Feminism

[LexusInfernus 908]

It wasn't my intention to tell women they shouldn't be scared and I don't think I did. I was talking about paranoia. Like I said before there is a difference between fear and paranoia. One controls your life (paranoia), and the other informs you of rational dangers around you (fear). I was only saying this because I felt Meg's story from twitter, enlightening as it was, was also a bit sensationalistic.

 

I never said: 'life is dangerous for me too and I don't feel scared'. I said life is dangerous for everyone and we're all scared of something. I think I can handle myself but there are many people out there who could overpower me. When I walk down a dark alley at night I'm alert and partially 'afraid' because something could happen. That is the whole point.

Again, if women (and Meg is far from the only women I've heard talking about this) say they are scared, you should take them seriously. They aren't stupid, they aren't dumb and most aren't paranoid. They encounter these kind of situations so often that it is rational for them to be scared. I've heard my sister talk about this as well, and honestly the first time she talked about it I just couldn't imagine it to be true. Even now I have trouble imagining what so many women go through on a daily basis. Yeah, I'm scared too in certain situations, but the very simple fact remains that I do not get yelled at, insulted by, groped by, intimidated by complete strangers on the street or in bars or dance floors or the office on a very regular basis. Face it, as a guy we simply cannot fully imagine the experiences so many women go through, just like as a white person, I cannot imagine what so many black people go through. I just don't get it and I can't get it because I'm a white male and my privilege simply prevents me from having those experiences. 

 

And see, you are scared when you walk down a dark alley which is arguably a pretty dangerous situation in certain areas of the world. But women aren't just threatened in dark alleys. They get it everywhere. Busy streets, their workplace, bars or dancefloors. Those are areas where I can feel pretty safe the vast majority of the time. But for a lot of women, that is not the case. 

 

The problem with "Feminism" (now I'm opening up a can of worms, putting quotations cause it is a broad brush I'm painting with) is that heterosexual men aren't invited to join the discussion. Every heated or complex debate usually ends with: "You're not a woman so shut up!" (exaggerating a bit). I was merely trying to point out that although women are more likely to be victims of rape they don't have to feel alone in their fear of danger in the world.  To say rape and being attacked is only the domain of women and that they are the only ones who have to look over their shoulder in a dark parking garage just isn't realistic.

 

Also, a lot of "Feminism" seems only to portray women as victims of men. "Women have to do this because of men, women have to do that because of men. Patriarchy blah, blah, blah." I'm not trying to make this about me or just Men; I'm trying to look at it holistically. I'm trying to bring a little balance to the discussion. What about the pressures women put on men? As a woman has it ever occurred to you that there even is such a thing? There is a part of feminism that just wants to make women feel like victims of men rather than empowering them. Women will never be equal or truly empowered until that element of feminism is purged. I guess I am not a woman so what do I know...

 

Well yes, I understand where you coming from. Indeed, some Feminists feel that Feminism is a women only space. I disagree with them and I know a whole lot of other Feminists (the majority even) disagree with that as well. So its one of those internal differences within the overall Feminist movement. What I do feel, and what I agree with is that while guys have a place in the whole Feminist discussion, they should also learn that their place isn't at the head of things. Which is something a lot of guys are unfamiliar with (another one of our privileges). A simple fact is that our voice is not always relevant or more relevant simply because we are guys.  

 

And yes, if you actually look at what Feminists discuss, you will see that it also looks at the pressures it put on men. Feminists generally regard the Patriarchy as hurtful to men as well because under the patriarchy certain kinds of pressure are put on men (by women). Their efforts to get rid of gender stereotypes and gender roles also apply to getting rid of the gender stereotypes and roles for men.

 

I feel the reason we have these abhorrent groups like InCel and PUAhate is because Men are constantly excluded from the discussion of gender. There is not academic masculine equivalent of feminism (not that such a thing should necessarily exist cause it might just create more division). Men aren't taken seriously when it comes to how they view gender equality and gender roles. Especially by women (sorry ladies). The attitude is: "you're a man so you should know how to deal with it." "You're afraid of going jogging in the park at midnight? Why? You're a man, aren't you?" So they are sidelined and maligned. This creates an extreme hatred of women and feminism. 

 

No, those people exclude themselves from the discussion. Feminism generally does not exclude men, it welcomes them either as allies or just Feminists. Some of the more hardcore groups are less welcoming to men, but mainstream feminism is open to everyone. However, like I said, guys that join it have to be aware that their privilege will be checked, and that is where these InCel and PUAhate groups come from. They are men that cannot stand the idea that they might lose some of their privilege. These people are completely blind to their own privilege yet they cry they are being oppressed by 'Feminazis' that they are the victims of Misandry. And why? Because not everyone women automatically wants to have sex with them? By behaving like that, they exclude themselves from the discussion. 

 

But everyone else who isn't a total idiot can easily join the discussion, as long as they are aware that just because they are guys, they aren't treated any different. And in a culture where guys are treated differently because they are guys, that can sometimes be an obstacle.

[Meg 368]

Thank you, LexusInfernus.  

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

 

It wasn't my intention to tell women they shouldn't be scared and I don't think I did. I was talking about paranoia. Like I said before there is a difference between fear and paranoia. One controls your life (paranoia), and the other informs you of rational dangers around you (fear). I was only saying this because I felt Meg's story from twitter, enlightening as it was, was also a bit sensationalistic.

 

I never said: 'life is dangerous for me too and I don't feel scared'. I said life is dangerous for everyone and we're all scared of something. I think I can handle myself but there are many people out there who could overpower me. When I walk down a dark alley at night I'm alert and partially 'afraid' because something could happen. That is the whole point.

Again, if women (and Meg is far from the only women I've heard talking about this) say they are scared, you should take them seriously. They aren't stupid, they aren't dumb and most aren't paranoid. They encounter these kind of situations so often that it is rational for them to be scared. I've heard my sister talk about this as well, and honestly the first time she talked about it I just couldn't imagine it to be true. Even now I have trouble imagining what so many women go through on a daily basis. Yeah, I'm scared too in certain situations, but the very simple fact remains that I do not get yelled at, insulted by, groped by, intimidated by complete strangers on the street or in bars or dance floors or the office on a very regular basis. Face it, as a guy we simply cannot fully imagine the experiences so many women go through, just like as a white person, I cannot imagine what so many black people go through. I just don't get it and I can't get it because I'm a white male and my privilege simply prevents me from having those experiences.

 

I understand, a woman who is scared of rape isn't stupid. I don't know why you have to tell me that cause I didn't say it or imply it. I'm taking them very seriously. Just saying you can't be afraid of getting attacked by a white shark every time you get in the water or else you'll never get to enjoy swimming. The way you're describing the very day life of a woman is so broad. Women as a whole, at least in North America (can't speak for the rest of the world cause I don't know enough), don't get potentially raped, or sexually harassed on a daily basis. Yes, at some point in a woman's life she well probably encounter this kind of situation more than once and more than the average man, but to say on a daily basis is stretching it - a lot.

