Feminism

[LexusInfernus 908]

In the sense that breasts, unlike the core reproductive system, are something that can be activated or suppressed by playing with hormones, yes... in therms of biological mechanics, they are distinctly different. But then, it can just as easily be said that from a biological point of view, sex is a means of reproduction. But the reality of course is far more complex than that.

 

Now, I get the appeal of wanting to desexualize breasts since it can be seen as a question of gender parity to say "hey, if men can walk around shirtless, why not women?". And the latter is an understandable goal, but using the former as a means to the latter is kludgy at best. Making sexualization of breasts context-sensitive rather than a blanket all the time thing is fine, the aformentioned tribes have managed this. But swinging the pendulum past that and eliminating it in all contexts is a repression of sexual reality, and as a society we already have more than enough of that.

 

I would also point out that it is a false characterization of things to say that men are free to walk around shirtless if they please. Um, no, we are not. In some contexts we are, but you will find that most stores and restaurants not located adjacent to a beach will have a "no shirt, no service" policy and will not welcome topless men. And you will find that although walking around the street randomly because you feel like it with no shirt on is perfectly legal, it is also kind of weird and may get you looks.

 

So, if you want to create gender parity, fine: allow women to ditch their bikini tops at the beach or pool and don't interpret it as doing something naughty. Make it legal for them to go topless in public, but also keep it legal for the owners of stores and restaurants to turn them away if they show up as such. Or else make "no shirt, no service" policies illegal for both men and women.

 

And don't fault us when we say "ooh, she looks hot with her shirt off", since women say the same thing about men all the time.

 

Well I wouldn't say that we should try and go for a situation where everyone can walk around without a shirt all the time. But why not at places where it is acceptable for a man to take of his shirt. Besides, we have taken the whole sexualization of breasts perhaps a bit to far. We got people who go completely crazy over stuff like sideboob, and I very much doubt that anyone would be offended about a women breastfeeding her baby in public if breasts werent so completely sexualized. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Lets all remember that without women there would be no men.  Homo sap. wouldn't exist at all.  It takes two to tango, and equality is truly necessary for a decent society.

 

It is also true that the makeup of the male at the primitive level is also very much like any other herd beast.  A built-in drive to dominate the herd and have a harem.  Now, where does civilization begin?  And whose civilization is it?

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Just because she doesn't blame feminism for literally everything or puts the responsibility solely on the victim doesn't mean she is off the hook. She does blame feminism for a very large degree, saying that its somehow the fault of feminists that they didn't prepare women for rape. That argument alone is already ridiculous. Feminists didn't rape her, and they are not responsible for getting people raped just because they claim that women have rights and are equal to men. It is shifting the blame from the rapists to feminists. It is ridiculous.

 

 

And sure, she doesn't blame the victim completely for her rape, but she does put it in a way like all rape victims were just casually strolling through dark alleys in the middle of the night in the bad parts of town, wearing almost nothing and then casually chatting up total strangers. The way she presents rape victims is completely unrealistic. Worse even, she pretends that if women are just careful, walk in pairs and dress modestly, and don't drink at parties, they are safe. For one, thats nonsense, rape can still happen even if you take these precautions, and two, it again puts a significant part of the blame for rape on the victim itself. Sure, she calls its reasonable precautions, but how reasonable is it to expect from women that if they go to a party in college they don't drink? That they don't wear burcas to cover themselves up and look as unattractive as possible.

 

You only want to see it one way. Is Camille Paglia 100% right? No, but she is at least trying to bring balance to the debate. 'Feminism' just wants wants to blame men/patriarchy for everything. It is under the illusion that our world is totally socially constructed and that women's place in society comes solely from the role 'the patriarchy' has assigned for them.

 

She and I are merely suggesting a duality. Responsibility lies in the hands of both men and women. Sexual freedom doesn't come without risk. Danger is everywhere for both men and women. There are biological factors that make us the way we are and society the way it is. Sexuality is a domain where signals are given above and below the level of verbal communication.

 

 

So basically you are saying that a transwoman isn't really a woman but a man. Do you have any idea how offensive that is? You are denying a group of people their identity and their experiences because they were born differently. And, its a little inconsistent. If your gender identity is really biological, then why are there so many people trying so hard to change it? The very fact that a group of people cannot identify with the gender they might biologically have been assigned too, means gender identity is not biological.

