasion.

[Invader Zim]

what exactly is this thread about at this point

I'm not sure, but as I see it a critique of a brand of reactionary thought which conflates gender with class, characterises women asv utterly weak and incapable of agency, and trivialises rape - perhaps the most egregious power-centric crime against an individual's autonomy imaginable. That blog contains nebulous and superficially attractive ideas which challenge the status quo, but nevertheless at their core these ideas are deeply reactionary, and (now that it has come up) it cannot, and nor can its defender(s), go without challenge via the medium of considered discussion. To not do so would be to render obsolete the entire object of this board as I understand it - a space for leftwing discussion and education.

[#FF0000]

You clearly misunderstand what the blogger and her commenters are actually saying.

You clearly misunderstand that I don't care what the blogger is saying and I am only defending the idea that PIV is/can be harmful.

[Luís Henrique]

You clearly misunderstand that I don't care what the blogger is saying and I am only defending the idea that PIV is/can be harmful.

Which no one else that I know of disputes. So you are alone having a discussion on this issue, against some imaginary opposition, when everybody else is discussing what Invader Zim just summarised.

And, also, the idea that heterosexual genital sex (that's how sane people call it) "is or can be harmful" isn't exactly a theoretical breakthrough. Any person with two neurones, even if they are utterly ignorant and reactionary, knows this is true. Women die of childbirth complications, have died of that since the dawn of times, and have often been abandoned with their child when the pregnancy is over. Indeed, the realisation of such fact is very much ingrained in the ideological justification for patriarchy; it is the "protection" of women from such dangers that reactionary of all kinds use as a pretext when they argue that women have to be "protected" by marriage, monogamy, and enforced sexual abstention when they do not have legal sexual partners. This blog simply rehashes such arguments, covers them in a (quite transparent) "feminist" veneer, and puts it forth.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

That blog contains nebulous and superficially attractive ideas which challenge the status quo, but nevertheless at their core these ideas are deeply reactionary

It also makes a pastiche of Marxist terminology, and this is part and parcel of its superficial attractiveness.

Luís Henrique

[bcbm]

LOL. I think I mentioned that some feminists are idealists but, ugh, ya, as Marxists we should all be materialists.

. . .To the point, I can give a lot of examples of people being turned off or away from feminism because of some loud in your face batshit Radical Feminist theory which is really what you're asking for but I would think it's all rather obvious yes?

i don't think backlash against feminism has very much to do with what radical feminists are saying though or even very much with the stuff mra guys are always going on about. i think its a lot more tied in to deindustrialization and the subsequent loss of income and status for a lot of men and continued loss in the years since with underemployment, the hit of the recession etc set against the 'rise' of women during the same time in higher education and a number of fields.

[#FF0000]

Which no one else that I know of disputes. So you are alone having a discussion on this issue, against some imaginary opposition, when everybody else is discussing what Invader Zim just summarised.

People are quoting me and saying "OH SO YOU BELIEVE THIS!?" over and over and over again when I think I've made it pretty clear already what I'm defending. They're the ones chasing windmills, actually.

[Invader Zim]

People are quoting me and saying "OH SO YOU BELIEVE THIS!?" over and over and over again when I think I've made it pretty clear already what I'm defending. They're the ones chasing windmills, actually.
You:

"[on the blog posts we are all talking about: I] Don't really see anything wrong with this."

Yeah, crystal clear.

[bcbm]

Nah I went back on "there's nothing wrong with the article" real quick when people started pointing out things I missed while skimming it.

reading is fun

[MarxArchist]

man i'd be first in line for that discussion if revleft was at all an environment conducive to conversations between people who actually know what they're talking about

ie if blatant dudebro misogyny was actually moderated or even discouraged.
You mean to say when idealism is challenged it's misogyny. I remember you calling me sexist, just read a post where you called a bunch of people racist and now blatant misogyny is rampant on this site. I'd say you're, well, pretty much off base here. I'll echo what I said a while back, if Stalinists enjoyed this sort of monopoly on discussion by having the ability to shut people down with such accusations we'd all be advocating Stalinism. From what I gather there's some pretty bad ideas being discussed here, I'm not seeing any "dudebro" misogyny what I see is any criticism from a male being framed as such. When you said "activists who organize around our own oppression are allowed to make minor semantic mistakes" you're using gender, race, sexual orientation to excuse and defend theory that is much more than "minor semantic mistakes".