 

If you've never been yelled at, insulted by, groped by, intimidated by complete strangers on the street or in bars or dance floors or the office, then you just haven't lived enough yet. All of these things have happened to me more than once and other guys I know. This one time I was waiting for a bus and this hooker (and not a glamorous beautiful one, not that it would have made it much better) threw herself on me and actually kissed me - yuk who know where those lips have been. Another time I a friend and I were trying to help this hobo and he tried to kiss my friend - on the lips (i think he succeeded). When I went to the gym in high school there was this guy who would expose his genitals - and he did this constantly! Doesn't happen to me anymore, maybe cause i don't go out as much, but I've been groped by guys and girls on the dance floor. I've been mugged too - once in broad daylight on the busiest street in my city. i could keep going. Thankfully I've never been severely beaten or raped (knock on wood). So as a guy I can imagine the experiences so many women go through because it isn't only women who have these experiences. Also, as a white/Asian person, I have experienced racism at the hands of others races - for being white but that is another issue and it was done by kids so hopefully they know better now that they're older.

[krbe 193]

What does the response of the victim have to do with it?   A person too drunk to consent is too drunk to consent.   I do not understand the point you are trying to make.

I did not respond to intoxication, I was responding to the two last paragrahps of your post where you clearly reference the state of victim as a source of confusion (which quite naturally is irrelevant if you meant not to include that).

 

Consent is absent as long as both parties involved do not clearly say yes to having sex.

 

I believe the majority of sexual incidents would be "rape" if that actually was the definition.

 

Please clarify.   Are you saying that the majority of sexual incidents do not involve verbal agreement or that they don't involve consenting parties?   As LexusInfernus said "Rape is essentially the absence of consent".

No, I am saying that if consent "s absent as long as both parties involved do not clearly say yes to having sex." then there will be many (if not necessarily the majority) cases which are not rape which must be labelled as such as the clear, verbal yes is absent (I suppose a signed release form could substitute for both verbal and clear). Sex is a complex activity, and this clear and verbal go-ahead does not necessarily happen. As with many human interactions, we rely on implied consent, continuous consent, informed consent, conditional consent and so on. Even a clear and verbal yes may turn out as a very weak basis for consent. Sex is an emotional, human affair, not a sales transaction. It might sound good when you think up a line like "rape is essentially the absence of consent - and consent is absent as long as both parties involved do not clearly say yes to having sex," but makes it all very difficult. Problematic words: Rape, essentially, absence, consent, clearly, yes, having. The day someone gets a bit to drink at the pub, keep flirting, end up in bed, and somehow end up naked, "having sex" - when are they having sex, when is consent needed, is it rape because no "yes" could be heard? Or what about the couple, that somewhere along the same sliding scale end up in the same situation, again with no audible yes? Or the same situations, with audible yes-es, where they were exchanged in the belief that the person is who he/she claims he/she is? Or on the condition that contraceptives where being used?

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

 Right now, society is saying "Don't get raped".  It is not saying "Don't rape."   

 

You can say “don't rape” until you go blue in the face but it won't change anything.

 

The “don't get raped” vs “don't rape” debate is a false paradigm and it is holding back the rape discussion. It is like “don't get robbed” vs “don't steal”.

 

Of course you shouldn't rape or steal – these have been pillar values of western civilization for the past two thousand years, but that doesn't change human nature. The #1 deadly sin is lust – rape is the most depraved act of lust. So even in Christianity which is considered to be pretty chauvinistic and patriarchal raping someone will send you straight to hell.

 

You can't tell the criminal not to commit the crime: “Hey you – don't steal! You, yes you with the knife, don't murder! Hey guy – don't rape okay – rape is bad, just want you to know that so you wont do it.”

 

The guy who will potentially rape you isn't part of the equation – saying “don't rape” doesn't have an effect on him. A lot of the time rape isn't premeditated. Most of the time is a crime of 'passion'. It is a raw sexual desire that overrides rational thought. You think “don't rape” can compete with the most animalistic urge in the male psyche?

 

Personal responsibility and self awareness matters.

 

If I leave my keys in the door of my car I'm not to blame for a criminal stealing my car. However, I am to blame for being stupid.

 

If a girl goes to a frat party, gets drunk, passes out and gets raped she is not to blame for being raped. Those who raped her are to be blamed and punished. She is however to be 'blamed' for being stupid.

 

I know it sounds harsh but this is the reality feminism has to accept if rapes are to be prevented. The only person that will protect you is you.

 

Camille Paglia from a 2 part interview with Celia Farber, SPIN, September and October 1991:

 

“Feminists believe that a pain free world is achievable. I'm saying that a pain-free world will be achievable only under totalitarianism. There is no such thing as risk-free anything. In fact, all valuable human things come to us from risk and loss. Therefore we value beauty and youth because they are transient. Part of the sizzle of sex is the danger, the risk of loss of identity in love. That's part of the drama of love. My generation (women of the 60ies) demanded no more over-protection of women. We wanted women to be able to freely choose sex, freely have all the adventures that men could have. So women began to hike on mountain paths and do all sorts of dangerous things. That's the risk of freedom. If women break their legs on mountain bikes, that's the risk factor. I'm not defending the rapist – I'm defending the freedom to risk rape. I don't want sexual experience to be protected by society. A part of it is since women are physically weaker than men, in our sexual freedom, women are going to get raped. We should be angry about it, but it's a woman's personal responsibility now, in this age of sexual liberation, to make herself physically fit, so that she can fight off as best she can man's advances. She needs to be alert in her own mind to any potential danger. It's up to the woman to give clear signals of what her wishes are. If she does not want to be out of control of the situation she should not get drunk, she should not be in a private space with a man whom she does not know. Rape does not destroy you forever. It's like getting beaten up. Men get beat up all the time.”

 

“I dislike anything that treats women as if they are special, frail little creatures. We don't need special protection. Rape is an assault. If it is a totally devastating psychological experience for a woman, then she doesn't have a proper attitude toward sex. It's this whole stupid feminist thing about how we are basically nurturing, benevolent people, and sex is a wonderful thing between two equals. With that kind of attitude, then of course rape is going to be a total violation of your entire life because you've had a stupid, naïve, Marry Poppins view of life to begin with. Sex is a turbulent power that we are not in control of; it's a dark force. The sexes are at war with each other. That's part of the excitement and interest of sex. It's the dark realm of the night. When you enter the realm of the night, horrible things can happen there. You can get attacked on a dark street. Does that mean we should never go into dark streets?”

 

“My Sixties attitude is, yes, go for it, take the risk, take the challenge – if you get raped, if you get beat up in a dark alley in a street it's okay. That was part of the risk of freedom, that's part of what we've demanded as women. Go with it. Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and go on. We cannot regulate male sexuality. The uncontrollable aspect of male sexuality is part of what makes sex interesting. And yes, it can lead to rape in some situations. What feminists are asking for is for men to be castrated, to make eunuchs out of them. The powerful, uncontrollable force of male sexuality has been censored out of white middle-class homes.”

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

I honestly believe it goes both ways. Yes, teaching people morals is an essential part to civilisation and one of those core values should be that all men and women are created equal and that women are not objects there just to have sex with you.

That being said, there are always those few troublemakers who have to mess up things. By teaching the majority of people that rape, whether coerced or forced is NOT OKAY is a great start. This will ideally reduce the majority of related crimes but it is foolish to state that it will be eliminated entirely. This is where teaching people to be vigilant comes in handy. Whilst I agree with the principles behind such actions as "Slutwalk", it is an impossible ideal that will not be fully achieved.

On another note, if a woman is intoxicated and is coerced into sex with a man, it is indeed rape. But what about if both partners are drunk?


PS: I'm glad you're all keeping this civil. Not everyone in this thread agrees entirely with another, but you're all bouncing around great ideas and generating intelligent discussion (especially on such a controversial topic). Keep it up.