 

I don't care how 'offensive' it is. A transwoman isn't really a woman - that is just a biological fact. Sorry.

 

I'm not denying anyone their identity. They have a right to identify as whatever they want - man, woman, green space alien. I have a right to wear a cape and identify myself as a Wizard with magical powers, but that doesn't make it real or true.

 

You are very correct when you say gender identity is not biological - but gender/sex is.

 

 

As for patriarchy, it is just the overarching system that continues to give more privileges to men.  It has no face, its not the fault of men per se, its just the system everyone grows up in. And sure, there are some that continue to promote it, agents if you will. The Republican party in the US has a lot of them. But not all those agents are males, plenty of females are in there as well (Princeton mom, Camille Paglia, Thatcher, Palin, Bachman, etc).

 

Is part of our male dominated society socially constructed and were women oppressed by men throughout history? Yes, however, I also believe that part of this 'patriarchy' is biological. Gender roles come partially from our evolution.

 

To say Camille Paglia is an agent of patriarchy is just...wrong.

 

And by the way you're using the term patriarchy like religious zealots use the word heresy. You've basically deemed anyone who has alternate views of feminism as heretics.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

Lets all remember that without women there would be no men.  Homo sap. wouldn't exist at all.  It takes two to tango, and equality is truly necessary for a decent society.

 

It is also true that the makeup of the male at the primitive level is also very much like any other herd beast.  A built-in drive to dominate the herd and have a harem.  Now, where does civilization begin?  And whose civilization is it?

 

Lets also not forget that without Patriarchal Capitalism there would be no Feminism.

[LexusInfernus 908]

You only want to see it one way. Is Camille Paglia 100% right? No, but she is at least trying to bring balance to the debate. 'Feminism' just wants wants to blame men/patriarchy for everything. It is under the illusion that our world is totally socially constructed and that women's place in society comes solely from the role 'the patriarchy' has assigned for them.

 

She and I are merely suggesting a duality. Responsibility lies in the hands of both men and women. Sexual freedom doesn't come without risk. Danger is everywhere for both men and women. There are biological factors that make us the way we are and society the way it is. Sexuality is a domain where signals are given above and below the level of verbal communication.

Feminism does not want to blame men for everything, stop saying that, its just not true. Feminists do blame the patriarchy of a lot of things, but the patriarchy has no face, its not exclusively aimed at men, its a system, a way a culture operates. Sort of similar on how Communists blame everything on Capitalists. And our world IS totally socially constructed. 

 

And that duality bit is just nonsense. That duality does not apply to any other crime, no one will claim that the victim of a robbery just didn't take enough precautions. And why? Because we value private property and anyone who steals it is considered doing something illegal and wrong and that is his fault, not the victims fault. But when its rape, you come up with the idea that there is some kind of signal that some people give off and that somehow justifies rape/places responsibility with the victim? Ridiculous. There are no signals like that, and if there are, you are supposed to ignore them. No means no, simple as that. And if you think her eyes say yes or whatever, you are wrong. 

 

 

Is part of our male dominated society socially constructed and were women oppressed by men throughout history? Yes, however, I also believe that part of this 'patriarchy' is biological. Gender roles come partially from our evolution.

 

To say Camille Paglia is an agent of patriarchy is just...wrong.

 

And by the way you're using the term patriarchy like religious zealots use the word heresy. You've basically deemed anyone who has alternate views of feminism as heretics.

 

No they don't, because the current conservative gender roles are really not that old. A hundred years at the most. Most are even younger, and stem from the 50's.   

 

To say she is an agent of patriarchy is not wrong, her arguments are clear enough proof of that. 

 

And no, not heretics. Just people that resist change and are therefor defending the status quo. The status quo is a patriarchy, therefor those people are defending patriarchy. Whether they realize it or not, whether they want it or not, its simply what they do. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

 

Lets all remember that without women there would be no men.  Homo sap. wouldn't exist at all.  It takes two to tango, and equality is truly necessary for a decent society.

 

It is also true that the makeup of the male at the primitive level is also very much like any other herd beast.  A built-in drive to dominate the herd and have a harem.  Now, where does civilization begin?  And whose civilization is it?

 

Lets also not forget that without Patriarchal Capitalism there would be no Feminism.

 

I don't know about that.  Matriarchy passed out of existence somewhere not too long before the Trojan war and it hasn't made much of a recovery since.  There was only an echo in the Cult of the Mother which was a super secret cult amount Roman elite women.

