Is this situation rape? [Archive] - Page 2

View Full Version : Is this situation rape?

Pages : 1 [2]

Patrice O'neal

18th July 2014, 16:59

Coercive rape? Isnt this like saying wet water? Is there noncoercive rape?

I guess some statuatory rape could be considered non violent rape. I have heard about 18 year old boyfriends getting locked up for having sex with their 16 year old gilfriends. I have no idea if this is a real thing but if it is and a consenting 16 year old has sex with an 18 year old (which in my country is perfectly legal) that would qualify as non violent rape. Though maybe the fact it really shouldn't be considered rape at all is the more important part.

euskadi

18th July 2014, 19:56

Are you implying experienced women are somehow less capable or into monogamy? Because in my experience this is simply not true and it is the kind of moralist fodder that is usd in order to try and shame women.

Experience and being in favour or not into monogamy have no obvious correlation as far as I can see.

I am referring specifically to sex outside of relationships, and yes I do believe that someone who has had a lot of non-monogamous sex is not as capable or willing to be monogamous as someone who has been monogamous for their whole life. It is self-evident that they do not value monogamy.

I'm not saying that a woman who has had a lot of sex outside of relationships is worth less than someone who hasn't or is somehow a bad person, just that she would not be compatible with me and that I would not want to be in a relationship with her.

This is, of course, not true at all. Not even PhoenixAsh went that far (and he went pretty far).

In practice due to power disparities that generally favour men it is not true, but when you take that out of the equation there's no reason a man is less susceptible to sexual coercion, and statistics show that a lot of men are victims of coercive rape, and that doesn't include the large number of men afraid to come forward due to being stigmatised for it.

Coercive rape? Isnt this like saying wet water? Is there noncoercive rape?

I mean rape where physical consent is given but the mental consent is not valid, e.g. blackmail, below age of consent, teacher-young student, etc. Men are common victims of all three of those examples. I view it as a separate crime to physical forced rape but it can still be just as serious depending on the circumstances.

Quail

18th July 2014, 20:15

I am referring specifically to sex outside of relationships, and yes I do believe that someone who has had a lot of non-monogamous sex is not as capable or willing to be monogamous as someone who has been monogamous for their whole life. It is self-evident that they do not value monogamy.

I'm not saying that a woman who has had a lot of sex outside of relationships is worth less than someone who hasn't or is somehow a bad person, just that she would not be compatible with me and that I would not want to be in a relationship with her.

First of all, what's so great about monogamy anyway?

Secondly, what you're saying is complete bullshit. Just because someone has casual sex when they're not in a relationship, doesn't mean they won't be monogamous if they do get into a relationship. It's definitely not at all self-evident that women who have had a lot of sex don't value monogamy.

euskadi

18th July 2014, 20:44

First of all, what's so great about monogamy anyway?

It's what I want, and it's none of your business to question that

Secondly, what you're saying is complete bullshit. Just because someone has casual sex when they're not in a relationship, doesn't mean they won't be monogamous if they do get into a relationship. It's definitely not at all self-evident that women who have had a lot of sex don't value monogamy.

I'd trust and respect a woman who's past had shown that she highly values and is capable of monogamy, over a woman whose past has shown the opposite.

And it is self-evident. If you place high value upon monogamy, you wouldn't have lots of non-monogamous sex.

Rosa Partizan

18th July 2014, 20:52

It's what I want, and it's none of your business to question that

I'd trust and respect a woman who's past had shown that she highly values and is capable of monogamy, over a woman whose past has shown the opposite.

And it is self-evident. If you place high value upon monogamy, you wouldn't have lots of non-monogamous sex.

I find your views highly repugnant. There's nothing bad in wishing a monogamous relationship, I'm not too fond of polyamory and open relationships either, but your views have nothing to do with reality or individual experiences. This is as stupid as saying "a woman with no experience will cheat on you once she finds out how great sex can be". There are people that don't fall in love easily, people that have stages in their life when they just need to experiment and to meet different people etc, whatever different reasons there may be, hardly anyone is ONLY promiscous or only monogamous ALL their life, cause that's not the way life goes. Why would I judge anyone of them without knowing their background, their experiences etc?

euskadi

18th July 2014, 20:55

I find your views highly repugnant. There's nothing bad in wishing a monogamous relationship, I'm not too fond of polyamory and open relationships either, but your views have nothing to do with reality or individual experiences. This is as stupid as saying "a woman with no experience will cheat on you once she finds out how great sex can be". There are people that don't fall in love easily, people that have stages in their life when they just need to experiment and to meet different people etc, whatever different reasons there may be, hardly anyone is ONLY promiscous or only monogamous ALL their life, cause that's not the way life goes. Why would I judge anyone of them without knowing their background, their experiences etc?

Of course people change their values over time, there's nothing wrong with that, but when investing my entire life in to a woman I would strongly prefer a woman who has PROVEN that she highly values and is capable of long term monogamy, not a woman who just says she has changed from her past which shows the opposite.

bcbm

18th July 2014, 21:05

good luck with your victorian era values guy

euskadi

18th July 2014, 21:07

Let me put it this way, if you could choose between a guy who's never cheated before, and a guy who has cheated on every girlfriend but says he has changed, who would you pick?

bcbm

18th July 2014, 21:08

generally i use a more well rounded set of criteria to pick partners.

Rosa Partizan

18th July 2014, 21:17

Let me put it this way, if you could choose between a guy who's never cheated before, and a guy who has cheated on every girlfriend but says he has changed, who would you pick?

I'd pick the one that doesn't judge me by my past. And I hope he's hot.

euskadi

18th July 2014, 21:17

generally i use a more well rounded set of criteria to pick partners.

If both partners were equal in all other aspects

good luck with your victorian era values guy

Do you ever wonder why most people don't take feminism seriously? Shit like this is why. Feminism is supposed to be about free choice, and yet if someone wants monogamy and prefers inexperienced women he's a sexist bigot living in the past, even if his reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with patriarchal beliefs.

Rosa Partizan

18th July 2014, 21:18

generally i use a more well rounded set of criteria to pick partners.

so you don't have a questionnaire for every potential partner in which they have to explain their previous sexual experiences to you?

Are you trolling or just naive?

euskadi

18th July 2014, 21:20

I'd pick the one that doesn't judge me by my past. And I hope he's hot.

I'll take the intentional avoidance of the question as acknowledgement that I'm right.

euskadi

18th July 2014, 21:20

so you don't have a questionnaire for every potential partner in which they have to explain their previous sexual experiences to you?

Are you trolling or just naive?

The fact that you're a hypocrite on many levels has already been established, but aren't you the same girl who got mad at a guy for being a virgin when you only want experienced guys? LMFAO

Rosa Partizan

18th July 2014, 21:21

If both partners were equal in all other aspects

Do you ever wonder why most people don't take feminism seriously? Shit like this is why. Feminism is supposed to be about free choice, and yet if someone wants monogamy and prefers inexperienced women he's a sexist bigot living in the past, even if his reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with patriarchal beliefs.

Feminism is about challenging patriarchal values, and monogamy is one of them. But guess what, most feminists DO live in monogamous relationships when they happen to not be single, because this is what everyone had to embrace since early childhood, beginning with all those disney ideals. Feminists are aware of that and still don't claim they could escape this system, they just ask you to reflect on it and to make your own informed choice about the form of relationship you want. As to inexperienced women, well, just go ahead and tell me what NON-patriarchal reason could be behind such a wish.

Rosa Partizan

18th July 2014, 21:24

The fact that you're a hypocrite on many levels has already been established, but aren't you the same girl who got mad at a guy for being a virgin when you only want experienced guys? LMFAO

tell me about my hypocrisy please, I'm dying to know more about it :o

I got mad because he lied about something that has some practical value to me, namely the chance that an experienced person is better in bed than a nonexperienced one and knows what they like, cause I'm not interested in shaping anyone's sexuality. What's the practical value behind someone inexperienced, and I don't mean some idea or concept like "purity"?

euskadi

18th July 2014, 21:26

Feminism is about challenging patriarchal values, and monogamy is one of them. But guess what, most feminists DO live in monogamous relationships when they happen to not be single, because this is what everyone had to embrace since early childhood, beginning with all those disney ideals. Feminists are aware of that and still don't claim they could escape this system, they just ask you to reflect on it and to make your own informed choice about the form of relationship you want. As to inexperienced women, well, just go ahead and tell me what NON-patriarchal reason could be behind such a wish.

Monogamy is a choice people are free to make. It evidently is not patriarchal because in societies that lack power disparities, most people still choose to be monogamous. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting monogamy from a feminist perspective.

I've already given the non-patriarchal reasoning for wanting a woman who hasn't had sex outside of relationships. I want a partner who has proven that she values and is capable of monogamy. It has absolutely nothing to do with her gender, men can be judged on their past too.

euskadi

18th July 2014, 21:27

tell me about my hypocrisy please, I'm dying to know more about it :o

As a feminist you support sexual freedom yet you openly oppose someone having a sexual preference that you don't agree with

What's the practical value behind someone inexperienced, and I don't mean some idea or concept like "purity"?

I've already answered this several times, and none of those answers have had anything to do with purity. See my above post for the answer I just gave.

euskadi

18th July 2014, 21:35

bcbm

18th July 2014, 21:39

If both partners were equal in all other aspects

since this is fantasy land, ill just date them both.

Do you ever wonder why most people don't take feminism seriously? because they're troglodytes desperately clinging to their privilege?

Shit like this is why. Feminism is supposed to be about free choice, and yet if someone wants monogamy and prefers inexperienced women he's a sexist bigot living in the past, even if his reasoning has absolutely nothing to do with patriarchal beliefs.um, why is 'inexperienced' the same as 'monogamous?' those seem like different things. and i didnt call you a sexist or a bigot (edit: whoops, spoke to soon looking at the above), just saying i think your belief that people cant change or that having a bit of fun when youre single means you 'dont value monogamy' is pretty archaic. i know plenty of people who are in very successful long term monogamous relationships who have had casual sex in the past.

Monogamy is a choice people are free to make. It evidently is not patriarchal because in societies that lack power disparities, most people still choose to be monogamous. the history of monogamy is very tied to patriarchy, but thats a different discussion.

MEGAMANTROTSKY

18th July 2014, 21:43

Psycho P and the Freight Train

18th July 2014, 21:51

I mean, why does it even matter what this guy's personal preferences are? Yeah they're a little weird and makes false assumptions, but who gives a shit about what he prefers? Lol. If he ends up single forever, or if a woman somehow shares these values, who gives a shit? Why does it effect you all?

It's bizarre to me how many people like to criticize someone's personal sexual preferences (unless they a rapist or something, then obviously you can criticize it)

Rosa Partizan

18th July 2014, 21:57

Vanguard1917

18th July 2014, 23:35

I like 'em real, trill
gold in the grill
cold as Pam Grier
swole in the rear
hard, smart
strong in the heart
sexy thong when we alone in the dark

Since we're talking types now. Though maybe not the gold teeth part.

I mean, why does it even matter what this guy's personal preferences are? Yeah they're a little weird and makes false assumptions, but who gives a shit about what he prefers? Lol. If he ends up single forever, or if a woman somehow shares these values, who gives a shit? Why does it effect you all?

You put that well.

Quail

19th July 2014, 09:46

I'd trust and respect a woman who's past had shown that she highly values and is capable of monogamy, over a woman whose past has shown the opposite.

And it is self-evident. If you place high value upon monogamy, you wouldn't have lots of non-monogamous sex.
...and here's the problem. You don't respect women who've had a lot of sex as much as those who haven't.

Let me put it this way, if you could choose between a guy who's never cheated before, and a guy who has cheated on every girlfriend but says he has changed, who would you pick?
There is a massive difference between cheating and casual sex and/or ethical non-monogamous relationships. When you're single and you hook up with someone you're not betraying anybody's trust.