[Fatherted 129]

I think I'll drop out for now since many people are making points (on both sides) I agree with in general. I'll continue to check up on this thread and interject if I feel it necessary.

[AkemiAzula 280]

If for sex to be deemed comsensual all parties must raise their hands say aye and sign their full name within a box on a permanent record kept by the Department of Love then most married couples are serial rapists.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

If for sex to be deemed comsensual all parties must raise their hands say aye and sign their full name within a box on a permanent record kept by the Department of Love then most married couples are serial rapists.

But that's not true. Going along with the act as long as you are in a solid state of mind and there is no implied coercion is fine. Sometimes "things just happen" but if you're not doing it because you feel pressured then there is no rape.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

With both parties in agreement, doing what comes naturally is perfectly all right. 

 

There are, however, circumstances in which at least one party is in disagreement, perhaps by legal coercion (statutory rape).

 

The physical sex of the parties is irrelevant.

[Meg 368]

@MilitantRadical:   I agree with some of what you are saying.   With other statements, I'm not sure where you are going.

 

 

Personal responsibility and self awareness matters.

 

 

Absolutely!  I believe many of the world's problems could be cured by people taking responsibility for their actions.   Not just in terms of sex but regarding all facets of life.   imho, personal responsibility is the first and best thing that any of us can do.

 

 

 

It is a raw sexual desire that overrides rational thought. You think “don't rape” can compete with the most animalistic urge in the male psyche?

 

 

Okay, so we are dealing with a raw desire that is the most animalistic urge in the male psyche.  No argument there.   True, two words aren't going to compete with that.  So what is the best way of handling that?

 

When my grandmother was a kid, the prevailing paradigm was "Men are predatory animals; never be alone with one under any circumstances".    The thinking was that men cannot control themselves and therefore cannot be held responsible for their actions.

 

Some societies today still hold that view.   I think that is highly insulting to the men and oppressive to the women.   As someone pointed out earlier, there have been many honorable men throughout history who manage to live their life without acting like a "predatory animal".

 

 

"Sex is a turbulent power that we are not in control of; it's a dark force."

 

 

  Really?   That's very bleak.

 

Where does personal responsibility fit into that?

 

"A dark force"?   Sex with the right person is anything but that.

 

 

If for sex to be deemed comsensual all parties must raise their hands say aye and sign their full name within a box on a permanent record kept by the Department of Love then most married couples are serial rapists.

 

No one is suggesting signed written agreements.   Most couples, over time, know how to communicate non-verbally in this regard.

 

However, marital rape is a another issue.   I remember when the marital rape laws were debated and passed.   Some men claimed that it was a contradiction in terms: that it is impossible to rape your wife.  Some women said that they are under no obligation to have sex with a drunk man who is beating them even if he is her husband.   As is often the cases, the extremes where the most vocal.

 

 

 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Raging hormones is not an excuse under any circumstances although some current "unenlightened" societies operate on that basis.  Notably, this is very prevalent in India.  One of the great problems in a packed society like this is the preference for male children.  It is counterproductive as it leaves a preponderance of testosterone walking around in youthful bodies and, of course, masturbation is frowned upon.

 

Muslim society solves this by keeping its women in purdah.  Covered up and/or out of sight.  Believe me, out of sight is not out of mind in this case, and some youthful men get desperate.

 

Most western (Christian) societies are developed from middle ages puritanism and have various fetishes in place. 

 

One of the most repulsive is the celibacy of the Catholic clergy.  Some founding cleric (St. Augustine, I think) at one of the great councils brought this in even though he was a married bishop with a living wife and several children.  Now we have the Holy See stuck in this mire.  They no play the game, they no make the rules.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Id hardly call celibacy repulsive sir... Admirable given the present overpopulation.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Right now, society is saying "Don't get raped". It is not saying "Don't rape."

You can say “don't rape” until you go blue in the face but it won't change anything.

The “don't get raped” vs “don't rape” debate is a false paradigm and it is holding back the rape discussion. It is like “don't get robbed” vs “don't steal”.

Of course you shouldn't rape or steal – these have been pillar values of western civilization for the past two thousand years, but that doesn't change human nature. The #1 deadly sin is lust – rape is the most depraved act of lust. So even in Christianity which is considered to be pretty chauvinistic and patriarchal raping someone will send you straight to hell.

You can't tell the criminal not to commit the crime: “Hey you – don't steal! You, yes you with the knife, don't murder! Hey guy – don't rape okay – rape is bad, just want you to know that so you wont do it.”

The guy who will potentially rape you isn't part of the equation – saying “don't rape” doesn't have an effect on him. A lot of the time rape isn't premeditated. Most of the time is a crime of 'passion'. It is a raw sexual desire that overrides rational thought. You think “don't rape” can compete with the most animalistic urge in the male psyche? And this, is utter nonsense. For one, society tells people its wrong to steal, you are raised with 'don't steal' as something you should do. Does it prevent theft completely? No, but there are other consequences to society's attitude towards such an issue.

One of those things is the way society responds to when you are mugged. If you get mugged, people will feel sorry for you, if you go to the police, they will make a case out of it, if they catch whoever mugged you and it goes to court, its much easier to convince a jury and judge that whatever the person did was against the law, was wrong and deserves punishment.

Now look at what happens if you are raped in a society that teaches people that its your own responsibility not to get raped. For one, you will get a lot less support from your environment. In fact, the opposite quite often happens, where rape victims are bullied by their environments. They are sluts, put out easy, dirty whores, etc. And if they go to the police, all to often they do not find a helpful ear, but someone who treats with the high probability that you are lying, that you somehow wanted it or some other way that says its your own fault for getting raped. And then the courts. Well the conviction rates say it all. According to RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) 97% of the rapists don't spend a day in jail. Because its incredibly hard to convince jury's to convince that the rapist is the bad guy when society teaches that the rape victim is responsible for being raped.

Of course, that is not to say that you shouldn't teach people to be careful, because no matter what, crime is going to be a thing. But, in cases of rape, the emphasis lies so much on teaching people to avoid getting in situations that could result in rape, rather than teaching people that you shouldn't rape.

And really, if you think rape is just about lust just shows how little you know about rape. Sure, there are cases where its just a frat guy who wants sex and forces himself on some intoxicated girl at a frat party. But I think that kind of rape can be easily prevented exactly once we start teaching people its not okay to rape. Once it becomes easier to deal with people who rape, so they get send to jail sooner. Or marital rape, again, comes from the mistaken believe that women are responsible for their own safety and that marriage is somehow an automatic yes on the womens behalf to sex with their husband (and this does get some support from Christian cycles). Again, teach people 'don't rape' and the proper meaning of consensual sex and you can prevent a lot of it. The only kind of rapists that can never be prevented are the serial rapists, and their motives are far more complicated than simple lust.

And thanks, you just put males down as sexual beasts who, once they get in the mood won't stop until they are done. We are human beings, we can override our desires with rational thought. We have been doing that for millenia now. No means no, its not that hard to respect that.