[Meg 368]

 

I don't know about that.  Matriarchy passed out of existence somewhere not too long before the Trojan war and it hasn't made much of a recovery since.  There was only an echo in the Cult of the Mother which was a super secret cult amount Roman elite women.

 

 

I don't know about that.   My immigrant ancestors from eastern Europe were pretty darn matriarchal.

[Fatherted 129]

Don't know about you but I live under a matriarchy

[Fatherted 129]

To say that our world is socially constructed is scientifically the greatest bull excrement I have heard, pretty much ever. Rape is not condonable, yes, but the drive to reproduce and be dominant in males at whatever cost isn't simple to repress. In prehistoric times, men would rape as they wished. In more civilised times, men no longer are allowed to do this, so women hold the power biologically of being able to "put out". Men have no such draw in most cases (exceptions to the rule, yes). In this sense, if total equality is achieved socially (which is should be), men will be at a disadvantage due to their genes. If you have studied even simple biology, then you would know our world is dictated by our genes/DNA primarily.

[LexusInfernus 908]

To say that our world is socially constructed is scientifically the greatest bull excrement I have heard, pretty much ever.

 

If you have studied even simple biology, then you would know our world is dictated by our genes/DNA primarily.

God you are so wrong. 

 

Let me try to explain this. Genes, while pretty important, only have a bearing on you as a biological entity. It regulates certain biological functions, creates certain broad behavioral patterns, and that is about it. 

 

And then there is language, which literally constructs your entire environment. Every concept you ever heard off, is a social construct, designed by language. Politics, economics, law, crime, countries, science, religion, emotions, behavior, gender roles, etc, all of that are social constructs. They exist because we invented them, and we invented them because we have words for them. Private property is a social construct that we designed ourselves. There are tribes in Africa that do not recognize private property, and they simply do not have a word for it. The goes for money, there are places in the world that do not understand the concept behind money and they have no words for it. The Dutch have this concept of 'gezelligheid', however it has no direct translation to English and as a result, I cannot explain to any English person what gezelligheid means, what kind of feeling it is. English people are fundamentally incapable of understanding this concept because they lack the language to understand it. 

 

Language gives meaning to concepts, we think in language and language helps us understand concepts. But if we do not have words for certain concepts, we are incapable of understanding them. Therefor, the way we see the world is shaped by the language we know. Thus, the world is a social construct, there is no objective way of looking at the world and explaining it, because there is no language that is objective. And, if you were to ever take a course in Science philosophy, you would learn that science recognizes that it is not objective (which is exactly why the humanities is so sorely needed, because it debunks any claims of scientific objectivism) and that the claims you just made about genes and what not are claims not even real biologists would make. That is the difference between science amateurs and actual scientists, the actual scientists recognizes the limitations of science and doesn't make such preposterous claims about its own scientific field. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ when you invoke the deity, the argument ends.

[Meg 368]

 

God you are so wrong. 

 

 

Let's avoid statements like this.  To follow the "Discuss the issues, not each other" rule, a more appropriate wording would be "I strongly disagree.   Here is why:".

 

 

 

The Dutch have this concept of 'gezelligheid', however it has no direct translation to English and as a result, I cannot explain to any English person what gezelligheid means, what kind of feeling it is. English people are fundamentally incapable of understanding this concept because they lack the language to understand it. 

 

 

I have always been interested in the idea that a particular word from Language A cannot be expressed in Language B.

 

I've been told that English has distinctions that don't exist in other languages.   An example I was given:  in German, the same word is used for "the sky" and "the heavens".  Okay, German might use the same word but, given the definitions of the two English words, I imagine Germans would understand the difference.

 

I looked up "gezelligheid".  True, there is no English word for that.   and perhaps the explanation of the definition doesn't fully cover it.  But the basic concept is understandable.   Example and context can provide further clarification.   [link]

 

That said, I believe it is true that it says a lot about a culture whether or not a word for a particular concept exists.  Some cultures find it necessary to have one word for "maternal uncle" and a different word for "paternal uncle".   Others do not because, culturally, it makes no difference.