I mean, why does it even matter what this guy's personal preferences are? Yeah they're a little weird and makes false assumptions, but who gives a shit about what he prefers? Lol. If he ends up single forever, or if a woman somehow shares these values, who gives a shit? Why does it effect you all?

It's bizarre to me how many people like to criticize someone's personal sexual preferences (unless they a rapist or something, then obviously you can criticize it)
It's not his preferences I'm criticising exactly, but the reasons and assumptions behind them. As I said earlier, preferences don't exist in a vacuum.

PhoenixAsh

19th July 2014, 11:50

No. I've been emphasising 'adult male', 'man' and 'adulthood' throughout the exchange. I've even placed those words in bold to avoid any confusion by you.

And, in the 2 million figure you keep bringing up, i was questioning your claim that 2-4 million adult men in America have been raped by their intimate female partners. I've already reminded you of this detail, yet you've ignored it.

Except you haven't and of course you have applied it if and when it suited you. And lets be quite clear...we are indeed talking about 2-4 milloion ADULT men raped as the statistics have beyond a shadow of a doubt proven to you...indeed your own biased calculations came up with more than 2 million men...YET YOU HAVE NOT ACKNOWLEDGED ANY OF THIS AND YOU CONTINUE TO DEBATE.

So lets sum up YOUR really big assertions:

YOUR claim that rape is male violence: WRONG
YOUR claim that there was no way millions of men were raped by women: WRONG
YOUR claim dat there was no way millions of ADULT men were raped by women: WRONG
YOUR claim men can not be sexually harassed
YOUR claim that men who are sexually harassed are led by profit: RAPE CULTURE
YOUR claim that men and women aren't equally geared to sexual abusive behavior: WRONG

So far you haven't been right one single time.

Accompanied with your problematic attitude that you first spend dismissing the statement, facts and figures even before you have read any of them and your assertion and provcen histroy...

I'd say we are pretty much done here.

PhoenixAsh

19th July 2014, 11:55

That's part of the reason why female sexual assault against adult males tends to take place in those special situations where the women are in an exceptional position of power over the men (e.g. female prison officers in male prisons or female army personnel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynndie_England) in some conquered territory) and where the man is in a specially vulnerable position vis a vis the woman. The latter can feasibly include men in places like hospitals and retirement homes. I would guess that the vast majority of these incidents are motivated by a wish to humiliate and subdue the man, and probably don't, typically, involve the man being 'made to penetrate' the woman.

You really can't let it go can you? You simply wish to utterly refuse to accept the millions of adult male men being raped by women in perfectly normal situations.

OIff course there needs to be some vile prison porn involved before that can happen in your litte mind.

:rolleyes:

Patrice O'neal

19th July 2014, 13:17

Anyway, I'm outta here.

Rosa, I do feel sorry for you, it's sad that you feel the urge to lash out at anyone who expresses criteria that you do not meet :-( I know it must hurt to know that some men out there do not view you as being good enough for them, but that doesn't justify restricting their sexual freedom because your feelings are hurt.

Who is restricting you. You claimed people who have had periods of casual relationships and sex only arrangements are somehow less able to be monogamous than people who have only been monogamous. That is just wildly untrue and a kinda silly sentiment.

And its not nescissarily that your views are bad, they are just based on some stupid nonsensical version of people who once they have tasted one thing (Polyamory) they are incapable of wanting or sticking to another thing for any length of time (monogamy).

Views ike this are usually held by inexperienced men who blame their lack of experience on women being these horrible sluts, when in reality, the problem is squarely with the guy and his own feeling of inadequecy.

Vanguard1917

19th July 2014, 14:33

Except you haven't and of course you have applied it if and when it suited you. And lets be quite clear...we are indeed talking about 2-4 milloion ADULT men raped as the statistics have beyond a shadow of a doubt proven to you...indeed your own biased calculations came up with more than 2 million men...YET YOU HAVE NOT ACKNOWLEDGED ANY OF THIS AND YOU CONTINUE TO DEBATE.

So lets sum up YOUR really big assertions:

YOUR claim that rape is male violence: WRONG
YOUR claim that there was no way millions of men were raped by women: WRONG
YOUR claim dat there was no way millions of ADULT men were raped by women: WRONG
YOUR claim men can not be sexually harassed
YOUR claim that men who are sexually harassed are led by profit: RAPE CULTURE
YOUR claim that men and women aren't equally geared to sexual abusive behavior: WRONG

So far you haven't been right one single time.

Accompanied with your problematic attitude that you first spend dismissing the statement, facts and figures even before you have read any of them and your assertion and provcen histroy...

I'd say we are pretty much done here.

I don't mean to be impolite, but are you stark raving mad?

You claimed, over and again, that 5% of American men have been raped by women while adults. See this post in case you missed it: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2770939&postcount=234

I stated from the outset that this was a ridiculously high estimate which had no proven or logical relationship to reality.

And you failed utterly to substantiate your figure. Towards the end of the discussion, you even came to accept that you couldn't (albeit somewhat implicitly) and you tried to divert attention from it, with your red-faced attempts to change the subject.

As yet, you have failed to back up any figure at all, whether 5% or 1%.

The CDC report you use as a source can't provide this figure, because it has no data for the age at which the men were 'made to penetrate' a woman.

One major study which does take account of age shows that the figure is far less than 0.5% - as i demonstrated in this post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2770504&postcount=184).

This would obviously mean that the figure is definitely not 'millions of men' in America. It would mean that it's definitely less than 1 million.

So, yes, rape of adult men by women in America is very rare in comparison to rapes by men of women, by men of men and by men of children/adolescents.

There is simply no evidence to justify your irrational attachment to this bizarre idea that large masses of American men are being raped by women, including their own wives and girlfriends.

PhoenixAsh

19th July 2014, 18:13

I don't mean to be impolite, but are you stark raving mad?

You claimed, over and again, that 5% of American men have been raped by women while adults. See this post in case you missed it: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2770939&postcount=234

I stated from the outset that this was a ridiculously high estimate which had no proven or logical relationship to reality.

There is really no limit to the amount of deceit and lies you will go through in order to facilitate your own sexism, rape apologism, and poisening debates with pseudo scientific ramblings of a gender socializing victim blamer...and weaseling out of them...is there?

Your own faulty calculations came at more than two million.

You are really something.

BIXX

19th July 2014, 19:07

Monogamy is a choice people are free to make. It evidently is not patriarchal because in societies that lack power disparities, most people still choose to be monogamous. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting monogamy from a feminist perspective.

I've already given the non-patriarchal reasoning for wanting a woman who hasn't had sex outside of relationships. I want a partner who has proven that she values and is capable of monogamy. It has absolutely nothing to do with her gender, men can be judged on their past too.

Ban this fuck faced piece of shit.
What if she has never had sex outside of a relationship, but has had multiple relationships you dumb shit?

Patrice O'neal

19th July 2014, 19:23

Ban this fuck faced piece of shit.
What if she has never had sex outside of a relationship, but has had multiple relationships you dumb shit?

To be honest I feel wanting to ban people for stuff like this is kind of messed up.

Most people, men but even women, replicate all kinds of reactionary shit in society like patriachy, racism etc.

Alot of it is just being working class and reproducing the prevelant culture around you, I probably spouted crap like that for years to my embarassment.

All banning people does is turn them away from the tiny radical community that might actually remove that type of thinking from their thought process.
I would rather be slightly bothered by it on here and maybe get through to someone than ban them and have women in real life have to deal with it and to be honest I am sure his life would improve from it too.

That is just my take on it though.

Vanguard1917

19th July 2014, 21:51

There is really no limit to the amount of deceit and lies you will go through in order to facilitate your own sexism, rape apologism, and poisening debates with pseudo scientific ramblings of a gender socializing victim blamer...and weaseling out of them...is there?

Your own faulty calculations came at more than two million.

You are really something.

My calculations based on a major study in 1998 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2770504&postcount=184) bring me to a figure of no more than 0.25% and perhaps lower. I.e. no more than 300,000 American men - certainly not 'millions'.

Your later CDC study can't be used to arrive at a figure because it has no data for the age at which the men were 'made to penetrate' a woman.

Sinister Intents

19th July 2014, 21:58

To be honest I feel wanting to ban people for stuff like this is kind of messed up.

Most people, men but even women, replicate all kinds of reactionary shit in society like patriachy, racism etc.

Alot of it is just being working class and reproducing the prevelant culture around you, I probably spouted crap like that for years to my embarassment.

All banning people does is turn them away from the tiny radical community that might actually remove that type of thinking from their thought process.
I would rather be slightly bothered by it on here and maybe get through to someone than ban them and have women in real life have to deal with it and to be honest I am sure his life would improve from it too.

That is just my take on it though.

I'd rather, you know? Those people be banned and not have to deal with that bullshit, iif they state they're working on it or will work on their prejudices then I'm sure they can stay if it's just lack of education, but this forum gets trolled, and bannings are great when it comes to trolls that won't stop

Vanguard1917

19th July 2014, 22:01

To be honest I feel wanting to ban people for stuff like this is kind of messed up.

Most people, men but even women, replicate all kinds of reactionary shit in society like patriachy, racism etc.

Alot of it is just being working class and reproducing the prevelant culture around you, I probably spouted crap like that for years to my embarassment.

All banning people does is turn them away from the tiny radical community that might actually remove that type of thinking from their thought process.

I would rather be slightly bothered by it on here and maybe get through to someone than ban them and have women in real life have to deal with it and to be honest I am sure his life would improve from it too.

That is just my take on it though.

You don't believe it's right to ban a person for slightly flawed (yet fairly harmless) views on a certain subject? I don't think you belong on Revleft.

Lord Testicles

19th July 2014, 22:38

I'd rather, you know? Those people be banned and not have to deal with that bullshit, iif they state they're working on it or will work on their prejudices then I'm sure they can stay if it's just lack of education, but this forum gets trolled, and bannings are great when it comes to trolls that won't stop

There's a catch 22 there though. For someone to say they're "working on it" or whatever would require them to view their thinking as deficient in some way, and if they view their thinking as deficient then they wouldn't hold those views but if they don't view their own reasoning as wrong then why would they say they are "working on it" or necessarily see their views as prejudice.

In other words how can you tell if you've got a lack of education until you've been educated?

Revleft should decide whether it wants to be a place for discussion and education, which means dealing with the vast amounts of prejudiced and reactionary views that members of the working class hold or whether it wants to be an exclusive, safe place for leftist discussion, in which case why not ban these people outright.

Vanguard1917

19th July 2014, 22:54

There's a catch 22 there though. For someone to say they're "working on it" or whatever would require them to view their thinking as deficient in some way, and if they view their thinking as deficient then they wouldn't hold those views but if they don't view their own reasoning as wrong then why would they say they are "working on it" or necessarily see their views as prejudice.

In other words how can you tell if you've got a lack of education until you've been educated?

Revleft should decide whether it wants to be a place for discussion and education, which means dealing with the vast amounts of prejudiced and reactionary views that members of the working class hold or whether it wants to be an inclusive, safe place for leftist discussion, in which case why not ban these people outright.

We need a safe place where our delicate brains and souls don't feel threatened by contrasting opinions. The outside world is a pit of immorality.

Well put btw.

Hermes

19th July 2014, 23:49

Patrice O'neal

19th July 2014, 23:57

to me, if people are coming here who hold those positions, then they're largely coming here solely to troll or derail otherwise 'productive'/useful threads that could help those who are genuinely misinformed. if you have an interest in arguing with a brick wall, there's plenty of opportunity for you out in 'the outside world', there's no reason to make the site a mirror image of that, in my opinion

not to mention that 'slightly flawed' and 'fairly harmless' are incredibly subjective

--

and, anyway, it's not like if revleft 'decided it wanted to be a place for discussion and education' the working class would flock en masse to our outstretched arms, seeking enlightenment

True but by the standards on here, every working man and woman I know would be banned and called a reactionary. Its funny, how can revolution be possible if every worker on earth is a reactionary?