[MarxArchist]

yeah i dunno

i think the tone of a discussion is going to be markedly different if it's between people who are interested in talking to each other than it is if it's between like two women and 432894 dudebros who are only interested in defending their abhorrent behavior as if we have any actual power to oppress them based on it and it isn't ultimately their call anyway no matter what we do

which like is why that list is written the way it is, because it's written for that many dudebros instead of being written as a topic that's up for discussion between feminists and other people who don't hate women.

I'm not seeing any hatred of women in this thread but I haven't read the whole thread yet so can you provide some examples please? Can you please provide examples of "dudebros who are only interested in defending their abhorrent behavior"? Thanks.

[Luís Henrique]

People are quoting me and saying "OH SO YOU BELIEVE THIS!?" over and over and over again when I think I've made it pretty clear already what I'm defending. They're the ones chasing windmills, actually.

It seems that you were accusing people of attacking a text that they didn't actually read, while you yourself were defending a text that you didn't actually read:


Nah I went back on "there's nothing wrong with the article" real quick when people started pointing out things I missed while skimming it.

Can we agree that the text is full of absurds, fallacies, and weird "reasoning", to the point that it can't stand on its own premises - as well as full of decontextualised pseudo-leftist verbiage - and that, yes, heterosexual genital sex can be, and often is, harmful to women?

Luís Henrique

[Forward Union]

The three I take issue with are


He argues that people (or just “men”) have sexual “needs.”

Sexual people, be they heteroxexual, homosexual, bisexual, male, female, trans, or even priests all have sexual needs. Some people, who are asexual do not. But why is defining this drive as a need linked to Rape apologism here? It would be rape apologism if I said that those needs justify rape. But they don't, they justify careful and complicated mating rituals where people try to build sexual relations with people they find attractive for whatever personal reason...


He characterizes prostitution as a “legitimate” “job” “choice” or defends men who purchase prostitutes.

I do accept this is a complicated issue. But as a communist I don't really see any job as legitimate. So I'd say that prostitution is as legitiamte as any other job. Failing to recognise it as works means we fail to unionise or organise those people to either improve their conditions under capitalism or (hopefully oneday) abolish their industry altogether. Again, I fail to see how this can be an indication of rape apologism.


He defends the current legal definition of rape and/or opposes making consent a defense.

I don't understand this. The current legal definition of rape where? it's better in some places than in others, but the major problem is that even when the definition is reasonably good, the courts don't convict people because of "lack of evidence" or the assumption that the victim is lying.

"Opposes making consent a defence" ? genuinely confused about that, maybe someone can explain? presumably if the woman consents to sex, that's a pretty good defence against being called a rapist... ?

[blake 3:17]

http://libcom.org/library/betrayal-critical-analysis-rape-culture-anarchist-subcultures

VMC shared this with me in another thread & it's pretty effin good.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I thought the one about talking about women you find sexually attractive was especially strange? How can that possibly be concieved as rape? Doesn't everyone have a type they like?

Me and my friends talk about the girls we find sexualy atractive all the time. When one of us sees a good one, he points her out so that we can see her. This is just normal behaviour, at least for teenagers. None of us supports rape, nor would we ever rape one of those girls.

[Tenka]

The three I take issue with are



Sexual people, be they heteroxexual, homosexual, bisexual, male, female, trans, or even priests all have sexual needs. Some people, who are asexual do not. But why is defining this drive as a need linked to Rape apologism here? It would be rape apologism if I said that those needs justify rape. But they don't, they justify careful and complicated mating rituals where people try to build sexual relations with people they find attractive for whatever personal reason...


While I take no issue with the rest of your post, this is frankly some kind of sexual idealism! The idea that "men have needs" (and that women, if they have needs, must be the needs to satisfy the needs of men) can be as internalised in women as it is in men, and consent as always is a slippery, circumstantial thing.

Of course, I don't believe in "sexual needs". If a man is horny, he has hands; if he doesn't have hands, he could hopefully acquire adequate prosthetic ones. Really, I just wanted to take the opportunity to promote "self-love" for people with raging libido as an alternative to acting in rash ignorance and potentially raping someone. Though I suppose the chances could be minimal if contact is pursued closely enough to the aforementioned ideal--I doubt that it often is.

P.S. I am not in any way promoting the link in the OP, and really don't believe so many things make one a rape-supporter.

[Forward Union]

While I take no issue with the rest of your post, this is frankly some kind of sexual idealism! The idea that "men have needs" (and that women, if they have needs, must be the needs to satisfy the needs of men) can be as internalised in women as it is in men, and consent as always is a slippery, circumstantial thing.