Camille Paglia from a 2 part interview with Celia Farber, SPIN, September and October 1991:

“Feminists believe that a pain free world is achievable. I'm saying that a pain-free world will be achievable only under totalitarianism. There is no such thing as risk-free anything. In fact, all valuable human things come to us from risk and loss. Therefore we value beauty and youth because they are transient. Part of the sizzle of sex is the danger, the risk of loss of identity in love. That's part of the drama of love. My generation (women of the 60ies) demanded no more over-protection of women. We wanted women to be able to freely choose sex, freely have all the adventures that men could have. So women began to hike on mountain paths and do all sorts of dangerous things. That's the risk of freedom. If women break their legs on mountain bikes, that's the risk factor. I'm not defending the rapist – I'm defending the freedom to risk rape. I don't want sexual experience to be protected by society. A part of it is since women are physically weaker than men, in our sexual freedom, women are going to get raped. We should be angry about it, but it's a woman's personal responsibility now, in this age of sexual liberation, to make herself physically fit, so that she can fight off as best she can man's advances. She needs to be alert in her own mind to any potential danger. It's up to the woman to give clear signals of what her wishes are. If she does not want to be out of control of the situation she should not get drunk, she should not be in a private space with a man whom she does not know. Rape does not destroy you forever. It's like getting beaten up. Men get beat up all the time.”

“I dislike anything that treats women as if they are special, frail little creatures. We don't need special protection. Rape is an assault. If it is a totally devastating psychological experience for a woman, then she doesn't have a proper attitude toward sex. It's this whole stupid feminist thing about how we are basically nurturing, benevolent people, and sex is a wonderful thing between two equals. With that kind of attitude, then of course rape is going to be a total violation of your entire life because you've had a stupid, naïve, Marry Poppins view of life to begin with. Sex is a turbulent power that we are not in control of; it's a dark force. The sexes are at war with each other. That's part of the excitement and interest of sex. It's the dark realm of the night. When you enter the realm of the night, horrible things can happen there. You can get attacked on a dark street. Does that mean we should never go into dark streets?”

“My Sixties attitude is, yes, go for it, take the risk, take the challenge – if you get raped, if you get beat up in a dark alley in a street it's okay. That was part of the risk of freedom, that's part of what we've demanded as women. Go with it. Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and go on. We cannot regulate male sexuality. The uncontrollable aspect of male sexuality is part of what makes sex interesting. And yes, it can lead to rape in some situations. What feminists are asking for is for men to be castrated, to make eunuchs out of them. The powerful, uncontrollable force of male sexuality has been censored out of white middle-class homes.”

I call baloney on whoever this is. Pretty much everything she said is wrong. Rape doesn't come from the sexual liberalization thing in the 60's. Rape has been around since forever. And if rape, the total violation of your own body by somebody else is psychologically devastating, its not because you had the wrong idea about sex, its because you just got violated in a gruesome manner. What a bunch of victim blaming, rapist protecting, misogynist piece of garbage.

MOD EDIT: Language, please.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

An athlete attempted to rape my wife in our first year of college.  I had known her at this time (we've known each other since the first class we took, although we did not start dating until our second year) and I remember when she moved, but she did not elaborate on why until well after we had started dating (this would be at least two years after it happened, it just does not come up in conversation: "Hey, babe, get raped today?"  "No, honey, not today, but this one time...").  She was able to stop him (they were in the dorms) and after talking with her RA, she was persuaded not to report the attempt and instead moved to a dorm on the complete other side of the university to separate herself from him.  This particular person was preparing for the Olympics (our school is one of the few with a US Olympic Team training and education center) and she decided not to ruin his chances.  I won't second guess her (we've been together for almost 12 years, and have been living together for 10 of those), but I suspect that there are many women with similar stories. 

 

I asked her about how she felt about being alone in public, for example when we were in graduate school and she was in a male-dominated department having to occasionally put in some late nights on campus, or when she worked in Japan when we lived in Saitama and she had to ride the train and walk home at night (there have been serious problems with gropers on trains here in the very recent past) and she told me that it was never really an issue.  It has not affected our life together.  Anyways, perhaps being from Japan colors her feelings on it in comparison to American women.  I can talk about on what Japanese women tend to face compared to American women if anyone is interested in that.

 

I wasn't planning on joining the discussion again, but this is pretty relevant to what you're all talking about right now.  I honestly do not know enough about 'rape culture' to give comment either way. 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

LexusInfernus,

 

I'm not trying to say we shouldn't teach: "don't rape". I'm saying it is ridiculous to think rape comes from not knowing rape is bad. I can guarantee you that most people who end up raping know that rape is wrong. Of course they know rape is wrong - did that stop them? No.

 

 

Now look at what happens if you are raped in a society that teaches people that its your own responsibility not to get raped. For one, you will get a lot less support from your environment. In fact, the opposite quite often happens, where rape victims are bullied by their environments. They are sluts, put out easy, dirty whores, etc. And if they go to the police, all to often they do not find a helpful ear, but someone who treats with the high probability that you are lying, that you somehow wanted it or some other way that says its your own fault for getting raped. And then the courts. Well the conviction rates say it all. According to RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network) 97% of the rapists don't spend a day in jail. Because its incredibly hard to convince jury's to convince that the rapist is the bad guy when society teaches that the rape victim is responsible for being raped.

 

I agree that the numbers are shockingly low but you're making this way too simple. The numbers aren't low because we live in a society that teaches people that its your own responsibility not to get raped. A lot of the time victims withdraw their charges because they don't want being raped to define and dominate their lives. A court battle is a long and drawn out process - a lot of people just want to move on. Evidence is also a huge factor - sometimes is is hard to obtain. Also, sometimes rapes are 'grey'; sometimes circumstances can make right from wrong hard to distinguish for a jury.

 

Society doesn't teach that the rape victim is responsible for being raped. This is a feminist straw man - it isn't true. No one is actually saying rape victims are responsible or to blame for being raped, that is a distortion. The vast majority of men and women in this society agree rape is a vile crime and the one responsible or to blame is the perpetrator. Feminists just jump all over any person who dare suggest a certain rape was avoidable had the victim not acted carelessly. They've created a false argument in order to look morally and intellectually superior.

 

But I think that kind of rape can be easily prevented exactly once we start teaching people its not okay to rape.

 

Are you really that naive? Once we start teaching people it's not okay to rape?

 

We do teach people not to rape.

 

Rapers don't rape because they don't understand consensual sex or that rape is wrong.

 

And thanks, you just put males down as sexual beasts who, once they get in the mood won't stop until they are done. We are human beings, we can override our desires with rational thought. We have been doing that for millenia now. No means no, its not that hard to respect that.

 

I wasn't putting down males as sexual beast. You're misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I said. You're in denial of the raw power and energy of sexuality and how 'instinct' or 'base desires' can override rational thought. That doesn't make it okay - it just is. Honorable and ethical men have not raped since the dawn of consciousness. But we aren't talking about those people.

 

I call baloney on whoever this is. Pretty much everything she said is wrong. Rape doesn't come from the sexual liberalization thing in the 60's. Rape has been around since forever.

 

If you think Camille Paglia was saying rape comes from the sexual liberalization of the 60ies you've totally misread what she said. I suggest you read it again because you must have just glossed over it. You might want to find out who Camille Paglia is and read some of her work because in my opinion she is the one of the only feminist out there with any common sense.

 

Paglia from Rape & Modern Sex War:

 

"Rape is nothing new. It has been a horrible problem for women for all of recorded history. Once fathers and brothers protected women from rape. Once the penalty for rape was death. I come from a fierce Italian tradition where, not so long ago in the motherland, a rapist would end up knifed, castrated, and hung out to dry.