Would you refuse to take control of the means of production with fellow workers because they held raccist views or sexist views or made jokes you deemed offensive or anything that on here people call fors bans for?

It's just like leftists online and in general are incredibly sheltered people and the few I know are full of gusto and denouncements online but in real life can not even handle a basic arguement or discussion on politics without getting flustered and panicked. Largely because they are used to only debating anything with completely like minded people.

It seems really stupid. If you can't formulate a good arguement against reactionary positions, how solid are your politics in the first place? And for those of us who live in very blue collar areas and do not just sit silently in public when it comes to talk about race, or immigration or class, but actively engage other members of our own class on a regular basis, we actually get through to people on issues.

Something that I doubt many revleft posters have ever had to try and do.

Hermes

20th July 2014, 00:19

True but by the standards on here, every working man and woman I know would be banned and called a reactionary. Its funny, how can revolution be possible if every worker on earth is a reactionary?

Would you refuse to take control of the means of production with fellow workers because they held raccist views or sexist views or made jokes you deemed offensive or anything that on here people call fors bans for?

It's just like leftists online and in general are incredibly sheltered people and the few I know are full of gusto and denouncements online but in real life can not even handle a basic arguement or discussion on politics without getting flustered and panicked. Largely because they are used to only debating anything with completely like minded people.

It seems really stupid. If you can't formulate a good arguement against reactionary positions, how solid are your politics in the first place? And for those of us who live in very blue collar areas and do not just sit silently in public when it comes to talk about race, or immigration or class, but actively engage other members of our own class on a regular basis, we actually get through to people on issues.

Something that I doubt many revleft posters have ever had to try and do.

I could be wrong, but I don't think that many people here believe that 'the revolution' will happen with the current attitudes of the working class, but that their attitudes will change as periods of class consciousness and revolt come and go, etc

I think it's silly to try and argue that the forum's policy on banning/restricting, as well as the rationale behind it, has any real bearing on what individuals of the forum would do in a hypothetical revolutionary situation. revleft is a place for the revolutionary left, and so people who aren't part of the revolutionary left are restricted or banned. I don't see why it's always so controversial.

I don't, both because it's largely futile, as well as having terrible social anxiety (and not being 100% fleshed out with my positions, etc)

if you'd been on revleft longer you'd know that many people do attempt to debate people off the internet

Vanguard1917

20th July 2014, 00:23

True but by the standards on here, every working man and woman I know would be banned and called a reactionary. Its funny, how can revolution be possible if every worker on earth is a reactionary?

We do seem to have a 'no platform for workers' policy here.

A petit-bourgeois liberal, who reads the Guardian or the New York Times and has immaculate PC manners, would survive far longer here than your average worker interested in socialism.

It's one thing to challenge people's ideas as wrong and win them over through convincing and reasoned argument. It's an altogether different approach to cry 'Ban this fuck faced piece of shit' (to quote 'Dirty Doxxer').

Patrice O'neal

20th July 2014, 00:48

I could be wrong, but I don't think that many people here believe that 'the revolution' will happen with the current attitudes of the working class, but that their attitudes will change as periods of class consciousness and revolt come and go, etc

I think it's silly to try and argue that the forum's policy on banning/restricting, as well as the rationale behind it, has any real bearing on what individuals of the forum would do in a hypothetical revolutionary situation. revleft is a place for the revolutionary left, and so people who aren't part of the revolutionary left are restricted or banned. I don't see why it's always so controversial.

I don't, both because it's largely futile, as well as having terrible social anxiety (and not being 100% fleshed out with my positions, etc)

if you'd been on revleft longer you'd know that many people do attempt to debate people off the internet

Even it times of social upheaval and revolutions and massive working class rebellion, most workers still hold very reactionary positions that would have them banned on revleft.

There will never be a time most workers don't hold lots of reactionary positions on things, it is called life and not being raised in a very gentle and sensitive bubble by comfortable middle class parents who encourage meeting new people and experienceing new things.

for most of the public life is a grind, you leave school having been fucked with, work all your life for no money then die. That kind of climate breeds tough and no nonsense kind of folks. That in turn leaves them very open to reactionary ideas that are prevelant amongst the general public.

Even when people organise to improve their conditions thoe deeply ingrained reactionary positions they have gathered along a hard and shit life do not dissapate because they are now doing something revolutionary.

Again you are right, this forum has no baring on real life or the workers movement, I was not trying to insinuate so, just give my thoughts on why the calls for banning are wrong and why the left is an absolute shambles today.

Communism has far more popularity among preppy college kids than it does minimum wage workers and I think that the disclusionar attitudes of people on here are just a symptom of the problem. Not something holding back workers from tearing down capitalism, obviously.

Hermes

20th July 2014, 00:58

There will never be a time most workers don't hold lots of reactionary positions on things, it is called life and not being raised in a very gentle and sensitive bubble by comfortable middle class parents who encourage meeting new people and experienceing new things.

then there really isn't any reason not to ban people if they're going to be reactionary anyway, because 'life' and 'not being raised in a bubble'

Again you are right, this forum has no baring on real life or the workers movement, I was not trying to insinuate so, just give my thoughts on why the calls for banning are wrong and why the left is an absolute shambles today.

if you're admitting that none of what you've been saying has been in response to this forum, and agree that this forum has no bearing on real life/the worker's movement, then I think I've missed your thoughts on why the calls for banning are wrong

Patrice O'neal

20th July 2014, 01:18

Vanguard1917

20th July 2014, 02:36

then there really isn't any reason not to ban people if they're going to be reactionary anyway, because 'life' and 'not being raised in a bubble'

if you're admitting that none of what you've been saying has been in response to this forum, and agree that this forum has no bearing on real life/the worker's movement, then I think I've missed your thoughts on why the calls for banning are wrong

That's true, but if the forum's just for those schooled heavily in PC etiquette, there's little room for individuals from what is probably the majority of society. Is such a forum even worthwhile? There are plenty of other online outlets where PC fanatics can come together to share their incredibly advanced and superior ideas and denounce the backward plebs while doing so.

Take euskadi's views on his relationship preferences. They're shared by millions of working class men, even in the highly developed and 'cosmopolitan' big cities of the West. You won't encounter a very great number of men who'd say 'I'd like to marry and start a family with a woman with lots of sexual experience and ex-lovers'. Things are changing (for the better, IMO), with men increasingly less concerned about their partner's prior sex life, but many men's 'gut feeling' is still along the same lines of euskadi's view.

If a politically inexperienced person interested in socialism comes here with such views, should they be met with 'Ban this fuck faced piece of shit'? Is that how we should deal with people who don't yet have a well-formed political outlook?

Hermes

20th July 2014, 06:57

That's true, but if the forum's just for those schooled heavily in PC etiquette, there's little room for individuals from what is probably the majority of society. Is such a forum even worthwhile? There are plenty of other online outlets where PC fanatics can come together to share their incredibly advanced and superior ideas and denounce the backward plebs while doing so.

Take euskadi's views on his relationship preferences. They're shared by millions of working class men, even in the highly developed and 'cosmopolitan' big cities of the West. You won't encounter a very great number of men who'd say 'I'd like to marry and start a family with a woman with lots of sexual experience and ex-lovers'. Things are changing (for the better, IMO), with men increasingly less concerned about their partner's prior sex life, but many men's 'gut feeling' is still along the same lines of euskadi's view.

If a politically inexperienced person interested in socialism comes here with such views, should they be met with 'Ban this fuck faced piece of shit'? Is that how we should deal with people who don't yet have a well-formed political outlook?

is euskadi banned? and, again, I don't think this forum is built for 'millions of working class men'; I think the forum would have difficulty handling such a load of active members

as well, I think you're purposefully minimizing/obscuring the issue by referring to whatever your problem is as 'pc fanatics' or 'those heavily schooled in pc etiquette'. I'm not even really interested in discussing why, as I'm certain that it's a conversation you have had many times and would gladly rehash once again, with nothing gained

PhoenixAsh

20th July 2014, 10:03

My calculations based on a major study in 1998 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2770504&postcount=184) bring me to a figure of no more than 0.25% and perhaps lower. I.e. no more than 300,000 American men - certainly not 'millions'.

Your later CDC study can't be used to arrive at a figure because it has no data for the age at which the men were 'made to penetrate' a woman.

Sigh.

Your calculations ar based on outdated studies dealing with GENERAL violence against women...studies which the same institute have done over.

But I once again note that rape isn't rape when it involves children (you know....everything in the US that is younger than 21) in your opinion. :rolleyes:

And I once again do note that apparently made to penetrate by a partner, wife or girlfriend doesn't say anything about age. :rolleyes:

So lets recap so all the newer members can understand what you are:

* You were restricted before for continued sexism and rape apology and kicked out of the CU for it

* You claim rape is MALE violence (a position you have NOT amended and retracted) > this of course ignores female to female rape and female to male rape. But it IS the statement that sparked this debate.

* You did so to show feminists on this site that they did not understand rape

* You said men can not be sexually harassed

* You said men who are sexually harassed only claim to be because of profit and questionable motives

* You for a large part of the discission refused to read any sources provioded to you and dismissed them out of hand...not based on any evidence but your gut feelinig based on perpetuating socialized gender norms

* You then conveniently introduced age into the debate (you know...never having made the distinctin in your own claim btw).

* In doing so apparantly, based on your initial claim, rape is only rape when it happens to an adult.

* You out of hand dismissed a report showing the same divide in sexual abusive behavior in men and women.

* You more than once claimed you could not believe more than two million American ADULT men were raped.

* You then found a 16 year old study on GENERAL violence against women to counter pose a 4 year old study by the same institute specifically on sexual violence against men and women...to claim the study is wrong. A study btw that does not recognize made to penetrate.

* By yoiur own calculations of the numbers in the newer study you yourself arrived at a figure of more than 2 million ADULT men. Of course you based yourself on the wrong extrapolation data. BUT you still refuse to accept you are wrong.

* When confronted with this you immediate, instead of just admitting your are fucking wrong, reposition yourself back at the outdated studey NOT dealing with the topic at hand because it is more convenient for you.

* You also seem to be unable to graps the fact that made to penetrate by wife, girlfriend, spouse is a perfect indication of age.

* All the while you take a pseudo scientific argument against your debate opponents but never seem to hold yourself up to scientific behavior.

(*and of course this adds up to your other position where it is A-okay to in your mind to infect a part ner with an STD because of the...you know...stigma)

Rosa Partizan

20th July 2014, 10:16

let me quote Shakespeare.

Discretion is the better part of valour.

Vanguard1917

20th July 2014, 13:24

Sigh.

Your calculations ar based on outdated studies dealing with GENERAL violence against women...studies which the same institute have done over.

No, the major study i referenced looks at both male and female rape. If you actually look at it (link here (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf)), rather than just read its title, you will see that it reports on a questionnaire of 8,000 men along with 8,000 women:

"Discussed in this Brief: Results of a nationally representative telephone survey of 8,000 women and 8,000 men about their experiences with rape, physical assault, and stalking cosponsored by the National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and conducted by the Center for Policy Research." (page 2)

It's true - the CDC report you linked is more recent. But, crucially, it does not tell us the age at which the men were 'made to penetrate' a woman.

The study i'm using, on the other hand, tells us that 'the majority of rapes occurs against children and adolescents' (page 6).

In other words, from your CDC study, you have no data at all to arrive at a percentage figure for the number of men raped by women while adults.

From my CDC study, however, i can deduce that the figure is no more than 0.25%:

2.1% of men in America have been raped in their lifetime by a person of either sex. (Exhibit 1, page 3)

The vast majority of rapes against men are committed by other men - 85.9%. Rapes against men committed by women are 23.3% (Exhibit 10, page 8).