Of course, I don't believe in "sexual needs". If a man is horny, he has hands; if he doesn't have hands, he could hopefully acquire adequate prosthetic ones.

You are not saying he has no needs but multiple ways of fulfilling them.

[Hermes]

I was under the impression that the article, when referring to "sexual needs", meant specific sexual fetishes, etc, rather than simply a reference to libido/sexuality/etc.

It's entirely possible, and most likely, that I was mistaken, however.

[Tenka]

You are not saying he has no needs but multiple ways of fulfilling them.

I am saying horniness isn't a "need". You won't die if you don't have sex, or even if you don't wank, though the latter is often preferable to and safer than the former, if one is just so goddamned "needy"/horny. (notice I put "need" at most times in quotes).

[Comrade #138672]

I like how provoking it is.

Perhaps a few things shouldn't be taken too literally, but the author does have a point. I think that we shouldn't just dismiss the article.

You have to understand that the oppression experienced by women in a patriarchal society, can cause a lot of distress and anger. Then some men take a single item out of the list of an article, written by a radical Feminist, and say: "See? Extremist Feminists are hurting their own cause. I like drunk sex. That isn't rape! How wrong they are." To me that is only proving the Feminists right that their problems are being dismissed so easily.

[Forward Union]

I am saying horniness isn't a "need". You won't die if you don't have sex, or even if you don't wank, though the latter is often preferable to and safer than the former, if one is just so goddamned "needy"/horny. (notice I put "need" at most times in quotes).

One would not die if one didn't have any friendships or social relations at all with anyone ever, but that doesn't mean it's not a need - imagine the effect on the psyche. You are suggesting deep (and extreme) sexual repression as an alternative to engaging in sexual relations with other people or masturbating. I don't really need to say more about it. Just look at priests.

[Tenka]

One would not die if one didn't have any friendships or social relations at all with anyone ever, but that doesn't mean it's not a need - imagine the effect on the psyche. You are suggesting deep (and extreme) sexual repression as an alternative to engaging in sexual relations with other people or masturbating. I don't really need to say more about it. Just look at priests.

I suggested no such thing. Can you read?
Sex isn't a need. Naturally it can increase your quality of life as friendship does; but if you get really horny and pursue sex with another person too rashly, like, say, at a drunken party, you will probably end up raping someone. Seriously.

[Forward Union]

I suggested no such thing. Can you read?
Sex isn't a need. Naturally it can increase your quality of life as friendship does; but if you get really horny and pursue sex with another person too rashly, like, say, at a drunken party, you will probably end up raping someone. Seriously.

Sexual relations are a need for sexual people, as in, people who are not asexual will all at revular intervals in their lives, have sexual thoughts and urges. In other words, if you are not asexual you will find yourself, every so often, sexually attracted to other people. You will also find yourself "horny" sometimes. You have a deep rooted psychological need to act on these impulses, or you will suffer severe psychological damage as a result of sexual repression.

Those "needs" do not justify doing absolutely anything to fullfil them, nor does describing them as needs logically lead to the latter assumption. I can't see any logical link between saying "people have an inbuilt psycholgical need to engage in sexual relations" and "therefore they are justified in raping people". Just seeking sexual relations can be incredibly exciting and fullfilling to, even if the person ends up rejecting you or things don't work out. But to say "people don't need to do any of this" is the logcial equivilant of saying "they could just sexually repress themselves" which I find ridiculous and offensive. If you fail to get to that place in a human relation where sex is something everyone involved, wants, then you'll have to move on to someone else, or, as you say, go and have a wank. But here the individuals is still trying to find ways to satisfy their need which don't involve rape, and treats other people as humans. Which is why I think saying those needs exist is not rape apologism. It's only rape apologism when it's misused by rape apologists to apologise for rape.

[#FF0000]

It seems that you were accusing people of attacking a text that they didn't actually read, while you yourself were defending a text that you didn't actually read:

I read it and stopped defending it hella early on when people pointed out problems with it.


Can we agree that the text is full of absurds, fallacies, and weird "reasoning", to the point that it can't stand on its own premises - as well as full of decontextualised pseudo-leftist verbiage - and that, yes, heterosexual genital sex can be, and often is, harmful to women?

That's p. much the line I've been taking for the past page and a half or so, yeah.