 

But the old clans and small rural communities have broken down. In our cities, on our campuses far from home, young women are vulnerable and defenseless. Feminism has not pre­pared them for this. Feminism keeps saying the sexes are the same. It keeps telling women they can do anything, go anywhere, say anything, wear anything. No, they can't. Women will always be in sexual danger.

 

[...]

 

We must remedy social injustice whenever we can. But there are some things we cannot change. There are sexual differences that are based in biology. Academic feminism is lost in a fog of social constructionism. It believes we are totally the product of our environment. This idea was invented by Rousseau. He was wrong. Emboldened by dumb French language theory, academic feminists repeat the same hollow slogans over and over to each other. Their view of sex is naive and prudish. Leaving sex to the feminists is like letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist's.

 

The sexes are at war. Men must struggle for identity against the overwhelming power of their mothers. Women have men­struation to tell them they are women. Men must do or risk something to be men. Men become masculine only when other men say they are. Having sex with a woman is one way a boy becomes a man.

 

College men are at their hormonal peak. They have just left their mothers and are questing for their male identity. In groups, they are dangerous. A woman going to a fraternity party is walk­ing into Testosterone Flats, full of prickly cacti and blazing guns. If she goes, she should be armed with resolute alertness. She should arrive with girlfriends and leave with them. A girl who lets herself get dead drunk at a fraternity party is a fool. A girl who goes upstairs alone with a brother at a fraternity party is an idiot. Feminists call this "blaming the victim." I call it com­mon sense.

 

For a decade, feminists have drilled their disciples to say, "Rape is a crime of violence but not of sex." This sugar-coated Shirley Temple nonsense has exposed young women to disaster. Misled by feminism, they do not expect rape from the nice boys from good homes who sit next to them in class.

 

Aggression and eroticism are deeply intertwined. Hunt, pur­suit, and capture are biologically programmed into male sex­uality. Generation after generation, men must be educated, refined, and ethically persuaded away from their tendency toward anarchy and brutishness. Society is not the enemy, as feminism ignorantly claims. Society is woman's protection against rape. Feminism, with its solemn Carry Nation repressiveness, does not see what is for men the eroticism or fun element in rape, especially the wild, infectious delirium of gang rape. Women who do not understand rape cannot defend themselves against it."

 

 

And if rape, the total violation of your own body by somebody else is psychologically devastating, its not because you had the wrong idea about sex, its because you just got violated in a gruesome manner. What a bunch of victim blaming, rapist protecting, misogynist piece of garbage.

 

There are degrees of psychological devastation and rape. All rapes are psychologically devastating at some level. I think Paglia is empowering women by suggesting a woman can recover from rape - that it doesn't have to cripple her emotionally for the rest of her life.

 

Here is a very interesting segment from he SPIN interview which elaborates on the "psychological devastation" aspect:

 

"SPIN: One point that hasn't been made in the whole rape debate is women's role over men, sexually. In the case of a rape, a man has to use brute force to obtain something that a woman has-her very sex. So nat­urally she's weaker physically, and will always be op­pressed by him physically. But in that moment when he decides that the only way he can get what he wants from her emotionally, or sexually, or whatever, is to rape her, he is confessing to a weakness that is all­ encompassing. She is abused, but he is utterly tragic and pathetic. One is temporary and the other is per­manent. I was raped once and it helped me to think of it like that. Not at all to apologize for him, but to focus on my power instead of my helplessness. It was a horrible experience, but it certainly didn't destroy my whole life or my psyche, as much as contemporary wisdom insisted it must have.

 

Paglia: Right, we have what they want. I think woman is the dominant sex. Men have to do all sorts of stuff to prove that they are worthy of a woman's attention. It's very interesting what you said about the rape, because one of the German magazine reporters who came to talk to me-she's been living in New York for ten years-she came to talk to me about two weeks ago and she told me a very interesting story, very similar to yours. She lives in Brooklyn, and she let this guy in whom she shouldn't have, and she got raped. She said that, because she's a feminist, of course she had to go for counseling. She said it was awful, that the minute she arrived there, the rape counselors were saying, "You will never recover from this, what's hap­pened to you is so terrible." She said, what the hell, it was a terrible experience, but she was going to pick herself up, and it wasn't that big a deal. The whole system now is designed to make you feel that you are maimed and mutilated forever if something like that happens. She said it made her feel worse. It's abso­lutely American-it is not European-and the whole system is filled with these cliches about sex. I think there is a fundamental prudery about sex in all this."

 

Okay, so we are dealing with a raw desire that is the most animalistic urge in the male psyche.  No argument there.   True, two words aren't going to compete with that.  So what is the best way of handling that?

 

When my grandmother was a kid, the prevailing paradigm was "Men are predatory animals; never be alone with one under any circumstances".    The thinking was that men cannot control themselves and therefore cannot be held responsible for their actions.

 

Some societies today still hold that view.   I think that is highly insulting to the men and oppressive to the women.   As someone pointed out earlier, there have been many honorable men throughout history who manage to live their life without acting like a "predatory animal".

 

Paglia: "I'm not excusing men. That's stupid. Ethical men have always been opposed to rape. If a man commits a crime, punish him. If a rape occurs, go to the police. Men have responsibility too. But we as women cannot constantly be putting ourselves in this infantile posi­tion of, you know, this floating victim status, as if we were like these accidents waiting to happen. It's like defensive driving. I'm calling for defensive dating. We allow for the fact that some people can be stupid. Other people can break the law. Other people can be drunk. Other people could have a failure of their brakes. I'm not excusing the driver who runs the red light. But I'm saying, if women want to protect themselves, if women want to be rational and realistic about the world as it is, okay, we must allow for the fact that we cannot constantly be trusting."

 

"People say, oh, she's a biological determinist. But that's not what I'm say­ing at all. I say again and again: it is necessary for us to behave as civilized beings. Ethics is something we learn. We've made an enormous transition out of bar­barism and dog-eat-dog toward abstract law and order. My entire book is about civilization. I am saying that many of the problems between the sexes are coming from something prior to social­ization, a turbulence that has to do with every boy's origin in a woman's body, a mother's body, and the way he is overwhelmed by this huge, matriarchal shadow of a goddess figure in his childhood. And I feel, after so many decades of studying this, that men are suffering from their sense of dependency on women, their sense that at any moment they could be returned to that slavery and servitude they experi­enced under a woman's thumb, when they were a boy in the shadow of the mother.

 

I got this from studying all world culture, and comparing and noticing how often there were these patterns in many different cul­tures. Many things that erupt in rape or violence, battery and so on, are happening when a woman is pushing that button of fear and dependency. I'm saying that sex is a surging power thing be­tween the sexes. It's a sex war. You cannot solve it by legislation. We can regulate the work environment. We must have equal opportunity and sexual harass­ment guidelines, but you cannot legislate relationships. This is why I think the date-rape thing has become propaganda and hysteria. We cannot legislate what happens on a date. It's up to women to realize it's dangerous. Sex is dangerous-it's a dangerous sport.

 

As a Sixties liberal, I am saying we do not want to overpolice life-style. And this demand that feminism has that date rape be policed by campus grievance committees, it's totalitarian. It's deeply Soviet. And they don't realize the degree to which it is de-sexing and de-individualizing women."

 

 

  Really?   That's very bleak.

Where does personal responsibility fit into that?

 

"A dark force"?   Sex with the right person is anything but that.