And the majority of rapes occur against children and adolescents (page 6)

Therefore:

0.49% of men have been raped by women, when in childhood or adulthood.

The percentage of men raped by women while adults is not higher than 0.25%.

In other words, according to the available data, the percentage of men in America who have reported to being raped by a woman while adults is no more than 0.25%.

You have repeatedly called me a rape apologist (and a bunch of other things) for rejecting your laughable estimate that 5% of American men have been raped by women while adults.

And you continue to call me these things, despite all the evidence presented against you.

What kind of a person does this make you?

Vanguard1917

20th July 2014, 13:41

is euskadi banned? and, again, I don't think this forum is built for 'millions of working class men'; I think the forum would have difficulty handling such a load of active members

Not yet, but he easily could be. It's already been demanded that he should be by at least one person here.

The point is that this forum would restrict and ban individuals from the core constituency of socialist politics, if such individuals harboured this or that opinion not strictly in line with the board administration's preferred ideas. (Meanwhile, of course, the BA thinks it's perfectly OK to call adulterous women rapists.)

In other words, sectarianism of a particularly vulgar kind. A sectarianism which probably surpasses even the worst Trotskyist or Maoist sects.

Vanguard1917

20th July 2014, 16:46

Patrice O'neal

20th July 2014, 16:54

I'm no SWPer, but Cliff's advice is well worth paying attention to:

'The question for revolutionaries is how to relate to non-revolutionary workers. How you relate to people who agree with you 60 percent and how, through the struggle, you can move that to 80 percent. If you are a sectarian you say, “You don’t agree with me on 40 percent, I don’t care about you.” If you are a revolutionary you say, “We agree on 60 per cent, let’s start with that and I’ll argue with you about the 40 percent that we don’t agree and in the struggle try to convince you.”'

On Revleft, extreme sectarianism manifests itself along these lines: 'Fuck you get out my face i don't wanna see you here or have anything to do with you!!!!!!!'

And all that for a small disagreement about someone's sexual preferences.

On a completely unrelated thread from the Gaza one, I replied to the OP and someone went on a rant about how I was a pro Israel parasitic piece of shit. The thread had nothing to do with that issue and as an anarchsit i clearly do not support the Israeli state anyway :D

You just know they have never had any real conflict or hardship in their life and thus they have such an out of touch with reality, entitled and whiney response to everything that does not exactly correlate with their world view.

Lord Testicles

20th July 2014, 16:59

You just know they have never had any real conflict or hardship in their life and thus they have such an out of touch with reality, entitled and whiney response to everything that does not exactly correlate with their world view.

These kind of personal attacks help nobody and do nothing but stir up the water and make you look childish.

Vanguard1917

20th July 2014, 16:59

On a completely unrelated thread from the Gaza one, I replied to the OP and someone went on a rant about how I was a pro Israel parasitic piece of shit. The thread had nothing to do with that issue and as an anarchsit i clearly do not support the Israeli state anyway :D

You just know they have never had any real conflict or hardship in their life and thus they have such an out of touch with reality, entitled and whiney response to everything that does not exactly correlate with their world view.

Enjoying your first month here? :laugh:

Patrice O'neal

20th July 2014, 17:06

These kind of personal attacks help nobody and do nothing but stir up the water and make you look childish.

It was a response to an attack on me, which was out of nowehere and from someone i had never interacted with on the forum before. How my reply to it is childish is puzzling.

I think what I wrote is an accurate description of anyone who throws insults out at people online for not sharing their opinion.

PhoenixAsh

20th July 2014, 17:34

No, the major study i referenced looks at both male and female rape. If you actually look at it (link here (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf)), rather than just read its title, you will see that it reports on a questionnaire of 8,000 men along with 8,000 women:

"Discussed in this Brief: Results of a nationally representative telephone survey of 8,000 women and 8,000 men about their experiences with rape, physical assault, and stalking cosponsored by the National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and conducted by the Center for Policy Research." (page 2)

It's true - the CDC report you linked is more recent. But, crucially, it does not tell us the age at which the men were 'made to penetrate' a woman.

The study i'm using, on the other hand, tells us that 'the majority of rapes occurs against children and adolescents' (page 6).

In other words, from your CDC study, you have no data at all to arrive at a percentage figure for the number of men raped by women while adults.

From my CDC study, however, i can deduce that the figure is no more than 0.25%:

2.1% of men in America have been raped in their lifetime by a person of either sex. (Exhibit 1, page 3)

The vast majority of rapes against men are committed by other men - 85.9%. Rapes against men committed by women are 23.3% (Exhibit 10, page 8).

And the majority of rapes occur against children and adolescents (page 6)

Therefore:

0.49% of men have been raped by women, when in childhood or adulthood.

The percentage of men raped by women while adults is not higher than 0.25%.

In other words, according to the available data, the percentage of men in America who have reported to being raped by a woman while adults is no more than 0.25%.

You have repeatedly called me a rape apologist (and a bunch of other things) for rejecting your laughable estimate that 5% of American men have been raped by women while adults.

And you continue to call me these things, despite all the evidence presented against you.

What kind of a person does this make you?

Deep, very, very deep sigh.

I am not entirely sure if you are just plain stupid or trolling. I will be nice and assume the latter.

So lets go over this again for your convenience..

You are citing a 16 year old study into general violence against women. The numbers and methods reflect this. You are NOT citing a study into sexual violence.

Now...normally a sane person or one without a hidden sexist agenda like you...would have come to realize this by now. In fact...they would have just admitted they were wrong from the start and be done with it. They would also not have dismissed evidence before even reading this. But here we are...you have done all these things and now you are haggling over trivialities.

The study you cite recognizes ONE kind of rape: penetrative rape.

There ends ANY validity for your argument. ANY.

Also I would appreciate it if you quit with your continued lies and misdirections in order to white wash your rampant sexism, victim blaming and rape apologism...could you please cite me saying that we were talking about 5% ADULT males? No? And please explain how this relates and is relevant to YOUR initial claim that rape is male violence.

And could you kindly admit that you have been fucking obnoxiously wrong even by your own calculations and that millions of men are getting raped by women? Because you are a fucking liar when you state that the four your old study based on sexual violence says nothing about age...because apparently minors can have spouses these days...according to you. And I have shown this to you. You know this. Yet you continue to fortify your own sexism and rape apologism and portray false evidence and knowingly wrong comparisons to the members here.

Could you please kindly explain to the membership community how you arrive at the conclusion that rape under the age of 21 (AOM in the US) is not to be considered rape?

I have pregged you correctly from the start of this debate and your conduct here is beyond contempt.

Quail

20th July 2014, 17:40

It was a response to an attack on me, which was out of nowehere and from someone i had never interacted with on the forum before. How my reply to it is childish is puzzling.

I think what I wrote is an accurate description of anyone who throws insults out at people online for not sharing their opinion.

You're whining about it in a different thread... Report it to the mods if you want, but nothing constructive will come of making passive aggressive comments in other areas of the forum. It just derails the discussion.

Patrice O'neal

20th July 2014, 18:34

You're whining about it in a different thread... Report it to the mods if you want, but nothing constructive will come of making passive aggressive comments in other areas of the forum. It just derails the discussion.

It was relevant to the last page of this thread, which was talking about the ban and insult whoever disagrees with me culture on this board.

So I really am not whining, I am pointing out examples of something that was being discussed on this page of the thread, because of the calls for banning another user in this thread.

I agree this is getting off topic, so my apologies, I will as you say, vent elsewhere.

However this thread seems pretty played out, with two posters making the bulk of the discussion and one just calling the other names because their poorly sourced statistics are not being taken as serious sources on an important claim they made.

Post mortem

20th July 2014, 23:20

You are NOT citing a study into sexual violence.

This is intellectual dishonesty.

From page 2 of the study:

"Discussed in this Brief: Results of a nationally representative telephone survey of 8,000 women and 8,000 men about their experiences with rape, physical assault, and stalking cosponsored by the National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and conducted by the Center for Policy Research."

The study you cite recognizes ONE kind of rape: penetrative rape.

That's true – i'll give you that one:

'Rape was defined as an event that occurred without the victim’s consent, that involved the use or threat of force to penetrate the victim’s vagina or anus by penis, tongue, fingers, or object, or the victim’s mouth by penis. The defintion included both attempted and completed rape.' (page 13)

Also I would appreciate it if you quit with your continued lies and misdirections in order to white wash your rampant sexism, victim blaming and rape apologism...could you please cite me saying that we were talking about 5% ADULT males? No? And please explain how this relates and is relevant to YOUR initial claim that rape is male violence.

Again, this is dishonesty.

There is a long trail of exchanges between you and me which show that you are, to be blunt, lying here. See the spoiler below for all the information you will ever need to prove that this is the case.

Me:

Lol - this entire exchange for the last 20 or so posts has been about your claim that 5% of American men have been raped by women while in adulthood.

I take this as an acceptance by you that the figure you gave simply can't be substantiated. You raised a figure, decided to stick with it, wasted hundreds of written words swearing at me and accusing me of rape apology when i refused to accept the figure - all the while, the figure was a figment of your imagination.

Your reply:

O no that is most definately not an acceptance. That figure is in fact substantiated and no point you have raised has refuted it what so ever.

------------------

And some further exchanges as background:

You:

Fuck you. The statistics are 5% and that is not really rare now is it?

5% is not very, very rare. That is 5 in 100 males. This of course is not comparable to the 47% of women raped. This is not a competition but 5:100 is a very sizeable group.

Me:

You've produced not a single piece of clear evidence to substantiate your claim that 5 million adult men (or 4, 3, 2 or even 1 million adult men) in America have been raped by women.

Your reply:

Actually I did, but like I said, like the good rape apologist and denier you are you simply dismiss any form of evidence or you make up some wild fantastic tale of how these figures are untrue.

Instead of simply trying to understand the facts behind the figures and challenge your own sexist and deeply problematic patriarchal notions about gender socialization you simply dismiss, ridicule, diminish, undermine and cast doubt on victim statements. That is in its most direct and pure form the actual definition of rape apologism and dismissal. So you are nothing but a deeply problematic perpetuator of rape culture.

Me:

So you can't defend your wild statistics at all? Not even with your own sources? You won't even attempt to? You will just make absurd claims and call people rape apologists if they tell you your 'facts' are wrong? Is this a scientific, or even a mature and intelligent, attitude to empirical facts?

Again, how did you come to that figure?

You:

I have but you weren't paying attention because you were too bussy flat out denying and dismissing the facts and figures presented to you and making up stories and motivations for men to claim they were sexually harassed (which you specifically claimed was very unlikely) and flatout lying about the topic of a report you presented....and after more than 40 posts on the subject you are now too little too late to enter into a discussion on facts and figures with your completely false interpretations which have all been adressed previously.

Me:

Pay attention to what? I've read all your posts and seen not a single piece of evidence to back up that claim.