(But I wanna sideline this bit of discussion because it's been 11 pages and we're finally getting decent on-topic responses/discussion)

[#FF0000]

Sexual relations are a need for sexual people, as in, people who are not asexual will all at revular intervals in their lives, have sexual thoughts and urges. In other words, if you are not asexual you will find yourself, every so often, sexually attracted to other people. You will also find yourself "horny" sometimes. You have a deep rooted psychological need to act on these impulses, or you will suffer severe psychological damage as a result of sexual repression.

I think there's a range of options here beyond "sexual relations with another person" and "sexual repression", though.

[Tenka]

Sexual relations are a need for sexual people, as in, people who are not a sexual. If you are not a sexual you will find yourself, every so often, sexually attracted to people. You will also find yourself "horny" sometimes. You have a deep rooted psychological need to act on these impulses, or you will suffer severe psychological issues as a result of sexual repression.

Those "needs" do not justify doing absolutely anything to fullfil them nor does describing them as needs logically lead to the latter assumption. I can't see any logical link between saying "people have an inbuilt psycholgical need to engage in sexual relations" and "therefore they are justified in raping people". Also I don't think consentual sex is the only means of satisfying ones own needs, lots of people want lots of different things in different ways, but as long as all parties agree to it, there's no moral issue. Seeking sexual relations can be incredibly exciting and fullfilling to. But to say "people don't need to do any of this" is the logcial equivilant of saying "they could just sexually repress themselves" which I find ridiculous and offensive.

Personally I am offended by some people's urges to go out seeking sexual relations with strangers (in which case, if alcohol or drugs are involved, it could very well result in rape), and find it ridiculous to call these inclinations a "need" when they could very well satisfy their horniness with their hands instead. And I am by no means asexual, nor is wanking "sexual repression".

[Comrade #138672]

Me and my friends talk about the girls we find sexualy atractive all the time. When one of us sees a good one, he points her out so that we can see her. This is just normal behaviour, at least for teenagers. None of us supports rape, nor would we ever rape one of those girls.Well, do you ever point out a girl based on her personality or skills? Or are you just reducing her to her looks?

You see, in a patriarchal society, sexist behavior may be considered "normal". This does not mean that it is "natural".

Of course, there may be a time when you see someone who takes your breath away somehow based on some kind of attraction. But that is completely different from systematically "checking out" girls with your male friends and saying how "hot" they are or that you would "do" them.

[Forward Union]

I think there's a range of options here beyond "sexual relations with another person" and "sexual repression", though.

I think there are three options. Either the person is asexual, in which case fine. Or if the person is not, then they have a range of sexual needs meaning the other two options are a) persuing those needs or b) Sexual Repression.

Persuing those needs does not justify rape. Different cultures, regions, times and individuals all have different taboos and boundries, but whatever examples you want to give you're still admitting that that these people have/had a need to perform sexual acts. You can disprove me by providing scientific proof that sexual repression is completely mentally harmless and relatively easy to do to yourself knowingly or that no one has any in built sex drive and we are the only species in history to exist outside of evolution, space and time and who only choose to engage in sexual for fun.

A tall order. I'd rather be on my side of this debte.

[Quail]

Me and my friends talk about the girls we find sexualy atractive all the time. When one of us sees a good one, he points her out so that we can see her. This is just normal behaviour, at least for teenagers. None of us supports rape, nor would we ever rape one of those girls.
I notice you're in Portugal so maybe your unfortunate choice of a phrase here is because English isn't your first language. However, referring to a woman you find attractive as "a good one" isn't a very respectful thing to say. It reduces women to objects and reinforces the idea that a woman's value is based on the way she looks.

[Luís Henrique]

Personally I am offended by some people's urges to go out seeking sexual relations with strangers (in which case, if alcohol or drugs are involved, it could very well result in rape), and find it ridiculous to call these inclinations a "need" when they could very well satisfy their horniness with their hands instead.

What is the problem with people having sexual relations with strangers? I mean, if I am not the "stranger" in question, what do I even have to do with it (and if I am, what about "no"?)

Rape is not sexual relations with strangers, rape is forcing someone (be it a stranger or not) to have sexual relations.

Luís Henrique

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

Personally I am offended by some people's urges to go out seeking sexual relations with strangers (in which case, if alcohol or drugs are involved, it could very well result in rape), and find it ridiculous to call these inclinations a "need" when they could very well satisfy their horniness with their hands instead. And I am by no means asexual, nor is wanking "sexual repression".
Hands are neither substitutes for intimacy nor for actual sex partners.