 

I agree it is bleak, but I think you have to take her statement with a grain of salt. I don't think she means it is only "a dark force" but that it can be a "dark force" because it comes from the most primitive places encoded in our DNA.

 

Paglia: " I identify today's feminists as Rousseauists. That is, they belong to this tradition of liberalism which sees mankind as naturally good and thinks an evil society makes us bad. The feminists would say sex is naturally good. It's nice and happy, Betty Crocker time. And therefore, anything that's bad or abusive in sex is, like, rape. "Well," they say, "rape can't be coming from sex, because sex is good. And we're naturally good. So, rape has to be coming from-pornography!" Now I, as a Catholic and also as a Freudian, have the opposite view. I believe it's society that trains us not to be aggressive, that trains us to be ethical."

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

I think the problem with rape culture is that it's trying to blur the boundaries between rape, assault and mild sexual offences. It's always trying to exaggerate the problem and it falls back on the trump card of women feeling threatened whether something actually happened or not. It must be an absolute nightmare for the police and it's probably why so many rape charges are dropped. False allegations, inaccurate recollections and confused feelings are what the police have to deal with, and it usually either stems from the domestic scene or the clubbing scene.

 

It is far easier for the police to press charges if the victim was missing for a length of time, or escaped with injuries or is found somewhere in the night half battered and half naked. It's easier because there is actual evidence of harm to the victim. But usually in most rape allegations it is just one person's word against another. If it domestic then it is referred to the social services (in the UK) or is already known by the social services. Or then it could be the one-off encounter where both the man and the woman were a bit drunk, something happened, the consent was a wee bit ambiguous and then later on the woman feels it might not have been consensual after all.

 

This is the kind of situation the that police just groan about. Because there is only one witness, the alleged victim, and accounts from both people will be skewed due to both the alcohol and faulty recollections. It's a well known fact that many witnesses recall things differently, even if they saw the same event! No wonder so many rape charges are dropped.

 

Of course the feminists will say that's because the police are just misogynistic and part of the patriarchy, and they don't take rape seriously, fail to notice the signs and fail to take female victims seriously. As usual the feminists have everything backwards -- God I so love that! -- and making out the police to be sexist dunderheads. They fail to realise that policemen are trained observers, they are skilled at detecting liars and noticing behaviours which could give away a perpetrator of a crime, or reveal a victim who is pretending that nothing actually happened.

 

I indirectly know a few members of the police and it is always the same story; they have seen it all: the liars, the petty excuses, the psychos, the drunkards, the jerks, the skanks, the whores, the ugly aftermath of nights out, ongoing domestic issues in homes, petty disputes, assaults upon them by criminals, and sometimes even the victims! Because that's how messed up it is out there, and that's what the police deal with every single day- the underbelly of society. The amount of BS that police have to deal with is unbelievable, and for the most part they enforce justice pretty well given the circumstances. 

 

Well that's how it is in the UK at least.

 

The biggest irony is that feminism has identified a pretty dire condition of society (minus the rape culture and a one-way view that most sexism comes from guys) but completely misdiagnosed the causes of the symptoms.

 

Really the causes are: lack of cultural identity, a dumbed-down education system, massive economic inequality and above all else pure unadulterated greed! So many people are greedy and they don't even realise it. The very premise of buying now and paying for it in the future, or by future generations, is in itself greedy. Think mortgages, loans, pensions, entitlements, consumerism and an economic system which relies on exponential GDP and debt growth to function. If you want to see what the 1st world is heading towards, then look no further than Japan whose culture is the ultimate in SNAFU.

 

Feminism doesn't really consider this in its world view, so its current aims are only causing more deterioration of the social fabric. It has especially distorted the world view of all those women who have fallen for it hook, line and sinker; the ones who have been completely blinded by its rhetoric. Again that's the problem when you're demanding equal rights devoid of accountability and responsibility.

 

IMO, feminism is just another cancer slowly destroying society in the first world. It's definitely not the worst cancer or the most potent, but it is a cancer nonetheless. While in developing countries and the third world, they don't need feminism, what they really need is emancipation and economic freedom

[LexusInfernus 908]

LexusInfernus,

 

I'm not trying to say we shouldn't teach: "don't rape". I'm saying it is ridiculous to think rape comes from not knowing rape is bad. I can guarantee you that most people who end up raping know that rape is wrong. Of course they know rape is wrong - did that stop them? No.

No, but again, I think a lot of people don't see themselves as rapists. Thats the other thing, once people are absolutely clear about what is rape and what is not, these people cannot deny that what they did was wrong. 

 

I agree that the numbers are shockingly low but you're making this way too simple. The numbers aren't low because we live in a society that teaches people that its your own responsibility not to get raped. A lot of the time victims withdraw their charges because they don't want being raped to define and dominate their lives. A court battle is a long and drawn out process - a lot of people just want to move on. Evidence is also a huge factor - sometimes is is hard to obtain. Also, sometimes rapes are 'grey'; sometimes circumstances can make right from wrong hard to distinguish for a jury.

 

Society doesn't teach that the rape victim is responsible for being raped. This is a feminist straw man - it isn't true. No one is actually saying rape victims are responsible or to blame for being raped, that is a distortion. The vast majority of men and women in this society agree rape is a vile crime and the one responsible or to blame is the perpetrator. Feminists just jump all over any person who dare suggest a certain rape was avoidable had the victim not acted carelessly. They've created a false argument in order to look morally and intellectually superior.

 

A lot of people withdraw their accusations because they know the statistics and they have absolutely no trust that the justice system will see their attackers punished. And evidence. Ah yes, like the huge backlog of rape kits that a bunch of big cities still haven't processed. Again, a good way for women to see how important it is for the police to prosecute their attackers and why they perhaps do not feel like going though all of that. And no, rape is not grey. Rape is rape, if it happens, its wrong. The only thing that is grey in some cases is when it comes down to he said she said. But that doesn't make rape grey, only who is wrong and who is right. 

 

And no, society doesn't teach girls that? Society doesn't institute dress codes on schools that tell girls to cover up because they are 'distracting boys'? You haven't repeatedly stated in this thread that women are responsible for their own safety? Victim blaming never happens? Oh please, that is again just not true. The Steubenville case was just a perfect example of rape culture in action, where there was a huge backlash against the victim, because the accused were popular athletes. How many people there didn't say that it was the victims fault for getting wasted at a party? Or, how about that judge that only gave that teacher that raped his underage student (who later hung herself) an extremely short prison sentence because he felt that the student was responsible for leading the teacher on? Victim blaming happens. all. the. time. 

 

 

Are you really that naive? Once we start teaching people it's not okay to rape?

 

We do teach people not to rape.

 

Rapers don't rape because they don't understand consensual sex or that rape is wrong.

 

Well clearly we don't because again, as practice shows, society starts blaming the victims, and not the rapists. And then we have people like you saying that guys can't help it because of their raw sexual energy and what not. 

 

 

I wasn't putting down males as sexual beast. You're misinterpreting and misrepresenting what I said. You're in denial of the raw power and energy of sexuality and how 'instinct' or 'base desires' can override rational thought. That doesn't make it okay - it just is. Honorable and ethical men have not raped since the dawn of consciousness. But we aren't talking about those people.

 

You just did it again. 

 

 

If you think Camille Paglia was saying rape comes from the sexual liberalization of the 60ies you've totally misread what she said. I suggest you read it again because you must have just glossed over it. You might want to find out who Camille Paglia is and read some of her work because in my opinion she is the one of the only feminist out there with any common sense.