Your bizarre reply:

Aizeman & Kelley, 1988 – 14% of men (and 29% of women) reported they had been forced to have intercourse against their will
Anderson 1998 – Survey of 461 women (general population) 43% secured sexual acts by verbal coercion; 36.5% by getting a man intoxicated; threat of force – 27.8%, use of force – 20%; By threatening a man with a weapon – 8.9%.
Anderson, 1999 – 43% of college women admitted to using verbal or physical pressure to obtain sex
Anderson and Aymami (1993) 28.5% of women reported the use of verbal coercion, 14.7% had coerced a man into sexual activity by getting him intoxicated and 7.1% had threatened or used physical force.
Fiebert & Tucci (1998) – 70% of male college students reported experiencing some type of harassment, pressuring, or coercion by a female
Hannon, Kunetz, Van Laar, & Williams (1996) – 10% of surveyed male college students reported experiencing a completed sexual assault perpetrated by a female intimate partner
Hogben, Byrne & Hamburger (1996) Lifetime prevalence of 24% for women having made a man engage in sexual activity against his will.
Krahe, Waizenhofer & Moller (2003) – 9.3% of women reported having used aggressive strategies to coerce a man into sexual activities. Exploitation of the man’s incapacitated state: 5.6% Verbal pressure: 3.2%. Physical force: 2%. An additional 5.4% reported attempted acts of sexual aggression
Larimer, Lydum, Anderson and Turner (1999) 20.7% of male respondents had been the recipients of unwanted sexual contact in the year prior to the survey. Verbal pressure was experienced by 7.9%, physical force by 0.6% and intoxication through alcohol or drugs by 3.6%.
Muehlenhard and Cook (1988) 23.8% of male respondents had engaged in unwanted sexual activity as a result of threat or physical force, and 26.8% reported unwanted sexual contact as a result of verbal pressure. For unwanted intercourse, the prevalence rates were 6.5% for physical force and 13.4% for verbal pressure.
O’Sullivan, Byers and Finkelman (1998) Overall incidence of 8% of women reporting sexual aggression for the academic year preceding the survey. Intercourse due to use of threat or physical force 0.5%, by use of alcohol or drugs 0.5% and attempted intercourse due to threat or use of physical force also 0.5%. Of male respondents, 18.5% reported having experienced sexual aggression. Specifically, 3.8% reported experiencing unwanted sexual intercourse due to use of alcohol or drugs, and 2.3% reported attempted intercourse due to threat or use of physical force.
Poppen and Segal (1988) 14% of women reported lifetime incident(s) of perpetration (including both verbal coercion and physical assault)
Russell and Oswald (2001) – 18% of women in a college sample reported engaging in sexually coercive behaviors, ranging from verbal threats and pressure to use of physically aggressive tactics.
Russell and Oswald (2002) 44% of college men in their sample reported being subjected to a sexually coercive tactic.
Shea (1988) Women’s reported lifetime prevalence – 19% for verbal coercion; 1.2% reported having physically assaulted a man.
Sisco, Becker, Figueredo, & Sales (2005) – A third of women reported that they had verbally harassed a person or pressured the person into performing a sexual act that the person felt uncomfortable with while roughly one in ten performed a coercive sexual act that would be considered illegal (e.g., sexual acts that involved a person who was unable or unwilling to consent)
Sorensen, Stein, Siegel, Golding and Burnam (1987) Lifetime prevalence rate of 9.4% and an adult prevalence rate of 7.2% for men’s sexual victimization (male self-reports).
Struckman-Johnson (1988) – 2% of 355 female college students reported they had forced sex on a dating partner at least once in their lifetime.
Struckman-Johnson and Struckman-Johnson (1998) – 43% of college men reported experiencing a coercive incident, of which 36% reported unwanted touch and 27% reported being coerced into sexual intercourse.

Now tackle these. See if you get anywhere. Also doing so is quite simple for many of them. But I would like you to actually read the studies themselves. Some problematic, some scientifically inaccurate, some simply misss citation. But all at the very least show we have a completely false notion of sexual violence and that with the right kind of questions, the right kind of interpretation, leaving out or adding information of simply creating definitions or presenting them in another light or tone will seriously alter the outcome of studies.

Me:

Which one of these [long list of articles] backs up your claim that 5% of American men have been raped by women while adults?

You:

Actually, I am not interested in debating you. I seem to remember having said so repeatedly before. I have presented you with evidence. Evidence you then dismissed out of hand. You then continued to ridicule the evidence you hadn't even read...simply because it didn't fit your narrative.

In fact, this is my very first challenge to your claim – notice the bit in the brackets: 'Calm your backside and provide me with a source that 5% of all rapists are women who rape men (not children, men).'

Because you are a fucking liar when you state that the four your old study based on sexual violence says nothing about age...because apparently minors can have spouses these days...according to you. And I have shown this to you. You know this.

Sheer dishonesty, once again.

Your CDC report refers to 'intimate partner', not spouse. And you know this fully well, which is why i know you're just simply lying now.

The 113-page report you use doesn't even refer to the word 'spouse' – barring two references with nothing to do with what you're saying.

One of them is on page 100: 'active duty military and female spouses of active duty military'; and the other is in a footnote on page 7: 'The Department of Defense’s financial support enabled the addition of a separate random sample of female active duty military and female spouses of active duty military.'

Could you please kindly explain to the membership community how you arrive at the conclusion that rape under the age of 21 (AOM in the US) is not to be considered rape?

This is a nonsense of a question, and you know it is.

In conclusion:

You have no evidence at all that 5% of American men have been raped by women while in adulthood. The fact that you used my rejection of that absurd claim to justify repeatedly calling me a rape apologist speaks volumes about your character as a man or a woman.

You also have no evidence that 1% of American men have been raped by women while in adulthood. Why? Because your CDC report does not provide us with the necessary data to make that claim either.

According to your CDC report, about half of all rape victims have been raped as adults (the rest have been raped as minors but not as adults). Why would the same ratio not apply to males who have been 'made to penetrate' a woman? In fact, could we perhaps have some valid reasons for suspecting that it is even more likely for men than it is for women to suffer sexual violence from the opposite sex while they are minors? All else being equal, a woman would be far more capable of subduing and violently abusing a male child or adolescent than a male adult.

Because we failed to treat this exchange between us as a constructive experience (for both of us), we did not even get a chance to get to address the other problematic aspects of the report.

The main one – the elephant in the room – is that the report's findings are based on brief answers over the telephone to a questionnaire survey. Such studies can provide us with lots of important insights, but they also have important flaws. They can't simply be relied on as an accurate reflection of existing social phenomena. This is not to 'dismiss' or 'blame' victims – it is merely to point out, with a sober mind, the possible shortcomings of such a research method.

If a large percentage of white protestant Americans told a study that they experience racial discrimination in the workplace, that does not neccessarily mean that large numbers of white protestant Americans are victims of racial discrimination in America. They might be, or they might not be. In order to get close to the answer, we need to do more than just take the results of the survey as a simple reflection of reality. We need to interpret those results using theory as well as other pieces of emprical data.

Anyway, this will obviously be my last post on Revleft. I think according to the rules it will be deleted soon, so I'll also try to copy this post to you as a PM – with the hope that you will seriously consider the problematic aspects of your approach. Like i said, discussion should always try to be constructive. I've certainly learnt a ton as a result of this website over the past nine or so years.

PhoenixAsh

21st July 2014, 08:49

Well...VG made a sock (Post mortem). And now he is actually denying rape below 18 is actually rape but rather abuse and therefore not rape:

Intimate partner can mean boyfriend or girlfriend. Millions of boys and girls under 18 have had 'intimate partners'. The main exception to the rule that rape is a male crime is female sexual abuse of children . Do these things usually involve the male 'being made to penetrate' the woman or even any kind of penetration? That's open to dispute.

Notie how he specifically names it abuse...not rape.

Hit The North

21st July 2014, 11:18

Well...VG made a sock (Post mortem). And now he is actually denying rape below 18 is actually rape but rather abuse and therefore not rape:

Notie how he specifically names it abuse...not rape.

Well, it is obvious to anyone with a working brain that not all sexual abuse is rape.

Vanguard1917 prefers data which claims female-on-male rape amounts to a statistically insignificant 0.25 and you prefer data which argues that it is more like 5%. What I don't understand is what the political ramifications of this disagreement is, so perhaps you can enlighten me? I'd also like clarification on how Vanguard1917's argument amounts to the "persistent sexism" that has got him banned.

PhoenixAsh

21st July 2014, 11:47

Well, it is obvious to anyone with a working brain that not all sexual abuse is rape.

Vanguard1917 prefers data which claims female-on-male rape amounts to a statistically insignificant 0.25 and you prefer data which argues that it is more like 5%. What I don't understand is what the political ramifications of this disagreement is, so perhaps you can enlighten me? I'd also like clarification on how Vanguard1917's argument amounts to the "persistent sexism" that has got him banned.

Sigh. Well how very suprising.

Lets recap for the umpth time.

> Alluding that men can not be raped by women.
> Stating that men can not be sexually harassed
> Stating that men who are sexually harassed have a different selfish motives
> Dismissing victims based on gender socialization
> Dismissing any evidence out of hand without having read it, nor providing any counter evidence.
> Alluding that female to female rape is not rape
> Dismissing out of hand, based on gender roles, that studies which show an equal predisposition to sexual abusive behavior are untrue
> Stating that rape only happens when people are adult
> Stating that having sex with somebody who can not consent is normal
> Perpetuating gender roles

Should I continue? Or is this more than enough for you?

PhoenixAsh

21st July 2014, 11:49

Well, it is obvious to anyone with a working brain that not all sexual abuse is rape.

Also btw. NOT what he said. And it is quite obvious for anybody with half a brain that when you spend an entire debate on how rape is not just male violence (the statement which sparked the debate in the first place) trying to argue that it is based solely on the distinction on age stating that rape does not occur under the age of majority (ranging from 18 tot 21 in the US...the region we are debating)....then yeah...

Invader Zim

21st July 2014, 12:08

I'd also like clarification on how Vanguard1917's argument amounts to the "persistent sexism" that has got him banned.

Quite simply it doesn't. There doesn't seem a lot more to say, other than to question the ability of the staff of this forum to make a sensible decision. The absurdity of banning Vanguard while leaving euskadi is truly astonishing.

PhoenixAsh

21st July 2014, 12:16

Quite simply it doesn't. There doesn't seem a lot more to say, other than to question the ability of the staff of this forum to make a sensible decision. The absurdity of banning Vanguard while leaving euskadi is truly astonishing.

Sure it doesn't.

Apparently victim blaming, saying that somebody who is abused or harassed had different motives, saying that children can not be raped, all isn't sexism. Or maybe you missed all that

:rolleyes:

Hit The North

21st July 2014, 12:23

Sigh. Well how very suprising.

Oh dear, you seem to be expressing a prejudice toward me! Not a good start to our conversation.

Lets recap for the umpth time.

> Alluding that men can not be raped by women.
> Stating that men can not be sexually harassed
> Stating that men who are sexually harassed have a different selfish motives
> Dismissing victims based on gender socialization
> Dismissing any evidence out of hand without having read it, nor providing any counter evidence.
> Alluding that female to female rape is not rape
> Dismissing out of hand, based on gender roles, that studies which show an equal predisposition to sexual abusive behavior are untrue
> Stating that rape only happens when people are adult
> Stating that having sex with somebody who can not consent is normal
> Perpetuating gender roles

Should I continue? Or is this more than enough for you?

No, it's not enough. I want the actual quotes where he makes these claims and not merely your colourful interpretation of what he "alludes" to. For a start, the first accusation is untrue, as he states a 0.25% incidence which might downplay the phenomenon of female-on-male rape but does not deny it. Neither, to my knowledge, has he denied that people under 18 can be raped.

Meanwhile, your data is drawn from a single American study which you are apparently eager to universalise, suggesting that you think that rape is a biological phenomenon and not a cultural one. The CDC study might betray a particularly American phenomenon or it might not, but you are certainly not wise to generalise from it.

Neither is it wise to refute the idea that rape is primarily a manifestation of male power and violence over women on the basis of alleged 5% American female perpetration. In fact, I find your eagerness to refute this well-established truth of critical feminism more politically suspect than anything V1917 has written in this thread.

Also btw. NOT what he said.

Yes, it is what he said. You quoted it yourself:

Originally Posted by Vanguard1917 under the name Post mortem
Intimate partner can mean boyfriend or girlfriend. Millions of boys and girls under 18 have had 'intimate partners'. The main exception to the rule that rape is a male crime is female sexual abuse of children . Do these things usually involve the male 'being made to penetrate' the woman or even any kind of penetration? That's open to dispute.

