Spacefem.com

More explanation of rape culture

Because women are people too

Moderators: deanimal, lillerina, Tookie

More explanation of rape culture

Postby The Other Lizard » Fri Dec 9, 20:49 2011

We've had a few conversations here about what rape culture actually is, and I just stumbled upon a really great example, and I wanted to share it.

This article from Jezebel talks about a study that had people look at a list of quotes, and try to discern which quotes were from "men's" magazines, and which ones were from interviews with rapists. Turns out... people can't tell the difference.

The article gives examples of the quotes, many of which talk about how women "want" to be the victim, and are clearly justifications of rape. the article quotes an expert who says "Rapists try to justify their actions, suggesting that women lead men on, or want sex even when they say no". And the men's magazines use the same language and description to talk about women and sex - suggesting that women WANT to be raped.

These magazines are mass-distributed to men on a daily basis... they are a whole industry, largely accepted by society. A culture that normalizes the justification of rape in this way, is rape culture.
"Radical" simply means "grasping things at the root" - Angela Davis :tree:
User avatar
The Other Lizard
quiet squamata
quiet squamata
 
Posts: 2763
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 17:29 2004

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby Aum » Fri Dec 9, 21:58 2011

I'm bookmarking this for newbies to feminism, or opponents. It doesn't get anymore clear than this.
The artist's job is not to succumb to despair, but to find an antidote to the emptiness of existence. -W.A.
User avatar
Aum
Into The Unknown
Into The Unknown
 
Posts: 2728
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 23:35 2007
Location: Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby cwbyrvr » Sat Dec 10, 15:24 2011

I went through the section guessing where each quote came from, and oddly enough I got most of them right. The more outlandishly offensive comments seemed to come from the "lad mags" and the quotes from rapists (often, not everyone) tended to be more general. I feel like this is partly due to the way a rapist's mind works, they don't want to raise the alarm too much, they're trying to get people (other men at least) to validate how they feel. And the scary thing is that it works.

There's way too much us vs. them mentality between men and women. We are not as different as many people seem to think.
spacefem wrote:incidently, hearing "i love you" doesn't count if you're naked. it's just too easy to love a naked person.

Rainbow Dolphins wrote:My armpits are the only area of my body that almost always stays clean-shaven, because if I let it go I feel like a 15-year-old boy trying to grow a beard. In my armpits.
User avatar
cwbyrvr
Phil
Phil
 
Posts: 6314
Joined: Mon Nov 3, 13:32 2003
Location: A Box of Fermented Grape Juice.

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby Tookie » Sat Dec 10, 16:05 2011

I've been reflecting on this for a couple of days now, and I'm not convinced.

I'm going to separate the comments into two lists:

Rapist
1. There's a certain way you can tell that a girl wants to have sex . . . The way they dress, they flaunt themselves.

2. Some girls walk around in short-shorts . . . showing their body off . . . It just starts a man thinking that if he gets something like that, what can he do with it?

5. What burns me up sometimes about girls is dick-teasers. They lead a man on and then shut him off right there.

7. You know girls in general are all right. But some of them are bitches . . . The bitches are the type that . . . need to have it stuffed to them hard and heavy.

9. You'll find most girls will be reluctant about going to bed with somebody or crawling in the back seat of a car . . . But you can usually seduce them, and they'll do it willingly.

11. Girls ask for it by wearing these mini-skirts and hotpants . . . they're just displaying their body . . . Whether they realise it or not they're saying, ‘Hey, I've got a beautiful body, and it's yours if you want it.'

13. Some women are domineering, but I think it's more or less the man who should put his foot down. The man is supposed to be the man. If he acts the man, the woman won't be domineering.

14. I think if a law is passed, there should be a dress code . . . When girls dress in those short skirts and things like that, they're just asking for it.


Lad Mag

3. A girl may like anal sex because it makes her feel incredibly naughty and she likes feeling like a dirty slut. If this is the case, you can try all sorts of humiliating acts to help live out her filthy fantasy.

4. Mascara running down the cheeks means they've just been crying, and it was probably your fault . . . but you can cheer up the miserable beauty with a bit of the old in and out.

6. Filthy talk can be such a turn on for a girl . . . no one wants to be shagged by a mouse . . . A few compliments won't do any harm either . . . ‘I bet you want it from behind you dirty whore' . . .

8. Escorts . . . they know exactly how to turn a man on. I've given up on girlfriends. They don't know how to satisfy me, but escorts do.

10. There's nothing quite like a woman standing in the dock accused of murder in a sex game gone wrong . . . The possibility of murder does bring a certain frisson to the bedroom.

12. You do not want to be caught red-handed . . . go and smash her on a park bench. That used to be my trick.

15. Girls love being tied up . . . it gives them the chance to be the helpless victim.

16. I think girls are like plasticine, if you warm them up you can do anything you want with them.

-----

Without exception, the rapists' quotes reflect a (terrifying) sense of entitlement and desire for control. There is no discourse whatsoever of female desire.

The lad mag quotes, on the other hand, are a mixed bag.

"A girl may like anal sex because it makes her feel incredibly naughty and she likes feeling like a dirty slut. If this is the case, you can try all sorts of humiliating acts to help live out her filthy fantasy."

Doing what a girl likes? Doesn't sound like rape culture to me.

"Filthy talk can be such a turn on for a girl . . . no one wants to be shagged by a mouse . . . A few compliments won't do any harm either . . . ‘I bet you want it from behind you dirty whore' . . ."

Turning on a girl? Doesn't sound like rape culture to me. I'm also curious as to what was omitted from this quote. Somehow I doubt "I bet you want it from behind you dirty whore" was an example of the aforementioned compliment.

"Girls love being tied up . . . it gives them the chance to be the helpless victim."

This one is problematic because of the generalization, but some girls DO like being tied up. Playing the helpless victim is not the same thing as being a helpless victim.

"16. I think girls are like plasticine, if you warm them up you can do anything you want with them."

Obviously entitled and creepy.

"12. You do not want to be caught red-handed . . . go and smash her on a park bench. That used to be my trick."

My guess is that this is about (consensual) sex in public. Context matters. I hadn't heard the term "smash" before, but I looked into and it definitely means sex, not violence. If it's not consensual then obviously that's not ok. But otherwise... I don't like that sex is portrayed as something he's doing to her. Other than that, there isn't enough here to convince me that's it's icky.

"Mascara running down the cheeks means they've just been crying, and it was probably your fault . . . but you can cheer up the miserable beauty with a bit of the old in and out."

Yeah this one is not so great. But it's still about cheering her up. Curious again about the ellipsis.

10. There's nothing quite like a woman standing in the dock accused of murder in a sex game gone wrong . . . The possibility of murder does bring a certain frisson to the bedroom.

Context missing. Did the sex game go wrong accidentally or intentionally? I'm not willing to pass judgement without knowing that. Really this just sounds to me like black humour, probably about asphyxiation.


So I dunno. I really feel like the only lag mag comment that's as disturbing as the rapists' comments is the plasticine one. They are definitely reinforcing hegemonic masculinity (women are subs, men are doms), but there is also an explicit discourse about women's desire which is lacking in the rapists' quotes. For me, an integral part of rape culture is the way in which men are constructed as sexual aggressors and women are constructed as passive and lacking in sexual desire, and I don't see that in (most) of the lad mag quotes.
The personal is the political.
helium wrote:Every vagina is different, right? A unique and original vag-snowflake?
User avatar
Tookie
Spleentastic!
Spleentastic!
 