 

I do think it's pretty cool that a word like that exists.   It says a lot about the culture.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I looked up "gezelligheid".  True, there is no English word for that.   and perhaps the explanation of the definition doesn't fully cover it.  But the basic concept is understandable.   Example and context can provide further clarification.   [link]

Well, sure, most people do get the basic idea behind 'gezellig', they get that its something pleasant and related to happiness and coziness. But without the cultural context of being Dutch, its a concept that they cannot fully understand, its a feeling they cannot really feel. Non Dutch people will always try to relate it back to concepts that they do understand, so they make the links to happiness and coziness, even though it are different things.

 

In any case, it does nicely serve my point that people understand their environment and reality as a whole through the language that they speak. Therefor, reality as you understand it is always socially constructed.  

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Somehow we're talking about God, heresy and languages... Anyway getting back on topic. Is there anywhere in modern day feminism that encourages women to take responsibility for their actions and to acknowledge that -- with rights and freedoms -- comes accountability?

[LexusInfernus 908]

Modern day feminism already does that. Just not when it comes to rape, because that would be ridiculous. Its not the potential victim's responsibility to not get raped, nor are victims of rape accountable for when it happens. To suggest otherwise is victim blaming, no matter how you try to spin it as 'common sense'. 

 

And let me ask you, as a guy, how would you like it if you just walked over street, minding your own business when suddenly someone puts a gun to your head, forces you to lower your pants and rapes you? Or when you go to a party, have some drinks, and in your drunken situation get taken to someones bedroom and raped? How would you like it if the police were indifferent to your plight and everyone else just said that it was your responsibility to protect yourself against rape and that you are accountable for what happened. 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Modern day feminism already does that. Just not when it comes to rape, because that would be ridiculous. Its not the potential victim's responsibility to not get raped, nor are victims of rape accountable for when it happens. To suggest otherwise is victim blaming, no matter how you try to spin it as 'common sense'. 

 

And let me ask you, as a guy, how would you like it if you just walked over street, minding your own business when suddenly someone puts a gun to your head, forces you to lower your pants and rapes you? Or when you go to a party, have some drinks, and in your drunken situation get taken to someones bedroom and raped? How would you like it if the police were indifferent to your plight and everyone else just said that it was your responsibility to protect yourself against rape and that you are accountable for what happened. 

 

In the first situation what are the conditions: daylight or night? Whatever nutjob doing that would get tracked down by the police. As for the second situation just how drunk is the victim; if they're totally legless and they get it on with a guy or gal, and then wake up in bed with that person- well what happened, happened. So the person is going to wake with one mighty hangover and is going to feel mighty embarrassed; embarrassment does not imply rape. But feminism says that situation is probably rape and the woman, initially feeling embarrassed, starts feeling angry and scared because that feminist mantra is running through her head.

 

Drunken sex ain't rape; if one wakes up without being tied up, battered or in the basement, chances are that person had drunken sex. So if a woman feels embarrassed because she got so drunk she couldn't keep her legs closed -- well anyone would feel embarrassed after that -- that's her problem, to then claim rape is really petty. It doesn't cut the ice.

 

Put it this way. A boyfriend gets really drunk, and in his drunken state gets turned on by the moves another woman is making in a club. He goes back to the woman's house and have sex. Waking up in the morning, he instantly regrets it all and is terrified that his girlfriend might find out. He goes back home and sure enough his girlfriend is asking about his absence, and why he was noticed by his friends leaving with this woman. Caught out, the man admits he had sex with this other woman. Result; the girlfriend leaves both furious and distraught by her boyfriend's actions.

 

Bottom line is this; saying one was totally drunk is no excuse and that's how quite a few relationships break up. It all comes back to responsibility; the boyfriend should never have gotten so drunk in the first place that he loses all inhibitions. And it also comes back to the accountability part to; the girlfriend holds her partner responsible for his actions.

 

///

 

But anyway, why does the conversation always have to go back to rape? Why is it always going back to rape? What is the feminist obsession with rape? It is not the worst thing on the planet you know. Anyway back to my original question which was masterfully dodged by delving into rape again. I will rephrase my question;

 

How does feminism encourage responsibility and accountability in women when it preaches that it is usually patriarchy and other men that are causing their (women's) problems?

 

 

p.s. I think feminism in the West is playing to women's victim complexes. So many women watch soaps where the female characters are emotionally abused, sometimes physically assaulted, raped or even murdered. Clearly the endurance of the soap format, and its retention of many female viewers, clearly indicates it is speaking to the female psyche. What part of the psyche? The helpless victim part and the fantasying about violence part. It's kinky but some men and women get off on violence to others, especially sex and violence. Even I do to some degree.