[Tenka]

What is the problem with people having sexual relations with strangers? I mean, if I am not the "stranger" in question, what do I even have to do with it (and if I am, what about "no"?)

Rape is not sexual relations with strangers, rape is forcing someone (be it a stranger or not) to have sexual relations.

Luís Henrique

I did not say that it was. I said that going out and meeting strangers for the purpose of having sex, if alcohol or drugs are involved, could very well result in what is in essence a rape. They don't even necessarily have to be total strangers, if recent high school atrocities are anything to go by. (I edited this part to shit because I had misremembered certain details of a certain case; apologies to anyone who saw it before.)

It's not a radical or (as far as I know) uncommon position here, so I don't know why so much issue is being taken with it.

MEGAMANTROTSKY:

Hands are neither substitutes for intimacy nor for actual sex partners.

If you're just horny using your hands will make you feel less inclined to meet new people to have risky (both emotionally and otherwise) sex with.

[#FF0000]

I think there are three options. Either the person is asexual, in which case fine. Or if the person is not, then they have a range of sexual needs meaning the other two options are a) persuing those needs or b) Sexual Repression.

Yeah I'm saying there's other ways of persuing those needs other than sex with other people though.


Hands are neither substitutes for intimacy nor for actual sex partners.

Er, well it's certainly not the same but one certainly doesn't "need" partners for sex. It's just not a need.

Weird tangent.

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

If you're just horny using your hands will make you feel less inclined to meet new people to have risky (both emotionally and otherwise) sex with.
Here's what I think to be the nub of this issue: Can people live with pleasure, or can they live without it? I do not believe that they can live without it. I regard pleasure in general to be a profound human need that is entirely inseparable from culture and the other characteristics of our society.

For me, sex is a social activity, and participation with other partners in the act can heighten the sensation of pleasure that can be experienced. And pleasure itself is of course not restricted to sex, but also eating and exercising. But following your logic, it could be argued that we don't need those things, or elements of it, to survive either. After all, we don't "need" chocolate or sweets to live, nor do we need to do squat-thrusts, despite what they mean to those who believe they do.

And here's where I have a problem: You're putting a utilitarian twist on the acquisition of pleasure that deprives it of any importance or meaning in society. This is a position that I regard to have very conservative, and perhaps puritanical implications. But take that as you will. Sex, to people themselves, is more than the sum of its ability to propagate the species (obviously this doesn't apply to asexuals, but for me that's an entirely different topic).


Er, well it's certainly not the same but one certainly doesn't "need" partners for sex. It's just not a need.
Says who? You? What about those who feel that they actually do need a partner or partners to enjoy sex to its fullest? This is so unbelievably "ivory tower" that I cannot believe it is taking place on a forum that supposedly includes those who wish to bring about an entirely new society, not condescend to men and women on what they "actually" need. It is as if the role of consciousness and the mind (as somewhat autonomous from the brain with its own rules and needs) has no say of its own here! Now people, as a general rule, do not always know what is best for them. If it were otherwise, psychology wouldn't "need" to exist, and capitalism may have ended, or perhaps never happened at all. But it hardly follows that ordinary people, lacking socialist class consciousness or otherwise, know nothing about their own needs.

I would be curious to see how a group of workers would react to your ideas. My guess is that you would both leave drenched in tomato slop, and rightfully so.

[MarxArchist]

Source material for this anti sex with strangers position, second wave feminism's attack on the "sexual revolution".

[#FF0000]

I would be curious to see how a group of workers would react to your ideas. My guess is that you would both leave drenched in tomato slop, and rightfully so.

Nah dude I don't think anyone aside from you would take offense to me saying that not having sex would not kill a person.

You're free to show me someone who literally died because they didn't have sex, though.

[Lucretia]

Nah dude I don't think anyone aside from you would take offense to me saying that not having sex would not kill a person.

You're free to show me someone who literally died because they didn't have sex, though.

Being restricted on Revleft wouldn't kill you, but I don't think you'd greet the suggestion with arms open. I think Megaman's point was that sex by virtue of how the human body is configured generally tends to be a pleasurable experience, and that as such it constitutes a social need (if not a physiological one, though I would be curious to know what science says about the health of people who don't have any sex versus those who do).

To say that abstaining won't lead you to have a cardiac arrest is beside the point, don't you think?