Posts: 4761
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 16:34 2004
Location: Canada

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby cwbyrvr » Sat Dec 10, 16:28 2011

I think the big issue, Tookie, is that a lot of people apparently can't tell the two apart. I think the big issue here lies in this quote where they sum up the results of the study - "The participants couldn't reliably identify which statements came from magazines and which from rapists — what's more, they rated the magazine quotes as slightly more derogatory than the statements made by men serving time for raping women. The researchers also showed both sets of quotes to a separate group of men — the men were more likely to identify with the rapists' statements than the lad mag excerpts."

That feels like the big problem to me.
spacefem wrote:incidently, hearing "i love you" doesn't count if you're naked. it's just too easy to love a naked person.

Rainbow Dolphins wrote:My armpits are the only area of my body that almost always stays clean-shaven, because if I let it go I feel like a 15-year-old boy trying to grow a beard. In my armpits.
User avatar
cwbyrvr
Phil
Phil
 
Posts: 6314
Joined: Mon Nov 3, 13:32 2003
Location: A Box of Fermented Grape Juice.

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby Tookie » Sat Dec 10, 16:39 2011

I do actually find it concerning that they couldn't tell them apart, not because I think it's indicative of the two groups using similar discourses around sex, but because their discourses are so different. People are confusing kink with "she's asking for it"? What kind of fucked up sexual morals make that possible? That's not rape culture, that's prudery.

Also, I think the "men identifying with the statements" thing is suspicious. The lad mag's quotes are mostly about desires. If a man doesn't have those desires, of course he's not going to identify with the statements. Yes, it's upsetting that men identified with the creepy things the rapists were saying, but that's not proving that men's magazines are propagating rape culture, just that rape culture exists. I'd like to read the paper to see if they took the issues I have with the study into account, but it's not published yet.
The personal is the political.
helium wrote:Every vagina is different, right? A unique and original vag-snowflake?
User avatar
Tookie
Spleentastic!
Spleentastic!
 
Posts: 4761
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 16:34 2004
Location: Canada

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby monk » Sat Dec 10, 17:11 2011

I did the same as you Tookie, and this is my take on it.

I don't like this study. I took the test honestly and got 10 out of 15 correct. I got most rapist quotes right but the "lad mags" quotes confused me and I couldn't figure out why. Then I realized it was the language used. Almost all the "lad mag" quotes are angry,vulgar and/or crude in their "advice" while the rapist quotes are very sedate and somewhat passive. The article even says this
they rated the magazine quotes as slightly more derogatory than the statements made by men serving time for raping women
I am quite sure this would confuse people who think of rapists like they're portrayed in the movies and on TV as angry violent criminals on a rampage against women(with accompanying crude vulgar dialogue), which is not the case in reality. Crudity and vulgarity while distasteful to some are not what leads to rape anymore than violent movies and video games lead to higher violent crime. As the article goes on to say that when the statements were mislabeled the men chose the ones from lads mags because
they didn't want to agree with rapists
. I don't think this study shows anything about our culture other than we can easily mistake vulgarity for violent intent.

I separated the two lists and highlighted what I consider crude & vulgar in both lists.
lad mags:

A girl may like anal sex because it makes her feel incredibly naughty and she likes feeling like a dirty slut. If this is the case, you can try all sorts of humiliating acts to help live out her filthy fantasy.

Mascara running down the cheeks means they've just been crying, and it was probably your fault . . . but you can cheer up the miserable beauty with a bit of the old in and out.

Filthy talk can be such a turn on for a girl . . . no one wants to be shagged by a mouse . . . A few compliments won't do any harm either . . . ‘I bet you want it from behind you dirty whore' . . .

Escorts . . . they know exactly how to turn a man on. I've given up on girlfriends. They don't know how to satisfy me, but escorts do.

There's nothing quite like a woman standing in the dock accused of murder in a sex game gone wrong . . . The possibility of murder does bring a certain frisson to the bedroom.

You do not want to be caught red-handed . . . go and smash her on a park bench. That used to be my trick.

Girls love being tied up . . . it gives them the chance to be the helpless victim.

I think girls are like plasticine, if you warm them up you can do anything you want with them

rapists:

There's a certain way you can tell that a girl wants to have sex . . . The way they dress, they flaunt themselves.

Some girls walk around in short-shorts . . . showing their body off . . . It just starts a man thinking that if he gets something like that, what can he do with it?

What burns me up sometimes about girls is dick-teasers. They lead a man on and then shut him off right there.

You know girls in general are all right. But some of them are bitches . . . The bitches are the type that . . . need to have it stuffed to them hard and heavy.

You'll find most girls will be reluctant about going to bed with somebody or crawling in the back seat of a car . . . But you can usually seduce them, and they'll do it willingly.

Girls ask for it by wearing these mini-skirts and hotpants . . . they're just displaying their body . . . Whether they realise it or not they're saying, ‘Hey, I've got a beautiful body, and it's yours if you want it.

Some women are domineering, but I think it's more or less the man who should put his foot down. The man is supposed to be the man. If he acts the man, the woman won't be domineering.

I think if a law is passed, there should be a dress code . . . When girls dress in those short skirts and things like that, they're just asking for it.

When read separately you can see the theme of objectification in the second set pretty clearly. and I can easily see study participants choosing polite comments over vulgar ones based on language alone.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
User avatar
monk
try to ignore it if I offend you.
try to ignore it if I offend you.
 
Posts: 7449
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 23:46 2003

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby Storage and Disposal » Sat Dec 10, 17:29 2011

For all I know, they just picked the creepiest responses they could find in order to shift the study towards where they wanted it to go. Studies like this do little for me. In this case, they proved that responses in a magazine like For Him Magazine can be sexist. Big surprise there. Equally shocking and horrifying things lie in magazines like Cosmo.
Dr. Mung-Mung wrote:He weeps for he has but one small tongue with which to taste an entire world.
User avatar
Storage and Disposal
You address omnipotence, tread carefully
You address omnipotence, tread carefully
 
Posts: 5430
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 5:31 2004

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby monkeypoop » Sat Dec 10, 18:20 2011

Personally I think the part that is really disturbing and scary, the part that is really indicative of rape culture, is that some of the things rapists say to justify rape are widespread ideas that a lot of people subscribe to:

1. There's a certain way you can tell that a girl wants to have sex . . . The way they dress, they flaunt themselves.

9. You'll find most girls will be reluctant about going to bed with somebody or crawling in the back seat of a car . . . But you can usually seduce them, and they'll do it willingly.

13. Some women are domineering, but I think it's more or less the man who should put his foot down. The man is supposed to be the man. If he acts the man, the woman won't be domineering.


That's what rape culture is, and a lot of people don't even realize how fucked up those ideas are. The fact that people can't tell the difference between the rapists' statements and the magazine excerpts shows just how widespread the ideas used to justify rape are, because people think they sound like things that could be published in a magazine. The fact that people agree/identify with the rapists' statements is an even worse indication.

What I'm hoping is that this article might help some people realize how fucked up these ideas are, like, "Hey, this thing you believe? It's how rapists justify rape." The article did say that people didn't want to identify with rapists, so perhaps making that connection will get through to people.