 

   So this leads to another question; how many women are getting off on both rape and violence fantasies, and how is that affecting their judgement regarding situations?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Why are we discussing rape at all?  What has it to do with feminism?  Any person can be sexually assaulted, and it is not limited to those of the female persuasion.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Why are we discussing rape at all?  What has it to do with feminism?  Any person can be sexually assaulted, and it is not limited to those of the female persuasion.

 

Never underestimate the feminist's obsession with rape, it is their propaganda tool for shaming men.

 

On page six, in one of my more lengthier replies, I talk about this phenomenon. https://community.simtropolis.com/topic/63043-feminism/?p=1485638

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Kind of taking a sledge hammer to a gnat.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Another case of feminism run amok, and -- surprise, surprise -- Fox News is actually talking a little sense here...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exc6e3TUBWk

 

Long live the matriarchy.

[LexusInfernus 908]

In the first situation what are the conditions: daylight or night? Whatever nutjob doing that would get tracked down by the police. As for the second situation just how drunk is the victim; if they're totally legless and they get it on with a guy or gal, and then wake up in bed with that person- well what happened, happened. So the person is going to wake with one mighty hangover and is going to feel mighty embarrassed; embarrassment does not imply rape. But feminism says that situation is probably rape and the woman, initially feeling embarrassed, starts feeling angry and scared because that feminist mantra is running through her head.

 

Drunken sex ain't rape; if one wakes up without being tied up, battered or in the basement, chances are that person had drunken sex. So if a woman feels embarrassed because she got so drunk she couldn't keep her legs closed -- well anyone would feel embarrassed after that -- that's her problem, to then claim rape is really petty. It doesn't cut the ice.

 

Put it this way. A boyfriend gets really drunk, and in his drunken state gets turned on by the moves another woman is making in a club. He goes back to the woman's house and have sex. Waking up in the morning, he instantly regrets it all and is terrified that his girlfriend might find out. He goes back home and sure enough his girlfriend is asking about his absence, and why he was noticed by his friends leaving with this woman. Caught out, the man admits he had sex with this other woman. Result; the girlfriend leaves both furious and distraught by her boyfriend's actions.

 

Bottom line is this; saying one was totally drunk is no excuse and that's how quite a few relationships break up. It all comes back to responsibility; the boyfriend should never have gotten so drunk in the first place that he loses all inhibitions. And it also comes back to the accountability part to; the girlfriend holds her partner responsible for his actions.

 

So if you walk over street in the evening, and you get a gun put to your head, you would be okay with being blamed for getting raped? You would be okay with people telling you 'Well you shouldn't have walked over street during the evening, its your own fault'? 

 

Rape is the absence of consent, if you are to drunk to say yes and you end up in bed with someone, it is rape. Simple as that, the fact that you were drunk does not excuse the fact that you didn't give any consent. If you are drunk and you do give consent and later regret it, thats something else, I would agree that isn't really rape. But lack of consent (and the lack of a clear 'no' should not ever be interpreted as 'yes') is rape. 

 

Your drunken boyfriend example is therefor irrelevant given that it deals with a clear case of consent to sex (at least on the boyfriends part). 

 

 

But anyway, why does the conversation always have to go back to rape? Why is it always going back to rape? What is the feminist obsession with rape? It is not the worst thing on the planet you know. Anyway back to my original question which was masterfully dodged by delving into rape again. I will rephrase my question;

 

How does feminism encourage responsibility and accountability in women when it preaches that it is usually patriarchy and other men that are causing their (women's) problems?

A lot of people will disagree with your assessment that rape is not a terrible thing to happen to you. Whats feminists obsession with it? Well, because of the rape culture that exists in the US and the underlying sexists and misogynistic views that cause it. They see it as a big problem that needs to be tackled. 

 

How does it not? It encourages women to be proactive about their rights, it encourages them to go to college, get a degree, get a job, be financially independent and be generally independent. Teaching people to be responsible and accountable is not mutually exclusive to pointing out obstacles that hinder or prevent women from being responsible and accountable individuals. 