[#FF0000]

Being restricted on Revleft wouldn't kill you, but I don't think you'd greet the suggestion with arms open. I think Megaman's point was that sex by virtue of how the human body is configured generally tends to be a pleasurable experience, and that as such it constitutes a social need (if not a physiological one, though I would be curious to know what science says about the health of people who don't have any sex versus those who do).

Whatever his point was he better find another way to make it because liking something a lot does not make it a "need".

What is a social need?


To say that abstaining won't lead you to have a cardiac arrest is beside the point, don't you think?No, because people are saying sex is a "need" and that's not true.

[MarxArchist]

Intimate human contact is a need or a part of being a healthy social being. Part of intimate human contact for a lot of people involves sex.

[Tenka]

Being restricted on Revleft wouldn't kill you, but I don't think you'd greet the suggestion with arms open. I think Megaman's point was that sex by virtue of how the human body is configured generally tends to be a pleasurable experience, and that as such it constitutes a social need (if not a physiological one, though I would be curious to know what science says about the health of people who don't have any sex versus those who do).

To say that abstaining won't lead you to have a cardiac arrest is beside the point, don't you think?

Okay but nobody's arguing against sex as such. Sometimes it's better to satisfy oneself, and it's certainly not a "need" even for someone with high libido to use another person for this. I know; I've not had sex once in the 12 years since I first, you know....

For my part, I don't appreciate the out on the prowl attitude of some men who would so much rather go out seeking sex with other people (for example, at bars or parties) than just have a wank and be done with it.

I too am curious if there are any such studies though; if not, there should be. Though I wouldn't volunteer.

[#FF0000]

Intimate human contact is a need or a part of being a healthy social being. Part of intimate human contact for a lot of people involves sex.

I understand that it's a desire a lot of people (maybe even everyone) has, and that physical/emotional intimacy are certainly good for people, but I'm not sure if that's a need, and even if it was, that doesn't necessarily make sex a need either.

[MarxArchist]

I understand that it's a desire a lot of people (maybe even everyone) has, and that physical/emotional intimacy are certainly good for people, but I'm not sure if that's a need, and even if it was, that doesn't necessarily make sex a need either.
I could survive without having sex yes. I could also survive in a supermax prison cell. The problem arises when people, or, men, say "I have needs" and pressure or guilt trip their partners into sex. Major problem. I think, also, having such urgent "needs" where a person constantly "needs" to go out looking for people to have sex with is rather unhealthy. Anyhow, people who have no sexual desire, which I understand exists, probably find intimacy in other ways.

I mean, is socialization in general a "need" for survival? I don't even "need" a variety of food stuff. I could drink liquid nutrients everyday. I could probably survive without speaking. Life shouldn't have to be so drab.

[Lucretia]

Whatever his point was he better find another way to make it because liking something a lot does not make it a "need".

What is a social need?

No, because people are saying sex is a "need" and that's not true.

Your inability to distinguish physiological needs from social needs is disturbing for a Marxist. It makes it seem as though every society operates with a same measure of necessity as all the others. In which case we have the same needs in the twenty-first-century Western Europe as hunter-gatherers did. In an abstract sense -- bare amount of caloric intake -- this is true, but how people acquire calories changes, and therefore so do their needs. On this issue, see the first page of the German Ideology about the satisfaction of needs creating new needs.

As Marx noted, needs are "historic needs – needs created by production itself, social needs – needs which are themselves the offspring of social production and intercourse." And these historic needs are necessary for society to reproduce itself as a given level of development - both technological and human. To think that sexuality is not something habitually required by socially developed human beings in the twenty-first century is breathtaking.

[#FF0000]

I could survive without having sex yes. I could also survive in a supermax prison cell. Would I be a well rounded healthy individual?

I think one could be, yeah. Maybe not in a supermax prison cell, but not having sex, sure.


The problem arises when people, or, men, say "I have needs" and pressure or guilt trip their partners into sex. Major problem. I think, also, having such urgent "needs" where a person constantly "needs" to go out looking for people to have sex with is rather unhealthy.

Of course.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I could survive without having sex yes. I could also survive in a supermax prison cell. Would I be a well rounded healthy individual? The problem arises when people, or, men, say "I have needs" and pressure or guilt trip their partners into sex.

This is however the practical result of the classification as a need. Even in cases where there is "consent", this might not be heartfelt, a sort of, "let's get this over with" when the woman does not feel like it, but her partner is antsy to get it on anyway. This consideration of it as a need also opens up for sex as a "right" which you can claim must be fulfilled and we're down that road of state paying disabled people's prostitute visits-- then we're at that spot again, as in the past, where the prostitutes are part of the war-effort as comfort women (or as a "chartiable support") to satisfy people's (mostly men's, of course) needs and what-have-you. You have no right to get laid.

