monopoly on interpretation (of sexual harassment)

[Rosa Partizan]

Sorry for this shitty term, I didn't know how to translate it adequately. In German, it's "Definitionsmacht", which is a very current debate among feminists here. This term means that there is no objective definition of things like sexual harassment, rape etc, but that every victim/survivor defines for her-or himself what this means and when it happens. It is discussed very controversial(ly?).

At first glance, it seemed great, but it has its flaws. I can think of two examples. The one would be that you get hit on by two guys. One of them you consider attractive and the other not. Everyone knows this feeling of being hit on by someone you don't find hot at all. Sometimes, it can even feel molesting. So, these two guys can basically do the same, but the pick-up lines from the attractive guy you find flattering and the ones from the not so attractive guy you consider kind of harassment.

The other thing would be that I read some RadFem-blogs. Many of those bloggers found PIV (penis in vagina) to be always rape. Basically, this means that a guy practicing vaginal intercourse is always a rapist. Since everyone can define rape now the way she or he wants it, it actually is "really" rape, huh. So these guys could be called rapists. I'm not saying they are, but due to this concept, it would be possible. Isn't this kind of trivializing real rape?

In the end, this means that the concept "innocent til proven guilty" is now reversed. However, the latter is also really problematic, because most rapes are committed by someone you know, with no witnesses. So, many charges don't get an adequate treatment. What are your thoughts on this?

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Well, the subjective unease of women around men, particularly certain groups of men and certain male behaviors, is an important part of the structural oppression of women (and it needs to be understood materialistically: i.e. how it limits the behavior of women in society etc.)

Where all of this gets potentially ugly is when issues of rape intersect issues of the oppression of trans people, queers, national and racial minorities and, yes, state power. Unfortunately the charge of rape is sometimes used as a cudgel by the state and reactionary elements of society (of course these cases form an overwhelming minority of all rape charges - but, I feel, they need to be addressed, more so than some dudebro worrying that he'll be "falsely" accused of rape for having sex with a drunk girl).

[helot]

The other thing would be that I read some RadFem-blogs. Many of those bloggers found PIV (penis in vagina) to be always rape. Basically, this means that a guy practicing vaginal intercourse is always a rapist. Since everyone can define rape now the way she or he wants it, it actually is "really" rape, huh. So these guys could be called rapists. I'm not saying they are, but due to this concept, it would be possible. Isn't this kind of trivializing real rape?


I'd be surprised if anyone takes it seriously though. The notion that any vaginal penetration is rape is, to put it bluntly, absurd. In a way you could argue it diminishes a woman's ability to decide for herself whether or not to engage in sexual contact with another. Btw, if penis-in-vagina in always rape then is not the only logical position that of demanding our species' extinction? Or maybe just that the poor shouldnt breed as afterall not every woman has access to IVF.

[Rosa Partizan]

Well, the subjective unease of women around men, particularly certain groups of men and certain male behaviors, is an important part of the structural oppression of women (and it needs to be understood materialistically: i.e. how it limits the behavior of women in society etc.)

Where all of this gets potentially ugly is when issues of rape intersect issues of the oppression of trans people, queers, national and racial minorities and, yes, state power. Unfortunately the charge of rape is sometimes used as a cudgel by the state and reactionary elements of society (of course these cases form an overwhelming minority of all rape charges - but, I feel, they need to be addressed, more so than some dudebro worrying that he'll be "falsely" accused of rape for having sex with a drunk girl).

This is also kind of a topic. I liked a fb-page called "unpacking the f-word", (feminism) and one of the authors was like, if you were drunk, it's rape. There are def guys who fuddle you to make you sleep with them, and yeah, this is rape, for sure. But it is possible to be drunk and to give your consent, and if you do so, you can't claim the other day it's been rape, just because you regret it.