He is clearly suggesting that female sexual abuse of children might not predominantly include penetration. He might be wrong (or he might not be), but he isn't denying anything.

Invader Zim

21st July 2014, 12:25

Sure it doesn't.

Apparently victim blaming, saying that somebody who is abused or harassed had different motives, saying that children can not be raped, all isn't sexism. Or maybe you missed all that

:rolleyes:

Yeah, I missed all that because it isn't there because he didn't actually say anything of the sort (see Hit The North's comments which largely encompass my own reading of the thread) - the issue here isn't whether I've missed something, but that there is nothing there to say unless you cherry pick, obfuscate, and distort, what Vanguard actually said beyond any actual similiarity to his actual words.

Ultimately, what I can see is you having an argument with Vanguard, and, as often seems to be the case, when you start to lose you resort to name calling and accusations of sexism. It appears to be your standard mode of discourse. Which is, of course, somewhat ironic because, as Hit the North says:

"Neither is it wise to refute the idea that rape is primarily a manifestation of male power and violence over women on the basis of alleged 5% American female perpetration. In fact, I find your eagerness to refute this well-established truth of critical feminism more politically suspect than anything V1917 has written in this thread."

In fact, of all your accussations, the only one which isn't laughably, transparantly and maliciously false is this:

"> Stating that men who are sexually harassed have a different selfish motives"

That comment, that there might be an another motive, primarily financial, for males to accuse females of raping them, was rather dodgy. While conceivable on very limited level, his dismissal of the notion based on this is logically unfounded and risible.

PhoenixAsh

21st July 2014, 12:44

Oh dear, you seem to be expressing a prejudice toward me! Not a good start to our conversation.

Its the tone that sets the music.

No, it's not enough. I want the actual quotes where he makes these claims and not merely your colourful interpretation of what he "alludes" to. For a start, the first accusation is untrue, as he states a 0.25% incidence which might downplay the phenomenon of female-on-male rape but does not deny it. Neither, to my knowledge, has he denied that people under 18 can be raped.

Actually if you had followed the debate from the start I attacked his position that rape is purely male violence. I attacked it with saying female to male rape is not very, very rare. And I attacked it by saying he is overlooking female to female rape. THIS last part he conveniently left out during the entire debate...where I kept mentioning it.

HE however challenged my challenge of his assertion that rape is male violence with saying age is an important factor for this statement to be true. I asked him several times WHY he thought this to be the case and as you can see in the quote I posted he sees this as abuse and not rape.

Meanwhile, your data is drawn from a single American study which you are apparently eager to universalise, suggesting that you think that rape is a biological phenomenon and not a cultural one. The CDC study might betray a particularly American phenomenon or it might not, but you are certainly not wise to generalise from it.

Actually i did no such thing and the debate simply went into this direction because he refused to acknowledge the wider application of female initiated rape and solely challenged the 5% assertion.

Neither is it wise to refute the idea that rape is primarily a manifestation of male power and violence over women on the basis of alleged 5% American female perpetration. In fact, I find your eagerness to refute this well-established truth of critical feminism more politically suspect than anything V1917 has written in this thread.

Actually it is very wise to do so and I have adressed why that is.

Lets be quite clear here...30% of non heterosexual women report sexual force, rape by their significant other. That compared with studies which show that there is NO difference in predisposition between the sexes when it comes to sexual abusive behavior. One however does not exclude the other...like I argued over and over and over again...specifically saying exactly why this is.

O...and to be entirely clear....did you get the post, you know...before he actually made the trouble to find some studies....where he simply dismissed female to male rape as being the result of "nagging women"??

Yes, it is what he said. You quoted it yourself:
He is clearly suggesting that female sexual abuse of children might not predominantly include penetration. He might be wrong (or he might not be), but he isn't denying anything.

No...he is quite clearly not. What he says is that the assertiojn of 5% men being raped by women is not true...his argument is based solely on being adult or not.

Now kindly explain to me...exactly how somebody being younger than 21 matters for being raped. Because that is EXACTLY his argument.

Invader Zim

21st July 2014, 12:54

No...he is quite clearly not. What he says is that the assertiojn of 5% men being raped by women is not true...his argument is based solely on being adult or not.

Another comprehension failure on your part - at no time did Vanguard deny that women rape and/or abuse children. His argument was that the statistic you produced that 5% of men (adult males) have been raped by women (adult females), is not supported by the evidence your produced, which included individuals raped when they were children. He was making a pedantic (albeit accurate) point about the statistic you cited, he was not contending that "rape only happens when people are adult [sic]", you just made that up. What Vanguard actually said, in crystal clear terms way back in post 95, was:

"And i'm not "dismissing raped males". I'm saying that there is a very small number of men raped by women in comparison to (a) women raped my men, (b) men raped by men and (c) children raped by men and, less frequently, women."

So, you're wrong, it is there in black and white. VG did not argue that "men can not be raped by women"; that "men can not be sexually harassed" or any of your other bullshit accussations. And this had been clear throughout the thread. The fact that you have managed to get him banned based on such spurious accussations is nothing short of concrete evidence that your fellow mods and admins don't actually bother to read the discussions that they vote on. Either that or are too stupid to understand what they are reading. In my experience it is probably a mixture of the two, a heady brew of laziness and incompetence.

Patrice O'neal

21st July 2014, 13:51

Its the tone that sets the music.

Actually if you had followed the debate from the start I attacked his position that rape is purely male violence. I attacked it with saying female to male rape is not very, very rare. And I attacked it by saying he is overlooking female to female rape. THIS last part he conveniently left out during the entire debate...where I kept mentioning it.

HE however challenged my challenge of his assertion that rape is male violence with saying age is an important factor for this statement to be true. I asked him several times WHY he thought this to be the case and as you can see in the quote I posted he sees this as abuse and not rape.

Actually i did no such thing and the debate simply went into this direction because he refused to acknowledge the wider application of female initiated rape and solely challenged the 5% assertion.

Actually it is very wise to do so and I have adressed why that is.

Lets be quite clear here...30% of non heterosexual women report sexual force, rape by their significant other. That compared with studies which show that there is NO difference in predisposition between the sexes when it comes to sexual abusive behavior. One however does not exclude the other...like I argued over and over and over again...specifically saying exactly why this is.

O...and to be entirely clear....did you get the post, you know...before he actually made the trouble to find some studies....where he simply dismissed female to male rape as being the result of "nagging women"??

No...he is quite clearly not. What he says is that the assertiojn of 5% men being raped by women is not true...his argument is based solely on being adult or not.

Now kindly explain to me...exactly how somebody being younger than 21 matters for being raped. Because that is EXACTLY his argument.

No he did not say "rape is purely male violence". He said the overwhelming majority or rapists were men, which is a fact.

PhoenixAsh

21st July 2014, 13:54

Another comprehension failure on your part - at no time did Vanguard deny that women rape and/or abuse children. His argument was that the statistic you produced that 5% of men (adult males) have been raped by women (adult females), is not supported by the evidence your produced, which included individuals raped when they were children. He was making a pedantic (albeit accurate) point about the statistic you cited, he was not contending that "rape only happens when people are adult [sic]", you just made that up. What Vanguard actually said, in crystal clear terms way back in post 95, was:

Actually I did no such thing at all...which is an utter failure on your part.

At no time did I say the statistic is 5% adult males. In fact I said quite clearly that his assertion was not true because 5% of men were raped by women.

Now that assertion was counter posed against his claim that women very, very rarely rape men and, together with female to female rape statistics, that rape is male violence. i would LOVE you to quote me saying ADULT men.

Now...just to be quite clear:

When you say a claim is not true: 5% of men are raped by women...BECAUSE of age....

This is a really problematic statement.

"And i'm not "dismissing raped males". I'm saying that there is a very small number of men raped by women in comparison to (a) women raped my men, (b) men raped by men and (c) children raped by men and, less frequently, women."
So, you're wrong, it is there in black and white. VG did not argue that "men can not be raped by women"; that "men can not be sexually harassed" or any of your other bullshit accussations. And this had been clear throughout the thread. The fact that you have managed to get him banned based on such spurious accussations is nothing short of concrete evidence that your fellow mods and admins don't actually bother to read the discussions that they vote on. Either that or are too stupid to understand what they are reading. In my experience it is probably a mixture of the two, a heady brew of laziness and incompetence.

you are really an incompetent asshole.

Here is a nice example...on a specific case of sexual harassment he stated:

When $237,000 in damages from a large corporation is up for grabs, i'm sure a significant number of men would be prepared to play the victim role and exaggerate their woes.

^ so this is quite clearly dismissing a victim. There is no argument about this.

As Five Year Plan quite correctly stated:

It seems vanguard's position on male sexual victimization is the result of some truly antediluvian (highly sexist) notion that men are inherently desirous of any kind of sexual contact, while women, in their chaste purity, are programmed not to want sex as much. So when a man complains about having his ass pinched, he is clearly just grubbing after money. I wonder, vanguard, would you say the same thing if the person accused of sexually harassing the man were another man? Or does your homophobia trump your Victorian understanding of gendered sexual differences?

On made to penetrate:

Rape is a crime punishable by imprisonment in America. Nagging your husband for sex, on the other hand, is not

&

OK, so you believe that a wife successfully nagging her husband for sex is rape.

Apparently...result of nagging women.

Naturally he completely ignored any repeated mention of female-to-female rape. And lets be quite frank...he challenged the assertion of the 5% based on AGE. It was for him completely and utterly relevant of 5% men being raped by women what their age was.

Again...I ask you to explain how that is. Or do you too believe that there is some magical age indicator (namely 18-21) where rape suddenly doesn't become rape anymore?

So dear Zim...be careful of who you defend.

That is of course after Vanguard1917 simply initiated the debate with dismissing any sort of evidence out of hand...based on hot air and his gut feeling rather than having read any of the evidence or backed up his dismissal with any actual data....for about a dozen of posts or so.

PhoenixAsh

21st July 2014, 13:59

No he did not say "rape is purely male violence". He said the overwhelming majority or rapists were men, which is a fact.

No...actually he did not:

rape is - an act of violence committed by men

Please indicate where he said that it was overwhelming

Patrice O'neal

21st July 2014, 14:14

Yes, for the most part women don't rape men - it is very, very rare. The idea that women having sex via lying and cheating (as in adultery) constitutes rape was the logical conclusion of the argument that a man who tells lies to get sex from a woman is a rapist. That's why it was eventually stated explicitly. An argument which calls for the criminalisation of adultery is, needless to say, extremely reactionary. Laws against adultery have historically been a core legal means to subjugate women, helping to bind them to their husbands.

Overall, the so-called feminists in the thread, through their complete and utter confusion, showed that they had no appreciation whatsoever what rape is - an act of violence (not an act of dishonesty) committed by men. The result of this confusion was, as mentioned above, disastrous.

What were they upset about?

In his first reply to you, which you took as saying men are never raped. How is that the same as saying "rape is purely male violence"?

I think you know it isn't but are too dug in to reverse your position.

He states numerous times that men are raped by women, but nowhere near as frequently, he then showed how your statistics cover women raping and abusing children, which is not the same as raping a man. He was specifically saying women do not rape adult men apart from on very rare occasions that makes up a tiny number of the rape statisitcs compared to women who are raped by men, which you have provided no evidence to the contrary to refute, just statistics that say exactly what he was saying.

Rosa Partizan

21st July 2014, 14:24

Invader Zim

21st July 2014, 14:27

Actually I did no such thing at all...which is an utter failure on your part.

To be honest, I'm not going to participate in the treadmill of your circular logic and outright contradictory method of denying the obvious and arguing that black is white and up is down rather than simply admit that you have made an error. I've wasted too much time in recent months on your ludicrously dishonest style of discourse to want to return to that particular rollercoaster of face-palming dispair. Suffice to say this is a strawman:

"Now...just to be quite clear:

When you say a claim is not true: 5% of men are raped by women...BECAUSE of age....