 

 

p.s. I think feminism in the West is playing to women's victim complexes. So many women watch soaps where the female characters are emotionally abused, sometimes physically assaulted, raped or even murdered. Clearly the endurance of the soap format, and its retention of many female viewers, clearly indicates it is speaking to the female psyche. What part of the psyche? The helpless victim part and the fantasying about violence part. It's kinky but some men and women get off on violence to others, especially sex and violence. Even I do to some degree.

 

   So this leads to another question; how many women are getting off on both rape and violence fantasies, and how is that affecting their judgement regarding situations?

 

So basically you are asking how many women secretly want to get raped and put themselves on purpose in dangerous situations? Seriously? I don't think you fully understand what rape is to a lot of people. Its not like in those Japanese porn comics where every women secretly enjoys getting raped. For the vast majority of people, its a painful, emotionally traumatizing and shameful situation of powerlessness and being at the mercy of your attacker. 

 

Sure, there are people that like kinky sex with violent fantasies. But the thing is, people like them because they are fantasies in which they are in control. Its all pretend. And if they like to do those things in the bedroom, they like it with partners they trust and they have set boundaries for themselves and their partners that need to be respected. There are stop words and other ways to guarantee everyones safety. In other words, its nothing like actual rape, because of the control people have over it. 

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

Feminists were not trying to end Father's Day.  That story just screamed 'fake' to me.  Radical feminists have said a lot of stupid things, but this was not one of them.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Tit for tat.  No Father's day, no Mother's day.  Both holidays are artificial creations of the capitalist "sell 'em" faction.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Feminists were not trying to end Father's Day.  That story just screamed 'fake' to me.  Radical feminists have said a lot of stupid things, but this was not one of them.

 

Good troll that $%&^!.

[Duke87 1,070]

Modern day feminism already does that. Just not when it comes to rape, because that would be ridiculous. Its not the potential victim's responsibility to not get raped, nor are victims of rape accountable for when it happens. To suggest otherwise is victim blaming, no matter how you try to spin it as 'common sense'.

 

It's a question of degree. Women should not have to fear being raped nearly as much as they (statistically) do in today's world. And yeah, the fact that we feel a need to tell people "don't go there, you might get raped" is sad.

 

At the same time, though, there are plenty of other cases where people modify their routines, alter their behavior, or spend money on measures to avoid being the victim of some crime or other. For example, I avoid using my smartphone on the subway since I know that such devices are common targets for thieves who will snatch them from you and run. In doing so I am potentially denying myself some convenience in the name of security. And yes, telling people "don't steal" is more positive than telling people "don't get your stuff stolen", and much more constructive if you can be successful in doing so. But I am not alone in my practicing or preaching of the wisdom that it's best to keep your valuables put away lest they get stolen (the MTA in New York regularly plays PSAs saying exactly this), and no one gets uptight about how horribly unfair it is that society tells us to avoid being victims.

 

But there are two key differences between this and rape: first, anyone can be a victim of theft. It is not a risk that disproportionally affects members of one race or gender, unless you consider that wealthy people may have more luxury to avoid situations where they are at elevated risk of it. Likewise, the thief may be of any race or either gender. So you can't directly tie it back into an "-ism" the way you can with rape.

Secondly and more importantly, society doesn't let thieves off the hook for being thieves, or stigmatize being a victim of theft. Thefts generally get reported to the police, and if a thief gets caught they are probably going to see consequences for their actions. Rapes, meanwhile, often go unreported, and rapists often end up getting let off the hook if they are caught.

 

So, that's really what ought to be the point here: rape victims need sympathy, not stigma; rapists need to be blamed, not have excuses made for them. But neither of these things are mutually exclusive with having people take reasonable steps to avoid danger where it is known to exist. Society's message to women shouldn't be "don't get raped", but I don't see it as unreasonable for the message to be "look, there are bad people out there, maybe you should exercise some reasonable street smarts to avoid becoming a victim. But if you do get raped, mugged, harassed, or anything similar - don't be afraid to tell us, we'll track the creep down and kick his ass".

 

 

Drunken sex ain't rape; if one wakes up without being tied up, battered or in the basement, chances are that person had drunken sex. So if a woman feels embarrassed because she got so drunk she couldn't keep her legs closed -- well anyone would feel embarrassed after that -- that's her problem, to then claim rape is really petty. It doesn't cut the ice.