I also think Tookie makes a really really important distinction, that of rape versus consensual fantasy. The problem of people confusing the two seems like it could be solved with better communication (enthusiastic consent, anyone?) Of course, for this to happen, there has to be a desire for communication and consent, so I think rape culture comes into play here in the fact that some people don't have this desire/don't think it's necessary.
User avatar
monkeypoop
I have a nose.
I have a nose.
 
Posts: 1398
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 17:28 2004
Location: Your closet!

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby Daktoria » Sat Dec 10, 19:50 2011

monk wrote: Almost all the "lad mag" quotes are angry,vulgar and/or crude in their "advice" while the rapist quotes are very sedate and somewhat passive.


I have to agree with this. The rapist quotes felt distant, uncertain, and bore a beta male-alpha female perspective as if rapists didn't know what they were doing in approaching women. They didn't know (or at least weren't willing to take the chance in discovering) the line between good and bad behavior.

The lad mag quotes felt assertive, engaging, and bore an alpha male-beta female perspective as if the men were confident enough to say, and get, what they want.

That said, tests like this are questionable because they take and select text out of context.

monkeypoop wrote:What I'm hoping is that this article might help some people realize how fucked up these ideas are, like, "Hey, this thing you believe? It's how rapists justify rape." The article did say that people didn't want to identify with rapists, so perhaps making that connection will get through to people.


This really isn't constructive at all, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. When you make propositions like this, it makes men all the more awkward because different ideas can be applicable in different contexts.

The key to not coming off as creepy or psychotic, from a guy's perspective, doesn't seem to have to do with justification, but to do with having confidence to talk about something else besides the justification itself. The rapist quotes come off as someone having a socially alienated perspective in the first place who's very anxious for action. The lad mag quotes come off as someone who's had a bit of good luck from the starting line and just goes with the flow.

This is where rape culture comes from in the first place. There are a lot of confused people who don't know how to handle themselves, and there are a lot of teasing people who enjoy keeping others confused. Confused people end up repressing their emotions in order to obey teasers, and eventually, that repression urges to implode or explode.
Daktoria
established
established
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Dec 8, 16:26 2011

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby Sonic# » Sat Dec 10, 22:46 2011

Daktoria, I would try to avoid the reliance on outdated metaphors which apply pack-animal classifications to human gender interactions. I suggest you look at this article abstract: The myth of the alpha male: A new look at dominance-related beliefs and behaviors among adolescent males and females, or perhaps this documented list of traits mistakenly associated with leadership or "alpha" roles: Wikipedia: Leadership Myths. To sum up the information between the two, social interactions are not limited to an alpha/beta male/female paradigm, where one group has to be dominant and the other submissive, nor are those roles ingrained in one's sex. So, partly because those categories can't work, and partly because rapists can't be reduced to a single type, I think accounting for the differences between the rapists and lad mags as "beta and alpha" doesn't work so well. Indeed, in some ways such thinking works as a trap, leading one to believe that sexuality must always be about power dynamics and advantages from the masculine perspective. That incorrectly assumed link, the link between unilateral aggression and sexuality, helps perpetuate a rape culture in the first place.

This is where rape culture comes from in the first place. There are a lot of confused people who don't know how to handle themselves, and there are a lot of teasing people who enjoy keeping others confused. Confused people end up repressing their emotions in order to obey teasers, and eventually, that repression urges to implode or explode.


You're again describing a relation between two groups that resemble the earlier-mentioned "alpha" and "beta" types. Again, the explanation assumes that everything has to be a power relation, that large groups of people tease intentionally to sow confusion, that a lot of people don't know how to handle themselves and come loose due to the teasing - there are too many generalizations for this to work as an explanation.

Rape culture doesn't just come from the explosions of the sexually repressed. It comes from the systematic assumption that every sexual relation is a power dynamic between men and women and between more and less powerful men. Sexual inadequacy, sexual dominance, teasing, confusion - all of these come from that dynamic. All of these are effects that further perpetuate the culture.

You and monkeypoop are both right. Such studies might help people realize how fucked up those ideas are. On the other hand, it could also lead to opposition from men who believe that aggressive ideas are necessary for sexuality, or who mistakenly believe that their own ideas are under attack.[1]

[1] I found others' analyses, especially Tookie's, really useful. I would say that the reinforcement of "hegemonic masculinity" is a problem, but most of the lady mags still hold an implicit or explicit recognition of sexuality as a choice partly contingent on a woman's desire. I would suggest that the lee-way of choice would apply to your mystifying statement, "Different ideas can be applicable in different contexts." Of course it depends on what both (or multiple) partners like. It's a problem when those partners get treated as *one* thing, and one *kind* of thing.
User avatar
Sonic#
established
established
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby Daktoria » Sun Dec 11, 1:43 2011

Sonic# wrote:Daktoria, I would try to avoid the reliance on outdated metaphors which apply pack-animal classifications to human gender interactions. I suggest you look at this article abstract: The myth of the alpha male: A new look at dominance-related beliefs and behaviors among adolescent males and females, or perhaps this documented list of traits mistakenly associated with leadership or "alpha" roles: Wikipedia: Leadership Myths. To sum up the information between the two, social interactions are not limited to an alpha/beta male/female paradigm, where one group has to be dominant and the other submissive, nor are those roles ingrained in one's sex. So, partly because those categories can't work, and partly because rapists can't be reduced to a single type, I think accounting for the differences between the rapists and lad mags as "beta and alpha" doesn't work so well. Indeed, in some ways such thinking works as a trap, leading one to believe that sexuality must always be about power dynamics and advantages from the masculine perspective. That incorrectly assumed link, the link between unilateral aggression and sexuality, helps perpetuate a rape culture in the first place.


After reading the Myth article, I'm not sure if it completely swept away the alpha-beta schema. All the article seems to imply that alphas come in many controlling types (bistrategic, prosocial, coercive, typical). It is a very elaborate article though. I'm going to have to review it to look at the correlations tables at the end again.

In any case, I don't consider alpha-beta ethology in terms of control. The more important foundation seems to be emotionally charged pursuit. Betas are not necessarily submissive, nor are alphas necessarily dominant (although they'll behave that way to optimally compete). To be an alpha just means you have more fuel propelling you towards an objective. It doesn't mean you'll necessarily be disregarding. Likewise, betas can commit to achieve, succeed, and win even when lacking emotional gumption.

In context of beta male-alpha female and alpha male-beta female perspectives, I was referring to how rapist quotes seem to come from betas whose perspective comes from observing emphatic women. In contrast, lad mag quotes seem to come from alphas whose experience comes from interacting with women in general (and not being ashamed when hooking up with less impressive mates).

As for rapists, I don't see how anger, vindictiveness (power reassurance), and opportunism (power exploitative) can't be conflated into compensation. Anger compensates for lack of understanding, vindictiveness compensates for lack of expectations, and opportunism compensates for lack of certainty. All of these forms of compensation require some lack of information, so rapists seem confused over how to attract a mate.

Lastly, as for rape culture, I can't remember many if any friends while in college even suggesting or considering the concept. If anything, the concern is about being blamed for rape that didn't happen.

Also, it seems counterintuitive to believe that widening rape laws would be effective at controlling rape. If anything, widened rape laws would remove less certain, less confident, more tender males from the community such that you'd be left with dominating preference males only.

You're again describing a relation between two groups that resemble the earlier-mentioned "alpha" and "beta" types. Again, the explanation assumes that everything has to be a power relation, that large groups of people tease intentionally to sow confusion, that a lot of people don't know how to handle themselves and come loose due to the teasing - there are too many generalizations for this to work as an explanation.