This is a really problematic statement."

Nobody has said anything of the sort - the point was, and remians that YOU claimed that 5% of adult men have been raped by adult women; which you contended in the light of Vanguard's assertion that rape is a predominently male crime (and even if it was not clear that was what he meant on first expression, there could be no doubt that was his position within a few posts). The sources you provided did not substanciate that (mis)reading of the sources, and you have spent pages attempting to defend that original, utterly irrelevant, error. That is the only reason age is an element of this discussion. Nobody has said that committing rape is exclusive to men, that women cannot commit rape, that children cannot be raped or that men cannot be raped. This is all just a childish collection of strawman arguments you have constructed to avoid simply admitting that you might have been wrong and used the wrong wording or drew conclusions from thestatistics you cited that were, in fact, beyond their utility. But really, I cannot be bothered arguing with you. You cannot and will not concede even the most irrelevant or obvious of mistakes on your part. You are so intransigent that you are utterly immune to reasoned discussion, debate or even elementary logic. And I can't be arsed dealing with that kind of childishness.

So, you win. Regardless of reality, Vanguard said whatever you say he did. I'm not entertaining your nonsense further, it and you are just too draining. Whatever. I hope that one day you grow up.

Patrice O'neal

21st July 2014, 14:29

not into defending Vanguard, as I already pointed out in a very early stage of this thread that male rape victims exist (and posting a video of such a man), but this is the kind of discussion that I really find annoying and exhausting. I know that Phoenix has no MRA intentions and is far away from such a movement, but this kind of discussion is exactly what is taken on by MRAs, by pointing out this "look look, women can be rapists, too!" thing and with that watering down a problem that is far more structurally engrained in society, namely sexual violence committed by men. Again, I'm not saying he's intending to do that, I KNOW he's not, but I quite don't understand why such a discussion is taking place over pages and pages, with always the same postings, just reformulated. No one's saying that male rape victims don't exist, but I don't understand why an exact number is so important, be it 2 or 3 % or whatever. Any MRA reading this thread will be rejoicing in it, like, "look, also feminists have to admit that women are rapists, million of men get raped alone in the US."

Nearly all men of 18 and over who are raped are raped by men, so MRA types really are morons if they see a victory in that. Yeah men are raped too, mostly by men, this isn't really going with the MRA rhetoric of men are victims of women equally, which is obviously nonsense.

Infact the only grounds most people agree with MRA groups on is divorce, where women can get payouts and men legally ahve to continue to pay money to their ex wife to support the lifestyle she is accustomed to, which of course is nonsense and based on a patriachal view of women and any feminist worth their salt would be against.

And the second point being child custody and courts favouring women, which again is a result of patriachy. So even these few tiny parts of life that do "victimise" men, are a direct result of mens victimisation of women and the patriachy in society.

PhoenixAsh

21st July 2014, 14:31

In his first reply to you, which you took as saying men are never raped. How is that the same as saying "rape is purely male violence"?

I think you know it isn't but are too dug in to reverse your position.

He states numerous times that men are raped by women, but nowhere near as frequently, he then showed how your statistics cover women raping and abusing children, which is not the same as raping a man. He was specifically saying women do not rape adult men apart from on very rare occasions that makes up a tiny number of the rape statisitcs compared to women who are raped by men, which you have provided no evidence to the contrary to refute, just statistics that say exactly what he was saying.

Actually it is exactly what it is:

Age is not a factor in rape. The statement was 5% of men are raped by women. That, including female-to-female rape, makes that female to male rape is neither very, very rare nor that rape is male violence.

Regardless of what he later stated...his entire line of argument was first denying the figures without reading the evidence. Then proceeding to dismiss victims. Then to belittle rape to nagging women. Then and only then he calculated himself into 2 million adult men based on the report I gave him...which he refused to believe. THEN and only then did age become a factor in denying 5% of men were raped...because...it apparently matters if you are over 18-21 for somebody to be genuinely raped.

So no...nowhere near what he was saying and claiming.

In fact...I find it very, very troubling that you support his attitude of spending dozens of posts simply faltout denying any facts and figures, then simply dimissing victims and ascribing them to nagging women...an then digging up a 16 year old report to refute the facts presented by a more recent report dealing specificly with the subject and bringing in age as somehow being relevant for the fact that 5% of men are raped by women.

Because for all your arguments...NONE... of you have actualy explained how the age divide of 18-21 actually matters for being raped or not.

So please...kindly explain how age is a relevant factor in rape.

PhoenixAsh

21st July 2014, 14:33

To be honest, I'm not going to participate in the treadmill of your circular logic and outright contradictory method of denying the obvious and arguing that black is white and up is down rather than simply admit that you have made an error. I've wasted too much time in recent months on your ludicrously dishonest style of discourse to want to return to that particular rollercoaster of face-palming dispair. Suffice to say this is a strawman:

"Now...just to be quite clear:

When you say a claim is not true: 5% of men are raped by women...BECAUSE of age....

This is a really problematic statement."

Nobody has said anything of the sort.

As for the rest of your nonsense, you win. Vanguard said whatever you say he did, despite the fact that he manifestly did not. I can't be bothered entertaining this nonsense further, it is just too draining. I hope that one day you grow up.

Well...if you don't want to adress the clear quotes...then fine. I wouldn't want to defend those either.

Vanguard has spend the last 100 or so posts challenging the statement that 5% of men have been raped by women based on age.

Now you can try to deny that. But that is actually what he was doing

Patrice O'neal

21st July 2014, 14:34

Actually it is exactly what it is:

Age is not a factor in rape. The statement was 5% of men are raped by women. That, including female-to-female rape, makes that female to male rape is neither very, very rare nor that rape is male violence.

Regardless of what he later stated...his entire line of argument was first denying the figures without reading the evidence. Then proceeding to dismiss victims. Then to belittle rape to nagging women. Then and only then he calculated himself into 2 million adult men based on the report I gave him...which he refused to believe. THEN and only then did age become a factor in denying 5% of men were raped...because...it apparently matters if you are over 18-21 for somebody to be genuinely raped.

So no...nowhere near what he was saying and claiming.

In fact...I find it very, very troubling that you support his attitude of spending dozens of posts simply faltout denying any facts and figures, then simply dimissing victims and ascribing them to nagging women...an then digging up a 16 year old report to refute the facts presented by a more recent report dealing specificly with the subject and bringing in age as somehow being relevant for the fact that 5% of men are raped by women.

Because for all your arguments...NONE... of you have actualy explained how the age divide of 18-21 actually matters for being raped or not.

So please...kindly explain how age is a relevant factor in rape.

Actually listen to the points. No one is saying age is a factor in rape, they are saying vanguard argued Men, adult males, who are raped by women, are a tiny ammount compared to adult females raped by men.

If you refuse to acknowledge the discussion you are just coming off as silly.

Hit The North

21st July 2014, 14:38

Its the tone that sets the music.

Indeed, and if I don't dance to your tune you might try to get me banned :scared:

Actually i did no such thing and the debate simply went into this direction because he refused to acknowledge the wider application of female initiated rape and solely challenged the 5% assertion. Yes, you did. You baldly stated it:

YOUR claim that rape is male violence: WRONG

Which might lead one to believe (employing the method of reasoning you apply to V1917) that you are denying that rape is ever male violence. (See what I did there?)

Actually it is very wise to do so and I have addressed why that is.No, it is very unwise to distract attention from the structural nature of patriarchy and the politics of rape in order to channel it into a politics of victim-hood, which is what you are doing for whatever reason.

Lets be quite clear here...30% of non heterosexual women report sexual force, rape by their significant other. That compared with studies which show that there is NO difference in predisposition between the sexes when it comes to sexual abusive behavior. One however does not exclude the other...like I argued over and over and over again...specifically saying exactly why this is.
The fact that some women do this does not negate the structural determination of patriarchy, it merely indicates that, in some situations, some women are able to assume the role of the patriarch.

No...he is quite clearly not. What he says is that the assertiojn of 5% men being raped by women is not true...his argument is based solely on being adult or not.

Now kindly explain to me...exactly how somebody being younger than 21 matters for being raped. Because that is EXACTLY his argument.
It doesn't and it isn't. This is a phantom summoned up by your urge to win a debate. The fact that you also trump up charges in order to get your opponent banned only compounds your dishonesty.

Loathe as I am to agree with an apologist for Israeli state murder, I think Rosa Partizan has hit the nail on the head. ^

PhoenixAsh

21st July 2014, 14:45

not into defending Vanguard, as I already pointed out in a very early stage of this thread that male rape victims exist (and posting a video of such a man), but this is the kind of discussion that I really find annoying and exhausting. I know that Phoenix has no MRA intentions and is far away from such a movement, but this kind of discussion is exactly what is taken on by MRAs, by pointing out this "look look, women can be rapists, too!" thing and with that watering down a problem that is far more structurally engrained in society, namely sexual violence committed by men. Again, I'm not saying he's intending to do that, I KNOW he's not, but I quite don't understand why such a discussion is taking place over pages and pages, with always the same postings, just reformulated. No one's saying that male rape victims don't exist, but I don't understand why an exact number is so important, be it 2 or 3 % or whatever. Any MRA reading this thread will be rejoicing in it, like, "look, also feminists have to admit that women are rapists, million of men get raped alone in the US."

I find it problematic that we simply hide reality because some other organisation misuses the information.

Lets be quite clear: 30% of non heterosexual women report sexual violence by their significant other. A lot of men are confronted with sexual violence by women. Men and women show an equal predisposition to sexual abusive behavior.

This is a reality.

That reality does not deny sexual violence against women being overwhelming. I said so from the start of the debate. But what it does show is that perpetuating the idea that women are simply victims is counter productive.

What it does indicate however is that current views on rape being acts of violence of men against women are incorrect. Rape is a patriarchal issue....legally defined to enforce gender socialized norms where only women and non heterosexual men can be actually raped legally (penetration). There is a purpopse in this to enforce gender prefered roles and behavior patterns. Male victimization...like what Vanguard did...is largely denied and rejected BASED on gender socialization. Equally women are, conversely, cast into the victim role because of gender views which deny women to be anything other than their stereotype in patriarchy.

Denying this is exactly what creates the foundation for MRA's and not challeging this issue because of misuse of the facts is simply antithetical to feminism.

Now...do note that I did not initiate to challenge the exact figures. I said it isn't very, very rare not exclusive to men.

Invader Zim

21st July 2014, 14:48

PhoenixAsh

21st July 2014, 14:48

snip

I see you still can not explain how age is relevant for rape.

PhoenixAsh

21st July 2014, 14:53

Why do you continue to bother? Phoenix Ash is determined, however, foolish he may come across in the process, to simply silence anybody who exposes the obvious, manifest, palpable flaws in his position by simply shouting them down until he is blue in the face. He needs to have the final word as we have seen over hundreds of posts, culminating in his orchestrating the banning of a person who wouldn't let him have it. As with any other child in the midst of a tantrum it is best to let him have his moment and ignore him until he stops.

This debate raged on for hundereds of posts.

A debate where Vanguard dismissed victims, belittled victims, reduced rape to nagging women and argued that age is relevant for 5% of the male population being raped by women. Yet you have not adressed the quite clear quotes....nor have you adressed the issue of Vanguard spending the initial dozens of posts rejecting out of hand any evidence. This is quite strange...because you were at one point involved in this very subject of the debate....so you know that was exactly what he was doing. The fact of the matter is that the quotes I gave you are more than enough to actually get him banned. And I don't see you defending these statements there.