[Rosa Partizan]

I'd be surprised if anyone takes it seriously though. The notion that any vaginal penetration is rape is, to put it bluntly, absurd. In a way you could argue it diminishes a woman's ability to decide for herself whether or not to engage in sexual contact with another. Btw, if penis-in-vagina in always rape then is not the only logical position that of demanding our species' extinction? Or maybe just that the poor shouldnt breed as afterall not every woman has access to IVF.

you won't believe it, but some of those ladies were like, you can apply the sperm by yourself to your vagina. :blink:

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

This is also kind of a topic. I liked a fb-page called "unpacking the f-word", (feminism) and one of the authors was like, if you were drunk, it's rape. There are def guys who fuddle you to make you sleep with them, and yeah, this is rape, for sure. But it is possible to be drunk and to give your consent, and if you do so, you can't claim the other day it's been rape, just because you regret it.

That's, let's say, a thorny issue - obviously the capacity of drunk people to process all the relevant information is limited, not to mention social pressures of women to provide sex etc. etc. Generally, it's a good rule to assume no consent has been given unless one is absolutely sure - to do otherwise is to risk raping.

[Rosa Partizan]

That's, let's say, a thorny issue - obviously the capacity of drunk people to process all the relevant information is limited, not to mention social pressures of women to provide sex etc. etc. Generally, it's a good rule to assume no consent has been given unless one is absolutely sure - to do otherwise is to risk raping.

yeah, I think if I were a guy I would abstain from sleeping with drunk women in general, just to make sure nothing nonconsensual happens. But I remember cases being drunk myself and really knowing what I was doing and pushing for it, which of course means that I wasn't drunk like shit and almost passing out.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

yeah, I think if I were a guy I would abstain from sleeping with drunk women in general, just to make sure nothing nonconsensual happens. But I remember cases being drunk myself and really knowing what I was doing and pushing for it, which of course means that I wasn't drunk like shit and almost passing out.

Yeah, I mean it's not as cut-and-dry as "sex with a drunk girl is rape, period", but it's a good idea to at least talk about it beforehand - something most people who live in paralyzing fear they'll be falsely accused of rape (at least those of dominant nationality and orientation) don't do, I think.

[Quail]

I think that there are objective "guidelines" for what does and does not constitute abuse. I'm going to write "man" and "woman" because that's the context of my response, but this could apply to other genders too.



At first glance, it seemed great, but it has its flaws. I can think of two examples. The one would be that you get hit on by two guys. One of them you consider attractive and the other not. Everyone knows this feeling of being hit on by someone you don't find hot at all. Sometimes, it can even feel molesting. So, these two guys can basically do the same, but the pick-up lines from the attractive guy you find flattering and the ones from the not so attractive guy you consider kind of harassment.
In this case, regardless of how attractive a man is, there are respectful and disrespectful ways to flirt with someone. Generally provided that people back off when I tell them they're not interested, I don't think it can reasonably be considered harassment. Flirting becomes sexual harassment when is is clear that the attention is unwanted and the woman is uncomfortable (whether or not the person doing the harassing realises this). It should be universal etiquette to desist in the absence of a clear, positive reaction; if you don't, you are in all likelihood harassing someone.


The other thing would be that I read some RadFem-blogs. Many of those bloggers found PIV (penis in vagina) to be always rape. Basically, this means that a guy practicing vaginal intercourse is always a rapist. Since everyone can define rape now the way she or he wants it, it actually is "really" rape, huh. So these guys could be called rapists. I'm not saying they are, but due to this concept, it would be possible. Isn't this kind of trivializing real rape?
I don't personally think that all PIV sex is rape because I think that is quite infantilising. I can understand where it comes from, but I think that women are perfectly capable of choosing who they want to have sex with. I think it's insulting and demeaning to suggest otherwise. In some cases, being in a privileged group means that people can use that privilege to manipulate people into having sex with them, but I don't think this applies to every instance, or even anything like the majority of instances, of PIV sex.