Hopefully, I've made it clear now that I'm not viewing alpha-beta ethology in terms of control, but rather in terms of emotionally charged pursuit. It's the means, not the ends, that's being focused on.

Rape culture doesn't just come from the explosions of the sexually repressed. It comes from the systematic assumption that every sexual relation is a power dynamic between men and women and between more and less powerful men. Sexual inadequacy, sexual dominance, teasing, confusion - all of these come from that dynamic. All of these are effects that further perpetuate the culture.


Assuming your rape culture article is accurate, I can see what you're saying regarding power relations.

However, power relations doesn't explain angry, vindictive, or opportunistic attitudes because these are attitudes derived from asymmetric information, not physical control. Even in the cases of reassuring vindictiveness and exploitative opportunism, vindictiveness is a pursuit of balance from being betrayed. It isn't about actually physically dominating someone else although physical domination could be the communicative medium. Likewise, opportunism is a pursuit of taking vulnerability for granted. It isn't about physical domination either although physical domination could provide the vulnerability.

You and monkeypoop are both right. Such studies might help people realize how fucked up those ideas are. On the other hand, it could also lead to opposition from men who believe that aggressive ideas are necessary for sexuality, or who mistakenly believe that their own ideas are under attack.[1]

[1] I found others' analyses, especially Tookie's, really useful. I would say that the reinforcement of "hegemonic masculinity" is a problem, but most of the lady mags still hold an implicit or explicit recognition of sexuality as a choice partly contingent on a woman's desire. I would suggest that the lee-way of choice would apply to your mystifying statement, "Different ideas can be applicable in different contexts." Of course it depends on what both (or multiple) partners like. It's a problem when those partners get treated as *one* thing, and one *kind* of thing.


OK.

Again, this is where alpha-beta ethology comes into play. From being more emotionally charged, alpha females demand a more aggressive experience whereas beta females demand a more tender experience.

My concern is that monkey's method could further intimidate beta males from becoming available out of feeling unacceptable, especially after being teased and confused by alpha females. It seems that monkey's trying to defend beta females from alpha males, but the real key is bringing betas together, not letting alphas dictate the situation.
Daktoria
established
established
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Dec 8, 16:26 2011

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby postfeminist » Thu Dec 15, 2:21 2011

Sorry, this is pretty much just hyperbole.

Males and rapists both seeing a woman dressing in next to nothing thinking about sex has nothing to do with men, and everything to do with women. Men and women judge everyone by how they look, we are all responsible for the way we dress, only women are fighting to have less responsibility, despite having so many more options. I've encountered a lot of girls who enjoy being submissive, this is a socialized trait, and does not mean rape is okay, but means that advice along these lines is still accurate - saying it justifies rape is just more hyperbole. Rapists speak English, if you asked a rapist to do math they would do it the same as everyone else, etc.
postfeminist
established
established
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 18:13 2011

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby Daktoria » Thu Dec 15, 8:47 2011

PF, I'm not sure if submissiveness is entirely socialized. For some women, it seems to be out of shame, but for others, they just have an innate emotional preference. You could probably argue it evolved out of a way to identify security. A submissive woman who's open to dominant men will be able to test which men are most protective and providing.

That said, less submissive women could be qualified as harder tests of character, so evolution could go in that direction as well. The problem less submissive women have though is they fail to attract a mate when men aren't as dominant as they expect, yet men still aren't necessarily submissive. I come across this a lot because women, or just people in general, will assume that because I'm not terribly emotionally excited that I must be a submissive masochist. I'm really not, and I hate being teased, but then people will be wise guys and say that I'm playing coy.

In reality, I don't like hierarchy at all because it's a hassle to both control people and be controlled, but simpleminded people insist on hierarchic relations in order to, "Keep it simple, stupid." If need be, I can deal with submissive women as long as they express themselves explicitly, but I really can't deal with dominant women at all. Even catering dominants get annoying over the long run because they try to make you dependent upon them in teaching you to obey. On another note, submissives who "transform" into dominants are tolerable IF they tell you about the transformation. It's a huge hassle playing guessing games over "which side" the submissive really is. They also have to let me take the dominant role simultaneously such as in a fight fuck scenario. Prior submissives who play the catering dom are marginally tolerable, but only if they're genuinely interested in being helpful rather than wanting to forge dependence.

As for dressing, what you just said is the excuse third wave feminists will take to persuade second wave feminists that third wave feminism is a necessity. The bottomline is (some) women, as much as (some) men, enjoy exhibition, so the idea of demanding that women have to repress themselves into modesty comes off as dominating, domination which is the exact opposite of what second wave feminists identify with. Therefore, third wave feminists will argue that second wave feminists must acknowledge the war of position in how the personal is political and that there's no way around it.

Unfortunately, many second wave feminists don't succeed in embracing third wave feminism. To succeed as a third wave feminist, you need to be emotionally flamboyant. You need to have a pugnaciously competitive attitude. If you don't, you're going to get shut down and disappointed unless you're happy playing second fiddle such as a woman who targets men in relationships rather than pursuing a relationship herself.

Of course, this might become the unfortunate norm of the future considering however many marriages that end up in divorce and however many children who are cuckolded or had out of wedlock. It's for this reason that I oppose the welfare state at every beck and call. Former second wave feminists who ignore beta males and claim they're satisfied playing second fiddle with an alpha male could devastate social cohesion in mandating political cuckoldry since beta males will have to pay taxes that go to serve others' children.
Daktoria
established
established
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Dec 8, 16:26 2011

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby Sonic# » Thu Dec 15, 11:04 2011

I don't think that the alpha/beta distinction is an efficient one for a few reasons. First, because it reappropriates terminology that is best applied to social animals, and less well to discursive and psychological social animals. It invokes conceptions of pack leaders and pack followers/supporters, when human relations vary far more than that, which you acknowledge after reading the article. The terminology is ill-suited to comprehend that variance. Second, because it constructs a binary that I find as restrictive as binaries like masculine/feminine. Putting it in terms of control wasn't a complete way of explaining it, you're right, but you're implying that one group has a greater potential for agency and the other group lacks it, though both can theoretically acquire prestige. That gives too much weight to agency and to a couple of presupposed affiliations with agency (like emotional gumption) when there's more to will and more to human interaction than opposed wills. The third is that this binary encourages us to divide people into two groups of our own invention, those who possess emotional agency and those who are emotionally impotent. Like your later distinction into dominant and submissive, these distinctions are ill-equipped to address individuals that do not clearly fall into either category, nor are they well-equipped to encounter phenomena that don't fall within the distinctions (rape, for instance, can occur in relationships that do not clearly distinguish a power dynamic, or people who do not clearly exhibit dominant/recessive behavior; again, the rapist is not reducible to a single type or motive, nor even to a single gender. Discussion within types is often useful, but there needs to be a clear justification for applying such discussion to rape in general, a motion that seems more difficult with a simple binary).

So I don't think that the alpha/beta binary is horrible, but I think it's prone to error because it's prone to being misunderstood and it also carries with it quite a few assumptions about human interaction that are unnecessarily restrictive in a discussion of rape culture.