[#FF0000]

As Marx noted, needs are "historic needs – needs created by production itself, social needs – needs which are themselves the offspring of social production and intercourse." And these historic needs are necessary for society to reproduce itself as a given level of development - both technological and human. To think that sexuality is not something habitually required by socially developed human beings in the twenty-first century is breathtaking.

I'm not some psychic that can intuit the details of other people's personal lives, but I think there's a lot of people out there who are functioning pretty well and not having sex regularly.

Again, what is a social need?

[Lucretia]

I'm not some psychic that can intuit the details of other people's personal lives, but I think there's a lot of people out there who are functioning pretty well and not having sex regularly.

Again, what is a social need?

I answered this question quite clearly in the post you're quoting from. Take a deep breath, step away from the keyboard for more than 30 seconds, and read again.

[MarxArchist]

Okay but nobody's arguing against sex as such. Sometimes it's better to satisfy oneself, and it's certainly not a "need" even for someone with high libido to use another person for this. I know; I've not had sex once in the 12 years since I first, you know....

For my part, I don't appreciate the out on the prowl attitude of some men who would so much rather go out seeking sex with other people (for example, at bars or parties) than just have a wank and be done with it.

I too am curious if there are any such studies though; if not, there should be. Though I wouldn't volunteer.

I think for the younger men under 25 some of the "out on the prowl attitude" has more to do with unhealthy patriarchal social relations amongst younger men who "compete" with eachother for some sort of social status, I'm not sure if they actually have this 'burning horny desire' behind their motivations.

Personally I've had one night stands with women and I find it, most of the time, to be rather awkward but this is how some people build friendships/relationships. For me it's a natural reciprocity process. I don't hit on women or pressure or make unwanted advances. It always seems to just happen and 90% of the time, for me at least, the women makes the suggestion "do you want to have sex?". I understand exactly what you're talking about though. The "mack daddy culture". The "pick up artist culture'. It would be nice to be a woman and be able to go somewhere without being sexualized yes? Is that your point?

[#FF0000]

I answered this question quite clearly in the post you're quoting from. Take a deep breath, step away from the keyboard for more than 30 seconds, and read again.

I've been pretty calm throughout this thread and that post but I appreciate the unnecessary condescension all the same.

Either way, I don't know what was going on but I read your post completely wrong before work today. Reading it now is much clearer, and I think it's pretty obvious we're talking about different things. I'm talking about needs on an individual basis -- I'm saying that no one's going to shrivel up and die because they aren't having sex. Certainly many people would prefer to have sex more often, but that doesn't make it a want.

I feel like this is just going back and forth between us all saying "YEAH IT IS" and "NO IT'S NOT" so I think i'm gonna bow out for now

[Luís Henrique]

No, because people are saying sex is a "need" and that's not true.

So your beef is with the word "need".

Sex is something the vast majority of adult mankind finds pleasurable, and something that most adults like to make with each others. Some do like stable one-on-one relationships, and some prefer to have varied partners. Neither are weird or abnormal tendencies.

So, to circumvent the issue of the philosophical discussion of the word "need", sex is something that everyone should be free to propose to each others, and to accept or reject such proposals. Isn't it? So what is wrong with some young (or old) man (or woman) going to a place (bar, pub, boite, nightclub, ballroom, etc.) to seek for possible sexual partners? As long as they are able to take a "no" for a "no", what the fucking (pun intended) problem is there?

Or because you define the word "need" in a peculiar way, we should have the RadFem-Christian Conservative coalition ruling what we do with our bodies and our spare time?

Luís Henrique

[Aleksandr Karelin]

Surely a man is a rape supported if he supports rape? Real feminism is good, this shit seems like the anti sex reductionist bunch or idiots that whenever discussing womens issues makes my friends all cite some nutjob as a reason to disregard any female discussion of womens issues in society.

In my mums wild days she was in a feminist commune of some sort and she refers to the women with this crazy ideology as the celibate anger nuns haha. My mum is awesome, I love her so much.

[#FF0000]

So your beef is with the word "need".

Yep.


Sex is something the vast majority of adult mankind finds pleasurable, and something that most adults like to make with each others. Some do like stable one-on-one relationships, and some prefer to have varied partners. Neither are weird or abnormal tendencies.


Yep.