 

Put it this way. A boyfriend gets really drunk, and in his drunken state gets turned on by the moves another woman is making in a club. He goes back to the woman's house and have sex. Waking up in the morning, he instantly regrets it all and is terrified that his girlfriend might find out. He goes back home and sure enough his girlfriend is asking about his absence, and why he was noticed by his friends leaving with this woman. Caught out, the man admits he had sex with this other woman. Result; the girlfriend leaves both furious and distraught by her boyfriend's actions.

 

Bottom line is this; saying one was totally drunk is no excuse and that's how quite a few relationships break up. It all comes back to responsibility; the boyfriend should never have gotten so drunk in the first place that he loses all inhibitions. And it also comes back to the accountability part to; the girlfriend holds her partner responsible for his actions.

 

Drunken sex is not necessarily rape, and in most cases is not rape. And yes, consenting to having sex and then regretting it afterwards isn't rape either.

 

BUT - and this is a big but - a woman who's totally soused and goes home or goes into the back room with a man cannot necessarily be presumed to be consenting. It is not consent if the man is pressuring her and she's too drunk to pressure back. It is not consent if the man is pulling her along and she's too drunk to physically resist. And it is most certainly not consent if she is at the point of throwing up or passing out.

 

For a responsible man, it becomes a question of prudent judgment. How drunk is she? Is she making the decision to come home with me in a relatively clear state of mind, or is she so far gone as to not have self-control? If there is any doubt, play it safe and don't have sex with her.

 

If you are seeking hook-ups it is difficult to live by this, but I would argue it is not a bad policy in general to simply say "I'm not going to sleep with a person I've never slept with before if there is any significant quantity of alcohol involved". If nothing else it's a matter of respect and an ability to appreciate the big picture - if she really wants to sleep with you, you will have another opportunity to do so soon enough. Better it happen when everyone is sober.

 

 

As for the boyfriend gets real drunk and goes home with another woman scenario... well, that depends on who initiated that hookup. If he actively sought to sleep with her, then it's his fault for being a cheating bastard, drunk or not. If she put the moves on him and he willingly and knowingly went along with it, then it's still his fault. But if she pressured him into coming home with her when he didn't want to, then he is a victim of rape, whether he has a girlfriend or not.

 

Swap the hes and shes (or hell, make it all hes or all shes, same sex infidelity and same sex rape are also things) and the same exact truth holds.

[jmsepe 2,038]

Can we just say that if the sex is consensual then it is not rape? In regards to being drunk, a drunk woman is not an opportunity but rather a responsibility unless otherwise it was planned or something along that line. BTW, I agree with Duke, it is sad to hear "don't go there, you might get raped" today, that just adds more fear and is quite not appealing, if I were to decide. 

[Fatherted 129]

My problem with feminists is they act as if rape victims should be pitied as if they can never recover from their (admittedly horrible) experience. No. Rape victims should be empowered and helped to recover. They should not be told how awful it was, but instead should be told how they are the strong one and that letting the rapist destroy their life would be the ultimate victory for the rapist. Instead, they should (if needed) be helped to trust again, and not be turned into a mess by "counsellors".

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Well said!

 

People who have been raped have been usually violently violated and are really no different from anyone else who has suffered physical assault.  Just because there are so-called "dirty" connotations is no reason for society to treat them any differently.  Police procedures and forensic work should proceed with all alacrity and the perpetrator apprehended if possible.  Any stigma belongs to the perpetrator, a particularly low form of life, IMHO.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

My problem with feminists is they act as if rape victims should be pitied as if they can never recover from their (admittedly horrible) experience. No. Rape victims should be empowered and helped to recover. They should not be told how awful it was, but instead should be told how they are the strong one and that letting the rapist destroy their life would be the ultimate victory for the rapist. Instead, they should (if needed) be helped to trust again, and not be turned into a mess by "counsellors".

 

Here! Here! Feminists I think have made the stigma of rape in the first world even worse. The best defiance to the perpetrator is living ones life and thus sticking a big fat middle finger to the scumbag who committed the rape. Don't let the bastards grind you down!

[LexusInfernus 908]

See, this is what feminists rile against when it comes to rape. Being told that rape is not such a big deal, that it could have been worse, that they can just walk it off, by a bunch of guys who have never been raped or assaulted and have literally no idea what it feels like. Its just one tad more stupid and insulting than telling people with clinical depression to 'laugh it off and cheer up'. 

 

But no surprise here really, its just another aspect of rape culture, the bit that trivializes rape, usually done by people who have no experience with it whatsoever.