Postfeminist wrote:
Males and rapists both seeing a woman dressing in next to nothing thinking about sex has nothing to do with men, and everything to do with women. Men and women judge everyone by how they look, we are all responsible for the way we dress, only women are fighting to have less responsibility, despite having so many more options. I've encountered a lot of girls who enjoy being submissive, this is a socialized trait, and does not mean rape is okay, but means that advice along these lines is still accurate - saying it justifies rape is just more hyperbole. Rapists speak English, if you asked a rapist to do math they would do it the same as everyone else, etc.


I think your name should be "Prefeminist." ;)

I just want to point out a couple of the more problematic points in this post, without going into too much detail. First, there's the assumption that perceptions of dress are inevitably invoked by the dresser and not the perceiver. No, your eyes and your mind are your own. If you look at someone scantily clad and believe that this gives you an invitation to touch or catcall, that's you and that's a socialized response. Second, there's the feminization of dress and fashion which gets conveniently ignored. Yes, women have "more options" in dress in one sense, since the bulk of fashion focuses on women (including that on Project Runway and that in countless analyses like, say, Barthes' Système de la mode (The Fashion System)), and today they can wear both dresses and pants. On the other hand, women typically receive more scrutiny for what they wear, must adhere to more codes of context-specific clothing, and get judged more often for wearing certain clothes. Funnily enough, calling out women for wearing "next to nothing" repeats this very tendency to judge women for what they wear, which is why I called you "prefeminist."

Second, you switch gears halfway through to discuss submissiveness, perhaps in relation to fighting for "less responsibility," which is to say, to be judged in the same terms as men for what they wear. I've met lots of people (men and women) who enjoy being submissive. What does that have to do with rape? You want to be very careful here, because you're unclear, and apparently sense it since you explain that submissiveness "does not mean rape is okay." The fact that it would occur to you that rape and submissiveness are related is the problem here, that a breach of consent gets associated with submitting to a sexual act, with taking the passive role, to (and here I put words in your mouth, but these are words that have been used in other contexts) surrendering.

Third, and very briefly, of course rapists speak English (some of them). Of course rapists don't fit a single type. Of course rapists can be progressives, can be feminists even. That itself is the problem, that the potential for rape is so ingrained in our culture that even those who are directly opposed to it can commit it because breaches of consent are made unrecognizable because we assume them to only be violent, to only be incoherent, or to only be dominating.

I have gone on too long, both in terms of text and time. I don't have time to address the rest, except to say that I find the subsequent discussion of dominant/submissive women and of second/third wave feminism to be of limited use for describing rape culture.
User avatar
Sonic#
established
established
 
Posts: 2857
Joined: Sat Nov 7, 9:37 2009

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby Daktoria » Thu Dec 15, 13:05 2011

Sonic# wrote:I don't think that the alpha/beta distinction is an efficient one for a few reasons.


Hahaha...

...I'm laughing because after reading all of what you wrote to me and rereading this line, it kind of feels like I'm talking to myself.

Nowadays, I usually use the word, "complete" because it's more logical and less utilitarian, but up until a couple years ago, I used to use the word "efficient" to describe what you're saying all the time.

There's a slight difference, I guess. Efficiency is more about being practical and using the resources you have whereas completeness is about accommodating all necessity-contingency relationships, but maybe that reflects how you intuit the condition as well.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt of meaning what you're saying here though I'll be openminded to believing that completeness more accurately describes it.

First, because it reappropriates terminology that is best applied to social animals, and less well to discursive and psychological social animals.


Well this is a rather interesting statement because it implies you believe society is defined by mere interaction rather than through mutual understanding of semantic value. For example, you probably view a "pack" of playful prairie dogs as a society.

For obvious reasons as it pertains to the social contract, I have to disagree here. What you're saying would imply that merely being born implies consent because someone formulated a relationship by interacting and bringing you into the world. Yes, this is practical, but it would excuse negligent parenting preparation. It would also allow greater society to get away with social alienation under the guise that children must tolerate negligent parenting which refuses to teach social values. This is highly dangerous because it means children will not necessarily grow up to learn the rule of law and how to be socially engaging.

As an alternative, it could also imply that children are entitled to institutionalized care such as in a school to learn according social values. However, this again is highly dangerous because it would expose children to social engineering. For example, right now, the government doesn't teach children 100% of the rule of law while children are in school, yet still, children are graduated into adulthood around the age that they're expected to graduate. How is this considerate of who children are?

As it pertains to rape, all of this is highly relevant. Without these social values, children won't learn how to be socially or sexually engaging, and that's what leads to confusion as previously described regarding rapists.

Second, because it constructs a binary that I find as restrictive as binaries like masculine/feminine. Putting it in terms of control wasn't a complete way of explaining it, you're right, but you're implying that one group has a greater potential for agency and the other group lacks it, though both can theoretically acquire prestige. That gives too much weight to agency and to a couple of presupposed affiliations with agency (like emotional gumption) when there's more to will and more to human interaction than opposed wills.


Um...

...I guess I'm going to open up a little here because the matter of agency was exactly what I was trying to say. It's also what I was talking about in the Nice person/Kind person thread.

Structure is important, don't get me wrong, but what are we supposed to say, that certain children are doomed? As a society, are we supposed to say it's tolerable to formulate a structure where some children fall through the cracks and don't learn according social values? Are we supposed to say that as a matter of practical imperfection, some children are going to have to grow up confused and be exposed to legal experimentalism?

I'm going to note here that this is why I really don't identify with progressivism. Progressivism focuses on economic inequality rather than social hierarchy. Eliminating the latter is the real key to establishing a cohesive society because the latter is what creates asymmetric information by which confusion takes place. The amount of income and wealth people have can vary infinitely as long as people understand each other.

(Again, this is the difference between efficiency and completeness. Perhaps the reason I'm assuming you really meant "complete" is because I'm hoping you're openminded to what I'm saying here.)

Obviously, asymmetric information (from not learning social values) creates confusion which can coincide with rape.

The third is that this binary encourages us to divide people into two groups of our own invention, those who possess emotional agency and those who are emotionally impotent.


Well I guess I might as well not lie.

This section actually had me at tears because emotional impotency was exactly what I was implying. Again, you'll probably pick up on this in the Nice person/Kind person thread. When (your segment of) society insists on you repressing your emotions because it doesn't like how you subliminate, impotency is rather inevitable. I think this is why I completely lack a sense of humor now, and it's lead to a rather vicious cycle of perpetual alienation.

As for alpha-beta being a binary, I haven't really thought of it that way. Alphahood is a scale in itself. Some people are more charged than others. In any particular situation, "the alpha" is whoever has the most of it. It also comes in styles where smaller quantities of alphahood can overcome others in a rock-paper-scissors sort of way (as your article illustrated), but that's another dimension. The point is some people are more charged, some people are less charged.

When you're not charged... it leads people to take you for granted because you don't act out or subliminate (in a compatible manner). The perpetual alienation leads to confusion.

I guess you can see where I'm going with all this.

Like your later distinction into dominant and submissive, these distinctions are ill-equipped to address individuals that do not clearly fall into either category, nor are they well-equipped to encounter phenomena that don't fall within the distinctions (rape, for instance, can occur in relationships that do not clearly distinguish a power dynamic, or people who do not clearly exhibit dominant/recessive behavior; again, the rapist is not reducible to a single type or motive, nor even to a single gender. Discussion within types is often useful, but there needs to be a clear justification for applying such discussion to rape in general, a motion that seems more difficult with a simple binary).