So, to circumvent the issue of the philosophical discussion of the word "need", sex is something that everyone should be free to propose to each others, and to accept or reject such proposals. Isn't it? So what is wrong with some young (or old) man (or woman) going to a place (bar, pub, boite, nightclub, ballroom, etc.) to seek for possible sexual partners? As long as they are able to take a "no" for a "no", what the fucking (pun intended) problem is there?


None.


Or because you define the word "need" in a peculiar way, we should have the RadFem-Christian Conservative coalition ruling what we do with our bodies and our spare time?

I'll give you a shiny new nickel if you point out where I suggested any of that.

[RHIZOMES]

Or because you define the word "need" in a peculiar way, we should have the RadFem-Christian Conservative coalition ruling what we do with our bodies and our spare time?

Luís Henrique

Uhhhhhh...

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/need

require (something) because it is essential or very important rather than just desirable

that's not 'peculiar', that's the actual dictionary definition.

People desire sex, they don't need sex. If we needed sex, there would be a huge death toll from asexuals, virgins and/or the vast majority of this forum dying from sexual starvation.


So what is wrong with some young (or old) man (or woman) going to a place (bar, pub, boite, nightclub, ballroom, etc.) to seek for possible sexual partners? As long as they are able to take a "no" for a "no", what the fucking (pun intended) problem is there?
Also, the fuck does this have to do with anything?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Watch out, I'm tired, so sorry if this is a tad incoherent.




If you can drink, and make clearly the decision that you do not want to have sex with a drunk female... don't you think a female who is at the same level as you can determine whether or not she wants to have sex with someone? Or, is your male brainpower just that superior?


This is a sneaky way to switch around a blatantly obvious danger to women into a idealist 'this is a men are smarter' argument. By saying this, you are not only ignoring how varying levels of intoxication affect decision making (hint: someone who has binged cannot be considered level headed enough to make thoughtful decisions - male or female) but also the overwhelming amounts of studies and cases in which alcohol is considered, statistically, the most commonly used date-rape drug and method of coercion in the UK, USA and Australia (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071020113144.htm). Numerous cases of alcohol being disproportionately increased for certain women at parties are breathing examples of this.

The reason men are not as like to be counted in is simply because it doesn't happen as often. Why? Because men don't have a highly structural, often sexually based culture of discrimination and inferiority pangs directed towards them.

Because of alcohol's position as a recreational drug, it's not immediately suspected of being used for date-rape. However, this particular quality is what makes alcohol so dangerous (and commonly used by rapists worldwide). Only a slight change in concentration of the drug in a drink can change what would be a modestly drunk person into an extremely intoxicated person with very little ability to rationalise their decisions, much less the world around them. Because of this, alcohol is almost like a monstrous 'golden egg' for rapists: Its in high quantity, its legal, high concentration can and will cause mental incapacitation, and worst of all, many people do not accept that having sex with a strongly drunk person is rape.

So please stop trying to butcher a well-backed argument about alcohol's use as a modicum for rape using an abstract situation in an ideal fantasy, that of which does not coincide with reality, and then use it as an excuse to say that the alcohol-as-a-rape-drug argument is actually inherently male chauvinists' belief that women cannot think for themselves the same way men can, as this is not the argument and your basis for the straw-man is absolutely ridiculous in the first place.

[Luís Henrique]

Yep.


Yep.


None.

So basically we are in agreement.


I'll give you a shiny new nickel if you point out where I suggested any of that.

I don't think you suggested any of that. I think that the article in the OP does suggest or imply some of that (and that other articles that have been quoted in this thread not only suggest, but explicitly state that - except of course for the part about a RadFem/Christian conservative coalition).

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Uhhhhhh...

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/need

require (something) because it is essential or very important rather than just desirable

that's not 'peculiar', that's the actual dictionary definition.

People desire sex, they don't need sex. If we needed sex, there would be a huge death toll from asexuals, virgins and/or the vast majority of this forum dying from sexual starvation.

But it is not the only definition; it is clear that it is commonly used for things that are merely very desirable.

I wouldn't base the difference between a man who supports rape and one that doesn't support it in their different use of the word "need".


Also, the fuck does this have to do with anything?

Cautious; the way you use the word "fuck" might make you a rape supporter...

We are discussing an article that may lead to such conclusions. Perhaps you don't see it like that?

Luís Henrique

[Fionnagáin]

Can't help but wonder what these people who find themselves so irate at the ambiguous use of the word "need" would make of Marx.