Again, in the case of rape and sexual abuse there are reasonable guidelines for defining it. If the victim didn't consent to the sexual contact (or was too incapacitated by drugs or alcohol to give consent) then sexual abuse has occurred. Thus I don't think it is reasonable to define consensual PIV sex as rape (unless women are never be able to give meaningful consent, which I addressed above).


In the end, this means that the concept "innocent til proven guilty" is now reversed. However, the latter is also really problematic, because most rapes are committed by someone you know, with no witnesses. So, many charges don't get an adequate treatment. What are your thoughts on this?
I don't think that "innocent until proven guilty" implies that we should assume the victim is lying. I think the evidence given by both the victim and the perpetrator should be considered without making any judgements on either person. However, the likelihood that someone is lying about rape is vastly overplayed, so I think a move towards taking the victim's account of what happened more seriously is in general a good thing.

So in conclusion, I do think that there are "objective" guidelines of what constitutes abuse, but they do also rely on "subjective" things (such as whether the behaviour made someone feel unsafe). I think in general that survivors should be the ones who define whether or not something was abuse based on objective definitions. The point of that is so that perpetrators can't come back with excuses like, "But it wasn't "real" abuse because they did/n't do x,y and z," or, "It's not harassment, it's a compliment."

[PhoenixAsh]

The idea behind Definitionsmacht is to focus on the experience of the victim so that what is experienced as (sexual) violence becomes (sexual) violence and a victim doesn't need to justify him or herself when talking to the authorities.

Although the intention of putting personal experience in the spotlight is good...the concept of Definitionsmacht doesn't, and will never, work for the very simple reason that when a subject is subjectively defined the subject itself becomes meaningless in communication and interaction and will be reduced to a subjective abstract.

[Alexios]

ive heard some people say rape is ok so long as it's in self defense pretty weird stuff

[Rosa Partizan]

huh? How should rape in self defense work? :confused:

[Sinister Intents]

ive heard some people say rape is ok so long as it's in self defense pretty weird stuff

What the fuck???? Do you know my neighbor per chance???

[tallguy]

Sorry for this shitty term, I didn't know how to translate it adequately. In German, it's "Definitionsmacht", which is a very current debate among feminists here. This term means that there is no objective definition of things like sexual harassment, rape etc, but that every victim/survivor defines for her-or himself what this means and when it happens. It is discussed very controversial(ly?).

At first glance, it seemed great, but it has its flaws. I can think of two examples. The one would be that you get hit on by two guys. One of them you consider attractive and the other not. Everyone knows this feeling of being hit on by someone you don't find hot at all. Sometimes, it can even feel molesting. So, these two guys can basically do the same, but the pick-up lines from the attractive guy you find flattering and the ones from the not so attractive guy you consider kind of harassment.

The other thing would be that I read some RadFem-blogs. Many of those bloggers found PIV (penis in vagina) to be always rape. Basically, this means that a guy practicing vaginal intercourse is always a rapist. Since everyone can define rape now the way she or he wants it, it actually is "really" rape, huh. So these guys could be called rapists. I'm not saying they are, but due to this concept, it would be possible. Isn't this kind of trivializing real rape?

In the end, this means that the concept "innocent til proven guilty" is now reversed. However, the latter is also really problematic, because most rapes are committed by someone you know, with no witnesses. So, many charges don't get an adequate treatment. What are your thoughts on this?
If we ever get to a situation where a plaintiff is allowed to define a crime against them based purely on their own whim and with no reference whatsoever to an externally and commonly agreed metric of what constitutes a crime and in the complete absence of any evidence other than the plaintiff's whim, this would be just about the most ghastly thing imaginable.

Quite apart from the fact that the above would render essentially meaningless the concept of evidence both for or against a defendant, it would also set a deeply sinister precedent for any number of "crimes" that the state may decide is permissible on this basis.

And I am not even going to dignify with a response, the concept of consensual-vaginal-penetrative-intercourse being defined as rape.

What kind of fucking halfwits believe in this shit?