So I don't think that the alpha/beta binary is horrible, but I think it's prone to error because it's prone to being misunderstood and it also carries with it quite a few assumptions about human interaction that are unnecessarily restrictive in a discussion of rape culture.


I think the real issue with rape culture is it ends up becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy where society alienates people into implosions or explosions, partially out of irresponsibility, partially out of liking drama. When people talk about rape culture, they're only addressing the explosive half of the situation, and they become wary of alienated victims who really don't pose a threat. This is what I was saying originally about monkey's hopes. Monkey only paid attention to what beliefs are and not how beliefs are formulated. There's a process behind the result which is being ignored.

The problem is social alienators don't want to fess up for their alienation which is damaging this process. Alienation does so by preventing the understanding of social values (behind the motive of social hierarchy), yet these people end up in positions of cultural influence, so they manifest an environment of political correctness which prevents their personalities from being blamed for what they're doing. I've actually come to this realization very explicitly when discussing with militant feminists and alpha males plenty of times for years now. They'll even admit that it's the victim's obligation to stop whining, accumulate power, and prove being deserving of dignity. Obviously, this doesn't do a lot of good. One, it demands that emotionally impotent people live their lives to others' standards. Two, it puts emotionally impotent people in an inclined position of defeat. Three, it exposes emotionally impotent people to legal experimentalism on both the suspect and victim side of the equation.

Again, this is why I have to disagree with your perspective on society. Society is built around values (not action), and those values are dispersed through discourse, discourse which doesn't always happen, yet people are still expected to behave.
Daktoria
established
established
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Dec 8, 16:26 2011

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby monk » Thu Dec 15, 13:55 2011

postfeminist wrote:Sorry, this is pretty much just hyperbole.

Males and rapists both seeing a woman dressing in next to nothing thinking about sex has nothing to do with men, and everything to do with women. Men and women judge everyone by how they look, we are all responsible for the way we dress, only women are fighting to have less responsibility, despite having so many more options. I've encountered a lot of girls who enjoy being submissive, this is a socialized trait, and does not mean rape is okay, but means that advice along these lines is still accurate - saying it justifies rape is just more hyperbole. Rapists speak English, if you asked a rapist to do math they would do it the same as everyone else, etc.


Sonic went into detail, but this post can be reduced very simply in my opinion. Rape has nothing to do with clothing. Women or men should be able to walk around completely naked and still be safe from rape. Submission or Dominance, the key concept is consent no matter which role is played after consent is granted.

Daktoria wrote:As it pertains to rape, all of this is highly relevant. Without these social values, children won't learn how to be socially or sexually engaging, and that's what leads to confusion as previously described regarding rapists.
While social values are important it's societal rules which determine behavior. The difference being that while a value is an internal belief that guides choices and behaviors, a societal rule is a specific prohibition on certain actions.

Daktoria wrote:Again, this is why I have to disagree with your perspective on society. Society is built around values (not action), and those values are dispersed through discourse, discourse which doesn't always happen, yet people are still expected to behave.
People are expected to behave because while society is built around collected values, most of those values don't conflict on another persons liberty and autonomy. It's those specific actions that do conflict with autonomy and freedom (a very short list) that need to be taught simply and specifically to everyone along with what the consequences are for violation of those societal rules.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
User avatar
monk
try to ignore it if I offend you.
try to ignore it if I offend you.
 
Posts: 7449
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 23:46 2003

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby lillerina » Thu Dec 15, 14:55 2011

To elaborate on monk's naked thing: a person could fall into someone's lap, blind drunk and wearing nothing but a necklace and a sloppy grin, and the person into whose lap they fell will not rape them unless that person is a rapist. It's rape culture that says that the victim's actions dictate whether they are raped or not. It's not the victim's actions that we should be scrutinising, it's the rapists. When I was raped, I was wearing a pair of jeans and a plain teeshirt. Clothing has nothing to do with it.
If I bang my head against a brick wall five times and get five lumps, why am I surprised when I bang it a sixth time and get a sixth lump?

"Isn't it funny that the only time your race or gender is questioned is when you're not a white man?" - Wanda Sykes
User avatar
lillerina
We are the internet. We are one.
We are the internet. We are one.
 
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jan 9, 8:32 2006
Location: Meppi's Cedar Closet / Narnia

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby Daktoria » Thu Dec 15, 16:01 2011

lillerina wrote:To elaborate on monk's naked thing: a person could fall into someone's lap, blind drunk and wearing nothing but a necklace and a sloppy grin, and the person into whose lap they fell will not rape them unless that person is a rapist. It's rape culture that says that the victim's actions dictate whether they are raped or not. It's not the victim's actions that we should be scrutinising, it's the rapists. When I was raped, I was wearing a pair of jeans and a plain teeshirt. Clothing has nothing to do with it.


lillerina, that's excessive. I understand what you're saying, but you need to recognize some boundaries and respect for other people. If you start slobbering, flirting, grinding, and revealing yourself like crazy with someone in a bar or club, you are definitely demonstrating consent. After all, nobody consents to even receive stimulation either. You'd be obligating people to be thickskinned which everyone in society is not. Many men are sensitive, yet you're effectively condemning them to torture in being stimulated, but not being fully interacted with. No man would ever be entitled to peace of mind!

I don't know what happened when you were raped, and I'll agree that what you're wearing doesn't seem provocative. However, it's not your right to passive-aggressively toy with other people's minds and expect the rest of the world to behave like adults while you can behave like a little kid. I don't believe you necessarily did, but the situation you're describing of falling into someone's lap naked and whatnot is definitely toying. Falling into someone's lap like that is relinquishing self-control while expecting someone else to still exert self-control for you. That's no different from expecting to be treated with the maturity of a 5 year old who constantly has her finger in the face of her brother in the back seat of a car while saying, "I'm not touching you," yet there's a reason we say people can be underage.

____________________

Monk wrote:While social values are important it's societal rules which determine behavior. The difference being that while a value is an internal belief that guides choices and behaviors, a societal rule is a specific prohibition on certain actions.


Honestly, this doesn't make sense. How can you understand rules without values? This is especially important when engaging legal concepts such as "duress", "intimidation", and "meetings of the mind". Many rules have subjective benchmarks, so to make sure people don't get caught in the gray zone, clarifications have to be made.

People are expected to behave because while society is built around collected values, most of those values don't conflict on another persons liberty and autonomy. It's those specific actions that do conflict with autonomy and freedom (a very short list) that need to be taught simply and specifically to everyone along with what the consequences are for violation of those societal rules.


Before I explain why I disagree with this, let me say three things:

One, I'm not trying to scare you.

Two, the police is not your private security agency.

Three, public schools are not your private academies.

Now as to why I disagree with this.

First off, if you're a progressive (and most feminists are), you're not entitled to claim the line is drawn an autonomy because progressivism believes in positive liberty such as in the provision of universal health care, public pensions, public education, and other government provided services, services which serve culture defined by social values. What this means, therefore, is people are entitled not only to know what's wrong, but they're also entitled to know what's right. If they're not told what's right, then they won't know how to represent themselves optimally in receiving public services. This includes policing and legal defense in knowing in advance where the line is between social assertion and social coercion.

Second off, if you're NOT a progressive (which I doubt, but I'm a libertarian, so I should accommodate this on behalf of negative liberty) it's again impossible to understand rules without understanding values first. For example, you can't understand autonomy without first understanding the values underlying autonomy.