But lets sum this up...you are defending a person who in the course of his carreer here has stated that having sex with unconscious women was not a problem. A person who claimed that having sex with women unable to consent was not a problem. A person who stated that willfully having unprotected sex while knowing you were infected with a STD is not problematic. You are definding a person who said about male sexual harassment victims (a specific case and in general) that they were simply guided by alterior motives. You are defending somebody who said that men forced to have sex were merely a factor of nagging women. You are defending somebody who spend hunderds of posts proving 5% of men were not raped because of inconclusive figures about age. Who flatly rejected to answer the question why this was relevant. Who rejected the fact that there is such a thing as female-to-female rape that was relevant and who simply tried his level best to use outdated data in order to not have to admit that the more recent and valid facts and figures were in fact correct and relevant.

Now you can spin this however you really want to in order to settle your score with me. But don't let your hurt ego get in the way of actually rejecting your claimed profession of scientific study.

Invader Zim

21st July 2014, 15:01

This debate raged on for hundereds of posts.

A debate where Vanguard dismissed victims, belittled victims, reduced rape to nagging women and argued that age is relevant for 5% of the male population being raped by women.

Yet you have not adressed the quite clear quotes....nor have you adressed the issue of Vanguard spending the initial dozens of posts rejecting out of hand any evidence.

This is quite strange...because you were at one point involved in this very subject of the debate....so you know that was exactly what he was doing.

the fact of the matter is that the quotes I gave you are more than enough to actually get him banned. And I don't see you defending these statements there.

You know, if you had been anybody else - I would discuss the question of rape and consent, and the likely (very) small number (though untilmately unknowable) of individuals who unfoundedly report accusations of rape, and why Vanguard's statement is problematic because it apparently oversells the prevelance of this phenomenon. But that isn't rape apologism - he isn't saying that rape doesn't exist or that raped men have it coming - what he is doing is suggesting that a statistic might be overly inclusive. Now, that's a rather unfounded conclusion to the point of stupidity, and I would explain why and discuss the issue. But not with you. At least not until your tantrum is over.

Now you can spin this however you really want to in order to settle your score with me. But don't let your hurt ego get in the way of actually rejecting your claimed profession of scientific study.
I don't hold grudges against children for being ignorant, or for acting like children for that matter.

PhoenixAsh

21st July 2014, 15:14

You know, if you had been anybody else - I would discuss the question of rape and consent, and the likely (very) small number (though untilmately unknowable) of individuals who unfoundedly report accusations of rape, and why Vanguard's statement is problematic because it apparently oversells the prevelance of this phenomenon. But not with you. At least not until your tantrum is over.

We would probably quite agree on this very issue. However I am not going to debate it either, when you simply dismiss the reality of what Vanguard was actually gearing his entire tactic on this very subject from the get go. He was not debating he was ridiculing and dismissing. That was the initial post I replied to and its entire purpose. Now let me be quite clear...this was not the first time he did this. This was a reoccuring pattern with him. From his consent issues, to heteronormativity to simply rejecting victims and reducing them. now I find that very problematic. I don't take his statement in a vacuum. We had this squabble often enough for that.

Patrice O'neal

21st July 2014, 15:16

Actually listen to the points. No one is saying age is a factor in rape, they are saying vanguard argued Men, adult males, who are raped by women, are a tiny ammount compared to adult females raped by men.

If you refuse to acknowledge the discussion you are just coming off as silly.

Could you address this please Phoenix? I am interested to see your response to it.

Rosa Partizan

21st July 2014, 15:18

Hit The North

21st July 2014, 15:23

I see you still can not explain how age is relevant for rape.

I've already said that it isn't, except in that even consensual sexual intercourse with a minor is considered to be statutory rape in many countries. Why do you want me to explain something that I don't think exists? To be sure what V1918 is going on about you would have to ask him but, oops, you've banned him so you can't :rolleyes:.

But you have not addressed how V1917's characterization of rape as being male power is sexist. You could also take this thread forward by meeting the challenge of showing how your denial of the structural power relations underpinning the vast majority of rapes (in other words, that rape is male power & violence against women and children), in favour of an emphasis on victim politics is in any way politically radical and not just a lapse into liberal individualism.

Put simply, what is the point of your discourse except to say, "Dur, wimin rape too, dude"? Is this suppose to be some misguided egalitarian posture on your part?

Was the 4.5% disagreement between you and V1917 worth all the pages of vitriol and his exile from this place?

PhoenixAsh

21st July 2014, 15:42

Phoenix, how do you explain female rape? I mean female rapists. I understand that rape is an essential part of patriarchy, but in how far do female rapists fit in your image of patriarchy when you say that women per se can't perpetuate patriarchy, which you once said in a thread of mine? Pls correct me if I misunderstood something, this is not meant to be offensive, I'm just curious.

Female rapists only rarely feature into patriarchy and only dismissively. As I have argued way back in this thread. Rape is legally defined as a patriarchal construct in order to perpetuate gender socialization and is based on gender stereotypes and heteronormativity.

PhoenixAsh

21st July 2014, 15:43

Could you address this please Phoenix? I am interested to see your response to it.

I have adressed this repeatedly

Rosa Partizan

21st July 2014, 15:45

Female rapists only rarely feature into patriarchy and only dismissively. As I have argued way back in this thread. Rape is legally defined as a patriarchal construct in order to perpetuate gender socialization and is based on gender stereotypes and heteronormativity.

well, but how do you explain the reasons and motivations for female rape? Male rape is said to be sexualized violence, wouldn't female rape be the same? How can we have sexualized violence that is NOT backed up by patriarchy? Am I completely stupid for not getting it? Could maybe someone adding to this discussion, any other ideas?

PhoenixAsh

21st July 2014, 15:46

I've already said that it isn't, except in that even consensual sexual intercourse with a minor is considered to be statutory rape in many countries. Why do you want me to explain something that I don't think exists? To be sure what V1918 is going on about you would have to ask him but, oops, you've banned him so you can't :rolleyes:.

Actually I did several times and he refused to do so.

But you have not addressed how V1917's characterization of rape as being male power is sexist.

Actually I did several times...and at the start of the debate.

You could also take this thread forward by meeting the challenge of showing how your denial of the structural power relations underpinning the vast majority of rapes (in other words, that rape is male power & violence against women and children), in favour of an emphasis on victim politics is in any way politically radical and not just a lapse into liberal individualism.

Actually I adressed this too at the start of the debate.

Put simply, what is the point of your discourse except to say, "Dur, wimin rape too, dude"? Is this suppose to be some misguided egalitarian posture on your part?

Was the 4.5% disagreement between you and V1917 worth all the pages of vitriol and his exile from this place?

I don't think so....and I said so repeatedly. Yet if you read the exchange you will see me say repeatedly that he is nitpicking over percentage points. Now...since I was onoly out to silence him...obviously I simply stopped debating and explaining...ow...wait.

PhoenixAsh

21st July 2014, 16:05

well, but how do you explain the reasons and motivations for female rape? Male rape is said to be sexualized violence, wouldn't female rape be the same? How can we have sexualized violence that is NOT backed up by patriarchy? Am I completely stupid for not getting it? Could maybe someone adding to this discussion, any other ideas?

Patriarchy is not merely sexualized violence. Nor is patriarchy limited to women alone. As I have indicated in that thread which you refered to but which we didn't get to debate. Amongst others patriarchy is enforcing gender socialization for both men and women creating stereotypes which fall into the category: good and bad / acceptable and not acceptable / excusable and no excusable patterns of behavior. Hence why we debated challenging the behavior of women because they are women.

Female to female rape is largely ignored or dismissed or reduced. Why? Because of heteronormativity as an aspect of or very intertwined with (depending on your view) patriarchy.

It is not coincidental that female to male and female to female rape are the most underreported cases of rape. That plus the fact that patriarchal legal definitions of rape exclude these cases from rape al together...this, at least from my experience with victim aid, results in extra psychological damage and self denial. Only in the last decade the notion of these rapes and of classifying non penetration or forced to penetrate as rape has become more and more mainstream after extensive research indicated that the traditional notions of rape and prevalence of sexual abusive behavior rejected large portions of forced and coerced sex for sizeable groups. That this was unnoticed and ignored is in large part due to patriarchal notions of gender socialization and stereotypes.

What you should not forget is that our notions on patriarchy are itself created in patriarchy adn, for a larger extend, identity politics.

Hit The North

21st July 2014, 18:11

Actually I did several times and he refused to do so.

Actually I did several times...and at the start of the debate.

Actually I adressed this too at the start of the debate.

I don't think so....and I said so repeatedly. Yet if you read the exchange you will see me say repeatedly that he is nitpicking over percentage points. Now...since I was onoly out to silence him...obviously I simply stopped debating and explaining...ow...wait.

I've read the start of the so-called debate and it begins with you writing, "Fuck you." This is a rather robust and confrontational opening salvo and, as you yourself write, "The tone sets the music." You then counter with evidence which he contests and you seem to lose patience and you actually do stop debating and resort to name calling. When this fails to make him cry and surrender his agreement you agitate among your junior commisars in the BA to get him banned.

That's how I see the "debate" and I think anyone who has the stomach to read this bloody aweful thread would come to the same conclusion. Sorry to say.

PhoenixAsh

21st July 2014, 18:52

I've read the start of the so-called debate and it begins with you writing, "Fuck you." This is a rather robust and confrontational opening salvo and, as you yourself write, "The tone sets the music." You then counter with evidence which he contests and you seem to lose patience and you actually do stop debating and resort to name calling. When this fails to make him cry and surrender his agreement you agitate among your junior commisars in the BA to get him banned.

That's how I see the "debate" and I think anyone who has the stomach to read this bloody aweful thread would come to the same conclusion. Sorry to say.

Have I ever said I was nice to him or that I wanted to debate him?

Quite the opposite as I repeatedly said I did not want nor see the exchange as a discussion or anything that I said as being debatable from the get go.

But lets be quite clear on this one here...this debate did not take place in a vacuum.

His previous statements about consent and the inability to give consent...his statements repeated in this thread about depriving somebody of active consent...his assertion in the post that sparked it that not accepting rape was violence and nothing else and that everybody saying something different did not understand rape...lets all conveniently forget that ever taking place...just so you can make your point about me not being nice to Vanguard...our resident sexist and rape apologist (which...got him booted from the CU and restricted in the first place...see his personal profile as open information and not privy info from masked forum sections).

Now what I actually said in that very first posts I made against him, you know...besides the "fuck you" were several things:

* 5% of men is not very rare.
* rape is not resulting only from acts of violence
* rape includes depriving somebody of active consent
* rape is not only comitted by men
* female to female rape is a big issue

Do note that nowhere in his statement I attacked did he say anything about age...at all. Simply put: rape is male violence.

So of all that I said...he only challenged the 5% notion and ignored and continued to ignore the rest of the post...but introducing age as a factor for the number which never included an age distinction in the first place could not be true because somehow...age was now a factor simply because he said so.

So he introduced age as a factor in rape. He then went on to reduce rape by women as resulting from nagging. He then went on to simply dismiss sexual harassment because men can't be sexually harassed. And went on to say that when they did claim to be sexually harassed they simply had different motives. Naturally he did all that while arguing gender stereotypes and basing himself in gender socialized arguments. Several of which FYP perfectly pointed out. Of course he continued to refuse to answer several pressing questions about his own arguments..and continued to refuse to answer these (you know...such trivial questions as "why does age matter"; "do you think this would be rape if happened to a woman?"; "what about female-to-female rape"; "why don't you source your claim" etc. ect.) and generally ignoring any information outside of the 5% number...which he later then denied I ever said in order to be able to rehash and reinvent some other line of approach in challenging the notion that rape is not simply the preserve of men.

You ignore all that...because apparently...the nitpicking debate about numbers is more important than what is actually said by Vanguard.

Now...I love how you white knight for him. I really do. I think it is very, very sweet of you. But simply put...you are white knighting here for a member which has been kicked out of the CU and restricted (again...this is in public domain) for rape apologism and sexism before.