 

Paglia from Rape & Modern Sex War:

 

"Rape is nothing new. It has been a horrible problem for women for all of recorded history. Once fathers and brothers protected women from rape. Once the penalty for rape was death. I come from a fierce Italian tradition where, not so long ago in the motherland, a rapist would end up knifed, castrated, and hung out to dry.

 

But the old clans and small rural communities have broken down. In our cities, on our campuses far from home, young women are vulnerable and defenseless. Feminism has not pre­pared them for this. Feminism keeps saying the sexes are the same. It keeps telling women they can do anything, go anywhere, say anything, wear anything. No, they can't. Women will always be in sexual danger.

 

I know exactly who she is. The Anti-Feminist Feminist. A double negative, coming in a full circle, essentially just another agent of the Patriarchy. And no surprise there, given that she is just parroting all the things the Patriarchy has been saying for years. 

 

But fine, lets look at what she says. Here she claims that fathers and brothers protected their women from rapists. Yeah, except that in the majority of cases the rapists is the father or brother or someone else close to the victim. So, one claim that is fit for the garbage can. 

 

And no, Feminism isn't saying that women can say and wear anything. Yes, that is the ultimate objective of Feminism, but it doesn't mean that objective has been reached. Feminists are very much aware that this isn't the case yet, which is why they are still here, trying to get it in peoples head that women are not equal yet when they should be. Furthermore, she is essentially blaming feminism as a movement for what? Telling women they have rights? And what is she saying? No women don't have rights, and if you dare to claim you have, prepare to be attacked. She is not advocating womens rights, she is advocating women to shut up if they don't want to get hurt. Again, trash, and exactly why she is not much of a Feminist. 

 

 

[...]

 

We must remedy social injustice whenever we can. But there are some things we cannot change. There are sexual differences that are based in biology. Academic feminism is lost in a fog of social constructionism. It believes we are totally the product of our environment. This idea was invented by Rousseau. He was wrong. Emboldened by dumb French language theory, academic feminists repeat the same hollow slogans over and over to each other. Their view of sex is naive and prudish. Leaving sex to the feminists is like letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist's.

 

The sexes are at war. Men must struggle for identity against the overwhelming power of their mothers. Women have men­struation to tell them they are women. Men must do or risk something to be men. Men become masculine only when other men say they are. Having sex with a woman is one way a boy becomes a man.

 

College men are at their hormonal peak. They have just left their mothers and are questing for their male identity. In groups, they are dangerous. A woman going to a fraternity party is walk­ing into Testosterone Flats, full of prickly cacti and blazing guns. If she goes, she should be armed with resolute alertness. She should arrive with girlfriends and leave with them. A girl who lets herself get dead drunk at a fraternity party is a fool. A girl who goes upstairs alone with a brother at a fraternity party is an idiot. Feminists call this "blaming the victim." I call it com­mon sense.

 

For a decade, feminists have drilled their disciples to say, "Rape is a crime of violence but not of sex." This sugar-coated Shirley Temple nonsense has exposed young women to disaster. Misled by feminism, they do not expect rape from the nice boys from good homes who sit next to them in class.

 

Aggression and eroticism are deeply intertwined. Hunt, pur­suit, and capture are biologically programmed into male sex­uality. Generation after generation, men must be educated, refined, and ethically persuaded away from their tendency toward anarchy and brutishness. Society is not the enemy, as feminism ignorantly claims. Society is woman's protection against rape. Feminism, with its solemn Carry Nation repressiveness, does not see what is for men the eroticism or fun element in rape, especially the wild, infectious delirium of gang rape. Women who do not understand rape cannot defend themselves against it."

 

Ah, nice, and now she goes into the realm of philosophy and science. Essentially she is saying that social constructivism is not a real thing. Well to bad for her it is real. But if she disagrees, I expect her to show me some proof over why Rousseau was wrong and why social constructivism isn't a thing. And the feminist view on sex is prudish? A bit of a bold claim given that Feminists views on sex differ wildly. Some are indeed perhaps a little prudish, while others are definitely not prudish at all. 

 

Next, the way she talks about boys. Well good, keep that old gender stereotype of masculinity intact. The patriarchy thanks you for your service Paglia. 

 

Then the bit about college dorms. Well indeed, given the current situation I would caution women as well. However, at the same time, if a guy goes to a party thrown by a sorority, and he gets drunk, why is it that he doesn't have to be afraid of getting raped? Why the double standard. Why accept that as an inevitable and unchangeable fact? I for one think that people can be raised and policed in such a way that they will not rape girls at fraternity parties and that when it happens, its an exception and it is something that gets dealt with swiftly. 

 

Finally I dont think she fully understands rape or rapists herself. 

 

 

There are degrees of psychological devastation and rape. All rapes are psychologically devastating at some level. I think Paglia is empowering women by suggesting a woman can recover from rape - that it doesn't have to cripple her emotionally for the rest of her life.

 

No Feminist will ever claim that rape devastates you for life. But no Feminist will also ever blame you because you dont have the right attitude towards sex, if it does devastate you for life. And that bothers me about what she says. She essentially blames people and feminism in general when someone who is raped is seriously messed up by it afterwards. Its insulting and again, sends off such a wrong message here. "No its not the rapists fault you got an emotional trauma, its your own fault because you had a stupid expectation of sex and humans in general." 

[Fatherted 129]

Excellent post from MilitantRadical, explaining it better than I ever could.

As Nonny said, a cohort is required for some experiences. Also, I can testify that if, god forbid, any of my (female) friends were to be sexually harassed or raped in my prescence, or indeed anyone should I be able to take on their attacker, I would help them and kick that guy in the face if required. If they were, again god forbid, to be raped or molested or something else wrong like that, I would of course try and help them make a case if they wanted to, or help them move on if not. Rape, although terrible, is not the equivalent of murder. You can recover, even if it causes PTSD.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Humanity is a cancer lol.

I disagree savage masculine acts are psychological. However rape can be seen as a reaction to modern troubles and the way males are treated culturally.

Ideally everyone would have a place in an ideal society but in capitalism change is evident. Stability and order are required to kill sexuality. but they argue instead for evolution of the vestigial function. Expect a troubling fight for years.

Argument seems hostile to puritanism yet acknowledges our reason can override instinct.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Just as a matter of definition, the word 'rape' is derived from the Latin verb rapire ::= to seize and carry off.

 

Since most events occur 'in situ', the original definition doesn't seem appropriate.  The criminal code uses 'sexual assault' or 'aggravated sexual assault'.

 

It is, perhaps, amusing that the English term may have actually come from translations of 'The Rape of the Sabine Women' which has also been memorialized in the graphic arts.  The Trojan refugees arrived in Italy very short of women who didn't travel well in those days.  So they went and seized and carried off some new women who they subsequently induced into some sort of connubial relationship. 

 

This was over 2500 years ago, so who knows what was acceptable mores then?

 

Too bad there are not more women in India, but that's what you get for selectively breeding for boys.  Silly, and now having sown the wind ...

[Duke87 1,070]

I think the problem with rape culture is that it's trying to blur the boundaries between rape, assault and mild sexual offences. It's always trying to exaggerate the problem and it falls back on the trump card of women feeling threatened whether something actually happened or not. It must be an absolute nightmare for the police and it's probably why so many rape charges are dropped. False allegations, inaccurate recollections and confused feelings are what the police have to deal with, and it usually either stems from the domestic scene or the clubbing scene.