Furthermore, the capacity to preserve autonomy has to be preserved, and this requires living in an assimilating society. Not only does society pay taxes for policing, but it also creates the jurisdiction which is being policed, so both the supply and demand of policing is determined by society. If the price of policing becomes too high, autonomy will no longer be preserved, so society needs to teach values in order to keep this price from exploding.

From a negative liberty perspective, it's also important to note that nobody asks to be born into society, so there is an inherent duty of care of teaching people about society in order to let them identify with it. If you merely teach people what's wrong, but not what's right, then there's not necessarily an identifiable relationship with society being established. Instead, you'd be establishing a social hierarchy of first class insiders and second class outsiders where first class insiders have all the security in the world, and second class outsiders don't have a clue how far is too far in being socially engaging.

I mean how can you claim people are part of society without teaching people social customs?
Daktoria
established
established
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Dec 8, 16:26 2011

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby postfeminist » Thu Dec 15, 16:35 2011

Well shit.

This is pretty much covered in my saying that I do not think submissiveness means being a slave, that stuff gets saved for The Power Exchange. I never said wearing a miniskirt was reason for harassment, but if you choose to wear something which will drew attention, you can't get mad about it. The attention I am talking about are simple looks, perhaps someone trying to start a conversation. I've known girls to start a physical confrontation because a guy walked past the store they were in twice. It's a mall, stores have huge glass fronts, people look into stores, if you're in there he'll probably notice you simply because you're a person in his field of vision.

The real problem with the above example is that the guy had no clue what was going on, yet the store's employees leapt to the girl's defense without knowing what was going on, further than a hysterical girl yelling at a scared and confused guy in the... area in-between stores in the mall? Hallway? Whatever you call that area... concourse? Probably.

Someone said something about how women just want to be judged the same as men? Alright, everyone wearing a skirt right now is gay... sorry, I kind of feel like that language is worse than being called attractive.

Obviously consent matters, what? How did attention translate to harassment and rape? There is so much hyperbole going on there it's ridiculous. I'm out.
Last edited by postfeminist on Thu Dec 15, 18:33 2011, edited 1 time in total.
postfeminist
established
established
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 18:13 2011

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby monk » Thu Dec 15, 16:58 2011

Daktoria wrote:lillerina, that's excessive. I understand what you're saying, but you need to recognize some boundaries and respect for other people. If you start slobbering, flirting, grinding, and revealing yourself like crazy with someone in a bar or club, you are definitely demonstrating consent.

This^ is your first misconception. Short of holding a sign saying "fuck me" or using hand gestures (pointing at mouth & groin while making eye contact) your "demonstration" can easily be mistaken for flirting and maybe that's all the person wants to do.
After all, nobody consents to even receive stimulation either. You'd be obligating people to be thickskinned which everyone in society is not. Many men are sensitive, yet you're effectively condemning them to torture in being stimulated, but not being fully interacted with. No man would ever be entitled to peace of mind!
Second misconception, men can't handle stimulation. Ever been to a strip club? it's all stimulation no satisfaction. If a man's sensitive, he has every right to not look, walk away, ask them to stop what they're doing. Who says peace of mind is an entitlement?

I don't know what happened when you were raped, and I'll agree that what you're wearing doesn't seem provocative. However, it's not your right to passive-aggressively toy with other people's minds and expect the rest of the world to behave like adults while you can behave like a little kid. I don't believe you necessarily did, but the situation you're describing of falling into someone's lap naked and whatnot is definitely toying. Falling into someone's lap like that is relinquishing self-control while expecting someone else to still exert self-control for you. That's no different from expecting to be treated with the maturity of a 5 year old who constantly has her finger in the face of her brother in the back seat of a car while saying, "I'm not touching you," yet there's a reason we say people can be underage.
If they fall into your lap, push them off, tell them to stop, leave. Don't rape them.
If they point their finger at you, look away, tell them to stop, leave. Don't hit them with a baseball bat.
If someone acts immaturely around you that does not entitle you to inflict physical violence of a sexual or non sexual nature upon them, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
____________________


Honestly, this doesn't make sense. How can you understand rules without values? This is especially important when engaging legal concepts such as "duress", "intimidation", and "meetings of the mind". Many rules have subjective benchmarks, so to make sure people don't get caught in the gray zone, clarifications have to be made.
You don't have to understand a rule to follow it. It would be nice if everyone understood why raping someone is bad, why having sex with someone who is too incapacitated to consent is the same as rape and you can flirt, touch, kiss, fondle and still say no to sex at the very last second and that's okay. But many people dont think deeply about these subjects, (or any other subject), so it's best to just lay out the rules simply and straight forwardly and let those who have a deeper understanding because they've taken the time to acquire it lay out the guidlelines and then have really nasty consequences for violation of the guidelines because even the truly dense seem to understand consequences.


Before I explain why I disagree with this, let me say three things:

One, I'm not trying to scare you.

Two, the police is not your private security agency.

Three, public schools are not your private academies.

One, I know I'm scarier than you.
Two, my gun (or fist, knife, baseballbat & car) is my security agency.
Three, the primary educator of a child is the parent(s) and the parents social circle.


First off, if you're a progressive (and most feminists are), you're not entitled to claim the line is drawn an autonomy because progressivism believes in positive liberty such as in the provision of universal health care, public pensions, public education, and other government provided services, services which serve culture defined by social values.
By this definition you're a progressive too, we just drawn the line at different places since I'm sure you like public roads, public utilities, the fire department etc.
What this means, therefore, is people are entitled not only to know what's wrong, but they're also entitled to know what's right. If they're not told what's right, then they won't know how to represent themselves optimally in receiving public services. This includes policing and legal defense in knowing in advance where the line is between social assertion and social coercion.
It's all a matter of consequence. From speed limits to assault, your lifetime of education both formally through school and informally through observation and social contact has informed you about what's right, what's wrong, and what's expected of you. If that education was done right and you have no mental defect you should be able to function with little difficulty unless YOU CHOOSE NOT TO.

Second off, if you're NOT a progressive (which I doubt, but I'm a libertarian, so I should accommodate this on behalf of negative liberty) it's again impossible to understand rules without understanding values first. For example, you can't understand autonomy without first understanding the values underlying autonomy.
You do not need to understand autonomy in order to have it or to function in society. In fact I would postulate that most people don't realize how much freedom they have because they have an over inflated sense of what the consequences are for violating many of our rules is.

Furthermore, the capacity to preserve autonomy has to be preserved, and this requires living in an assimilating society. Not only does society pay taxes for policing, but it also creates the jurisdiction which is being policed, so both the supply and demand of policing is determined by society. If the price of policing becomes too high, autonomy will no longer be preserved, so society needs to teach values in order to keep this price from exploding.
Completely wrong. We set the value of how much policing we want and then observe how much violation happens. Then we adjust the amount we pay until the policing and violation balance out to a level decided by societal consensus.

where first class insiders have all the security in the world,
Bell Aire, Beverly Hills, Malibu
and second class outsiders don't have a clue how far is too far in being socially engaging.
Watts, Compton, South Central or East LA.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
User avatar
monk
try to ignore it if I offend you.
try to ignore it if I offend you.
 
Posts: 7449
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 23:46 2003

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby Daktoria » Thu Dec 15, 17:29 2011

monk wrote:This^ is your first misconception. Short of holding a sign saying "fuck me" or using hand gestures (pointing at mouth & groin while making eye contact) your "demonstration" can easily be mistaken for flirting and maybe that's all the person wants to do.