 

It is far easier for the police to press charges if the victim was missing for a length of time, or escaped with injuries or is found somewhere in the night half battered and half naked. It's easier because there is actual evidence of harm to the victim. But usually in most rape allegations it is just one person's word against another. If it domestic then it is referred to the social services (in the UK) or is already known by the social services. Or then it could be the one-off encounter where both the man and the woman were a bit drunk, something happened, the consent was a wee bit ambiguous and then later on the woman feels it might not have been consensual after all.

 

This is a valid point. In a court of law, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Given the tendency of rape to happen behind closed doors, and given that except in extreme cases the physical evidence of rape sex is quite similar to the physical evidence of consensual sex, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that rape did in fact occur is often difficult. It becomes he said, she said and there is no proof.

 

That said, there are still plenty of cases where the justice system fails rape victims. You have cases such as this one or this one, where someone who is convicted gets a slap on the wrist as punishment because the judge seemingly doesn't believe in the seriousness of the offense committed. You have cases such as this one where the rapists get special treatment because they are athletes - including their school principal destroying evidence to protect them.

 

And then you have all the places where "rape kits" have been collected, but there is a long backlog of them and many sit on shelves uninvestigated, sometimes for decades (pick a link, any link)

 

 

As a society we are effectively brushing off rape with an attitude of "oh well, boys will be boys". There is a lot we could be doing to combat it that we aren't doing, or are doing only half-heartedly.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The courts in general are too busy.  We need more courts, perhaps specialty ones dealing with sexual assault.  Then there is the high cost of forensic support.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

 

This is a valid point. In a court of law, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Given the tendency of rape to happen behind closed doors, and given that except in extreme cases the physical evidence of rape sex is quite similar to the physical evidence of consensual sex, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that rape did in fact occur is often difficult. It becomes he said, she said and there is no proof.

 

That said, there are still plenty of cases where the justice system fails rape victims. You have cases such as this one or this one, where someone who is convicted gets a slap on the wrist as punishment because the judge seemingly doesn't believe in the seriousness of the offense committed. You have cases such as this one where the rapists get special treatment because they are athletes - including their school principal destroying evidence to protect them.

 

And then you have all the places where "rape kits" have been collected, but there is a long backlog of them and many sit on shelves uninvestigated, sometimes for decades (pick a link, any link)

 

 

As a society we are effectively brushing off rape with an attitude of "oh well, boys will be boys". There is a lot we could be doing to combat it that we aren't doing, or are doing only half-heartedly.

 

 

Yeah that's a common theme nowadays. Police collected evidence many years ago, before DNA-testing, but either couldn't use it as evidence or -- because they were crooked pigs -- decided not to use it due to either racism, sexism or for the protection of certain important people.

 

It's not only old rape cases being revisited: murders, robberies, serious assaults, fraud and other serious crimes are being reinvestigated in light of new ways of analysing evidence.

 

As for the three trials you linked, for the first two I don't know why the judge was so lenient. Maybe he was a mysogistic old git or maybe there were circumstances which were overlooked by the media. I don't know, and context is everything especially if facts and circumstances are omitted. As for the third one, well they were juniors so the sentences are always more lenient.

 

As for that principal destroying evidence, well he's not the only person in a position of power to abuse it to protect friends or associates. There are some real slimeballs out there who cover up crimes whether out of sexism, greed, or God knows what.

 

But in all the sensationalizing and hysteria, I think whatever truth there was is long since lost. I also think -- from a mathematical point of view -- that isolated and exceptional incidents like these could be the norm is potentially misleading. If you look at the bigger picture, via government statistics in the US and the UK, the trend is as follows: decreasing amounts of rape and sexual assault, steadily higher levels of prosecution for sex crimes. So there is improvement, and it could always be faster, but there is improvement nevertheless.

 

And if you look back a hundred or more years ago, things have come on a LONG way. So let's not forget that either.

[Duke87 1,070]

Yeah that's a common theme nowadays. Police collected evidence many years ago, before DNA-testing, but either couldn't use it as evidence or -- because they were crooked pigs -- decided not to use it due to either racism, sexism or for the protection of certain important people.

 

DNA testing has now been around for nearly 30 years. At this point it was plenty available for investigations at the time most backlogged incidents occurred. But the backlogs still exists because of lack of resources devoted to clearing them.

 

This isn't even necessarily the fault of the police. Their resources are finite and if they don't have the funding or the manpower to tackle all those rape kits, they can't and won't. They also don't necessarily get to decide for themselves what to focus on since those orders often come from over the head of the police chief. The problem is that their bosses (elected officials at local and state levels) don't see rape cases as something worth devoting resources towards, and are not instructing police to focus on them.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Thank you, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

 

However, the number of trained forensic analysts are few and far between.  If you take the evidence from 100 years of cold cases (literally thousands), when do you expect anyone to work on them given current case load?

 

Do you know how long it takes to go from a "rape kit" to any DNA evidence?  Don't let the police procedural shows fool you.  It takes weeks.  Good thing that they can do several in parallel, eh?

[LexusInfernus 908]

As for the three trials you linked, for the first two I don't know why the judge was so lenient. Maybe he was a mysogistic old git or maybe there were circumstances which were overlooked by the media. I don't know, and context is everything especially if facts and circumstances are omitted. As for the third one, well they were juniors so the sentences are always more lenient.

 

And this right here is rape culture neatly captured in a few sentences. You automatically try to excuse it when all statistics point to the fact that these are not isolated events. Again, I remind you of the fact that 97% of the rapists don't spend a day in jail. But sure, its all false allegations, or the rape wasn't so bad, or there were circumstances that we don't know about or the judge was just an old git, but god forbid our society might actually have a systemic problem with rape and our attitudes towards it. 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

And this right here is rape culture neatly captured in a few sentences. You automatically try to excuse it when all statistics point to the fact that these are not isolated events. Again, I remind you of the fact that 97% of the rapists don't spend a day in jail. But sure, its all false allegations, or the rape wasn't so bad, or there were circumstances that we don't know about or the judge was just an old git, but god forbid our society might actually have a systemic problem with rape and our attitudes towards it. 

 

 

 

You conveniently forget that the a charge of rape creates far more of a stigma for a man then it does for a woman. How ironic that the very things you say, about downplaying rape, are nearly always applied when the said rapist is a woman.

[Meg 368]

Let's not forget:   Discuss the issues, not each other.

 

A good start:   Do not begin a sentence with "You . . ."

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Let's not forget:   Discuss the issues, not each other.

 

A good start:   Do not begin a sentence with "You . . ."

 

Hard-core discussion of the issues eventually descends into discussion of personal views and positions about a particular issue. The good discussion is like fight club but without the fisticuffs. It is a clash of ideas and somewhere along the line a little truth is discovered. And then when it is done we smile and bow until the next round. No matter how much I have disagreed with certain points made by certain posters, I don't discriminate. If they make one hell of a CJ entry I will compliment them for it, if they win the lottery I will give them my regards, and you get the picture.

 

I really wish the current events section had the same forum rules as Zero Hedge; no rules and no moderators. Anything can be said, it can be upvoted and downvoted. You will be amazed by how users weed out the trolls without any help from moderations, it's brutal but it is totally uncensored and a great battleground for ideas and truths.