What do you think it would mean to fall into someone's lap naked with a sloppy grin? That's exactly what's going on.

I mean Jesus Christ, wtf? You're not giving men any autonomy at all. You're forcing men to be completely exposed and have no reliable boundaries whatsoever.

Second misconception, men can't handle stimulation. Ever been to a strip club? it's all stimulation no satisfaction. If a man's sensitive, he has every right to not look, walk away, ask them to stop what they're doing. Who says peace of mind is an entitlement?


Peace of mind is WHO PEOPLE ARE. If you don't allow people peace of mind, there's no boundaries on harassment.

Seriously, are you trolling here? A strip club is not the equivalent of going to a bar or club looking to find someone personal. A strip club is a professional environment.

Furthermore, the public domain is NOT your exclusive space. It's not your place to force other people to put up with you. EVERYONE is entitled to security.

If they fall into your lap, push them off, tell them to stop, leave. Don't rape them.
If they point their finger at you, look away, tell them to stop, leave. Don't hit them with a baseball bat.
If someone acts immaturely around you that does not entitle you to inflict physical violence of a sexual or non sexual nature upon them, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.


Fine, if you want to get nitpicky, outline every possible signal out there which demonstrates consent.

Go ahead. Whenever you're ready, let's see a technical description of what's approval and what's not. You're demanding that men put up with harassment here by not bestowing any duty of care towards women at all in how they behave.

Also, you've already created a gray area regarding physical violence because you're stating the man is obligated to push the woman off.

You don't have to understand a rule to follow it.

You do not need to understand autonomy in order to have it or to function in society. In fact I would postulate that most people don't realize how much freedom they have because they have an over inflated sense of what the consequences are for violating many of our rules is.


What? That doesn't make any sense at all. How can you know to drive on the right side of the road if you don't know which side is right? Furthermore, how can you learn which side is right if you don't have a deeper understanding of values in the learning process?

You'd be tolerating a culture of legal experimentalism, and that condemns people to bad luck when they're HONESTLY trying to integrate into society.

It would be nice if everyone understood why raping someone is bad, why having sex with someone who is too incapacitated to consent is the same as rape and you can flirt, touch, kiss, fondle and still say no to sex at the very last second and that's okay. But many people dont think deeply about these subjects, (or any other subject), so it's best to just lay out the rules simply and straight forwardly and let those who have a deeper understanding because they've taken the time to acquire it lay out the guidlelines and then have really nasty consequences for violation of the guidelines because even the truly dense seem to understand consequences.


No, this is totally crazy. You're excusing passive-aggressive behavior to the extreme here. Adulthood is about being mature, and now, you're allowing people to behave like little kids in teasing people via misrepresentation.

Furthermore, you can't apply consequentialism here because everyone doesn't learn from the same consequences. For some people, consequences aren't good enough. For others, they're total overkill.

Three, the primary educator of a child is the parent(s) and the parents social circle.


This covers children in the case of negligent parenting how?

You're condemning children who are born into alienating circumstances, and even more so, by refusing to teach them social customs, you're condemning them to coming off as monsters. Wtf?

It's all a matter of consequence. From speed limits to assault, your lifetime of education both formally through school and informally through observation and social contact has informed you about what's right, what's wrong, and what's expected of you. If that education was done right and you have no mental defect you should be able to function with little difficulty unless YOU CHOOSE NOT TO.


Holy crap...

...EDUCATION IS NOT ALWAYS DONE RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT'S BEING DISCUSSED HERE.

Furthermore, you're OBLIGATING PEOPLE TO GET LUCKY in having appropriate social experience. People who are alienated since they're children become CONDEMNED to not knowing the difference between right and wrong.

Completely wrong. We set the value of how much policing we want and then observe how much violation happens. Then we adjust the amount we pay until the policing and violation balance out to a level decided by societal consensus.


No, "we" don't. Collective consciousness doesn't exist, and there are always minorities in the definition of public policy.

You're condemning these minorities into alienation by not teaching them the social values of the majority.

Bell Aire, Beverly Hills, Malibu

Watts, Compton, South Central or East LA.


This justifies inside information how? Again, how can anyone identify with society without knowing social customs?
Daktoria
established
established
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Dec 8, 16:26 2011

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby Tookie » Thu Dec 15, 17:41 2011

Daktoria wrote:
monk wrote:This^ is your first misconception. Short of holding a sign saying "fuck me" or using hand gestures (pointing at mouth & groin while making eye contact) your "demonstration" can easily be mistaken for flirting and maybe that's all the person wants to do.


What do you think it would mean to fall into someone's lap naked with a sloppy grin? That's exactly what's going on.


HOLY FUCKING SHIT NO IT IS NOT.

What if the person fell over? What if the person thinks you are someone else? What if the person is so fucked up he or she doesn't know what's going on? I can think of a MILLION scenarios in which that is NOT the person communicating that they want to get busy with you.

You know why men don't have "any autonomy" here? Because no one has the right to do anything to another person's body without that person's explicit permission.

You know what the man DOES have the autonomy to do, though? Ask the naked person if he or she would like to have sex (and be prepared to accept no for an answer).
The personal is the political.
helium wrote:Every vagina is different, right? A unique and original vag-snowflake?
User avatar
Tookie
Spleentastic!
Spleentastic!
 
Posts: 4761
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 16:34 2004
Location: Canada

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby Storage and Disposal » Thu Dec 15, 17:58 2011

Wait, torture? How hard is it to get a "yes" out of someone that wants to have sex with you? If it's so hard that you have to resort to going through with it without that verbal consent, congratulations, you are a rapist.
Dr. Mung-Mung wrote:He weeps for he has but one small tongue with which to taste an entire world.
User avatar
Storage and Disposal
You address omnipotence, tread carefully
You address omnipotence, tread carefully
 
Posts: 5430
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 5:31 2004

Re: More explanation of rape culture

Postby Daktoria » Thu Dec 15, 18:02 2011

Tookie wrote:HOLY FUCKING SHIT NO IT IS NOT.

What if the person fell over? What if the person thinks you are someone else? What if the person is so fucked up he or she doesn't know what's going on? I can think of a MILLION scenarios in which that is NOT the person communicating that they want to get busy with you.

You know why men don't have "any autonomy" here? Because no one has the right to do anything to another person's body without that person's explicit permission.

You know what the man DOES have the autonomy to do, though? Ask the naked person if he or she would like to have sex (and be prepared to accept no for an answer).


You're talking about a DELIBERATE act here. Why is someone walking around naked if that person isn't openminded to having sex? If anything, falling into someone's lap is MORE explicit than saying "yes" because you're talking about an UNCONSENTED PHYSICAL action.

Furthermore, that person has DELIBERATELY CHOSEN to get drunk. Whatever happened to the duty of care of the woman's autonomy?

Men are not your fathers, and you are not children.

________________________

SnD wrote:Wait, torture? How hard is it to get a "yes" out of someone that wants to have sex with you? If it's so hard that you have to resort to going through with it without that verbal consent, congratulations, you are a rapist.


No, that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about women who flirt passive-aggressively, but have no interest in following through. The point of being qualified as a mature adult is you're trusted not to behave passive-aggressively.
Daktoria
established
established
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Thu Dec 8, 16:26 2011

Next

Return to Feminism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest